[JPT 11.

2 (2003)248-270]
ISSN 0966-7369

Pentecostal S0TERÏ0L0GY AND Pneumatology

Steven M. Studebaker*
2526 14th Place, #40, Kencsha,
WI 53140, USA
e-mail: ssstudebaker@msn.com

A b st r a c t

A profound irony characterizes some examples ofPentecostal theology: the

Spirit is made subordinate to Christology in an effort to emphasize the
Spirit. Protestant scholasticism is the source of this problem. Historically,
Pentecostal theologians adopted the soteriological paradigms of Protestant
scholasticism to express their ^eumatological concerns. The form of the
subordination of the Spirit is the tendency to distinguish salvation into
Christocentric and ^eumatological categories. (Christ achieves redemp-
tion, and his work is the objective basis of justification. The Spirit applies
toe work of Christ, and this work of the spirit is toe subjective sanctifica-
tion of the believer.) The distinctive doctrine of Pentecostalism, toe
Baptism in the Spirit, accentaates toe bifurcation of the work of Christ and
the Spirit by implicitly making toe primary workofthe Spirit subsequent to
and unnecessary for salvation. This essay first illustrates and criticizes the
foundational role Protestant scholastic soteriological paradigms play in
Pentecostal theology and, second, proposes a redemptive soteriology that
synthesizes toe work of Christ and the Spirit as a way to transcend toe
problematic irony ofPentecostal theology.

Pentecostal scholars have been concerned for some time to develop a

distinctively Pentecostal theology^ Presupposed in this effort is the

* Steven M. Stadebaker (PhD candidate, Marquette University) is an ordained

minister in the Assemblies ofGod curcently pursuing his doctoral stadies in historieal
theology
1. While currently a fully developed Pentecostal systematic theology does not
exist, at least in terms of English language Pentecostal systematic theologies,
© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE 1 ?N X
and 3?0 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.
 S tudebaker Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 249

acknowledgment that, by and large, ?entecostals have endeavored to

express their pneumatological concerns through inherited theological para-
digms that are ill-suited to their goal;2 hence, the need for a Pentecostal
theology. Several ?entecostal scholars propose a move toward a pneu-
matological soteriology to address this need. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen
maintains that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis is an inviting
avenue for ?entecostals to develop a ^eumatological soteriology.^ At the
2001 annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, D. Lyle
Dabney recommended a soteriology that takes Spirit baptism as the

nevertheless several Penteeostal seholars are engaged in issues of Penteeostal

theological prolegomena. For examples, see Terry L Cross, ،The Rich Feast of
Theology; Can Fenteeostals bring the Main Course or only the Relish Tray?’, J P T 16
(2000), pp. 27-47 (32-36) and ‘Can there be a Fentecostal Systematic Theology? An
Essay on Theological Method in a Fostmodem World’ (paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Tulsa, OK, March 2001); Steven L
Land, Pentecostal spirituality: A Passion fo r the Kingdom (JPTSup, 1; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); James K.A. Smith, ‘Scandalizing Theology: A
Pentecostal Response to Noll’s Scandal’, Pneuma 19 (1997), pp. 225-38 (234-37); and
Amos Yong’s response to Smith: ‘Whither Systematic Theology? A Systematieian
Chimes in on a Scandalous Conversation’, Pneuma 20 (1998), pp. 85-93. For a
bilffio^aphic review ofPenteeostal attempts atwriting systematic theology, see David
Bundy, ‘The Genre of Systematic Theology in Pentecostalism’, Pneuma 15 (1993),
pp.89-107.
2. For criticisms of this tendency, see Matthew s. Clark, Herny Eederle et a l ,
What is distinctive about Pentecostal Theology (Pretoria: University of South Africa,
1989), p. 100; Donald w. Dayton, ‘The Limits of Evangelicalism: The Pentecostal
Tradition’, in Donald w. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston (eds.), The Variety o f Ameri-
can Evangelicalism (Downers Grove, IE: InterVarsity Press, 1991), pp. 36-56 (48);
Walter j. Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Pea-
body,MA: Hendrickson, 1997), p. 19; David R. Nichols,‘The Search for aPentecostal
Structore in Systematic Theology’, Pneuma 6 (1984), pp. 57-75 (57); and Russell p.
Spittler, ‘Suggested Areas for Further Research in Pentecostal Sft^ies’, Pneuma 5
(1983), pp. 35-56 (43). Interesting to note, since Pentecostals place their movement
within the Wesleyan theological heritage, D.E. Dabney maintains that Wesley and the
Wesleyan theological tradition also failed to achieve their pneumatological potential
because they remained fettered to classical Protestant soteriological rtructuresthat are
unsuitable for a robust pneumatological soteriology (see Dabney, ‘Jürgen Moltmann
and John Wesley’s Third Article Theology’, WTJ29 [1994], pp. 140-48 [145]).
3. See Veli-Matti K^kkäinen, ‘Deification and a Pneumatological Concept of
Grace: Unprecedented Convergences between Orthodox, Lutheran, and Pentecostal-
Holiness Soteriologies’ (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Pentecostal Stodies, Springfield, MO, March 1999), p. 3.

© The Continuum ?ublishing Group Ltd 2003.

 250 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 11.2 (2003)

overarching metaphor ‫؛‬or salvation/ In common with Dabney, Frank

Macchia advocates that a redemptive model of justification matches the
Fentecostal spiritual ethos better than the forensic emphasis oftraditionul
Frotestant theology/ These share in common foe belie‫ ؛‬that Fentecostals
must eschew traditional Protestant soteriological paradigms to bring their
pneumatological message to fruition.
Although intimated in these previous proposals, foe specific problems,
which handicap Pentecostals from developing the pneumatological potential
0 ‫ ؛‬their theology, have not been treated in a thorough manner. The opinion
here is that foe problematic o‫ ؛‬Pentecostal theology is the use o‫ ؛‬Protestant
scholastic soteriological paradigms. Indeed, the penchant ‫؛‬or Pentecostals
to adopt Protestant scholastic soteriological paradigms produces the irony
o‫ ؛‬Pentecostal theology: Pentecostal theology subordinates foe Spirit in its
e‫؛؛‬ort to emphasize foe Spirit. The purpose o‫ ؛‬this study is threefold. First,
to show that Protestant scholastic soteriological paradigms and foe implicit
subordination ٠‫ ؛‬the Spirit entailed in these are foe sub-structure ‫؛ه‬
€lassical Pentecostal soteriology and, in particular, foe doctrine 0 ‫ ؛‬Spirit
baptism. Second, I propose that foe redemptive model ofjustification and a
pneumatological soteriology are viable resources to solve these problems
in Pentecostal soteriology. The redemptive model ofjustification and a
pneumatological soteriology are usefirl resources ‫؛‬or Pentecostals because
they endeavor to articulate a vision o‫ ؛‬salvation that is not simply standard
evangelical soteriology plus Spirit baptism. On foe contraty, it is a notion
٠‫ ؛‬salvation that is comprehensively pneumatological; hence, it is a
Pentecostal soteriology. Third, I propose a modification o‫ ؛‬terminology. In
place of redemptivejustification oxpneumatological soteriology, I suggest
redemptive soteriology because fois allows us to articulate the essential

4. While not a ?entecostal, Dabney’s proposal is Pentecostal. H‫؛‬s goal is to give

the Spirit an equal and constitutive role in the entire soteriological process. Dabney
advocates a Theology o f the Third Article— & theology that is comprehensively
pneumatological. Por Dabney’s pneumatology and soteriology, see his ‘H e '‫ ؛ا‬1‫ ا‬baptize
you with the Holy Spirit: Retrieving a Metaphor for a Pneumatological Soteriology’
(paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society ‫ ؛‬٥٢ Pentecostal Studies, Tulsa,
OK, March ^001); idem, ‘Pneumatologia Crucis: Reclaiming Theologia Crucis ‫؛‬٠٢ a
Theology o fth e Spirit Today’, SJT 53 (^000), pp. 511-24; and idem, ‘ ■‘Justified by foe
Spirit”: Soteriological Reflections on the R esun‫־‬e ctlo n ’, IJST 3 (2001), pp. 46-68.
‫و‬. See Frank ٥ . Macchia, ‘Justification and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Reflection on
the Doctrine by which the Church Stands ٠٢ Palls’, Pneuma 22 (2000), pp. 3-21 (7-15).
Macchia acknowledges his indebtedness to Dabney’s pneumatological soteriology (see
Macchia, ‘Justiflcation and foe Spirit’, p. 6).

