Coolhand

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.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair

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.

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

Creationism is based on a poem....stick with the science.

Christians do what all the time in Africa?

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.

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

Thanks guys.

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.

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).

No pedal, I turn every thing up to straight up noon, and use the volume knob on the guitar.

Yes.....its a homework assignment.

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.

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.

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.

I have been at several different services where there was a massage given in tongues and then people heard the message in their native language, such as: Native American, Islander, and African dialects.

Yes, noted. As it turned out, my position changed when I revised the paper. I suppose the issue is that i had always agreed with Fee in his break down of genres and interpretation rules. My position leaned towards the idea that Acts is a history book and that theology should be be sought in works of history, but rather in theological writings. This makes sense and I always followed that rule. So in my revision, I was more impacted by Stronstad's use of Paul's comments in regard to the use Scripture as being an "example" for us, Paul himself seems to agree that history can be used to determine what should be normative in practice. Plus, Fee himself with the historical genre rule also said that if the writer of the historical work "intends to teach" with his work, you must then allow for that authorial intent. As I reread Luke chapter one, it seemed to be hard to ignore that Luke's stated reason for writing was so that Theophilus would know with certainty about the things that he was taught. That changed my opinion, which I suppose is point of doing research.

Yeah, I'm afraid that is pretty accurate in a lot of the cases. I think I have become a bit disillusioned about the whole church thing in my current stage of life. I mean I am still committed to ministry, but have found that it is a hard and thankless road to travel. Most people in church want to act like they are Bible scholars yet they really don't want to learn the Bible. And I dig the Bible, but the Bible is secondary at best. People seem to want to have a church to fellowship in, but don't seem to be serious about supporting the ministry. I have come to the point in my ministry that I am done trying to be the Bible teacher, and the counselor, and all the other things expect a pastor to be. I am glad that I remained bi-vocational and have never taken a salary from a church. I'm really interested in people seriously seeking God, regardless of denomination or faith; I feel like that is the main point, aside from all the theatrics and hype, I want that to be the main point in my ministry anyway.

Yeah, I have had the same problems. I left Pentecostalism several times due to the pressure that some people place on the speaking in tongues and the related freak show that Pentecostalism tends to bring with it. My opinion is that the encounter with God and dwelling in presence of God should be the focus; not fulfilling some sort of check off list.

Terms used: Fairness, inequity, and unequal.

Interesting question Von. In my case............ I got interested in the ULC in 2002, in May I believe. I needed to be able to do weddings as a biker chaplain and I had heard about he ULC from some other bikers that had their own interesting reasons for ULC ordinations. After getting involved in some discussions here, and discovering that my viewpoint was challenged regularly, I became interested at getting better at arguing my viewpoint. I really enjoyed the online fellowship and then the chat room was born and a lot of us got to know each other pretty well. We had chat room sermons of all kinds, it was great. In 2004 I wanted a recognition that was a little more Christian specifically. Josh told me about the UCFM, and I went after that, it took about a month to do the courses and I got through it. But I remained with the ULC because I didn't like the discussion and attitude of the Christian only forum page. I was pretty involved on and off over the years. I have since become ordained with the Assemblies of God (2012), finished a Bachelors in Ministry (2009), and am now finishing a Masters in Ministry (2015?), but I find the ULC to be the place for discussion and fellowship. I was involved in other ministers groups and have left all of them but this one. I have over 10 years of friendship with some people on this forum. I never got involved with the numerous pop-up forums that people from here have started. I have meet with people in person with people from here and have always been blessed by the meeting. People may affiliate with the ULC for various and sundry reasons, but the people that participate here is what keeps me coming back. Blessings

There is no pickle conspiracy......trust me, I'm a pastor.

