Commentaries that reflect the views of the Pentecostal belief

Gordon Fee on 1 Corinthians is an obvious choice. He's also written several other commentaries scattered over various series. There are other Pentecostal books in Logos, but many of them are doctrinal, rather than commentaries.

NewbieMick said:

Gordon Fee's commentary would most probably not be regarded as "pentecostal" per se

Fee doesn't accept tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism, but other than that he's a pretty straight-down-the-line Pentecostal, and in my view that comes across pretty clearly in his comments on chapters 12-14 of 1 Corinthians.

I want to go to your church, Richard.  Where are you located?

If I ever get out your way to visit, I will be SURE to look you up.  I'm located in Fargo, ND.

Richard DeRuiter said:

From a (non-cessationist) Reformed perspective, I'm convinced that any honest treatment of the Word will be useful for Pentecostals as well as non-Pentecostals

From the Pentecostal perspective... you are right. [Y][:)]

P.S.

All you have said Richard is correct IMHO, just to mention one thing: our movement is a Classical Pentecostal one, more than 100 years old, and we have never had the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as a dogma. the teaching has rather been brought to us by the contacts with the AoG teachers and pastors from the US. I know there are many other movements in the Classical Pentecostalism who are about the same in that matter.

Pastor Jesse Blevins said:

the complete biblical library which was edited by stanley horton. These might be worth you taking a look at. several of th N.T. commentaries were written by Horton himself such as Luke, Acts, and Revelation. 

Stanley Horton wrote a commentary on 1 Peter that was excellent. I would love to see more from him in Logos. Also, Fee's I Corinthians is part of the NICNT series. He also has several other Commentaries - these would be great to have in Logos. And he wrote a book called "God's Empowering Presence" which is his work on the Holy Spirit in Paul's Writings. This would be IMHO a must for us. There are also some good treatments of the history of the gifts surveyed during different periods of church history. (I am away from my bookshelves now so I can't give titles/authors).

Richard: Your [frequently quoted] comment is appreciated here as well. Take this as another "Amen".

The words, "scholarship" and "pentecostal" did not go together too well in years past. Sad, but true. But, this is changing and we can hope to see the fruits of this change reflected in quality resources issued- and hopefully offered in Logos - in the days ahead.

Graham Owen said:

Richard DeRuiter said:

Fee identifies himself as a Pentecostal, but this begs the question "What is a Pentecostal?"

As a Pentecostal Pastor, I think that the question of who or what we are, in comparison to other believers, has been come increasingly difficult to answer. reading the experiences of the "first Pentecostals" in the UK and US as they expounded the view that the use of the Gifts had not ceased in a world where cessationism was largely accepted without debate and comparing them to our experiences today it is clear that a lot has changed. This change is evidenced in this statement:

 

Richard DeRuiter said:

From a (non-cessationist) Reformed perspective, I'm convinced that any honest treatment of the Word will be useful for Pentecostals as well as non-Pentecostals

Holding a non cessationist view is definitely a big part of being Pentecostal so works by authors who are also non cessationist are helpful but this is not the only factor to take into account. Our denomination emerged from the Holiness Movement so that informs our teaching as well and is important to our understanding of Sanctification.
I agree that as a label Pentecostal lacks precision, I know Churches that are denominationally Pentecostal but do not exhibit and features that I would associate as Pentecostal while Churches from other denominations are Pentecostal in practice but not in name. 
Whilst I am happy to refer to myself as a Pentecostal, I tend to think of myself in a far more granular way. I think it was Wayne Grudem who put a chart in the front of his Systematic Theology that documented his personal position on a range of issues, identifying himself by these rather than by a denominational definition.
To address the threads original question. My personal view is that I don't need Commentaries written by Pentecostals but I do need Commentaries that are free from interpretation based on a theological or denominational point of view instead of an accurate analysis of the text in context. I want the commentator, to the best of his or her ability, to tell me what the texts really says and not what he (or I) want it to say.

 

Graham thank you. I can identify very much with all you have said in your post. [Y]

Dave Hooton said:

That is somewhat better than my tongue-in-cheek response

Or ... did you mean, tongues-in-cheek  [:P]

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

A great biblical commentary for Pentecostals is the PENTECOSTAL COMMENTARY

Segments have been written by renowned scholar Gordon Fee   Editor John Christopher Thomas

Unfortunately this is NOT avaiable in Logos but CBD carries it 

A lot of discussion of Gordon Fee on here (Philippians, 1 Corinthians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Revelation). He is not the only Pentecostal commentator, however. Craig Keener has commentaries on Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, Galatians, 1 Peter, & Revelation. Stanley M. Horton (mentioned by some others) has commentaries on Isaiah, Acts, 1&2 Corinthians, Revelation. C. Stevens Schell from the foursquare tradition also has commentaries on Acts & Romans.

Hi John, there is an AOG package available: https://www.logos.com/product/228461/logos-10-bronze-bible-engagement-project

Also,  it is not recommended that you share your email address in the forums unless you disguise it so that bots don’t pick it up.

You can disguise it like this: la gaza j 49 at g mail (no spaces)

The first 2 in the search are good 👍 https://www.logos.com/search?query=A%20pentecostal%20commentary&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe 

The Revelation volume stays clear from the dispensational school of thought, which is good 👍 Here’s an excerpt:

“Pentecostals have tended to read Revelation through Futurist “glasses,” though sometimes taking Historicist views on board. This is partly due to dispensationalist influence, but it has more to do with the expectation of the first modern Pentecostals of an imminent return of Christ following the “latter rain” of the Holy Spirit. However, dispensationalism has proved difficult to accommodate within a Pentecostal worldview because of its negative expectations regarding the church, its hostility to spiritual gifts today, and its rejection of Pentecostal expectations of restoration of the church to its original purity and power.” 

DAL

Yes, it is true Craig Keener is baptist - but charismatic baptist, so is in line with Pentecostal thought.