© The Continuum Publishing Gpoup Ltd 2003.

 Studebak er Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 251

roles ofChrist and the Spirit without, at the least implicitly in terminology,
assigning preeminence to Christ or the Spirit.

Statement ofPremises and Methodology

Premises ٢
The theological judgments and argum ent presented in the following
discussion rest on certain prior theological decisions. Although these
assumptions and the reasons for these Will become clear, nevertheless to
state these up-front is appropriate. First, the subordination of the Spirit in
Frotestant scholasticism stands in a relationship of theological develop-
ment, but not discontinuity with the early Protestant reformers. That is to
say, Protestant scholasticism makes explicit the implicit subordination of
the Spirit in early Reformation theology. Second, the theological foun-
tainhead o^nteeostallsm . Reformed revivalism and ^^esleyan soteriology
is Protestant scholasticism.6 This is not a popular assertion among Pente-
costáis. The question of whether Protestant scholastic theological struc-
tures underpin early Pentecostal theology or are a corrosive accretion
brought in with the institutional developments ofthe Pentecostal churches
is debatable^ However, from a historical perspective, one ‫ اﻣﺴﻠﻞ؛ﺀ‬deny that
Protestant scholastic paradigms decisively shaped the formal articulations
of Classical Pentecostal theology. Thus, the purpose here is to show the
specific influence and the problematic nature ofthese influences on Pente-
costal theology. Third, the immediate historical source ofthe Pentecostal
understanding ofthe purpose of Spirit baptism is lato i^ een th -cen m ry‫׳‬
Reformed revivalism. Fourth, from a historical perspective, the unique
theological datum ofPentecostalism is foe doctrine of tongues as foe initial
evidence of Spirit baptism.

Methodology and Scope

The essay is divided into two sections. The first is a critical historical-
theological analysis ofPentecostal soteriology. It identifies three decisive

6. Whereas Synan states that ?entecostahsm ‘was the ch‫؛‬ld of the holiness
movement, whieh in turn was a child of Methodism’, 1 ‫ ׳ه‬0 ‫ ﺳﺎ‬add that foe soterio-
logical structures of all three are foe heirs of Protestant scholasticism (see Synan, The
Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the UnitedStates [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,‫ او‬7 ‫] ا‬,
pp. 115-16).
7. James K.A. Smith maintains that the adoption of fondamentalist (i.e. Re-
formed) paradigms was diametrically opposed to the ‘heart and infancy of Pente-
costalism’ (see Smith, ‘Scandalizing Theology’, p. 233).

© The Continuum ?ubiishing Group Ltd 2003.

 252 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 12003) 2. ‫)ل‬

ways ?™testant sehelasticism shaped Pentecostal theology. The second

section is a constractive theological proposal. Specifically, it defines an d
sets forth a redemptive soteriology as an attractive way to transcend th e
implicit subordination ofthe Spirit in ?entecostal soteriology. The scope
of fois study is limited to my theological Context-North American
€lassical Pentecostalism.8 However, foe critique set forth is applicable to
other forms ofPentecostal and Charismatie theology to foe extent that
these adopt soteriological notions similar to Classical Pentecostals.

Part One: The Subordination ofthe

Holy Spirit in Pentecostal Soteriology
Protestant scholastic, and in particular Reformed scholastic, soteriology is
showcased because its soteriological paradigms are foe foundation fo r
Pentecostal theology.‫ ؟‬In Protestant scholastic soteriology, Christology
and pneumatology are given certain roles. The functional configuraticn
of Christ and foe Spirit entails a subordination of pneumatology to
Christology. This subordination is clear in the two central paradigms of
Protestant scholastic soteriology and the role assigned to foe Spirit in the
ordo salutis. The first paradigm is the objective-subjective. This is based
on the distinction that justification constitutes foe objective side ofsalva-
tion and sanctification involves the subjective side, that is, what happens in
the experience ofthe human subject. The second paradigm is foe achiever-
applier. This derives from the portrayal of Christ as foe achiever o f
redemption and the Holy spirit as the agent for its application. The Spirit’s

8. Classical Pentecostalism maintains that Spirit baptism is subsequent to salva-

tion (logically ‫> س‬most often in practice, temporally) and evidenced by speak‫؛‬ng in
tongues. When 1 refer to ‫ﺀهﺀﺀ؛»ﺀم‬ ‫ ﻣﺢ؛‬،'‫ ا«ﺀ‬in this paper, 1 am referring to Classical
Pentecostalism.
9. In the post-Refonnat‫؛‬on era ofthe late sixteenth and seventeenth eenfttries, the
Protestant movements developed clear institutional and theological boundaries. This
era and its theology are known as Protestant scholasticism. Important Protestant
scholastic theologians are Theodore Beza, William Ames, Francis Turretin and Peter
van Mastricht. The theology of fois period is labeled ‫ا؛ﻣﻤﺴﻌﺖ‬ '‫ ﺀ‬because Protestants
utilized the intellectual tools of medieval scholasticism to build Protestant theological
systems. The utilization of scholastic methodology to systematize and articulate the
theological insights of early Protestant reform movements produced Protestant
scholasticism (see Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. I.
Prolegomena ‫؛‬٠ Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987] for a concise
description of Protestant scholasticism, see pp. 13-18).

© The Continuum ?u ‫؛‬31‫؛‬shing Group Ltd 2003.

 S tudebak er Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 253

inconspicuous role in the ordo salutis is symptomatic of the objective-

subjective and achiever-applier paradigms.

The Objective Work ofChrist and the Subjective Work ofthe Spirit
The Objective-Subjective Paradigm in Protestant Scholasticism. The
distinction between justification and sanctification produces two basic
categories in ?rotestant soteriology: the objective and subjective. While
?™testant scholasticism gives the objective-subjective paradigm its most
refined form, it is also found in the earliest reformers and throughout the
Protestant tradition. *٠Justification is the key objective aspect and sanctifi-
cation is the central subjective aspect of salvation. Justification is objective
or extrinsic because it consists primarily of the remission of sins and

10. Two theologians that many may regard as unlikely to affirm this paradigm are
Martin Luther and John Wesley. Some argue that Melancthon introduced forensic
justification to L ateran theology. However, this is not sustainhle, for L^her utilized
the conceptaal categories of extrinsic righteousness (imputation) and intrinsic renewal
in the 1515/1516 Lectures on Romans (see Luther's Works. 25. Lectures on Romans:
Glosses andScholia [ed. Hilton €٠ Oswald; trans. Walter 0. Tillmanns and Jacob A.O.
?reus; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972], pp. 245, 257, 334, 336, 340 and 370). Wesley
also understood salvation in terms of objective and subjective categories. Justification
refers to imputed righteousness or the relative change—the pardon of sin and
acceptance by God. Sanctification refers to implanted righteousness or the real
change-the inner renewal ofthe soul by the Holy Spirit. Justification is identified with
the work ofChrist on the cross and sanctification with the Spirit’s work of spiritual
renewal (see The Works ofJohn Wesley. 1. Sermons 1, 1-33 [ed. Albert c. Outler;
Nashville: Abingdon ?ress, 1984], ،The L o r ^ r Righteousness’, pp. 455-58 and The
Works ofJohn Wesley. 1LSermons 2, 34-70 [ed. Albert c. Outler‫ ؛‬Nashville: Abingdon
?ress, 1985], ‘The Scripture Way of Salvation’, pp. 157-58). Although the new birth
and sanctification may feature more prominently in Wesley’s vision of salvation,
nevertheless this emphasis occurs within the conceptual categories ofthe objective/
justification and srájective/sanctification soteriological paradigm. In addition, my point
that Wesley adopted the same fundamental soteriological categories as Protestant
scholasticism does not entail that his view ofthe relationship beriveenjustification and
sanctification is identical with Reformed or Lutheran views. For excellent treatments of
Wesley’s doctrines of justification and sanctification, see Kenneth j. Collins, The
Scripture Way ofSalvation: The Heart 0/ Wesley's■ Theology (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1997), pp. 86-100; William R. Cannon, The Theology ofJohn Wesley: With'
Special Reference to the Doctrine o f Justification (New York: University Press of
America, 1974); Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine
ofSalvation (Wilmore, KY: Francis Asbury, 1981), pp. 83-104; and Theodore Runyon,
TheNew Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998),
pp.42-91.

