With an insurgence mirroring the explosiveness of the origin of Christianity itself, the Pentecostal movement boasts over 65 million members and has shaped the faith and life of over 523 million Christians around the world.[1] Its emphasis on “experiential Christianity rather than doctrinal confession” has guided its adherents and those influenced by the movement to undertake the task of theological development in a vastly different direction than traditional evangelicalism.[2] With just over 100 years of denominational history, and an origin that moved away from written theology in favor of a “radical openness to God and in particular, God doing something differently or new,” Pentecostal theology has had a quick and dramatic impact on the church at large.[3] With openness to spirituality that is not necessarily centered in the Bible, those who are influenced by Pentecostal theology are open to heresy and renewed attacks from the New Age Movement and Occult practices. The thesis of this paper is as follows: Pentecostal theology’s rejection of the evangelical theological method has opened Pentecostalism to heresy and occult practice. This thesis will be developed in the following ways: (1) by defining evangelical methodology along Bebbington’s quadrilateral, Wesleyan’s Quadrilateral, and Henry’s evangelical test for truth, (2) by outlining current scholarship on Pentecostal methodology utilizing the work of Amos Yong and other Pentecostal scholars who assert the primacy of experientialism, and (3) critiquing the Pentecostal methodology utilizing the three standards of evangelical methodology.
In order to critique the Pentecostal movement, the evangelical methodology will be put forth as a standard. An evangelical methodology must account for the following: (1) evangelical identity, (2) evangelical theological method, and (3) an evangelical test for truth.
After conducting a survey on evangelicalism from the 1730’s to the 1980’s, Historian David Bebbington concluded that there were four dominant characteristics or “priorities” that defined the evangelical movement.[4] First, he argued that “conversionism” or “the belief that lives need to be changed” is fundamental to the evangelical experience.[5] As examples, evangelicals typically emphasize the life changing effect that the doctrine of justification (attaining “forgiveness of our sins through the atoning death of Christ”) and the doctrine of spiritual regeneration (“the renewing of our fallen human nature”) have on true believers.[6] Second, Bebbington states that evangelicals are engaged in “activism” or “the expression of the gospel in effort.”[7] Activism as Bebbington uses the term is not to be confused with modern concepts of social justice or the social gospel. Rather, it refers to evangelicals’ continual motivation to throw “themselves into vigorous attempts to spread the faith.”[8] Third, Bebbington argues that “biblicism” or “a particular regard for the bible” guides and drives evangelical thought and life.[9] Though evangelical doctrine regarding the Scriptures has changed and morphed over time, evangelicals have never wavered from exercising “immense energy and a steady devotion to the Bible.”[10] Finally, Bebbington states that “crucicentrism” or “a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross” is absolutely central to evangelical thought and practice.[11] This emphasis is not to the neglect of the other persons of the trinity, yet evangelicalism does maintain a heavy emphasis on Christ’s atoning work as it applies to both discipleship and preaching. Thus, the evangelical identity can be defined as being a movement that is biblically grounded and focused on proclaiming the message of Christ’s atonement on the cross with the intention of effecting real spiritual and moral change in those who profess Christ as Lord and Savior.
