EXEGETICAL CIRCLES: AN INNOVATION

AT THE CHARLOTTE MEETING

by William G. MacDonald

In 1981 a method of scholarly interaction new to the SPS took shape

at the annual meeting. Heretofore the Society has utilized the
traditional way of lecture [lit., `reading']-and-questions. That method
has time-honored values especially when the lectures are outstanding
and the end product is carefully edited and published, as was the case in
the meeting at Oklahoma City in 1972 (Perspectives on the New Pente-
costalism, edited by Russell P. Spittler. Baker Book House, 1976). It
also has certain advantages for those auditors who are looking for fresh
ideas but are prepared to expose fully their own as yet.
One of the reasons for introducing a new method in 1981 derives
from certain perceived weaknesses of the lecture method as generally
employed at scholarly meetings. Most of the activity centers on the
lecturer. Program chairmen are generally faithful in admonishing paper-
readers to leave ample time for questions at the end, but the typical
presenter usually prefers to encroach on the audience-response time

William G. MacDonald (Th.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville,

Kentucky), is Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Gordon College,Wenham,
Massachusetts. He serves as President of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

- 19-
rather than to eliminate any of the good things he has so carefully
prepared. Furthermore, the seating arrangement is such in the typical
lecture format that it is difficult for those present to do more than
dialogue with the speaker, though sometimes respondees would care to
comment on a point made by another respondee. When only backs of
heads are visible, anyone responding from the floor can easily feel that
he is talking "at" others in the audience rather than conversing "with"
them--the ideal. Moreover, many an incipient discussion has been foiled
before it matured by the need to move on to the next paper on schedule.
The 1981 innovation was to rediscover the true seminar method
that many of us worked with in graduate school. I say, true seminar,
because today many charismatic and other kinds of meetings are billed
as "seminars", when the people who attend do not come as equals but
are indoctrinated by the standard way of teaching and listening, without
"seminar" ever meaning anything more precise than 'something
important and no doubt scholarly being said by an authority'. A true
seminar consists of scholars sharing their findings with others who are
competent to judge the validity or misdirection of each contribution.
Collegiality assures that each mind is sharpened more than it would be
working alone. It is the body working together to edify itself.
The facilities of the East Coast Bible College in Charlotte, NC, were
admirably suited for our four simultaneous seminars, alias, "exegetical
circles." Each of these had a spacious room in which four narrow tables
all turned at right angles to one another to form a hollow square were
most suitable for seating everyone like diplomats at the proverbial
round table. Following the wisdom of Proverbs 16:33, we drew lots held
by a child, and let the Lord thereby determine the eleven participants
who would join each of the preselected facilitators, and they in turn
selected by lot their seminar rooms.
Those who preregistered received in advance of the meeting a packet
of materials containing and following: (1) A set of provocative questions
identical to those printed in the July SPS Newsletter. This handout
listed the six passages specified for exegesis, all of which were pertinent
to the theme of "The Spirit and Regeneration in John's Gospel" [John
1:29-34; 3:1-2; 7:37-39; 14:15-20; 16:6-11; 20:19-23]. (2) A five-page
bibliography pertinent to the passages to be exegeted. (3) A "textual
transcription" of each passage, revealing the grammatical and
syntactical connections in the stream of the Greek teat. [Textual order of
words is not changed but the text can be subordinated or placed in
parallel by a system of lowering and tabulating lines, clauses, or
phrases.] (4) A one-page explanation of how the exegetical circle
functions. [Anyone wanting to acquire copies of this material (within 30

