The Eschatology of Andrew D. Urshan. Daniel L. Segraves

Transcription

1 The Eschatology of Andrew D. Urshan Daniel L. Segraves D. William Faupel s The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought (1996) 1 includes a treatment of Andrew D. Urshan from Faupel s perspective that Pentecostalism s rapid growth was due to its eschatological hope. This was certainly the case with Urshan, who frequently warned his readers of the nearness of the rapture, the necessity for world evangelization, and the dangers awaiting those who were not prepared for Christ s return. During Urshan s pastorate at the Persian Pentecostal Mission after his departure from the Moody Church, he received three revelations. 2 The first had to do with divine healing. Although he had never been taught on this subject, Urshan became convinced that believers should expect healing as a result of the prayer of faith, without resorting to doctors and medicine. The second revelation involved eschatology. With his Presbyterian background, Andrew had never heard of the premillennial return of Jesus Christ. He came to believe, however, that the second coming of Jesus would occur before the millennium. The third revelation was that which Urshan characterized as a crowning truth of all other portions of truth the Lord has so graciously granted him. He referred to this as 1 D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series, eds., John Christopher Thomas, Rickie Moore, Steven J. Land, no. 10 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 2 By revelation, Urshan meant what is commonly referred to as illumination. In his words, By the word revelation... we mean the Holy Ghost illuminating our hearts and minds to actually understand certain scriptures... (Urshan, The Story of My Life 10 th Chapter Cont., The Witness of God 4, no. 45 [September 1923]: 3). Copyright 2010 by Daniel L. Segraves 1

2 Christ s absolute deity. He found the following words coursing through his being: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Lord Jesus Christ. Although he had never heard a sermon on the names of God or any discussion on the Godhead in the ranks of Pentecostalism, and although he had never read church history on this subject, Urshan came to believe that the singular name into which Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize in Matthew 28:19 was the Lord Jesus Christ. In his understanding, the words the Lord stand for the Father ; the name Jesus stands for the Son ; and Christ stands for the Holy Spirit. He referred to this as the Trinity in Christ. When he saw the value of baptism invested in faith in the One Name of the triune God, Urshan came to understand John 3:1-6 as a reference to water birth as water baptism and Spirit birth as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 3 Urshan built his soteriology around Acts 2:38 as the new birth of water and Spirit set forth by Jesus in John 3, but he did so with sensitivity to the genuineness of the faith experience of those who had not been baptized having the name of Jesus called over them and who had not experienced baptism with the Holy Spirit with the sign of speaking in tongues. He did this in the context of nuance and by embracing some of the dispensational notions of the Scofield Reference Bible. Specifically, Urshan nuanced the meanings of the terms saved and born again so that they were not synonymous, distinguished between the experiences of being begotten and born, and suggested distinctions between the kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of God ): Urshan, The Story of My Life 10 th Chapter Cont., The Witness of God 4, no. 45 (September 4 See Urshan, Introductory Questions on the doctrine of the New Birth, The Witness of God 2, no. 21 (September 1921): 1; Urshan, There is a Difference, The Witness of God 10, no. 10 (November- December 1930): 8; George R. Farrow, The New Birth: What it Is, What it Does, The Witness of God 10, Copyright 2010 by Daniel L. Segraves 2

3 Urshan saw the world-wide Church Federation as a subtle satanic conflict against God. 5 Yet another enemy of God consisted of lukewarm Christians, identified by Urshan with the church of Laodicea. Those who are lukewarm are divided into two forces, post-millennialists and foolish virgins. Those who hold to post-millennialism work hand-in-hand with higher critics, and the foolish virgins are those who believe in the doctrines that came to be known as the fundamentals, but who resist the Apostolic baptism of the Holy Ghost. 6 These people have no oil in their lamps. For Urshan, the theological division in Pentecostalism was caused by the same invisible armies in the high places that were working in the political realm, in false religions, and in the non-pentecostal expressions of Christianity. [I]t is evident that already many of us Pentecostal people have been influenced in a great measure by the same invisible demoniac forces that have captured the present-day politics, false religions and lukewarm Christians, and have raised them up against Jesus Christ, and these very evil spirits are causing us, also, to fight one another, and God s advanced dealings with some individuals among us. 7 The fate of these lukewarm Christians (e.g., postmillennialists) and the foolish virgins (e.g., nascent fundamentalists) would not be as severe as the fate of the higher critics, but they would miss the rapture of the saints, the marriage supper of the Lamb, and the rewards to be given to those who fought a good fight of faith and kept His WORD and denied not His Holy and Sacred NAME. 8 By missing the rapture, they would find themselves in the midst of the great tribulation. no. 10 (November-December 1930): 15; G. T. Haywood, The Mysteries of the Kingdom, The Witness of God 10, no. 10 (November-December 1930): Andrew D. Urshan, The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ (Los Angeles: n.p., 1919), Urshan, The Almighty God, 66. Emphasis in original. 7 Urshan, The Almighty God, 67. Copyright 2010 by Daniel L. Segraves 3

