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

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Then AD and I are truly a miracle. We have spoken on the phone and had plenty of private correspondence. His is my brother in every sense of the word. I have great respect for his legal mind, and we are pretty much lock-step theologically as well.

While I am reaching the stage in my life to consider whether I will have a last hurrah before fading away, he is just about to come into his own. I expect to hear and read great things from him in the legal profession and the body of Christ.

I am proud, privileged, and honored to call him both brother and colleague.

And the man is in DC at that.

[Sister Alvear]

good to have friends in high places.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Then AD and I are truly a miracle. We have spoken on the phone and had plenty of private correspondence. His is my brother in every sense of the word. I have great respect for his legal mind, and we are pretty much lock-step theologically as well.

While I am reaching the stage in my life to consider whether I will have a last hurrah before fading away, he is just about to come into his own. I expect to hear and read great things from him in the legal profession and the body of Christ.

I am proud, privileged, and honored to call him both brother and colleague.

I think I will save this and put it on my resume. It would be wonderful to work together, you would make me look good. BTW how is the PLLC coming along?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Only people harder to agree than two Pentecostal preachers would be two Pentecostal preachers who are lawyers. Did you hear the one about............

Except us lawyers have one advantage, we know how to compromise and make a deal. I might not agree but we can both walk away with a win...sometimes.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Except us lawyers have one advantage, we know how to compromise and make a deal. I might not agree but we can both walk away with a win...sometimes.

Compromising, making a deal, and both winning remind me of an old story.

A hungry bear walked into the woods wanting a meal. A hunter walked into the woods from the opposite direction wanting a bear skin coat. They met in the middle. They met in the middle of the woods. They compromised, made a deal, and both won. The bear walked out of the woods with a full belly and the hunter left the woods with him inside his bear skin coat.

[Firewind]

Having studied the history of the Apostolic movement for over 25 years, and having family roots stretching back to its inception, I've enjoyed discussing and debating the doctrinal diversity of the movement since hooking up my first primitive dial-up modem in 1995. :-)

However, I've started to tire of the often-bombastic posts I frequently observe during occasional visits to this forum -- trumpeting the differing streams of belief of the PAJC and the PCI as if revealing some previously-forbidden knowledge, bound in secrecy until the publication of Fudge's Christianity Without the Cross.

Originally Posted by SDG

Facts show that PCI men like Goss and Small even started fellowships w/ Trinitarians in an effort to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as evident w/ the early formation of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada.

Really? What "facts" show that Frank Small ever started a fellowship with Trinitarians?

The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada was initially established as a Oneness organization. When the PAOC subsequently adopted a Trinitarian statement of faith, Small considered it "unwarranted compromise" and formed the Apostolic Church of Pentecost, with Oneness, baptism in Jesus' name, and the grace of God as its central tenets.

Years later, the Evangelical Churches of Pentecost, which practised baptism in Jesus' name but held to a "triunity" view of the Godhead, merged with the ACOP. Small himself, however, opposed this amalgamation.

[RevOpinion]

Originally Posted by Firewind

Having studied the history of the Apostolic movement for over 25 years, and having family roots stretching back to its inception, I\'ve enjoyed discussing and debating the doctrinal diversity of the movement since hooking up my first primitive dial-up modem in 1995. :-)

However, I\'ve started to tire of the often-bombastic posts I frequently observe during occasional visits to this forum -- trumpeting the differing streams of belief of the PAJC and the PCI as if revealing some previously-forbidden knowledge, bound in secrecy until the publication of Fudge\'s Christianity Without the Cross.



Really? What \"facts\" show that Frank Small ever started a fellowship with Trinitarians?

The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada was initially established as a Oneness organization. When the PAOC subsequently adopted a Trinitarian statement of faith, Small considered it \"unwarranted compromise\" and formed the Apostolic Church of Pentecost, with Oneness, baptism in Jesus\' name, and the grace of God as its central tenets.

Years later, the Evangelical Churches of Pentecost, which practised baptism in Jesus\' name but held to a \"triunity\" view of the Godhead, merged with the ACOP. Small himself, however, opposed this amalgamation.

Mr. Firewind,

In your in-depth, ground-breaking studies of the Apostolic movement and Commodore 64 heyday, did you find any evidence contrary to the fact that all 7 founding charter members of the PAOC in 1919, namely:

R. E. McAlister, Frank Small, G. A. Chambers, Harvey McAlister, Arthur Miles Pattison, R. E. Sternall, and William Draffin.

All repudiated the doctrine of the Trinity and affirmed Oneness theology as it pertains to their view of the Godhead during it\'s formation in 1919?

We can agree there is ample evidence that men like RE McAlister, who preached the famous Arroyo Seco message practiced Jesus Name baptism in Canada but to claim that men like G.A. Chambers, Harvey McAlister, or even RE were ever Oneness in their view only reaffirms the basic tenet of this thread that a spirit of revisionism beguiles a sub-group within the Apostolic movement.

I think it reasonable to infer Small and Goss originally helped in starting the POAC, not to spread Oneness Pentecostalism but to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the three specific purposes that the original POAC charter shows:

* To conduct a place or places of worship
* To organize and conduct schools of religious instruction
* To carry on home and foreign missionary work for the spread of the gospel

I believe the proverbial ball is in your court to prove, otherwise.

Please show primary evidence to the contrary that the POAC was Oneness at its inception and you might have a compelling complaint -- i.e. a statement of faith, charter.

