tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post6212087855953223746..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: "Challenges to the Gospel" and the Assemblies of GodPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47330918076535005642012-07-06T14:50:28.192-07:002012-07-06T14:50:28.192-07:00Just enough time to say this: oh, good heavens. No...Just enough time to say this: oh, good heavens. Now we're deciding truth by polling PhD's? So much for inerrancy, penal substitutionary atonement, 6-day creation, Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, Petrine authorship of 1-2 Peter, sixth-century date for Daniel, unity of Isaiah, and a host of other things you <i>do</i> affirm if you believe the Bible.<br /><br />That is a ridiculous statement. There are no Biblically orthodox continuationists, period. <i>Every</i> Biblically orthodox Christian is a cessationist: every last Christian.<br /><br />It's only a matter of specifics. See <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/08/tersely-put-continuationism-self.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/08/continuationism-and-credulity-east-and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/10/book-review-to-be-continued-by-samuel.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and a host of posts under <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/search/label/da%20Gifts" rel="nofollow">this general tag</a>. There's some more edifying reading for you.<br /><br />This is going well beyond silly. I'm closing the thread until I have time to take the wheel, which is unlikely to come before next week.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13241518810212629922012-07-06T14:48:37.925-07:002012-07-06T14:48:37.925-07:00Juks,
As for your post previous to my post, you ...Juks, <br /><br />As for your post previous to my post, you are correct. It is an elephant in the room. It is very difficult to say, we believe and teach this without the question, what about the years previous to 1906? Where they uninformed, mislead, lacking, etc? Are we rude, arrogant, or wrong to teach or believe as we do? <br /><br />These are excellent questions, the AG and other Pentecostal and Charasmatics need to think on and address. I'm glad you are challenging us here.<br /><br />Nevertheless, because of the last hundred years of doctrinal formation and experience in Pentecostal and Charasmatic camps, we must find a way to express what we see taught in Scripture and what we experience in our churches. Spiritual formation and articulation is still young in the Assembles of God. So, yes, you are right. There is much room for reform and improvement. <br /><br />Again, I'm honored to be apart of this excellent discussion.David Lermyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970396600713426780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58247692366263704822012-07-06T14:45:09.466-07:002012-07-06T14:45:09.466-07:00Juks:
I'm interested in this statement, which...Juks:<br /><br />I'm interested in this statement, which you made to David:<br /><br />"And you never quoted a single prescriptive teaching verse from an apostolic epistle to the church to back up the fundamental tenet of pentecostal teaching which led to many of the real challenges to the gospel."<br /><br />In my Greek New Testament, the historical narrative portions (Matthew through Acts) take up 528 pages, while the remainder of the NT (mostly epistles) takes up 367 pages. Are you saying that we can derive theology only from "prescriptive teaching verse from an apostolic epistle"? If that's what you're saying, I find it odd that God would take the time to inspire historical narratives only to have us disregard them as we put together our theology. Plus, there is an operational canon within a canon here that I find problematic.<br /><br />As for prescriptive verses from apostolic epistles, how about these?<br /><br />"Follow the way of love and eagerly desires gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1 Cor. 14:1).<br /><br />"What shall we say, brothers [and sisters]? When you come together, eachof you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up" (1 Cor. 14:26).<br /><br />"Two or three prophets should [not might, should] speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said" (1 Cor. 14:29).<br /><br />"Therefore, my brothers [and sisters], be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor. 14:39).<br /><br />"We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith..." (Romans 12:6).<br /><br />"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit [Total side question: Why would Paul tell the Ephesians to be filled with the Spirit if they'd already been filled with the Spirit at conversion?], speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit [or spiritual songs]" (Eph. 5:18,19).<br /><br />These verses are prescriptive apostolic teachings, imperatives to exercise charismatic ministries in one form of another. Are you doing these things?<br /><br />My guess is no. Why? Because, it appears to me, your hermeneutic operates this way: Historical narratives should be interpreted by apostolic imperatives, which should in turn be interpreted according to cessationist norms.<br /><br />Dan has raised some tough issues in his post above. But one of the elephants in the room, hermeneutically speaking, is cessationism.<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11986491964554555002012-07-06T14:42:16.738-07:002012-07-06T14:42:16.738-07:00Juks,
