Fowler and Kuebler have offered us a gem by publishing this volume. Not since my undergraduate degree in the study of Biology have I encountered such an objective treatment of data from the biological world. Fowler and Kuebler offer the reader, trained academicians and laypeople alike, a balanced, in-depth, and critical study of the evolutionary controversy. Scientifically accurate and precise, yet readable by the masses, this volume is to be promoted for both those within the Science and Religion debate, as well as those outside of it within the general church. Fowler and Kuebler give a concise review of the history of the evolutionary argument, the evidence in favor of it, the evidence which is seemingly contradictory of it, as well as an in-depth coverage of the major points of dispute (e.g., common descent versus common design, the ability of random mutations to generate authentically new information, the sole adequacy of natural selection, the age of the earth/universe, and the requirements for a true scientific theory). Moreover, Fowler and Kuebler delineate the four major schools of thought regarding the evolutionary controversy: the Neo-Darwin advocates, the Intelligent Design proponents, the Creationists, and the promoters of the Meta-Darwinian interpretation. Fowler and Kuebler gave a quite lucid summary of the three general meanings of evolution, which the readers of Pneuma Review would be wise to understand and be able to distinguish: Historical Evolution (i.e., the observed sequence of development over the earth’s history, which is accepted fully by all four schools of thought, though the time parameters involved are different for the Creationist school of thought); Common Descent (i.e., the notion that all organism are somehow related to a common ancestor or a group of common ancestors, which is similarly though qualified accepted by all four schools of thought); and Strong Darwinian Evolution (i.e., the notion that purely natural mechanisms are fully able to explain all of the development of species upon earth, which is only accepted by the Neo-Darwinians and Meta-Darwinians). Fowler and Kuebler make explicit throughout their analyses of the four schools of thought several key distinctions, including the difference between facts and the explanation of facts, the difference between theory and fact, and the difference between criticisms of one theory and advocacy of an alternative theory (i.e., positive apologetics and negative apologetics). The authors thoroughly analyze the Neo-Darwinian paradigm, which seeks to explain evolution through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection alone, and conclude that this paradigm can adequately explain small-scale change (i.e., microevolution), but is deficient in explaining large-scale evolution (i.e., macroevolution). Fowler and Kuebler note that there is little direct evidence that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm can explain all evolutionary change. In covering the Creationist school of thought, the authors note that according to the Creationists, natural selection can only adapt populations to their environment, and that mutation, according to the Creationists, leads only to degenerative speciation. Fowler and Kuebler are explicit in noting the difficulties faced by the Creationist school of thought, particularly in trying to condense the history of the universe into roughly 10,000 years. However, they do not, contra many other treatments of Creationists in the available literature today, ridicule the Creationist viewpoint.

Martin Erdmann, The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 228 pages.

Martin Erdmann’s text is a worthy contribution to the study of biblical and patristic eschatology (doctrine of the Last Things). With an educational background in both church history and New Testament, Erdmann utilizes all of his academic skills in investigating the reasons for and consequences of the shift from premillennialism to amillennialism in the patristic era of the church. His thesis is that this shift, however understandable, had negative consequences and flew in the face of apostolic tradition and proper exegesis of Scripture.

Erdmann begins by assessing the primary source of Christian millenarianism, namely Jewish apocalyptic. He discusses various works and condenses their purpose and message, and their collective bearing and influence upon the biblical book of Revelation. This introduces the second chapter, which begins with a survey of millennial options: postmillennialism, which sees the earthly millennium as preceding the return of Christ; amillennialism, which spiritualizes the millennium and usually designates it as the current time of the church; and premillennialism, which sees the earthly millennium as commencing immediately after the return of Christ to earth. Premillennialism is further sub-divided into historic premillennialism, reflective of the traditional premillennial perspective, and dispensational premillennialism, the more recent (1830’s AD) addition to premillennial thought containing the distinctive doctrine of the secret pretribulational rapture of the church as the first of a two-part second advent of Christ and the sharp exegetical division between national Israel and the church. The second part of this chapter is an exegesis of Revelation 20:1-10, the flagship text of millennialism of any kind. Erdmann argues fairly persuasively for a premillennial position, without designating either the historical or dispensational variety.

Chapter three offers an overview of the hermeneutical principles employed by the early church fathers, those Christian leaders immediately following the apostles. The fathers read the Scriptures through a Christological lens, seeing all of Scripture as pointing to Christ and therefore interpreted rightly only through him. They held to the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit in interpretation, and they recognized both the literal interpretation and deeper spiritual meanings of the sacred texts, with the latter being reined in from speculation by the former.

