Amos Yong has been hailed as one of the leading Pentecostal scholars today. Accolades range from being called “the most prolific writer among Pentecostal theologians”1 to “the leading Pentecostal constructive theologian” and “the foremost expert on Pentecostal theology of religions.”2 While his work ranges across many disciplines—such as theology, biblical interpretation, science, creation, the theology of disability, and more—his primary area of focus has been on the theology of religions. Specifically, his books “Discerning the Spirit(s),”3 “Beyond the Impasse,”4 and “The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh”5 advocate what he terms a pneumatological theology of religions. Such a theology attempts to bypass the Christological impasse of particularity in Christ by seeking to “bracket the soteriological question,”6 at least temporarily, thus allowing one to “liberate theology from the categorical constraints of Christology.”7 This pneumatological focus allows him to explore the possible work of the Spirit in other religions, without the restrictions of exclusivist truth claims.

At the core of his exploration is the belief that the religions of the world “are neither accidents of history nor encroachments on divine providence but are, in various ways, instruments of the Holy Spirit working out the divine purposes in the world and that the unevangelized, if saved at all, are saved through the work of Christ by the Spirit (even if mediated through the religious beliefs and practices available to them).”8 Allan Anderson notes that this idea of the Holy Spirit being at work in other religions is not peripheral to Yong’s thinking, but rather forms “the hub of his theology of religions.”9

Yong’s emphasis on the universal nature of the Spirit has certainly stirred some controversy: “Yong’s proposal, despite his best intentions, is like a dangerous undertow, threatening to suck Christian theology of religions into a sea of pluralism and to dilute pneumatology from its soteriological potency.”10 Even fellow Pentecostal scholars have voiced concern, with Roger Stronstad observing that “Yong has opened the door to syncretism and pluralism,”11 while Robert P. Menzies cautions that Yong’s “inclusive theology of religions is fraught with perils.”12

In light of these concerns, this article summarizes Yong’s view on the Spirit and the religions, evaluates it in light of biblical data, and then proposes a more biblical way of speaking of the Spirit’s interaction among those of other faiths. Since Yong has written so much on the topic, this article will use his fairly succinct summary as found in “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions”13 as a basis for reflection and evaluation. Though his summary was first penned more than twenty years ago, Yong has continued to use these foundational ideas as a framework for his pneumatological theology of religions.14

1. Amos Yong’s View of the Spirit and the Religions

In order to develop a pneumatological theology of religions, Yong points to the Holy Spirit’s work in the three areas of creation, re-creation, and final creation.15 In each of these, Yong highlights the universality of the Spirit, namely, that the Spirit sustains all of creation (not just believers), that the Spirit was given to “all flesh” to redeem or re-create them (not just to Christians), and that the Spirit moves in final creation upon “every tribe, language, people and nation” (including those outside the church). He concludes,

The Spirit is thereby the universal presence and activity of God. It is a universality that permeates both the external structures of the natural and human world and the internal realms of human hearts. It is also a universality that spans the entirety of God’s work from original creation, to re-creation, to final creation.16

Yong builds upon this foundation by presenting three theses. First, “God is universally present and active by the Spirit.”17 Second, “God’s Spirit is the life-breath of the imago Dei in every human being and the presupposition of all human relationships and communities” and, therefore, “all human engagements with the ‘other’—whether they be human others, the world, or the divine—are pneumatologically mediated.”18 This sets the stage for his third thesis: “the religions of the world, like everything else that exists, are providentially sustained by the Spirit for divine purposes.”19

2. A Brief Biblical Review of the Work of the Spirit

As this essay cannot address all the issues raised by Yong’s proposal, I focus mainly on his third thesis regarding the role of the Spirit in the religions. This will be done, first, by surveying biblical data on how the Holy Spirit interacts with the world (and especially those not among the people of God); second, by attempting to define the sometimes-ambiguous term “religion”; finally, by evaluating Yong’s three theses in light of this information.

