Pentecostal Doctrine

7/31/2019 Pentecostal Doctrine

1/20

The Journal of Ministry & Theology Spring 2004 89-107

THE PENTECOSTAL DOCTRINE OF

INITIAL EVIDENCE:ASTUDY INHERMENEUTICAL METHOD

Douglas C. BozungCoordinator of Missionary Preparation

Greater Europe Mission, Monument, Colorado

The defense of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence pro-

vides informative insights into the use and abuse of proper herme-neutical method.1 This doctrine maintains that the experience of

speaking in tongues represents the initial physical evidence ofthe baptism of the Holy Spirit.2 In other words, every Christianwho experiences the Spirits baptism should necessarily demon-strate the reception of that baptism by the act of tongues speaking.Not all Pentecostals subscribe to this perspective today,3 but thedoctrine of Initial Evidence along with the doctrine of a subsequentbaptism in the Holy Spirit form the sine qua non of classical Pente-

costalism.4

1 Gordon Fee notes that while Pentecostals are frequently praised forrecapturing for the church its joyful radiance they are at the same timenoted for bad hermeneutics (Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament

Hermeneutics [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 83).

2 Ibid., 84.

3 Several Pentecostals cited in this paper, including Fee and MaxTurner, fall into this category.

4 Thus, Article 8 of the Statement of Fundamental Truths of theGeneral Council of the Assemblies of God states, The baptism of believersin the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking withother tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4) (quotedin Fee, 84). The other historic Pentecostal distinctive, now shared by manycharismatics and Third-wave adherents, is the doctrine of subsequence orthe belief in a baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to and distinct fromthe moment of conversion. See R. Dennis Heard, Lets Look at the Re-cord, Pentecostal Messenger77, no. 6 (June 2003): 4-8.


2/20


3/20

Pentecostal Doctrine of Initial Evidence 91

Initial Evidence and to evaluate those arguments in light of gener-ally accepted hermeneutical principles.10

THE ARGUMENT OF HISTORICALPRECEDENT IN ACTS

Description

The classic defense of the doctrine of Initial Evidence is basedupon the hermeneutical argument of historical precedent. Thisargument views the experiences of the early church in the book of

Acts as providing an historical precedent or normative pattern for

the church for all time.11 Specifically, the passages in Acts 2:1-4,10:44-47, and 19:1-7, which explicitly associate tongues speakingwith the reception of the Holy Spirit, are understood as providing anormative pattern for the church today. Acts 8:14-19 and 9:17-19are also sometimes cited as further evidence for the doctrine ofInitial Evidence, though they do not refer to tongues speaking.Corroboration of this belief is found in the disputed ending of the

intended meaning of a passage of Scripture through the implementation of

hermeneutical principles. While the focus of this paper is upon the underly-ing hermeneutics employed by Pentecostals, the discussion necessarilycarries over into the arena of exegesis.

10 An area of investigation beyond the scope of this paper is the rela-tionship of Lucan theology and Pauline theology. Contemporary Pentecos-tal scholars argue that Luke should not be read through the lens of Paul norshould Paul be given primacy over Luke. Rather a biblical theologicalapproach lets each NT author be himself and say what he wants to say,even if it differs in perspective from another writer, and whether or not onewrote a letter and the other told a story (Donald A. Johns, Some New

Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pentecostalisms Doctrine ofInitial Evidence, in Initial Evidence, 149). This may be true, though ulti-mately there must be a harmonious synthesis that respects the doctrine ofinspiration. But the question before us in this paper is the correct means toarrive at a particular authors theology.

11 Not so coincidently, some Pentecostals apply this same methodol-ogy to justify their belief in a baptism in Jesus name only based uponprecedent in Acts.


4/20

92 The Journal of Ministry & Theology

Gospel of Mark, which states that tongues would be one of thesigns that would accompany those who believe (Mark 16:17).12

Evaluation

Those who disagree with this argument from historical prece-dent point out that a distinction is necessary between the proper useof the didactic and historical passages of Scripture.

