For those interested:
Think you know Greek? Here is and interesting quote by the dean of scholars F. F. Bruce on language and lexicons.
As for lexicons, those by Brown-Driver-Briggs, Buhl and Baumgartner serve me well in the Hebrew field, supplemented by M. Jastrow’s Dictionary for post-biblical Hebrew. Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon deals primarily with classical Greek, but no student of the New Testament can afford to ignore classical usage.
I have met students who claimed to ‘know Greek’ on the basis of their acquaintance with the Greek New Testament; even if that latter acquaintance were exhaustive, it would no more amount to a knowledge of Greek than acquaintance with the English New Testament would amount to a knowledge of English.
There is a story told of A. S. Peake writing a Greek word on the blackboard of his Manchester classroom, and one of his students saying, ‘You needn’t write it down, Doctor; we know Greek.’ To which he replied, ‘I wish I did.’ To know a language, even an ancient language, involves having such a feeling for its usage that one can tell, almost as by instinct, whether a construction is permissible or not, or whether a translation is possible or not. Translation is not simply a matter of looking up a word in a dictionary and selecting the equivalent which one would like to find in a particular passage.
It is this manifest mastery of Greek usage which makes William Kelly’s New Testament commentaries, especially those on Paul’s epistles, so valuable. ‘And you know what is restraining him now,’ says the RSV of 2 Thessalonians 2: 6, following some earlier interpreters. This construing of ‘now’ with ‘what is restraining’ Kelly describes as a solecism, pointing out that the ‘now’ is ‘simply resumptive’. Kelly is right. But how did he discover that the construction of the adverb with ‘what is restraining’ is a solecism? No grammar-book or dictionary would tell him that; it was his wide and accurate acquaintance with Greek usage that made it plain to him, an acquaintance which is the fruit of long and patient study.
F. F. Bruce. In Retrospect: Remembrance of Things Past/Posthumous Edition (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1980), p. 293.
He has informed people he is in the middle stages of Alzheimer’s. In a personal note to friends he wrote:
I want to inform you that I am now middle stage Alzheimer’s. I will not be able to do my writing etc. I am 73 years now, and I’ve enjoyed my biblical three score and ten. I am not bitter. I have had a good life. I’ll meet you over Jordan if not before.
You are free to make this news known.
Pinnock is a theological giant who has contributed much to Christian Theology. In particular, he contributed to the development of Open Theism or the Openness of God theology, which he considered most faithful to Scripture.
Open theology rejects traditional theologies that portray God as an aloof monarch. Influential theologians of yesteryear often portrayed God as completely unchangeable, ultimately all determining, and irresistible. By contrast, Pinnock says the biblical vision presents a loving God who seeks relationship with free creatures. “The Christian life involves a genuine interaction between God and human beings,” he says. “We respond to God’s gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses . . . and on it goes.”
The future is not entirely settled, according to Open theology. This means that while God knows all possibilities, God does not know with certainty what free creatures will actually do until creatures act. Classic views of God’s foreknowledge are incompatible with creaturely freedom, says Pinnock. “If choices are real and freedom significant,” he argues, “future decisions cannot be exhaustively known.”
Open theology does affirm that God is all knowing. God knows all things knowable. Believers should not understand divine omniscience as the idea God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, says Pinnock. After all, future possible events are not yet actual.
So sad to hear of this – Alzheimer’s is such a hard and difficult sickness for both the one who has it and for family and caregivers. Usually one of two things tends to happen: either the person gets violent because they do not know what is going on or they become totally incapacitated. So it is sad to hear of this happening to someone of Pinnock’s stature.
Some of the following reviews are some of the better ones I think people would be interested in reading and learning from:
Peter J. Leithart. Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture. Reviewed by Matthew Gordley.
John Oswalt. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? Reviewed by Claude Mariottini.
