Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
What is an Academic Definition of Pentecostal Theology?
A friend recently asked me to write a one-paragraph academic definition of Pentecostal theology. Of course, that is probably impossible, but I enjoyed trying. Here is the result. What do you think?
What is an Academic Definition of Pentecostal Theology?
At its simplest, most basic meaning, “theology,” from theos and logos or God and word, especially reasoned speech, describes rational reflection about God. The discipline of theology may be more formally defined as rational discourse regarding the nature and being of God, and of God’s engagement or relationship with the world, including but not exclusively, human beings. Theology has a decidedly discursive and dialogical nature in that it seeks to think and speak cogently, consistently, coherently, and correctly regarding the significance of God’s self-revelation in Scripture, in creation, and in human experience. More specifically, Pentecostal theology emphatically insists on the essentiality of the Holy Spirit’s guidance for rightly discerning and understanding divine truth; on the cruciality of a healthy community of faith, or church, as the appropriate context for doing theology well; and finally, on the priority of restoring the all-too-often neglected role of the person and work of the Holy Spirit for a truly Christian theology systematically setting forth the truth of the good news of the Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly, prayer, worship, and a life of personal devotion and discipleship are necessary for doing any distinctively Pentecostal theology well—along with meticulous study and carefully developing skills for precise reasoning and persuasive communicating regarding the mystery of God and divine matters.
Anonymous
Holy Roller
Anonymous
Philip Williams Do Pentecostals and Evangelicals Preach the Real Gospel?
It seems like a lot of ‘evangelism’ these days is full of phrases and practices that we don’t see in the New Testament.
For example, modern Evangelical, including Pentecostal Evangelism, may involve these sayings that aren’t even found in the Bible:
– Ask Jesus into your heart. – It’s a religion, not a relationship. – It’s about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. – Accept Jesus as your personal Savior.
Jesus being the Savior is in the Bible, but ‘personal Savior’ isn’t, and without explanation, ‘personal’ can just obscure what we are trying to say with excess verbage.
In the Bible I see that the apostles and other early believers in scripture preached that:
– Jesus died for our sins. – God raised Jesus from the dead. – Jesus is the Son of God. – Jesus is Lord and Christ.
And preaching to Gentiles, Paul would explain:
– Who God is.
The would also call people who had heard the Gospel to baptism.
Does the ‘evangelical gospel’ save people if we leave out the Biblical gospel? Suppose a quasi-Hindu New Ager comes to your church, very willing to accept that Jesus is one of many ‘ascended masters’ who can be spirit guides for New Agers as they meditate. He is willing to ‘pray to accept Jesus’ as His Savior and to have a personal relationship with Him. He doesn’t know or believe that Jesus died on the cross for his sins or that God raised him from the dead. He is a pantheist and doesn’t have a Biblical view of God anyway.
Anonymous
Troy Day the gospel is about Jesus. Salvation is a continuing personal relationship with Jesus.
Anonymous
Dale M. Coulter our Dr. Tony has again challenged us this week with an interesting question. I remember the years when we claimed on purpose we have NO written theology and NO man made creeds AND our experience in the SPIRIT dictated our learning of GOD Philip Williams grandma perhaps saw this in full power I came a bit later in the picture to remember it all and myself carried a theological – shall we call it load and a burden, perhaps often to NO avail William DeArteaga was direct witness of when things went Charismatic and to our great pleasure of watching Pentecostal growth we say much mixture of other strange theologies We have since learned that
reformed theology does NOT fit Pentecostalism Kyle Williams
kingdm-now NAR does not fit Pentecostalism J.D. King
post-trib has NEVER fit Pentecostalism Gary Sean Mullings Oscar Valdez
and most certainly new divinations like pre-wrath and open theism are simply NOT Pentecostal Ricky Grimsley
I am even lately becoming more and more aware that oneness does NOT infect fit Pentecostalism Terry Wiles Jevan Little Dan Anthony although we cannot deny its historical presence as an early Pentecostal deviation Bishop Bernie L Wade I even read a book last year by a Russian brother who claimed they arrived @ oneness Pentecost on their own in St. Petersburg but it turned he claimed Bartleman was oneness which he most certainly was not AND then very much oneness Urshan preached to them before they became oneness SO it wasnt that independent after all…
Id say all these later theological developments may have added to some theological growth but most certainly mixed our original teaching with some strange mixtures NOW this is the point to begin talking about current books that call themselves Pentecostal Theology but I am afraid the strange divinations in them that come to my mind are JUST too many to list I would like to start this discussions however with the FIRST topic in this group that actually picked up here in a great volume with over 2000 comments now – it was presented when we first started this group a decade ago and recognized the need of doing theology in the Spirit on the internet as well… The Holy Spirit And The Bible The Spirits Interpreting Role In Relation To Biblical Hermeneutics https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/?s=hermene
Anonymous
Troy, I’ve said it before and I will say it now that I’m not NAR and I’m not Kingdom Now. I don’t know why you keep saying that I am.