2.1. The Spirit and Creation

According to Gordon Fee, of the 377 uses of the term רוּחַ in the Old Testament, approximately 94 refer to the Spirit of God,20 with the vast majority of these connected with God’s chosen people in some way. Overall, the Spirit’s work in the Old Testament can be summed up in four areas, as noted by Pentecostal scholar Ivan Satyavrata: “The Old Testament teaching regarding the Spirit is focused essentially around four themes: his role in creation, in the equipping of charismatic leadership, in prophetic inspiration and in messianic expectations.”21 Since the latter three areas impact the people of God particularly, they will not be considered here in detail.

From texts such as Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, and Psalm 104:30 it can be concluded that the Spirit is responsible for creation22 and that, as Wayne Grudem notes, it is “the role of the Holy Spirit to give life to animate all creatures.”23

Not only does the Spirit of God give life to all creatures, he also influences humankind toward godliness and away from sin. Indeed, the very next mention of the Spirit of God after creation (Gen 6:3) has to do with his unwillingness to put up with sinful humanity (and this despite the fact that they had been made in God’s image). Walter Kaiser, commenting on this verse, observes,

The Hebrew word din, used in 6.3, is a judicial term meaning ‘to judge’ or ‘to bring a case or judgement against someone.’ The Holy Spirit would not always ‘strive’ … or ‘contend’ (NIV) with mortals…. Throughout the rest of Scripture, the Holy Spirit continues to warn of imminent danger for all who adamantly and stubbornly refused to repent of their sins, while also continuing to restrain sin in all of its grossest forms, because of the presence of God’s people and because of the divine presence itself.24

This theme continues throughout the biblical narrative, with God’s Spirit grieved because of sin (Isa 63:10), and intentionally resisted by humans (see Acts 7:51). Many years ago, Charles Hodge summarized the work of the Spirit in this way,

The Bible therefore teaches that the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth, of holiness, and of life in all its forms, is present with every human mind, enforcing truth, restraining from evil, exciting to good, and imparting wisdom or strength, when, where, and in what measure seemeth good…. This is what in theology is called common grace.25

Besides the Spirit’s work in creation, some would point to the Holy Spirit’s continued impact through general revelation. Although not mentioned specifically by name in passages such as Psalm 19:1–4 or Romans 1:20, the Spirit’s influence through creation can be seen by all people. Nature, conscience, and dreams or visions are mediated by God’s Spirit and generally available to all who carry the imago Dei, though each of these can be rejected, misunderstood, or twisted by the human recipients. People’s hearts can be hardened (Eph 4:18), or their consciences “seared as with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2),26 and dreams or visions can be misinterpreted.

To summarize this brief section, the work of the Spirit of God in creation consists of giving life to humankind, upholding and sustaining them through common grace, and restraining individuals from sin. It should be noted that there is no mention in Scripture of the Spirit creating or sustaining other religions, or using them as his instruments.

2.2. The Spirit at Work in the “Other”

Beyond creation there are minimal references in the Old Testament of the Holy Spirit at work among those who are not in some way part of the nation of Israel. Some have mentioned Balaam as an example of an individual outside the Israelite community who was receptive to the Spirit of God.27 However, it would be difficult to build a case for the Spirit working in the religions of the world based on the Balaam incident. Later accounts show the full story—specifically that Balaam was one who practiced divination and therefore was put to death by the Israelites (Josh 13:22). The New Testament presents him as an example of “accursed” contemporary false prophets who had “left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness” (2 Pet 2:14–15). In Revelation, Jesus himself reminded the churches that Balaam “taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality” (Rev 2:14). Thus, while the Spirit of God did in fact momentarily come upon Balaam, this did not bring him or the Moabite king a blessing, salvation, or prove their righteousness before God. Indeed, despite this momentary touch of the Spirit of God, Balaam continued in his “madness” (2 Pet 2:16), enticed the Israelites to sin, and ended up judged as a result.

Rather than a type of the Spirit at work in the religions, this episode shows just the opposite: it serves as a paradigm of judgment, not salvation. The Spirit of God does not “sustain” Balaam’s false beliefs, sinful lifestyle, or the religion of the Moabite king. Just because the Spirit might work momentarily through someone who is not a believer does not mean he gives approval of that person, their beliefs, their actions, or their religion. Indeed, Jesus himself clearly shows in Revelation that following Balaam’s teaching and lifestyle is contrary to the will of God and leads to judgment.

