• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Coolhand

  1. That respect is mutual my friend. I have enjoyed your friendship and conversation over the 15 something years that I have known you, and I appreciate the patience and kindness you have had with me over the years. I noticed that many of the writers in the article mentioned Isaiah 53. The New Testament writers have always seemed to interpret that to be talking about Jesus, where the people that the text was written to interpret it otherwise. Luke also interprets Is 53 to be talking about Jesus, but in my opinion focusing only on as being rejected and then killed. There was a time in my Christian walk that I had what I thought was "the answers" to many questions that I now am not so sure about. As you were saying about education and its effect of opening new avenues of thought I totally agree with. It seems the more a person "knows", if they are completely honest, they become aware of how much they do not know. There are sermons that I have preached in a cavalier manner that I look back on and now pray that people will forget most if not all of what I had said. I recently received a "last chance" to renew a subscription to a theological resource, and the carrot dangle was the different modules that they now offer: Baptist theology, Reformed theology, Pentecostal theology, etc. These different flavors of theological thought, in my opinion, are not advancing the honest study of theology but are rather fueling apologetic type debate and enforcing the barriers to the discovery of the truth, and barriers to true brotherly fellowship. Of course to this company it is about making money by providing an alleged service or resource. There are things that are written in the Bible that give me great comfort and there are things written in the Bible, I agree with you about and wonder how a loving God could have "inspired" some of the things written to be written. Or, if God had anything to do with inspiring some of it but is given the credit for it, and you know as when as I do, when someone claims that God told them this or that, the conversation is over. Then it turns into a "bow in submission to God" thing. Which then presents another problem, which is: "Is God telling all these different people different things?" Somehow I doubt it. I would argue that keeping it simple is anything but simple.
  2. Hey Pete. As far as I can see in Luke, his point for recording the death of Jesus was to show that Jesus had been a prophet rejected by the people. Luke has a theme of showing fulfillment of what he read in the Septuagint, to show that Jesus fulfilled the points that he had selected from that text as far Jesus being the anointed prophet and the restoration of prophetic activity among the Jews. From what I understand by reading Luke and what others say about the writing that they credit to Luke, being "filled with the spirit" was a Septuagint phrase that Luke used often, but not in a filled with the spirit as in how John or Paul would use it; like sanctification or salvation. Luke used it more in the sense of a vocational empowering: "so and so was filled with the spirit and then__________." Restored prophetic activity, being filled with the spirit; these seem to be the emphasis of Luke to show fulfillment of earlier prophets to point to Jesus at the anointed and soon to be rejected prophet. Atonement is not really mentioned. I would agree that Luke is missing the clear element of atonement, which is going to cause some people to try to find it indirectly so that they can claim the Luke does hold to that theology, for some reason. In regard to church, I currently do not belong to one, only the christian motorcycle club and this one here (ULC). In regard to school, I could assert or argue anything I want as long as I demonstrate a mastery of the required reading for the course; I only have to meet and be able to explain the course objectives, I don't necessarily have to agree with the conclusions. The lack of atonement in Luke, honestly, I never really noticed it until you brought that up. I guess I had always assumed it was in there. In regard to gospels, John was the one I had used the most, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke. I like Luke though, because it does have a different point of view. I am looking through this course material and it is unlikely that atonement will even come up, the main sections are: I The hermeneutics of historical narrative; II The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of Luke: Jesus as the Anointed Prophet; III The Holy Spirit in Acts: The Disciples as Spirit Baptized Prophets; IV The Holy Spirit in Acts: The Acts of the community of prophets. The main focus is on the prophetic element. If I come across any atonement discussions or comments in the course material, I will share them with you. By the way, I spent some time watching the Yale University lectures that you posted yesterday. That is some really good material. Thanks for sharing that.