Anonymous
J.D. King OK I never claimed the opposite Simply stated
kingdm-now NAR does not fit Pentecostalism
do you not agree with this statement ?
Anonymous
NOW Peter Vandever stated
Theology is the study of God or the pursuit of the Divine. It is progressive growth in wisdom and revelotary knowledge of being transformed by the Spirit of God.
but of course this is not a merely Pentecostal view ANY theology can fit this Duane L Burgess
As a Pentecostal however I do not see study of God being equal to the pursuit of the Divine As a matter of fact there are SO many variants in these words – study, pursuit, divine that in postmodernism you can start a cult just by listing their variants Certainly NOT Pentecostal theology though
progressive growth in wisdom IS hardly descriptive of early Pentecostalism Bishop Bernie L Wade David Willaim Faupel as a matter of fact the further they went from human wisdom and commonly accepted in their times religious customs the more early Pentecostal got CLOSER to GOD
revelotary knowledge of being transformed by the Spirit also sounds great but also is not purely a Pentecostal claim Even Kyle Williams claims reformed revelotary knowledge transformed by the Spirit and Philip Williams knows the pepe may allow him to obtain such in purgatory maybe even alongside Michael Chauncey 😉
Anonymous
Robert Betz responded lengthily in this OP with the following John Mushenhouse
Good stuff, especially from us who know what all you mean. But as it is written, a Baptist could agree to this definition, as all that was said concerning the Spirit was the “essentiality” of the Spirit in order to understand truth & the “priority” placed upon the neglected truth of the Person & work of the Spirit. They can easily agree with generic statements like that (even though we know they are pregnant with Pentecostal distinctives & experiential truth). I think it might be helpful to include a little more detail on the “distinctiveness” on what separates us from them, the Pentecostal distinction of Spirit Baptism. How to word it? I’m nowhere near as good as you, but I think you could tweak it to fit it in nicely in a way only you can with your academic style. Good stuff brother! Currently reading through your book on Essentials of Pentecostal Theology & enjoying it greatly!
Anonymous
this is very much so John Mushenhouse which was my point to the def. by Peter A Baptist would agree with this and I am expecting Link Hudson to do so sometimes today NOW to the Essentials of Pentecostal Theology they are well known
What is a “full gospel” ?
David Willaim 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
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
Pentecostal Detective Five-fold Gospel 1. Jesus the Savior 2. Jesus the Sanctifier 3. Jesus the Spirit-Baptizer 4. Jesus the Healer 5. Jesus the Soon-coming King What are substantially at stake with these claims?
Jesus, “Yes”; Church, “No”?
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. 21 The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sister also (1 John 4: 18-21).
Church as the “People of God” Represents the “gathering of a new Israel”: 1. Continuous with the “church in the wilderness” 2. Distinguished in terms of the Promise-Fulfillment trajectory Paul uses this imagery to appeal its “universal” character without losing a temporal and historical aspect. As the people of God, the members are: 1. Redeemed from the variegated backgrounds 2. Joined to God in Jesus Christ (Participation in divine life) 3. Made one with Christ (Union with Christ) 4. Joined with one another by the Spirit (Indwelling of the Spirit) Church as the “Body of Christ” Known as the “body” of Christ: “We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (Eph. 5:30) Denotes an “organic union” with Christ, i.e. the Head. The idea is that the life-giving “blood” flows into the body from the Head, the governing Center. As the “body” of Christ, members are also joined with one another and must be cultivated together as a single unit (I Cor. 12:13: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body…) Denotes the “ethical” and “social” dimensions, whereby the “self-giving” love of Jesus Christ provides the narrative direction 1. Life: Obedience as “Faithful Witness” to the Truth 2. Death: ”Self-divestment” instead of “self-fulfillment”
Church as the “Bride of Christ”
The idea emphasized here is the “eschatological vision” for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Land, the church as the “missionary fellowship”) The union of marriage envisaged underscores the hope that “purifies” (1 John 3:3: “every man that has this hope purifies himself, even as He is pure”) It is the Christ whose blood provides for the church “a garment without spot or wrinkle” (Rev. 7:14; 19)–To be fitted for the Kingdom life. Church as the “Temple of the Holy Ghost”
The “temple of Holy Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 3 (Individual Believer) and 1 Corinthians 6 (the church)
Imagery of a building, but here made up of “living stones”
The Word as the adhesive to bind one another (e.g. the image of tissue interwoven with tissue). In this, Jesus Christ as the chief Cornerstone provides the “master narrative” for communal life.
