Toward A Desirable Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics

Toward A Desirable Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics (Chang-soung, Lee).pdf

Toward A Desirable Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics

 

Chang-Soung Lee

 

 

I. Introduction

 

Now, in Pentecostalism the historicity of written experiences in the Bible are being deprived by the unfit and destructive hermeneutics, and as a result, the foundation of Pentecostalism: readers should re-experience the experiences written in the Bible, especially the Baptism in the Spirit with speaking in tongues, is being destroyed. Therefore, this article will search a desirable and constructive biblical hermeneutics to preserve the foundation and further to establish solid Pentecostalism. A constructive Pentecostal hermeneutics should contain “Consistent Experiences Interpretation” which makes the experiences of present readers consistent with pre-written experiences and written experiences(of the Bible), anti-Enlightenmental “Interpretation Performed by Born Again Reason,” “Interpretation Based upon the Biblical World View,” and “Continuation-Cannonical-Historical-Grammatical-Theological Interpretation.”

 

 

II. Consistent Experiences Interpretation:

making pre-written experience, written experience, and present experience consistent with each other

A desirable Pentecostal interpretation, first of all, like Parham’s premodern/precritical interpretation, should be “consistent experiences interpretation” which admits the historicity of pre-written Pentecostal experiences and written Pentecostal experiences, and can make the Pentecostal experiences of present readers consistent with the two experiences. As Arrington says, since early Christians our faith has been based upon the events witnessed in history. Faith and hermeneutics requests a concern of the history which the text of the Bible refers and from which the text came. And as Arrington correctly points, Pentecostals believe that supernatural events occurred in the Biblical times, and written in the Bible can also be reoccurred today. The written experiences in the text of the Bible refers to the experiences truly occurred in history before being written. Pentecostal hermeneutics should guide present readers to follow what the written experiences refers to, and to recognize the pre-written experiences. And it should make room for present readers to re-experience the pre-written experiences. A desirable Pentecostal hermeneutics is hermeneutics that makes three experiences: pre-written experiences, written experiences, and present experiences, consistent with each other like one experience. It is hermeneutics that can let pre-written experiences correspondent with written experiences, and further, help present readers to reexperience the experiences.

 

Pre-written Pentecostal Experience = Written Pentecostal Experience = Present Pentecostal Experience

 

 

III. Anti-Enlightenmental Interpretation Performed by Born Again Reason

 

The method of Historical Criticism came from an epistemological presupposition. An exegetic method is formed upon a presupposition. A New Testament historical critical scholar, Raymond E. Brown insists that historical critical exegesis has no relation to philosophy. But as Giszczak says, every field of studies is supported by philosophy. Philosophical models form the foundation upon which all disciplines are established. Metaphysics, epistemology, and logic ect. are the unintentional companions of every science. As McCarthy rightly points, historical critical scholars have never stopped to combine their own method with a philosophical system, furthermore, in most cases, they even have not recognized the philosophical system. Both Modern and Postmodern Pentecostal theologians seem to do not recognize what presupposition lies at the basis of historical critical method at all, or to be indifferent to the presupposition, or to fail to come to the kernel of the presupposition.

It is Kant’s view of reason, the hidden epistemological presupposition that is at the basis of historical criticism which both Modern and Postmodern Pentecostal interpretations eagerly want to use at the first step, the exegesis of the Bible. As Foucault and McCarthy grasp, the word, “critical” in “historical criticism” indicates to use the “critical” approach and “scientific criteria” of Kant. Higher/historical criticism, characterized especially by the form-criticism of Hermann Gunkel, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann, is an offspring of the Enlightenment, to which Kant gave crucial contributions. It is urgently needed to uncover the presupposition which is still effective in historical criticism.

Kant’s pure reason degrades God and supernatural things to mere fictions. For Kant, the special function of pure reason is to arrange the transcendental ideals from outer objects into one system, viz., to give the ideals relationship following one principle. He applies “transzendentalen” to all the knowledges which are occupied by the forms of our knowledges of the objects rather than which are occupied by the objects themselves. The objects or reasoning ideals which do not come directly from sense experiences are always fancies. Transcendental Idealism thinks that mental phenomena are not the things themselves. And for it, if mental phenomena are separated from what are perceived, they are just imaginative transcendent fantasies(transzendentalen Scheine). Kant asserts all the actual are presented to us as an inner phenomenon(Erscheinung, Phänomenon), but never as noumenon or thing in itself(Ding an Sich selbst). In Kant’s transcendental metaphysics, ideals such as spirit, freedom, and the being of God are only the objects of faith rather than of knowledge. As an issue of experience, Reality(Realität) has a relation only with senses, not with a form of thinking, and man can indulge in making fantasy out of it. The only criterion of reality is perception which presents matter to the concept. For Kant, the absolutely inevitable being, God and the world, are not objective entities outside of the concept of pure reason, in other words, my notion(Idee), but things just in our thinking, of which the real existences are not known but only a possibilities(Möglichkeit) exist. For him, we make objects for ourselves through synthesizing a priori cognitions in thinking, so we are the creators of the objects which we think subjectively in thinking.

Kant confines a discussion about God only to practical reason, further, makes God just fictional(erdichtungen) in a mere hypothesis, and unvarifiable, to encourage the moral behavior of man himself, only through the demand of practical reason(Die Postulate der reinen praktischen Vernunft). Because Kant’s reason makes written experiences fictions, it differentiates pre-written experiences from written experiences and written experiences from the experiences of present readers, consequently precludes present readers from reexperiencing those experiences.

 

pre-written experiences ≠ written experiences(fictions) ≠ the experiences of present readers

 

On the surface, Postmodern Pentecostal hermeneutics seems to try to overcome Modern, but in fact, refuses just the domination of Modern reason and rationality, not themselves. Postmodern has not overcome or excluded Enlightenment reason of Kant, but chosen symbiosis. In a similar vein, under the justification of supporting Pentecostal anti-intellectualism, Vondey wrongly insists that the anti-intellectualism of Pentecostalists does not deny the importance of intellect, but its supremacy in pursuing knowledge, and not disapprove the rationality of reason, but distrusts that reason is the only enough tool.

