Dunn on the Holy Spirit early 1970's versus Roger Stronstad

 

In 1970, James D. G. Dunn’s University of Cambridge PhD dissertation was published as Baptism in the Holy Spirit, beginning the debate that is the subject of this book. For over a decade, it lay neglected by Pentecostals as they were nonresponsive to Dunn’s thesis that the baptism in the Holy Spirit occurred at and, in fact, effected conversion in the believer. That changed in 1984 with the emergence of the next generation of Pentecostal scholars and, particularly, with the publication of Roger Stronstad’s The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. 

The strong works of Robert P. Menzies and James B. Shelton would shortly follow. Also in 1984, Howard M. Ervin weighed in again with a seriatim response to Dunn’s work.

On the other side of the Atlantic, David Petts and the early Max Turner would make important contributions to the debate with Dunn. These scholars, and more, you are about to be introduced to through this excellent work by the Rev. Dr William P. Atkinson, Associate Research Fellow at the London School of Theology and Associate Minister of Braintree Elim Pentecostal ...

ROGER STRONSTAD

Stronstad’s book The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke was a great achievement. It was “the first work by a classical Pentecostal to be taken seriously by non-Pentecostal Lukan scholars.” In it, Stronstad set out to tackle what, in his opinion, was a “silencing” of Luke’s pneumatology by many contemporary interpreters. 

Stronstad asserted that this silencing had been achieved through a denial of three important aspects of Luke’s writing. These are that Luke-Acts is theologically homogeneous (for instance, what is meant by “being filled with the Spirit” means the same in Acts as it does in the Gospel); that Luke is an accomplished theologian as well as a skilled historian; and that Luke is an independent theologian whose pneumatology must not be read as if it were John’s or Paul’s. 

Stronstad devotes his first chapter to defending these three characteristics of Luke’s writing. Then, having surveyed the Lukan corpus in his intervening chapters, Stronstad concludes the book by summarising his view that Luke always presents the Spirit’s work in someone’s life as vocational, and specifically charismatic and prophetic, rather than as soteriological. 

In general terms at least, Jesus’ anointing with the Spirit, presented early in the Gospel as an equipping for service, is parallel to the disciples’ baptism with the Spirit, presented early in Acts as an equipping for service. 

As I mentioned in chapter 1, Stronstad’s work, while by no means merely a response to Dunn’s Baptism, interacts significantly with Dunn’s views. 

That this is the case is evidenced, among other ways, by the terminology of Stronstad’s final sentence of the book before his two-page section of “contemporary application.” He writes, “Only those who resist the evidence can continue to interpret the gift of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts to be an initiation-conversion experience.”

Dunn coined the term “conversion-initiation.” It has been used by many authors since, but Stronstad’s early use of the term, despite his reversal of its elements, suggests that he was implicitly referring to Dunn as the chief “culprit” in his final “denouncement of the opposition.”

We turn now to Stronstad’s specific criticisms of Dunn’s work. Stronstad believes that Dunn has misunderstood Luke’s pneumatology. 

This failure has arisen for two reasons: Dunn’s interpretation of Luke has been highly colored by his understanding of Paul, and consequently, Dunn has misrepresented the meaning of several significant passages.

Stronstad on Luke’s “Pauline” Pneumatology

Dunn has committed what Stronstad calls “illegitimate identity transfer”: “Luke’s data on the Holy Spirit are interpreted as though they were written by Paul.”5 Paul’s phrase “baptised in the Holy Spirit” is understood to signify initiation, and this Pauline meaning is read into Luke’s use of that and similar terms. The absurdity of this procedure is illustrated, for Stronstad, by the simple fact that while Paul used the phrases baptised in the Spirit ...

CONCLUSIONS

Pentecostal alternatives to Dunn’s thesis are not uniform. When the variations are studied, some varieties prove stronger than others. With respect to Christian initiation, Petts and Turner are more convincing than Stronstad. With respect to what exactly the empowering of the Spirit was for, Stronstad and Shelton are more accurate than, on the one hand, Menzies, for his concept is too narrow, and, on the other hand, Turner, whose concept somewhat misrepresents what Luke wrote, about both “prior works” of the Spirit and the inception of salvation.

