Category Archives: pneumatology

The Use of Luke-Acts For Developing Our Pneumatology

Posted on June 9, 2010 by | 1 comment

by Scott

When it comes to developing our pneumatology, or our theology of the Holy Spirit, there has been much discussion on whether or not we can utilise the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts to inform our understanding. Honestly, some have not been keen on the idea of utilising Luke-Acts, since they would see it as more descriptive rather than didactic (teaching doctrine). Such a group would see the epistles (i.e. Paul’s letters) as the primary didactic source for our pneumatology and the descriptive parts (such as Luke-Acts) as secondary in teaching doctrine.

So, is it worth utilising Luke’s words in both his Gospel and Acts as a primary source for developing our theology of the Holy Spirit? Or should Luke’s two-volume work be seen more as a secondary pneumatological resource?

There are a couple of points I believe that are worth noting:

Luke as Both Historian and Theologian

An important thing to notice is that Luke stands as the only recorder of the early church and its history. Other Gospels (3 of them) had been written alongside Luke’s. But he alone holds a unique position as presenting early church history. It leaves us asking if his words should be relegated as secondary to the epistles or if they will give us a better understanding of the Spirit of God and His work.

If we are honest with the text, and note Luke’s pneumatological purpose in his recording of early church history, Acts does stand as a vitally important theological work. And its significance is especially heightened when studied with its preceding volume, the Gospel of Luke, as Luke emphatically highlights the work of the Spirit in the life of Christ.

So, whereas in the past, many evangelical theologians would have not seen the benefit of developing doctrine from narrative portions of Scripture, there has been a much great acceptance of such in recent years. This is a very important recognition, for we can definitely learn from narrative parts. We can learn just as much from God’s deeds as we can learn from God’s words. Even more, this inspired account of early church history is where theology and doctrine are being walked out in daily life. Thus, it carries importance. This is why I believe that Luke must be respected as both historian and theologian.

Below are a few passages showing how we can receive instruction from the historical recordings of Scripture.

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Yes, it is definitely true that Luke presents a descriptive history of the church in his second volume, Acts. No one can argue with such. But, what we must be willing to recognise is that it is a didactic history at the same time. There is no doubt that Luke wrote to teach. He did not only write to describe, he wrote with a purpose to instruct us, just as the writers of old would have done with their narrative portions of the Old Testament text.

As theologian Roger Stronstad reminds us:

‘If for Paul the historical narratives of the Old Testament had didactic lessons for New Testament Christians, then it would be most surprising if Luke, who modelled his historiography after the Old Testament historiography, did not invest his own history of the origin and spread of Christianity with a didactic significance.’ (The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p7)

Not only that, but we have these oft-quoted words of Paul:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Paul envisioned all parts of Scripture as God-breathed and useful for teaching. To say that certain portions of Scripture take precedence over others is not easily established from Scripture itself.

Luke Speaks For Himself

What I mean with this subheading is that, many times, theologians will try and squeeze Paul’s specific theological emphases into Luke’s theology. Thus, we end up reading Luke through a Pauline lens, which is not at all helpful.

Of course Scripture presents a harmonious whole. There is a unifying structure and nature to the entire text. But we need to give room for Luke to speak as Luke, rather than try and make Paul’s words fit into Luke’s words (or vice versa). For Luke is himself trying to teach us something about the Messiah, the mission of the church, the work of the Spirit, and a whole lot more. Let’s give this man room to teach us, even teach us apart from Paul’s own words.

Even more interesting, when it comes to the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit, Luke speaks about these two issues many more times than Paul ever does. Consider these statistics:

  • Baptised in the Spirit: Luke 3 times; Paul 1 time
  • Filled with the Spirit: Luke 9 times; Paul 1 time

Not only that, but Luke utilises a lot of different phrases to describe these similar actions: the Holy Spirit came upon; the Spirit was poured out; the gift of the Holy Spirit; the Spirit fell on people; people received the Spirit. If we take all of these into account with regards to being baptised and/or filled with the Spirit, Luke has a lot to contribute on this topic. Our ears should be tuned to this man’s words.

