A Spirit Christology Ecumenical Studies Jenkins Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

A Spirit Christology Ecumenical
Studies Jenkins
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-spirit-christology-ecumenical-studies-jenkins/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
A Global History of the Cold War, 1945-1991 1st Edition

Jenkins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-global-history-of-the-cold-
war-1945-1991-1st-edition-jenkins/
Warrior Spirit Alex Archer
https://ebookmeta.com/product/warrior-spirit-alex-archer/
The Right Call 1st Edition Sally Jenkins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-right-call-1st-edition-sally-
jenkins/
The Droner's Manual 2nd Edition Kevin Jenkins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-droners-manual-2nd-edition-
kevin-jenkins/
Expert Humans Critical Leadership Skills for a
Disrupted World First Edition Michael Jenkins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/expert-humans-critical-leadership-
skills-for-a-disrupted-world-first-edition-michael-jenkins/
A Study of T C Chaos Christology in the Social Context

of China 1920 1949 1st Edition Daniel Hoi Ming Hui
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-study-of-t-c-chaos-christology-
in-the-social-context-of-china-1920-1949-1st-edition-daniel-hoi-
ming-hui/
The Spirit of Liberty Allbeury
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-spirit-of-liberty-allbeury/
Showdown Olympic Spirit Ben Nussbaum
https://ebookmeta.com/product/showdown-olympic-spirit-ben-
nussbaum/
Flesh and Spirit Confessions of a Young Lord 1st

Edition Luciano
https://ebookmeta.com/product/flesh-and-spirit-confessions-of-a-
young-lord-1st-edition-luciano/
10/3/21, 4:07 PM A Spirit Christology
https://ereader.perlego.com/1/book/2007946/6 1/10
ECUMENICAL STUDIES
Christopher A. Stephenson
General Editor
Vol. 3
The Ecumenical Studies series is part of the Peter Lang Humanities list.
Every volume is peer reviewed and meets
the highest quality standards for content and production.
Skip Jenkins
A Spirit Christology
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Jenkins, Skip, author.

Title: A spirit Christology / Skip Jenkins.
Description: New York: Peter Lang, 2018.
Series: Ecumenical studies; vol. 3
ISSN 2377-9993 (print) | ISSN 2378-0002 (online)
Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017056690 | ISBN 978-1-4331-5372-3 (hardback: alk.
paper)
ISBN 978-1-4331-5373-0 (ebook pdf) | ISBN 978-1-4331-5374-7 (epub)
ISBN 978-1-4331-5375-4 (mobi)
Subjects: LCSH: Holy Spirit. | Jesus Christ—Person and offices.
Pentecostal churches—Doctrines. | Pentecostalism. | Evangelicalism.
Classification: LCC BT121.3 .J46 2018 | DDC 231/.3—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017056690
DOI 10.3726/b13254
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche

Nationalbibliothek.
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
“Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are
available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.
© 2018 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York

29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006
www.peterlang.com
All rights reserved.

Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as
microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly
prohibited.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)/EDITOR(S)
Skip Jenkins received his MTS and ThM degrees from Duke Divinity School
and his PhD in systematic theology from Marquette University. He is the
chairperson for the Department of Theology at Lee University, where he
received the Excellence in Teaching Award, the Excellence in Advising Award,
and the Janet Rahamut Award for Student Mentoring.
ABOUT THE BOOK
This book extrapolates a uniquely Pentecostal and incarnational Spirit

Christology, inspired by piqued interest in the Holy Spirit and for the
purpose of ecumenical dialogue. The method employed is Pentecostal in
its emphasis on the Spirit, incarnational in its consideration of the life of
Jesus, and Spirit Christological in its uniting of the two. The aim is to
supersede the five-fold gospel model by systematizing Pentecostal praxis
into a cohesive and identity-giving Spirit Christology. The book
distinguishes the components of Pentecostal identity through an
investigation of past and current Pentecostal voices, juxtaposes them
against secular and other denominational categories, and ultimately
arrives at a distinctly Pentecostal conceptualization of Spirit Christology
that translates ecumenically and generationally. In fact, this project is the
first constructive Spirit Christological endeavor developed by a
Pentecostal and dedicated to the specific, Pentecostal issue of fusing
holiness for living and power for witness. It is solidly ecumenical, utilizing
the theology of Edward Irving, James D. G. Dunn, Karl Barth, Colin
Gunton, and David Coffey, and it is the only text that brings these voices
together in one volume.
A Spirit Christology will be beneficial to a diverse audience of

undergraduate and graduate students, as well as academic professionals.
The development and explanation of a Pentecostal and incarnational
Spirit Christology will be a unique and valuable addition to a variety of
classes, including courses on the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the

Holy Spirit, contemporary theology, and recent Pentecostal theology.
Furthermore, the content draws from Pentecostal, Reformed, and Catholic
traditions, a conglomerate that will appeal to an ecumenical audience.
ADVANCE PRAISE FOR
A Spirit Christology
“Skip Jenkins offers the first explicit proposal of a Pentecostal and

incarnational Spirit Christology. What is distinctive about the Pentecostal
approach is the primacy given both to the experience of the Spirit and to the
thematic predominance of the Christological image in the Pentecostal full
gospel narrative. Jenkins highlights the mutual conditioning of pneumatology
and Christology, linking concerns for trinitarian theology, holiness and power,
and the life of the church, above all by taking seriously Edward Irving’s
theology concerning the humanity of Christ as fallen flesh and the anointing
of Christ with the Holy Spirit. The result is a systematic, constructive, and
charismatic Spirit Christology that represents ecumenical Pentecostal
theology at its finest!”
—Wolfgang Vondey, Reader in Contemporary Christianity and Pentecostal
Studies and Director of the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies,
University of Birmingham
“With deep sensitivity to and understanding of the Pentecostal tradition, Skip

Jenkins proposes a constructive Pentecostal and incarnational Spirit
Christology. The proto-Pentecostal and Scottish pastor, Edward Irving, is the
foundation and inspiration for Jenkins’ endeavor. Articulating the redemptive
work of the Holy Spirit vis-à-vis the Spirit’s role in the incarnate life of Christ,
Jenkins gives the Holy Spirit a major role in redemption, which is sometimes
not found in alternative Christian traditions. Jenkins shows, nonetheless, that
a Christological structure—the five-fold gospel—frames the hallmark of the
Pentecostalism—the experience of Spirit baptism. Although focused on
developing Pentecostal theology, Jenkins’ purpose is ecumenical, not
parochial. Based on the theological categories of a Pentecostal and
incarnational Spirit Christology, he integrates the traditional Pentecostal
emphasis on holiness of life and power for mission as well as dialogues with
the wider Christian communities. Historical, systematic, constructive, and
ecumenical, this book is an important contribution to the growing field of

Pentecostal academic theology.”
—Steven M. Studebaker, Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic
Theology and Howard and Shirley Bentall Chair in Evangelical Thought,
McMaster Divinity College
THIS EBOOK CAN BE CITED
This edition of the eBook can be cited. To enable this we have marked the start
and end of a page. In cases where a word straddles a page break, the marker is
placed inside the word at exactly the same position as in the physical book.
This means that occasionally a word might be bifurcated by this marker.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Justification for the Project
Methodology of the Project
Chapter 1. Raw Materials of Pentecostal Identity: Pentecostal Ideas

Concerning the Relationship Between Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit
Introduction
Historically Locating the Classical Pentecostal Movement
Early Pentecostalism’s Incipient Themes Concerning
Christ and the Spirit Conducive to Spirit Christology
The Apostolic Faith
The Bridegroom’s Messenger
The Church of God Evangel
Current Pentecostal Theologians Moving Toward a Spirit
Christology
Amos Yong
Irenaeus’ Two Hands Motif
Rejection of Pneumatological Subordination to
Christology
Conclusion: Salvation Outside the Church

Frank Macchia
Conclusion
Chapter 2. Pentecostal Ecclesial Demarcation: Edward Irving the Proto-
Pentecostal
Introduction
Irving’s Experience and Expectation of the Holy Spirit
The Baptism With the Holy Spirit
Being “In Christ” Without Being Baptized With the
Holy Spirit
Baptism With the Holy Spirit: A Subsequent Event
Within the Complex of Salvation
The Eschatological Dimension of the Baptism With
the Holy Spirit
Possibility of Rapprochement Between Pentecostals
and Charismatics Through Irving’s Theology
Speaking in Tongues and Prophetic Utterances
Speaking in Tongues as the Initial, Physical Evidence
of Baptism With the Holy Spirit
Speaking in Tongues as the Standing or Sealing Sign
of Baptism With the Holy Spirit
Charismatic Manifestation Within the Worship
Service
Irving’s Expectation of Christ’s Return
The Expectation of Christ’s Imminent Return in
Pentecostalism
The Expectation of Christ’s Imminent Return in
Irving’s Theology
Conclusion
Chapter 3. A Resource for Pentecostal Theology: The Incarnational
Christology of Edward Irving
Introduction
Method of Explicating the Incarnational Theology of

Edward Irving
Sermons on the Incarnation
Sermon One: The Origin or Fountain-Head of the
Whole in the Will of God
Sermon Two: The End of the Mystery of the
Incarnation Is the Glory of God
Sermon Three: The Method of the Incarnation by the
Union With the Fallen Creature
Why and How the Eternal Son Needed to Assume
Fallen Human Nature
How Redemption Is Won for Humankind Through
the Son’s Assumption of Fallen Flesh
The Benefits of the Atonement of the Creature With
the Creator Through the Son, Particularly the
Abrogation of Law in Favor of Grace
Sermon Four: The Preparation for and the Very Act
of the Incarnation of Christ
Sermon Five: The Fruits of the Incarnation in Grace
and Peace to Mankind
Sermon Six: Conclusions Concerning the
Subsistence of God and the Subsistence of the
Creature, Derived From Reflecting on the
Incarnation
Conclusion
Chapter 4. Protestant Ecumenical Information: Jesus Christ and Fallen
Human Nature According to James D. G. Dunn and Karl
Barth
Introduction
The Biblical Theology of James D. G. Dunn
Representative Feature of Adam Christology
Complete Identification With Fallen Humankind
The Obedience of Jesus in the Matrix of the Fallen

