> Paul used “baptized by the Spirit” when speaking about _salvation_.

> Luke did not write that the Spirit _baptism_ had not come upon the believers, he simply said the Spirit had not come.

Even if we grant for argument’s sake that Paul addressed salvation while Luke addressed empowerment, still that does not respond to the facts that:

> Paul’s language does not support a different event of the Spirit other than baptism.

> Luke’s language does not permit a different, prior function of the Spirit upon the believers other than baptism.

When we find a disconnect between a scholar’s views in a modern book and the actual meanings of the inspired words of scripture, we would do well to stay with the scriptures.

I can refer you to well written books, such as The New Birth by David K. Bernard. But just as ‘their’ scholar won’t convince you, so also ‘their’ scholar won’t convince me. What is needed to see the words of scripture and be guided. Words have meaning. God used words to convey meaning to us.