Introduction Christians form their theology from what they read and study in the Bible. The Bible has over forty authors and was written over many years, each writer was inspired by the Holy Spirit but used his own vocabulary, personality, and mannerisms. Each writer and each book is flavored with the culture from which they lived. There are many different styles and literary expressions used in the Bible. The Bible contains various types of literary genres such as: historical narrative, legal code, poetry, wisdom literature, apocalyptic, gospel, epistle, etc. (Arrington 1988, 377). Each of these genres has its own set of rules for interpretation. Along with the different types of genres, there are two basic modes of literary communication: 1) poetry; and 2) prose. Poetry is the mode often used by songwriters and lovers to express emotion, whereas prose is often the discourse of choice for those written acts of communication whose predominant aim is to inform (Longman 1993, 69). The Pentecostal doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is mainly derived from the book of Acts which is written as prose and falls into the genre of historical narrative. Narrative tells a story; its events are related to one another by an explicit or implicit cause-and-effect structure (Longman 1993, 70). The principles, rules, and methods for the interpretation of literary text are called hermeneutics (Arrington 1988, 377). Stronstad points out in regard to historical narrative, that there is a science and an art to the hermeneutics of this literary genre (Stronstad 1995, 38). There is a debate in current scholarship in regard to how the rules of hermeneutics apply to the book of Acts and the validity of the Pentecostal position of the baptism in the Holy Spirit that is formed from this historical narrative. In this work I am going to summarize the two main positions, discuss the relevance of this debate to the Pentecostal doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I will share my position in this debate, and then discuss the role of experience in the interpretation of these events recorded in the book of Acts. The Two Main Positions Stronstad frames the debate over the hermeneutics states about this current debate: Those who spar academically over the use or abuse of the narrative of Acts for Pentecostal theology sit in one of two corners. The Pentecostals, with their pragmatic hermeneutic are in one corner; their opponents, who advocate scientific methodology, are in the other corner (Stronstad 1995, 37). These two main positions of this debate that are presented in the course reading material are presented by Gordon Fee and Roger Stronstad as: 1) For a biblical precedent to justify a present action, the principle of the action must be taught elsewhere, where it is the primary intent so to teach (Fee and Stuart 1982, 101); and 2) There is a biblical precedent for using historical narrative for didactic purposes, therefore it can be legitimate to use historical narrative as a basis for normative practice (Stronstad 1995, 38). Gordon Fee states that "unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way" (Fee 1982, 97). Fee goes on to say, "The Word of God in Acts that may be regarded as normative for Christians is related primarily to what any given narrative was intended to teach . . . Historical precedent, to have normative value, must be related to intent" (1982, 99). Also "If it can be demonstrated that Luke's intent in Acts was to lay down a pattern for the church for all times, then that pattern surely becomes normative (Fee 1982, 89). In regard to historical precedent Fee says, "The use of historical precedent and an analogy by which to establish a norm is never valid in itself. Such a process (drawing universal norms from particular events) produces a non sequitur and is therefore irrelevant" (Fee 1991, 94). To Fee, just because something is recorded in the Bible as and actual historical event, it does not legitimately give the expectation of that event becoming a norm or a standard for future behavior. Roger Stronstad argues that Luke was a theologian and his point for writing was to teach coming generations about what Christianity was supposed to be, therefore it is legitimate to use Luke's narrative to establish the experiences of the early church as normative for future generations. He criticizes his opponents for "alleging an unbiblical dichotomy between the so-called descriptive and didactic passages of Scripture" (Stronstad 1984, 6). Stronstad claims that "there is in fact a biblical precedent for historical precedent" (Stronstad 1993, 5). He quotes the New Testament Apostle Paul: 1) "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom 15:4 NIV); 2) In regard to the experience of Israel in the wilderness Paul says "these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Cor 10:11 NIV), the version Stronstad quoted (1984, 7) used the words " for our instruction" instead of "as warnings"; and 3) "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Stronstad