The Difference between PCI, PAJC and the New Heritage False Claiming Posers

[Steve Epley]

Carry on this is indeed interesting.

I had heard McAllister was not Oneness?

Died pastoring an AG church?

[Firewind]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Carry on this is indeed interesting.

I had heard McAllister was not Oneness?

It's great to see you, Bro. Epley! I always really enjoyed our discussions on the old FCF in years past, usually about various saints and scoundrels in Pentecostal history.

On to Robert McAlister...

Well, despite his infamous "shot...destined to be heard around the world" (as Frank Ewart called it) at Arroyo Seco in 1913, and his key role in early Oneness history, McAlister certainly did serve the majority of his later ministry back in the Trinitarian camp.

As to whether he was ever genuinely in the Oneness fold, I'm convinced he was. McAlister continued preaching on Jesus Name baptism after Arroyo Seco and, when the further message of the "fulness of God in Christ" swept through the Pentecostal movement in 1915, I believe it's clear he accepted that as well.

McAlister himself was re-baptized in Jesus' name in December 1915 by G.T. Haywood, who was conducting meetings in McAlister's church in Ottawa.

Brother McAlister and Harvey [McAlister] and their wives were among those baptized. He had wonderfully prepared the people for the message and when the pool was ready he and his wife were the first to enter into the water, and the Lord did wonderfully bless us [Haywood, "Elder R.E. McAlister and Evangelist Harvey McAlister Re-baptized," Living Word].

That same month -- more than two and a half years after preaching on baptism at Arroyo Seco -- McAlister wrote to Ewart of his new understanding of the Godhead:

I have had a revelation to my soul of the one God in threefold manifestation. How my heart melted in His presence! I could only weep and cry [Ewart, "From Brother McAlister," Meat In Due Season].

By 1918, however, it's evident that things were changing with McAlister. When the loosely-organized Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada took steps that year toward a formal, legal structure, with plans to align with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World in the U.S., McAlister did not attend the planning conference, held in Ottawa.

McAlister's "absence it was said was based on disapproval in desiring the General Council [Assemblies of God]," rather than the PAW, as the group's American counterpart [drawn from Frank Small, "Historical and Valedictory Account of the Origin of Water Baptism in Jesus' Name Only, and the Doctrine of the Fulness of God in Christ, in Pentecostal Circles in Canada," Living Waters, April 1941, p 1].

Nevertheless, when the PAOC was officially chartered in 1919, McAlister did join, acting as one of seven signatories, and served as secretary of the new organization. But, he soon began taking controversial steps which steered the organization toward affiliation with the Trinitarian AG rather than with the Oneness PAW -- contrary to the PAOC's original intentions and agreement [Small, pp 1, 2].

Eventually, a vote to affiliate with the AG succeeded, by a narrow margin. The arrangement with the AG was in effect from 1920 to 1925, and the PAOC remained Trinitarian thereafter.

McAlister was a highly influential editor, pastor and denominational leader, and years after his death, he was lauded in the PAOC's national magazine as "The Architect of Canadian Pentecostalism" [Thomas W. Miller, in an article by that title, The Pentecostal Testimony, July 1989, pp 9-11].

Others, like John Paterson, considered him a traitor.

Paterson, Oneness pioneer and author (God in Christ Jesus and The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus' Name), who held credentials with several organizations (including PCI, UPC and ACOP) over his many decades of ministry, had vast and intimate knowledge of the Canadian movement's early history.

Paterson had close friendships and fellowship with Trinitarians all his life, and held to the "friends of the bridegroom" doctrine. But, for Oneness believers who compromised or abandoned their belief, he spared few words. When I interviewed him in 1993, Paterson without hesitation branded McAlister as "the Judas of the Oneness movement."

Ralph V. Reynolds, who ministered in Ontario with the PAOC, and briefly with the ACOP, before becoming a prominent missionary, pastor, teacher and author with the UPC, took a more charitable approach. I don't have it before me, but as I recall from his history of the Canadian Oneness movement, Reynolds, in one of several personal tributes to Pentecostal pioneers, clearly held McAlister in high regard.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine to what degree McAlister's actions during the early years of the PAOC, leading to its adoption of Trinitarianism, were a reflection, on one hand, of his apparently shifting doctrinal views at the time; and, on the other, possibly a desire to align with the AG on other grounds.

