Departure from Dispensationalism: Comparing Pentecostal Pneumatology with Dispensationalism

 

Introduction

The modern Pentecostal movement emerged in an atmosphere of fervent expectation of Christ’s return and the restoration of spiritual gifts. The primary thrust of early Pentecostalism was its eschatological message and paradigm shift from Wesleyan postmillennialism to a premillennial expectation of Christ’s imminent return.^[1] The outpoured Spirit with tongues signaled Christ’s soon return, and many believed it sealed their escape from the impending tribulation. Likewise, charismata served an eschatological significance to empower the church’s missionary work in spreading the gospel before the end comes (Matt 24:14).^[2] As such, Spirit baptism and Christ’s parousia formed two intimately connected pillars of early Pentecostalism.^[3]

Eschatological expectations provided a backdrop for Pentecostal revival; however, eschatology never served as the main theme. Douglas Jacobsen explains: “Eschatology was everywhere—it was part of the religious air that early Pentecostals breathed—but eschatology was not the core message.”^[4] While eschatology was prominent, it never developed in a particular theological manner.^[5] Early Pentecostals did not strictly adhere to any one eschatological system.^[6] The Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) rejected premillennialism in favor of amillennial eschatology.^[7] Charles Fox Parham, which many regard as the father of twentieth-century Pentecostalism, ascribed to a post-tribulation view of the Rapture.^[8] Likewise, many of the Latter Rain Movement associated themselves with characters described in Revelation or interpreted such characters as symbolic of the church. Faupel notes: “Most early Pentecostals believed that these 144,000 composed Christ’s Bride whose marriage to the Lamb is described in Rev. 19:7–6.”^[9]  The early eschatological statements of the Assemblies of God lacked the terms “Rapture,” “Pretribulation,” or “Premillennial.” In fact, such ambiguities allowed some early Assemblies of God ministers to teach a post-tribulation rapture. In 1935, the Assemblies of God fully adopted dispensational premillennialism as their statement of faith, which then set the standard for other Pentecostal organizations.^[10] Chris Thomas writes that while “[d]ispensational eschatology played a large role in certain streams of the tradition, Pentecostalism was far from being uniformly dispensational eschatologically as the debates about the identity of the Beast reveal, as well as the identification by some that the seals of Revelation 6 were being fulfilled in the events of World War I.”^[11] In the mid-twentieth century, the Search for Truth Home Bible Study helped popularized dispensationalism among oneness Pentecostals.[12]

Much of Pentecostal eschatology stands as an innovation of dispensational premillennialism inherited from John Nelson Darby.^[13] Grant Wacker observes that the origins of the Pentecostal “latter rain concept lay in dispensational premillennialism.”^[14] D. Wesley Myland’s influential work The Latter Rain Covenant (1910) affirmed a form of Pentecostal dispensationalism. Myland interpreted the Pentecostal revival in light of OT prophecy and typology in which he declared Acts 2 as the “former rain,” necessitating the “latter rain” brought about in his time, which would usher in Christ’s return and the millennium.^[15] Pentecostal hermeneutics applied OT promises (e.g., Joel 2) and several NT texts (e.g., Sermon on the Mount) directly to the church that dispensationalists regulated to the millennium.^[16]

Interestingly, early dispensationalists, such as Darby, regarded modern claims of charismata as “a human invention at best, a Satanic counterfeit at worst.”^[17] C. I. Scofield’s Reference Bible, first published in 1909, popularized Darby’s dispensational model as a hermeneutical distinctive way of interpreting the Bible.^[18] Scofield, likewise, espoused a cessationist view that charismata ceased once the NT canon was competed in writing.[19] Scofield’s Bible helped spread the popularity of dispensationalism more than any other piece of literature.^[20] By this same token, dispensationalism became almost synonymous with cessationism. Thus, tensions developed between Pentecostal pneumatology and dispensational ideology. In fact, modern dispensationalists have labelled Pentecostalism as an embarrassment to the Christian community.[21] This problematic relationship has led to a call for a Pentecostal departure from dispensationalism.^[22]

Precedent Research on Dispensationalism

Few, if any, scholars address a scriptural argument of how dispensational views might influence a pneumatology of charismata continuation/cessation. Since dispensationalists typically ascribe to cessationism, a scholarly investigation of any connections between the eschatological framework of dispensationalism and cessationism would benefit the academic community. The following presents a chronological survey of select precedent research comparing dispensational eschatology with Pentecostal ecclesiology and pneumatology.