Stronstad shares some more insights:

‘Consequently, just as the recognition that Luke is a theologian as well as a historian makes Luke-Acts a legitimate data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, so the recognition that Luke is independent of Paul will broaden the New Testament data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To recognize these two facts is to rehabilitate Luke as a historian-theologian of the Holy Spirit and to allow him to make a significant, unique, and independent contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.’ (p11)

Thus, I agree wholeheartedly with this final statement of Stronstad:

‘On the one hand, where it is appropriate, all parties in the current debate must abandon those largely self-serving methodological programs which conspire to either silence or to manipulate Luke’s distinctive theology. On the other hand, all parties must develop a methodological consensus for interpreting the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. At a minimum, this consensus must include the following principles: 1) Luke-Acts is theologically homogeneous, 2) Luke is a theologian as well as a historian, and 3) Luke is an independent theologian in his own right.’ (p12)

And just as a side note, another great work on how Luke should be viewed as not only historian, but also theologian, is I. Howard Marshall’s Luke: Historian & Theologian.

As we look to develop a holistic pneumatology, consistent with the full text of Scripture, we must not forget Luke’s words and set them aside as only secondary to the words of Paul. Of course, we must also not pit Luke and Paul against one another, noting they were part of the same ministry team at times and are both within the canon of Scripture. But Luke’s words will, no doubt, enrich our understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit. All we must do is allow for them to teach us.

1 Comment

Posted in Acts, Holy Spirit, Luke, pneumatology

Tagged , , , ,

Four Positive Scriptures for Continuationism

Posted on April 19, 2010 by | 3 comments

by Scott

In the past, I have addressed four major passages of Scripture that cessationists might typically use to discount the continuation of all gifts of the Spirit following the first century (or sometime there abouts). Those four passages are:

In my article, I specifically showed how I believe these four passages are, often times, misunderstood and misused by cessationists to teach that there was an expectation in the first century that certain gifts (supernatural gifts or miraculous gifts or sign gifts) were to cease as we moved toward the full and faithful teaching of the first apostles now recorded in the New Testament.

I don’t say these words – misunderstood or misused – arrogantly. Yet, I still believe that if we read the passages carefully and fully consider what they are teaching, we will see that none of these four give solid ground for the case of cessationism.

Of course, there are other passages that could be dealt with from a cessationist standpoint (i.e. Ephesians 2:20 – that apostles and prophets were foundation layers and we no longer need a foundation to be laid since it was laid once for all time in the first century). But I decided to mainly focus on those four passages, though I have addressed the Ephesians 2 verse in another article.

But, while, at times, it is good to address how another viewpoint utilises certain passages, it is also quite healthy to lay out Scripture passages that would support one’s own specific view. So we don’t just take up the ‘polemical approach’ or addressing what we consider wrong, but we also take up the ‘apologetic approach’ in confirming what is true.

I’m not talking about moulding passages to fit our view, though it is easy to fall into that trap here and there (and I’m sure I could be accused with the form four passages and what I will address in just a moment in this post). But we can’t just defend against another view. We have to make sure Scripture actually teaches what we believe it teaches.

Thus, there are four major passages I would like to point out that I believe give a positive case for the existence of all spiritual gifts from Christ’s first advent to second advent. Those four passages are:

John 14:12

These words in John 14 are well-known, at least to most charismatics and Pentecostals:

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

I don’t want to spend an immense time on this passage, as my partner in crime, Marv, has done fine exegesis on it here. But I will share a few of my own thoughts.

I know that for many, this passage can merely be put down to talking about doing more evangelism, reaching more people than the one Christ could in His incarnation. And while I absolutely support such a notion, I would argue that to say it only speaks of that is a bit reductionistic. It misses the bigger picture

I believe this statement entails all of the works of Christ. He simply meant it that way. I love the first words of Luke in Acts 1:1:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.

Christ, in His incarnation, had only begun to do and to teach. There was a lot more work to accomplish. A lot more! Hence, the Father and Son had this great plan to send the Spirit to indwell all of God’s people to empower them to do the works that Jesus did. It’s absolutely astounding that Christ Himself would want His body, in the power of His Spirit, to continue the works He did.

Of course, this is not limited to gifts of the Spirit as listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. Nor is this just about miracles and healings. It is about that. But not only about that, just as it was not only about evangelism.

And Jesus said these wonderful words, ‘whoever believes in me’. That’s challenging, but a good challenge for us who are believers. The works of Jesus, in all their variety, which includes miracles and healings and prophecy, are available to the Spirit-indwelt and Spirit-empowered body of Christ. There is no denying this or reducing this. All of the works of Christ are available to all of the body of Christ, not just the spiritually elite nor the spiritually elite of 1900 years ago.

