thoughts and ruminations while in exile (1 Pet. 2:11)

This is a response I wrote to my friend's blog entitled "Pentecostal Pneumatology." There are actually two blogs. The second one can be found here. I sincerely suggest that you read both blogs before reading what I have posted below. I have met with Stephen (my friend about whom I am speaking) personally, and we have discussed our differences, and I have his permission to post this response. My goal is not to be rude or harsh, but simply to voice my concerns on this issue. For your information, I have done my best to cite my sources. My response is heavily foot-noted with further elaboration on certain points, and sources I recommend for further reading. Here you go. Hope you enjoy:

Humility is the virtue by which a man recognizes his own unworthiness because he really knows himself”—Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)[1]

A response to someone else’s theological beliefs and insights can be viewed in a variety of ways. For starters, why do it? Won’t people just go on believing what they want anyway? And even if I were to convince someone of their error,[2] would that actually be enough to cause them to leave their church? In an age of superficial Christianity and doctrinal shallowness, studies show that most people who have doctrinal disagreements with their church will continue to stay where they are attending if they have family and friends who attend with them.[3] Simply put, people will stay where they are comfortable. In doing this, they bear witness to their own lack of conviction and show forth a life that finds doctrinal imprecision acceptable.

Yet because our God is a God of truth, we His people must also care about truth. After all, Jesus said, “I am the . . . truth” (Jn. 14:6).[4]

What makes the present task more difficult is that I am writing about my disagreements with Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians. So you know that this is close to my heart, you should know the following: I became a Christian in a Pentecostal church, my wife attended a Pentecostal church until she was 18, her parents still attend a Pentecostal church, and the majority of my friends either used to attend Pentecostal churches, or still do.

The quote from Bernard of Clairvaux at the top of the page summarizes my approach to this subject. I am keenly aware of my own shortcomings in the Christian life and do not profess to have arrived—either personally or theologically. Thus, the disagreements I put forth here are simply a critique of another brother’s writings, as well as my own reasons for leaving the Pentecostal church.

Before I begin let me be clear: I believe orthodox Pentecostals are truly Christians. I cannot say the same for oneness Pentecostals. Being that oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity, I believe that they are outside the boundaries of biblical Christianity and are therefore not Christian.[5] They are in fact heretics. If they do not repent and embrace true Christianity, they have no hope of heaven.

A Personal Testimony

Speaking personally, I left the Pentecostal church for doctrinal reasons. When it is all said and done, I believe Pentecostal theology cannot be proven in the Bible. I believe their positions lack cogency and do not stand up under solid exegetical and hermeneutical principles. My last point should let you in on something: the disagreements that exist between denominations come down to presuppositions and hermeneutics.

In reality, when discussing doctrinal disagreements, we first of all need to defend our approach to the Bible. The way you approach the Bible—what you believe before you even open it—will affect how you interpret it. Fundamentally, our disagreements are matters of interpretation. This fact causes some to despair, but this need not be the case (This subject will be the topic of a forthcoming blog entitled Scripture and Tradition). However, I bring this up to spark lively discussion.

We must recognize that we all come to the Bible with our own biases, myself included. We all have our own presuppositions. If you believe that you do not have your own presuppositions, well . . . you do. In fact, the belief that you have no presuppositions, is itself a presupposition. Just food for thought . . .

On to the Mission at Hand

The Pentecostal Experience

My method will be to quote Stephen directly and then make my comments. He says first of all that “Pentecostalism is a movement within Christianity that places special emphasis on the direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as described in the Bible account on the Day of Pentecost.”

It is certainly true that “Pentecostalism . . . places special emphasis on the direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit . . .” In fact, this is the difference between Pentecostalism and all other Christian traditions. Pentecostalism stresses a direct experience with God. McGrath says, “Pentecostalism declares that it is possible to encounter God directly and personally through the power of the Holy Spirit. God is to be known immediately and directly, not indirectly through the study of a text (Emphasis mine).[6]

Indeed, this experience is essential to their understanding of sanctification. In fact, many in the holiness tradition (especially the Nazarene churches) teach complete sanctification, that is, that a person can become completely sanctified and sinless.[7] This teaching is also known as “Christian perfection,” or “Eradication.”[8] In this teaching, a Christian is catapulted into this position through an experience.[9]

Stephen says that the experience described by Pentecostals today is equivalent to what is “described in the Bible account on the Day of Pentecost.” While I cannot be completely sure, I would say this is at least speculation. I do my best to try to understand what happened when I read Acts 2, but for me to say that what Charismatics experience today is exactly what happened in the Acts 2 account would be presumptuous on my part.