- 20-
 days of publication of this issue of Pneuma) may send the name and
address and $2.00 to cover xeroxing and postage to William G.
MacDonald, SPS President, 6 Winkley St., Amesbury, MA 01913.]
Each exegetical team was guided through the six ninety-minute
sessions by its own "facilitator." Once it was set up, each team became
autonomous and appointed its own "scribe," who recorded the findings
of his group, and the team freely adjusted its own extent of considera-
tion of the given passages within the allotted time frames. The
facilitator-scribe personnel, in that order were: Chi team: Gary Burge,
King's College, Bristol, TN, who recently completed a doctoral
dissertation with I. Howard Marshall at Aberdeen on "The Spirit in
John's Gospel," and Cecil M. Robeck, Admissions Director, Fuller
Seminary. Tau team: Russell P. Spittler, Assistant Dean, Fuller
Seminary, and Harold Hunter, Church of God School of Theology,
Cleveland, TN. Sigma team: Jerry Horner, professor at ORU and
member of the 1981 program committee, and Theo Rush, Mother of
God Community, Gaithersburg, MD, assisted by Faye Whitten,
professor at East Coast Bible College, and special speaker, David
DuPlessis. Rho team: William G. MacDonald, professor at Gordon
College, and Chris Smith, recent teaching fellow and graduate of
Gordon-Conwell Seminary.
In addition to all we learned from one another about the Spirit and
regeneration, we proved to ourselves something important: With the help
of the Lord, it is possible to have an in-house consideration of the bedrock
materials of biblical exegesis pertaining to crucial areas where as yet we
have not reached a common understanding, and to do so "in one spirit,
contending for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:27)!
This report has been twice filtered and then boiled down and poured
together. No one, then, who was a working member of one of the groups
should expect that what follows below covers everything that was said in
the nine hours his group met! Nor is there a guarantee that all the bars of
precious metals were saved in this report after the slag was poured off.
What follows is our scribal attempt to preserve the fruits of our first
efforts to do cooperative exegesis. A disclaimer must be made here at
the outset: Everyone who attended the Charlotte annual meeting would
want to speak for himself and offer his own qualifications to any
individual point of exegesis. Our work represented below should not
then be taken as a dogmatic pronouncement of any kind; instead, it
should be seen as a statement of where we are generally in our biblical
interpretation of these key pneumatolgical passages, and where we need
further enlightenment from the Spirit of truth.
A composite summary of the findings of the exegetical circles follows

- 21-
in the accompanying article complied by Chris Smith from the reports of
the scribes and edited by the program chairman.

THE SPIRIT AND REGENERATION IN JOHN'S GOSPEL:

A COMPOSITE EXEGETICAL REPORT

by Chris M. Smith

There were six passages (John 1:29-34; 3:1-12; 7:37-39; 14:15-20;

16:6-11 and 20:19-23) considered for exegesis. These will be dealt with
here in biblical order. The key questions, circulated well in advance of
the meeting, will be used to introduce the result of the work of the
seminars.

John 1:29-34 Question # 1: Can immersing people in the Spirit ever be

applied to regeneration as most non-pentecostals teach?

The formation of an answer to this question depends heavily on the

meaning of w. 31-33 in the context of the whole of John's Gospel and on
the understanding of the relationship between John and Jesus and their
baptisms. One group saw a continuity between John and Jesus in the
prophetic aspect of their baptisms. They found that approximately 80%
of the references to water baptism in John are prophetic in their
orientation. Moreover, continuity was seen in the fact that both baptisms
were revelatory of Jesus. John's baptism by water was meant to reveal
Jesus to Israel (1:31); Jesus' baptism by Spirit would reveal Jesus as the
Source of the Spirit.
This last point, however, graphically underscores the discontinuity
between the two baptisms. In 1:33, John himself admits that without the
Spirit he would not have known Jesus. There is a progression from a
ministry that did not dispense the Spirit to a ministry that conveyed the
Spirit. This passage depicts John and Jesus respectively as representa-
tives of two different periods in God's dealings with mankind. Such a
contrast was first glimpsed in 1:16, 17. John 1:16, 17 seems to be
programmatic for all that follows in describing the difference between
life in the old age and life in the new.
Hence, if we were to limit our understanding to John's Gospel, it would
seem that for the Apostle John, Jesus as Spirit Baptizer or Spirit
Immerser, whatever more is latent in the term, includes the idea of
regeneration, as developed by the analogies of the birth from above, a
drink of life-giving water, and a breath from the risen Lord, all
developed in this Gospel.

- 22-
Question #2: Is there a sense in which the whole post-resurrection
ministry of Jesus can be described as one of immersing believers in the
Spirit of God?

Although little new light emerged on this question, it is obvious that

how one answers the first question will determine how the term
"baptizer in the Spirit" should be understood. If the term is understood
wholly within the framework of the fourth Gospel, it can cover all the
spiritual activities mentioned there. If one allows that John assumed
common knowledge of Luke-Acts, one can understand this term as
being prophetic of Pentecost (Acts 2:33). The question remains for
further exploration as to whether o {3a:rrn(wv ev rrvelJ}J.œr;'L aytw meant
in John's Gospel to be a definitive technical term, or whether it is simply
one more picturesque way of describing the one who ushers believers
into the new age of grace, truth, and Spirit.

