Table of Contents

The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

By James K. Bridges

During the 1916 General Council, our founding fathers adopted the original Statement of Fundamental Truths that listed 17 fundamentals that the brethren "held to be essential to a full Gospel ministry."1 Statement six was titled, "The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost." It began, "The full consummation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost and fire is indicated by the initial sign of speaking in tongues, as the Spirit of God gives utterance."2 It was not until 1927 that the brethren changed the title to, "The Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost," which was intended to clarify the Fellowship’s position that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism.3

DELAYED EVIDENCE SO-CALLED

But now, 73 years after that decision, a new teaching referred to as "delayed evidence" has been espoused by some of our scholars who have been greatly influenced by those in the charismatic movement who have propagated this fallacy. Those who hold to delayed evidence teach that the word "initial" does not include the idea of "immediacy" as well. Thus, the evidence of tongues could occur 2 hours, 2 weeks, 2 months, or 2 years after the believer has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. While those who promote this doctrine have suggested that some of our founding fathers actually believed and taught delayed evidence, the truth is that our forebearers never countenanced it. Those who claim that such teaching can be found in the writings of our early leaders do so because they either misunderstand the intent of their writings or they have anachronistically read their own interpretations back into the writings of our elders. Eighty-six years of weekly testimonies in the Pentecostal Evangel of believers receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues–and not one occasion of delayed evidence–speaks volumes against such teaching.

FULL CONSUMMATION

The intent of our founding fathers, in using the term "full consummation" with regard to tongues as the sign of the Baptism, was to convey the idea of full realization and final completion. In other words, the experience of being baptized in the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, gave indication of its complete fruition and full possession. Nothing belonging to the experience was left out or delayed to a future date. In 1929, the acting editor of the Pentecostal Evangel, Harold H. Moss, was asked to write the lead article for the February 23 issue of the magazine entitled, "What Is the Basis of the Pentecostal Message?" Brother Moss asserted: "The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a definite and personal visitation of the Holy Spirit in which He takes full control of the believer’s spirit, soul, and body, fills the seeker with His glorious presence, and manifests himself through the believer’s faculties. This definite experience is separate from and subsequent to regeneration, and its full consummation is evidenced by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance."4 This is a clear and official statement on how the term was understood by the brethren, and it leaves no room for a part of the experience delayed for a later time. Practically speaking, we must ask: "Why would the Lord Jesus, who is the Baptizer, want to give a partial, incomplete gift? Why would He deny any believer the immediate evidence if He has baptized him or her in the Holy Spirit? And, if the Holy Spirit has filled the believer and has taken control of the speech faculties, why would He want to delay speaking?"

The answer to all these questions is, "He would not."

INITIAL AND IMMEDIATE

To remove the idea of immediacy from the word "initial" is to give a present-day spin on the meaning, which is contrary to the meaning used by our founding fathers. Speaking in tongues was considered the initial physical evidence, because it was the first beginning physical evidence that authenticated the experience to the believer and to others. It had to be an immediate evidence to qualify as a current, instant-in-time experience that is tantamount to being an initial evidence. In their understanding and usage of the word "initial," our founding fathers consistently included the idea of "immediacy."

PHYSICAL

Our fathers were specific in using the word "physical" when describing the kind of evidence they meant, for this ensured that there would be a measurable evidence that would keep the experience close to the standard set in the Book of Acts. For the believer to be baptized in the Spirit, according to the pattern of Acts 2:4, it is necessary that the believer manifest an initial (immediate) and physical evidence of the infilling, which is speaking in tongues.