Acts 2:17-18

I love Acts 2:17-18, where, at Pentecost, Peter quotes Joel’s prophetic words from centuries before:

17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

After the Spirit had fallen on the 120 like never seen or known before, Peter has a revelation: This is the fulfilment of Joel’s words spoken so long ago. Joel said that, in the last days, God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. This was happening right in front of eyes and ears as these tongues of fire descend and these new tongues are spoken.

The last days had just been initiated way back then. This was not to be some few final years of planet earth. The last days began some 1977 years ago at that great Pentecost.

What was the fruit of this outpouring?

That God’s people would become of prophetic community. Oh sure, God would continue to have those specifically gifted as prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11; etc). But from now on, during the last days of the Messianic age when Messiah would reign over all heaven and earth, God’s Spirit would allow all of God’s people to be utlitised in the prophetic. Moses had longed for it (Numbers 11:24-30), but this was the beginning of the prophethood of all believers, as I’ve written about before.

This work of the Spirit would break all gender barriers and age barriers: sons and daughters; young men and old men; male servants and female servants.

Because the last days are the entire age from Pentecost onwards (or we might technically say first advent of Christ to second advent), we must expect God’s people to always function as a prophetic community. This includes revelations, prophecies, visions, dreams, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, etc. None of this has to be leather bound and added to the New Testament, and thankfully Scripture stands as a measuring stick of whether such prophetic action is truly of God today. But there is no doubt that the last days are to be a continuing work of Jesus by the prophetic Spirit amongst His church in the world.

1 Corinthians 13:8-12

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

For an in depth look at my thoughts on this passage, I would encourage you to read this article. But, suffice it to say, the ‘perfect’ of this passage is not the completed New Testament canon. I believe the New Testament canon is the God-breathed Word. I’m not into backing away from that reality. But the perfect that Paul speaks about in this passage was not the awaiting of the New Testament.

He was awaiting the perfect One, the perfect ending, where we would see ‘face to face’ and we would ‘know fully, even as [we] have been fully known’. This is quite obviously talking about the final consummation of all things when Christ brings the fullness of His kingdom.

Thus, prophecies and tongues and [words of] knowledge (vs8) have not yet been done away with.

Ephesians 4:11-16

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I’ve personally been doing a very long series for the past few months on apostles today and what all that entails, of which I have posted about 17 articles already over at The Prodigal Thought. You can click here for the first one or do a search on the category sidebar of my blog for ‘apostles’ or ‘apostles today’.

But, at least from the perspective of the ministry of the prophet in this passage, we are told some very helpful information about the enduring nature of that ministry. We are told that Jesus has given these five (or some argue for four) ministries spoken of in Ephesians 4:11 to help equip God’s people to do the work of ministry. They are equippers of the body so that the body can get on with the work of Christ. And I wonder what work(s) Paul had in mind? Possibly the works of Christ, going back to John 14:12.

But vs13 of Ephesians 4 is very important here. It tells us about the duration of these gifts: until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

Well, I think everyone could easily agree that we are not there yet. The word ‘until’ denotes we are headed that way. But we all know we have not reached the point. And we might not be as far along as we had hoped after 1900 years.

Hence, Jesus still gives all five of these ministries. Not just shepherds or evangelists or teachers, though they provide a necessary part. But all five to help equip us and prepare us to move towards the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. Prophets (and apostles also) are still needed. Again, it doesn’t mean we are to add a new book to the Bible and call it 2 Romans or 1 Chicago. But we need their ministry to help equip us. And prophets will be very helpful in seeing the body formed into the prophetic community we have been called to, for Joel (and Peter) prophesied of the prophetic community of this new covenant age.

Therefore, I believe this ministry is absolutely vital until we reach that place of unity in the faith and become mature, reaching the full stature of Christ. I would even argue that we would be found somewhat lacking if we do not allow for this ministry in our midst, just as we would be found lacking without shepherds, teachers and evangelists.

Thus, these are four very strong passages that have helped me realise that Jesus still desires that all the gifts be utilised in the present age as He reigns at the right hand of the Father. I don’t want to put my eggs solely in the basket of miracles, healings, prophecy, tongues, etc. But I do want those gifts to be a few of the eggs that go in the ‘full basket’ of what Christ has called His body to by the empowering of the Spirit.

All I can say is this provides for both an exciting and challenging move forward in seeing the kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. I’m up for such an exciting challenge.

3 Comments

Posted in cessationism, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, Holy Spirit, pneumatology

Tagged , , , , ,

The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke

Posted on March 7, 2010 by | 4 comments

A couple of weeks ago, I posted an article about a solid theological book on pneumatology, that is, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It was entitled, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: In the New Testament Church and Today by Max Turner, professor at London School of Theology. The book must be one of the more modern better books on pneumatology. Well, here is another pneumatological title, The Charismatic Theology of St Luke, by Roger Stronstad.