Kenneth E. Bailey. The Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants. Reviewed by Robert O’Toole
Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda, eds. Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology. Reviewed by Douglas Moo
The Assemblies of God has a website called Ministry Direct dot com – has occasional live conversations with George O. Wood one a random set of questions drawn from AG constituents – TODAY there will be a session at 3:30 CST and I have been informed Dr. Wood will address the issue with regard to what we’ve been talking about with Tony Jones and all – so if you want his side of the story – listen in!!
Brian LePort put up a great summary of Wood’s response to Tony Jones, et. al. Makes me wonder what all the fuss was about and shows the drastic gap of difference in character and leadership ability between Wood and Jones, Sanchez-walsh, et al.
Well, time for us to all move on!
Brian LePort asked if there is a center or core aspect of Pentecostal Theology. In the comments too he asked what might be the difference between a pentecostal and say an Charismatic Anglican? The following is how I responded:
Brian – if I may offer a suggestion here I would say the difference is one with respect to time and theology – time in that typically Pentecostals are those who are a part of groups that started prior to 1960, which is when the Charismatic movement began when Anglican pastor Dennis Bennett started preaching about his experience of Spirit Baptism – theology in that Pentecostals typically assert the initial physical evidence of the Baptism of with the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues such that they would assert: no tongues no baptism, whereas with Charismatics, they do not always take such a strong stand and suggest tongues is merely “an” evidence of Spirit Baptism.
So with time again, while both P’s and C’s related to the Azusa Street Revival in 1906, Charismatics also have their roots in Bennett’s 1960 sermon. It might seem nitpicky but really one is only Pentecostal if one is part of a group that was birthed out of the 1906 revival and agree that tongues are the “initial physical evidence of Spirit Baptism.
I wrote a couple of posts on my blog about this a couple of years ago: http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/whats-the-difference-part-1/ and http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/whats-the-difference-part-2/
They aren’t perfect but I think they get at the basic issue.
So back to the original question I would suggest the heart or the core of Pentecostal and Charismatic theology is the experience of the Holy Spirit and that that is the single unifying factor for all P’s and C’s world-wide.
Speaking in tongues is not the center because it is merely a sign or a work of the Spirit – and is just that – a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit which the AG describes as “the initial physical evidence” of Spirit Baptism – rather the ongoing evidence is the life lived in, and empowered by, the Holy Spirit.
if you haven’t already you really should read Vinson Synan’s work The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century
(Eerdmans, 1997) – along with Keith Warrington’s Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (T&T Clark, 2008).
I hope this helps
So to reiterate – I see the core of Pentecostal theology as that of experience or encounter with the Holy Spirit.
in the conversations going on over the gaffe between Assemblies of God leadership and the leadership of the Society for Pentecostal Studies over the invitation of Tony Jones to present a paper at the last society meeting located at an AG University, (mainly because he openly supports gay marriage)(well, at least a former leadership) I noticed an interesting comment on the article by former SPS President Arlene Sanchez-Walsh where she accuses SPS of lacking academic freedom and thus just being an echo chamber where everyone is just talking to themselves (which many Christians tend to do anyways). Anyways, one of the comments to the article caught my attention. The commenter “Bruce W” avers:
According to C. Peter Wagner…
…Pentecostalism was dead as of its 100th anniversary in 2006. Wagner should know since his movement is rapidly consuming the tendency. It would be interesting to read something about that on this forum. There’s no question as to the facts.
Posted by BruceW on March 19, 2010 at 6:30 AM
I am curious as to these “facts.” I have never heard this before. So far as I know, from a global perspective, Pentecostalism is the single largest expression of the Christian religion in the world behind Catholicism. And last I understood, this is still the case. So I am curious as to this assertion from Wagner (who’s teachings I largely do not support) that Pentecostalism is dead.
I took a special DMin level class on the history and future of Pentecostalism (as an MDiv student) with Grant Wacker, a leading Pentecostal scholar out of Duke in 2006 and I don’t remember him saying anything about Pentecostalism being dead or even being in the throes of death.
I don’t know, has anyone else heard this before?