Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
60
Spirit, (Peabody, paperback $9.95,
Howard M.
Ervin,
Conversion-Initiation and the
Baptism
in the Holy
MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 1984)
172
ISBN 0-913573-12-4
pp.,
Reviewed
by
David A. Dorman
challenged
Cambridge
dissertation,
in 1970 which
together effectively
theology
on
many
of the
D. G. Dunn’s revised
Two books were
published
the
spread
of Pentecostal
world’s
seminary campuses.
James
Baptism
in the
Holy Spirit (SCM),
and F. Dale Bruner’s A
Theology of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans),
offered
of the Pentecostal
appeal
to
Scripture
in
of a baptism in the
Spirit
for
empowerment subsequent
to
Bruner’s treatment was
deliberately theological (pp.
it leaned
heavily
on exegesis. Dunn’s
inquiry
via the
of NT
theology
was widened to
include,
as well as
the formal
separation
which exists in sacrament-
and
(confirmational)
comprehensive critiques support
regeneration.
7-8), although discipline
Pentecostal
issues, alism between endument.
together
definitively
(e.g.,
n. 2).
The continued movement has
(baptismal) regeneration
These two studies have been
acknowledged singly
or
in
many subsequent writings
as
having
attended
to the claim for a
second,
Pentecostal work of
grace C.F.D.
Moule,
The
Holy Spirit [Eerdmans, 1978] p. 85, esp.
Alternative,
great
of this book.
1968),
from the Pente- A Pentecostal
It is therefore with
studies
greet
the
was
quoted frequently
dramatic
growth
of the
Pentecostal/charismatic
indicated that not all comers are convinced. But not until 1983 was a full-scale
response forthcoming
costal side
(Harold
D.
Hunter, Spirit-Baptism:
University
Press of America). Dr. Ervin’s Conversion- Initiation and the
Baptism
in the
Holy Spirit,
which we review in this
article,
is only the second such
response.
interest that all those
engaged
in Pentecostal
publication
Ervin’s earlier These Are Not Drunken As Ye Suppose (Logos,
which traced
throughout
the NT the evidence for an empowerment subsequent
to
regeneration,
by
Dunn. Dunn’s counter-thesis set forth the claim that the NT teaches a
unitary
“conversion-initiation” of each believer which
regeneration, repentence,
and
empowerment
in one
“baptism
in the
Spirit,”
and that
that one
experience
into distinct
stages
is not
legitimate (e.g., Dunn, pp. 136-138, 228-29, passim).
Ervin’s
present
book reaffirms his earlier
position
in response to
Dunn,
that
empower- ment is always subsequent to
regeneration (pp. vii, 54, 55)
and that the
laying-on
of hands is a normative
accompaniment (pp. 49,
embraces cation, to
separate
faith,
,
64-5).
conversion,
justifi-
1
61
It will
surprise
some readers to discover that Ervin also
goes
to bat for the sacramentalists. He observes that Dunn’s
linking
of the two
groups
is
fully appropriate,
since the “world-views” of both sacramentalists and Pentecostals allow for a continuum between the numinous
Spirit
realm and the natural order-in contrast to the
dichotomy
which rationalism
prefers (pp. v, viii, 81-83). Since, then,
Ervin is
basically wanting
to refute most of what Dunn affirms,
he takes the
expedient
of patterning his book after
Dunn’s, following
it chapter by chapter,
responding
to
arguments
as Dunn presents them, “accept[ing]
the
gauntlet
wherever Dr. Dunn has thrown it down”
(p. v). A final chapter
summarizes his conclusions.
His
major
criticism of Dunn is that Dunn has allowed his presuppositions
to determine his
exegesis.
This is a
notoriously facile accusation, but Ervin’s detailed
handling
has
helped
make it stick.
Especially
in the Pauline
material,
as Ervin
points out,
Dunn tends to
discover ‘
“conversion-initiation contexts’ without
regard for ‘whatever elements are
present
or absent” ‘
(p. 162). Thus,
for instance,
Dunn states
concerning
1 Cor. 1:4-9 that “it is the thought
of the
Spirit
which lies nearest to the surface”
(Dunn, p. 117)
since
grace, knowledge, confirmation, calling,
and
fellowship are all
concepts closely
related to
“Spirit”
in Paul-and
yet
a reading
of the text itself shows that not the
Spirit
but in fact Christ is the deliberate focus here of Paul’s conversion
language.
Now if Dunn overstates his
case,
it should be understood that his thesis comes in the nature of a proposal; his
specific suggestions
are the result of the
weighing
of
probabilities,
and their effect is cumulative. Ervin’s
annoyance
with Dunn’s
language
of probability (see esp. pp. 143-44)
is an indication that he does not accept
the value of this
way
of arguing, which is in fact sometimes the most one can do with
exegesis.
But he is not alone in charging that Dunn’s
exegesis
looks
predetermined (see Ervin, p. 76,
at n. 12).
Dunn
oversteps
the bounds even
of proposal,
as when on
p.
152 .. he declares to be
implied
what can at best be
inferred,
or when he cites John 20:22 in
support
of his thesis
(p. 226)
after
having decided it to be off-limits to either
position (p. 182).
In a second broad area of criticism Ervin accuses Dunn of violating
the
methodology
of NT
theology,
most
notably
in his interpretation
of Acts: Ervin finds Dunn to be superimposing
aliens categories
onto the Lukan material
(pp. 70, 80). (It
is interesting to note that Dunn
pauses
in his discussion of Acts 2 to
give
a
plea precisely
for
maintaining
the method of NT
theology, pp. 39-40). Ervin’s
objection
is to the
point, although
for this reader the foreign grid
would seem to be Pauline rather than Johannine, as Ervin
suggests.
A rather blatant and indeed
telling
occasion is the
2
62
determinative reference to Rom. 8:9 at the
beginning
of the discussion of Acts 8 (Dunn,
p. 55).
But it would seem to be Ervin who is less at home with the world of NT
theology,
as his excursus on
“Jesus,
Son and Messiah” shows
(p. 11);
there is
simply
no cognizance
taken of any current discussion of those titles. See also his
importation
of themes from Hebrews into a discussion of the Synoptics (p. 13, bottom).
There is a danger, apparently, of being betrayed
in the
perfections
that one
preaches.
The bulk of Ervin’s book is taken
up
in
arguing specific exegetical points.
His discussion is
vigorous
and
detailed;
a summary
is not
possible
in the
scope
of this review. One is reminded how much Dunn’s
argument depends upon being supported
at almost
every point,
and how delicate is his supporting exegesis
of certain
passages-and
Ervin does
put
holes in it. Mention
may
be made of his discussion of the
meaning
of “believe” in Acts 8:12
(pp. 28-32),
of Dunn’s
psychologizing
of Paul’s conversion
experience
in Acts 9 (pp.
45-46),
and of the
identity
of the anarthrous
“disciples”
of Acts 19:1 (pp.
55-59).
If even a few of Ervin’s
many points
are
valid,
and central
passages
such as these cannot be shown to substantiate the “conversion-initiation” proposal,
Dunn loses his claim to have
presented
“the New Testament
teaching” (p. 228)
on
baptism
in the
Spirit.
Ervin’s book is not without its faults. The
positions
he takes in refuting
Dunn are
occasionally
somewhat
idiosyncratic.
One example appears
in the first
chapter–unfortunately so,
for it may have the effect of
putting
readers off.
Countering
Dunn’s inter- pretation
of John the
Baptist’s “Spirit
and fire”
message,
Ervin claims that John stood in a
prophetic
tradition of judgment on Israel which bore no relation to God’s
plan
for the Church. Jesus deliberately replaced
those
prophetic
themes with more
positive apocalyptic
ones
(Mark
13 and
parallels). “Categories appropriate to John’s
prophetic eschatology …
cannot be extended ambiguously
to refer to the Pentecostal
baptism
in the
Spirit
for power-in-mission” (p. 2).
These are new ideas for this
reader,
and much remains
unexplained
in Ervin’s brief
treatment, especially
in view of the
apostles’ joyous
identification with the
prophetic tradition
(e.g.,
Acts
2:16, 17; 3:18, 25).
Ervin’s discussions of the
significance
of the sacraments do not fully satisfy.
That Jesus is able “to turn bread and wine into his body
and blood at the Eucharistic feast of His Church”
(p. 98) sounds like a
high sacramentalism,
and Ervin elsewhere comes close to
espousing
a
baptismal regeneration (p. 158;
cf.
108,
110- 15).
And
yet
a border of some sort
separates
him from sacrament- alism
(p. 83).
At best Ervin’s
position
is unclear, and
theologically ingenuous
as it stands.