Kant’s Enlightenment reason should be thrown away for Pentecostal hermeneutics, and the reason which can admit and perceive the absolute transcendence should be rebuilded. The reasons of Luke or Paul who wrote the books of the Bible, Augustine, Calvin, and Wesley are the same reasons of Enlightenments. But the outlooks on reason of both sides are very different with each other. The problem is not reason, but the outlook on reason which is decisive of epistemology.

Apostle Paul presents a priori ability and a posteriori perversion of reason to perceive the divinity, and the only accurate way of reason to perceive the divinity. Paul argues that innately, the reason(nou'") of people can perceive(noouvmena) the invisible divinity through observing all creation by their eyes. For him, “the invisible things of Him”(taV gaVr a*ovrata au*tou') are “eternal power and divine nature”(te a*i?dio" au*tou' duvnami" kaiV qeiovth")(Rom. 1:19-20).

Paul asserts that people themselves let their reasons fall into darkness, and the reasons are distorting God. Paul says although God made people can apprehend his divinity through observing His creation, but because they did not bring glory to God, and then their thinking(dialogismov") became vain(e*mataiwvqhsan) and their unintelligent(a*suvneto") heart were darkened(e*skotivsqh). In the darkness people are distorting God, and making His creation idols(ei*kovna)(Rom. 1:21-23).

According to Paul, God wants to correct such a perverted understanding of God. God is giving people a new way to know more accurately his own glory through Jesus Christ besides the old one knowing his own power and divinity through his creation. For Paul, when God himself sheds light(fw'" lavmysei) on the minds of people which are in darkness, they can perceive the glory of God which are in the face of Jesus Christ(2Cor. 4:6).

Augustinus’ reason is looking beyond sensory presentations. For him, reason(mens, ratio) can be used as the synonym of mind(nous, animus) which contains thinking(cogitatio) or spirit(spiritus), even soul(anima). The object of reason is not the presentations(phantasmata) offered by the sense organs of the body, but the things of pure reason, and intellect comprehends things at the core of the soul(acies mentis) or at the place in which the light of reason itself(ipsum lumen rationis) is shining.

According to Augustinus, such power of reason was decayed by sin, so reason can not grasp truth as it is. For him. the causes of disability of reason to recognize naturally truth as it is, are three obstacles produced by sin. on the basis of 1 John 2:16, “because all that is in the world -- the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the ostentation of the life -- is not of the Father, but of the world,” he presents the obstacles: carnal desire(concupiscentia [passiones]), arrogance(superbia[iactantia]), and intelligent curiosity(curiositas). Nevertheless, actually such vices are just the manifestations of distortions and perversions of soul’s cognizing eternal things, perfect grasping truth, and desiring eternal rest in truth.

Because of such disability of dark reason, Augustinus insists the whole recognition of reason only through the illumination of God’s light. For him, there is something distinguished from the objects of intellect, that is light. If soul receives the light, it can see and understand all things truly. The light is God himself. Soul is a created being. But, soul was created in the image of God, so it is rational and intelligent. If soul tries to see the light, it will tremble with fear because of its weakness, and realize its own disability. From the root, the light, all understandings come out. Truth exists in itself before being discovered by reason. only because the light transcending time, space, and illusions(lumen sine spatio locorum et temporum et sine ullo spatiorum talium phantasmate) illuminates reason, reason can see truth. And the light is God because God is truth(Deus veritas).

Calvin on one hand appreciates reason positively when it is used appropriately, on the other hand negatively when used excessively as Philosophers’ use. His positive valuation of reason is based upon the fact that reason was created by God. The negative appraisal is built upon the misery that reason is a corrupted, abnormal, and deformed remnant because of the destructive invasion of sin. Nevertheless, the possibility of the corrupted reason to know God and His salvation is coming from God’s grace being given through the Spirit of rebirth.

The theological method of John Wesley is called “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral” including “reason.” Outler sees that Wesley adds “experience” to the triple method of the traditional Anglican Church: the Bible, tradition, and reason. Wesley calls reason “the highest gift of God.” His religion is built upon reason, so his religion is agreeable to reason. He says, “We join with you then in desiring a religion founded on reason, and every way agreeable thereto. . . . this is the very religion we preach: a religion evidently founded on, and every way agreeable to eternal reason . . .” Wesley chooses a middle way between scorn and applause, under and over estimation of reason. For him, negatively reason can not produce faith, but positively can understand the revelation written in the Bible and doctrines, give logical unity to them, and prove the doctrines. His proving doctrines by reason is following the model of Christ and his disciples. According to him, “Saviour and all his Apostles, in the midst of their greatest Miracles, never failed to prove every Doctrine they taught by clear Scripture and cogent Reason.” Using reason also, Wesley studies the Bible, preaches, and persuades people.

It can be said that Wesley’s epistemology synthesizes rationalism following Plato insisting that the ability to know god is implanted into people by god, and empiricism following Aristotle insisting that people can know something only through five senses experience. Although in the time of Wesley John Locke’s empiricism was dominant and Wesley included empiricism, but concerning the un-five senses knowledge of God, it seems that he inclined more toward rationalism in that he believed all the knowledge of God came from God himself. Wesley integrated two traditions through developing “spiritual sensorium”(spiritual senses). Because his “Spiritual senses” approve that five senses can experience God directly, spiritual senses have a kind of element of empiricism. on the contrary, the senses are rational in that they are implanted in people by God Himself. As an immediate perception of spiritual reality, Spiritual senses are created by God through He lets the Spirit inhabit in the spirit of a man. Wesley was born in 1703 and departed in 1791, and Kant was born in 1724 and departed in 1804. They were almost contemporaries. But their epistemological views of reason and the results were very different with each other. Wesley’s using reason was very dissimilar from enlightenment’s using.