  3. I have re-enrolled in the course THE EXPOSITION OF PNEUMATOLOGY IN LUCAN LITERATURE at Global University . Global is a theological distance education school in the Pentecostal tradition and it has several schools: 1) The discipleship and evangelism school; 2) The coursework for credentialing with the Assemblies of God called Berean School of the Bible ; 3) The undergrad school of theology; and 4) The graduate school of theology. The graduate school of theology has Master of Arts programs in biblical studies, Master of Arts programs in ministerial studies, a Master of Divinity program, and a Doctor of Ministry program. It is an accredited school but obviously not a Harvard or a Princeton. I have decided to resume work in the graduate school of theology on the Master of Arts in ministerial studies: Leadership Concentration program. I have completed all of the core courses except this one, and I have taken two electives: Hebrew 1 and Hebrew 2, which I completed at Reformed Theological Seminary virtual campus and have transferred into this program. I do not plan on doing the thesis track, but rather doing the coursework and doing a capstone paper. I have quit this program twice because I really don't like the distance education model, but only have 5 classes until I graduate so it made sense to tough it out and just finish it. I plan on putting some thoughts here for discussion as I go through. If you know of a good book that deals with Luke's quotations and allusions of the Old Testament please share. This class deals a lot with Luke's usage of Old Testament and intertestamental writings, but the coursework limits the discussion to the differences between Evangelical and Pentecostal scholars/writers. One of the big topics that is dealt with in first unit is the issue of historical precedent from narrative portions quoted by NT writers of the OT, and NT narratives as normative patterns for today's believers/Christians. This always seems to be subjective. My angle currently is to discover how the writer of Luke uses historical precedent and then compare that to the course reading material. More to come.......
  4. Here's a little folly to lighten the courtesy of my conservative club brothers who thought I would find this compelling ......ay yi yi
  5. I'm getting off to a slow start in regard to my Revelations study. I have been listening to it audio bible style and also the Gospel of John. I'm curious about the author of Revelations. The author claims to be John, and it seems that there could be a couple of people that "john" could refer to. It seems to be a common thought that John is the apostle John. This is why I have taken to reading the Gospel John and Revelation to the similarities. There does seem to be a common theme of good and evil, and the thought that God and Jesus want to take residence with believers. I'm not saying that John the apostle is without a doubt the author, but that he could be. I have been wondering about what is the appropriate hermeneutic approach to use with Revelation, and the bible in general. One might think with the number of classes I have taken in Bible College and seminary that I would have a good answer for that. I bring this up because of the authorship question. If it is the apostle John, then it would seem that the date would be mid-late to late first century. I can’t recall for certain, but I think Revelation was quoted by other writers as early as 125 AD. Regarding the hermeneutic question, it seems the approach used by theologians and scholars is not he hermeneutic that was used by example of the biblical authors. Trained theologians seem to want to study the history, grammar, syntax, etc., try to determine authorial intent, and the original audience. By looking at how the New Testament writers handle the Old Testament, I have made the following conclusions: 1) The linguistics, grammar, and syntax don’t seem to be a thought or even discussed. The New Testament writers seem to refer to ancient translations as comfortably as the Hebrew text. The translation whether it is good or poor doesn’t seem to be an issue. 2) The New Testament writers don’t seem to be concerned with taking the parts of the Old Testament that they are quoting in any kind of context. They seem to make allusions out of narrative, and generally interpret things in a Christological sense even though it wouldn’t appear as if that was the Old Testament writer’s perspective. Almost like the New Testament writers high-jacked the Hebrew Scriptures to serve as illustrations for Christian topics. 3) Timothy says about the Bible ( probably referring to the Old Testament- I’m not sure what he would have had for New Testament scriptures, and what he would have thought would have been New Testament scripture) that it is profitable for correction, teaching, rebuke, and instruction in righteousness. He believed it was inspired or “God breathed”. To me that seems different than conservative viewpoint of infallible or inerrant. I don’t doubt the reliability of the Bible, but I don’t think the reliability of it can be measured without have all of the background, actual authorial intent, and context. Some of the books in the Bible they are not sure who wrote them, or when they were written, or what the point of them being written was. It is hard to use something with that much question surrounding for anything but devotional value, assuming that can be found in it. Those things aside, I will say God speaks to me through the Bible, and he illuminates things to me that may not be in context with what the poetry or prose I and reading is saying; so I do believe in some kind of inspiration even though I know I don’t (can’t) interpret everything I read in there correctly. My original intent was use the 4th Revised Edition Greek text to study the book, and I may get back to that, but I have abandoned that for the moment, mainly because of the numerous distractions that presents to someone like me. At one time I thought the study of Scripture would be best if done in the Hebrew for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament. Then I got turned on to the Pe**ta (pesheeta in case the bad word filter blanks it out) which I was told was supposed to be the complete Aramaic New Testament which was about 100 years earlier than the oldest complete Greek text. That turned out to be a 4th century or later Syriac translation of the Greek. Syriac is like Aramaic but it is not what I thought it was. The Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament texts are not just one text that they found somewhere that clear up any and every doubt that person like me can have. Rather, they are an aggregate translation/version in the original language that has been corrected and clarified by other translations/and versions both more and less recent, using other translations/version that are easier to understand to correct and understand some of the more confusing Hebrew and Greek parts. I am now trying to avoid the endless rabbit trails of following variant readings and the significance of each in favor of using a couple of English translations (NIV, NRSV, ESV) which use the most accurate and reliable manuscripts and versions, and the peer review of 100 scholars, 75 scholars, and 100 scholars respectively. Having spent time recently in the Gospel of John and Revelation I feel I have a more simple approach and thoughts about Christianity, a return to the simplicity of the faith so to speak. I’ve gone through a lot of changes in 2015, stuff became really upside down for a while, and then I wound up discarding most of what I thought was important and worthwhile for the last 10-15 years. Spending time in the book of John has helped reaffirm the power of a simple faith in Jesus Christ, and the power of my own personal testimony, of what God has done in my life. In regard to the Christian faith, I would say that John is probably the most important book and that John 3:16 is the most important verse; just my opinion, but there seems to be such power in them.
