Speaking in Tongues: Its Origins [Ancient and Modern], Purpose, and Power

Thanks for the testimonies.

In Acts 2, all the disciples spoke in tongues. In Acts 10, they speak in tongues and magnify God. If half spoke in tongues and half magnified in the common language, then that fulfills the description in the passage. In Acts 19, they spoke in tongues and prophesied. If half spoke in tongues and half prophesied, that would fit as well. There is one case where it is clear that all spoke in tongues. So there is not a strong reason to assume everyone filled with the Spirit in Acts 4 had to have spoken in tongues.

If someone is filled with the Spirit and prophesies, are you going to say he isn't filled with the Spirit?

In real life, things do not always follow these rules. I have a friend I've known for 30 years or so who went overseas as a missionary, taught Bible College. He goes to a Pentecostal church, or did the last I spoke with him. He has never spoken in tongues. But he interprets tongues. And some times someone else gives it before he can and gives the same interpretation he gets.

I have never experienced that. I've gotten words of knowledge that someone else prophesied, or prophesied part of it. But I have known a number of people who have gotten an interpretation and someone else gave the same interpretation before they did, and similar things happen with prophesying, too. And there is also going one place and someone prophesies something over you and you go to another place, in another city, and someone else you know prophesies the same thing. I've experienced that. Paul might have, too (Acts 20:23.)

Speaking in tongues is the evidence a person has received the Holy Ghost as seen in the accounts you reference. The Acts 8 account points to this truth as well. Consider how Philip and the others knew the group had not received the Holy Ghost in the first place. What was missing? As you mentioned, Simon "saw" something when the group finally did receive the Holy Ghost.

The belief in modern-day signs and wonders is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of two principles: 1) Many things in the Bible are descriptive; 2) Not everything is prescriptive. A failure to understand these most basic principles is the source of all manner of false doctrine.

The problem with cessationism is the failure to accept what scripture teaches about the way God interacts with His church is still true and applicable.

I'm not a cessatonist so I wouldn't know about that.

I once watched God raise a calm sea just to provide a witness to a young boy.... does that count?

They could have all spoken in tongues AND prophesied. Or all spoken in tongues for a while and then magnified God also. That they did both fits the description of the text much more than splitting them in halves. And analyzing the Greek from knowledge of Greek would be helpful, I would need to read a commentary from a Greek expert like a Gordon Fee, or someone with accurate Greek knowledge and most people who attempt to do this by looking up the words are not knowledgeable enough to understand Greek language rules that are required to make accurate conclusions on a text. But there are plenty of good technical commentaries that will do this. My guess without doing that research yet is that we might discover that all of them spoke in tongues and all of them magnified God is the idea not that half did and half did not.

And in real life, having been in the Assemblies of God for 40 years, it is nearly without exception that anyone who prophesies spoke in tongues the day they were filled with the same gift of the Holy Spirit as they read about in the Bible. That is the experience of almost everyone you will meet among the 70 million members of the AOG and also among those who are non denominational pentecostals / charismatic. You may know a friend with a different story but that is so extremely different than the normal testimony that it does not really warrant concluding that the majority are all wrong about it. If you are going by real life experiences all most all who operate in the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as prophesy, word of knowledge, word of wisdom, interpretation of tongues, spoke in tongues when they were filled with the Holy Spirit and learned to operate in the other gifts after that. Many did speak in tongues and then magnify God and then prophesy and then spoke in tongues again all during their initial experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit in a church service or home fellowship or altar time.

The text that is the one that should be used the most to answer "does the Bible say that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the pouring out of the gift of the Holy Spirit" is Acts 10:46

45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

It clearly states that speaking in tongues is how they knew that the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out on them.

You must have some axes to grind it seems.

Rev William Seymour was greatly interwoven in my Pentacostel upbringing. In Sunday school i971, a church and in Bible school 1984. as I have continued my education I have studied much about him and Parham. All the churches were segregated none more than Baptist churches. Your point is unfounded.

Rev. Seymour had to sit in the hallway as he went to Bible school. But what you failed to account for IS God used Him mightily to bring down racial divides. AS God was using those to likes of Charles Price Jones and Charles Harrison Mason, the founder of COGIC.

You really should lay down your bias.

Either one fits, but the problems if the 'initial evidence doctrine' is derived from three passages, then reading the initial evidence doctrine back into two of the passages to prove the intiial evidence doctrine is circular reasoning.