On to Point 2 . . . I think that Pentecosta...Juks,<br /><br />On to Point 2 . . . I think that Pentecostals are taken more seriously on this front as well, although we certainly have not won this battle. Many, however, accept the idea of a second work of grace as a defensible position.<br /><br />Personally, I wish we Pentecostals would use different terminology. There should be nothing sacrosanct about the term "baptism in the Holy Spirit" because it isn't actually a technical term. Actually that noun phrase never appears in the Bible. (Verb constructions—e.g., "he will baptize in the Holy Spirit"—do.) I wish we simply spoke about empowerment with or by the Holy Spirit. In Luke-Acts this empowerment is spoken of in many ways including being "baptized in the Spirit" (Acts 1:5; 11:16), being "filled with the Spirit" (Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 9:17; 13:9,52), being "full of the Spirit" (Acts 6:3,5; 7:55; 11:24), "receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), and being "clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49).<br /><br />There is also the problem that people get confused by 1 Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body . . . and all were made to drink of one Spirit." This passage clearly refers to salvation, not a subsequent empowering for witness. But here we have a different author from Acts 2 and a completely different image. In Acts 2 Jesus is the baptizer and the Spirit is the element into which the person is baptized. Here the Spirit is the baptizer and the body is the element into which the person is baptized. The only point of similarity is that the image of baptism is used, but it is used in different ways in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12.<br /><br />If someone were to ask most evangelical believers, "Do you believe it is possible for God to empower you to declare the gospel more effectively?" I'm sure the overwhelming majority would respond, "Yes, of course!" If we remove the problematic phrase "baptism in the Holy Spirit" from the debate, we'll find that we have less over which to disagree.<br /><br />I'll discuss Point 3 in another post.<br /><br />Glen MenziesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14061853260872953695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68691018148669066532012-07-06T14:39:01.432-07:002012-07-06T14:39:01.432-07:00Juks,
I teach and have taught for many years now ...Juks,<br /><br />I teach and have taught for many years now that there are three key ideas at the core of Pentecostalism. I used to call these "distinctives," but we Pentecostals have now convinced so many people of at least one of these points that the word "distinctive" doesn't work very well anymore.<br /><br />The three points are: 1) Gifts of the Spirit are for today, not just the distant past; 2) An empowering for witness is available to those believers who seek it, and this empowering is separate from (and at least logically subsequent to) the salvation experience; and 3) Speaking in tongues is the "initial physical evidence" (i.e., first outward sign) of this empowering for witness.<br /><br />It appears that I'm going to have to divide my discussion of these points into three separate posts. So here goes for Point 1 . . . .<br /><br />Pentecostals have pretty much won the war on Point 1. Today it is quite rare to find a New Testament scholar (which I will define roughly as someone holding a Ph.D. or a Th.D. from a credible academic institution) who is a cessationist. I'm now 56 years old, but when I was a boy cessationism was clearly the predominate view. How times have changed.<br /><br />Not only are the standard cessationist arguments suspect hermeneutically, but they are prime examples of what Reformed theologians often accuse Pentecostals of—basing our theology on experience. Calvin read the New Testament and saw lots of miracles and gifts of the Spirit in operation. Then he looked at the church of his day in Geneva and saw none of that. How could he explain the disconnect? He simply came up with fanciful explanations for why God didn't act in the sixteenth century the way he had in the early centuries of the Church.<br /><br />Also, there is a huge epistemological problem with the cessationist viewpoint. How can someone honestly claim that the faith "stands or falls" on the reality of miracles in the first century, but then refuse to acknowledge the possibility of that sort of thing in the twenty-first century? The mental gymnastics required for this sort of thinking are impossible for me.<br /><br />Glen MenziesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14061853260872953695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155966203252875372012-07-06T14:34:34.192-07:002012-07-06T14:34:34.192-07:00Juks,
I appreciate your response. I'm not sur...Juks,<br /><br />I appreciate your response. I'm not sure I follow you though. May I seek some clarification? <br /><br />1. I am keenly aware of how this all started. I am aware of our AG journal called Enrichment. I am aware that the cover caused many questions inside and outside the AG camp. I am also aware that was all addressed in another post. However, Dan's discussion here is very specific and that is what I'm addressing. <br /><br />2. Are you implying that because I do not live in Africa, that I do not live in the "real" world? Or that I do not live among African Pentecostals, I know nothing of the Pentecostal doctrine? I'm confused what you are meaning here.<br /><br />3. Are you attempting nullifying the appropriate and biblical understandings of the gifts and workings of the Holy Spirit by Pentecostals and Charasmatics by placing this discussion alongside poor church praxis ideas like purpose driven church, prosperity gospel, etc? The AG has positions on the many abuses of poor Pentecostal and Charsmatic theology gone wild. Dan actually mentions that in his post, and he is right, the AG needs to be more and more afressive to deal with poor theology as mentioned in this point.