Dr. Tony Richie is a third generation Pentecostal (page 9) and an Ordained Bishop with the Church of God (Cleveland, TN). He serves as senior pastor of New Harvest Church of God in Knoxville, Tennessee and is an adjunct professor at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary located in Cleveland, Tennessee. In addition, he has authored several books including: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Religions: Encountering Cornelius Today and Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue.

The contents of the Essentials of Pentecostal Theology may in some sense surprise you. The text is not an exposition of all of the major doctrines of the Church of God or any other Pentecostal denomination. The book is divided into three parts. Part One is called “Various Accents and Conflicts.” Three chapters make up Part One. In this section the author surveys some of the different emphases that various writers have regarding Pentecostal Theology. He also looks at two major controversies that exists in the Pentecostal movement, one concerns the doctrine of sanctification and the other concerns the Godhead. In the chapter about the Godhead he writes about the differences and similarities of Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals. Part Two is called “A Description Not a Definition.” Five chapters make up Part Two. In this section Dr. Richie calls attention to the fact that the Jesus Pentecostals believe in is the same Jesus that we read about in the New Testament (page 69). In view of this we should expect to see the works that He did in the New Testament in operation in our world today. Also in this section the author has two chapters given to the subject of experiencing God. In addition he devotes two chapters to a consideration of the Pentecostal gospel, which is called full or fivefold. Part Three is called “Crucial Commitments.” Four chapters make up Part Three. In this section Dr. Richie focuses on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Specifically he addresses the subjects of subsequence, purpose, and initial evidence with regard to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. He also writes about the significance of tongues.

No doubt different readers will gravitate toward different parts of this book. Those who are interested in some of the “in house” debates within the Pentecostal movement will be drawn to Part One. Those whose interest is the experience of the Presence of God may be drawn to Part Two. And those who are interested in matters related to the Pentecostal distinctive doctrine of tongues as the initial physical evidence that a person has received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit will probably enjoy reading Part Three. Be that as it may I would encourage readers to read the whole book and not just the parts that especially appeal to them.

As Dr. Richie points out near the beginning of the book Pentecostal Theology can be “raw” and “messy” (page 4). It can be that, but there is no denying that the Pentecostal faith is also vibrant. The growth of the Pentecostal Movement around the world testifies to that. This book has a lot to offer in the areas of Pentecostal history, doctrine, and experience. May the Lord use it to help better equip His people to understand, explain, and experience the glorious life in the Holy Spirit.

Reviewed by John Lathrop

Publisher’s Page: https://wipfandstock.com/essentials-of-pentecostal-theology.html

Dr. Tony Richie, speaks about his new book, Essentials of Pentecostal Theology, in this short (4 min) video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezsx9H5h3Qo

Robert W. Graves, ed., Strangers To Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (Woodstock, GA: The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship, 2014), 604 pages, ISBN 9780996044509

A quick overview reveals that Strangers to Fire is an anthology of 35 essays edited by Robert W. Graves, President of The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship. These essays are written by 26 authors from across the spectrum of the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third Wave movements. This book represents the non-cessationist or, better, continuationist, view that the charismata (spiritual gifts) active in the New Testament Church are still authentically operative in contemporary times. Strangers to Fire is a specific response to John F. MacArthur’s (JFM) caustic polemical, Strange Fire, and a general response to cessationism (view that spiritual gifts have ceased), and the abuse of the charismata. It has a Foreword by J. Lee Grady, noted Charisma contributor. Authors include such notables as Wayne Grudem, Jack Deere, Craig Keener, Jon Ruthven, Sam Storms, Doug Oss, Mel Robeck, Paul Elbert, Randy Clark, Robert Menzies, J. P. Moreland, Gary Greig, Mark Rutland, Gary Shogren, William De Arteaga, William K. Kay, Melvin Hodges, and others.

Cover for the November 2016 re-release by Empowered Life.

I begin by noting some significant contributions of Strangers to Fire. Before getting started directly with that process, however, I want to say that I particularly appreciate its apt title. JFM drew on the depiction of Aaron’s sons in Leviticus 10:1 offering strange fire and consequently being consumed by the fire of divine judgment for their blasphemous action (cp. Numbers 3:4; 26:61). It’s difficult to escape JFM’s implication that Pentecostals and Charismatics are guilty of the same sin and will suffer the same end. However, one must not dismiss the reality of authentic divine fire in his chosen text. Therefore, the choice of Graves and his team to call their book Strangers to Fire is telling. Divine presence is often depicted in Scripture in association with holy fire, most notably in the tongues of fire in the paradigmatic Day of Pentecost event (Acts 2:1-4). Accordingly, Graves flips the quip back on JFM. Rather than Pentecostals and Charismatics offering some kind of “strange fire” offensive to God and inevitably suffering terrible consequences, perhaps cessationist strangers to the fire of God are missing an opportunity to encounter holy fire in God’s awesome presence through the Holy Spirit—and suffering the lack thereof accordingly. The subtitle is also telling. When Tradition Trumps Scripture implies that in spite of all claims by JFM et al to be the only honest representatives of biblical faith and truth in this debate, they may be allowing human traditionalism to override and undermine the scriptural witness to God’s work in our day.

