Since I have many American and Canadian friends within the COG, I’m almost ashamed to say it was my first time in a COG church. I can perhaps redeem myself with the fact that my feet have walked on the holy ground of Cleveland, TN—Lee University and Pentecostal Theological Seminary, both COG schools.

Church of God?

If you’re not familiar with the COG, you may be surprised to learn that this Pentecostal denomination was formed in 1886, well before the 1906 revivals at Azusa Street in Los Angeles and the Hebden Mission in Toronto. Even more surprising, to some, will be the fact that about 130 people spoke in tongues at revival meeting they held in 1896 in North Carolina. The group adopted the name “Church of God” in 1907. Their name usually includes “(Cleveland, TN)” to distinguish them from the non-Pentecostal denomination the Church of God (Anderson, IN).

As a Pentecostal church, the COG holds to the “full gospel” of Jesus as Saviour, Healer, Baptizer (in the Spirit), and Coming King. In addition, as representatives of the “Pentecostal Holiness” tradition, they also emphasize Jesus’s work as “Sanctifier.” Historically, they emphasized that a believer needed to experience sanctification before they could be baptized in the Holy Spirit. A common rationale was that the Holy Spirit couldn’t fill a dirty vessel.

Today the COG (Cleveland) has around 1 million adherents in the USA and about 7 million worldwide (my numbers are a little dated). Many in Canada will not have heard of them, even though they have around 140 churches in Canada, with about half of those churches in Ontario. I hear that many are Caribbean-majority churches.

Sights and Sounds

I appreciated the time of worship at the COG church. We walked through the double-glass doors of the church and immediately heard boisterous sounds coming from the hall to our left. I recognized the sounds as a pre-service prayer meeting—the sanctuary was to our right.

This was no-mega church. The sanctuary has maybe a dozen rows with about a dozen chairs per row. But the church was up-to-date with burgundy padded chairs, contemporary grey carpet, and colored lights shining on the wall at the back of the stage. Unlike the mammoth pulpit I had previously experienced at a United Pentecostal Church (no, the COG are not Oneness), they had a sleek, metal lectern that the preacher could not hide behind.

There were only thirty or forty (if I’m generous) people in the congregation that morning, but the room was still full of life. I was surrounded by mostly black worshippers, with a few Asians and white folk. There was no doubt that we were in church. I may have heard “praise the Lord” and “amen” more frequently than I would hear swearing at a construction site.

Sadly, the drum throne behind the drum set sat empty that morning, so I wondered if they might “need” me to play—not that they would know. Unfortunately for me, perhaps, they had replaced the drummer with the upbeat sounds from a drum module controlled by the keyboard player who also led worship. Accompanying her was only a guitar player, but along with the four additional singers who swayed and shuffled across the front of the stage, the worship music sounded full. The worship leader had the voice of a Grammy-award-winning singer who expressed the soul of someone who had just welcomed home her child who was away studying at college for the past year.

Theology in Worship

It wouldn’t be quite fair to say that we (I do say “we,” because I was one of them) were fully dancing, but we were definitely moving our whole body to the music. This reminded me of the emphasis that I heard on a few occasions in the SPS meeting, that Pentecostals often engage their whole bodies in worship, consistent with their belief that salvation is for the whole person, sometimes including physical healing in this life, if not eventual healing in the future resurrection.

I did not recognize the first few songs but one theme became readily apparent. We reminded one another that even though Satan is “attacking everyday,” we could have joy in our soul, because “God is in control.” The same song declared repeatedly, “this means war, this means war.” And in the next song, we didn’t just testify that “there is power in the name of Jesus,” we also actively prayed/sung repeatedly the simple phrase, “break…chains…break…chains.”

Now take an brief energizing break to get a small taste of what I experienced .

At one point it struck me that the songs and other words spoken from the stage were individualistic. That morning (I make no assumptions about other weeks), I did not hear a concern for any world suffering or an emphasis on how God empowers us for mission. Instead, the emphasis was on my choice to worship Jesus and how he would help me navigate life.

At the same time, no one could accuse this church of falling into what scholars call “moralistic therapeutic deism” (a belief in a god who wants us to be good and happy, but who isn’t all that involved in our lives). Rather, we sung that God would lead us to victory in the cosmic spiritual battle. While there may have been an overemphasis on spiritual warfare imagery, I appreciated the reminder that the world is not spiritually neutral ground.

There was one moment during the worship service when it was clear that the church was not only concerned with how God would help them as individuals, and it came during the announcements. This small congregation had distributed 60 food boxes the day before, and they were preparing to do so again next month.

Continuing to Encounter God

The pastor’s sermon was filled with personal testimonies that illustrated the need for us to pray to God to know his will and the challenges that might come if we disobey. I realized that this congregation didn’t need anyone to convince them that God still speaks today—this was obvious to them.

When the sermon ended, the words “Altar Service” were displayed on the two large-screen TVs that were mounted to the wall on each side of the stage. The pastor invited people to come stand in front of the pulpit if they wanted prayer as they seek to hear and obey God’s will. Before he had finished speaking, two ladies walked to the front—they didn’t need to be coaxed—and three others surrounded them and laid their hands on them. And then the pastor prayed.