13 Christian

doctrine should be derived primarily from the didactic portions ofthe NT and only secondarily from the historical. A similar argumentstates that what is descriptive of the early church is not necessarilyprescriptive for the church today.14 Thus, even Pentecostal scholar

Donald Johns acknowledges the inadequacy of the argument ofhistorical precedent and the inconsistency with which Pentecostalshave employed it since there are other patterns in Acts to whichthey do not subscribe.15

Fee points out, however, that many non-Pentecostal sectors ofChristendom also employ the argument of historical precedent inthe defense of their doctrinal views. For example, the mode of waterbaptism, the frequency of the celebration of the Lords Table, andeven the gathering of the church on Sunday rely heavily upon ar-guments from historical precedent.16 While this use does not justify

12 Contemporary Pentecostal Donald A. Johns (Some New Direc-tions, 165) rejects the use of Mark 16:17 on the basis of both its question-able textual support as well as a clear lack of connection between tonguesand the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

13 For example, John R. Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the HolySpirit(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1964), 8.

14 Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All

Its Worth, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 106.15 Johns, Some New Directions, 147. Indeed, the rushing wind and

fire in Acts 2:2-3 is ignored by Pentecostals.

16 Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 87. Indeed, as McGee (Early PentecostalHermeneutics, 100) points out, many independent and baptistic groupsemploy Acts in their defense of concepts of faith, repentance, and churchpolity as well as their desire to return to the purity of the early church.Catholicism is defined by its exaltation of historical precedent (tradition) toa level commensurate with Scripture. Our concern here, however, is with

biblical historical precedent.


5/20


the Pentecostal use of historical precedent, hermeneutical integritydemands that criticism of methodology be consistent.

In addition, some of the hermeneutical issues that confront the

interpreter of narrative passages are also present in the didacticportions. For example, the epistles were not written as theologicaltreatises but rather in response to particular needs and circum-stances that presented themselves at the time of their composition.17Thus, proper hermeneutics demands they be interpreted in light of

the historical context and occasion of the letter. These factors maylimit the scope of the application of a didactic portion to the firstcentury. Furthermore, discovering an authors purpose in writingmay help the interpreter discern the reason for the inclusion of a

particular historical incident or epistolary teaching, but it does notnecessarily answer the question as to whether such a passage pro-vides normative instruction for the church today. Thus, a simpleappeal to the didactic nature of a passage does not of itself resolve

the issue of the normativeness of a teaching. Fee and Stuart adroitlyobserve, Sometimes our theological problems with the Epistlesderive from the fact that we are asking our questions of the textsthat by their occasional nature are answering only theirquestions(emphasis theirs).18

Solution

What then is the means of properly assessing the normativenessor contemporary value of historical precedent in a narrative text?Fee and Stuart maintain that in order for historical precedent to havenormative value for the church today there must be a demonstrablelink to the authors intent.19 As Fee states, What is incidental to the

17 Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 48. Fee and Stuart (49)

speak of the task theology found in the Epistles or theology at the ser-vice of a particular need.

18 Ibid., 77.

19 Ibid., 108. Authorial intent may be defined as the meaning ex-pressed by an author through what he has written. See Norman L. Geisler,The Relation of Purpose and Meaning, Grace Theological Journal 5(1984): 230. According to Geisler, a correct hermeneutical and exegeticalapproach seeks to reveal the argumentof an author through the discoveryof his intention as expressed by what he has written (245). Thus, John

Polhill states with regard to Acts, Beyond Lukes express statement, it is


6/20


7/20


Peter in Acts 10:45-47.22

But two significant observations wouldargue against this conclusion.

First, the fact that this account chronicles the initial conversion

of Gentiles in the presence of an incredulous Jewish audience sug-gests a unique circumstance. Given the unprecedented nature of theevent, additional accounts of Gentile conversion with tonguesspeaking would appear to be necessary to establish a normativepattern. Yet, in each instance in which tongues speaking is explic-

itly associated with the reception of the Spirit in Acts it has to dowith a different group of people each time (i.e., Jews, Gentiles,proselytes of John the Baptist). While such variation demonstratesthe progressive growth of the church (consistent with Lukes over-

arching intent) and the organic unity of these groups to one univer-sal church, it also argues against a normative pattern for futuregenerations.

