MAMMON ,ANTICHRIST AND UNDERWORLD

Degrees of Rewards in Eternity: Sanctification by Works?

By Douglas C. Bozung

[Teaching Pastor, Christian Fellowship Church, New Holland, PA]

I. Introduction

Within the study of eschatology, differing perspectives on the nature of the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, and the doctrine of eternal punishment are well known and amply documented. Perhaps less known and documented is the abundance of perspectives with regard to the concept of degrees of reward in eternity for believers. On one side of the debate is the view that an eternal reward in addition to eternal life is a contradiction of the Protestant emphasis upon salvation by grace apart from works or merit. For example, Blomberg asserts that a doctrine of degrees of eternal reward in heaven leaves one “with justification by faith and sanctification by works.”[1] Additionally, he objects that “it is hard to reconcile any kind of doctrine of varying rewards in God’s kingdom with the notion of grace as something wholly undeserved.”[2] According to this school of thought, texts traditionally adduced as teaching such a concept have been misconstrued.[3]

On the other side of the debate are those who affirm the concept of degrees of eternal reward. As Sauer expresses it: “Justification is a gift of free grace, but the measure of glorification depends upon personal devotion and steadfastness in the race.”[4] However, there is a variety of perspectives within this general affirmation. For example, one perspective heartily affirms the concept of degrees of eternal reward for believers as a significant and pervasive theological motif.[5] Indeed, some advocates of this perspective interpret many if not all NT warning passages in terms of the loss or gain of rewards.[6] Others go as far as to teach the prospect of a virtual purgatory for those believers who were especially unfaithful in their Christian lives.[7]

Yet another group of Evangelical exegetes and theologians give some credence to a doctrine of degrees of eternal reward, but they more stringently circumscribe the doctrine within certain theological boundaries and limit its expression to certain texts. Morris is typical of this perspective in the following paragraph:

There are some who object to the whole idea of eternal rewards, affirming that it is not true Christian service if we serve simply for reward. This affirmation may unhesitatingly be endorsed. Selfishness is not less selfishness because it is directed towards spiritual rather than material ends.… But that does not mean that God is to put all men on a flat level in the hereafter. Here and now the man who gives himself whole-heartedly to the service of Christ knows more of the joy of the Lord than the half-hearted. We have no warrant from the New Testament for thinking that it will be otherwise in heaven.[8]

Given the variety of ways in which this doctrine is either elucidated or else denied altogether, one wonders whether the Scriptures speak clearly to this issue and whether a theologically coherent doctrine of degrees of eternal reward can be Scripturally defended. As will be shown, this writer contends both these questions can be answered in the affirmative.

While much contemporary teaching focuses upon the present benefits of a consecrated life, less attention has been paid to the relationship between present sanctification and future glorification. In other words, to what end are believers being sanctified? Scripture attests to the value of those ends primarily or exclusively realized in the present (e.g., Matt 5:16; Eph 5:8-17; Phil 2:14-15; Titus 2:1-10; 1 Pet 2:9, 11-17; 3:16, etc.). But what difference, if any, does present growth in Christ make for eternity? If a correlation between present sanctification and reward as an aspect of future glorification can be established, the value of such sanctification, especially for those who are assured of their salvation, is thereby enhanced. As Kim states: “[B]elieving that God rewards is an essential aspect of Christian faith (Heb 11:6). A proper, Biblical understanding of rewards is a powerful motivator that does not cheapen the Christian faith but strengthens and purifies it. It gives clearer focus to the sanctification process and weighty glory to our God.”[9]

In the view of some, even if there are degrees of reward for Christians, their impact is felt only at the believer’s judgment before Christ. However, while the receiving of praise and honor at the Judgment Seat of Christ is certainly an experience to desire and even strive for, the prospect of the eternal significance of such honor or reward would seem to provide an even greater motivation to present faithfulness.

Unfortunately, time and space do not allow for a full exegetical treatment of all relevant texts. Instead, following a brief summary here of the conclusions of such a treatment,[10] this paper will focus upon response to a number of philosophical and theological objections to a doctrine of degrees of reward in eternity.

II. Summary of the Theology of the Primary Passages on Rewards

A. Future Ramifications for Present Earthly Activity

The relevant NT texts on rewards present a number of distinctive teachings.[11] Several texts indicate there will be future ramifications for present earthly activity. Romans 14:10-12 establishes the principle that every believer will give account to the Lord for his conduct in this life. In particular, 1 Cor 3:8-15 teaches there will be rewards for those who have invested their lives and ministries in that which God esteems highly (“gold, silver, precious stones”). Others, who have invested in that which God does not esteem (“wood, hay, straw”), will suffer the loss of rewards. The possibility of the loss of rewards appears to be the teaching of Rev 3:11 as well. Likewise, 2 Cor 5:10 indicates that as a result of appearing before the Judgment Seat of Christ, the believer will “receive the things done in the body.” Thus, an identifiable link is established between a believer’s present conduct and a future, but unspecified recompense.

B. Duration of the Reward or Loss of Reward

While the duration of the reward or loss suffered is never explicitly specified, there are a number of indications that it is eternal. First, contextual factors in 1 Cor 3:10-15 point toward outcomes that endure forever. That is, the severity of the consequences of the judgment depicted there coupled with the detailed description of both the positive and negative effects of this judgment argue against a mere momentary discrimination between believers. To limit the results of this judgment in any way has the effect of nullifying its meaningfulness. Second, the specific terminology employed in Matt 6:19-21 (“treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys”), 1 Cor 9:25 (“imperishable”) and 1 Pet 5:4 (“does not fade away”) to describe future rewards and promised crowns is strong testimony to their eternal nature. Third, the duration of the loss of reward would necessarily need to be permanent or else the very purpose of having a judgment would seem to be pointless. However, any regret, remorse, or shame experienced (1 Cor 3:15; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 John 2:28) will not endure forever in light of texts such as Rev 21:4. Finally, within dispensational theology the Millennium is considered the first phase of the eternal kingdom.[12] By implication, the parables describing the reward of kingdom responsibilities (Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27) imply an everlasting benefit.

C. Criteria for Reception of Rewards

Various criteria for the reception of these rewards is indicated in several texts. For example, Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount mentions adherence to Christ’s teaching (Matt 5:19) and purity of motive (Matt 6:4, 6, 18) as the basis for future reward. Correspondingly, his parables in Matt 25:14-30 and Luke 19:12-27 emphasize character, faithfulness, and the degree of responsibility and gifting. This latter criterion leads to the teaching of reward in proportion to one’s fidelity to the opportunities given for service.

Like Jesus, Paul also mentions purity of motive and faithfulness (1 Cor 4:1-5) as key criteria for reward. In addition, he emphasizes the quality of each person’s work in 1 Corinthians 3, which in context is related to fidelity to the revelation of God in Christ. He also speaks of personal and voluntary sacrifice for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor 9:24-27) and fruitfulness in evangelism (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19) as a basis for future reward. In 2 Tim 4:8 Paul highlights finishing one’s life and ministry well in view of a longing for Christ’s return that has practical import in the life of the believer. Peter promises a special reward for elders who shepherd the church in a Christ-honoring manner (1 Pet 5:1-4). Finally, while the crowns promised in Jas 1:12 and Rev 2:10 most likely refer to the promise of eternal life for all believers, they also highlight the importance of perseverance in faithfulness to Christ in the face of persecution. On the other hand, the lack of perseverance or faithfulness is the implied basis for the loss of reward in Rev 3:11.

D. Nature of the Rewards

While the exact nature of these rewards is not specified, several texts suggest the granting of varying responsibilities in the kingdom (Matt 25:21, 23; Luke 19:17, 19). Other texts speak of receiving praise from God (Matt 25:21, 23, Luke 19:17; 1 Cor 4:5).

Some theologians speculate that the promised rewards are directly related to an enhanced capacity to enjoy fellowship with God.[13] This thought may be the point of the scene depicted in Revelation 4, where twenty-four elders cast their crowns before the throne.

E. The Gracious Basis of Rewards

The gracious basis of all rewards is underscored in several texts. One such text is the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30). Here the surpassing greatness of the reward in comparison with the service rendered underscores the gracious basis of the reward itself. However, this gracious basis is most clearly emphasized in the Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Matt 20:1-16). Here there is also an implicit teaching that those converted later in life will not necessarily suffer a disadvantage with regard to the rewards they may receive for faithful service.

In summary, a number of texts affirm the concept of degrees of eternal reward in a manner that underscores the gracious basis of those rewards. At the same time they link the reception of rewards to the degree to which the believer has faithfully lived his life and conducted his ministry in conformity with the revelation of God in Christ.

III. Synthesis of the Doctrine of Degrees of Reward within a Calvinistic Perspective

Besides the task of summarizing the teaching on rewards into a coherent doctrine of rewards, it is important to demonstrate the consistency of this doctrine with one’s systematic theology. In this regard, the purpose of this section is to demonstrate the consistency and compatibility of the doctrine of degrees of reward within a Calvinistic theological framework.[14]

Because of the inherent emphasis of Calvinism upon the sovereignty and gracious initiative of God, both in salvation and the process of sanctification, any teaching which suggests recognition of the initiative and meritorious activity of human beings would seem to be implicitly, if not explicitly, suspect. However, as will be shown, in the case of a doctrine of degrees of reward such a conflict is more illusionary than substantive.

