Many have charged Oneness Apostolics with teaching heresy on the basis that we believe that, when one receives God’s Holy Spirit, they will speak with other tongues as God gives the utterance. My purpose in writing this paper is to answer the question posed by both the denominational world and even Apostolics: “What is the basis for this belief?” To answer this question, we look to Acts 2:1-4:

The Book of Acts:

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”

Here we find the first scriptural appearance of the practice of speaking in other tongues. There were about 120 gathered in the upper room (Acts 1:15), and every single one of them, when they were filled with the Spirit, spoke in tongues. On the day of Pentecost, many who witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Ghost asked what this meant.

 “both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mockingly said, “They are filled with new wine.” 14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.[a] 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” – Acts 2:12-18

The question the people were asking was clear; it was not vague. Their question, “What does this mean?” was in relation to speaking in tongues. Peter’s answer was: “But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.’” In other words, “This speaking in tongues is the fulfillment of the prophet Joel’s declaration that God would pour out His Spirit.” As Peter went on to preach to the crowd, he made tongues synonymous with the Holy Spirit—not once, but twice.

  “and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured   out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.” – Acts 2:33

He is not speaking of God pouring out merely the gift of tongues, but, within context, it is clear he is speaking of the Holy Spirit. How is it, then, we might ask, that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was being manifested through seeing and hearing? By the sign of speaking in tongues.

Acts 2 is not the only occurrence of speaking in tongues. There are about five explicit mentions of people being filled with the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts, three of which explicitly mention tongues, and the other two are strongly implicit of it.

• Acts 2:4 : Explicit
•  Acts 8:18 :  Implicit 
•  Acts 9:17 :  Implicit 
•  Acts 10:46 :  Explicit 
• Acts 19:6 :  Explicit 

I have already covered the account in Acts 2; now I will briefly go over the rest of the above accounts, starting with the most explicit ones. Firstly, let’s take a look at Acts 10.

 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And 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. 46 For 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?” – Acts 10:44-47

                This was the first time that Gentiles had received God’s Spirit. Verse 26, “For they were hearing them speak in tongues,” simply means they knew they had received the Holy Ghost because of the simple fact that they heard them speak in tongues. Peter goes on to say that they not only received the Spirit of God, but they did so “just as we have”—that is, in the same way, or in the same manner, that Peter himself did on the day of Pentecost, along with the rest of the 120 in the upper room, when they spoke in other tongues as the Spirit of God gave the utterance.

                  The next explicit mention of tongues as a sign of the reception of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts is in Acts chapter 19.

                    “And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland[a] country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.” – Acts 19:1-7

Here we see that the obvious answer to the question, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” was no. This, in and of itself, begs a few questions. How would they have known that they received the Holy Ghost? The question itself makes evident that, when one receives the gift of God’s Spirit, it would be clear.

The second question this verse begs is: Do we not receive the Holy Ghost when we believe? If believing were all that was required, and all that was necessary to know that one had received the gift, the question would then become irrelevant. This would be like asking, “Did the light turn on when you flipped the switch?” The expected answer would be yes; however, that was not the answer Paul was given, nor was he expecting any particular answer. If he were, he would not have asked the question to begin with, since he already knew the answer would be yes. In the same way, why would one ask a ridiculous question like, “Did the light turn on when you flipped the switch?” when they knew the light would turn on—especially considering that the promises of God are not like a light bulb that sometimes works and sometimes does not?

Now, how do we know that they believed in Christ? Some argue they did not, but I digress. If they did not: (1) Paul would not have asked them a question that already assumed their belief, and (2) Paul would have clarified about Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection—but he didn’t. Instead, he clarified baptism and that they must receive the new baptism—that is, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, of which John’s baptism was only a shadow. If someone does not believe in Christ, they should first be taught about the gospel and about Jesus before they learn about baptism; otherwise, they will be in deep confusion. Unless someone wants to argue that Paul did not understand the basics of ministry, it is best to assume that he already knew they believed in Christ.