Second, a comparison of the various accounts of conversion

and the reception of the Spirit in Acts demonstrates a great diversityin order and details that is inconsistent with an attempt to establish apattern of normativeness.23 As Robert P. Menzies observes, IfLuke intended to teach evidential tongues as normative, why doeshe not consistently present tongues as the immediate result ofSpirit-baptism (e.g., Acts 8:17; 9:1-19)? 24

While tongues speaking is not incidental to an understanding ofthe significance of the Cornelius narrative in the argument of Luke,

it is clearly incidental to the unmistakable emphasis throughout thenarrative upon what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy(Acts 10:15b). Thus, the argument from historical precedent for thedoctrine of Initial Evidence fails not only because it is inconsis-tently represented in the text of Acts but also because it is quiteincidental to the larger purposes of the author. What is needed issome other means of substantiation to show that Luke intended to

establish precedent.

25

22 Johns, Some New Directions, 152.

23 For example, in Acts 8 the Samaritans waited for the apostles to layhands upon them in order to receive the Holy Spirit, whereas in Acts 10 theGentiles received the Spirit immediately.

24 Robert P. Menzies, Evidential Tongues: An Essay on TheologicalMethod,Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998): 115.

25 Fee and Stuart,How to Read the Bible, 108.


8/20


In the same manner, the phenomena of visions and the visita-tion of angels as a form of guidance in Acts 10 should properly beconsidered as secondary features of the narrative, whose theological

significance must be determined either from other texts or someexplicit declaration of their significance in the narrative itself.

Accordingly, Pentecostal Robert Menzies concludes, Tradi-tional attempts to offer biblical support for our doctrine of subse-quence [based upon the argument from historical precedent] are no

longer viable.26

THE ARGUMENT OF NARRATIVEPURPOSE IN LUKE-ACTS

Description of Narrative Purpose

More recent arguments by Pentecostal scholars have sought touse the principles and findings of both redaction criticism as well asnarrative theology to validate the doctrine of Initial Evidence.27 Inthe former, an interpreter analyzes the manner in which an author

selected, arranged, and even modified his materials to discern theunique theological perspective of the author. With such a perspec-tive in hand, the writing can then be properly interpreted. For ex-ample, Stronstad insists that Luke reports only those sayings andevents which conform to, advance and illustrate his purposes.28 Hethen accuses some of practicing a hermeneutic of denial becausethey ignore Lukes clear multiplex historical-didactic-theologicalpurpose. Rather he advocates the practice of a hermeneutic of

affirmation that recognizes in Lukes purpose that the disciplesinaugural reception of the Spirit of prophecy is a paradigm for newconverts.29

26 Menzies, Evidential Tongues, 113. Menzies argues instead thatthe nature of the gift of the Holy Spirit as a means of enabling powerfulwitness is an implicit theological argument for its universality as well as itsnormativeness (119-20).

27 See Johns, Some New Directions, 152-56.

28 Stronstad, Prophethood, 21.

29 Ibid., 29.


9/20


Narrative theology recognizes that biblical narratives containboth history and theology and seeks to understand how stories func-tion in the argument of an author.30 A primary purpose alleged for

narrative in antiquity was to provide order, structure, and meaningfor ones own world. Accordingly, Johns argues that one of thepurposes of the stories in Acts was to provide a paradigm or pat-tern of how to live my life, what kind of experiences to expect withGod, etc. 31

A similar approach is the argument ofnarrative imperative. Forexample, Douglas Oss argues that the narratological equivalent ofan imperative32 is inherent in the fulfillment of the instructions ofJesus to his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power

(dynamis) when the Holy Spirit comes upon them. For Oss, thefulfillment of this promise throughout the remainder of Acts is animperative that should be obeyed even today. Furthermore, repeat-ing themes, details, phrases, behaviors, etc. serve to control inter-

pretation, adding emphasis and specifying communication of cen-tral meanings. 33

Evaluation of Narrative Purposes

Pentecostals should be commended for seeking to link their in-

terpretation of Luke-Acts to authorial intent. They also are correctin seeking to discover the parenetic purpose of the text for present

generations. Unfortunately, many of the same criticisms brought tobear against the older argument of historical precedent also apply tothese newer, albeit more sophisticated, arguments.

