On Initial Physical Evidence(s)

On Initial Physical Evidence(s)

"Speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit." When I began attending a university strongly affiliated with the Assemblies of God (one of the largest Pentecostal denominations) I heard this quite often, but never before then. It appears to be something of a hot-button issue among Christians -- even, dare I say, among Spirit-filled Christians. I grew up in an interdenominational church, and have also attended churches of many denominations. Due to my prior diverse experience in various churches, my first inclination upon discovering this doctrine was to discard it as either unimportant (at best) or unnecessarily divisive (at worst).

Recognizing this initial bias, it was my goal in writing this paper to ignore my predilections as much as possible and honestly examine the validity of this doctrinal statement. After all, it is one of the Sixteen Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God, so it must be pretty important, and there must be reasonable cause to consider it a fundamental truth. Thus, I intend to examine both sides of the story and hopefully arrive at a conclusion. Although I did attempt to go "back to the Bible" and build from the ground up, I am nonetheless approaching this issue with several assumptions: the belief that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens today and is subsequent to salvation, and that the gifts (charismata) of the Spirit are being given today. It is beyond our current scope to discuss the validity of those issues.

First, to reiterate, the statement in question is "the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Spirit is speaking with other tongues" (Where We Stand, 145). What does the statement mean? It means that, in every case, speaking in tongues is the first outward sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. No other physical evidence of Spirit baptism will ever precede speaking in tongues. This pneumatological issue is the eighth Fundamental Truth of the sixteen doctrines the Assemblies of God considers fundamental (i.e. of central importance to their beliefs). Pastors and others in leadership in the denomination are expected, even required, to believe all sixteen of these truths to hold their position.

For it to be of such importance there must certainly be good cause, so let us examine the reason behind the doctrine. The main reason is that in the five occurrences of the baptism of the Holy Spirit listed in New Testament Scripture, three of those times involve speaking in tongues. In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit comes on the day of Pentecost with the sound of wind and visible appearance of "tongues of flame," and "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them" (Acts 2:4 NIV). In Acts 10 Peter is summoned to the house of a Gentile centurion named Cornelius and the Gentiles are filled with the Spirit and began "speaking in tongues and praising God" (vs. 46). Peter and the "circumcised believers" who accompanied him were "astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles" (vs. 45). Thirdly, in Acts 19, Paul meets about a dozen disciples in Ephesus who had received "John's baptism" and baptizes them "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs. 5). When Paul laid his hands on them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and "spoke in tongues and prophesied." In these five Scriptural occurrances of Spirit baptism, the sound of wind, visible tongues of flame, praising God, and prophesying are also seen accompanying the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but not so consistently as speaking in tongues.

So speaking in tongues is shown to occur when people receive the Holy Spirit. "But what of the other two instances?" you are asking. Here they are: First, in Acts 8 a group of people in Samaria who had been followers of the sorcerer Simon had (along with Simon) believed in Jesus, but had not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, so Peter and John prayed for them. "Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (vs. 17). This is all we get as far as describing the experience. No wind, fire, tongues, prophesying, or speaking in tongues is mentioned. But -- in the next verse Simon "saw" that they had received the Holy Spirit. His seeing is indicative of an outward physical sign. It could be tongues. We find the second instance in Acts 9 after Paul has his encounter with God on the road to Damascus. He meets Ananias in Damascus, who lays his hands on Paul, saying "the Lord ... has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit" (vs. 17). Paul's sight was restored, and "he got up and was baptized" (vs. 18). Again, no mention of tongues. No mention of anything. But he could have spoken in tongues. The possibility is not excluded.

Now we have enough information to narrow down our scope to what the argument is really about. Let's break down the phrase "the initial physical evidence." For starters, the word "physical." Does everyone agree that speaking in tongues is a physical act? Yes, no qualms with that one.

Now, the word "evidence." Is speaking in tongues an evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Yes, we see it in Scripture -- Peter and his companions were convinced that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. "For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God" (Acts 10:46). Paul even refers to tongues as a sign (1 Cor 14:22). It is quite Scripturally sound to view tongues as a physical sign of the baptism of the Spirit.

That leaves us with "the initial." Is speaking in tongues always the first outward sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit? Well, in Scripture it is shown to occur (in the above three instances), though it is never listed individually. Certainly, many people's personal experience matches mine in observing that it has been the first outward sign for others receiving the Baptism. But is it always? In every case? The Bible does not explicitly say. This, then, is the center of debate. Very few people who acknowledge the authority of Scripture would debate the statement "Speaking in tongues is a physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit" --- that is Scripturally explicit. But saying it is the initial physical evidence is going beyond what is explicit in Scripture --- it is inferring from Scripture. But as we have seen so far, it could be true.

"The initial." Those are the words people debate. "What an interesting debate it must be," you are surely saying. And you are right. Let's examine some of the arguments.