When considering this issue, I noticed that the disciples, they, asked why the ointment Jesus was anointed with wasn't sold and given to the poor. But in John's Gospel, we see it specified that Judas asked the question. There are times when 'they' did something where a representative of the group did it or members of the group did it. It was not necessary for every apostles in unison or one after the other to say words verbatim for 'they' to have spoken the words. The thieves crucified with Jesus, according to Matthew, also spoke against Him, but we read that there was one criminal who rebuked another who had spoken against Jesus. The activity came from the group, but not every individual in the group had to do the activity for the group to do it.

If we apply the same reasoning that shows up in other passages to speaking in tongues, it is inconclusive as to whether all spoke in tongues in Acts 10 and 19. We end up with a 'pattern' of one passage, Acts 2. One might say one passage does not a pattern make.

Some Pentecostals or Charismatics think that I Corinthians 12 gifts only manifest after one has initially spoken in tongues. Experientially, that is not always the case. And even in scripture prior to Pentecost, Zecharias was filled with the Holy Spirit before he prophesied, with no reference to speaking in tongues.

Many people do have an experience of being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues. I did, but I do not see it as an iron clad guarantee in scripture, nor do I see a basis for declaring that someone is not filled with the Spirit if he or she has not spoken in tongues.

I would not mind if Gordon Fee were to respond to this argument of mine. But I think his view on tongues as 'initial evidence' is probably a bit more similar to mine than yours.

{quote]
And in real life, having been in the Assemblies of God for 40 years, it is nearly without exception that anyone who prophesies spoke in tongues the day they were filled with the same gift of the Holy Spirit as they read about in the Bible. That is the experience of almost everyone you will meet among the 70 million members of the AOG and also among those who are non denominational pentecostals / charismatic. You may know a friend with a different story but that is so extremely different than the normal testimony that it does not really warrant concluding that the majority are all wrong about it. [/quote]

I cannot say about your experience. Have you actually interviewed people about this? If you look historically at the gift of healing, for example, there were plenty of people in the faith-cure movement before the emphasis on speaking in tongues, and you can read about healings. I have read that Parham was healed of club feet before 1900, for example. If you read Smith Wigglesworth's autobiographical material (recorded testimonies written down by others), he operated in healing before speaking in tongues. I know a Dani tribesman, a Papuan church planter, who was the head of one of two missionary camps when tens of thousands came to Christ. He said this man was quite a discipler. The Dani preacher told us of a Bible study group of hajis (been to Mecca) former Muslims who he'd won to Christ. They knew each other from the brain cancer ward and had been healed through his ministry. He operated in healing, but never spoke in tongues, but believed God could use that gift also.

That also reminds me that FF Bosworth did not believe in this hard view of 'initial evidence' and left the Assemblies when it formed its rigid doctrinal statement on the matter (after changing it's attitude about doctrinal statement by the Oneness controversy). He wrote a little booklet on it, which I think I have gotten recently but haven't read yet, called, "Do all speak with tongues?" He pointed out some of the less scrupulous preachers would get people to say 'glory glory' really fast, then say, 'You got it?'

I remember I was in a large Charismatic gathering in Jakarta one time when a well-known American Charismatic preacher was a guest. I hadn't quite realized this in a smaller congregation, but the worship leader there told them all to pray in tongues. Out of reverence for the teachings of scripture, I did not participate, since how could that be interpreted? So it seemed like I heard the whole room going 'bababa' or 'bada bada bada.' That surprised me. Then the preacher chides them for their 'baby tongues' and demonstrated his 'warring tongues'. They clapped. I thought what basis is there, Biblically, for either of these doctrines. He went on and had everyone lift their hands and try not to think anything in their mind and say whatever 'bubbled up out of their spirit' while he told others to gather around them and speak in tongues. So you blank your mind, say what comes to you. You hear 'babababa' in your ear. Does anything supernatural or spiritual have to happen to say 'babababa.' People might say, 'You got it.' It could be an initiation ritual, but I remember thinking if someone experiences that but their life doesn't change... and they say that person is filled with the Spirit, but someone who doesn't speak in tongues but has a powerful life winning souls, maybe even healing they say is not filled because he doesn't speak in tongues?

Granted, I never saw such a methodology used in the A/G or more Pentecostal-style churches. I did see one woman try to wobble another woman's jaw once, but I heard preachers preach against this sort of thing. The attitude was more do the laying on of hands, pray, and let the Spirit give the utterance.