  6. One reason is personal interest. Another is the challenge because of the layers of symbolism. Also the familiarity of other biblical books (and possibly non biblical) required to make sense of the content of the book. I've been told Revelation is like a crown jewel of Scripture that presupposes a mastery of all the other biblical work to really understand, however, I have heard and read opinions about what the book is supposed to be saying and have never been that impressed or convinced that anyone really knows. It claims to be an unveiling or a revealing of Jesus Christ and his ultimate victory. That would make sense as a Bible book. The author seems to be a mystery, who or what the beasts and creatures in the book seem to be a mystery, when it was written also seems to be a mystery, and how to interpret the symbols also seems to be a mystery. I personally have wondered why the book was even in the biblical canon. For centuries people have sought to find fulfillment of these symbols, beasts, creatures, and events within their own generation. As long as I can remember people in the churches that I was associated with in the past have used this book in a futuristic sense to prove the end is coming and is right around the corner and you better get ready. I have read though it many times but never put any effort into study of it, and there is some Christian theology in there, but it is not explained, it is rather presumed that the reader gets it, I kinda like that. Much of the theology discussed in the Bible studies and sermons I have heard seems to get stuck on the smaller parts that make up the whole, and seems deductive where as the theology in Revelation is more big picture and more inductive; it doesn't really explain itself but gives the results (Chapters 2-4, the letters to the churches). The best answer to "why" is probably personal interest.
  7. I have taken interest in the Book of Revelation these days. I have never really been interested it that much other than reading through it but not really studying it seriously. I have decide to devote some time and serious study to it. I have not really gotten started yet. I have been brushing up on my biblical Greek and some of the fundamental of the language. I intent on leaning heavily on the Greek and the Greek Old Testament for references to the Old Testament. It appears that the allusions to the Old Testament are sometimes from the Hebrew and sometimes from the Greek. I haven't quite made up my mind in regard to how I feel about the book, other than I think it is interesting. I have been told/taught all my life that it was describing future events, but I'm not sure that I buy into the futuristic interpretation as a legitimate approach. They say there are four ways to approach the book: preterist, allegorical, ideological, and futurist; I kind of lean towards the preterist view currently, but am still undecided. I have bought some exegetical commentaries on Revelation to assist. I have several of the regular type commentaries and though they seem to find some devotional value to the text, I am more interested in a high level of study. I was able to find four exegetical commentaries, so we'll see what they have to say. I would be interested in hearing any opinions that people currently have about Revelation as well as any discoveries made from study of Revelations.
  8. I'm not necessarily trying to "re-invent the wheel" here but there is a definition of a chair, and something else called the internet, with a semi accurate other thing called wikipedia that has a definition of a chair.......just sayin....
  9. Beside the whole using these to argue for the existence of God thing, I think they make perfect sense. In to color, I don't think that is a good application, being color blind for one, it is an irrelevant point to me, and pretty subjective to anyone else. Im thinking more along the links of a chair...........a chair cannot be a chair and not be a chair at the same time, a chair is either a chair or not a chair, and a chair is infact........a chair.
  10. Hey guys,I wanted to share something that we discussed in a theology class in Bible College and get your opinions, and see if you agree, and what the objections would be. The material is from a book written by Norman Geisler, who is a philosopher/theologian. I'm not so jazzed that his examples are about arguing the existence or non-existence of God, not how I would go about that; I guess you have to bait the hook for the intended audience if you want to sell books. The laws are more what I'm interested in discussing. Thanks
  11. Creationism is based on a poem....stick with the science.
  12. That is insane. I'm not sure what it is going to take before the whole world turns on these people. I can imagine that their "evidence" needed to convict is not very much. I really don't understand how people can think they are serving God by these kinda of actions, and I know the Bible contains barbaric instances of "God influenced" genocide, and I don't get that either.