R. T. Kendall, Holy Fire: A Balanced, Biblical Look at the Holy Spirit’s Work in Our Lives (Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2014), 256 pages, ISBN 9781621366041.

R.T. Kendall (DPhil, Oxford University) is no stranger to controversy. Raised in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition he converted to Calvinism as an adult. Yet his scholarship has challenged contemporary Calvinist interpretations of John Calvin’s original thought and his own ministry has been characterized by openness to charismatic gifts. Kendall’s credibility and giftedness have been clearly established in the crucible of public ministry. For twenty-five years R.T. Kendall was pastor of London’s prestigious Westminster Chapel. He has written more than fifty-five books, including Total Forgiveness, The Sensitivity of the Spirit, Grace, and The Anointing: Yesterday, Today, and Forever. He has appeared frequently on Christian television programming. Born (1935) in Ashland, Kentucky, Kendall currently resides in Hendersonville, Tennessee where, although retired, he is president of R.T. Kendall Ministries and continues to contribute to Christian publications and programs.

Like Holy Fire, Kendall’s website (http://rtkendallministries.com) decries the “silent divorce” that has occurred in Christianity over the centuries between Word and Spirit. He suggests the need of the day is for a balanced approach to Christian belief and practice that integrates both solid commitment to the truth of Scripture and contemporary sensitivity to the power of the Holy Spirit. Readers will certainly see these twin dynamics amply demonstrated in Holy Fire. Further, as Kendall’s open letter to John MacArthur, “Dear Dr. MacArthur,” clearly indicates, Holy Fire was written as a response to MacArthur’s book on Strange Fire. (As a matter of fact, it was written by request from Charisma House publishers.) It is impossible to appreciate Kendall’s arguments in Holy Fire without some awareness of this dynamic. Theologically MacArthur is a cessationist, one who believes spiritual gifts such as divine healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and so on, ceased after the apostolic age. His Strange Fire book, based on an earlier conference by the same name, aggressively attacks those of the continuationist view. Theologically, Kendall is a continuationist. Continuationists believe that the Holy Spirit continues to equip believers today for Christian service with spiritual gifts, including but not limited to gifts such as divine healing, prophecy, and speaking in tongues. Continuationists are often known as Pentecostal (Acts 2:1-4) and/or Charismatic (1 Co 12-14) Christians. In short, MacArthur’s Strange Fire is mostly a diatribe against the beliefs and practices of modern Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians while Holy Fire comes to their defense.

Interestingly enough, both Kendall and MacArthur are from the Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) branch of Christianity. In his “Strange Fire” conference, MacArthur criticizes other prominent Calvinists (e.g. John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Kendall) known for their contemporary acceptance of and openness to spiritual gifts. (See John Piper’s response at http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-talks-john-macarthurs-strange-fire-conference-pursuing-gifts-of-prophecy-and-speaking-in-tongues-109022/.) Although likely many Pentecostals and Charismatics might take exception to MacArthur’s conference and book, Kendall’s response is particularly noteworthy as a Reformed Charismatic work. Thus there are two movements occurring in the middle of this debate, including, perhaps especially, in Kendall’s Holy Fire. The main move addresses questions of whether spiritual gifts or charismata continue to be authentically operative and relevant for contemporary Christians or are they really only appendix-like relics of ancient history. The second move gets at the heart of an internal debate about Reformed Charismatic Christianity exploring whether “Reformed” and “Charismatic” are mutually exclusive concepts.

A presentation by Tony Richie at Ministers’ Week 2014 at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary.

Chad Tyler Gerber is Assistant Professor of Theology at Walsh University, USA. This book is part of the Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity. The series focuses on major theologians from the patristic period as individuals immersed in their own culture. It somewhat uniquely aims to understand the convergence or divergence of pagan and Christian thought on issues addressed by both streams. Accordingly, it hopes to ascertain the true creativity of a particular author and to assess the abiding value of his thought for modern times. This text is serious theology so lay people or even many clergy may not find it easily palatable. However, teachers and advanced students of theology will definitely find it a rewarding and worthwhile read. Augustine is indisputably one of the giants of Christian thought, and Gerber offers a fresh and vigorous look at his pneumatology. That alone is cause for acclaim. Accordingly, those interested in patristic studies in general or in Augustine in particular as well as his pneumatology will benefit from The Spirit of Augustine’s Early Theology. I suspect Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians should be especially interested in the depths of Augustine’s theology of the Holy Spirit.

