TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGY OF GRACE

Nathaniel J. Wilson

The  subject  of  ‘grace’  is  central  to  the  message  of  Christianity.  In  general,  
the grace, or favor, of God is that which sustains the world, gives the breath of life,
and supplies sustenance for life for every human, believers as well as unbelievers.
Grace  at  this  level  is  often  called  “common  grace”.  However,  the  statement,  “By  
grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith….”  immediately  elevates  the  subject  to  another  
level of importance. Initial salvation and ongoing Christian living derive from, and
are sustained by, grace. A right view of grace, then, is extremely important. Much
was written about grace during the Reformation at which time Protestantism broke
from the Catholic church. Deeply imbedded in the Catholic idea of grace was that
grace can only meet man in and through the church. It was therefore controlled by
the church, and administered at the whim of the church.
There  were  those  who  “protested”  this  idea.  Hence,  the  term  “protest-ants.”  
These declared that grace was a sovereign gift of God, given by God, at his
discretion, and no man, or group could control it. The individual had such worth
before God that no humanly devised structure could control it.
This idea changed the world forever not only religiously but politically as
well. The political by-product of the development of this doctrine of grace was that
it acted as a pry-bar in freeing the doctrine of salvation from dependence on the
whim of Roman Catholic leaders  in  determining  who  could  be  ‘saved’.  The  
Catholic church at the time controlled the buildings and organizational structure.
Thus the favor of church leaders was essential for success in any and every area of
life. They unapologetically emphasized that the only way to heaven was to be in
good standing with the Catholic church. This, of course, gave heavy control to
church leaders which, as history bears out, led to manipulation of individual lives
and actions through the constant threat of excommunication.
A further result of the protestant doctrine of grace, and one with immense
implications for the future of mankind worldwide, was a new and far-reaching
emphasis on the worth of the individual.
Until this time, there is no historical record of any people who, in terms of
government, religious or otherwise, elevated the value of the individual above the
value of the state. This conviction that an individual is exclusively  made  in  God’s  
image and capable of direct, personal communion with God, became the
foundation on which democracies came to base their value of the individual. These
governments were then fashioned in such a way as to protect and accommodate the
individual rather than the individual be molded to accommodate the government.
Not only did this create a sense of the value of the individual, it also created
a sense of the responsibility of the individual. Man before God has a responsibility
to give his best efforts to the glory of God. This, as sociologist Max Weber
documented, had major influence on creating the work ethic and frugality
characteristic of Puritanism and early Protestantism in general.
As stated above, those who opposed Roman oppressiveness quickly came to
be  known  as  “Protest-ants”.  The  Protestants  protested  against  these  abuses,  boldly  
declaring that Grace brings salvation  “from  God  alone”  and  was  dependent  upon  
no man, organization, church, etc. By exalting grace above any decision by the
church, and declaring that God dispenses grace totally and unequivocally apart
from any decisions, actions, or will of man, they were enabled to begin wresting
control  of  an  individual’s  opportunity  for  salvation  from  the  hands  of  men  and  the  
institutional church. This, in turn, liberated the individual from political control of
man in matters of religious life, and enabled them to find God completely apart
from the established religious organization of the day, the Catholic church. Again,
whether speaking of the implications religiously or in secular life, this was no
small victory for the individual, which this doctrine of grace holds in terms of
influence on world history is enormous and the connection between this liberating
truth and the ensuing acceleration of democracy in the world since then is well
documented. When traced to point of origin, the vast array of individual freedoms
which  are  enjoyed  in  today’s  world  can  be  traced,  in  great  part,  to  the  development  
of this doctrine. This pivotal theological truth literally changed the course of world
history.
However, the predominant protestant doctrine of grace went further than the
above. Protestantism in its Calvinistic form taught that, while grace is sovereign as
dispensed by God to man, this grace is only for certain, predetermined people. If
you are one of those chosen to receive the grace of salvation, you can do nothing
about it. If you are not one of those chosen to receive the grace of salvation, you
can do nothing about it. Every human being is preordained to be saved or lost.
Their  desires  have  no  impact  on  this  decision.  They  are  “predestined”  long  before  
being born.
 John Calvin was the primary proponent of this doctrine of grace, along with
the Swiss reformer Zwingli. These directed and determined the westward
movement of the Reformation to France, Holland, England, and Scotland, and
exerted, indirectly a molding influence upon the leading Evangelical Churches of
America. American historian George Bancroft, who himself was not a Calvinist,
derives the republican institutions of the United States from Calvinism through the
medium of English Puritanism.[1] Douglas Campbell derives them from Holland,
which was even more under the influence of Calvin than England. The earliest and
most influential settlers of the United States—the Puritans of England, the
Presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland, the Huguenots of France, the Reformed
from Holland were Calvinists, and brought with them the Bible and the Reformed
confessions of faith. Calvinism was the primary theology of New England during
the Colonial period, and it still rules in great measure the theology of the
Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist churches.[2]
However,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  protestant  doctrine  of  grace  didn’t  stop  with  
the  declaration  that  God’s  grace  is  appropriated  in  an  unmediated  way  directly  
from God to the individual. Calvin went further by stating that the dispensing of
grace was not only something outside the authority of the institutional church to
dispense, but was also outside the ability of the individual to appropriate, even if
one desired to do so. Who would receive grace, was, in fact, decided before the
first human ever lived. Further, those who were predetermined to receive grace and
be  saved  couldn’t  avoid  it  even  if  they  attempted  to  do  so.  Likewise,  those  who  
were predetermined to damnation could never be saved, regardless of degree of
desire or efforts to do so. Included in this doctrine of predestination is the idea that
God has preselected a set number of human individuals who will be saved. These
individuals have already been specifically chosen by God and will be saved totally
apart from their own will to be saved or no. On the other hand, anyone who is not a
part of this chosen number can never be saved regardless of their will to be so or
not be so.
While the most well-known formulator of this doctrine of grace was Calvin,
there were those, in contrast, who were also Protestants, but who disagreed with
Calvin and his idea that an individual had no choice as to their eternal destiny. This
group  came  to  be  known  as  “Arminianists,”  named  after  one  Jacob  Arminius  who  
was a primary opponent of Calvinism.
 Calvin felt that, if man held the power to determine, by choice, whether he
would be saved or not, this would violate the all-powerful sovereignty of God,
placing  the  power  for  one’s  salvation  in  the  hands  of  man  rather  than  God,  thus  
elevating  man’s  authority  over  that  of  God. It was through this reasoning that he
came to his conclusions, even teaching that Adam and Eve had no choice in
regards  to  their  fall.  In  the  ensuing  several  centuries,  in  attempts  to  reconcile  God’s  
sovereignty and the human will, protestant writers have written volumes about the
subject.
Then, when the Pentecostal experience flamed across the world at the turn of
the twentieth century the focus of its recipients was almost totally on the
experiential dynamics of receiving the Holy Spirit and the resulting supernatural
activity  in  individual  lives.  Pentecostals  experienced  God  in  “life  and  action”  and  
did minimal theological writing. Thus, over the course of time, many of their
training institutions simply utilized already existing evangelical books for study.
However in doing so, numerous divergences in doctrine surfaced between what
one might call classical evangelicism and Pentecostal doctrine, all of which
demanded clarification. Although slow to address these issues in a scholarly
fashion, emerging Pentecostal writers have begun the task of articulating biblical
truths from a Pentecostal perspective. This volume is an attempt to point toward
the subject of grace from a Pentecostal perspective.

CHAPTER 1
The New Testament is a Pentecostal book and the New Testament
church was a Pentecostal church