Moving on from Balaam, there are no other clear references in the Old Testament of the Spirit coming upon someone outside of the people of God (much less upholding their religious structures). One does find, however, the Spirit often warning the nations through the Spirit-inspired speech of the prophets, as well as admonishing Israel to avoid the idolatry of other nations. It would seem clear that throughout the Old Testament, while one sees God’s heart for the nations, this does not extend to their religious structures or beliefs. Rather, the Spirit regularly inspires the prophets to denounce those very structures.

2.3. The Spirit and the World in the New Testament

In the New Testament the Spirit of God continues to guide, equip, and empower the people of God. The New Testament mentions very little about the Spirit’s interactions with other religions, though there is greater revelation about his work among unbelievers in general. Satyavrata observes that in the New Testament “the Spirit’s movement in the world has essentially two directions: he (1) equips the church for mission in the world, and (2) draws the world to Christ and his kingdom.”28 He goes on to note,

Those without Christ are unable to see, know or receive spiritual things (John 14:17; 1 Cor 2:14). The Spirit’s work in the heart of the unbeliever causes him to turn to the Lord. In John 16:8–11, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction: he creates both an awareness of sin and our need for a saviour. He opens blind eyes so that unbelievers may see the truth and respond positively to it. When a person hears the gospel, the Spirit works in her heart, convincing her of the reality of Christ, and draws her to him.29

The apostle John highlights the Christocentric nature of the Spirit’s work: his primary function as the Spirit of truth (John 16:13) is to testify of Jesus (John 15:26) and to bring glory to him (John 16:14). Indeed, the lordship of Christ becomes the litmus test for spiritual discernment (1 John 4:2–6). Thus, the Spirit himself is the one who actively creates the “Christological impasse” that Yong seems eager to avoid. As Menzies notes, “The NT presents a uniform witness: we know that something is of the Spirit if it exalts Christ. Apart from this Christological test, we have no way of knowing whether what is being evaluated is a work of the Spirit or not.”30

The Scriptures, then, seem fairly clear. In relation to the world, the Spirit of God creates, upholds, and convicts humankind. Nowhere, however, can one find evidence that the Spirit of God upholds or sustains a religion. In fact, the very term religion remains ambiguous and requires further investigation.

3. Towards a Definition of Religion

Many have attempted to define the phenomenon called “religion.” Ninian Smart argued that religion is made up of six dimensions: “myth (or sacred narrative), doctrine, ritual, social and institutional expression, experience, and ethics.”31 He further notes that secular beliefs could function within these categories, since “secular beliefs are part of the human search for ultimate meaning” and can often “guide and inspire people in much the same way as traditional” religions.32

McDermott and Netland describe religions as “systems of meaning embodied in a pattern of life, a community of faith, and a worldview that articulate a view of the sacred and of what ultimately matters.”33 Others have noted that “anthropologists now define ‘religion’ as beliefs about the ultimate nature of things, as deep feelings and motivations, and as fundamental values and allegiances.”34 A more concise definition could be “a set of symbolic forms and acts relating man to the ultimate conditions of his existence.”35

Yong himself understands the challenge of defining religion: “one of the most complex questions in the academic study of religion today is itself the question, What is religion?”36 He later answers the question by suggesting that the best solution would be to adopt “Paul Tillich’s definition of religion as ultimate concern.”37 A theology of religions would then be “the attempt to understand the human ultimate concern within a theistic framework.”38

A number of the above definitions (including Yong’s) contain the idea that a religion consists of rituals or beliefs concerning the “ultimate,” whether that be humankind’s “ultimate meaning,” “ultimate condition,” or, in Yong’s case, “ultimate concern.” Perhaps one could say, therefore, that a religion entails the concepts, symbols, or practices of a group of people regarding the ultimate concern. When such a concept gains enough traction or followers, sociologists then refer to it as a “religion.”