The Spirit as the Source of life…
1. Indwells (Church as the dwelling place of God through the Spirit)
2. Sanctifies (The Spirit sanctifies the believers as “one” in Christ)
3. Empowers (The Spirit generates life through empowering presence, e.g. spiritual gifts, baptism with the Holy Spirit)
Anonymous
Do Pentecostals and Evangelicals Preach the Real Gospel?
It seems like a lot of ‘evangelism’ these days is full of phrases and practices that we don’t see in the New Testament.
For example, modern Evangelical, including Pentecostal Evangelism, may involve these sayings that aren’t even found in the Bible:
– Ask Jesus into your heart. – It’s a religion, not a relationship. – It’s about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. – Accept Jesus as your personal Savior.
Jesus being the Savior is in the Bible, but ‘personal Savior’ isn’t, and without explanation, ‘personal’ can just obscure what we are trying to say with excess verbage.
In the Bible I see that the apostles and other early believers in scripture preached that:
– Jesus died for our sins. – God raised Jesus from the dead. – Jesus is the Son of God. – Jesus is Lord and Christ.
And preaching to Gentiles, Paul would explain:
– Who God is.
The would also call people who had heard the Gospel to baptism.
Does the ‘evangelical gospel’ save people if we leave out the Biblical gospel? Suppose a quasi-Hindu New Ager comes to your church, very willing to accept that Jesus is one of many ‘ascended masters’ who can be spirit guides for New Agers as they meditate. He is willing to ‘pray to accept Jesus’ as His Savior and to have a personal relationship with Him. He doesn’t know or believe that Jesus died on the cross for his sins or that God raised him from the dead. He is a pantheist and doesn’t have a Biblical view of God anyway.
Anonymous
Troy Day of course, all Christians know that Jesus is the one witnessed in the Bible. That’s the only Jesus who can baptize you with his Holy Spirit.
But some don’t know that he is living and present today.
Anonymous
my short answer here Tony Richie TOWARD an answer actually would start with defining PENTECOSTAL before defining theology The other way around presses and enforces theological vocabulary that we simply do not have or hold dear in Pentecostalism
Anonymous
Troy Day Pentecostal refers to being like the tongue speaking church that began at Pentecost.
Anonymous
Troy Day that’s a worthy suggestion, IMO, and perhaps a good way forward for Pentecostal thinkers. My rationale involves stressing both the continuity of Pentecostalism with the overall Christian movement, i.e. we are not a cult, and then the distinctiveness of Pentecostalism as a restorationist movement, especially regarding pneumatology.
Anonymous
Tony Richie a great start indeed I DO NOT have the answer or an answer on this one Way above may paygrade 🙂 but we can talk
Anonymous
One word description of Pentecostal theology.
Oxymoron which Philip Williams is WRONG of course
Even his very Pentecostal grandmother had theology – lots of it
Even he has catholic theology by believing THAT his pope will forgive him in purgatory – ANY belief in any god is FIRST theological before it ever becomes experiential
AS Tina Hernandez right said
NO it’s not BIBLICAL
and the responbce from Ed Blackburn was weak @ best
Tina Hernandez It’s Biblical in a similar sense as the Trinity – it can be, and has been, drawn out of the text by the Church; not only that, but the ancient Jews believed in a type of Purgatory.
Many Protestants believe we are sanctified entirely upon death before entering heaven; IS a claim that is neither Pentecostal nor Wesleyan entire sanctification
John Mushenhouse puts it best:
Ed Blackburn The ancient Jews while reading about a suffering servant didn’t understand what it meant. The teachers of the law rejected Jesus and said they didn’t know where He came from. Read John 9.
Anonymous
A spiritual aberration.
Anonymous
Link Hudson Kyle Williams RT John Mushenhouse Why have so many cult members and cessationalists taken over this room. I thought this was a haven for classical Pentecostal theology and not every wave of doctrine. I grow tired of the attention seekers and those spewing their ungodly heresies.