Human Condition
Exaltation to the Lordship Over Creation
The Dogmatic Theology of Karl Barth
The Word Became Flesh
Conclusion
Chapter 5. Roman Catholic Ecumenical Information: The Spirit-
Christology of David Coffey
Introduction
Roman Catholic Neo-Scholastic Movement Toward Spirit
Christology
The Spirit Christology of David Coffey
Basic Introduction and Orientation to Coffey’s
Presuppositions
The Incarnation of the Son and the Anointing of
Jesus Christ
The Incarnation of the Son
The Anointing of Jesus Christ
The Theandric Nature of Christ
The Bestowal of the Spirit
The Basic Knowledge of Jesus
The Basic Love of Jesus
The Concupiscential Constitution of Jesus
Reception of the Spirit as the Forgiveness of Sins
Conclusion
Chapter 6. The Synthetic Conclusion: Toward a Pentecostal
Incarnational Spirit Christology
Introduction
Colin Gunton: The Holy Spirit as Perfecting Cause
David Coffey: The Spirit of Christ as Entelechy
A Preliminary Pentecostal Incarnational Spirit

Christology: A Pentecostal Deployment of Coffey’s
Bestowal Model
Excursus on the Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of This
Pentecostal Incarnational Spirit Christology
Jesus’ Obedience to the Father as His
Responsiveness to the Holy Spirit
The Two Wills of Jesus Christ
How Does This Incarnational Spirit Christology Compare
with Other Recent Paradigms?
Myk Habets: The Anointed Son
Leopoldo A. Sánchez M.: Jesus as Receiver, Bearer,
and Giver of God’s Spirit
Steven Studebaker: Baptism With the Holy Spirit
and the Trinity
Epilogue: Why Is This Paradigm of Spirit Christology
Pentecostal?
| xiii →
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Before this was a book to be published, it was a dissertation to be defended. I

owe a debt of gratitude to the faculty at Marquette University, not only because
of the rigorous, theological training that I received there, but also because of
their willingness to allow a dissertation to be submitted whose main premise is
in conflict with important dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. Even though
I could not convince them, that they were willing to entertain my ideas and
receive them with genuine hospitality is a testament to their ecumenism. This
spirit of ecumenism was particularly evident in my dissertation director, the
late Ralph Del Colle, who both put me onto Edward Irving, in whom I found a
treasure trove of ideas, and who pushed me to ever-increasing precision in my
thinking. Father David Coffey introduced me to the beauty of well-argued
theological schemes, and my participation in his seminar on the Trinity was
one of the most important courses that I took at Marquette. I am especially
grateful to Michel Renee Barnes, who spent hours with me discussing my
thesis, the structure of my argument, and my outcome goals. Along with this,
over the six years I was at Marquette, he shared his life with me in such a way
to model academic mentoring and to demonstrate to me how scholars need a
community of interlocutors to make their ideas the best they can be. I strive to
replicate this in my own teaching at Lee University. ← xiii | xiv →
I have found my community of dialogue partners and supporters at Lee
University, where I have taught theology and church history courses since
August 2004. Such theological conversations began with Dale Coulter, who
now teaches at Regent University, and continue with Aaron Johnson and
Christopher Stephenson, the latter of whom encouraged me more than anyone
else that the ideas present in this book were worthy for a larger audience than
just my doctrine of the Holy Spirit class. It was in the various offerings of this
course, however, that my ideas were honed and expanded. In particular, the
questions of Josiah Ewing, Daniel Pennington, Nick Cupp, Jesse Stone and
Rachel Ready pushed me into directions that my original scheme could not
address. For their inquisitiveness and bravery, I am deeply grateful. These five
are simply a small sample of the spectacular students I have come to know and
love, and whose engagement with me and my ideas have made me a better
thinker, teacher and Christian. To each of my former students, especially those
who participated in the weekly gatherings for soup, discussion and intercessory
prayer that my late wife, Larisa Ard, envisioned and began, I say thank you.
Meagan Simpson at Peter Lang was remarkably helpful during the last year,
not only in granting me an extension for the manuscript while Larisa
succumbed to cancer, but in the kind words she extended to me—even as a
relative stranger—during that time. My colleagues at Lee University have been
exceptionally supportive, in particular the faculty of the Department of
Theology who refused to accept my resignation as their chairperson the last
year of my wife’s life, instead committing to help me meet all of the obligations
of the position, the Dean and Associate Dean of the School of Religion, Terry
Cross and Rickie Moore, and the University President, Paul Conn, the latter of
whom made it possible for me to take a sabbatical this year that enabled me to
complete the manuscript. This group of people have caused me to cherish Lee
University and my place therein. A special thanks goes to Liz Krueger, without
whose work on the proposal to Peter Lang I would not have been afforded the
opportunity to see my ideas in print. If it had not been for the conversations
and comments, some of which were quite harsh, from my friend and director of
the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies at the University of
Birmingham, UK, Wolfgang Vondey, I do not believe I would have come up
with many ideas worth sharing.
Lastly, I am a sixth generation Pentecostal. I want to acknowledge those
women and men who taught me about Jesus Christ and encouraged me to seek
from Him the Holy Spirit, whose power and presence I saw demonstrated in ←
xiv | xv → their lives, and whose openness to the Spirit invited that Spirit to get
involved in the church, the world, and our personal situations. From my
childhood, the Church of God in Canton, Ohio: Brother Massey, Brother
Mancini, Bill and Edna Perdue, Miss Toni Hendricks, Barb Howard, Randy
and Dana Holdman, Paul and Dolores Kalem, Nellie Ruth Jenkins and Pam
Jenkins; my current congregation, the South Cleveland Church of God in
Cleveland, TN, especially Chris Moody, Edwin Lipsey, and Freddy and Michelle
Morgan. And in conclusion, I acknowledge those students who strove with me
while we prayed for Larisa, Kurt Miller, Bethany Sprague, Steven Gilliam,
Taylor Trotter, Rachel Cropper, John Bush, Michael Brasher, Alyssa Aldano,
Larry Douglas, and those who lamented with me as it became clearer that
divine healing was going to be withheld from Larisa on this side of the
Parousia, Josh Liming, Chris Schelich, Jared Johnson, Spencer Aycock,
Stephen Wright and Lacy Anderson. From each of you (and many more), I
learned how Pentecostals can be at prayer even in the midst of hell; and
because of each of you my four children (Merritt, Eleanor, Eli and Ava), can
confidently remain seventh generation Pentecostals, knowing that there is
truth and comfort and hope in our common confession: Jesus Christ, the
incarnate Son of God, is our savior, sanctifier and baptizer with the Holy Spirit.
Skip Jenkins
Kniebis, Germany
07 November 2017
|1→
INTRODUCTION
Whether it be because of the East’s indictment that the West has subordinated
the Spirit to the Son,1 or the diagnosis of Western “forgetfulness” of the Spirit,2
or the call for a proper mission of the Holy Spirit within Roman Catholic
theological reflection,3 or current efforts to begin theology from the third
article within Protestantism,4 theological attention to the Holy Spirit has been
piqued. This project is a preliminary attempt to fill this vacuum by constructing
a distinctively Pentecostal approach to theological inquiry, understood from
the perspective of an incarnational Spirit Christology.5 The term Spirit
Christology refers to that model of theological reflection that seeks a pivotal
role for the Holy Spirit within the complex of human salvation. This is not to
suggest that the Spirit is assigned no role in other theological models. Even in
the most Logos-oriented theologies of Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin
and Barth, for example, the Spirit is essential to Soteriology. Rather, it is a
model that seeks both to locate the importance of the Spirit of God definitively
in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and then, from
this point of reference, to systematically address the range of theological loci,
especially anthropology and soteriology.
A Spirit Christology may be used as a means to revise traditional
christological formulations, namely, Logos theologies that posit the incarnation
← 1 | 2 → in the descending modality of the Word of God enfleshed in the
humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of Spirit Christology usually identifies
the Spirit of God with the soteriological import of Jesus. Such employments of
this paradigm tend toward either a strict monotheism in which Jesus is
understood as the supremely anointed man of God, or a binitarianism in which
the Spirit of God is the functional principle of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
In these formulations, the doctrine of the Trinity is either repudiated or so
radically re-visioned that it is barely recognizable as the foundation stone of
the Christian faith.6 Spirit Christology may, however, be constructed within a
thoroughly trinitarian structure, as I imply with the adjectival use of
“incarnational” to describe my intended Spirit-Christological paradigm. Spirit
Christology and Logos-Christology can be models, not used over against one
another (as if one is superior), nor in succession (as if one is better employed to
articulate accurately the person of Christ and the other the work of Christ), but
rather complementary. For example, as the Spirit-bearer Jesus does what he
does and is what he is, but also Jesus of Nazareth as the Logos incarnate is the
basis of his identity as the definitive Spirit-bearer.
Spirit Christology, although present early in the church’s history, fell into
disrepute because of its seeming incompatibility with the incarnational
theology gleaned from the Johannine writings and Paul.7 The twentieth
century saw a renewal of dogmatic attention to the Trinity and a subsequent
re-ordering or reformulation of axiomatic presuppositions within the
doctrine.8 One fruit of this renewed attention has been the explicit Spirit
Christology paradigms located primarily within Roman Catholic theological
tradition.9 On the other hand, even though the fundamental tenets of the
(trinitarian) paradigm were implied within the theologies of most Protestant
thinkers,10 some Protestants tended to utilize Spirit Christology in a unitarian
or revisionist manner.11 Pentecostal theologian Harold Hunter issued a
warning to those who would employ the paradigm of Spirit Christology in this
way.12 He prefers a “pneumatic Logos Christology” which, like Joseph Wong’s
category of a “Spirit-oriented Christology,” opposes the appellation “Spirit
Christology” in order to preserve the viability and appropriateness of Logos
Christology.13 The trinitarian paradigm of Spirit Christology has, nonetheless,
recently received positive appraisal within the Pentecostal movement. With the
insights of those who have already been working under a trinitarian Spirit
Christology, and with Hunter’s caution in mind, I will attempt to develop a
preliminary Pentecostal, incarnational, Spirit Christology.14 ← 2 | 3 →
Justification for the Project
At the outset, it is necessary to substantiate the credibility of any endeavor that

