Atkinson, William P. Baptism in the Spirit: Luke-Acts and the Dunn Debate. Eugene, OR:
Pickwick Publications, 2011. Pp. x + 154. ISBN 978-1-60899-971-2. $19.00 paper.
William P.Atkinson, Vice-Principal Academic, Director of Research, and Senior Lecturer in
Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies at the London School of Theology, reviews
critiques of James D. G. Dunn’s Baptismin the Holy Spirit by various Pentecostal scholars and concludes that the
Pentecostal understanding of the doctrine is correct. The reception of the
Spirit is not related to the inception of new covenant life; rather, it is an
empowerment for service in the life of the church.
Chapter one surveys
Dunn’s work and outlines the six key scholars who have engaged his arguments. Here
Atkinson defines baptism in the Holy Spirit as “a charismatic empowering for
Christian service distinct from and thus, potentially, chronologically
subsequent to initial regenerating faith in Christ” (p. 3). Dunn clearly
rejects this definition, following instead a conversion-initiation
understanding of Spirit baptism. Thus, Pentecostal scholars (or ex-Pentecostal
in the case of Max Turner) have responded, since they see the doctrine of
subsequence as central to Pentecostal identity. Their critiques are outlined in
chapter two: Dunn reads Luke-Acts through the lens of Paul and assumes an identical
pneumatology. Furthermore, the terminology was much more fluid at this early
stage than Dunn is willing to admit. Dunn brings together what Luke kept
separate, i.e., salvation and the gift of the Spirit. Finally, it is clear that
different understandings of salvation history, especially the three pneumatological
epoch distinction, result in diverse readings between Dunn and his debaters. Taken
cumulatively, Atkinson concludes that Dunn’s debaters have cast doubt on his
claim that to become a Christian is to receive the Spirit (p. 65).
Chapter three then
provides an assessment of the various intra-Pentecostal alternatives. Atkinson’s
most significant disagreement is with Max Turner’s view, one closely aligned
with Dunn. He thinks Turner has missed the subtlety of Luke’s idea that “the
Spirit may be directly at work in the process of people’s coming to faith; that
these new converts, despite such prior ‘soteriological’ work of the Spirit,
still need to receive the Pentecostal
gift of the Spirit” (90). At this point, Atkinson’s approach may neither be
convincing among Pentecostals (his primary audience) nor non-Pentecostals (though
he is not trying to convince this group).
Chapter four addresses
the canonical context of the debate by looking specifically at the writings of
Paul and John (1 Cor 12:13; John 20:22). While Atkinson’s reason for choosing
these two verses based on his engagement with Turner is clear, it seems that a
test case from Romans 8:9, the putative “‘killer blow’ to Pentecostal doctrine”
would have been in order and that more than a restating of various Pentecostal
interpreters would have strengthened Atkinson’s argument. However, his claim
that Dunn has misread Pentecostal doctrine is well placed since the majority of
Pentecostal Pauline interpreters maintain some sort of soteriological
pneumatology. Atkinson contends that John 20:22 provides the strongest evidence
for “two distinct experiences” of receiving the Spirit (p. 118).
Chapter five summarizes and offers several practical suggestions for
contemporary expressions of the present-day work of the Holy Spirit. Atkinson suggests
using the term “Baptism in the Spirit” to describe an equipping for service
that is experienced by modern-day Pentecostals. This book is quite useful for
those seeking to understand this distinctly Pentecostal doctrine. It is not
designed to convince non-Pentecostals; rather, it is a fine survey of
intra-Pentecostal discussions using Dunn’s work as a dialogue partner. In this
way it meets its stated goal (p. 1).