Are Pentecostals Protestant?[10]

Next Stephen says, “Pentecostalism is the fastest growing movement in Christianity today and has become the largest segment of Protestant Christianity” (Emphasis mine).

Regarding Pentecostalism being the fastest growing movement, it must at least be noted that numbers or growth does not necessarily signal God’s blessing. Mormons and Muslims are also growing fairly quickly.[11]

My main contention with this portion of the article is the notion that Pentecostals are Protestant. I am aware that they are placed in this category,[12] but I strongly disagree with this view. I am not the only one who feels this way.[13] I do not believe that Pentecostals are Protestant because they do not adhere to the historic Protestant solas of the Reformation (that is, the five solas, sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, and soli Deo Gloria). They may say (some admit that they don’t) that they adhere to these, but upon further elucidation of what the reformers meant by what they said, Pentecostals clearly do not fall into the category of what it means to be Protestant.[14]

For one thing, Pentecostals do not believe in sola Scriptura,[15] that is, in Scripture alone. They may say, as Stephen does, that Scripture is the final authority, but in reality this is not the case. They can’t say this because they believe God speaks outside of Scripture. Sola Scriptura means, among other things,[16] that God only speaks in the Bible. Pentecostals claim regularly that God speaks to them in audible voices. This is a clear repudiation of sola Scriptura. The Protestant position of sola Scriptura was clearly spoken by Martin Luther when he said, “Let him who would hear God speak, read Holy Scripture!”

Again, McGrath makes this great point:

“Classical Protestantism holds that God’s will and purposes are revealed only through the written text of the Bible; Pentecostalism recognizes the role of ‘words of knowledge’ to individual believers, which may be important for the community as a whole. For traditional Protestants, this approach seems to devalue the place of the Bible in the Christian life . . .”[17]

It is for this reason that McGrath later goes on to point out that “One of the most distinctive features of Pentecostalism is its total disconnection with any notion of ‘Christendom’ . . . It [Pentecostalism] was never subject to the controlling assumptions about what was ‘reasonable’ or ‘normal’ that so shaped earlier Protestant communities.”[18]

Sola Scriptura means God finished speaking in the Bible. He is not giving private messages to believers today. His message is complete and sufficient in the Bible. If Pentecostals say sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, they sound an awful lot like the Roman Catholics and Orthodox groups.[19] If Pentecostals say God speaks outside of the Bible, can they really be mad at the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses?[20] If they believe God gives private messages to believers, then why can’t the Roman Catholics say God has given infallible revelation in Councils, or to the pope?[21]

Let me state it plainly, if you believe God speaks outside of Scripture today, you are denying the Protestant position of sola Scriptura. By denying this important teaching, you cease to be Protestant.

Dr. Alister McGrath observes: “Where the first generation of Protestants spoke of the ‘priesthood of all believers,’ the Pentecostal equivalent would be the ‘prophethood of all believers.’”[22]

Continuationism vs. Cessationism

Next, Stephen deals with this perplexing issue. He notes that, “At the heart of Cessationism is the desire and concern to protect the canonized Scriptures and their absolute authority.” This statement is absolutely true. While I will not call myself a cessationist, I think cessationism does a better job at this than continuationism.

Following these comments he says, “unlike other Christians, Pentecostal[s] generally believe that part of the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to supernaturally enable believers through spiritual gifts to become effective witnesses of Jesus Christ. This initial supernatural empowerment is called the baptism of the Holy Spirit” (emphasis his).

I agree with Stephen that this is classic Pentecostal teaching. I’ll leave my comments about this for later.

Pentecostal Guidelines

Stephen then proceeds to give some theological guidelines before going futher. He says:

THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE FINAL AND ONLY TRUE AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN DISCUSSING THEOLOGY AND DOCTRINE.

For reasons stated above, I do not believe this is true for Pentecostals. I know they give lip-service to this, but I fail to see this borne out in their daily living. You cannot say on the one hand that you believe Scripture is the final authority, and then say, “God told me . . .” This appears to be contradictory. Here is what I mean: Whatever God says is authoritative. Yet Pentecostals and Charismatics claim that whatever God says to them does not usurp the authority of the Bible. This is what troubles me. How can God speak to someone, yet what He speaks not be as authoritative as what He says in Scripture?

