The gospels? How much of the gospels is concerned with the charismatic gifts? I can think of only one verse in the controversial long ending of Mark. I don't think we can say the 70 disciples were healing via a gift of the Spirit when the Spirit had not yet been given. So outside of historic narratives in Acts, all we have is 1 Cor 12-14 and 3 or 4 scattered verses elsewhere.
Wow. This is really a narrow-minded outlook. You really DO need to read up on some of the scholars mentioned. The gospels are FULL of charismatic allusions. Are your spectacles really that tainted? Is it really possible for a student of Scripture to be that blind? Luke is probably the most charismatic of them all, but let's just look at Mark 1. ONE CHAPTER. Verse 1 begins like this:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you" (a reference understood to possibly refer to the PROPHET Elijah but at least here to the PROPHET John the Baptist). So in this first verse prophethood is already alluded to. Need I continue? Moving on to verse 8:
"I baptize you withe water, but he will baptize you withf the Holy Spirit.”
In this verse John FORETELLS A FUTURE EVENT. A classic manifestation of a prophetic anointing. Specifically, he foretells an outpouring which, in the TRADITION of the biblical historians, is most likely to be a CHARISMATIC outpouring being passed from Christ to His disciples (even as Elijah passed on a double-portion of his own prophetic anointing to Elisha). So that's a total of TWO more allusions to the prophetic.
Moving on to verses 10-11.
10Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
This is a charismatic VISION of heaven. It is ALSO a face-to-face vision of God (seeing the Holy Spirit with the naked human eyes, if Augustine is any authority on the matter). And then a voice from heaven. And the anointing descending upon Christ was a prophetic anointing. That's a total of four MORE charismatic references. I've counted seven so far. Moving on.
"At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13and he was in the wilderness forty days". I'm not even a redaction-critic scholar but even I can see tons of allusions here to prophets such as Moses and Elijah being led out to places by God, or on a mountain, often for 40 days, where they got to know Hi better. That makes 7 so far. Verses 14-15:
"Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
This is a manifestation of a prophetic anointing. For one thing, by prophetic revelation this young man recognizes Himself as the Messiah, as the Son of God, as the fulfillment of the ages . That makes 8.
"As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 18At once they left their nets and followed him.
So a man walks up to you tomorrow and claims to be God. Are you going to follow him? Sounds stupid, right? Now were the disciples STUPID to follow Him? Recall that I said a prophetic anointing tends to impart 100% certainty to the audience. Based on that convicting power, they RIGHTLY followed Him. It wasn't stupid at all. That's a total of 9 so far. Actually 10 because John the Baptist wielded that same convicting power. Some crazy-looking dude running around the desert eating locust and wild honey saying he wants to BAPTIZE you? Huh? WHY would you follow him, unless you're a total idiot? Maybe because his prophetic anointing is CONVICTING you? Moving on.
At verses 19-20 He again draws on His convicting power to call more disciples. That makes 11.
"They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.
Authority? WHY did they FEEL CERTAIN it was authoritative? Surely another reference to the convicting power of a prophetic anointing. That makes 12. At verses 23-27 Jesus casts out a devil. That's 13 so far.
At verses 29 to 31 He heals a sickness. That's 14. Take a look at 32 and 33:
"That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33The whole town gathered at the door, 34and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was."
There's about 3 distinct allusions to the charismatic in that one paassage. I'd say we're up 17 total. Verse 39:
"He traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons."
That's 18. At verses 40 through 41 He heals a leper. That's 19. And we haven't even made it to chapter 2 yet.
Now here's one implication. If Scripture does NOT want us to be charismatic, it seems to be doing a horrible job of so indicating. Because it is through-and-through charismatic. Only a person wearing cessationist blinders could possibly fail to see how charismatic is the text.
No doubt you'll find some excuse to dismiss all this evidence. You'll claim, for example, that Jesus is 'special', that He can't possibly count as a model for us (His followers!!!!). Yet His followers DID carry on His legacy in Acts - they prophesied, they drew crowds, they cast out devils, and healed the sick. You'll dismiss it all due to the blinders. You've already dismissed MOST of the New Testament as didactically empty and void, because you evidently think God is stupid enough to publish massive amounts of Scripture with zero didactic value, thus wasting our time.
Contemporary hermeneutics leaves much to be desired in my opinion, especially the trend towards the heinous redaction criticism approach that denies the inerrancy of scripture. Far better to stick to with the tried and tested grammatical-historical method, especially when it comes to the book of Acts.
Your comments have only FURTHER convinced me of your need to take a look at modern scholarship.
Stronstad, Ervin, and Shelton are all Pentecostals!
These are scholars of the highest order. You know what that means, right? It means that they frequently cite NON-charismatic scholars to prove their points. Also I'm a little leery on how you lump all three of these scholars together. The Pentecostal movement sees tongues everwhere. Stronstad and Shelton mostly do research on how the OT charismatic tradition - hundreds of years of prophethood - is expressly manifested in NT writings. One important theological ramification is that their analysis seems pretty devastating to most kinds of dispensational dichotomies, that is, the notion that Spirit-dynamics worked ONE way in the OT, and an entirely NEW way in the NT.
Of course they would want a hermeneutic that draws doctrine and practice from the unique historical events in Acts...
Um...Yes. Paul said that all Scripture is didactic. Yes, so that would mean that it's useful for learning both doctrine and practice. What we probably SHOULDN'T do is IGNORE, or turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to, most of the canon, as you seem to have expressly done in this debate.
...so they can claim such activity belongs in the church today. Such fallacious techniques are the only way Pentecostalism can support its controversial doctrines.
Examinations of scripture. Yes, that's a HIGHLY fallacious technique. I'm very much ashamed of these scholars. You need to avoid such diabolic techniques.
