This teaching series on “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit” explores the biblical and theological foundations of the experience known as the baptism with the Holy Spirit or the reception of the Holy Spirit as confirmed by speaking in tongues. In the process of explaining the experience, Verna Linzey relies heavily on biblical resources. Thus, the presentation comes both from personal experience and from biblical research. The variety of discussion is significant, moving from the nature of the Holy Spirit Himself through the experience of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Verna Linzey then shows the workings of the Holy Spirit through the Old and New Testaments. Finally, Verna Linzey, in showing how to receive the Holy Spirit and the necessity and results of receiving the Holy Spirit baptism add the practical application that will apply to everyone.

Listen to all 19 teachings:  https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/vernalinzey

Special thanks to Jim Linzey, Verna’s son, for preparing this introduction to the lecture series.

The School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary invites you to the 2017 Missiology Lectures.

RACE, THEOLOGY, AND MISSION

November 1–3, 2017 in Pasadena, California

Speakers include: Akintunde E. Akinade, Elizabeth Conde-Frazier, Daniel Jeyaraj, Willie Jennings, Angel Santiago-Vendrell, Andrea Smith, and Jonathan Tran.

Conference organizers include:  Love Sechrest, Johnny Ramírez-Johnson, and PneumaReview.com writer Amos Yong.

A series of 19 lectures on the Gospel of Matthew by Dr. Craig S. Keener of Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky.

Lecture 1: The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 1

Lecture 2: The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 2; Miracles, Part 1

Lecture 3: Miracles, Part 2, Exorcism

Lecture 4: Introduction to Matthew, Matthew 1

Lecture 5: Matthew 2—3

Lecture 6: Matthew 3—4

Lecture 7: Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5

Lecture 8: Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5—6

Lecture 9: Matthew 7—8

Lecture 10: Matthew 8—9

Lecture 11: Matthew 10—11

Lecture 12: Matthew 12—14

Lecture 13: Matthew 14—16

Lecture 14: Matthew 16—19

Lecture 15: Matthew 19—22

Lecture 16: Matthew 23—24

Lecture 17: Matthew 24—25

Lecture 18: Matthew 26—27

Lecture 19: Matthew 27—28

On February 11^th and 12^th 2015, Amos Yong delivered a two-part series of lectures at Ambrose University for the annual Murray W. Downey Lectureship. Ambrose University is a Christian institution of higher education in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, composed of a denominationally diverse community seeking to represent Christ in their respective fields. Yong is currently Professor of Theology and Mission and Director for Missiological Research at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is a prolific author who has written, edited, and contributed to scores of publications. At this lectureship, Yong explored the impact of Pentecostalism on Christianity in his lectures titled, “The Coming Global Christianity: Pietistic-Pentecostal Challenges and Opportunities.”

Murray W. Downey was a founding member of the faculty of the Canadian Bible College in 1941 and taught there for 31 years. An Academic Dean for six years, he was also Director of Christian Service for 30 years. In 1982, the Canadian Theological Seminary along with the Canadian Bible College established the Murray W. Downey Chair of Evangelism. The Downey Endowment and Scholarship Fund and Lectureship Series honours Mr. Downey’s service, passion, and commitment, and assists future M.Div. students.
From the Ambrose University page introducing the 2015 Downey Lectures.

In his first lecture, Yong introduced the issues at hand by defining his terms and then presented the challenges facing Pietistic-Pentecostalism. This stream of Christianity is “coming” in the sense that it is a present reality that has not yet arrived in its fullness, as seen in its continual growth. It is “global” in that it is affecting communities all over the world. Yong noted that some prefer the term “World Christianity” rather than “Global Christianity” because the former emphasizes not only the expanse of Christianity around the world (as the latter does) but also the diversity seen among the different Christianities. Pietistic-Pentecostalism is one of these expressions. While Pietism and Pentecostalism are not identical, they are related in many ways. In fact, a Pietistic form of Pentecostalism has emerged. The merging of strands from these two traditions into one unique expression of Christianity can be traced to the Azusa Street Revival in the twentieth century, where many of those involved in this Pentecostal movement came from Pietistic backgrounds. Thus, while not the same thing, these two traditions are organically interrelated and may be regarded as spiritual and historical cousins, perhaps even siblings.