One way to demonstrate the consistency and compatibility of the teaching of degrees of reward with a Calvinistic systematic theology is through a response to several objections to this doctrine from a fervent adherent of Calvinism. One such adherent is Craig Blomberg. In a 1992 JETS article,[15] Blomberg voices numerous objections, many of a theological nature, to the doctrine of degrees of reward in heaven. His central thesis is that “there is not a single NT text that, when correctly interpreted, supports the notion that believers will be distinguished one from another for all eternity on the basis of their works as Christians.”[16] A secondary assertion is that such a doctrine “can have highly damaging consequences for the motivation and psychology of living the Christian life.”[17]

To this writer’s knowledge, no definitive response to this article has ever been written, though references to some of his objections can be found in a few works.[18] Since Blomberg writes from a Reformed or Calvinistic perspective, a proper and detailed response to these objections will ensure this doctrine can be accommodated within such a framework. The following discussion represents this response.

IV. A Response to Exegetical Objections

Blomberg’s objections to the concept of degrees of reward in eternity can be characterized as exegetical and theological. While nearly all of his exegetical objections are addressed in this author’s 2008 doctoral dissertation,[19] it is worth reviewing his principal exegetical objections for the sake of ensuring a proper synthesis with Calvinism.

A. Parable of the Day Laborers (Matt 20:1-16)

He begins with the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-16), which he claims is viewed by “almost everyone” as “teaching about a fundamental equality here among those who are truly his disciples. All are rewarded alike.”[20] Taken in isolation from the rest of Jesus’ teaching, one could conceivably conclude this parable negates the concept of degrees of reward. However, while there is an equality stressed in this parable, it is an equality made possible by God’s grace. Such grace means that all of God’s gifts, whether salvation, or the kinds of rewards to which Peter alludes just prior to this parable (Matt 19:27-30), are not ultimately attributable to human merit. Furthermore, this emphasis upon equality that underscores the gracious initiative of God is not inherently inconsistent with the concept of degrees of reward, unless one insists on a strict monergism to the extent that any role for humanity is denied. In light of numerous texts that exhort believers to strive, persevere, and diligently labor (e.g.,1 Cor 15:10; Phil 1:27; 2:12; Col 1:29; 1 Tim 4:10; Heb 10:36; 2 Pet 1:6), such a denial would seem to be a contradiction of Biblical testimony. As Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema affirms:

Salvation, to be sure, is wholly of grace; yet the Bible indicates that there will be variation in the rewards which will be received by God’s people.… The relation between our works and our future reward ought, however, to be understood not in a mechanical but rather in an organic way. When one has studied music and has attained some proficiency in playing a musical instrument, his capacity for enjoying music has been greatly increased. In a similar way, our devotion to Christ and to service in his kingdom increases our capacity for enjoying the blessing of that kingdom, both now and in the life to come.[21]

In summary, while this parable does represent a notable challenge to the doctrine of degrees of reward, it can readily be understood as teaching the complementary truth that all such rewards are ultimately the result of the gracious initiative of God. That God chooses to recognize the role of a believer in progressive sanctification in response to that divine initiative does not diminish its glory (cf. 1 Cor 15:10; Phil 2:12-13; Col 1:29).

B. Crown Passages (1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 4:8; 1 Pet 5:4)

Another exegetical objection concerns the crown passages, which Blomberg understands uniformly as metaphors for eternal life.[22] These texts are comprehensively dealt with in this writer’s dissertation,[23] where it is concluded that the majority of references are to a reward for faithful service. However, it is worth noting here that Blomberg’s approach to these texts appears to be conditioned by his prior commitment to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance, but in such a manner that he allows for virtually no distinctions among Christians in terms of their striving for the imperishable crown (1 Cor 9:25), their longing for Christ’s appearing (2 Tim 4:8), or their service as elders in the church (1 Pet 5:4). Thus, perhaps it is Blomberg’s particular conception of the doctrine of perseverance, rather than the exegetical evidence itself, that is at odds with the concept of degrees of reward as he understands it.

C. Bēma

A third exegetical objection relates to texts dealing with the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10). Blomberg is adamant that “nothing in the text says anything about these distinctions among believers’ experiences [at the Judgment Seat] persisting for all time.”[24] However, one may equally inquire: “Where in the text does it state that these differences will be only momentary?” In fact, Blomberg’s understanding of Paul’s teaching fails to do justice to the importance and gravity of this judgment. That is, Paul’s detailed teaching on this subject would appear to be beside the point if both the rewards enjoyed and the consequences experienced have merely momentary ramifications. In addition, as already noted, the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30) provides a genuine precedent for the granting of personal responsibilities in the future kingdom in addition to praise received. Thus, this objection is also at serious odds with the exegetical data.

In continuation of his discussion of the Scriptural data, Blomberg states that the twenty-four elders of Revelation 4-5 are likely angelic and therefore irrelevant to the issue of rewards for believers. And even if they do represent the church, Blomburg asserts that the casting of their crowns proves there are no eternal differences.[25] However, as can be cogently argued,[26] the casting of crowns is an act of worship that continually acknowledges the One to whom all glory belongs. Therefore, it does not by itself negate the very real possibility that some will enjoy a greater capacity to worship God or other privileges in eternity.[27]

V. A Response to Theological Objections

Turning to Blomberg’s theological objections, there are at least seven which can be identified.

A. Doctrine of Rewards Produces Sanctification by Works

As noted in the introduction, Blomberg asserts that this doctrine produces “a sanctification by works” that is implicitly contrary to salvation by grace through faith.[28] Ironically, Blomberg himself seems to promote a “sanctification by works”—if not, a salvation by works—when he states: “one of the main reasons for trying to live as good a Christian life as possible is to make sure we do in fact persevere, so that we do not lose out on eternal life altogether.”[29] But is it true that by adopting a doctrine of degrees of reward one has thereby abandoned the faith and grace basis of the believer’s salvation and sanctification? Harris observes:

Since the tribunal of Christ is concerned with the assessment of works, not the determination of destiny…the Pauline concepts of justification on the basis of faith and recompense in accordance with works may be complementary. Not status but reward is determined emprosthen tou bēmatos tou christou, for justification as the acquisition of a right standing before God anticipates the verdict of the Last Judgment. But, already delivered from ergōn nomou (Rom. 3:28) by justifying faith, the Christian is presently committed to tou ergou tēs pisteōs (1 Thess. 1:3), “action stemming from faith,” which will be assessed and rewarded at Christ’s tribunal.[30]

Fuller rightly points out that the objection that a doctrine of rewards promotes a works-righteousness that undermines the gracious basis of the believer’s salvation is based upon a false assumption of just two options: “either men and women must do sufficient works to earn God’s favor, or his blessings are purely of grace, unconditional, with nothing being required of the recipients.”[31] However, as Piper states, there is a third option: “[C]onditional promises of grace are woven all through the New Testament teaching about how to live the Christian life [e.g., Matt 6:14; Heb 12:14; Jas 4:6; 1 John 1:7].… Some popular conceptions of grace cannot comprehend any role for conditionality other than legalism.”[32] In this regard, believers are exhorted to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). That is, the believer is exhorted to demonstrate a faithfulness that, though enabled by God’s grace and empowering Spirit (cf. Phil 2:13), is nevertheless the fruit of personal discipline. Accordingly, Paul underscores the “profit” (ophelimos) of godliness, “having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come” (1 Tim 4:7-8, emphasis added). In the performance of such works of faith there is no implied merit. Fuller aptly illustrates:

[A] patient has a need, and seeks the physician’s help to meet it. Because he or she has confidence in the expertise of this professional, the patient will then carefully follow the health regimen that is prescribed; these are “works”—or an obedience—that stem from faith in the physician. The blessings of restored health that the physician is able to provide will not be realized apart from this obedience; nevertheless such obedience cannot be said to have earned these blessings, nor has the patient in following the doctor’s orders done anything that merits praise.… To the contrary, the praise belongs to the physician, whose expertise has made possible the return of health.[33]

Thus, Fuller concludes:

[W]orks are essential for the receiving of rewards, but there is nothing meritorious or heroic about them, nothing to provide grounds for boasting. Rather, they are works of faith, done not to provide some needful service for God but simply in one’s own self-interest, i.e., because doing these works is the sine qua non for the continued enjoyment of fellowship with God and the rewards he promises to those who trust him. Therefore, far from endangering grace, such works magnify it, for they underscore both the delight…that God has in blessing his children, and the supreme value that he represents to those who thus exert every effort to run the race and win the prize.[34]

In summary, Blomberg’s assertion that the doctrine of degrees of reward is theologically at odds with the gracious basis of the believer’s life in Christ is shown to be false. Rather there is Biblical and theological compatibility between the teaching of both a grace-enabled faith and life and the call for works of faith (1 Cor 15:10; Phil 2:12-13) as well as the subsequent recognition of those works of faith done in the power of God.

