What do you think?
Rate this book
Foundations of Pentecostal Theology
Book by Duffield, Guy P., Van Cleave, Nathaniel M.
Hardcover
First published June 1, 1983
91 people are currently reading
394 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 6, 2013
Foundations of Pentecostal Theology by Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave is indeed a matchless approach to studying and understanding Biblical theology. These authors take a courageous stand on the fundamental doctrines on Pentecostalism and prayerfully present the truth of God and Salvation in a unique way. Each doctrine is carefully explained and the doctrines of Divine Healing, Baptism with the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and Spiritual Gifts in made clearer to the reader. It is truly an indispensable aid to enriching your spiritual knowledge and faith. This book is highly recommended.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Foundations of Pentecostal Theology," by Duffield and Van Cleave. As for difficulty it was a 2 with 1 being simple and 4 being tough. Below are the notes I took while reading it.
For some background, this book was written about '83 by the international church of the foursquare gospel; so Evangelical Pentecostals begrudgingly coming out of KJV-onlyism. (This book would have been much better had they gotten a more accurate, modern version to quote out of...which would have been almost any version.)
The first chapter of a ST is usually a boring-but-necessary coverage of revelation. This book seemed a bit more basic as it spent this first chapter talking about scriptural history and that very plastic word inerrancy. Speaking of which, the writers were equivocating hard, fast and loose with inerrant, infallible and inspired. Likewise they tried to insinuate that the "adding to or taking away from this book" in the Revelation covered all of scripture. Later the writers equivocate between the books of scripture and the singular book of the bible. Worst of all was their application of "autographs" when defining inerrancy: that is disingenuous. I believe using "autographs" is a way of saying "well, prove me wrong." Like anyone can find them or would know they had them if they did find them. Just use the same word scripture uses: inspired or theopneustos. Their definition of inspiration seems to not take freewill (as revealed in the writers worldviews) into consideration. For what its worth: after all the revelation/inspiration conversation I find the Neo-orthodox Dialectical Presence view the easiest to accept.
The vast majority of scripture quotations are out of the KJV. This is multifacetedly painful: reading now and remember trying to read from it and comprehend it 35 years ago.
They then covered "how we got the bible" in a brief segment. It was good but for a more comprehensive treatment of the subject read "How we got the Bible," by Lightfoot or F.F. Bruce's book.
Then the writers moved on to the Doctrine of God. I found it interesting that in the discussion of the names of God from the OT that Elohim and Adonai are plural and used much more than their singular counterparts.
Later they fall into the dignum Deo hole by stating that the name or metaphor of God as the rock stresses the immutable nature of God.
Their coverage of omniscience was interestingly vague. While they seemed to begin with a classical understanding they then seemed to shift to a dynamic working in economy by God. Though further reading affirms that the writers hold firmly to simple foreknowledge.
I believe the writers mail it in on Sovereignty (predestination and freewill) by appealing to paradox rather than corporate election.
Christology was kinda shoehorned into the Trinity's coverage of the Son. Pneumatology, though, got it's own chapter.
I believe the coverage here of the Trinity was a bit lacking.
Moving on to anthropology. This was a good chapter. They covered trichotamy and dichotamy well landing on trichotamy.
Moving on, the next chapter covers harmatology. It is good coverage. I appreciated their coverage of the origins of "schoolmaster" as pertaining to Pauls usage of the word in Romans. My place of disagreement is their take on original sin.
Next the writers move to soteriology. I assume that this will be the one place where they will deviate from the typical ST somewhat. My gut feel here is that they will claim glossia as the initial evidence of salvation.
While going over atonement theory they make what I believe is the biggest error in atonement theory: it has to be this one (substitution) theory as the others have no value. Models of the atonement are, for the most part, not "either/or," but "yes/and more." Or, in other words, I find value in most all models as building blocks to a truth that transcends all the models. Yes, substitution, and moral influence, and Christus Victor, and ransom, and governmental. While we will park on one as primary (and adjust per the audience while building the other elements into it) we cant say there is no worth in the rest.