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is an attempt to make an account for the use and priority of the four sources of religious authority: Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience.[12] With its roots in the Protestant Reformation, evangelicalism holds to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and as such asserts that Scripture alone is the final authority in all matters, including doctrine, theology, and morality. Scripture is the only “self-authenticating” source of knowledge because its author is God.[13] As such, human reason, church tradition, and human experience must all submit to Scripture. Second to Scripture is human reason. Rather than serving as a “creative source of truth,” human reason’s appropriate usage is in crafting theological statements that are grounded in Scripture and then evaluating those statements according to the laws of logic and philosophy.[14] By maintaining Scripture as the ultimate ground, human reason’s tendency to generate speculative theologies is kept at bay. Third in priority is tradition. Though other branches of Christianity take tradition and Scripture on equal ground, evangelicalism argues that “tradition and church officials play a ministerial role… [whereas] Scripture alone plays a magisterial role.”[15] Taking Scripture as magisterial asserts that when proper exegesis and exposition is completed, there is only one viable interpretation of Scripture that is true no matter the time, place, and culture in which it is discovered. Taking tradition as ministerial means that tradition can be continually reformed by Scriptural analysis and application and is primarily useful in ordering the contents of Scripture for the purposes of discipleship. Finally, taking the place of least priority in the quadrilateral is experience. Experience plays a subordinate but important role in evangelical theology and life. Experience is the actualization of the truth of Scripture in the life of the believer.[16] For example, John Wesley described experience in the following way: “the testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God.”[17] For Wesley, and evangelicals, experience is a confirmation of the promises of God in Scripture. In evangelical method, experience is something that is derived and sought for only with direct connection to Scripture and when proper hermeneutical principles are utilized. Thus, an evangelical theological method could be summarized as utilizing Scripture as an epistemic base from which people through the use of reason develop theological statements that are then codified in tradition so that they may be taught to Christians resulting in changed lives.
Carl F. H. Henry offers the current standard for an evangelical test for truth:
“Divine revelation is the source of all truth, the truth of Christianity included; reason is the instrument for recognizing it; Scripture is its verifying principle; logical consistency is a negative test for truth and coherence a subordinate test. The task of Christian theology is to exhibit the content of biblical revelation as an orderly whole.”[18]
An evangelical test for truth asserts the following two premises as axiomatic presuppositions: (1) the triune God of Christianity exists, and (2) the God of Christianity has communicated to mankind through divine revelation.[19] In an evangelical system, these two premises are not assessed directly; rather, the system of theology that flows from them is put to the test and thus they are verified indirectly.[20] The evangelical theological system is first verified through Scripture.[21] At any point, if the theological statements that one develops disagree with Scripture they are to be discarded immediately. This action is in line with the evangelical understanding of Scripture’s primacy in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Second, theological statements are assessed according to the laws of logic through the use of human reason.[22] If theological statements are found to be in violation of the law of non-contradiction, or other laws, they are to be dismissed. Additionally, theological statements are required to be consistent with each other, not contradictory or supportive of mutually exclusive points, and internally coherent.[23] These final two tests do not validate the theological system as truth; rather, they serve as a safeguard by invalidating theological constructs that are logically fallacious. In summary, the evangelical test for truth utilizes Scripture as a positive verification principle and reason as a negative verification principle.
In order to critique Pentecostal methodology, it is necessary examine a number of the foremost Pentecostal theologians and determine how they develop theology.
Before assessing Pentecostal theology, it is important to note that the theologians under critique are not representative of all Pentecostal denominations and theologies. Rooted in evangelicalism, many Pentecostal denominations hold to an evangelical methodology similar to the one outlined above. For example, in Renewal Theology, J. Rodman Williams states that Scripture “set[s] forth in writing the declaration of divine truth and thus [is] the objective source and measure for all theological work.”[24] As his book is a standard for charismatic theology, it is clear that a substantial number of charismatic and Pentecostal believers still hold to the primacy of Scripture in their theological method. Williams goes on to affirm the subordinate place of tradition, stating that creeds and tradition have a “secondary place in theological reflection.”[25] Additionally, some Pentecostal theologians hold to the same presuppositions that evangelicals hold to, that “God is a God who desires to reveal Himself.”[26] Though these theologians represent the evangelical side of Pentecostalism, there are many scholars who are currently attempting to change the face of Pentecostal theology by shifting the balance of power from Scripture to experience. These theologians will be discussed in the next section.