B. The “Vast Gulf”

A second theological objection is that “the vast gulf” between God’s standards and the righteousness of believers diminishes any sense of differentiation that would be eternally significant.[35] However, while this may be true in the sight of God, what is important here is whether such differentiation is meaningful to believers. Clearly, what is insignificant for an infinite being can nevertheless be quite meaningful to a finite being![36] For example, a twenty-five cent raise per hour would be much more meaningful to a teen earning minimum wage than it would be to a billionaire. Furthermore, what likely makes rewards truly meaningful is their capacity to deepen the believer’s experience of and fellowship with God, both in this life and the next. As Kim states it: “The recognition of God is more valuable to those who have a deeper love relationship with God, and positions of service are rewards in that they are opportunities for more complete fellowship with God.”[37]

C. Impossible for the Redeemed to Fully Enjoy Heaven

Yet another theological objection to the concept of degrees of reward is that it would be impossible for the redeemed to enjoy heaven with a consciousness that they did not achieve all they could have while on earth.[38] But who says believers will be conscious of their failures for all eternity? Blomberg himself acknowledges that according to Rev 21:4 God will wipe away all tears and pain such that there will remain “absolutely nothing to make one sad.”[39] This implies God may wipe away in some sense any memory that could foster tears or sadness. Alternatively, Michael Stallard suggests God may arrange eternity in such a manner that all potentially tear- or pain-inducing memories will not have the effect of saddening us.[40] While ultimately we must confess our ignorance as to how God will accomplish the promise of Rev 21:4, there is no insurmountable tension between the concept of degrees of eternal reward and possible memory of one’s past life as Blomberg alleges.[41]

Blomberg replies that if our memories are erased of all recollection of failure, then the distinctions based upon differing degrees of reward will also be unrecognizable in eternity and that therefore the present purpose of such future rewards—providing motivation for faithful living now—has been negated.[42] In response, Erickson surmises it may be that “the difference in the rewards lies not in the external or objective circumstances, but in the subjective awareness or appreciation of those circumstances.”[43] As a result, “[n]o one will be aware of the differences in range of enjoyment, and thus there will be no dimming of the perfection of heaven by regret over wasted opportunities.”[44] Kim offers the following illustration:

Suppose two sons go away to college. One son calls regularly, thinks often of his parents, and misses them dearly. The other son could not wait to leave home, does not call, and is forgetfully busy with his new found friends at school. Both sons return home for Thanksgiving break, and both are “rewarded” with the presence of their parents. They have the same (objective) reward, the same parents, but the first son has a greater (subjective) reward in his enjoyment of them. We shall all be with God in heaven, but not all will enjoy him to the same degree.[45]

Thus, the knowledge that in eternity we can enjoy God to the degree to which we are faithful in service to Him now should provide plenty of motivation to that end whether or not we are objectively conscious of the differences we experience in eternity.

Blomberg continues to object that such speculation is a contradiction of the more common view of rewards “that, subjectively, we all appreciate differing objective realties.”[46] However, presently believers are quite conscious of objective differences among themselves in terms of gifting and opportunities. Yet they can—and are even commanded to—be joyful in all circumstances, despite evident differences among them in this life. Is it not conceivable that in eternity, having been freed from sin completely and the temptation to envy, believers will be able to rejoice fully in their diversity? Simply because we cannot find an explicit text that addresses this issue does not invalidate its potential as a valid explanation of what is not yet revealed. At the very least, this is both a logical and reasonable solution to Blomberg’s objection.

D. Impossible to Speak of Degrees of Perfection

A fourth theological objection is that since heaven represents perfection, it is impossible to speak of degrees of perfection.47 Similarly, Erickson asserts: “[W]e will not grow in heaven. We will, however, continue to exercise the perfect character which we will have received from God.”[48] But both authors appear to assume that believers will be in a state of pure actuality in heaven with no potentiality. However, in light of the experience of the sinless God-man, who grew “in wisdom and stature” as a child (Luke 2:40, 52),[49] is it not reasonable to expect we will also continue to grow in the knowledge of God’s infinite person and through our service for Him learn from our experiences throughout eternity? Accordingly, Lewis writes:

The promise of Scripture may very roughly be reduced to five heads. It is promised (1) that we shall be with Christ; (2) that we shall be like Him; (3) with an enormous wealth of imagery, that we shall have “glory”; (4) that we shall, in some sense, be fed or feasted or entertained; and (5) that we shall have some sort of official position in the universe—ruling cities, judging angels, being pillars of God’s temple. The first question I ask about these promises is “Why any one of them except the first?” Can anything be added to the conception of being with Christ?…The variation of the promises does not mean anything other than God will be our ultimate bliss; but because God is more than a Person, and lest we should imagine the joy of his presence too exclusively in terms of our present poor experience of personal love, with all its narrowness and strain and monotony, a dozen changing images, correcting and reliving each other are supplied.[50]

It may also be added that all these images present a picture of continuous activity and learning in eternity, all of it centered upon the person of Christ. As Piper states it: “Heaven will be a never-ending, ever-increasing discovery of more and more of God’s glory with great and ever greater joy in him… The perfection of heaven is not static.”[51]

In summary, though all will surely enjoy “perfection,” there will also be opportunity for growth and development commensurate with the new capacities and opportunities enjoyed both as a result of the common experience of resurrection but also, presumably, as result of degrees of reward. Since there is no inherent logical contradiction in such a supposition, it is therefore a reasonable solution to another of Blomberg’s objections to this doctrine.

Furthermore, this understanding is entirely consistent with a steady stream of Reformed thinking on the issue. For example, in a section of his works entitled “Justification by Faith Alone,” Jonathan Edwards states

[t]hat Christ, by his righteousness, purchased for every one complete and perfect happiness, according to his capacity. But this does not hinder but that the saints, being of various capacities, may have various degrees of happiness, and yet all their happiness be the fruit of Christ’s purchase.… So that it be still left with God, notwithstanding the perfect obedience of the second Adam, to fix the degree of each one’s capacity by what rule he pleases, he hath been pleased to fix the degree of capacity, and so of glory, by the proportion of the saints’ grace and fruitfulness here. He gives higher degrees of glory, in reward for higher degrees of holiness and good works, because it pleases him.[52]

Likewise, Bavinck states:

In proportion as a person has been faithful in using the talents given him he will in the kingdom of God receive greater honor and lordship (Matt. 25:14ff).… Thus all, it is true, share in the same blessings, the same eternal life, and the same fellowship with God. But there is nevertheless a difference among them in brilliance and glory. In proportion to their faithfulness and zeal, the churches receive from their Lord and King a different crown and reward.[53]

Thus, Blomberg’s fourth theological objection is at variance not only with a reasonable expectation of the nature of eternity but also with the teaching of some of Reformed theology’s most prominent theologians.

E. God’s Bar of Justice Is to Declare Believers Acquitted

In a fifth theological objection, Blomberg asserts that “[t]he purpose of Christians’ standing before God’s bar of justice is to declare them acquitted, not to embarrass them before the entire cosmos for all their failings (Rom 2:7; Rev 22:14; Matt 12:37a).”[54] However, this assertion does not fully square with clear statements of Scripture (e.g., 1 Cor 3:15; 1 John 2:28) that some believers will experience “loss” and “shame” before the Lord.[55] Whether or not such loss and shame will be observed by “the entire cosmos” is debatable, but that issue in itself does not invalidate the concept of degrees of reward.

F. Doctrine of Degrees of Rewards Promotes Competition and Comparison

Still another theological objection is that the doctrine of degrees of reward implicitly promotes a spirit of competition and comparison through a “performance-centered conception of the Christian life.”[56] However, only the perversion of Scriptural testimony as to the true basis for Christian motivation would validate this objection. That is, the promises of rewards must be held in balance with other prominent motivations for Christian living and service, such as seeking first the kingdom of God and His glory in all things (Matt 6:33; 1 Cor 10:31). Certainly any time one Scriptural truth is over-emphasized to the neglect of others error will result. Obviously, the believer’s goal in life is not to “beat” or “better” his brothers in Christ, which is a sinful motivation Paul addresses during his imprisonment (Phil 1:15, 17). Rather, it is to strive to “attain” all that God has promised (cf. Phil 3:9-14), to earnestly desire the maximum possible experience of God and heaven. As Kim states:

For the Christian, if he seeks God for some material gain, some prestige or accolade, then let him be considered mercenary, selfish and a dishonor to God. But if the Christian seeks God for the joy of knowing God, beholding God, glorifying God, then he should hardly be condemned for seeking this reward. Indeed, he is to be praised.[57]

Likewise, Lewis observes:

I can imagine someone saying that he dislikes my idea of heaven as a place where we are patted on the back. But proud misunderstanding is behind that dislike. In the end that face which is the delight or the terror of the universe must be turned upon each of us either with one expression or with the other, either conferring glory inexpressible or inflicting shame that can never be cured or disguised.… To please God…to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness…to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in his work or a father in a son—it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But it is so.[58]

Thus, while the idea of eternal reward can be perverted by sinful motives, its reality cannot be questioned when viewed in light of its likely nature: a greater capacity to know and enjoy God.

G. The “Greatest Danger”

Blomberg’s final theological objection is what he perceives as the greatest danger presented by this teaching:

The greatest danger of the doctrine of degrees of reward in heaven is that it has misled many people into thinking that the very nominal professions that they or their friends have at one time made will be sufficient to save them, even if they fail to receive as high a status in heaven as they might have.[59]

In response, it must be observed that there is a significant difference between those who live in blatant sin and those who “continue to believe but remain unduly immature in their faith (1 Cor 3:3),” as even Blomberg admits can happen.[60] Accordingly, on the one hand, this writer heartily agrees with Blomberg that “saving faith does over time lead to visible transformations in lifestyle and to growth in holiness (Matt 7:15-27; Gal 5:6, 19-24; Jas 2:14-26; 1 John 3:4-10).”[61] On the other hand, in some instances believers are disciplined with premature death, because of sin and rebellion against God (e.g., Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor 5:5; 11:29-32; cf. 1 John 5:16). Furthermore, rightly understood the doctrine of rewards does not promote the antinomianism with which Blomberg falsely associates it. Rather a right understanding of the doctrine should motivate the true believer to diligent obedience in pursuit of all God has promised can be his.

H. Other Objections

Besides these objections, Blomberg makes a couple of theological assertions that call into question the validity of the doctrine of degrees of reward and therefore merit a reply.