Gerald Sheppard surveys early twentieth-century Pentecostal ecclesiology and eschatology, specifically among the Assemblies of God, to identify a “problematic wedding” between Pentecostalism and dispensationalism.^[23] He notes that early Pentecostal groups were not originally dispensationalist-fundamentalists, and that the efforts to embrace such views clash with Pentecostal hermeneutics and ecclesiology. The crisis of World War I helped to forge fundamentalism as a movement to become fully dispensational, which resulted in teaching on the rapture as a regular part of revivalists’ sermons. This type of preaching resonated with early Pentecostals, particularly of the Latter Rain movement, who viewed Spirit baptism as the “seal” of God to escape the great tribulation.^[24] Sheppard points out; however, that early Pentecostal ecclesiology, in recognizing the church as spiritual Israel, stood in opposition to dispensationalism. Likewise, Pentecostalism identifies the church as the fulfillment of many OT prophecies including the promise of Joel 2:28–32 in opposition to dispensationalism, which claims that the OT prophets predicted nothing about the church and that Pentecost was not, itself, a fulfillment but a “type” of future fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel to the Jews in the millennium.^[25] Although Sheppard does not deal specifically with the subject of charismata, he demonstrates a conflict between dispensational eschatology and Pentecostal pneumatology, which is beneficial to a study of the eschatological nature of charismata.

David Bernard’s “Dispensationalism and Oneness Pentecostal Theology” asserts that most oneness Pentecostals uncritically accept dispensationalism or important aspects of it; yet fundamentalists often use dispensational ideas to attack oneness Pentecostal theology.[26] Bernard writes that dispensationalism’s “fundamental tenet is the separation of Israel and the church.”[27] Likewise, dispensationalists render the NT church an “historical accident, a parenthetical age of faith between legal ages, and a departure from God’s original plan.”[28] Bernard outlines several dispensational views which stand in opposition to Apostolic theology including faith-only salvation, unconditional eternal security, and cessationism.[29] He also difficulties with dispensational eschatology specifically salvation during the tribulation and a Jewish millennium. Bernard concludes that oneness Pentecostals must significantly modify or replace classic dispensationalism to maintain consistency with Apostolic soteriology and pneumatology.[30]

Daniel Segraves picks up Bernard’s mantle with his 2008 symposium paper, “Oneness Pentecostals and Dispensationalism: Modification or Replacement?” Segraves reflects that early twentieth-century Pentecostals did not originally embrace dispensationalism. While early Pentecostals accepted a type of dispensational organizing of biblical history, they rejected claims of charismata cessation.[31] Segraves observes that two of the major flaws of dispensationalism are its non-Pentecostal origins and disconnect between the church and the OT. The ramifications of such leads to a faulty interpretation of Joel 2:28–32. Segraves writes: “The dispensationalist view of the connection between Joel and Acts focuses on the idea that Joel is about events that concern Israel primarily, if not exclusively, and that these events are tied to an as yet unfulfilled restoration of Israel to the Promised Land.”[32] Removing Joel’s prophecy from its Acts 2 context fuels the fire of dispensational cessationism. Thus, dispensationalists maintain that charismata ceased (or have been postponed) with the completion of the NT canon. Segraves astutely assesses: “Undergirding this perspective seems to be the idea that the New Testament is radically new revelation disconnected so thoroughly from the Old Testament that it must be miraculously confirmed. This idea minimizes or eradicates any meaningful connection between the two testaments.”[33] He concludes with a challenge of whether oneness Pentecostals need to retain the label of dispensationalism. Segraves calls for a modification of hermeneutical methodology that reaches back beyond the rise of dispensationalism to that of our Apostolic forbears.[34]

Bruce Baker explores the concept of how dispensational theologies may affect pneumatological understandings of continuationism and/or cessationism. Baker observes: “While much ink has been devoted to the implications of progressive dispensationalism in the area of hermeneutics, considerably less attention has been given to the effects of progressive dispensationalism on pneumatology, particularly as it relates to miraculous gifts and the modern ‘signs and wonders’ movement.”^[35] He establishes one of the fundamental differences between traditional and progressive dispensationalism in that progressive dispensationalism insists that Christ partially fulfills the Davidic Covenant ruling from the throne of David in this present age.^[36] He, thus, asserts that Christ currently ruling on David’s throne, which closely links the Davidic Covenant with the New Covenant, implies that inauguration of the Davidic Covenant began at Calvary or Pentecost.^[37] He points out that Jesus’s workings of miracles signified that the kingdom had arrived. According to Acts 2:30, Christ as the ruling Davidic king, has poured out the Holy Spirit accompanied by charismata. As such, Baker assesses that if the church is indeed the inaugurated kingdom, as progressive dispensationalists contend, then charismata are not only possible but should be regularly active in the modern church.^[38] He concludes that a progressive dispensational assertion that the Davidic Covenant has been inaugurated logically leads to an abandonment of cessationism and that any claim that the Davidic Covenant is in force today must logically acknowledge the possibility of contemporary charismata.^[39]