I have also seen a Charismatic put a lot of pressure and just try to extract tongues out of people. If you put social pressure on people get someone to make a noise, tell them they spoke in tongues, is that necessarily the genuine article? Someone posted a link that had a Vinson Synan video on it where he interviewed people still alive after the Azusa Street Revival many decades ago. One concern the late Brother Synan expressed in the video was that at Azusa Street, they spoke in real languages. One of the interviewees mentioned languages like Japanese and said that drew crowds, hearing their own languages. That aligns with many testimonies from the writings of the time. And it has happened many times sense.

I noticed a lot of spiritual gifts in the early 1990's in the Vineyard movement. Their official doctrine was not 'tongues as initial evidence', not as a mandatory thing, but I saw more of certain gifts, like words of knowledge among them than I'd seen among traditional Pentecostals.

There is also the fact that a high percentage of Pentecostals in the US do not speak in tongues. I don't remember if it was A/G data or just Pentecostal denominations in general. I seem to remember a 40% figure, but I do not know if that is the percentage that do or do not speak in tongues.

There is the exegetical issue, the fact that Paul asks in I Corinthians 12, 'Not all speak with tongues, do they?' Some in the A/G will say he is talking about tongues to be interpreted, but not a 'prayer language.' But the passage from which we get the idea of praying in tongues, chapter 14 calls it 'speaking' in tongues and treats it as the same thing as tongues that are interpreted, minus the interpretation, for example v. 5 and 27-28.

Any one example is evidence against that. I have presented three.

Some of them came to Christ through the influence of Pentecostals and Charismatics. Some came into these movements from various denominational backgrounds or independent churches. There has been a massive amount of evangelism that came along with the Pentecostal Revival. In previous decades there has been a great harvest of Chinese souls, both in China and among the Chinese diaspora. It has not been exclusively in the Pentecostal or Charismatic movements, but it seems like a large percentage of it has been, based on what I know of China and also Indonesia, where you can find large churches made up of mostly ethnic Chinese though they make up about 5% of the population.

]quote]That failure led to a heroic prayer vigil that ignited the revival, making William Seymour the most spiritually influential Black Christian who ever lived. Yet in my first 21 years in a Pentecostal church, I had never heard of Seymour! Unwitting racist attitudes seem to be the reason why few Pentecostals had heard of Seymour until recent decades.[/quote]

Hold on a minute. Why would racism be the reason for it? I've moved a lot and I have been to a number of Pentecostal churches. Occasionally, I'd here a story about a missionary as a sermon illustration, especially if an A/G missions director visited, but not in most churches. I heard illustrations from the life of John Wesley, but not in most churches. They usually do not talk about history in sermons unless it's the Bible. They talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and preach out of the Bible. I would imagine it would be much more rare for a Pentecostal to know who Parham was than Seymour. A lot of Pentecostals were from 'Bible only' traditions, like Baptists. I would venture to guess that most Baptists have never heard of Shubal Stearns, who might be a more important part of their history than Seymour is to Pentecostals. Most Baptist churches have roots growing out of a congregation he founded in colonial North Carolina.

I would also guess most Baptists couldn't tell you who William Carey was. Most evangelicals in the US... I'm guessing... probably do not know who DL Moody was. And I would guess most Pentecostals do not know who Seymour or Parham were to this very day.

Vinson Synan, whom I had the honor of meeting with two or three times in his apartment before he passed away, as I understand it, started Pentecostal History as a field of study. Now there are graduate programs in Pentecostal Studies, including historical studies, and books written about it, and some preachers read and use stories from history as illustrations.

I think it has to do with the lack of study of church history, not racism per se.

There were issues related to racism, with churches being segregated, that affected Pentecostal denominations. But Pentecostals in the US probably tended to be a lot more integrated from the beginning of the movement than most other churches in the same regions of the US.


Seymour and his core group of African Americans sparked that revival, only to be forgotten in the aftermath as white leadership took over most of the fledgling Pentecostal movement. Here, then is the documentary on Seymour's role in the Azusa Street Revival:

azusa street revival documenary - Bing video

In subsequent posts, I will share (2) my own experience of Spirit baptism and then (3) my experience-based perspective on the best way to receive the gift of speaking in tongues. (4) Only then will I embark on a detailed defense of the need to strive for spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues. This defense will include a discussion of the role this gift is intended in the private devotional life of believers and a refutation of common counter-arguments.[/QUOTE]

Notice it says 'and magnify God', which for some reason is not highlighted here. It does not say whether each and ever person on whom the gift of the Spirit was poured out spoke with tongues.