Then, as now, organizational politics and religion can form a volatile and strange brew.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Firewind

It's great to see you, Bro. Epley! I always really enjoyed our discussions on the old FCF in years past, usually about various saints and scoundrels in Pentecostal history.

On to Robert McAlister...

Well, despite his infamous "shot...destined to be heard around the world" (as Frank Ewart called it) at Arroyo Seco in 1913, and his key role in early Oneness history, McAlister certainly did serve the majority of his later ministry back in the Trinitarian camp.

As to whether he was ever genuinely in the Oneness fold, I'm convinced he was. McAlister continued preaching on Jesus Name baptism after Arroyo Seco and, when the further message of the "fulness of God in Christ" swept through the Pentecostal movement in 1915, I believe it's clear he accepted that as well.

McAlister himself was re-baptized in Jesus' name in December 1915 by G.T. Haywood, who was conducting meetings in McAlister's church in Ottawa.

Brother McAlister and Harvey [McAlister] and their wives were among those baptized. He had wonderfully prepared the people for the message and when the pool was ready he and his wife were the first to enter into the water, and the Lord did wonderfully bless us [Haywood, "Elder R.E. McAlister and Evangelist Harvey McAlister Re-baptized," Living Word].

That same month -- more than two and a half years after preaching on baptism at Arroyo Seco -- McAlister wrote to Ewart of his new understanding of the Godhead:

I have had a revelation to my soul of the one God in threefold manifestation. How my heart melted in His presence! I could only weep and cry [Ewart, "From Brother McAlister," Meat In Due Season].

By 1918, however, it's evident that things were changing with McAlister. When the loosely-organized Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada took steps that year toward a formal, legal structure, with plans to align with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World in the U.S., McAlister did not attend the planning conference, held in Ottawa.

McAlister's "absence it was said was based on disapproval in desiring the General Council [Assemblies of God]," rather than the PAW, as the group's American counterpart [drawn from Frank Small, "Historical and Valedictory Account of the Origin of Water Baptism in Jesus' Name Only, and the Doctrine of the Fulness of God in Christ, in Pentecostal Circles in Canada," Living Waters, April 1941, p 1].

Nevertheless, when the PAOC was officially chartered in 1919, McAlister did join, acting as one of seven signatories, and served as secretary of the new organization. But, he soon began taking controversial steps which steered the organization toward affiliation with the Trinitarian AG rather than with the Oneness PAW -- contrary to the PAOC's original intentions and agreement [Small, pp 1, 2].

Eventually, a vote to affiliate with the AG succeeded, by a narrow margin. The arrangement with the AG was in effect from 1920 to 1925, and the PAOC remained Trinitarian thereafter.

McAlister was a highly influential editor, pastor and denominational leader, and years after his death, he was lauded in the PAOC's national magazine as "The Architect of Canadian Pentecostalism" [Thomas W. Miller, in an article by that title, The Pentecostal Testimony, July 1989, pp 9-11].

Others, like John Paterson, considered him a traitor.

Paterson, Oneness pioneer and author (God in Christ Jesus and The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus' Name), who held credentials with several organizations (including PCI, UPC and ACOP) over his many decades of ministry, had vast and intimate knowledge of the Canadian movement's early history.

Paterson had close friendships and fellowship with Trinitarians all his life, and held to the "friends of the bridegroom" doctrine. But, for Oneness believers who compromised or abandoned their belief, he spared few words. When I interviewed him in 1993, Paterson without hesitation branded McAlister as "the Judas of the Oneness movement."

Ralph V. Reynolds, who ministered in Ontario with the PAOC, and briefly with the ACOP, before becoming a prominent missionary, pastor, teacher and author with the UPC, took a more charitable approach. I don't have it before me, but as I recall from his history of the Canadian Oneness movement, Reynolds, in one of several personal tributes to Pentecostal pioneers, clearly held McAlister in high regard.