The above chapter title is not meant as a sectarian statement. The early
church, while Pentecostal in experience, was not sectarian. To have the Pentecostal
infilling and ongoing enduement for ministry was the norm. The church was
seamlessly  Pentecostal,  meaning,  there  was  no  difference  in  “Christianity”  and  
“Pentecostal  Christianity”.  This  truth  is  not  hard  to  validate.
Beginning on the day of Pentecost with the explosive coming of the Holy
Spirit on the initial 120, this infusion of life and power by the Spirit immediately
spread to thousands, and shortly to tens of thousands. In the New Testament church
the common occurrence was to repent  of  one’s  sins,  be  baptized  in  water  in  the  
name of Jesus Christ, and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) just as
was experienced on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:1-4. Those who
experienced the baptism of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as well as thereafter
all were dynamically filled and spoke ecstatically in other tongues (Acts 11:14-18,
19:5,6). The idea of an early believer without this Spirit baptism is foreign to the
New Testament. In contrast, they saw this Sprit baptism as the connecting force of
all  believers  to  Christ.  “By  one  Spirit  are  ye  baptized  into  one  body….”  declares  
Paul  (I  Cor.  12:13).  And  “without  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  ye  are  none  of  his….”  (Rom  
9:10).
Whether in the Acts or the Epistles, the New Testament clearly reveals that
the motive force of the New Testament church was the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus
had  promised,  they  received  “power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  come  upon  
them”  (Acts  1:8).  From  this  initial  outpouring  in  Acts  2,  a  continuous  stream of
Spirit-led, supernatural activity can be observed, all culminating in radical advance
of the church among all people groups in the earth in effecting salvation. Clearly
the supernatural baptism of the Holy Spirit is the empowering force and guide of
New Testament believers.
When speaking of God working in the church, New Testament writers used
the  word  “Spirit”  without  hesitation.  No  hesitation  is  shown  to  speak  of  the  Holy  
Spirit  as  the  “Spirit  of  God”,  or  the  “Spirit  of  Christ”.  There  was  no  theological
self-consciousness in using the term interchangeably whether speaking of the Spirit
of the resurrected Christ or the Holy Spirit in the individual, or the divine Spirit of
God in general (e.g., Rom. 8:9). Such semantic carefulness came later as a result of
post-apostolic theological thinking—thinking which was non-existent in New
Testament writings. For the early church there is one Spirit. (I Cor. 12:13). When
making  reference  to  being  “Spirit  directed”,  they  understood  that  Spirit  to  be  the  
Spirit of  Jesus.  With  no  hesitancy  they  speak  in  one  verse  of  the  “Spirit  forbidding  
them”  to  go  a  certain  direction  then,  a  verse  later  they  identify  the  Spirit  as  “the  
Spirit  of  Jesus”  (Gr., Acts 16:6,7). The Spirit within them was the Spirit of the
risen Christ guiding, leading, and anointing them (c.p. Jn.14:17, 18, 20) Initially,
there simply was no Christianity that was not thus Spirit-baptized, nor was there
any other method for being Spirit-filled than that revealed in Acts 2:1-4 (Acts
11:15,17). This experiential initiation into the body of Christ was no afterthought
or one-time accident. Just as the efficacy of the Death, Burial and Resurrection,
this availability and necessity did not end at the close of the apostolic age.
 Because  the  New  Testament  is  a  “Holy  Ghost”  book,  it  should  be  read  
“pentecostally”.  The  centrality  of  the  Pentecostal  experience  is  core  to  an  
understanding of the original church as is evidenced throughout the New
Testament. Further, the Old Testament is replete with promises that this Holy
Spirit would come upon individual believers. (Jer. 30:31-33, Joel 2:28, 29, Isa.
28:11, 12, Ezekiel 37, etc.) This is a prominent promise in both testaments and not
something which can be relegated to an insignificant role. The opening
proclamation of the Baptist was that the Christ would come and baptize with the
Holy Ghost. Christ and the gospels reiterate this to the disciples on numerous
occasions (Lk. 24:49, Jn. 7:37-39, 14, 20:22, 20:22, Acts 1:8,etc) and finally, the
promise dramatically and supernaturally comes to pass (Acts 2:1-4).
Beginning with divine Spirit baptism in Acts 2, even a cursory reading of a
few verses anywhere in the Book of Acts repeatedly reveals the fact that this is a
Spirit-empowered-and-enabled enterprise. Virtually every incident is characterized
by supernatural activity in the form of gifts, dreams, divine-guidance, discernment,
deliverances, miracles, signs, wonders, judgment, revival, speaking in tongues,
healings, and prophetically anointed preaching. By this power the gospel ploughed
through every obstacle whether political, historical, cultural, or religious. That
believers would have anything less than this baptism of the Holy Spirit was a
foreign thought. This Spirit enduement was not the exception but of the very
essence of what it meant to be Christian (Acts 10:46-48, 11:14-17, 19:6).
Today, one can go to any Christian bookstore and read many doctrinal books
available for purchase. After reading dozens of them the likelihood is that the
reader will know little more than before about the intensely personal, highly
experiential nature, of Spirit-life in the early church. Some of the more strident
evangelical literature would lead one to believe that the New Testament Church
was non-Pentecostal. Many virtually ignore the centrality of the Spirit and Spirit
baptism, leaving the appearance that few or no one ever spoke in tongues or
received a miracle—or  if  they  did  it  isn’t  significant,  and  further—believers
certainly  don’t  do  so  anymore.  Also,  dreams,  visions,  and  other  New  Testament  
phenomena are often thought of as essentially for people of questionable stability.
For these, salvation has absolutely nothing to do with any spiritual encounter or
experience. All is logically explained, neatly compartmentalized, and tucked away
in  overly  polished  theological  boxes.  “Grace  here,  born  again  there,  Spirit-filled
over here, gifts of the Spirit yonder, water baptism over there, this is essential, that
is  not.”  This  “box  theology”  approach  to  scripture  is  in  great  contrast  to  the  liquid  
seamlessness found in the Spirit-led church. In such mechanistic thinking, Grace is
treated  as  a  “stand  alone”  object  apart  from  all  else.  “Salvation  is  of  Grace”,  is  the  
cry.  Well,  what  about  repentance?  “No.  Repentance  is  subsequent  to  salvation  by  
grace”.  What  about  being  baptized  or  being  filled  with  the  Spirit?  “Not  essential—
all  is  of  grace”.  One  may  ask,  is  anything  I  do,  any  response  I  make  essential  to  my  
salvation?  The  answer  is  “No,  all  is  of  grace.  Some  will  even  declare  that  there  
should  ever  be  “No  guilt—don’t  worry  about  the  things  you  are  doing  wrong.  You  
are saved. In fact, you were saved before you accepted Christ. Further, you
couldn’t  be  lost  it  if  you  wanted  to!”  Believing  is  not  what  saves  you.  Accepting  is  
not what saves you. Having faith, repenting, baptism, receiving the Spirit, living a
godly life—none of these things have anything to do with you being saved. These
are all things apart from, subsequent to, saving grace. You were chosen to be saved
before  you  were  born  and  absolutely  nothing  can  alter  that”.  This  is  the  core  of  
Calvinistic teaching about grace. Any variation from this sterile isolation of grace
is  condemned  as  “works”  or  “attempts  to  earn  salvation”,  or  “legalism”,  or  some  
such.  The  pure  Calvinist  can  find  no  place  in  a  person’s  life  to  say  “It  is  here  that  
the  grace  of  God  is  transmitted  to  the  individual  in  salvation”.  For  the  Calvinist  
such grace was transferred before the person existed. Others had no such transferal
and can never be saved, no matter how hard they try or how much they desire. In
either case, neither has anything to do about their condition nor can they do
anything about it. This is Calvinism. This is evangelical teaching about grace.
Thus grace is sterile and isolated and divorced from all else. It is made
antiseptic to the point that the life of the Spirit is sanitized out of efficaciousness. A
grace without pain and without personal birth pangs. It is grace without the voice
of life. It is a mechanical grace removed from connection with any volitional act of
the  human  spirit.  It  is  something  religious,  but  does  not  enter  one’s  life  through  
dynamic spiritual encounter.
So what happened? How is it that today, not only are thousands of church
members not filled with the Spirit as described in Acts 2, but are, instead,
adamantly taught by their leaders that such dynamic experiences are not for them
and are no longer characteristic of biblical Christianity. Further, these experiences
are presented  as  being  totally  disconnected  from  the  appropriation  of  God’s  grace?  
How  is  it  that  evangelical  “grace”  teachers  come  to  teach  that  grace  is  something  
totally apart from any action or desire on the part of the convert—a stance which,
in a reading of the New Testament, encounters many contradictions. We would
propose that only an apostolic Pentecostal theology of grace embraces all that
grace entails. Further, there is perhaps no major subject in the Bible which, from a
Pentecostal standpoint, receives a more incomplete definition in the evangelical
world than the subject of grace. It is our intent to show that New Testament grace
was inseparable from the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit
recorded in the New Testament. It is not possible to have a New Testament
doctrine of grace apart from Pentecost.
Lest anyone assume that what is written above in regards to Calvinism is
incorrect, a brief look at the historical record may be helpful.

Chapter 2
CALVINISM

A  “strict  Calvinist  theology  of  Grace  emphasizes  the  following  points:

Grace  is  the  “unmerited  favor  of  God”  Use  of  the  word  is  usually  applied  
most strongly to initial salvation. One cannot merit salvation. One can do nothing
to  be  saved.  One’s  salvation  has  been  predetermined.  Those  who  have  been  
determined to be saved have no choice. Those not so determined are predestined to
be lost. They also have no choice. This salvation has nothing to do with obedience,
or  response  to  God’s  offer  of  salvation,  or  any  other  action  on  the  recipient’s  part.  
Further, no matter what the recipient does, this salvation cannot be lost. For
example, here is the The French Confession of Faith, 1559 A.D., which was
prepared by Calvin himself and one of his pupils:

God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he
hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ,
without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his
mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in
them his justice. (The French Confession of Faith, 1559 A.D.)

