The Bible does not actually teach that tongues is a sign to other believers that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit. Now, it might have helped Peter and those of the circumcision to realize what God was doing. But Paul says that tongues is a sign to them that believe not.
What Peter quoted from Joel was about prophesying, also, Joel did not specify speaking in tongues. The gift of the Spirit is for as many as the Lord shall call. Peter doesn't say speaking in tongues is for all whom the Lord shall call.
This is the promise of the Spirit, of which speaking in tongues is a manifestation. This is not a promise of tongues for all.
If you actually read the passage it does NOT say that everyone spoke in tongues. It says they spoke in tongues and magnified God. IF half spoke in tongues, and half magnified God in Greek, the wording of the passage still fits.
Maybe they spoke in tongues. Maybe some did and some prophesied, and some magnified God, or whatever else happened. But if you are using this passage as evidence that all believers can potentially speak in tongues... and it doesn't have evidence of speaking in tongues in it, that doesn't make sense. That's circular reasoning.
You skipped some details. He baptized them, laid hands on them and then what did they do?
The spake in tongues and prophesied.
So if all spoke in tongues and prophesied, that fits the wording of the passage. If you are taking the very passages you are using to argue that tongues is some kind of exclusive initial evidence and reading the idea of tongues as initial evidence into the passages, that is circular reasoning.
I think one of the arguments for it from days gone by was 'two or three witnesses of scripture'-- that there is a witness in Acts 2, in Acts 10/11 and Acts 19. But if Acts 10/11 and 19 equally fit a scenario where not all actually speak in tongues, then there is not much to the argument.
Let's compare the argument to someone who insists that if one physically goes to Mt. Sinai, one will hear the audible voice of God. He argues.
Argument 1-- Hearing God on Mt. Sinai
"1. Moses went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.
2. The children of Israel went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.
3. Elijah went to Mt. Sinai/Mt.Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.
Therefore, if you go to Mt. Sinai, you are 100% guaranteed to hear it too! Sign up now for your trip to the the real Mt. Sinai!"
Now let's compare that to the initial evidence argument.
Now let's compare this for the argument for tongues as initial evidence
"Argument 2- Tongues as Initial Evidence
1. In Acts 2, they were baptized and filled with the Spirit and they all spoke in tongues.
2. In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and at least some if not all of them spoke in tongues and at least some if not all magnified God.
3. In Acts 19, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and at least some if not all of them spoke in tongues and at least some if not all prophesied."
You can see the parallels in the argument, and the argument is tighter for the first argument, since Moses and the Israelites did hear God, and it isn't clear if all in Acts 10 and 19 individually spoke in tongues.
Let's consider also those passages where the disciples say that it would be better that the ointment poured on Jesus be sold and given to the poor. If you read one gospel 'the disciples' said this. But in John, we see that Judas actually spoke it. He may have done it as a member of the group or even as a representative of the group, and hence 'the disciples', but according to John, Judas spoke the words. So why would a passage that says that 'they' spoke in tongues and prophesied have to mean that each individual had to every one speak in tongues down to the last name? Again, if one prophesied and the other spoke in tongues, or if some in the group did these things as representatives of the group or as members of the group, wouldn't the wording of the passage also be true?
Also notice the Joel prophecy singled out _prophesying_, which we also see in that passage in Acts 19.
Then there is a scripture that says 'Not all speak in tongues do they?' in I Corinthians 12, leaving those who insist on the initial evidence doctrine arguing that he doesn't really mean that, what he really means is some specific type of speaking in tongues that not all do. That makes it even weaker than the Sinai argument.
God is not obligated to speak out loud and let someone hear Him if that person goes to Mt. Sinai. Why would God be obligated to enable each individual to speak in tongues?
I've also heard the teaching that you get baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues and it is a 'gateway' to gifts of the Spirit. You might prophesy or heal or interpret tongues. And while that may happen in that sequence for some Christians, there is no guarantee of that in scripture.
It also does not align with everyone's experience. Smith Wigglesworth, according to his sermons turned into books, was holding healing meetings and seeing healings before he spoke in tongues. He arranged them. The guy who was going to minister healing didn't show up, and he ended up doing it and got into it that way. And his wife was involved in an offshoot of the Salvation Army.
General Boothe of the Salvation Army had told of a vision he had. Some of the Holiness folks had visions. There was healing going on around the turn of the century and before that before the Pentecostal movement emerged. People didn't have to speak in tongues to operate in healing.
Also, I know a brother who has interpreted tongues at an A/G who has never spoken in tongues. He was open to it, but it never happened. He had a post-salvation experience that he believes was being baptized with the Holy Spirit. I did ask him if he ever had the experience of someone else interpreting a tongue before he could and giving the same experience. Yes, he had, as other people who interpret tongues have also experienced.
And there are churches that believe in empowerment by the Spirit who don't believe in initial evidence, and that doesn't keep them from prophesying or getting words of knowledge.
Have you ever heard the expression, 'You can't put God in a box?'
.