It would difficult, if not impossible, to determine to what degree McAlister's actions during the early years of the PAOC, leading to its adoption of Trinitarianism, were a reflection, on one hand, of his apparently shifting doctrinal views at the time; and, on the other, possibly a desire to align with the AG on other grounds.

Then, as now, organizational politics and religion can form a volatile and strange brew.

I will bring the white elephant into the room could it have been racial the reason for opposing an alliance with the PAW instead of the AG? I realize Bishop Haywood baptized him(I had forgotten that) but to have him as his Bishop? In the early 20's was when the Southern Brethren were having meetings that became both the PCI & PAJC and eventually the UPC? Just a passing thought. Bishop Golder said Bishop Haywood never got over the majorityof white brethren leaving. He had thought the blood line had been washed away. Between them and Lawson leaving him to start his own group broke his heart.

[Firewind]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I will bring the white elephant into the room could it have been racial the reason for opposing an alliance with the PAW instead of the AG? I realize Bishop Haywood baptized him(I had forgotten that) but to have him as his Bishop? In the early 20's was when the Southern Brethren were having meetings that became both the PCI & PAJC and eventually the UPC? Just a passing thought. Bishop Golder said Bishop Haywood never got over the majorityof white brethren leaving. He had thought the blood line had been washed away. Between them and Lawson leaving him to start his own group broke his heart.

An interesting thought, Bro. Epley, and one I hadn't considered before. I have no idea whether this episode in the PAOC was affected in any way by the type of racial issues that affected other organizations of the day (and which included some of the same men, such as Goss). But I'll hasten to add that I've come across no indication of it.

In any case, it does seem that other factors, besides McAlister's apparent reversal on the Godhead, were at play in changing the course of the PAOC. One likely suspect is the eternal security doctrine, which had gained significant traction, primarily in western Canada, through the influence of Small (and William Booth-Clibborn), but was at odds with the views of most other PAOC leaders.

When the conference vote to affiliate with the AG passed, it was by a majority of "about two," with about 17 members in attendance, according to Small. Had there been a sudden mass defection from the Oneness position among these men, the outcome of the vote would be understandable, but such was not the case.

It is still a puzzle to the writer how some of these brethren swung the way they did so abruptly, as he had had personal conversations with some regarding the vital question of the Godhead, and baptism in His name. These were even more radical at that time than the writer, therefore we cannot reconcile the abrupt turning without some statement of facts why [Small, "Historical and Valedictory Account...," p 2].

Based on opposition received on other occasions to his "eternal life" message, Small "wondered if this was not the pivotal point that swung the whole project in the way it went."

Significantly, Small at the time also held credentials with the PAW, so it would seem that the PAW was not making an issue over his position on eternal security.

I'm kinda winging it here, but if I'm not mistaken, the AG by that time had already taken a stand against eternal security.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Firewind

An interesting thought, Bro. Epley, and one I hadn't considered before. I have no idea whether this episode in the PAOC was affected in any way by the type of racial issues that affected other organizations of the day (and which included some of the same men, such as Goss). But I'll hasten to add that I've come across no indication of it.

In any case, it does seem that other factors, besides McAlister's apparent reversal on the Godhead, were at play in changing the course of the PAOC. One likely suspect is the eternal security doctrine, which had gained significant traction, primarily in western Canada, through the influence of Small (and William Booth-Clibborn), but was at odds with the views of most other PAOC leaders.

When the conference vote to affiliate with the AG passed, it was by a majority of "about two," with about 17 members in attendance, according to Small. Had there been a sudden mass defection from the Oneness position among these men, the outcome of the vote would be understandable, but such was not the case.

It is still a puzzle to the writer how some of these brethren swung the way they did so abruptly, as he had had personal conversations with some regarding the vital question of the Godhead, and baptism in His name. These were even more radical at that time than the writer, therefore we cannot reconcile the abrupt turning without some statement of facts why [Small, "Historical and Valedictory Account...," p 2].

Based on opposition received on other occasions to his "eternal life" message, Small "wondered if this was not the pivotal point that swung the whole project in the way it went."