One difficulty inherent in these approaches is the apparent as-sumption that a particular story or narrative was selected because ofits normative value to succeeding generations. One must seriouslyquestion whether all narrated experiences are selected for the spe-

30 According to Johns, Narrative theology asserts that the story-form itself has significance for theology (Some New Directions, 130).

31 Ibid., 154.

32 Douglas A. Oss, A Pentecostal/Charismatic Response to C. SamuelStorms and A Pentecostal/Charismatic View, in Are Miraculous Gifts

for Today?, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 262.

33 Ibid., 235.


10/20


cific purpose of teaching a normative practice or paradigm for thechurch. For example, the sale of possessions and property by thechurch in Jerusalem (Acts 2:45) is rarely, if ever, cited as a para-

digm for the church today. As in the case of the argument fromhistorical precedent, apart from an explicitstatement as to the nor-mativeness of an action or an event (e.g., Do this in remembranceof me), the interpreter must defer to other portions of Scripture thatprovide the theological framework for understanding and applying a

particular narrative.In response, Stronstad criticizes such a hermeneutical approach

as inferring that Luke-Acts has little to say to contemporary ex-perience.34 Yet, this criticism ignores Lukes clear statement of his

historiographical and apologetic purposes in writing (Luke 1:1-4),purposes that continue to be of particular utility to this day. It alsodemeans the contemporary value of the great themes communicatedin Acts such as world mission, the providence of God, the empow-

erment of the Spirit, and the triumph of the gospel.35

Another difficulty, previously mentioned, is the absence of

consistency in the details between episodes cited as demonstratingan alleged normative pattern. To this Stronstad replies that in theinterpretation of narrative one must separate the historical particu-larity of a narrative episode from its programmatic/paradigmatic

function.36 According to Stronstad, the diversity of circumstancespresented by the various episodes involving the reception of the

Spirit in Luke-Acts should not be used as an argument against theconsistent pattern of charismatic empowering of the Spirit for Christian service.37

Interestingly, Stronstad generalizes with the phrase charis-matic empowering, presumably because Spirit baptism as evi-denced by tongues speaking is not consistently presented in thevarious episodes cited in Acts by Pentecostals, a consistency that

would be expected if indeed Lukes purpose were to teach such aspecific pattern. Indeed, it is not merely the circumstances of the

34 Stronstad, Prophethood, 28.

35 See Polhill, Book of Acts, 403-7.

36 Stronstad, Prophethood,30.

37 Ibid., 31.


11/20


narratives that vary, as Stronstad alleges, but the veryparadigm thatsupposedly links tongues speaking and Spirit baptism has signifi-cant variations from episode to episode. 38 This is the fundamental

weakness of his proposal.

Conclusion Concerning Narrative Purpose

As stated above, there is the need for explicit attestation of an

historical event or practice in order to clearly establish its para-digmatic or normative value for the church today. Fortunately,Luke-Acts is not the sole basis upon which to adjudicate this matter.The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12-14 must also be con-

sidered in a manner that is able to demonstrate the consistencybetween the theologies of both authors. The following sectionsexamine the exegetical arguments and underlying hermeneuticsemployed by Pentecostals to do this.

THE ARGUMENT OF THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THEGIFT OF TONGUES IN 1CORINTHIANS 12-14

Description of the Distinctiveness

Almost since its inception Pentecostalism has maintained thatthe gift of tongues as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is a phe-nomenon distinct from the initial evidence of the Spirits baptismas described in Acts.39 By this means Pauls potentially devastatingrhetorical question, Do all speak with tongues? (12:30), becomes

irrelevant to the issue of whether or not all persons baptized in theSpirit should manifest tongues. As will be demonstrated below, thearguments employed touch upon fundamental hermeneutical issuesof word usage and context.