First of all, the main argument asks "is it sound to base a doctrine on something you can only infer from Scripture?" After all, the three Scriptures listed above are the strongest Scriptural argument in favor of "the initial." It is a difficult question, but Menzies and Horton have a ready answer: "doctrine ... can be based on substantial, implied truth" (140). They draw a parallel between this initial evidence issue and the doctrine of the Trinity. "The doctrine of the Trinity is not based on a declarative statement, but on a comparison of Scripture passages relating to the Godhead."

Let us assume for the moment that their argument is accurate and the "Trinity parallel" holds true, and base our doctrine on tongues on a "comparison of Scripture passages" relating to tongues and the Holy Spirit.

Here it comes; you knew it was coming. 1 Corinthians 12:

To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines (vs. 8-11).

This passage, at least on surface value, seems to indicate that the gifts are equal, not in function but in their distribution. Any one gift is no more important than another. Were we to infer a doctrine from this verse, perhaps we might say that whichever physical evidence comes first, that is the initial physical evidence for that person, according to what the Holy Spirit determines.

"Do all speak in tongues?" Paul asks later on (vs. 30). It is widely recognized as a rhetorical question with "no" for its assumed answer. Hmmm... Curiouser and curiouser. It seems that 1 Corinthians 12 has shot "the initial" out of the sky.

But it will not be shot down so easily. Now the initial evidence proponents introduce us to the three types of tongues: 1) tongues for personal edification in personal prayer, 2) congregational tongues requiring interpretation, and 3) speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence (Where We Stand, 151-152). Paul, they say, is here referring to the second type of tongues, not the first or third (although logically speaking, the third type may not exist; it is included because it is necessary to support "the initial"). This "categorization" avoids disproving the initial evidence statement, in effect, by cloning "tongues" and applying certain verses to the original and other verses to the clones (yet treating the clones as significantly different from the original).

However, these three types are not an inferrance -- they are invented out of necessity. Obviously if "tongues" refers to all tongues, Scripture would clearly indicate that not everyone speaks in tongues. By inventing different categories of tongues yet calling them all the same thing, we can interpret all Scriptures regarding tongues however we choose. If Paul refers to "tongues," we can decide based on context whether he means "personal tongues" or "congregational tongues." Or perhaps invent another category if we don't think the verse applies to any of the categories we've already come up with for interpreting the exact same word. How many categories is too many? When we consider the law of parsimony, stating loosely that the simplest explanation is most likely, the fact that such theoretical machinations are necessary to support "the initial" is evidence not for, but against this view.

Knowing what we now know, let's take another look at the parallel Horton and Menzies have drawn between the doctrines of initial physical evidence and the Trinity. Is this an accurate parallel? Many verses are compared to arrive at the Trinity doctrines. Certain verses contain relationships between members of the Godhead, allowing us to arrive at the entire picture of the Trinity. There are no large portions of Scripture requiring that we assign different meanings to the same central word to avoid a direct conflict. Believing in the Trinity doctrine does not require us to interpret some verses about Christ in his "individual" sense and other verses in his completely distinct "Trinity" sense. Christ always means Christ, God the Son, free of theoretical compartmentalization. Obviously, the Trinity doctrine stands on vastly firmer footing than the initial evidence doctrine.

I would like to touch on tongues as evidence. Evidence does not prove something, it supports something. Evidence can be convincing in various degrees; one evidence may be less convincing than another. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that tongues is not the initial physical evidence. One possible explanation, then, for the recurrence of tongues in three of the five Holy Spirit episodes is that tongues is very convincing evidence. More convincing than, say, prophecy. Many would even consider tongues proof, at least proof that something supernatural is going on. Might it be that in the early church, the Holy Spirit chose to use tongues often due to its convincing nature? Tongues convinced the Jewish Church that Gentiles could receive salvation. And at Pentecost, the very first time that tongues showed up, "about three thousand were added to their number" (vs. 41). Talk about convincing! Paul says later on that "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers" (I Cor. 14:22). The "initial physical evidence" doctrine, on the other hand, converts tongues into primarily a sign for believers.

In Scripture tongues is shown to be a very convincing sign, and it is for that reason I believe it was mentioned those three out of five times. Those times when it was not mentioned there were no unbelievers to convince, so my inclination would be to say that speaking in tongues was unlikely. In Damascus, Paul was in a house with Ananias when he received the Holy Spirit. Most likely no unbelievers were present, and I believe that is why we do not see tongues mentioned. If in fact Paul did speak in tongues at that time, which is not ruled out by any means, it would have been merely a sign to Ananias, already a believer.