Scholars are generally in agreement that “religion” is a historical and scholarly construct. This is not intended to belittle people’s experience of the sacred or to judge the veracity of their religious claims. Rather, it recognizes that “religion” is a concept used to identify, delimit, and describe certain types of human behavior, belief, organization, and experience.39

It is here that a major problem with Yong’s thesis comes to light: if religion consists of a human being’s concept of ultimate concern, how can the Holy Spirit be said to be within a concept or a philosophical thought? In Scripture, one sees the Holy Spirit moving upon the spirits of people, not in concepts or abstract constructs. As an example, consider different music genres. Musicians are made in the image of God, and music can be used in the worship of God or to move someone deep in their soul. That being the case, could one logically infer that the Holy Spirit therefore sustains every genre of music—for instance, rap, heavy metal, or country? It should be clear that such genres are humanly defined classifications that serve to categorize the types of music that people (who carry the imago Dei) create and love, and these classifications allow others to more easily speak of such groups of people. Certainly, the Holy Spirit works in musicians and music-lovers alike, but that does not mean he sustains rap, heavy metal, or (may it never be!) country music. Once again, it should be noted that the Holy Spirit indwells and upholds people, not categories—not even spiritually-sounding categories, or those that touch on ultimate questions. While the Spirit can move people to consider ultimate meaning and he can convict them, touch them with his power, or arrange missionary witness to them (see Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2, 4; 16:6–10), there is no biblical evidence that he indwells the concepts themselves, or that he creates or sustains such categories.

This essay argues, therefore, that the groupings people refer to as a religion are human constructs and while these categories are helpful from a sociological perspective, they are not created entities, or “instruments” of God (as Yong suggests). Rather, they refer to a grouping of people that believe similar concepts about the divine, or ultimate reality, and who therefore attempt to reach out to him in similar ways. As Daniel Strange rightly states, “While understanding religious traditions qua traditions is important, God through his Spirit does not strive with religious traditions and systems but with individuals made in his image. This person-variable nature of the religious consciousness will avoid blunt generalization and superficiality when encountering those in other religious traditions.”40

3.1. Answering Critiques

One objection to this analysis could be the suggestion that such a view would make it impossible to speak of the Spirit at work in “Christianity.” While perhaps surprising to some, the answer would be the same as above: no, the Holy Spirit is not at work upholding “Christianity” as a sociologically defined religious grouping, any more than any other religious category. Consider the possibility that not everyone who identifies as a Christian has truly been “born of the Spirit” (John 3:8), nor has everything done in the name of Christianity been initiated, or sustained, by the Spirit. One major difference with other religions, however, is that the Spirit does indeed work in “Christians”—that is, those truly born of the Spirit Himself—and therefore one could legitimately speak of the Spirit at work in the Church (universal), or the Body of Christ (made up of those the Spirit has regenerated and renewed—Titus 3:5). “You yourselves are God’s temple and … God’s Spirit lives in you” (1 Cor 3:16). The Spirit, who witnesses about Christ, would then be the instrument sustaining truth about Christ (what can therefore be termed “Christian truth”). Thus, one can say that the Holy Spirit does not uphold Christianity as an organized religion as sociologists may see it, but he does indeed regenerate, fill, and guide Christians—those followers of Christ in whom he dwells (though this does not imply he sustains their every action or initiates their every word or deed). One could therefore speak of the Spirit at work in Christianity only if understood as a synonym for the Body of Christ, those truly born of the Spirit.

3.2. False Religions and God’s Truth

This does not mean that nothing important or helpful may be found in other religions. The systems that have been set up by humans as they reach out for and seek God—as they catch glimpses of his majesty through general revelation, or through fragments of special revelation—may be used of God in helping to prepare them for faith. Certainly, the Holy Spirit is drawing, convicting, and touching their consciences. Yet at the same time, a biblical perspective of the world recognizes that the Spirit of God does not do this in a spiritual vacuum. There are other spiritual forces, namely, the devil and his demons, who blind people to the gospel, masquerade as angels of light, and hinder gospel messengers.