Then, right after this Stephen says:

Personal experience, denominational traditions, and or the beliefs of the "Historic Church" are not valid when formulating doctrinal beliefs. Continuationist cannot formulate a doctrine on the bases of their experience; just as Cessationist should not formulate a doctrine on the bases of their lack of experiencing the gifts of the Spirit. When discussing theology it is important to prove all doctrines with Scriptures, NOT with personal experiences or church traditions (Emphasis his).

This is again a puzzling statement because this is exactly what Pentecostals do. In fact, part of the history of Pentecostalism is the importance they place on experiences![23] If personal experience is not a test for truth in Pentecostal circles, the next time you hear one of them start a story with “God told me . . .” stop them in their tracks.

I’ll move on at this point.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Stephen is correct in pointing out that Pentecostals do teach that the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” “is a separate event that generally occurs at a later time after salvation.” While Pentecostals teach this, it is not accepted by all Christians. I simply point this out so that people are aware that this is not a belief universally held by all Christians. In fact, this was not held by any group of Christians that I know of, until John Wesley taught it in the 18th century. Thereafter, it was held by Methodists, and those within the holiness tradition---the tradition of which Pentecostals are a part.

The Doctrine of Subsequence

After making these statements, Stephen proceeds (as do all Pentecostals), to seek proof for this position (that is, that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is subsequent to salvation), in the book of Acts. Pentecostals assert that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is evidenced by speaking in tongues (i.e. not known languages in their understanding), is something that happens after one is already a Christian. They believe they are correct since those who speak in tongues in the book of Acts, do so after they are already Christians.

Thus, Pentecostals believe that what they read in the book of Acts should be normative. While historically this is a different way of reading the book of Acts,[24] since I do not want to be guilty of committing a “genetic fallacy”[25] I must seek to explain why I believe this is not the proper way of understanding this book.

First of all, as I see it, Pentecostals are incorrect in wanting this experience to be normative. If they want the tongues experience to be normative, do they want everything in the book of Acts to be normative? Even Dr. Gordon Fee, himself a Pentecostal, has seen the problems inherent in this hermeneutical approach. He says:

“If the primitive church is normative, which expression of it is normative? Jerusalem? Antioch? Philippi? Corinth? That is, why do not all the churches sell their possessions and have all things in common? Or further, is it at all legitimate to take [any] descriptive statements as normative? If so, how does one distinguish those which are from those which are not? For example, must we follow the pattern of Acts 1:26 and select leaders by lot? Just exactly what role does historical precedent play in Christian doctrine or in the understanding of Christian experience?”[26]

Acts 2

In Acts chapter 2 we certainly find people speaking in tongues after they have believed. While I am not able to look inside the hearts of all 120 persons mentioned, I will assume that they were all true believers, certainly the Apostles were. However, to use Acts chapter 2 as a basis for the doctrine of subsequence seems faulty here. For starters, Jesus promised He would send His Holy Spirit, and this is when it happened. The Holy Spirit came in a different way at this time in history. If this event is to be normative, how come no one mentions anything about the “rushing wind and tongues of fire” anymore? Should that be normative as well?

Also, Pentecostals in our day are told to seek the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Those in Acts 2 were not seeking this gift. It simply happened to them. They did not respond to an altar call, or get in a prayer line if they wanted to receive this gift.

Acts 8

In Acts 8 we find a story of the Samaritans who had become believers, and Peter and John go to pray for them. The text says that they had not yet received the Holy Spirit, “they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (see vss. 14-17). So how is this explainable? First of all, one must understand that the book of Acts is recording a transition period. Up to this point in history, God was working primarily through the nation of Israel. The book of Acts records the spread of the gospel to other nations and ethnicities. Or, as John MacArthur notes, it is “a period of transition between the covenants.”[27] This is what God promised to do all along. The point to realize in Acts 8 is that the Samaritans are receiving God’s message. There was a great deal of animosity between Jews and Samaritans. Acts 2 records the event of Pentecost, which is a Jewish event. The Holy Spirit came to these people. Now, in Acts 8 it is happening to Samaritans (half-breeds). This was to confirm that the Samaritans were no different than the Jews. This is why John and Peter are sent: to confirm that they received exactly what the Jews had received. No mention of tongues is present in this chapter. To be clear, what we do find here is subsequence, but to argue that this gives precedent for a normative experience seems to push the limits of the text, because that is not the purpose of the passage. Luke is not recording this to advance a doctrine of subsequence, but to show that the gospel has reached a people that the Jews thought were unworthy of God’s acceptance because they were half-Jews. They needed to learn that God was creating one new people (see Ephesians 3). And, as I mentioned, no one spoke in tongues.