Gratitude is the only proper motivation. Blomburg asserts that the idea of rewards is unnecessary since “proper Christian motivation for pleasing God should stem from a profound sense of gratitude for what Christ has already done for us.”[62]

There are a couple of responses to this assertion. First, assuming the assertion is correct—though no Scriptural support is cited—Blomberg ignores the fact that the Scriptures themselves provide at least a dozen additional, distinct motivations for living the Christian life: (1) to express love for God and Christ (John 14:15, 21, 23; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6); (2) to maintain a clear conscience (Rom 13:5; 1 Pet 3:16; 2 Tim 1:3; cf. 1 Tim 1:5, 19); (3) to be an effective (useful) servant for God’s purposes (Eph 2:10; 2 Tim 2:20-21); (4) to ensure one’s life counts for eternity (Matt 6:19-21; 1 Cor 9:24-27); (5) to glorify God (Matt 5:14-16; 1 Cor 10:31; Phil 1:9-11); (6) to bring others to a saving knowledge of Christ (1 Cor 9:19-23; 2 Cor 2:14-17; 1 Pet 3:1-2); (7) to not be ashamed at the Judgment Seat of Christ but rather to be rewarded (Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:9-10; 2 Tim 4:7-8; 1 John 2:28); (8) to be properly prepared for the Lord’s coming (Matt 24:42-44; Mark 8:38; 2 Pet 3:10-13); (9) to demonstrate one has been set free from the power of sin (Rom 6:1-14; 7:1-6); (10) to experience the fullness of God’s love, joy, and blessing now (Ps 16:11; Matt 5:8; John 15:10; Rom 6:23; 12:1-2; Eph 3:14-19; 1 Pet 3:9-12; Jude 21); (11) to avoid experiencing the discipline of the Lord now (1 Cor 11:26-32; 1 Tim 5:20; Heb 12:3-11; 1 Pet 1:17; 1 John 5:16-17; Rev 3:19); and (12) to reflect the character and nature of the Father (Matt 5:48; Luke 6:36; Eph 4:32-5:1; 1 Pet 1:14-16; 1 John 2:6). While there is some degree of overlap in these motivations, the point is amply made that to limit Christian motivation to the lone aspect of gratitude is not consistent with Biblical testimony.

Second, the assertion itself may be challenged. In this regard, Piper argues the Scriptures do not present gratitude as a primary motivator for Christian living as Blomberg alleges. That is, while the Scriptures do in fact command gratitude as a Christian duty (e.g., Eph 5:20; 1 Thess 5:18), they rarely if ever use gratitude as an explicit motivator of behavior.63 For example, it is a lack of faith, not ingratitude, God highlights as the reason behind Israel’s moral failure (Num 14:11; Deut 1:31-32; Ps 78:15, 17, 22). Likewise, in the NT:

We find Christian obedience called the “work of faith,” never of [sic] the “work of gratitude” (1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). We find expressions like “live by faith” (Galatians 2:20) and “walk by faith” (2 Corinthians 5:7), but never any expression like “live by gratitude” or “walk by gratitude.”… Faith in future grace, not gratitude, is the source of radical, risk-taking, kingdom-seeking obedience.[64]

The danger in making gratitude a primary motivator for Christian behavior is it can easily degenerate into what Piper calls the “debtor’s ethic… ‘Because you have done something good for me, I feel indebted to do something good for you.’”[65] Likewise, Fuller states: “[I]f gratitude is set forth as a primary motive for obedience, there is an inherent danger that God’s grace will be seen not as a free gift but as a gift incurring obligation that must in some way be met.”[66]

Third, with regard to reward itself as a viable motivation in Scripture, Turner observes: “More often than not reward is used to encourage those who are suffering for their faith and are in need of endurance rather than to promote self-centeredness. The radical demands of the gospel are made acceptable by the promise of reward.”[67] Indeed, several texts appeal to the desire for reward as a motivation for right conduct (e.g., Matt 5:19; 6:4, 6, 18, 33; 1 Cor 3:14; 9:24-25).[68] As Kim observes:

We would affirm that Christ does exhort us to deny ourselves (Mt 10:37-39; Lk 9:23-24; 14:26-27; Jn 12:24-25). However, this call to self-denial is not an end, but a means for gain: we deny ourselves so that we might have life.[69]

In this regard, it is noteworthy that the author of Hebrews, who is seeking to motivate his readers not to abandon their Christian profession, frequently employs the theme of future reward (10:35; 11:6, 24-26). Though these texts do not explicitly refer to a doctrine of degrees of reward, the point is made that in these texts the prospect of a future reward is held out as a legitimate motivation for right conduct. Even Jesus was motivated in part to endure the cross by the promise of the joy that awaited him (Heb 12:2). Thus, reward as a valid means of motivation is affirmed in Scripture, contrary to Blomberg’s contention.

We can’t repay God. Blomberg also argues against the doctrine of rewards saying, “[n]othing we could ever offer to God could begin to repay him for the immense gift of forgiveness he has wrought on our behalf through the death of his dear Son.”[70] While this is a true statement, in no way does it mitigate against a doctrine of degrees of reward. Nowhere has it even remotely been suggested that in their hope of future reward Christians labor to “repay” God. Rather, God in His grace chooses to bestow upon His children blessings commensurate with their service to Him, service which God himself has enabled.

VI. Conclusion

The doctrine of degrees of reward has been shown to be compatible with the doctrines of justification and sanctification by faith. Indeed, numerous scholars attest to the validity of the doctrine.

The application of this doctrine to the life of the contemporary church is manifold. First, the doctrine underscores the importance of the diligent performance of works of faith and service against an antinomianism that would so emphasize the grace of God in salvation as to preclude the importance of good works in the life of the believer.

Second, this doctrine provides additional motivation and encouragement for perseverance in the Christian life.

Third, the doctrine of degrees of reward underscores the eternal significance of all that a believer does, regardless of position or responsibility in the church.

Fourth, this doctrine rebukes half-hearted service and devotion to the Lord with the solemn promise that each will give account and that there is the possibility of genuine loss of some kind at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Finally, this doctrine provides further encouragement for the believer to look forward to the eternal state with eagerness and anticipation. May God’s people be encouraged to “run the race” with all diligence so as to “win the prize” and achieve all that God has for them!