<br /><br />4. Are you implying that the writings attributed to Luke (Luke-Acts) is inadequate to defend a doctrinal position on the Holy Spirit? You said, I did not mention an epistle, I'm guessing you mean Paul, James, John Peter, etc to defend my argument and thus implying my lengthy discourse has zero merit. My four or five consucitive posts dealt with many Sciptures. Are those Sciptures not allowable in this dscussion. Do I understand you right? Or am I missing what you meaning? <br /><br />5. You seem to base your argument not on the place of AG doctrine as it is in written form but on experiences you have had with poor versions of Pentecostals and Charsmatics in generalization, that may or may not connect back to the AG or her doctrines. Experience is powerful, but I can easily blow off or negate your argument by listing poor forms and expressions of your denominational affiliations or theological beliefs, but that is far from helpful, lacks good nature, and does a disservice to healthy and mature dialog. <br /><br />I have numbered my responses to help you clarify what you mean, because I assume on many points I am misunderstanding you. <br /><br />Again, thanks for your response. Plus, I'd really like to hear your thoughs on the many Scriptures I used in Acts t speak of the work and activity in the early church. I'd especially curious because your worldview of living in Africa does help open me up past my own worldview, and that's a very healthy thing. <br /><br />In Christ, DavidDavid Lermyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970396600713426780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37158105148436019152012-07-06T13:58:22.797-07:002012-07-06T13:58:22.797-07:00Hi David. the blog started with the publishing of ...Hi David. the blog started with the publishing of a magazine by the AOG, "the same guys who brought us ..." placing eternal security and calvinism on street pole signs together with Islam, atheism and Buddhism as a list of challenges to the Gospel. I live in the real world in Africa. I can eternally assure you that most of the church here doesnt even know what these things are. They are too busy with purpose driven, church growth, health and wealth, charismania, being baptised in the spirit and gifts and miracles. The world sees this and is not that impressed especially with flashy pentecostal televangelists pratising simony and falling around on the floor or being slain in the spirit. Strong biblical expository preaching is rare. The same guys wanting to warn about challenges to the gospel whilst equating truth with out and out heresy share a large responsibility for the challenges to the gospel that once only spirit baptised, un-gifted guys like us face. that's the point. And you never quoted a single prescriptive teaching verse from an apostolic epistle to the church to back up the fundamental tenet of pentecostal teaching which led to many of the real challenges to the gospel.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946475698072610086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66150350846086768272012-07-06T13:26:16.498-07:002012-07-06T13:26:16.498-07:00The recent comments hold merit for a discussion, b...The recent comments hold merit for a discussion, but do not stick to the main article from Dan. He did not directly address the issue of speaking in tongues here, which I sure he will do in another post or possibly already has in a previous post. <br /><br />The argument that Pentecostals and/or Charsamatics say that 1800 or 1900 years of Christianity have been misled by not being exposed to current Pentecostal doctrine also holds merit, but again, this is not a major question in Dan's current argument. <br /><br />The difficulty of blog comments and discussions are all the tangents being taken. <br /><br />I have yet to find anyone willing to deal with the plethora of Scriptures and comments I have made that deal directly with Dan's original post. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I agree that reform is needed within our AG ranks, just as any open and wise theologian would say about their own camp. Or are we saying, that there as never been adical beliefs other denominations or theological camps? If a radical view arises, do we make it the generalized characiture of the denomination and/or theological camp? Thisis both illogical and improper for a solid, well-meaning discussion to move forward. <br /><br />Again, I appreciate those who, in Christ-likeness, have made some excellent points. May we all be willing to correct any issues we see arise in our own ranks without to much name calling. Thanks for allowing me to be a part of this discussion.David Lermyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970396600713426780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29954392821406617742012-07-06T12:57:43.617-07:002012-07-06T12:57:43.617-07:00theological articulations that were missed by most...theological articulations that were missed by most for 1900 years - from SA Assemblies of God<br />How To Be Filled With The Holy Spirit<br /> <br />1. How Soon Can A Person Receive The Holy Spirit?<br /><br />ONE MAY RECEIVE JUST AS SOON AS HE HAS THE FAITH TO TAKE THE GIFT<br /><br />Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, All these received without waiting<br />Acts 1 : 4-5 Why did these have to wait?<br />Acts 2 : 1 They had to wait for the Day of Pentecost to Dawn, for dispensational reasons.<br />Acts 2 : 32-33 On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was “shed forth”. This cannot be repeated.<br />One wanting the Holy Spirit must “come and drink” – it’s there for him.<br />Calvary, too, cannot be repeated; but we each must personally experience what Christ did for sinners on Calvary.<br /><br /><br />2. Who Can Receive The Holy Spirit<br /><br />Acts 2 : 38-39 “as many etc….”<br />John 7 : 37-39 “If any man thirst …” <br />“…they that believe on Him…”<br />Luke 11 : 13 “…how much more….give….to them that….”