[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

The highlighted portion of your post, seems opposed to the "historical narrative" of the New Testament based on these scriptures:
Acts 10:44-47
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 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. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 11:15-17
15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

And tapping on rocks is how we get water?

Historical Narrative Example- When the historical narrative in Exodus tells us that Moses struck a rock with his staff and water came out, are we then to assume that all believers can strike a rock to have water? God is speaking to Moses, and he says:“I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exodus 17:6).

However, one narrative does not a doctrine make. Something must be repeated to establish a norm (a “have-to pattern”). Furthermore, this “thing” must be consistent each time it is repeated. It is interesting that this “water from a rock” did not happen only once. It happened again.

In the book of Numbers, it says:Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank (Numbers 20:11).(3)However, even with two separate accounts of Moses striking a rock to retrieve water, this narrative description of what happened should not be treated as though it were a prescription for “the way to get water.” And, as far as I know, no thoughtful Christian believes that we can simply take a stick and hit a rock for our water needs.Though this is an extreme example of how not to build doctrines on narratives, the point should be clear

I believe the benefits and purpose of tongues (i.e. edification, intercession, a gift among many, etc) is clearly taught in the didactic genre by the protagonists in Acts.

That it is a sign to the unbeliever seems to also be ignored by the tongues census takers who use it as a sign to prove belief (see Borat) .... or that Paul and Christ teach on what the fruit of the Spirit truly is ....

Adding to the Word ... however, and making tongues salvific has serious consequences as taught in Scripture, IMO.