Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Scott Pitta]

IF there were groups baptizing in the name of Jesus prior to 1910, I am unaware of it.

The Parham documentation is very interesting.

Is there more documentation of this practice prior to 1910 ?? The documentation is difficult to provide !!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

IF there were groups baptizing in the name of Jesus prior to 1910, I am unaware of it.

The Parham documentation is very interesting.

Is there more documentation of this practice prior to 1910 ?? The documentation is difficult to provide !!

At Arroyo Seco it was mentioned a Dr Sykes baptized that way. Durham referenced a growing number of people who had a Oneness view and baptised in the name, that was in 1912 and he said it had been going on for awhile. I knew Parham baptized that way (but I do not think he was Oneness). He had been doing that since around 1904 or 1905 I think, maybe earlier.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

IF there were groups baptizing in the name of Jesus prior to 1910, I am unaware of it.

The Parham documentation is very interesting.

Is there more documentation of this practice prior to 1910 ?? The documentation is difficult to provide !!

Originally Barton Stone baptized in Jesus Name and they practiced very demonstrative worship practices that would become associated with Pentecost nearly 50 or 60 years later. Look into the Cane Ridge Campmeeting. But after he became associated with the Campbells that seem to change? Also he views on the Godhead would not be traditional Trinitarian?

[Scott Pitta]

The Cane Ridge camp meetings were very interesting and unusual. They were the subject of the first research I ever did. That was back in 1981.

[Esaias]

Hard to believe the Disciples and Churches of Christ were born out of Cane Ridge.

But then it's hard to believe the local UMC church goes back to Wesley and the Great Awakening, or the Nazarene church came out of the holiness revivals of the 19th century.

Of course, some Pentecostal churches today are in the same boat...

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The Cane Ridge camp meetings were very interesting and unusual. They were the subject of the first research I ever did. That was back in 1981.

Being a native Kentuckian it was part of our Kentucky history. Stone has interested me I have one some extensive study on him.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hard to believe the Disciples and Churches of Christ were born out of Cane Ridge.

But then it's hard to believe the local UMC church goes back to Wesley and the Great Awakening, or the Nazarene church came out of the holiness revivals of the 19th century.

Of course, some Pentecostal churches today are in the same boat...

I am afraid you are correct.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Anyone that has done a in depth study on the subject of baptism knows that there have always been those that held to the Jesus name mode of baptism down through the centuries. There were even many that held to the oneness doctrine, but these did not always go hand in hand. There is no argument that these two teachings were around before the 1913 camp meeting.
What I would have to insist though is that the outpouring that began in the early 1900's did not result within the ranks of the Jesus name nor oneness groups. Rather outside denominational ranks. One of the best records of the 1900's revival "The Phenomenon of Pentecost" written by Frank Ewart, gives a very concise and unbiased view. Frank by the way was a Baptist minister before receiving the Spirit.
Frank writes "people were coming in and getting saved, and then receiving the Holy Ghost, and going out and spreading the word". The focus was not on doctrinal teachings, rather receiving of the spirit of God, period. Frank wrote, "that while this movement was based on sound scripture, it's heartbeat was based on an experience, not theological premise". For several years the movement crossed denominational barriers unchecked. It was not until the 1913 camp meeting that the barriers came up.
And yes while there were Jesus name, and oneness groups before 1913, they did not organize into true groups until after 1913. Check your history. These people organized into several groups not only the UPC or PCI, For a more detailed history read "United We Stand". The History of Baptism by Thomas Weisser and I believe David Bernard wrote a book on the history of baptism also.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

IF there were groups baptizing in the name of Jesus prior to 1910, I am unaware of it.

The Parham documentation is very interesting.

Is there more documentation of this practice prior to 1910 ?? The documentation is difficult to provide !!

The predominate mode was father son and holy ghost baptism, but as I said in my last post Jesus name baptism had long been the opposing form of baptism down through the centuries.
The history of baptism by Thomas Weisser.
The Phenomenon of Pentecost by Frank Ewart
I was surprised a few years ago, to hear a Assembly of God pastor say that they baptize in Jesus Name. When questioned he stated that while they use the Matt 28:19 formula that they believe that they are baptizing in Jesus name by using the words of Christ.
It has become my personal belief that it is not as much the words spoken over one in baptism, as much as the profession of faith in Christ by the one being baptized.

[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.