We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

Is speaking in tongues the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Pentecostals have traditionally taught that speaking in tongues is evidence that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit. Those who defend this position do so primarily on the basis of a pattern they discern in Acts. They note that when the disciples were first baptized in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, “all of them…began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability” (Acts 2:4). Similarly, when the Gentiles were initially filled with the Holy Spirit, Peter and the other Jewish Christians recognized it, “for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:46). And when the disciples of John the Baptist first received this blessing from God after Paul preached to them and prayed with them, they all “spoke in tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:6). On this basis that argue that everyone should seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18), and that they will know they are filled when they speak in tongues.
Most evangelicals reject this line of argumentation on a number of grounds. There are five compelling arguments that can be raised against it.
First and foremost, detractors of the initial evidence doctrine argue that it is illegitimate hermeneutics to base a doctrine on historical narrative. As a historian, Luke reported what happened; he did not teach what should always happen. His narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive. If we took everything Luke recorded as a prescription for how the church is always supposed to believe and behave, we would have to insist that all congregations be communistic (Acts 2:44–45) and that prayer cloths be sent out to heal people (Acts 19:11–12).
Second, the Bible provides a good amount of explicit teaching (not mere historical inference) about the evidence of being filled with the Spirit, and none of it centers on speaking in tongues. As people are filled with the Holy Spirit, they exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, especially love (Gal. 5:22–23; l Cor. 13; Rom. 5:5). Their lives are characterized by a zeal for the Lord, a boldness to proclaim truth, and holiness (Acts 1:8; Rom. 8:2–6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; Gal. 5:16–18). If any charismatic phenomenon is to be associated with being filled with the Spirit, it is prophecy—speaking the word of the Lord with a powerful anointing—and revelatory visions, for Peter taught that these would follow the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2:17–18).
Third, if speaking in tongues is evidence that one has a unique infilling of the Holy Spirit, we’d expect people who speak in tongues to generally manifest more of the fruits of the Spirit than others. But this is undeniably not the case. It wasn’t even the case in the New Testament. The Corinthians spoke in tongues a great deal, but Paul chastised them for being spiritual babies (1 Cor. 3:1–4).
Fourth, it seems clear from Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians that he did not assume that all believers would speak in tongues at some point. Paul asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?…Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues?” (1 Cor. 12:29–30). The answer, of course, is no. Yet Paul encourages all believers to continually seek to be “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). This seems to clearly suggest that Paul didn’t expect all believers to speak in tongues and didn’t identify tongues as a necessary manifestation of being filled with the Spirit.
Finally, on a more practical note, as a former Pentecostal minister I can attest to the fact that the “initial evidence doctrine” inevitably sets up a two-class Christianity, distinguishing between those who have spoken in tongues and those who have not. The New Testament knows of no such classification. Those in Pentecostal circles who have not spoken in tongues are encouraged to seek this initial evidence. Yet the New Testament contains no accounts of believers seeking the experience of speaking in tongues. Even in the episodes in Acts that Pentecostals cite in support of their position, the act of speaking in tongues just happens. No one is looking for it.
So, while I think the gift of tongues is a blessing, and while all believers are encouraged to be zealous for spiritual gifts (especially prophecy), I don’t believe speaking in tongues is any sort of “initial evidence” of being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, The Holy Spirit
Topics: The Church
Related Reading

How do I avoid feeling like God is absent?
Question: I used to see God involved in everything and used to believe every event expressed God’s will. After my wife and I lost our child in a tragic accident, and as a result of reading your books (especially Is God to Blame?), I came to embrace the warfare worldview and the open view of…

Greg and Paul Tag Team to Answer Your Questions
Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy answered questions submitted from Woodland Hills Church and podcasters during all three services this last Saturday and Sunday. They covered a wide range of topics so, chances are, you’ll find something here of interest to you. You can download audio or video from the three services below: Saturday evening service…

Are the Charismatic Gifts for Today’s Church?
This week, we have offered a brief series on the Holy Spirit touching on what the Spirit does, how it changes us, and how the fruit of the Spirit is produced. Now we will look briefly at the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and more specifically the “charismatic” gifts. In the church today, Christians can be roughly divided into…

How do you respond to Exodus 21:12–13?
“Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee.” Compatibilists sometimes argue that this passage shows that fatal accidents are acts of God. The Hebrew does not…

Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?
Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…

What is the significance of Jeremiah 26:19?
“Did [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against [Israel]?” As in 2 Kings 20:1–6 and Isaiah 38:1–5, if the future is exhaustive settled, it seems God could not have been forthright when he told…