Adequate reason for Pentecostal hermeneutics is “born again reason.” Whoever has reason can not escape from studying the Bible through reason. Pursuing knowledge through using adequate reason should be encouraged. The question is the view of reason. An ill and wrong reason should not be used to read and study the Bible. As Paul, Augustinus, and Calvin are aware well, present reason has double sides colliding with each other. on one side, reason was created as the image of God, and so has ability to hear the word of God, but on the other side, it has disability to hear the word of God because it was corrupted by Sin. Ignoring that fact, Kant gives pure reason disability to hear the word of God, and makes the disability inherent. He restricts the ability only to practical reason, and makes God exist fictionally only in hypothesis by the request of practical reason. But, in fact, from the heredity of original Sin, the disability of reason is not a priori but a posteriori. Reason corrupted by Sin can be recovered to a certain extent by the Grace of God, and become to have the ability through the work of the Spirit. This reason can be called “born again reason.” If God sheds his light on reason by his grace, lets it hear, born again reason which is different with Kant’s “enlightened but schizophrenic reason” can hear the word of God. Kant dose not admit this. Kant refuses God’s light, and receives his own light. Seeing the Bible through Kant’s dissociated reason, Historical criticism tries on one had to exclude the supernatural from the Bible and to make the Bible myth through pure reason, on the other hand to project so called demythologized kerygma which is created fictionally by the request, in other words, the moral consciousness of man himself through practical reason. In the interpretation of the Bible, the role of reason is necessary and decisive. But self dissociated and ill enlightenment reason should not be permitted to take part in the execution of the holy work. For a desirable Pentecostal hermeneutics, the “anti enlightenment born again reason” of the writers of the Bible, Augustinus, Calvin, and Wesley ect. which acknowledged the inbreaking of the absolute transcendent should be recovered and matured. only when the Bible is interpreted by such “sana ration,” true Pentecostal interpretation can be possible.

 

 

IV. Interpretation Based upon the Biblical World-View

 

The world view of Modernist built upon Kant’s reason is very similar to the world view of Sadducees in New Testament days. Modernists insist that modern people should admit enlightenment reason agnostic against the supernatural essence. But such view of reason is as same as ancient Sadducees’ view of the reason. What live in modern times are just Modernists’ bodies, but their philosophical presupposition is contemporary with that of ancient Sadducees. In 1925, J. Roswell Flower compared Modernists to Sadducees at a graduation ceremony of Central Bible Institute established by Assemblies of God. According to him, Modernists are Sadducees because they do not believe the miracles and wonders written in the Bible. Modernists as present Sadducees are holding one world view in common with ancient Sadducees.

There will be someone who sees Postmodern world view as similar as Pentecostal world view upon the reason that Postmodern world view can be described as “Open Systems paradigm.” Of course, it can be said that Pentecostal world view is wholistic and inclusive world view to overcome Modernists’ separation of being into two realms: spiritual realm and materialistic realm following Kantian dividing reason. Pentecostals recognize the interaction between spiritual realm and materialistic realm. Postmodern world view recognizes such interaction between the two realms too. Nevertheless, Pentecostal world view is incompatible with Postmodern world view. All present people is not a Sadducee Modernist. As Ervin was aware also, some present people are “far more amenable to the miraculous or even the pseudo-miraculous than either liberal or existentialist theology has been willing to admit.” Certain present people are present idol worshipers similar with ancient idol(Baal, Asherah, and different spirits) worshipers. Possessing possibility of becoming present idol worshipers, Postmodernists are overlooking this point. The relativeness included in Postmodern world view would be effected by Einstein’s “Relativitätstheorie.” Because of being open to the supernatural, but relative, plural, syncretic, such world view that can not make distinction between good spirits and evil spirits, can not admit the Biblical absolute God of Pentecostals. As Clark points out well, because the two world views are antagonistic, Pentecostals should not be swept away by Modern stream or Postmodern wave which struggle to be related to and proper for modern non biblical world views, but go forward positively to change modern secular world views into Biblical world view.

In desirable Pentecostal interpretation, the world view of pre-written people, that of the author, and that of present reader do not collide with each other, and are almost same. Desirable Pentecostal interpretation presuppose that the supernatural records of the Bible are from what actually occurred in history before being written. And its goal of interpretation is to reproduce and reexperience the experience occurred actually in history before being written in the life of present reader through reading and studying supernatural records of the Bible. In desirable Pentecostal interpretation, there should be “time distance” between author and present reader, but should not be “worldview distance.” In desirable Pentecostal interpretation, spiritual beings: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, good angels, the devil, evil angels, demons, the spirit of man which are reported and described in the Bible, still exist in present time, and as the beings interacted in both transcendent realm and immanent in biblical times, and interact in present times also. Such recognition of the “Nil Distance” is possible because man is not only rational being but also spiritual being. Being different from Modern world view that cuts off spiritual world and from Postmodern world view that insists spiritual syncretic peace, Biblical Pentecostal worldview should be “Biblical Spiritual Worldview” that allows spiritual warfare for dividing salvation.

 

V. Historical Interpretation: Anti-Higher Critic/Anti-Historical Critic Interpretation

 

Hollenweger says that historical critical exegesis means to see biblical texts in their historical context. on the surface, his mention seems to be very reasonable. But being rechewed, it is by no means so. When Modernists and Fundamentals use “historical criticism” and “historical interpretation,” although they take the same word, “history,” each of them bestows totally different meaning on the word. About such signifie included in the same signifiant, Clark says that they define history in different ways. The concern for history of historical criticism mentioned by Hollenweger is not for a background of a biblical event. It tries to newly examine historically what really happened with a suspicion of the historical fact about which a text of the Bible says, because it presupposes that most of supernatural things stated by the Bible are mythical, and can not be accepted as truly happened history. The meaning of “history” mentioned by Hollenweger is the history formulated by Ernst Troeltsch when he spoke for the fundamental principle of historical critical method. The history has only possibility, is analogized from so called the experience of modern people, and is ruled by natural laws. The history is history understood only by what is analogized from the experience of modern people, in other words, history inferred from the experience of modern people who use Enlightenment reason, and understood by Kantian reason. Kant insists that freedom which raises cause and result does not exist, and all things happened in the world are just occurred following natural laws. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Troeltsch, Bultmann says about the meaning of the history used by historical criticism, “historical method has a presupposition, a unity in the meaning that history is a closed continuum of results which are in each events connected by the succession of cause and result. . . . this closedness means that supernatural and transcendant powers can not inbreak into the continuum of historical events, so there can not be any miracle.” “History” alluded by Hollenweger, Troeltsch, and Bultmann is a history from which God’s intervention is removed. Who use historical criticism say that it is “a historical method” because it attempts to light “the historical processes which gave rise to biblical texts.” According to them, historical critical method is a historical method because it is operated by the help of the scientific criterion which pursues to be objective as far as possible in its each steps(from textual criticism to redaction criticism). Therefore, for them, historical criticism, as an analytic method, studies a biblical text through the same method as the method used to study any other ancient texts, and treating a biblical text as an ｅxpression of man’s discourse, criticizes about the text. Yongnan Jeon Ahn also analyzes the distinctions of modern Pentecostal hermeneutics which use historical criticism into pursuing objectivity and reading the intent of the inspired authors. But historical criticism not only is not objective and scientific, but also is neither scientific nor historical. Its continuous and uncritical using rationalist presuppositions suggested by Kant makes any true objectiveness impossible at its conclusions. Kantian approach removes the historicity of the written historical events from the realm of external reality, and reduces written historical facts to a kind of permissible fictions. Therefore, if historical criticism is enforced upon the Bible, the historicity of the narratives and experiences of the Bible will be eliminated, and in present day reexperiencing equally the myth from which historicity is removed will become impossible.