  13. Hey, In 2003 I completed the Doctor of Biblical Studies program. I can not find my certificate for for that. Is there any way to purchase a new certificate? Thanks, Coolhand
  14. I just got back in town, thank you all for your kind words. The first thing that people have said when this has come up is usually about a crisis of faith or a loss of faith. My relationship with God, as I understand God, is still very good, my Biblical studies continue, and the ministry that I have been called to is still going strong. I recently had a phone conversation with one of the sectional leaders about this. He was told to call me and make some sort of a concession to see if it could be worked out. I told him no, there was nothing to work out. But I gave them a few things to look into about a close friend that is still in their system that I feel like is being taken advantage of.
  15. Sent this to my club brothers earlier tonight: "Hey guys, I want you guys to hear this first from me rather than from someone who does not care enough to get the facts straight. I have made the decision to get out of ministry completely EXCEPT for Warriors of the Cross MC. I am resigning my credential with the Assemblies of God, I have resigned from New Life Assembly of God in Ramona, and I have withdrawn from the seminary that I was attending. Over the last 20 years, I have been involved in church and attempting to grow as a minister and I feel that I have been continually taken advantage of and loaded down with work loads that are not mine, and honestly, I have had enough. I am tired of being asked for money, time, and whatever else they can think of all in the name of "serving the Lord" and "building the kingdom." I am burned out, fed up, and not doing it any more. I originally got involved with the church because I wanted to serve the Lord, I pursued a credential to validate that I was a legit minister, and I enrolled in seminary because I thought the point was to "correctly handle the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). What actually happened was that "serving the Lord" became building the business, the "validation" became a tool of the denomination to compel me to me to do more and more to help the (business) financial bottom line, and "correctly handling the word of truth" goes against the grain of the business machine that we refer to as the contemporary church; they would rather misquote, misrepresent, and use the word for their own purposes. Because of all this, I have fallen behind at work, my wife has felt like she has been the last on my list, and I have been pushing the limits of fatigue and insanity trying to get it all done. My relationship and commitment to the Lord is strong and healthy and my commitment to the club (real ministry) is the same as it has ever been, nothing to worry about. That is the truth, if you hear anything other than that, it is someone's opinion." By the way, I renewed my ULC ordination in April of this year (2015).
  16. No pedal, I turn every thing up to straight up noon, and use the volume knob on the guitar.
  17. That is an exegetical fallacy to use that Scripture to say what you are using it to say, unless you are saying also that knowledge has ceased also.
  18. I'm not saying that it all of it is legit by any means. Like I said before, I've always had a problem with the freak show some people turn these things into. I have witnessed legit operations of this, and fake emotional and theatrical attempts to impress people; more fake than legit. So, I would say that I am not always convinced either Pete.
  19. Introduction From the elected leaders of our nation and others, to the biblical scholars to who write the commentaries which aid people in the understanding of Scripture, differences of opinions abound. While there is much agreement, there are also many philosophical and theological chasms that cannot be bridged. One such topic of disagreement is in regard to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some church denominations claim that when the person becomes a believer, they then are filled with the Holy Spirit. Others believe that being filled with the Holy Spirit is something that comes along after a person becomes a believer. This specific subject causes sharp disagreement about the current practice of exercising the gifts of the Spirit that are listed in the Bible, whether these gifts still operate in the body of Christ today, and if they were a sign at the change of the era only to be used to indicate that a new era was starting. After surveying some of the commentaries written by Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal scholars, this writer has concluded that the reason for the differences of opinion in regard to what Scripture says about the baptism of the Holy Spirit is that the non-Pentecostals scholars hold theological presuppositions that force them to approach the works of Luke through the writings of Paul in a systematic theological manner, rather than employing a biblical theology based on exegesis and allowing Luke to speak for himself. This paper will focus mainly on the work of the non-Pentecostal scholar F. F. Bruce. Exegetical and Hermeneutical Examples F. F. Bruce "studied at Aberdeen, Cambridge, and Vienna, and taught at Edinburgh, Leeds, and Sheffield," was the "Rylands Chair of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at Manchester," and he was the "foremost figure in the post-World War II resurgence of evangelical scholarship in Britain" (Douglas 1982, 108). He was an educated man with a passion for the Scriptures. The following is an examination of his commentary on the Pentecost