Classical Pentecostals typically affirm that “the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.”[1] I frequently encounter Christians, including those from Pentecostal churches, who misunderstand the intent of the “initial evidence” doctrine.
Some people object to the initial evidence doctrine by saying that there are other possible evidences, such as righteous living, empowered witness, engaging in the spiritual gifts, and other signs of the Spirit’s work. However,
1. The initial evidence doctrine does NOT mean that tongues are the only evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Rather, the “initial” statement indicates that there could, and indeed should, be subsequent evidence such as those listed above. If tongues are the only evidence then the “initial” qualifier would be unnecessary. On this, see my previous post, “Tongues is NOT the Only Sign of Spirit Baptism.” Furthermore,
2. The initial evidence doctrine does NOT mean that baptism in the Holy Spirit is only about gaining the ability to speak in tongues.
Rather, Classical Pentecostals generally emphasize that those who are baptized in the Spirit receive power for witness (Acts 1:8). Finally,
3. The initial evidence doctrine does NOT mean that Christians who have not spoken in tongues do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them.
Rather, on their best days, Classical Pentecostals affirm that all Christians receive the Spirit when they place their faith in God and that the Spirit will be active in their lives in many different ways, whether or not they speak in tongues.
[1] The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths, 2014, available online at https://paoc.org/docs/default-source/paoc-family-docs/what-we-believe/statement-of-fundamental-and-essential-truths.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
Professor, I love this article. I wish this had been explained to me years ago.
My only thought, or observation, would be that you are speaking strictly in the negative. What the initial evidence isn’t does not tell me what it is.
I realize that wasn’t your intent, but would love to hear what the initial evidence is or is meant to be.
The obvious answer that the author chooses not to answer to your question is that strictly speaking as a member of a PAOC fellowship he has to abide by their Statement of Faith that tongues are actually considered the ONLY initial evidence that baptism in the Holy Spirit produces. For this reason I could never sign the PAOC Statement of Faith even though I have attended PAOC churches in the past and thus why I could never be an official member of those churches. If the wording changes in 2020 and tongues are no longer considered the ONLY evidence, will the PAOC admit that it was in error all these years?
Not quite. I didn’t answer the question, simply because that wasn’t my aim. My aim was to correct some misunderstandings of what “the initial evidence” doctrine implies. But, yes, as you state, “the initial evidence” doctrine does indeed imply that tongues are “the” only initial evidence…even if other evidences should follow, as noted in the above post. At the same time, as I have written elsewhere, there are many ways that PAOC credential holders interpret that “initial evidence” phrase. See especially the article posted here: https://www.andrewkgabriel.com/2016/12/09/paoc-clergy-on-tongues-and-spirit-baptism-changing-views/.
Hello! While I am from the US, I was a member of the Oneness Pentecostal Church for 15 years and this article does not reflect the teaching of the Pentecostal church I know. We taught (wrongly) that Speaking in Tongues was THE initial evidence of receiving the Spirit Baptism, it was required for Salvation, without this evidence one was ultimately lost, and that on going speaking in tongues was also a sign that you have maintained your spiritual standing before God. It was twisted.
There is some diversity within Pentecostalism, to be sure, and Oneness Pentecostalism is one of those diverse expressions. Thanks for your comment.
Hi Andrew. We have never met but we have enough in common that I thought you may appreciate a comment. I attended Master’s (EPBC) in the 70s and Tyndale (OTS) in the 80s and had a PAOC minister’s credential for many years. Your explanation above is nicely done and will, no doubt, help some people better understand the classical Pentecostal position. Somebody told me that the wording in the statement of . . . Truths may be tweaked for presentation at next General Conference. If that is true, I’m guessing that the committee you are on may be working on it. It certainly needs some revision, in my opinion. I have struggled with it for many years. Here’s why:
1. In order to have such a doctrine there has to be an assumption that spiritual experiences need to have a supernatural physical sign. I know of no other spiritual experience where we have that expectation. We know, of course, that the doctrine came out of Pentecostal revival and there probably was not much thought given to the theological implications, which brings me to my second problem with the doctrine.
2. The doctrine assumes what I would call “continuation of experience”. I know of no other supernatural Spiritual manifestation that we encourage every believer to “seek” and experience. I was raised as a classical Pentecostal and saw people “dance in the spirit”, “laugh in the spirit”, “sing in the spirit” and “fall under the power”, but I have never heard anybody encourage others to experience the same. In fact, we often make a point of saying how everybody’s experience with God is different, yet in this one area we insist on uniformity, which Brings me to my third problem.