Notes

1. Craig L. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” JETS 35 (June 1992): 159. It is available online at www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/35/35-2/JETS_35-2_159-172_Blomberg.pdf.
2. Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 222.
3. Other representatives of this perspective in the debate include Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001); and G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954). Though he affirms the “divine promise of reward—reward given to all who walk in His ways—is recorded in many passages of Scripture,” Berkouwer is critical of Kuyper’s view that there is a Scriptural “distinction between eternal life as such and a special honor or pleasure in eternal life” (ibid., 114, 119).
4. Erich Sauer, In the Arena of Faith: A Call to a Consecrated Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 162.
5. Representatives include Paul Benware, The Believer’s Payday (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002); Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1990; reprint, 2006); Kenneth F. Dodson, The Prize of the Up-Calling (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969; reprint, Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1989); Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1981) and Grace in Eclipse: A Study on Eternal Rewards (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1985); R. T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983; Chicago: Moody, 1985); Erwin W. Lutzer, Your Eternal Reward (Chicago: Moody, 1998); Joe Wall, Going for the Gold: Reward and Loss at the Judgment of Believers (Chicago: Moody, 1991); and Robert N. Wilkin, The Road to Reward: Living Today in Light of Tomorrow (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2003).
6. For example, with reference to the warning in Heb 10:26-39, Dillow states: “It is best to interpret Heb. 10 as a warning against the failure to persevere to the end. The consequences of this failure are … not a loss of salvation but severe discipline in time.... The most severe punishment, however, is that God will have ‘no pleasure in Him’ [sic]. When the carnal Christian stands before His [sic] Lord in the last day, he will not hear Him say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord’” (Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, 466). Conversely, Schreiner and Caneday tend to see all NT warnings in terms of salvation: “We have also argued that these warnings do not merely threaten believers with losing rewards but that eternal life itself is at stake” (Schreiner and Caneday, The Race Set Before Us, 268).
7. For example, Craig is of the opinion that the rich man who died and descended to Hades, as described in Luke 16:19-31, will one day “come forth and take his place among the redeemed in glory” after “he shall have served out the sentence of judgment imposed on him by his Holy Judge” (S. S. Craig, The Dualism of Eternal Life: A Revolution in Eschatology [Rochester, NY: Published by author, 1916], 138). Similarly, Faust teaches that the “unfaithful Christian goes to the same place as the unbeliever and hypocrite until after the millennium (Luke 12:46)” (J. D. Faust, The Rod: Will God Spare It? [Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 2002], 408). Indeed, Panton places those believers “guilty of the gravest offenses…temporarily in Gehenna” (D. M. Panton, The Judgment Seat of Christ, 2d ed. [London: Chas. J. Thynne, 1921], 76).
8. Leon Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 66-67, emphasis added.
9. Paul D. Kim, “Reward and Sanctification” (Th.M. Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2001), 1.
10. See the writer’s unpublished (as yet) dissertation “Investing in Eternity: A New Testament Theology of Rewards” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Baptist Bible Seminary, 2008).
11. The passages selected as “primary” for analysis in the dissertation are (1) Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-6); (2) the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30), the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27), and the Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Matt 20:1-16); (3) Paul’s teaching concerning the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:10-4:5; 2 Cor 5:10-11); (4) references to believers’ crowns (1 Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19; 2 Tim 4:8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 2:10; 3:11); and (5) the overcomer promises of Revelation 2-3.
12. McClain explains: “As we pass from chapter 20 into 21 of the Apocalypse…the Mediatorial Kingdom of our Lord ends, not by abolition, but by its mergence into the Universal Kingdom of God. Thus it is perpetuated forever, no longer as a separate entity, but in indispensable union with the original Kingdom of God from which it sprang” (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1974], 513). With regard to the church itself, Pentecost affirms: “The church enters into her eternal state at the rapture” (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964], 577).
13. This idea will be further explored in the following section of this paper.
14. Editor’s note: Bozung does not indicate his level of agreement with Calvinism (e.g., 3 point, 4 point, 5 point). His point here is that the idea of degree of rewards is not antithetical to Calvinism. See Section IV.B. (p. 32) for Bozung’s comment on Blomburg’s understanding of the fifth point of Calvinism.
15. Craig Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 159-172. In his introduction, Blomberg states that during the previous twenty years of his Christian life he had “grown progressively more uncomfortable with any formulation that differentiates among believers as regards our eternal rewards” (159).
16. Ibid., 160.
17. Ibid.
18. For example, Kim cites a handful of Blomberg’s objections in his chapter on “The Problems of Reward,” but he chooses not to address them directly (Paul D. Kim, “Reward and Sanctification” [Th.M. Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2001], 4). And Lewis and Demarest, Blomberg’s colleagues at Denver Seminary, after referring to this article, give a three sentence response at the end of their less than one page discussion of rewards for believers (Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Three Volumes in One [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 3:478).
19. See pp. 45-165 of this writer’s dissertation, referenced above.
20. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 160.
21. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 262, 264.
22. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 163.
23. See pages 97-142.
24. Ibid., 165.
25. Ibid., 164-165.
26. The fact that this act of worship is linked with the worship of “the four living creatures” (v 8), who “do not cease” in their worship of the Lord, argues strongly for a continuous expression of worship on the part of these elders as well rather than a one-time event. In addition, Quick rightly observes: “[T]hough they cast their crowns before him, they do not cast their thrones, nor do they give up their position and proximity to Him. The casting of the crowns before the throne is symbolic of the words they say, ‘Worthy art thou…to receive glory and honor and power’… But this action in no way changes the glory or honor he has bestowed on them. They keep it permanently” (Kenneth B. Quick, “Living for the Kingdom” [D.Min. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989], 234, emphasis original).
27. Blomberg deals with several other texts, most of which are discussed in this writer’s dissertation. In some instances, there is agreement with this writer on the misuse of certain texts to validate the doctrine of rewards.
28. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 159.
29. Ibid., 170.
30. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2005), 408-409.
31. Ruth M. Fuller, “A Pauline Understanding of Rewards: Its Background and Expression in First Corinthians” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1990), 324.
32. John Piper, Future Grace (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1995), 12.
33. Fuller, “A Pauline Understanding of Rewards” 328-29, emphasis original.
34. Ibid., 347, emphasis original.
35. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 162.
36. As Ken Gardoski puts it: “This is like asking whether Jesus’ permanent humanity is significant in light of the vast gulf between the divine and human natures!” (8 February 2008; personal conversation with this writer).
37. Kim, “Reward and Sanctification,” 16.
38. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 162.
39. Ibid.
40. 10 February 2008; personal conversation with this writer.
41. Editor’s note: There is a difference between tears caused by physical or emotional pain and regret. It is possible that even if a believer had a sense of regret, he would enjoy eternity. Don’t we all have regrets in this life? Won’t we all regret things we said and did in this life? (Surely David regrets his acts of adultery and murder, yet they are in the eternal Biblical record.) In glorified bodies we will be able to handle regrets perfectly. Zane Hodges even suggested in personal conversations with me that there will be shades of negative emotions like regret, irritation, and disappointment. Without negative (yet not sinful) emotions, Zane said, the joys would have less meaning.
42. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven,” 162.
43. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1241.
44. Ibid., 1242.
45. Kim, “Reward and Sanctification,” 18.
46. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 162.
47. Ibid., 162-63.
48. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1240.
49. This thought was brought to this writer’s attention by Michael Stallard. He also added that most likely the sinless Adam and Eve also grew in the Garden before their fall (10 February 2008; personal conversation with this writer). Admittedly, in both examples they were in non-glorified bodies.
50. C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd., 1949; reprint, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 35.
51. John Piper, God’s Passion for His Glory (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 37.
52. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1, revised and corrected by Edward Hickman (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974; reprint, 1984), 646, emphasis added.
53. Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 567, emphasis added.
54. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 167.
55. See pp. 79-95 of this writer’s dissertation for a fuller explication of these particular texts.
56. Ibid., 169.
57. Kim, “Reward and Sanctification,” 14.
58. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 36-37.
59. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven,” 172.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid. Editor’s note: Many JOTGES readers may disagre with this statement and the suggestion that the verses cited prove it to be true. However, note the discussion which immediately follows. I personally say Amen to the overall tenor of what the author is suggesting.
62. Ibid., 170.
63. Piper, Future Grace, 33-34.
64. Ibid., 43. Piper does rightly acknowledge, however, there “are ways that gratitude helps bring about obedience to Christ. One way is that the spirit of gratitude is simply incompatible with some sinful attitudes.… There is a sense in which gratitude and faith are interwoven joys that strengthen each other…faith is strengthened by a lively gratitude for God’s past trustworthiness” (ibid., 48).
65. Ibid., 32.
66. Fuller, “A Pauline Understanding of Rewards,” 321.
67. Layne H. Turner, “The Use of Eternal Reward as a Motivation in the New Testament” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991), 203.
68. See this writer’s dissertation for a fuller explication of these texts.
69. Kim, “Reward and Sanctification,” 7, emphasis original.
70. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” 170.

Things That Cannot Be Shaken — Radio Classic – Dr. Charles Stanley

The Pentecostal Doctrine of Initial Evidence: A Study in Hermeneutical Method

By Douglas C. Bozung

[Coordinator of Missionary Preparation, Greater Europe Mission, Monument, Colorado]

The defense of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence provides informative insights into the use and abuse of proper hermeneutical method.[1] This doctrine maintains that the experience of “speaking in tongues” represents the initial physical evidence of “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”[2] In other words, every Christian who experiences the Spirit’s baptism should necessarily demonstrate the reception of that baptism by the act of tongues speaking. Not all Pentecostals subscribe to this perspective today,[3] but the doctrine of Initial Evidence along with the doctrine of a subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit form the sine qua non of classical Pentecostalism.[4]

Pentecostal Gordon Fee observes that historically Pentecostals have not employed a rigorous “scientific” hermeneutic. Rather they have often utilized what he calls “pragmatic hermeneutics”: obeying what they understand should be taken literally and then spiritualizing or allegorizing the rest.[5] He also notes that “the Pentecostal tends to exegete his or her experience.”[6] That is, a person’s experience provides the framework for subsequent hermeneutical and exegetical treatment of the text. For example, Roger Stronstad states, “In particular, the Pentecostal interpreter, such as myself, brings his or her own experience of being filled with Spirit as a presupposition … and believes that he or she is justified in understanding the experience of the disciples in the light of his or her own similar experience.”[7]

In recent years, however, Pentecostal scholars have become more responsive to criticism leveled against their distinctive doctrines and the manner in which they are defended. They have sensed the need not only to be hermeneutically sound but also to “rearticulate our theology in a manner, which is relevant to the contemporary context and faithful to the Scriptures.”[8]

The purpose of this paper is to examine four primary hermeneutical arguments[9] used to substantiate the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence and to evaluate those arguments in light of generally accepted hermeneutical principles.[10]

The Argument of Historical Precedent in Acts

Description

The classic defense of the doctrine of Initial Evidence is based upon the hermeneutical argument of “historical precedent.” This argument views the experiences of the early church in the book of Acts as providing an historical precedent or normative pattern for the church for all time.[11] Specifically, the passages in Acts 2:1–4, 10:44–47, and 19:1–7, which explicitly associate tongues speaking with the reception of the Holy Spirit, are understood as providing a normative pattern for the church today. Acts 8:14–19 and 9:17–19 are also sometimes cited as further evidence for the doctrine of Initial Evidence, though they do not refer to tongues speaking. Corroboration of this belief is found in the disputed ending of the Gospel of Mark, which states that tongues would be one of the “signs” that would accompany those who believe (Mark 16:17).[12]

Evaluation

Those who disagree with this argument from historical precedent point out that a distinction is necessary between the proper use of the didactic and historical passages of Scripture.[13] Christian doctrine should be derived primarily from the didactic portions of the NT and only secondarily from the historical. A similar argument states that what is descriptive of the early church is not necessarily prescriptive for the church today.[14] Thus, even Pentecostal scholar Donald Johns acknowledges the inadequacy of the argument of historical precedent and the inconsistency with which Pentecostals have employed it since there are other “patterns” in Acts to which they do not subscribe.[15]

Fee points out, however, that many non-Pentecostal sectors of Christendom also employ the argument of historical precedent in the defense of their doctrinal views. For example, the mode of water baptism, the frequency of the celebration of the Lord’s Table, and even the gathering of the church on Sunday rely heavily upon arguments from historical precedent.[16] While this use does not justify the Pentecostal use of historical precedent, hermeneutical integrity demands that criticism of methodology be consistent.

