Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.

you forgot to mention the book
The original Matthew 28:19 restored Which has much information about baptism in the name Jesus throughout the centuries.

[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.

[Jason B]

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?

Does it really make a difference if the doctrine was originated in 1908 instead of 1913? Does it not still contradict 2000 years of church history?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Does it really make a difference if the doctrine was originated in 1908 instead of 1913? Does it not still contradict 2000 years of church history?

Yes it does make a difference, to people who are actually interested in the truth of things. And no, it doesn't contradict anything except 1800 years of catholic propaganda and 100 years of modern evangelical-pentecostal error. All I did was report some facts and state the obvious.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Does it really make a difference if the doctrine was originated in 1908 instead of 1913? Does it not still contradict 2000 years of church history?

history is written by the victors, that is the Catholic church.
They went so far as to create a fictitious line of popes, and councils that never happened.

[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).

[Scott Pitta]

Esaias has a valid point.

The Azuza crowd permitted diversity of thought. They also permitted freedom of devotion that may or may not have been a good idea.

It is tempting for me to quote Harry Morse and say that they were Sabbath keepers (he was). It is easy to quote the guy who believed drinking coffee was a sin.

The truth is that there was diversity of thought. Morse promoted education. W F Manley thought higher education for ministers was terrible.

There were more women ministers than is commonly seen today. even in the Azuza alumni.

Understanding what they had in common is not easy for us to document.

[GISG]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

you forgot to mention the book
The original Matthew 28:19 restored Which has much information about baptism in the name Jesus throughout the centuries.

I ordered that book last night, looking forward to reading it.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

It is easy to quote the guy who believed drinking coffee was a sin.

Well, then I'm definitely a sinner.