Why is this important? Because it shows that belief in and of itself is not an indicator that somebody has received the gift of God’s Spirit. So, if not belief, then what? The supernatural sign of tongues. (I must clarify that tongues are only the initial sign; the greatest ongoing evidence is the fruit of the Spirit.) As we continue to read the rest of the passage, we see exactly that: “And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”

Now that we have covered the three explicit mentions in Acts, let’s take a look at the two implicit ones and see why they still hold up as proof texts for the Pentecostal position.

               Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” – Acts 8:14-19

                      The first thing to notice about this passage is that they had already believed and been baptized and yet had not received the Holy Spirit. This refutes the claim of the vast majority of Christendom that you are either filled with the Spirit instantaneously upon belief (most Protestant branches) or at the moment of baptism (Catholicism and Orthodoxy). We must ask the question, why was it assumed that the Samerians had not received the Holy Spirit if they had already believed and been baptized? For Apostolic believers this question poses no confusion for us, for we know the answer. It was known that the Samaritans had not yet received the Holy Ghost because they had not yet spoken in tongues. Now what we contend for is that whatever Simon saw it was more than a mere proclamation of faith or mental assent because this passage makes clear that those things had already taken place. It’s also important to note that Simon was a sorcerer who had seen all kinds of false miracles and wonders by the powers of demons so it is unlikely that he would have been as impressed as he was unless what he saw was something miraculous. In fact he was so impressed that he offered money to exercise the ability to pray people through to the Holy Ghost for which he was harshly rebuked.

                  “ Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” 24 And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” – Acts 8:18-24

                                 Now we must also consider that it was not merely the laying on of hands without any other outward manifestation that Simon saw. If it were only the mere laying on of the Apostles’ hands that gave the Spirit, Simon would not have offered money, because it would not have been beyond his ability to lay hands on people—as anyone could do that. But Simon recognized that what the Apostles were doing was beyond his capabilities. What was it that Simon saw? It is very plausible to conclude that what Simon saw when the Apostles laid hands upon the Samaritans was the speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit of God gave the utterance.

                   The last verse I will be covering in the book of Acts is Acts 9:17 which reads as follows:

                “So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

              This takes place right after Jesus appeared to Saul (Paul) and revealed Himself as his Lord. 

                   “Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” – Acts 9:3-5

               Immediately, Saul recognized through divine revelation that whoever this was, He indeed was Lord. When He revealed Himself as the resurrected Son of God, whom Saul had been persecuting, there is no doubt that, at that very moment, Saul recognized that his Lord was none other than Jesus Christ. By most Protestant standards, Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit at that very moment—but wait a minute, that’s not what the Scripture says. The chapter goes on to tell us that even after Saul’s revelation of the mighty God in Christ, he didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until Ananias prayed for him and laid his hands on him. Now, the chapter is silent on the matter of tongues; however, we do know for certain that, at one point or another, Paul did speak in tongues for the very first time, because he explicitly tells us so:

                                          “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” – 1 Corinthians 14:18.

The Epistles and Gospels:

One charge against the Pentecostal perspective is that nowhere else in the New Testament do we find biblical evidence for our doctrine. Not only is this argument unsound, but it is also a strawman of sorts. Within the Epistles, we find various verses that point to speaking in tongues in relation to the Holy Spirit indwelling.

“Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” – Galatians 4:6

The word Abba is Aramaic for “father” and the Greek word here used for “Father” is patēr. Here we see two languages which represent the changing of languages at the reception of God’s Spirit. When one receives the Spirit of God they will acquire a new language whereby they cry to their Father in heaven. Jesus Himself said “Abba Father” (Mark 14:36) therefore it is no coincidence that this it is described as the Spirit of God’s Son as Jesus Himself being multilingual foreshadowed the manifestation of that coming Spirit this may seem far fetched at first but this was exactly how church fathers like Irenaeus understood it.

“ In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to these people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” – 1 Corinthians 14:21–23

In this passage Paul directly quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 which says:

 “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.”