describes itself as Pentecostal. There is a rift within Pentecostal scholarship as
to whether it is appropriate to talk about Pentecostalism or
Pentecostalisms,the Pentecostal movement or Pentecostal movements.15 On
the one hand, this highlights that Pentecostalism, though begun in the United
States as a distinct movement, has spread throughout the world, and therefore
no longer engenders specific regional, cultural or even socio-economic
concerns and/or patterns. Indeed, there are Christian communities in Africa
that are identified as Pentecostal, and may even call themselves Pentecostal,
but arose independently of the Pentecostal movement in the United States.16
Because of this, the possibility of a distinctively Pentecostal theology, like a
distinctively Pentecostal hermeneutic, is questioned.
On the other hand, and following from the above, there is supposedly
implied by the variegation of Pentecostalism a prohibition against
systematization. Cheryl Bridges Johns, a past president of the Society for
Pentecostal Studies, commends the post-modern critique of meta-narratives
because it allows marginalized voices to speak.17 She suggests that
Pentecostalism has more common ground with deconstructionists who seek to
de-center the self and question forms of power than with constructs that offer
umbrellas under which to fit Pentecostalism and the Pentecostal experience of
God. Steven J. Land, former President of the Pentecostal Theological Seminary
and past president of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, though without
explicit acceptance of and dialogue with postmodernity, rejects the plausibility
of a Pentecostal systematic theology. For him, there is to be no unifying
concept(s). Rather, the “story” of the first 10–20 years of Pentecostalism
should serve as the unifying “narrative” for Pentecostals.18
The idea of story-telling in the place of formulation has occupied
methodological pride-of-place within Pentecostalism, relative to both pastors
and academics.19 Story-telling seems content with the mere surfacing of
Pentecostal theological intuitions without any rigorous theological
conceptualizing. This type of methodology fears that systematization may be
another type of creedalism, and thereby will dilute the Pentecostal experience
of the Holy Spirit’s spontaneity and unexpectedness.20 What is proffered is the
promise of an immediate experience of God, which remains unarticulated and
raw, without any reasoned system of belief or legitimacy. ← 3 | 4 →
Amos Yong, a noted Pentecostal theologian and professor of theology and

mission at Fuller Theological Seminary, has dealt with this issue. He argues
that systems do not need to be totalizing, but that they are necessary in order
to give expression to experience. If such a structure is lacking, Pentecostalism
inevitably descends into mere subjectivism. He says that the task of theology,
or at least part of it, is to “supply the reflection necessary for a coherent
understanding of our experience of God, ourselves and the world which in turn
allows us to test our understanding of this experience against reality, and to
guide our conduct.”21 The problem with narrative forms of theology, according
to Yong, is their difficulty conveying any “public” notion of truth. In other
words, they cannot substantiate any claim to truthfulness that transcends
contextual testimonies of meaning. Pentecostals do, however, think that their
experience of the Spirit is of “public” concern and for public “consumption.”
Terry Cross, Pentecostal theologian and Dean of the School of Religion at Lee
University, has argued that human experience of God is not merely affective,
but is also intellectual. As such, an intellectual system of formulation provides
intellectual categories of description and demarcation necessary for a properly
integrative theology. This suggests that systematization is necessary to
correlate the intellectual and affective encounter with God.22
Following the impulse of Yong and Cross, the justification for my project of
systematization is threefold. First, the earliest generation of Christians in the
United States who began to call themselves Pentecostal understood themselves
to be a revival or reform movement. They were not yet denominationally
determined, and they did not define themselves along ethnic and economic
lines. Furthermore, the two earliest journals, which were free of charge and
distributed to a general readership, were deliberately commissioned and
explicitly advertised as a mechanism for cataloging and contributing to the
worldwide spread of Pentecostal experience. Indeed, this Pentecostal
experience revived and reformed the numerous Christian denominations and
traditions. That generation of Pentecostals, at the inception of the movement
in the United States, identified themselves with one another, and recognized a
common mission, the mission to testify to their common Pentecostal
experience.
Secondly, the heterogeneity within Pentecostalism is not a reason to shun
theological systematization; it is precisely the substantiation for it. If
Pentecostalism is to be a term that signifies something concrete, it must have
boundaries of demarcation. Is a Pentecostal simply one who speaks in other

tongues as the Holy Spirit gives direction, or believes in and exercises the
charismata, or is a member of a certain denomination in which these things
occur, or has a ← 4 | 5 → particular perspective on Christ and the Spirit? Is
Pentecostalism a group whose worship looks a certain way, or whose doctrine
has a distinct hue, or whose theological worldview is ostensibly differentiated
from others? If Pentecostalism signifies anything, it must at least refer to a
common or shared experience of God, an experience that brings with it certain
expectations, disciplines and modes of thought. Therefore, the question, “What
are you?” mandates a theological answer inasmuch as it deals with a certain
interpretation and articulation of that experience.23 Because this experience of
God is a shared or common experience, it requires categories in which it may
be understood and discussed so that disingenuousness and falsehood can be
discerned, confronted and judged. Because it is an experience that Pentecostals
offer as available (and therefore potentially common to all humankind) to
those outside their group (whether social, ethnic or ecclesial), categories of
description and interpretation should attend that offering. These three things—
description, demarcation and intelligibility—seem to be, at the most basic level,
the task of theology.24
Thirdly, Pentecostalism, whether in its historical roots or its current
instantiation, is not a mysticism of the Spirit. Although propelled by individual
encounters (speaking in other tongues, visions, and/or dreams) and corporate
experiences (manifestation of charismata like healings, prophecy, tongues and
its interpretation) of the Holy Spirit, the focus of Pentecostal devotion, piety
and discipline is Jesus Christ. What is distinctive about the Pentecostal
approach to theology, therefore, is not only the primacy given to experience of
the Spirit, but also the thematic predominance of the christological image of
the Fivefold Gospel, namely, Jesus as savior, sanctifier, baptizer with the Holy
Spirit, healer and coming king. Indeed, the normative short-hand for the
Pentecostal experience of the Spirit—baptism with the Holy Spirit—is
intimately connected to the christological image of Jesus as the baptizer with
the Holy Spirit. If Steven J. Land is correct, and Pentecostalism is defined by
its christological center and the pneumatological circumference of
experience,25 then it falls to theological formulation to provide the systematic
cohesion between them.26 This need for such systematization is in fact called
for by Pentecostal scholar Simon Chan. Although he envisages a systematic
presentation of the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit, his request indicates

the blossoming of a positive, Pentecostal disposition toward systematization.27
It is my contention that an incarnational Spirit Christology is an adequate and
appropriate paradigm within which such cohesion between the experience of
the Spirit and the christological image of the Fivefold Gospel may be
articulated.28 ← 5 | 6 →
Methodology of the Project
Roman Catholic theologian Ralph Del Colle states that Pentecostalism is a

movement within the life of the universal church that “has yet to enter fully
into efforts at church unity.”29 In fact, until recently, the Assemblies of God, the
largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, specifically stated that their
ministers were to have no ecumenical dealings whatsoever at the cost of
disciplinary action.30 Regardless of the reason for ecumenical reluctance, there
is a prior problem that must be resolved before serious and productive
ecumenical dialogue with Pentecostals can really begin. The problem can be
posed in the form of a question: How can a Christian movement, whose praxis
and worship are spurred by religious experience, enter into meaningful and
understandable dialogue with Christian traditions whose praxis and worship
are borne along by hundreds of years of theological heritage?
Del Colle suggests that dialogue will, along with stimulating the ecumenical
enterprise, aid Pentecostals in discovering their theological selves. Simon Chan
laments the fact that Pentecostals, in an effort to maintain their
distinctiveness, have often cut themselves off from the broader Christian
tradition. He argues that Pentecostals will only be able to communicate their
distinctive experience to subsequent generations if they can produce a
theological approach that adequately engenders that experience. In order to do
this Chan says that Pentecostals must “harness the conceptual tools the
Christian tradition provides.”31 Both scholars underscore the dual problem of
the need for Pentecostal self-understanding on the one hand, and advancing
self-understanding through dialogue with the wider Christian community, on
the other hand.
My judgment is that the development of a Pentecostal, incarnational, Spirit
Christology will facilitate both theological self-understanding and ecumenical
dialogue. I will mirror the theological task in three parts, namely, raw material
description, ecclesial demarcation, and ecumenical intelligibility. I will briefly

define the aspects of the theological task that are universal to religion in
general, and then describe the particularization of the Pentecostal movement.32
The first aspect of the theological task, description of the raw materials for
the procurement of identity, catalogues those elements that give to any distinct
denomination, tradition or movement its identity. Sacred texts find their place
in this category, though they may have a relatively higher or lower place on the
hierarchical scale of descriptive importance. Cultural norms and mores, ← 6 | 7
→ along with corporate and individual experience of the environs, also may be
located under this category. With regard to Pentecostalism, the raw materials
for the procurement of identity are the phenomenology or manifestations of
the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures and contextual experience or milieu.
The second aspect, ecclesial demarcation, seeks to articulate both the
differences between the particular ecclesial manifestation in question and
other distinct groups. By “distinct groups,” I am referring to the differentiation
between the ecclesia and non-ecclesial (or secular) groups on the one hand,
and that between ecclesial manifestations on the other hand. Two sub-
categories exist, therefore, under this second aspect of the theological task. The
first is demarcation from the saeculum. This signifies the disjunction between
the secular world and the sacred Body of Christ, the church. Although such a
disjuncture has met with various levels of criticism,33 there is a difference
between the word of the church and the words of the world, the worldviews of
each, and the perceived purpose and ultimate destiny of humankind. This
implies a certain level of exclusivism and “over against-ness” between the
world and the church. The second is demarcation from other ecclesiae. This
signifies the divinely ordained distinctions that each ecclesial manifestation
contributes to the larger and universal life of the Ecclesia. The highlighting of
the distinctions between ecclesial manifestations does not exacerbate the
current disunity among the various ecclesial manifestations, but rather serves
to produce the necessary self-understanding in order to make ecumenical
dialogue relevant and honest.
The complex that provides the ecclesial demarcation of Pentecostalism
consists of four elements and an integrating center. Under the sub-category of
demarcation from the ecclesia is the theological notion of being baptized with
the Holy Spirit. Correspondingly, the initial evidence of the baptism with the
Holy Spirit is speaking in other tongues. Under the sub-category of
demarcation from the saeculum is the insistence on the imminent return of