When speaking of repentance and faith the writers acknowledge that it cant be said one precedes the other. I disagree (faith is causal for repentance) but at least they dont go the other way which would stumble one into a deterministic hole (no offence, yall; you know who you are and I love you).
The writers coverage of justification by faith was good. Their rectification of Paul and James (faith and works) was partial. Then without saying the word the writers hit a heavily synergistic paragraph (God calls, and he who believes and accepts is regenerated).
Finishing up the chapter on soteriology, the writers cover sanctification and they do it well. They then get eternal security and try to rectify Calvin and Arminius. I hate that. Just say what your interpretation is, dont try to unrock the boat that has been rocking for 450 years. In spite of this I believe they covered the subject well and reached a conclusion similar to my own (no one can pluck you out of the hand of God, but you can jump out if you so chose). And against my initial thoughts they discussed soteriology without saying that glossia was the initial salvific evidence.
The next chapter is Pneumatology. While I am glad they dedicated a chapter to this usually minimally discussed topic/person, I wish they would have done the same with Christology and even Paterology rather than just let the Father and the Son be discussed under the Trinity. Let's see if they change my mind.
While discussing the difference between physical baptism and baptism of the Spirit they attempt to show that they are distinct occurrences by quoting 1 Cor for Spirit baptism and Mk for physical. Though I dont disagree with the distinction between the two, they make a weak case by using a quote from John the Baptist ("I baptize you with water but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit") which was pre-Pentecost. In my mind to show the distinction well the writers would need to show the distinction of physical baptism sans Spirit post-Pentecost.
Where they speak about the differences between the gifts and the fruit was a very good section. The writers did a very good job speaking to the distinction between power and character. They likewise did a good job covering the baptism of the Spirit. They use much revelation in history to show how dynamic and flexible (Acts) God is with his people. They did this when speaking about ordo salutis. But the one thing I take issue with is when they begin speaking about the initial evidence (for the filling of the Spirit not of salvation) they use historical revelation as prepositional, i.e. tongues or it ain't real. Did they just forget our dynamic and flexible God? Later they make a good case why the initial evidence is glossia (it's the one gift that is exclusive to the NT) but I believe the reason ignores, again, Gods flexibility and especially modern context, where any gift today would be seen as the moving of God.
This was a very good Pneumatology.
The next chapter is divine healing. I appreciate how they attribute sickness to sin though not necessarily sin of the sick person. The way they leave this is by saying "had there never been sin in the world there would have been no sickness."
I'm not going to elaborate more on this chapter but to say that all believers should buy this book for this chapter alone. Especially if you/your tradition is cessationist.
The next chapter is Ecclesiology, or the study of the church. Best line in this chapter so far is that "the church is not called to preach a social gospel, but the church can not escape the social implications of the biblical gospel," which has to be the best way I have heard it stated. Overall this was a good section.
Next is angelology, demonology and satanology.
This starts off with basic information about angels, good but not ground shaking. I take issue with their numbering the total at 104 million based off of the verse speaking about 10,000 times 10,000, 10,000 times. I believe that the crux has more to do with them being many rather than coming to a mathematical total. When one introduces math into scripture ones conclusion is often a cult. In demonology the rightly hit on the distinction between physical sickness and demon possession; that one is not a sign of the other. This is good because way to many play fast and loose when one falls sick. They come to this distinction based on Christ saying that he healed the sick and cast out demons. Were demon possession the ground of sickness saying he cast out demons would have covered sickness or he would have said that he healed the sick by casting out demons.
The part of this chapter dealing with satanology does a good job dealing with the already/not yet reality of Satans present power.
