“To let their light shine, not to force on them their interpretation of God’s designs, is the duty of Christians towards their fellows. If you who set yourselves to explain the theory of Christianity, had set your selves instead to do the will of the Master, the one object for which the Gospel was preached to you, how different would now be the condition of that portion of the world with which you come into contact! Had you given yourselves to the understanding of his word that you might do it, and not to the quarrying from it of material wherewith to buttress your systems, in many a heart by this time would the name of the Lord be loved where now it remains unknown. The word of life would then by you have been held out indeed.”

— George Mac Donald from Wind From Stars

Jesus instructed his disciples to be gentle as doves but to also be as wise as serpents. Therefore, being gentle does not mean to be unnaturally trusting. Being innocent regarding evil does not mean being ignorant of Satan’s schemes. We do live in a fallen world and belong to a society made up of sinful people. Let’s be real about it, even Christians do some really dumb things and cause others a lot of pain.

I do not know about you, but I receive E-mail messages all the time from well-meaning Christian friends who send me warnings of computer viruses and other nasty things. I have also received the “get rich quick” ideas and invitations to join some I’ll-help-you-you-help-me chain letter. Sometimes the forwards are things relatively harmless like the false rumor that CBS is going to take “Touched By an Angel” off the air, a particularly disturbing report that a political leader is out to persecute Christians, or a hoax like “never call the 809 area code.” Usually I simply delete such messages (and any attachments I wasn’t expecting) without a second thought, but I wonder about those that sent them to me. Sometimes the really juicy news stories are worth a read, but almost every time I have gone to check out the truthfulness of a “barn-burner” story I have found that it is not true.

It appears that old cliche is generally true, if it is “too good to be true,” it probably is. The same can be said of the negative stuff. If it is really horrible, and the only place you have ever heard about it is in an e-mail forwarded to you and dozens of other people, it probably is not reality.

Let me point you to some resources for finding out if what you just got in your IN box is real or a hoax. There are a lot of anti-hoax websites out there, and you can probably find some good ones just by using your Internet search tool. Here are a few of my favorites:

• http://www.scambusters.org * Good list of hoaxes, urban legends, and scams.
• http://hoaxinfo.com * A site designed to debunk E-mail hoaxes [No longer active as of April 29, 2014].
• http://www.scamshield.com * Learn about general (not just E-mail) scams and consumer fraud.
• http://www.symantec.com/security_response/landing/risks/hoaxes.jsp * Hoax list from the Symantec Security Response, the makers of Norton Anti-Virus. A lot of information about real viruses, hoaxes, economic impact of viruses and hoaxes, and related subjects is available on the Symantec website. [link updated April 29, 2014]
• http://www.snopes.com/snopes.asp * Topically organized urban legends are rated as true, false and undeterminable.

I have actually received requests for the give-us-your-bank-account scams out of Africa described on this US Treasury website: http://www.treas.gov/usss/index.htm?alert419.htm&1 [No longer valid link as of April 29, 2014].

A triple review of books by Robert Menzies and his father William, essay by Grant Hochman.

Robert P. Menzies, The Development Of Early Christian Pneumatology: with special reference to Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series #6 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 290 pages.

William W. and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 233 pages.

A quiet revolution has been taking place around the world. There are now over 530 million Pentecostal/charismatic Christians (David Barrett, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Jan/01). It was the church growth movement which first brought this explosive growth to the attention of Christian leaders. The focus on what they termed the “Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” based on Luke and Acts, was the driving force behind it, and secondarily, the emphasis on spiritual gifts as found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (Chs. 12-14). From a mere trickle of scholarly research, the last thirty years has seen a river of literature on this topic (see Charles E. Jones, where one finds over 11,000 entries in The Charismatic Movement, Scarecrow Press, 1994). This change has been underscored by the founding of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology in 1992 and published by the prestigious Sheffield Academic Press, in England.

The 2005 cover from Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

Even though they are relative newcomers, classical Pentecostal scholars have been major contributors to the scholarly dialogue. One individual stands out above the others both in quantity and quality: Dr. Robert Menzies. After publishing a series of articles and book reviews, his first book to be published was his doctoral dissertation: The Development Of Early Christian Pneumatology: with special reference to Luke-Acts, from Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. This work caught the attention of two of the most prominent world-class evangelical scholars on Luke-Acts, James Dunn and Max Turner. Dunn writes “Pentecostal biblical scholarship has become increasingly a factor to be reckoned with, as its contributions have grown in confidence and weight…So far none commands more respect than the Aberdeen thesis of Robert Menzies.” Dunn closes by saying, “this is a work of significant and substantial scholarship whose strengths cannot be done full justice to in a brief review,” (Evangelical Quarterly, 66:2, 1994, pp. 174-6). Max Turner pays tribute to Menzies in his book, Power From On High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. In the preface Turner writes about Menzies, “His rigorous and perceptive case caused me to reconsider the evidence,” (p.11). This in turn, resulted in Turner publishing a series of articles and then his book (listed above). While both Dunn and Turner take issue with certain areas of Menzies work, they pay tribute to his efforts.