Kenneth Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community, offers a contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutical strategy rooted in Pentecostal identity.^[40] Contrary to the common categorizing of Pentecostalism as an extension of Protestant evangelical tradition, he observes that early Pentecostalism, as a restoration movement, emerged as a protest to mainline Protestantism.^[41] Archer investigates the hermeneutical context of early Pentecostalism and notes that while dispensationalism gained popularity among fundamentalists, Wesleyan Holiness-Pentecostal communities developed a synthetic approach that did not embrace dispensationalism.^[42] He highlights the difficulties and great irony of dispensationalism in that it “argues for a common sense inductive approach to Bible study yet insists that one cannot interpret Scripture properly without the aid of dispensationalism.”^[43] Dispensationalism, like Reformed tradition, views the Gospels as an objective declaration of salvation unlike Wesleyan Holiness-Pentecostals who see the Gospels as a way of living the Christian life.^[44] Archer notes that early Pentecostalism embraced a form of “latter rain” dispensationalism using a spiritual or typological interpretive method.^[45] Latter Rain dispensationalism differed from traditional, fundamentalist dispensationalism in its recognition of contemporary charismata. While dispensationalism viewed charismata as having ceased after the first century, early Pentecostalism regarded Spirit baptism and charismata in Acts 2 as the “early rain” and the restoration of Spirit baptism in Pentecostal revivals as the “latter rain” to bring the church age to a close and prepare God’s people for Christ’s return.^[46] Early Pentecostals interpreted the Bible with similar methods as cessationist dispensationalists; yet, the latter rain motif provided Pentecostals with the hermeneutical lens for an experiential interpretation of Scripture.^[47]

Archer dictates that as modern Pentecostals sought acceptance among fundamentalists, they more readily acknowledged traditional dispensational hermeneutics sans cessationism. Such a blending of dispensationalism with Pentecostal pneumatology created hermeneutical complications since “Pentecostals who used dispensationalism violated its hermeneutical rules.”^[48] He cites various Pentecostal scholars who, likewise, recognize a divergence between dispensationalism and Pentecostalism.^[49] As such, Archer poses whether Pentecostals require a unique hermeneutic in order to establish their beliefs and practices from Scripture since the heart of Pentecostalism asserts that the supernatural charismatic experiences of biblical characters are possible for contemporary Christians. Such concerns have led Pentecostal scholars to formulate a hermeneutical method more representative of early Pentecostal traditions.^[50] Archer suggests a hermeneutical strategy that remains faithful to the Pentecostal traditions but is sensitive to current academic methodologies concerning interpretation of Scripture.^[51] This Pentecostal hermeneutical strategy invites the Holy Spirit into the interpretive process where the “past Word of God (Scripture)” speaks a “present Word of God” believed and obeyed by the present eschatological community.^[52]

In Imagining the Future, Daniel Isgrigg investigates the origins and development of eschatological thought within Pentecostalism, particularity among the Assemblies of God. He perceives that with the pneumatological shift of early Pentecostalism, “evangelicals rediscovered the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ and the subject of biblical prophecy.”^[53] The four-fold gospel (Jesus as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Soon-Coming King) along with Spirit baptism became the heart of Pentecostal theology.^[54] Isgrigg points out that early Pentecostals uncritically adopted dispensational premillennialism, but, which now, raises concerns among contemporary Pentecostal academics.^[55] In recent decades, Pentecostal scholars began re-examining the theological foundations of Pentecostal eschatology. As such, Isgrigg expresses: “Long held expressions of eschatology within Pentecostal circles are losing popularity, particularly the long relationship with dispensational premillennialism.”^[56] Two of the primary conflicts between Pentecostalism and dispensationalism involve Joel’s prophecy of the “last days” and the timing of the kingdom of God:

[D]ispensationalists teach that the OT promises about the outpouring of the Spirit in Joel 2 will be upon future Israel, not the Church, which undermines Pentecostal claims about the baptism of the Spirit. Dispensationalists also relegate the kingdom entirely to the millennium, whereas Pentecostals believe the kingdom of God is, in some sense, present now through the demonstration of the Spirit.^[57]

