Initial Physical Evidence We (Pentecostals) derive all of our theology of initial evidence from for instances in Acts when the Holy Spirit came on people and they spoke in tongues. We must take into account what the other Biblical authors say. I was first struck with the error of the doctrine of initial physical evidence when I read Paul saying:

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
1 Corinthians 12:27-31 [TNIV]

Being that the answer to all of the questions is 'NO', I would assume that it is 'NO' on the speaking in tongues as well. Beyond that, the Greek construction says:
'me pantes glossais lalousin'

Now, 'pantes glossais lalousin' would be the normal way to simply ask 'Does everyone speak with tongues?' But the particle 'me' (normally translated 'not' when it is not part of a question) means the question expects a negative response, and so the NASB more correctly translates the question 'Not all speak in tongues, do they?'

I asked my thoroughly Pentecostal pastor back home this question, and he said, 'This chapter is referring to tongues that are for the edification of the group, and not all are meant to give a word in tongues in a group setting', which seems somewhat valid and I was satisfied for the moment, though when I looked back later I noticed that not all of the Gifts in the immediate list fell into line with this idea (apostles, prophets, teachers... something funny is going on here)... and so the defense breaks down...

Furthermore, as I was doing my study this year in Ephesians I found some verses that were quite convincing to me.

In the blessing at the beginning (v. 3-14), Paul is going through the benefits we have received in Christ. In verses 13 he says:

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.
[TNIV]

It goes on to say in verse 14 that the Holy Spirit is the deposit on our inheritance, meaning we see its empowering in our lives immediately (as where at the resurrection we will be made perfect in holiness and delegated God's authority as part of the Body of Christ. It begins to be more clear how the Spirit is a foretaste of this).

Later in Ephesians there is another verse that sticks out:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6 [TNIV]

Paul’s 'one spirit' and 'one baptism' thing doesn’t really stand so well with the Pentecostal 'second act of grace' thing.

And then there is his whole rejection of 'a different spirit' in 2 Corinthians 11:4, where he is dealing with false teachers and says:

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
[TNIV]

Some more places where we are told that we receive the spirit by belief…

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by your observing the law, or by your believing what you heard?
Galatians 3:1-5 [TNIV]

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God
1 John 4:3 [TNIV]

If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!
Luke 11:13 [TNIV]

These verses seem like sufficient material to put an end to the doctrine of 'second act of Grace', and 'Initial physical evidence', but then we must find some other way to understand why Acts says what it say. This took some work on my part (yeah, actually all of this did).


Luke clearly does not consider himself a theologian; he leaves his own theological comments out of the story almost entirely (Unlike John, for example, who gives a whole lot of theology to explain the story). He does communicate Theology, but only through the words of others. Acts can be a wonderful homiletics course, being that it has preserved some of the finest sermons ever delivered (directly from the mouths of the Apostles). The Theology in Acts comes out of the things people say

Being that the focus of Luke is 'the continuing power of Christ through the Holy Spirit to spread the Gospel to the entire world against all odds and opposition', and everything he says builds up to assuring his readers of their inclusion, it is difficult to support the whole initial evidence thing.

How then, do we treat the recordings of manifestations of the spirit's power in Act's Aught they be tossed aside? Certainly they are prime examples of how the message was carried to the ends of the earth. The gifts in Luke can only be understood in the way that they relate to the mission. Case by case:

Acts 2: The spirit comes to empower the Disciples

Here the tongues have a very clear purpose. The disciples knew that they had received the Spirit because there were little fires above their heads, so there wasn't much of a question about it. When they spoke in tongues in this case it was a testimony to those attending the feast from all parts of the world, a sign that the gospel was to be preached to all nations (because it literally was at that moment, in their own languages [though there is some question as to if the 'wonders of God' includes the Gospel]).

Acts 8: Grace for the Samaritans

The Biggest problem with using this text to support Initial evidence is that it doesn't actually mention Tongues! Read it through: No tongues.

Let assume though, that what Simon saw was the Samaritan's speaking in tongues (which is entirely possible). The purpose for this evidence was to show that God had included the Samaritan heretics (they were kind of like Mormons of Judaism or something). The reason I believe it didn't come until the apostles arrived was that it would have only been established on the testimony of one witness, and not even an apostle at that. In order that the testimony of the gentiles receiving to be authentic it had to be tested by the standards of the Torah. Peter and John were exactly the guys to do it (They were the leaders man!).

So God was interested in saving the Samaritans as well.

Acts 10: The Gentiles receive the Spirit

Here again, The Jews would have never believed without a sign, so again it is established with a sign, given to more than one witness, basically the same story as above. (If you want to see how opposed the Jews were to this just look at their relations to Gentile inclusion in chapters 11 and 15, and even Peter's aversion to the idea earlier in chapter 10. The Jews wanted them out, but God wanted them in, so he gave those hard headed folks another sign).

Chapter 19: A sign of the reality of the Holy Spirit

These Disciples did not even know there was a Holy Spirit, nor had they been baptized as followers of Christ, but followers of John, so Paul fixed the baptism thing and they received the spirit. Being that they were skeptical of the Spirit, he made his presence quite clear, in the form of tongues. We do not need this kind of evidence today because we are made sure from the epistles that we receive the spirit at salvation. Of course, it is worth noting that Pentecostals often do receive such a confirmation. I have a theory on this: Pentecostals don't believe that they have the spirit without a sign, so they very often receive one (God wants us to be sure if there is any doubt in our minds. Our awareness of the spirit in us is fundamental to living a victorious Christian life).

In conclusion: Speaking in Tongues, in the book of Acts is a sign of receiving the spirit, though it was most often a sign for others who would doubt that a particular people group would have access to the spirit. This becomes very evident when we notice that Luke, who is often very concerned with specific details, does not specify how may spoke in tongues. He always says 'They', being that his primary concern is with the people group as being 'in', as opposed to the individual being 'in'.

I believe that we are baptized in the spirit at salvation, and may be empowered by the spirit for various tasks as the need arises, though it is always there, guiding us in the truth, revealing God to us, and giving us the ability to do what is right (though us taking advantage of the opportunity is another matter all together). The gifts are given at specific times, much like moments of ecstasy, and special revelation, and the like.

So, experientially, and Biblically I do not like this whole 'Initial evidence' thing. It reeks of the same kind of elitism that was bringing down the church in Corinth.  ¶ 11:18 PM