As the name indicates, Horizon College and “Seminary” (PAOC school in Saskatoon) offers seminary courses towards a graduate degree. I mention this because we are often overlooked and forgotten even in PAOC circles.

In fact, Horizon was the first PAOC school to have a partnership with a Seminary, starting way back in the 1960’s in partnership with Lutheran Theological Seminary. In 1968 Ron Kydd was the first person to receive his MDiv through our partnership with LTS (he studied here before UMan). By 1974 (and for at least a decade) we had at least one student a year graduating with an MDiv through this partnership. By the 1980s we were functioning with distinct graduate level syllabi. We still have the partnership with LTS and since 2007 we have also offered graduate courses towards an MA or MDiv in Pentecostal Studies with Providence Theological Seminary.

Click here for a list of our seminary programs in partnership with Providence.

I recently sent this in an e-mail to someone and thought it was worth posting here too…

Arminians believe in divine election/predestination. We have to. It is in the Bible! The question is whether or not predestination is based solely on God’s will (Calvinists= unconditional election) or whether there is some basis upon which God preordains people (Arminians= conditional election). Arminians typically have argued that God’s condition for predestination is God’s foreknowledge of how we will respond to God.

Texts like:

• 1 Peter 1:1-2- To God’s elect … who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.
• Romans 8:29- For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Some Arminians (and Calvinists) also teach that predestination/election is a corporate reality. That is, rather than God electing certain individuals to salvation, God elected a people (in the OT it was Israel, in the NT it is the Church). So, God determined he would have a Church, but not necessarily who would be in and who would be out. Many (if not all) of the key “Calvinistic” texts actually provide support for this view:

•  Ephesians 1:4-5- For he chose US in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined US to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. (notice the plural)

Consider also:

• 1 Peter 2:9- But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (Here election is explicitly corporate)

As a side note, since there is nothing explicit in the PAOC statement of faith about election, the PAOC statement of faith does allow for a Calvinist view of election. I do know there are some PAOC pastors out there who lean toward Calvinism. However, “5.5.1 Atonement of Christ” in the statement of faith explicitly states that Jesus died for all, thereby rejecting the Calvinist view of “limited atonement” (i.e. that Jesus died only for the elect).

If you are interested in reading further, there is a great book out there called Perspectives on Election: Five Views (preview on Google books) edited by Chad Owen Brand. Five different authors  present their views on election and the authors also respond to each other’s chapters.

Wolfgang Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. xiii + 267 pp. $32.00 paperback.

Thanks to Brill’s (a publisher) generous author agreements, I am able to post my review here for those interested.

You can view the table of contents on amazon.com.

My review was published in Pneuma 34.1 (2012): 111-112 (I am required to include a link to their web page here).

Back in the “good old days” of pentecostalism, testimonies were common (i.e., an autobiographical story of how God had worked in a person’s life). At the Azusa Street revival testimonies were not only shared regularly by people in attendance, but they would also sometimes read letters during their meetings from people who had been inspired by the revival. The practice of sharing testimonies continued in many pentecostal churches. When I was a youth, we would sometimes even have whole services that were set aside to give people time to share their testimonies.

What happened to the testimonies? It is rare that I hear testimonies in services these days. The most likely time to hear them is during a baptismal service. I suppose in some churches, they are taking place in small groups instead of in the Sunday worship service. But even then, it depends on how the small group is structured.

Who cares if testimonies are gone? (or sparce.) I do! They can contribute to the life of the church in many ways. 1/ Testimonies encourage others in the church that they can do similar things with God’s help (e.g., share the Gospel with a neighbor). In a sense, testimonies make stories from the Bible a contemporary reality. 2/ Testimonies help people in the church realize that they are not alone in their struggles and that God can help them in their struggles too. 3/ Testimonies are a way that the congregation can disciple one another. For example, when one person testifies that God spoke to them in some way, other people start thinking, “Hey, maybe God might speak to me too.” It is one thing to hear a pastor tell such stories, but it is a whole different story when “a normal person” from the congregation shares such stories.

I suppose one reason that testimonies are less common in my own denomination is because many churches are concerned with having a professionally run service—things need to go smoothly. Testimonies can hinder that professionalism. Someone might talk for too long. Or, someone might just say something really strange and weird. Someone (I don’t remember who) once said that church is like a family reunion—we know that some relative(s) is going to say some things that will not be appropriate, but because they are part of the family, we still let them speak (most of the time ).