 

Isgrigg parses the development of Pentecostal dispensational eschatology, which adopted the chronological script of Scofield dispensationalism but applied significant pneumatological modifications based on the latter rain concept. As such, he concludes that Pentecostals actually adopted what evangelicals term “progressive dispensationalism.”^[58] He suggests future, open conversations among Pentecostals to seek an alternative “pneumatological eschatology,” which focuses less on propositional doctrinal statements and more on a general belief in Christ’s literal return, the resurrection of believers, and the already/not yet concept of the kingdom of God.^[59]

Robert Menzies addresses the conflict between dispensationalism and Pentecostalism and calls for a reassessment of long-held Pentecostal views on eschatology. He points out that the eschatological vision of early Pentecostalism shaped the movement’s missiological spirituality.^[60] Early Pentecostals ascribed to a form of “latter rain” dispensationalism, yet, there remained a constant tension between Pentecostals and traditional dispensationalists not only in their distinction between Israel and the church in God’s redemptive plan, but especially in their cessationists view of charismata.^[61] Although Menzies does not tackle continuationism versus cessationism, his focus on eschatology emphasizes a Pentecostal understanding of the prophetic nature of the church in the “last days” and the priority of the church’s mission in the proclamation of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit.^[62]

The Last Days and the Eschaton

The miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 fulfilled Jesus’s prophetic commission to His disciples (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5) and inaugurated the messianic church community. As Pentecost celebrated the giving of the Mosaic law, the sound of rushing wind and tongues “as of fire” evoked the imagery of OT theophanies (cf. Exod 3:2; 13:21; 19:18).^[63] The Pentecostal phenomenon of tongue speaking generated two reactions from the crowd: amazement (“Whatever could this mean?”) and accusations of drunkenness (“They are full of new wine”). These responses set the stage for Peter’s testimony and proclamation of the gospel to the Jews gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost.^[64]

Peter, backed by the other apostles, addressed the hecklers’ accusation of drunkenness with a speech that begins with a citation from Joel 2:28–32.^[65] Joel’s prophecy comprises of three strophes, each of three lines, which announce the outpouring of God’s Spirit in prophecy (vv. 28–29), cosmic signs associated with the day of the LORD (vv. 30-31), and the salvation of the remnant (vv. 30–31).^[66] Although Peter’s citation of Joel agrees substantially with the LXX, several changes occur. One of the most significant modifications occurs at the beginning of the quotation where Peter substituted “in the last days” (ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις) for “afterward” (μετὰ ταῦτα), thus making Pentecost part of an eschatological scenario.^[67]

While it is important to see the place and function of Joel’s prophecy in the Book of Joel itself, it is also important to view it in its largest biblical context.^[68] In Acts 2, Peter’s response to the hecklers does not simply include a citation of Joel’s prophecy, but emphatically declares: “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). Thus, in some form, Peter equated the events of Pentecost with Joel’s prophecy. What exactly is the nature of correspondence between Peter’s “this” in Acts 2 with “that” of Joel’s prophecy? How did NT writers interpret Joel in light of their own experience of the outpoured Spirit? What timeframe do the “last days” cover? Likewise, how does the idiom “in the last days” relate to the duration of charismata?

Dispensational Last Days

Classic dispensationalists,^[69] typically, apply Joel’s prophecy, not to the church age, but to the future eschaton—specifically the millennium.^[70] A. C. Gaebelein presents a dispensational explanation of Peter’s citation of Joel:

Peter said that all this happened in fulfillment of what was spoken by Joel. He did not use the word fulfilled at all. Had he spoken of a fulfillment then of Joel’s prophecy, he would have uttered something which was not true, for the great prophecy of Joel was not fulfilled on that day. Nor has this prophecy been fulfilled since Pentecost, nor will it be fulfilled during this present Gospel age. This great prophecy which Peter quotes in part will be accomplished at the end of the Jewish age, that end which has not yet come and which cannot come as long as the church is on earth.^[71]

 

Gaebelein further footnotes that there “remains one week (seven years) of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy to be fulfilled. The last week occurs after the church is completed and these seven years constitute the end of the Jewish age, interrupted by this present church age.”^[72] Charles Ryrie concurred that Joel’s prophecy was not fulfilled at Pentecost because

(1) Peter does not use the usual Scriptural formula for fulfilled prophecy as he does in Acts 1:16 (cf. Matt. 1:22; 2:17; 4:14); (2) the original prophecy of Joel will clearly not be fulfilled until Israel is restored to her land, converted, and enjoying the presence of the Lord in her midst (Joel 2:26–28); [and] (3) the events prophesied by Joel simply did not come to pass.^[73]