One theologian who argues for a complete reworking of Pentecostal methodology is Amos Yong. Though he does not argue for experience as strongly as others, his views on theology represent a dramatic departure from evangelical methodology. First, he urges Pentecostal theologians to reexamine theology in terms of a “trinitarian” perspective and start by developing theological statements centered around “the Spirit of Christ,” rather than on the nature and character of God or the Bible as most evangelical theologies do.[27] This would have the effect of developing theology Scripturally but using the modern day spiritual experiences of believers, or Pneumatology, as the center point of the entire theological system. By reorienting theology around the experience of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, Yong believes that theology will have a greater emphasis on the mission of God as it relates to eschatology. In his view, the modern-day work of the Spirit is preparing the bride of Christ for the end-times.[28] Thus, Yong opens his theology with eschatology, proceeds to pneumatology, and ends with theology proper and bibliology.[29]
Yong also argues for a different understanding of Scripture than the traditional view of propositional revelation. Yong states that “the Bible now not only provides us with propositions about what happened before but opens up to a range of genres that invite imagining a new world reconciled to God in Christ by the Spirit and participation in that reconciling work.”[30] For Yong, there is an “experiential dimension” to the Bible.[31] He argues that “Scripture is always interpreted by individuals or communities (of faith) from out of their own situatedness and perspective.”[32] While not fully embracing perspectivalism, Yong hints at the idea that traditional evangelical theology is incapable of engaging a pluralistic society due to its emphasis on Sola Scriptura. He recommends that Pentecostal theology hold to Scripture normatively, but shift its understanding of Scripture to the following: “its meaning and application allow for a practically unpredictable number of interpretations and applications through which the Spirit communicates the personal truth that is Jesus Christ.”[33] Thus, for Yong, Scripture is no longer plainly clear and understandable to the average person; rather, the Spirit of God is able to communicate different truths to different people in different cultures.
Keith Warrington, author of Pentecostal Theology, opens by stating that the fundamental characteristics of Pentecostal theology are “the sense of the immediate, [and focus on] the God of the now, not the past.”[34] Along these lines C. B. Johns agrees that Pentecostal theology “is praxis-oriented and experiential,” thus “life experiences are valid elements of one’s hermeneutic and theology as much as conceptual theologizing.”[35] These assertions demonstrate that for Warrington and those in his theological circle, experientialism has completely overtaken Scripture in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That hermeneutics can include a believer’s personal experience opens the door for the wide variety of interpretations and applications that Yong mentioned. Additionally, elevation of experience to be on par with Scripture gives theology a practical and potentially pragmatic flavor. Utilizing Warrington’s view, theological statements are developed as they are needed and as experience warrants their development.
With regard to tradition, Pentecostals are “suspicious of creeds… and concentrate on shared experience.”[36] J. Sepulveda goes even further, stating that for Pentecostals “the primacy of experience over doctrine, and relationship over belief” is central to their theology and that the Holy Spirit “does not permit himself to be confined by doctrinal categories which are in the end rational.”[37] Thus, suspicion at times seems to breed outright hostility toward tradition and any logical setting down of theological statements, with some theologians arguing that doctrinal categories are borderline heretical in their conception. In line with these assertions, Hollenweger, an expert on Pentecostalism, rightly points out that “what unites Pentecostal churches is not a doctrine but a religious experience.”[38] This is a radical departure from traditional Christian theology and practice which have been creedal in nature from the outset.[39]
Warrington later comments on the means by which Pentecostals know truth saying, “pragmatism… may be, occasionally, an appropriate response to that which has no precedent or a limited historical context.”[40] With the assertion that experience dominates all other modes of knowing, what is true, good, and right becomes a personal assessment of what is useful or spiritually beneficial. As Warrington states, there are a substantial number of Pentecostal practices that have “no precedent,” thus Scripture cannot comment on them. In these cases, Pentecostal theology can only rely on pragmatism for a means of evaluating its experiential fruit. J. Bond echoes Warrington’s sentiments, stating that “theology follows experience” and “first comes the act of God, then follows the attempt to understand it.”[41] Even though God is seen as the initiator behind all spiritual experiences, there is no way for the Pentecostal to defend that belief other than as an axiomatic presupposition: all Pentecostal spiritual experiences come from God. Whether or not this is a good presuppositional starting point will be evaluated in the critique section on tests for truth.