What does it mean elsewhere when 'they' said something?

Matthew 26
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

Did they all say this out loud, or did one disciple?


John 12
4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

How can we concude that every single one of those in Cornelius' house had to have spoken in tongues. Is there any reason to insist that this was the case unless one holds to the 'initial evidence doctrine'? But this and two other verses is the basis for the initial evidence doctrine. If we read the doctrine back into two of the cases, Acts 10 and 19, that is circular reasoning.

The question we ask is does the book of Acts indicate that there were believers who received an experience of the out pouring of the Holy Spirit after they believed that was a separate experience? The answer we discover is on several occasions, yes.

Then we ask. "what was the most common outward sign that they received this gift?" And the answer is speaking in tongues.

Is there a scripture that just comes out and says "They knew they had received the same gift as the 120 had received on the day of Pentecost because they saw the outward sign of speaking in tongues" Almost. This is pretty much exactly what Peter meant by these words....

Acts 10: 44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

And so even though it is hard for many to come to this same conclusion and they will continue to disagree with this conclusion, the AOG and many others believe that Acts 10:46 does indeed teach that Peter said that they knew that they had recieved the Gift of the Holy Spirit poured out upon them because they spoke in tongues. And therefore it is very much a biblical statement to say that this teachings that initial physical evidence of having received this same experience would be the speaking in tongues.

That was the question that the early pentecostal pioneers wrestled to answer. What Does the Bible say happened to people when this gift was poured out and how can we know that we have received the same thing that they did? And every one that studied it agreed that it teaches that tongues is the sign.

Now you can talk about many other things but if you stay on the main question that they were trying to answer when they came up with this statement that the bible teaches that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the person having received this gift then it is a true statement. If you approach the scriptures afresh and anew trying to answer this specific question "What outward sign did they show that was common to all them that received this gift, you will come up with the same answer all over again. Speaking in tongues.

So at some point those how have had this question answered have accepted it and moved on and are no longer concerned about revisiting old well established truths like this.

I just wanted to zero in on the reason for the "initial evidence" statement. It is in answer to a question dating back to the Topeka Kansas Bible school when Parham put the question to the students and let them search it out for themselves.
For decades before this many were claiming experiencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit because they no longer sinned. Others said they got it because they shook all over. People gave all kinds of testimonies but they contradicted each other and were not found in scripture. What did the Bible say was the sign that the early church received it? Was it shaking? Was it increased understanding in scripture? Was it that they no longer sinned (complete sanctification)? And the answer turns out to be that they spoke in tongues which is how Peter knew. So following Peter's statement that is how we can know. Those who believe that are standing on biblical grounds and all the "sad stories" of abuses in the pentecostal movement doesn't change Peter's statement.

I've moved on. I show that verse to seekers and a few others and let them ask in faith. People receive it everyday and they always speak in tongues. No one tries to teach them in my circles. They just ask, sometimes we lay hands on them, sometimes they read the scriptures on it and ask and receive it.

Those that said they were speaking real languages at Azusa Street, many later learned it wasn't. Many went to other countries thinking they were speaking those languages and found out that they were not.

No one in the bible ever spoke the Gospel message in tongues and had people hear and get saved as far as we know. That did not even happen, so I am not sure why some of the early Azusa Street folks thought that was the reason for the gift of tongues.
On the day of Pentecost when the crowed gathered they heard them magnify God in their own language. But Peter preached the Gospel to them in the common language and 3000 were saved.

There is no record of any of the 120 going to other countries preaching the Gospel in languages they never had to learn the normal way. Why did Parham think that was the reason for tongues? I don't know, but they all learned latter that it was not biblical to think that. That did not take away from the fact that people were receiving the gift. Tongues were given by the Holy Spirit for both prayer and for manifestation with interpretation in the assembly but not for preaching the Gospel to foreign lands.

An analysis of the text by Greek technical analysis would be the next step in answering the questions. "Does it mean that they ALL spoke in tongues and that they ALL magnified God?" Also "What does Magnify God" look like?