narrative in Acts chapter two. It was concluded in the unit one assignment that Luke's intent for writing was that Theophilus "may know the certainty of the things" of thing he was taught (Luke 1:4) which can legitimately classify his work as didactic. Then the New Testament writer Paul affirms that there is a biblical precedent for using biblical narratives for didactic purposes (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; and 2 Tim 3:16-17). With this as a paradigm, we now look as Bruce's work. Bruce has a selective approach to historical precedent: he will use an Old Testament passage to interpret the Pentecost narrative, but will not allow the Pentecost narrative to be used to shape the practice of the contemporary church. In Acts 2:1-4, the Pentecost event was narrated. Luke described a what appeared like "tongues of fire" (2:3) resting on each person there, and they were all "filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues" (2:4). Bruce claimed that the activity described there was the Spirit of God moving using the Old Testament narrative of Numbers 11:26 to interpret the New Testament Acts narrative. In the Numbers 11:25-26 narrative the Spirit that was on Moses was also given to his elders it says: "Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they did not do so again. . . . the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp." From the comparison of these two texts Bruce concluded: "the descent of the Spirit on the disciples was attended by prophetic speech" (1955, 52). This shows that his approach to hermeneutics will allow for historical precedent to be used in the interpretation of New Testament passages with Old Testament passage. Bruce goes on to clarify his position of this event with the use of a foot note where he quoted Loyd which states that "the coming of the Spirit is followed by irregular and abnormal phenomena," and "strange and novel spiritual experiences" (1955, 52). It seems rather certain that Bruce is implying his agreement with Loyd that this event is a not repeatable or normative event. Bruce's goes on to make the claim that "the baptism of the Spirit which was our Lord's prerogative to bestow was, strictly speaking, something that took place once for all on the day of Pentecost" (1955,70). From this statement it becomes clear that Bruce does not view the baptism of the Spirit accompanied with speaking in tongues as a historical precedent in regard to the practice of the contemporary church, nor that it is a normative practice for contemporary Christians. The use of historical precedent that was used by Bruce to interpret this event is not evenly followed through with to allow for normative for practice. Bruce appears to interpret the Spirit baptism at Pentecost as a "Once for all" (1955, 70) event. Bruce describes the prophetic speech in Acts 2 as "prophetic speech of a peculiar kind-utterance in 'other tongues'" (1955, 52). He then appeals to Paul to define this activity through what Paul had written in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28-30; 14:2-19. This indicates that Bruce is operating with a presupposed position. This is not allowing Luke the ability to speak for himself, and it is using a Pauline lens through which to view the work of Luke. Bruce is attempting to interpret the Acts 2:1-4 narrative in a systematic theological approach rather than a biblical theological approach. This may solve one problem for Bruce, but it then creates another. In the text that Bruce is quoting as support for his position, Paul makes a distinction between prophecy and tongues: "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified" (1 Cor 14:5). The difficulty is that Bruce claims that the speaking in tongues in Acts 2:1-4 is a type of prophecy, but he is appealing to Paul who states that prophecy and tongues are two different things. Then there is the conflict with Bruce's own statement above "So now the descent of the Spirit on the disciples was attended by prophetic speech, but prophetic speech of a peculiar kind--utterance in 'other tongues'" (1955, 52). But then Bruce frustrates his own position by saying "glossolalia or any or any other ecstatic utterance is no evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit (1955, 52). So, first he claims the tongues was prophecy so that his process of identification with Numbers 11:26 works, but then he down plays the significance of the tongues by saying that it is no evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Bruce does not acknowledge that the purpose of of Luke's writing was to teach "Theophilus" about his faith and that he wanted him to "know for certain" what he had been taught. The disregard of the this statement made by Luke at the beginning of Luke chapter one effects how one view the genre of Luke's work. Other interpretations of the text that Bruce offers is that: (1) the "whole world" is represented by those nations listed in Acts 2: 9-11 who heard the Galileans speak in their languages ( 1955, 54, 55, 61); (2) The "darkened sun" referred to by Peter when quoting Joel 2:28 was fulfilled by the darkened sun when Jesus was on the cross (1955, 62); (3) Bruce recognizes that there is a transfer theme in his commentary on the Pentecost narrative. His comments and acknowledgement of this transfer theme mention the Spirit transfer from Moses to the elders (though he does not mention the transfer in his commentary, he quotes Numbers 11:26 which describes it). In reference to the transfer theme with Jesus he said: "He who had earlier received the Spirit for the public discharge of his own earthly ministry had now received that same Spirit to