Christ, with a consequent call for personal holiness that reflects the holiness of
God, a necessary requisite for one’s participation in Christ. The integrating
center of this complex of elements is the individual use and corporate
manifestation of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit. For Pentecostals,
prophecy and healing are the primary gifts of this integration.34
The third aspect of the theological task, ecumenical intelligibility, is the
locus at which the product of the first two aspects is distilled and expressed in
such a way that the distinctiveness and message of the particular ecclesial
manifestation in question may be understood. This aspect is developed in two
← 7 | 8 → parts, relating to Christian dialogue and secular dialogue, or in other
words, to the ecclesia and the saeculum. In the dialogue between the ecclesiae,
ecumenical signifies the endeavor of dialogue and mutual understanding
between various denominations or Christian traditions. Preeminent here is the
proffering of a theological language that is informed by identity and ecclesial
demarcation, and that corresponds to traditional, theological loci of the
Christian faith. Under the second category, saeculum, ecumenical assumes the
broader meaning of the Greek word οίκουμένη, and its connotation of the
world in general. This suggests that the message of the ecclesial manifestation
is not simply inward-looking (Christian fraternity), but also outward-reaching
(mission minded). This second category is concerned to articulate, in light of
ecclesial distinctiveness, the message of the Gospel to the world.
The elements of identity, demarcation and discourse catalogued under the
three-fold task of theology provides the particular distinctiveness of any given
ecclesial manifestation. I also suggest that the ordering of these elements
contributes to the distinctiveness of an ecclesial manifestation. Relative to this
work, the first aspect of description will entail both the exposure of the initial
insights of the pioneers of the Pentecostal movement, and the examination of
current theological trends within Pentecostalism. Since the purpose of this
project is to construct a Pentecostal, incarnational, Spirit Christology, only
those insights and trends that explicitly contribute to that desired end will be
surveyed. This will be the function of the first chapter.
With respect to my project, the complex of elements for ecclesial
demarcation—the purpose of the second and third chapters—will be introduced
in conversation with the theology of Edward Irving, a Scottish Reformed pastor
in London during the early nineteenth century. Admittedly, the use of Irving is
a constructive theological choice on my part by which I hope to ameliorate any

theological malaise that may exist within Pentecostalism. Yet the choice of
Irving as a resource for the development of a Pentecostal, incarnational Spirit
Christology is neither illegitimate nor arbitrary. Before I provide the four
reasons that this is the case, it might be helpful at this point to identify the two
main theological methodologies currently dominant within Pentecostalism.
The first is to revert to the historical traditions out of which the movement was
born to foster self-understanding, and then explicate the movement’s own
identity in conversation with those parent traditions. Pentecostal identity and
theology then arise out of the comparisons and contrasts between its own
symbolic, theological worldview and that of the parent traditions.35 A second
method is to identify distinctive Pentecostal markers, to ← 8 | 9 → let those
markers serve as guides for theological development, to utilize non-Pentecostal
sources in order to provide conceptual frameworks, and finally, to synthesize
those Pentecostal markers with congenial non-Pentecostal frameworks in
order to establish a theology with a distinct Pentecostal hue.36 Both of these
methods have their advantages, and they are not mutually exclusive. The
former method, however, tends to constrict Pentecostal reflection to the
concepts of earlier theological paradigms, which have been inherited from
parent traditions, but which are inimical, both structurally and practically, to
the very experiences of which Pentecostals want to provide expression. In other
words, Pentecostals simply assume other theological paradigms prevalent in
other theological traditions and append to them their so-called Pentecostal
distinctives, without considering the inherent inadequacies of the former
paradigms and inevitable transformation that they must undergo when
confronted with the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit.37
My own method is more congenial to the latter method utilized by
Pentecostal theologians. In my paradigm, the historical comparison and
contrast of the first method rightfully belongs under the first aspect of the
theological task (raw materials of identity), and therefore cannot in itself
provide the distinctive, Pentecostal approach to Christian theology. Historical
and genealogical lineage, therefore, is not a primary category of ecclesial
demarcation. Irving, then, may provide a theological framework well-suited for
the development of a distinctively Pentecostal, incarnational, Spirit Christology
inasmuch as he engenders similar raw materials for the procurement of
identity.38 Furthermore, Irving’s late theology was developed specifically as
justification for the charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit, what I

consider to be the integrating principle of Pentecostal ecclesial demarcation.
Finally, his theology provides a theological paradigm that may enable
rapprochement between the various Pentecostal denominations which have
separated over theological issues inherited from their respective parent
traditions.
Now I make my return to the four reasons that recourse to Edward Irving is
legitimate. First, within scholarship in general he is considered to be a proto-
Pentecostal,39 and was even cited by early Pentecostals as a testimony to the
legitimacy of their own experience of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.40
Secondly, with regard to his theology itself, Irving has a dual focus: Christ
forms the center of his theological reflection; and the Holy Spirit is given place
in the life of Christ, and subsequently in the life of believers. This duality,
therefore, anticipates the Pentecostal emphases of Christocentricism and
experience of the Spirit. Thirdly, Irving is a suitable resource for ← 9 | 10 →
the development of a Pentecostal, incarnational Spirit Christology because
incipient Spirit Christology engenders the fusion between holiness and power
that Pentecostal theologians have been attempting. The separation between the
two has its roots in the theological heritage out of which the Pentecostal
movement emerged. It takes its most explicit form in the distinction made at
Azusa Street between the two works of grace and the one gift of power. The
former is what Christ does for the salvation of the individual; the latter is what
the Holy Spirit enables for the missionization of the world. Such a separation
unfortunately implies that baptism with the Holy Spirit (the theological motif
by which Pentecostals signify the enduement with power for mission) is
unimportant within the complex of salvation, that it is something one may do
without.41 The current trend within Pentecostalism is to merge, or at least
reduce, the chasm between the holiness received in justification and
sanctification (historically understood as works of grace because they deal with
sinfulness) and the power endowed in baptism with the Holy Spirit
(historically understood as a gift of power because it deals with testimony to
Jesus as the Christ of God).42 Irving’s theology is built around the dual poles of
holiness and power, and he brings them together in the person of Christ who is
anointed with the Holy Spirit.
Fourthly, Irving’s thought also provides the theological categories that will
foster the theological task of providing ecumenical intelligibility. With respect
to Pentecostalism, ecumenical intelligibility relative to the οίκουμένη, or the

world in general, is relayed under the christological image of the Fivefold
Gospel. The diagnosis of the world’s situation, the prescription for the world’s
healing, and the prognosis of the world’s destiny may all be described under
the Fivefold Gospel. Ecumenical intelligibility relative to the ecclesiae, or the
various Christian traditions and movements, is what Pentecostalism lacks.
Scripture, history, social location and/or apostolic succession by the laying on
of hands are not the means by which Pentecostals may enter dialogue with
different ecclesial manifestations. Interpretations of Scripture differ, historical
contact is minimal, social location is diverse, and tactile succession is non-
existent. I suggest that an incarnational, Spirit Christology will provide the key
for different ecclesial communions to understand Pentecostalism because it
engenders common categories of theological reflection and explication present
within the broader Christian tradition.
For my project, Irving’s theology is the point of contact between
Pentecostalism’s ecclesial demarcation and ecumenical intelligibility. His
incipient Spirit Christology linked holiness and power—theological concepts
that ← 10 | 11 → stand apart in Pentecostal reflection but need to be fused
together. His notion of the eternal Son’s assumption of fallen flesh is pivotal for
such a fusion. For both Jesus’ holiness and power are derived from his
relationship with the Spirit of God. As such, his theology encapsulates two
strands of twentieth century, theological reflection that have, for the most part,
stood separate in different theological traditions. On the one hand, he
represents the beginning of Protestant reflection concerning the humanity of
the Son of God as fallen flesh. On the other hand, his theology, as a
development of the mutual conditioning of Pneumatology and Christology,
anticipates the Roman Catholic construction of a formal Spirit Christology.
The fourth and fifth chapters will develop grounds for ecumenical
intelligibility relative to other ecclesial manifestations. The shape of these
chapters revolves around the explication of the commonalities and distinctions
between Irving, Protestant reflection on the fallen humanity of the Son of God
(Chapter Four), and the Roman Catholic construction of a formal, trinitarian
Spirit Christology (Chapter Five). Chapter Four will primarily interface Irving’s
theological framework with the biblical theology of James D. G. Dunn and the
dogmatic theology of Karl Barth. The fifth chapter will explicate, through the
theology of Roman Catholic theologian David Coffey, the shape of a formal
Spirit Christology. This conjunction of theologies will serve to define the

categories out of which ecumenical intelligibility may be established.
Finally, Chapter Six will synthesize the information garnered from the
theological description of Pentecostalism in Chapter One, the ecclesial
demarcation engendered in Chapters Two and Three, and the ecumenical
discourse of Chapters Four and Five. The expected result of this final chapter is
the construction of a Spirit-Christological vision commensurate with, and
illustrative of, the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit of Christ in the
congregation of believers. The anticipated result of this book will have a
twofold dimension. First, this Spirit-Christological paradigm will be a
crystallization of Pentecostal insights, tendencies and distinctives. It will not
only furnish a system out of which Pentecostals can attend to, criticize and
adapt their discipleship practices, but also its very development will foster the
rapprochement between various Pentecostal traditions. Secondly, this Spirit-
Christological vision will provide a theological model that uses theological
language indispensable for the enterprise of inter-Christian communal
dialogue. In other words, it will provide the requisite paradigm for inter-
ecclesial understanding and recognition. Together, the dual results of the book
are the primary goal of this project, ← 11 | 12 → namely, to supply a theological
vision that not only engenders a theological self-understanding of
Pentecostalism, but also facilitates fruitful ecumenical dialogue. In so doing, I
will have provided both the foundation upon which Del Colle’s concern for
Pentecostal, ecumenical interaction may be realized, and the realization of
Chan’s plea for the construction of a distinctive, Pentecostal approach to
theology that, without cutting itself off from the broader Christian tradition,
utilizes the conceptual tools of the universal Ecclesia.
Notes
1. Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 189–190; idem, The Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1976), 55–66; Boris Bobrinskoy, The Mystery of the
Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic
Tradition (trans. Anthony P. Gythiel; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1999), 294, 302–303.
2. For example, Otto Dilschneider, “Die Geistvergessenheit der Theologie,”

Theologische Literatur Zeitung 86 (1961): 255–266. In American
Evangelical thought, see the work of Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A
Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1996), 9–11. However, Eugene F. Rogers, Jr. [“The Mystery of the Spirit
in Three Traditions: Calvin, Rahner, Florensky or, You Keep Wondering
Where the Spirit Went,” Modern Theology 19 (April 2003): 243–260]
suggests that apophaticism relative to the Holy Spirit may indeed be the
proper way of articulating the hypostasis of the third Person of the
Trinity. For a lengthier discussion of this motif, see Andrew K. Gabriel,
The Lord Is the Spirit: The Holy Spirit and the Divine Attributes
(Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011): 89–100.
3. This development is catalogued in Ralph Del Colle, Christ and the
Spirit: Spirit Christology in Trinitarian Perspective (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1994).
4. D. Lyle Dabney, “Why Should the Last Be First? The Priority of
Pneumatology in Recent Theological Discussion,” in Advents of the
Spirit: An Introduction to the Current Study of Pneumatology (eds.
Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney; Marquette Studies in Theology
30; Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2001), 240–261; idem,
“Otherwise Engaged in the Spirit: A First Theology for a Twenty-First
Century,” in The Future of Theology: Essays in Honor of Jürgen
Moltmann (eds. Miroslav Volf et al.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1996), 154–163.
5. Wolfgang Vondey [Pentecostalism: A Guide for the Perplexed (London:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 74] states very matter-of-fact that
Pentecostal “doctrine and spirituality are never exclusively directed
toward Christ or the Spirit; they always form a Spirit-Christology.” He
then states that Pentecostals find an explicit Spirit-Christology in the
biblical witness of Luke-Acts, but he does not point to any Pentecostal
who has theologically developed a detailed Spirit-Christology—because
there are none.
6. The primacy of trinitarianism for Christian identity is the first of six
characteristics of contemporary trinitarian theology according to Bruce
Marshall, “The Trinity,” in The Blackwell Companion to Modern
Theology (ed. Gareth Jones; Oxford: Blackwell, 2004). ← 12 | 13 →
7. Philip J. Rosato, “Spirit Christology: Ambiguity and Promise,”

