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.
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. 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.
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.
Bernard writes that dispensationalism’s “fundamental tenet is the separation of
Israel and the church.”
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.”
Bernard outlines several dispensational views which stand in opposition to
Apostolic theology including faith-only salvation, unconditional eternal
security, and cessationism.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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. 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.
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).
Peter’s citation of Joel resembles a pesher exegesis similar to numerous
examples found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Longenecker
explains that this style of exegesis lays “emphasis on fulfillment without
attempting to exegete the details of the biblical prophecy it ‘interprets.’”
Dispensationalists
argue against the church age view that not all of Joel’s prophecy occurred on
Pentecost (e.g., sun darkened, moon to blood), 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. 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.
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). 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.” 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.” 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.
Conclusion
Bernard sees a need
for oneness Pentecostals to either “significantly modify or replace traditional
dispensationalism.” 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.
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.
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.” Baker
concurs: “At first blush, the progressive’s view of the kingdom appears to be
more in line with amillennialism instead of dispensationalism.”
Perhaps Segraves
offers the best solution for oneness Pentecostals in questioning whether we
should even retain the label of dispensationalism. 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.