In  the  1500’s  these  churches  were  basically  “state”  churches.  Councils—

both political and religious—worked together to determine the doctrinal positions
of the state church. While the confession above is the French confession of faith,
below is a portion of the Articles of Faith from the Church of England at about the
same time.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith of the Church of England, 1562 A.D.

From  Article  17:  “Predestination  to  Life  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  
whereby he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver
from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of
mankind and to bring them to Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels
[3]
made  to  honor.”

Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, decided that the

above statement was not strong enough. Therefore, with the approval of the
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  he  got  endorsed  what  came  to  be  “The  Lambeth  
Articles”.  However,  the  Queen  of  England,  Queen  Elizabeth,  wouldn’t  endorse  it.  
It was printed, but the Calvinists later lost their political authority during the
Arminian reaction under the Stuarts.[4]

The Lambeth Articles, A.D. 1595

1. God from eternity hath predestinated certain men
unto life; certain men he hath reprobated

2. There is predetermined a certain number of the

predestinate, which can neither be augmented
or diminished

3. Those who are not predestinated to salvation shall

be necessarily damned for their sins
4. Saving grace is not given, is not granted, is not
communicated to all men, by which they may
be saved if they will
5. It is not in the will or power of everyone to be saved[5]

Scores of examples exist which restate the above teachings. However, some,
realizing the difficulty of reconciling all scripture to such a position, attempt to
modify the harsh edged tilt towards fate. Others reject such teaching outright. In
contrast  to  “Calvinists”,  these  came  to  be  known  as  “Arminians”,  after  one,  Jacob  
Arminius, a Dutch Reformed theologian.

Chapter 3
ARMINIANISM

Scholars well knew that there were scriptures which did not square with the
extremism of Calvinism: For example, Calvinism taught that Grace is absolutely
irresistible; meaning one who has been chosen to be saved will be saved whether
they desire to be or no. In contrast, writing to the Galatian Christians, Paul
remarks; “I  do  not  frustrate  (make  void,  nullify)  the  grace  of  God…”  (2:21). He
goes on to declare; “Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  are  justified  
by  the  law,  ye  are  fallen  from  grace” (5:4).  Clearly,  one  is  capable  of  “falling”  
from grace. To the Corinthians he writes; “We  than  as  workers  together,  beseech  
ye that receive not the grace of God in vain”  (II  Cor.6:1).  Certainly  a  herculean  
effort would be required to explain away such clear statements. Clearly, Pauls’  
writings confirm this paradox of belief. There is much in his letters to emphasize
how  from  beginning  to  end  the  Christian  life  is  the  work  of  God’s  grace.  There  are,  
however, significant warnings, which make it clear that he knows that there is that
in man which can accept and which  can  refuse  and  withstand  God’s  proffered  
grace”.[6]
Jacob Arminius, (1560-1609) was ordained at Amsterdam in 1588. In 1603
he became a theology professor at Leiden. Considered a man of mild temperament,
Arminius was forced into controversy against his own choice. To him
predestination seemed to harsh a position because it did not allow human decision
a role in salvation. Hence Arminius came to assert a conditional election,
according to which God elects to life those who will responding faith to the divine
offer of salvation. In so doing, he meant to place  greater  emphasis  on  God’s  mercy.  
For  Arminius,  God’s  will  as  unceasing  love  was  the  determinative  initiator  and  
arbiter of human destiny.[7] He  asserted  that  God’s  sovereignty  and  man’s  free  will  
are compatible.
After his death, 45 ministers and followers of Arminius signed the
Remonstrance, an articulation of the views of Arminius, and submitted it to the
Dutch states general. The year was 1610.
 Several years later, The Synod of Dort (1618-19), in which all the delegates
were supporters of Calvinism, condemned the document and expelled the
Arminians present. Nevertheless the works of Arminius were published for the first
time in 1629 and by 1630 the Remonstrant Brotherhood had achieved legal
toleration and was finally recognized officially in the Netherlands in 1795. The
crux of Arminianism lay in the assertion that human dignity requires an
unimpaired freedom of the will.[8] Below are the 5 primary points of the
Remonstrance.

The Remonstrance, 1610 A.D.

1. Both Election (to salvation) and condemnation (on the day Judgment)
was conditioned by the rational faith or non-faith of man
2. The Atonement while qualitatively adequate for all men, was
efficacious only for the man of faith
3. Unaided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  no  person  is  able  to  respond  to  God’s  will.
4. Grace is not irresistible
5. Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of
falling from grace.[9]

Certainly we agree that the essentials included in the Remonstrance are

correct. With its emphasis on the grace of God, Arminianism also strongly
influenced the development of Methodism in both England and America.
Arminianism was an important doctrine of Wesleyanism and later Methodism
which emerged  from  the  Wesleyan  movement.  In  the  1700’s  John  Wesley  was  
editor of the The Arminian Magazine. A simple example of his teaching (as
opposed to that of Calvinism) was that anyone can be saved, as seen in the
following statement.

The Arminian Magazine edited by John Wesley:

“God  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,  by  

speaking  the  truth  in  love”.[10]
 Arminianism was also included in numerous holiness movements of the
1800’s,  including  Nazarene,  Church  of  God,  Christian  Missionary Alliance,
Salvation Army, and others. The emergence of the Pentecostal revival at the turn of
the 20th century saw many from these movements and others like them experience
their personal Pentecost. Among churches which retained Calvinism are
Covenant, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Baptists.

Chapter 4
The Pentecostal Answer to how and when Grace comes to the individual in
salvation
The New Testament Church and the Holy Spirit

Pentecostals are called such because of a special emphasis on the Spirit.

Beginning with the dynamic infilling on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts
2, the Spirit leads, guides, and teaches the New Testament church. Anything that
lacks the Spirit is not a component of the church. Again, anything that lacks the
Spirit is not a component of the church. The Spirit is the life of Christianity in
every age. Jesus Christ cannot be known apart from the Spirit. As a
“downpayment”  of  ones  future inheritance, the Spirit brings a bit of the world to
come into the present and therefore is always pointing to the future kingdom of
God from which it comes and to which it leads whomever has the Spirit dwelling
within  them.  This  ‘future  orientation’  of the Spirit is what makes the church not
just  a  community,  but  a  “prophetic”  community—“prophetic”  meaning  that  it  is  
oriented to the future, has the future revealed to it, has already tasted the future,
and has a message of hope concerning entering the future (scripture). The Holy
Spirit  is  thus,  in  its  nature,  “prophetic”.  It  is  the  literal,  dynamic,  holy,  living  Spirit  
of Jesus within that gives it this ongoing, transcendent character. Remove this
Spirit imbuement and the church becomes just another institution of time rather
than the organism of the infinite which invades the finite world. There is no
knowing Jesus except in the Spirit and no becoming part of the church without the
Spirit (Romans 8:9).
The record indicates that the New Testament church understood and was
completely comfortable with the idea that God is Spirit. So much so that after the
ascension,  repeatedly  and  without  compunction,  they  used  “Spirit” interchangeably
whether speaking of God as Father or whether speaking of Jesus. Grounded deeply
in the Old Testament view of God, those original believers and authors felt no need
to  differentiate  a  plurality  of  divine  “Spirits”.  Newtonian  western  thought, with its
linear analytical bent, may struggle with this, but the apostolic writers of the early
church certainly had no such struggles. Paul, for example, could hardly have been
more overly repetitive as he relentlessly hammers this point home in the first
thirteen verses of I Corinthians12. In fact, it is common knowledge that the whole
concept that the Holy Spirit was a separate person in the Godhead clearly emerged
several hundred years after the New Testament church age. Such terminology is
foreign to the  Apostles  and  New  Testament  writers.  Lloyd  Neve  asks:  “Is  there  any  
significant  personalizing  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Old  Testament?”  He  then  answers  his  
own  question  with:  “The  final  conclusion  is  overwhelmingly  negative:  there  is  no  
personalization of the  Spirit  within  the  limits  of  the  Old  Testament”.[11] In the
Hebrew Bible the Spirit of God is neither fully personal nor the third member of
the Trinity.[12] This personalization emerges in its fullness as a result of the
glorification of Jesus (Jn.7:35-37). Thus the writers, deriving their view from the
only two sources they had, that is, the Old Testament and their own Pentecostal
experience, freely made statements such:

“God  is  a  Spirit….” (John 4:24).

“There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit…”  (Eph.4:4).

“For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into
one  Spirit!” (I Cor. 12:13).

“Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit. And there are
diversities of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of
operations, but the same God which  worketh  all  in  all”  ( I Cor. 12:4-6).

“But  he  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  Spirit”  (I Cor. 6:17).