Gerber explains that “Augustine’s pneumatology remains one of his most distinctive, decisive, and ultimately divisive contributions” to Christian theology. Several questions guide Gerber’s work on this text. How did Augustine’s understanding of the Spirit develop? Why does he identify the Spirit with divine love and cosmic order? What were the sources of his inspiration? Gerber focuses on the early Augustine and his first writings in order to get at the seminal roots of his more mature thought. He is particularly interested in the Platonic influence on Augustine’s pneumatology and in the possibility of his continuing commitment to the divinity of the human soul. (In a brief appendix, Gerber sums up his argument that Augustine rejected the divinity of the soul; but, he suggests Augustine appropriated certain functions of the Plotinian Soul regarding the particularity of the Holy Spirit, especially his idea of the Spirit as the “ordinator” of the world.)

Following the contours of Augustine’s early writings and the locale of their construction, Gerber presents his material in four chapters. After a brief introduction, Chapter One on “Nicea and Neoplatonism” (386-87 AD) examines the influence of Nicea and Neoplatonism on the budding theologian’s early Trinitarian theology as he writes from Milan. Gerber concludes that “at bottom” Augustine’s early Trinitarian theology was “pro-Nicene” and also made use of “Plotinian triadology”. He suggests the early Augustine still had much to learn about both Neoplatonism and pro-Nicene theology; but, he had sufficiently grasped the central tenets of both in such as way as to understand and express his theology in terms that would remain essentially the same throughout his subsequent writings.

In Chapter Two, “The Soul of Plotinus and the Spirit of Nicea,” studying the Cassiciacum Dialogues (386-87 AD), Gerber gets to a more specific pneumatology and also to the delicate relation in Augustine between Plotinus’ philosophy and Nicene theology. Gerber suggests that Augustine’s more or less random invocations on pneumatology at this point nevertheless adhere to a consistent “redemptive-historical perspective in which God the Spirit leads fallen souls to God the Son.” Augustine is apparently influenced here by the New Testament and by patristic writings. The theme of “return” is also evident, and Plotinus appears to have provided “a psychological model of ascent” in which the soul’s salvation involves a vision of “archetypal Truth and a ‘return'” to God as “the ultimate source of all things” (although Romans 11:36 is key). Gerber, however, judges the material too scarce at this point to make sweeping conclusions about specific ideas concerning pneumatology and cosmic order.

An Ethical Approach

More of a practical guide than a theological statement, “Recommendations for Conduct” outlines “A Basis for Christian Witness”. This is the most consistently biblical section, and primarily upholds mission as a participation in the mission of God and obedience to the example of Jesus and the early church with a strong emphasis on ethical behavior and responsibility.³ The document also details “Principles” of Christian conduct in bearing witness to the gospel: “Acting in God’s love,” “Imitating Jesus Christ,” “Christian virtues,” “Acts of service and justice,” “Discernment in ministries of healing,” “Rejection of violence,” “Freedom of religion and belief,” “Mutual respect and solidarity,” “Respect for all people,” “Renouncing false witness,” “Ensuring personal discernment,” and “Building interreligious relationships.” True to its subtitle, it also suggests “Recommendations” for guiding relationships between Christians and others as Christians respond to God’s call to do mission: “study” the critical issues involved, “build” relationships of respect and trust, “encourage” Christians to strengthen their own religious identity and faith, “cooperate” with other religious communities for justice and the common good, “call” on governments to respect religious freedom, and “pray” for all neighbors.

“Recommendations for Conduct” ends with an “Appendix” describing the background and process of its origin and development over the last five years. As a participant from beginning to end in that process, I understand that this background is essential for appreciating many of the nuances of the statements of this document. Also, it would be a mistake to divorce the content and tone of “Recommendations for Conduct” from the clear purpose statement in the “Preamble”.

The purpose of this document is to encourage churches, church councils and mission agencies to reflect on their current practices and to use the recommendations in this document to prepare, where appropriate, their own guidelines for their witness and mission among those of different religions and among those who do not profess any particular religion. It is hoped that Christians across the world will study this document in the light of their own practices in witnessing to their faith in Christ, both by word and deed.