In addition, some of the hermeneutical issues that confront the interpreter of narrative passages are also present in the didactic portions. For example, the epistles were not written as theological treatises but rather in response to particular needs and circumstances that presented themselves at the time of their composition.[17] Thus, proper hermeneutics demands they be interpreted in light of the historical context and occasion of the letter. These factors may limit the scope of the application of a didactic portion to the first century. Furthermore, discovering an author’s purpose in writing may help the interpreter discern the reason for the inclusion of a particular historical incident or epistolary teaching, but it does not necessarily answer the question as to whether such a passage provides normative instruction for the church today. Thus, a simple appeal to the didactic nature of a passage does not of itself resolve the issue of the normativeness of a teaching. Fee and Stuart adroitly observe, “Sometimes our theological problems with the Epistles derive from the fact that we are asking our questions of the texts that by their occasional nature are answering only their questions” (emphasis theirs).[18]

Solution

What then is the means of properly assessing the normativeness or contemporary value of historical precedent in a narrative text? Fee and Stuart maintain that in order for historical precedent to have normative value for the church today there must be a demonstrable link to the author’s intent.[19] As Fee states, “What is incidental to the primary intent of the narrative may indeed reflect an author’s theology, or how he understood things, but it cannot have the same didactic value as what the narrative was intended to teach has” (emphasis his).[20]

While there is no unanimity on this matter, Luke’s overall intent appears to be to demonstrate the growth of the church from an exclusively Jewish constituency based in Jerusalem to a worldwide and largely Gentile entity through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit acting through the Apostles.[21] In this regard, Luke’s emphasis upon the account of the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10–11), the first Gentile convert, is wholly comprehensible. The issue at this point in the narrative of Acts is whether it is proper to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:15). The manifestation of tongues by the Gentiles served as a visible confirmation to the Jewish Christians that this was indeed the case (10:45–47; cf. 11:18). Thus, the phenomenon of tongues attested to the validity of Gentile conversion consistent with Luke’s primary purpose of describing the progressive growth of the church.

But, aside from Luke’s larger narrative purpose, one must ask whether he is also teaching in this passage and others like it a pattern of tongues speaking as an evidence of the Spirit’s baptism for future generations of Christians. Johns argues that Luke does assign “evidential value to speaking in tongues” through the statement of Peter in Acts 10:45–47.[22] But two significant observations would argue against this conclusion.

First, the fact that this account chronicles the initial conversion of Gentiles in the presence of an incredulous Jewish audience suggests a unique circumstance. Given the unprecedented nature of the event, additional accounts of Gentile conversion with tongues speaking would appear to be necessary to establish a normative pattern. Yet, in each instance in which tongues speaking is explicitly associated with the reception of the Spirit in Acts it has to do with a different group of people each time (i.e., Jews, Gentiles, proselytes of John the Baptist). While such variation demonstrates the progressive growth of the church (consistent with Luke’s overarching intent) and the organic unity of these groups to one universal church, it also argues against a normative pattern for future generations.

Second, a comparison of the various accounts of conversion and the reception of the Spirit in Acts demonstrates a great diversity in order and details that is inconsistent with an attempt to establish a pattern of normativeness.[23] As Robert P. Menzies observes, “If Luke intended to teach evidential tongues as normative, why does he not consistently present tongues as the immediate result of Spirit-baptism (e.g., Acts 8:17; 9:1–19)?”[24]

While tongues speaking is not incidental to an understanding of the significance of the Cornelius narrative in the argument of Luke, it is clearly incidental to the unmistakable emphasis throughout the narrative upon “what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:15b). Thus, the argument from historical precedent for the doctrine of Initial Evidence fails not only because it is inconsistently represented in the text of Acts but also because it is quite incidental to the larger purposes of the author. What is needed is some other means of substantiation to show that Luke intended to establish precedent.[25]

In the same manner, the phenomena of visions and the visitation of angels as a form of guidance in Acts 10 should properly be considered as secondary features of the narrative, whose theological significance must be determined either from other texts or some explicit declaration of their significance in the narrative itself.

Accordingly, Pentecostal Robert Menzies concludes, “Traditional attempts to offer biblical support for our doctrine of subsequence [based upon the argument from historical precedent] are no longer viable.”[26]

The Argument of Narrative

Purpose in Luke-Acts

Description of Narrative Purpose

More recent arguments by Pentecostal scholars have sought to use the principles and findings of both redaction criticism as well as narrative theology to validate the doctrine of Initial Evidence.[27] In the former, an interpreter analyzes the manner in which an author selected, arranged, and even modified his materials to discern the unique theological perspective of the author. With such a perspective in hand, the writing can then be properly interpreted. For example, Stronstad insists that “Luke reports only those sayings and events which conform to, advance and illustrate his purposes.”[28] He then accuses some of practicing a “hermeneutic of denial” because they ignore Luke’s “clear multiplex historical-didactic-theological purpose.” Rather he advocates the practice of a “hermeneutic of affirmation” that recognizes in Luke’s purpose “that the disciples’ inaugural reception of the Spirit of prophecy is a paradigm for new converts.”[29]

Narrative theology recognizes that biblical narratives contain both history and theology and seeks to understand how stories function in the argument of an author.[30] A primary purpose alleged for narrative in antiquity was to provide order, structure, and meaning for one’s own world. Accordingly, Johns argues that one of the purposes of the stories in Acts was to provide “a paradigm or pattern of how to live my life, what kind of experiences to expect with God, etc.”[31]

A similar approach is the argument of narrative imperative. For example, Douglas Oss argues that “the narratological equivalent of an imperative”[32] is inherent in the fulfillment of the instructions of Jesus to his disciples “to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power (dynamis) when the Holy Spirit comes upon them.” For Oss, the fulfillment of this promise “throughout the remainder of Acts” is an imperative that should be obeyed even today. Furthermore, “repeating themes, details, phrases, behaviors, etc.” serve to “control interpretation, adding emphasis and specifying communication of central meanings.”[33]

Evaluation of Narrative Purposes

Pentecostals should be commended for seeking to link their interpretation of Luke-Acts to authorial intent. They also are correct in seeking to discover the parenetic purpose of the text for present generations. Unfortunately, many of the same criticisms brought to bear against the older argument of historical precedent also apply to these newer, albeit more sophisticated, arguments.

One difficulty inherent in these approaches is the apparent assumption that a particular story or narrative was selected because of its normative value to succeeding generations. One must seriously question whether all narrated experiences are selected for the specific purpose of teaching a normative practice or “paradigm” for the church. For example, the sale of possessions and property by the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:45) is rarely, if ever, cited as a paradigm for the church today. As in the case of the argument from historical precedent, apart from an explicit statement as to the normativeness of an action or an event (e.g., “Do this in remembrance of me”), the interpreter must defer to other portions of Scripture that provide the theological framework for understanding and applying a particular narrative.

In response, Stronstad criticizes such a hermeneutical approach as inferring that “Luke-Acts has little to say to contemporary experience.”[34] Yet, this criticism ignores Luke’s clear statement of his historiographical and apologetic purposes in writing (Luke 1:1–4), purposes that continue to be of particular utility to this day. It also demeans the contemporary value of the great themes communicated in Acts such as world mission, the providence of God, the empowerment of the Spirit, and the triumph of the gospel.[35]

Another difficulty, previously mentioned, is the absence of consistency in the details between episodes cited as demonstrating an alleged normative pattern. To this Stronstad replies that in the interpretation of narrative one must separate the “historical particularity” of a narrative episode from its “programmatic/paradigmatic function.”[36] According to Stronstad, the diversity of circumstances presented by the various episodes involving the reception of the Spirit in Luke-Acts should not be used as an argument against the consistent pattern of “charismatic empowering of the Spirit for … Christian service.”[37]

Interestingly, Stronstad generalizes with the phrase “charismatic empowering,” presumably because Spirit baptism as evidenced by tongues speaking is not consistently presented in the various episodes cited in Acts by Pentecostals, a consistency that would be expected if indeed Luke’s purpose were to teach such a specific pattern. Indeed, it is not merely the circumstances of the narratives that vary, as Stronstad alleges, but the very paradigm that supposedly links tongues speaking and Spirit baptism has significant variations from episode to episode.[38] This is the fundamental weakness of his proposal.

Conclusion Concerning Narrative Purpose

As stated above, there is the need for explicit attestation of an historical event or practice in order to clearly establish its “paradigmatic” or normative value for the church today. Fortunately, Luke-Acts is not the sole basis upon which to adjudicate this matter. The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12–14 must also be considered in a manner that is able to demonstrate the consistency between the theologies of both authors. The following sections examine the exegetical arguments and underlying hermeneutics employed by Pentecostals to do this.

The Argument of the Distinctiveness of the Gift of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14

Description of the Distinctiveness

Almost since its inception Pentecostalism has maintained that the gift of tongues as described in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is a phenomenon distinct from the “initial evidence” of the Spirit’s baptism as described in Acts.[39] By this means Paul’s potentially devastating rhetorical question, “Do all speak with tongues?” (12:30), becomes irrelevant to the issue of whether or not all persons baptized in the Spirit should manifest tongues. As will be demonstrated below, the arguments employed touch upon fundamental hermeneutical issues of word usage and context.

Evaluation of the Distinctiveness

Is there hermeneutical justification for a distinction in the nature of tongues between Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14? For example, does Luke employ the term γλωσσα in a manner distinct from Paul’s usage? Clearly, the “tongues” of Acts 2 are known human languages (2:6, 11). Indeed, a survey of the use of γλωσσα reveals two primary meanings throughout the NT: the human organ or a human language. Without any explanation, one major Greek lexicon classifies the use of γλωσσα in 1 Corinthians 14 as “the broken speech of a person in religious ecstasy.”[40] Yet, Carson asserts that “careful word studies have shown” that γλωσσα never denotes “noncognitive utterance.”[41] Thus, Paul’s meaning must be intelligible in the light of Luke’s attested meaning.

