tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8656459036359173101.post1394447754802088371..comments2019-09-04T22:18:00.591-05:00Comments on elephants of grace: evidenceJon Eckenrodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01032088724364835990noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8656459036359173101.post-63285774139135688422010-11-18T09:45:49.637-06:002010-11-18T09:45:49.637-06:00Hi, Ken. Thanks again for your response. Believe m...Hi, Ken. Thanks again for your response. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. But I hope you realize how many times you concluded that the early church "must have" considered this or that. Those are assumptions that we may want to make, but they are conclusions outside of Scripture. Early on this is one of the problems I saw with how we had developed our doctrines--we make a lot of assumptions (a lot of "this must have been the case")that all must be true in order to make our doctrines true. This may help us connect the dots, but it is NOT proper exegesis. <br /><br />And you are absolutely correct that Luke's purpose MUST be considered before establishing any doctrines based on what he wrote. His purpose was to convince the reader that what he had aleady been taught was true--not to teach normative doctrine or practice. He used the historical record to establish the teaching. He did not repeat the actual teaching. Rather, he "showed" that the historical record confirmed that teaching. That was his purpose. To say that he was teaching normative doctrine or church practice MAY be true, but we are stepping outside of proper exegesis when we say it IS true. <br /><br />And whether we want to admit it or not, many of our Pentecostal forefathers were practicing eisegesis when interpreting Scripture. How else would they have come up with the idea that Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation. Admittedly, not all Pentecostals teach this (including the organization that you are a part of), but the largest Oneness group does. They are clearly reading meaning in to Acts 2:38 that is not there. <br /><br />I agree that tongues is "a" sign, but is it "the" evidence that one has received the baptism of the Holy Ghost? You may conclude that, but no biblical author did. Again, to say it is "the" evidence of the Holy Ghost is connecting dots that are not connected for us by anyone in the Bible. The only thing we know is that in 3 out of 5 initial Holy Ghost baptism accounts, the people spoke in tongues. That is all we know. Why teach more than we know? There is nothing wrong with speaking in tongues, and there is nothing wrong with seeking that gift, but I believe there is something wrong with telling someone they don't have the Holy Ghost if they have not spoken in tongues--which is the bottom line of the "evidence" doctrine. For the "evidence" doctrine to be true, all the "must have" assumptions must be true, and must be connected in the way that we connect them to develop the doctrine. I am sure that you and I could convince each other of some pretty peculiar doctrines if we could get each other to follow our chain of logic. It may even be a fun exercise. And we MIGHT be right, but when it comes to establishing doctrines that are not clearly taught in Scripture, this is dangerous practice, in my opinion. <br /><br />Thanks again for responding, Ken. I look forward to continued dialogue on this and other subjects.Jon Eckenrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032088724364835990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8656459036359173101.post-43110272776312179442010-11-18T08:07:47.652-06:002010-11-18T08:07:47.652-06:00Jon
Well, here's where I do disagree. The ea...Jon<br /><br />Well, here's where I do disagree. The early Pentecostals weren't practicing eisegesis when they saw a distinction, there wasn't a doctrine established. It may have been bad exegesis, although I don't think so. Nor is it bad hermaneutics to establish doctrine from a historical record when the historical record happens to be God's Word, and we have more than one example from which to develop our understanding of God at work. I'll point again to the fact that much of what we believe and teach about God Himself is established in the historical record of God's relationship with Israel. Then, we must also look at what the human author thought he was accomplishing by writing the book. We have to start with the Gospel of Luke "I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The Acts "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven" Acts is a continuation of Luke, and Dr. Luke is establishing in writing what has been TAUGHT (my emphasis) verbally. It is clear to me from the historical record of Acts that there were a number of signs of the receipt of the Gift, and they must have been important to the 1st Century Christians or they wouldn't have recorded them. More importantly, the signs must have been important to God or He wouldn't have ensured they were part of the historical record. The only sign that is shared in common among the historical accounts is tongues (sorry, being in a group setting isn't a sign, it may be something else, but not a sign). Which leads to the doctrine that I think can be established from the historical record. The historical record establishes that there were signs of the receipt of the gift. Peter understood tongues as a sign, the historical record doesn't include anything that can be seen as building up the Body, the point of the theology of 1 Cor 12, so tongues must have had a different purpose--a sign. Now, what I don't think can be clearly established from the historical record is that the gift can not be received without experiencing the sign of tongues. As to why the theology letters don't address the issue, that's one of the things I've pondered for 36 years. My guess, and it's only a guess, is this wasn't the issue in the 1st Century that it has become in the 20th and 21st Centuries.