Christians must take spiritual realities very seriously. God is at work wooing people to himself, and Satan and his followers are trying to blind their minds so that they do not turn to the light. Much of this battle has to do with religious systems. God reveals truth; Satan seeks to blind human minds through slightly twisting truths into false ideologies. God works through the church as a corporate body of believers; Satan uses social institutions such as religious communities, kinship systems, social classes, and nations to keep people from turning to God. What keeps many people from faith is not only false ideologies, but the social structures in which they live which persecute and kill them if they convert.41

One can conclude, therefore, that the Spirit is at work in people of other religions to various degrees (wooing, drawing, and convicting), but not that he sustains the religion itself. Semantics are important here, for a religion may be false, misleading, or anti-Christ. To use a very specific and practical example, one could argue that the Spirit of God works among Muslims, but not that the Spirit of God sustains Islam. Islam as a religion has a certain way of understanding the ultimate, and much of it opposes the revelation of Christ as found in Scripture. As Samuel Zwemer, the man known as the apostle to Islam, once noted,

Islam is the only one of the great non-Christian religions which gives a place to Christ in its book, and yet it is also the only one of the non-Christian religions which denies His deity, His atonement, and His supreme place as Lord of all in its sacred literature. In none of the other sacred books of the East is Christ mentioned; the Qur’an alone gives Him a place, but does it by displacing Him. With regret it must be admitted that there is hardly an important fact concerning the life, person, and work of our Saviour which is not ignored, perverted, or denied by Islam.42

Once again, the Scriptures are clear that the Spirit of God can work among people within various religious structures, convicting them of sin, using general revelation, and giving them opportunity to hear special revelation. He continues to cause his sun to shine on the wicked and the righteous (Matt 5:45) and shows kindness to all humanity in order that they may reach out to him (Acts 14:17). But these mercies are shown to people made in God’s image, not to religions (as if they were a living entity). While he may use the concepts that people in those religions are already familiar with (what missiologists may term “bridges” or “redemptive analogies”)43 in order to reveal Christ to a truly seeking heart, this does not mean the Spirit of God actively sustains or affirms the religion itself. The Spirit works in spite of the falsehood, the attacks on Christ, and the unbiblical notions one might find in that religion.

4. Evaluation of Yong’s Three Theses

Having looked at the biblical data and sought clarity on the matter of religion as a term, I now briefly respond to and evaluate Yong’s foundational statement and his three theses. Yong’s initial proposition—that the Spirit works in creation, re-creation, and final creation—would certainly be true. However, he reinterprets and expands much of the (New Testament) biblical data in questionable ways in order to posit that the “all flesh” of Acts 2 refers not only to followers of Jesus, but to those of other religions as well. Unfortunately, space does not permit a full reflection on this interpretation here, except to say that such a reading takes the Scriptures out of context and cannot be the authorial intent of the passage.44

Yong’s first thesis stated that “God is universally present and active by the Spirit.” Of this, there should be little argument. Biblical data, as has been seen, clearly shows the universal activity of the Spirit of God, from Genesis to Revelation, in creating and sustaining humanity, as well as in testifying of Christ. However, this should not be construed to mean the Spirit approves of, or positively sustains, all activity in the universe. Just as there are differences between general and special revelation, there are also differences between what has been called the Spirit’s general presence (common immanence), and his special presence (or special immanence). “This special immanence was lost through the fall, but is restored by the Holy Ghost on account of the redemption of Christ applied to the believing sinner.”45 While common grace may be given to all through his general presence, the Spirit still strives against sin, and can be grieved by sinful actions. His special presence (in a redemptive and empowering sense) is given only to those who are “born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). It would seem, therefore, that Yong is confusing the Spirit’s general immanence with his special immanence. Furthermore, as the apostle Paul states, those that do not put their faith in Christ are categorized as those “without the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:14). As Menzies observes, in response to Yong, “the general work of the Spirit in creation … is not viewed as salvific by the NT authors…. To speak, then, of the work of the Spirit in salvific ways in other religions is, at best, pure speculation.”46