.
3
Ervin’s thesis that
empowerment
happen simultaneously
63
must
always
follow
regener- is one that not all Pentecostals
ation
chronologically (pp. vii, 54, 55)
. would wish to affirm.
Many
would
allow,
or even
prefer,
that
they ‘
in the case of new converts. Whatever
diverse
phenomena
Paul must have witnessed in his
long
career
2 Cor.
11:4),
he does seem to hold
together
in a theological
various facets of
becoming
a
Christian,
in a sort of
ideal. Ervin’s determination to find a two-
(e.g.,
unity
the
“conversion-initiation” stage pattern
dominates
the
“spirit
.
yet
of
Paul,
and leads to some
for
instance, between
and
individualisms,
scholarship:.The secondary ignored,
and
base of resources,
lexicon (not the latest
edition), the Anchor Bible volumes
his exposition
unconvincing exposition.
He
distinguishes,
of
adoption
as sons” as a reference to
regeneration the
“spirit
of sonship” as a phrase denoting
empowerment (87-88);
it is hard to see how the
language
can
support
the distinction.
A second area of weakness in Ervin’s
work,
besides
is that Dunn is not
engaged
on his own level of
literature in Dunn’s footnotes is largely
Ervin’s counter-attack is launched from a narrow
some dated. The standard
grammars,
Bauer’s Expositors’s,
the
ICC,
and the lion’s share of the
represent
references. The editions of Nestle and of the USB Greek NT he cites
material 7] chapter 2).
.
persuade
present
‘
NT,
progress
through
are out of date
(affecting
the discussion on
p. 152).
Dunn’s other books and articles are
passed over, although
there is much relevant
in them
(e.g.,
“the filial consciousness of Jesus”
[Ervin, p.
discussed at
length
in Jesus and the
Spirit [Westminster, 1975],
It
simply
means that
despite
his
positive
contribution Ervin will not win the attention of the
readership
that is still reached
by Dunn’s achievement,
and will not be given the chance to
or dissuade all those who have found Dunn
convincing.
In his
preface
Ervin remarks, “No
attempt
has been made to
a
systematic
and
comprehensive theological synthesis
of the conclusions reached”
(p. v).
Such an
attempt may
well have been worth the effort. In
restricting
himself to the role of a sharpshooter harrying
Dunn’s
well-paced
the
Ervin
foregoes
the
advantage
of an author to
shape
his or her own work to its
greatest
effect. The force of his
argument
is diminished
by digression, repetition,
and unevenness of texture.
a sequel will
present
more
positively
and
fully
the
points which are here
suggested briefly by way
of contrast to Dunn’s thesis.
One effect Ervin’s book has on the reader is to
get
him or her to read Dunn’s work
thoroughly
once
again.
A reflection or two on this influential book after fifteen
years may
not be out of
place. Dunn
has
succeeded in getting Pentecostals to think in terms of the
Perhaps
4
64
theology
of individual
authors, although
the truer
insight
into Lukan
theology
would seem to come from the Pentecostal side. Dunn’s considerable abilities are
displayed
to greatest effect in the Pauline materials. But it is
surprising, upon re-reading,
to note how
experiential,
even
charismatic,
is the
Christianity resulting from a (Pauline) “conversion-initiation”
(e.g., pp.
137-8. Cf. Jesus and the
Spirit,
Ch.
8, 9).
The
appearance
of Dunn’s book had the effect of
supplying
a kind of relief to non-charismatic circles beleaguered by
Pentecostal claims. But the
(valid) question
of timing
in Christian
experience surely gives place
to the issue of its nature and
depth.
Can a
Christianity
that is less
dynamic
than Paul’s
lay
claim to any part of Paul’s
theology-on
Dunn’s
theory? Dunn
brings
closer to us all the
challenge
of the
early
church in their
“experience
of the
Spirit
which was like the
outpouring
of a sudden flood or rainstorm on a parched ground, and which made their lives like a well-watered
garden” (Dunn, p. 131).
Both books are
closely argued, complex, many-faceted. Professor Ervin’s book should be read
closely
as a serious contribution to a still-burning issue. One
hopes very
much that the next few
years
will see Professor Dunn
publish
a reflection on the criticism of his
Baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
which is now
beginning to accumulate.
*David A. Dorman is a Ph.D. candidate in the field of Systematic Theology
at Fuller
Theological Seminary.
5