Anonymous
Troy Day to be fair, I was the pastor of a Charismatic church when I joined this forum nearly 4 years ago
Anonymous
Kyle Williams we all have our personal search in life 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day very true.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams yes perhaps not too clear…
Anonymous
Troy Day what’s not clear?
Anonymous
Kyle Williams whatS clear is clear – the rest is NOT clear Terry Wiles
Anonymous
There are some Pentecostal preachers who not only mishandle Scripture in their sermons, but also rely on hype to generate responses that appear to be supernatural; regrettably, these same preachers often claim that it is the Spirit who leads them to do what they do. I address the sometimes deficient under- standing of the work of the Spirit among Pentecostal preachers here. This paper offers an analysis of some important issues related to the work of the Spirit in preaching among Pentecostals in North America — with implications for evangelicals and charismatics.
I remember attending 1970s in Southern California featured speaker.
audience that his charismatic spiritual two
carpenters working the same tools at their disposal. furniture using a
drill, dowels, takes out a hammer meeting during the
early at which Dennis Bennett was the to
allay the fears of his message was some sort of he used the metaphor of
Both have exactly to build a piece of The other carpenter finishes the project labors on. He then assured which nonthe audience the time. Pentecostals Pentecostals do not have, this tool all Christians possess.
Dr. Menzies there is is
simply a
experience of
theology. Thus, fundamentalist place.3 hermeneutics uniquely Pentecostal hermeneutic.
Actually, evangelical theology real and recurring tendency the canon to the charismatic do not possess something but
rather, they have learned to use which is available to all,
and
is, indeed, something that
It
simply needs to be recognized.
in light of Max Weber’s view that “routinization of charisma” is in- evitable, seeks through this publication to understand how the Pentecostal movement in New Zealand from 1920 to 2010 has routinized in its own way. Anecdotally, Knowles notes that the need for such a study is necessary in that understanding how the Pentecostal movement in New Zealand has “trans- formed” within the past eight centuries will, in turn, help those associated with the movement understand where the they may be headed and how to navigate the changes that lay ahead.
That is not definition, attempts reflecting discipline production church, most Pentecostal genre of
specialized articles sermons, variety of
written an enormous distinctives such as “Baptism glossolalia, healing theological topics. Partly there has been hesitancy theological literature has been provided in
hagiography, biography, dance. There are also a Pentecostal theologians have
discussing Pentecostal gifts,”
to
say
that Pentecostal writers have not explored their own theological traditions. To the contrary, Pentecostal scholars have produced an extensive literature of theological reflection.
However, the
majority have been in genre
other than that of systematic theology which, by to
provide a
comprehensive overview of theology, a distinct perspective, following the norms of that academic which have evolved since the third Christian century of
Origen’s First
Principles.
CHARLES PARHAM traces the Racial Roots of the Pentecostal Movement https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/charles-parham-racial-roots-of-the-pentecostal-movement/
Origins of American Pentecostalism traced by Augustus Cerillo https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/the-origins-of-american-pentecostalism-2/
The Roumanian Pentecostal Church in Recent Literature traced by David D. Bundy Wondering if he has done any on neighboring Bulgarian yet since Bartleman’s wife Anna Ladd was born Bulgarian and was actually @ AZUSA https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/the-roumanian-pentecostal-church-in-recent-literature/
Anonymous
Troy Day An appropriate “Academic Definition” of “Pentecostal Theology would go something like this.
Pentecostal Theology is the belief that embraces Jesus’ words referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church empowering them to bring a witness of the Savior to the world. With it comes various spiritual gifts that prepare individuals and the corporate Body for life and service. While the Holy Spirit has always been active in empowering selective individuals the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost,, recorded in Acts chapters 1 and 2, became available to all who repent and call upon the name of the Lord for salvation, including men and women, young and old.
That is my belief.
Anonymous
Terry Wiles well see about being academic and all I have read on somewhere on the internet no less than 5 statements by Link Hudson that directly contradict what you just said and he still claims to be some Pentecostal kind
Anonymous
Troy Day did you mean “see” as your second word?
Anonymous
Terry Wiles meant what I said and said what I seeN 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day
Anonymous
Terry Wiles yes
Anonymous
Troy Day I don’t recall making any specific claims of that nature on this forum. I was raised Pentecostal. Whether I’m ‘Pentecostal’ depends on whose coming up with the definitions and how I define it. Some definitions might exclude F.F. Bosworth, who was at Azusa Street and a founder of the A/G who was also quite active in healing ministry.
I don’t think the man-made label will count for much at the bema seat, so I don’t sweat it.