 

Ryrie explained the “last days” as “the tribulation days, since the passage expressly links the pouring out of the Spirit with the time when the sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood.” During the tribulation prophecy and the power of the Spirit will resume such as through the ministry of the two witnesses (Rev 11:3–4).^[74]

Following a similar approach to Ryrie, Roy Beacham maintains that an accurate interpretation of Peter’s citation is impossible without a comprehensive understanding of Joel’s original prophecy. Beacham sets Joel 2:28–32 within the context of the impending “day of the LORD” (Joel 2:1), which he identifies with the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week—the great tribulation.^[75] Beacham applies a strict, chronological meaning to “afterward” (אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן) placing the events of Joel 2:28–29 in the era of the tribulation and/or millennium.^[76] Thus, Peter cited Joel, not to indicate a fulfillment of prophecy, but to argue by analogy that the miraculous event the Jews just witnessed was the work of the Spirit and not of strong drink.^[77] Ryrie, likewise, remarked that Peter’s quotation of Joel was simply to prove that the Holy Spirit, not wine, caused the tongue-speaking.^[78]

According to dispensationalists, Peter’s citation of Joel (“this is that”) does not reflect a fulfillment of prophecy but “means nothing more than ‘this is [an illustration of] that which was spoken by the prophet Joel’ (Acts 2:16).”^[79] Pentecost was proof or but a foretaste of Joel’s promise of a future millennial out pouring of the Spirit.^[80] Strangely enough, some Pentecostals likewise maintain that Joel 2 prophecies of the millennium, but “washes back” on the church.[81] Robert Chisholm presents a slightly different view where Joel’s promise was initially poured out on Pentecost but delayed until the millennium due to Jewish unbelief.^[82] Because dispensationalists reserve Joel 2’s fulfillment for the millennium, this opens the possibility of charismata cessation—more like pausation, since they believe that God will again give widespread supernatural revelation and miracles during the tribulation and millennium.^[83]

Church Age Last Days

Pentecostals typically appropriate the text of Joel 2:28–32 through the lens of Acts 2 and identify the “last days” with the church age.^[84] Many non-Pentecostal commentators, likewise, interpret Joel 2 as a prophecy of the NT church. Walter Kaiser responds to Ryrie’s objections to the church-age view of Joel 2:

Neither may it be argued that the introductory formula of Peter is wrong if he had in mind any kind of fulfillment logic. Why is it that “this is that” cannot mean this Pentecostal event is the fulfillment of the word predicted by Joel? The truth of the matter is that there is no single formula used consistently in Acts or elsewhere in the NT for that matter … There is no way around it: “This” outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost “is that” eschatological outpouring of the Holy Spirit predicted by Joel centuries before.[85]

 

Throughout his sermon, Peter cited the OT three times (Acts 2:16–31 = Joel 2:28–32a; Acts 2:25–28 = Ps 16:8–11; Acts 2:34 = Ps 110:1; also Acts 2:39 = Joel 2:32b). Not one of these instances include the term “fulfilled,” yet Peter clearly regarded Christ’s resurrection and ascension as the fulfillment David’s prophetic words in the Psalms (cf. Acts 2:30–31).[86] Peter’s citation of Joel resembles a pesher exegesis similar to numerous examples found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.[87] Longenecker explains that this style of exegesis lays “emphasis on fulfillment without attempting to exegete the details of the biblical prophecy it ‘interprets.’”[88]

Dispensationalists argue against the church age view that not all of Joel’s prophecy occurred on Pentecost (e.g., sun darkened, moon to blood),[89] yet the idiom “in the last days” denotes, not a single point in time, but an entire time period and consequently a process of development. Even Joel qualified the term “afterward” with the phrase “in those days,” which denotes a succession of times.[90] Duane Garrett concurs:

Joel did not claim that the sky would go dark at the same moment that the Spirit was poured out. It would do little good for God to give the gift of the Spirit and the power to prophesy if on the very same day he brought the world to an end. The very fact that people would “dream dreams” implies some passage of time and not an instant or simultaneous fulfillment of the entire prophecy. No one can seriously object that Pentecost did not fulfill Joel’s prophecy on the grounds that no one had yet had revelatory dreams. After all, at the time of Peter’s sermon the Spirit had only come within the hour.[91]

 