Land’s primary contribution to Pentecostal theology comes through his reimagining of how orthopraxy, orthodoxy, and orthopathos relate to each other. Land attacked what he perceived to be a church which devolved into either “intellectualism, activism, [or] sentimentalism” but was unable to properly integrate all three.[42] In an effort to remedy the situation within a Pentecostal framework, Land fought for “the integration of beliefs and practices in the affections which are themselves evoked and expressed by those beliefs and practices.”[43] He envisions an “ancient sense” of theology in which Christianity is not ordered by a codified set of beliefs; rather, it is “a process one carries out.”[44] Thus, in authentic Christianity, it would be as impossible to have a belief that does not move one to action as to act apart from being motivated through emotion by a strongly held belief. In his theological method, Land unifies the Christian experience and protects it against misfiring beliefs, emotions, and actions.
The implications of his premise send shockwaves throughout his systematic work as he quickly reorients soteriology away from “the removal of guilt” and toward “participation in the divine life.”[45] Additionally, Land affirms the earlier Pentecostal teaching that the gospel contains five fundamental premises: (1) “Justification by faith in Christ,” (2) “Sanctification by faith as a second definite work of grace,” (3) “Healing of the body as provided for all in the atonement,” (4) “the premillennial return of Christ,” and (5) “The baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.”[46] These are not minor modifications; rather, they are direct correlates of the theological method that he has chosen to execute. For example, Land argues that Pentecost “created and sustained the eschatological tension and vision” which has been a part of the Pentecostal movement from its origins at Azusa Street.[47] This tension takes the focus off of what God has accomplished in the past for the sake of those who live in the present and places it on the current works of God in the present for the development of the future eschaton. Thus, the experience of the “divine life,” the “premillennial return of Christ,” and “speaking in tongues” necessarily take the forefront in Pentecostal theology as opposed to traditional doctrines concerning the nature and character of God and the earthly work of Christ.[48]
In an attempt to forge a path through the variant Pentecostal theological methods, Stephenson argues for a theological method that reflects “regula spiritualitatis, regula doctinae” or “the rule of spirituality and the rule of doctrine.”[49] The driving factor behind his addition to Pentecostal theology is the question: “What are we going to teach our children?”[50] Stephenson recognizes that an experiential theology can only answer “why” type questions with more experiences and when addressing a new generation who seeks to understand an experiential movement from outside the initiating event, it becomes important to develop a doctrinal framework that can appropriately bring the new generation into the communal experience.
In order to institute this method, Stephenson argues that Pentecostals must re-engage with systematic theology and an ordered laying down of their beliefs. However, this method does not reflect an evangelical understanding. Under Stephenson’s view, Pentecostals should strive to allow their doctrine to influence their spirituality while at the same time allowing their spirituality to influence the development of their doctrine.[51] In his formulation, both doctrine and spiritualty do not operate in a law-based or legalistic sense. Instead, they take the form of regulations or “community rule[s]” by which the congregation is connected through agreement and assent.[52] Stephenson’s stance on the ever-changing content of both spirituality and doctrine are reminiscent of a soft-perspectivalist framework of theological development.
Additionally, Stephenson attempts to delineate the Pentecostal theologian’s axiomatic presuppositions that feed into all spiritual and doctrinal development. First, he asserts that “the Holy Spirit is present among the people of God to transform them.”[53] Through this statement Stephenson grounds both the spiritual experiences and the theological thoughts of individual beliefs in the Holy Spirit, further ensconcing himself in the perspectivalist framework. Second, he states that “Pentecostal spirituality has an eschatological orientation.”[54] Here Stephenson cements his view that both theology and spirituality are ever changing. By embracing an eschatological element, Stephenson justifies a theology and spirituality that requires continuous change to keep up with the times and to keep the church on course with the eschaton. Third, he argues that “the transforming activity of the Holy Spirit is available equally and to the same extent to all members of the believing community.”[55] In his third axiom, Stephenson effectively places all believers on the same level in terms of God given authority to determine true spiritual experience and theological statements. These axioms taken in tandem place a heavy level of personal responsibility on the individual in the determination of theology and the legitimization of spiritual experiences.