To deal with the concern of professionalism, quality control can happen with testimonies. For example, a pastor could invite people to share their testimonies with him regularly, and the pastor could invite a person to share her/his testimony with the congregation when the pastor felt it would be appropriate. Another way of having ‘quality control’ is by video recording (and editing) testimonies before services (this allows for time and content control). The key for success in both of the above is that the congregation needs to be encouraged to share their testimonies with the pastor (or someone) on a regular basis so that the pastor is aware of who she/he might invite to share with the congregation.

“I have made the Sovereign Lord my refuge; I will tell of all your deeds” (Psalm 73:28). “We will not hide them from their children; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord, his power, and the wonders he has done” (Psalm 78:4).

Any other thoughts on why testimonies aren’t as common these days or the place of testimonies in a worship service?

I have been tasked with compiling a list of all PAOC credential holders who are either in possession of or working toward a Doctorate in some area theology related (e.g., ministry, Bible, religion, history, sociology). This may include YOU! Please pass the link to this web page on to people that you know. If you have credentials from the PANOL, I would be glad to hear from you too.

I am looking for the following information (or whatever you are comfortable providing):

• Name
• Degree, institution, and convocation year (or in progress)
• General area of study (e.g. NT, Systematic Theology)
• Primary areas of expertise (e.g., Pneumatology, Reformation history)
• Dissertation title
• Current placement (e.g., church, school)
• Contact information

You can either post your information below as a comment on this blog or e-mail me your information at agabriel(at)horizon.edu. I would prefer that you NOT e-mail me your full CV. Rather, please just send me the information as listed above so I can easily copy and paste it into my database.

Thanks!

Again, please pass the link to this web page on to people that you know.

To get the party started, I will start off with my information below…

Reflections from a journal article (see below for full information):

1/ The church should be a “fellowship in the Spirit” (p. 156ff.). This means that the church is not just gathered together by the Spirit (a fellowship created by the Spirit), but that, “In the Pentecostal model of church, the key and defining thing is to have a living experience of the Spirit” (p. 157). It is a continual challenge for all churches (especially, Pentecostal churches who should claim to have this as their ethos), to make room for this to happen. I know this has been even more of a struggle since many PAOC churches have moved away from having regular Sunday evening services, where the congregation was often given more time to be in the presence of God. Of course, a church should be able to have a “living experience of the Spirit” through their current format of a Sunday morning service as well! Further, this should also happen in each person’s own life, but if the church as a whole does not practice this, it is not teaching the members of the congregation how to do this, nor the importance of it.

Challenge 1: Does your church offer “a living experience of the Spirit?”

2/ The church is a community gifted by the Spirit (p. 159ff.). According to the NT, each member is already gifted by the Spirit (1 Cor 14:7; 1 Pet 4:10)…(and yet we are also still called to desire the gifts, 1 Cor 14:1). I suppose one problem is that we often limit what we think of as “spiritual gifts.” Regardless, we are challenged to “resist the clericalization of the church” and become a community “characterized by mutual interdependence and a free fellowship with gifts flowing, where each ministers to the others and unity is in the diversity of the members” (p. 160). When functioning correctly, the church is not “one big mouth and a lot of little ears” (i.e., the preacher and the congregation). This challenges not only church leaders to empower and lead their people to utilize their gifts in ministry (whether ‘official’ ministry, or even just praying over post-service coffee), but it also challenges congregants to step up and use their gifts.

Challenge 2: Is your church a community where every gift is utilized? Or, to speak in Pauline language (1 Cor 12:11-12), are all of the body parts working?

May God help the church to be a “church in the power of the Spirit!”

As always, I welcome comments and feedback.

I may be able to share this article with those who are interested (agabriel(at)horizon.edu). Pinnock raises 6 overall themes (he also has much to say about the grounding and content of the church’s mission).

Clark H. Pinnock, “Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit: The Promise of Pentecostal Ecclesiology,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14.2 (2006): 147-165.

I am not totally anti-four spiritual laws (although I prefer to call them, “spiritual truths”), especially if they include a call to repentance (and not just “belief” in God—Mark 1:15). Nevertheless, I am among those who wonder if there is perhaps a better way to approach evangelism than starting with “you’re a sinner” (that sure is “good news!” isn’t it ). What might be some other approaches to evangelism?

1. Invite a friend to talk with God (just wherever you are or perhaps invite them to Church). Basically, if salvation includes a relationship with God, then why not introduce people to God, instead of just teaching people concepts about God. I have blogged about the idea here.

2. Related to the above, help a person find how God has already been at work in or around them. Ask them a question like, do you think God has ever spoken to you? How do you see God in the world?

3. Pray with people. God will work in their life and they will see it.

4. Ask people about what matters to them. What do they crave in life (love, a sense of value, adventure, etc.)? And then consider how God might be the answer to those existential needs. From the documentary “Crave” (view it here, if you don’t want to watch the whole thing, check it out at the 17:40 mark), I gather this is the idea behind Erin McManus’s book Soul Cravings. Some philosophers are also moving in the direction of considering existential reasons for belief in God rather than only rational arguments.