© The Centinuum ?ublishing Group Ltd 2003.

 254 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 11.2 (2003)

declaration of righteousness by virtue of the imputed righteousness of

Christ.*‫ ؛‬Due to its penal emphasis, justification is linked with Christ’s
work on the cross. As such, justification is christocentric because the
Spirit’s work is not constitutive ofjustification.12 The Spirit plays only an
instrumental role in justification by drawing the person to faith in con-
junction with the written and/or declared Word of God.2‫؛‬
Sanctification is the subjective ٠٢ intrinsic transformation ofthe believer.
The Spirit is the primary agent of sanctification.^ Although ?rotestants
maintain that justification and sanctification are ‫ آس‬separated, neverthe-
less they believe that justification and sanctification must be kept distinct
in order to preserve the gratuitous nature ofjustification.15 In other words,
if justification and sanctification are not distinguished, then justification
may be identified with ٠٢ based on the process of sanctification. To con-
flatejustification and n ctificatio n is, for most Protestants, to undermine
salvation by grace through faith.^ The result is that sanctification is

11. Sec Calvin: Institutes ofthe Christian Religion (2 vols.; ed. John T. McNeill;
trans. Pord Lewis Battles; LCC, 20; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1, 3.11.2
(p. 727) and 3.11.11 (pp. 738-41). This latter passage is important beeause €alvin
clarifies that justification is not an intrinsie righteousness, but rather an imputed
righteousness that stands ‫؛‬outside’ ofthe believer. Also see Francis Turretin, Institutes
ofElenctic Theology (2 vols.; trans. George M. Giger; ed. James T. Dennison, Jr;
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reforaed Publishing, 1994), II, 16.6.1-3 (pp. 666-
67). Wesley also affirmed that justification is based on Christ’s imputed righteousness.
At the same time, he warned ofthe antinomian implications (see Wesley, ‫؛‬The Lord
Our Righteousness’, Works, I, pp. 453-55 and 462).
12. Indeed, Calvin expressly maintains that the righteousness ofChrist imputed in
justification is not to be c o ^ s e d with the Spirit’s renovation ofthe soul (see Calvin,
Institutes, I, 3.11.23 [p. 753]).
13. See Tun‫־‬etin, Institutes, II, 15.1.5-7 (pp. 502-503).
14. For a classic Protestant scholastic declaration of this theory, see Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940, repr. 1871), III,

15. See Turretin, Institutes, II, 17.1.10(p. 691). Reformed revivalists, R.A.Torrey
andA.J. Gordon, also adopted the objective and subjective paradigm for understanding
the relationship betw ^justification and sanctification (see Torrey, The Fundamental
Doctrines ofthe Christian Faith [New York: George H. Doran, 1918], pp. 200-201 and
The Holy Spirit: Who He is and What He Does and How to Know Him in All the
Fullness ofHis Gracious and Glorious Ministry [New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1927],
pp. 80-81and 177 and A.J. Gordon, The Twofold Life ٠٢, Christ's Workfor Us a n d
Christ's Work in Us [New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1883], pp. 43 and 129-31).
16. See Calvin, Institutes, I, 3.11.11 (p. 739) and 3.11.23 (p. 753) and Turretin,
Institutes, II, 16.2.9-10 (p. 640).

© The Continuum ?ublishing Group Ltd 2003.

 S tudebaker Pentecostal Soteriology andPneumatology 2 5‫؛‬

not the primary datum of soteriology. A person does not look to their
progress in sanctifieation for assurance of salvation but to the righteous-
ness of Christ-justification. Although the intention is to preserve the
^‫־‬afttitous nature of salvation, nevertheless sanctification is subordinated
to justification.
The distinction b e^een justification and sanctification produces a sub-
ordination of pneumatology to Christology. It does so because ?rotestant
soteriology subordinates the subjective aspect to the objective aspect of
salvation. Sanctification is not denied nor intentionally minimized, but since
the crux of salvation is forensic justification, sanctification necessarily plays
a secondary role.‫ أ؛‬The consequence of assigning preeminence to the objec-
tive element of salvation is that the Spirit plays a secondary role to Christ.
Since sanctification is the primary soteriological work ofthe Holy spirit, his
work, by default, is firnctionally subordinated to the work of Christ.

The Objective-Subjective Paradigm in Pentecostalism. The functional sub-

ordination of the Spirit to Christ implicit in the Protestant scholastic
objective-subjective paradigm is the conceptual structure for the Pente-
costal doctrine of Spirit baptism. Unforftmately, the influence ofProtestant
scholasticism on the doctrine of spirit baptism is not always recognized.
In reference to the relationship between Reformed scholasticism and
Pentecostal theology, Del Tarr remarks that Reformed theology is a
‘curse’ and ‘Protestant scholasticism represents the theological roots ofthe
silencing of the Spirit in Western missions’.18 Tarr is criticizing the
cessationist theology that typifies the Reformed tradition. Yet, to interpret
Pentecostalism as a distinct tradition based on the disagreement with the
Reformed doctrine ofthe cessation ofthe charismata is to foil to perceive
foe profound influence Reformed soteriology exercises on Pentecostal-
ism’s central doctrine of Spirit baptism.

17. See Calvin, Institutes, 1 ,1 4 .2 1 .‫( ق‬p. 788). Gary D. Badcock states that the Re-
formaticn doetrlne of justification ‘results in a certain displacement ofthe Spirit from
tire center ofthe scheme of salvation’ (see Badcock, Light ofTruth andFire ‫ه‬/ ‫ ة׳ اﻫﺊ‬.■A
Theology ofthe Holy Spirit [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p. 97). William ٠ . Rusch
also comments that ?rotestant scholasticism tends to objectify soteriology and sub-
ordinate pneumatology (see Rusch, ‘The Theology ofthe Holy Spirit and the Pente-
costal Churches in the Ecumenical Movement’, Pneuma 8 [1986], pp. 17-30 [25]).
18. See Del Tarr, ‘Transcendence, Immanence, and the Emerging ?entecostal
Academy’, in Wonsuk Ma and Robert p. ^lenztes (eds.), Pentecostalism in Context:
Essays in # ٠٢١٠٢ ofWilliam w. Menzies (JPTSup, 11; Shefrleld: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997), pp. 195-222 (209and213).

© The Continuum ?ubiishing Group Ltd 2003.