is using Scripture to argue his point rather and a hermeneutic system. These passages he quoted aptly make the point he is trying to argue. The Relevance of the Debate The heart of the relevance issue in this debate is the picking and choosing which historical events should be regarded as normative. It should be acknowledged that there is difficulty with historical precedent being interpreted as teaching or establishing norms. It can get confusing and difficult to sort out such as: 1) Acts 1:26, they prayed about who was to replace Judas and "Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles (NIV); and 2) Acts 4:32 "All the believers were of one heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own but they shared everything they had" (NIV). The relevance to the debate here is this: if historical precedent is set by things that were done, then are we prepared to roll the dice to select our leaders and share everything we with own with everyone? This debate is relevant to all Christians, because it affects what should be normative in all churches. All groups believe that they are serving God in the most accurate biblical fashion. The relevance of this debate is foremost to the Pentecostal theologian. This debate can either prove the theology of the Pentecostals to be true, or it can render the theology of Pentecostals a heresy that is founded on poor hermeneutical practices. In fact, until the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, Evangelicals thought Pentecostals should be classified as a cult (Menzies 2000, 29). At the least, many denominations would need to re-write their statements of belief and stop asking people to leave for experiencing the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. This debate is often framed as a "somebody has to be wrong" debate. The Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals all have an interest in this debate because it affects what should be normative in all churches. The issue of "subsequence" becomes relevant also at this point. The term subsequence in regard to the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the receiving of the baptism as an event that happens after a person receives the Lord Jesus as their savior. The subsequence doctrine comes from the Assemblies of God fundamental truth number seven (Fee 1991, 84). According to the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals, this baptism happens at the time of salvation; it is not a distinct and subsequent event. But if the precedent was set with Cornelius and his group who received the baptism in the Holy Spirit at the same time they received Jesus as their savior, this could backfire on the Pentecostal and better prove the Fundamentalist / Evangelical position. There is an assumption made by the Assemblies of God in fundamental truth eight (Fee 1991, 84) regarding speaking in tongues being the initial evidence of receiving the baptism. The assumption is that in all five passages speaking in tongues was the initial evidence, when in fact only three passages state that was the case. This is relevant to the debate because good exegetical and hermeneutical practices does not allow us to make assumptions about what Scripture does not say. To summarize, the relevance of this debate of historical precedence regarding these passages in the book of Acts is important because many churches would have to rethink their program. Fundamentalists generally believe that speaking in tongues, prophesy, healing and many other works of the Holy Spirit stopped when the apostles died out. Evangelicals believe these gifts can still continue to operate today, but that they do not always. Pentecostals expect the church to function as it did in the first century and like the book of Acts states. This debate is relevant because of the three different positions. The result is disunity among brothers. My Position Stronstad argued compellingly that Luke's pattern of writing was that of the Old Testament writers, and that Paul used the Old Testament narratives with didactic purpose: If for Paul the historical narratives of the Old Testament had didactic lessons for New Testament Christians, then is would be most surprising if Luke, who modeled his historiography after the Old Testament historiography, did not invest his own history of the origin and spread of Christianity with a didactic significance (Stronstad 1984, 7). Giving strength to Stronstad's argument is the often repeated claim amongst Christians that the Bible interprets itself; biblical theology studies and Scriptural surveys do work this way. This is demonstrated by the common practice of using clearer portions of the Bible to interpret more difficult passages in the Bible. I agree that Luke surveyed and arranged his material to teach "Theophilus". Of course the debate continues on whether Theophilus is a person or a body of people, regardless, Luke makes a statement in chapter 1:3-4 that exposes his intent: Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke's intent