5. Tell somebody about Jesus. I don’t mean tell them the “spiritual laws.” I just mean, tell them about Jesus. Who is he? What did he do in life? What did he teach? It is interesting that the four “Gospels” (meaning, good news!) talk a lot about Jesus, not just about his death! Scot McKnight has blogged on this idea.

6. Tell how God changed your life. What difference has Jesus made for you? Isn’t that good news? (That is, gospel.) The 4 Gospels in the Bible were once titled, “The Gospel According to Luke” (John, Matthew, etc.). And the stories in these 4 Gospels include many stories about how Jesus made a difference in people’s lives (e.g. John 9:25). If Jesus makes a difference in your life, that is your “Gospel”: call it the “Gospel According to Andrew.”

I don’t know about you, but I think in most situations I’d be more comfortable with one of the above approaches to evangelism than starting with, “you’re a sinner,” or even, “do you know where you would go if you died tonight?” And the above approaches definitely fit better with the “relationship evangelism” that many people talk about, which is less a shot-gut approach to evangelism and more so an approach to evangelism that takes place over time. I don’t think the above approaches are a cop-out. Rather, they are about sharing the Gospel, which is the very essence of evangelism (“evangelism” comes from the Greek euangelizomai, meaning, “I proclaim” and related to the Greek euangelium, meaning, “good news”).

I invite additional proposals for and discussion of alternative ways to evangelize other than through sharing the four spiritual laws.

We were discussing the doctrine of sin, and the question came: “What do you think of generational curses?”

This depends on what you mean by a generational curse. If a person means (as this page describes it) that a person can be socialized to learn sinful habits from parental influence, then the idea makes good sense (although such an idea doesn’t require the label of “generational curse”). However, it seems when people use the phrase “generational curse,” they generally have in mind the idea that a person is experiencing “spiritual bondage” that involves demonic influence as a result of sin in previous generations (for example, see the ‘in a nutshell’ section on this page).

Where does this idea come from? The main biblical text is:

Exodus 20:5-6~ You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (There are verses others like it that are very close in wording.)

There are many problems with trying to get the “generational curse” theory out of this text. First, while it affirms punishment for numerous generations, it also affirms God’s love for those who obey him. So what happens if the second generation obeys God? Are they still cursed? To follow the logic behind the “generational curse” theory, then the second generation, and thousands more, would be loved by God regardless of their response to him. Rather than teaching a logic of generational cursing, this text seems to be contrasting the expansive love of God (to a thousand!) versus the punishment of God (to just a few). Consider also Exodus 34:6-7.

The even bigger problem with concluding that this text teaches “generational curses” is that the word “curse” doesn’t occur in the text! Rather, it speaks of punishment, and the punishment doesn’t involve demonic influence (that could hypothetically be denounced, as the generational curse proponents teach); the punishment comes from God.

Of course, there are other biblical texts that might point to the idea of generational curses. Consider, for example,

Deuteronomy 11:26-28~ See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse; the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. (Again, there are other texts like this.)

However, unlike the text from Exodus above, there is here no sense of generational continuation from the curse. Furthermore, numerous biblical texts (even in the Old Testament!) make it clear that “The child will not share the guilt of the parent” (Ezekiel 18:20)

Just to be clear, I am not denying that demons have real influences in this world. I am, however, denying that the Bible teaches that generational curses exist.

More importantly, (and here I agree with those who talk about generational curses), I would certainly affirm that God can (and does!) set people free from all kinds of nasty habits or oppressive thinking. One thing we can proclaim with certainty, is that whatever curse there was for not obeying the law in the Old Testament (see above), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Galatians 3:13).

If you are interested in reading further about this idea, this is a good article.

“My ways are not your ways!” I’ve heard Christians quote this verse in numerous contexts to suggest that God’s ways are completely different than and even contrary to human reasoning. Let me give two examples:

1/ The problem of evil- some might say we could never understand why God allows evil (or some specific evils) because God’s ways are just plain different than ours.

2/ Discerning God’s will- some might say that when a person senses God is leading them, the guidance probably won’t make sense. Further, it probably won’t even seem wise (which further allows that person to neglect the wise counsel of others).

The problem with using the above quote these ways is … it is just plain wrong! This verse is found in Isaiah 55:8, but the context of the verse makes it very clear that the author (or God speaking through the author) has a specific meaning in mind. Verse 7 makes it clear that the manner in which God’s ways differ from human ways is that if “the wicked forsake their ways and . . . turn to the Lord” then God “will have mercy on them” and even “freely pardon” them. In other words, God’s ways differ from human ways because he will forgive freely!