This reminded me of another SPS presentation—this one on a theology of preaching—that observed how Pentecostal preaching does not simply aim to inform or even motivate the congregants, but also to facilitate a life-transforming encounter with the Holy Spirit.

I imagine that not every week is the same at this COG church. And I’m sure that my experience that Sunday is not representative of every COG congregation.

How a person worships is not the key marker of their spirituality (see chapter 7 in my book Simply Spirit-Filled). Nevertheless, it is clear to me that many who lifted their hands in praise that morning were not there to simply fulfil a religious ritual. And perhaps more importantly, they expected that they would continue to encounter God during the week after they walked back out the double-glass doors.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• Tales of Visiting a Oneness United Pentecostal Church
• 3 Lessons and Questions from my Visit to a Tourist Church
• 3 Lessons from My Visit to a Pentecostal Church
• 4 Lessons from Worship in Liturgical Churches

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author/editor of six books, including Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit. He is Professor of Theology at MCS and Horizon College & Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on X.

The post Tales of my First Visit to a Church of God (Cleveland) Pentecostal Church appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Authority and Inspiration

I understand that the intent in making a distinction between inspiration and illumination is to (rightly) safeguard the authority of Scripture. But a problem here is that it is the same Holy Spirit at work in both activities. And I think the Spirit is just as authoritative today as when the Spirit spoke in the past. We are not talking about a different Spirit!

One might think, “but the biblical authors were writing down God’s very words!” In a sense, this is true. At the same time, Luke says that he “carefully investigated everything” and that he “decided to write” about Jesus (Luke 1:3). For the most part, it seems the biblical authors, like Luke, did not know they were writing Scripture, and many didn’t even perceive that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit—this is something that the Church has discerned. And the Church and Christians continue to discern when and where God is speaking.

To be clear, I am not trying to downplay the authority of Scripture. I am simply making the point that the Spirit spoke through biblical authors and continues to speak today; and these two experiences are not as different as many might think.

The Holy Spirit and Prophecy

A couple of years ago at the Society for Pentecostal Studies, my colleague, Dr. Stephen Barkley, gave a presentation where he compared the experience of Old Testament (OT) prophecy with the experience of charismatic prophecy in Canadian Pentecostal churches today.

Barkley explained that when he asks people what the difference is between OT prophecy and contemporary prophecy, most people respond that they are very different, especially because the OT prophets are Scripture and therefore authoritative. One problem with this, Barkley observed, is that there is a coherence between the OT and today in how the person prophesying experiences the Spirit in receiving and giving prophecy. (Barkley’s work is now published in the book Pentecostal Prophets: Experience in Old Testament Perspective.)

I would add that another problem with the common response is that it is the same Holy Spirit that spoke through the prophets in the OT (2 Peter 1:21) that is still speaking through authentic (I emphasize authentic) prophecy today. So, they must both be authoritative!

Like what I said above about “illumination,” the problem here is that too many people, including Pentecostal pastors, want to distinguish the authority of the Spirit speaking in the past from the authority of the Spirit speaking to God’s people today. But…to reemphasize…it is the same Spirit.

When God Speaks

What I am really trying to say is that whenever God speaks, it is authoritative. So simple. So true.

I’ve thought this way for some time, but this hit me even more a few years ago when God made it clear to me that I needed to be willing to take on a new role at my workplace (and I wasn’t willing at the time). As I prayed, I was reminded that God is God, and I have no right to disobey God. For me, God was guiding me, and I had to obey God’s authority. It wasn’t in the Bible, but God was speaking to me.

Isn’t the Bible Special?

I remember N. T. Wright saying we can only speak of the Bible as authoritative if we mean the authority of God being exercised through Scripture. Or, one might say that the Bible is authoritative only because it is a place where God has spoken and continues to speak.

But if God speaks to me, isn’t that authoritative? Yes.

If God speaks through an authentic word of prophecy today, isn’t that authoritative? Yes.

Does this make the Bible equally authoritative to contemporary prophecy or to ways that God speaks to me? Yes and no.

On the one hand, yes, because whenever God speaks, it is authoritative. (I am only speaking of where God has clearly and certainly spoken.)

On the other hand, no, it is not “equally authoritative” in the sense that it is not canonical and, therefore, it is not authoritative for all people.

Authority and Canon

To put it another way, when God speaks through or to someone, it doesn’t automatically become part of the canon of Scripture. Something, even a writing, can come from God and have authority without becoming part of the Bible.

We know, for example, that Paul wrote letters that weren’t included in the Bible (1 Corinthians 5:9; Colossians 4:16). I don’t imagine that his other letters included any heresy. And I imagine that the Spirit was inspiring Paul as he wrote them. But they didn’t become part of the Bible.

Likewise, when the Spirit speaks today, it doesn’t make it canonical. To put it another way, when God speaks to an individual or through an individual today, it is authoritative for those to whom God is speaking. But it is not authoritative for the whole church. Therefore, it is not authoritative in the same way that the Bible is.

Side note: I’m sure someone will ask, what if someone gave a prophecy that was intended for the whole Church today? Could that become part of Scripture? Practically speaking, it could never happen. Plus, in retrospect, we realize that there were numerous criteria for what became part of the canon of Scripture (more info here).