 256 Journal o f Pentecostal Theology 11.2 (2003)

First, the tendency of Frotestant scholasticism to define salvation in

terms of the christocentric objective and the pneumatological subjective
paradigm is readily apparent 'in Fentecostal theology.19 In the text, A n
Introduction to Theology: A Classical Pentecostal Perspective, the authors
affirm, ‘justification refers to one’s objective righteousness (what God has
declared one to be, positionally), whereas sanctification refers to o n e ’s
subjective righteousness (what God is making one to be, in actuality) ’‫وم‬
In addition, as in Protestant scholasticism, Pentecostal theology interprets
the objective aspect of redemption christologically and the subjective
aspect pneumatologically.^ This view ofthe relationship betweenjustifi-
cation and sanctification s<^uarely places Pentecostal soteriology within
the Protestant scholastic tradition.
The distinction between the objective and subjective soteriological
categories is the rubric for the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism. In an
article that interacts with j. David Pawson’s fourfold process ofChristian
initiation,22 Colin Dye argues that justification, or salvation proper, is
separate from baptism in the Holy Spirit.22 This is not an unusual comment
for a Pentecostal theologian. Yet, what are the soteriological categories
that underpin the separation ofjustification-salvation p ro p er-an d the
work ofthe Hoty spirit? The answer is, the Protestant scholastic christo-
centric objective and pneumatological subjective categories. Dye adds
firrther, ‘there is a theological, practical and (very frequently) a temporal

19. Myer ?earlman, the early Assemblies of God theologian, stated, *the outward
aspect of grace is provided by the atoning work ofChnst; the inward aspect is the work
ofthe Holy spirit’ (see Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines ofthe Bible [Springfield,
MG: Gospel Publishing House, rev. edn, 1981 (1937)], p. 222).
20. See John R. Higgins, Michael L·. Dusing and Frank D. Tallman, An Intro-
duction ‫؛‬٠ Theology: A Classical Pentecostal Perspective (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt,
1994),p. 119.
21. See Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines ofthe Bible, pp. 222 and 2 8 ‫ئ‬. R. Hollis
Gause, the Church of God theologian, also maintains the objective/justification and
subjective/sanctification paradigm (see Gause, Living in the spirit: The Way ofSalva-
tion [Cleveland, T ^: Pathway, 1980], p. 50).
22. According to Pawson, Christian initiation ‘is a complex of four elements—
repenting towards God, believing in the Lord Jesus, being baptized in water and
receiving the Holy Spirit’ (see Pawson, The Normal Christian Birth [London: Hodder
‫ ه‬Stoughton, 1989], p. 11).
23. See Colin Dye, ‘Are Pentecostals Pentecostal? A Revisit to the Doctrine of
Pentecost’, JEPTA 19 (1999), pp. 56-80 (64-65).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 S tudebaker Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 257

distinction between believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit’.^*

The person is justified and saved by ،believing in Christ’. To believe in
Christ and receive salvation is, therefore, a separate experience from the
primary work of the S p irit'S p irit baptism. In other words, one does not
need foe primary work of the Spirit for salvation.
To summarize, justification is christocentric and objective. Justification
is foe ultimate pivot point of salvation. After all, one does not look to
sanctification, but to justification for assurance of salvation. Since Spirit
baptism is a sub-catego^ of the pneumatological subjective aspect of
redemption, it is necessarily distinct from and subsequent to salvation
proper.^ Thus, foe ?entecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism presupposes the
?rotestant scholastic objective and subjective paradigm and the implicit
subordination of the Spirit entailed in that paradigm.

Christ Achieves Redemption, the Spirit Applies Redemption

TheAchiever-Applier Paradigm'm Protestant Scholasticism. The second
subordination of the Spirit in ?rotestant scholasticism arises from foe
notion that Christ achieves and the Holy Spirit applies foe benefits of
redemption. As the applier of redemption, foe Spirit is reduced to an
in ^ m e n ta l role. Sinclair Ferguson summarizes the chief question ofthe
Reformation vis-à-vis medieval sacramentalism as ،how does foe Spirit
apply foe blessings of Christ to the individual?’^ The structure of Calvin’s
Institutes reflects an instomental theory ofthe Spirit’s work. BookTwo
describes how Christ’s work achieves redemption. Book Three details how
the Holy spirit administers that redemption.^ Wesley also saw foe Spirit’s
role in redemption as the instrament for its subjective ^plication.^ The

24. See Dye, ‘Are ?enteccstals ?enteeostal?’, p. 66.

25. See Dye, ‘Are ?enteccstals ?enteeostal?’, p. 65.
26. See Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy spirit (Contours of Christian Theology;
Leicester, UK: InterVarsity ?ress, 1996), p. 96.
27. See Calvin, Institutes, I, 3.1.1 (p. 537). The instrumental role ofthe Spirit is
aiso present in Torrey (see Torrey, Fullness ofPower in Christian Life and Service
[Wheaton: Sword ofthe Lord ?ublishers, 1897], p. 31).
28. Donald Dayton describes Wesley’s view ofthe work ofthe Holy Spirit as the
instmment and applier of Christ’s redemption (see Dayton, ‘The Historical Back-
ground of Pneumatological issues in the Holiness Movement’, in R.L. Shelton and
A.R.G. Deasley [eds.]. The Spirit and the New Age: An Inquiry into the Holy Spirit and
Last Things from a Biblical Theological Perspective [Wesleyan Theological Perpec-
tives, 5‫ ؛‬Anderson, IN: Warner, 1986], pp. 237-71 [253]) and ‘Pneumatological Issues
in the Holiness Movement’, in Spirit ofTruth: Ecumenical Perspectives on the Holy

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 258 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 11.2 (2003)

portrayal of the Spirit as the agent that applies the benefits of Christ’s
redemption subordinates the Spirit’s work beeause it is not eonstitutive o f
salvation.^ Salvation is accomplished by the work ofChrist on the cross.
The Holy Spirit serves only to administer the various blessings earned by
Christ.

The Achiever-Applier Paradigm in Pentecostalism٠Pentecostal theology

also defines the work of the Spirit in instmmental tercns.^ By uniting
soteriology and the doctrine of Spirit baptism, R. Hollis Gause endeavors
to overcome the tendency, which he believes is endemic to Pentecostal
theology, to fragment Christian experience.^ However, Gause follows the
well-worn path of classical Protestant soteriology by assigning foe Spirit
an instrumental role in soteriology. He writes, ‘all redemptive experience
is the provision of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is Redeemer... The personal
agent for foe realization and application of the benefits of divine grace is
the Holy Spirit’.^ The work of the Holy Spirit is reduced to applying the

Spirit [ed. Theodore Stylianopoulos and s. Mark Heiml; Brookline, MA: Holy Cross
Orthodox Press, 1986], pp. 131-57 [146]). For similar arguments, see Cannon, The
Theology o f John Wesley, p. 213 and Lycurgus Starkey, The Work o f the Holy Spirit: A
Study in Wesleyan Theology (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 26, 34 and 37.
However, Randy L. Maddox argues that Wesley assigned a broader role to the Holy
Spirit than that of merely subjectively applying the benefits ofChrist (see Maddox,
Responsible Grace: John Wesley ’s Practical Theology Nashville: Kingswood Books,
1994], pp. 136-37).
29. Hendrikus Berkhoff also argues that the consequence of portraying the Spirit as
the one who applies the benefits of redemption is to render his work instrumental and
subordinate to the Son (see Berkhoff, The Doctrine o/the Holy Spirit [Richmond, VA:
John Knox Press, 1964], p. 23).
30. For examples, see Higgins etal.,AnIntroduction to Theology,Ip. 108; Timothy
P. Jenney, ‘The Holy Spirit and Sanctification’, in Stanley M. Horton (ed.). Systematic
Theology (Springfield, MO:Logion, 1998), pp. 397-421 (417); Pearlman ,Knowingthe
Doctrines, p. 286; Raymond M. Pruitt, Fundamentals ofthe Faith (Cleveland, TN:
White Wing, 1995), p. 205; and £ .s . Williams, Systematic Theology (3 vols.; Spring-
field, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1953), 11, p. 233 and III, p. 33.
31. Although a W^leyan-Holiness Penteeostal, Gause nonetheless fits foe classi-
fication o f ‘CIassical Pentecostal’ because he affirms that Spirit baptism is subsequent
to salvation and speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Gause
also adopts foe otyective-subjective soteriological paradigm (see Gause, Tiding in the
Spirit, p. 50 for foe objective-subjective paradigm and pp. 76-84 and especially p. 84
for his affirmation ofthe doctrine of subsequence and initial evidence).
32. See Gause, Living in the spirit, p. 12.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 S tudebaker Pentecostal Soteriology andPneumatology 259

redemptive prov‫؛‬$i©ns of Christ.33 In an essay on the Spirit and sanetifi-

cation, Timothy p. Jenney, Assemblies of Cod theologian, reveals his
indebtedness to Protestant scholasticism by taking his definition of sane-
tification and the Spirit’s role in it from the Evangelical scholar Millard
Erickson. He quotes from Erickson: ‘sanctification is the Holy Spirit’s
applying to the life of the believer the work done by Jesus Christ’.^ Later
Jenney affirms that the work of Christ was finished on the cross and
that the Holy spirit is the active agent ofsanctification.33 On the one hand,
this statement contains an obvious truth: Christ’s work on the cross as an
historical event is finished. However, the statement also portrays the
accomplishment of redemption in christological terms and the application
of redemption in pneumatological terms. The spirit is the instrument for
applying the work of Christ wrought on the cross.
The critical issue is that since the Spirit’s work is only instrumental and
not constihrtive ofredemption, then his primary w ork-Spirit baptism -is
defined as merely an additional benefit ofredemption. As the instrument
or agent for the application ofredemption, the Spirit calls, regenerates,
sanctifies and baptizes for empowered ministry. The subordination ofthe
Spirit is paramount in the ?enteeostal teaching that the Spirit’s primary
work is not necessary for salvation. Here lies the irony of Pentecostal
theology. While Pentecostals have tried to give the Spirit’s work
preeminence in the doctrine of Spirit baptism, the articulation of this
doctrine through the objective-subjective and achiever-applier paradigms
results in defining this wori‫ ؛‬as an ancillary option to salvation.36