The book finishes up with eschatology. Beginning it seems that the writers have had a good dose of Plato speaking of mankind as disembodied souls in the eschaton. Have to wait to verify. Oh goodness, I wont be able to take anything else they say serious, they just footnoted Tim LaHaye. It's all over with. Thank goodness I'm 28 pages from done. They ended up maintaining a glorified body that resides in heaven rather than the New Jerusalem, so partial Plato.
For some background, this book was written about '83 by the international church of the foursquare gospel; so Evangelical Pentecostals begrudgingly coming out of KJV-onlyism. (This book would have been much better had they gotten a more accurate, modern version to quote out of...which would have been almost any version.)
The first chapter of a ST is usually a boring-but-necessary coverage of revelation. This book seemed a bit more basic as it spent this first chapter talking about scriptural history and that very plastic word inerrancy. Speaking of which, the writers were equivocating hard, fast and loose with inerrant, infallible and inspired. Likewise they tried to insinuate that the "adding to or taking away from this book" in the Revelation covered all of scripture. Later the writers equivocate between the books of scripture and the singular book of the bible. Worst of all was their application of "autographs" when defining inerrancy: that is disingenuous. I believe using "autographs" is a way of saying "well, prove me wrong." Like anyone can find them or would know they had them if they did find them. Just use the same word scripture uses: inspired or theopneustos. Their definition of inspiration seems to not take freewill (as revealed in the writers worldviews) into consideration. For what its worth: after all the revelation/inspiration conversation I find the Neo-orthodox Dialectical Presence view the easiest to accept.
The vast majority of scripture quotations are out of the KJV. This is multifacetedly painful: reading now and remember trying to read from it and comprehend it 35 years ago.
They then covered "how we got the bible" in a brief segment. It was good but for a more comprehensive treatment of the subject read "How we got the Bible," by Lightfoot or F.F. Bruce's book.
Then the writers moved on to the Doctrine of God. I found it interesting that in the discussion of the names of God from the OT that Elohim and Adonai are plural and used much more than their singular counterparts.
Later they fall into the dignum Deo hole by stating that the name or metaphor of God as the rock stresses the immutable nature of God.
Their coverage of omniscience was interestingly vague. While they seemed to begin with a classical understanding they then seemed to shift to a dynamic working in economy by God. Though further reading affirms that the writers hold firmly to simple foreknowledge.
I believe the writers mail it in on Sovereignty (predestination and freewill) by appealing to paradox rather than corporate election.
Christology was kinda shoehorned into the Trinity's coverage of the Son. Pneumatology, though, got it's own chapter.
I believe the coverage here of the Trinity was a bit lacking.
Moving on to anthropology. This was a good chapter. They covered trichotamy and dichotamy well landing on trichotamy.
Moving on, the next chapter covers harmatology. It is good coverage. I appreciated their coverage of the origins of "schoolmaster" as pertaining to Pauls usage of the word in Romans. My place of disagreement is their take on original sin.
Next the writers move to soteriology. I assume that this will be the one place where they will deviate from the typical ST somewhat. My gut feel here is that they will claim glossia as the initial evidence of salvation.
While going over atonement theory they make what I believe is the biggest error in atonement theory: it has to be this one (substitution) theory as the others have no value. Models of the atonement are, for the most part, not "either/or," but "yes/and more." Or, in other words, I find value in most all models as building blocks to a truth that transcends all the models. Yes, substitution, and moral influence, and Christus Victor, and ransom, and governmental. While we will park on one as primary (and adjust per the audience while building the other elements into it) we cant say there is no worth in the rest.
When speaking of repentance and faith the writers acknowledge that it cant be said one precedes the other. I disagree (faith is causal for repentance) but at least they dont go the other way which would stumble one into a deterministic hole (no offence, yall; you know who you are and I love you).
The writers coverage of justification by faith was good. Their rectification of Paul and James (faith and works) was partial. Then without saying the word the writers hit a heavily synergistic paragraph (God calls, and he who believes and accepts is regenerated).