Still Discerning

To be clear, this means that the Bible is still the final and absolute authority for belief and conduct. Moreover, any time someone claims that the Spirit is speaking through them (prophecy) or to them, it still needs to be evaluated in light of the canon (which means “measure”) and authority of the Scripture. At the same time, when we do discern that the Spirit has truly spoken, including through prophecy, it is authoritative for the person or people the Spirit has spoken to.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• Myth #1: “Prophecy is all About the Future”
• The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
• When God Speaks Through Dreams…

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author/editor of six books, including Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit. He is a theology professor at MCS and Horizon College & Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post The Authority of the Spirit, Prophecy, and Scripture appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Each chapter in the commentary covers a section of the SOET. Much like a commentary on the Bible, the chapters explain the wording in each sentence of the SOET. In addition, the chapters give some sense of how the doctrine has been considered by Pentecostals historically, the way in which the commentary is aiming to be intentionally Pentecostal, and also different contextual issues that each section is aiming to address. This includes cultural issues and issues that were raised by members of the PAOC during the process of forming the SOET.

The book explains that “the intended audience includes the pastor/teacher, those preparing for ministry, and of course, the many in our congregations who want to know what we believe” (page xvi).

Unlike the SOET itself, the commentary does not represent the official position of the PAOC, in as much as the PAOC General Conference did not vote on the commentary. As the preface states, the commentary is “meant to be suggestive and helpful for teaching and preaching. We make no claim that the explanations of the SOET are necessarily the official ones, nor that the comments contained herein are the only ones to be made” (page xv).

I had the privilege of being one of the contributing authors to and editors of the commentary. Now I look forward to revising the SOET again… maybe 2042….or 2052?

If you haven’t already seen them, you might be interested in some of my personal reflections on the SOET:

• The Changing of the PAOC’s Statement of Faith … Again
• Pentecostals and the Trinity: On the PAOC’s Refreshed Statement of Faith
• Pentecostal(?) Eschatology in the PAOC’s Proposed New Statement of Faith
• 7 Ways the PAOC’s Proposed Statement of Faith Adds Pentecostal Spice
• What about Tongues? Spirit baptism in the PAOC’s Proposed Statement of Faith
• Refreshed! The PAOC’s New Statement of Essential Truths

You can order copies of the commentary by calling the PAOC office at 1-800-779-7262 or emailing orderdesk@paoc.org. Copies are priced at $10 each, and $8 each for orders of 10 or more (plus shipping). See here for more information about the commentary.

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post Comments on “Essential Truths: The PAOC Statement of Essential Truths Commentary” appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

In my presentation, I emphasized the need for a “deep view of Scripture” (in comparison to a low or high view of Scripture).

My presentation was 18 minutes, and it begins at the 0:23:45 minute mark. You can watch it here: https://video.horizon.edu/en/c/why-does-the-bible-matter.4818

You might also be interested in these posts:

• 10 Bible Verses You Can Legitimately Declare Over Your Life
• Pentecostal and Evangelical Bible Commentaries
• What is Discipleship? More than Praying and Reading the Bible

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• Shouldn’t Faith Always Result in Healing?
• There is Power in the Tongue, but Not for Declarations and Decrees
• No, Indigenous Canadians Don’t Just Need Jesus: Reconciliation Requires More

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post Disability Theology and Pentecostalism appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Added Pentecostal Emphasis: Missional Empowerment

Where most of the proposed SOET is condensed in comparison to the current Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET), the Spirit baptism section is the only section that is slightly longer in the SOET—118 words vs. the current 94 words.

Shocking.

The current [now previous] SOFET affirms that baptism in the Holy Spirit results in “power to witness.” The proposed SOET brings even more focus to this, giving attention to this Pentecostal emphasis within both paragraphs of this section of the SOET. The first paragraph states that it empowers believers to proclaim “with speech and action…” and the second paragraph notes that Spirit baptism empowers believers “to be his witnesses with speech and action…”

The hope is that the added emphasis on the missional nature of Spirit baptism will spur the Church on its Spirit-empowered mission and remind us all that the point of Spirit baptism isn’t just so that we can all sit around speaking in tongues. While it’s great that Spirit baptism can enhance our private spirituality, there is more to Spirit baptism than this alone. (I explain the significant value of speaking in tongues in chapter 4 of my book Simply Spirit-Filled.)

“ The point of Spirit baptism isn’t just so that we can all sit around speaking in tongues.

What about Other Results of Spirit Baptism?

When I presented an earlier draft of the Spirit baptism section at the 2018 PAOC General Conference in Victoria, BC, I remember when one attendee stood at a microphone and suggested that the SOET should state that sanctification is another result of Spirit baptism.

My response was that the proposed draft accentuates the historic Pentecostal emphasis that Spirit baptism results in empowered witness (Acts 1:8). This is something that is “essential” and that the PAOC General Conference can agree on. By contrast, we might have differing opinions regarding the connection of sanctification and Spirit baptism.

Nevertheless, the SOET’s emphasis on empowered witness does not hinder one from preaching that through baptism in the Holy Spirit a person “comes to know Christ in a more intimate way and … grow spiritually.” These words, which are not in the proposed SOET, are found in the current SOFET.