Peter’s substitution of “afterwards” with “in the last days” solidifies the notion of a progressive fulfillment over a period of time (“days”), which concludes with “the day” of the Lord, the time laps between the inauguration (at Pentecost) and final judgment (day of the Lord) being irrelevant.^[92] Thus, as Garrett observes: “It follows that there is no need for a subsequent Jewish Pentecost in the tribulation or millennium to fulfill Joel’s prophecy.” Acts 2 already represents a “Jewish Pentecost” with the “Gentile Pentecost” being first poured out in Acts 10.^[93]

Peter’s conclusion further verifies that Pentecost began the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in that he declared that Christ had “poured out this which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33, italics added), which points back to Joel’s words cited in Act 2:17–18 (the only other passage in Acts that uses ἐκχέω).[94] Darrell Bock further explains: “The period is a package, and the program of fulfillment has begun. In other words, a careful study of the use of Joel in Acts 2 shows that ‘this is that’ is not ‘this is all of that’ or ‘this is like that’; the meaning, rather, is ‘this is the beginning of that.”[95] Huub van de Sandt observes that Joel’s prophecy not only dominates Acts 2 but strongly relates to the subsequent chapters throughout Acts. In fact, Acts “contains words and themes that appear repeatedly, such as ‘Spirit’, ‘visions’, ‘prophesying’, ‘portents and signs’, the ‘calling on the name’, ‘being saved’, etc. In this respect Joel [2:28–32a] is significant for the whole of Acts. It is the book’s guiding text which outlines the programme followed in the next chapters of the narrative.”^[96] For NT authors the church already was in the “last days.” The Hebrew writer declared that “in these last days,” God had spoken to the NT saints in His Son (Heb 1:2). Thus, as Kaiser writes: “[T]he last days had broken in upon the church, but they were only a sample, an ‘earnest,’ a foretaste of what the ‘age to come’ would be like in all its fullness when Christ returned a second time.”[97] Paul’s usages of Joel in description of NT salvation (cf. Rom 10:13 = Joel 2:32; Titus 3:5–6 [ἐξέχεεν, “poured out”] = Joel 2:28–29), likewise, illustrates fulfillment in the NT church.[98]

Conclusion

Bernard sees a need for oneness Pentecostals to either “significantly modify or replace traditional dispensationalism.”[99] One suggestion seems to be for Apostolics to embrace “progressive dispensationalism,” which teaches that Christ is partially fulfilling the Davidic Covenant in that He currently rules from David’s throne in the present age.[100] Progressive dispensationalists reject the illustration/analogy view of “this is that” and recognize Pentecost as the fist stage of a two-stage fulfillment Joel 2.[101] Garrett questions though “whether progressive dispensationalism is truly dispensationalism, the essence of which is the separation of Israel from the church in the plan of God. Once it be granted that the fulfillment of an OT prophecy to Israel has taken place in the ‘Church Age,’ then the very linchpin of dispensational theology has been removed.”[102] Baker concurs: “At first blush, the progressive’s view of the kingdom appears to be more in line with amillennialism instead of dispensationalism.”[103]

Perhaps Segraves offers the best solution for oneness Pentecostals in questioning whether we should even retain the label of dispensationalism.[104] Given the conflicts of classic dispensationalism with oneness Pentecostal soteriology and pneumatology, maybe oneness Pentecostals simply need to depart from dispensationalism and seek a hermeneutical method more closely conforms, complements, and confirms Apostolic theology.

 

Bibliography

———. Search for Truth Home Bible Study. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1965.

 

Bernard, David K. A History of Christian Doctrine. Hazelwood, MO: WAP, 1999.

 

Bock, Darrell L. “The Reign of the Lord Christ.” In Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, 37–67. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

 

Faupel, D. William. The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought. JPTSS. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

 

Isgrigg, Daniel. Imagining the Future: The Origin, Development, and Future of Assemblies of God Eschatology. Tulsa, OK: ORU Press, 2021.

 

Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press, 2003.

 

Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles.” In John–Acts, 207–573. EBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

 

McQueen, Larry R. Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology: Discerning the Way Forward. JPTSS 39. Blandford Forum, UK: Deo, 2012.

 

Richmann, Christopher J. “Sanctification, Ecstasy, and War: The Development of American Pentecostal Eschatology, 1898-1950.” MA thesis, Luther Seminary, 2009.

 

Thomas, John Christopher. “A Critical Engagement with Craig S. Keener’s Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016).” JPT, no. 27 (2018): 183–195.

 

Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostal and American Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2001.

