-
Initial Evidence: Corollary of Spirit Baptism
Consider these questions and share your thoughts below:
- Often, classical Pentecostal denominations will use terms like “sign,” “evidence,” or “mark” interchangeably when discussing the link between tongues and Spirit baptism. Do you believe terminology matters on this point? Do you agree with Macchia that sign may be a better term given its precedence in Scripture itself?
- Although initial evidence is a separate doctrine from subsequence, Pentecostals have long related the two, for several reasons. Do you believe it is possible to affirm one without the other? Why or why not?
-
1 Reply
-
I personally believe that using the terms interchangeably is acceptable in this case. In English, we tend to have a lot of synonyms that we use interchangeably to get the point across in everyday speech – think about how many words for “good” there are, for example. Also, I tend to use several different translations of the Bible rather than just one, so I’m already used to seeing different words for the same passages or concepts here and there. That being said, I understand those that may want to be more choosy with their language.
I think it is technically possible to affirm Initial Evidence without Subsequence, but I do not personally subscribe to this belief. I believe that the two doctrines go hand in hand for a reason, and that to affirm one without the other is simply not accurate in painting a picture of the work of the Spirit within us.
Log in to reply.