Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Ermar Reyes Luna | PentecostalTheology.com
What is a “full gospel” ?
John Kissinger [03/31/2015 3:47 PM]
W. Faupel defined Full Gospel within the doctrinal themes of:
1) justification by faith in Christ;
2) sanctification as a second definite work of grace;
3) healing of the body through the atoning work of Christ;
4) the pre-millennial return of Christ; and
5) the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking of unknown tongues.
https://books.google.com/books?id=osco652hynIC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=faupel+defines+full+gospel+as+salvation+healing&source=bl&ots=O04OU_apls&sig=F6EEjox5DIAruAYAY_oU5o53DQE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SvgaVaW-E4HdsASKs4HgBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Salvation%2C%20the%20Baptism%20in%20the%20Holy%20Spirit%2C%20Divine%20Healin&f=false
Julius Streeter [03/31/2015 6:33 PM]
The great commission Preach gospel of God”s Grace, once and for all sacrifice and atonement of Christ death on cross plus resurrection, then in faith the church imparting Holy Ghost Power in miracles, healing, casting out evil spirits, basically acting on the book of acts, Jesus Christ, the same, today, yesterday, tomorrow and forever, read Derek Prince foundation series and Guy Duty also
Daniel C. Sanford [03/31/2015 6:38 PM]
The Holy Spirit in me. The Holy Spirit on me. The Holy Spirit through me.
Rick Wadholm Jr [03/31/2015 7:00 PM]
I follow what Faupel proposes, but Christocentrically as
1) Jesus saves
2) Jesus sanctifies
3) Jesus baptized in the Holy Spirit
4) Jesus heals
5) Jesus is the soon coming King.
Though the second one above is specifically true of the Wesleyan stream of Pentecostals and is lacking in the so-called Finished Work stream.
John Kissinger [03/31/2015 7:03 PM]
Yes, let’s not forget the sanctification which some denominations have so easily “Left Behind”…
Varnel Watson
1) justification by faith in Christ;
2) sanctification as a second definite work of grace;
3) healing of the body through the atoning work of Christ;
4) the pre-millennial return of Christ; and
5) the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking of unknown tongues.
James M. Henderson
Troy, I am more used to seeing the “full gospel” defined in terms of a 4/5 fold gospel of Christ the Savior, Christ the Sanctifier (for a 5-fold view), Christ the healer, Christ the baptizer in the Holy Spirit, and Christ the soon-coming King. Neither tongues nor a particular millennial view seem to be necessary for a 4/5 fold gospel.
Varnel Watson
Thanks James M. Henderson I was quoting a comment by W. David Willaim Faupel on the 5-fold everlasting gospel. Did you see my response to your other comment related to Pentecostal commentaries?
James M. Henderson
Troy, no not yet. While I am not quarreling with Dr. Faupel, I am a bit sensitive to the influence a denominational “ethos” has on the way some express theology. A tribe’s preference is just that, a choice to prefer one thing over another or to associate a particular doctrinal stance as their own. It cannot have a universal application, and yet that is what we all do. My objection is that we become hardened to any other point of view even when it is allowable according to our theology. A case in point is my own Foursquare church. While we affirm the Lord’s coming, there is no explicitly pre-tribulational content in our statement of faith. Yet, many in my tribe seem to think that all Foursquare are (or should be) pre-tribulational. Here, Dr. Faupel interprets what the “5-fold gospel” means. Does he acknowledge that this is his preference? It is not what that phrase means to everyone.
Varnel Watson
David Willaim Faupel defines it in his book As
1) justification by faith in Christ;
2) sanctification as a second definite work of grace;
3) healing of the body through the atoning work of Christ;
4) the pre-millennial return of Christ; and
5) the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking of unknown tongues.
I keep on repeating this through the years, but the need for the constant repetition comes from the simple fact that among new doctrinal teachings and Hillsong style of worship the True Message of Pentecost remains long forgotten
http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/pentecost-sunday-full-gospel-as-preached-by-the-early-pentecostals/
Melvin Harter
Was this written in his book? Particularly the explanation starting with THIS MEANS… Because his meaning is untrue and totally false. “Sanctification – The Wesleyan teaching of sanctification resolves that the sanctification of the believer is definite. This means that though it may progress and evolve through time, as the believer gets closer to God in his/her daily walk, sanctification must become ENTIRE i.e. allowing NO sin to abide in the believer’s body, soul or spirit. Without ENTIRE sanctification resulting in holiness, no one will ever see God (Heb. 12:14).
Varnel Watson
I keep on repeating this through the years, but the need for the constant repetition comes from the simple fact that among new doctrinal teachings and Hillsong style of worship the True Message of Pentecost remains long forgotten
Anonymous
Is there such a thing as FULL GOSPEL?
I know there is a verse which defines THE GOSPEL as the power of God unto salvation, but I have never seen a verse which defines FULL GOSPEL.
In everyday life if a vessel is filled with fluid half way we say it is HALF FILLED but when it is filled to the brim we say it is FULL..
So the premise in explaining the FULL GOSPEL is that it is FULL or TOTALLY saturated with the REQUISITE INGREDIENTS to qualify it AS FULL.
But who has set the standard for the REQUISITE INGREDIENTS for a FULL GOSPEL?Is it Men or is it God?
Kissinger lists 5 “ingredients, that he believes constitutes the FULL GOSPEL amongst which is justification by faith, sanctification, baptism etc etc.
Other people have explainedTHE FULL GOSPEL in their perspectives which differ from Kissinger and this has elicited my preceeding question: who sets or has set the standard or the ingredients of the FULL GOSPEL?
Is it men or is it God?
When Jesus first began to preach he said “believe the GOSPEL…( not THE FULL GOSPEL.) and the word GOSPEL was used also by the apostles….not the word THE FULL GOSPEL..
Whatever name you give it, whether Gospel or Full Gospel,but as LONG as it doesn’t bring salvation it is useless
Was Peter’s first sermon that saved 3000 men a FULL GOSPEL or merely the GOSPEL?
After saying all that I can now attempt to explain the FULL GOSPEL as :
Go unto the whole world and make disciples.
We are saved by grace ONLY thru FAITH.
Water baptism, Holy Spirit and Fire baptism..?
The Word of Christ.
… etc etc.
Ingredients of what constitutes the FULL GOSPEL differ from a person to person or group to group but I personally think essentially the FULL GOSPEL has to do with the WORD of GOD,… and the power thereof notwithstanding the human wisdom to define it.
To me the best Biblical explanation of the FULL GOSPEL is found in1 Cor 2:14 which says //
4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.//
Then pick out the ingredients from this verse…
Salvation by grace, sanctification, baptism, justification etc etc.
To wrap it up I can also say that the Book of Acts is exemplary FULL GOSPEL..
We cannot explain the Gospel in a line and a dot and semi colon…