Erdmann spends the next several chapters contrasting two different hermeneutical schools in the early church, those of Antioch and Alexandria. The Antiochene school preferred a literal interpretation of Scripture wherever possible while the Alexandrian school opted for the allegorical approach. Erdmann argues for the superiority of the literal approach and shows how the Antiochene school was rigorously premillennial. He cites Justin Martyr and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, among others, as demonstrating this “Asiatic” premillennial tradition, and defends the view that this is the school of thought which stems from the Apostle John, the traditional author of Revelation. It was the Alexandrians, Erdmann argues, under the leadership of Clement and especially Origen, which allegorized Scripture and thus advocated an amillennial perspective over against the premillennialism of the early church. It was Augustine, Erdmann rightly contends, that solidified this amillennial perspective in the church and, respected teacher that he was, sounded the death knell for premillennial thought in the church for over a thousand years.

Cover from the 2003 Xulon edition.

Thank you for joining us to discuss Rick Walston’s book The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

 Editor Introduction

 Part 1 of A Narrative-Critical Response

 Part 2 of A Narrative-Critical Response

 Reader Responses

Editor’s Note

Cover from the 2005 Wipf & Stock edition.

As mentioned briefly in our last issue, a rejoinder from Rick Walston will not be appearing at this time in answer to Robert Graves’ “Narrative-Critical Response.” I encourage you to read Walston’s book for yourself, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Debate. The book is now available for purchase online from publisher Wipf and Stock at this address: http://wipfandstock.com/the-speaking-in-tongues-controversy.html [as of February 13, 2015]

Reader responses about the topic of initial evidence and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, as well as discussion about Rick Walston’s book, are most welcome.

Rick Walston in 2008

Update: Response available online

Although Pneuma Review did not publish the response from Rick Walston, he has made his rebuttal available on his blog.

Rick Walston’s Response to Robert Graves’s Review ​ http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/coffeetalk/103.html [available as of Feb 9, 2015]​

For further reading

Gordon L. Anderson, “Baptism In The Holy Spirit, Initial Evidence, And A New Model” Enrichment (Winter 2005).

Dr. Gordon L. Anderson’s wrote a very insightful article that addresses the question: “How can Pentecostals deal with the problems raised by non-Pentecostals on issues of Holy Spirit baptism and still retain their Pentecostal position? Consider this new model.” The article was originally published in the 2005 winter issue of the AoG’s Enrichment Journal.

Patrick Kierkegaard (on February 12, 2015)

Invitation repeated

I do invite you again to write with your comments and insights. Please participate by adding your comments under the articles or send email to the Editor by way of our Contact page.

— Raul Mock, Executive Editor

Thank you for joining us to discuss Rick Walston’s book The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Cover from the 2003 Xulon edition.

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

 Editor Introduction

 Part 1 of A Narrative-Critical Response

 Part 2 of A Narrative-Critical Response

I would like to thank readers for sending us their comments, especially Pastor Bernal who is founder of New Life Consulting Ministries and a student at Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

Dear Editor, Raul Mock:

I am a little taken back that Dr. Rick Walston was asked to submit a rebuttal of the critique that Dr. Graves gave him within two issues of Pneuma Review, and then his rebuttal is not going to be published.

This is not academic nor is it responsible journalism. It is unfair and dishonoring to allow a critique of a person’s work, and then not give him a chance to respond to the critique.

I have known Dr. Walston for over ten years now, and he is not only academic in his writings, but a sincere and true Pentecostal.

I was very impressed with his book, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy and after reading it I remember saying, “Finally, someone who has the ability and intelligence to bring to light the issues that surround the controversy.” I also did not feel that he watered down, Pentecostal theology, or made steps backwards but rather, “blazed” a path forward to give pentecostals a clearer understanding of the presence and evidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Sincerely,

Adrian A. Bernal

Response from the Editor

Greetings from the Pneuma Foundation.

Thank you for writing, Pastor Bernal, about the conversation the Pneuma Review has started about Dr. Walston’s book The Speaking in Tongues Controversy.

The editorial committee shares your disappointment about not hearing from Dr. Walston in the Pneuma Review regarding his book and the topic of initial evidence and separability/subsequence. Dr. Walston did submit a response to Robert Graves’ critique of his book, but we were unable to publish it as submitted. Dr. Walston has informed us that due to time constraints he will not be able to revise his response in the near future.