Introduction

Cessationists,¹ those who argue that certain gifts of the Spirit have ceased, are increasingly using an argument-from-analogy from Paul’s epistle to the believers in Ephesus.

This paper offers a biblical rebuttal to the cessationist use of Ephesians 2:20 as an argument for the cessation of prophecy, and, by extension, the other so-called “miraculous” gifts of the Holy Spirit. After a statement of the issue itself, this paper examines the only significant “anti-cessationist” response offered so far, that of Wayne Grudem, and then goes on to offer some alternative responses of its own.

Ephesians 2:19-22 [NKJV]
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Status of the Problem

One of the few remaining New Testament texts to which cessationists appeal for support of their position is Eph 2:20.² The argument-by-analogy is along these lines: since apostles and prophets appear as the “foundation” of the “temple” or church, and since each course of stones in this temple metaphorically represent successive generations of believers throughout church history, then these “foundation” gifts necessarily passed away before the second generation of Christianity.³

From the frequency and extent this argument is made in cessationist circles,⁴ one would assume that there would be a serious reply from their theological dialogue partners, the Pentecostals and charismatics. Pentecostal or charismatic scholars generally have failed to adequately treat this cessationist argument to any significant degree.⁵

Wayne Grudem’s Rebuttal to the Cessationist Use of Ephesians 2:20

Wayne Grudem is the only non-cessationist scholar I can discover who deals with the cessationist argument from Eph 2:20 in any detail.⁶ Quite reasonably, then, Grudem’s response stands as the default Pentecostal/charismatic position recognized by cessationists,⁷ along with their perceptions about its strengths and weaknesses.

Though he presents his position as an attempt to mediate between charismatics and cessationists, it appears that Grudem’s defense on this point shares traditional cessationist presuppositions about the nature of apostles and of the “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20. Grudem seems to agree with cessationists who argue against the continuation of the gift of prophecy in that the gift is somehow identical with the first generation (“foundation level”) of Christian prophets: that necessarily when these particular prophets died, the gift of prophecy died with them. The same, he would also agree, would be true of apostles.

Grudem, however, ingeniously tries to deny the death of prophecy by claiming that only a special category of prophets is described in Eph. 2:20, namely, that they are “foundational,” and hence, cease because these particular prophets are in fact, apostles! He also offers an alternate possibility that perhaps these “foundational” prophets were an elite group that received and uttered apostolic-level revelation. He agrees, then, with cessationists that apostles, at least the original twelve (or thirteen, depending on how Paul is included) stood to be unique in that they are seen as the authoritative bearers of foundational Christian doctrine, which they wrote into scripture. Accordingly, Grudem sees the apostle/prophets of Eph 2:20 as the equivalent of the canonical prophets of the Old Testament, whose pronouncements and writings also held ultimate religious authority in that they later became scripture.⁸

On this view, and to preserve the continuation of Christian prophecy, Grudem must then define NT prophecy in two categories. 1) Agreeing with traditional cessationists, the first class of prophecy, which was to cease within the first generation, was a kind of interim canon awaiting its written form, while, 2) the second class of prophecy was represented by the “less authoritative type of prophecy indicated in 1 Corinthians.”⁹

Understandably, this novel defense has received a heated response from cessationists, who wish to deny any “two-level” gift of prophecy that Grudem describes.¹⁰ Without going into their argument in detail, they seek to prove that all manifestations of the gift of prophecy in the first generation will cease together, since prophecy is divine revelation, and such revelation must necessarily be enscripturated.¹¹

Grudem therefore finds himself in an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, it is crucial to restrict this class of men to the “foundational” and unrepeatable. This is because he sees apostles (and this first class of NT prophets) as the New Testament counterparts of Old Testament prophets. Therefore they “were able to speak and write words that had absolute divine authority,”¹² that is, in the canon of scripture. Because of the central apostolic role as scripture writers, and because the canon of the NT is closed, the gift or “office” of apostleship must necessarily cease.¹³ On the other hand, “apostleship” is seamlessly listed along with the other “miraculous” spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11, gifts which Grudem insists must continue in the church! In short, Grudem’s views of apostleship, prophecy, revelation and scripture leave him vulnerable to the charge that he is fatally inconsistent in his defense of continuing spiritual gifts.

