Although the accuracy of teaching is preeminent when judging the quality of a book, credit must be given for its tone when appropriate. From page one of Hull’s work, the reader is struck with the author’s sincerity, transparency, his passion for people, his drivenness for all that God has for him, and his willingness to risk all for his perception of the will of God in relation to the charismata.

This book comes from the heart of a pastor. More specifically, from the heart of a pastor who is trying to transition parishioners of a cessationist mindset into the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit. There is a generous mix of true-life anecdotes and biblical teaching. Some anecdotes leave you laughing or celebrating, others leave you in tears. At times his language is plain, but poignant: “If you lay your heart on the altar, someone will come and jump up and down on it” (p. 172).

Aside from Hull’s firm belief in the continuation of spiritual gifts in today’s church, even miraculous ones, perhaps his greatest contributions are in the chapters on healing and on hearing God’s voice, in which are packed practical guidelines that encourage faith while acknowledging God’s sovereignty.

It is, however, with reservations that I recommend Straight Talk to Pentecostals. With characteristic frankness, Hull admits that “I have had a prayer language for more than thirty years, but I am still not 100 percent sure it is God or my own flesh” (p. 118). More important, Hull holds an unbiblical view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which he views as conversion (p. 116). Although he decries cessationist thinking as “inbred” and based more on “custom” than “study,” he is himself a Lukan cessationist when it comes to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, stating that the Pentecostal interpretation of Spirit-baptism is “impossible” (p. 111).

He bases his interpretation of the six occurrences of Spirit-baptism in Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts on the one occurrence in Paul (1 Corinthians 12:13), arguing that Paul’s usage is more weighty because it was seventh and last and twenty years removed from the “fluidity of the first years when they [the first Christians] were all trying to figure out the role of the Holy Spirit” (p. 114). One problem with this is that 1 Corinthians 12:13 appears to be the believer’s baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (a sensible and universal experience of all Christians), not the believer’s baptism in the Holy Spirit by the Heavenly Jesus that imparts a prophetic empowerment for service (a likewise sensible though not universal Christian experience; cf. R. Menzies’ Empowered for Witness). Hull shows no appreciation for the diversity of the NT writers and no appreciation for Luke’s uses of “filling” synonyms, which occur over 50 times in Acts alone. Neither does he show any appreciation for the probability that Luke, as a close companion of Paul and as someone who held Paul in high regard as a great man of God, is applying his considerable training in the Greco-Roman narrative style of historiography to clarify Paul’s epistolary writings for Christians thirty years removed from Paul. Instead, Lukan cessationist like Hull have effectively silenced Luke’s majority usage of “baptized” (3x) and “filled” (9x) in favor of Paul’s single usage of each term (1x[?]/1x). This use of Paul to parse Luke is a practice left over from cessationist Protestantism, and a hearty adieu by biblical exegetes is long overdue. (For more thorough discussion, see Roger Stronstad’s Spirit, Scripture and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective and The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke).

Perspectives on Spirit Baptism is a collection of five scholarly essays that define Spirit Baptism from five traditions: Reformed (Walter C. Kaiser), Pentecostal (Stanley M. Horton), Charismatic (Larry Hart), Wesleyan (H. Ray Dunning), and Catholic (Ralph Del Colle). Each view is formatted as a chapter, which concludes with responses from the remaining four scholars. The space afforded each view differs widely in some cases. For example, the Reformed view is only 22 pages, whereas the Charismatic view is 64 pages long; the difference (42 pages) is longer than the Catholic view (39 pages). The Pentecostal and Wesleyan views are 48 and 49 pages, respectively. Regarding the responses, there is again a disparity. Horton’s responses total only six pages, while Del Colle amasses just over 14 pages (the average was 10 pages).

All of the contributors to this volume are terminal-degreed scholars, but were they the most qualified? What brings this question to mind are the credentials of Kaiser and Horton. These are highly distinguished scholars, but their forte is the Old Testament, whereas Spirit Baptism is a New Testament phenomenon. Both men are venerable patriarchs (Horton will soon be 90) of their denominations and have high degrees of name-recognition (which publishers desire), but I sensed a lack of edge and freshness in their presentations and responses.

Kaiser starts things off with a historical summary of the responses to Pentecostal theology by John Stott (1964) and James Dunn (1970). Mysteriously, forty years after Stott’s dividing of Scripture into didactic and historical, Kaiser makes the same mistake, favoring Paul’s “didactic” passages over Luke’s “narrative.” Kaiser ignores three and a half decades of scholarship, beginning with I. Howard Marshall (1970) and continuing to this day, that corrects the misguided notion that Luke was merely a historian.