<br /><br /><br />ANY SINCERE CHRISTIAN IS ELLGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.<br /><br />IT IS NECESSARY TO ASK FOR THE GIFT. <br /><br />3. What Are The Conditions Upon Which One Receives?<br /><br />Acts 2 : 38 Repent, be baptised, receive (i.e. “take”)<br />Gal . 3 : 13-14 Jesus Christ fulfilled all the conditions when He Died for us on Calvary. <br />He became a curse …. That we might receive the promise of the Spirit Through faith.<br />Gal. 3 : 5 The works of the Law do not enter into it.<br /><br />AS AT CONVERSION YOU ACCEPTED JESUS IN SIMPLE FAITH, SO YOU ACCEPT THE THIRD PERSON OF THE GODHEAD BY SIMPLE FAITH.<br /><br />Luke 11 : 9 “Ask …………receive”<br />REMEMBER : 1) The Holy Spirit is received as a Gift<br />2) Look completely away from yourself, your own merits and your own faults and failures<br />3) Trust utterly and absolutely in the Blood of Jesus to cleanse you from sin and make you worthy IN HIM. (1 John 1 : 9)<br /><br />4. How Does A Person Set About Being Filled For The First Time?<br /><br />Acts 2 :38 “….. ye shall receive …..”<br />NOTE: Gk: ‘lambano’ – receive, take. The meaning Is active, not passsive.<br />“…..YOU SHALL TAKE…..”<br />John 7 : 37-39 Take by drinking in the Spirit.<br />John 20 : 22 Lit : “he breathed in”. Drinking is as simple as drawing breath.<br /><br />5. What About Speaking In Tongues?<br /><br />Acts 2 : 4 The action was reciprocal: the Holy Spirit kept On giving them to speak; they spoke (in active Co-operation with the Holy Ghost)<br /><br />WHEN THE HOLY GHOST COMES IN POWER, GIVE GOD YOUR VOICE, AND HE WILL DO THE REST. GOD DOES NOT FORCE YOU: HE WANTS LOVING OBEDIENCE.<br /><br />6. To Summarise, Then, What Must A Perosn Do?<br /><br />1) Come to Jesus as His child John 7 : 37<br />2) Ask for the Holy Spirit Luke 11: 13<br />3) Take the Holy Spirit Acts 2 : 38 John 20 : 22<br /><br />BEWARE OF THE FOLLOWING HINDRANCES<br />1) Looking to your own worthiness or unworthiness<br />2) Waiting in a passive attitude for something to happen.<br />3) Not giving your vocal organs over to the Lord when once The Holy Spirit is upon you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946475698072610086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60319674681781267232012-07-06T12:42:08.929-07:002012-07-06T12:42:08.929-07:00Nash:
I was trying to inject a little levity into...Nash:<br /><br />I was trying to inject a little levity into the thread. Nothing more.<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69188369640500395762012-07-06T12:37:48.257-07:002012-07-06T12:37:48.257-07:00Well said Matt. Glen. You are not telling the whol...Well said Matt. Glen. You are not telling the whole story. There is not one shred of evidence that what "pentecostalism" teaches was even remotely held to by orthodox Christians for the previous 1900 years (I have heard of Montanists and Irvingites), that is, that after receiving Christ and being placed in the body of Christ through Spirit baptism ie 1Cor 12v13, one must experience another Holy Spirit<br />baptism generally via the laying on of hands and that the evidence of this will be speaking in "tongues" ie languages unknown to the person being baptised. This will lead to the power Jesus describes in acts chapter 1 which will equip the believer for service in a way that another believer who has not experienced the second baptism does not. None of the Apostles teach this "important doctrine" and Paul explicitly states that there is only one baptism. Obviously there will also be other signs evident with these kinds of powerful Christians similar to what the early church experienced. The rest is history. John Tetzel is a paragon of virtue compared with what we have seen in the past 100 years as a result of this very doctrine. This IS the elephant in the room. And again, calling out heresies like Jesus being a perfect and powerful Saviour who doesn't lose his sheep (as he clearly states in John 10) whilst ignoring the "rotten fruit" which HAS been a major cause of Christ's name being blasphemed amongst the gentiles in our day is a sign that the movement isnt owning up to the elephant. Yes, we can believe that this phenomenon was there all along but people like Luther, Edwards, Bunyan, Warfield, Owen, Tyndale and Spurgeon (we can't be sure if Calvin was saved ie servetus) couldnt give a clear theological articulation of it until Seymour, Parham and Semple Mcpherson came along. This is what is taught in AG schools by professors?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946475698072610086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3569749205759324842012-07-06T12:09:48.114-07:002012-07-06T12:09:48.114-07:00George, it isn't a matter of having the last w...George, it isn't a matter of having the last word. You know full well that 1 Cor 4:10 talks about how people who don't believe THE GOSPEL will inevitably view those who do, as fools. Because of THE GOSPEL, not because of bizarre worship practices.<br />Yet you are implying that this verse gives carte-blanche defense to any weird activity that people can dream up, almost as though we ought to go looking for opportunites to be ridiculed as naive dupes, and bring dishonor onto the faith. That's the clown suit I'm talking about. AOG could leave the clown suit without leaving the faith, and then be criticized for following the Gospel rather than criticized for things that are superfluous and unnecesarily silly.