That the tongues of 1 Corinthians are not human languages could be suggested by Paul’s hypothetical statement, “If I speak with the tongues … of angels” (1 Cor 13:1). Fee suggests that the Corinthians “and probably Paul” thought they could.[42] In this manner, the unintelligible nature of modern tongues is seemingly justified.[43] Yet, this solitary text is presented as a hypothetical protasis in a hyperbolic context (vv. 2–3). This hardly seems a conclusive basis for the supposition that the biblical gift of tongues is largely unintelligible speech. Also, in light of Acts 2, is it reasonable to maintain that all expressions of tongues today are tongues of angels?

Thus, the basic, hermeneutical principle of discovering word meaning through a study of usage in context does not support this particular argument.[44]

Is there any indication in the context of Luke and 1 Corinthians that the phenomenon being described is inherently different? One Pentecostal apologist argues that in Acts the phenomenon of tongues is “controlled entirely by the Spirit” whereas in 1 Corinthians it is “under the control of the anointed human mind.”[45] Yet, while Acts seems to emphasize the sovereignty of the Spirit in bestowing tongues (Acts 2:2–4; 10:44–46), there is no indication that the human recipients were unable to control their minds or their mouths (cf. 2:14). Likewise, in Corinthians, while there is an emphasis upon decorum and human control (14:27–28), there is also an emphasis upon the divine bestowal of the gift (12:3, 7–11, 18, 28). Thus, this argument proceeds on the basis of what is not clearly attested in the text to establish what is in fact a false dichotomy.

A second argument for a distinction between tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians is that in Acts there is no evident obedience to the Pauline requirement that there be both an interpreter and an orderly means of expressing the gift.[46] But such an argument fails to adequately consider the context of each usage and the implication of differing purposes or functions. For example, Paul’s instructions clearly apply to the gathering of the church (1 Cor 14:19, 26), but this was never the case in Acts. Also, the primary purpose of the gift in 1 Corinthians is the edification of the church (12:7; 14:5, 12), a fact that Paul teaches demands an interpreter (12:6, 13). In Acts, on the other hand, the purpose is evidently one of a sign (cf. 1 Cor 14:21–22),[47] a phenomenon that does not necessarily demand immediate interpretation.[48] Furthermore, it can be clearly observed that at least in its initial manifestation there was no need of an interpreter (Acts 2:6, 8, 11). Finally, such an argument presumes without warrant that any manifestation of the “initial evidence” of tongues in the church is exempt from obedience to Paul’s instructions.

A third argument maintains that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are in fact designed for private, devotional use. Hurtado even suggests that the private devotional use of tongues “was probably the major use of tongues speaking in the early church” (emphasis mine).[49] The point is made that the content of tongues speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 has special reference to prayer (vv. 14–15), singing praise to God (v. 15), and giving of thanks to God (vv. 16–17). Thus, a devotional use is adduced. Yet clearly the apostles were also praising God on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11). That there may be value in the private, devotional use of tongues, even Paul appears to concede (e.g., 14:4, 28).[50] Yet to maintain that the purpose of the gift is for private, devotional use clearly contradicts Paul’s repeated emphasis upon the need to exercise all spiritual gifts for the mutual edification of the church (14:3–6, 12).

A final argument seeks to distinguish the tongues referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:30 from those referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:5. This argument sees Paul’s reference in the former passage to congregational worship and his later reference to the private devotional use of tongues. Thus, while not all will speak with tongues in the gathering of the local church, all can and should speak in tongues privately.[51] In this way, Pentecostals may conclude that “while Luke tells us nothing about tongues in congregational worship, and Paul provides no hint of glossolalia as ‘initial evidence,’ we may harmonize their evidence with little fear of distortion.”[52]

The contextual oversights in this argument are legion. First, following the same reasoning, the exercise of the apostolic, prophetic, and healing gifts would also be restricted to the gathering of the church since they occur in the same list of rhetorical questions (1 Cor 12:29–30). That this is patently false is seen in a simple reading of Acts (e.g., 8:36–41; 21:4, 11). Second, Paul is clearly referring to the universal church in verse 28 when he states, “God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets…”. To see a reference here to the local gathering of the church would be absurd in the extreme, implying as it would a plurality of apostles in the local Corinthian assembly.[53] Third, while Paul evidently distinguishes two possible spheres for the use of tongues, he uses the same terminology to refer to all manifestations of the gift.

Conclusion Concerning the Distinctiveness

In summary, the Pentecostal attempt to distinguish between kinds of tongues, whether between Luke and Paul or within Paul himself, is fraught with hermeneutical difficulties, chief of which is a frequent disregard for context. While the purposes of tongues may have been several, the fundamental nature of the gift as a known language does not appear to vary in the text of Scripture. Carson concludes, “Certainly tongues in Acts exercise some different functions from those in 1 Corinthians; but there is no substantial evidence that suggests Paul thought the two were essentially different” (emphasis his).[54]

The Argument of the Distinctiveness of Paul’s Doctrine of the Baptism of the Spirit

Description of the Doctrine

Ultimately, the doctrine of Initial Evidence rises or falls on the Pentecostal definition of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent work of the Spirit following conversion. The primary text around which most debate swirls is 1 Corinthians 12:13, though other passages, interpreted correctly, present an equal challenge to the Pentecostal doctrine.[55]

Many Pentecostals chafe at what they describe as the non-Pentecostal’s reading of Luke through a Pauline grid. As Oss states, “To put an epistolary language test to a narrative is hermeneutically unsound.”[56] Thus, in response to what they perceive as a fundamental error in hermeneutical method, Pentecostals insist that the Pauline description of the baptism of the Spirit is in no way a detriment to either the Pentecostal doctrine of Subsequence or Initial Evidence as derived from Acts.

Evaluation of the Doctrine

One interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is that the baptism of the Spirit described by Paul is a post-conversion experience consistent with the Pentecostal understanding of various episodes in Acts.

Yet the universal nature of verses 12–13 (“all the members,” “we all,” “Jews and Greeks”) argues strongly against the limitation of the “we” to only those who have experienced a post-conversion baptism. The hermeneutical fallacy here, as Carson correctly notes, is “insensitivity to the context.”[57]

A more subtle interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 seeks to distinguish the “we” who have been “baptized into one body” as a reference to the converted and the “we” who have been “made to drink of one Spirit” as a reference to those who have experienced a second work of the Spirit.[58] Yet, the obvious parallel construction of the two metaphorical phrases cannot possibly support such a theological distinction.[59] This is classic case of eisegesis. As Packard notes, “Reference to a second blessing has to be read into the text; it cannot be read out of it.”[60]

A third argument distinguishes the baptism in the Holy Spirit described in the Gospels and Acts (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16) from a baptism by the Holy Spirit described here by Paul. This argument depends upon translating the preposition εν with two distinct meanings in the same prepositional construction: εν πνευματι. One alleged basis for this distinction in the English translation is “the fact that making the Spirit the element in which the believer is baptized leaves the rite without an administrator. In the Lucan contexts, Jesus is always the baptizer.”[61] But against this Carson observes, “Whenever the verb baptize is used in the New Testament, it is the medium of the baptism—water, fire, cloud, and so forth—that is expressed using this preposition εν (en), not the agent.”[62] Thus, the hermeneutical fallacy is what Silva describes as overemphasis of “subtle points of grammar and vocabulary” in order to establish a doctrinal position.[63]

For Oss the above arguments are quite beside the point since “Paul is not specifically addressing here one’s enduement with power … but he is using the language [of Luke] to make a point concerning unity in the body of Christ.”[64] Thus, Oss argues that similar language does not mandate similar meaning. In defense of his argument, one might point to the different use of the term justification by Paul and James or, more appropriate to this debate, the different use of the concept of being “filled with the Spirit” in Luke-Acts and Paul (Eph 5:18). Yet, even as Oss observes, the context of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is one replete with a discussion of the Spirit’s empowering ministry through the various spiritual gifts.[65] For this reason, how can Oss be sure that Paul is using the “language” of Spirit baptism in a sense different from Luke’s use? Obviously, such a supposition facilitates the means of reconciling the teaching of the two writers in a manner consistent with Pentecostal distinctives. But this is an evident imposition of theological preunderstanding upon the text. Paul’s point concerning unity in the context immediately preceding and following this passage is precisely that it is the one and the same Holy Spirit that empowers each member of the body for service (vv. 4–11) such that all are necessary and all are dependent upon one another (vv. 14–27). Thus, the very diversity of the gifts provides an essential unity of the body of Christ through the Spirit.[66]

Conclusion Concerning the Doctrine

In summary, as Dunn concluded more than thirty years ago in a thorough critique of the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism, “Unless recourse is had to semantic sleight of hand ... there is no alternative to the conclusion that the baptism in the Spirit is what made the Corinthians members of the Body of Christ, that is, Christians.”[67] For this reason the Pentecostal doctrine of Subsequence and its corresponding teaching of Initial Evidence through tongues speaking cannot be sustained biblically.[68]

Final Conclusions

An examination of various hermeneutical devices employed in defense of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence reveals significant difficulties. Attempts to justify the doctrine on the basis of historical precedent or the principles of narrative theology are either overstated or inconsistently applied. Likewise, attempts to harmonize a Pentecostal understanding of Luke-Acts with Pauline teaching results in the need to violate basic principles of synchronic word study and contextual control in interpretation.

Meanwhile, important lessons have been learned regarding the use and abuse of the same hermeneutical principles in non-Pentecostal circles. These lessons include the dangers of reading Scripture through the lens of experience, forcing the text to answer the reader’s questions, drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from historical events, divorcing word meaning from attested usage, ignoring context, and overemphasizing subtle points of grammar.

May the Lord guide his people into the right understanding of his Word through the proper use of hermeneutical principles and methods.