The Pentecostal gift of the Spirit was linked programmatically to other aspects of Christian initiation (Acts 2:38, which must be allowed its full force). However, this did not mean that the early steps of discipleship could not occur without it (e.g., in Acts 8:4–24). 

However anomalous the Samaritan episode was, it indicates clearly both the conceptual distinctions to be drawn between coming to faith in Christ and receiving the Spirit, and the chronological gaps that this distinction then allows. This does not mean, for Luke, that the Spirit was inactive before someone received the Spirit. 

The Spirit could perform individual acts, such as granting a vision or opening a heart, giving wisdom, or assuring of sonship (if Jesus’ childhood experience may be extended by analogy to the experience of others), before the convert was filled with the Spirit in fulfilment of the Acts 1:8 promise. 

Thus, the Spirit was, so to speak, soteriologically involved, but the Pentecostal reception of the Spirit was not soteriological. Ongoing Christian life, according to Luke’s silence, was unknown without reception of the Spirit, but saving conversion could occur before this reception.

When the Spirit did arrive in this way—when the Pentecostal gift was granted—the recipients were enabled. They were enabled, programmatically, to take part in the worldwide evangelistic mission of the growing church (Acts 1:8). 

Clearly, this enabling included boldness in verbal witness (e.g., Acts 4:31), guidance in the conduct of the mission (e.g., Acts 16:6–10), and on occasion the ability to perform miracles of healing and exorcism (e.g., Acts 10:38, which by extension would apply to anointed disciples of Christ as well [Acts 1:1]) and even judgement (Acts 13:9–11). 

But the enabling was broader than that. As this chapter has shown, the Spirit also granted recipients joy, encouragement, and guidance in the internal affairs of the church. 

On the individual level, with Turner, the Spirit granted recipients their subjective awareness of the presence of Jesus, which no doubt played its part in emboldening them in their personal “mission” (see, for example, Acts 18:9–11, which, again by extension, might in Luke’s eyes have been the experience of any Spirit-filled believer).

PENTECOSTAL NOMENCLATURE

We Pentecostals are relatively uniform in reserving our use of the terms baptism in the Holy Spirit, Spirit baptism, and the like for the potentially subsequent charismatic equipping that I have been discussing. This is, of course, not to suggest that we do not use other terms as well. 

Another common expression is Spirit-filled. So the question might be asked, “Have you been filled with the Spirit?” just as easily as, “Have you been baptised in the Spirit?” The actual word receive is not so often used of the Spirit in this context. 

This is unsurprising, given our recognition that the Spirit is at work in people’s conversion, and that this can be referred to as their initial “reception of the Spirit.”

We have to acknowledge that we cannot appeal to the Bible for a clear precedent for these uses of our language. An appeal to Paul’s pneumatology and language for our talk of a person’s receiving the Spirit at conversion to grant new life and an appeal to Luke’s concepts and language to talk of charismatic empowering as a “Spirit baptism” would be an inaccurate reflection of both their testimonies. 

Neither can we appeal to John’s use and then somehow “paste on” Paul’s and Luke’s meanings to his two Spirit receptions. But none of this needs to worry us. Christians use many terms today in ways quite different from the ways they were used in the Scriptures (not even allowing for variety between scriptural authors, and between speakers and writers today). 

Examples include such basic and frequently used terms as preach, pastor, and church. As long as we acknowledge that we are not using terms quite as biblical authors used them, the terms are available to us for our own use.

I believe it is appropriate for Pentecostals to call that subsequent equipping to which so many testify their “baptism in the Spirit.” Paul did not use this term for that experience. 

The Pentecostal use is closer to Luke’s use (though Luke used it little), and modern use individualises the concept, losing the corporate connotations that may have been important to Luke. But ultimately, this matters little. 

The experience exists.95 It could be called “empowering with the Spirit,” or being “baptised with the power of the Spirit,” as I have heard it put. It could be put into terms that do not include the word Spirit at all. But “baptism in the Spirit” is a convenient label, adhering firmly to the concept we have in mind through long-established use, widely employed today and widely understood by Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals alike. It might as well remain in place.

CONCLUSIONS

It is most unlikely that either Luke, Paul, or John wrote with the thought, let alone the express intent, that their words should in future times be held alongside those of others from their generation. When we do so, we thus engage in an exercise that is most probably artificial from the point of view of their writing. However, we acknowledge the superintendence of God who inspired their writing. ...