The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development

Posted by Библията Тв in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought by D.W. Faupel follows the following outline:

1. The Pentecostal Message: In this chapter Faupel explores the pre-formation of the Pentecostal message. He relates its content to the Full Gospel, which includes: salvation, sanctification, baptism with the Holy Spirit, healing and second coming.

2. Context of Pentecostal Thought: In this chapter Faupel gives a brief sketch of the American context at the end of the 19th century. His focus on the American culture as ground for Pentecostalism, however, seemed quite narrow especially in retrospect to the original glassolalia experience by the disciples on the Day of Pentecost.

3. The Pentecostal Message: Faupel offers an interesting observation on the lives, messages, ministries and outcomes of three major pre-Pentecostal American figures. He writes of J.A. Dowie. Frank W. Sandford and Charles Parham.

4. The Coming of the Latter Rain: Faupel begins the story of Seymuor as a continuation of the historical formation of the Pentecostal Movement linking it back to the ministry of Parham. He explores the beginning of the Azusa Street revival and its affect on Los Angeles, the United States and worldwide.

5. Defining the Parameters of Pentecostal Though: The end of Faupel’s story focuses on the outcomes of the Latter Rain phenomenon. Main concern of the plot is the ministry of Durham in Chicago, who proposes the idea of Finished Work. Durham claims that thought Calvary there are only two works of grace, the salvation experience and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The sanctification, he proposes, comes in the life of the believer through the salvation experience.

30 Comments

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Joshua Nielsen I read your 3am post on black friday with some true theological regret…

    WHY is a post like this posed in a Pentecostal Theology group that is neither reformed calvinist NOR dispensation baptist The boxing of pentecstal eschatology in these non-pentecostal terms is pretty absurd Defining the Parameters of Pentecostal eschatology focuses on the outcomes of the Latter Rain phenomenon. Main concern of the plot is the ministry of Durham in Chicago, who proposes the idea of Finished Work. Durham claims that thought Calvary there are only two works of grace, the salvation experience and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The sanctification, he proposes, comes in the life of the believer through the salvation experience. We have come far from Durham on any reformed terms within theology not to even mention Pentecostalism has never held the dispensation view like MacArthur – an abnormal amalgamation that even RichardAnna Boyce cannot fully defend though he’s tried here before The claim in the post for a single Jewish audience disregards the very holistic international and global per se make of Pentecost during Acts 2 and beyond Not to mention that when we arrive in Revelation the whole Jewish argument goes down as none of the 7 churches is truly Jewish Just think about it for a minute WHY force a non-Pentecostal term eschatology into a Pentecostal group ? I am copying your post as a reference

    3 hrs
    Let’s delve into some kingdom theology here. A Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologian argue about the kingdom of God in relation to the gospel:

    Dispensationalist (D): The gospel of the kingdom was exclusively to the Jews. We all know Jesus did not proclaim the cross as part of his good news but rather the kingdom. His good news concerned the promised Davidic Kingdom. Notice also how past Matthew 12 the rejection of the kingdom was complete and the ‘good news of the kingdom’ was no longer offered to that generation. This same gospel of the kingdom was never proclaimed to the Gentiles.

    Covenant Theologian (CT): This ignores the fact that the kingdom of God is proclaimed in Acts after Christ’s death and resurrection in the church age. Note how the book of Acts is framed in such a way that mentions of the kingdom form an inclusio, like bookends, for the entire account in Acts 1:3 and the very last verse in 28:31. Not only that but the exact phrase used by Jesus in Luke 4:43 “proclaim the good news of the kingdom” is repeated verbatim in Acts 8:12 in Philip’s preaching to the Samaritans, and Paul also preaches the kingdom in Acts 19:8 to men in Ephesus. The preaching of the kingdom continues in Acts and is coupled with the proclamation of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12; 28:23, 31).

    D.: You have conveniently left off one crucial observation. In all cases none of those occasions were spoken to Gentiles. Acts 19:8 was spoken in a Synagogue among Jewish men, and again in Acts 28 the topic appears again exclusively in the context of a Jewish audience. As for the Samaritans they are counted as wayward Jews and had their own version of observance of the law of Moses, and are not properly Gentiles. Therefore you see, the gospel of the kingdom was never preached to the Gentiles.

    CT: You also have overlooked something: If the proclamation of the kingdom of God was retracted to the current generation after they rejected it by the end of Matthew 12 how then can you explain that it is proclaimed afresh in Acts 8:12 after the cross, and is still called ‘good news’ or ‘gospel’?