Postmodern accepts historical criticism practiced by Enlightenment reason. Postmodern is enlightenmental at least from a viewpoint of reason. So, the term, “Postmodern” is evaluated as another but worse ｅxpression of “ultra modernity.” Postmodern takes “a post-critical stance.” It dose not say not only that criticism and critical thinking are outdated, but also that let’s go back to pre-critical study. It insists that critical method can not say all things meaningful for a text, but can say something important. Something important what critical method would offer is like a rag or a monster Frankenstein, a production of tearing the biblical texts into oral traditions or written traditions ect. following Kant’s thing itself agnostic reason and of attaching artificially different authors or editors, different eras, different readers upon the grotesque mass. To try author centered historical criticism at the first step of the understanding the Bible, and then at the second step reader centered Postmodern criticism should produce inevitably the destruction of both of the pentecostal experience in the Bible and present pentecostal faith and experience because it presupposes Enlightenment agnostic reason.

Although Postmodern can offer a philosophical space for discussing the transcendent, but the offering after all produces the degradation of the Holy Spirit to one of the spirits of other religions. Postmodern retakes what Modern removes through historical criticism as it demythologizes myths which are regarded to be attached to the Bible after being created, and struggles to remythologize. This is the reason why Postmodern needs Modern historical criticism. For Postmodern, historical criticism is inevitably required to remythologize biblical narratives. When the Bible is bound with myth through modern historical criticism, Postmodern can swing its arms in the world of myth. And then the myth remythologized by historical criticism is placed on the same level of Greek, Roman, and Hindu mythology ect. The result is that the absolute Holy Spirit is degraded to a personalized fiction or other relative spirit.

Recognizing the act of God doing something new in personal history and universal history both in the past and at present, and having radical openness to God, true Pentecostals understand the supernatural experiences in the Bible as truly happened events in history, therefore they should reject historical criticism. The Bible has historical nature, the authors of the Bible are sincere witnesses to the historical events. The primary authority of the Bible is historical authority. In other words, the historical events of the Bible are authentic because they are based upon reliable and sincere witnesses. Of course, the historical knowledge of the Bible is the combination of intricately entangled two strings: “standard knowledge” and “historical knowledge.” As Mark Giszczak describes, any historical knowledge is not primary, but secondary(or tertiary, quaternary). It can be said figuratively that Knowledge is like a horse, and historical knowledge is a mule. But when a reader hears something from a historian/witness, the reader becomes to know something. Gaining the fragments of knowledge, the reader grasps actually the historical events themselves which are beyond the historian. And not stoping on the point to get simply historical knowledge of the events, the reader goes forward to penetrate into their meaning and to receive spiritually and supernaturally their real existences. In that manner, Pentecostals want to identify the experiences actually occurred in history through the written experiences of the Bible, and try to reexperience identically the experiences in present time.

Pentecostal interpretation should give the article 14 of “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” full support, which writes that the events, discourses, and narratives included in various literary genres of the Bible are not created fictionally, but corresponded to historical facts. Even if, as Amos Yong insists, Pentecostal interpretation emphasizes more the possibility of present readers than the historicity of the descriptions in the bible, the emphasis is not something possible only when the historicity is denied. The possibility of present reader should come from the historicity. It is very absurd that while a man denies the historicity of the experiences in the Bible, he insists pneumatic continuity between the experiences of the Bible and present readers. A man can not truly say pneumatic continuity until he recognizes that the Holy Spirit created pre-written experiences in history, the same Spirit caused the writers to writ those experiences into the Bible, and then the same Spirit causes present readers to reexperience the experiences in history.

Pentecostal interpretation makes the Canon of the Bible its object, and includes “historical interpretation” that recognizes the historicity of the narratives written in the Canon. As mentioned above, while “historical interpretation” and “historical criticism” are similar with each other in the point that both of them take history and its condition seriously, but they are very different in their definitions of “history” and their applications. Historical criticism: Form criticism, Source criticism, and Reduction criticism ect., takes the books of the Bible according to Kantian reason apart to so called oral units or source units, and gives them different authors, different time, different context, and different readers. But historical interpretation need not to tear the Canon according to anti-Kantian reason, so can preserve traditional authors, time, context, and readers of the Bible. Gerhard Maier presenting biblical historical interpretation that excludes historical criticism says that being different with the opinion of biblical criticism, biblical-historical interpretation(biblisch-historische Auslegung) is based upon the last form of canonical text(auf der Endgestalt des kanonischen Textes fußen) in any case. This point is the most important external difference between historical critical interpretation and historical interpretation, and the gap is very great. For example, in the case of the Pentateuch, historical criticism tears the Pentateuch into fragments: J, E, D, and P, gives them different authors or editors, and pushes the writing times even to post Exile. For historical criticism which has the eyes of Kantian reason, Moses’ prediction seeing the promised land and saying the future of Israel in Deuteronomy is degraded to “prophecy after event”(Vaticinium ex eventu), in other words, what is not true prophecy, but just added as Moses’ utterance borrowing so called the form of prophecy after him. on the contrary, historical interpretation can maintain the traditional Moses’ authorship, and interpret the Pentateuch whole, and fix the time of writing in Moses’ age. And the Moses’ prediction(Deu. 4:26-28) can be classified as actual transcendent prophecy, “prophecy before event”(Vaticinium ante eventum). So the word of Jesus Christ calling the Pentateuch Moses’ writing(Luke 16:29, 31; 20:37; 24:27, 44). Also in the case of Isaiah, historical criticism conjectures that Isaiah in the time of King Josiah could not prophesy the name Nebuchadnezzar. So it divides the book of Isaiah into more than two parts, and gives them different authors and times. But historical interpretation recognizes that Isaiah in the time of King Josiah could see the coming future thins through the Spirit of God, so he could write even the name who would exist in the future. The result of such historical interpretation is that the narratives of the Canon can preserve the historicity. Gerhard Maier rightly says that if the analogie performed by Enlightenment reason is discarded, the supernatural come back to the legitimate place, miracle and prophecy which was dispelled from theology return. This point is the internal qualitative difference between historical criticism and historical interpretation. Of course, Luke clearly mentions the production of oral or literal traditions and editorial synthesis(Luke 1:1-3), in Deuteronomy the quotation from “The Book of the Wars of the Lord”((hwhy tmjlm) that seems to be written after Moses. But there is no accurate method to check such Luke’s mention in his text, and the checking is impossible. Luke does not present even a method to check and assort sources or traditions by stages going up conversely from the last form of Luke’s text. And it is not proper to apply such mention to the other books of the Bible which do not contain such mention, did not pass through such process of tradition, and have authors who are witnesses also. It is a seriously wrong jumping to make Deuteronomy reference using the source an excuse for making the other books of the Pentateuch the gatherings of sources after Moses. Furthermore, it is more improper to perform Kantian historical criticism upon such mentions. Therefore, Pentecostal interpretation should take historical interpretation as its method making the last form of the Canon the object of its interpretation and recognizing the historicity of the Bible.