Yong’s second thesis posited that “God’s Spirit is the life-breath of the imago Dei in every human being and the presupposition of all human relationships and communities.” He therefore concluded that “all human engagements with the ‘other’—whether they be human others, the world, or the divine—are pneumatologically mediated.” While the statement regarding the Spirit as the life-breath of the imago Dei can be understood biblically, the second part remains questionable. What exactly does Yong mean by suggesting that the Spirit of God is the “presupposition of all human relationships and communities”? His follow-up statement that “all human engagements with the other … are pneumatologically mediated” infers that the Spirit of God somehow underlies all human interactions and therefore every human community formed. This leads to some challenging questions—and these are not asked facetiously—such as, would the Spirit of God be behind the gathering of a group of Satanists? Or again, was the Spirit of God “mediating” the gathering together of Nazi intelligentsia when they met as a community to plan the death of the Jewish people? Since Yong asserts that the Spirit is behind all communal gatherings (as they are made up of humans who carry the imago Dei), such would be the logical outflow of his hypothesis. Biblically, however, such a conclusion cannot be sustained. Rather, the Spirit can be grieved and resisted (see Isa 63:10), and there are activities (even when done by humans who are made in the image of God) that can be anathema. As, McDermott and Netland state, against Yong, “it does not follow from this that any particular instance of goodness or communal well-being should be directly attributed to the activity of the Holy Spirit.”47 Again, many interactions are sinful and arouse God’s wrath and can lead to the Spirit of God striving against humanity (Gen 6:3). The fact that humans carry the imago Dei does not guarantee that the Spirit of God is at work in whatever they do, or that he agrees with their relationships or activities. But despite this critique, the first part of Yong’s second thesis can still stand—that the “Spirit is the life-breath of the imago Dei in every human being.” This can only be properly understood, however, with the limitations noted above: it cannot be taken to mean that the Spirit is responsible for, or involved in, the sinful actions of those that carry the imago Dei and are upheld by the Spirit’s general immanence and common grace.

The third thesis is even more questionable: “The religions of the world, like everything else that exists, are providentially sustained by the Spirit for divine purposes.” Yong fails to show how this logically follows the second thesis. While a biblical argument could be made for the first thesis, and for part of the second, this one has no logical connection to the previous two, or to biblical data. Just because the Spirit is at work in the world (thesis 1), and humans carry the imago Dei (thesis 2), does not logically lead to the conclusion that the Spirit sustains the religions of the world. As has been shown above, religions are an abstract construct used to refer to a grouping of people with more or less a similar idea of the ultimate human purpose. Furthermore, the Spirit does not uphold or sustain abstract concepts or philosophical categories; rather, he deals with people made in the image of God. He may move a philosopher, but there remains no biblical evidence that he actively upholds a philosophy—especially one that may contradict the truth of Scripture.

To illustrate this, one might suggest using Yong’s categories that since (a) God is universally present, and (b) every human carries the imago Dei, then (c) the Spirit sustains all basketball teams in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Now, it may be true that the Spirit works in various degrees among the basketball players themselves, but that does not mean that the team is an “instrument” of the Spirit, or that he “sustains” the basketball franchise itself. One could argue that the Spirit of God works in the Chicago Bulls (or any other team) in the sense that perhaps many of their players are responding to the Spirit of God and are turning to Christ. But that does not mean the franchise itself would be actively sustained by him. In the same way, the religions of the world are categories, or franchises, to which people of common beliefs are grouped for ease of sociological and demographic purposes. The franchise itself is not a spiritual entity which can respond to the Spirit of God or be moved by him. Yet the people within the franchise or system can—despite active opposition from the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31).

5. Conclusion

Amos Yong has suggested that the religions of the world are “instruments of the Spirit” and “sustained by the Spirit for divine purposes.” While his ecumenism and generous heart are admirable, his conclusion falls short for a number of reasons. First, there exist no clear biblical data to support his thesis. Nowhere does Scripture mention the Spirit upholding the religions of the world. Second, it was argued that religions are human constructs and, as has been shown, the Spirit of God works within people, not in abstract constructs. Finally, his third thesis does not follow logically from the second thesis. Just because humans who carry the imago Dei are involved in various religions does not mean these said religions are providentially sustained. Rather, the reality of the imago Dei carried by each human serves to underscore the fact that the Spirit of God works in humans, not in religions.