Acts 10

Though Stephen did not mention Acts 10 at this point in his blog, it presents problems for the Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence. Acts 10 relays the story of Peter and Cornelius. Without going into too much detail, Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius, he believes, and he speaks in tongues. The significance here is that Cornelius is a Gentile. They were considered even worse than Samaritans. However, of importance here is that there is no interval time between Cornelius receiving Christ and his speaking in tongues.

Acts 19

Pentecostals also claim that Acts 19 demonstrates that the doctrine of subsequence is biblical. However, this does present problems. For instance, the men to whom Paul preaches do not appear to be Christians. They themselves claim to be disciples of John (v.3). After this, nothing else is said. To me, considering all the evidence, it doesn’t appear that the idea of subsequence is biblical. It at least appears to be questionable. It depends on your hermeneutics and presuppositions before you come to the text. Again, this is why I said earlier, we need to discuss whose approach to Scripture is more accurate.

The Purpose of the Baptism

In the next section Stephen gives us the definition: “The purpose of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is to supernaturally empower believers to be witnesses of Jesus Christ.”

I would agree that this is what Pentecostals teach, but I believe that if this is true, the implications of it are disastrous. Why disastrous? Because many within Pentecostal and Charismatic circles have not received this baptism. I know this from experience. Many within these circles are praying and seeking desperately to receive this experience and it never happens. They are often crying and distressed because they have not spoken in tongues. It can make those who have not received it very depressed. I was at a church once that was teaching a class on the Holy Spirit, and at the end of the class the minister said he was going to pray for those who had not been “baptized in the Holy Spirit” so they could receive the gift of tongues. But when he prayed for a variety of people in the class, they did not receive the gift of tongues. For many years these individuals believed they were living a second-class Christian life. My heart breaks right now thinking of these people. How sad it is to go your whole life believing you are a second-class Christian. Or, as one teacher put it, “if you do not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, you have lived a mediocre Christian life.”[28]

This teaching also suggests that those who have not received this Baptism are not “supernaturally empowered witnesses of Jesus Christ.” Well, if they are not empowered by the Holy Spirit, then, by whom are they empowered? In Romans 8:9 Paul says, “you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” This verse clearly teaches that it is impossible to be a believer in Jesus Christ and not have the Holy Spirit. And nowhere does Scripture teach that the Holy Spirit comes in deposits.

All do not speak with tongues, do they? St. Paul (1 Cor. 12:30)

Here is where Pentecostalism meets its demise. You may be able to argue from the English text, but the Greek is so clear that there is no way to miss what Paul is saying. In the verse that I’ve quoted above (1 Cor. 12:30) the Pentecostal argument collapses in my judgment. Allow me to explain: We’ve seen that in the Pentecostal understanding, the reason all believers need to experience the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is so that they might be “supernaturally empowered believers/witnesses for Jesus Christ.” If this is correct, then admittedly all believers must experience it. This would mean that all believers should, can, or will speak in tongues. However, Paul clearly teaches that not all believers should, can, or will speak in tongues.

Note, Paul asks the question: All do not speak with tongues, do they? While in the English the question goes unanswered, in the Greek the answer is implied. And the answer is NO!

The Greek text reads: Read Greek text here. Not that you know Greek, but notice the first word in the sentence: mey (this is how the Greek word is pronounced). This word unmistakably shows that the answer to Paul’s question is emphatically no! If Paul were trying to communicate that all believers should, could, or can speak in tongues, he would have used a different Greek word. If Paul were asking a question to which the answer would be "yes," he would have used the Greek word οu. There is no answer that a Pentecostal can give to this. Paul clearly says that not all will, can, or should speak in tongues.

If I speak . . .

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal (1 Cor. 13:1).

This verse is often cited by Pentecostals in support of tongues being an “angelic language.” However, this is certainly a stretch. The first word in the sentence is “If.” Paul is not making a statement of fact! He is speaking hypothetically. This is consistent with the context. Notice verses two and three: 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Paul is speaking hypothetically. Certainly Paul is not saying he knows all mysteries and has all knowledge. He does not have all faith. He is not giving all of his possessions to feed the poor. He is not surrendering his body to be burned. That’s not the point of the passage. The point is that even if Paul did that, if he didn’t have love it would profit him nothing.