    Thoughts on this?

    perhaps some further study in PT eschatology should be recommended

    http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/pentecostal-degree-program-in-eschatology/

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Gary Micheal Epping Tony Richie J.D. King Paul L. King Billy Monroe Poff Steve Phifer yall have dealt with Pentecostal eschatology quire more than myself What is a true Pentecostal response to the attempt to box our pre-mil anticipation into the dispensation vs Calvinism argument? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/definite-evidence-pat-robertson-takes-a-stance-with-kingdom-now-theology/

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Steve Phifer

      Troy Day The 4 Cardinal doctrines of the A/G are these: 1) JESUS is Savior 2) JESUS is Healer 3) JESUS is Baptizer with Holy Spirit and JESUS is soon coming King. We need all these truths to be the people He has called us to be. The confusion over how and when the Lord will return has caused us to stop preaching. This we must not do! This is a loss we cannot afford

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Joshua Nielsen

      You say the Pentecostal interpretation of the kingdom depends on the Latter Rain movement? Is scripture relevant at all in that? Notice how you cited some modern group/person in Chicago. Following the words of men above the word of God is dangerous. Scripture is the authority on this, not anyone’s favorite movement leaders who weren’t even born when Scripture was penned. However, you did eventually mention some scriptures, which I appreciate.

      I was just using that dialogue as the most condensed means I knew of to provide two contrasting views. I mostly agree on Acts 2. What is your point on Revekation’s 7 churches based on? Is kingdom mentioned there?

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Steve Phifer

    We are meant to live with a unrelenting expectation of the Lord’s return. The only alternative is the attitude the Lord decries in one of his parables “My Lord delays his coming”. This is deadly.

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Steve Phifer

    As for the details, I think a proper Pentecostal view is to believe it all! I am pre tribe because this the best way I see to believe it all. It has nothing to do with dispensationism.

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Joshua Nielsen

    Firstly, if you think no Pentecostals are Dispensationalist or premilleniali then you are wrong. I have that on good authority from attending a church with strong ties to the Assemblies of God. Secondly, why not share it here? I wanted a different perspective to see how a Pentecostal would deal with the discussion if the exegesis of texts. If there is a viable alternative to either view in Pentecostal terms (say like a Vineyard view – which honestly leans more towards the Covenant Theologians view in my imaginary discussion) then great! Let me hear the argument!

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Joshua Nielsen not sure who is your good authority BUT American Pentecostals @ Azusa were NOT in Dispensationalist any way shape your form You are mistaken Dispensationalist for premillenial and this is your first mistake in posting in this Pentecostal group

      Secondly IF you do not know who Durham was and thing he was some modern group/person in Chicago you probably need to do a lot more reading on Pentecostalism before posting BTW I mention Durham only for his negative influence bringing somewhat reform thinking into the Holy Ghost outpouring @ Azusa And this is just for starters on the basics

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Joshua Nielsen

      You’ve apparently never attended a Bible Belt Assemblies of God church if you think some are not Dispensationist and premillenial in belief. I’m not saying all are, but most certainly SOME are.

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Joshua Nielsen

      Anyway, why are you averse to discussing this issue? I’m not arguing for either the CT or Dispensationalist sode of things. I wanted a Pentecostal alternative. How about you help me out and provide an alternate interpretation on my post that you saw?

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Joshua Nielsen

      Also modern = last 200 years roughly. Pentecostalism is younger than that. Durham is not an insoired Biblical author, was my point, so why refer to Durham?

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Joshua Nielsen I already did by referring to the book in my post If you havent read it already your research should start there

      Neither CT nor Dispensationalist is grass roots Pentecostal. If truthful to history one can trace early Pentecostal eschatology back to Ephraim the Syrian and the millennial Preterism of Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 162]

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Joshua Nielsen

      That last bit is actually interesting to me as I have been studying patristics pretty heavily over the last year. Pretty much the majority of the fathers in the first three centuries were millennialists. Eusebius (who was relatively late) disliked the millennialist interpretation though.

      But does your book address Acts 8:12 though, and why the kingdom of God is connected to proclaiming the Gospel?

      The reason I ask is because many books speak of the gospel only in terms of the cross and atonement but then ignore Jesus’ own good news (gospel) of the kingdom, which Philip repeats to the Samaritans, which I think is significant.