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88424058623906070182012-07-06T11:59:36.006-07:002012-07-06T11:59:36.006-07:00Glen, I think you and George have both made very a...Glen, I think you and George have both made very articulate arguments for a "second work of grace" and that Spirit baptism may be seen as a subsequent experience (at least as it is described in Luke/Acts). Also, I think you've offered good push-back to DJP's argument that the AG teaches multiple classes of Christian. As a former AG credential holder (and a former NCU student of yours), I've seen the attitude that DJP cites, but will acknowledge that this is not encouraged by AG leadership and healthy churches within the denomination. <br /><br />HOWEVER, the elephant in the room is the uniqueness of the AG's understanding of the evidence of this second work of grace: speaking in tongues. In other words, one must assert not only that the gift of the Spirit is a subsequent and separate phenomenon to salvation—a belief that has historical precedent and biblical support. But one must also assert that it is ALWAYS initially accompanied by speaking in tongues. If it is not, then one cannot be assured that they have received the gift of the Spirit—regardless of what other fruit or gifts may manifest in one's life. I believe it is this distinctive, not the distinctive of subsequence that causes the AG's understanding of Spirit baptism to stick in the craw non-Pentecostals. And, arguably, it has led to abuses, fake manifestations, manipulation and additional misunderstandings of scripture. <br /><br />I was brought up in the AG. I went to an AG college. I was taught how to interpret scripture properly by faithful AG Bible scholars. When I did so, I discovered that the biblical support for this doctrine is simply not there. I believe there are probably many still in the denomination who have discovered this as well, but remain silent about it, as this is the core doctrinal distinctive of Pentecostalism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18154191906812638456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91389943910905008742012-07-06T11:25:32.820-07:002012-07-06T11:25:32.820-07:00Let's begin with full disclosure here. I'...Let's begin with full disclosure here. I'm an Assemblies of God minister and a professor at an AG university.<br /><br />I'm not interested in responding to all the tangents and charges raised by this blog's readers. I'm not even interested in responding to everything stated in Dan Phillips's article. However, I do want to address the central point of that article, which is that according to the Assemblies of God "I <i>do not</i> have all I need in Jesus Christ" and "I <i>am not</i> fully equipped and fully empowered for service," despite the following passages of scripture, which in his view suggest the opposite:<br /><br />"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32).<br /><br />"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3).<br /><br />"...you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority" (Col. 2:10).<br /><br />"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence" (2 Pet. 1:3).<br /><br />A couple of points need to be kept in mind when interpreting these texts and others like them: 1) The verbs and pronouns are plural, referring to God's blessings poured out on his people (not just individuals); and 2) We have to keep in mind the constant tension found in the New Testament between the "already" and the "not yet," to use the language of my old professor George Ladd. We may have been "blessed in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places"—that is to say Christ's triumph has already taken place—but the full realization and implementation of those blessings in our individual lives often has not yet been experienced. If he thinks about this carefully, I doubt that Dan Phillips will want to argue for a totally realized eschatology at the present time.<br /><br />Let me illustrate this a bit from 1 Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 3:1 Paul addresses the Corinthian community with these words: "But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ." Notice that these are Christians; they are "in Christ." However, they are immature and unspiritual. Everything necessary for Christian maturity and spirituality is there for them, just waiting, but they have not yet appropriated it, even though they seem to think they have it all together.<br /><br />In the next chapter (1 Cor. 4:8) Paul mocks the smug elitism and overly realized eschatology of the Corinthians, who claim to have received all of Christ's benefits, yet who are immature, arrogant, and unteachable: "Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign so that we might share the rule with you!"<br /><br />I'll make one final point. Neither the Assemblies of God nor any Pentecostal group with which I am familiar teaches or has ever taught that the empowering for witness described in the book of Acts (see esp. Acts 1:8; 2:14-21; 8:14-24; 19:1-7), which often comes later than the moment of conversion in both the biblical narrative and in contemporary experience, began in the twentieth century. Pentecostals maintain that this empowering has been experienced throughout church history although usually without clear a theological articulation of what was happening. To say that a person can't experience God's work without a clear theological understanding of what God is doing would then suggest that no one could have received Christ's atonement prior to the time of Anselm, or perhaps for some, even the time of Luther.<br /><br />Glen MenziesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14061853260872953695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23199367906356364102012-07-06T11:10:14.876-07:002012-07-06T11:10:14.876-07:00Nash:
Always with the last word...
GeorgeNash:<br /><br />Always with the last word...<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23270211150755406032012-07-06T10:58:01.639-07:002012-07-06T10:58:01.639-07:00In this case, unnecessarily so.In this case, unnecessarily so.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41257819304809238752012-07-06T10:29:39.063-07:002012-07-06T10:29:39.063-07:00"Clown suit."