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06639061353882774694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8656459036359173101.post-16569653476018123322010-11-17T09:34:16.151-06:002010-11-17T09:34:16.151-06:00I love your response, Ken. Thank you for it. First...I love your response, Ken. Thank you for it. First, I wanted to explain the soteriology of Acts 2:38 because there are some readers of this blog for whom the theology is foreign. And the evidence doctrine stems from the soteriology--as I used to teach it. <br /><br />Second, the recorded statements in Acts 10:45ff help us understand why Peter was sure they had received the same gift of the Holy Ghost that he and his fellow Jews had received, but I believe it is reading into the text to say that this establishes any kind of doctrine or theology regarding "evidence." (It would be dangerous for someone to take a one minute recording of one of our conversations in Eau Claire to establish what you and I teach about any subject--although it may give a clue, it certainly would not be a good source for establishing our "doctrine".)Again, when we turn to the only "teaching" regarding tongues, it is never connected to the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost. The only thing we know for sure is that tongues is one of many gifts. It is my opinion that we run into eisegesis rather than exegesis when we use the historical record to establish doctrines that are taught nowhere else. The hermeneutic is wrong. It's ok to have an opinion about a distinction between the "gift" of tongues and "evidential" tongues, but to say Scripture teaches such a distinction is inaccurate, in my opinion. <br /><br />I believe we are in concert on the main points, and I look forward to further dialogue. I always appreciate your input. Thanks.Jon Eckenrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032088724364835990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8656459036359173101.post-45819098535839220352010-11-17T08:49:03.072-06:002010-11-17T08:49:03.072-06:00I THINK that part of what is going on in your thin...I THINK that part of what is going on in your thinking is that you are mixing the discussion of sotierology with the discussion of evidence. If you've studied the history of the Pentecostal movement in the 20th century, you probably know that early on there was much discussion the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as a 2nd or 3rd work of grace. Those early Pentecostals understood that sotierology (although many to most of them would never have used that term) is a different discusion than evidence. So let me say...I do not believe Scripture teaches, nor does the historical record in Acts support, the notion that the initial act of salvation is not completed until one receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost. So on to the real point of your blog--evidence. I agree that the theology oriented books of the NT do not address directly the question of evidence. In fact, I'll go further and say, they don't address the whole issue of the gift or Baptism of the Holy Ghost (are they the same??? Interesting but a whole different discussion) However, we know that there is an issue here because Peter said so. Acts 2:38 IS theology. It's important theology. But it's incomplete by itself. So here is where history becomes helpful. We also need to recognize the importance of other theological statements recorded in the history. <br /><br />So, here's what I ask "Is there, in the historical record of Acts, an experience refered to as the Gift of the Holy Ghost?" I believe the clear historical answer is "Yes." Then, "is there any evidence, either historical or theological, that this gift is accompanied by a sign that lets the recipient and others know that the gift has been given and received?" Well there is some theology here. You know the reference as well as I do. Acts 10:45-47 "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” There is both historical evidence for the gift of the Holy Spirit and theology evidence for speaking in tongues as sign of the receipt of the gift. It is clear to me, from the historical record of Acts and the theological teaching of Corinthians, that this "gift" as well as the "sign" of speaking in tongues" is clearly different from the "gifts" and speaking in tongues referenced in 1 Cor 12. <br /><br />Now to what I believe is the real crux of the matter. "Is speaking in tongues the only sign of the gift?" or to put it slightly differently "Can one receive the gift without speaking in tongues?" <br /><br />I've spent the last 36 years pondering those questions. Here's my current answer. "Those are the wrong questions. Tongues was never the point anyway. Tongues were only a sign. The real point is developing a relationship with Jesus that is so close that you will naturally receive the gift that He is giving. If you are closed to the sign of speaking in tongues, you may be closed to the receipt of the gift. And if you're open to the sign, and it happens, count it a great privilege. If it doesn't happen, it's nobody else's business except God's anyway" <br /><br />I expect that's too long a response, but oh well<br /><br />Ken Mandley <br /><br />It was too long, I had to cut it in half to postKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06639061353882774694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8656459036359173101.post-41608474631297656812010-11-17T00:37:04.298-06:002010-11-17T00:37:04.298-06:00Excellent post! Enjoyed it very much!Excellent post! Enjoyed it very much!Connie Schmollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03835459042459612441noreply@blogger.com