John 3:1-12 Question: Does this text teach baptismal regeneration,

spiritual regeneration, or a combination of both?

Undoubtedly, this is the biblical passage on regeneration. But to

which concept of regeneration does it refer? Although it was
acknowledged that this passage, particularly verse 5, is the key passage
used in support of the practice of "baptismal regeneration," no circle
raised an argument in its defense. Rather, there was a majority view that
in verse 5 the phrase ysvvr?8"'e? 88«cos Ka`c 7rve'v/xaro-g "born of water
and Spirit" has to do with the intent of the whole passage, that is,
spiritual regeneration. But as to the precise meaning of #8«cos (v. 5)
there are some variance in interpretation.
Basically, the groups construed this phrase in one of two ways:
Water points to physical (natural) birth and Spirit points to supernatural
birth; or water and Spirit together point to supernatural birth. The
former interpretation was argued on historical grounds. In New
Testament times the word water (#8wp) was the term for the amniotic
fluid surrounding the fetus that pours out at natural birth. If this
meaning is applied to verse 5, then verse 6 would be understood as a
further explication of verse 5's contrast between natural and super-
natural birth.
The latter view, which sees 18«cos Kai 7rvevparos not in contrast
but as a single unit, finds support on grammatical grounds. The
defenders of this view point out that the phrase does not say, "both from
"
water and Spirit" Ka'l ica%l 7rVe'VUCfro,;)but simply, "from
water and Spirit" (e4 tJ8œcos Ka1rrve6}.U1't'os).

- 23-
 Some felt that the larger context further substantiates this inter-
pretation. The phrases in verse 3, "unless one is born from above," and
in verse 7, "you must be born from above," are both speaking of spiritual
birth. A closer look at verses 3 and 5 seems to indicate that all three
verses (3, 5, 7) are in synonymous parallelism: 3:3--Jesus answered and
said to him, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born from above, he
cannot see the kingdom of God." 3:5--Jesus answered, "Truly, truly I say
to you unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God."
With two exceptions, verses 3 and 5 agree exactly in word use and
order. Of these, the exception 18etv (v. 3) for 4ue>§Kv efls (v. 5) is
considered by most scholars to be synonymous. This, of course,
strengthens the view that verses 3,5, and 7 are in synonymous parallel.
David DuPlessis, alias "Mr. Pentecost," referring to the key phrase
in verse 5, had this comment on John 3:5 and the larger questions
pertinent to the theme:

It cannot mean water baptism because Jesus never did baptize.

To drink is a personal matter. In salvation you receive the Spirit.
In baptism, the Spirit receives you. Both encounters are present.
The Spirit is the baptism. The water is the drink of salvation.
When you are born of the water and receive the Spirit there is
entrance into the kingdom. The Spirit baptism is the manifesta-
tion for ministry. As with Jesus there was no manifestation of the
Spirit until the Spirit descended upon him as a dove (the Spirit
received Jesus), so there is no manifestation for ministry in us until
after baptism when the Spirit has received us.

John 7:37-39 Problem: The Eastern and Western punctuations of the

text are at odds relative to the source of "the rivers of living water."
(Contrast KJV and NEB, or NIV text and footnote.)

Question # 1: Do the rivers of living water stream forth from Christ

or from the believer?

It should be noted that the punctuation problem and question # 1

are interrelated; the decision one makes regarding the punctuation
necessarily influences one's decision as to the identification of the
rivers' source.
Of the many participants in the third session, the majority preferred
the Eastern reading that construes Christ, and not the believer, to be the
source of the living water. The justification for this interpretation was

- 24-
made on exegetical and theological grounds.
The Eastern punctuation of verses 37b, 38a was considered
perfectly acceptable for the following reasons. It:

(1) preserves the Hebrew style of parallelism.

(2) does not violate Greek grammar for the nominative case to be
used with the third person imperative to identify the subject of
the action.
(3) juxtaposes the figure of speech "drink" with its interpretation.
Jesus means by "drinking," believing.
(4) accords more naturally with the typology of the Feast of Taber-
nacles, which is the setting for Jesus' saying.

Most, but not all, of the participants preferred this eastern NEB
rendering over that of the traditional KJV.

The punctuations of the Greek text are here provided:

ORIGEN'S or the WESTERN PUNCTUATION:

Rivers From the Believer

ALTERNATE or EASTERN PUNCTUATION:

Rivers from Christ

On exegetical grounds, there was a majority opinion that the Old

Testament verse(s) to which Jesus was referring in verse 38 also
supported the view that Jesus is the source of the living rivers of the
Spirit. They saw the promise of the "rivers of living water streaming
forth" as based on the historical wilderness miracle found in Exodus
17:6; Numbers 20:llb; Deuteronomy 8:15; Nehemiah 9:15; Psalm

- 25-
 78:15-16, 20; 105:41; 114:7-8. None of these verses is quoted exactly in
John 7:38, but the gist of verse 38 is found in these passages that
speak of divine provision from the Rock, from one source, not thousands
of sources.
Moreover,, Moses himself apparently confused the source (God) with
the vessel (the rock) and was thereby disqualified from entrance into the
promised land. By striking the rock twice, Moses signified his
disobedience and dishonor to God--not the rock--the true source of
living water (cf. Num. 20:12).
Further. support for the unitary divine source interpretation was
educed from two Old Testament prophets, Ezekiel and Zechariah; for
both speak of living water which flows from the sanctuary in Jerusalem
when God establishes his kingdom among men (Ezek. 47:1-5; Zech.
14:8).
For some participants, John 4:14 was seen to support the traditional
view that believers become sources of rivers of living water for the world,
but such a correlation has its problems. John 4:14 actually begins with
the unambiguous declaration that Jesus is the source of living water. It is
given by Christ to the believer. This is again stated in 4:14 where living
water springs up fez 0:67?. The termination of the flow of the internal
spring is eternal life for that one who receives the Spirit from Christ. In
4:14 the metaphor is that of a single spring bubbling up within the
believer; in 7:38 the metaphor changes to rivers which flow out of Christ
to all believers. Another Johannine work, Revelation 22:1, adopts the
latter imagery in the description of a river of living water flowing out of
the throne of God and the Lamb (i.e., Christ).

John 14:15-20 Question: How are we to understand the apostles' life-

time experience of the Spirit, since they already had spiritual gifts
operative in their ministries BEFORE Jesus said, "you shall live"?

It was noted that this passage is a "Paraclete saying." It may be that

this Paraclete saying is separated from another (Jn.15:13-17, especially
26-27) by an ethical hymn on love, John 15:1-12, in much the same way
that Paul separates his discussion of xapiQ?u.aTa in 1 Corinthians 12
from 1 Corinthians 14 by the insertion of the hymn of love in 1
Corinthians 13. In John 14:15-20, the Paraclete was to be given yet
sometime in the future, and the coming of that Paraclete is linked
directly to Jesus in that in 14:18 he says, "I will come to you."
For one group, the question raised yet another, "Precisely when did
the new covenant begin?" Interpreters historically have come up with
four possible answers: (1) As some of the fathers proposed, the new

-26-
covenant commenced at the first moment of the incarnation. (2) It began
at the cross-resurrection event. (3) It began with the miracles and
ministry of Jesus in some anticipatory way. (4) It began at Pentecost. The
majority of the groups understood this passage to contain promises
which could only be fully realized subsequent to Jesus' glorification (cf.
20:19ff). Accordingly, central to this view is the key phrase 9-ri *'ey"W §3 in
14:19b. Here the verb Caw is taken to be a futuristic present, i.e.,
referring to Jesus' resurrection. It was further suggested that additional
support for the "proleptic" nature of this passage could be drawn from
the temporal phrase, crt P.LlCpOV!found earlier in the same verse.
But this raised the question as to whether a promise-fulfillment
motif occurs other places in this Gospel. Most agreed that it does.
References were made to several passages; but for most, however, the
hemeneutical key seemed to be 7:39. This verse was seen not only to
harmonize with John 14:15-20, but also to clearly illustrate John's
controlling principle: Jesus offers to men the new age-eternal life,
grace, truth, and the Holy Spirit; but these blessing find their complete
realization after Christ's glorification.

John 16: 6-11 Question # 1: How is regeneration the basis for a deeper
communion with Christ than the disciples had early on?