Theological Studies 39 (1977): 423–449 (435–438), and also J. N. D.
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco, CA: HarperSan
Francisco, 1978), 142–145.
8. Although Bruce Marshall, in his “The Trinity,” is hesitant to admit that
there is a “trinitarian renewal” underway, one must at least concede that
the doctrine has and is undergoing substantial reformulation and
reordering.
9. Matthias Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity (trans. Cyril Vollert;
New York: Herder, 1947); Piet Schoonenberg, “Spirit Christology and
Logos Christology,” Bijdragen 38 (1977): 350–375; Rosato, “Spirit
Christology: Ambiguity and Promise”; Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ
(trans. V. Green; New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 245–267; Roger
Haight, “The Case for Spirit Christology,” Theological Studies 53 (1992):
257–287; Robert P. Imbelli, “The New Adam and Life-Giving Spirit: The
Paschal Pattern of Spirit Christology,” Communio 25 (1998): 233–252;
David Coffey, “Spirit Christology and the Trinity,” in Advents of the
Spirit, 315–338; Ralph Del Colle, “Spirit Christology: Dogmatic
Foundations for Pentecostal-Charismatic Spirituality,” Journal of
Pentecostal Theology 3 (1993): 91–112; idem, Christ and the Spirit.
Nonetheless, the Spirit Christology of the Roman Catholic theologian,
Roger Haight, is notoriously non-trinitarian.
10. For this, see Myk Habets, “Spirit Christology: Seeing in Stereo,” Journal
of Pentecostal Theology 11 (2003): 216–228. He includes in his list
Edward Irving whose theological framework supplies the ground for my
own construction of a Pentecostal, incarnational Spirit Christology.
11. Two major representatives are G. W. H. Lampe, God as Spirit (Oxford:
SCM Press, 1977) and Paul W. Newman, A Spirit Christology:
Recovering the Biblical Paradigm of Christian Faith (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1987). To a lesser extent, Hendrikus
Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta, GA: John Knox,
1976), 111–121. This may also be the reason that Colin Gunton refused to
attribute even an inchoate Spirit Christology to Edward Irving, namely,
he knew of none but unitarian Spirit-Christologies at that time. See his
“Two Dogmas Revisited: Edward Irving’s Christology,” Scottish Journal
of Theology 41 (1988): 373—“The essence of Spirit Christology is
unitarian … introduc[ing] a uniformity … to the conception of divine

activity.”
12. “Spirit Christology: Dilemma and Promise,” Heythrop Journal 24
(1983): 127–140. Hunter [“The Resurgence of Spirit Christology,”
European Pentecostal Theological Association Bulletin 11 (1992): 50–
57] returned his attention to Spirit Christology and gave it a more
sympathetic hearing.
13. Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner (Rome: Las, 1984),
244, n. 109; quoted from Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit, 7, n. 1.
14. Herschel Odell Bryant [Spirit Christology in the Christian Tradition:
From the Patristic Period to the Rise of Pentecostalism in the Twentieth
Century (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2014)] surveys Christian history to
show that Spirit Christology, though present within the theological
tradition from the earliest periods, is fluid and has multiple usage. He
developed three categories to sift the historical use of Spirit Christology,
namely, pneumatic inspiration, pneumatic incarnation and pneumatic
mediation. He suggests my paradigm, because I follow David Coffey, is
an inferior version of Spirit Christology stemming from an Augustinian
pneumatic incarnational program that resists Jesus having multiple
“experiences” ← 13 | 14 → of the Spirit within his life. Such a decision
on his part betrays that he did not read the totality of my proposal when
it was in its dissertation form. My adaptation of Coffey, which he admits
I do, is precisely to show how Jesus “advances” and “changes” through
the presence and activity of the Spirit in his life, which Bryant does not
indicate I did. By his own categories, then, my paradigm would fall into
the pneumatic mediation category, which he thinks is the proper
category for Pentecostal Spirit Christologists.
15. See Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: An Ecumenical,
International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 2002), 89.
16. Kingsley Larbi, “African Pentecostalism in the Context of Global
Pentecostal Ecumenical Fraternity: Challenges and Opportunities,”
Pneuma 24 (2002): 138–166; especially 145–148, wherein Larbi argues
that the term “Pentecostal” has been attributed to and appropriated by
groups in a confused and undifferentiated way.
17. “Partners in Scandal: Wesleyan and Pentecostal Scholarship,” Pneuma

21 (1999): 187.
18. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (JPTSup 1, 1993):
221.
19. Walter J. Hollenweger, “The Black Roots of Pentecostalism,” in
Pentecostals After a Century: Global Perspectives on a Movement in
Transition (JPTSup 15, 1999): 36, 39. One would be justified to read
“story-telling” whenever Hollenweger writes about the “orality” of
Pentecostalism.
20. Leonard Lovett, “Black Holiness-Pentecostalism: Implications for Ethics
and Social Transformation” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1979), 66,
writes that Pentecostals “fear the elevation of theology to a place above
the experience of Spirit encounter.”
21. “Whither Systematic Theology? A Systematician Chimes in on a
Scandalous Conversation,” Pneuma 20 (1998): 91.
22. Terry Cross, “Can There Be a Pentecostal Systematic Theology?” in The
Collected Papers of the 30th Annual Meeting for the Society for
Pentecostal Studies (Tulsa, OK: Oral Roberts University, 2001): 145–
166.
23. This is especially problematic since the appearance of both the
Charismatic Movement in the so-called mainline denominations and
Neo-Pentecostal, independent churches. A Pentecostal theological
approach would not be as concerned with the substantiations and
justifications for the various Pentecostal beliefs. It would take them for
granted and argue systematically based upon those assumptions. This is
not to advocate incoherence or the post-modern idea of the
unassailability of presuppositions held by a particular community. It is
rather to suggest Pentecostals move away from biblical and historical
exercises that are meant simply to justify the Pentecostal right to exist.
Johns, “Partners in Scandal,” 185, calls this the “centrist reading on
reality [offering] explanation after explanation, rebuttal after rebuttal,
with the hope of convincing critics … ” The fact is that Pentecostals do
exist and, although many of the presuppositions that are born out of
their experience of the Spirit are disagreed with by scholars of other
traditions, Pentecostals do provide plausible exegetical interpretations
and historical rootage that establish a degree of stability for the
theological task. The fact of this stability is why the creative endeavor
should commence full-force.
24. Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement
in the Churches (trans. R. A. Wilson; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg,
1972), 468, writes that the advantage of Pentecostalism is that its
medium of communication “is not definition, but description, ← 14 | 15
→ not pronouncement, but story; not doctrine, but witness; not the
theological Summa, but the hymn; not the treatise, but the television
programme.” Hollenweger often presents Pentecostal intuitions and
procedures as utopic. It would be false, however, if by this Hollenweger
means to portray Pentecostalism as neither intending nor advancing
boundaries of demarcation, or that Pentecostals were not concerned
with doctrine, or that Pentecostal theologians should not develop
treatises. Grant Wacker [Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and
American Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001),
77] states that early Pentecostals were incessantly concerned with
correct and proper doctrine.
25. Pentecostal Spirituality, 23.
26. Terry Cross, “Pentecostal Systematic Theology,” 163–165, argues that
the Fivefold Gospel schema is too truncating for a full-blown systematic
theology and that the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit must play a
role in theological formulation. He plays the two off against each other
as insufficient in themselves, himself opting for a trinitarian integrating
principle to theology. Although I agree with Cross regarding the
insufficiency of the two models treated separately, I prefer to begin
under a Spirit-Christological paradigm because this, I believe, enables
both the Fivefold Gospel and experience of the Spirit to be taken
together. Wolfgang Vondey [Pentecostal Theology: Living the Full
Gospel, in Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology Series, ed. by
Wolfgang Vondey and Daniela Augustine (London: T&T Clark, 2017)]
develops a Pentecostal theology from the “root image” of Pentecost, and
then expands that “full Gospel” story into “full Gospel” theology via
typical systematic loci.
27. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (JPTSup 21,
2000): 124–131. See also Amos Yong, “Whither Systematic Theology?”,
85–94.
28. Pentecostal scholar and ecumenist Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen [Christology:

A Global Introduction: An Ecumenical, International, and Contextual
Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2003), 110] remarks
that there is no Pentecostal currently working on developing a
systematic Christology.
29. “The Pursuit of Holiness: A Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue,”
Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37 (2000): 301. This is noteworthy
because, according to Hollenweger [Pentecostalism: Origins and
Developments Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 334–
388] ecumenism is a latent impulse within Pentecostalism. Hollenweger
explicates the historical roots of Pentecostalism under five categories;
ecumenism is the fifth. For an extended treatment of this supposed
ecumenism, see Dale T. Irvin, “Drawing All Together in One Bond of
Love: The Ecumenical Vision of William J. Seymour and the Azusa
Street Revival,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 6 (1995): 25–53. Grant
Wacker calls the ecumenism of early Pentecostalism the “ecumenism of
the carnivore.” See his Heaven Below, 178–179.
30. Constitution and By-Laws of the Assemblies of God, Article IX
(Doctrines and Practices Disapproved), Section 11 (The Ecumenical
Movement). The 2015 version only mentions that ministers are “urged”
not to participate in those ecumenical fellowships that do not subscribe
to the inspiration of scripture, the deity of Christ, the universality of sin,
the substitutionary atonement, the physical resurrection of Jesus from
the dead, and his second coming.
31. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition, 7. ← 15 | 16
→
32. Alan Torrance [“Being of One Substance with the Father,” in Nicene
Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism (ed. Christopher R.
Seitz; Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001), 50–51] criticizes the
search for “indigenous theologies” because he says that such a search is,
ironically, “conditioned by the archetypically Western concern with
‘identity,’ together with psychotherapeutic categories of self-
affirmation.” For him, theology must deal with “the truth question.” And
if it is to be Christian theology, it must deal with the truth in Jesus
Christ. He will allow for distinctive theological approaches for the
articulation of the truth of God in Jesus Christ, just not different
“theologies.” I find Torrance’s proposal insightful, and therefore I am

suggesting that the threefold task of theology is universal to Christian
theology, even though the complex of issues under those categories will
constitute the distinctive approach of any particular “body.”
33. See for instance Paul Tillich, with his idea of God as being itself
[Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
1951), 235–241], his attempted transcendence of a natural-supernatural
dichotomy [Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 1957), 5–10], and his union of religion, culture and
morality under the auspices of the Spiritual Presence [Systematic
Theology, vol. 3 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 157–
163].
34. This is precisely why I disagree with Terry Cross regarding the
“integrative principle” for a Pentecostal approach to theology. He
recommends a trinitarian focus, but it is unclear to me how it offers the
needed ecclesial demarcation that would make the approach
distinctively Pentecostal. Trinitarianism is a basic characteristic of
Christianity, and therefore the doctrine of the Trinity should be turned
to in order to establish ecumenical intelligibility and faithfulness to the
inherited Tradition of the Christian faith. Kimberly Ervin Alexander
[Pentecostal Healing: Models in Theology and Practice; JPTSup Series
(Dorset, UK: Deo, 2006), 1] states that “most portrayals of Pentecostals
[in media] … paint the picture of the Pentecostal healing minister,” and
that this portrait is valid because healing is a constitutive part of
Pentecostal practice. But since the healing movement pre-dated the rise
of Pentecostalism, I would further demarcate the Pentecostal distinctive
as expectations within the corporate worship service of the local church
rather than special services or “tent meetings.”
35. For example, Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996); Melvin E. Dieter, “Wesleyan-
Holiness Aspects of Pentecostal Origins,” in Aspects of Pentecostal-
Charismatic Origins (ed. Vinson Synan; Plainfield, NJ: Logos
International, 1975); D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The
Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought
(JPTSup 10, 1996); Hollenweger, Pentecostalism; and to a certain
extent, Land, Pentecostal Spirituality.
36. For example, Cheryl Bridges Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A