Added Pentecostal Emphasis: The Significance of Tongues

One thing that the proposed SOET adds that is not in our current SOFET is an explanation of the link between the significance of baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. To quote from Canadian Pentecostal theologian Peter Neumann, “Why Tongues and Not Purple Hair?”[1] In other words, why would tongues be a suitable sign for Spirit baptism?

Speaking in tongues isn’t just a random sign—though purple hair would be. Rather, as the proposed SOET explains, speaking in tongues, which is an act of communication, “signifies the nature of Spirit baptism as empowering our communication.”

BUT…What about Initial Evidence?

Some might wonder if the section on Spirit baptism is less Pentecostal since the words “initial evidence” are not present. Interestingly enough, the phrase “initial evidence” did not appear in the PAOC’s SOFET until 1980. And the PAOC wasn’t less Pentecostal before 1980.

“ The phrase “initial evidence” did not appear in the PAOC’s SOFET until 1980.

When the proposed SOET speaks of “the sign of speaking in tongues,” it is reengaging language from the PAOC’s first SOFET (1928-1980). That earlier statement included two sentences regarding tongues: 1) Spirit baptism “is indicated by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues,” and 2) “the baptism of the Holy Spirit is regularly accompanied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues.”

Aside from the fact that this earlier SOFET uses “sign” and not “evidence,” you might also note that it includes the qualifier “physical,” which the PAOC hasn’t included since 1980. The phrase “regularly accompanied by” also raises questions.[2]

If we go back even earlier, before the PAOC had its own statement of faith, in February 1926 the PAOC’s publication The Pentecostal Testimony printed the Assemblies of God’s statement of faith. It said that “the full consummation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is indicated by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues.” The “full consummation of” language also raises questions.

Some in the PAOC may feel that the familiar language of “initial evidence” presents a clearer and more definite relationship between speaking in tongues and Spirit baptism. But this simply isn’t the case. The reality is that PAOC credential holders already interpret the phrase “initial evidence” in a variety of ways. For example, some would argue that “initial evidence” means “immediate evidence” or “only evidence,” whereas others would not. Some would argue that “initial physical sign” means the same thing as “initial evidence,” but others would not. It turns out “initial evidence” isn’t as clear and definite as some might think.

“ PAOC credential holders already interpret the phrase “initial evidence” in a variety of ways.

Privileging Tongues

One might argue over what qualifiers (initial? physical? regularly accompanied by? full consummation of?) the proposed SOET should or shouldn’t include with the term “tongues” or “sign.” Nevertheless, it is clear that the SOET privileges tongues. The SOET presents “the sign of tongues” as unique—otherwise it wouldn’t be the only sign that the SOET mentions.

The SOET’s affirmation that “the sign of speaking in tongues indicates that believers have been baptized with the Holy Spirit” is justified given that the book of Acts reports three occasions where those who were baptized in the Spirit “began speaking in tongues” (Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6).

Not what I would write!

The proposed SOET is not what I would write. And the proposal is different than what the PAOC’s Theological Study Commission (of which I am a part) had originally drafted. This includes the section on Spirit baptism.

That’s because the SOET that the General Conference will vote on next week (May 2022) has been revised many times over the last 7 years as a result of thoughtful theological reflection and input from people across the PAOC.

As I wrote previously, the SOET is not meant to reflect the theology of one individual, nor even of a small group of individuals. And, indeed, this draft statement is a statement that reflects the views of the PAOC community.

After years of open discussion and multiple opportunities to submit feedback regarding the SOET drafts, I expect that attendees at General Conference will not have much time to speak to the motion to adopt the proposed SOET. So, over these last 3 posts I have now given some extended explanation for why I am “in favour of the motion”…even though the SOET would be better if I just wrote it myself (ha ha).

You might also be interested in these posts:

• 7 Ways the PAOC’s Proposed Statement of Faith Adds Pentecostal Spice
• The Changing of the PAOC’s Statement of Faith … Again
• Pentecostal(?) Eschatology in the PAOC’s Proposed New Statement of Faith

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post What about Tongues? Spirit baptism in the PAOC’s Proposed Statement of Faith appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Pentecostal Flavour

Some of the added Pentecostal flavour likely came about without intention, given the natural Pentecostal inclination of everyone who contributed to the proposed Statement of Essential Truths (SOET).

At the same time, the SOET does intentionally take Pentecostal theological sensitivities into account. This is reflected in the “whereas” statement for resolution #10 (the General Conference resolution to affirm the new SOET), which notes that the project “included research into both our early tradition and current Pentecostal scholarship.”

The things I identify here are not necessarily unique to Pentecostals, but they do reflect ideas that are true to Pentecostal spirituality, thereby resulting in a statement with a stronger Pentecostal flavour.

I don’t mean to suggest that Pentecostals should aim to be different—even if we are a little spicy at times. Our aim should be to be biblical. But, it just so happens that I think Pentecostal theology is—on its best days—a faithful expression of biblical teaching. I’m sure Baptists and Methodists feel the same way .

Given these qualifications, here are 7 ways the PAOC’s proposed statement of faith adds Pentecostal spice:

1. Anointing

The refreshed SOET adds that Jesus was “anointed by the Spirit” (Luke 4:18). This affirmation is important as it grounds believers’ Spirit-empowered mission in the mission of Christ, who is by definition “the anointed one” (in Greek, Christos means “the one anointed”…with the Spirit).

