The Pentecostal doctrine of subsequent Spirit baptism, we admit, is developed primarily from the book of Acts and not the Pauline corpus.
Evangelical scholars such as John Stott say that it is a basic hermeneutical principle that we must form our theology only from didactic portions of Scripture, not narratives. Accordingly, Pentecostals misuse Scripture to demonstrate their doctrine.
Some thoughts I've had over the years:
- Who decided this rule, and what name did he adopt for his papacy?
- Isn't it convenient that this rule usually precludes just one book of the New Testament from our theological formation (some Paulinists also sadly extend it to the Gospels as well) and is used primarily to rule out just one particular doctrine?
- Why is it that the same people who say we must follow this rule still use Acts 5.3-4 as their primary prooftext for demonstrating the divinity of the Holy Spirit?
5 comments:
Picking up on this, why then is Acts used as the primary evidence that speaking in tongues is known human languages that just happen to be unknown to the speaker? You are right to point out that there is inconsistency on this issue and in fact we do use narrative passages to form our theology (in fact some theological programs appeal specifically to the narrative portions as primary in formulating doctrine).
Have you read Craig Keener's take (in "Gift and Giver") on the pentecostal view and the "traditional" view? His is somewhat of a mediating position.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing the NT authors of Stott's "basic hermeneutical principle." They didn't seem to have any problems in taking poetry or prophetic literature to form their theology. And didn't Paul quote a piece of pagan poetry to make a theological point to the men of Athens?
Nick:
Hence the title of the post. From liberation theology, I have borrowed a hermeneutic of suspicion toward this evangelical hermeneutical principle. We shouldn't always have to put ourselves on the defensive to try to justify our beliefs according to the rules they have laid down. Rather, we need to look at the agenda behind the rules and try to determine who or what benefits from them.
It's not just Stott; it's a bunch of people, even Fee, who put this forward as axiomatic. But then they all still do #3, which is inconsistent with the very principle they have advocated strenuously.
Bryan:
I've not read that particular work. At this point I've sort of studied this to death and have moved on... My point #3, however, recently struck me as I was going through all these books with the question, "Where is the divinity of the Spirit taught in the Bible?" There are of course other references, but Acts 5 is always cited as it is the clearest.
I really like John Stott, but on this point I diverge. Of course narrative can teach and guide - why else the Hebrew Bible, which is mostly narrative? Good point on Acts 5.
There are many other doctrines as well such as Baptism, the role of Deacons in serving etc.
I am convinced that the Luken Narratives must be read alongside Paul or vice versa as Luke was a contemporary of Paul and the other Apostles and was sort of Paul's autobiographer. Narrative shows us how the Apostles / Paul / other individuals ministered and were led by the Spirit. Take Ananias who layed hands on Paul as an example which discounts that only Apostles could lay hands on people for the giving of the Spirit.
There is an important passage in Acts where Paul asks, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' This shows us Paul's attitude / expectation towards the experiential reception of the Spirit which is the same as the Apostles attitude towards the Samaritans.
The other important issue is that it belittles the importance of narrative as being Scripture.
Blessings craig b
Post a Comment