In summary, Pentecostal theologians assert experience as their primary epistemic and practical ground. In this vein, they emphasize the power of the Holy Spirit in the believer as the legitimizing force behind their spiritual experiences and theological statements. Pentecostals typically utilize Scripture as a guide to theology and experience, but are not bound by it; instead, they favor open forms of theology and spirituality where new experiences are welcome as long as they are not anti-Scriptural. Pentecostal theologians typically have a dismissive attitude toward creeds and tradition but utilize them in an ad hoc manner as the need arises. Finally, Pentecostal theologians argue for unity that is derived from community and experience rather than doctrinal belief.
With the primary thrusts of Pentecostal methodology outlined above, it is now possible to critique Pentecostal methodology according to the evangelical methodological framework. The critique will follow the same order as presented in Section One of this paper: (1) Critique using the Bebbington Quadrilateral, (2) Critique using the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and (3) Critique using the Evangelical Test for Truth.
The first difference between evangelical and Pentecostal theology is that under evangelicals emphasize that lives need to be changed along the lines of doctrine, whereas Pentecostals assert that lives are assumed to be changed by the Holy Spirit.[56] This difference is substantial and has a dramatic impact on discipleship. For instance, under evangelical methodology, discipleship occurs as a person is directly taught doctrine through Scripture. Growth occurs as the believer comprehends and asserts that doctrine over his or her life and actions. From the Pentecostal perspective, spiritual growth happens automatically as the Holy Spirit guides each individual. This has the unfortunate side effect of turning discipleship into a personal experience with the Holy Spirit that lacks Scriptural guidelines and knowledge as the primary guiding factors. As a result, individual people are at the mercy of the experiences that they have simply walking through life and are open to both heresy and occult practices that disguise themselves as truth.
With respect to Bebbington’s activism or drive to share the gospel, Pentecostals and Evangelicals are in agreement. However, Pentecostals could be critiqued on their understanding of the core of the gospel. For example, in Land’s five core elements of the gospel, there is no mention of the fall of man or sin; rather, he emphasizes justification which he later argues is less about forgiveness of sins and more about living the spiritual life.[57] In evangelical theology, such a de-emphasis is tantamount to preaching a false gospel. If Pentecostals hold to this version of the gospel, they will cease to preach the necessity of Christ’s death on the cross for the atonement of their sins. Thus, even in their evangelism, their methodology has left Pentecostals open to preaching an ineffective message.
The second major difference between Pentecostal and Evangelical methodology is that Evangelicals embrace biblicism and Pentecostals decidedly do not. Most of the Pentecostal theologians cited argue for either a form of perspectivalism or the dominance of spiritual experience over Scripture.[58] It is difficult to see how Pentecostals could safeguard themselves against heresy and occult, especially from arenas like The New Age Movement which are decidedly sophisticated in how they package their brand of spirituality to Christians. By holding to strict biblicism, evangelicals are safeguarded from egregious error as long as they hold to proper methods of hermeneutics. Pentecostals on the other hand have allowed their own personal experiences to guide and dictate their interpretations of Scripture, thus many of their top theologians have given in to some form of relativism with regard to meaning in the Scriptural text.[59] From both axiomatic and hermeneutic levels, Pentecostals have opened themselves up to occult and heresy through how they handle Scripture.
Finally, Evangelicals and Pentecostals differ heavily with regard to Bebbington’s evangelical crucicentrism. All of the Pentecostal theologians previously mentioned stated that their choice for the centering element of their theologies is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.[60] While a few theologians stated that this shift allowed them to remain connected to Christ and His atonement, none of them could be called crucicentric in their approach. As stated earlier, this move shifts the emphasis of the gospel from being about Christ’s atonement for one’s sins to being about Christ’s death allowing one to now live through the power of the Holy Spirit. While the Pentecostal view is true, it is a decided break from the 2,000 year old view stated in Biblical creeds that Christ did indeed die for our sins.[61] This break could have a dramatic impact on how the gospel is received generationally and leaves the Pentecostal movement open to the heresy of modern Gnosticism wherein people can utilize spirituality to make themselves better instead of relying on the reality of Christ’s sacrifice being the primary motive force that has allowed Christians to receive a regenerate spirit.