33. See Gause, Living in the Spirit, pp. 12, 20 and ‫ وه‬. Although they are not
Classieal ?entecostals, ?ruitt and j. Rodman Williams nevertheless define the Spirit’s
soteriological function in instrumental terns (see Pmitt, Fundamentals ‫ه‬/‫أةمﺀ‬ Faith,
p. 205 and J.R. Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and Christian
Living [3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Académie Books, 1991], 11, p. 43).
3‫ ه‬. See Jenney, ‘The Holy spirit and Sanctification’, p .0‫ ﻣﻪ‬. Also note that Jenney
cites with approval the Protestant scholastic theologians A.H. Strong and Charles
Hodge just prior to the Erickson citation. Higgins, Dusing and Tallm an describe the
instrumental role of the Spirit as, ‘in a broad manner, the Holy Spirit is usually
depicted in Scriphrre as transmitting and applying to the believer the work ofthe
Father and the Son’ (see Higgins, et al., An Introduction ‫؛‬٠ Theology, p. 108). For
additional instances of Assemblies of God theologians adopting this view, see
Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines ‫ه‬/‫ ه'ﺀﻣﻢ ﺟﺄم ؛‬/‫ج‬, p. 286, and E.S. Williams, Systematic
Theology, 11, p. 233 and 111, p. 33.
35. See Jenney, ‘The Holy Spirit and Sanctification’, pp. 3 7 ‫ و‬and 417.
36. Gordon Anderson’s article is a superlative case in point. In an attempt to show
that the Pentecostal doctrine of spirit baptism does not entail spiritual elitism, he

© The Continuum ?ublishing Group Ltd 2003.

 260 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 1 2003) 2. ‫)ل‬

The Holy Spirit and {he Order ofRedemption

The Role ofthe Spirit in the Protestant Scholastic ordo salutis. The ordo
salutis or order of redemption is a method of explaining the logical and, to
some extent, the temporal sequence ofthe various biblical facets ofhum an
redemption.37 The Refcmied, Wesleyan and Wesleyan-Holiness traditions
are similar with respect to their organization ofthe order of redemption.
The Reformed ordo salutis is commonly organized as election, calling,
regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification,
perseverance and glorification.^ Wesley arranged the elements ofredemp-
tion as prevenient grace, repentance prior tojustific^ion,justificat‫؛‬on, new
birth/regeneration, repentance after justification and the gradual process of
sanctification^ and entire sanctification.39 The variation betiveen the

argues that Spirit baptism, while useful to the Christian pilgrimage, is not ultimately
necessary. Anderson is dealing with the fact that a multitade of evangelical leaders,
who have not had the experience, nevertheless have tremendously successfol ministries
(see Anderson, ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Initial Bvidence, and a New M odel’,
Paraclete 27 [1993], pp. 1-10).
37. For the development of the ordo salutis from the ^form ation era through
Frotestant scholasticism, see Alister £٠ McGrath, lustitia Dei: A History ofthe Chris -
tian Doctrine o f Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Fress, 2nd edn,
1998), pp. 219-40.
38. ^ee John Murray, Redemption: AccomplishedandApplied(rçpr., Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth and Trust, 1979 [1955]), p. 87. For traditional and contemporary
examples, see Tuiretin, Institutes, II, 15.1-17.2 (pp. 501-702); Williams Ames, The
Marrow ofTheology (trans. John D. £usden; Boston: Filgrim, 1968), pp. 153-74; The
Works ofJohn Owen. V. Two Short Catechisms (London: Richard Baynes, 1826),
pp. 28-32‫ ؛‬Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, pp. 639-782 and III, pp. 253-58; and
Millard j. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985),
pp. 929-1002.
39. See LindstrOm, Wesley and Sanctification, pp. 113-20. The status ofthe ordo
salutis in Wesley’s theology is disputed. Randy Maddox prefers ria sahuis rather than
ordo salutis. Maddox believes that Reformed scholasticism created the ordo salutis
and that it is incompatible with Wesley’spastoral concern in the soteriological process
(see Maddox, Responsible Grace, pp. 157-58). In contrast, Kenneth Collins, while
using toe via salutis to describe Wesley’s doctrine of salvation, nevertheless maintains
that the ordo salutis underscores an essential aspect ofW esley’s soteriology; namely,
that toe process of salvation contains perceptible stages of growth and advancement
(see Collins, TheScripture Way o f Salvation, pp. 185-90). j. Kenneth Grider, a Wesleyan-
Holiness theologian, has toe following order of redemption: prevenient grace and
repentance, justification, regeneration, initial sanctification, reconciliation, adoption
and entire sanctification (see Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology [Kansas City:
Beacon Hill, 1994], pp. 350-420).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 S tudebaker Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 261

Reformed and the Wesleyan order ofredemption highlights their differing

viewpoints on the role ofprevenient graee and free will. In the Reformed
‫ ﺀس‬salutis, regeneration, repentanee and faith precede justifieation,
whereas in the Wesleyan ordo salutis regeneration follows repentance,
faith a d justification.^ In addition, the elements of the ordo salutis cor-
respond to the objective-subjective paradigm. The objective aspects are
justification and adoption. The subjective aspects are regeneration, per-
severance and glorification, which comprehensively comprise sanctification.

The Spirit and the ordo salutis. Although the Wesleyan division of the
ordo salutis into two works of grace appears to distinguish it from the
Reformed orda salutis, nevertheless, without minimizing the doctrinal
distinctions, both traditions exhibit an overall similarity in terms of the
Spirit’s role in the work ofredemption. Wesleyan-Holiness theologian,
Kenneth Grider, identifies the first work of grace as prevenient grace and
repentance, justification, regeneration, initial sanctification, reconciliation
and adoption. The second work of grace is the baptism in the Holy Spirit,
which initiates entire sanctification.*‘ The Reformed tradition, while not
advocating two works of grace, still relates the Spirit’s primary work to
sanctification.*‫ ؛‬In both traditions the role of the Holy Spirit is located
primarily, but not exclusively, in the doctrine of sanctification.43 Thus,
upon examining the order ofredemption in the Reformed and Wesleyan-
Holiness traditions through the lens of pneumatology, the essential
difference between the two is that the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition sees
the Holy Spirit accomplishing a higher level of sanctification-that is,
entire sanctification. In other words, Wesleyan-Holiness theology has a

40. According to Maddox, the priority of regeneration to faith andju‫؟‬t‫؛‬ficat‫؛‬on in

the Reformed ordo salutis is a key point that distinguishes it from Wesley’s Way of
Salvation (see Maddox, Responsible Grace, p. 159). Louis Berkhof notes that the
Reformed ‫ ﻫﻤﺢ־ﺀم‬salutis begins with regeneration to make explicit that salvation even in
its inception is the work of God (see Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1941], p. 418).
41. See Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology, pp. 350-66.
42. See Murray, Redemption, pp. 141 and 146-48 and Erickson, Christian Theology,
P.970.
43. In Grider’s explanation of the first work of grace, the Holy Spirit receives no
explicit role (see Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology, pp. 350-66). To be sure, the
Spirit is also the agent of regeneration. However, regeneration is the initiatory aspect of
the broader doctrine of sanctification and is not properly distinct from it.

