There was a time when smallpox seemed too deeply rooted in human history to disappear. Yet an international campaign kept looking for the disease, tracing cases and watching for signs that transmission had continued.
The last known natural case was recorded in Somalia in 1977. In 1980, the World Health Assembly declared smallpox eradicated. What interests me is not only the achievement. It is the burden of evidence behind the word eradicated. The absence of new cases had to mean more than silence.
It had to be established carefully enough for the world to draw a line and say that something had changed.
I find myself thinking about that kind of boundary when I consider Pentecostals, Nazarenes and Cessationists. We do not all read spiritual evidence in the same way. Some see continuing gifts as part of the church’s life. Others understand certain gifts differently, while cessationists argue that particular gifts belonged to an earlier period of the church’s history. The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether something has happened.
It is also about what counts as evidence, how that evidence should be interpreted, and where a responsible Christian should draw the line.
When did different churches begin drawing different lines around spiritual gifts?
One sentence in the 2023 Nazarene Manual changes the way I approach this whole comparison. Paragraph 926 does not merely tell Nazarenes what not to say about tongues. It identifies heart cleansing by faith as the biblical evidence of entire sanctification and connects that cleansing with the fruit of the Spirit in a holy life. That gives us a positive doctrinal claim to examine.
Now place that beside the Assemblies of God position. Its teaching identifies tongues as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit, while also describing witness, service, Christlike character, and spiritual fruit as important dimensions of Spirit-filled life. The difference becomes clearer. The disagreement is not simply about whether tongues exist. It concerns what tongues are understood to demonstrate.
Catholic teaching adds another perspective through its treatment of charisms. Reformed theological discussion adds another through its examination of baptism and gifts. Cessationist theology places a different boundary around certain gifts. Charismatic Christianity generally expects continuing gifts across several church settings. Wesleyan-Holiness theology brings sanctifying grace and holy character into sharper focus. These seven traditions give us a wider field without pretending that their differences disappear.
Scripture makes the comparison more demanding. Acts 2 presents tongues within the coming of the Spirit and the proclamation of God’s mighty works. First Corinthians 12 places tongues among several gifts and stresses the unity of the body. First Corinthians 13 says gifts without love accomplish nothing. Galatians 5 describes the Spirit’s fruit through the shape of a person’s life. Acts 1 connects the Spirit’s power with witness.
What does that evidence allow me to conclude? At least this: the presence of a spiritual manifestation and the interpretation of that manifestation are two different questions. The first asks what happened. The second asks what happened means. My Nazarene conviction concerns the second question. I believe the Church of the Nazarene is right to resist making tongues the universal evidence of Spirit baptism or sanctifying grace. Yet that conviction becomes stronger, not weaker, when I understand the Pentecostal argument fairly.
One biblical question keeps forcing me to slow down: “Do all speak with tongues?” Paul asks it in 1 Corinthians 12:30 while discussing the different gifts given within Christ’s body. The question matters because it comes after his description of tongues as one gift among many. If Paul expects different believers to receive different gifts, then the existence of tongues cannot by itself establish a universal rule for every Christian.
That does not make Acts 2 less important. Acts 2:4 says, “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues.” The event is real within the biblical account. The question is what theological conclusion we should draw from it. Acts 1:8 connects the Spirit’s coming with power for witness, while Acts 2 places the tongues experience within public proclamation and Peter’s scriptural explanation.
Paul then gives us another test. First Corinthians 13:1 says, “but have not love, I am nothing.” The surrounding argument does not deny spiritual gifts. Instead, it refuses to measure Christian worth by extraordinary manifestations alone. Galatians 5:22–23 adds the fruit of the Spirit, including love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
For me, these passages explain why the Nazarene position deserves more careful language.
If someone speaks in tongues, has the experience itself established that the person has received Spirit baptism? If someone does not speak in tongues, has the absence established that the Spirit is not present?
The current Nazarene Manual identifies heart cleansing by faith and the fruit of the Spirit as evidence of entire sanctification. I stand with that position because I believe it takes seriously the wider biblical emphasis on holiness. At the same time, I do not need to dismiss Pentecostal Christians to defend it. Their question about Spirit baptism is genuine. My disagreement concerns the conclusion they draw from tongues, not their desire to take the Holy Spirit seriously.
The more carefully I place the Nazarene position beside these other traditions, the less comfortable I am with defending it through Words. Saying that Nazarenes do not speak in tongues misses the theological question entirely. The better question is why the Church of the Nazarene does not regard tongues as the universal evidence of Spirit baptism or entire sanctification.