摘要：Turner in his essay "Tongues: An Experience for All in the Pauline Churches."1raises a number of questions regarding my understanding of initial evidence and the doctrine of subsequence. The foregoing essay, in part, addresses some of these questions. There are, however, a few points which my essay does not directly address that I would like to take up at this point. Turner may well be right when he pointed out that the sharp distinction I made between tongues as initial evidence and tongues as prayer is "not found in the NT" (p. 251). But that is really beside the point. If the initial evidence doctrine is to be defended on grounds other than from direct biblical references to it, then the NT evidence regarding the nature of glossolalia cannot be used either to defend or debunk the view that Pentecostals do experience tongues in these two ways. My distinction is an attempt to make sense of the distinctive way Pentecostals have experienced glossolalia at the point of their initiation into a new relationship with God they termed Spirit-baptism. I have said that tongues as initial evidence makes the best sense when it is understood as denoting a relationship of intimacy characterised by receptivity or passivity. I believe that within such an understanding of Spirit-baptism a strong case can be made for tongues as the initial evidence on theological and philosophical grounds
