Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Did E.N. Bell Convert to the ’New Issue’ in 1915?

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

This Article is currently unavailable for purchase.
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

Cover image Placeholder

Excoriated on charges of theological weakness, indecisiveness and compromise from 1915 right down to the present, E.N. Bell remains one of the controversial and contested figures within early American Pentecostalism. The point of contention was Bell’s rebaptism in 1915 and alleged adherence to the ’new issue’. Trinitarian Pentecostals thought Bell had defected while Oneness Pentecostals continue to view Bell as a backslider from the truth. An analysis of the documentary evidence concludes that both perspectives were, and are, incorrect.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation