Dr Paul Allen

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 Sp...

  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 Res...