Neither does Kaiser fare well in the department of fairness. In his attempt to connect Spirit baptism with conversion, he quotes Pentecostal scholar R. P. Menzies in order to counter him with a quote from J. B. Shelton (also a Pentecostal), but he unfairly ends the Shelton quote at a point that serves his purpose. Had he continued with the same sentence, it would have destroyed his point. Here is Kaiser’s quotation from Shelton: “[Although] Luke is not averse to associating the Holy Spirit with conversion. [Kaiser even omits the ellipsis that indicates an omission.]” Here is the omitted clause and next clause: “…this is not his major pneumatological thrust. Some misunderstanding has arisen when the role of the Holy Spirit in empowering for witness is confused with conversion.” But as serious as this violation of scholarship is, it pales in significance to Kaiser’s later mischaracterization of Larry Hurtado’s position on tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. He quotes Hurtado approvingly when the latter confirms that the NT does not raise the question of the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Then he chastises Hurtado for not thinking that this renders the doctrine invalid and for thinking that experience “can fill in the needed evidence here!” (30). Kaiser has grossly misread Hurtado, whose last clause of the quoted essay reads, “…the doctrine of initial evidence, whatever its historic significance for institutionalized Pentecostalism, should be set aside as a sincere but misguided understanding of Scripture.” Was Kaiser so desperate to compare the supposed experience-based Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism to Evangelical rationalism that he totally misread Hurtado? Whatever the case, Kaiser turns Hurtado into a tremendous strawman, and he owes Hurtado an apology, since Hurtado seems to be on Kaiser’s side. Hurtado is not a Pentecostal but appears more like a Lukan cessationist who does not believe Luke intended to teach Theophilus anything about the relationship between tongues and Spirit baptism even though Luke, following contemporary Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions, strategically linked them in pivotal scenes that demonstrate the programmatic Christ sayings of Luke 24:45-47 and Acts 1:4-8.

 The Praying in the Spirit Series. 

Robert Graves making a presentation at the 2014 meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Robert W. Graves wrote Praying in the Spirit (Chosen Books) in 1987, when it received great reviews from a number of Pentecostal/charismatic scholars and leaders including John Sherrill, Dr. Vinson Synan, Dr. Gordon Fee, Dr. William Menzies, Dr. Howard Ervin, Dr. Walter Martin, and Dr. Stanley Horton. It is the great privilege of the Pneuma Review to republish it here.

What They’re Saying Now: Some Non-Charismatics Reevaluate Tongues (Winter 1999)
What They’re Saying Now: Some Non-Charismatics Reevaluate Tongues

Some Marvelous Effects of Praying in the Spirit (Spring 1999)
Some Marvelous Effects of Praying in the Spirit

Focus of the Charismatic Experience: Tongues, the Holy Spirit, or Christ? (Summer 1999)
Focus of the Charismatic Experience: Tongues, the Holy Spirit, or Christ?

Just What Is the Nature of the Prayer Language? (Fall 1999)
Just What Is the Nature of the Prayer Language?

Better Than I Was, Not Better Than You Are (Winter 2000)
Better Than I Was, Not Better Than You Are

Part 1 of: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Spring 2000)
That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Part 1)

Part 2 of: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Part 2)

Figure 1 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Consensus on First Corinthians 13 by Non-Pentecostal Scholars

Figure 2 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Proposed Dates of Charismata Cessation

Figure 3 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Charismata in Post-Apostolic Church

Editor Introduction: How the Prayer Language Comes (Fall 2000)
Editor Introduction: How the Prayer Language Comes

How the Prayer Language Comes (Fall 2000)
How the Prayer Language Comes

Now That You’ve Spoken in Tongues (Winter 2001)
Now That You’ve Spoken in Tongues

Singing in the Spirit (Spring 2001)
Singing in the Spirit

Afterword: Beyond the Charismatic Experience (Summer 2001)
Beyond the Charismatic Experience

Praying in the Spirit: Works Cited (Summer 2001)
Works Cited

The 1987 version of Praying in the Spirit is also available for sale here (Kindle and softcover).

In June 2017, Robert Graves wrote:

Praying in the Spirit was updated and expanded this year. It is more than 65% longer than the original with current updates, new arguments, and added chapters. Of course, it needed it after 30 years! If you’re buying a copy make sure you get the Empowered Life Academic edition, 280 pages (Empowered Life Academic is an imprint of Harrison House Publishers).

This index was later included in the Winter 2023 issue.

Unapologetically Pentecostal, Atkinson, an ordained minister, presents Jesus through the eyes of a Pentecostal believer as well as through the eyes of a scholar (Edinburgh)—that is, as a theological historian he views Jesus in the “then and there,” while as a Pentecostal, he views Jesus in the “here and now” (1).