I have a few commentaries on Acts. I will see whether the syntax of the Greek allows for any hedgeway other than "because they heard them speak in tongues" whether that could apply to some and not all.

You want to see if the Greek syntax and language rules allows for "because they heard them speak in tongues and magnify God" is being applied to all of them or some of them. And let us say in theory only some of them were speaking in tongues and some were magnifying God, it is the supernatural manifestation of tongues that would have caused Peter to say that is how he knew that they received the same gift as they did on the day of Pentecost. Exuberant praise would not have proved this. There was something undeniable about that manifestation that convinced him. So even if it were some of them speaking in tongues that convinced him this would still answer the questions "what was the sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit" the answer is "speaking in tongues"

I think this would be an issue of semantics rather than syntax. We can see other examples of when a group or 'they' did things. For example, if it says of a group that 'they' said something, does that mean that each member of the group said the words, or that a representative or representatives of the group said one. In the two cases I mentioned, the thieves denounced Jesus, but in another gospel there was another who defended him. In one gospel the disciples complained about the ointment not being sold and money given to the poor, and in John it was Judas who did so.

In Matthew, right after this incident, Judas betrayed Jesus. I wonder if he'd have taken a cut of 30 pieces if the ointment had been sold, since a gospel said he held the box and took the money out of it.

Semantics rather than syntax, but the passage says that they 'heard them speak in tongues and magnify God' not just speak in tongues. In Acts 19, it is speak in tongues and prophesy. It doesn't say whether representatives of the group did these things, whether all did both, or some did one and some did one of the other, or if all did both in each case. The wording seems to fit all possiblities. Creating a doctrine by reading into the texts the doctrine is derived from is circular reasoning.

We need to look at the whole New Testament. Paul asks, 'Not all speak with tongues, do they?" Why would he ask that if he held to the initial evidence doctrine. He also writes of being filled with the Spirit and speaking to yourselves in Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. In scripture verbal manifestations associated with being filled with the Spirit include speaking with tongues, speaking to God is psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and magnifying God.

Craig Keener has a good video on this topic and the different positions, including explaining the Biblical arguments for a second experience.

This presumes there should be one outward sign. If the question is 'the most common', what about the other signs? There is also the issue of Paul saying that tongues is a sign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not... a bit different context, but something to think about.

Peter was also in new territory, having just been prepared to receive Gentiles into fellowship. Also notice, there were two things he witnessed, speaking in tongues and extolling God. The extolling God could have been done in Greek, for example. Paul also later wrote, 'Not all speak in tongues, do they?' He writes a lot about the Spirit. But Paul's letters, Peter's letters, John's letters, James' letter, and Jude's letter say nothing about tongues as initial evidence.

Making speaking in tongues normative for everyone who receives the Spirit, even to the point of saying that if someone has not spoken in tongues that he is not filled with the Spirit is more than a stretch from this passage. How does that align with anything Paul wrote about the work of the Spirit? Again, the problem with interpreting this passage this way is that it is not clear that all those there filled with the Spirit spoke in tongues.

At the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, they say that is what happened. Of course there could have been some leading questions like, 'What was the sign?'.... assuming there had to be a sign. But it was not the case that every prominent Pentecostal believed this was the case. I mentioned FF Bosworth as an example. He was at Azusa Street. I've read about his meetings where so many people where healed and the deaf school was closed because the deaf were healed on one occasion. He was a Pentecostal. After the A/G came up with initial evidence in the doctrinal statement, he went back to the CMA. Many in the CMA were open to these types of spiritual gifts. Some of the congregations accepted the A/G doctrine and became A/G. The initial evidence doctrine split the denomination part of which is now called the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. I am sure it led to some other division also.

The question is whether you insist that there has to be one sign or the Spirit hasn't filled an individual. What if someone just prophesies, and it is accurate?

Lots of people in the broader Charismatic and 'Empowered Evangelical' type movement do not accept the 'initial evidence' doctrine. Tongues is something that may happen in an experience where someone is filled with the Holy Spirit.

I read an article attributed to Watchman Nee in which he said they would baptized new believers with water, and then the elders would lay hands on them and believer God for a manifestation of the Spirit and gifts of the Spirit. If an elder had a prophecy for the new believer, he would give it. Maybe members of the congregation would prophesy, too. My memory is fuzzy on that point. In those churches they would have allowed regular believers to prophesy, too, or teach for that matter, maybe more free than Pentecostal churches in that regard.