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Joshua Nielsen You can present what you have studied of course BUT if you dont know who Durham was or … oh well…

      My initial point – neither Calvin nor dispensations are truly Pentecostal Ppl enforce them on our eschatology where they dont belong and never have I forget if it was Vinson Synan or Donald W. Dayton who made the rightful comment in this group before that DAKE’s definition of dispensation was NOT the same like Scofield and Darby So goes for Pentecostals

      However, Tony Richie, I’ve seen Dake use a lot and I mean a lot from Rev. Clarence Larkin (1850–1924) Clarence was not Pentecostal His Dispensational Truth as firstly brought by DallasTS was not Pentecostal theology About the Pentecostal movement Clarence Larkin wrote:

      “But the conduct of those possessed, in which they fall to the ground and writhe in contortions, causing disarrangement’s of the clothing and disgraceful scenes, is more a characteristic of demon possession, than a work of the Holy Spirit. From what has been said we see that we are living in “Perilous Times,” and that all about us are “Seducing Spirits,” and that they will become more active as the Dispensation draws to its close, and that we must exert the greatest care lest we be led astray.” (“From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire” by Michael L. Brown, pages 197&198) Nelson Banuchi

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Joshua Nielsen

      Okay, so dumb question. I’ve heard of Dake before, but was Dake Pentecostal, or are you at least saying that some or most of what Dake said is agreeable with Pentecostal theology?

      And if so what does he say about whether the gospel of the kingdom (Luke 4:43; 8:1; Acts 8:12) is the same as the gospel of grace and the cross? That’s the only reason I posted in this group. I need further reading on that SPECIFIC topic. Can you direct me more specifically (page numbers in a book, if I’m lucky) where I can read on that topic?

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Tony Richie

    Good morning, friends! I discussed this topic in my piece on “Is Pentecostalism Dispensationalist? An Honest Answer to a Hard Question”. It is available at:
    http://www.christianzionism.org/articles/RichieT01.pdf (March 2007).

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Tony Richie

    PS: If the above link doesn’t work, I uploaded a PDF on our Pentecostal Theology page for easier access. Blessings,

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Thank you so much Can we make this a post for discussion? Has too much valuable info for just a PDF attachment. BTW Dake did NOT include all Scofield in the early first editions in the 60s. Like Joshua Nielsen I have it on a good authority and that is A.J. Bible the publishing editor of recent Dake editions that some of Dake’s original comments were heavily edited and revised. While I dont agree with all Dake I lament deeply such revisions for the sake of historical authenticity of his work. As many authors I would hate for ppl to edit my writings especially post-mortem but I understand the editor’s concerns and desire to avoid tension Dake in his time never intended or considered. But again NO – Dake was very specific and thorough on his sources and did not include all of Scofiled or any other theologian at that matter Many including myself would love to discuss this in the holistic and historical manner you presented it in your PDF study and avoid the youthful explosion of youngish theologians looking to escapade our Pentecostal heritage and contribution to evangelical theology

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Tony Richie

      Troy Day Yes, I’m happy for it to be a post for discussion. I am just trying to make this resource available however may be best. As for Finis Dake and C. I. Scofield, interestingly enough, as a young minister I was given a copy of each as reliable guide for biblical interpretation, esp. prophecy. A Baptist gave me a copy of the Scofield Study Bible and a Pentecostal (Church of God) gave me a copy of Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible. Although almost mesmerized by their copious biblical references, I always felt uncomfortable with elements of their interpretative approach which seemed to compartmentalize the Scriptures. Of course, Scofield’s cessationism was troublesome. Eventually I realized that Dake’s efforts to sidestep that element and place John Nelson Darby’s schema in a Pentecostal format were not satisfactory.

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Tony Richie compartmentalize the Scriptures was the typical model of any Western Bible College Hence the Bible college model is no more – unfortunately

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Kenneth J. Archer

    I highly recommend this historical theological work by David Willaim Faupel!

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Frank Macchia

    A classic.

    • Reply November 29, 2019

      Joshua Nielsen

      Dr. Macchia, would you be able to comment on my post about the gospel of the kingdom of God (which Troy reposted in the comments above) from a Pentecostal perspective, correcting me as necessary? I am trying to do research on this and have reached out to Craig Keener and Darrell Bock before to get different perspectives. I’ll tag you on the original post.

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Kenneth J. Archer Frank Macchia True. Wish Bill wrote another one or at least blogged about the great points he made in this one from time time. As pointed above his bringing of Durham is balanced and truthful. I recently did some research on Frank and Anna Bartleman and they were quite fond of Durham at least at first from what Bartleman wrote in his chronicles However, they both chose to leave Azusa for the mission field when after Druham theological splits and denominations began forming…

  • Reply November 29, 2019

    David Willaim Faupel

    Surprised to see my work bringing such interesting discussion so many years after its publication. Thanks Troy for such an excellent summary.

    • Reply November 30, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Bill, you need to write another one soon BTW did you come up with any details (apart from her husband’s books) on Anna Ladd Bartleman in your research?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.