Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected



Have you read this book? Is it a good one?


John Kissinger [01/07/2016 8:01 AM]
Gary McGee is classic. Over twenty years ago Gary B. McGee wrote a comprehensive survey of Assemblies of God (AG) missions, “This Gospel Shall Be Preached.” What are your concerns with these Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism?

CrossTheology [01/07/2016 8:05 AM]
I haven’t read it yet so asked 🙂 I study at an AoG school so it sounds nice 🙂

John Kissinger [01/07/2016 8:06 AM]
well one thing is for SURE – you are NOT baptized in the Holy Ghost if you dont have the initial evidence Pope Link Peter John Ricky

CrossTheology [01/07/2016 8:07 AM]
that’s putting the cart before the horse I think. First you are baptised, then you speak in tongues (if the initial evidence is true) 🙂

John Conger [01/07/2016 8:12 AM]
True it’s baptism and then initial evidence but we are talking simply moments difference. I agree, no outward manifestation no baptism. In all instances in the book of acts there was an obvious outward manifestation. 2 of the instances it is expressly said that it was speaking in tongues and the other 2 showed some outward manifestation and I believe it’s not unreasonable to assume speaking in tongues

John Kissinger [01/07/2016 8:14 AM]
it’s one and the same OR you’ll hear the old charismacostal ( charismostal) stories “I was baptized in 1974 but dont speak in tongues just yet, but I sure am believin’ for it…”

CrossTheology [01/07/2016 8:16 AM]
But they are assumptions John Conger ans the Book of Acts is not the whole Bible 🙂

Tim Renneberg [01/07/2016 10:25 AM]
one thing should be made clear, initial evidence does not mean only evidence

John Conger [01/07/2016 11:21 AM]
Can you give an example of the not being an outward manifestation that could be seen or heard by those around

Tim Renneberg [01/07/2016 11:23 AM]
who are you asking?

John Kissinger [01/07/2016 11:30 AM]
CrossTheology it is interesting that in the 2nd contributed chapter Burgess (p. 24ff) mentions the Cathars which were Western (Catholic) offspring of the the Bulgarian dualistic heresy of the Bogomils…

CrossTheology [01/07/2016 11:32 AM]

John Kissinger [01/07/2016 11:33 AM]
p. 24ff in the book you posted – what are you surprised about?

Jimmy Humphrey [01/07/2016 12:37 PM]
I take the view of Jim Cymbala: tongues can be evidence but doesn’t have to be “the” initial evidence. 🙂

Charles Page [01/07/2016 12:56 PM]
Jimmy, is Jim Cymbala Pentecostal?

Link Hudson [01/07/2016 12:59 PM]
Was FF Bosworth Pentecostal?

CrossTheology [01/07/2016 12:59 PM]
Jimmy Humphrey please tell me more about it and him 🙂 I think it was also the view of Leonard Ravenhill 🙂

Charles Page [01/07/2016 1:09 PM]
I know that Gary B. McGee is Distinguished Professor of Church History and Pentecostal Studies at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri. A frequent contributor to journals and dictionaries, Dr McGee has also authored This Gospel Shall Be Preached: A History and Theology of Assemblies of God Foreign Missions (2 vols.), and he was coeditor of the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements.


  • Mark Walker
    Reply May 26, 2017

    Mark Walker

    If you look at the five cases in the Bible you will notice a few things.

    1) it was subsequent to repentance and usually water baptism but not always…once water baptism was offered after the baptism in the holy Spirit.

    2) three times out of five tongues is listed as the initial outward evidence of receiving the Baptism. With the exception of Paul’s Baptism, no tongues are mentioned but he did later proclaim that he spoke in tongues ..the next case is the Samaritan’s no mention of tongues..but it was outwardly noticeable…so tongues could be implied

    3)this initial outward manifestations and others are just that..they are initial and not the same as the charismata or gifts of the Spirit..meaning one may speak in tongues at the initial time but not receive those gifts later..the charismata are a function of the Holy Spirit but the initial signs are the calling card that this has taken place..

    Now is it possible that someone may be baptized in the Holy Spirit and not speak In tongues…the answer is yes as in the case of a mute person who is not healed …if their mouth is not miraculously opened then some outward manifestation will occur..

    So it is possible but it is not normative…

    Yes all believers are regenerated at the time of repentance and faith ..the Holy Spirit revived their spirit and they come to know Jesus through the operation of the Spirit in a special and inward way…but this is not the baptism..

    The baptism is a full immersion of your born again revived Spirit Into the Holy Spirit similar to when your physical body is baptized into water as a sign of the remission of your past sins…of course water baptism is not needed but is normative …and is important as physical outward sign…water baptism is the physical proto type for Spirit baptism..

    So don’t worry about the tongues it will come on its own..Rather tarry and seek for your inward person to be immersed into the wonderful Holy Spirit..

  • Varnel Watson
    Reply May 26, 2017

    Varnel Watson

    Couple of points here Stan Wayne Link Hudson :
    1) Samaria obviously had tongues — how else Simon saw that the Spirit was given
    2) Sauls case is rarely cited though I’ve seen some claim he did spoke tongues per his later testimony
    3) mute in the NT is most often attributed to demonization The Bible does not clarify IF the it was demonic influence or possession but when Jesus healed a mute it often says the demon left him (only male mute mentioned in the Bible BTW) William DeArteaga

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.