Evangelicals and Pentecostals differ dramatically with regard to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Evangelicals rate the primacy of the four modes of authority in the following order: (1) Revelation (Scripture), (2) Reason, (3) Tradition, and (4) Experience. Pentecostals upend this model using the following ranking system: (1) Experience, (2) Revelation (Scripture), (3a) Reason, (3b) Tradition. This rearrangement has a dramatic impact on their theology and susceptibility to heresy and occult practices.
First, the Pentecostals’ assertion that spiritual experience be afforded the highest form of authority in theological determination leaves them open to heresies at every level of doctrine. For example, Warrington argued that Pentecostals believe “God to be the ‘One who is there-now.’”[62] The biblical errors implicit with that statement alone are manifold: Is the God who is here-now the same as the one who was there-yesterday? Are the members of the Trinity split up temporally through human history? Have other gods existed throughout history? It is easy to see how such a belief could lead to the modern-day heresy present in the Oneness Pentecostal church that God is not a Trinity but that “Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”[63] By placing spiritual experience first, some Pentecostals have taken the view that all there is to know and experience of God can be found in the modern church age.[64] By rejecting the Bible as the ultimate authority, there is nothing defending the rest of the Pentecostal church against accepting a similar heresy at some point in the future.
Another issue with experientialism is the potential for it to run afoul of occultism. For example, Bethel Church in Redding, California endorses a variety of practices that, while not directly called out in Scripture, border on the occult.[65] Additionally, they utilize a translation of the Bible that is “50% longer than the original” which was indicted as a “strongly sectarian translation that no longer counts as Scripture” by the Gospel Coalition who also said that “by masquerading as a Bible it threatens to bind entire churches in thrall to a false god.”[66] Essentially, when experience becomes one’s governing authority, everything else, including one’s understanding of God and the Bible fall prey to human contrivance.
Second, reason and tradition have vastly different places in Evangelical and Pentecostal thought even though they occupy similar places in terms of priority. In evangelicalism, reason is not allowed to create theology; rather it is only allowed to check biblically generated theological statements for logical error. For the Pentecostal theologians mentioned, reason does not play a significant role. Spiritual experience dominates their theological conversations and those experiences are above rational inquiry. At best, reason can be seen when Pentecostal theologians engage in Scriptural analysis; however, due to the inclusion of personal experience in the task of exegesis and hermeneutics, reason is again relegated to an inferior position.[67]
Similar to reason, tradition and creeds have a “secondary place in theological reflection.”[68] With the heavy emphasis on the experiences and words of the Holy Spirit as they are revealed now, Pentecostal theologians do not exhibit a strong need to cultivate anything more than “familiarity with church history” in order to accomplish their theological task.[69] The focus of Pentecostal theology is on making “ancient truth comprehensible to the twentieth-century reader,” not building on the 2,000 year old tradition that dates back to the first apostles.[70] For the Pentecostal theologians surveyed, tradition is something that is non-binding and can be completely ignored in the face of modern experience and concerns. Bishop J. H. King, a preeminent Pentecostal leader, developed an unorthodox Christology by following the Pentecostal theological method. He argued for a version of Christ and creation that “was grand and Cosmic in scope,” making room for universal salvation in spite of texts which tradition held to be “more particularistic.”[71] By disregarding Christological and soteriological argument found in tradition, King and other Pentecostal theologians have opened themselves up to rehashing ancient heresies.