“Now  when  they  were  gone  throughout  Phrygia….and  were  forbidden  of  the
Holy Ghost to  preach  the  word  in  Asia,….  They  assayed to go into Bithynia:
 but the Spirit of Jesus (Gr) suffered  them  not”.  (emphasis is authors) (Acts
16:6,7).

For Luke, writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, both books are
about the same figure, that is, Jesus. The gospel is his record of the ministry of
Jesus while here on earth in human flesh. Acts is the record of the ministry of Jesus
on  earth  by  his  Spirit  in  and  through  the  church.  The  primary  person  of  Luke’s  first  
book is also the primary person of his second. As noted above, the Spirit is
identified  as  “the  Holy  Spirit”  and  “the  Spirit  of  Jesus”  in  the  space  of  two  short  
verses. The Spirit of Jesus guided them with surety and power.
Of course, a Pentecostal theology of the Holy Spirit is not without its critics.
An oft heard criticism of Pentecostals is that, because their theology is derived
from historical portions of the New Testament rather than didactic, or so-called
“teaching”,  portions  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  weak.  These  critics  present  all  of  
the writings of Luke as history rather than teaching thus disqualifying it for use to
establish the theological teaching of the church. For example, John R.W. Stott
writes:

“This  revelation  of  the  purpose  of  God  in  Scripture  should  be  sought  in  its  
didactic, rather than its historical parts. More precisely, we should look for it in the
teaching of Jesus, and in the sermons and writings of the apostles, and not in the
purely  narrative  portions  of  the  Acts”.[13]

There are several inescapable reasons why the above is incorrect, not the
least of which is the plain statement of scripture itself about scripture: (what better
place to find the correct use of scripture than scripture?) Paul exclaims to Timothy:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God and

is profitable for doctrine,(didaskalian, Gr.) for reproof, for correction, for
instruction  in  righteousness:”  (emphasis is authors) (II Tim. 3:16).

To the Romans he writes:

“For  whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were written for our
learning, (didaskalian, Gr.)…”  (emphasis is authors) (Rom. 15:4).
 Paul further uses a clearly narrative example of Old Testament Israel
for theological instruction:

“Now all of these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends  of  the  world  are  come.”
(emphasis is authors) (I Cor. 10:11).

It seems safe to say that no serious scholar who is viewing scripture as a

whole would attempt to limit its message and doctrinal thrust to only certain kinds
of writings. The Bible includes a very wide variety of methods in its goal of
conveying  God’s  message  to  man.  With  the  above  being  said,  it  is  admitted  by  
many  that  Luke’s  writings,  rather  than  being  a  simple  history  of  the  development  
of the New Testament church, clearly have  a  “…theological  interest  which  was  at  
the  same  time  a  historical  one.”[14] While not here our primary focus, it is,
nevertheless noteworthy that Luke deeply and consistently embeds important
theological truth within the framework of his historical narrative. This theological
content is no less in weight and value than any other theological teaching in the
New Testament. His careful construction of the account of the coming of the Spirit
(2:1-4),  his  detailed  account  of  the  churches’  first  explanation  of  how  to  obtain  
salvation (2:37, 38), his care to place Peter, to whom was given the keys to the
kingdom by Christ himself, as the first preacher (2:38), his careful record
recounting the spread of the Holy Ghost baptism from Jews to Gentiles (Acts 10),
his  record  of  Peter’s  awareness  that  this  Holy  Ghost  baptism  was  the same as on
the day of Pentecost (11:15, 17) as well as that it was elemental to salvation
(11:14), all lay an unmistakable foundation for the doctrinal infrastructure of the
church in all ages. A close examination of the birthday of the church (Acts 2)
reveals that all of the core components of the church were present which are
subsequently found throughout the remainder of the New Testament.
The day of Pentecost is virtually a full-blown model of the motive power of
the New Testament Church, revealing to one degree or another all of its constituent
elements. Primacy of place is clearly given to a Pentecostal infilling of the Holy
Spirit  accompanied  by  speaking  with  other  tongues.  They  are  in  “one  mind  and  one  
accord”,  and  all  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  recorded  in  scripture  were  in  operation  
including:
 a. Wisdom
b. Knowledge
c. Faith
d. Healing
e. Working of Miracles
f. Prophecy
g. Speaking in Tongues
h. Preaching
i. Prophesying
j. Teaching
k. Exhortation
l. Discerning of Spirits
m. Ministry
n. Giving
o. Ruling
p. Showing mercy
q. Five-fold Ministry

It was a Pentecostal preacher preaching a Pentecostal message with

Pentecostal conviction producing repentance which led to the Pentecostal
experience of being baptized with the Holy Spirit and being baptized in water in
the name of Jesus by a Pentecostal preacher. This was then followed by
Pentecostal evangelism which led to supernatural Pentecostal growth, which
included Pentecostal giving, Pentecostal worship, and pure Pentecostal doctrine.
There were Pentecostal crowds, Pentecostal noise and Pentecostal upheaval. One
of the most prominent features of the book of Acts is their consistently being
divinely led of the Spirit both corporately and individually. In the midst of all of
this is a constant thread of Pentecostal joy and Pentecostal praise.
As already stated, the most prominent feature of the early church is the
elemental role of the Spirit in virtually every decision and action. This supernatural
guidance enabled them to radically transform their society even though they
appeared to be totally marginalized from all centers of earthly and religious power.
The anointing proved to be more powerful than all attempts of human power to
exclude its influence from the society in which it worked. Their secret was this
always-very-present working of the Spirit of Jesus in and through them in small
details as well as major undertakings. Pentecostals propose that this is the model,
the pattern for the church in all ages. With Jesus as the cornerstone, it is founded
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets—not some subsequent leader or
personage.  It  is  “fitly  framed”  when  built  as  designed.  It  is  for  all  ages.  Just  as  in  
construction, job superintendents responsible for building do not arbitrarily change
what the architect has designed. Times change, places change, people change,
centuries change, and circumstances change. But the model for the church given in
the New Testament does not change. There is only one template for one church.
This church and its core doctrines of salvation, healing, and deliverance are all
found in the book of Acts. To assume that these foundational elements have
changed since the time of the apostles is not only a puzzling assumption but also
seems to be a seriously misguided presumption, and is certainly without scriptural
or logical foundation.
This, of course, runs counter to traditional evangelical teaching which
largely asserts that the supernatural spiritual activity found in the book of Acts
ceased with the apostolic age. The argument runs along the line of thought that,
with the completion of the writing of the New Testament no one any longer
receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the way they received it on the Day of
Pentecost in Acts 2. Miracles such as occurred throughout the book of Acts are no
longer available for the church. Scripture replaces all of that. God no longer speaks
to individuals except through the Bible. In fact, a living, communicative, daily
relationship with God is viewed as endangering ones reliance on, and devotion to,
scripture.  Speaking  of  Pentecostals,  Rene’  Pache  writes:

The  excessive  preeminence  given  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  devotions….has
tended to neglect of the scriptures. Why be tied to a Book out of the past
when one can communicate everyday with the living God?[15]

In his book Charismatic Chaos, John MacArthur Jr., assiduously outlines

excesses found within the charismatic movement and repeatedly asserts that this is
due to dependence upon experience rather than the Bible alone. To him, living and
dynamic spiritual experiences in the present are mysticism, and has no place in true
Christianity. For example, he states:
 Instead of responding to a proper interpretation of God’s  Word,  Christianity  
is collecting fantastic and preposterous experiences . The Bible is either
mangled to fit those experiences or simply ignored altogether. The result is a
pseudo-christian mysticism.[16]

He  goes  on  to  describe  mysticism  as  “a  system  of  beliefs  which  attempts  to  
perceive  spiritual  reality  apart  from  objective,  verifiable  facts”.[17] To him, being
baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in other tongues, although he must admit
that  this  was  at  one  time  biblical,  is  no  longer  so  and  experience  has  “subverted  
biblical  authority….and  replaced  it  with  a  new  standard:  personal  experience”.[18]
He further declares:

There are only two basic approaches to biblical truth. One is the historical,
objective  approach  which  emphasizes  God’s  action  toward  men  and  women  as  
taught in scripture. The other is the personal, subjective approach, which
emphasizes the human experience of God.[19]

Of himself and those who agree with him, he declares:

We begin with scripture. Our thoughts, ideas, or experiences are validated or
invalidated  on  the  basis  of  how  they  compare  with  the  Word”