Well, yes, we are "f..."Clown suit."<br /><br />Well, yes, we are "fools for Christ" (1 Cor. 4:10).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80269792800757536782012-07-06T10:27:05.785-07:002012-07-06T10:27:05.785-07:00Dan,
I find your perspectives on the Assemblies o...Dan,<br /><br />I find your perspectives on the Assemblies of God quite interesting. To assert that the AG stands in contradiction to the statements of John the Baptist and Jesus just isn’t true. In your reference to Mark 1:8, I would like to make the point that the use of the term “all” does not occur, though I do, as we in the Pentecostal Movement, believe this dimension of the Spirit’s work is for ALL believers (based on Acts 2:38-39, cf. Acts 2:17). Your use of the 1 Corinthians 12:13 is interesting, as you are attempting to make a firm theological argument based on the use of a Greek preposition that has multiple meanings. Though it is possible to translate the text as noting a baptism “with the Spirit,” it seems more appropriate to recognize the preposition “en” and the dative form of the term Spirit as noting the Spirit as the agent of baptism, that therefore baptizes the believer into Christ.<br /><br />In dealing with the beliefs of the AG, I think it is important to understand that the stance of the Movement is that all believers have the Holy Spirit. This is based on Romans 8:16, which is one of the passages used to support our doctrinal presentation of salvation. At the same time, even in the book of Acts, there were issues raised concerning individuals’ experiences of the Holy Spirit after conversion (e.g. Acts 8:14-17). As a result, I must say that Pentecostals are biblically justified in their approach to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (as presented by Luke) as a theologically and logically distinct aspect of the believer’s experience of the Spirit.<br /><br />Due to a lack of time in composing these comments, I will present a classical Pentecostal position concerning the Spirit as two aspects of the Spirits work as revealed within a biblical theological framework. The book of Ezekiel speaks of an inward transformation (see Ezekiel 36-37) with the giving of the Spirit. With regard to the giving of the same Spirit, Joel speaks of a charismatic, empowering work of the Spirit (See Joel 2:28-23 / 3:1-5 [MT]). Following Luke’s use of terminology, along with synonymous language of being “filled,” we as Pentecostals acknowledge the writings of both the OT and NT that proclaim both the conversionary dimension of the Spirit’s work and the charismatic dimension the same Spirit’s work.<br /><br />This, along with the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit until the Lord’s return, signifies the inaugural eschatological fulfillment of the Davidic Promise. This is based on Peter’s presentation of the Pentecost event in light of God’s promise to David (Acts 2:22-36, cf. 2 Samuel 7). As a result, it was because of this that Paul was able to tell the Corinthians that they were lacking no spiritual as they were waiting for the Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.<br /><br />Dan M.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07312380613768698112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77874359643295786012012-07-06T10:24:28.798-07:002012-07-06T10:24:28.798-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07312380613768698112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24196439685519379412012-07-06T10:09:44.877-07:002012-07-06T10:09:44.877-07:00Well George, no one could say that the AG has born...Well George, no one could say that the AG has borne only rotten fruit, but the unbiblical weirdness aspect of it has borne rotten fruit, that's for sure. <br /><br />So you can play the indignant card if you like in an attempt to silence people who are calling out the weirdness and its attendant problems. However if you saw someone going into a debate wearing a clown suit and expecting people them seriously, sorry, it's just not gonna happen. <br /><br />The AG needs to lose the clown suit. Get angry if you want at the people who are pointing it out, but it's the truth, and the unchallengable weirdness in the pentecostal realm isn't helping our shared cause any, that's for sure.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75488148911838951892012-07-06T09:40:46.210-07:002012-07-06T09:40:46.210-07:00MFuller:
"Rotten fruit."