There are those who have accused the Fellowship of adding the word "physical" after the original Statement of Fundamental Truths was established in 1916, implying that it was not in the original document. However, the 1917 General Council Minutes clarifies that misconception when it was noted: "By an oversight last year the word ‘physical’ got left out before the word ‘sign’ in reference to tongues as the initial physical sign of the baptism with the Holy Ghost."5 By resolution, it was corrected to read as it had been intended from the beginning, "The full consummation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is indicated by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance, Acts 2:4."6

So these two key words, "initial" and "physical," have been a part of the Statement of Fundamental Truths from the beginning and for 84 years have provided a biblical and measurable standard for the Pentecostal experience. Some scholars have dabbled with the idea of an internal evidence of a spiritual nature that supersedes the outward sign. But this will only bring confusion to the believer, since the Scriptures do not warrant such and it would be a subjectively immeasurable experience without a standard by which to judge it. The internal working of the Holy Spirit, however, is evident through the fruit of the Spirit, which takes time for growth and development. This is why it is erroneous to teach that love or other fruit should be considered as an initial physical evidence.

DONALD GEE

Undeservingly, the noted British Pentecostal leader, Donald Gee, has been accused of holding to the teaching of delayed evidence. He is not alive to defend himself; yet when his writings are evaluated honestly and thoroughly, it becomes apparent that he has been wrongly interpreted. Some scholars have concluded that Donald Gee’s personal testimony supports delayed evidence when he spoke of "having received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit ‘by faith’ "7 and then stated that he had no outward manifestation until he spoke in tongues 2 weeks later. But this is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. If one reads the entirety of Gee’s book, Pentecost (published in 1932), he explains why he set off the words "by faith" in quotation marks when he responded to an inquirer seeking the baptism in the Spirit. Gee wrote: "I not only want to ease any fears by showing you how perfectly scriptural, normal, and logical, physical manifestations are when receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit: but I would also fain deliver you from ever settling down to satisfaction with an experience short of the Scripture, by showing you the actual incompleteness, as measured by God’s standards, of experiences received ‘by faith’ without any outward manifestation. The Book that tells of those who received the Spirit ‘by faith,’ also describes the character of the experience they then received.

"You may probably stumble at first over the teaching that the scriptural evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking with other tongues; and that it should always be expected in every case as an initial ‘sign.’ "8

In response to the question, "How shall I know I have received?" Gee stated unequivocally, "The divinely appointed proof of the coming of the Comforter is something given instantly, on the spot, at the time. Let us not hesitate to boldly declare that God’s divinely chosen sign of the coming of the Holy Ghost to fill His temple is a supernatural manifestation given at the moment…we are on unshakable ground here, and need fear the attacks of none. What are the New Testament manifestations given with this experience? …The final choice of the Holy Spirit both then and now seems to rest on speaking in a new tongue."9

To Donald Gee, receiving the Holy Spirit by faith was not the final consummation. And he said so in his testimony: "I clearly realized, however, that the experience I had believed God’s Word for involved a scriptural manifestation of the Spirit as in the Book of Acts, and so I fully expected this and had no thought of anything else."10 It was clear to Gee and to our founding fathers that the starting place for receiving the Spirit baptism was to express faith in the promise of God’s Word; but that the Baptism, when fully consummated, would be evidenced by speaking in other tongues.

Earlier, in the December 12, 1925, issue of the Pentecostal Evangel, Brother Gee wrote a remarkable article titled, "Speaking in Tongues, The Initial Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit." It is an excellent analysis of the doctrine, concluding that the "proper initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit is speaking with other tongues…an OUTWARD MANIFESTATION given at the moment of the believer’s Baptism in the Spirit."11 Should anyone question his own experience, he added, "Those who, in accordance with the Scripture, received the initial evidence of speaking with tongues when they were baptized in the Spirit, and the writer is happy to include himself among them, have nothing whereof they may boast in themselves. All the glory is due…to the…Lord."12

Finally, in his book, Toward Pentecostal Unity, Gee taught that, while the physical manifestation of tongues that accompanies Spirit baptism is not the essence of the experience, yet it is a mistake to regard tongues as being immaterial. He stated: "[Tongues] are an integral part of the Pentecostal experience, and provide the only immediate evidence to the onlooker that the Comforter has come in all His glory and power."13 It is unfortunate that anyone would attempt to identify Donald Gee with such a strange teaching as delayed evidence. He would be amused at such thinking, were it not for the seriousness of the error and how misleading it is for those who are genuinely seeking the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

J. ROSWELL FLOWER

Having had a similar experience to Donald Gee, in that he did not receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the first occasion in which he waited on the Lord, Brother Flower wrote his full testimony in an article published in the Pentecostal Evangel in 1933, expressing the hope that it would help others having difficulty receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.14 In his testimony he, too, spoke of receiving the baptism in the Spirit by "faith" while not having spoken in tongues, which has led some to assume that Elder Flower believed in delayed evidence. This is most unfortunate, for it is obvious that those who have reached such a conclusion have greatly misunderstood his writings and teachings.