4 In an obvious nod to the view of some dispensationalists that the seven churches of Asia Minor represented seven church ages, Urshan identified the last days remnant of God as the Church of Philadelphia. 9 This church consisted of those who had stood loyal to their Saviour and His NAME, an evident reference to those who had embraced Urshan s views. He urged his readers to proclaim His matchless NAME alone and renounce every man-made theory and theology on the God-head. He obviously had his own experience in mind when he wrote that those who would do this would soon see that the doors of all assemblies or churches organized and controlled by rules, regulations and creeds invented and confirmed by the vote of their conferences will soon be shut to him. If there is any doubt about this, it is removed by Urshan s own words: Permit us... to be a little personal. We wish we did not have to be, but the occasion compels us to do so. Since we have come forth publicly speaking that which God wants us, and mean to be loyal to the words of our Lord through His prophets and apostles (as recorded in the Book of Acts) and have taken a stand for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the General Council [of the Assemblies of God], which is a Pentecostal people s organization, are trying to close the doors of their assembles and to prejudice the hearts of all the people of God against this glorious message of the Church of Philadelphia... by accusing us through their magazines of wrong doing, seeking to stain our God-given character. 10 In Urshan s view, one must be baptized into the revealed Name of the dispensation of the fullness of times [in order to] escape the terrible hour of tribulation. 11 Urshan s Persian Mission was still associated with the Moody Church when some who attended began to speak with tongues. Urshan was visited by one of the leading Bible teachers of the Moody Bible Institute, a Mr. Hunter. Representing the church 8 Urshan, The Almighty God, 67. Emphasis in original. 9 Urshan, The Almighty God, Urshan, The Almighty God, Urshan, The Life Story of Andrew Bar David, The Witness of God (August 1946): 12. Copyright 2010 by Daniel L. Segraves 4

5 trustees, Mr. Hunter was kind, but he did his best to convince Andrew that there was no need for tongues to prove the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He told Urshan that he could remain and hold his meetings in the Upper Room if he would suppress speaking in tongues. Urshan s answer was that he was too insignificant to withstand God and to quench his Holy Spirit. He asked Hunter to remove his name from the church roll. The reason he gave was that he knew God was pouring out his latter rain on all nations, sealing his chosen ones for the rapture. Urshan said he would count nothing too dear to give up; he was going on. 12 Summary Urshan s eschatology was not unlike that of other early twentieth century Pentecostals. It was not unusual for these Pentecostal pioneers to see baptism with the Holy Spirit with the sign of tongues as a qualifying experience for the rapture of the church, which would spare one from the horrors of the great tribulation. Many did not, however, consign to hell all who missed the rapture. Like other early twentieth century Oneness Pentecostals, Urshan nuanced this view to include baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as a requirement for the rapture. As was common for early twentieth century Pentecostal pioneers, Urshan s view of eschatology was influenced by the Scofield Reference Bible. In retrospect, this is 12 Urshan, The Story of My Life, 1 st ed., 43-44; Urshan, The Story of My Life 9 th Chapter Cont., The Witness of God 4, no. 43 (July 1923): 7; Urshan, The Story of My Life, 3 rd ed., 84; Urshan, Something New Happens, The Witness of God (October 1962): 4; Urshan, The Life Story, 5 th ed., ; Urshan, Some of the Lord s Work In Our Midst During the Last Fifteen Months, Pentecostal Witness of The Grace and Truth 1, no. 1 (October 1911): 13. Copyright 2010 by Daniel L. Segraves 5

6 interesting due to Scofield s rejection of Pentecostalism. This problem has been explored by various Pentecostal scholars. 13 Urshan did not make any unique contribution to the eschatology of Oneness Pentecostalism. His influence is seen more forcibly in his theology, Christology, and soteriology. 13 See, e.g., Gerald T. Sheppard, Pentecostals and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: The Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Fall (1984): 5; F. L. Arrington, Dispensationalism, in The New Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas; rev. and exp. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Zondervan, 2002), 585; Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 28 (eds., John Christopher Thomas, Rickie D. Moore, and Steven J. Land; London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 57. Copyright 2010 by Daniel L. Segraves 6