seems very clear there. I point out also that Fee said if the intent of Luke could be determined to teach a normative paradigm, then he would support that interpretation (Fee 1982, 89). The reservations I have in regard to Stronstad's position, is the potential for abuse of the use of historical precedent. I understand that with anything comes the potential for abuse, but there is some inequity right from the start, such as the passages about women being silent in church (1 Tim 2:11), women not holding leadership positions (1 Tim 2:12), and haircut rules for men (1 Cor 11:14). I think we must tread lightly and carefully in these areas. My position in this debate is with Gordon Fee. I feel that it is easy for everyone to claim that they know what the the author's intent was. I think it is foolishness to attempt to speak from authority about what Luke's intent was in regard to everything he wrote. Fee's position is much humbler and safer in my opinion, and though Stronstad makes a good argument for the points that he is arguing, the snake handlers use the same theory for justifying their theology. Therefore, I think that the historical precedent can give us a range of what has resulted in the past, but that we should seek the clear teaching portions of Scripture to form our doctrines. The Role of Contemporary Experience If one experiences the Spirit baptism as it is described in the book of Acts, then one would find support biblically for that experience. These portions of Scripture would resonate as true and would be confirmation that the person who experienced it was living out a biblical Christianity. Fee commented on this: It is probably fair to note-and important- to note that in general the Pentecostal experience has preceded their hermeneutics. In a sense, the Pentecostal tends to exegete his or her experience (Fee 1991, 86). This whole debate is about Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals all doing just that. The Fundamentalist and the Evangelical will deny the Pentecostal has any better understanding about the Scriptures that deal with Spirit baptism because of his experience, but will argue that their understanding of Scripture is superior to someone who has not received Christ because of their own born again experience. The Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals claim that the Pentecostals are exegeting their experience rather than Scripture in regard to the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit being speaking in tongues. I would also argue that those who have not experienced this subsequent baptism accompanied by speaking in tongues use that to confirm and inform their exegesis. My position is that this debate which is relevant and important to all three groups of Christians will not be argued exegetically or hermeneutically; the experience of the person will determine which camp they fit in, and that will determine their hermeneutic. Conclusion The methods and rules in hermeneutics give us a good structure and foundation from which to interpret the Bible, and this is necessary to in order to navigate the numerous styles and genres that are contained in the Bible. However, there are still going to be differences in opinion in regarding the art behind the application of the science. Luke definitely wrote to instruct, but as it is seen in this debate, there is disagreement in regard to the extent to take that to mean. The only firm foundation in regard to Christian doctrine is what is explicitly taught by the writers of the Bible. The history is helpful for us today to see the effect of that teaching and what kind of personal and social changes that it caused. To observe an effect and then claim that this is what should always be the effect or normative practice is like the tail wagging the dog. I believe it is fair to assume that the experience of the person or group of people is going chart course for the hermeneutic that the person or group embraces. The best that can be hoped for is that we would all read more, study more, and draw closer to the Lord as we know and understand Him. . REFERENCE LIST Arrington, French L. 1988. "Hermeneutics, Historical Perspectives On Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements." In The Dictionary od Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 376-389. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Fee, Gordon D. 1991. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. 1982. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Longman, Tremper, III. 1993. "Biblical Narrative." In A Complete Guide to the Bible, 69-78. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Menzies, William W. and Robert P. 2000. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Stronstad, Roger. 1984. The Charsimatic Theology of Luke. Peabody: Hendrickson. . 1993. The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent. In Paraclete. Volume 27, Number 3:1-10. . 1995. Spirit, Scripture, & Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective. Baguio City: APTS.