38 There is no mention of Spirit baptism or tongues speaking in theconversion of the Ethiopian eunuch nor of many of the converts of Paul inhis various missionary journeys.

39 Larry W. Hurtado, Normal, but not a Norm: Initial Evidence andthe New Testament, inInitial Evidence, 196.


12/20


Evaluation of the Distinctiveness

Is there hermeneutical justification for a distinction in the na-

ture of tongues between Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14? For exam-ple, does Luke employ the term glwssa in a manner distinct from

Pauls usage? Clearly, the tongues of Acts 2 are known humanlanguages (2:6, 11). Indeed, a survey of the use of glwssa reveals

two primary meanings throughout the NT: the human organ or ahuman language. Without any explanation, one major Greek lexi-con classifies the use ofglwssa in 1 Corinthians 14 as the broken

speech of a person in religious ecstasy. 40 Yet, Carson asserts thatcareful word studies have shown that glwssa never denotesnoncognitive utterance.

41

Thus, Pauls meaning must be intelligi-ble in the light of Lukes attested meaning.

That the tongues of 1 Corinthians are not human languagescould be suggested by Pauls hypothetical statement, If I speakwith the tongues of angels (1 Cor 13:1). Fee suggests that theCorinthians and probably Paul thought they could.42 In this man-ner, the unintelligible nature of modern tongues is seemingly justi-fied.43 Yet, this solitary text is presented as a hypothetical protasisin a hyperbolic context (vv. 2-3). This hardly seems a conclusivebasis for the supposition that the biblical gift of tongues is largely

unintelligible speech. Also, in light of Acts 2, is it reasonable tomaintain that all expressions of tongues today are tongues of an-

40 BAGD, 4th rev. ed., s.v. glwssa.

41 Carson, Showing, 80-81.

42 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1987), 630. That the Corinthians believed they could speak withtongues of angels should perhaps come as no surprise, given the carnal

state of their thinking and behavior (1 Cor 3:1-3).

43 Turner notes, The great majority of taped examples of tonguesprove to have no genuine linguistic structure (Max Turner, Tongues: AnExperience for all in the Pauline Churches?Asian Journal of PentecostalStudies 2 [1998]: 249). Likewise, exhaustive studies have concluded thatmodern tongues are lexically uncommunicative and the few instances ofreported modern xenoglossia are so poorly attested that no weight can belaid on them (Carson, Showing, 84). Thus, modern tongues would appearto bear no resemblance to the biblical description of the phenomenon.


13/20


14/20


15/20


use of tongues. Thus, while not all will speak with tongues in thegathering of the local church, all can and should speak in tonguesprivately.51 In this way, Pentecostals may conclude that while

Luke tells us nothing about tongues in congregational worship, andPaul provides no hint of glossolalia as initial evidence, we mayharmonize their evidence with little fear of distortion.52

The contextual oversights in this argument are legion. First,following the same reasoning, the exercise of the apostolic, pro-

phetic, and healing gifts would also be restricted to the gathering ofthe church since they occur in the same list of rhetorical questions(1 Cor 12:29-30). That this is patently false is seen in a simple read-ing of Acts (e.g., 8:36-41; 21:4, 11). Second, Paul is clearly refer-ring to the universal church in verse 28 when he states, God hasappointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets. To see areference here to the local gathering of the church would be absurdin the extreme, implying as it would a plurality of apostles in the

local Corinthian assembly.53

Third, while Paul evidently distin-guishes two possible spheres for the use of tongues, he uses thesame terminology to refer to all manifestations of the gift.