This article concludes that it is more biblically accurate to state that the Spirit of God can be at work among the people within a religion to various degrees, but not that the religions are instruments of the Holy Spirit or sustained by him. A deeper understanding of how the Holy Spirit works and in what sphere he works, as well as more careful linguistic usage, will help ground a theology of religions in biblical truth and avoid errors that may open the door to charges of pluralism.

---

[1] Allan Anderson, “A Global Pentecostal Theology?: Amos Yong’s ‘The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh,’” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16.1 (2007): 97.[2] Wolfgang Vondey and Martin Mittelstadt, eds., The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship: Passion for the Spirit (Boston: Brill, 2013), 1–2.[3] Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).[4] Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003).

[5] Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

[6] Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 22.

[7] Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 167.

[8] Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 236.

[9] Anderson, “A Global Pentecostal Theology?,’” 101.

[10] James R. A. Merrick, “The Spirit Of Truth As Agent In False Religions? A Critique Of Amos Yong’s Pneumatological Theology Of Religions With Reference To Current Trends,” TJ 29 (2008): 115.

[11] Roger Stronstad, “A Review Essay on Amos Yong, Who Is the Holy Spirit? A Walk With the Apostles,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 22 (2013): 300.

[12] Robert P. Menzies, “The Nature of Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen and Amos Yong,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 26 (2017): 213.

[13] Amos Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions,” in No Other Gods before Me?: Evangelicals and the Challenge of World Religions, ed. John G. Stackhouse Jr. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 37–61.

[14] So, for example, “The many tongues of Pentecost invite consideration of God’s redemptive work among and through not only the many languages but also the many cultures and perhaps even the many religions of the world.” In Amos Yong, “Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A Pentecostal-Evangelical and Missiological Elaboration,” International Bulletin of Mission Research 40 (2016): 299. See also Amos Yong, Mission After Pentecost: The Witness of the Spirit from Genesis to Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 280–83.

[15] Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions,” 40–44.

[16] Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions,” 44.

[17] Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions,” 47.

[18] Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions,” 47.

[19] Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions,” 48.

[20] Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 905.

[21] Ivan Satyavrata, The Holy Spirit: Lord and Life-Giver (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 54.

[22] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 905.

[23] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 636.

[24] Walter Kaiser Jr, “The Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 7.

[25] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Scribner, 1873), 2:667.

[26] All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version (2011).

[27] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 49.

[28] Satyavrata, The Holy Spirit, 120.

[29] Satyavrata, The Holy Spirit, 89.

[30] Menzies, “The Nature of Pentecostal Theology,” 15.

[31] Ninian Smart and Richard D. Hecht, eds., Sacred Texts of the World: A Universal Anthology (New York: Crossroad, 1982), xiv.

[32] Smart and Hecht, Sacred Texts of the World, xv.

[33] Gerald R. McDermott and Harold A. Netland, A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 233.

[34] Paul G. Hiebert, R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tiénou, Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 35.

[35] Charles E. Farhadian, Introducing World Religions: A Christian Engagement (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 25.

[36] Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 15.

[37] Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 17, emphasis mine.

[38] Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 18.

[39] McDermott and Netland, A Trinitarian Theology of Religions, 226.

[40] Daniel Strange, “Perilous Exchange, Precious Good News: A Reformed ‘Subversive Fulfilment’ Interpretation of Other Religions,” in Only One Way?: Three Christian Responses to the Uniqueness of Christ in a Religiously Pluralist World (London: SCM Press, 2011), 121, emphasis mine.

[41] Hiebert, Shaw, and Tiénou, Understanding Folk Religion, 44.

[42] Samuel Zwemer, The Moslem Christ (London: Oliphants, 1912), 1.

[43] Don Richardson, “Redemptive Analogies,” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. Scott Moreau (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 812–13.

[44] See Menzies, “The Nature of Pentecostal Theology”; and Stronstad, “A Review Essay on Amos Yong, Who Is the Holy Spirit?”

[45] Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “Recent Dogmatic Thought in Scandinavia,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 4 (1893): 566.

[46] Menzies, “The Nature of Pentecostal Theology,” 16.

[47] McDermott and Netland, A Trinitarian Theology of Religions, 75.

 

---