Within this passage that Paul interprets as referring to tongues lies a very subtle but very important sentence: “This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest.” This is the Holy Ghost—the Spirit of rest, that is, the Comforter (John 14:26). Therefore, we see that tongues testify to that Spirit of rest.

Now, many point to 1 Corinthians 14:22 to refute the claim that tongues are a sign that one has received the Holy Spirit, because it says, “Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers.” However, we must read this in context. The main theme of 1 Corinthians 14 is edification. There is a difference between the signs for the church that convey the Spirit’s power within it, and signs for evangelism and edification. We see this subtle distinction in Mark 16:17-18, in which we read of signs that are specifically addressed to the church. We know this because it specifically says, “These signs shall follow those that believe.” However, though they are for the church, they are also for the purpose of evangelism. Tongues are a sign for unbelievers only in terms of evangelism and edification regarding the gospel, but to the church, tongues are a sign of the Spirit’s presence within.

“Church Fathers,” such as Tertullian (who I will later quote in detail), seemed to understand this, as he used tongues within his church as a way to validate the Spirit’s presence. By extension, they often used it to validate their doctrine.

Within the Gospels, we also find very profound references to speaking in tongues.

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” – John 3:5-8

      The Greek word in this passage that is used for both “wind” and “Spirit” is pneuma (πνεῦμα). When Jesus is speaking of wind in verse 8, He is intentionally using the word pneuma to convey a dual meaning—both “Spirit” and “wind”—at once, in the framework of both allegory and literalism. If Jesus did not intend a dual meaning for the word “wind,” He would have used the word anemos (ἄνεμος), which strictly means wind or gush of air.

Based on this knowledge, we gain a better understanding of what Jesus was trying to communicate about this “sound,” or phōnē (φωνὴν). This sound is not merely in relation to a metaphorical wind, nor is it itself a mere metaphor or allegory. Because the central focus is on a literal (as opposed to an allegorical or metaphorical) Spirit, this sound is not merely allegory but literal. Since pneuma carries both literal and metaphorical meaning, so does phōnē.

Now, what is this literal sound? In John’s Gospel, φωνή never means a vague effect. It always refers to an actual audible sound, usually a voice or utterance. When the Apostles received the Spirit of promise in that upper room on the day of Pentecost, there was a “rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2). Could this have been to bring Jesus’ saying to the remembrance of the Apostles? In fact, this is not the only symbol (in physical form) that appears in Acts 2; we also see cloven tongues, like as of fire, paralleled with Matthew 3:11.

        “ I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

Bringing these things into consideration, it is not that the sound of wind itself in Acts 2 is the fulfillment of John 3:8, but rather a symbol pointing back to the promises that were made concerning the Holy Spirit that would come, and a confirmation of the sign of tongues that was being implemented. It’s also important to note that nowhere else in the New Testament do we see cloven tongues as of fire or a rushing mighty wind at all—let alone in relation to Spirit indwellings. We do, however, see tongues mentioned either implicitly or explicitly every single time in the book of Acts, as I have already shown.

And we must remember that Jesus was not speaking merely of the 120 in the upper room; He said, “So is every one that is born of the Spirit”—not some, not a few, not 120, but everyone. Therefore, if the sign of rushing wind did happen to everyone in the book of Acts who received the Spirit, then this cannot be the phōnē that is being spoken of in John 3:8. So then, what is the phōnē Jesus was speaking about? If we take all these points into consideration—that (1) it is not merely a metaphor, and (2) it is consistent with every experience of Spirit indwelling, not just some—then the most logical conclusion would be that the phōnē (sound) Jesus was speaking of was, in fact, speaking in tongues.

 “ In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”  – John 7:37-39

This word in verse 38 is often translated in modern versions as “heart” or “innermost being.” However, the KJV is much more accurate in translating the Greek word koilia (κοιλία) as “belly.” The word ek (ἐκ), which is translated as “out of,” generally means the source of origin or the point whence action or motion proceeds. This reflects the ANE thought that speech proceeds from, or originates in, the belly.