 

Williams, Stephen H. “Jesus is Coming Soon: Toward Revisioning Pentecostal Eschatology for a Postmodern Ministry and Mission.” VJTM 1, no. 2 (2022): 28–39.

---

[1] Larry R. McQueen, Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology: Discerning the Way Forward, JPTSS 39 (Blandford Forum, UK: Deo, 2012), 6; Stephen H. Williams, “Jesus is Coming Soon: Toward Revisioning Pentecostal Eschatology for a Postmodern Ministry and Mission,” VJTM 1, no. 2 (2022): 29.

 

[2] McQueen, Pentecostal Eschatology, 17–18, 47, 75; Williams, “Jesus is Coming Soon,” 30–32.

 

[3] Daniel Isgrigg, Imagining the Future: The Origin, Development, and Future of Assemblies of God Eschatology (Tulsa, OK: ORU Press, 2021), 215.

 

[4] Douglas Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press, 2003), 81.

 

[5] Ibid., 69.

 

[6] Christopher J. Richmann, “Sanctification, Ecstasy, and War: The Development of American Pentecostal Eschatology, 1898-1950,” (MA thesis, Luther Seminary, 2009), 24–25; Williams, “Jesus is Coming Soon,” 3.

[7] D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought, JPTSS (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 113. Although the Church of God (Anderson) is not “Pentecostal” in the sense of practicing glossolalia, Faupel lists them due to their association with Wesleyan-Holiness.

 

[8] David K. Bernard, A History of Christian Doctrine (Hazelwood, MO: WAP, 1999), 3:16–17.

 

[9] Faupel, Everlasting Gospel, 22.

 

[10] Ibid., 41.

 

[11] John Christopher Thomas, “A Critical Engagement with Craig S. Keener’s Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016),” JPT, no. 27 (2018): 191–92.

 

[12] Search for Truth Home Bible Study (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1965).

 

[13] Faupel, Everlasting Gospel, 23.

 

[14] Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostal and American Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2001), 252.

 

[15] Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit, 60; Richmann, “Sanctification, Ecstasy, and War,” 24–25; Williams, “Jesus is Coming Soon,” 32.

 

[16] McQueen, Pentecostal Eschatology, 6.

 

[17] Wacker, Heaven Below, 252.

 

[18] Isgrigg, Imagining the Future, 71; Robert P. Menzies, The End of History: Pentecostals and a Fresh Approach to the Apocalypse (Springfield, MO: ACPT Press, 2022), 9.

 

[19] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, new and improved edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), 1224.

 

[20] Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2009), 72; Williams, “Jesus is Coming Soon,” 29.

 

[21] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Divine Comforter: The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1963), 177.

 

[22] David K. Bernard, “Dispensationalism and Oneness Pentecostal Theology,” in Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism 1988 and 1990 (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1990), 86–88; Isgrigg, Imagining the Future, 29; McQueen, Pentecostal Eschatology, 214–15; Daniel L. Segraves, “Oneness Pentecostals and Dispensationalism: Modification or Replacement?” (Paper presented at Urshan Graduate School of Theology Symposium, Florissant, MO, 2008), 10–11.

 

[23] Gerald T. Sheppard, “Pentecostals and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: The Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship,” Pneuma 6, no. 2 (1984): 22.

 

[24] Ibid., 9.

 

[25] Ibid., 23–25.

 

[26] Bernard, “Dispensationalism and Oneness Pentecostal Theology,” 65.

 

[27] Ibid., 66.

 

[28] Ibid., 75.

 

[29] Ibid., 80–83.

 

[30] Ibid., 88.

 

[31] Segraves, “Oneness Pentecostals and Dispensationalism,” 2.

 

[32] Ibid., 8.

[33] Ibid., 10.

 

[34] Ibid., 11.

 

[35] Bruce A. Baker, “Progressive Dispensationalism & Cessationism: Why They are Incompatible” (Paper presented at the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, Clarks Summit, PA, 2013), 2.

 

[36] Ibid., 9–14.

 

[37] Ibid., 14–16.

 

[38] Ibid., 25–27, 36–39.

 

[39] Ibid., 39–40.

 

[40] Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, ix.

 

[41] Ibid., 2–4.

 

[42] Ibid., 55–67.

 

[43] Ibid., 76.

 

[44] Ibid., 77–79.

 

[45] Ibid., 140–45.

 

[46] Ibid., 146–50.

 

[47] Ibid., 158–61.

 

[48] Ibid., 168.

 

[49] Ibid., 180–98.

 

[50] Ibid., 189–93.

 

[51] Ibid., 212.