I have watched over a seven-year span (four books) as Atkinson has fine-tuned his writing skills. As I read Jesus Before Pentecost, though certainly scholarly, at times it was as if I was reading a devotional (as space permits, I will include such passages).

This latest book looks at the well-known Pentecostal pillars of Jesus as savior, healer, baptizer in the Spirit, and soon-coming King. He acknowledges the five-fold pattern which includes Jesus as sanctifier, but chooses to examine the four-square “rubric,” as that is the pattern of his own tradition (UK-based Elim Pentecostal Church). He accurately notes that this four-square gospel foundation of Pentecostalism exposes the “inaccurate criticism” that Pentecostals are Spirit-centered and give short shrift to Jesus.

It is Atkinson’s contention that “someone who looks at Jesus through Pentecostal eyes thereby gains helpful insight by means of that perspective” (7). If, as he believes, “what you see depends on where you are looking from” (40), this brings certain things to the foreground, such as the miraculous healing ministry of Jesus and his anointing of God’s Spirit.

Before delving into the attributes of Jesus under the four-square pattern, Atkinson defends the use of the Gospel of John as the primary source of truth about the historical Jesus. Atkinson wishes to draw his picture of Jesus from ancient eyes, so eyewitness testimony is paramount, especially what the witnesses say that Jesus said about himself.

William P. Atkinson

Atkinson carefully builds a case that supports the use of John. Given the evidence from John (19:25–26; 20:2–5), he concludes “It is a deep irony … that the fourth gospel appears as little more than a footnote in major studies of Jesus’ history” (16). In addition to the gospels and Paul, Atkinson also considers non-biblical sources such as Josephus, Quadratus, the Gospel of Thomas, and Q (as a body of oral tradition) (12ff., 34).

Savior. According to Atkinson, Pentecostalism directly assaults “pie in the sky” (my words) theology. “Salvation will not be presented in Pentecostal communities as only a hope for the life to come.” He follows with a discussion of enjoying “the benefits of God’s kingdom in their present lives” (47). Jesus is savior in many ways, for example, he saved people from the immediate threat of being drowned, he saved people from social estrangement, he saved people from physical hunger, and he saved people from God’s silence and from God’s absence (48–50). On a lighter note, “Jesus’ teaching effectively ‘saved’ listeners from the frustrations of listening to other teachers whose input seems to have smacked of hypercritical superficiality (Mark 1:22)” (50). More important, Jesus saved from Satanic bondage and divine judgment.

As a writer of both fiction and non-fiction (and an English teacher), I have read countless books on writing, but I’ve never read one quite like Jen’s (full disclosure: I know Jen from various conferences and as a recipient of a grant from a foundation that I am an officer of).

As I was saying, Jen’s book is unique. Several things make it so: first, it’s a book on writing, yet it doesn’t touch on grammar or style (she admittedly leaves that for others, some of whom she recommends); second, it is not just a book, it’s a workbook—so expect some interacting exercises (one criticism: the exercises could be a bit more vigorous and challenging; perhaps they were written for a seminar she teaches, which might require more abbreviated exercises); third, the book is written from a thoroughly Christian perspective (one might even say a Charismatic perspective); fourth, Jen, although an academic, becomes a coach, and waxes pastoral at times.

The genius of Jen’s approach is attributable to the third and fourth items, as Jen becomes to the reader the Charismatic coach, full of passion and inspiration, driving the reader to, well, write!

But first, a physical description of the contents: Writing in the Glory is composed of eight parts (counting the Introduction and Epilogue), which are composed of 34 chapters. Most chapters are very short; some with only one paragraph before getting to the “Activation” section, which is Jen’s term for exercises, yet the term means so much more to the Christian writer. For example, in the first chapter, “Writing in the Anointing,” the reader is advised to “Take a few minutes now to surrender your book to the Lord” (20). We are urged to invite the presence of the Holy Spirit, not just on our writing but on us! This technique/perspective transforms the book into a person-centered rather than product-centered workbook.

Of course the product is important, but it is subservient to the servant of God who is bowed to His will and anointing. A wonderful product does not issue from a producer who has no intimacy with and knowledge of his/her Creator. Or, in Jen’s words, “greater anointing and power will come when that book is birthed from a place of intimacy with God” (21).

Perhaps no chapter focuses as much on the writer as the chapter titled “You Were Born for This” (29-33). Here, Jen passionately coaches, “There is destiny in the message you carry. Nothing is by accident. … God has been preparing you to write and release the masterpiece inside of you. You are simply embarking on the journey of discovering what He has already formed within you” (29).