His inference is, of course, that those who are Pentecostal and who do not
agree with him do not begin with scripture but with experience. It also means that,
in his opinion, the thoughts, ideas, or experiences of Pentecostals are not validated
or invalidated on the basis of how they compare with the Word, and that
Pentecostals have a system of beliefs which attempt to perceive spiritual reality
apart  from  objective,  verifiable  facts.  Further,  we  “mangle  the  Bible”  and  are  guilty  
of  “purporting  to  have  fantastic  and  preposterous  experiences”.
To his credit, MacArthur goes to great length to point out excesses and
abuses within the charismatic movement. There is evidence aplenty to validate the
charges of silliness and elevation of questionable experiences to the status of
biblical authority. Our agreement could not be more emphatic in agreeing with his
denouncement  of  what  we  would  term  ‘non-governmental,  free  Pentecost’,  with  all  
of its condescension toward doctrine and careful, reverential, Christian living.
However MacArthur fails to adequately differentiate between the errors he
identified in the charismatic movement and the authentic biblical experiences of
Pentecostals in general. This lumping together, broad-brush approach assumes that
what is true of charismatic extremists is true of all Pentecostals, which, of course,
is incorrect. To reverse the circumstances, one could recount horror stories from
within the circle of so-called  “orthodox  evangelicals”.  For  example,  one  longtime,  
well-known, evangelical not long ago predicted the date of the return of Christ.
This date has come and gone and his prediction was obviously wrong. In addition,
he asserted that virtually all churches have gone astray, and now encourages
evangelicals to cease going to church. Instead, they are instructed to listen to his
radio programs and attend periodic seminars which he conducts. If this example
was used (and many other examples of error which could be cited) as the
measuring stick for all evangelicals, the resulting picture would be not only
repugnant but untrue to the reality that the above errors do not characterize all
evangelicals anymore than the excesses documented by MacArthur characterize all
Pentecostals.
Upon closer scrutiny the arguments of Pache, MacArthur and others are not
as strong as they would have it appear. A closer look at a few of these
presuppositions reveal the truth to be quite different from their conclusions. Below
are a few examples.

As seen earlier, Pache, speaking of Pentecostals/charismatics declares:

The excessive preeminence given to the Holy Spirit in their

devotions….has  tended  to  neglect  of  the  scriptures.  Why  be  tied  to  a  
Book out of the past when one can communicate everyday with the
living God?

The above is a startling statement with an equally startling conclusion. It

certainly does not appear to be well thought out. For example, the first question
one  would  have  to  ask  is,  how  could  one  possibly  give  “excessive  preeminence”  to  
the  Holy  Spirit?  Is  it  possible  for  one  to  give  “excessive  preeminence”  to  the  Holy
Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the divine Spirit of God promised to permanently indwell
the  believer  “full-time”.  The  believer  is  exhorted  to  “walk  in  the  Spirit”,  be  “filled  
with  the  Spirit”,  be  “led  of  the  Spirit”,  to  pray  in,  or  with,  the  Spirit.  All  gifts of the
Spirit  are  emphatically  and  repeatedly  attributed  to  the  Spirit.  Being  “born  of  the  
Spirit”,  how  can  one  be  other  than  a  “child  of  the  Spirit”?  Scores  of  additional  
scriptural passages could be marshaled to reinforce the absolute prominent place of
the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. With this being unquestionably the case,
then  one  must  ask,  what  is  meant  by  the  statement  of  Pache  that  “excessive  
preeminence”  is  given  to  the  Holy  Spirit  “in  their  devotions”?  Is  the  suggestion  
here that there are other ways to do devotions to God apart from the Holy Spirit? If
so,  that  certainly  doesn’t  square  with  Christ’s  declaration  that  “God  is  a  Spirit  and  
they that worship him must worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth”.
(Jn.4:24….emphasis  is  authors)  Is being devoted to the Holy Spirit something apart
from being devoted to Christ? If this is, indeed, being proposed, it also lacks
agreement with the clear teaching of scripture.
Pache goes on to pose the question:

“Why  be  tied  to  a  Book  out  of  the  past  when  one  can  
communicate everyday with the living God?

The implication here is apparently that Pentecostals, in their devotions, pray

and worship while excluding, or downplaying, reading and study of the Bible. One
must ask, does Pache believe that one cannot, or should not, communicate
everyday  with  the  living  God?  Wouldn’t  this  go  against  the  whole  idea  that  Christ  
is  risen,  is  alive,  is  ever  present,  is  true  to  his  promise,  “Lo, I am  with  you  always”?
The truth is, if there is any place in which Pentecostals optimize use of the Word, it
is in devotions. While there are some who have, in an attempt to emphasize a
living  relationship  with  God,  proposed  the  Word  as  being  the  “old”,  this mistaken
view is not held by the majority of sincere, stable Pentecostals. Further, while
some Pentecostals may, (like many non-Pentecostals) lack formal exposure to a
broader understanding of the structure of the Word, there is, nevertheless, no one
more focused than are Pentecostals in bringing the promises, comforts, and
reinforcements of the Word into the present through prayer and devotions. They
“pray  the  Word”,  “sing  the  Word”,  “shout  the  Word”,  and  place  great  emphasis  on  
verbalizing the Word. They quote the Word, memorize the Word, and declare the
potency of the Word in all immediate situations. For the vast majority, the Bible is
hardly a book out of the past but rather a very relevant document of the present. It
is alive and sharper than any two-edged  sword….
 In  regards  to  the  role  of  “experience”  in  Christianity,  the  previously  quoted  
example from MacArthur (re-quoted below) has the effect of lumping all spiritual
experiences as being questionable. Speaking of the Pentecostal in regards to
interpreting the Word, MacArthur declares:

Instead  of  responding  to  a  proper  interpretation  of  God’s  Word,

Christianity is collecting fantastic and preposterous experiences. The
Bible is either mangled to fit those experiences or simply ignored
altogether.

The first implication of the above declaration is that any spiritual experience
is suspect as being non-scriptural. Experience—any experience—is subtly
questioned as to whether it has any place as a valid response to a proper
interpretation  of  God’s  Word.
The largest English dictionary in the world includes the following as a
definition  of  “experience”:
-- The fact of being consciously the subject of a state of
being or condition
-- an event by which one is affected
-- a state of being or condition viewed subjectively

It seems safe to assume that conversion, for instance, could be considered a

spiritual experience. If one experiences conversion, then would we not say that
they  are  “….consciously  the  subject  of  the  state  or  condition  of  being  converted?  
God converts, but they experience. If said conversion has brought deliverance from
a  life  of  bondage,  would  we  not  say  that  it  is  “an  event  by  which  one  is  affected”?  
Further, if a person experiences said deliverance, and is the subject thereof, would
they not automatically be viewing their new state of being subjectively, that is,
from the inside, out—and does this not constitute experience? Again, when the
magnitude of the blessing which such a convert has experienced comes upon them
we should not be surprised at the deepest possible display of both instant and
ecstatic joy. This is precisely the ecstatic rejoicing we observe on the Day of
Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.
A  Pentecostal  answer  to  MacArthur’s  statement  above  is  that  there  is  no  
such  thing  as  a  correct  response  to  a  proper  interpretation  of  God’s  Word  which  
does not include experience. Because God is alive and personal, he is consequently
encountered dynamically, and, of necessity, subjectively as well as objectively. To
deny  that  being  “born  of  the  Spirit”  is  a  subjective  experience  is  tantamount  to  
claiming that one being born naturally can experience their own birth objectively.
The experience of being born is obviously experienced subjectively by the one
being born. The Word is alive. When a living human encounters the living word,
the human experiences the encounter. The Word, in the final analysis, is not
something separate from the Spirit. Christ declares:  “The words that I speak unto
you,  they  are  Spirit  and  they  are  life”  (Jn. 6:63). The Word and the Spirit are not
two different things, but is the same thing in two different modalities. Christ
himself is the Word incarnate (Jn.1:14).
Upon being challenged by the preaching or reading of the Word, the believer
prays. Prayer is a communication with a living God. God answers prayer. God
experiences being petitioned. The believer experiences being answered.
“Answering”  is  something  done  between  living  beings  and  is  an  exchange,  not  
between machines, or unfeeling, inanimate objects, but between beings which
internalize, i.e., experience, that which is being communicated. The act of
communication is itself experiential and all communication of sentient beings
includes experience. Indeed, there are few things more basic to New Testament
teaching than that the believer experiences God coming to live within them, and
this  on  a  perpetual  and  ongoing  basis.  Life  is  not  some  “thing”  which  is  sterile,  
aloof, detached, mechanical. It cannot be observed independently as in a test tube.
The human will itself is inextricably interwoven with emotions, feelings, rational
cogitations and conclusions.
There are, of course, those who claim experiences as being from God, but
which are unscriptural and which ignore clear scriptural teaching. These should be
confronted and corrected. To allow such to go unchecked is both wrong and
dangerous. However, with that said, it is nevertheless true that the individual,
dynamic  experience  of  God  spiritually  was,  and  is,  an  essential  (i.e.,  ‘of  the  
essence’,  something  which  cannot  be  separated  from  the  core substance of a thing)
component of biblical Christianity. There are no experiences in human history to
equal the dynamic, instant, ecstatic, other-worldly intensity found in Spirit-baptism
as recorded on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Further, in clear contradiction to
the teachings of MacArthur, there is not one shred of scripture which indicates that
this experience has ceased to be available to anyone who believes throughout the
church age. To propose that this experience is no longer available, yea, to ignore
the fact that this experience was absolutely of the essence of initiation into, and on-
going  life  within  the  New  Testament  church,  is  certainly  both  a  “mangling”  of,  
and/or  “ignorance  of”,  the  clear  teachings  of  scripture.  MacArthur  gets  it  wrong
when  he  lumps  all  spiritual  experience  as  being  “modern  mysticism”.  Spiritual  
experience  of  the  kind  spoken  of  here  does  anything  but  “wage  war  on  reason  and  
truth.”  A  sort  of  terror  of  spiritual  experience  seems  to  lie  at  the  core  of  such  
thinking. Is this because the authors of such may have never personally
experienced such? Not only are unscriptural experiences denounced in such
thinking, but any spiritual experiences beyond the control of finite reason are shied
away from. To attempt to limit the infinite power of God to the controls of finite
reason and understanding is, at once, unreasonable and, if carried to its final
conclusion, absurd. The words of Soren Kierkegaard seem, in this case, quite
relevant:

“Woe  to  the  person  who  makes  miracles reasonable. Woe to the person who
betrays and breaks the mystery of faith, distorts it into public wisdom,
because  he  takes  away  the  possibility  of  offense!  …O  the  time  wasted  in  this  
enormous work of making Christianity so reasonable, and in trying to make
it  so  relevant.”

Chapter 5
WHY GRACE CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE
PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE

WHAT THEY NEVER TELL YOU ABOUT GRACE

One of the great contributions which evangelicalism has made to the world
is the unrelenting emphasis placed upon exegesis of scripture. Exegetical study
emphasizes the actual meaning of scripture, beginning with the setting in which it
is given, the author, and the time and circumstances in which he wrote, etc., and
working out from there. Examination is made of the events which preceded the
scripture being explored as well as those which follow. The chapter is examined,
the verse is examined, and finally, the primary words of the verse are examined,
including a return to the original language from which it was derived. This study of
an individual word in a particular scripture unveils truth regarding the subject
which otherwise would remain unknown. Sometimes even a letter in a word, or the
lack thereof, bears considerable significance.
However,  when  evangelical  writers  are  approaching  the  subject  of  “grace,”  
thorough exegesis often seems to take a bow and exit the stage. Think about this:
In how many such books on grace have you discovered an in-depth discussion of
the  Greek  word  which  is  translated  into  English  as  “grace”?  I  would  propose  that  
the  answer  is  “few,  if  any”.  
Well, so here it is—exegesis on the word “grace,”  not  from  your  
neighborhood Calvinist but rather, of all things, from a Pentecostal. Perhaps the
exegesis itself will explain why this material seems to be so carefully avoided.

WHY GRACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CANNOT BE SEPARATED

FROM THE PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE OF THE INFILLING OF
THE HOLY SPIRIT EXPERIENCED ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST AS
RECORDED IN ACTS 2
The  Greek  word  which  is  translated  in  our  English  bibles  as  “grace”  is  
“charis”.  It  is  from  this  word  that  many  girls  names  originate,  such  as  “Cara”,  
“Carrisse”,  “Carissa”,  “Charisse”,  “Chari”,  etc.  “Charis”  comes  from  a  family  of  
Greek  “char”  words  and  means  “to  benefit,  to  give  favor,  to  bless,  to  enable,  to  
give  pleasure,  to  benefit  by  giving  gifts”.  This  family  of  words  which  come from
the  root  “char”,  include:  
charis  =  “grace”
chara  =  translated  “joy”  in  KJV,  and  originally  of
little differentiation between chara, i.e., “joy”  and,  
charis,  that  is,  “grace”
charizomai
charitos
chariti
charin
charitas
charita
charisma
charismatos
charismata
 charismaton
charismati
charitoo
echaritosen
kecharitomene
Let’s  take  a  closer  look  at  three  of  these  words,  “charis”,  “charisma”,  and  
“charismata”.
First  we  note  that  all  three  of  these  words  “charis”,  “charisma”,  and  
“charismata”  derive  from  the  root  “char”,  which  means,  “to  benefit,  to  give  favor,  
to bless. In turn, being “blessed”  includes  strength,  enablement,  giftedness.  

A. Charis
Again,  “charis”  is  the  Greek  word  which  is  translated  “grace”  in  
English  versions  of  the  Bible.  Included  in  the  meaning  of  “charis”  is,  all  of  the  
above, including also,  “to  give  happiness  and  pleasure,  to  benefit  by  giving  gifts  
such  as  salvation,  empowerment  to  live  life,  to  fulfill  God’s  purposes,  and  to  
maintain  one’s  relationship  with  God.

B. Charisma
Paul freely interchanges the concepts charisma and charis.
As  is  evident  “charisma”,  deriving  from  “charis”  carries  with  it  the  same  
connotations  as  “charis”,  and  means  “gift”.  Wherever  one  finds  “charisma”,  he  
locates  the  place  where  “charis”,  or  “grace”  is  transferred  from  God  to  mankind as
a  gift.  Grace,  if  it  ‘remains  in  God’,  but  apart  from  man,  that  is,  if  it  is  undispensed  
to man, is of no benefit to man. Further, man cannot earn grace. The only way
grace  comes  to  mankind  is  God  giving  it  as  a  “gift”,  or  as  “charisma”  from  God  to  
man.  Peter  describes  the  grace  of  God  as  “many-folded”,  or  “manifold”  (I  Pet.  
4:10). A close review of the New Testament makes it graphically clear that its
many  manifestations  come  “through  the  Spirit”  (I  Cor.12:4,  8,  9,  11.)
“Charisma”  is  used  in  two important ways in the New Testament. First, it is
used of the gift of salvation itself which God gives to those who will accept. “The  
gift (charisma) of God is eternal life  thru  Jesus  Christ”  (Rom.6:23). Secondly, it is
used in the context of a specific  “spiritual  gift”  in  the  life  of  a  believer,  a  spiritual  
impartation  for  enablement  or  strength.  “For I long to see you, that I may impart
unto you some spiritual gift,(charisma pneumatikon) to the end ye may be
established;;”(Rom.  1:11).  “Pneumatikon”,  or “spiritual”,  or  “of  the  Spirit”,  derives  
from  “pneuma”  which  is  the  Greek  word  for  “spirit”.  In  other  words,  the  medium  
whereby  grace  is  delivered  to  the  individual  is  through  the  Spirit.  The  “gift  of  
grace”  is  spiritual  and  comes  from  divine  Spirit  through  and  into  man’s  spirit.  
Spirit is of the essence of grace and grace is essential to, or of the essence of, the
Spirit. One cannot be received apart from the other. The Spirit of God, or Holy
Spirit which reaches to man is identified by the writer to the Hebrews  as  the  “Spirit  
of  Grace”  identifying  those  who  “….hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  
Grace”(Heb. 10:29). The context reveals clearly the Spirit of Grace is synonymous
with the Holy Spirit. The coming of grace to the individual is inseparable from
“gift”  and  “Spirit”.
In modern leadership literature Max Weber is perhaps the one who deserves
most  credit  for  introducing  “charisma”  into  modern  thought  as  a  leadership  model.  
Over  time,  a  leader  who  has  “charisma”  has  come  to  be  identified,  more or less, as
a leader who is colorful and thus attracts followers, but basically does so in a way
that often is shallow and lacks substance. John Gardner points out that Weber
borrowed the term from church historian Rudolf Sohm, who, in turn, borrowed it
from St. Paul and the Bible. Following the lead of Weber, writers overused the
term  to  the  point  that  ‘charisma’  came  to  be  associated  with  a  kind  of  surface  
attractiveness which attracts followers in a manipulative, salesmanship type way.
Biblically,  a  leader  who  ‘has  charisma’  is  the  exact  opposite  of  the  above.  
Such an anointed one is, rather, a leader whose power to attract and influence
others stems from a supernatural giftedness derived from the Holy Spirit. By this
empowerment such a leader unveils for his hearers an abundant life which they
heretofore had no knowledge of. The Spirit comes upon the preacher, or teacher, or
leader, with supernatural insight specific to the occasion. In contradistinction to
trickery or purely human persuasion, this timely delivery is a result of a
transcendent enablement. Often referred to as anointing or unction, this
empowerment  is  the  endowment,  that  is,  the  gift,  of  God’s  grace  (charisma)  
working by the Spirit through the believer.