My initial re...MFuller:<br /><br />"Rotten fruit."<br /><br />My initial response is to wonder whether this description of the AG (me? AGUSA? World AG Fellowship?) is more arrogant or more stupid.<br /><br />However, I'll settle for the comforting thought that<br />our "rotten fruit" was thrown into the spiritual compost heap that manured the field that produced the Calvinist version of you.<br /><br />It's about the most charitable thing I can make of your incredibly uncharitable remark.<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62598482450467843312012-07-06T09:37:31.061-07:002012-07-06T09:37:31.061-07:00Household of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10:44–48)...Household of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10:44–48). The narrative about Cornelius reaches its climax with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon him and his household. He was not a Christian prior to Peter’s visit; he was a God-fearer—a Gentile who had forsaken paganism and embraced important aspects of Judaism without becoming a proselyte, that is, a full-fledged Jew. Apparently Cornelius’s household believed and were regenerated at the moment Peter spoke of Jesus as the one through whom “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (verse 43). Simultaneously, it seems, they experienced an outpouring of the Spirit like the one on the Day of Pentecost, as Peter later told the leadership of the church in Jerusalem (11:17; 15:8,9). The expressions used to describe that experience do not occur elsewhere in Acts to describe conversion: “the Holy Spirit fell upon” (10:44; cf. 8:16 [both references NASB Updated]); “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (10:45; 11:17; cf. 8:20); “poured out on” (10:45); “baptized with [en] the Holy Spirit” (11:16).<br /><br />The Spirit baptism of the new believers in Caesarea parallels that of believers in Jerusalem (Acts 2), Samaria (Acts 8), and Damascus (Acts 9). But unlike the experience of their predecessors, they had a unified experience whereby their conversion and their baptism in the Spirit occurred in rapid succession.<br /><br />The Disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7). At Ephesus, Paul encountered a group of disciples who had not experienced the baptism in the Spirit. This incident raises three important questions:<br /><br />(1) Were these men disciples of Jesus or disciples of John the Baptist? Throughout the Book of Acts, every other occurrence of the word “disciple” (mathētēs), with one exception,7 refers to a follower of Jesus. Luke’s reason for calling these men “some disciples” is that he was not sure of the exact number—“about twelve men in all” (verse 7). They were Christian believers in need of teaching; like Apollos (Acts 18:24– 27), they needed to have “the way of God” explained “more adequately” (18:26).<br /><br />(2) What did Paul mean by the question, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit, having believed?” (a strict translation of verse 2).8 He sensed among them a spiritual lack, but did not question the validity of their belief in Jesus. Since in the Book of Acts the clause “to receive the Holy Spirit” refers to Spirit baptism9 (8:15,17,19; 10:47; see also 2:38), Paul is asking if they have had the experience of the Holy Spirit coming upon them in a charismatic way, as did indeed happen to them subsequently (verse 6).<br /><br />(3) Does Paul agree with Luke that there is a work of the Spirit for believers that is distinguishable from the Spirit’s work in salvation? This incident at Ephesus, as well as Paul’s own experience (Acts 9:17), requires an affirmative answer.David Lermyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970396600713426780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82882959420043480152012-07-06T09:36:41.578-07:002012-07-06T09:36:41.578-07:00Here are the rest of the Scriptures in non-summary...Here are the rest of the Scriptures in non-summary from for the argument of subsequence. <br /><br />“Subsequence” in Acts<br /><br />The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–21). The first instance of disciples receiving a charismatic-type of experience occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). The coming of the Spirit on that day was unprecedented; it was a unique, historic, once-for-all and unrepeatable event connected with the institution of the new covenant. But as Acts indicates, at a personal level the disciples’ experience at Pentecost serves as a paradigm for later believers as well (8:14–20; 9:17; 10:44–48; 19:1–7).<br /><br />Was the Pentecost experience of the disciples “subsequent” to their conversion? On one occasion Jesus told seventy-two of His disciples to “rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20).<br /><br />It is not necessary to pinpoint the precise moment of their regeneration in the New Testament sense of that word. Had they died prior to the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, they surely would have gone into the presence of the Lord. Many scholars, however, see the disciples’ new-birth experience occurring at the time the resurrected Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ ” (John 20:22).<br /><br />It is significant that the New Testament nowhere equates the expression “filled with the Holy Spirit” (verse 4) with regeneration. It is always used in connection with persons who are already believers.<br /><br />The Samaritans (8:14–20). The Samaritan “Pentecost” demonstrates that one may be a believer and yet not have a charismatic-type of spiritual experience. The following observations show that the Samaritans were genuine followers of Jesus prior to the visit of Peter and John: (1) Philip clearly proclaimed to them the good news of the gospel (verse 5); (2) they believed and were baptized (verses 12,16); (3) they had “accepted [dechomai] the word of God” (verse 14), an expression synonymous with conversion (Acts 11:1; 17:11; see also 2:41); (4) the laying on of hands by Peter and John was for them to “receive the Holy Spirit” (verse 17), a practice the New Testament never associates with receiving salvation; and (5) the Samaritans, subsequent to their conversion, had an observable and dramatic experience of the Spirit (verse 18).