Initial Evidence: The Debate Continues

The doctrine of Initial Evidence has become something of a hot topic of late in the Church of God. Our Declaration of Faith states: We believe In speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance and that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Let me make clear from the outset that I wholeheartedly accept and support this doctrine, and at the end of this post I’ve included a review of the biblical foundation for it. (I would have started off with that, but I was afraid that nobody would read the post through to the end ) I am, with every fibre of my being, a Pentecostal Christian.

However, I think that we have a problem in our movement in that some are confusing evidence for something with evidence against something else. To affirm that speaking in tongues is evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit is not the same thing as claiming that those who lack such evidence are therefore nor Spirit filled. In other words, our Declaration of Faith states that tongues is the initial evidence, not the qualifying evidence, of the Baptism of the Spirit.

Maybe a simple analogy can illustrate this distinction. I am typing this post on my trusty notebook computer. As I travel internationally I take a few adapters with me so I can plug into the different shaped power sockets (and different voltages) that I encounter in different countries. Each time I put the power lead into the socket, I glance at a little green light above the F1 key. If the light comes on then I know that the electric current is reaching my notebook. In other words, I treat that green light as the initial evidence that power is getting to the computer.

Now, suppose that, for whatever reason, the little green light were to malfunction. So, I plug the power lead in and see that the initial evidence is missing. Yet the screen is still displaying the words that I’m typing. I can still hear the whirr of the notebook’s cooling fan. Even more confusingly, the little icon in my toolbar tells me that I am operating on AC power. After an hour or so use I click on the Control Panel and Power Options functions and see that my battery power is still on 100%. What should my conclusion be? Obviously it would not be reasonable to automatically deduce that my notebook is being maintained by some kind of miracle. The more sensible assumption would be that the electric current is indeed reaching my computer and that the green light has malfunctioned. The reason I reach this conclusion is quite simple – I am treating the green light as the initial evidence, but not the qualifying evidence, of power reaching my notebook.

So, I believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit. It is the normative way by which we can tell when someone receives this wonderful empowering of the third Person of the Trinity. However, it is entirely possible that someone may, through exposure to unbiblical teachings (such as cessationism) suffer from a mental block that hinders them from manifesting this initial evidence. This would be the spiritual equivalent of the green light malfunctioning. However, what if that person evidently manifests other gifts of the Spirit, demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit, and, most importantly of all, is an effective witness to the ends of the earth – which is the very purpose for which we receive this power in the first place (Acts 1:8)?

I believe that our doctrine must be based on Scripture, not experience. However, a truly biblical doctrine should equip us to make sense of our experiences. The doctrine of the Initial Evidence, in my view, does just that when it is understood in the way I have just described. The idea of speaking in tongues as being the qualifying evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit, in my view, fails to explain what we see in the church’s history and present day experience. Let me make this plain: Any doctrine that denies that Billy Graham and John Wesley were Spirit filled, but affirms that Todd Bentley and Peter Popoff are Spirit filled is unworthy of a holiness movement.

I believe that the men who framed our Declaration of Faith were truly guided by the Holy Spirit. They defined the distinctives that make us what we are – but left us with enough freedom to become what God intends us to be in the future. There is, within the Declaration, enough latitude for a fairly wide range of doctrinal variations – without ever compromising our fundamental beliefs.

Any denomination or movement needs a doctrinal backbone. To allow any of our ministers to treat the Declaration of Faith as a table of optional extras would destroy the Church of God. However, it would be equally damaging if we started enforcing doctrinal positions (such as tongues being the qualifying evidence) that go beyond what the Declaration of Faith states.

May God grant us all grace and wisdom.

POSTSCRIPT: THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE INITIAL EVIDENCE

When the 120 in the Upper Room received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, there were three specific signs mentioned. These were the sound of a rushing mighty wind, tongues of fire resting on their heads, and that they spoke in other tongues (Acts 2:1-4).

A crowd gathered and asked a question in response to the speaking in tongues (but not in response to the sound of the wind or the tongues of fire) – “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:5-13)

Interestingly, the text of Acts 2 does not report that the crowd heard some disciples speaking one language and others speaking another. Instead it says that each individual in the crowd heard the disciples speaking in that same individual’s own language. That could open up a whole new debate, or can of worms!

Peter stood up and answered the question “What does this (ie the tongues speaking) mean?” He responded that this was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy about God’s Spirit being poured out upon all people (Acts 2:14-18).

Another point of interest is that speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues, are, as far as I can tell, the only gifts of the Spirit that are unique to the Church Age. Every other spiritual gift is manifested to some degree in the Old Testament. This, I believe, is because speaking in tongues represented a reversal of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). God was saying, at the birthday of the Christian Church, ‘Here at last is a people to whom I can entrust this power, so that, as one people speaking the same language, nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.’

The next significant Scripture to our subject is where Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritan converts so that they received the Holy Spirit. Simon the Sorcerer was so impressed by this that he offered them money if they would give him the same power (thus earning a massive rebuke, but bequeathing the word ’simony’ to the English language). This is interesting because Simon’s offer could only make sense if there was some physical sign that accompanied the Samaritans receiving the Spirit! We are not told what this sign was, but it is apparent that there was some initial evidence that Simon wanted to be able to confer (Acts 8:14-24).

There were also some ‘believers’ in Ephesus (possibly believers in the sense of being John the Baptist’s disciples) who hadn’t even heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul laid hands on them and the text says, “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-7)

However, for me the clinching Scriptural passage is what happened when Peter first preached to the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house. As he was preaching the Word says, “The Holy Spirit came upon all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.” Then, as if to reinforce the point, Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:44-47). Both Peter and his companions appear to have treated speaking in tongues as evidence that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit.

Taking these passages together, I find it impossible not to see speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit.

I am aware that some object that we should not build doctrine upon historical passages of Scripture, such as Acts, but rather on didactic passages, such as the Epistles. And it is true that there is no didactic Scripture that teaches the Initial Evidence doctrine. However, that argument, in my view, has one major flaw. According to 2 Timothy 3:16 (itself didactic) “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. So, a didactic passage of Scripture declares that all Scripture is useful for teaching. This would appear to rule out any objection to building doctrine on historical passages of the Bible.