© The €ontinuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 262 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 11.2 (2003)

more accentuated pneumatological concept o s s i f i c a t i o n than does the

Reformed tradition.
Spirit Baptism in the ordo saiutis. In the nineteenth century, Reformed
and Wesleyan theologians identified Spirit baptism as a ^s^conversion
aspect of the ordo salutis. Spirit baptism was separated from conversion
and described as a second or subsequent work of grace. In dialogue w ith
John Wesley, John Fletcher argued that Spirit baptism isapost-conversion
experience that initiates entire sanctification.^* Wesley m^ntained the
concurrence of Spirit baptism with conversion.^ However, in time,
Fletcher’s view became dominant in the Wesleyan-Holiness traditions.**
Once Spirit baptism was dislodged from conversion, nineteenth-century
Holiness and revivalist theologians developed varying definitions of
the experience. In time, three models emerged. First, Holiness theo-
logians united Wesleyan perfectionism and Fentecostal power under
Spirit baptism.*‫ ؟‬Second, the Reformed revivalists emphasized empowered
ministry as the primary purpose ofSpirit baptism.** The emphasis on ern-
powerment was in contrast to and intended to repudiate foe Wesleyan-
Holiness teaching that Spirit baptism is for the eradication of sin.*‫ ؟‬Finally,

44. See John A. Knight, ،John Fletcher’s Influence on the Development ofWesIeyan
Theology in Ametica’, WTJ 13 (1978), pp. 13-33 (26-27) and Donald Dayton,
Theological Roots ofPentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury, 1987), pp. 48-54.
45. See Victor p. Reasoner, ‘The American Holiness Movement’s Paradigm Shift
Concerning Pentecost’, IF7y(1996), pp. 132-46 (133 and 143). Melvin E. Dieter
suggests that Wesley substantially agreed with Fletcher’s notion ofSpitit baptism and
hesitated to give his full endorsement only because he feared some might wrongty
conclude that not all believers receive the Spirit at justification (see Dieter, ‘The
Development of Nineteenth Century Holiness Theology’, WTJ 20 [1985], pp. 61-77

46. See Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel, pp. 79 and 90.

47. Fhoebe Falmer is an example ofincluding perfection and power under Spirit
baptism (see Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel·, pp. 84-85).
48. For the Reformed evangelical background ofPentecostal theology,see Edith L.
Waldvogel (née Blumhofer), ‘The “Overcoming” Lifo: A Study in foe Reformed
Evangelical Conttibution to Pentecostalism’, in Pneuma 1 (1979), pp. 7-19 and ‘The
“Overcoming Life”: A Study in the Reformed Evangelical Origins ofPentecostalism’
(PhD dissertation, Hatvard University, 1977) and Roland Wessels, ‘The Spirit
Baptism, Nineteenth Century Roots’, Pneuma 14 (1992), pp. 127-57.·
49. See R.A. Tomey, ‘The Baptism with foe Holy Spirit’, in Donald w. Dayton
(ed.), The Higher Christian Life Sourcesfor the Study ofthe Holiness, Pentecostal,
and Keswick Movements (Late Nineteenth Century Revivalist Teachings on foe Holy
Spirit; New York: Garland, 1985), pp. 12-16.

© The Continuum ?ubiishing G o u p Ltd 2003.

 S tudebaker Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 263

proponents of the ‘Third Blessing’ argued that the believer should receive
three works of grace: conversion, entire sanctification, and Spirit baptism
for empowered ministry.50 The important point is that spirit baptism
became one discrete aspect of the ordo salutis. The primary work ofthe
Spirit, therefore, became a sub-category of the broader topic of sancti-
fication or subjective application of redemption.

The Role ofthe Spirit in the Pentecostal ordo salutis. ?entecostals gene-
rally adopt an Arminian/Wesleyan structure of the ordo salutis,51 How-
ever, they co-opted the Reformed revivalist view on the purpose of
Spirit baptism.^ ?entecostals identify the revivals under the ministries of
Charles ? ٠Parham and William j. Seymour as the direct catalyst for their
movement.55 While coming from a Werieyan-Holiness background,

50. See Donald Dayton, ،The Doctrine of the Baptism o fth e Hoiy Spirit: Its
Emergence and Si^ificance’, W TJ 13 (1978), pp. 114-26 (121) and Faupel, Everlast-
ing Gospel, pp. 87-90. For a contempora^ account ofthis theology, see Pruitt, Funda-
mentals ofthe Faith.
51. I agree with Russell p. Spittler’s judgment ‘the early Pentecostals did not
intend to frame a new ordo salutis, an algorithm for piety’ (see Spittler, ‘Suggested
Areas for Further Research in Pentecostal Studies’, p. 43). The critical point for the
Arminian/Wesleyan order of salvation is to locate regeneration after repentance and
faith (both terms comprise conversion) in order to preserve the Arminian/Wesleyan
notions of free will. For Pentecostal organizations of the ordo salutis, see French L.
Arrington, Christian Doctrine: A Pentecostal Perspective (3 vols.; Cleveland: Path-
way, 1993-94), II, pp. 20-21 and 200-252; Higgins etal.yAnlntroduction to Theology,
pp. 109-120; Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines ofthe Bible, pp. 222-67; Daniel B.
Pecota, ‘The Saving Work of Christ’, in Stanley M. Horton (ed.), Systematic Theology
(Springfield, MO: Logion, 1995), pp. 325-73 (354-72); and John w . Wyckoff, ‘The
Baptism in the Holy spirit’, in Stanley M. Horton (ed.), Systematic Theology
(Springfield, MO: Logion, 1995), pp. 423-55 (431,446 and 449).
52. Aside from initial evidence, the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit Baptism is
virtually idistinguishable from the Reformed revivalist teaching (cf. Torrey, ‘The
Baptism with the Holy Spirit’, p. 12, and the Assemblies of God position paper on
Spirit baptism published by the General Presbytery of the General Council of the
Assemblies of God, The Baptise in the Holy spirit: The Initial Experience and
Continuing Evidences ofthe Spirit-Filled Life, 11 August 2000, pp. 1-12 [‫م([و‬
53. See William w . Menzies, Anointed to Serve: The Story ofthe Assemblies o f
(7‫( س‬Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), pp. 34-40; Vinson Synan,
‘P ^‫؛‬costalism: Varieties and Contributions’, Pneuma 8 (1986), pp. 31-49 (32).
Whether Parham ٠٢ Seymour should be recognized as the founder ofPentecostalism is
debated. James Goff advocates Parham as the progenitor ofPentecostalism, since his
doctrine of tongues as the initial evidence of spirit baptism became its distinctive

© The c©ntinuum ?ubl‫؛‬shing Group Ltd 2003.

 264 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 1‫ل‬.2 )2003(

Parham nevertheless, and then Seymour following Parham, linked Spirit

baptism with empowerment for minist^ in contrast to entire sanctification.
The identification oftongues as the necessai^ concomitant to Spirit bap-
tism is Parham’s and Seymour’s^ most ^during contribution to th e
Classical Pentecostal movement.55 In terms of the Pentecostal ordo salutis,
pneumatology features prominently in only one aspect of it- S p ir it
baptism. Although Pentecostals perceive the work of the Spirit in other
aspects of the order of redemption, nonetheless, in terms of emphasis,
pneumatology is subsumed under the elements ofthe ordo salutis and only
becomes prominent in Spirit baptism.
The annexation ofthe Spirit’s role to one aspect ofthe order of redemp-
tion is strikingly clear in the placement of pneumatology after soteriology
in the structural arcangement of the loci ofPentecostal theologies.^ The
circumscription of the Spirit’s role is also noticeable when the relative
length of treatment given to the Spirit’s activity in the facets of salvation

doctrine (see James R. Goff, Jr, Fields White unto Harvest: Charles F. Parham andthe
Missionary Origins o f Pentecostalism [Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press,
1988], p. 164). In contrast, Hollenweger maintains that Seymour’s ecumenical and
réconciliâtes form of Pentecostalism is the genuine and otiginative theological
message of Pentecostalism (see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, pp. 18-23).
54. Seymour later rejected tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. H is
concern was that many who testified to Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in
tongues failed at the same time to manifest a life of holiness. For Seymour, this
dissonance was unacceptable. He responded by reestablishing, in a manner similar to
Wesleyan-Holiness theology, the integral relationship between Spirit baptism and
sanctification (see Cecil M. Robeck, Jr, ‘William j. Seymour and “the Bible Evi-
dence” ’, in Gary B. McGee [ed.], ¡nidal Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspec-
tives on the Pentecostal· Doctrine o f Spirit Baptism [Peabody, MA; Hendrickson,
1991], pp. 72-95 [88-89]).
55. See James R. Goff, Jr, ‘Initial Tongues in the Theology of Charles Fox Par-
ham’, in Gary B. McGee (ed.), Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives
on the Pentecostal· Doctrine ofSpirit Baptism (Peabody, MA: Hendtickson, 1991),
pp. 57-71 (69) and Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic
Movements in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 88-98.
While Hollenweger’s theological judgment in regard to Seymour may be correct,
nevertheless, from a historical perspective, the doctrine of tongues as the initial
evidence ofSpirit baptism is the unique theological datum ofClassical Pentecostalism.
56. See the table of contents in the following Pentecostal systematic theologies:
Higgins et al., An Introduction to Theology, pp. v-vii; Horton (ed.). Systematic
Theology, pp. 3-4; Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines, pp. 5-6; and E.S. Williams,
Systematic Theology, II, p. 1 and III, p. 1.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 S tudebak er Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 265

prior to Spirit baptism is compared to the length devoted to the doctrine of

Spirit baptism. A case in point is the theological manual by Higgins,
Dusing and Tallman. They allot slightly more than one page to a section
headlined, ،the Role of the Holy Spirit in Salvation’, whereas an entire
chapter is devoted to the doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy spirit.^
The attention given to the doctrine that is distinctly Pentecostal should
not in itself be surprising; after all, ?entecostals are writing Pentecostal
systematic theologies. However, the c u rso r attention given to the spirit in
the preceding aspects of the ordo salutis indicates that Pentecostals
unintentionally adopt a soteriological perspective that takes the primary
work of the Spirit as subsidiary to the work ofsalvation itself. To reiterate,
this is not to suggest that Pentecostals believe that the Spirit is absent from
the preceding elements of redemption, but rather, that the Spirit is not
emphasized in these prior elements.^ The Spirit’s work is showcased only
in the subsequent doctrine of Spirit baptism. The result is that Pente-
costalism articulates a ^ e ^ a to lo g ic a l aspect of salvation, rather than a
comprehensively ^eumatological soteriology. The place of the Spirit’s
work in the Pentecostal ordo salutis shows that Pentecostal soteriology
reproduces and accentuates that subordination of the Spirit found in
Protestant scholastic soteriology. The primary work of the Spirit is not
constitutive of the entire phenomenon of salvation, but is prominent in
only one part of the process.^

57. For the section on the Spirit and salvation, see Higgins et αΙ.,Αη Introduction to
Theology, pp. 108-109, and for the ehapter on Spirit baptism, see pp. 143-58. The
disparity between the attention given to the work of the Spirit in the aspects of the
order of redemption prior to spirit baptism compared to Spirit baptism is also present
in earlier Pentecostal theologies. In a section 32 pages in length, which details the
Spirit’s work in the application of redemption, Perlm an devotes 26 pages to the
Spirit’s activity in the subsequent event ofspirit baptism and the operation ofspiritual
gifts (see Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines, pp. 308-334). E.S. Williams allocates 43
pages to Spirit baptism, but only a short chapter of seven pages to the Spirit’s role in
the ordo soláis prior to spirit baptism (see E.S. Williams, Systematic Theology, III,
pp. 39-82 and III, pp.31-38).
58. Prior to Spirit baptism, the Spirit’s work is principally located in regeneration
and sanctification (see Higgins et al ., An Introduction to Theology, p. 112; Jenney,
‘The Hoty Spirit and Sanctification’, p. 399; Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines,
pp. 305-309; and Pecota, ‘The Saving Work of Christ’, p. 365).
59. The circumscription ofthe Spirit’s chief work is clear in j. Rodman William’s
comment that Pentecost is neither about salvation nor sanctification, but empowerment
topreach the Gospel (see J.R. Williams, ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic Theology’, in David

© The Continuum ?ublishing Group Ltd 2003.

 266 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 11.2 (2003)

Part Two: Redemptive Justification and Pentecostal Soteriology

In the presidential address to the 2000 annual meeting of the Society for
?entecostal Studies, Frank D. Macchia introduced a provocative, but very
promising redemptive model of justification. The promise ofa redemptive
model of justification is that it enables Fentecostals to transcend the prob-
lematic soteriological categories inherited from Protestant scholasticism
because it is a notion of salvation that is comprehensively pneumatological;
hence, it is a Pentecostal soteriology. In this section, the redemptive model
of justification is defined and specific ways that redemptive justification
overcomes the problems ofPentecostal soteriology are artieulated. The term
redemptive justification is used here because it is the term employed by
Macchia. However, I prefer the more inclusive term redemptivejustifica-
tion because it allows Christ and the Hoty Spirit to assume essential roles in
the entire redemptive process. Also, redemptive soteriology includes the
ascension of Christ. This provides for a full trinitarian soteriology. Christ
and the Spirit achieve salvation and actualize it in the believer. This salva-
tion consists ofpurification from sin, renovation oflife, and restoration to
fellowship with the triune God. These aspects correspond to the death,
resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Redemptive Justification Defined

The redemptive model of justification defines justification as the creation
of new life in the person through the gift of the Spirit.^ The redemptive
model stands in contrast to the Protestant forensic model’s emphasis on
guilt and forgiveness, but shares a close affinity with the Catholic
transformational notion of justification.61 Based on passages in Romans,
Macchia argues that justification must be understood in terms ofthe death
‫ﻣﺢ» ه‬resurrection ofChrist (Rom. 4.25). Traditional Protestant soteriology
associates justification with Christ’s work on the cross for the remission o f

S. Dockery [ed.], New Dimensions in Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor o f Millard

j. Erickson [Downers Grove, 1L·: InterVarsity Press, 1998], pp. 184-96 [187 and 189]).
60. For Macchia’s description of the redemptive model of justification, see
Macchia, ‘Justification and the Spirit’, pp. 7-16.
61. The kinship that the Pentecostal emphasis on pneumatology and sanctification
shares with Gatholicism arose in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (see ^‫'־‬eli-
Matti Kärkkäinen, Spiritus ubi vult spiral: Pneumatology in Roman Catholic-Pente-
costal Dialogue (1972-1989) [Schriften derLuther-A^icola-Gesellschaft, 42; Hel-
Luther-Agricola Society 1998], pp. 162-65).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 S tudebak er Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 267

sins. Sanctification correlates with the resurrection.“ However, Rom. 8.11

clearly teaches thatjustification encompasses Christ’s resurrection through
the Spirit. The resurrection is important because through it humanity is
restored to new lito and fellowship with Cod. Redemptive justifieation
also redefines the righteousness of God. The righteousness of Cod, by
which a person is justified, is not Christ’s perfect moral character that
satisfies a principle of divine justice. The righteousness of God is God’s
redemptive activity toward his broken creation. Sinee toe resurrection
revivifies alienated humanity, it is also constitotive of God’s redemptive
activity-that is, justification. In short, justification includes the forgive-
ness of sins and the re-creation oflife after toe pattern of toe resurrection
of Christ. I would add toe importance of Christ’s ascension. God’s re-
demptive activity does not end wito new life, but also includes recon-
stituted fellowship wito toe triune God.
Many ?™testants will ،quickly retort that this conflates sanctification
wito justification. Macchia is not averse to this characterization. He
explains that his view may be called a ‘sanctification model ofjustification
that makes sanctification integral to God’s fimdamental acts ofredemptive
justice’.“ Yet, to conclude that Macchia is advocating a form of works-
righteousness is a serious misreading of his theory. A person is not
justified because they pursue a lito of sanctification, but rather, justifi-
cation is the act of God’s spirit creating new life and sanctification in
toe person.64