 

[52] Ibid., 225, 252–65.

 

[53] Isgrigg, Imagining the Future, 4.

 

[54] Ibid., 6–8.

 

[55] Ibid., 12–14.

 

[56] Ibid., 8.

 

[57] Ibid., 11.

 

[58] Ibid., 187–89.

 

[59] Ibid., 213–43, 270–75.

 

[60] Menzies, End of History, 11.

 

[61] Ibid., 27–30.

 

[62] Ibid., 162–64.

 

[63] Michal Beth Dinkler, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Gospel and Acts, FCB (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 331.

 

[64] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 243.

 

[65] References to Joel utilize the chapter and verse divisions of the English text.

 

[66] Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 97.

 

[67] C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 1:136; Johnson, Acts, 49; I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 72; Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideai (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 42.

 

[68] Raymond Dillard, “Joel,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 1:294.

 

[69] Classic dispensationalism reflects the views of J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, Clarence Larkin, Lewis Chafer, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie.

 

[70] Roy E. Beacham, “The Analogical use of Joel 2:28–32 in Acts 2:15–21; A Literal Approach,” paper presented at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998, 4; Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 81–82; A. C. Gaebelein, The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition (New York: Francis Emory Fitch, 1912), 53–54; Graham S. Ogden, “Restoring the Years: A Commentary on the Book of Joel,” in A Promise of Hope, A Call to Obedience: A Commentary on the Books of Joel and Malachi, International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 37–38.

 

[71] Gaebelein, Acts, 53.

 

[72] Ibid.

 

[73] Charles C. Ryrie, “The Significance of Pentecost,” BSac 112, no. 448 (October 1955): 334.

 

[74] Charles C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 109.

 

[75] Beacham, “Analogical use of Joel,” 2–3.

 

[76] Ibid., 4.

 

[77] Ibid., 7, 14–15.

 

[78] Charles C. Ryrie, “The Significance of Pentecost,” BSac 112, no. 448 (October 1955): 334.

 

[79] Unger, “Significance,” 177, brackets in original.

 

[80] Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 82.

 

[81] J. G. Hall, ; David S. Norris, Life, Death, and the End of the World (Florissant, MO: Apostolic Teaching Resources, 2017), 120, 339n353; New Life Church Cabot, “Bible Week: Prophecy | Dr. David Norris,” YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tun6Xw92C0&t=3878s, “A lot of prophecies we have are actually millennial prophecies––Joel 2 and some others. I do this thing in the book on double fulfillment, but they kind of wash back on the church,” (1:04:28–1:04:37).

 

[82] Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Joel,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986), 1:1421.

 

[83] Fred Moritz, “A Case for Cessationism,” MBTJ 3, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 17.

 

[84] Larry R. McQueen, Joel and the Spirit: The Cry of a Prophetic Hermeneutic (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2009), 1.

 

[85] Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 91.

 

[86] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 1:952–54.

[87] Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 79.

 

[88] Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in John–Acts, EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 275.

 

[89] Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 82.

 

[90] Gotthard Lechler and Charles Gerok, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1866), 41.

 

[91] Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, NAC (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1997), 373.

 

[92] Ibid.

 

[93] Ibid., 374

 

[94] Keener, Acts, 957.

 

[95] Darrell L. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 48.

 

[96] Huub van de Sant, “The Minor Prophets in Luke–Acts,” in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament, eds. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 64.

 

[97] Kaiser, Old Testament in the New, 93.

 

[98] Cf. David K. Bernard, The New Birth (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1984), 92–93, 198–99, 203–04, where Bernard couples Joel 2 with Jesus’s promise of the Spirit as the new birth of water and Spirit (John 3:3–5).

 

[99] Bernard, “Dispensationalism and Oneness Pentecostal Theology,” 88.

 

[100] Baker, “Progressive Dispensationalism & Cessationism,” 10.

 

[101] Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 371n13.

 

[102] Ibid.

 

[103] Baker, “Progressive Dispensationalism & Cessationism,” 10.

[104] Segraves, “Oneness Pentecostals and Dispensationalism,” 10. Consequently, the term “dispensationalism” does not appear in the UPCI “Articles of Faith.” While some of the articles may mean to express the basic tenets of dispensational premillennialism, none of them canonize dispensationalism. The term “dispensation” only occurs in the 1977 position paper on Holiness in the subheading “Holiness in the New Testament Dispensation.” Robin Johnston, gen. ed., UPCI Manual 2023 (Weldon Springs, MO: UPCI World Headquarters, 2023), 224.