Orthodox Pentecostal interpretation should adhere to historical interpretation, and throw higher/historical critical interpretation obstructing reexperience by destruction of the historicity of the experience recorded in the Bible following Enlightenment reason away without hesitation. Orthodox Pentecostals should discard “higher criticism of Scripture,” but should take “high view of the Bible.” To discard historical criticism is not to discard history. To discard historical criticism is to discard just a wrong view of history, unsuitable frame and method, and its results. To discard historical criticism is to discard distorted history, and is to look straight at and to face true history. When the distorted history of historical criticism is discarded, true history will be disclosed. People who know the defect of historical criticism but hold it, seem to misapprehend discarding historical criticism as losing historical dimension, concrete human experience. Probably because of such misapprehension, a Reformed theologian, Roper anticipates the advent of “renovate historical-critical methodology.” But the remodeling that remains the core skeleton(Kantian agnostic presupposition and method), but just remove the walls and ceiling will only produce same results. It is urgently needed to destroy and bulldoze out the whole historical criticism with its frame, and then rebuild Pentecostal hermeneutics taking true historical interpretation as its skeleton.

 

VI. Continuation-Canonical-Historical-Grammatical-Theological interpretation

 

A desirable Pentecostal interpretation should try “Continuation-Canonical-Historical-Grammatical-Theological Interpretation.” When it do so, a true Pentecostal interpretation that establishes and cultivates Pentecostal faith and experience resonating with the Bible can fully blossom.

As Berkhof says, “Historical-Grammatical method” is a production of the Reformation and Post-reformation of Western Europe church. Although some aspects of this method had been known before Luther and used some times, but it was developed by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, and other Reformers. This method was developed as an alternative to allegorical method which had been developed and used for about 1000 years in Latin church. And after Luther, during 17C and 18C, this method was used widely in the camps of Lutheran, Calvinism, and Arminius.

Defining ‘historical interpretation,’ Berkhof warns not to confuse ‘historical interpretation’ of traditional Fundamentals with ‘historical criticism’ to which Johann Salomo Semler applied Evolution theory. Berkhof uses the word ‘historical interpretation’ to mean the study of the Bible in the light of the diversly different books of the Bible. Mentioning the basic presuppositions of the historical interpretation, he says that the Word of God was occurred in history, so it can be understood only in the light of history, and the contents of the Bible was historically determined, to that extent historical interpretation seeks its explanation in history.

Heung-Yong Bak advocates “Grammatical-Historical-Canonical Interpretation.” According to him, the interpretation is the method of which the principle is innate in the Bible. He says that if one makes a principle from the outside of the Bible and tries to interpret the Bible by the principle, he will find so called contradictions in the Bible. For him, because Grammatical-Historical-Canonical Interpretation interprets the Bible by the innate principle in the Bible, it can find the meaning of the original author without contradiction. Bak defines Grammatical interpretation as the method that an interpreter makes the gramma of the author of the Bible his gramma, and then interprets the Bible. He says that Canonical interpretation receives the sixty six books of the Bible as the Word of God which has unity. But, he does not mention that Canonical interpretation should not tear a book of the Bible into pieces.

Pentecostal interpretation method is in the same vein of the interpretation method of Fundamentalism, Canonical-Grammatical-Historical-Theological Interpretation. As Roger Stronstad says, it can be said that Pentecostalism is historically a synthesis of the latter half of 19C Fundamentalism, eschatological Dispensationism, and Holiness theology. In the eyes of Atkinson, a positive legacy which Pentecostalism received from Fundamentalism is the verbal inerrancy of Scripture. For both Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism, the Bible is true and has no error not only for faith and in theology, but also literally in historical matters, and dogma. The interpretation method of Fundamentalism which is not based on Enlightenment reason but on the verbal inerrancy and that of Pentecostalism shall be almost same.

But in spite of such a similarity, there is a dissimilarity resulted from the divergence of view on the cessation with the completion of the Canon or the continuation of some gifts of the Holy Spirit. Generally, Conservatism makes Cessationism that because special revelation did end with the Bible, therefore revelatory gifts such as speaking in tongues or prophecy have been given no more after the completion, a measure to interpret the Bible or an experience. If Cessationism is taken for the interpretation of the Bible, pre-written experience and written experience will be consistent with each other, but the two experience will not consistent with the experience of present reader.