[Firewind]

Greetings RevOpinion,

Never laid hands on a Commodore 64. But, fortunately, the days of the Coleco Adam, Radio Shack TSR-80, and even my mighty XT clone were behind me by the time I first ventured onto the Interwebs.

I'm not quite sure whether you were addressing me with humour or with derision in your opening comments. I lay no claim to "ground-breaking studies," and if I expressed my passion for Pentecostal history in a manner perceived as condescending, I apologize.

I appreciate your desire for source material, and would gladly provide whatever relevant documentation I could offer, if not for the sad fact that almost all of the material I gathered over the years was locked away in storage three years ago, a day's drive and a province away from where I sit. (A quick search tonight turned up one lone folder of old interview notes, stashed away in my car trunk!)

At the same time, I'm puzzled that you feel the onus is on me to demonstrate that the PAOC was initially a Oneness organization, which shortly afterward officially embraced Trinitarian doctrine. This is certainly not "revisionism," but, to the contrary, a well-established historical position, as evidenced by the writings of scholars such as Prof. Tom Robinson (University of Lethbridge religious studies department) and Dr. Ronald Kydd, a past president of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, who during his years with the PAOC was its foremost historian and who established its national historical archives. See, for example, Dr. Kydd's entry on the PAOC in the International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements.

I attended a PAOC college in the 1980s, where for a few excellent months I was privileged to have Dr. Kydd as a professor and as my faculty advisor. As a young theology student with a love for history, my basic understanding of key events in the early Pentecostal movement was acquired largely through lectures, reading and personal interaction while at the college.

Even in that PAOC environment, I recall only once ever encountering a significantly different claim regarding the early doctrinal development of the PAOC. In the college library, I found a dissertation written by a former district superintendent. In a brief reference to Oneness, he portrayed it as a doctrinal aberration which arose within the established, orthodox PAOC and was quickly quashed. Now that, I would suggest, is revisionism!

Incidentally, the Oneness presence within the PAOC continued for nearly three decades after its official adoption of Trinitarian theology, so there's much more to this whole story.

There just might be some odds 'n' ends of interest in that old folder I mentioned. I'll take a look. And, I also noticed an old article by Frank Small, posted by Sam in a past, related thread. Perhaps I can share a bit of background on that article, which might be helpful to this discussion. More later...

[RevOpinion]

Mr. Fireside,

I am appreciative of the fact that you have evidence of the contrary locked away somewhere in Alberta. (An assumption made from your profile)

Yet any evidence you desire to, or can not, provide

nor the citation of the names of professors,

nor personal and 'scholastic' experience with PAOC,

nor the Oneness links/remnants PAOC has,

nor the generally accepted facts that Jesus name baptism was prevalent in Canada during the rise of Pentecostalism,

nor the suggestion conspiracy theories bound by secrecy by suggested revisionism at PAOC,

does not distract from your initial contention, which was the onus of my initial response.

If memory serves you took issue with this statement:

Facts show that PCI men like Goss and Small even started fellowships w/ Trinitarians in an effort to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as evident w/ the early formation of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada.

You responded with these statements:

1.

Really? What "facts" show that Frank Small ever started a fellowship with Trinitarians?

2.

The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada was initially established as a Oneness organization.

I've provided the names of the men who established the PAOC. I think any reasonable web scholar can see that the bulk of these men were Trinitarians in their view of the God, while some did baptize in Jesus name.

Are you suggesting that the Oneness view is limited to mode of baptism?

I am very aware of the article you alluded to posted by Mr. Sam.

The request is simple - Please provide evidence to the contrary the Frank Small did not start the POAC fellowship with Trinitarians.

Was GA Chambers ever Oneness?
Was RE McCalister ever Oneness?
Harvey?
and so on.

Any other tangents you want to engage in regarding this discussion also perk my interest after we address this one.

[Firewind]

Well, I suppose I was asking for it, by making mention of my personal effects being locked away in storage in another province! If it sounded like a cop-out, or a little too convenient, so be it. Unfortunate things happen when a marriage breaks up.

In any case, I think you may be dismissing my mention of scholars such as Ronald Kydd a little too easily. Dr. Kydd, a highly regarded historian who, as mentioned, established the PAOC's national archives and was naturally very well-acquainted with its early historical records, has stated that the PAOC was a Oneness/Jesus Only organization at its founding. If there are solid arguments against the established position of scholars such as Kydd, they must be quite compelling indeed.

nor the suggestion conspiracy theories bound by secrecy by suggested revisionism at PAOC

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this. What conspiracy theories? What secrecy?

As I said, the position of Kydd was simply standard history during my time at the PAOC college, and I only one time encountered a strongly variant point of view (which, yes, smacked of revisionism) -- a brief and unsubstantiated reference in a relatively obscure dissertation.

Was GA Chambers ever Oneness?
Was RE McCalister ever Oneness?
Harvey?
and so on.

I accept Kydd on this point -- that the PAOC was founded by men who initially held to a "Jesus Only" understanding of water baptism and the Godhead.

Frank Small maintained that he and the other founders affirmed not only the Jesus Name baptismal formula, but also the further scriptural revelation of the Mighty God in Christ.

As to the depth of those convictions, and the longevity or brevity of their adherence to them, that's quite another matter.

Among the papers in that lone folder I dug out, I found several pages of notes from an interview I did many years ago with Oneness pioneer and writer John Paterson, who knew most of the early Canadian leaders personally. I'll see what I can find pertaining to the original doctrinal views of the PAOC founders.

PS: I noticed an error in my last message. In the second last paragraph, my mention of a continuing Oneness presence in the PAOC should have read two decades, not three. Just for the record.