Notes

1. Gordon Fee notes that while Pentecostals “are frequently praised for recapturing for the church its joyful radiance … they are at the same time noted for bad hermeneutics” (Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 83).
2. Ibid., 84.
3. Several Pentecostals cited in this paper, including Fee and Max Turner, fall into this category.
4. Thus, Article 8 of the “Statement of Fundamental Truths” of the General Council of theAssemblies of God states, “The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physicalsign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4)” (quoted in Fee,84). The other historic Pentecostal distinctive, now shared by many charismatics and Third-waveadherents, is the doctrine of subsequence or the belief in a baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to anddistinct from the moment of conversion. See R. Dennis Heard, “Let’s Look at the Record,” Pentecostal Messenger 77, no. 6 (June 2003): 4-8.
5. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 86. Of course, this kind of approach is not unique to Pentecostals!
6. Ibid. Indeed, one early Pentecostal stated that “the Baptism in the Spirit is not a doctrine, but an experience” (quoted in Gary B. McGee, “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Tongues as Evidence in the Book of Acts,” in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspective on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 106). Thus, Fee notes, rather than seeking the origination of their theology in the text, they use theology for the biblical and theological verification of their experience.
7. Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study of Luke’s Charismatic Theology (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1999), 19.
8. Robert P. Menzies, “Introduction,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998); available from; Internet; accessed 16 June 2003.
9. Hermeneutics defines the premises or principles by which the meaning of a text is revealed, while exegesis is the task of uncovering the single, intended meaning of a passage of Scripture through the implementation of hermeneutical principles. While the focus of this paper is upon the underlying hermeneutics employed by Pentecostals, the discussion necessarily carries over into the arena of exegesis.
10. An area of investigation beyond the scope of this paper is the relationship of Lucan theology and Pauline theology. Contemporary Pentecostal scholars argue that Luke should not be read through the lens of Paul nor should Paul be given primacy over Luke. Rather “a biblical theological approach lets each NT author be himself and say what he wants to say, even if it differs in perspective from another writer, and whether or not one wrote a letter and the other told a story” (Donald A. Johns, “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pentecostalism’s Doctrine of Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence, 149). This may be true, though ultimately there must be a harmonious synthesis that respects the doctrine of inspiration. But the question before us in this paper is the correct means to arrive at a particular author’s theology.
11. Not so coincidently, some Pentecostals apply this same methodology to justify their belief in a baptism in “Jesus’ name only” based upon precedent in Acts.
12. Contemporary Pentecostal Donald A. Johns (“Some New Directions,” 165) rejects the use of Mark 16:17 on the basis of both its questionable textual support as well as a clear lack of connection between tongues and the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
13. For example, John R. Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1964), 8.
14. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 106.
15. Johns, “Some New Directions,” 147. Indeed, the rushing wind and fire in Acts 2:2–3 is ignored by Pentecostals.
16. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 87. Indeed, as McGee (“Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 100) points out, many independent and baptistic groups employ Acts in their defense of concepts of faith, repentance, and church polity as well as their desire to return to the “purity of the early church.” Catholicism is defined by its exaltation of historical precedent (tradition) to a level commensurate with Scripture. Our concern here, however, is with biblical historical precedent.
17. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 48. Fee and Stuart (49) speak of the “task theology” found in the Epistles “or theology at the service of a particular need.”
18. Ibid., 77.
19. Ibid., 108. Authorial intent may be defined as the meaning expressed by an author through what he has written. See Norman L. Geisler, “The Relation of Purpose and Meaning,” Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 230. According to Geisler, a correct hermeneutical and exegetical approach seeks to reveal the argument of an author through the discovery of his intention as expressed by what he has written (245). Thus, John Polhill states with regard to Acts, “Beyond Luke’s express statement, it is probably impossible to probe into his mind and further determine his ‘purposes.’ To speak of the themes of Luke-Acts is another matter; they are property of the objective text and not of the author’s subjective mind” (“Interpreting the Book of Acts,” in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001], 403).
20. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 92.
21. Ibid., 91. See also D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 150. I. H. Marshall argues that one must speak of the unified purpose of Luke-Acts, since Luke introduces Acts as a continuation of his gospel (Acts 1:1). In this regard he states that the particular purpose of Acts is “to show how the salvation which was manifested by Jesus during his earthly life in a limited area of country and for a brief period of time became a reality for increasing numbers of people over a wide geographical area and during an extended period of time” (The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 20).
22. Johns, “Some New Directions,” 152.
23. For example, in Acts 8 the Samaritans waited for the apostles to lay hands upon them in order to receive the Holy Spirit, whereas in Acts 10 the Gentiles received the Spirit immediately.
24. Robert P. Menzies, “Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998): 115.
25. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 108.
26. Menzies, “Evidential Tongues,” 113. Menzies argues instead that the nature of the gift of the Holy Spirit as a means of enabling powerful witness is an implicit theological argument for its universality as well as its normativeness (119–20).
27. See Johns, “Some New Directions,” 152–56.
28. Stronstad, Prophethood, 21.
29. Ibid., 29.
30. According to Johns, “Narrative theology … asserts that the story-form itself has significance for theology” (“Some New Directions,” 130).
31. Ibid., 154.
32. Douglas A. Oss, “A Pentecostal/Charismatic Response to C. Samuel Storms” and “A Pentecostal/Charismatic View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 262.
33. Ibid., 235.
34. Stronstad, Prophethood, 28.
35. See Polhill, “Book of Acts,” 403–7.
36. Stronstad, Prophethood, 30.
37. Ibid., 31.
38. There is no mention of Spirit baptism or tongues speaking in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch nor of many of the converts of Paul in his various missionary journeys.
39. Larry W. Hurtado, “Normal, but not a Norm: ‘Initial Evidence’ and the New Testament,” in Initial Evidence, 196.
40. BAGD, 4th rev. ed., s.v. “γλωσσα.”
41. Carson, Showing, 80–81.
42. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 630. That the Corinthians believed they could speak with “tongues of angels” should perhaps come as no surprise, given the carnal state of their thinking and behavior (1 Cor 3:1–3).
43. Turner notes, “The great majority of taped examples of tongues prove to have no genuine linguistic structure” (Max Turner, “Tongues: An Experience for all in the Pauline Churches?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 [1998]: 249). Likewise, exhaustive studies have concluded that “modern tongues are lexically uncommunicative and the few instances of reported modern xenoglossia are so poorly attested that no weight can be laid on them” (Carson, Showing, 84). Thus, modern tongues would appear to bear no resemblance to the biblical description of the phenomenon.
44. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 199; Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 63–64.
45. Quoted in Gary B. McGee, “Popular Expositions of Initial Evidence in Pentecostalism,” in Initial Evidence, 128.
46. Ibid.
47. Merrill F. Unger, The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 74, 92. More specifically, Hurtado notes that the “Lucan use of tongues in certain episodes of Acts (is) part of the author’s intention to show the genuineness of the spread of the gospel to new people and groups … a sign of the gospel’s advance” (“Not a Norm,” 199–200).
48. God did not always immediately provide the interpretation of divine acts in history. Only later was the significance of an event revealed (e.g., Matt 12:39–41; Mark 6:52; 11:14, 20–24; John 13:7).
49. Hurtado, “Not a Norm,” 199; cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 657. Yet, even Fee acknowledges that in this passage “Paul’s present concern is not with private devotion but with public worship” (First Corinthians, 657).
50. Fee alludes to “psychological benefits” of the devotional use of tongues, though “such discussion lie quite beyond what one can say exegetically” (First Corinthians, 657, n. 25). Lowery suggests that uninterpreted tongues provided edification through the knowledge that “the user of the gift experienced the confirmation that he was the individual object of God’s grace” (David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament Edition, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 538.
51. See Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1994), 203–4.
52. Observation of Max Turner in “Tongues: An Experience for all in the Pauline Churches?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998): 231. Turner argues convincingly that even 1 Corinthians 14:5 implies that not all spoke in tongues in the Corinthian assembly (Ibid., 243-47).
53. Ibid., 239.
54. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 83.
55. Unger refers to six passages in the epistles (1 Cor 12:12–13; Rom 6:3–4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:10–12; Eph 4:5; and 1 Pet 3:21), which bear upon the doctrine of Spirit baptism. The passage in 1 Corinthians, however, “is the most important, both because it clearly refers to Spirit baptism and it treats the subject comprehensively” (Baptism and Gifts, 95).
56. Oss, “A Pentecostal/Charismatic Response,” 236. He further argues, “The interpreter should not flatten out legitimate biblical diversities in the interest of traditional systematic-theological categories” (Ibid., 252). To this all would agree. The question, however, is whether the Pentecostal synthesis of Luke and Paul is hermeneutically and exegetically defensible.
57. Carson, Showing, 45.
58. For example, Howard M. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 100–101.
59. Carson, Showing, 45–46.
60. J.I. Packard, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), 203.
61. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 99.
62. Carson, Showing, 47. See also, James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1970), 127–29.
63. Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 60–63. Silva explains, “If a proposed meaning cannot be established apart from an appeal to a grammatical subtlety, chances are that the argument is worthless” (Ibid., 63).
64. Oss, “Pentecostal/Charismatic View,” 258.
65. Ibid., 259.
66. Robert L. Saucy, “An Open but Cautious Response to Douglas A. Oss,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 301.
67. Dunn, Baptism, 129.
68. As Saucy observes, “... The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost involves more than empowerment …”. Rather it has everything to do with “the superiority of the salvation that would come through the Messiah.” In the case of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–17), Cornelius (Acts 10:45–47), and the Ephesians (Acts 19:1–7) the issue was the reception of the Spirit “related to the new covenant salvation that comes through faith in Jesus” (“Open but Cautious Response,” 300).