 

pre-written experiences = written experiences(fictions) ≠ the experiences of present readers

 

William DeArteaga says that although Cessationism helped Protestants to avoid the Middle age mythologizing of Catholic, but it took away an important means, “biblical verification” from them. According to him, the means of biblical verification is “analogous spiritual events.” He criticizes Protestant theologians against their tendency that on the one hand they want to believe in all the miraculous occurrences in the Bible, but on the other hand, to deny any present witness of such occurrences. He insists that healing known in present time verify by analogy that unknown in ancient time. For him, if biblical occurrences or miracles in the primitive Church are interpreted by Cessationism, such type of verification will be impossible. Without the belief in the miracles of the Bible, the declaration that Jesus is the Son of God will lost its place for standing. on the contrary, Jesus’ miracles written in the New Testament will be hardly received without the analogy, miracles occurred in present time. Pentecostals recognize all the charismatic works of the Holy Spirit occurred not only in past time but also in present time. Therefore, Orthodox Pentecostal interpretation will hold many sides of Fundamental interpretation in common, but overcoming Cessationism, it should takes Continuationism as the frame of its interpretation.

 

 

VII. Conclusion

 

Orthodox Pentecostalism urgently needs a hermeneutics which can make pre-written experience, written experience, and present experience consistent with each other linearly. For the purpose, Pentecostals should develop an anti-Enlightenment reason which can substitute Kantian reason, a view of reason and an epistemology which are proper for Pentecostalism, try an interpretation based upon the Biblical worldview, cultivate “historical interpretation” in stead of so called “historical criticism,” and execute “Continuation-Canonical-Grammatical-Historical-Theological Interpretation.”

This article proposes not a new building, but briefly just several bricks or elements for a desirable Pentecostal hermeneutics. Like David prepared materials for Solomon’s temple, this article presents important elements for a future beautiful and holy edifice of Pentecostal hermeneutics. In addition to this elements, the materials of the building can include some of walls, pillars, ceilings, windows, and doors gathered from previous works of Howard Ervin, William Menzies, Robert Menzies, Timothy Cargal, and Joseph Byrd etc. for Pentecostal hermeneutics with one condition, throwing away historical criticism from their works into a trash can.

Both Historical Criticism and Cessationism are similar with the towel covered the face of Moses(2 Cor. 3:13-18). They are between the Bible and present readers, and cover up the eyes of them like the towel which covered the eyes of Jews. Pentecostals who are in the Spirit have to take away Historical Criticism and Cessationism like Paul took away Moses’ towel and like early Pentecostals, such as Parham, rejected Higher-historical Criticism. In doing so, Orthodox Petecostals should develop a peculiar Hermeneutics which can overcome cessational Fundamentalism, Modern Liberalism rejecting supernatural things, Neo-Orthodox/Neo Evangelism mixing modern historical criticism with revelation and faith, and Postmodernism rejecting the absolute, and can protect canonical orthodox Pentecostal theology and experiences and make them abundant.

 

 

 

   

 

Bibliography

 

 

김중은. “역사비평의 종말 이후.”『성서마당』(여름, 2008년): 4-10.(Kim, Jung Eun. “After the End of Historical Critical Method.” Bible Forum (Summer, 2008): 4-10.

박형용.『성경해석의 원리』서울: 도서출판엠마오, 1991 (Bak, Heong-Yong. The Principles of Biblical Hermenetics. Seoul: Emmaus Publication, 1991).

백종현. “‘이성’ 개념의 역사.”『칸트연구』23호 (2009): 53-86 (Paek, Chong Hyon “A History of the Concept of Reason.” Kant Studies 23 (2009): 53-86).

성 염. “아우구스티누스의 認識論: 그의 <참다운 종교>에 나타난 초기의 인식론.”『철학교육연구』4/11 (7, 1988): 109-123. (Song, Yom. “The Epistemology of Augustinus: His Early Epistemology exposed in his Die Vera Religione.” Philosophy Education Studies; 4/11 (July, 1988): 109-123).

이창승. “오순절 성경 해석의 역사와 평가.”『영산신학저널』Vols. 36 (2016): 261-299 (Lee, Chang-Soung. “A History and an Evaluation of Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics.” Journal of Yongsan Theology 36 (2016): 261-299).

             . “초기 오순절지도자 파함과 더함의 두 가지 신학적 전선들.”『영산신학저널』Vols. 33 (2015): 73-82 (Lee, Chang-Soung. “Two Theological Battle Lines of Early Pentecostal Leaders, Charles F. Parham and William H. Durham,” Journal of Yongsan Theology 33 (2015): 73-82).

            . “오순절주의자들의 방언연구: 조직신학의 주요쟁점과 관련하여.” 박사학위논문, 복음신학대학원대학교, 2010 (Lee, Chang-Soung. “A Study of the Pentecostals’ Speaking in Tongues from the Perspective of Systematic Theology.” PhD dissertation, Asia Life University, 2010).

이한영. “역사비평에서 네러티브까지.” https://www.leehanyoung.net, accessed August 30, 2015.

장해경. “신학의 ‘과학성’: 성경에 대한 과학적 접근방법 IV.” Acts News 37 (Spring, 2013): 4-5 (Jang, He-keyong. “Wissenschaftlichkeit der Theologie: A Scientific Approach to the Bible IV.” Acts News 37 [Spring, 2013]: 4-5).

Ahn, Yongnan Jeon. “Various Debates in the Contemporary Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” The Spirit & Church 2/1 (May, 2000): 19-52.

Archer, Kenneth J. “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation: Blurring the Boundaries.” A paper presented to the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (March, 2000).

Arrington, French Lee. “Hermeneutics, Historical Perspectives on Pentecostal and Charismatic.” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. eds. S. M. Burgess and G. B. McGee. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1988): 376-389.

Asad, Talal. “Is critique secular?: Historical notes on the idea of secular criticism.” http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/01/25/historical-notes-on-the-idea-of-secular-criticism/, accessed March, 5, 2015.

Atkinson, William P. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics – Worth a Second Look?” Evangel 21/2 (Summer, 2003): 49-54.

Augustinus, Aurelius. De Trinitate. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/augustine/trin12.shtml, accessed November 24, 2016.

           . De vera religione. http://www.augustinus.it/latino/vera_religione/index.htm, accessed November 20, 2016.

           . De Genesi ad Litteram libri duodecim, XII. http://www.augustinus.it/latino/genesi_lettera/index2.htm, accessed November 23, 2016.

Berkhof, L. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950.

Bennett, Harold. “New Brand of Pentecostalism Emerging.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution (February 18, 2006): sec. B, p. B1 and B3.

Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1989.

Brown, Raymond E. “The Contribution of Historical Biblical Criticism to Ecumenical Church Discussion.” Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. ed. Richard J. Neuhaus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1989: 24-49.