If you think early Pentecostals had the doctrine all figured out, Seymour believed in three distinct steps: saved sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost. So did many other Pentecostals at Azusa. This probably didn't sit well, since 'sanctification' as a one-time experience was not something you can really get from scripture and it grew out of some of Wesley's theological reasoning on sanctification described in his little book on Christian perfection. Durham went to Los Angeles, preached the Finished Work on the cross and ended up planting a church there. The A/G went in that direction, while many of the Pentecostal churches in the Southeast believed in three distinct steps. The three step (my terminology) idea did not really take off in the Charismatic movement. With influence from so many teachers and the lack of scripture to back up a one-time post salvation 'zap' sanctification, that view fell out of favor.

There are also Pentecostals who do not believe in tongues as a 'prayer language' that you can use any time, and that you can only speak in tongues at specific moments when the Spirit of God comes on you. It's kind of like initial evidence, probably, making a hard doctrine out of personal experiences. The grace of God is manifold, and people may experience tongues in different ways. Some people occasionally prophesy, and other people can get into a flow of the grace for it and prophesy over person after person, 'reading their mail' so to speak.
Does every believer you lay hands on speak in tongues? 100%?

Why do you say that? There were many testimonies of people actually knowing and understanding the languages. It wasn't only cases of, "I think this sounds like Chinese." AG Garr spoke a different tongue than normal and someone indicated it was Bangla. But that didn't happen when he went to India. That doesn't mean he never spoke Bangla at Azusa Street.... or whever that incident happened. I am not sure if the location is in his testimony.
I agree. Some cessationists think that, and suppose the 120 or the 12 were preaching the Gospel in tongues or that Peter's sermon was 'in tongues' but the passage does not say that. This was Parham's theory and some of the others thought that would be the case. It was a case of eisegesis.

Good conversation brother. I enjoy it.

I do believe that all born again Christians who ask to be endued with power from on high can receive it and speak in tongues.

I do believe that it is that simple. I walk people through the scriptures on it and when I perceive they have faith I pray for them.

There are always going to be some who do not receive at first and I just tell them to keep seeking and believe the word they heard.

I don't let other peoples experiences move me. The scriptures are clear and it is not very complicated.

I think that the number one reason sincere seekers have not yet received this is because they have made it too complicated. They have over analyzed it instead of just seeking, believing and receiving.

But I never argue with people about it. If they don't see it for themselves by studying the word of God I don't think I am supposed to push it on them. Everyone is responsible to believe the scriptures for themselves. The minute we start trying to pressure someone to see something in the scripture that they don't see for themselves we are wasting our time. God does not want them to do anything they don't believe is scriptural so unless they come to that on their own I don't want to push it on them. I know what I believe and I will keep living it.

One thing is certain. Once someone does receive the gift of tongues and starts using it they no longer doubt it. They know they are not faking and they don't really get bothered by those that think they are. It seems along with the gift comes an elevation over the fray of the argument and they don't really care what others think about them. After all it is POWER to witness which includes an abundance of BOLDNESS and they are not easily offended.

That is why I will not spend much time intellectualizing with people about it.
My approach is to walk them through the scriptures starting with Luke 11 and the promise to ask, seek and knock. Then the command to wait to receive power to witness. Then all the instances in Acts. Then 1 cor 12-14 and then we pray. Or I give them the list of scriptures and let them study on their own and ask when they are ready.
My main message is that the gift is available to you, your children and all that are afar off and that gift he told them is "that which you see and hear" which included the gift of tongues. All of these details are uncovered by reading the text and it builds faith. When faith is there they will receive.

There is no such thing as "what if they don't" The only answer to that is .. keep asking. There is no one that gets left out.

Such faith is why I see more people receive it than don't.

I started a couple of threads on the gift of tongues and Baptism in the Spirit, you can find them Here and Here.

I cannot say about your experience. Have you actually interviewed people about this? If you look historically at the gift of healing, for example, there were plenty of people in the faith-cure movement before the emphasis on speaking in tongues, and you can read about healings. I have read that Parham was healed of club feet before 1900, for example. If you read SmitPh Wigglesworth's autobiographical material (recorded testimonies written down by others), he operated in healing before speaking in tongues. I know a Dani tribesman, a Papuan church planter, who was the head of one of two missionary camps when tens of thousands came to Christ. He said this man was quite a discipler. The Dani preacher told us of a Bible study group of hajis (been to Mecca) former Muslims who he'd won to Christ. They knew each other from the brain cancer ward and had been healed through his ministry. He operated in healing, but never spoke in tongues, but believed God could use that gift also.

