Did Pentecostals Really Get It Wrong? (Part 5: Tongues as the evidence of being Baptized with the Holy Spirit.)

Let’s begin with an historical story. Pentecostalism emerged out of the American Holiness (Methodist) revival tradition in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In broad terms, Pentecostalism was initially a novel development within the Holiness ranks before becoming a distinct movement of its own. 

Holiness believers emphasized:

1. Conversion / new birth
2. A definite post-conversion experience of sanctification
3. Holy living / separation from sin
4. Revivalism and experiential religion
5. Expectation of supernatural divine activity

Early Pentecostals inherited nearly all of that framework. In fact, many of the first Pentecostal leaders were formerly Holiness preachers or members of Holiness churches. The decisive innovation was this…

Early Pentecostals began teaching:

1. Salvation
2. Entire Sanctification
3. Baptism in the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues

That third experience became the defining mark of Pentecostalism. Azusa Street’s famous testimony formula was:

“Saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost.”

This is why historians often call the earliest form Holiness Pentecostalism. However, the separation between these two groups happened because many Holiness leaders rejected Pentecostal distinctives. The biggest dividing line was that Pentecostals taught that speaking in tongues is the normative initial evidence of Spirit baptism. This was the reason why the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene dropped the term “Pentecostal” from its name in 1919, and became The Church of the Nazarene. While upholding a second work of grace theology, Nazarenes were uncomfortable and arguably hostile to the manifestation of tongues being the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism. As a result, these groups have two different views of “evidence”. Classical Pentecostal theology has historically answered and argued that glossolalia functions in Acts as the consistent outward sign accompanying Spirit baptism. Pentecostal theologians maintain that the doctrine arises not from isolated proof-texting but from Luke’s intentional narrative and the repeated pattern of Spirit reception in Acts.

It might be noteworthy, that while affirming the modern reality of tongues speaking, I too have some nuanced positions from classical Pentecostal teaching. In a nutshell, my view is that tongues should be considered an “expected” evidence, but not necessarily a rigid, “exclusive” evidence. It is probably a fine-line of distinction, but I think it important. Of course, those who dismiss all modern day expression of tongue talking would reject my nuancing any way. For this post sake and clarity, I will defend the classical position as it is still stronger than cessationists critiques.

I think it helpful to begin by stating that Pentecostalism DOES NOT CLAIM:

1. That tongues are the evidence of salvation. (There are some heretics who do teach this, but they are not part of historic Pentecostalism.)
2. That tongues are the evidence of spiritual maturity. 
3. That tongues are the only evidence of the SPirit’s activity.
4. That every spiritual gift is universally distributed.

Rather, Pentecostalism would claim that speaking in glossalaleo is the normative initial outward sign and observable manifestation accompanying the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Why? Because this general dynamic is presented as the explicit pattern in the book of Acts.

Luke records five major Spirit reception narratives in Acts. In three of those moments, tongues are explicitly mentioned; in the remaining two, Pentecostals would argue the text strongly implies observable manifestations.

Acts 2:1-4, “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues…”

This is the inaugural Spirit baptism event which unveils a paradigm. Tongues are the immediate and unmistakable external manifestation.

Acts 10:44-48, “For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.”

Peter recognizes Gentile Spirit reception specifically because of glossolalia. The significance is enormous:

1. Tongues serve as empirical evidence to Jewish observers.
2. Tongues demonstrate Gentile inclusion in the same Pentecostal gift.

Peter explicitly links this event back to Acts 2, when he states, “The Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).

Acts 19:1-6,  “The Holy Spirit came on them (these were believers), and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”

Again tongues appear as immediate manifestation of Spirit reception.

However, the implied pattern we find in Acts 8 and 9 is equally strong.

In Acts 8:14-19, while tongues are not explicitly mentioned, something observable occurred. Simon “saw” that the Spirit was given through laying on of hands and he desired to purchase that power. The manifestation must have been:

1. External
2. Immediate
3. Evident enough to provoke Simon’s reaction.

Pentecostals would argue that tongues would be the best explanation of this phenomenon given Luke’s established pattern.

In Acts 9:17, while speaking in tongues are not mentioned at Paul’s filling, he will later state, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (I Corinthians 14:18). Pentecostal interpreters reasonably infer that Paul received tongues in connection with his Spirit baptism, though Luke does not narrate it explicitly.

It is important to understand that Luke is not recording random historical details. He intentionally:

1. Highlights the manifestation of tongues at the major ethnic/geographic expansions of the gospel.
2. Connects Spirit reception events through this recurring manifestation.
3. Illustrates a replication of Pentecost among Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, and the disciples of John.

Numerous scholars far smarter than I, argue  that Luke presents glossolalia as the “uniformly attested external sign” of Spirit-baptism whenever evidence is explicitly supplied. The doctrine of tongues as the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism remains exegetically and theologically defensible within a Pentecostal-Continuationist framework. While Acts does not present the doctrine in systematic propositional form, Luke’s repeated narrative pattern strongly supports the conclusion that glossolalia functions as the normative accompanying sign of Spirit baptism.

Thus Pentecostals maintain that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a distinct empowering experience subsequent to salvation,
and speaking in tongues is its normative initial physical evidence.

At this point, the natural question arises as to the Cessationist critiques or responses to Pentecostal / Charismatic scholarship and how those of us who hold to Continuationist theology might respond to those criticisms.

That’s next time.

See you soon.