A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library
A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library
A History of Christian Doctrine statement. It also voted to require that the words of Matthew 28:19 be incorporated in the baptismal formula. The Oneness ministers had no alternative but to leave the organization. As they left the conference floor to discuss their options, they heard the assembly sing, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, blessed trinity.” As a result of this conference, 156 out of 585 ministers dropped out of the Assemblies of God—about onefourth of the total. Presumably, almost all of them were Oneness, although a few left because they objected to the adoption of a statement of faith and felt that the handling of the controversy was too harsh. Robert Mapes Anderson, a non-Pentecostal historian, concluded that doctrine was not the only factor in the dramatic shakeup of the young Assemblies of God in 1915- 16, but a power struggle was also involved. 81 He noted that the six most influential men in the formation of the Assemblies of God in 1914 were Bell, Goss, Opperman, Collins, Pinson, and Rodgers. They were all from the South, and they had all been associated with the white wing of the Church of God in Christ. All of them lost their positions. The men who gained power during this time— Flower, Welch, Kerr, and Leonard—were from the upper Midwest and Northeast. Flower, Welch, and Kerr had formerly belonged to the Christian and Missionary Alliance (Welch and Kerr were former Alliance officials), and Leonard had belonged to the Christian Church. Anderson also raised the question of whether racism played a role, particularly in light of Leonard’s animosity toward Haywood. Practically all the blacks in the Finished Work camp looked to Haywood for leadership, so by the decision of 1916, the Assemblies of God became “an all 80
The Jesus Name Controversy but ‘lily white’ denomination,” and Oneness Pentecostals became the most biracial wing of the entire Pentecostal movement. 82 Those Who Stayed A few of the ministers who were baptized in the name of Jesus simply acted in obedience to the apostolic pattern but never fully adopted the Oneness position. As indicated by Frank Small’s remarks and by Oliver Fauss’s notes from the Elton Bible Conference, however, most people did associate their rebaptism with a new understanding of the full deity of Jesus Christ and the oneness of God in contrast to traditional trinitarianism. Some of these people drew back from their new belief and practice when opposition came. Ministers who never completely left trinitarianism, or who ultimately endorsed it again, included A. H. Argue, E. N. Bell, George Chambers, Elmer Fisher, R. E. McAlister, Aimee Semple McPherson, L. V. Roberts, and Maria Woodworth-Etter. Later such people tended to minimize the extent to which they had embraced the Oneness doctrine. Many of their testimonies at the time, however, reveal a profound spiritual and theological awakening when they were baptized in Jesus’ name. For example, R. E. McAlister later became a strong opponent of the Oneness message in Canada. When he was baptized, however, he wrote, “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 cry and weep.” 83 The most significant defection from Jesus Name baptism back to trinitarian baptism was E. N. Bell. Trinitarian historians have commonly stated that Bell never accepted 81
- Page 29 and 30: The Pentecostal Movement sanctifica
- Page 31 and 32: The Pentecostal Movement • After
- Page 33 and 34: The Pentecostal Movement Father, So
- Page 35 and 36: The Pentecostal Movement Parham, ot
- Page 37 and 38: The Pentecostal Movement greatly to
- Page 39 and 40: 2 The Finished Work Controversy The
- Page 41 and 42: The Finished Work Controversy Pinso
- Page 43 and 44: The Finished Work Controversy Due t
- Page 45 and 46: The Finished Work Controversy “Th
- Page 47 and 48: The Finished Work Controversy The F
- Page 49 and 50: The Finished Work Controversy Never
- Page 51 and 52: The Finished Work Controversy Durha
- Page 53 and 54: The Finished Work Controversy that
- Page 55 and 56: The Finished Work Controversy for e
- Page 57 and 58: The Finished Work Controversy resul
- Page 59 and 60: 3 The Jesus Name Controversy The se
- Page 61 and 62: The Jesus Name Controversy scholar,
- Page 63 and 64: The Jesus Name Controversy was “t
- Page 65 and 66: The Jesus Name Controversy eral peo
- Page 67 and 68: The Jesus Name Controversy assistan
- Page 69 and 70: The Jesus Name Controversy who had
- Page 71 and 72: The Jesus Name Controversy enced Ew
- Page 73 and 74: The Jesus Name Controversy form an
- Page 75 and 76: The Jesus Name Controversy Fauss to
- Page 77 and 78: The Jesus Name Controversy fought s
- Page 79: The Jesus Name Controversy attendan
- Page 83 and 84: The Jesus Name Controversy I want t
- Page 85 and 86: The Jesus Name Controversy Christ a
- Page 87 and 88: The Jesus Name Controversy people e
- Page 89 and 90: 4 Oneness Pentecostal Organizations
- Page 91 and 92: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations t
- Page 93 and 94: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations f
- Page 95 and 96: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations W
- Page 97 and 98: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations m
- Page 99 and 100: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations I
- Page 101 and 102: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations p
- Page 103 and 104: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations C
- Page 105 and 106: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations i
- Page 107 and 108: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations M
- Page 109 and 110: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations p
- Page 111 and 112: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations w
- Page 113 and 114: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations t
- Page 115 and 116: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations N
- Page 117 and 118: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations j
- Page 119 and 120: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations b
- Page 121 and 122: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations i
- Page 123: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations b
- Page 126 and 127: A History of Christian Doctrine ton
- Page 128 and 129: A History of Christian Doctrine den
A <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> <strong>Doctrine</strong><br />
statement. It also voted to require that the words <strong>of</strong><br />
Matthew 28:19 be incorporated in the baptismal formula.<br />
The Oneness ministers had no alternative but to leave the<br />
organization. As they left the conference floor to discuss<br />
their options, they heard the assembly sing, “Holy, holy,<br />
holy, Lord God Almighty, blessed trinity.”<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> this conference, 156 out <strong>of</strong> 585 ministers<br />
dropped out <strong>of</strong> the Assemblies <strong>of</strong> God—about onefourth<br />
<strong>of</strong> the total. Presumably, almost all <strong>of</strong> them were<br />
Oneness, although a few left because they objected to the<br />
adoption <strong>of</strong> a statement <strong>of</strong> faith and felt that the handling<br />
<strong>of</strong> the controversy was too harsh.<br />
Robert Mapes Anderson, a non-Pentecostal historian,<br />
concluded that doctrine was not the only factor in the dramatic<br />
shakeup <strong>of</strong> the young Assemblies <strong>of</strong> God in 1915-<br />
16, but a power struggle was also involved. 81 He noted<br />
that the six most influential men in the formation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Assemblies <strong>of</strong> God in 1914 were Bell, Goss, Opperman,<br />
Collins, Pinson, and Rodgers. They were all from the<br />
South, and they had all been associated with the white<br />
wing <strong>of</strong> the Church <strong>of</strong> God in Christ. All <strong>of</strong> them lost their<br />
positions. The men who gained power during this time—<br />
Flower, Welch, Kerr, and Leonard—were from the upper<br />
Midwest and Northeast. Flower, Welch, and Kerr had formerly<br />
belonged to the <strong>Christian</strong> and Missionary Alliance<br />
(Welch and Kerr were former Alliance <strong>of</strong>ficials), and<br />
Leonard had belonged to the <strong>Christian</strong> Church.<br />
Anderson also raised the question <strong>of</strong> whether racism<br />
played a role, particularly in light <strong>of</strong> Leonard’s animosity<br />
toward Haywood. Practically all the blacks in the Finished<br />
Work camp looked to Haywood for leadership, so by the<br />
decision <strong>of</strong> 1916, the Assemblies <strong>of</strong> God became “an all<br />
80