Pedagogy Among the Oppressed (JPTSup 2, 1993); Samuel Solivan,
Spirit, Pathos and Liberation (JPTSup 14, 1998); Yong, Discerning the
Spirit(s).
37. For this criticism, see Steven M. Studebaker, “Pentecostal Soteriology
and Pneumatology,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (2003): 248–
270. See especially his second footnote on page 249 for a litany of
authors who bring this very indictment to Pentecostal theology and
theologians. D. Lyle Dabney [“Saul’s Armor: The Problem and the
Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today,” PNEUMA 23/1 (2001): 115–
146 (130)] had issued a ← 16 | 17 → call for Pentecostals to theologize
from their own ecclesial experiences rather than asking the same
questions that occupied other more established traditions. Christopher
A. Stephenson [Types of Pentecostal Theology, 121–130], one of
Dabney’s former students, took this as warrant for thinking through a
theology of the Lord’s Supper as that place where Christ’s absence rather
than presence is felt. It may be worth noting here that four Pentecostal
theologians of the current “constructive generation,” Christopher
Stephenson, Lisa Stephenson, Steven Studebaker and Wolfgang Vondey,
were all students of Dabney at Marquette University.
38. The criticism that may here be leveled against me is this: if the historical
comparison and contrast between Pentecostalism and its parent
traditions belongs to the raw material of “contextual experience,” how
can Irving possess this “raw material” seeing that he, though familiar
with Wesley, despised the Methodists? My response to this is that
Irving, like Wesley before him, is reacting against that type of Calvinism
which argued both that God did not love the world and sinners, but only
the elect, and that personal accountability to God and personal holiness
and obedience were of a second order importance in the complex of
salvation. This suggests that, although Wesley and Irving represent
different trajectories of repudiation, the common enemy of both
provides the core of commonality between them, and thus the
substantiation for similar “contextual experience.” After all, linear
historical succession does not exhaust the matrix of historical ideas, as if
only those of direct descent possess similar theological idioms. This idea
is one much trafficked by Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The
Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press; 3rd

edition, 2011), when discussing indigenous Pentecostal churches in
Africa. Amos Yong uses this as an operating principle during his
discussion of African Pentecostalism in his book, Spirit Poured Out on
All Flesh, 59–71.
39. Larry Christenson, “Pentecostalism’s Forgotten Forerunner,” in Aspects
of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins (ed. Vinson Synan; Plainfield, NJ:
Logos International, 1975), 15–37; Arnold Dallimore, The Life of
Edward Irving: Forerunner of the Charismatic Movement (Chicago,
IL: Moody Press, 1983); Gordon Strachan, “Theological and Cultural
Origins of the Nineteenth Century Pentecostal Movement,” Essays on
Apostolic Themes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 144–157; David
W. Dorries, “Edward Irving and the ‘Standing Sign’ of Spirit Baptism,”
in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the
Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism (ed. Gary B. McGee; Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 41–56; David Allen, “Regent Square Revisited:
Edward Irving—Precursor of the Pentecostal Movement,” Journal of the
European Pentecostal Theological Association 17 (1997): 49–58.
40. See V. P. Simmons, “History of Tongues,” The Bridegroom’s Messenger
1/7 (Feb 1908): 4, The Bridegroom’s Messenger 1/17 (July 1908): 4, and
William Seymour, The Doctrines and Discipline of the Azusa Street
Apostolic Faith Mission (Los Angeles, CA: Azusa Street Mission, 1915),
95.
41. I am using the phrase “complex of salvation” as a substitute for the
traditional notion of ordo salutis. It has been noted by Frank Macchia
[“Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental Understanding of
Pentecostal Experience,” Pneuma 15 (1993): 70] that Pentecostals are
not so concerned with developing an ordo as much as insisting upon the
spread of the Gospel at the hands of an empowered Church. Arguments
over the order of salvation so ← 17 | 18 → prevalent among Protestant
traditions did infiltrate the Pentecostal movement, evidenced by the
break in communion between those Pentecostals who saw sanctification
as a second work of grace and those who saw it bound up within
justification/regeneration. My phrase seems ambiguous enough that
both of these branches of Pentecostalism could resonate with my
intention. It is noteworthy that Yves Congar [I Believe in the Holy Spirit,
vol. 2 (trans. David Smith; New York: Crossroad, 1999; from

copyrighted 1983 translation), 189] discerned little difference between
the Fivefold Gospel tradition’s and the four-fold Gospel tradition’s
understanding of salvation. He argues that both have a threefold
complex of salvation: conversion (justification), baptism with the Holy
Spirit and sanctification. In his mind, whether holding to an
instantaneous or progressive view of sanctification, the threefoldness of
the salvation experience is common.
42. I will explore this idea more fully in Chapter One.
| 19 →
·1·
RAW MATERIALS OF PENTECOSTAL

IDENTITY
Pentecostal Ideas Concerning the Relationship Between Jesus
Christ and the Holy Spirit
Introduction
In order to develop a Pentecostal, incarnational Spirit Christology, attention

must first be paid to Pentecostal reflection on Christ, the Spirit and their
interaction. The objective of this chapter is to provide a descriptive account of
various tendencies and trajectories concerning these theological loci within the
Pentecostal movement. I will accomplish this in three parts. First, I will
provide an abbreviated sketch of the rise of the Pentecostal movement in the
United States. This will describe the theological heritage and contextual
framework in which the movement arose and articulated its experience.
Secondly, the earliest generation of Pentecostals will be addressed. Study will
revolve around both the journals published by several Pentecostal groups in
the first fifteen years of the movement, and the thought of key individuals
associated with those groups.
Three journals from the burgeoning phase of the Pentecostal movement in
the United States offer a resource by which the basic tenets of this early group
can be gleaned. The journals are primarily a repository of individual
testimonies and missionary progress reports, but they do contain entries for
the defense of Pentecostal experiences and essays defending certain theological

claims.1 The problem with the entries and essays is that they were written by
different authors, who sometimes remained unnamed.2 While here is no
comprehensive ← 19 | 20 → system of thought as one would find in a solitary,
unified treatise, because of their interested perspective, one may assume that
the editors only used contributions that bolstered the Pentecostal vision to be
propounded. Even when the editors included tracts of non-Pentecostal
authors, the views of the authors (not the authors themselves) were the focus.
Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to tell when the authors’ work stopped and the
editors’ commentary began.
This, then, gives the journals their importance: they meant to highlight
exactly and unabashedly the Pentecostal issues at stake. Distinct Pentecostal
themes appear throughout each journal, and common themes between
journals can be discerned. There are times, in fact, when an entry from one
journal is re-printed in another one. Because of the repetition of certain
themes, it is proper to utilize these early journals for their descriptive
significance. This section will demonstrate, therefore, the early intuitions and
themes within Pentecostalism that are conducive for the development of an
incarnational Spirit Christology.
Finally, in Section 3, current trajectories relative to a Pentecostal Spirit
Christology will be analyzed. Two current Pentecostal theologians, whose work
either implies or requires a Spirit Christology, will be introduced as dialogue
partners for a Pentecostal, incarnational Spirit Christology. The first theologian
is Amos Yong. His interests began as the construction of a theology of religions
whose epistemological starting point is the universal experience of God’s
presence and activity in the world, a presence symbolically represented by the
Holy Spirit. This foundation has now been extended into multiple areas. The
second theologian is Frank Macchia. He has admonished Pentecostals to think
theologically from a Spirit Christological perspective. His entreaty has offered
the doctrine of justification for the viability of such a perspective.3
The ultimate goal for Chapter One is to provide a description of the raw
materials from which Pentecostals procure their ecclesial identity. Upon this
foundation the Pentecostal reader will be able to locate him or herself in the
context of the discussion, and the non-Pentecostal reader will become attuned
to distinctively Pentecostal issues and concerns. Only after this will it be
possible to work toward a distinctively Pentecostal Incarnational Spirit

Christology, both ecclesially demarcated and ecumenically intelligible.
Historically Locating the Classical Pentecostal

Movement
It is universally granted that the modern or Classical Pentecostal movement

began in 1906 in Los Angeles at the Azusa Street Mission.4 It is also apparent
← 20 | 21 → that the experiences of the Holy Spirit that were typical there also
happened in other places prior, and that the theological language—and most of
the theological concepts of the movement—were not unique to them. Locating
the Pentecostal movement historically, therefore, entails not simply providing
a date of inception, but also explicating the theological milieu in which it took
shape and the theological concepts that it adopted.
D. William Faupel states that the seedbed of Pentecostal thought is the
American Holiness Movement.5 Between 1840 and 1870, there was a push
within Protestant denominations to reform and revitalize the churches through
an emphasis on the individual Christian’s personal responsibility. Living a life
of holiness both Godward (in fear and reverence of the divine being) and
humanward (in love and respect for other human beings) was the linchpin of
this responsibility. According to Faupel, there were two branches of this
movement whose roots and locale were different, but whose stance on holiness
and desire to propagate it were similar.6 The first was the Wesleyan wing,
consisting of those who lamented the neglect of Wesley’s doctrine of Christian
perfection, and who sought to reinstate it to a place of primacy. In this wing,
especially with the thought of Phoebe Palmer, the dialectic between
instantaneous and progressive sanctification was collapsed so that
sanctification was seen as a purely instantaneous experience of grace. The
Christian could be released from self-will and the innate sin-principle could be
eradicated so that the Christian could live a perfectly holy and consecrated life
to God.7
The second was the Reformed wing that emerged out of Oberlin College,
which was re-organized in 1835 near Cleveland, Ohio. The initial vision of
Christian perfection that arose out of Oberlin, under the leadership of its first
two presidents, Asa Mahan and Charles Finney, had a distinctively communal
aspect. The whole church was to experience sanctification or consecration to