Conclusion Concerning the Distinctiveness

In summary, the Pentecostal attempt to distinguish betweenkinds of tongues, whether between Luke and Paul or within Paul

himself, is fraught with hermeneutical difficulties, chief of which isa frequent disregard for context. While the purposes of tongues mayhave been several, the fundamental nature of the gift as a knownlanguage does not appear to vary in the text of Scripture. Carsonconcludes, Certainly tongues in Acts exercise some differentfunc-tions from those in 1 Corinthians; but there is no substantial evi-

51

See Robert P. Menzies,Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1994), 203-4.

52 Observation of Max Turner in Tongues: An Experience for all inthe Pauline Churches?Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998): 231.Turner argues convincingly that even 1 Corinthians 14:5 implies that not allspoke in tongues in the Corinthian assembly (Ibid., 243-47).

53 Ibid., 239.


16/20


dence that suggests Paul thought the two were essentially different(emphasis his).54

THE ARGUMENT OF THE DISTINCTIVENESS OFPAULS DOCTRINE OF THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT

Description of the Doctrine

Ultimately, the doctrine of Initial Evidence rises or falls on thePentecostal definition of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subse-quent work of the Spirit following conversion. The primary text

around which most debate swirls is 1 Corinthians 12:13, though

other passages, interpreted correctly, present an equal challenge tothe Pentecostal doctrine.55Many Pentecostals chafe at what they describe as the non-

Pentecostals reading of Luke through a Pauline grid. As Oss states,To put an epistolary language test to a narrative is hermeneuticallyunsound.56 Thus, in response to what they perceive as a fundamen-tal error in hermeneutical method, Pentecostals insist that the

Pauline description of the baptism of the Spirit is in no way a detri-ment to either the Pentecostal doctrine of Subsequence or InitialEvidence as derived from Acts.

Evaluation of the Doctrine

One interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is that the baptism ofthe Spirit described by Paul is a post-conversion experience consis-

tent with the Pentecostal understanding of various episodes in Acts.

54 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 83.

55

Unger refers to six passages in the epistles (1 Cor 12:12-13; Rom6:3-4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:10-12; Eph 4:5; and 1 Pet 3:21), which bear upon thedoctrine of Spirit baptism. The passage in 1 Corinthians, however, is themost important, both because it clearly refers to Spirit baptism and it treatsthe subject comprehensively (Baptism and Gifts, 95).

56 Oss, A Pentecostal/Charismatic Response, 236. He further argues,The interpreter should not flatten out legitimate biblical diversities in theinterest of traditional systematic-theological categories (Ibid., 252). Tothis all would agree. The question, however, is whether the Pentecostalsynthesis of Luke and Paul is hermeneutically and exegetically defensible.


17/20


Yet the universal nature of verses 12-13 (all the members, weall, Jews and Greeks) argues strongly against the limitation ofthe we to only those who have experienced a post-conversion

baptism. The hermeneutical fallacy here, as Carson correctly notes,is insensitivity to the context.57

A more subtle interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 seeks todistinguish the we who have been baptized into one body as areference to the converted and the we who have been made to

drink of one Spirit as a reference to those who have experienced asecond work of the Spirit.58 Yet, the obvious parallel constructionof the two metaphorical phrases cannot possibly support such atheological distinction.59 This is classic case ofeisegesis. As Pack-ard notes, Reference to a second blessing has to be read into thetext; it cannot be read out of it.60

A third argument distinguishes the baptism in the Holy Spiritdescribed in the Gospels and Acts (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5;

11:16) from a baptism by the Holy Spirit described here by Paul.This argument depends upon translating the preposition enwith twodistinct meanings in the same prepositional construction: en pneu-

mati. One alleged basis for this distinction in the English translation

is the fact that making the Spirit the element in which the believer

is baptized leaves the rite without an administrator. In the Lucan

contexts, Jesus is always the baptizer.61 But against this Carsonobserves, Whenever the verb baptize is used in the New Testa-ment, it is the medium of the baptismwater, fire, cloud, and soforththat is expressed using this preposition en (en), not the

agent.62 Thus, the hermeneutical fallacy is what Silva describes as

57 Carson, Showing, 45.

58 For example, Howard M. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Bap-tism in the Holy Spirit(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 100-101.