After defining his terms, Yong identified two characteristics of Pietistic-Pentecostalism: first, its place within evangelicalism (in that it is committed to a born again experience, Christ-centered spirituality, a focus on the cross, and a commitment to evangelism a la David Bebbington’s definition) and, second, its emphasis on orthopathos (right feeling) and orthopraxis (right behavior). While it does not neglect orthodoxy (right thinking), it defines it differently—primarily in its necessary relation to both orthopathos and orthpraxis—rather than primarily in its relation to creeds and confessions. In order to illustrate this understanding of orthodoxy, orthopraxis, and orthopathos, Yong explained what a conversation between Pietistic-Pentecostals looks like. He said it is only after the two parties agree that they “love Jesus” that they would get into a discussion of other theological issues. None of the emerging theological issues, however, would ever be seen as being as important as the already established fact that they both love Jesus. While “loving Jesus” may need to be defined, this defining must not take precedence over the fact that love must be displayed in one’s actions. In fact, Yong proposed, this is exactly what theology is—a reflection on how one has experienced the risen Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not, primarily, abstract hypothesizing.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: ‘The Finished Work,’” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 187-198.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: The Influence of Fundamentalism,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 199-211.

William W. Menzies, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Keswick and the Higher Life,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 14:2 (July 2011), pages 213-225.

In his lectures on Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism, presented at the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, William W. Menzies ably surveys the impact of non-Wesleyan traditions upon Pentecostalism, and especially the Assemblies of God. These include Finished Work, Fundamentalism, Keswick, and The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA). A review of Menzies’ lecture on the A.B. Simpson and the C&MA appeared in an earlier article.

In his first lecture, “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Finished Work,” after a brief biography of William Durham, the prime proponent of Finished Work Pentecostalism, Menzies describes Durham’s departure from the Wesleyan eradication view of sanctification. Early Pentecostal belief, as reflected in Charles Parham and William Seymour, taught that a person needs to be sanctified by a second crisis experience before one can receive the baptism in the Spirit and tongues. Durham viewed sanctification as the believer’s position in the finished work of Christ, with no need for a second blessing crisis of sanctification to root out sin. Thus, one did not need to become sanctified before receiving the baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues. This created an acrimonious division in the Pentecostal movement. As a result, William Seymour, catalyst of the Azusa Street Revival of 1906, locked Durham out of his church in 1911. However, the influence of the finished work teaching became so pervasive that Menzies notes that “virtually all Pentecostal bodies that had origins after 1911 adopted non-Wesleyan sanctification views” (p. 218).

Two significant omissions to this issue include the prophecies of both Seymour and Parham regarding Durham. When Seymour locked Durham out of his church, he prophesied that Durham would die if he turned aside from the will of God.[1] Likewise, in January 1912 Charles Parham claimed that Durham had committed the sin unto death and prophesied Durham’s death within six months, praying, “If this man’s doctrine is true, let my life go out to prove it, but if our teaching on a definite grace of sanctification is true, let his life pay the forfeit.”[2] Durham, in fact, did die in July 1912, and thus in the eyes of some Wesleyan Pentecostals a fulfillment of their prophecies, but his teachings had already gained traction and the prophetic fulfillment was ignored or dismissed.

Menzies then presents the impact of Fundamentalism on the Pentecostal movement in his lecture “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Fundamentalism.” The fundamental doctrines of the faith were at the very foundation of Pentecostalism. These included belief in the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, salvation by faith, the person of the Holy Spirit, the inerrancy of Scripture, and dispensational teaching on the literal second coming of Christ. Menzies notes, however, that fundamentalism did not respond in kind to Pentecostalism. By 1928, fundamentalism had formally adopted cessationist dispensationalism, by rejecting tongues, prophetic revelation, and healing.

Menzies’ next article discusses the “Non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism: A Tradition: Keswick/Higher Life.” He is correct in noting the significant influence of Keswick/Higher Life holiness teaching. He holds Steven Barabas and his teaching as representative of Keswick. However, this is not fully accurate. It would be more accurate to say that Barabas’ teaching was the predominant developing expression of sanctification. Barabas wrote a history and theology of Keswick in the 1940s, but he was more representative of later Keswick than turn-of-the-century Keswick. Menzies appears to take most of his information from Barabas rather than from original sources and more recent research. Menzies states, “Keswick leaders often say that God’s method of sanctification is not suppression, but counteraction.” (p. 221). Although this is somewhat true, it is not totally accurate. Actually, earlier Keswick leaders did use the language of suppression, but as time went on, and in response to criticisms, the language of counteraction was used. A.B. Simpson, for instance, spoke at the Keswick convention of 1890, especially opposing the language of suppression. His cautions apparently were heeded, and by a few years later, the language had changed from suppression to counteraction.