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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any one example is evidence against that. I have presented three.
1