To start out, one of the pluses of the book is that it is a mere 83 pages. Now, of course, one might say, ‘Only 83 pages as an academic work. Are you sure it’s good?’

Well, I am quite aware of the fact that all things cannot be covered in a 300+ page book, like Turner’s, much less an 83-page book. But I was quite intrigued that Stronstad was able to faithfully look at quite a few things in such a shorter work. He was even pulling in references from various sources, including quite a few intertestamental writings as he looked at some later-BC Judaistic views of the Spirit.

Stronstad is a Pentecostal scholar, so I would tend to agree with a lot of things he has put forth in the work. But I would also couple that with stating that he is quite balanced in his approach.

Yes, he does believe the baptism, or initial filling of the Spirit, can be received following salvation-initiation. But I do not believe he is one to argue too far over the top, stating that this is the only way. He even ends out in his final chapter with some practical and pastoral challenges such as 1) not seeing tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit or that 2) we steer clear of a two-tier class of Christianity. Both are not biblically warranted, to which I agree.

There are three major and important contributions in Stronstad’s work that I point out in this article:

1) He shows the strong connection between the infancy-inauguration of Luke’s Gospel with the Pentecost initiation narrative of Acts. Stronstad states:

‘In the structure of Luke-Acts, the Pentecost narrative stands in the same relationship to the Acts as the infancy-inauguration narratives do to the Gospel. In the Gospel of Luke these narratives not only introduce the motifs which define the mission of Jesus, but they also show that Jesus will execute His mission in the power of the Holy Spirit. In a similar manner, the Pentecost narrative introduces both the future mission of the disciples and the complementary empowering of the Spirit.’ (p49)

He also makes this statement just a few pages earlier in regards to the parallel accounts of Luke’s narrative Gospel and Luke’s narrative of Acts:

‘The Gospel [of Luke] is the story of Jesus, the unique charismatic Prophet; the Acts is the story of His disciples, a community of charismatic prophets.’ (p34)

No wonder Stronstad would later publish the book, The Prophethood of All Believers, of which I also wrote an article about here.

2) Stronstad also shows how Luke must be considered both historian and theologian, not simply historian. This is not always accepted in biblical-scholarly circles. But doing so will be of great help to us as we consider a full and holistic biblical pneumatology. He makes this important statement in his work:

‘Consequently, just as the recognition that Luke is a theologian as well as a historian makes Luke-Acts a legitimate data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, so the recognition that Luke is independent of Paul will broaden the New Testament data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To recognize these two facts is to rehabilitate Luke as a historian-theologian of the Holy Spirit and to allow him to make a significant, unique, and independent contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.’ (p11)

He, then, goes on to challenge our thinking with these words:

‘On the one hand, where it is appropriate, all parties in the current debate must abandon those largely self-serving methodological programs which conspire to either silence or to manipulate Luke’s distinctive theology. On the other hand, all parties must develop a methodological consensus for interpreting the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. At a minimum, this consensus must include the following principles: 1) Luke-Acts is theologically homogeneous, 2) Luke is a theologian as well as a historian, and 3) Luke is an independent theologian in his own right.’ (p12)

3) Connected to the last point, Stronstad also emphasises that Luke and Paul have different emphases in their pneumatology. Of course, their theology is to be harmonized as part of the whole of Scripture’s teaching. Yet, within Paul’s writings, we continually read of the soteriological necessity of the Spirit, which sees the work of the Spirit as bringing people into sonship with God and incorporating them into the body of Christ. But, in Luke, the Spirit is recognised as the Spirit of prophecy that empowers God’s people for mission and service.

And we see this as we compare the use of certain phrases in both Luke and Paul. Interestingly enough, Luke uses the phrase, ‘baptised in the Spirit’, 3 times while Paul only uses it once. Even more, Luke uses the phrase, ‘filled with the Spirit’, 9 times of which Paul only refers to it once as well. Maybe Luke will help inform our pneumatology a little more than we had first thought.