Seeking all books written by Pentecostal scholars.

The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship is seeking titles of theological books by Pentecostal/charismatic scholars to consider as nominees for its 2016 Book Award of Excellence. The books should have a publication date of 2014 or 2015. Please email all title nominations to admin@tffps.org.

Randy J. Hedlun receiving his award from Robert Graves during the 2014 annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

PneumaReview.com editors: What books by Pentecostal/charismatic scholars should all of us know about? Please tell us in the comments section below.

Editor Introduction: For many Pentecostals and charismatics, John MacArthur’s 2013 book, Strange Fire, represents the same tired arguments used for years by those who believe God is done giving gifts to his church. PneumaReview.com asked The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship President, Robert Graves, about their response, their first published book, Strangers to Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture.

PneumaReview.com: What was the reason for creating this anthology? Is it merely to offer an answer to John MacArthur’s Strange Fire?

Cover for the November 2016 re-release by Empowered Life.

Robert Graves: John MacArthur’s book presented an opportunity to show that there is a scholarly side to Pentecostalism. It’s not just fire—there’s a great deal of light! A response to Strange Fire allowed us to show that other side. When I read Strange Fire, I detected a bit of embarrassment on MacArthur’s side as he tried to woo back to the cessationist side some scholarly minds that had seen the failure of cessationism, that is, it’s failure to correctly interpret and apply the Scriptures. The Foundation’s anthology, Strangers to Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture, displays the other side of Pentecostalism, that is, the scholarly side. It’s also a side that the average Pentecostal needs to see; they need to know that there are teachers they can go to for truth when errant Pentecostal teachers go off course, not just errant cessationists.

PneumaReview.com: There are some that still believe that the renewal movements of the Pentecostals and charismatics have produced few scholars or theologians, but the list of contributors to Strangers to Fire defies that idea. Would you take the time to introduce us to each of the writers appearing in this volume and how they are contributing to renewal theology today? It is a long list, but there are many students and church leaders that do not yet know who these scholars are or how many Christian traditions they represent.

Robert Graves presenting at the 2014 meeting of Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Robert Graves: Allow me to begin with a summary: there are twenty-six authors and thirty-five chapters, obviously, some wrote more than one chapter; for instance, there are three chapters by Jack Deere and three by Jon Ruthven. Almost all of the contributions were previously published, so the anthology serves more as a clearinghouse or convenient compendium of first-class scholarly responses to cessationism than a source of new ideas (I must note as an exception Paul Elbert’s chapter “Face to Face: Then or Now? An Exegesis of First Corinthians 13:8–13,” which alone is worth the price of the book; it’s been around for awhile as a paper read at the Society for Pentecostal Studies, but it was never published). A number of the authors I do not personally know, but my best guess is that 14 of them are classical Pentecostals, six of them have Baptist backgrounds, three have Reformed backgrounds, one is an Anglican, and one comes from a Methodist background. Most of those who come from non-Pentecostal backgrounds would now consider themselves to be Charismatic or Third Wave. Here they are in alphabetical order:

Stanley M. Burgess is Professor of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State University. He received a BA and MA from the University of Michigan and a PhD from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He has taught history for 57 years and was Distinguished Professor of Christian History, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia (2004–2011). He has written numerous scholarly articles on church history and the history of Christianity as well as several scholarly books, including The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity (Hendrickson), The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions (Hendrickson), and The Holy Spirit: Medieval Roman Catholic and Reformation Traditions (Hendrickson).

Randy Clark is the Overseer of Global Awakening and the Apostolic Network of Global Awakening. He has ministered for over 43 years in 45 countries; he pastored for over 30 years. He received an MDiv from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, a DMin from United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio (a United Methodist seminary), and a ThD from Phoenix University of Theology (not ATS accredited). He was ordained in the General Baptist denomination in 1971, the American Baptist in 1975, the Vineyard in 1984, and the Apostolic Network of Global Awakening in 2006. He has authored over twenty books, training manuals, and workbooks, including There Is More and The Essential Guide to Healing (along with co-author Bill Johnson); compiled and contributed to Power, Holiness, and Evangelism and Supernatural Missions. He had vision for an institute to verify healings which has become a reality, the Christian Medical Research Institute.org. He is the president of Global School of Supernatural Ministry.

Differing with Walston, classical Pentecostal Robert Graves writes that the doctrine of initial evidence and the subsequence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are taught by scripture.

 Editor Introduction  

 Part 1 of A Narrative-Critical Response

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

Continued from Pneuma Review Fall 2005

Authorial Intent—the Doom of Pentecostal Theology?

