Why Do We All Speak In Tongues?

Pentecostals believe that every believer who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues. It's the initial physical evidence that the experience has in fact occurred according to their reckoning. Charismatics don't necessarily concur, and so I ask, "Are tongues the only initial evidence of being baptized in the Spirit?" Beyond doubt, tongues are one of the possible evidences found in the scriptures, but what about the fruit of the Spirit or prophecy and visions?

People wonder, perhaps you do too, why this fixation upon tongues among the Pentecostals? Simply, it is biblical. Except for the experience of Christ (as dealt with in this post), speaking in tongues is either directly associated or can be inferred to have occurred in every incidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit recorded in the Bible. In Acts 2, 10, and 19, tongues are specifically referenced; in Acts 8, it is clear that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was anticipated to have some physical, visible sign. Given the facts of what they accepted as evidence in chapter 10, what would that evidence be but tongues?

Even though it's not mentioned in Acts 9, we know that Paul could speak in tongues after his baptism (filling) with the Spirit (as noted in this post). Minimally, it was widespread, if not universal (as I believe) in Corinth. That other signs, like prophesying, may manifest in conjunction with tongues should not seem incredible, but that tongues is associated with every scriptural account of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be reasonably disavowed.

The earliest church had an experience that then became precedent for the church that followed. The first church used that first occurrence as a rough template to judge that which happened in their time, we should do the same. For the vast stretch of time that the historical church did not follow suit, there were no tongues and precious little other miraculous manifestations. In 1901, when that which became the Pentecostal Movement rediscovered this pattern and embraced it as normative, tongues and miracles resurfaced with vigor.

I think we can know the tree by its fruit in respect to this doctrine. Those who believe it experience what is found in the scriptures, whereas those who don't clumsily scramble about trying to explain why they don't practice what is found in the scriptures. Why would anyone attempting to abide by the Bible as instruction in godly living not want to speak in tongues?

There is, however, a big difference between the evidence for birth by and the evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit. The fact of conversion is evidenced initially by the Holy Spirit inwardly inspiring an awareness of God as Father and Jesus as Lord. Over time, it expresses itself outwardly by a lifestyle of holiness and the fruit of the Spirit. The initial evidence of baptism in the Spirit is speaking in tongues. Ideally, a Christian will evidence both.