On the one hand, knowing that believers today are anointed with the same Spirit that Jesus received gives us expectation for the wonderous ways that God will work through us. On the other hand, Pentecostal theologian David Courey reminds us not to become triumphalistic because the Spirit-anointed Jesus suffered and was rejected, and his Spirit-anointed disciples may experience the same fate.[1]

2. More Holy Spirit

There is a section on Spirit baptism and the spiritual gifts in the current Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET), but the section on the Holy Spirit only emphasizes the personhood and deity of the Spirit—both important and orthodox affirmations!

In the refreshed SOET, the paragraph that focusses on the Holy Spirit adds a little more spice as it describes the Spirit as giving life, drawing people to salvation, and making all believers children of God. Like the current SOFET, the refreshed SOET also adds numerous references to the work of the Spirit throughout the rest of the statement.

3. The Bible Today

Like the wider evangelical community, the current SOFET emphasizes (rightly so!) God’s past relationship with the Scripture. It was inspired (past) and, therefore, the original manuscripts, which we no longer have (past), were without error.

The refreshed SOET exhibits how Pentecostals view the Bible as more than a book of errorless facts to be unearthed through historical-grammatical interpretation, but as a place where God still speaks and through which we continue to encounter God today.

The SOET emphasizes that the Bible is (today) revelation of God’s “saving purposes,” that it is (today) true and trustworthy, and (similar to the SOFET) that the Spirit still (today) “enables its interpretation and application.”

4. The Resurrection and Ascension as Vital for Salvation

The current SOFET focusses on Christ’s atoning work on the cross. The resurrection is presented only as proof of Christ’s atoning work.

The refreshed SOET, by contrast, recognizes that “the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ provide the way of salvation.” As the Scripture states, Christ “was raised because of our justification” (Romans 4:25) so that he could send the Spirit and we could receive the Spirit—or be justified—by faith (Galatians 3:1-9). Without the resurrection, this would not have happened, and we would still be in our sin (1 Corinthians 15:17).

In other words, as Pentecostal theologian Frank Macchia emphasizes, the goal of the cross was not only a declaration that we are not guilty, but also for God to send the Spirit via the risen Christ, and to thereby embrace humanity through the Spirit.[2] And so, the second paragraph in the Salvation section of the SOET begins, “Salvation means [among other things] to receive the Spirit.”

5. The Transforming Presence of God

The refreshed SOET adds that “central to the church is the shared experience of the transforming presence of God.” Similarly, Pentecostal theologian Keith Warrington describes Pentecostal theology as a “theology of encounter” with God.

The SOET continues with an affirmation that the actions of the church (e.g., discipleship and the Lord’s Supper) are in response to, and I might add in the midst of, this “shared experience” of God’s presence.

6. Gifts of the Spirit

While the present SOFET is obviously not cessationist(!), the refreshed SOET is even more explicit in affirming that the Spirit continues to give “all gifts” (not just some) to the church.

7. Women Leaders

The refreshed SOET is also explicit in affirming the Spirit “empowers leaders, both female and male.” This is consistent with the Pentecostal and biblical emphasis that Jesus pours the Spirit out on “all flesh / all people” (Acts 2:17)—women and men—with the result that the early Church had female deacons, like Phoebe (Romans 16:1).

The SOET’s affirmation is also consistent with Pentecostalism’s pre-institutional days when women had unrestricted access to ministry positions and with the PAOC’s recent “Statement of Affirmation Regarding the Equality of Women and Men in Leadership.”

And More…

One could explain how many other aspects of the SOET add Pentecostal flavour. For example,

• the section on God is now placed before the section on Scripture,
• there are more references to the kingdom of God,
• the refreshed SOET adds a tip of the hat to Pentecostalism’s historic Arminian/Wesleyan majority view of salvation,
• healing is presented “as a foretaste of our future restoration,”
• and…and…

But What About Spirit Baptism and Eschatology?

Ah, you noticed that I didn’t say anything about Spirit baptism and eschatology, did you?

I’ve commented on the Pentecostal nature of the eschatology section in my previous post.

And my comments on Spirit baptism seem to warrant an additional post. So, I now expect to finish and publish a post on Spirit baptism at some point in the future.

For now, I speak in favour of resolution #10.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• The Changing of the PAOC’s Statement of Faith … Again
• Pentecostals and the Trinity: On the PAOC’s Refreshed Statement of Faith
• Pentecostal(?) Eschatology in the PAOC’s Proposed New Statement of Faith

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post 7 Ways the PAOC’s Proposed Statement of Faith Adds Pentecostal Spice appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

I expect that attendees at General Conference next month, when the proposed statement will be voted on, will only have about a minute to speak to the motion, so I will give some extended explanation here for why I am “in favour of the motion.”

Eschatology that is More Pentecostal? For sure!

Like much of the proposed Statement of Essential Truths (SOET), the section that focusses on eschatology, with the title “Restoration,” adds some Pentecostal emphases that are not in the PAOC’s current SOFET [now, previous SOFET].