Another consideration: the evidence for the "initial evidence" doctrine hinges entirely on the aforementioned fact that tongues is present in three of the five (that's 60%) mentioned baptisms in the Holy Spirit. But never is tongues mentioned by itself. At Pentecost, there were tongues of flame and the sound of rushing wind. Cornelius and the other Gentiles spoke in tongues and praised God (and a Gentile praising God was something of a sign itself). The dozen disciples in Ephesus spoke in tongues and prophesied. Perhaps it is significant that tongues was always mentioned in conjunction with something else.

We have neglected one important baptism mentioned in Scripture. The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove when he was baptized by John the Baptist. But here the signs do not include tongues, prophesying, wind, or any of the rest. Instead, we have the visible form of a dove, and a voice from heaven, speaking not in an unknown tongue, but a very clearly understood language, making known to the observers: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22). One is left to wonder why Jesus did not speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

But this alternative viewpoint, however strong the evidence, cannot be proven in Scripture any more than the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. So now I suggest we turn to experiential evidence. Wise is the warning: "every student of God's Word must determine whether he will base doctrine on God's Word or on experiences of even the most devout believers" (Where We Stand, 153-154). But to my understanding Scripture has been (quite possibly very deliberately) vague on this small specific, and provided it checks out with Scripture, a doctrine can be tried and proven true on the field of experience.

So, on the plus side, many people today receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues right off. I have seen it many times. On the other hand, I know people who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit but who have not spoken in tongues. Can I say they are not filled with the Holy Spirit because they have not spoken in another tongue? Or can I deny the genuineness of any other spiritual gift? Suppose someone appears "slain in the Spirit" and his body begins to shake (a physical evidence). However, he has not yet spoken in tongues. Do we honestly believe that his shaking is brought about by demonic influence? Or that it is of the flesh? Of course not.

Here is my last suggestion as far as experiential evidence. Let us examine the Assemblies of God specifically to determine the benefits of including this doctrine as a Fundamental Truth (a "tenet," if you will).

Try as I might, I can only think of two benefits. First of all, this belief largely promotes and encourages the gift of tongues, which is of course an excellent and God-given thing. The denomination is aware that it is not tongues that should be sought, but rather the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself, and I think the end result is the second benefit -- edification of the spirit. For as Paul says, "if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays" (I Cor. 14:14). It is a form of praise to God.

Sadly, the negatives seem to far outweigh the positives on this one. I'll begin with the weakest: this doctrine puts the Holy Spirit in a box, saying He operates in such and such a fashion, and does not operate in such and such other fashion. Converting the descriptive ("when baptized in the Spirit, believers have spoken in tongues") into the prescriptive ("when baptized in the Spirit, all believers will speak in tongues") limits the sovereignty of God, not to mention being a bit presumptuous. Now there are things God cannot do simply because of who He is, for example He will not sin. But that is a "box" He has clearly placed himself in. Spiritual gifts such as tongues, on the other hand, are given by the Spirit "just as he determines," not "in all cases." (Although with the convenient "categorization of tongues" rebuttal, that falls outside the initial evidence argument). Secondly, despite the denomination's position, it still can cause seeking after the gift of tongues itself rather than the Holy Spirit.

The biggest detriment to all involved is the placement of the "initial evidence doctrine" on the list of Fundamental Truths. This places a high degree of importance on an inferred doctrine that requires a contrived "categories of tongues" system to keep afloat! Not only that, it would strongly, fundamentally deny the claims of people who claim to be filled but have not spoken in tongues. It even excludes many Spirit-filled Christians who have spoken in tongues from participating in ministry leadership simply due to a different interpretation of one of the uncertain areas of Scripture. The placement of the barely implicit "initial evidence doctrine" on the list of Fundamental Truths is inherently detrimental not only to the denomination, but the Church as a whole.

While admitting that God often does not behave in accordance with the logic of men, as Christians we nonetheless begin to know His ways. How logical (or likely) then does it seem that a true understanding of Scripture�s pneumatology would not happen until after 1900 years of church history? Should we be grateful that someone finally came along who understood the truth about the Holy Spirit, after centuries of ignorance? Should we be thankful for the theologians who revealed that there are many types of tongues, so that would no longer foolishly think that the word "tongues" always means the same thing? Or is it more likely that this issue is not as fundamental as its position makes it? It seems highly improbable that God would allow the Church to remain ignorant so long about something unless it was unimportant. Either that, or the doctrine is incorrect. And whether it is incorrect or just unimportant, it does not belong in a denomination's Fundamentals.

Is speaking in tongues the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? My conclusion is that based on Scripture, we cannot say, and it should therefore be unimportant. Speaking in tongues may be the initial physical evidence, but it seems more likely that it may not. Of greater concern now is the Assemblies of God's inclusion of a barely inferred doctrine in their list of tenets. I have no qualms with the denomination having an accepted position on areas of widely differing opinion; that is one of the reasons for denominations to exist. I certainly can't prove the doctrine wrong. But for such a small issue ("initial" is only 3 syllables long!) to be such a big limiting factor strikes me as far more harmful to the body than beneficial.