God so that sin itself might, through the total conversion of the world, be
dispelled from the world. This idea was a fruit of the post-millennial, manifest
destiny mindset of Protestantism that was typical prior to the Civil War.
Although this social dimension disappeared after the Civil War, the personal
dimension of holiness was still emphasized. In both time periods, however, to
live a life without sin—to choose rightly—an experience of grace subsequent to
justification was necessary.8 Nonetheless, Oberlin perfectionism would not
admit the eradication of the sin-principle. Sanctification entailed a trust in God
that, through reliance upon the Holy Spirit, rendered the sin-principle
inoperative. Rather than a substantial change in the person, as with the ← 21 |
22 → Wesleyan wing, the regenerate person lives in perfect obedience to God
by the power of the Holy Spirit.9
How was this experience of entire sanctification to be expressed
theologically? The Wesleyan branch began to identify entire sanctification and
baptism with the Holy Spirit. Difficulties arose because of this identification.
They needed to justify how the motif of cleansing associated with sanctification
could be reconciled with the motif of empowerment attached to the biblical
portrayal of baptism with the Holy Spirit. It became a mere assertion to say
that purity and power, cleansing and infilling are the same thing. The
Reformed wing denied that baptism with the Holy Spirit had to do with
Christian perfection. Sanctification was a normative second experience of
grace, but it was not the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The latter is solely the
empowerment for service. Sanctification, which was understood to be gradual
(since the sin-principle was not eradicated) and by which the person was
conformed to Christ (which is an eschatological reality), was an out-flowing
from justification. Eventually, entire sanctification fell into the conceptual
background. Lastly, a group of the Wesleyan wing began insisting that the
baptism with the Holy Spirit was a third definite experience of grace,
specifically attached to the divine empowerment for service.10
What was unique about American Pentecostalism was not theological
vocabulary, or even experiences of holiness and/or power described by that
vocabulary, but rather the linkage between baptism with the Holy Spirit and
speaking in tongues.11 Many Pentecostals were aware that their own
experiences of the Holy Spirit were documented as having happened in other
historical contexts, such as Tertullian’s congregation in Carthage, Chrysostom’s
church in Antioch, and Edward Irving’s movement in Scotland and London.

The distinctive feature of the modern Pentecostal movement is that speaking in
tongues is the initial, physical evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit. Those
upholding this doctrine have been referred to as “Classical Pentecostals.”
Charles Parham is usually credited as being the first to make this association.12
He was a bible teacher whose assignment to his class was to determine what
the biblical evidence for the baptism with the Holy Spirit was. They
unanimously returned with the answer of speaking in other tongues. After
determining to pray for this experience, all the class members experienced the
glossolalial phenomenon.
Parham began teaching that speaking in tongues was normative to Christian
life as the fruit—or evidence—of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. William
Seymour, a student of Parham at his Houston school, was originally a ← 22 |
23 → Baptist minister who, after accepting and preaching the views of the
Holiness Movement, pastored his own small congregation.13 After having
studied under Parham,14 Seymour took the message of the baptism with the
Holy Spirit to Los Angeles, where his first sermon was on Acts 2:4. Through his
preaching and in these meetings many received this experience of the Holy
Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Azusa Street, with Seymour as
the leader and figurehead,15 quickly became the repository of the Pentecostal
experience in the United States, and the source from which others took the
experience back to their own churches and families.16
These men and women became the voices of the movement not only as
ordained ministers within established denominations, but also as itinerant
preachers and evangelists “of the experience.” Through them autonomous
Pentecostal communities were formed and Pentecostal denominations were
established. The latter sometimes began as a loose assembly of local bodies,
e.g., the Church of God under A. J. Tomlinson (Cleveland, Tenn.). Other times
a Pentecostal denomination was formed because a group within an already
established denomination, a group who had believed and received the
“Pentecostal experience” of baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of
speaking in tongues, split from the Holiness denomination in order to establish
a denomination wherein the Pentecostal experience would be normative for
Christian corporate and individual life, e.g., the Church of God in Christ under
C. H. Mason. Or, as the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church under J. H. King, an
entire denomination existing under the rubric of the Holiness movement
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Baeye (Baaye), 217, 226, 232, 250, 151
Baeyens, 146
Bafloo, 56
Baincthun, 103
Bakke, 250, 251
Bakker, 137
Baksma, 237
Baldewyn, 162
Baldowin, 167
Balen, 72
Baling, 216
Balinghem, 129
Balk, 36, 37, 237
Balkedieven (Balketsjeaven) van ’t Ameland, 6, 27
Balkema, 240
Balkstra, 237
Balling, 216
Ballingham, 129
Baltrum, 88
Barbaren van Sint-Quintens-Lennik, 73
Bareld, Barwald, 160, 200
Barends, 124
Barent, 132
Barent Gerbrenz, 259
Bargestrûpers van Ternaard, 36
Bargsma, 240
Barsingerhorn, 63
Bart, 221, 232
Bartele, Bartle, 214, 232
Bartelt, 132
Barteltsje (Barteltje), 217, 232, 250
Bartha, 232
Barthold, 132, 232
Bartholda, 232
Bartholomeus, 227
Bartje, 232
Bartolt Mesmaker, 269
Barwout, Baerwout, 160
Barwoutswaarder, 160
Bassingham, 129
Bauck, 274
Baucke Holtsager, 269
Baucke Scutmaker, 269
Bauck Jans wedue, 264

Bauduin, 162
Bauke, 203, 215, 218, 220
Baukje, 203, 217, 220, 229, 232, 250, 251
Bauwe, 162, 212, 229, 232
Bauwens, 146, 158
Bava, 232
Bavo, 162, 218, 229, 232
Bazenville, 210
Bazinghem, Bazinghen, 96, 129
Bean, Berend, Beert, Barend, Baart, Bernhard, 232
Beannefretters van Idsegahuizen, 37
Beannehûlen van Pingjum, 36, 37
Beantsjes van Koudum, 37
Bearn (Beern), 148
Beart (Beert), 148
Beatrix, 251
Becquestraat, 119, 120
Becuwe, 134
Bedum, 56
Beekmans, 134
de Beemster, 63, 65
Beenhauwers van Male, 76

de Beer, 143
Beernaerts, 146, 148
Beersel, 72
Beert, 146
Beetgum, 36, 37
Behaghel, 134
Beintse, 214
Beitse, 214
Bekaert, 144
Belcele, 73
Bele Henrix Scillinx dochter, 183
Bele naturlyke dochter Arnts van Hypelberch, 186
Beli, Bely, Belie, Bele, Belitje, 183, 189
Belle, 6, 77, 79, 82
Bellebrune, 118
Bellefleuren van Blya, 35
Benne, Benno, 212, 230, 232
Bennert, Bernhart, 232
Benningbroek, 63
Bennington, 105
Benschop, 62
Bense, 214
Bente, 214, 232
Bentje, Benskje, Benna, 232
Bercht, 100
Berchtold, 132
Berchtwin, 100
Berebrona, 118
Beren van Menaldum, 36
Beren van Warder, 63
Berend, Berent, 148, 259
Berengeville, 110
Berenschieters van Benschop, 62
Bergkruipers van Geeraartsbergen, 93, 79
Bergman 193 [297]
Bergum, 36, 37
Berlicum, Berlikum, 34, 50, 129
Berlinghen, 129
Bernaart, Bernaert, 132, 134, 145, 148, 166, 168
Bernert Lucht, 272
Bernhard, Bernhart, 132, 166, 168, 145, 148, 212, 259
Bernlef, Bornlef, Bernolf, 201, 202
Bernlef, Bornlef, Bernlef, 201, 202
Bernou, Bernw, 201, 202, 227

Beroald, Baroald, 160
Beroldasheim, 160
Bert, 100
Bertha, Bartha, Brechta, 232
Berthe, 131
Berthold, 100
Bertin, 100
Bertinghem, 97, 100
Bertolf, 100
Bertout, 100, 132
Bertrand, 131
Bertsheim, 160
Bertwyn, 100
Berwald, 160
Berwout, 160
Berwouts, 146, 158, 160
Bess, 210
Bessele, 214
Bessembinders van Maxenzeele, 71, 73
Bessingue, 96, 97, 101
Bethune, 81
Betse, 214
Betse-Rinse-Piet, 176
Bettens, 146
Betthie van Staueren, 271
Beverwijk, 63
de Beyer, 134
Beyths, 274
de Bie, 143
Biense, 214
Bientse, 214
Bierma, 240
Biervliet, 76
Bieswal, 134
Biizesniders van Tietjerk, 36
Bindert, Binnert, Bernhard, 132, 200, 232
Binke, 215, 232
Binne, 212, 216, 232, 241
Binnert. (Zie Bindert)
Binnewijzend, 63
Binse, 214, 223, 232, 241
Binsma, 241
Binte, 214
Bints, 232
Bintse, Bintsen, 214, 216
Bintsje (Bintje), 215, 232
Bintske, 232
Birdaard, 36, 49
Birlingham, 129
Bisschop, de Bisschop, 140
Bjintsen, 214
Blackburn, 117
Blackenberg, 116
Blaes, 146, 147
Blanckaert, 134
Blanckenberghe, Blankenberge, 27, 74, 77
Blankenham, 59
Blauw, 246
Blauwbuiken van Exaarde, 73
de Blauwe, 141
Blauwe Reigers van Heer-Hugo-waard, 63
Blauwmutsen van Leiden, 66
Blauwstra, 246
Blauwvingers van Zwolle, 5, 28, 59
Blavoet, 134
de Bleecker, 139
Bleien van de Gaastmeer, 37, 67
Bleien van Oostwoud, 63
Bleien en Bleisteerten van Zwartsluis, 59
Blekenaker, 120
de Bleye, 143
Blieken van Gorinchem, 66, 67
Bloeme, 134
Blokker, 63
Bloklichters van Warfum, 56
Blokzijl, 59
Blomhard, Bloemhart, 145
Blommaert, 145
Bloote Beenen van Aartswoud, 63
Bluffers van ’s-Gravenhage, 66
Blya, 35
Blynde Gertza, 262
Boaike (Booike, Boike), 215, 216
Boaite (Booite, Boite), 214, 216
Boaitse, Boaitsen (Booitse, Booitsen, Boitse), 215, 216
Boaitsje (Booitje), 215, 216
Boarn (Boorn), 117
Boarnsweach (Boornzwaag), 117