“A passion for the kingdom” is core to Pentecostal spirituality. Consistent with this, the proposed statement affirms “Christ will complete at his second coming the restoration begun when he initiated God’s Kingdom at his first coming.” This emphasis on the kingdom of God that is already coming, but not yet fully here, is core to Pentecostal eschatology.

Another new statement that adds Pentecostal flavor to the proposed statement is the affirmation that at the second coming, Jesus Christ will “defeat all powers that oppose God.”

Though not uniquely Pentecostal, I also appreciate the addition that final “judgement is God’s gracious answer to humanity’s cry for justice to prevail throughout the earth and is consistent with God’s character as loving, holy, and just.”

And the final “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” just makes me want to raise my hands and start speaking in tongues.

Unreasonably Short?

Anyone who compares the proposed SOET to the current SOFET will note that there is significantly less detail regarding eschatology in the proposed version. The proposal has only 169 words on “Restoration,” whereas the current version includes 326 words on “The End of Time.”

In many ways, the proposed, condensed version marks a return to the past. After forming in 1919, the PAOC functioned from 1920-1927 with a “Statement of Fundamental Truths” (SOFT) that included just under 200 words on eschatology.[1] It included an affirmation of “the rapture of believers,” but without an assertion of its timing, and of “the premillenial and imminent coming of the Lord.” This is similar in content to the proposed SOET—though the specific words “rapture” or “millennium” are absent, the 2022 proposal maintains the “imminent return of Christ.”

Over the years, the PAOC added increasingly more detail to its statement on eschatology. In 1928 the PAOC approved a revised version of the SOFT, expanding the eschatology section slightly to 210 words. This revision added a statement that the rapture “takes place before what is known as the Great Tribulation.”

“ Over the years, the PAOC added increasingly more detail to its statement on eschatology.

In 1980 the PAOC further expanded its “Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths” (SOFET). Even though Scripture references were moved to footnotes (reducing the word count), the eschatology section was expanded to 343 words. This version added in numerous details such as Christ’s “victory at Armageddon,”  explicit mention of the land of Israel, and that “unbelievers remain after death conscious of condemnation until the final bodily resurrection and judgment of the unjust.” It also moved to an explicitly pre-tribulation view of the rapture.

In 1984 the General Conference amended the SOFET in a way that marked somewhat of a return to the 1928 position, allowing for either a pre-tribulation or mid-tribulation view of the rapture.[2] The paragraph on “The Tribulation” was condensed, but added that the Antichrist would emerge in the midst of the tribulation.[3] Today, as of April 2022, the eschatology section of the SOFET is fairly detailed at 326 words long.

Less Detail on Eschatology is the Norm Among Other Canadian Pentecostals

Most other Canadian Pentecostal denominations include less detail on eschatology than the PAOC, and most do not reference the rapture or even the millennium. This points to the fact that there is nothing inherently Pentecostal about numerous eschatological points that are in the PAOC’s current SOFET.

“ There is nothing inherently Pentecostal about numerous eschatological points that are in the PAOC’s current SOFET.

Despite the reduced length, the PAOC’s proposed 169-word paragraph on eschatology is still more words than all but one Canadian Pentecostal denomination that I looked up:

• The Apostolic Church of Pentecost in Canada’s Statement of Faith includes only 26 words on eschatology.
• The Canadian Assemblies of God belief statement includes 50 words. This includes an affirmation of “the rapture of the Church,” but with no assertion regarding its timing.
• The Fellowship of Christian Assemblies (also Pentecostal) includes only 39 words on the topic.
• The Church of God in Western Canada’s Declaration of Faith has only 53 words in its two declarations on eschatology. Unlike the other statements I looked at, it explicitly affirms the “premillennial second coming of Jesus.” It doesn’t use the word rapture, but implicitly affirms the idea without being specific regarding its timing.
• The Foursquare Church’s Declaration of Faith is the only statement I looked up that gives significantly more space to eschatology than the PAOC. Their document, written by early Canadian Pentecostal evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson, is 16 PAGES, yet its four distinct sections on “The Second Coming of Christ,” “Judgement,” “Heaven,” and “Hell” (totaling 560 words) contain no reference to the millennium or the rapture.

Pentecostal Eschatology Outside Canada

If we look at Pentecostals outside of Canada, we also see little detail regarding eschatology:

• The Pentecostal World Fellowship’s Statement of Faith includes only 36 words on the topic.
• The World Assemblies of God Fellowship’s (WAGF) Statement of Faith includes 113 words on “the End of Time.”
• The Assemblies of God’s (USA) Statement of Fundamental Truths comes in at 232 words.

Clearly, the amount of detail regarding eschatology within the PAOC’s current SOFET is not the norm among Pentecostal statements of faith.