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

V. Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Future Prospects and Tasks

My conclusion is that Pentecostals need the larger Church even as the larger Church needs Pentecostalism. Thus, the quest for a biblically based and Spirit inspired Christian unity must include both movements. In this last section of my five-part article, I want to briefly discuss the various levels of ecumenical activity and make some practical suggestions with regard to how Pentecostals can become more ecumenically conscious and involved.

Levels of ecumenism

There is no one correct way to either be ecumenical or to do ecumenism. In fact, although I present four levels of ecumenical activity here, it is difficult to say where one stops and the other starts. I would surmise that wherever genuine ecumenism occurs, it will include theological and doctrinal discussion (academic ecumenism), the development of interpersonal relationships between clergy across denominational lines (church leadership ecumenism) and between the laity at large (neighborhood ecumenism), and social action of some type (institutional-denominational ecumenism).²² If we keep in mind the artificial boundaries between each level, the following is designed to provide an overview of what ecumenism-in-action looks like.

Academic ecumenism usually involves teachers, professors, and those with advanced training in biblical and theological studies. At this level, the goals of ecumenical discussion include the clearing away of stereotypes, the development of mutual understanding, and, the clarification of actual problems confronting Christian unity (as opposed to problems that are simply the result of misunderstanding or stereotype). Pentecostal academics who have been involved in these dialogues generally are not denominationally funded since most Pentecostal churches and groups do not place such activity high on their priority list. Thus, along two fronts—financially and with regard to one’s personal reputation—Pentecostals who participate at this level of ecumenism do so at some personal risk. It is therefore not unusual to hear many of them attest that their ecumenical involvement proceeds from a sense of divine calling.

“Now when He heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee” (Matthew 4:12).

This verse is not, as some might think, God incarnate fleeing danger.  Rather, it is possible that this was in fulfillment of John’s words about Jesus, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

John understood, as each of us eventually must, that the Messiah had to become preeminent. John understood that his own ministry was drawing so much attention that, as we have studied earlier, Jerusalem was coming out to be immersed by him—even Pharisees and Sadducees. We don’t know how many men and women this represents, but enough lives were being transformed that many were wondering if John was the Messiah (Luke 3:15).

But the example we have is that John was servant to the greater good. Jesus claims, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen [anyone] greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11), yet John knows, “He [Messiah] must increase, but I [his servant] must decrease”

How many times do leaders become the focus of ministries? How many times do we hear about so-and-so coming to town and wonder what the Holy Spirit is going to do, when in fact, we should know that the Holy Spirit is in town, and wonder what He is going to do through any willing servant?

The tone of much of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) is that God does not desire offerings and sacrifices as much as He desires a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:17). This was memorialized and epitomized in John, as it certainly should be in the Messiah’s Bride.

Jesus’ withdrawal into the Galilee was not due to intimidation, but because John’s arrest was a clear and evident signal that the ministry of the Messiah would begin outside Jerusalem.

Natural reasoning, natural man would ask, “Why not in Jerusalem?” After all, “The truth was there: exposition, exegesis, hagiology, eschatology, soteriology, christology, theology, apologetics, doctrine. The books were kept there: here were the oracles, the covenants, the ceremonies, the priesthood, the temple; the schools for the scribes, the colleges of both Pharisee and Sadducee; well, God was there, and there exclusively.”¹

Does this sound like an apt description of our churches, Christian schools, and seminaries? Yet is this really were the ministry of God takes place?

Our answer lies in the Torah. For all of its lists of do’s and don’ts, the Torah is the truth of the Almighty, and it contains many, many valuable pictures for our day.

Why did Jesus begin in the Galilee? Let’s look to Moses for our answer.

Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass [that] everyone who sought the Lord went out to the tabernacle of meeting which [was] outside the camp (Exodus 33:7).

What do we know about “outside the camp?” We know that it is where the unclean and rejected of society lived. Some were there only temporarily, perhaps through contact with blood in battle. Others were there indefinitely, resulting from tzaaras (often translated as leprosy), or they were from the mixed multitude that came with Israel out of Egypt—the gentiles.²

Daniel A. Brown, What the Bible Reveals About Heaven: Answers to Your Questions (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1999), 239 pages.

I know Dan Brown. He had recently left the staff at Church on the Way when I joined that group sixteen years ago. In the years since then, I have watched him establish and grow a fine church in Aptos, California. If I remember correctly Dan’s Ph.D. from UCLA is in English, and his skills in that field are evident when you read one of his books.

His most recent is a pleasant and well-reasoned treatise about Heaven. Dan takes the reader through eight steps which provide a straightforward description of most of aspects of our eternal destiny or reward. While it is written to a wide audience, I think pastors will enjoy it. It answers many of the everyday questions that seem to haunt someone in ministry.