C. Charismata
The  “Charismata”  of  I  Corinthians  12  is  translated  “gifts  of  the  Spirit”  
(KJV).  However,  the  most  exact  meaning  is  “GIFTS  OF  HOLY  GRACE”.  Again,  
“charis”  is,  the  root  word.  A  careful  reading  of  this  chapter  reveals  the  inescapable  
oneness between the Holy Spirit and grace. These gifts of grace are spiritual tools
which equip the believer for effective witness. They are the method whereby grace
is translated into concrete application to everyday life and ministry. The gifts of the
Spirit are, then,  the  gifts  of  God’s  grace.  This  theme  is  echoed  numerous  places  in  
the letters of Paul (Rom.5:15-17; 3:23, 24; 6:14, 15; Gal.2:9; Eph. 1:6). With the
Spirit clearly the medium by which grace is delivered, one must wonder how one
can feel comfortable teaching that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer for the
church  today?  Being  as  what  is  commonly  termed  the  “gifts  of  the  Spirit”  are,  in  
fact,  the  “gifts  of  grace”,  the  question  becomes  how  “grace”  can  be  divorced  from  
the working through the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the church as described in I
Corinthians 12. Where does one find, in scripture, a change in the medium of
delivery of grace from being the Spirit to some other medium? Further, Rom 12:6
clearly  indicates  that  just  as  salvation  is  a  “gift”  of  God’s  grace  so  too  are  the  
charismata. If salvation by grace still exists, and the exact same word is used for
“spiritual  gift”,  then  concluding  that  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  no  longer  exist  appears  
to be an unjustifiable position. Grace cannot be separated from the work of the
Spirit, including both receiving the Holy Spirit as recorded in Acts 2, as well as the
ongoing manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit in the life of the church. Further,
how  could  one  have  the  “gifts  of  the  Spirit”  working  in  their life, including
speaking  in  other  tongues,  without  first  having  received  the  “gift”  (Acts  2:38)  of  
the Holy Spirit? It is in this Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit and its resultant
enablement and guidance, that the redeeming grace of God is revealed. Grace
should not be thought of as some generic object which can be held up for
observation apart from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is integral to grace. It is through
the Spirit that grace comes. Where there is no Holy Spirit there is no saving grace.
Where there is the moving of the Holy Spirit, saving grace can always be found.
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  “Spirit  of  Grace”  (Heb.10:29)  thus,  to  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  
is to receive the Spirit of Grace. The New Testament model is:

The infilling of the Holy Spirit is the medium of grace

to the believer in salvation.
then
The anointing of the Holy Spirit is the medium of grace
through the believer in ministry to the world.
 Grace is the sphere of existence for believers. They are under grace
(Rom.1:7,  I  Cor.1:3,  Col.1:2,  Rom.6:14)  and  “grace”  is  used  to  depict  the  Spirit-
filled person (Acts 14:3). In the New Testament, the connection between grace and
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  subsequent  “walking”  in  the  Spirit,  is  
inextricable. Only an apostolic Pentecostal theology of grace embraces grace in
this wonderful New Testament fullness.

I. TWO Old Testament WORDS FOR GRACE

New  Testament  definitions  of  “grace”  are  derived  from  two  Old  Testament  
Hebrew  words.  These  two  words  are  “chen”  (add  pronunciation)  and  “chesedh”  
(add pronunciation)

A. Chen
The definition of the Old Testament word  “chen”,  which  is  translated  “grace”  
includes  “gifts  given  without  conditions  or  stipulations”.  It  is  from  this  word  that  
we receive the knowledge that grace is unmerited, unearned, undeserved, and is
completely the free gift of God to mankind. It is a general gift of His love and
grace to the world and is available for anyone willing to receive it. Some aspects of
it (such as life itself) demand no acceptance. It is given unconditionally.
An  example  of  this  giving  of  God’s  grace  is  exemplified in the story of the
Good Samaritan. His giving of assistance was not of obligation, but was
completely free will based on his goodness.
His assistance included not only initial giving, but provided the means and
enablement for full recovery. Neither merit, nor friendship, or even hope of a
return, was reason for the giving. The giving was a manifestation of the intrinsic
benevolence of the giver and came with no obligation whatever from the recipient.

B. CHESEDH
“Chesedh”  is  the  other  Old  Testament  word  for  “grace”.
The  chief  meaning  is  “to  live  in  a  godly  manner”.  The  basis  of  grace  here  rests  
upon a close relationship between the giver and the recipient of grace. Here grace
is clearly covenantal.  Emphasis  is  placed  on  God’s  faithfulness  in  granting grace
through his covenant. In response to this, man, on his part, has, in return,
obligations  toward  God.  This  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  earning  God’s  grace,  but  
rather  responding  to  God’s  grace.  The  fact  that  the  individual  believer  lives  a  life
separate from worldly ways by following biblical standards and injunctions is not
legalism.  It  is,  rather,  man’s  response  to  his  covenantal  responsibility  under  the  
“grace  covenant”.  
The idea of this covenant of God with his people is repeatedly seen in the
New Testament. Perhaps its simplest and most graphic form is the tri-partite
formula,  “You  will  be  my  people,  I  will  be  your  God,  I  will  dwell  in  your  midst.  
Note the exact language covenantal language Paul uses in II Cor 6:16-18; 7:1:

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are
the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and
walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith
the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the
fear of God.

Oftentimes  the  promise  will  also  include  that  God’s  “name”  would  be  there.  
As seen above, this covenant relationship includes parameters and requirements
within which the covenant is effective. The covenant relationship is dependent
upon obedience to the conditions of the covenant. Violation of the conditions leads
to dissolution of covenant responsibilities and invalidation of the covenant
promises.
In the light of this covenantal relationship with God, it should not be
surprising  that  we  are  informed  that  grace  “teaches  us”:

“  For  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  to  all  men,  
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world (Titus 2:11-13).