Dispensational Eschatology ≠ Pentecostal Eschatology

Beyond that, most Pentecostal theologians and historians would say that dispensational eschatology, which has led to the significant detail in the PAOC’s SOFET, is actually contrary to Pentecostal theological intuitions. For example, Amos Yong claims that dispensationalism is not “conducive to pentecostal spirituality.”[4]

Similarly, Matthew Thompson maintains that “Pentecostalism in North America…lost its distinctive core due to its lack of theological consistency in adopting evangelical theologies,” by which he specifically means “Pentecostalism’s ill-advised adoption and adaptation of Scofieldian dispensationalism”[5]

Some ways that Pentecostalism conflicts with dispensational beliefs are

1. Pentecostals experienced the dramatic and miraculous gifts of the Spirit, whereas dispensationalism was characterized by cessationism—dispensationalists believed that the gifts of the Spirit ceased after the age of the apostles.
2. Pentecostals believed Christ was coming soon and that they were empowered by the Spirit to lead an end-of-time revival before his return, whereas dispensationalists believed that each dispensation would end with a time of apostasy, including the Church age which would precede the return of Christ.
3. Pentecostals emphasized the already/not yet of the kingdom of God, meaning that as the Spirit is active today, the kingdom of God is already present, even though it has not yet fully come. By contrast, dispensationalism makes a sharp line between the Church age and the kingdom age.[6]

The system of dispensationalism does not fit well with Pentecostal theology and experience. Given this, Peter Althouse notes that “Pentecostals had to modify the dispensational script significantly to include their own theological distinctives.”[7]

“ The system of dispensationalism does not fit well with Pentecostal theology and experience.

But not all Pentecostals have held to dispensational eschatology. Larry McQueen’s study of Pentecostal history reveals there was a variety of views regarding eschatology in early Pentecostalism.[8] Quite clearly, dispensational eschatology ≠ Pentecostal eschatology. McQueen adds, the more one “takes Pentecostal theology and spirituality into account, the less dispensational it [Pentecostal eschatology] appears to be.”[9]

A Rejection of the Past?

As noted above, the condensed eschatology section of the proposed SOET is similar to the SOFT that the PAOC had prior to 1928. So, in some sense, the PAOC is returning to its roots.

At the same time, the absence of language like “rapture” or “Armageddon” or “Antichrist” does not indicate that the PAOC is rejecting these ideas that are currently in the SOFET. Indeed, the proposed SOET still allows for pastors within the PAOC to continue preaching these ideas.

By analogy, the phrase “the new heaven and the new earth” is absent in the proposed SOET, but surely no one would conclude this means that people in the PAOC cannot or should not believe in such an idea!

At the same time, the reduced detail in the eschatology section does allow for a variety of views within the PAOC regarding some eschatological issues.

The Aim of a Statement of Faith

If I were to write the statement of faith for the PAOC, it would look different than it does. Each member of the PAOC’s Theological Study Commission feels this way.

This is a good thing. Because a denomination’s statement of belief is not meant to reflect the theology of one individual. Given this, it makes sense that it would allow for some diversity of eschatological thinking, just like the PAOC did in its earlier years.

What About the Rest of the SOET?

In my next blog post, I intend to explain 7 ways that the PAOC’s refreshed SOET is more Pentecostal in nature than the current SOFET. In the meantime, I encourage you to read the proposal for yourself (if you have access to it) and consider which ways you think the SOET reflects Pentecostal emphases.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• Pentecostals and the Trinity: On the PAOC’s Refreshed Statement of Faith
• The Changing of the PAOC’s Statement of Faith … Again
• The Holy Spirit and Eschatology (The Last Days)

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post Pentecostal(?) Eschatology in the PAOC’s Proposed New Statement of Faith appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Here I interview Dr. Peter Neumann from Master’s College and Seminary in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. I ask him about what a theology of experience is, what it means for Pentecostals, and what difference these ideas make for the average Christian.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• Myth #2: “Spiritual = Eccentric and Strange”
• 5 Surprises About “the Anointing” in the New Testament
• Spirit Baptism in Current Pentecostal Theology: Part 2 – Amos Yong

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post Pentecostal Theology of Experience appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

What is the anointing? In some Christian circles you might hear someone say, “the worship was so anointed,” or “the pastor was really anointed today.” What do they mean?

But more importantly, how does the Bible speak of the anointing?

Given some elaborate teachings about “the anointing” that you can find on the internet, it might surprise you that the words “anoint,” “anointing,” and such are not that common in the New Testament. The Passion Translation has it 245 times, but hey…it’s not really a “translation.”[1] By contrast, even the KJV has it only 20 times. The ESV beats it at 22 times. The uninspiring NIV and NLT come in at a mere 11 times.

There are actually a few different Greek words in the New Testament that are translated as “anointing.” And “anointing” is almost always a verb—that is, it is typically an action that is done, rather than a “thing” that we have.

Getting Oily

Whenever the Greek verb aleipho is used in the New Testament (9 times), it is always used in a literal sense to put oil on a person.[2] For example, a believer might “anoint” sick people with oil when praying for them to be healed (Mark 6:13; James 5:14).

The Greek word epichrio, found 2 times in the NT, is used in a similar way to refer to a time when Jesus “anointed” a man’s eyes with spit and dirt as he healed him (John 9:6 and 11). Similarly, but in a metaphorical sense, in Revelation 3:18 Jesus tells the church in Laodicea to get “salve” to “anoint” their eyes so they can see (Greek = egchrio, used only once in the NT).

Usually when someone today says, “that person is really anointed,” they don’t mean that they have a lot of spit or oil on them.

Like Jesus

The Greek verb chrio is used more along the lines of the common use of the word “the anointing” today—in these instances, no literal oil was involved. The word is found only 5 times in the New Testament. Four times it refers to how God “anointed” Jesus with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27 and 10:38; Heb 1:9).

