Quote:
Originally Posted by Godsdrummer
I would have to say that the last statement, is based on premise that can not be proven. The only thing that can be proven is that there were those that baptized in the name of Jesus before the Azusa street revival but it would be hard to prove that they taught a water and spirit new birth before receiving the Holy Ghost. Before Azusa there are a smattering of individuals recorded that seem to have had the Holy Ghost, but never groups large enough to form a doctrine of water and spirit new birth. This had to be a late comer.
Just my opinion, though from my personal extensive reading on the subject.
It only goes to reason that if there was a teaching in existence that Frank Ewart would have mentioned it in his book, as he was a prominent minster almost from the conception of this movement.
|
According to Durham (writing in 1912) for at least four years previously there were people preaching the baptism with the Spirit was the new birth. These people, according to Durham, taught "unless you had the witness of tongues you had not yet been born again". It is clear those people were Pentecostal. This was in conjunction with people insisting on the Jesus name baptismal formula. The context of the whole article by Durham was dealing with what he perceived as errors among Pentecostals.