In 1952, his full testimony was again published in the Pentecostal Evangel with an addendum that he added to clarify any misunderstanding that may have developed from the 1933 article. He expressed the conviction that "the Holy Spirit in His fullness should be received by faith" as the first step which allows the believer to "enter into the vital spirit of tarrying" for the Baptism. To help believers to receive Spirit baptism, he outlined the steps: "The first step was that of faith in the promise; the act of receiving by faith. The second step was to tarry, yield, praise, worship–waiting before God in confidence that His promise would be fulfilled,"15 meaning that the believer would give evidence of the infilling by speaking in tongues when baptized in the Spirit.

Far from claiming an experience without tongues, he was attempting to describe the step of faith necessary that led him to the full consummation of the Baptism. His repetition throughout the article of the phrase, "still I had not spoken in tongues," was his signal to the reader that even though he was confessing the experience, he knew he had not yet received the full consummation.

To misconstrue Flower’s testimony to mean that he was attesting to an experience of receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost, yet not speaking in tongues for months or years later, is to ignore his clear teaching on initial physical evidence often documented in his writings. A popular gospel tract written in 1954 by Elder Flower is titled, "Is It Necessary To Speak in an Unknown Tongue?" In it he stated: "When an individual believer receives a baptism in the Spirit that is in accord with the New Testament pattern, he will speak in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance."16 His standard for the experience was the New Testament pattern, which simply does not allow for delayed evidence. The pattern was clear: "They were filled…and began to speak" (Acts 2:4).

In 1920, Elder Flower wrote an article for the Pentecostal Evangel titled, "The Evidence of the Baptism." He began by saying, "The question of the speaking in tongues as the sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is quite vital. If we, as a movement, are wrong in our position [regarding initial physical evidence], we have no right to an existence as a body of people."17 He believed that if we let down on the sign of tongues, we would be put in the position of allowing people into the movement on the basis of their testimony without evidence. Delayed evidence teaching would allow for the same thing to occur. Elder Flower was one of those who drafted the position of the Fellowship, and he never wavered from it. If there was no sign of tongues evident, then there was no baptism in the Spirit received.

Again in 1936, the Pentecostal Evangel carried his article, "The Outstanding Effect of the Pentecostal Baptism" in which Elder Flower wrote: "There is one feature of the Pentecostal baptism which is outstanding beyond all others. When that one feature is lacking, you can count on it that we have drifted away from the standard of full Pentecostal experience."18 He was referring, of course, to the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues. He added: "No one seeking for the baptism in the Holy Ghost is satisfied short of that marvelous experience of yielding one’s powers to the Holy Spirit until the tongue is loosened and inspired utterance in another tongue bursts forth."19 This is why Brother Flower and the founding fathers called it "The Full Consummation."

J. Roswell Flower was one of our most forceful Pentecostal leaders who understood in depth the significance of Spirit baptism with the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues for the individual believer and for the Movement as a whole. In speaking with Joseph R. Flower, the oldest son of Elder Flower, he remarked to me that his father would never have accepted the delayed evidence teaching, and our Movement would never have allowed him to serve as one of our honored leaders if he had held to such teaching. Joseph R. Flower, for many years our general secretary, also expressed his belief that delayed evidence teaching is contrary to the New Testament Pentecostal experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues.