Thus, we see that Stronstad puts forth the arguement that Luke’s pneumatology is about the Spirit being given for witness and service. Hence, why he would argue that the Spirit, from a Lukan-charismatic perspective, could be received post-salvation. He states:

‘If we have interpreted Luke’s Pentecost narrative correctly, then the gift of the Spirit is not for salvation, but it is for witness and service. In other words, with the transfer of the Spirit to the disciples on the day of Pentecost, they become a charismatic community, heirs to the earlier charismatic ministry of Jesus.’ (p62)

Therefore, with anyone wanting to studying biblical pneumatology, especially a Lukan pneumatology, though this book is short and from a more Pentecostal-charismatic perspective, I do think it is worth diving into. For me, I definitely appreciated the work. But may be I am a little biased as a charismatic.

4 Comments

Posted in books, pneumatology, resource, Spirit baptism

Tagged , , , ,

Resource On Pneumatology

Posted on February 26, 2010 by | 4 comments

by Scott

As one of our goals is to list varying resources that will help more understand the continuationist position (see our About page), I thought I would list a theological resource I read not too long ago. It is entitled The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: In the New Testament Church and Today by Max Turner. Turner is professor of New Testament Studies at London School of Theology.

The text is 348 pages and covers a wide variety of topics on New Testament pneumatology. Turner is a continuationist, but probably more neo-charismatic, in that he believes that the baptism of the Spirit is received by all at conversion rather than seeing it as a possible second reception of the Spirit.

In the first chapter, Turner deals with some Old Testament and Intertestamental understandings of the Spirit. He shows that by the intertestamental times, the Spirit began to mainly be recognised as the ‘Spirit of prophecy’. And, interestingly enough, this is the emphasis of Luke in Acts.

Turner then moves into the Synoptics, Acts and then a Johannine understanding of the Spirit. I really enjoyed reading his collection of thoughts on the enigmatic passage of John 20:22:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

He looks at whether or not this was a real, or full, reception of the Spirit, considering all the varying views out there. From his understanding, the passage should be understood within John’s Gospel as ‘the climax in a whole process of life-giving experiences of the Spirit-and-word,’ which is an extension from their earliest encounter with Jesus as ‘the one whose revelatory wisdom is Spirit and life’ (as seen in John 6:63). Yet, John still expects a ‘full’ coming of the Spirit to replace Jesus once He is exalted to the Father’s right hand (which would come about in Acts).

He, then, moves on to look at the Spirit in the Pauline texts, specifically showing how the Spirit is seen as the Spirit of the new covenant and Israel’s renewal. With the giving of the Spirit, there was an emphasis that Israel had been restored and renewed by God. Turner also considers how, with the giving of the Spirit, we now see the major eschatological tension of this age between the already and the not yet.

Chapter 11 has a very interesting thoughts as Turner looks to give biblical and theological evidence of the personal deity of the Holy Spirit. Most who deny the personal deity of the Spirit (Judaism, cults) would say that the Spirit is actually an extension of the Father’s own personhood, not a distinct person Himself. For when the Spirit acts, it is the Father Himself acting, because it is His Spirit.

Turner includes some helpful discussion on this topic, of which here are a few words:

‘Indeed, the “sending” of the Spirit by the Son “from the Father” (John 15:26) itself implies some kind of differentiation of the Spirit from the Father.’ (p173)

His point is that Jesus is the actual one who gives and pours out the Spirit. This shows that the Spirit is connected to not only the Father, but also the Son. And such is true when we read Acts 16:6-7; Galatians 4:6; and Philippians 1:19. I thought this was insightful in showing the distinct personality and deity of the Spirit.

Part 2 of the book then spends time considering the ‘charismatic’ giftings of the Spirit, mainly those from 1 Corinthians 12. Chapter 16 specifically deals with some cessationist arguments. Cessationism is the teaching that certain gifts of the Spirit, especially those in 1 Corinthians 12, were meant to cease once the full revelation of the canon of Scripture was completed by the first apostles and their associates.

Specifically, Max Turner connects most of the modern arguments for cessationism as being initially formulated in two of B.B. Warfield’s most influential works: Counterfeit Miracles and The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.

With regards to healings, here are some of Turner’s summary thoughts after considering some of the cessationist arguments in details:

‘That miracles were thought to attest God’s messengers need not be doubted; but that that was their prime, if not exclusive, purpose was in no way demonstrated by Warfield (nor by his cessationsist successors).’ (p283)

‘As we have seen (Ch. 14), nothing in the New Testament suggests that healings would cease, and Warfield’s attempt to restrict their function to apostolic accreditation is baseless and reductionist. For the New Testament writers, the healings were not externally attesting signs, but part of the scope of the salvation announced, which reached beyond the merely spiritual to the psychological and physical.’ (p285)

And with regards to prophecy and tongues, Turner concludes:

‘In Chapters 12-13 above we have argued that prophecy and tongues had no special relationship to apostolicity, inscripturation or authentication of the gospel in Paul. They were enjoyed for the other benefits they brought the church, corporately and individually, including the revealing of God’s specific insight, judgement or guidance on questions Scripture could not address (e.g. the diagnostic prophecies of Rev. 2-3, each specific to the circumstances of a single congregation), enhancing private prayer, etc.’ (p289)

So I do believe Turner’s arguments are developed quite well in showing how cessationist theology falls short.