<br /><br />Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:17). The experience of Saul of Tarsus also demonstrates that being filled with the Holy Spirit is an identifiable experience beyond the Spirit’s work in regeneration. Three days after his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1– 19), he was visited by Ananias. The following observations are important: (1) Ananias addressed him as “Brother Saul,” which probably indicates a mutually fraternal relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) Ananias did not call on Saul to repent and believe, though he did encourage him to be baptized (Acts 22:16); (3) Ananias laid his hands on Saul for both healing and being filled with the Spirit; and (4) There was a time span of three days between Saul’s conversion and his being filled with the Spirit.David Lermyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970396600713426780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70710682862430476632012-07-06T09:35:59.984-07:002012-07-06T09:35:59.984-07:00Therefore, Pentecostals base their theology of the...Therefore, Pentecostals base their theology of the HS and the subsequent work of the HS in the life of a regenerate believer on Luke-Acts. Those are the Scriptures we focus on and those are the Scriptures that must be addressed. <br /><br />Now of course, Pentecostal scholarship knows now what others will say. This is by no means a new discussion. People will say, you base an entire doctrine on the book of Acts. Acts is a narrative. Acts is not made to be normative and descriptive. Since I like, Dan, do not have all day since we all have full time jobs (and again, thank you Dan for the discussion) I will simply summarize. I believe those who read will act as solid theological, like Dan, and do their homework. <br /><br />As far as Luke-Acts being a place to base theological understanding read I Howard Marshall's Luke Historian and Theologian. In this book, he does a scholarly job and comes to a profound conclusion that Luke-Acts can be profoundly useful for faith and doctrine. <br /><br />As far as how Charismatic and Pentecostal understandings in a pithy but powerful book, read Roger Stronstad's The Charismatic Theology in Luke. In this short treatise, Stronstad indeed finds grounds for a strongly Spirit-centered theology in Luke. It by no means diminishes the Gospel, but instead speaks of the powerful place the Holy Spirit plays in the life of the regenerate believer, the early church, and the mission of the universal church. <br /><br />And since the issue in the main post is again focused on subsequence, which does not have to default to Dan's view that the Gospel is not enough, that the Cross is not enough, or that I need to upgrade to Christian 2.0. The Bible gives us room to discuss that a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit is active in the life of a believer. For this who would like to see the subsequent debate on a highly academic (yet with practical implications level) check out Robert Menzies and William Menzies book, Spirit and Power. The Menzies chapter after chapter lay out the AG doctrine of the Holy Spirit and focus on the issue of subsequent (the main drive of Dan's thoughtful concern). In the book, they dialog with others who disagree with subsequence such as Max Turner and James DG Dunn, both well-rounded and well respected theologians. <br /><br />All in all, I believe that there is room, finding examples and experiences in the biblical text that allow for a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit without assuming this negates the work of Christ on the Cross. As has been mentioned, it was for our benefit that Christ was crucified so we could experience the regenerating and sanctifying power and present of the Holy Spirit in our lives. <br /><br />Dan, thanks for the challenge and I hope I have added some sense of credible and acceptable discourse to your thoughtful post. Thanks for allowing us all to comment. I believe we all love Jesus and want to see his kingdom prosper.David Lermyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970396600713426780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4675226336303881152012-07-06T09:35:02.543-07:002012-07-06T09:35:02.543-07:00Your challenge is well thought out and worthy of d...Your challenge is well thought out and worthy of discussion. At first glance, it seem to be proof of you point. However, can I not now go and find biblical texts that help disprove your point and help prove mine? What I mean by that, as you so aptly know, is we can play, this Scripture says that and this one says this. You used Scriptures that do not speak of the activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer to disprove a doctrine that speaks to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. <br /><br />Thus, why not take each and every Scripture, which you referenced, in our doctrinal stance and talk of them. Why not address our doctrine and it's Scriptures one by one instead of quoting four Scriptures that "seem" to prove a point that our entire doctrine is off base without actually engaging the Scriptures of the doctrine itself. <br /><br />The AG believes, as George has pointed out already, the orthodox beliefs of the church. We believe the Gospel and we teach Christ and him crucified. And we also teach of the powerful and progressive work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. <br /><br />Which leads to you main point. You believe that we are going against Scripture by believing there is a subsequent work of the Spirit in the life of a believer. <br /><br />Here is a summary statement of the official position of the AG (the fuller position can be found on the AG official website for free) on subsequence, which we base on the early church experience in Acts (I have posted the subsequent argument in longer form at the bottom of this post):<br /><br />1. In three of the five instances—Samaria, Damascus, Ephesus—persons who had an identifiable experience of the Spirit were already believers. At Caesarea, that experience was almost simultaneous with the saving faith of Cornelius and his household. In Jerusalem, the recipients were already believers in Christ even though it may be difficult—if it is even necessary—to determine with certainly the point in time when they were regenerated in the New Testament sense.<br /><br />2. In three accounts there was a time-lapse between conversion and Spirit baptism (Samaria, Damascus, Ephesus). The waiting interval for the Jerusalem outpouring was necessary in order for the typological significance of the Day of Pentecost to be fulfilled. In the case of Caesarea, there was no distinguishable time lapse.<br /><br />3. A variety of interchangeable terminology is used for the experience of Spirit baptism.<br /><br />4. Groups (Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, Ephesus) as well as an individual (Paul) received the experience.<br /><br />5. The imposition of hands is mentioned in three instances (Samaria, Damascus, Ephesus) but it is not a requirement, as evidenced by the outpourings in Jerusalem and Caesarea.<br /><br />6. Even though Spirit baptism is a gift of God's grace, it should not be called “a second work of grace” or “a second blessing.” Such language implies that a believer can have no experience or experiences of divine grace between conversion and Spirit baptism.<br /><br />7. The ideal and biblically correct view is that a time-gap between regeneration and Spirit baptism is not a requirement. The emphasis should be on theological, not temporal, subsequence and separability [sic].David Lermyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970396600713426780noreply@blogger.com