Jude further warns of those who have crept in unawares who are “ungodly  
men, turning the grace of our God into  lasciviousness”(v.4).
“Lasciviousness”  identifies  actions  which  are  in  the  same  vein  as  uncleanness,  
fornication, filthy words, unchaste movements of the body, and is connected with
lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries. Clearly
lasciviousness and all with which it is categorized stands as something which has
no connection with grace or its meaning. In contrast grace teaches us to live
soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright
(c)1996 by Biblesoft).
It is quite incredible to read books written on grace which (a) barely mention
such prominent verses as those immediately above, and (b) never even mention,
much less discuss, the root and meaning of the word grace itself. The fact that
some of these authors are excellent writers, and are known for careful scholarship,
makes such omissions even more puzzling. Time and space do not permit
exhaustive lists of these omissions. Nevertheless an example is found in Phillip
Yancey’s  book,  “What’s  So  Amazing  About  Grace”. Though filled with many
good things, the author carefully lists at least 21 interesting variations and forms in
which the word grace is used. However, when it comes to an in-depth study of the
word itself, he barely mentions that it comes from the Greek word, charis, and that
it is connected to joy, then quickly moves on. No mention of the Old Testament
equivalents,  no  mention  of  the  many  words  with  the  “char”  root, no mention that it
is absolutely impossible to extricate grace from its essential oneness with the
supernatural baptism of the Holy Spirit, signs, wonders, miracles, gifts of the
Spirit, and speaking in tongues. In fact, that it is totally impossible to fully
understand the scriptural teaching on grace apart from Spirit-baptism and
empowerment as found in the New Testament.
How can this be? Is there some conscious conspiracy to avoid these facts which
run so counter to commonly held evangelical teaching on the subject of grace? I do
not know. However, in any serious study of a biblical subject—especially a subject
which is a study of one word (e.g., grace), even the most basic exegesis includes
research, and an explanation of, the word in its original language, its root, and its
uses in scripture. So why would excellent, and consistently erudite writers, ignore
this  common  exegetical  practice  when  writing  concerning  “grace”?  Could  it  be  
that, to reveal the Greek word itself would be to immediately, obviously,
unquestionably, unequivocally, unmistakably, reveal something which they would
rather not discuss? Is there a tacit desire to diminish attention on the unavoidable
and inescapable truth that there is no New Testament doctrine of grace apart from
the baptism of the Holy Spirit as recorded in Acts 2 and the subsequent outworking
of  grace  through  the  “gifts  of  grace”,  or  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  as  recorded  in  I  
Corinthians 12 and elsewhere? Why is this done? How can such a glaring omission
escape unnoticed? Could it be that such basic information undercuts the very
foundation of such a doctrine of grace? Could it be because a biblical doctrine of
grace  is  patently  ‘Pentecostal’  and  simply  doesn’t  match  the  commonly  accepted  
evangelical positions?
The truth is, in regards to academics, Pentecostals have often been like
stepchildren to the evangelical movement. Knowing what they have received
experientially  is  ‘real,’  many  Pentecostals  have  nevertheless  had,  and  probably  
continue, to some degree, to have, somewhat of a scholastic inferiority complex.
With limited formal seminary training, and with many holding evangelical
academicians in a sort of scholastic awe, pentecostals have been timid to challenge
teachings other than on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and operations of the gifts of
the Spirit. Consequently, some things are bought into and transferred with little
thought of the consequences.
Another  example  of  this  is  the  subject  of  the  believer’s  separation  from  the  
world. Popular speakers like Bob George, and MacArthur, (cited above), and many
others,  in  their  attempt  to  avoid  “legalism”  often  show  great  hesitancy  to  address  
the subject of separation from worldliness. Yancey opens a chapter with a laundry
list of all the things he was taught as forbidden when he was in Bible School.
While interjecting that he now appreciates such restrictions, he, nevertheless,
lumps his Bible College, with private boarding schools, insane asylums, prisons,
and  military  camps,  or,  what  he  calls,  “finely  tuned  systems  of  ungrace”  (p.194).  
He states:
“I  hesitate  to  write  about  the  dangers  of  legalism  at  a  time
when both church and society seem to be careening in the
opposite direction. At the same time, I know nothing that
represents  a  greater  threat  to  grace….I  have  come  to  see
legalism in its pursuit of false purity as an elaborate scheme
of grace avoidance. You can know the law by heart without
knowing  the  heart  of  it”  (p.195).
 An apostolic, Pentecostal, response would be that all man-made religions
treat salvation as something which can be, or must be, attained by working for it,
or by doing good works. Grace is, indeed, the antidote to such. We are not saved
by what can be done by an individual here on earth. We are saved by something
carried out on the earth, but which was conceived in the mind and heart of divinity
before ever there was an earth (Eph. 3:5, 6, 10, 11). God determined to deliver man
from sin and provide man with  the  opportunity  of  union  with  God  himself.  God’s  
love comes to man on the wings of his grace (Eph. 2:4, 7, 8, 9). Further, the nature
of grace and love is that it always seeks an object—an object which will accept,
then reciprocate, this love. God makes a covenant of love to his people and his
people make a covenant of love to God. On more than one occasion, scripture
records God likening this covenant to a marriage contract. As part of his covenant,
God dwells in his people by His Spirit, thus making them the temple of God (I Cor.
6:16). On their part, the people recognize that they are the temple of God. As a
result, they dedicate their whole individual self—body, soul, and spirit—to God (I
Cor. 6:16, 17). Realization comes to those whose lives have been transformed by
the baptism of the Holy Spirit that their body and being is now the temple of God
(I Cor. 3:9, 16, 17; 6:16, 17). One who experiences this wonder of being the
habitation of God on the earth quickly discovers that there are profound theological
implications to the human body as temple of God. Thoughts, attitudes, and
practices which they practiced in sin are no longer acceptable. Temple grounds are
sacred, holy, separated from common or unclean uses, and set apart. Thus,
believers are not doing good to earn salvation, but rather, because these are the
theological implications of becoming the temple of God. They realize that they
cannot continue to defile the temple and simultaneously continue to be the temple.
It is common knowledge that temples are not common, but hallowed, or
holy,  places.  They  are  “sanctified”,  set  apart,  solely  for  divine  use  and  worship.  
They, and all of that appertains to them, are held apart from common uses. This is
the case with the individual given to God. Herein is the primary reason for
separation.  The  believer  is  God’s  vessel,  God’s  body  (I  Cor.  12),  and  as  such,  is  set  
apart to only holy purposes.
Scripture clearly reveals that there are many ramifications attending the fact
that one is the temple  of  God.  The  individual  is  no  longer  “their  own”,  but  is  
bought with a price (I Cor. 6:19, 20). The reason they do not continue to do that
which defiles is because they have entered into a relationship of love with the
Master. What is duty to the legalist is pleasure to the lover. Like Javert and Jean
Valjean in Les Miserables, law and grace cannot coexist. For those who are in
love-covenant  with  their  Master,  there  is  no  law  about  what  one  “must”  do.  They  
completely transcend the clutches of law in their abandoned adoration of the one
they love. They live to please him and fulfill his purposes. His wish is their
command.  The  idea  that  being  separated  to  one’s  lover  is  a  grinding  duty  is  
unknown to such a devotee. Love has come on the wings of grace and dislodged
duty and law. There is no law for the God-lover because love has superseded duty
and turned duty into desire. Duty only returns to show its ugly head as love wanes,
thus  leaving  only  the  knowledge  of  what  a  lover  “ought”  to  be  and  do.  This  
“ought” brings with it the guilt and condemnation of duty and law.
But what is onerous rules of marriage to the wanton woman is a wonderful
security to the woman in love with a single man. Not for a moment does her
fidelity smack of duty. What is legalism for the non-Spirit-filled person who
professes Christ is nothing more than love in action to the Spirit-filled person.
“Separation”—one of the most prominent doctrines in the Bible—can look the
same on the outside on both legalist and lover. However, the reality is that for one
it is onerous works while for the other it is ecstatic love. For one it is bondage, for
the other it is exhilarating liberation from all else to a single-minded embrace of
their covenant partner.
It is only in this light that the many ethical injunctions found in the New
Testament  can  be  understood.  Even  the  New  Testament  is  filled  with  “do’s  and  do  
not’s”.  The  key  is  that  it  is  written  to  people  in  the  enthralling  grasp  of  love.  Such  
injunctions obviously cannot be ignored. But, rather  than  “law”,  these  declarations  
are seen as protective devices which keep the covenant love relationship between
God and man sacrosanct. Taken out of this context, they become legalism, New
Testament or no. This fact is what inspires Phillip Yancey to  write,  “In  short,  I  
have little resentment against these particular rules but much resentment against
the  way  they  were  presented”.  He  goes  on  to  declare:  “I  had  the  constant,  pounding  
sense that following an external code of behavior was the way to please God—
more,  to  make  God  love  me”  (p.195).  Obedience  to  external  codes  as  attempts  to  
earn  God’s  favor  are  not  healthy  responses  to  God’s  love.  Religious  “do’s  and  
don’ts”  separated  from  the  intense  love  which  originally  engendered  them,  do  
indeed, lead to a toxic theology. On the other hand, when these injunctions become
relegated  to  the  trash  pile  of  “legalism”,  it  is  a  sure  indicator  that  the  intense  
covenant love which originally engendered them, and which they were originally
intended to protect, has preceded them in death.
In summation, it seems that one should assume that Reformation theologians
were sincerely looking for the full truth of scripture. Many thousands of hours
were spent studying, pondering, reflecting, all of which combined, led to the
conclusions which by them were drawn. How is it, then, that these thinkers
extended their doctrine of grace beyond the Bible itself? How is it that the vast,
flowing, biblical faith could be flattened into a set of abstract conclusions? How is
that  its  cosmic  wind  which  “bloweth  where  it  listeth”,  and  which  humans  ”canst  
not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth:”….how  is  it  that  this  gushing  
moral transformation is reduced to the static environment of sterile apologetics,
that is, a faith reframed as a set of abstract propositions? Is it possible that analysis
(i.e., dividing into parts) attempted to discover what only synthesis (embracing the
whole with the whole man) could accomplish? Is it possible that, with the
explosion of the use of a phonetic alphabet which came with the freedom of the
press, this method of communication inadvertently introduced a different mode of
thinking?  Is  it  possible  that  the  “Western  mind”  was  impacted  in  more  ways  than  
previously thought by the change in the primary mode by which man gains
knowledge  and  communicates?  With  Paul’s  extensive  use  of  rational  syllogisms  
(i.e,  “if/then”  patterns  of  arriving  at  conclusions)  and  abstract  propositions,  could  
this have contributed as a main reason the Reformation and modernity could
retrieve and overextend him so easily?

[1]
Schaaf, P., History of the Christian Churh, Vol. III, p.vi., Baker Books, Grand
Rapids, MI,. 1996
[2]
ibid
[3]
Schaff, P., The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, Vol. III, Baker Books, Grand
Rapids, MI., 1996
[4]
ibid.
[5]
ibid.
[6]
The  Interpreter’s  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  2,  p.  466, Abingdon Press,
Nashville, TN, 1986
[7]
Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 1, Micropedia, p.569, Chicago, ILL., 15th Edition,
1993
[8]
ibid.
[9]
Schaaf, P. History of the Christian Church, Vol.III, Baker Books, Grand Rapids,
MI., 1996

[10]
Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 1, Chicago, Ill. 15th Edition, 1993
[11]
Neve, L., The Spirit of God in the Old Testament, p.124, Seibunsha, 1972,
Tokyo
[12]
Stronstad, R., The Charismatic Theology of Luke, p.14, Hendrickson
Publishers, 1984
[13]
Stott, J.R.W., The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit, (Get rest of info for
here)
[14]
Hengel, M., Acts and History of Earliest Christianity, Fortress Press,
Philadephia, 1980
[15]
Pache, R., The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, Moody Press, Chicago,
1969
[16]
MacArthur, J.F., Charismatic Chaos, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1992
[17]
ibid.
[18]
ibid.
[19]
ibid.