impart to his representatives, in order that they might continue, and indeed share in, the ministry which he had begun" (1955, 67). And then in reference to Peter's call to repentance: "the call to repentance had been sounded by Jesus and John" (1955,69). Bruce's scope and focus of the commentary from which these examples were cited were to explain the Pentecost event. His recognition of the transfer theme could be more developed but if so it is not displayed here. The non-Pentecostal position of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as being a sort of "initiation" in to Christianity, rather than an equipping for ministry may be described by Bruce in his commentary on Acts. He states: ". . . it might have been expected that, when the disciples experienced the outpouring of the Spirit from the day of Pentecost onward, they would discontinue water baptism as having been superseded by something better. In fact they did not: they continued to baptize converts in water "for the forgiveness of sins," but this baptism was now part of a more comprehensive initiation which took its character especially from the receiving of the Spirit" (1955, 69). In this quote, Bruce incorporates Spirit baptism with water baptism and offers the conclusion that the both together are "comprehensive initiation." The main issues with Bruce's approach to historical precedent are that he inconsistently uses it to interpret Scripture to comply with a presupposition about normative practice, and that he interprets Spirit baptism as an initiation into the body of Christ rather than a prophetic inspiration for divine service. Challenges to the Non-Pentecostal Interpretation The Pentecostal theologian can easily challenge (and defeat) the position of the non-Pentecostal in regard to this subject by following through and equally applying the exegesis and hermeneutics of the non-Pentecostal. There is agreement between Dunn, a non-Pentecostal scholar, and Menzies, in what the appropriate exegetical approach should be. Dunn correctly questioned and then explained: "Are we to approach the NT as systematic theologians or as biblical theologians and exegetes? The common error . . . is to treat the NT (and even the Bible) as a homogeneous whole, from any part of which texts can be drawn on a chosen subject and fitted into a framework which is basically extra-biblical. . . the method of the latter is to take each author and book separately and to (attempt to) outline his or its particular theological emphases; only when he has set a text in the context of it's author's thought and intention (as expressed in his writing), only then can he biblical-theologian feel free to let that text interact with other texts from other books."(1970, 39). Menzies, who is a Pentecostal scholar, quoted Dunn (2000, 191) in agreement. It is the opinion of this writer, that the way to challenge the non-Pentecostal on the issues raised concerning the didactic normative intent of Luke's Acts chapter two narrative is to challenge them to, as Dunn put it, let Luke's "theological emphasis" be noted apart from Paul's. Also instead of using the same definitions for words such and "tongues" and "prophesy," avoid the embarrassment of forcing another biblical writer's word definitions on another. Once that is done and the biblical writer (Luke in this case) has been given his full voice, let his text interact with other biblical writers. Summary The difference of opinion that exists between Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals lies in the exegetical and hermeneutical practices and the presuppositions of the non-Pentecostal scholars. Rather than letting Luke's work stand, it is adjusted to fit into a Pauline form which is likely to agree with the church practices of the non-Pentecostals. To state the issue more clearly: the hermeneutical disagreement between Pentecostal scholars and non-Pentecostal scholars appears to be directly proportional to their disagreement in church practice, rather than exegesis of Scripture. Conclusion The scholar looks at the works of other writers as an opportunity to further interact with the subject matter. The average church member is just trying to understand the Bible and does not necessarily desire to be a scholar or read numerous different works to find answers to their questions. There is potential for a variety of responses from the contemporary church ranging from engaged interest to frustrated confusion resulting in abandonment of the faith. The implications of these differences in approach and understanding can be destructive. To the layman, it appears as if scholars are arguing over minutiae and details that are not very important. To the scholar they believe they are following the rules of exegesis and hermeneutics and pointing out the grave errors and violations of the the rules that the others making. Not only does it appear as if there is no agreement or consensus among these scholars, but it set the pace for how the rest of the church handles disagreement. In the opinion of this writer, it looks as if practice and presupposition in the contemporary church trump exegesis and hermeneutics, and that the latter are only used to as a hammer to beat down the opposing view. WORKS CITED Bruce, F. F. 1955. The Book of Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Douglas, J. D. "Bruce, F. F. (Frederick Fyvie)" In , in Who's Who in Christian History, ed. J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 108. Dunn, James D. G. 1970. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press. Menzies, William W. and Robert P. 2000. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.