Significantly, Small at the time also held credentials with the PAW, so it would seem that the PAW was not making an issue over his position on eternal security.

I'm kinda winging it here, but if I'm not mistaken, the AG by that time had already taken a stand against eternal security.

You know Bishop Haywood wrote a paper against eternal security I always wondered about that? This must have been the reason. I did know that eternal security became more the rallying cry for Small's group than the basic Apostolic doctrine it predetermined their isolation thus defection in my opinion.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Firewind

An interesting thought, Bro. Epley, and one I hadn't considered before. I have no idea whether this episode in the PAOC was affected in any way by the type of racial issues that affected other organizations of the day (and which included some of the same men, such as Goss). But I'll hasten to add that I've come across no indication of it.

In any case, it does seem that other factors, besides McAlister's apparent reversal on the Godhead, were at play in changing the course of the PAOC. One likely suspect is the eternal security doctrine, which had gained significant traction, primarily in western Canada, through the influence of Small (and William Booth-Clibborn), but was at odds with the views of most other PAOC leaders.

When the conference vote to affiliate with the AG passed, it was by a majority of "about two," with about 17 members in attendance, according to Small. Had there been a sudden mass defection from the Oneness position among these men, the outcome of the vote would be understandable, but such was not the case.

It is still a puzzle to the writer how some of these brethren swung the way they did so abruptly, as he had had personal conversations with some regarding the vital question of the Godhead, and baptism in His name. These were even more radical at that time than the writer, therefore we cannot reconcile the abrupt turning without some statement of facts why [Small, "Historical and Valedictory Account...," p 2].

Based on opposition received on other occasions to his "eternal life" message, Small "wondered if this was not the pivotal point that swung the whole project in the way it went."

Significantly, Small at the time also held credentials with the PAW, so it would seem that the PAW was not making an issue over his position on eternal security.

I'm kinda winging it here, but if I'm not mistaken, the AG by that time had already taken a stand against eternal security.

The largest PAW church in my city teaches eternal security and has for several years now...they never would have under their former pastor's leadership. Bishop Scott would have never allowed that to go on.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Barb

The largest PAW church in my city teaches eternal security and has for several years now...they never would have under their former pastor's leadership. Bishop Scott would have never allowed that to go on.

True.

[Firewind]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

You know Bishop Haywood wrote a paper against eternal security I always wondered about that? This must have been the reason. I did know that eternal security became more the rallying cry for Small's group than the basic Apostolic doctrine it predetermined their isolation thus defection in my opinion.

Yes, when Small founded the ACOP, the emphasis on eternal security certainly put it at odds with the rest of the Oneness movement, and was a definite hindrance to its expansion in eastern Canada, where the eternal security doctrine was generally rejected.

In the west, the doctrine grew deep roots in both the ACOP and the Evangelical Churches of Pentecost, which were both strongly influenced early on by William Booth-Clibborn's teachings on the grace of God.

The ECOP baptized in Jesus' name, and there were some Oneness preachers in the group, but most adhered to what they called a "tri-unity" view.

After the 1953 merger of the ECOP with the ACOP (which Small opposed), the Oneness view of the Godhead gradually waned. Today, most of the ACOP's staunch Oneness advocates in the west have passed from the scene, so the strongest remaining pockets of Oneness influence would be mostly in Ontario and the Maritimes, where many of the ministers came from the UPC.

Given how closely the ACOP is identified with eternal security, it's interesting that the doctrine has never actually been a requirement for ministry, nor is it specifically included in the statement of faith.

John Paterson, who had no use for Calvinism, told me that he received assurance from Small and other ACOP leaders that they "would never disrupt fellowship" over differing views on eternal security.

On the other hand, some found the emphasis on the doctrine overbearing. When the last of the Oneness ministers in the PAOC, including Ralph Reynolds, were finally forced out in the early 1940s, they initially joined the ACOP. But they soon departed and eventually joined the UPC, due in no small part to the zealous promotion of eternal security by western ACOP ministers.