Early Response

Must Re-centralizing Jesus Mean Displacing the Spirit? A Review Essay of Scot McKnight’s “Jesus vs. Paul”

In this review essay, Tony Richie responds to Scot McKnight’s article that introduces a conversation among theologians.

Scot McKnight, “Jesus vs. Paul” Christianity Today (December, 2010), pages 24-29.

The December 2010 cover encapsulates the discussion:

Jesus preached almost exclusively about the kingdom of heaven. Paul highlighted justification by faith. Some say they preached different gospels. Others say Jesus and Paul both preached justification. Still others claim both focused on the kingdom. What gives?

Scot McKnight is an accomplished New Testament scholar and award-winning author whose work often has an innovative tone and, sometimes, a controversial twist. In “Jesus vs. Paul,” McKnight tackles a disturbing disjunction within Evangelicalism.¹ An older generation of evangelicals tended to follow the Reformation tradition quite tightly, making Paul’s doctrine of justification the essential doctrinal rubric for individual salvation; but, a new generation of evangelicals has become entirely enamored with Christ’s kingdom teaching applying its social implications. Devotees of each approach tend be exclusive or dismissive of the other. A troubling dichotomy between gospels and epistles develops. McKnight considers this a serious crisis threatening the theological stability of church and academy. He thinks both approaches risk reductionism. However, he resists facile attempts at superficial harmonization. For McKnight, the solution resides rather in the concept of gospel itself, particularly as delineated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. The category of gospel, he argues, is broad enough to include both Jesus and kingdom with Paul and justification in a complementary, or perhaps better, in a comprehensive, manner.

Scot McKnight is Professor of New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

McKnight defines “gospel” summarily as the “saving story of Jesus that completes Israel’s story.” A prime benefit for McKnight is it’s re-centralizing of Jesus. He thinks that an overemphasis, that is to say, for all practical purposes, a sole emphasis, either on kingdom or justification tends to displace the person of Jesus, while the category of gospel places Jesus back at the center of what Scripture says, and of what Christianity is all about—faith in the person of Jesus Christ. McKnight has no problem producing multiple texts indicating that the New Testament calls for faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior rather than in his kingdom teaching or Paul’s views on justification. Accordingly, he argues against beginning either with kingdom or justification. Instead, McKnight says, “The gospel is the core of the Bible, and the gospel is the story of Jesus.” Therefore, he urges us to begin our hermeneutical and theological tasks with gospel.

  From the Conversations with Readers department appearing in the Spring 2008 issue.

In Tony Richie’s review of Roland Chia, Hope for the World: A Christian Vision of the Last Things (IVP, 2005), Pastor Richie says “While Chia briefly notes ‘historic premillennialism,’ he focuses almost exclusively on ‘dispensationalist premillennialism.’ The former builds on the apocalyptic literature of the Scriptures and the patristic teaching of the early Church, the latter on an ultra-literalist hermeneutic of Scripture shaped by a prefabricated paradigm popularized by J. N. Darby and C. I. Schofield [sic] around the turn of the twentieth century. Increasingly, informed classical Pentecostals are identifying irreconcilable differences with such fundamentalist versions of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists are chiefly strong advocates of cessationism, and often entrenched opponents of Pentecostalism.”

The distinctions that Richie criticizes Chia for not making are not genuine distinctions. Dispensationalism is not one-size-fits-all; there are a lot of significant differences among dispensationalists. Here are some examples of different dispensational views: cessationists who use ultra-dispensational arguments to keep the charismata in the early church, many Pentecostals that believe there will be an outpouring of the Spirit before the Rapture (whereas non-Pentecostals say that the apostasy of our culture is that mark of the end coming soon), and many Pentecostals who hold the idea that if you are not right with God that you will not “go up” in the Rapture. I agree that Chia should not lump all pre-tribulation pre-millenarians together. However, Brother Richie appears to have created a straw man of what he feels is dispensationalism. To say that dispensationalism is built on an ultra-literalist hermeneutic is simply incorrect. These are like theological swear words. I fail to see how “belief in the chronology and reality of rapture-great tribulation-millennium” is something other than dispensationalism.

Richie has developed a good reputation for himself through his writings in this publication, and I do appreciate what he has done here, even if we disagree on what dispensationalism is.

—DJ

Response from Tony Richie:

I appreciate D. J.’s penetrating insight and gracious attitude. Biblical and theological conversations in this kind of mode are always a pleasure for me. They also tend to be more informative. Moreover, I think D. J. is correct in his general assertion that dispensationalism is a complex category. We ought to avoid oversimplification. However, in a short book review, the original author’s, in this case, Chia’s, discussion limits one’s range. Yet D. J.’s critique concerns itself with my own definition of (and disputation with?) dispensationalism. Particularly, he resists charges of “ultra-literalism” and challenges whether retaining commitment to the rapture-tribulation-second coming-millennium continuum avoids dispensationalism after all. Mostly, he wishes to call attention to the complexity of the dispensationalist classification. I hope I understand and represent him correctly. Assuming I am, I will proceed to clarify my own position.

