The aim of this first chapter is to review two of the major areas of understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in the hermeneutical process. The first is Pentecostalism. There is a growing body of literature that will be helpful in our task. The second is Conservative Evangelical approaches. As we shall see, the material here is much less. The choice of these is based on the notion that Charismatic Hermeneutics lies somewhere between the these two approaches. Many, but certainly not all Charismatics have emerged from conservative evangelical traditions. Although Charismatics have many similarities with Pentecostalism, there are also notable differences. Hence that fact that Charismatics have often been referred to as 'Neo-Pentecostals'. The hope is that by examining both Pentecostalism and Evangelical Conservatism, we might get a clearer understanding of where Charismatic Hermeneutics might lie.
Pentecostal approaches to biblical interpretation are playing an increasingly important role in the contemporary hermeneutical debate. Modern approaches to hermeneutics are introducing more subjective elements into the task of biblical interpretation. Post-modernistic ideas - however cumbersome and ill-defined - have raised the awareness of a more subjective element to human life, and in particular, the search for meaning from language. It has been argued that Pentecostal approaches to hermeneutics are well placed to deal with this new epistemological paradigm. This particular debate will surface later, but for the moment we want to acknowledge that Pentecostal approaches to biblical hermeneutics are in a better position to accept the possibility of a subjective and more experiential dimension in hermeneutics.
This position is due primarily to Pentecostalism's willingness to talk freely of an experiential, dynamic and existential (that is to say, 'in the present') aspect to the work of the Spirit. There is an explicit supernatural worldview, that, although certainly not unique to Pentecostalism, is nevertheless given a particularly high profile by Pentecostals generally. This supernatural worldview is seen as being directly descended from the supernatural worldview that is described in the Bible. "Thus the supernatural, experiential worldview of Scripture is our worldview; that is, an understanding of God who is above and beyond creation yet in and among his people and testified to by signs and wonders". The extent to which this is an over-generalisation is beyond the scope of our present discussion, but few would deny that one of Pentecostalism's defining factors is the emphasis that the supernatural. It is this dimension that is of most interest to our discussion. Within Pentecostalism, there is a clear willingness to acknowledge that there is an active role for the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics which goes beyond other more conservative approaches.
For some, Pentecostal approaches to the hermeneutical task not only place a high emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit, but would regard any form of valid hermeneutics as impossible apart from a work of the Holy Spirit - an epistemology that is blatantly pneumatological. For Arrington, "Scripture given by the Holy Spirit must be mediated interpretively by the Holy Spirit. The illumination of the interpreter by the Holy Spirit is a vital part in elucidating the contemporary meaning of the biblical text."
However, we already have a point of difficulty. Elsewhere, Arrington writes of the need for the Holy Spirit in helping the interpreter "...to come to the fullest comprehension of the significance of the text." Arrington is suggesting that there is a level of interpretation only open to a spiritually-enlightened group. If Arrington is simply saying that all believers, by virtue of the fact that all have received the Holy Spirit no matter what their denominational affiliation or experience of the Spirit, have access to a level of interpretation that is unavailable to the unbeliever, then there is, less cause for concern. Maybe it is only that Pentecostals acknowledge this particular dimension more easily. On the other hand, however, if Arrington is suggesting that Pentecostals, by nature of their implicit understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit have access to a level of understanding, a 'fuller comprehension', that is beyond those without this dimension, then there is much more ground for serious concern.
Archer similarly writes along these lines. "Pentecostals have a distinct way of reading the Scriptures. They read them 'through Lukan eyes especially with the lenses provided by the book of Acts'". This Lukan perspective demands that believers be baptised in the Holy Spirit as a second experience to conversion. And one presumes that it is this perspective that makes a Pentecostal reading unique. So without this 'Pentecostal perspective' the 'non-Pentecostal' believer, by definition, lacks something that is available to Pentecostal readers. Is there a unique Pentecostal understanding to the role of the Holy Spirit?
John McKay continues this line of argument with what he calls 'prophetic Christianity'. He argues that there are only two ways to study the Scriptures: "One is objective and analytical, interesting in itself, but imparting little or nothing of the life of God to the student. The other...draws us to God and gives life". McKay is severely critical of the approach to the Bible which he feels is implicit in academic circles and is concerned that the 'charismatic movement' is in danger of losing its distinctive dimension through dialogue with academia. He argues that there is a clear tension between that which is done within the academy, and that which is done (or has been experienced) by those who have been baptised in the Holy Spirit. McKay having first worked within the academy and then subsequently being baptised in the Holy Spirit is very aware of the tension that has now resulted between what he used to do and what he has now come to experience. "The message seems clear enough: the Spirit enables us to read the Bible with some new clarity that could not be possible without his aid".
McKay is keen to polarise the debate believing that there are rational approaches to the Bible and spiritual approaches. The former requires no faith and is present throughout Biblical studies departments and Theological colleges, the latter requires faith and moves in the reality of the Holy Spirit's guiding. McKay recounts his own experiences where, after many years of academic scholarship and 'frustration', he received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
...[T]he more I pursued this quite limited objective [the essential message of the Bible through academic methods] the more aware I became of the confused complexity of the theological debate, and proportionately I despaired of scholarship's ever discovering a solution.
But after the baptism in the Spirit:
"It could no longer be my aim to resolve the riddle of the Word of God; the Holy Spirit had done that for me. My studies had to manifestly change focus, from my search for meaning to clarification of my new understanding".
For McKay, there is no understanding apart from the Holy Spirit. Rational categories cannot provide that epistemological dimension that belongs to the Spirit and is essential to biblical hermeneutics. McKay concludes by stating that:
It is not that Charismatics have ceased to think theologically; quite the contrary. However their theological perspective has changed, and changed so radically that they find their views no longer fit with those of the majority of today's biblical theologians, and furthermore that they fail to find much satisfaction from participating in their debates. It is my convinced opinion that a charismatic's view of the Bible must be different from everyone else's, be they fundamentalists, conservatives, liberals, radicals or whatever.
It is clear that McKay is claiming a dimension of biblical interpretation that is only open to those who accept his understanding of the work of the Spirit in the believer. For McKay, there is a unique hermeneutic that is not available to all believers and requires the baptism of the Spirit. This is unfortunate since much of what McKay is arguing for genuinely challenges dry and lifeless academic approaches. He is calling for a recognition of the fact that Bible reading has an explicitly spiritual dimension and that the end of the hermeneutical task is not the pursuit of more knowledge but life in the Spirit and relationship with God. However, he has chosen an either/or approach. He has clearly separated the insights gained from rational means and the insights that can be gained from 'spiritual' means suggesting the latter is superior. It seems excessive to so easily dismiss the insights from academic approaches or the approaches of other traditions with the arrogant claim that they have little, if anything, to offer.
Anderson, writing as a Pentecostal, recognises the problem of this apparent elitism. Anderson argues that a Pentecostal understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit does not differ substantially from wider evangelical opinion. Anderson clearly states that, "A Pentecostal Hermeneutic is not special insight unavailable to others". As with all conservative thinking, "The Holy Spirit must illuminate the understanding of the interpreter", but there is no unique Pentecostal perspective.
Anderson then goes on to acknowledge that there are two schools of thought within evangelicalism as to what exactly it is that the Holy Spirit does. Either the Holy Spirit enables the human mind to intellectually grasp the revelation of scripture, or alternatively, the human mind is quite capable of understanding the meaning of the scriptures without the aid of the Holy Spirit, it is rather the will of the one reading that is the object of the Holy Spirit's action. "[The] Holy Spirit has changed the will of the one, but the other remains hostile toward God". So, is it simply a question of either intellect or will as the object of the Spirit's action? For Anderson, Pentecostals would align themselves with the second of these views. The Holy Spirit works on the will of the reader and not their mind. So, Anderson would, therefore, find it helpful to differentiate between the meaning of a text and the significance of a text.
"I distinguish then between the meaning of a word (definition, understanding the concept, etc.), and the meaningfulness of it (significance, emotional impact, etc.). It takes the work of the Holy Spirit, making a person alive to God, to make the Bible meaningful in the second sense".
So is the role of the Spirit in hermeneutics for Pentecostals about the mind, or the will, or some other part of the hermeneutical task?
Some see the role of the Holy Spirit as more contextual and experiential. The Holy Spirit is active in the present experience of the believer. So the Holy Spirit, therefore, forms the common context for Bible reading to take place. The Bible was originally written under the supervision of the Spirit and the Bible is, therefore, to be understood under the supervision of the Spirit. But rather than the Spirit providing the reader with the correct answers to questions concerning the original meaning of the text (life would be so much simpler if this were the case), the Spirit instead provides the bridge by which the ancient text becomes relevant in the present context of the believer. There has to be a link between the written scriptures and the believer and it is the Holy Spirit that provides that link. It is the application of the text to the present experience of the believer that is the work of the Holy Spirit. There is not simply understanding, but rather understanding that is relevant. A dialogue is established between the text and the reader's experience that is supervised by the Holy Spirit.
Archer cites John Christopher Thomas's attempt to deduce a paradigm for a holistic Pentecostal hermeneutic from the situation described in Acts 15. Thomas attempts to argue that there is a clear relationship between the experience of believers, the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit caused the believers to reapply the teaching of Scripture into their present context. So, for Archer, "Pentecostals believe that God speaks today and when God speaks, God has more to say than just scripture, yet it will be scripturally sound".
This approach would certainly raise concerns within more conservative evangelical circles. Archer (via the work of Thomas) is suggesting that scripture should be seen in more fluid terms. The relationship between that which is written and that which is being experienced by the believer is changeable and dynamic. And this 'fluidity' is supervised by the Holy Spirit. Thomas attempts to adopt this approach when considering the role of women in church. Thomas begins by provocatively noting that "...modern theological scholarship...both liberal and conservative...[has] little or no appreciation for the work of the Holy Spirit in interpretation." And he goes onto point out that "such a hermeneutical component is of no little interest to Pentecostal scholars". Drawing on the account in Acts 15, he notes the role played by the experience of the believers and the place and room given to the Holy Spirit that precedes any consideration of the scriptures. "[T]he methodology revealed in Acts 15 is far removed from the historical-grammatical approach where one moves from text to context. On this occasion, the interpreters moved from their context to the biblical text". More important is the emphasis that is placed on the role of the Spirit in the process. "Such explicit dependence upon the Spirit in the interpretative process clearly goes far beyond the rather tame claims regarding 'illumination' which many conservatives (and Pentecostals) have often made regarding the Spirit's role in interpretation".
Thomas is clearly dissatisfied with much of the contemporary discussion regarding the role of the Spirit in interpretation.. For Thomas, there is a clear role for the Spirit which is tangible and necessary for the believing community to function effectively. Thomas is also aware of the subjective element that is obvious when such a path is chosen. He has placed controls in the paradigm that he is proposing that would help to limit the range of interpretations, but he refuses to stifle the Spirit's role through mere 'academic lip service'. And this is refreshing and challenging, if a little dangerous.
The traditional emphasis within evangelical circles on the Historical-critical method is, then, seen as inadequate. It allows the reader to gain some access to the original meaning of the text but is of little benefit in helping the believer gain meaning for the present. It is this 'present meaning' that is, for Arrington, 'pneumatic interpretation'. For Archer, "The traditional evangelical historical-critical methods would be utilised in the hermeneutic process but would not monopolise the process. Contemporary Christian experience must also be included in the hermeneutical process". Both Anderson and Archer are seeking some synthesis between traditional evangelical methods and modern reader-centred approaches.
Robert Menzies is equally less comfortable with a hermeneutic that gives too much space to more subjective reader-centred approaches. He has been particularly critical of Cargal's attempt to argue that Pentecostalism is well-placed to engage with the post-modern perspective. Menzies happily adopts a more traditional evangelical approach to hermeneutics by reasserting the importance of the historicity of the text (and, therefore, the place for historical-critical methods) for all evangelicals. This is in response to Cargal's apparent ahistorical approach. Menzies states: "...Cargal is probably right: Pentecostalism, because of its pragmatic and experiential focus, may easily be attracted to the ahistorical vision inherent in post-modern thought. This however is a weakness, not a strength". Menzies' concern with Cargal's approach is the threat of the diminishing the role of the text by more reader-centred approaches. Menzies would want to hold onto rational categories for control.
These [reader-centred] approaches strike me as the logical successors of a sterile biblical criticism which has so emasculated the text that it had nothing of significance to communicate. At some point, the question had to be asked: why bother with all this? The solution to this dilemma was obvious: if significance cannot be found in the meaning of the text, then it must be imported from outside the text.
Menzies supports the need for critical methods in the search for meaning, and states that the future for Pentecostalism lies not with the retention of its own distinctives but instead, an assimilation with evangelical methods while seeking to bring Pentecostal distinctives of Spirit baptism and an experiential focus to bear in the ongoing debate.
Menzies is harsh on Cargal's analysis. Cargal has brought a clear challenge that is not so much to do with questions of historicity, but rather more to do with modernist presuppositions about the nature of truth, the place of rational categories and the potential for pushing aside the possibility of a transcendent dimension that seems central to Christian experience. For Cargal, the central presupposition of modernism is that "...reality is objectively knowable, and, by implication, only that which is objectively knowable is real...What both Fundamentalists and Modernists have in common is a philosophical presupposition that only what is historically and objectively true is meaningful". Cargal is happy to acknowledge that reason and rationalism can tell us some things, but they cannot tell us everything, "I want to emphasise that this post-modern vision of reality reopens the possibility of the transcendent virtually closed by modernity". Pentecostal presuppositions about a supernatural and transcendent reality are not only a point of contact with a post-modern worldview, but equally challenge modernist presuppositions that are so dominant within traditional evangelical critical methods. Cargal is calling for the acknowledgement that there is more to hermeneutics than the historical-critical method, and the scope of enquiry ought to include the insight of experience and the possibility of contextual readings, and, most importantly, the reality of a transcendent dimension outside of rational, modernistic categories.
It is difficult to see, if viewed sympathetically, that Cargal is asserting anything substantially different from Menzies. Menzies is excessive in describing Cargal's work as "ultimately disturbing". Both seem to be seeking a synthesis of objective and subjective approaches, if only with different emphases. The major concern with Cargal's argument is where he would leave the final point of hermeneutical control: with the subjective categories found in the reader or the objective categories based in the text or in historical-critical methods. Menzies is right to raise this concern and evangelicalism as a whole would sit more comfortably with that which is known and objective taking precedence over that which is less clear and subjective. It is the post-modern bandwagon of rampant subjectivism that we should jump off and not the possibility of the Christian experience of the transcendent.
Arden Autry points us in a different direction when considering the role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics. He states that a good hermeneutic cannot be ahistorical. However, rather than shaping the mind or the will, or contextualising the reading for the present experience of the reader, the Holy Spirit's role is to bring the reader into an encounter with God. Citing the work of Paul Ricoeur, Autry states that "...the true aim of Scripture...is not simply accurate reading of the author's intention but knowledge of God". There is a transcendent reality that can be encountered and should be expected through reading the biblical text. It is this faith dimension that separates the unbelieving reader from the believing reader. "What will be lacking for the non-believer is not understanding (in the ordinary sense) but awareness of relationship to God...Lacking this awareness of relationship, one lacks the context in which the Bible's message can work to achieve its purpose - knowledge of God". Autry writes of both correct reading - the use of critical methods objectively to control the reader's conclusions; and creative readings which are context specific and may step outside that which would have been intended by the original author. "Nevertheless, the language of the Bible does seem to have a dynamic quality not always exhausted by the author's original intention". Autry imaginatively concludes by stating: "The 'correct' reading serves the 'creative'; and the 'creative' measures itself by the 'correct'".
If taken seriously, this view of the role of the Holy Spirit challenges what is often assumed by biblical interpreters. Few evangelicals would deny that part of the Spirit's role is to bring believers into a relationship with and knowledge of God. This function for most is seen to be predominately through prayer and Bible study. Questions about whether this is the Spirit's primary role in hermeneutics - the knowledge of God - or whether the Spirit's role is in relation to the mind or the will or the reader's context need to placed to one side for now. The clear challenge that is being brought by Cargal, Thomas, McKay, Autry and others is that this particular aspect of the Spirit cannot be, on the one hand, freely acknowledged, and yet, on the other hand, restricted to human, rational and objective categories. The Spirit can clearly use rational means to communicate and bring people into an encounter with God. But this should not be seen as the only level of action.
For many Pentecostals, the Holy Spirit is active in a supernatural dimension and is quite capable of acting in ways that break the rules of more rational approaches and still bring people into a deeper knowledge of God. Pentecostal approaches to hermeneutics are well placed to accept this dimension. The extent to which others within Pentecostalism are willing to actively recognise this element is debatable. It seems clear that there are those within Pentecostalism who are little different in their methods from more conservative scholars and feel just as uneasy with this subjective element. However, there is an increasingly competent voice that is willing to acknowledge a more subjective and active role for the Spirit yet is also happy to recognise the role played by scholarship and more traditional approaches. For Pentecostalism, synthesis rather than polarisation and, therefore, alienation, seems the better path to choose. They would all argue that conservative scholarship certainly needs the insights that they bring.
We have already noted the paucity of material that exists within conservative evangelical circles on this topic. One presumes that this is either because it is assumed that all understand the role of the Spirit and, therefore, little more need be said. Or alternatively, the lack may be due to the fact that conservative understanding is that the Spirit has little to do with the hermeneutical task; it is an essentially rational task. There is a third option. The role of the Spirit is actually little understood by many evangelicals and to seek a better understanding of what exactly the Spirit does in hermeneutics raises the kind of questions that have already been looked at within Pentecostal approaches. We enter a world where there is every likelihood that subjectivism and personal experience have to be taken seriously and given proper space. Neither of these elements have found conservative evangelicalism a happy home, and so evangelicalism tends to steer clear happy to remain in its detached rationally dominated hermeneutic. We shall briefly examine two authors who have written on this subject from within conservative evangelicalism.
Daniel Fuller argues that the object of the Holy Spirit's action is the mind of the one reading the biblical text. Basing his argument on 1 Corinthians 2:14 and, in particular, the Greek word lambano, Fuller argues that "...apart from the Holy Spirit, a person does not accept what the Bible teaches with pleasure, willingness, and eagerness. In other words, the natural man does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God". The meaning of the text, for Fuller, can be attained through rational approaches, "...the Holy Spirit's role is to change the heart of the interpreter, so that he loves the message that is conveyed by nothing more than the historical-grammatical data". The unregenerate reject the message of the Bible because of its apparent foolishness and their utter sinfulness. "Precisely because its message is so comprehensible and yet collides head-on with people's deep-seated desires to exult in themselves, men reject it and seek to justify this by regarding it as foolishness".
Fuller's argument is disappointing. To base an entire understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation on one verse seems inadequate. Fee argues that Paul is stating here that there is not just an issue of a willingness to receive the message, but the message itself cannot be understood apart from the work of the Spirit, and so remains foolish; rational categories are inadequate for understanding. Also, to state that meaning can be found through careful analysis of the historical-grammatical data raises interesting questions about those believers who do not have access to the historical-grammatical data for instance. Finally, the context for Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians appears to have more to do with the preaching of the gospel to unbelievers rather than the understanding of the Bible by those who read it.
John Frame, too, writes from a conservative perspective. Frame adopts a similar understanding to Fuller as to the nature of the Spirit's work in interpretation.
Every warranted confession of scripture... is a rational confession, a sound inference from experience. But then what role remains for the testimony of the Spirit? ...The work of the Spirit is to remove those effects of sin, to overcome that resistance...He changes us to acknowledge what is rationally warranted.
For Frame, the Spirit does not provide us with anything that is not rationally available nor does the Spirit enable us to transcend reason altogether. Christianity is to be seen as a rational faith that comfortably functions on a rational level: "there is no competition between the rationality of the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit". It is certainly true that God functions on a rational level, few would deny this. The issue is whether God only functions on a rational level? Frame is less than clear, happy to talk of God's rational activity and yet also using terms like 'mystery' and 'intuition'. He also talks of the 'experience' of God speaking through the scriptures. "[N]o experience offers a more profound closeness with God". Although firmly rational in his approach he seems unwilling to completely close the door to the subjective.
So where do we now find ourselves?
The two authors we have examined provide us with a very limited base for assessing conservative evangelical views on the role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics. However, the clear lack of information makes a more comprehensive survey difficult. Combined with the survey that was undertaken in the introduction, it does seem clear that contemporary evangelicalism, outside of Pentecostal or Charismatic circles, wishes to distance itself from definite ideas of a more tangible and subjective role for the Holy Spirit. Even more text-centred and reader-centred approaches, while breaking away from traditional evangelical approaches, still lack any study of the Spirit's role. Instead there is a preference to remain firmly objective and rational while not denying outright the 'possibility' of God, through the Holy Spirit, acting outside of these categories. It is this intransigence and 'fuzziness' that frustrates those who look for a clearer subjective role, wishing to break out of rational modernist approaches.
In the third chapter, we shall look more closely at the work of Clark Pinnock. He is a conservative evangelical theologian who has attempted to gain a greater understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics. His insights will help us to bridge the gap between Pentecostal and conservative evangelical approaches.
It is not exactly easy to decide where we are at the end of this first chapter. So-called Pentecostal ideas are varied. There has been more written within this forum than most but there is little sense of a agreed understanding. More conservative Pentecostals seem little different from their non-Pentecostal conservative cousins. More experientially orientated writers differ on their views on the role of scholarship and the place of authorial intention. However, all the Pentecostal writers examined would still want to distance themselves from the closed, dry rationalism that is so prevalent elsewhere. Conservative evangelicalism is either silent on the matter or is reluctant to journey far from its objective, rational categories. The difficulty for non-Pentecostals is that that further investigation is not taking place. And although Pentecostal insights are stimulating and interesting, Pentecostal presuppositions about the work of the Spirit make the task of assimilating their ideas into evangelical circles, even charismatic circles, more difficult. There has to be further investigation beginning with a different set of presuppositions. And so it is to the work of Mark Stibbe that we now turn.
 For the purposes of our discussion, 'Pentecostalism' shall refer to western, first world approaches and will not deal with other 'versions' of Pentecostalism. However, it is recognised that even within western, first world Pentecostalism there is great variety and so we shall have to deal in broader generalisations.
 This is especially the case with Reader-Centred approaches and some hermeneutical approaches that are emerging from the developing world, for instance from Liberation Theology or Radical Theology.
 T.B. Cargal, 'Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Post-modern Age.' PNEUMA 15.2 (1993) pp.163-187.
 K.J. Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect', JPT 8 (1996: pp.63-81) p.77. JPT refers to the Journal of Pentecostal Studies.
 F.L. Arrington, 'The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals', PNEUMA 16.1 (1994: pp.101-107) p.104
 F.L. Arrington, 'Historical Perspectives on Pentecostal and Charismatic Hermeneutics', in S.M. Burgess and G.B. McGee (Eds.) Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan, 1988: pp.376-389) p.382 (italics mine)
 Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.70
 Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.70
 John McKay is not writing as a Pentecostal scholar in the sense that he is part of a Pentecostal denomination or an acknowledged Pentecostal leader. McKay's affiliations are with Kingdom Faith Ministries in West Sussex. However, he has a very definite understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit that is clearly Pentecostal, and so we include his insights at this point. It would also be fair top say that what McKay calls 'Charismatic understanding' would not necessarily be broadly acknowledged by the wider Charismatic movement. McKay represents a particular kind of Charismatic that is probably, on this issue, Pentecostal.
 J. McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away: The Impact of Prophetic Experience on Biblical Interpretation', JPT (1994: pp.17-40) pp.18-19
 McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away', p.18
 McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away', p.18
 McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away', p.21
 McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away', p.22-26
 McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away', p.19
 McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away', p.36
 McKay, 'When the Veil is Taken Away', p.38-39
 G.L. Anderson, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', in Drinking from our own wells: Defining a Pentecostal-Charismatic Spirituality (Conference Papers Vol.2, Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies) (November 12-14, 1992. AoG Theological Seminary, Springfield, Missouri: pp.1-21)
 Anderson, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.7
 Anderson, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.11
 Anderson, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.11
 Anderson, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.12
 Anderson, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.12
 Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.78. See also Arrington, 'The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals', p.105. "The heart of the biblical text remains ambiguous until it is illuminated by the Holy Spirit."
 Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.78
 Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.78-79
 Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.80
 J.C. Thomas, 'Women, Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics', JPT 5 (1994: pp.41-56)
 Thomas, 'Women, Pentecostals and the Bible', p.42
 Thomas, 'Women, Pentecostals and the Bible', pp.44-46
 Thomas, 'Women, Pentecostals and the Bible', p.50
 Thomas, 'Women, Pentecostals and the Bible', p.49
 Thomas, 'Women, Pentecostals and the Bible', p.54ff
 Arrington, 'The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals', p.103
 Arrington, 'The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals', p.103
 Archer, 'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.79
 R.P. Menzies, 'Jumping Off the Post-modern Bandwagon', PNEUMA 16.1 (1994: pp.115-120)
 Menzies, 'Jumping Off the Post-modern Bandwagon', p.117
 Menzies, 'Jumping Off the Post-modern Bandwagon', p.117
 Menzies, 'Jumping Off the Post-modern Bandwagon', p.118
 Menzies, 'Jumping Off the Post-modern Bandwagon', p.119
 Cargal, 'Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy', p.167-168
 Cargal, 'Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy', p.177
 Cargal, 'Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy', p.178
 Menzies, 'Jumping Off the Post-modern Bandwagon', p.115
 A.C. Autry, 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Focus', JPT 3 (1993: pp.29-50)
 Autry, 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Focus', pp.32-33. "Biblically informed faith and hermeneutics cannot be ahistorical". p.33
 Autry, 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Focus', p.36, 41-44
 Autry, 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Focus', p.44
 Autry, 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Focus', p.37
 Autry, 'Dimensions of Hermeneutics in Pentecostal Focus', p.49
 D.P. Fuller, 'The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Interpretation', in W.W. Gasque and W.S. LaSor, Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) pp.189-198.
 Fuller, 'The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Interpretation', p.191 (author's italics)
 Fuller, 'The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Interpretation', p.192
 Fuller, 'The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Interpretation', p.194
 G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians N.I.C.N.T. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987: pp.115-117).
 J.M. Frame, 'The Spirit and the Scriptures', in D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge, Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (Leicester: IVP, 1986: pp.217-235).
 Frame, 'The Spirit and the Scriptures', p.232
 Frame, 'The Spirit and the Scriptures', p.234
 Frame, 'The Spirit and the Scriptures', p.221