DANIEL WARREN KERR

Another of our early leaders, who has been mentioned as embracing delayed evidence, is the godly and scholarly Daniel Warren Kerr, instrumental in establishing three Assemblies of God schools–Bethany, Vanguard, and Central Bible College. Elder Kerr was one of the key framers of the Statement of Fundamental Truths and was a Rock of Gibraltar during the doctrinal storms involving the Trinity-Oneness issue and the Bosworth challenge over initial physical evidence. William Menzies, in his work Anointed To Serve, described Kerr’s defense against the Bosworth error: "The issue was resolved by the wisdom and eloquence of D.W. Kerr, perhaps more than any other. Kerr not only marshaled all the truths presented by his brethren, but also drove home again and again that it is the Word of God, not the experiences of famous men, that is the touchstone for the Pentecostal belief concerning the immediate, outward evidence of the Baptism."20

Elder Kerr is also unable to defend himself from those who have misunderstood his writings and are attempting to read their interpretations back into his statements. However, he has been most clear in a number of his writings, sufficient for us to know that he would not take a favorable position toward delayed evidence teaching. In 1914, he delivered a powerful convention message titled, "The Selfsame Thing," in which he stated, "This baptism of the Holy Spirit is for every believer, and it is for every one according to Acts 2:4–‘the pattern shown in the mount.’ "21 He further added: "There are different manifestations of the Spirit, after the Baptism, but always the initial physical manifestation of the infilling with God’s Spirit is the speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance."22 All of our founding fathers accepted the Book of Acts as the standard by which Spirit baptism should be measured. Since the subject of delayed evidence is nowhere mentioned in Acts or in the New Testament, it is unthinkable that any of our early leaders would have had anything to do with it. They made every doctrine and every experience measure up to the Book.

The Phenomena of Pentecost, published in 1931, included an article written by D.W. Kerr titled, "The Bible Evidence of the Baptism With the Holy Ghost." He stated firmly: "We hold that the Bible evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost…is speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. We have found that whenever we, as a people, begin to let down on this particular point, the fire dies out, the ardor and fervor begin to wane, the glory departs. We have found where this position is held and wherever it is proclaimed, the Lord is working."23 He closed the article with the following comment: "The Cesarean case is an outstanding witness that the Bible evidence of the scriptural Baptism; the apostolic Baptism; the Baptism which Jesus Christ gives when He has a chance, is speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. We therefore take Acts 2:4 as the sample, or pattern Baptism."24 This leaves no place for delayed evidence teaching.

The delayed evidence doctrine was not an issue during the ministry of Donald Gee, J. Roswell Flower, Daniel Warren Kerr, or any of our founding fathers. It has arisen today as an accommodating factor to justify those who wish to claim they have received the Baptism without speaking in tongues. Its receptivity among some Pentecostals is due to the low view that exists in the church regarding Spirit baptism and the growing number of those in Pentecostal churches who have never been baptized in the Spirit. We can lay this present-day condition of the believers at the feet of the ministry. Had full-gospel ministers been faithful to proclaim the "whole gospel," we would see a strong, healthy Spirit-filled church. It is a spiritually anemic church that looks for loopholes.

You can be sure that the "Pentecostal position," which is constantly referred to in the early writings of our fathers, did not make room for such teaching. When measuring this doctrine alongside our position of initial, immediate physical evidence, it is seen to be the weak, faithless, and unscriptural teaching that it really is. Instead of helping people to enter into the full consummation of the Spirit baptism, it misleads them into thinking they have received the gift of the Spirit and that tongues will just happen sometime down the road. Rather they should press on until they have been inundated with the fullness of the Spirit and tongues begin as the Spirit gives utterance. Delayed evidence has been weighed and found wanting. Let us not give place to it in our Fellowship.

John the Baptist introduced Jesus as the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world and as the Baptizer who would baptize His people in the Holy Spirit and fire. While He was on earth, our Lord never fulfilled His ministry as Baptizer. Now that He has returned to the Father and received the promise of the Father–the gift of the Spirit–He delights to baptize His people in the Spirit according to the pattern of Acts 2:4. This is our Pentecostal distinctive and heritage. Let us not allow any unscriptural teaching to arise among us that would deny us the full blessing. Let us faithfully preach and teach "the full consummation of the baptism in the Holy Ghost" with the initial immediate physical evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

James K. Bridges is the general treasurer of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri.

Endnotes