Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Esaias]

It is said that Jesus name baptism and the Oneness view of God and Christ came about as a result of R E McAlister's baptismal message on Acts 2:38 at the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913. Here's the "official" and well-known report:

n April, 1913, at a "worldwide" Pentecostal camp meeting being conducted at Arroyo Seco, near Los Angeles, a new "revelation" (not an uncommon thing in those days) received considerable emphasis. The main speaker at the camp meeting was Mrs. Mary Woodworth-Etter, but the speaker who unwittingly triggered the eruption was R.E. McAlister. At a baptismal service held near the main camp meeting tent, Brother McAlister casually observed that "the apostles invariably baptized their converts once in the name of Jesus Christ," and that the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never used in Christian baptism." When they heard this, "a shudder swept the preachers on the platform," one preacher even stepping over to whisper to Brother McAlister to refrain from emphasizing that doctrine or it would "associate the camp with a Dr. Sykes who so baptized."

(end of quote - http://www.apostolicarchives.com/art...236/172422.htm )

Folks began pondering the significance, suddenly John Sheppe/Shaefe ran through the camp with "the revelation". The " new revelation spread" and soon became the "new issue". From this, many concluded the trinity was wrong, and Jesus Christ was the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

According to the officially touted history, SOME of those Oneness people years later came up with an insistence that not only was proper baptism to be done in Jesus name, but that it was the only valid water baptism, and further that the Pentecostal baptism with the Spirit WAS regeneration, that without the experience a person had not been born again and/or was not saved.

It is further claimed that these two batches of Oneness believers continued somewhat in parallel until they merged in the 40s into the UPC. It is claimed that many held the original view - that one is saved at repentance, OUGHT to be baptized in Jesus name, and OUGHT to receive the baptism in the Spirit. The " others" insisted on Jesus name baptism and Spirit baptism as essential for salvation. These people supposedly taught a person had not received the indwelling of the Spirit unless and until they got the Spirit baptism. It is claimed the "regular" view was that one was saved at repentance and the Spirit was received by and indwelled the believer at that point, with the Pentecostal experience being a later, secondary experience.

In short, the generally purported belief is that the Oneness of God and new birth of water and Spirit was a post Arroyo Seco development, AFTER 1913. The so-called "one step" or "PCI" view is claimed to be the normal original position of the early Jesus name Pentecostals. In other words, they held THE SAME VIEW as their trinitarian fellows except in regards to the subjecs of Oneness and the baptismal formula.

This is incorrect.

The following information comes from the May, 1912 edition of William Durham's "Pentecostal Testimony" newsletter. This is ONE YEAR BEFORE the infamous "new issue". I will post relevant portions in the next post.

[Esaias]

About four years ago... some came forward with the theory that the baptism in the Spirit and the new birth were synonymous, thus taking the position that only those who had the baptism and spoke in tongues were saved at all.
...
One form of this teaching is to the effect that, as in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and as Christ is received when a man is saved, all who receive Christ at the same time receive the Holy Spirit. In other words, they claim that it means one and the same thing to receive Christ, and to receive the Holy Spirit.
...
At this point Durham spends four paragraphs "refuting" this teaching by demonstrating that people who repent and receive Christ DO NOT RECEIVE THE SPIRIT UNTIL THE LATER PENTECOSTAL BAPTISM. Ed note by esaias

But, say the advocates of this theory, "You cannot divide the Trinity." They even declare that Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. We are not going to advance a long theory about the Trinity. There has been too much of that in times past, but we do say that Christ and the Holy Spirit are not in Scripture one and the same.
He then spends a paragraph trying to prove the trinity doctrine, primarily from the baptism of Jesus. Ed note by esaias
...
Another doctrine which we believe should be classed as false, is the teaching that converts should be baptized in the name of Jesus only.

(end of quotations. The source can be found at this website - https://pentecostalarchives.org/search/ )

[Esaias]

From this several things are demonstrated.

First, that prior to 1913 there were Pentecostals teaching and preaching the basics of Oneness and the new birth (at least as far as Spirit baptism were concerned) and the use of the "Jesus name" baptismal formula.

Second, it had been going on for four years at least when this edition of Durham's newsletter came out, thus at least from 1907/8. In fact, Durham's wording implies it had been going on since the Pentecostal revival's beginning , or at least shortly right after the Azusa Street meetings began to become famous.

Third, the idea that the new birth of water and Spirit was a late-comer among Pentecostals is patently FALSE.

Thoughts?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From this several things are demonstrated.

First, that prior to 1913 there were Pentecostals teaching and preaching the basics of Oneness and the new birth (at least as far as Spirit baptism were concerned) and the use of the "Jesus name" baptismal formula.

Second, it had been going on for four years at least when this edition of Durham's newsletter came out, thus at least from 1907/8. In fact, Durham's wording implies it had been going on since the Pentecostal revival's beginning , or at least shortly right after the Azusa Street meetings began to become famous.

Third, the idea that the new birth of water and Spirit was a late-comer among Pentecostals is patently FALSE.


Thoughts?

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.

[Esaias]

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.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Some how I think you are missing my point. I am in agreement that there were probably those that taught a water and spirit birth. But they were not mainstream and only a small group in comparison to the larger out pouring at Azusa.
But the biggest argument I have is you trying to prove that the group Durham was speaking about, also taught a water and spirit birth. Based on the fact that they may or may not have baptized in the Jesus name formula. Many oneness Pentecostals taught baptism in Jesus name and infillment of the spirit evidence of speaking in tongues, yet did not teach a water and spirit birth. As I said UPCI was formed by the merger of both groups. While I may get the two groups mixed up, I believe it was the PCI that taught the oneness and baptism but that salvation was at conversion. The other group taught what you are calling the water and spirit birth of salvation. Yet these two groups agreed to join on the premise that the end result was the same.
Which I might add is brought out in "Christianity without the cross" by Fudge.

[Esaias]

Why do people respond to what they THINK someone is "trying to do" instead of what they actually say?

Anyways, reading these old pentecostal writings makes me realize that probably 75 - 85 percent of what is called pentecostal today would be rejected and denounced as delusion or apostasy by those old timers. A LOT of how we do things, doctrines, practices, etc are quite a devolution, or degeneration, of "old time Pentecost" (whether Oneness or trinitarian).

[Esaias]

As a side note, he also refutes "triple immersion" as well as the "saints ought not to marry" and the "those who are married ought not to live together as man and wife" doctrines.

[Servant's <3]

Originally Posted by Esaias

he also refutes "triple immersion" as well as the "saints ought not to marry" and the "those who are married ought not to live together as man and wife" doctrines.

I've never heard of these doctrines.... they sound ludicrous to me... then again I have the luxury of being on this side of these things as opposed to being around then.... I mean I don't know what you want people to say. I have read most/all of what you have written on this post... nothing ATM for me to even begin to contribute... I enjoy learning history and what not.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Servant's <3

I've never heard of these doctrines.... they sound ludicrous to me... then again I have the luxury of being on this side of these things as opposed to being around then.... I mean I don't know what you want people to say. I have read most/all of what you have written on this post... nothing ATM for me to even begin to contribute... I enjoy learning history and what not.

The part you quoted was a "side note".

The main point is this proves there were Pentecostals teaching essentially what we believe now, at least four years prior to 1912 (five years prior to Arroyo camp meeting in 1913). Thus " we" have been a part of modern Pentecostal history from the beginning, and are most definitely NOT latecomers after the fact as some here have alleged.