3. The initial evidence doctrine assumes that God always pours out his Spirit in the same way throughout history, when the Bible and history teach the exact opposite. I’m sure I would be wasting my time and insulting your intelligence to explain this simple observation to a Pentecostal theologian.?
I realize that what I have stated above raises many questions which could result in a long discussion.
I appreciate and respect those who hold to the doctrine and feel some compassion for scholars who need to defend it in order to maintain credibility within the system.
So as you may have concluded by now, it is my view that we do not need the doctrine at all. You probably have stats on what percentage of PAOC people speak in tongues. My observation is that , at least in churches I have attended, there is no mention of it and no ‘evidence’ of it at least in public.
Please excuse the grammar, punctuation and capitalization. I am writing with my phone in Florida after a Sunday afternoon nap which was preceeded by the morning service at Victory Church (AG) in Lakeland. It’s a perfect temperature here today with blue skies and a ligh breeze. 🌝
John
Point 2 of my comment should say “uniformity of experience”
Thanks for your response. It appears to come from years of reflection, and indeed it could lead to many long discussions 🙂
Yes, I’m on the committee that is working on refreshing the statement. We have an early draft at this point and are continuing to revise it as we receive feedback in various regional settings and, soon enough, at General Conference. The earliest any change could happen is 2020, as we won’t vote on it this year.
Your observations at the end regarding the churches you attend make me think that those churches have already functionally changed their doctrine, even if their written doctrine has not changed.
And thanks for sending me some Florida 🌞.
So many different people have so many different beliefs & doctrines even within the same denomination. It was so confusing to me for a long time but anymore,I just read the Scriptures & trust The Holy Ghost,The Holy Teacher to bring me truth & I just don’t worry about it anymore. It brings me peace & makes me happy & confident in Him.
Receiving Holy Spirit at salvation is different from the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. This might shed more light on the subject….
.3 Baptisms for Believers:
Into Christ or into His body at repentance and the new birth (Romans 6:3-7; 1Corth 12:13; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12) Called “one baptism” (Eph,4:5), because it is the only baptism that saves the soul and brings into the body of Christ. Notice who’s doing the baptizing here..The Holy Spirit is the agent who is baptizing us into Christ and into His body (1 Cor. 12:13)
Water baptism after one is saved (Matthews 28:19; Mark 16:16; 8:12-16; 36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 10:47-48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16; 1Corth 1:13-17). Here it’s the minister who’s doing the Baptizing
Spirit baptism, the enduement of power for service. It can take place before water baptism (Acts 10:44-48) or after it (Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-11; 8:12-21; 19:1-7).Notice who’s doing the baptizing here… Christ is the agent to baptize in the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3: 11; Jn. 1:31-33)
This is significant to understand because people believe they got all the Holy Spirit they were going to get at salvation, as you can see that isn’t true. Neither does one baptism fit all as we can see.
Let me be clear the “Initial evidence of speaking in tongues is just that, the first, the beginning, of showing that a person has been Baptized in Holy Spirit. In my opinion, It’s fitting that the first thing Holy Spirit does is take control of the most unruly member of the body “The Tongue” James 3
I’m not sure if this article on the doctrine of initial evidence articulates the fundamental meaning and understanding of this doctrinal, both epistemologically and historically. Furthermore, the only citation provided was from the PAOC – which does not articulate the historical formation of this doctrine. Nonetheless, from the inception of what is called “Pentecostalism”, or as it was mentioned “Classical Pentecostalism” – the doctrine of initial evidence was established as an indicator of the reception of the Holy Spirit. Adopting the idea of Holy Spirit empowerment from Holiness Pentecostalism, which was influenced by Wesleyan theology of work of grace. Moreover, classical pentecostalism from its earlier formation, did recognize the exclusivity of Holy Spirit reception via Speaking in tongues as “the” initial evidence. Furthermore, what it further teaches, is this notion of progressive salvation (Dr. David Bernard, President of UPCI have submitted to this theological perspective.). All in all, classical pentecostalism emphasized on the reception of the HS being received – based on the initial evidence of tongues.
Good article. I would like to say something that I may not understand fully, but the words “baptized in the Holy Spirit” are nowhere to be found in scripture. All four gospels state the Jesus will “baptize with the Holy Spirit”. Words do make a difference. Secondly, why the need for a sign (Jews demand signs 1Corn.1:22)? I am not here to judge whether or not you were baptized with the Holy Spirit. That’s not my job. I am here to proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior and all who believe in Him will have eternal life. Judging whether or not you have the Holy Spirit is beyond my pay grade and is left to God! Thanks again for the article!