Readers, such as yourself, are invited to respond to Robert Graves and further this discussion about glossolalia as initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the separability and subsequence of that experience. There are many Pentecostal/charismatic leaders that disagree with Robert Graves’ conclusions. It would be helpful to hear from others why they disagree—even as they share core beliefs and the contemporary ministry of the Spirit.

Thank you again for writing. 

In the love of the Father,

Raul Mock

Executive Editor, Pneuma Review

Differing with Walston, classical Pentecostal Robert Graves writes that the doctrine of initial evidence and the subsequence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are taught by scripture.

 Editor Introduction  

 Part 1 of A Narrative-Critical Response

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

Continued from Pneuma Review Fall 2005

Authorial Intent—the Doom of Pentecostal Theology?

For Walston, “Of all the arguments opposing the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, that of authorial intent is, without a doubt, the most convincing …” (59). His methodology for proving this entails asking what he calls a “Guiding Question” of each incident where Luke describes someone experiencing salvation, “What importance does Luke give to tongues as evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?” (pp. 61, 71). He then claims that there are twenty-six references in Acts of people being baptized in the Holy Spirit (126).¹⁷ Walston continues, “If Luke mentions the outward manifestation of tongues on only three of twenty-six soteriological occasions, with the number of people demonstrating this outward manifestation to be around 150 out of well over three thousand people, then the obvious question must follow, How important could it have possibly been to Luke?” (110). Thus, he reasons concerning the Jerusalem Pentecost and Acts 2:41, “It cannot be logically nor exegetically argued that all Christians who are baptized in the Holy Spirit should speak in tongues from a small sampling of only 120 out of 3,120 people” (126). “If it were as important an issue as Classical Pentecostals say it is, Luke would have used this three-thousand-person example to develop the concept. But, he does not” (71).

Throughout his chapter on authorial intent, Walston mentions a number of places where Luke, if he had wished to show that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, could have done so explicitly, and with great effect (e.g., the three thousand in 2:41, the Samaritans, the priests in 6:7, and Paul), but Luke is silent. Even if all of these believers did speak in tongues, the fact that Luke does not mention it is proof that tongues are not that important to Luke; thus, it was not Luke’s “intent to convey tongues as the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit” (73).

Just as Walston uses Acts 2:38-41 as the locus classicus to prove that to be saved is to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and vice versa, he also uses this passage as the locus classicus to prove that it is not Luke’s intent to teach that tongues are the normative, initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. After repeating his Guiding Question, he writes, “The issue is not, ‘Did the three thousand speak in tongues?’ The issue is, ‘Why does Luke not make a point of saying that they did (or did not) speak in tongues?’ He does not mention it because it is not an issue. What Luke does take the time and space to describe is the soteriological outcome on this unique day” (71). Walston calls the incident with the three thousand a “paradigmatic gold mine” had Luke wanted to establish tongues as the evidence of Spirit-baptism (72).

Differing with Walston, classical Pentecostal Robert Graves writes that the doctrine of initial evidence and the subsequence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are taught by scripture.

 Editor Introduction

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

The thrust of Rick Walston’s book The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is that the two major distinctive doctrines of Pentecostal theology—the initial evidence of tongues and the separability/subsequence of Spirit-baptism—are wrong. In his own words, Walston is “attempting to lead the reader to the obvious conclusion that Luke does not intend to establish tongues-as-evidence as a doctrine or as a paradigm” (85); the same can be said for the doctrine of separability and subsequence, though he devotes a scant eight paragraphs to it (141-144).

Walston’s endeavor to disprove these aspects of Pentecostal theology relies on a number of strategies. First, he attempts to show that whereas Pentecostals believe Luke’s theology is predominantly pneumatological, it is in fact more soteriological. For Walston, this entails (1) accepting Acts 2:38-41 as the paradigmatic passage of Acts, (2) statistically comparing the occurrences of pneumatological and soteriological passages in Acts, and (3) redefining the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a salvific event. Second, he constructs an anti-Pentecostal interpretation of Acts using the hermeneutical principle of authorial intent as a singular, over-arching, controlling interpretive canon. This entails building a massive construct upon what Luke does not say at opportune times.

Join us for a discussion of Rick Walston’s book The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

Editor’s Introduction

Welcome to a discussion about the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the controversial role that tongues has in that dialogue. Robert Graves opens up with his review essay of Rick Walston’s book, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy.