In John 7:38, Jesus was simply using the language of the day to express the act of speech. If the “belly” Jesus was speaking of refers to the origin of speech, then the rivers of living water must be that speech. Rivers flow naturally; the flow is not dependent upon sentience or conscious effort. Likewise, when somebody speaks in an unknown tongue, it is not their conscious effort that causes the words to flow, but the Spirit of God giving the utterance.

“And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;” – Mark 16:17

One accusation against Pentecostal theology on the doctrine of tongues is that we are outright denying 1 Corinthians 12:30, which states: 

       “Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues?   Do all interpret?” – 1 Corinthians 12:30 

Their assertion is that the rhetorical answer to this question is, of course, no, and therefore not every believer who receives the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues. I find it interesting that many of these same people who use this argument often pray for, and even lay hands on, the sick for their recovery without ever claiming the gift of healing. If they are to be consistent, why not say, “Not every Christian can pray for the sick”? After all, within the very same verse, the rhetorical answer “no” also applies to the question, “Have all the gifts of healing?”

Why then do they continue to insist that every member of the church has been given the authority to heal the sick through the power of God if not all have gifts of healing? The hypocrisy is evident. So then, are they wrong for believing that all Christians have this authority? No. Rather, there is a distinction between healing through the hands and prayers of every believer, and the gift of healing, which is a deeper, unique dimension—and even calling—within that operation.

Now, this same logic applies to tongues. Within this context, tongues are being spoken of as a unique experience for those who have been called into a deeper dimension of the gift. It is likely that it is speaking of the kind of tongues that can be interpreted; this can be shown in the preceding words, “Do all interpret?” So then, where does the Bible indicate that not only do all believers have the authority to heal the sick, but to speak in tongues also? Mark 16:17-18, which says:

           “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will 

          place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Now I will grant that this verse is not saying that it is of salvific necessity that all Christians exercise these things but if we are living in the authority that God has given us then these signs will follow naturally. Jesus is saying that if His church walks in His authority these signs will follow us, and they will become normative.

Old Testament Prophecy:

“For with stammering lips and another tongue

He will speak to this people,

12 To whom He said, “This is the rest with which

You may cause the weary to rest,”

And, “This is the refreshing”; Yet they would not hear.” 

– Isaiah 28:11-12

I have already mentioned this passage, but I feel there is a bit more to be said about it. One cannot deny that this passage is speaking about tongues, because Scripture itself interprets it that way. Paul quotes this same passage in 1 Corinthians 14 and applies it to tongues as a sign to unbelievers.

“In the law it is written: ‘With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,’ says the Lord. 22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.” – 1 Corinthians 14:21-22

Within Isaiah 28:11-12, it says that this sign would have a very specific message that would be rejected by the masses: “This is the rest” and “This is the refreshing.” What is the “this” in question? Could it be the same “this” that Peter spoke of on the day of Pentecost?

“This is that, that was spoken of by the prophet Joel; “in the last days I will pour out my spirit on all flesh” – Acts 2:16-17

 “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language  That they all may call on the name of the Lord,To serve Him with one accord.” – Zephaniah 3:8-9

                      Here we see a promise that one day God would restore a pure language—not to Jews only, but to the peoples (plural). Not only is this language pure, but it also brings unity and brings the peoples into “one accord.” How is this so? Because when one receives the Holy Spirit, with the initial sign of tongues, they become part of the unified body of Christ.

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one    body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” – 1 Corinthians 12:13

What happened on the day of Pentecost was a reversal of what happened at Babel:

                    “ Now the whole earth had one language and one [a]speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. 3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and [b]bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. 4 And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”

                       5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let us go down and they will confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” – Genesis 11:3-8

                 At Babel, God confused their languages to bring about division. Why? Because they were commanded to spread out upon the earth. Not only that, but when they gathered together, it was for a blasphemous cause. At Pentecost, it’s different—they did not gather in disobedience, but because Jesus said, “And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).

The people at the tower of Babel came together so that they could reach heaven, but those in the upper room gathered so that heaven would reach them. Therefore, tongues are a testimony to the restoration of that unity which was lost at Babel. And if that disunity spreads to all people, how much more will the unity of God’s blood-bought church be found among all of its believers through the sharing of the same Spirit and the same language?