Indeed, Jesus is the “Messiah” or the “Christ”—that is, the “anointed one”—because God anointed him with the Spirit. That is, God put the Spirit on him similar to how one might put oil on a person.

When Pentecostals and Charismatics speak of someone being “anointed” today, sometimes they have something like this in mind—they may be claiming that the Spirit is present empowering an individual for ministry, just like the anointing of the Spirit empowered Jesus (consider Luke 4:14, 18-19 and Acts 10:38).

“An Anointing” = ?

“Anointing” is only used as a noun or thing in 2 verses in the New Testament (Greek = chrisma).

And a few verses later…

The context of 1 John makes it clear that this “anointing” that “teaches us” what is “true” is the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit is the one who testifies to “truth” (4:6 and 5:6) and it is the “Spirit” who enables us to confess true faith in Jesus (1 John 4:2).

Who is Anointed?

Some Christian teaching might not give you this impression, but all believers have been “anointed” by God.

The only place chrio refers to Jesus’ followers (see above regarding Jesus) is in 2 Corinthians 1:21, where Paul says that God “anointed us” as he “gave us his Spirit in our hearts” (v. 22).

Crucially, Paul here implies that every believer has been anointed by God. And elsewhere, Paul explicitly states that all believers “are temples of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19).

Likewise, John affirms that all believers have “the anointing” (see 1 John 2:20 and 27, above), who is the Spirit, and that God abides in all believers by the Spirit (1 John 3:24 and 4:13).

Again, the reality is—at least according to the Bible—God has “anointed” all believers with the Holy Spirit. And “the anointing” God gives us is the Holy Spirit. There is no anointing distinct from this.

“ “The anointing” God gives us is the Holy Spirit. There is no anointing distinct from this.

This does not mean that the Spirit works the same way in every Christian’s life—no. For example, there are (sort of) different gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4) and the Spirit “distributes them to each one, just as he determines” (12:11). At the same time, the spiritual gifts are not different “anointings”—again, the anointing is the Holy Spirit.

Expecting More Anointing to Fall?

The Bible never speaks of “the anointing falling” on someone.

Nevertheless, it is not entirely inconsistent with the Bible for us to do so, because the anointing is the Spirit. The Bible uses all kinds of imagery when speaking of the Spirit—God “fills” people with the Spirit (Acts 4:8, 31; Ephesians 5:18) and “pours” the Spirit on people (Acts 10:45; Titus 3:5-7). And, in a few places, the Bible uses imagery of the Spirit “falling” on people (Ezek 11:5; Acts 10:44, 11:15). Since the anointing is the Spirit, we could say the “anointing fell”—although the image breaks down a bit, as anointing oil doesn’t typically “fall.”

Likewise, the Bible never explicitly states that one can receive “more anointing” or that we should expect for God to anoint us more than once.

Nevertheless, again, it is not entirely inconsistent with the Bible for us to do so because the Bible does speak of the Spirit—who is the anointing—as filling believers who had already received the Spirit (Acts 4:8, 31; 13:52) and Paul implores the Ephesian Christians, who had already received the Spirit, to “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:13). Since the Spirit can, in some sense, come in a greater measure, we might say the same thing about the anointing.

At the same time, we must be careful about speaking of “different levels” of anointing or of someone having a “special anointing,” as though one “anointing” is better than another. To reemphasize, this is because there is only one anointing—the Holy Spirit!

“ We must be careful about speaking of a “special anointing,” as though one “anointing” is better than another.

Moreover, we must not lose sight of the fact that the biblical emphasis is that every believer has been anointed by God.

Personally, rather than proclaiming that “the anointing fell again,” I’m satisfied with staying with the language of the Scripture, by affirming that God has anointed all believers with the Spirit, while also thanking God for how the Spirit is at work in different ways in those around me, such as through gifts of teaching, leading, or healing (1 Corinthians 12:6, 11, 28).

5 Surprises Regarding “the Anointing”

When the Bible speaks of believers (or even Jesus) being anointed, it is giving us an image of God placing the Holy Spirit upon us as though God is anointing us with oil. To summarize all I have said above, here are 5 surprises about “the anointing” from the New Testament:

1. The Bible only speaks of followers of Christ being anointed by God in 3 verses.
2. The anointing is not a feeling, a spiritual energy, or a gift—it is nothing other than the Holy Spirit.
3. There are not different kinds of anointings—the only anointing is the Holy Spirit—but the Spirit might work in your life in different ways at different times.
4. The biblical emphasis is that all Christians have already been anointed by God.
5. The Bible never says the anointing falls on anyone or that God might anoint you more than once, though these ideas are not entirely inconsistent with the Bible.

The Anointed Pastor and Worship

At the end of the day, you are always safe to say that the worship leader was anointed or that the pastor was anointed—well, as long as they are truly Christians.

I’m not so sure that it works to say that “the worship,” a “song,” or even a “sermon” is anointed, though. Well, at least not if we are to remain biblical.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• The Holy Spirit and Leadership: 7 Biblical and Theological Observations
• 3 Ways the Holy Spirit Works Among Non-Christians
• Myth #4: “The Spirit-Filled Life = Success and Victory”

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post 5 Surprises About “the Anointing” in the New Testament appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.