McGregor, Speaking in Other Tongues: A Scholarly Defense Seattle: Community Chapel Publications, University of Wales,
Menzies [ Read Part 1: Wherever I go, irrespective of the course or topic of discussion, I can always count on one question being asked: What about tongues as initial evidence? The fact that the question is asked so frequently and in a variety of settings indicates that Pentecostals have not effectively dealt with this issue.
Too often in the past we have relied on social pressure rather than clear theological arguments. The result is wide-spread confusion within our churches and unnecessary estrangement from many Christians without.
The following essay is offered with the hope that it might encourage further much-needed theological reflection on this important issue.
It represents my response to the question which I so frequently encounter and my own attempt to integrate my Pentecostal convictions and experience with my Evangelical heritage and schooling.
What is the nature of the Pentecostal gift? We now focus our attention on a second, separate question: What is the nature of the relationship between tongues glossolalia and the Pentecostal gift?
It is imperative to recognize that these are two, distinct questions.
A Pentecostal ecclesiology is essentially the working-out of th A Pentecostal ecclesiology is essentially the working-out of the ramifications of that key event. The book takes a more ontological understanding of the relationship between the Spirit and the church than would Protestant and evangelical ecclesiologies/5. On the basis of this theological method, Montgomery critiques various non-Christian and sub-Christian teachings that deviate from historical Christianity. In the opening essay of The Suicide of Christian Theology, he traces the shift in Christian theology since the eighteenth century away from a revelatory base to current subjective uncertainty. Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method Roli G. dela Cruz Salvation in Christ and Baptism in Spirit: A Response to Robert Menzies, "Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method".
Indeed, much of the confusion surrounding these questions stems from the failure to distinguish between them. On one hand, this failure has led many Pentecostals to erroneously equate the Pentecostal gift with tongues.
It is imperative to distinguish between these questions because they must be approached and ultimately answered in different ways. The question concerning the nature of the Pentecostal gift is a question of biblical theology. It is a question which Luke himself clearly addresses.
Indeed, in Part One we examined evidence from Luke-Acts which supports our contention that Luke consistently presents the Pentecostal gift in charismatic terms as the source of power for effective witness; and furthermore, that he consciously encourages his readers to experience this gift.
However, the question of tongues as initial evidence ushers us into the realm of systematic theology. In biblical theology, we focus on the agenda of the biblical authors.
We seek to hear the questions they raise and the answers they offer. Caird has aptly described the task of biblical theology as one of listening to the dialogue of the biblical authors seated at a roundtable. By way of contrast, in systematic theology we frequently begin with the agenda and questions of our contemporary setting.
We bring the pressing questions of our day to the biblical text and, as we wrestle with the implications that emerge from the text for our questions, we seek to answer them in a manner consistent with the biblical witness.
In systematic theology, we do not simply sit passively, listening to the discussion at the roundtable. Rather, we bring our questions to the dialogue and listen for the various responses uttered.
Ultimately, we seek to integrate these responses into a coherent answer. The question concerning the relationship between tongues and Spirit-baptism is a question of systematic theology. For the moment, it is important to note that it is not only legitimate, but often necessary, to bring our questions to the text or as Caird might put it the dialogue at the roundtable.
Here we must also carefully listen to the voice of Scripture.Robert P. Menzies, “Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method”, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies (), pp. Robert P.
Menzies, “Paul and the Universality of Tongues: A Response to Max Turner”, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies (), pp. This reaction essay seeks to review the current article of Robert P. Menzies, "Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method. " My aim is not only to review this present work but also to assess many contributions of R.
Menzies to Pentecostal literature. In this essay I will react to his outlook in articulating the Pentecostal claim. The following essay will seek to describe the origin and nature of this self-identity crisis, outline the central questions which have emerged, particularly as they relate to evidential tongues, and suggest how Pentecostals might constructively face these challenges.
evidential tongues as a normative doctrine. In other words, it is difficult to argue, simply on the basis of the repetition of events (historical precedent), that Luke intended to teach the doctrine. This essay appears in the latest issue of SBET: Andrew David Naselli.
“D. A. Carson’s Theological Method.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 29 (): – It revises a paper I submitted to Kevin Vanhoozer at TEDS in December for his PhD seminar “Advanced Theological. Viewed denominationalism as the church’s greatest enemy.
Branham’s theology profoundly affects the charismatic theology of our day. for example) consider Branham to be one of the greatest prophets of the twentieth century.
A Survey of the History and Distinctives of Pentecostalism. 23).