As I stated, I believe the baptism of the Spirit can be a second reception for empowering for service, whereas Turner believes all is received at conversion. When looking at his words on this topic, my main problem is that I don’t believe he faithfully considered all of the passages in Acts, especially Acts 19 and the Ephesians disciples. I believe the disciples in Acts 19:1-7 were already Christian converts, but Turner saw otherwise, saying that they were ‘almost Christians’ (p46).

My reasons for believing the Ephesian disciples were true believers:

1) For starters, one interesting thing to note is that Luke uses the words disciple or disciples exactly 30 times throughout the book of Acts, one of those times being in 19:1. Even more, in all of the other 29 times the word is used, the context is definitely clear that Luke is speaking of true Christian disciples. Of course, it is possible that, in this one instance, Luke is not referring to true believers. But knowing he consistently uses the word as a positive affirmation of true disciples, it is highly likely he has done the same in describing these twelve men in Ephesus.

2) Secondly, here we have an example of our chapter and verse divisions not being helpful in seeing the larger context of Scripture. The whole of Acts 19 is actually connected to the last five verses of Acts 18 where we learn about a certain man by the name of Apollos:

24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. (Acts 18:24-28)

We see that Apollos had settled, at least for a time, in the city of Ephesus, which was the residence of the twelve ‘disciples’ of Acts 19. Concerning Apollos, we read that he was:

  • Competent in the Scriptures
  • Instructed in the way of the Lord
  • Fervent in spirit
  • Taught accurately the things concerning Jesus

But the problem is that he only knew the baptism of John (that is, John the Baptist). Therefore, Priscilla and Aquila were very helpful in the life of Apollos, becoming mentors to him in the faith. We read that they ‘explained to him the way of God more accurately’ (18:25). Still, we never read that this was Apollos’ conversion. He was already converted and was a true believer. True, we would probably expect that Priscilla and Aquila would have seen him ‘baptised into the name of Jesus’ (an expression used frequently in Acts – 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). But this did not negate that he was already a true Christian disciple.

3) Therefore, keeping this in mind, we return to the twelve men of Acts 19:1-7. Knowing Apollos’ ministry in Ephesus, it is most likely that these twelve were disciples of Apollos. Again, the argument would arise that this is the problem – they were disciples of Apollos and not Christ. But such an argument does not stand when we consider that, in the book of Acts, Luke refers to a group as ‘disciples’ of Paul (see Acts 9:25). Yet we can only expect that they were also true believers.

So, here is an example of a delayed reception of the Spirit for empowering for service, which was Luke’s emphasis in regards to receiving the Spirit. I believe these 12 disciples were truly believers who later on received the initial filling of the Spirit for empowered service.

Most cessationists will argue that Cornelius and his household were the first converts to Christ, thus with their extreme external reception of the Spirit as part of fulfilling the expansion of the gospel to the Gentiles (‘ends of the earth’), there should be no expectation of such again. The problem with such an argument is that Cornelius and his household were not the first Gentile believers. The Ethiopian eunuch was in Acts 8. And, here in Acts 19, we find another external confirmation of the reception of the Spirit by Gentiles.

So, this is where I would disagree with Max Turner. I believe the baptism of the Spirit can come at salvation, but it might not. That is my understanding of the testimony of Scripture and that is my understanding from reading about and seeing how God has moved in people’s lives. Experience is not anathema. It is good and healthy, as long as it is not our sole basis of our understanding of God’s workings.

And if one wants to walk down the road and claim Acts is not helpful in developing doctrine, then suffice it to say, I point to one of our favourite passages: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching… (2 Timothy 3:16). There are more things to consider, but that is good for me for now.

Still, if one wants to faithfully engage in understanding a charismatic pneumatology, I think they must be willing to read Max Turner’s work. It is a very balanced view on the Holy Spirit from a charismatic point of view. I don’t agree with every word, but it is a solid work.

4 Comments

Posted in books, pneumatology, resource

Tagged , , ,