Question #2: What compensates (and how) for the physical absence
of Jesus among unbelievers in the world?

These questions may be considered together.

It was noted that in his early life, Jesus was, of necessity, limited to
one location at any one time. It was, therefore, in the disciples' best
interest for Jesus to depart and send the Spirit-Paraclete. Also, this was
especially so since the imminent persecution of the early Church would
disperse many of the Church's leaders in numerous directions.
Consequently, on a practical level, the advantage of Jesus leaving
and the Spirit coming was to assure the disciples that they would not be
left as orphans (14:18) in the absence of Jesus' physical presence. The
historical Jesus was delimited by the strictures of time and space; but in
the sending of the Spirit at regeneration would come the assurance of
Christ's uninterrupted presence.
Secondly, John 14:17c-20 outlines the rationale for Jesus' depar-
ture : The disciples' intimate relationship with the Father and Christ
himself was at best incomplete until they received Jesus inwardly via
the Holy Spirit. For only in light of his (future) glorification did Jesus

- 27-
 call his disciples, "friends" (Jn. 15:15); and only in view of his departure
could Jesus call his disciples, "brothers" (20:17). The filial relationship
of which Jesus often spoke between himself and the Father was also
extended to the believer. Hence, the promise of this relationship is not
unlike the other promises offered by Jesus in the fourth Gospel. Filial
relationship with the Father and the Son finds its realization when the
final link in the chain has been forged--Jesus' glorification and the
consequent coming of the Spirit.

Question #3: What role does the Spirit play temporally in conviction
and regeneration?

Many of the participants viewed the Spirit's function with the

unbelieving world to be that of a prosecuting attorney. Certainly the
Paraclete, the one 'called along side' to help, would act as a defense
attorney for believers. But the confrontive element of Jesus' statement
is unmistakable. The Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin and of
righteousness and of judgment (v. 8).
Indeed, it seems that the Paraclete's role could be considered as one
in which he convinces the world to a right thinking on the subjects of sin,
righteousness, and judgment. Thus, the role of the Paraclete following
the ministry of Jesus would be: (1) to draw people, by way of conviction,
to a place of understanding their individual and corporate sinfulness; (2)
to point out the sole means of obtaining righteousness, and (3) to expose
the ruler of this world as already judged (v. 11--lCtKpt'C'Cltperfect tense).
It was noted by one group that verses 8-11 were seen in an altogether
different light by certain movements within the early church. For
. example, Tertullian and the Montanists used these verses to justify the
continued operation of the prophetic gifts. Tertullian's understanding
as to why Jesus sent the Paraclete in lieu of himself was based on the
fact that Jesus' brief amount of time on earth did not allow him
opportunity to say all he had wished to say. From his 4n the Veiling of
Virgins (1:4-7), Tertullian says, "... since human mediocrity was unable
to take in all things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed
and ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the
'
Holy Spirit .... What, then, is the Paraclete's administrative office but
this: the direction of discipline, the revelation of the Scripture, the
reformation of the intellect, the advancement toward 'better things'?"
John 20:19-23
The sixth and final session could be likened to the Gospel of John
itself--building in excitement toward a great and climactic end. From the

- 28-
very beginning nearly everyone expressed positive feelings about the
give-and-take on exegetical points, the tossing about of ideas, and the
spirit of camaraderie which seemed to enliven the proceedings. All of
this contributed to making consideration of the final and most difficult
passage the liveliest session of all.
The questions on the agenda for this session were not systematically
treated in the group deliberations. Hence, an attempt has been made to .
outline the general directions which the discussions seemed to follow.
At the peril of oversimplification certain trends of understanding were
evident:

(1) There was immediate agreement that John 20:19-23 has been
little understood by the Church. Both neglect and strained and
contradictory interpretations have characterized it.
(2) The Chi circle and others stressed the great importance of the
glorification of Christ Jesus as thematic in John's Gospel. It began
proleptically at the cross and was realized in Jesus'resurrection and was
to be further certified in his ascension. Thus this pericope and the last
verse of the third pericope exegeted (Jn. 7:37-39) were seen to be
mutually helpful.
(3) The Rho circle and others recognized the importance of John
20:19-23 as the literary climax of John's Gospel. Also the theological
climax was reached as Jesus presented himself as spiritual breath to the
believers after having presented himself in bodily manifestation. Not
left orphans, they were given Christ's continuing presence as "Peace,"
first as physical presence, then as spiritual presence.
(4) Several of the circles saw the signficance of the picturesque verb
of 20:22, ellpusa'CL4 used only here in the New Testament, but used in
Genesis 2:7 for the final act of creation, God's animating Adam. The
parallel between creation and regeneration is advanced by this repeated
act of divine breathing. Jesus was presented as the author of the new
creation in John 20:22 just as he was presented as the author of the
original creation in John 1:3.
Space does not permit us here to repeat the verse by verse exegesis
of John 20:19-23, so only generalizations will be attempted.
Most, if not all, of the approaches to interpreting this passage were
identified:
1. It is a parable, a symbol, a promise, that was not fulfilled until
Pentecost. [This has been the major old-line view of most classical
pentecostals.] ]
2. It is an embryonic experience of which Pentecost is the full grown
man.. [This has been the view of various evangelical commentators

- 29-
 including some classical pentecostals who have been unwilling to say
that nothing happened, but who have been at pains to say precisely
what.]
3. It was a quiet, semiformal ordination service, but the power
behind the ministries was kept back until Pentecost. [This is just a slight
variation on views 1 and 2 above.]
4. It is just John's retelling of the Pentecost event, reshaping the
story until it fit his theological and literary aims. In other words, there
were not two events separated by seven weeks, but only one moved back
by the evangelist to become "the Johannine Pentecost." [This is the
view of Bultmann and the liberal school in general who assume that the
writer took history no more seriously than existentialists do.]
5. It is an historical account of regeneration, which fulfilled what
Jesus had said symbolically about birth from above, living water and
manna from heaven; and it meant the actualizing for them of grace and
truth (Jn. 1:17), which came through his inbreathing them with the
eternal life of a new creation. [This view has been that of a few classical
pentecostals, most of the charismatics (as distinguished from the
classicals) and certain other interpreters who have employed book-by-
book interpretation, i.e., biblical theology.]
6. It was John's attempt to preserve the Passover (without keeping
all the baggage of Judaism) as an eucharistic ritual. Jesus was standing
"in the midst" (cf. the parallel in Lu. 24:30-31) of the elders as did the
Lamb of God in Rev. 5:6. It was the evening of the first day of the week
when the eucharist came to be observed in the early Church. The
revelation of Jesus' hands and side (v. 20) was a reminder of his broken
body featured in the eucharist. [This innovative interpretation was
formulated by a member of the Chi circle.]
'
The knot, therefore, that remains to be untied is the basic question
whether or when the ones visited by Jesus obeyed his command Àaf3E-r:E
1T1IEVJ.La å''YLOv(''Receive holy Spirit"--aorist imperative--Jn. 20:22). Put
another way, the same question looks like this: Is the watershed between
the old era of the law and the new of grace and truth (Jn. 1:17)
demarcated by the resurrection of Jesus, or the day of Pentecost?
Finally, the relativistic/dispensational argument was raised that
even if the believers had an experience of inner peace in John 20:19-23
and an experience of heavenly power later in Acts 2:1-11, this could not
be a pattern for experience today. Since their experience was
determined by. their relation to the historical Jesus, then comparable
sequels of experience could be possible only if Jesus lived, died, rose, and
ascended repeatedly, according to the objection. But such an argument
proves too much or nothing at all. None of us today has access to the

- 30-
historical Jesus on the earth. In Acts regeneration was repeatable for the
people who had not seen the risen Christ and Pentecost was repeated at
Caesarea and elsewhere. But time ran out before this objection could be
handled properly. It might well provide the springboard for another
round of exegetical circles on "The Spirit in Acts" in the future.
In conclusion, an editorial emphasis must be made once again. The
words of one of the scribes speaks for us all: "The scribe acknowledges
his own interpreting of the interpretation process. It would not be fair to
suggest that any of the ideas presented above represent a consensus." A
beginning has been made in exploratory exegesis. The findings of the
four circles are strictly evidential of where we were in November, 1981,
and are in no sense official; and since the SPS is not a representative
ecclesiastical organization, these findings are in no sense dogmatic.
Therefore, please let no one who would quote from this record of the
1981 meeting describe it in part or in whole as the position of the Society
for Pentecostal Studies.

- 31-