Introduction Christian scholarship has historically been dominated by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals leaving the burden of proof to rest on Pentecostal theologians to prove the hermeneutical legitimacy of their theological positions. A specific example of this is the Pentecostal position of initial evidence and subsequence which is rejected by both the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals. The scope of this work is to summarize the two main positions in this debate, explain the relevance of the debate, to state and defend my position in the debate, and discuss the role that contemporary experiences have in interpreting first-century experiences that are recorded in the Bible. The Doctrine at the Center of the Debate Pentecostal doctrine and teaching is well aligned with orthodox Christian theology on all points except the teaching about the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the accompanying sign of speaking in tongues (Menzies 2000, 29). The doctrine at the center of this debate is clearly defined in the Assemblies of God fundamental truths seven and eight: Fundamental Truth 7: All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowal of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-32). This experience distinct and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 15:7-9). With the baptism in the Holy Ghost come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37-39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Hebrews 12:28), an intensified consecration to Him and a dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love for Christ, for His Word, and for the lost (Mark 16:20). Fundamental Truth 8: The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4). The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4-10, 28), but different in purpose and use (Assemblies of God 2003, 216-217). The Two Positions There are various opinions of theologians on this doctrine, and degrees of tolerance toward the position of the Assembly of God fundamentals seven and eight. The two main positions this work will address are that of Gordon Fee and Roger Stronstad. Both are Pentecostal Assemblies of God ministers. The disagreement between Fee and Stronstad is not regarding the reality of the baptism in the Holy Spirit or the legitimacy of this experience, but rather in the hermeneutics and application of the Scriptures in regard to this doctrine. Gordon Fee states that "unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way" (Fee 1982, 97). Fee goes on to say, "The Word of God in Acts that may be regarded as normative for Christians is related primarily to what any given narrative was intended to teach . . . Historical precedent, to have normative value, must be related to intent" (1982, 99). Also "If it can be demonstrated that Luke's intent in Acts was to lay down a pattern for the church for all times, then that pattern surely becomes normative (Fee 1982, 89). In regard to historical precedent Fee says, "The use of historical precedent and an analogy by which to establish a norm is never valid in itself. Such a process (drawing universal norms from particular events) produces a non sequitur and is therefore irrelevant" (Fee 2006, 94). To Fee, just because something is recorded in the Bible as and actual historical event, it does not legitimately give the expectation of that event becoming a norm or a standard for future behavior. Roger Stronstad argues that Luke was a theologian and his point for writing was to teach coming generations about what Christianity was supposed to be, therefore it is legitimate to use Luke's narrative to establish the experiences of the early church as normative for future generations. He criticizes "alleging an unbiblical dichotomy between the so-called descriptive and didactic passages of Scripture" (Stronstad 1984, 6). Stronstad claims that "there is in fact a biblical precedent for historical precedent" (Stronstad 1993, 5). He quotes the New Testament Apostle Paul: 1) "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom 15:4 NIV); 2) In regard to the experience of Israel in the wilderness Paul says "these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Cor 10:11 NIV), the version Stronstad quoted (1984, 7) used the words " for our instruction" instead of "as warnings"; and 3) "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Stronstad is using Scripture to argue his point rather and a hermeneutic system. Theses passages he quoted aptly make the point he is trying to argue. Stronstad argued compellingly that Luke's pattern of writing was that of the Old Testament writers, and that Paul used the Old Testament narratives with didactic purpose: If for Paul the historical narratives of the Old Testament had didactic lessons for New Testament Christians, then is would be most surprising if Luke, who modeled his historiography after the Old Testament historiography, did not invest his own history of the origin and spread of Christianity with a didactic significance (Stronstad 1984, 7). Giving strength to Stronstad's argument is the often repeated claim amongst Christians that the Bible interprets itself; biblical theology studies and Scriptural surveys do work this way. This is demonstrated by the common practice of using clearer portions of the Bible to interpret more difficult passages in the Bible. Relevance of the Debate The relevance of this debate is foremost to the Pentecostal theologian. This debate can either prove the theology of the Pentecostals to be true, or it can render the theology of Pentecostals a heresy that is founded on poor hermeneutical practices. In fact, until the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, Evangelicals thought Pentecostals should be classified as a cult (Menzies 2000, 29). This debate is often framed as a "somebody has to be wrong" debate. The Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals all have an interest in this debate because it affects what should be normative in all churches. All three groups believe that they are serving God in the most accurate biblical fashion. This entire discussion rests on five portions of Scripture in the book of Acts, and they are: 1) 2:4, the Holy Spirit came to their prayer meeting and they were filled with the Holy Spirit and they spoke in tongues; 2) 8:17, in Samaria Peter and John placed their hands on some believers prayed that they would receive the Holy Spirit and they received the Holy Spirit; 3) 9:17-19, Ananias prayed for Saul and he received back his sight and was filled with the Holy Spirit; 4) 10:44-46, Peter was preaching at the house of Cornelius and the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message and they spoke in tongues; 5) 19:6, Paul placed