Is praying in tongues the only biblical indication that someone has been filled with the Spirit? Does Jesus baptize believers in the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation, or can it happen later?

Some definitions to get us started

Pentecostal/charismatics regard the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as the first time a believer is filled with the Spirit to minister in power (Eph 5:18). Initial evidence is the teaching that speaking in tongues (glossolalia) is the initial and observable evidence that a Christian has been baptized with the Holy Spirit. In this context, subsequence refers to belief that this baptism is a subsequent experience to salvation, whether or not it occurs for the individual believer at the time of the born-again experience or much later. Separability is closely linked to subsequence, proponents saying that the Baptism in the Spirit is distinct from salvation—distinct from the Spirit baptizing the believer into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

The review before us

If Robert Graves’ passion, as expressed in this review, is any indication, classical Pentecostals still ardently believe that initial evidence is an important distinctive. Those unfamiliar with the debate will likely wonder what the squabble is all about. Yet, classical Pentecostals believe this issue to be worth making some people upset because they know that Spirit empowerment is crucial for effective ministry. They do not want anyone in the body of Christ to miss out on all that God has for them.

Another recent example of a classical Pentecostal writing on this subject may be found here: Gordon L. Anderson, “Baptism In The Holy Spirit, Initial Evidence, And A New Model” Enrichment (Winter 2005), pages 70-78. At the time of printing, the full article was available online at this address:

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200501/200501_071_BaptismHS.cfm [available as of Feb 9, 2015]

Rick Walston in 2008

About the book

More information about the book is available on the internet here: http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/books/tongues.html [available as of Feb 9, 2015].

Response invited

Readers are invited to write with your comments and insights. All of us would be deepened by your participation in this discussion. Please add your comments under the articles or send email to the Editor by way of our Contact page.

— Raul Mock, Executive Editor

Publisher’s page for The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: http://www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/bookdetail.php?PB_ISBN=9781591607625 [available as of Feb 9, 2015]

Robert M. Bowman, Jr., The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 254 pages, ISBN 9780801063442.

When I came across Bowman’s book The Word-Faith Controversy, I was very interested in his approach and conclusions because I had earlier done my Th.D. dissertation on nineteenth and twentieth century “faith theologies.” Bowman’s book is a significant contribution to the study of the Word of Faith movement. While not uncritical of the movement, he takes exception to many of the conclusions of Hank Hanegraaff (Christianity in Crisis) and D.R. McConnell (A Different Gospel). Contrary to Hanegraaff, he does not portray the movement as monolithic, but recognizes diversity and disagreement within the movement.

Bowman prefers to call E.W. Kenyon the “grandfather” of the Word-Faith movement, citing what he considers three other “fathers”: William Branham and the Latter Rain movement, Oral Roberts (whom he does not classify as Word-Faith), and especially Kenneth Hagin. He recognizes that Kenyon would not accept all that is taught in the Word-Faith movement (e.g., that God has a body or that believers are little gods), nor would Word-Faith leaders accept all that Kenyon taught (e.g., that tongues is not the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit). He concludes, “Kenyon is the source of most, but not all, of the distinctive and controversial teachings of the Word-Faith movement” (p. 38). Further, the Word-Faith teachers have sometimes gone beyond anything that Kenyon himself taught.

Taking a more scientific approach than McConnell and Hanegraaff, Bowman lists and compares 23 standard New Thought concepts with Christian Science and Kenyon. From this statistical analysis, he concludes that while there is much in common between Christian Science and New Thought, there is “little resemblance” between Kenyon and New Thought. Further, he concludes that Kenyon is “far closer to orthodoxy than is Christian Science” (p. 46). Kenyon may share some similarity with metaphysical thought, but his views are “fundamentally different” (p. 48). He demonstrates that McConnell’s methodology is faulty, and thus his conclusions regarding Kenyon’s connections with metaphysical New Thought are deeply flawed. While there may have been some metaphysical influence, Kenyon’s views are more unlike such concepts than like.

Bowman goes on to show that Kenyon’s teaching was rooted more in the pre-Pentecostal Higher Life, Keswick, healing and proto-Pentecostal movements. He cites examples of such teaching including Andrew Murray, Hannah Whitall Smith, Charles Cullis, A.J. Gordon, and others, especially concentrating on the teachings of A.B. Simpson and John G. Lake. He is less critical of the Keswick/Higher Life stream than Dale Simmons (E.W. Kenyon and the Postbelllum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Prosperity), seeing less similarity between the Keswick/Higher Life tradition and metaphysical teaching.