Boarnwert (Bornwerd), 117
Boaye (Booye, Boye), 212, 216, 235
Boaying (Boying), 216
Bob, 150, 210
Bockhexen van Thunum, 57
Bochout, Bocholt, 120
Boddaert, 144
Bodse, 214
Boekema, 240
Boele, Bolo, 212, 232
Boeltsje (Boeltje), 215
Boerma, 240
Boersma, 240
Boerwegue, 124
Boeseghem, 95
Boete, 214, 232
de Boeve, 141
Boeykens, 146
Boffershil, 121
Bokke, 212
Bokkingkoppen van Harderwijk, 60
Boksum, Boxum, 36
Bolke, 215
Bollema, 237, 240
Bôllen van Drachten, 36
Bollezeele, 95
Bolsward, 14, 16
Bolte, 214 [298]
Boltjes, 240
Bonemersene, 120
Bonne, 132, 212, 224
Bonningues, 96, 97, 101
Bonsen, 214
Bonte, 214
Bontinck, 146
Bonthie Fisker, 268
Bontjema, 244
Bontsje (Bontje), Bonna, 214, 215, 231, 244
Bontun, 121
Boonaert, 144
Boone, 146
Boonen van Blokker, 63
Boonenknoopers van Oudenaarde, 73, 79
Boon-eters van Groningen, 55, 56

Boonpeulen van den Ilp, 63
Boonpeulen van Wormer, 63
Bootjema, Botiema, 244
Bootsje (Bootje), 244
Bootsma, 240
de Borchgrave, 140
Borenga, 238
Borgmans, 193
Borkeloo, 87
Borkum, 88
Born, Borne, 59, 117
Bornhem, 72
Bornlef, Bernlef, Bernolf, 201, 202
Boschkrabben van Bornhem, 72
Boschma, 239, 246
Boschuilen van Buggenhout, 73
Boschuilen van Dworp, 73
Boskpleats, 239
Bote, Botho, 212, 229, 232, 244
Boterkoppen van Diksmuiden, 74, 79
Botermelkzakken van Etterbeek, 73
Botervreters van Dixmude, 6

van Bothnia, 235
Botsje (Botje), Botha, 231
Botte, 212, 232, 235
Botte Aukenz, 258
Botte Obbez, 258
Botte Scroer, 267
Bottinga, Bottenga, 235
Bouckaert, 144
Bouchoute, 77
Boucquehault, 120
Boudewijn, 132, 162, 167
Bouke, 215, 244
Boukema, 244
Bouken, 132
Boukje, 232
Boulemberg, 116
Bouma, 241
Bournemouth, 117
Bouwe, 212, 229, 232, 241
Bouwen, 132
Boxum, Boksum, 36
Boye, 132
Boyenga, Booyenga, Booienga, Boyunga, 235
de Brabander, 143
Braken van Kassel, 82
Bramendal, 117
Brancquart, 144
Brand, 211
de Brauwere, 140
Brecht (mansnaam), 100
Brecht (plaatsnaam), 73
Brechtje, 132, 227, 232
Brechtwulf, 100
Breendonk, 72
Breeuwsma, 245
Brêgebidlers van Heeg, 34
Brêgebidlers van Warga, 34
Brekken van Beersel, 72
Breskens, 87
Breughelman, 182
Briedstic, 120
den Briel, Brielle, 66, 67, 284
Brijbekken van Workum, 14, 28
Brijbekken van Zwolle, 28

Brijbroeken van Werkendam, 67
Brijhappers van Blankenham, 59
Brimsters van Buitenpost, 36
Britsum, 35, 37
Brocshole, 121, 124
Broek in Waterland, 63
Broekophâlders van Oostermeert, 36
Broeksma, 240
Broekzele, Brussel, 117
de Broere, 134
Brongar, 161
Bronger, 200
Brotryck, 201
Brucht, 227
Bruckdal, 117
Brugge, 72, 74, 76
Bruggema, 239, 240
Brugsma, 240
Bruin, Bruno, 229
Brunemberg, Brunesberg, 116
Brunevelt, 120
Bruno, Bruyn, 116, 132, 147

Brussel, 50, 51, 71, 72
de Bruycker, 141
Bruyn Sydensticker, 268
de Bruyne, 141
Bruynooghe, 137, 142
Bruysschaert, 144
Bruysten, Brusten, Brustyn, 190
Bruysten Yseboutssoen, 174, 190
Bucho Koster, 268
de Buck, 143
Bueter-eters van Dixmude, 76, 79
Buggenhout, 73
Buisma, 240
Buitenpost, 36
Bultinck, 146
Burger, 141
Burggraeve, 140
Burhafe, 57
Buttstekers van Oldorf, 57
Buva, 232
Buvo, 229, 232
Buwko op Westerfelden, 273

Buysse, 146
Cabeljau-eters van Nieupoort, 77
Cadzand, 67, 68 [299]
Caen, 110
Caerdemaeckers van Deynse, 77, 81
de Caesemaecker, 140
Caesemaeckers van Belle, 77, 82
Calenberg, 116
Calkpit, 121
Callens, 140
Caluwaert, 142, 144
de Caluwe, 141
Cammenga, Cammingha, 240
Candeel-eters van Meenen, 77, 81
Cannaert, 144
Cappelaere, 134
Cappoen-eters van Meessene, 77
Caprycke, 77
Cardinael, 140
Carels, 146
Carolinensyl, 57
Cartigny, 110
Cassele, Kassel, 76
Casteleyn, 140
Catharina, 213, 217, 228
Cathem, 110
van Cauwenberghe, 134
Celen Claes Wolfssoen, 177
de Cenninck, 138, 140
Charles, 132, 133
Cholinchova, 113
Christiaens, 146
Cies, 210
Claes Claes Wielmanssoen, 177, 194
Claes Drager, 269
Claes Heynez, 258
Claes Laurens, 258
Claes Scuteferger, 269
Claes Spoelman, 269
Claes Steenbicker, 269
Claes Thysz, 258
Claey, 150
Claeys, Clays, 148, 150
Claeyssens, Clayssens, 146, 147

Claus, 192
Clauwaert, 137, 144
de Clerck, de Clercq, 140
Cleverns, 57
Cnoop, Cnoops, Cnopius, 190, 191
Cocquyt, 143
Coelinck, 146
Coen, 162
de Coen, 142
Coenradt, 132
Coens, 162, 146, 158
Cokermaeckers van Ruurl, 77
Colbrandt, 146
Cole, Colen 112, 117
Coleberg, Colemberg, Colenberg, 116
Colembert, 116
Colen, Colens, 113
Coles, 113
Coleshill, 113
Colinck, 113
Colincktun, 103, 129
Colle, 113
Collington, 129
van der Colme, 134
Colo, 112, 113, 130
Colobert, 112
Coloman, 112
Colpaert, 144
Colsbergium, 117
Colstidi, 113
Comene, Komen, 77
Compoost-eters van Loo, 77
Connaert, 144, 145
Conyn-eters van Duunkercke, 76, 82
de Coninck, 140
de Conynck, 134
Cool, Coolen, 113
Coolkercke, 77, 113
Cools, 113
Coolskamp, Colescamp, 113
Coolsma, 133
de Cooman, 140
Coopman, 140
Coppejans, 146

A Spirit Christology Ecumenical Studies Jenkins Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Spirit Christology Ecumenical Studies Jenkins Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Spirit Christology Ecumenical

A Global History of the Cold War, 1945-1991 1st Edition

Warrior Spirit Alex Archer

The Right Call 1st Edition Sally Jenkins

The Droner's Manual 2nd Edition Kevin Jenkins

A Study of T C Chaos Christology in the Social Context

The Spirit of Liberty Allbeury

Showdown Olympic Spirit Ben Nussbaum

Flesh and Spirit Confessions of a Young Lord 1st

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Jenkins, Skip, author.

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche

© 2018 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York

All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)/EDITOR(S)

ABOUT THE BOOK

This book extrapolates a uniquely Pentecostal and incarnational Spirit

A Spirit Christology will be beneficial to a diverse audience of

classes, including courses on the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the

ADVANCE PRAISE FOR

“Skip Jenkins offers the first explicit proposal of a Pentecostal and

“With deep sensitivity to and understanding of the Pentecostal tradition, Skip

ecumenical, this book is an important contribution to the growing field of

THIS EBOOK CAN BE CITED

Chapter 1. Raw Materials of Pentecostal Identity: Pentecostal Ideas

Conclusion: Salvation Outside the Church

Method of Explicating the Incarnational Theology of

The Obedience of Jesus in the Matrix of the Fallen

A Preliminary Pentecostal Incarnational Spirit

Before this was a book to be published, it was a dissertation to be defended. I

Justification for the Project

At the outset, it is necessary to substantiate the credibility of any endeavor that

Amos Yong, a noted Pentecostal theologian and professor of theology and

boundaries of demarcation. Is a Pentecostal simply one who speaks in other

presentation of the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit, his request indicates

Methodology of the Project

Roman Catholic theologian Ralph Del Colle states that Pentecostalism is a

description, ecclesial demarcation, and ecumenical intelligibility. I will briefly

demarcation from the saeculum is the insistence on the imminent return of

a constructive theological choice on my part by which I hope to ameliorate any

justification for the charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit, what I

to Pentecostalism, ecumenical intelligibility relative to the οίκουμένη, or the

Spirit Christology. This conjunction of theologies will serve to define the

2. For example, Otto Dilschneider, “Die Geistvergessenheit der Theologie,”

7. Philip J. Rosato, “Spirit Christology: Ambiguity and Promise,”

unitarian … introduc[ing] a uniformity … to the conception of divine

17. “Partners in Scandal: Wesleyan and Pentecostal Scholarship,” Pneuma

28. Pentecostal scholar and ecumenist Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen [Christology:

“theologies.” I find Torrance’s proposal insightful, and therefore I am

36. For example, Cheryl Bridges Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A

Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press; 3rd

vol. 2 (trans. David Smith; New York: Crossroad, 1999; from

RAW MATERIALS OF PENTECOSTAL

In order to develop a Pentecostal, incarnational Spirit Christology, attention

the defense of Pentecostal experiences and essays defending certain theological

possible to work toward a distinctively Pentecostal Incarnational Spirit

Historically Locating the Classical Pentecostal

It is universally granted that the modern or Classical Pentecostal movement

aspect. The whole church was to experience sanctification or consecration to

church in Antioch, and Edward Irving’s movement in Scotland and London.

Bakke, 250, 251

Balk, 36, 37, 237

Balkedieven (Balketsjeaven) van ’t Ameland, 6, 27