This verse is NOT suggesting that God acts unreasonably or in a way that humans could never understand. While it is true that we might not fully understand why God allows for some evils, it doesn’t mean that God has no good reason for it (it just means that we don’t understand it…yet). God acts in wise and reasonable ways. Of course, we don’t always know what those reasons are, but that is significantly different than saying that “his ways are not my ways.”

Speaking in tongues is not the only sign that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. When Jesus told the disciples that he was going to baptize them in the Holy Spirit he didn’t even mention tongues. Rather, he focused on the fact that this was preparation for their ministry. He said that they would receive power to witness to Jesus Christ throughout the world (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8). One sign that the early believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit must indeed be that “they spoke the word of God boldly” (Acts 4:31).

Another indicator of Spirit baptism was that, “The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people” (Acts 5:12). The apostles also received guidance from the Spirit (Acts 16:10). Another sign that a person had been baptized in the Spirit was that they would overflow with praise to God (Acts 10:46). Dreams, visions, and prophecy were also indicators that one had been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17). The long discourse on the unity of the church, which occurs in Acts 2:42-47 directly after the story of Pentecost, indicates that church unity was also a sign that people were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Considering the biblical emphasis on the relationship between the Spirit and love (consider Rom 5:5 and 1 Cor 13), William J. Seymour, leader of the Azusa Street Revival, viewed love as the key sign of Spirit baptism. He wrote that if your life did not “measure with the fruits of the Spirit…you have not the baptism with the Holy Spirit.”[1] In light of all of the above, it would be fair to say that there are many signs of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

For those who might be wondering, my credentials are secure . The section in the PAOC Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths on Baptism in the Holy Spirit (5.6.3) mentions numerous signs of Spirit baptism (although not specifically using the term ‘sign’). And these signs are listed even before any mention of speaking in tongues. Specifically, the statement affirms that through baptism in the Holy Spirit a person “comes to know Christ in a more intimate way and receives power to witness and grow spiritually.” Pentecostals frequently teach that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence that a person has experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but this does not mean that there are no other indicators that should be found after this initial evidence. Hence, D. W. Kerr, a leader in writing the Assemblies of God (USA) Statement of Fundamental Truths, wrote that, “We can consistently say that ‘tongues are not the only sign of the baptism,’ and yet be just as consistent in saying that ‘tongues are the sign of the baptism.’”[2] Similarly, James E. Purdie (founding principal of the first PAOC Bible College), wrote that evidences of the infilling of the Holy Spirit include “a much greater passion for souls; a greater reverence for the Word of God, and a greater love toward all true Christian people, as well as the deepening of the prayer life . . . [and a person's] earnestness to help others.”[3]

My concern is that too many Pentecostals have made Spirit baptism only about speaking in tongues. Although I regularly experience the value of speaking in tongues, I appreciate the words of Minnie Abrams (Pentecostal missionary in India), who wrote in 1911, “When I see anybody seeking to speak in tongues rather than seeking the power to save souls I am grieved.”[4] It worries me that so many Pentecostal sermons on the baptism in the Holy Spirit focus so extensively on speaking in tongues. These sermons often concentrate on proving that if you are baptized in the Spirit, you will speak in tongues, and then proceed to an altar call with the preface, “this is how you speak in tongues.” I am concerned because Spirit baptism is not just about speaking in tongues and because presenting Spirit baptism in this manner makes Spirit baptism all about personal experience (“do you have it?”), or, even worse, we can present Spirit baptism as only a one-time personal experience. In our preaching, let us not neglect the numerous signs that should follow Spirit baptism and the personal responsibility to utilize the anointing of Spirit baptism for ministry by keeping in step with the Spirit.

See also the Assemblies of God (USA) position paper, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Initial Experience and Continuing Evidences of the Spirit-Filled Life”

Key words: sign, signs, evidence, evidences, Spirit baptism, baptized, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues

---

[1] William J. Seymour, “To the Baptized Saints,” Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles), 1:9, (June-September 1907), 2.1.

[2] D. W. Kerr, “‘The,’ ‘A,’ or ‘An’—Which?” Pentecostal Evangel (21 January 1922), 7.

[3] Cited in Peter Althouse, “The Ecumenical Significance of Canadian Pentecostalism,” in Winds from the North: Canadian Contributions to the Pentecostal Movement, ed. Michael Wilkinson and Peter Althouse (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 72.

[4] Minnie F. Abrahms, “The Object of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Latter Rain Evangel (May 1911), 10.