Redemptive Justification anJ Pentecostal Soteriology

Redemptive justification provides a means for ?entecostal theology to
overcome its implicit subordination of the Spirit. Since toe subordination
of toe Spirit in ?entecostal soteriology derives from toe soteriologieal
categories co-opted from ?™testant scholasticism, toe antidote must treat
these shared categories. First, redemptive justification does not presuppose
toe christological objective and pneumatological subjective paradigm. The
terms objective and subjective still apply to soteriology in toe sense that
toe death and resurrection of Ghrist as historical events are objective and,
therefore, are not identical wito particular instances ofhuman redemption.
However, toe ?rotestant scholastic distinction between toe objective and
subjective relates to the extrinsic notion ofjustification and subjective

62. See Luther, Romans, p. 284.

63. See Macchia, ‘Justification and the Spirit’, p. 14.
64. See Macchia, ‘Justification and the Spirit’, p. 14.

© The Continuum ?ublishing Group Ltd 2003.

 268 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 2 0 0 3) 2. ‫) ل ل‬

renewal work ofthe Spirit. In redemptivejustification, the objective work

of Christ is completed in the power of the spirit and that same Spirit
reproduces that work in the believer. The objective work of Christ is not
the satisfaction of a principle ofjustice, but rather, it is Christ’s assump-
tion ofhumanity’s alienation from Cod and his restoration to fellowship
wife the Father through the resurrection and ascension. As Christ died for
sin, was raised to new life, and ascended to fee Father, so fee believer dies
to sin, is raised to new life, and is drawn into fee ambit ofthe trinitarian
fellowship. Since fee death, resurrection and ascension of Christ occur in
fee power ofthe Spirit, the work ofthe Spirit is constitotive ofjustificati©n
and salvation itself. The work of the Spirit in the soteriological process
therefore is not secondary to the work of Christ, but is inextricably
united with Christ’s work of redemption. Redemptivejustification unites
Christology and pneumatology rather than bifurcating Christoiogy and
pneumatology into objective and subjective categories.
Second, in redemptive justification, the spirit is not reduced to an in-
Strumental role in salvation. The Spirit does not simply appiy the benefits
procured by Christ. Since Christ’s redemptive work is accomplished in the
power ofthe Spirit, redemption is inherently christological and pneumato-
logical. The key redemptive activity o fG o d -th e life, death, resurrecti©n
and ascension 0 fC hr‫؛‬s t - i s pneumatological from first to last. The incar-
nation is accomplished through the Spirit (Mt. 1.18 and Lk. 1.33). The
Holy Spirit descends on Christ at his baptism (Mt. 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk.
3.22; and Jn 1.32-33), empowers him on his journey into the wilderness
(Mt. 4.1; Mk 1.12; and Lk. 4.1) and teaching ministry (Acts 1.2). Finally,
Christ is raised for our justification through the Spirit (Rom. 4.25 and
8.II).65 Thus, fee work of Christ and the Spirit constifirte redemption.
Redemption, therefore, is fee reception ofthe spirit, as the Spirit of Christ,
who effects in fee believer the redemption ofhumanity achieved in Christ.
The Spirit does not merely apply redemptive benefits, but rather, fee
Spirit’s work ofnew creation after the manner ofChrist is the redemptive
benefit.
Third, a redemptive model of justification sees Christ’s redemption as
inherently pneumatological. This is consonant wife fee biblical description
ofsalvation in terms ofpneumatology. The ministry ofJesus is introduced
and defined by fee promise ofJohn the Baptist: ‘he will baptize you with

6‫ ؛‬. £mphas‫؛‬s added. Thus, the resurrection is not simply to vindicate Christ’s work
on the cross, but is essential to the very work of redemption (see James D.G. Dunn,
Romans 1-8 [WBC, 38; Dallas: Word, ‫ او‬88‫ل‬, pp. 22‫ ك‬and 241).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 S t ^;d e b a k e r Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology 269

the Holy Spirit’ (Mt. 3.11; Mk 1.8; Lk. 3.16and Jn 1.33). Acts 2 describes
the consummation and inauguration ofthis promise. With the outpouring
of the Spirit, the promise of redemption, as declared in the Gospel pro-
logues, is fulfilled. Yet, it is also a beginning because it marks the initiation
ofthat era in which God will decisively pour out his spirit on all flesh
(Acts 2.17-21; cf. Joel 2.28-32). The baptism with the Spirit, therefore, is
the fimdamental soteriological promise. The redemptive model ofjustifica-
tion’s coupling of the promise found in the Gospels with ?entecost is a
more credible canonical inte]‫ ؟‬retation than one that interprets Pentecost
and the subsequent outpourings of the Spirit in Acts as primarily con-
cemed with an optional soteriological phenomenon.
In terms ofthe Spirit’s status in the ordo salutis, the gift ofthe Spirit is
not simply one element ofthe soteriological process, but rather, it is the
essential nature ofthat salvation that the elements ofthe ordo salutis seek
to describe. Since the Spirit is the gift of redemption, the elements ofthe
ordo salutis are facets ofthe fim dam ental essence ofsalvation-life in the
Spirit. We are adopted as God’s children, reconciled to fellowship,
transformed and empowered for Ghristian life because the Spirit of God
dwells within us.
To summarize, redemptive soteriology affirms two key premises that
unfetter fee Spirit from a subordinate role in soteriology. Pirst, fee work of
Ghrist and the Spirit are united in fee provision of redemption. Second,
God’s act ofjustifying fee believer recreates in the believer the redemptive
work of Christ: death to sin (cross), new life (resurrection), and restoration
to fellowship wife fee triune God (ascension). Since fee redemptive work
of Christ is accomplished in and through the spirit, so also, human justi-
fication is accomplished in and through the Spirit. Redemptive soteriology
therefore interprets justification as a ehristological and pneumatological
act of God. Since fee work of fee Spirit is integral to Christ’s redemptive
work and fee actualization ofthat work in the believer, fee Spirit’s role is
not merely instrumental, but it is essential to the process of justification.
Redemptive soteriology asserts that fee gift of fee spirit is the essence of
salvation. Thus, salvation is iráemfely pneumatological. However, salva-
tion is also inherently ehristological. ft is so because fee Spirit recreates in
fee believer fee redemption of humanity achieved in Christ’s life, death,
resurrection and ascension. Salvation consists ofthe redemption of human
life through fee Spirit after fee manner of Christ’s life, death, resurrection
and ascension. Thus, a redemptive soteriology conceives fee work of
Christ and the Spirit as constitutive ofthe entire soteriological process.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

 270 Journal ofPentecostal Theology 11.2 (2003)

Conclusion
The most profound eontribution of redemptive soteriology to Pentecostal
theology is that it synthesizes pneumatology with Christology. This syn-
thesis provides a way to transcend the implicit subordination of the Spirit
in Pentecostal theology. Symptomatic ofits historical origins, Pentecostal
the'ology subordinates the chief work of the Holy Spirit by defining it in
terms of Spirit baptism. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to salva-
tion and is not necessaty for salvation. The problem is that this inadver-
tently renders the primary work ofthe Spirit optional for the Christian life.
In redemptive soteriology, the primary work of the Holy Spirit is not
annexed to a soteriological option. On the contrary, the work of Christ and
the Spirit constitote the achievement and experience of redemption.

© The Centinuum ?ublishing Group Ltd 2003.

 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection w ith perm ission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, w ho also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may m aintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request perm ission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For inform ation regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaform atioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact inform ation for the copyright holder(s).

A bout ATLAS:

The A TLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions o f previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and m anaged by the Am erican Theological Library A ssociation
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endow m ent !)٦٥.

The design and final form o fth is electronic docum ent is the property o fth e A m erican
Theological Library Association.