Here are examples of those questions: Will my dog go to Heaven? What will Heaven be like? Do we have guardian angels? What about near death experiences—are they real or reliable? Where is Heaven anyhow? What will we do there? Will we recognize our loved ones and friends? Will I be able to sing in Heaven (I can’t here)? What kind of relationship will we have with our enemies in Heaven (Not that any of us have an enemy that might make it to Heaven and surprise us there by popping up one unexpected moment)?

Daniel A. Brown.

In a personable, story-telling style, Dan goes on to teach about Heaven, where it is and who lives there. This is followed by a discussion on the supernatural and how that world affects us here in the natural. Then he gets into death and what it is like to be dead, our life in that state—the place called Heaven. He also has a chapter about the new Heavens and earth, and since Dan is dispensational in his theology, much of his thoughts are framed in that dimension.

James R. Edwards, “A Unity Not of Our Making” Christianity Today (Vol 45, No 10, August 6, 2001), pp. 48-50.

“Unity in Diversity” has become one of the most popular ecumenical catchphrases. Especially among Pentecostal churches, the phrase seems to open up ways to engage in ecumenical dialogue without threatening the ecclesial independence or doctrinal commitment of the churches. James R. Edwards, Professor of Religion at Whitworth College and contributing editor to Christianity Today, has chosen to examine the phrase more closely. He is concerned about a nearly obsessive reliance on unity-in-diversity language and sees in it, rather than the desired emphasis on unity, a frequent apology for an unquestioned pluralism in Christian churches. Like light shining through a prism, the visible unity of the churches, instead of forming one body, is dispersed into many independent directions. The New Testament, however, Edwards points out, speaks of diversity that is channeled into unity and not, as the ecumenical catchphrase suggests, a unity that is being refracted into diversity. For support, he enlists the help of the Greek New Testament term homothumadon (“of one accord”).

Edwards finds that the use of homothumadon is frequently misunderstood. In secular Greek, the term does not convey the personal sympathy shared by the members of a group but a shared commitment of all to a specific cause. Thus the Greek orator Demosthenes “appealed to the Athenians to put aside their personal feelings and differences” (p. 49) and to unite in the defense against an invasion of Philip of Macedon. Edwards concludes that, like the unity of the Athenians, the unity of the church is “a compulsory unity rather than an intrinsic unity” (p. 49), produced by the extrinsic, and unmerited grace of God. The unity of believers is consequently not a sociological unity but one in correspondence and continuity with the proper understanding of God’s Word. This explains the use of the phrase “in one accord” in Acts 15:25 for an ecclesial situation that seems far from resembling a united Christian community. In order to achieve unity, the church must submit to the extrinsic Word of God, which is the great alien intolerance of human differences and divisions (John 17:11-22). The unity-in-diversity language, on the other hand, gives the impression that unity is based on the self-righteousness of the churches or their adaptability to changing social and theological norms. The true unity of the church, however, is “an alien gift of God from the outside, reflecting both God’s nature and governance” (p. 50). The goal of the church, Edward concludes, is not diversity but unity with God. It is a gift of God’s Spirit as long as the church follows God’s will as it is revealed in Scripture.

“We must work passionately and infatigably to bridge the gulf between our scientific progress and our moral progress. One of the great problems of mankind is that we suffer from a poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually.”

— Martin Luther King Jr.

Image: MJCdetroit / Wikimedia Commons

“That God is omnipresent ‘ everywhere equally present ‘ is a source of continual wonder for me. God’s omnipresence is, as one man has put it, one of those million-gallon truths that, try as we might, we simply cannot contain with our quart-sized heads. But within the scope of God’s omnipresence, we know from both Scripture and experience that God is not present everywhere for precisely the same purposes. For example, while he is always everywhere present to sustain (for in him ‘all things hold together,’ Col 1:17), from time to time he is also present in various places to accomplish other purposes, such as to discipline, to punish, to bless, or to empower. We are not satisfied knowing God is there. We want to know He is near.”

— C. J. Mahaney

The article by Derek Vreeland entitled “Edward Irving: Preacher, Prophet & Charismatic Theologian” has been postponed. It should be appearing in the next issue. Please welcome Grant Hochman and Wolfgang Vondey as new contributors.

The editorial committee is still seeking a respondent to Larry Taylor’s paper on spiritual mapping that concludes with this issue. If you would like to respond to Taylor’s position, or know someone who does, please write me at the address below.

I also wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Amos Yong for his five part series on ecumenism that concludes in this issue. His careful, biblical approach to this subject has been invaluable to me personally.

Perhaps an article has had an impact on you and your ministry. Write us so that we too can share in your story and likewise be encouraged in the Lord.

Blessings upon you,

— Raul Mock