Bultmann, R. New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings, ed. and trans. Shubert M. Ogden. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1984.

           . “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” ET, Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, ed. and tr. S. M. Ogden. New York, New York: Meridian Books, 1960; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1961, 289-296.

           . “Neues Testament und Mythologie.” Kerygma und Mythos. ed. H. W. Bartsch. London: SPCK, 1953; http://de.scribd.com/doc/177781842/Kerygma-Und-Mythos-Bd-1-4-Aufl-ThF-1-1960-343pp-OS#scribd, accessed July 8, 2015.

Callaway, Mary C. “Canonical Criticism.” in To Each Its Own Meaning. eds. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press; Rev Exp Su edition, 1999: 142-155.

Calvin, John. Institutio Christianae Religionis. http://archive.org/details/institutiochrist1559calv, accessed January 24, 2016.

Cargal, Timothy B. “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.” Pneuma 15:2 (Fall, 1993): 163-187.

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Clark, Matthew S. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: The Challenge of Relating to (Post)-Modern Literary Theory.” The Spirit and Church 2/1 (May, 2000): 67-93.

Coggins, Richard J. “New Ways with Old Texts: How Does Write a Commentary on Isaiah?” The Expository Times 9 (1996): 362-367.

Copleston, Frederick. History of Philosophy. vols. 6. Modern Philosophy. Part II. Kant. Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1964.

DeArteaga, William. Quenching the Spirit: Discover the REAL Spirit Behind the Charismatic Controversy. Orlando, Florida: Creation House, 1996.

Dilthey, Wilhelm. Hermeneutics and the Study of History. in Selected Works. Vols. IV. eds. Rudolf A. Marrkkreel and Frithjof Rodi. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Dockery, D. S. ed. The Challenge of Postmodernism: An evangelical Engagement. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor, 1995.

Ervin, Howard. “Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option.” Pneuma 3/2 (1981): 11-25.

Flower, J. Roswell. “The Present Position of Pentecost.” The Pentecostal Evangel (June 13, 1925): 7.

Foucault, Michel. “What is Critique?” The Politics of Truth. ed. Sylvère Lotringer. trans. Lysa Hochroth & Catherine Porter. Semiotext(E) Foreign Agents Series. Los Angeles, California: Semiotext(e), 2007: 41-81.

Giszczak, Mark “The Historical - Critical Method and Epistemology in Biblical Hermeneutics.” http://catholicbiblestudent.com/2006/12/historical-critical-method-and.html, accessed December 6, 2015.

Goins, Jeffrey P. “Expendable Creation: Classical Pentecostalism and Environmental Disregard.” MA. thesis, University of North Texas, 1997.

Hiatt, R. Jeffrey. “Salvation as Healing: John Wesley’s Missional Theology.” chapter 3, “John Wesley’s Theological Method Re-examined from a Salvation-as-Healing Perspective.” Doctor of Missiology dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2008.

Hollenweger, Walter J. “The Contribution of Critical Exegesis to Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” Spirit and Church 2/1 (May, 2000): 7-18.

Holsclaw, Geoffrey. “Illumination and Enlightenment.” http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2008/11/illumination-an.html, accessed September 2, 2015).

House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grave, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Johns, J. D. “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 7 (1995): 73-96.

Kahler, Martin. Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus. Leipzig, 1892; https://archive.org/stream/dersogenanntehi00khgoog#page/n5/mode/2up, accessed July 25, 2015.

Kant, I. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Riga, Verlegts Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1788.

          . Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Zweite Auflage. Riga, Verlegts Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1787.

          . “Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?” Berlinische Monatsschrift, eds. Friedrich Gedike und Johann Erich Biester, Erstdruck in Berlinische Monatsschrift, December, 1784.

          . Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Erste Auflage. Riga, Verlegts Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1781.

Lee, Han-Young. From History to Narrative Hermeneutics in Old Testament Studies: An Epistemological Evaluation of Theoretical Problems Studies. Studies in Biblical Literature 64. New York, New York: Peter Lang, 2004.

Linnemann, Eta. Wissenschaft oder Meinung?: Anfragen und Alternativen, Verlag Für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft(VTR). Gogolstr. 33, 90475 Nümberg, Germany, 1999;『성경비평 학은 과학인가 조작인가』송 다니엘 역. 서울: 부흥과개혁사, 2010.

Loche, Richard Brantley. Wesley and the Method of English Romanticism. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 1984.

Luby, Daniel Joseph. “The Perceptibility of Grace in John Wesley: A Roman Catholic Consideration.” Ph.D. dissertation, Apud Pontificiam Universitatem S. Thomae in Urbe, 1994.

Lewis, Paul W. “Towards A Pentecostal Epistemology: The Role of Experience in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” Spirit and Church 2/1 (May, 2000): 95-125.

Maier, Gerhard. Biblische Hermeneutik. Wuppertal, 3. Auflage, 1998;『성경해석학』송 다니엘․장해경 역. 수원: 도서출판 영음사, 2014.

Martin, Ρ. “Toward a Post-Critical Paradigm.” New Testament Studies 33 (July, 1987): 370-385.

McCarthy, John F. “Some Rationalist Presuppositions of the Historical-Critical Method.” 1.1 Roman Theological Forum 137 (2008).

          . “Part III. The Influence of Kantian Philosophy upon Historical Criticism.” 2.42. Roman Theological Forum 140 (March, 2009).

McIvor, David W. “Weltanschauung.” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Encyclopedia.com., 2008; http://www.encyclopedia.com, accessed August 19, 2015.

McLean, Mark D. “Toward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic.” Pneuma 6/2 (Fall, 1984): 35-56.

Moberly, R. W. L. “Theology of the Old Testament.” The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. eds. David W. Baker & Bill T. Arnold. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Corporation, 1999: 465-472.

Noel, Bradley Truman. “Postmodernity, a Pentecostal Appraisal of Bultmannian Hermeneutics in the World of GenX.” Presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society For Pentecostal Studies (2009).

Oliverio, Jr. “Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account.” Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 2009.

Outler, Albert Cook. “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in John Wesley.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20/1 (Spring, 1985): 7-18.

Parham, Charles F. “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost.” Selected Sermons of the late Charles F. Parham, Sarah E. Parham. ed. Robert L. Parham. Baxter Springs, Kansas: Published by Robert Parham, 1941.

Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1970.

