Did Pentecostals Really Get It Wrong? (Part 6: Responding to Common Objections concerning Tongues Speaking.)

It might be noteworthy to let the readers know that at my blog site (drkevinbaird.com) are many articles exploring the subject of tongues, including these recently posted. Just use the search engine on the site and you can access some of my thoughts.

Let’s now pivot to the critiques many offer with regard to speaking in tongues and baptismal language. Let’s see if the criticism is as overwhelming and powerful as some want to lead us to believe. Most objections generally fall into four categories:

1. Narrative Non-Normativity: Acts describes but does not prescribe.
2. Insufficient Uniformity: Tongues do not appear in every Spirit reception account.
3. Misuse of 1 Corinthians 12:30: Not all speak in tongues.
4. Theological Reductionism: Initial evidence creates a two-tiered Christianity.

While these critiques deserve serious consideration, none proves fatal to classical Pentecostal initial evidence theology. On the contrary, each objection can be answered exegetically and theologically.

FIRST OBJECTION – Perhaps the most common objection is that Pentecostals improperly derive doctrine from historical narrative. Many argue that Luke’s purpose is historical, not doctrinal, and that narrative precedent cannot establish normative theology absent explicit scriptural reinforcement. In other words, Luke “describes” what took place, but does not “prescribe” it for everyone. 

RESPONSE: This objection overstates the descriptive/prescriptive divide. A Narrative can convey normative theology. Biblical narrative regularly teaches doctrine:

• The Gospels establish Christological truths narratively.
• Acts teaches ecclesiology and mission theology narratively.
• Old Testament narrative conveys covenant theology narratively.

To claim that narrative cannot establish doctrine is hermeneutically untenable. Luke is not merely recounting events but shaping theological history. 

Luke also explicitly frames Pentecost normatively. Remember, Peter interprets Pentecost via Joel 2:

“This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel…”

This establishes Pentecost not as a one-time anomaly but as the inauguration of the outpouring for the church age. Further:

“The promise is for you… your children… and all who are far off…” (Acts 2:39)

Luke actually presents Pentecost as a paradigm for future generations. Luke also repeatedly narrates Spirit receptions with recurring manifestations. Repetition in theological historiography is intentional pattern-making. As one scholar argues: “Repeated narrative patterns in Luke-Acts should be understood as paradigmatic unless contextual indicators suggest otherwise.”

SECOND OBJECTION – Some argue that since tongues are not explicitly mentioned in Acts 8 and 9, Luke does not intend tongues as universal evidence. In other words, tongues is an early church transitional event.

RESPONSE: This follows the “argument from silence” critique. Selective narration Is not denial of doctrine. Luke frequently abbreviates events. Therefore, absence of mention does not necessitate absence of occurrence. Arguments from silence are inherently weak.

Acts 8 strongly implies observable manifestation. Simon “saw” that the Spirit was given. Whatever occurred was:

• External
• Immediate
• Extraordinary
• Evident enough to provoke Simon’s desire to purchase the power

Mere inward regeneration cannot explain Simon’s reaction. Tongues remain the best explanation in light of Luke’s established pattern.

Acts 9 Is supplemented by Paul’s own testimony when he later testifies:

“I speak in tongues more than all of you.” (I Corinthians 14:18)

While not conclusive, this strongly suggests glossolalic experience associated with his Spirit reception. Pentecostals argue for normative pattern, not mathematically exhaustive repetition. The cumulative case strongly favors Pentecostal interpretation.

THIRD OBJECTION – The application of I Corinthians 12:30 is made to present day tongues expectations when Paul writes, “Do all speak with tongues?” The implied answer is “No.” Thus, critics argue that tongues cannot be universal evidence.

RESPONSE: To understand tongues, one must understand that there are categories of tongues which are distinguishable in the text which mentions the manifestation. Pentecostals would distinguish between:

1. Tongues as an initial evidence which may release what is known as,
2. Praying in the Spirit, or a personal prayer language uttered to God.
3. The public gift of tongues which requires interpretation as it is for congregational edification.

1 Corinthians 12 concerns the Holy Spirit’s release of spiritual gifts which are distributed for corporate ministry, not initial reception signs. Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 12 is diversity of ministry gifts, varied congregational functions, and distribution according to the Spirit’s will. He is not discussing Acts-style Spirit reception.

Thus the question: “Do all speak with tongues?”, refers to the public ministry gift of tongues and not private prayer language or initial evidence glossolalia. A phenomenon may serve one role at one moment and another role elsewhere.

Thus tongues may function:

1. Initially as evidence
2. Subsequently as devotional gift
3. Occasionally as congregational manifestation

FOURTH OBJECTION – Critics maintain that initial evidence theology creates a “two-tier” Christianity. One tier would be ordinary Christians while another tier are “super Christians”, thus undermining Christian unity.

RESPONSE: A distinction of available experiences does not of necessity imply superiority. Pentecostals do not claim Spirit-baptized believers are more saved, more loved by God, or automatically more mature. Spirit baptism concerns empowerment, not status.

Scripture distinguishes experiences in other concepts without creating classes. For example, justification and sanctification; regeneration and filling; conversion and commissioning. Distinguishing divine works does not imply ontological superiority. The New Testament itself calls believers to further experiences:

“Be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18)

“Stir up the gift” (2 Timothy 1:6)

“Earnestly desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1)

The Christian experience is progressive and multifaceted.

FIFTH OBJECTION – Critics will state that Luke never explicitly states that “tongues are an initial evidence”. Therefore the doctrine is said to be inferential and overly systematized.

RESPONSE: Many orthodox doctrines are inferential. No verse explicitly states or uses the terms:

The Trinity

Hypostatic Union

Total Depravity

Rapture

Millennial constructs

Doctrine often arises from synthesizing patterns and concepts. Pentecostals do not claim the Bible uses the phrase “initial physical evidence.” Rather, they claim that this language accurately summarizes Luke’s repeated narrative pattern. Systematic terminology describing biblical synthesis is normal theological method.

To conclude, The principal critiques against initial evidence theology do not decisively overturn the Pentecostal position.

1. The book of Acts as theological narrative is capable of normative force.
2. Tongues are repeatedly associated with Spirit reception in paradigmatic accounts.
3. 1 Corinthians 12:30 addresses congregational gift distribution, not initiation evidence.
4. Distinguishing empowerment from salvation does not create spiritual elitism.
5. Doctrinal inference from repeated biblical patterns is legitimate theological method.

Therefore, the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence remains a coherent and defensible synthesis of Luke’s pneumatology.

As one scholar puts it…  

“The burden of proof lies not upon Pentecostals to explain why tongues accompanied Spirit baptism, but upon their critics to explain why Luke repeatedly records the association if no theological significance is intended.”