quote:

---

Paul’s understanding of the Spirit assumes Luke’s contribution but focuses on other concerns. Many Pentecostal writers have (rightly I think) challenged the tendency of the majority to read Luke through Pauline eyes.

---

quote:

---

The difference between Luke and Paul -- and the reason why we shouldn't read Luke through the eyes of Paul, is that Luke is a historian, not a theologian. Paul is a theologian, not a historian. So, for example, when Luke talks about being "filled with the Spirit," he speaking phenomenologically, not theologically. Problems arise when we try to make Luke's terminology fit Paul.

---

Well, Doc and I agree that we shouldn’t read Luke through Pauline lenses, but for entirely different reasons. I think it’s impossible to read Luke’s gospel and Acts and conclude that Luke hasn’t vested his own theological interests into his writing. He includes, excludes, arranges, and edits material as a theologian in his own right.

When it comes to the Bible, is there such a thing as uninterpreted history? Even the Chroniclers of the OT write from a theological point of view and communicate theology through their writings. I’d suggest I. Howard Marshall’s Luke: Historian and Theologian (Gospel Prfiles, 3) (InterVarsity) for a defense of Luke’s theological independence. I’d also suggest that even if Luke was writing pastoral theology as does Paul, it would remain the case that we ought not to read Luke through Pauline lenses, for this in effect makes Paul a canon within a canon. My point is, it’s not a concern for history as opposed to theology that separates Luke and Paul, but it’s also genuinely different (albeit complimentary) pneumatologies which separate them as well. Let each biblical author speak on his/her own terms, independent of others. Hear what each has to say before letting the systematicians go to work. Hurrah for biblical theology!

Having said all that , Doc’s right about Luke’s (exclusive I would say) focus on the phenomenological dimensions of encountering the Spirit (signs and wonders, acts of power, gifts, miracles, healings, etc.). I just disagree that this is nothing more than theologically uninformed journalism. Maybe you’re not saying this, Doc, but it seemed so to me. Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you.

Whether or not Gordon Fee (cf. BBCanada’s comments) has successfully refuted the Pentecostal notion of subsequence (which I don’t think he has) it matters not. Fee agrees that the demonstrative/phenomenological dimension of the Spirit’s empowering presence is needed for today and is available for all believers. Fee would never suggest that by refuting subsequence he has done away with our need for signs and wonders, healings, miracles, etc, and that it is the Spirit's desire that such things characterize all God's people. If you know Fee, you know this is the case. So, to argue about whether this phenomenological dimension is theologically one and the same with conversion or is logically independent of it tends to take the conversation in the wrong direction I think. That is, if subsequence is doctrinally inaccurate, it remains true that this vocational/empowering aspect of the Spirit’s work in believers’ lives ought to characterize us today. It also remains true that conversion does not automatically introduce one experientially to this aspect, as the experience of countless millions testifies. So, who cares where one comes out theologically on subsequence? It only matters that whatever our view of subsequence we nevertheless live in and enjoy the empowering presence of the Spirit.

Agree? No?

Tom


Edited by - TGB on 02/08/2002 08:30:15 AM

quote:

---

That is, if subsequence is doctrinally inaccurate, it remains true that this vocational/empowering aspect of the Spirit’s work in believers’ lives ought to characterize us today.

---

quote:

---

So, if these type of events do not characterize us, then what does that mean?

---