59 Carson, Showing, 45-46.

60 J.I. Packard, Keep in Step with the Spirit(Old Tappan, NJ: FlemingH. Revell, 1984), 203.

61 Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 99.

62 Carson, Showing, 47. See also, James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in theHoly Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift


18/20


overemphasis of subtle points of grammar and vocabulary inorder to establish a doctrinal position.63

For Oss the above arguments are quite beside the point since

Paul is not specifically addressing here ones enduement withpower but he is using the language [of Luke] to make a pointconcerning unity in the body of Christ.64 Thus, Oss argues thatsimilar language does not mandate similar meaning. In defense ofhis argument, one might point to the different use of the term justi-fication by Paul and James or, more appropriate to this debate, thedifferent use of the concept of being filled with the Spirit inLuke-Acts and Paul (Eph 5:18). Yet, even as Oss observes, thecontext of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is one replete with a discussion ofthe Spirits empowering ministry through the various spiritualgifts.65 For this reason, how can Oss be sure that Paul is using thelanguage of Spirit baptism in a sense different from Lukes use?Obviously, such a supposition facilitates the means of reconciling

the teaching of the two writers in a manner consistent with Pente-costal distinctives. But this is an evident imposition of theologicalpreunderstanding upon the text. Pauls point concerning unity in thecontext immediately preceding and following this passage is pre-cisely that it is the one and the same Holy Spirit that empowers eachmember of the body for service (vv. 4-11) such that all are neces-

sary and all are dependent upon one another (vv. 14-27). Thus, thevery diversity of the gifts provides an essential unity of the body of

Christ through the Spirit.66

of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Naperville, IL: Alec R.Allenson, 1970), 127-29.

63 Walter C. Kaiser and Moiss Silva, An Introduction to BiblicalHermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 60-63. Silva explains, If

a proposed meaning cannot be established apart from an appeal to a gram-matical subtlety, chances are that the argument is worthless (Ibid., 63).

64 Oss, Pentecostal/Charismatic View, 258.

65 Ibid., 259.

66 Robert L. Saucy, An Open but Cautious Response to Douglas A.Oss, in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1996), 301.


19/20


Conclusion Concerning the Doctrine

In summary, as Dunn concluded more than thirty years ago in athorough critique of the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism,Unless recourse is had to semantic sleight of hand ... there is noalternative to the conclusion that the baptism in the Spirit is what

made the Corinthians members of the Body of Christ, that is, Chris-tians.

67For this reason the Pentecostal doctrine of Subsequence

and its corresponding teaching of Initial Evidence through tonguesspeaking cannot be sustained biblically.68

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

An examination of various hermeneutical devices employed in

defense of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence reveals sig-nificant difficulties. Attempts to justify the doctrine on the basis ofhistorical precedent or the principles of narrative theology are eitheroverstated or inconsistently applied. Likewise, attempts to harmo-nize a Pentecostal understanding of Luke-Acts with Pauline teach-ing results in the need to violate basic principles of synchronic word

study and contextual control in interpretation.Meanwhile, important lessons have been learned regarding the

use and abuse of the same hermeneutical principles in non-Pentecostal circles. These lessons include the dangers of readingScripture through the lens of experience, forcing the text to answerthe readers questions, drawing unsubstantiated conclusions fromhistorical events, divorcing word meaning from attested usage,ignoring context, and overemphasizing subtle points of grammar.

67

Dunn,Baptism, 129.68 As Saucy observes, ... The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost in-

volves more than empowerment . Rather it has everything to do withthe superiority of the salvation that would come through the Messiah. Inthe case of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17), Cornelius (Acts 10:45-47), andthe Ephesians (Acts 19:1-7) the issue was the reception of the Spirit re-lated to the new covenant salvation that comes through faith in Jesus(Open but Cautious Response, 300).


20/20


May the Lord guide his people into the right understanding ofhis Word through the proper use of hermeneutical principles andmethods.

Pentecostal Doctrine

Documents

Transcript of Pentecostal Doctrine