Due to inadequate presuppositions and faulty tests for truth, Pentecostal theologians are left defenseless against heresies and schisms that may develop in their denominations. Whereas the Evangelical method grounds all knowledge and truth in the presupposition of the triune God and His revelation, Pentecostal theologians take as axiomatic that the Holy Spirit is present in believers equally and transforming them to make them ready for the eschatological age.[72] This presupposition is intended to justify that all spiritual experiences believers have are godly and that all theological knowledge believers articulate is from God. However, neither of these could be further from the truth. Scripture provides explicit situations where people need to curtail their experience due to an overriding principle or make ungodly decisions even though they are empowered by the Spirit. An example of an overriding principle can be found in 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul argues that when a person is speaking in tongues in church, “if there is no interpreter, that person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.”[73] By modern Pentecostal method, Paul should have let the experience run its course rather than curtail it so that order could be maintained. Second, in Galatians, Paul recounts having to fight a group of Jewish Christians who held to circumcision as being necessary for salvation.[74] Again, under the Pentecostal method, this other viewpoint should have been given a fair chance as it was born out of the experience of those who professed it. By holding to the Evangelical presuppositions, theologians can go directly to Scripture to refute heretical experience and ideas; Pentecostal theologians have no such place to turn and are thus highly susceptible to false teaching.
Additionally, Pentecostal theologians do not have an adequate test for truth because they do not ground truth in propositions. As Keith Warrington states, Pentecostals “emphasize experiential Christianity over doctrinal confession.”[75] This means that there is very little of substance to test. Thus, rather than testing experiences, Pentecostals believe that God is continually revealing to them what they need and that this continual revelation is not “immature or unstable.”[76] In this light, there is a resistance to testing experiences or doctrines in a way that would lead to a true/false attribute. Rather, Pentecostal theologians like Yong and Stephenson tend to favor a soft perspectivalism wherein everyone can have their own experiences and roughly orthodox beliefs and not be in conflict. This contradicts the traditional Evangelical tests for truth of contradiction, internal consistency, and coherency: all of which help keep heresy and occult at bay. Thus, the Pentecostal tests for truth do not prevent heretical doctrine or occult practices.
In conclusion, the Pentecostal method does not provide an adequate defense against heresy and occult practices. It is fundamentally flawed in its assertion that experience rather than scriptural revelation should be the guide of Christian life and theology. This decision has the trickle-down effect of cultivating a perspectivalist view of doctrine and experiences that prohibits any rational method by which belief and practice could be evaluated. Additionally, the inclusion of experience in the hermeneutical method allows for Pentecostal theologians to warp Scripture into their own personal framework and in one case change the very words of Scripture to fit their own experience and needs. In all ways, the Evangelical theological method is superior to the Pentecostal theological method as it is being developed by current theologians.
Barrett, Matthew. God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture: What the Reformers Taught… and Why It Still Matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016.
Bebbington, David, W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. New York City, NY: Routledge, 1989.
Beverley, James, A. Nelson’s Illustrated Guide to Religions: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Religions of the World. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2009.
Bevins, Winfield, H. “A Pentecostal Appropriation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14, no. 2 (2006): 229–246.
Carter, Joe. “9 Things You Should Know About the Bethel Church Movement.” The Gospel Coalition, September 29, 2018. Accessed March 1, 2019. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-bethel-church-movement/.
Clark, M.S, H.I. Lederle, and J. Bond. “What Is Distinctive about Pentecostal Theology?” In What Is Distinctive about Pentecostal Theology? Pretoria, South Africa: Unisa Press, 1991.
Duffield, Guy, P., and Nathaniel Van Cleave M. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angeles, CA: Foursquare Media, 2008.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 1: God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999.
Johns, C. B. Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy among the Oppressed. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Land, Steven, J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Licona, Michael. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic/InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Ritchie, Tony. The Spirit in the World. Edited by Veli-Matti Karkkainen. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009.
Sepulveda, J. “Reflections on the Pentecostal Contribution to the Mission of the Church in Latin America.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992): 93–108.
Smith, James K. A. “What Hath Cambridge To Do with Azusa Street? Radical Orthodoxy and Pentecostal Theology in Conversation.” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 25, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 97–114.
Stephenson, Christopher, A. Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Thorsen, Donald. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: An Introduction. Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2018.
Warrington, Keith. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. New York City, NY: T&T Clark, 2008.
Wesley, John. “The Witness of the Spirit (II): Sermon 11,” 1872. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-11-The-Witness-of-the-Spirit-II.
Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective: Three Volumes in One. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Yong, Amos, and Jonathan Anderson A. Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014.
[1] Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (New York City, NY: T&T Clark, 2008), 12.
[2] Ibid, 15.
[3] James K. A. Smith, “What Hath Cambridge To Do with Azusa Street? Radical Orthodoxy and Pentecostal Theology in Conversation,” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 25, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 109.
[4] David Bebbington W., Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (New York City, NY: Routledge, 1989), 3.
[5] Ibid, 2.
[6] Ibid, 3.
[7] Ibid, 2.
[8] Ibid, 3.
[9] Ibid, 2.
[10] Ibid, 3.
[11] Ibid, 2.
[12] Donald Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: An Introduction (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2018), 6.
[13] Matthew Barrett, God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture: What the Reformers Taught… and Why It Still Matters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 145.
[14] Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 1: God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 4881, Kindle.
[15] Barrett, God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture: What the Reformers Taught… and Why It Still Matters, 23.
[16] Winfield Bevins H., “A Pentecostal Appropriation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14, no. 2 (2006): 240.
[17] John Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit (II): Sermon 11,” 1872, accessed February 25, 2019, https://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-11-The-Witness-of-the-Spirit-II, II.2.
[18] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 1: God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations, 4665, Kindle.
[19] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 18.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 1: God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations, 4966, Kindle.
[22] Ibid, 4881, Kindle.
[23] Ibid, 5033, Kindle.
[24] J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective: Three Volumes in One (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 22.
[25] Ibid, 25.
[26] Guy Duffield P. and Nathaniel Van Cleave M., Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, CA: Foursquare Media, 2008), 5.
[27] Amos Yong and Jonathan Anderson A., Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 14.
[28] Ibid, 15-17.
[29] Ibid, vii-viii.
[30] Ibid, 21.
[31] Ibid, 331.
[32] Ibid, 341.
[33] Ibid, 343.
[34] Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 16.
[35] C. B. Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy among the Oppressed (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 87.
[36] Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 20.
[37] J. Sepulveda, “Reflections on the Pentecostal Contribution to the Mission of the Church in Latin America,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992): 101.
[38] Hollenweger, From Azusa Street to the Toronto Phenomenon, 7 as cited in Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 20.
[39] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic/InterVarsity Press, 2010), 2235, Kindle.
[40] Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 23.
[41] M.S Clark, H.I. Lederle, and J. Bond, “What Is Distinctive about Pentecostal Theology?,” in What Is Distinctive about Pentecostal Theology? (Pretoria, South Africa: Unisa Press, 1991), 135.
[42] Christopher Stephenson A., Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2013), 31.
[43] Steven Land J., Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 13.
[44] Stephenson, Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit, 31.
[45] Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom.
[46] Ibid, 9-13.
[47] Ibid, 64.
[48] Ibid, 9-13.
[49] Stephenson, Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit, 114.
[50] Ibid, 112.
[51] Ibid, 115.
[52] Ibid, 116.
[53] Ibid, 119.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid, 119.
[57] Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom, 64.
[58] Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy among the Oppressed, 87.
[59] Yong and Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity, 343.
[60] Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 16; Yong, Renewing Christian Theology, 17.
[61] 1 Corinthians 15:3-7; 1 Peter 3:18 (HCSB).
[62] Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 23.
[63] James Beverley A., Nelson’s Illustrated Guide to Religions: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Religions of the World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 9797, Kindle.
[64] Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 23.
[65] Joe Carter, “9 Things You Should Know About the Bethel Church Movement,” The Gospel Coalition, September 29, 2018, accessed March 1, 2019, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-bethel-church-movement/.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Yong and Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity, 331.
[68] Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective: Three Volumes in One, 25.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid, 26.
[71] Tony Ritchie, The Spirit in the World, ed. Veli-Matti Karkkainen (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 230.
[72] Stephenson, Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit, 119.
[73] 1 Corinthians 14:28
[74] Galatians 2:12
[75] Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, 15.
[76] Ibid, 23.
Comments