First Corinthians is a letter of correction. The Corinthian church is not a model church. Look deeply at the content of the book. The point is that the Corinthians were exalting this gift and using it out of order. This church was clearly a mess and had lots of questions. Paul writes them with the purpose of correction, and to answer their questions. I would recommend for all to read the small book The Corinthian Catastrophe. There is no angelic language. Every time we read of angels speaking in the Bible, they are speaking a human language.

Even if Paul was speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14:18), that does not mean that he was speaking in unintelligible languages. The gift of tongues is the ability to speak in other known human languages without having learned them. The idea that we are to speak in an unintelligible language that surpasses our understanding does not appear to be biblical. God never commands us to forfeit using our minds. He never tells us to bypass understanding in articulating our prayers to him.

It’s finally over!

Sorry to keep you going this long (if you have), but I felt the need to answer some of these issues. Where I live (in Kissimmee, Florida), the majority of churches are either Pentecostal or Roman Catholic. Out of love for these people I feel the need to respond intelligently to this blog. As I mentioned in the beginning, I’m not sure how much this will change for anyone. My goal is not to engage in theological nit-picking, or be involved in controversy for the sake of controversy.[29] I do not personally enjoy disagreeing over doctrine with people. Yet, truth is too important for us to simply throw our hands in air and give up. We must fight for truth.

I hope you will consider the arguments that I have put forth. I have utmost respect for my friend Stephen and I’m looking forward to hearing back from him.