In a sense all Christians are dispensationalists in that they distinguish between the Old/New Testaments (Covenants) of Moses and Jesus (John 1:17). Furthermore, Pentecostals are generally dispensationalists in their belief in a pneumatological eschatology, or “latter rain” outpouring of the Holy Spirit (cf. Joel 2:23). However, “classic dispensationalism,” goes much farther, compartmentalizing God’s dealings with humanity to a point of historical discontinuity. In other words, they tightly seal off the “dispensations” of history until the unchanging character and nature of God and his Word appear inconsistent or, worse, incongruous. Though there are other versions, for instance, the more recent (and more palatable) “progressive dispensationalism” of Marvin Pate and others, the classic form of Darby and Scofield, albeit updated and expanded by Chafer and Ryrie and others, is still by far the most prominent. In fact, later adaptations are more like departures because they acquiesce on traditionally key points. For example, they abandon or seriously alter, the traditional dispensationalist doctrine that God has two separate peoples and programs, Israel and the Church, with the Church being merely “a divine parenthesis”—as they term it—in redemptive history. As this duality was a defining tenet of classic dispensationalism, to what extent they are still truly dispensationalist remains debatable. The extreme literalism (I don’t mean to “swear”!) of classic dispensationalists is indisputable to anyone who has ever waded through tons of discussion about why kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels must mean totally separate things or the difference between Israel and Jacob as denominatives for the OT theocracy. The same mindset lies behind the typical hard distinction between Israel and the Church. Although many liberal critics, such as Barbara Rossing, miss the point, belief in the Rapture is not necessarily dependent on dispensationalism. Excellent Pentecostal scholars such as Stanley Horton (The Promise of His Coming, 1967) and Hollis Gause (Revelation: God’s Stamp of Sovereignty on History, 1983) are not dispensationalist but do believe in the pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church. For me personally, belief in the pre-tribulation Rapture is a matter of imminence as much as anything. I believe the Bible teaches Christ could come at any moment and we had better be ready (e.g., Matt 24:44; Lu 12:40).

I am grateful to D. J. and to PR for an opportunity to engage each other on these important matters of our faith. I look forward to a continuing and deepening discussion.

—Tony

Pastor-scholar Tony Richie takes on a cessationist critic of glossolalia.

Ronald E. Baxter, Charismatic Gift of Tongues (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981), 149 pages.

I can think of only two reasons why anyone would want to read this book: as an unavoidable assignment for a book review or to shore up shallow prejudice against Pentecostals and Charismatics. As a blatant example of pseudo-scholarship Baxter’s Charismatic Gift of Tongues indulges in eisegesis rather than engaging in exegesis. Although a show of studying original biblical languages and surveying historical and theological material is made, no serious grappling with the subject of speaking in tongues or its proponents is honestly attempted. The author admits his “longing” that “we shall be saved from the chaos, confusion and myths spread abroad in the [Pentecostal/Charismatic] movement.” He begins with this bias and repeatedly presses it home hard. My problem with Baxter is not just that I disagree with his worn-out repetitions of all the old cessationist tirades that have been debunked and refuted time and time again not only by P/Cs but even by other honest-hearted scholars (e.g., Chad Owen Brand, Perspectives on Spirit Baptism, Broadman and Holman, 2004), but with his totally one-sided and uneven treatment of the entire topic.

Baxter displays appreciation for alliteration with chapters titled “The Recurrence of Tongues in the Bible,” “The Relation of Tongues to Spirit Baptism,” “The Regulation of Tongues at Corinth,” “The Reason for Tongues was a Sign,” “The Removal of Tongues by Maturity,” “The Return of Tongues: Its Source,” “The Relation of Tongues to Interpretation,” “The Record of Tongues is Perilous History,” and “The Result of Tongues is Counterfeit Unity.” The titles are pretty well indicative of content too. For example, Baxter argues that Pentecost was a non-repeatable event never intended to reoccur. That, of course, raises the problem of biblical repetitions of Pentecostal experience after Acts 2. But for Baxter, in a decidedly circular argument, since Pentecost is by definition non-repeatable, then these are considered exceptions that prove the rule, so to speak, rather than patterns for reproducible behavior. Contemporary tongues are therefore, again by advance definition, counterfeit.