Roper, Ronald L. “Naive Experience, Narrative Scripture, Religious Ground Motives and Scientific Historiography Concerned with the Ancient Past.” Workshop Paper for the Fifth International Symposium “Christian Philosophy at the Close of the Twentieth Century: Assessment and Perspective” on the occasion of the Hundredth Birthyear of Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) sponsored by the Association for Calvinistic Philosophy. Bovendonk, Hoeven, The Netherlands: August 22-26, 1994.

Reventlow, H. Graf. “Richard Simon und seine Bedeutung für die kritische Erforschung der Bibel.” in G. Schwaiger, Histroische Kritik in der Theologie. Studien zur Theologie und Geistesgeschichte des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts Bd. 32 (Göttingen, 1980): 11-36.

Partee, Charles. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Stanton, Graham N. “Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism.” New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. ed. I. Howard Marshall. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977: 60-71.

Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Trajectories from the Old Testament to Luke-Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1990.

Scholder, K. Ursprünge und Probleme der Bibelkritik. im 17. Jahrhundert. FGLP, 10. Reihe, Bd. 33. München, 1966.

Smith, James K. A. Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy (Pentecostal Manifestos). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

. “What Hath Cambridge To Do With Azusa Street?: Radical Orthodoxy and Pentecostal Theology in Conversation.” Pneuma 25/1 (2003): 97-114.

Spranger, Eduard. Der Sinn der Voeraussetzungslosifkeit in den Geisteswissenschaften. 3. Aufl. Heidelberg, 1964.

Surburg, Raymond F. “The Presuppositions of the Historical-Grammatical Method as Employed by Historic Lutheranism.” The Springfielder 38/4 (October, 1974): 278-288.

Tanner, Jesse F. “Remythologization as a Hermeneutic Alternative to Demythologization: An Understanding of Jesus as Remythologizer.” 12. http://av.unityonline.org/institute/2010Lyceum/Tanner.pdf, accessed July 17, 2016.

Qemistiou, Parafrasi" tw'n Peri Yuch" Aristotelou". in libros Aristotelis de anima paraphrasis II. VII. ed. R. Heinze, Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca, 5/3. Berolini: Reimer, 1899; https://archive.org/details/p3inlibrosaristo05them, accessed January 24, 2016.

Troeltsch, Ernst. “Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie.” in idem, Zur religiösen Lage, Religionshpilosohpie und Ethik. Gesammelte Schriften II: Aalen: Scientia, 1962 = Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

          . “Letter to a Pentecostal Scholar II: the nature of Pentecostal anti-intellectualism.” Renewal Dynamics. http://renewaldynamics.com/2012/07/16/letter-to-a-pentecostal-scholar-ii/, Regent University School of Divinity & The Center for Renewal Studies, 16.6.2012, accessed February 8, 2015.

Ware, Frederick L. “The Prophetic Voice and Silence of Pentecostalism in the Theology-Science Dialogue: A Response to Amos Yong’s The Spirit of Creation.” Australasian Pentecostal Studies 15 (January, 2013); http://aps-journal.com/aps/index.php/APS/article/view/122/119, accessed July 17, 2016.

Warrington, Keith. “Pentecostals and the Bible.” Journal of Youngsan Theology 34 (2015): 31-80.

Wesley, John. “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered.” Sermon LXXV, The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, M.A.. vols. II. ed. John Emory. New York, New York: J. Collored, Printer, 1831; http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-70-the-case-of-reason-impartially-considered/, accessed May 3, 2016.

          . An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. the eighth edition. Lodon: the Methodist Preaching House, 1796; The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, M.A.. vols. VIII.

          . A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. London: W. Strahan, 1744; http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00001686/00001, accessed October 14, 2016; The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, M.A.. vols. VIII.

Yong, Amos. “Reading Scripture and Nature: Pentecostal Hermeneutics and Their Implications for the Contemporary Evangelical Theology and Science Conversation.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63/1 (March, 2011): 3-15.

. The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination. Pentecostal Manifestos. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2011.

 

“Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy, accessed August 7, 2015; http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.

“Faculty Guide Exploring John Wesley’ Theology.” Clergy Development Church of the Nazarene. Kansas City, Missouri, 2002; http://usacanadaregion.org/sites/usacanadaregion.org/files/PDF/guides/TJWFacGu.pdf, accessed June 17, 2015, 4-3 ～ 4-4.

 

   

 

Abstract

 

 

Toward A Desirable Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics

      

Chang-Soung Lee

 

Most of so called modern Pentecostal scholars: author centered modern interpreters and reader centered post-modern interpreters, have a common feature that they are reading the Bible through Higher/Historical Criticism. As a result, the written experiences is deprived of the historicity, and they become different from pre-written experiences. And because of the outcome, the basis of Pentecostalism, modern readers should re-experience the experiences written in the Bible, especially the Baptism in the Spirit with speaking in tongues, is being destroyed.

To overcome such problem, a desirable Pentecostal Hermeneutics must be “Consistent Experiences Interpretation” which makes the experiences of present readers consistent with pre-written experiences and written experiences(of the Bible), anti-Enlightenmental “Interpretation Performed with Born Again Reason,” “Interpretation Based upon the Biblical World View,” and “Continuation-Cannonical-Historical-Grammatical-Theological Interpretation.”

Both Higher Criticism/Historical Criticism and Cessationism are similar with the towel covered the face of Moses(2 Cor. 3:13-18). They are between the Bible and present readers, and cover up the eyes of them like the towel which covered the eyes of Jew. Pentecostals who are in the Spirit have to take away Historical Criticism and Cessationism as Paul took away Moses’ towel and as earl Pentecostalist, such as Parham, rejected Higher-historical Criticism. In doing so, Orthodox Petecostals have to develop a peculiar Hermeneutics which can overcome cessational Fundamentalism, Modern Liberalism rejecting supernatural things, Neo-Orthodox/Neo Evangelism mixing modern historical criticism with revelation, and Postmodernism rejecting the absolute, and can protect canonical orthodox Pentecostal theology and experiences and make them abundant.

 

 

Keywords

Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Consistent Experiences Interpretation, Anti-Enlightenmental Reason, Biblical World View, Continuational-Cannonical-Historical-Grammatical-Theological Interpretation

Toward A Desirable Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics (Chang-soung, Lee).pdf

0.35MB