Works Cited



[1] Bernard of Clairvaux in The Classics of Western Spirituality. Translated by G.R. Evans. Paulist Press: New York, 1987. Pg. 103.
[2] I’m obviously assuming that I’m right in my interpretation. I’m speaking hypothetically here. I realize that I could be wrong as well.
[3] The New Mormon Challenge. Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, Eds., Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2002. pg. 330. Craig Blomberg notes that according to Barna the main reason people join churches is “because they have found a warm, caring fellowship of friends—an in many cases hold doctrinal beliefs inconsistent with the official teachings of the churches they join.” Pg. 330.
[4] Note, Jesus does not say He points to the truth. He says, “I AM the truth.”
[5] For a study of the history and beliefs of this cult see Ron Rhodes’s work The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2001. pgs. 253-275. For an understanding of its origin see Harold Brown’s book Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson: Peabody, 1988. pgs. 106-140.
[6] McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Centurty to The Twenty-First. HarperOne: New York, 2007. pg. 431.
[7] Elwell, Walter, Ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001. Pg. 1053.
[8] ibid, pgs. 902-906. This source however, does not touch on “Eradication.” If interested, go to http://www.ligonier.org/ and purchase a copy of the Ligonier 2008 conference called “Evangelism According to Jesus” and see if you can get a copy of John MacArthur’s message “Simultaneously Righteous and a Sinner.” Historically this was written in Latin: Simul Iustus et Peccator. If you would like a synopsis of his sermon visit this link http://www.challies.com/archives/ligonier-conference-2008/ligonier-conference-ii.php
[9] Reformed theologian, B.B. Warfield wrote heavily against this, as did both Luther and Calvin.
[10] To get a good grasp of the flow of Church history I recommed a variety of books that have helped me tremendously. Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. Updated Second Edition. Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1992. Of course, McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. Also see his Reformation Thought: An Introduction. Third Edition. Blackwell: Oxford, 1999. To see the importance of Protestantism and our current culture I recommend David Wells’s The Courage to be Protestant. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2008. I recently finished reading this and highly recommend it. It is basically a summary of his other books No Place for Truth, and God in The Wasteland which were both excellent books in themselves. I recommed anything by David Wells.
[11] For Mormon growth see The New Mormon Challenge. Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, Eds., Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2002. Pgs. 59-88
[12] Elwell, ibid. pg. 963.
[13] King, David. Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. V.1: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. Christian Resources Inc.: Battle Ground, 2001. pg. 264 specifically, but I recommend this entire book, and infact, all three volumes. Also, see McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, pg. 433. He notes that God speaking outside of Scripture is not the Protestant position.
[14] I do not mean to bash Pentecostals on this point. Many other groups who claim to be Protestant, do not follow the 5 solas either. Many do not understand sola fide or sola gratia. For instance, many Protestants say they believe we are saved by “grace alone.” But they do not seem to understand that inherent in “grace alone” is the idea of election and predestination in the Calvinistic sense. I say “Calvinistic sense” because Arminians will say they believe in election and predestination, but they believe predestination is by foreknowledge and not foreordination. They want to say that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future, but that He doesn’t cause things to come to pass, He only knows. Many Arminians are realizing that this position is illogical and are thus becoming open theists (that is, saying that God does not know the future exhaustively). While I strongly disagree with open theism, it is more consistent and logical than the Arminian position. See John Frame’s No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. P&R: Phillipsburg, 2001. Especially pgs. 39-40; Frame notes, “The open theists ask, quite properly, how God can foreknow human free choices without foreordaining them. If human free choices are knowable in advance, they must somehow be settled in advance. And that is what libertarianism denies. Open theists, then, agree with Calvinists that divine foreknowledge entails divine foreordination, and therefore that traditional Arminianism is inadequate. But rather than accept Calvinist doctrine of foreordination, they reject both divine foreordination and divine foreknowledge.” Pgs already cited.
[15] To get a basic understanding of sola Scriptura I would recommend reading all three volumes of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, and especially The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. Canonpress: Moscow, 2001. This book helped me very much as I was just beginning to read about this issue. For what it’s worth, R.C. Sproul recommends this book. There are other books out there as well. To get an advanced understanding see Alister McGrath’s The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation. This work is highly advanced. In other words, if you want to check McGrath’s sources you will probably need to know German, French, and Latin. So, beware! Also, if you’re interested in reading about the “Attributes of Scripture” I would recommed Dr.John Frame’s new book The Doctrine of the Christian Life. P&R: Phillipsburg, 2008. pgs. 144-156.
[16] I am not giving a complete definition. For this, wait till my forthcoming paper on Scripture and Tradition.
[17] McGrath, Alister. Ibid., pg. 433.
[18] Ibid, pg. 437.
[19] See Robert Sungenis’s Not By Scripture Alone for the Catholic view. Be aware though, not all Catholics teach the same thing on this. Thus, they themselves are guilty of the same thing for which they accuse Protestants. They say sola Scriptura is the cause of all the present bickering between denominations. However, this seems to imply that Catholics are completely united on what the Bible teaches. However, the Catholic Church has hardly presented an infallible interpretation of what the Bible teaches. If they are so worried about unity, one would think this would have been presented a long time ago. For the Orthodox position, see Bruce Ware’s The Orthodox Church. Pgs. 203-215
[20] I am not equating the Roman Catholics and Orthodox with these other cults. I am merely highlighting the fact that these groups do not believe God’s revelation is limited to the Bible. While Pentecostals may say they believe God’s revelation is limited to the Bible, I would say they do not practice this faithfully.
[21] I am not discounting the value of Councils or creeds. I believe the Apostles’ creed and the Nicene creed are inerrant, but I do not believe these inerrant documents necessitate an infallible church.
[22] McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Centurty to The Twenty-First. HarperOne: New York, 2007. pg. 427.
[23] See Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Centurty to The Twenty-First by Alister McGrath. HarperOne: New York, 2007. pg. 428. For an excellent overview of Pentecostal history and its importance in America, especially as it relates to Protestantism read pages 415-438. McGrath makes the following observations about Pentecostalism: “The movement’s populist worship style and apparent lack of intellectual sophistication have caused mainline denominations and the academy either to ridicule or ignore it” (pg 418). “Pentecostalism eschews the aridity of dogmatic theology and sets in its place the personal renewal of the believer through the Spirit—something that can be narrated and proclaimed rather than logically dissected and analyzed” (pg. 431). If you have not heard of Alister McGrath, he is widely regarded as one of the most respected historians and theologians in the world.
[24] MacArthur, John. Charismatic Chaos. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1992. Pg. 171. For a thorough explanation see pgs. 171-193.
[25] “The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.” Definition taken from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
[26] Fee, Gordon, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent—a Major Problem in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Russel P Spittler, ed., Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism. Baker: Grand Rapids, 1976. Pg. 123.
[27] MacArthur, Ibid. pg. 180
[28] This is a quote my father-in-law was told in a class at a local Pentecostal church.
[29] Thanks shai. Sorry to steal your words.