I wrote: The review might have been more positive, especially when one considers comments of scholars, such as….University of Tubingen theologian Jurgen Moltmann who commented, “it is a necessary and new perspective to see the justification of the sinner embraced by the life-giving Spirit. Frank Macchia’s book is a great step forward toward a full Trinitarian concept of salvation….A rich book full of solutions to old theological problems.” Macchia also secured three other systematic theologians to add comments pointing to a bridge and portent of a Spirit oriented theology of justification securing a solution to the old justification problem which divides and defines both Catholic and Protestant doctrine. Pentecostal, Veli-Matti Karkkainen from Fuller and Helsinki, Lutheran, William G Rusch from Yale Divinity, and Catholic, Ralph Del Colle are three systematic theologians who offer very positive reviews too. Honestly, I think this book is one of the best bridges to a Pentecostal theology, which of course means experience, that I’ve seen in decades. So, I am quite taken at the failure of the review to see this.”

Lastly, I strongly urge scholars and thinkers on the fringe of the ever growing and wildly divergent Pentecostal-charismatic universe to give this book a shot. It communicates in an irenic vernacular, which joins the ancient intellectual struggle of the faithful to understand our relationship to the All Mighty. Indeed, Justified in the Spirit will continue to have increasing relevance as these burgeoning movements of the Spirit mature.

I find Macchia’s actual arguments in this book, Justified in the Spirit, compelling. Poirier is also wrong about Macchia, when he says, “It appears that Macchia doesn’t so much find an increased role for the Spirit within the Christian doctrine of justification, but rather that he increases the territory covered by that doctrine until it includes the Spirit.” It’s just the opposite (and I don’t see how Poirier missed this), its precisely because Macchia finds an increased role for the Spirit in the doctrine of justification (in Scripture, and some significant theologians in the past have as well–which he demonstrates), that he increases the territory covered by that doctrine (traditional Catholic and traditional Reformed formulations) until it includes the Spirit!

“Thanks for posting this Monte; I wasn’t aware of it. The author asks thoughtful and legitimate questions. His two main concerns seem to be: 1) Do I ‘hide’ from the reader the significance of ‘subsequence’ with regard to Spirit baptism? 2) Do I expand the terrain of justification too broadly? As to the first, I do not gloss over the issue of subsequence; I deal with it. My only point is that an emphasis on this issue often serves to ‘hide’ a deeper distinctive that I myself was somewhat surprised to find in my research, namely, how fundamentally pneumatological pentecostal soteriology was from the beginning (including how Pentecostals tended to write about justification). Spirit baptism ends up casting its light backwards and forwards so as to enlighten how Pentecostals viewed the entire Christian life (as a life turned into a vessel of the Spirit in the world). Second, I do not so much expand justification as resist the compartmentalization of various soteriological categories; they are all overlapping and mutually enlightening. Barth has influenced me to think in such expansive theological categories. But my case is most basically informed exegetically (as the author of the review admits and likes). So I guess if someone disagrees, they will need to do so by dealing with my exegesis. Of course, I am happy to have this conversation.”

It is a real privilege to hear back from authors and PneumaReview.com invites readers to join the conversation.

I wrote: The review might have been more positive, especially when one considers comments of scholars, such as….University of Tubingen theologian Jurgen Moltmann who commented, "it is a necessary and new perspective to see the justification of the sinner embraced by the life-giving Spirit. Frank Macchia's book is a great step forward toward a full Trinitarian concept of salvation….A rich book full of solutions to old theological problems." Macchia also secured three other systematic theologians to add comments pointing to a bridge and portent of a Spirit oriented theology of justification securing a solution to the old justification problem which divides and defines both Catholic and Protestant doctrine. Pentecostal, Veli-Matti Karkkainen from Fuller and Helsinki, Lutheran, William G Rusch from Yale Divinity, and Catholic, Ralph Del Colle are three systematic theologians who offer very positive reviews too. Honestly, I think this book is one of the best bridges to a Pentecostal theology, which of course means experience, that I've seen in decades. So, I am quite taken at the failure of the review to see this."

Lastly, I strongly urge scholars and thinkers on the fringe of the ever growing and wildly divergent Pentecostal-charismatic universe to give this book a shot. It communicates in an irenic vernacular, which joins the ancient intellectual struggle of the faithful to understand our relationship to All Mighty. Indeed, Justified in the Spirit will continue to have increasing relevance as these burgeoning movements of the Spirit mature.

"Thanks for posting this Monte; I wasn't aware of it. The author asks thoughtful and legitimate questions. His two main concerns seem to be: 1) Do I 'hide' from the reader the significance of 'subsequence' with regard to Spirit baptism? 2) Do I expand the terrain of justification too broadly? As to the first, I do not gloss over the issue of subsequence; I deal with it. My only point is that an emphasis on this issue often serves to 'hide' a deeper distinctive that I myself was somewhat surprised to find in my research, namely, how fundamentally pneumatological pentecostal soteriology was from the beginning (including how Pentecostals tended to write about justification). Spirit baptism ends up casting its light backwards and forwards so as to enlighten how Pentecostals viewed the entire Christian life (as a life turned into a vessel of the Spirit in the world). Second, I do not so much expand justification as resist the compartmentalization of various soteriological categories; they are all overlapping and mutually enlightening. Barth has influenced me to think in such expansive theological categories. But my case is most basically informed exegetically (as the author of the review admits and likes). So I guess if someone disagrees, they will need to do so by dealing with my exegesis. Of course, I am happy to have this conversation."

It is a real privilege to hear back from authors and PneumaReview.com invites readers to join the conversation.