         A Historical Case:

Much of the denominational world, especially Catholicism, prides itself on Church history and the “Church Fathers.” Although Scripture is sufficient for doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16), we too should be vigilant not to cast away the history of the Church as having no benefit to us. Church history serves as a confirmation of what is found in Scripture. If we believe in what the Bible says, then we should expect that those same doctrines found therein were followed in the following centuries, because we know that God always leaves a faithful remnant (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 9:27; Isaiah 10:20).

Although this historical remnant of Spirit-filled believers may be hard to see, we can be assured that God has not left us without some witnesses. Consider Elijah and his discouragement:

“I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

15 The Lord said to him, “Go back the way you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael king over Aram. 16 Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet. 17 Jehu will put to death any who escape the sword of Hazael, and Elisha will put to death any who escape the sword of Jehu. 18 Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.” – 1 Kings 19:14-18

                Here we see that, though Elijah believed he was the only faithful believer at that time, God reassured him that he was not alone. The number was very small—there is no denying that—but the moral of the story is that God does not leave His people without a great cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1), upon which we may rest assured that darkness has not prevailed. Let us now look at what evidence history provides for our spiritual ancestry.

Firstly, we look to Irenaeus (125–202 AD). Irenaeus was of direct spiritual lineage to the Apostles. He had been taught by Polycarp (Eusebius, History of the Church, Book 5, Chapter 5:8), who had in turn been taught by the Apostles (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:4). Knowing this, it would be very wise to take seriously what Irenaeus had to say concerning tongues. Irenaeus not only confirmed tongues to be among their churches, but even treated it as an essential step in salvation:

 “Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modelled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God. Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God. For this reason does the apostle declare, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, 1 Corinthians 2:6 terming those persons perfect who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms spiritual, they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.” (Irenaeus – against heresies Book 5 chapter 6:1) 

Here, Irenaeus is describing something essential: he is describing the perfection that takes place in every part of the believer (soul, mind, body, etc.) when they receive the Holy Spirit, and how they all come into union not only with God but with each other also: “For the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the Spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God.” Irenaeus saw tongues as the fulfillment of that culmination, when our spirit bears witness with God’s Spirit through the fleshly tongue (read Galatians 4:6): “Terming those persons perfect who have received the Spirit of God, and who, through the Spirit of God, do speak in all languages.”

It is possible, though not certain, that he could have been speaking of every demonstration of tongues distinctly: “all kinds of languages”—human languages like what was spoken at Pentecost, “and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men” (Acts 2:8); tongues that are accompanied by interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:5); and “declare the mysteries of God”—unknown tongues of self-edification and prayer to God (1 Corinthians 14:2).

Tertullian reflected something that many people overlook: he showed a general thought of his day that tongues and other miraculous gifts were a legitimate appeal to orthodoxy, and that a lack thereof reflected a lack of the Spirit’s presence.

“Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his     god, some prophets such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both foretold things to come and have revealed the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer — only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred” (Tertullian – Against Marcion 5.8)

This mindset is likely what led Tertullian to later convert to Montanism which was full of miraculous ecstasy such as prophecy and tongues which is why many consider it a forerunner of Pentecostalism. Montanism is considered to have been started by a man named Montanus, however there is some nuance that needs to be addressed. Montanus did not start a new church or “denomination”; however Montanism was a movement founded on some of the prophecies that Montanus had made that later proved to be false. The existence of Montanism points to a Charismatic or Pentecostal church prior to the movement of which Montanus sprang from, interestingly enough many scholars have suggested that many of the early Montanists held a modalistic/Sabelian view of God. Down below are few references to the Montanist and their ecstatic speech:

“Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla spoke in ecstasies, claiming that they were filled with the Spirit, yet they uttered things they themselves did not understand.”  (Jerome – Against Jovinian 2.19)

“There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in Mysia, and there first Montanus, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, fell into a kind of frenzy and abnormal ecstasy, and being suddenly seized, began to speak and utter strange things, prophesying contrary to the custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.” (Eusebius – Ecclesiastical History 5.16.7–9)