In his history of the Canadian movement, Reynolds firmly rejected unconditional eternal security, but expressed gratitude to the ACOP for giving this little group of ousted ministers a home during a time of turmoil.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Firewind

Yes, when Small founded the ACOP, the emphasis on eternal security certainly put it at odds with the rest of the Oneness movement, and was a definite hindrance to its expansion in eastern Canada, where the eternal security doctrine was generally rejected.

In the west, the doctrine grew deep roots in both the ACOP and the Evangelical Churches of Pentecost, which were both strongly influenced early on by William Booth-Clibborn's teachings on the grace of God.

The ECOP baptized in Jesus' name, and there were some Oneness preachers in the group, but most adhered to what they called a "tri-unity" view.

After the 1953 merger of the ECOP with the ACOP (which Small opposed), the Oneness view of the Godhead gradually waned. Today, most of the ACOP's staunch Oneness advocates in the west have passed from the scene, so the strongest remaining pockets of Oneness influence would be mostly in Ontario and the Maritimes, where many of the ministers came from the UPC.

Given how closely the ACOP is identified with eternal security, it's interesting that the doctrine has never actually been a requirement for ministry, nor is it specifically included in the statement of faith.

John Paterson, who had no use for Calvinism, told me that he received assurance from Small and other ACOP leaders that they "would never disrupt fellowship" over differing views on eternal security.

On the other hand, some found the emphasis on the doctrine overbearing. When the last of the Oneness ministers in the PAOC, including Ralph Reynolds, were finally forced out in the early 1940s, they initially joined the ACOP. But they soon departed and eventually joined the UPC, due in no small part to the zealous promotion of eternal security by western ACOP ministers.

In his history of the Canadian movement, Reynolds firmly rejected unconditional eternal security, but expressed gratitude to the ACOP for giving this little group of ousted ministers a home during a time of turmoil.

Elder Firewind...

Your posts on this subject have been wonderful, and I appreciate the time you have taken to share this information with us.

I do have a question...how many of the people you mentioned were of the PCI view?!

I'm asking because I have a doctrinal teaching book, promoted by the UPCI, and written several years ago by one of the brethren you spoke about. His remarks on the subject of repentance gave me the distinct feeling he was PCI in his views.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Firewind

Yes, when Small founded the ACOP, the emphasis on eternal security certainly put it at odds with the rest of the Oneness movement, and was a definite hindrance to its expansion in eastern Canada, where the eternal security doctrine was generally rejected.

In the west, the doctrine grew deep roots in both the ACOP and the Evangelical Churches of Pentecost, which were both strongly influenced early on by William Booth-Clibborn's teachings on the grace of God.

The ECOP baptized in Jesus' name, and there were some Oneness preachers in the group, but most adhered to what they called a "tri-unity" view.

After the 1953 merger of the ECOP with the ACOP (which Small opposed), the Oneness view of the Godhead gradually waned. Today, most of the ACOP's staunch Oneness advocates in the west have passed from the scene, so the strongest remaining pockets of Oneness influence would be mostly in Ontario and the Maritimes, where many of the ministers came from the UPC.

Given how closely the ACOP is identified with eternal security, it's interesting that the doctrine has never actually been a requirement for ministry, nor is it specifically included in the statement of faith.

John Paterson, who had no use for Calvinism, told me that he received assurance from Small and other ACOP leaders that they "would never disrupt fellowship" over differing views on eternal security.

On the other hand, some found the emphasis on the doctrine overbearing. When the last of the Oneness ministers in the PAOC, including Ralph Reynolds, were finally forced out in the early 1940s, they initially joined the ACOP. But they soon departed and eventually joined the UPC, due in no small part to the zealous promotion of eternal security by western ACOP ministers.

In his history of the Canadian movement, Reynolds firmly rejected unconditional eternal security, but expressed gratitude to the ACOP for giving this little group of ousted ministers a home during a time of turmoil.

Elder Reynolds also wrote a book against the eternal securit heresy. There was a poster that use to be on this forum that was pastoring ACOP in Western Canada(he was originally UPC) and left because of the entrenched teaching on this subject.