That also reminds me that FF Bosworth did not believe in this hard view of 'initial evidence' and left the Assemblies when it formed its rigid doctrinal statement on the matter (after changing it's attitude about doctrinal statement by the Oneness controversy). He wrote a little booklet on it, which I think I have gotten recently but haven't read yet, called, "Do all speak with tongues?" He pointed out some of the less scrupulous preachers would get people to say 'glory glory' really fast, then say, 'You got it?'

I remember I was in a large Charismatic gathering in Jakarta one time when a well-known American Charismatic preacher was a guest. I hadn't quite realized this in a smaller congregation, but the worship leader there told them all to pray in tongues. Out of reverence for the teachings of scripture, I did not participate, since how could that be interpreted? So it seemed like I heard the whole room going 'bababa' or 'bada bada bada.' That surprised me. Then the preacher chides them for their 'baby tongues' and demonstrated his 'warring tongues'. They clapped. I thought what basis is there, Biblically, for either of these doctrines. He went on and had everyone lift their hands and try not to think anything in their mind and say whatever 'bubbled up out of their spirit' while he told others to gather around them and speak in tongues. So you blank your mind, say what comes to you. You hear 'babababa' in your ear. Does anything supernatural or spiritual have to happen to say 'babababa.' People might say, 'You got it.' It could be an initiation ritual, but I remember thinking if someone experiences that but their life doesn't change... and they say that person is filled with the Spirit, but someone who doesn't speak in tongues but has a powerful life winning souls, maybe even healing they say is not filled because he doesn't speak in tongues?

Granted, I never saw such a methodology used in the A/G or more Pentecostal-style churches. I did see one woman try to wobble another woman's jaw once, but I heard preachers preach against this sort of thing. The attitude was more do the laying on of hands, pray, and let the Spirit give the utterance.

I have also seen a Charismatic put a lot of pressure and just try to extract tongues out of people. If you put social pressure on people get someone to make a noise, tell them they spoke in tongues, is that necessarily the genuine article? Someone posted a link that had a Vinson Synan video on it where he interviewed people still alive after the Azusa Street Revival many decades ago. One concern the late Brother Synan expressed in the video was that at Azusa Street, they spoke in real languages. One of the interviewees mentioned languages like Japanese and said that drew crowds, hearing their own languages. That aligns with many testimonies from the writings of the time. And it has happened many times sense.

I noticed a lot of spiritual gifts in the early 1990's in the Vineyard movement. Their official doctrine was not 'tongues as initial evidence', not as a mandatory thing, but I saw more of certain gifts, like words of knowledge among them than I'd seen among traditional Pentecostals.

There is also the fact that a high percentage of Pentecostals in the US do not speak in tongues. I don't remember if it was A/G data or just Pentecostal denominations in general. I seem to remember a 40% figure, but I do not know if that is the percentage that do or do not speak in tongues.

There is the exegetical issue, the fact that Paul asks in I Corinthians 12, 'Not all speak with tongues, do they?' Some in the A/G will say he is talking about tongues to be interpreted, but not a 'prayer language.' But the passage from which we get the idea of praying in tongues, chapter 14 calls it 'speaking' in tongues and treats it as the same thing as tongues that are interpreted, minus the interpretation, for example v. 5 and 27-28.



Any one example is evidence against that. I have presented three.[/QUOTE]
Good comment/point..about the 'Vineyard movement.'
---
I was at the Vineyard meeting..years ago.
- Someone 'spoke in tongues'..during the meeting.
- I gave the interpretation.
After the meeting, one fellow told me..
- "You gave the word.." meaning prophetic word (the gift of prophecy).
I said.. "It was the interpretation of tongues."
- "There is not much emphasis on 'speaking in tongues' at the Vineyard, right?"
- He told me.."Yes, it is correct."
*He was surprised.. someone 'spoke in tongues' at the meeting.
---
* He was involved in the Vinyard..
- From the early days...in California.
--
Someone who 'spoke in tongues' was.. the 'guest speaker'!
---
There are many streams/camps..in 'Pentecostal & charismatic' movement.
---
I have been observing.. the movement.
- From 1970's.