                            The man himself understands nothing of what he

                             says, but utters the words while in ecstasy, as though 

   Now, to be fair, much of what was said about their ecstatic speech concerned prophecy; however, many of these references have still led scholars to believe that this ecstatic speech also consisted of tongues. I would personally contend that Montanus was originally a part of the Apostolic Church, because within the Montanists we see evidence of Spirit-filled believers and a Sabellian understanding of God.                         he was asleep or beside himself. (Epiphanius – Panarion 48.4.2)

Sabellius was a Oneness contender who rejected the idea of a multi-personal God and emphasized the complete deity of Jesus Christ. Some scholars even suggest that he spoke in tongues. Wikipedia states:

“Sabellianism was a doctrine adhered to by a sect of the Montanists. The Montanists are the same sect that Tertullian himself was a member of when he wrote (the anti-Sabellian) Against Praxeas.^[13] Apparently then, there were both Trinitarian and modalist participants in the Montanism… It is reported that some Sabellians experienced glossolalia (speaking in tongues) and baptized in the “shorter formula” because of their denial of the Trinity… Sabellianism teaching of Modalism and singular name baptism was also accompanied by glossolalia and prophecy among the above-mentioned sect of Montanists.” (Sabellius – Wikipedia)

Cyprian of Carthage wrote to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, concerning what may be known as the “heretical baptism controversy.” Stephen argued that the heretics still had a valid baptism, provided that it was done in the name of Jesus Christ. Cyprian sent a letter to him to argue that he was wrong, stating that if their baptism was valid due to the effect of the name of Jesus, then he would also have to conclude that they did not have the Holy Spirit, seeing that the same name was not used for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost:

 “Or if they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ, are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?” (Cyprian – Epistle 73:5)

Here we see not only that these “heretics” baptized in the name of Jesus, but that they believed in receiving the Spirit as a distinct experience from belief and baptism, and that it often came through the laying on of hands. Keep in mind that the main group known for baptizing in the name of Jesus at that time were the Sabellians, who reportedly spoke in other tongues. Therefore, it is plausible to conclude that these Sabellians were not only Oneness, but that they also believed in the biblical definition of being filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues.

It’s important to note that in those days, many ancient Catholics did understand the laying on of hands after baptism as the moment of receiving the Holy Spirit in a real, first-time sense, as opposed to Catholicism today, which claims that reception of the Holy Spirit happens at baptism, while the laying on of hands at the sacrament of confirmation is for the strengthening of spiritual communion with the Spirit. This doctrinal development can lead us to assume that the early Catholic Church had a much more accurate (though incomplete) understanding of Spirit reception, due to the fact that many of the teachings of the Apostles were dominant and still lingering during the earliest centuries of the Church.

Augustine seemed to agree with the Pentecostal interpretation of the book of Acts, but believed that the initial sign of tongues was reserved only for that time:

“For the Holy Spirit is not only given by the laying on of hands amid the testimony of temporal sensible miracles, as He was given in former days to be the credentials of a rudimentary faith, and for the extension of the first beginnings of the Church. For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Spirit should immediately begin to speak with tongues?”  (Augustine – On baptism Book 3 Chapter 16)

Conclusion:

My question to Augustine would be: what leads you to believe that the initial sign of tongues was reserved merely for the time of the Apostles? 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says:

“Love never fails; but if there are gifts of [a]prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.”

What is this “perfect”? As we look around us, we see a world in pain and the masses on their way to a burning hell. Is this perfect? No. If creation is still groaning, we still await our perfection, and we live within the “partial.” Therefore, prophecy, tongues, and the word of knowledge will persist. Why? Because these gifts are tools from God, given to His church for the purpose of finding strength and bringing the lost to Christ. God has given His blood-bought Church the sign of tongues to bring unity among His people, give us assurance, and purify our mortal bodies. Jesus promised us that His word is sufficient for us, and that doctrinal development is not an option:

                      “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” – Matthew 24:35