his hands on some of John the Baptist's followers and they received the baptism and the spoke in tongues and they prophesied. The issue of "subsequence" becomes relevant also at this point. The term subsequence in regard to the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the receiving of the baptism as an event that happens after a person receives the Lord Jesus as their savior. The subsequence doctrine comes from the Assemblies of God fundamental truth number seven. According to the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals, this baptism happens at the time of salvation; it is not a distinct and subsequent event. There is an assumption made by the Assemblies of God in fundamental truth eight regarding speaking in tongues being the initial evidence of receiving the baptism. The assumption is that in all five passages speaking in tongues was the initial evidence, when in fact only three passages state that was the case. This is relevant to the debate because good exegetical and hermeneutical practices does not allow us to make assumptions about what Scripture does not say. But there is difficulty with historical precedent being interpreted as teaching or establishing norms. Things can get confusing and difficult to sort out such as: 1) Acts 1:26, they prayed about who was to replace Judas and "Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles (NIV); and 2) Acts 4:32 "All the believers were of one heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own but they shared everything they had" (NIV). The relevance to the debate here is this: if historical precedent is set by things that were done, then are we prepared to roll the dice to select our leaders and share everything we with own with everyone? To summarize, the relevance of this debate of historical precedence regarding these passages in the book of Acts is important because many churches would have to rethink their program. Fundamentalists generally believe that speaking in tongues, prophesy, healing and many other works of the Holy Spirit stopped when the apostles died out. Evangelicals believe these gifts can still continue to operate today, but that they do not always. Pentecostals expect the church to function as it did in the first century and like the book of Acts states. This debate is relevant because of the three different positions. The result is disunity among brothers. My Position My position in this debate is that of Roger Stronstad. I agree with Stronstad about how Paul uses Scripture as normative and for patterns to teach Christians. He mentions specifically how Paul used historical precedent arguments to make his points to his audiences. I would consider Paul to be of a higher caliber exegete and theologian than those living today. I agree that Luke surveyed and arranged his material to teach "Theophilus". Of course the debate continues on whether Theophilus is a person or a body of people, regardless, Luke makes a statement in chapter 1:3-4 that exposes his intent: Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke's intent seems very clear there. I point out also that Fee said if the intent of Luke could be determined to teach a normative paradigm, then he would support that interpretation (Fee 1982, 89). The only reservations I have in regard to Stronstad's position, is the potential for abuse of the use of historical precedent. I understand that with anything comes the potential for abuse, but there is some inequity right from the start, such as the passages about women being silent in church (1 Tim 2:11), women not holding leadership positions (1 Tim 2:12), and haircut rules for men (1 Cor 11:14). I think we must tread lightly and carefully in these areas. Role of Contemporary Experience If one experiences the Spirit baptism as it is described in the book of Acts, then one would find support biblically for that experience. These portions of Scripture would resonate as true and would be confirmation that the person who experienced it was living out a biblical Christianity. Fee commented on this: It is probably fair to note-and important- to note that in general the Pentecostal' experience has preceded their hermeneutics. In a sense, the Pentecostal tends to exegete his or her experience (Fee 2006, 86). The amusing thing is that this whole debate is about Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals all doing just that. The Fundamentalist and the Evangelical will deny the Pentecostal has any better understanding about the Scriptures that deal with Spirit baptism because of his experience, but will argue that their understanding of Scripture is superior to someone who has not received Christ because of their own born again experience. The Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals claim that the Pentecostals are exegeting their experience rather than Scripture in regard to the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit being speaking in tongues. I would also argue that those who have not experienced this subsequent baptism accompanied by speaking in tongues use that to confirm and inform their exegesis. My position is that this debate which is relevant and important to all three groups of Christians will not be argued exegetically or hermeneutically; the experience of the person will determine which camp they fit in, and that will determine their hermeneutic. Conclusion The debate over initial evidence and subsequence will continue. Fee makes good points in regard to being cautious about claiming historical precedent, and with that consideration and caveat in mind, my opinion is that Stronstad makes a better case from the Scriptures for historical precedent of initial evidence and subsequence. The relevance of this debate is clear, but to non-Pentecostals it is a non-essential doctrine. This makes the point about the role of experience, and how powerful it is. To experience this blessing results in the desire for everyone to get to experience it, and therefore clouding the lenses of objectivity, and if it was never experienced it would be deemed unnecessary. REFERENCE LIST Assemblies of God General Council. 2003. Where We Stand: The Official Position Papers of the Assemblies of God. 6th ed. Springfield MO: Gospel Publishing House. Fee, Gordon D. 2006. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. 1982. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Menzies, William W. and Robert P. 2000. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Stronstad, Roger. 1984. The Charsimatic Theology of Luke. Peabody: Hendrickson. Stronstad, Roger. 1993. The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent. In Paraclete. Volume 27, Number 3:1-10.

A weasel vomiting a squirrel Corey? I'm sorry but I have no point of reference......lol.