For Walston, “Of all the arguments opposing the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, that of authorial intent is, without a doubt, the most convincing …” (59). His methodology for proving this entails asking what he calls a “Guiding Question” of each incident where Luke describes someone experiencing salvation, “What importance does Luke give to tongues as evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?” (pp. 61, 71). He then claims that there are twenty-six references in Acts of people being baptized in the Holy Spirit (126).¹⁷ Walston continues, “If Luke mentions the outward manifestation of tongues on only three of twenty-six soteriological occasions, with the number of people demonstrating this outward manifestation to be around 150 out of well over three thousand people, then the obvious question must follow, How important could it have possibly been to Luke?” (110). Thus, he reasons concerning the Jerusalem Pentecost and Acts 2:41, “It cannot be logically nor exegetically argued that all Christians who are baptized in the Holy Spirit should speak in tongues from a small sampling of only 120 out of 3,120 people” (126). “If it were as important an issue as Classical Pentecostals say it is, Luke would have used this three-thousand-person example to develop the concept. But, he does not” (71).

Throughout his chapter on authorial intent, Walston mentions a number of places where Luke, if he had wished to show that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, could have done so explicitly, and with great effect (e.g., the three thousand in 2:41, the Samaritans, the priests in 6:7, and Paul), but Luke is silent. Even if all of these believers did speak in tongues, the fact that Luke does not mention it is proof that tongues are not that important to Luke; thus, it was not Luke’s “intent to convey tongues as the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit” (73).

Just as Walston uses Acts 2:38-41 as the locus classicus to prove that to be saved is to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and vice versa, he also uses this passage as the locus classicus to prove that it is not Luke’s intent to teach that tongues are the normative, initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. After repeating his Guiding Question, he writes, “The issue is not, ‘Did the three thousand speak in tongues?’ The issue is, ‘Why does Luke not make a point of saying that they did (or did not) speak in tongues?’ He does not mention it because it is not an issue. What Luke does take the time and space to describe is the soteriological outcome on this unique day” (71). Walston calls the incident with the three thousand a “paradigmatic gold mine” had Luke wanted to establish tongues as the evidence of Spirit-baptism (72).

Differing with Walston, classical Pentecostal Robert Graves writes that the doctrine of initial evidence and the subsequence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are taught by scripture.

 Editor Introduction

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

The thrust of Rick Walston’s book The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is that the two major distinctive doctrines of Pentecostal theology—the initial evidence of tongues and the separability/subsequence of Spirit-baptism—are wrong. In his own words, Walston is “attempting to lead the reader to the obvious conclusion that Luke does not intend to establish tongues-as-evidence as a doctrine or as a paradigm” (85); the same can be said for the doctrine of separability and subsequence, though he devotes a scant eight paragraphs to it (141-144).

Walston’s endeavor to disprove these aspects of Pentecostal theology relies on a number of strategies. First, he attempts to show that whereas Pentecostals believe Luke’s theology is predominantly pneumatological, it is in fact more soteriological. For Walston, this entails (1) accepting Acts 2:38-41 as the paradigmatic passage of Acts, (2) statistically comparing the occurrences of pneumatological and soteriological passages in Acts, and (3) redefining the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a salvific event. Second, he constructs an anti-Pentecostal interpretation of Acts using the hermeneutical principle of authorial intent as a singular, over-arching, controlling interpretive canon. This entails building a massive construct upon what Luke does not say at opportune times.

In 1977, after a consideration of all New Testament literature, J. K. Moon gave this classic Pentecostal/charismatic, albeit eclectic, definition of the anointing:

The anointing is the special presence of the Holy Spirit in the life and ministry of God’s servant which produces an inspiring awareness of the divine presence. His entire faculties are enhanced (heightened illumination, courage, wisdom, discernment, faith, guidance, memory, vocabulary, emotions, intellect, and physical performance) beyond natural abilities. The Word of God is quickened to accomplish its regenerating, healing, edifying, and sanctifying objective. And those ministered to are invested with a God-consciousness. …¹

The Lukan and Johannine Anointings

Oil of anointing, by Stan Myers.
Used with permission

In 1981, David Bundrick specifically addressed the Johannine anointing and isolated it, rightly so, as one particular kind of anointing, i.e., distinct from the Lukan anointing. Bundrick hinted at the distinction when he wrote that, “While emphasis today is placed upon ‘the anointing of the teacher,’ this text [1 John 2:18-27] demonstrates that ‘the anointing upon the student’ is vital.”2 But neither Moon nor Bundrick clearly defined and delineated both the Lukan and the Johannine anointings.