Finishing up the chapter on soteriology, the writers cover sanctification and they do it well. They then get eternal security and try to rectify Calvin and Arminius. I hate that. Just say what your interpretation is, dont try to unrock the boat that has been rocking for 450 years. In spite of this I believe they covered the subject well and reached a conclusion similar to my own (no one can pluck you out of the hand of God, but you can jump out if you so chose). And against my initial thoughts they discussed soteriology without saying that glossia was the initial salvific evidence.
The next chapter is Pneumatology. While I am glad they dedicated a chapter to this usually minimally discussed topic/person, I wish they would have done the same with Christology and even Paterology rather than just let the Father and the Son be discussed under the Trinity. Let's see if they change my mind.
While discussing the difference between physical baptism and baptism of the Spirit they attempt to show that they are distinct occurrences by quoting 1 Cor for Spirit baptism and Mk for physical. Though I dont disagree with the distinction between the two, they make a weak case by using a quote from John the Baptist ("I baptize you with water but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit") which was pre-Pentecost. In my mind to show the distinction well the writers would need to show the distinction of physical baptism sans Spirit post-Pentecost.
Where they speak about the differences between the gifts and the fruit was a very good section. The writers did a very good job speaking to the distinction between power and character. They likewise did a good job covering the baptism of the Spirit. They use much revelation in history to show how dynamic and flexible (Acts) God is with his people. They did this when speaking about ordo salutis. But the one thing I take issue with is when they begin speaking about the initial evidence (for the filling of the Spirit not of salvation) they use historical revelation as prepositional, i.e. tongues or it ain't real. Did they just forget our dynamic and flexible God? Later they make a good case why the initial evidence is glossia (it's the one gift that is exclusive to the NT) but I believe the reason ignores, again, Gods flexibility and especially modern context, where any gift today would be seen as the moving of God.
This was a very good Pneumatology.
The next chapter is divine healing. I appreciate how they attribute sickness to sin though not necessarily sin of the sick person. The way they leave this is by saying "had there never been sin in the world there would have been no sickness."
I'm not going to elaborate more on this chapter but to say that all believers should buy this book for this chapter alone. Especially if you/your tradition is cessationist.
The next chapter is Ecclesiology, or the study of the church. Best line in this chapter so far is that "the church is not called to preach a social gospel, but the church can not escape the social implications of the biblical gospel," which has to be the best way I have heard it stated. Overall this was a good section.
Next is angelology, demonology and satanology.
This starts off with basic information about angels, good but not ground shaking. I take issue with their numbering the total at 104 million based off of the verse speaking about 10,000 times 10,000, 10,000 times. I believe that the crux has more to do with them being many rather than coming to a mathematical total. When one introduces math into scripture ones conclusion is often a cult. In demonology the rightly hit on the distinction between physical sickness and demon possession; that one is not a sign of the other. This is good because way to many play fast and loose when one falls sick. They come to this distinction based on Christ saying that he healed the sick and cast out demons. Were demon possession the ground of sickness saying he cast out demons would have covered sickness or he would have said that he healed the sick by casting out demons.
The part of this chapter dealing with satanology does a good job dealing with the already/not yet reality of Satans present power.
The book finishes up with eschatology. Beginning it seems that the writers have had a good dose of Plato speaking of mankind as disembodied souls in the eschaton. Have to wait to verify. Oh goodness, I wont be able to take anything else they say serious, they just footnoted Tim LaHaye. It's all over with. Thank goodness I'm 28 pages from done. They ended up maintaining a glorified body that resides in heaven rather than the New Jerusalem, so partial Plato.
July 27, 2013
So much information! Must read!!
November 21, 2019
This was an excellent summary of Our biblical beliefs and on what authority we hold them. Clarified a few muddy issues for me.
May 13, 2017
This book is really good to read. especially for those who are going to enter the ministry.
Read
June 19, 2010study type reading
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews