Speak in Tongues - essential :

[redleghunter]

Do you really think that in a cosmopolitan city like Jerusalem at the the time of Pentecost anyone, let alone most, would think the speakers of a known foreign language to be drunk because they were speaking it?

Considering the text modifies that the apostles were Galileans speaking these languages and the cacophony of multiple languages spoken at the same time? Sure it makes sense.

 

[Ron Gurley]

The "sign gift of tongues"(glossa).. existed until about100 AD) did NOTHING to build up/edify the "CHURCH", the Body of Christ, the collective body of believers.

 

[Biblicist]

Show me the contradiction. The apostles on the day of Pentecost were not praying in the Spirit but proclaiming the Gospel.

If you go back and re-read the text you will discover that they were not preaching the Gospel but speaking words of praise to the Father, which is what we do in Church when we speak in tongues. If Peter had not provided an evangelistic message then the day would have been lost on the unregenerate Jews who would have walked away thinking that the Galileans were a bit odd.

In fact we have absolutely no examples from within the Scriptures where tongues has or can be used to Evangelise the lost. If it were possible to do so then I suspect that such a powerful tool would have seen the entire Roman world saved within a decade or two.

 

[Biblicist]

The "sign gift of tongues"(glossa).. existed until about100 AD) did NOTHING to build up/edify the "CHURCH", the Body of Christ, the collective body of believers.

Tongues existed at least up until the beginning of the Dark Age of the Church which began late in the fourth century.

 

[DamianWarS]

What if I told you the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost?

There is a fundamental problem with terminology in these discussions that lead to circle conversation; no one really listens to each other. Those that see the baptism of HS as a separate experience from salvation see the infilling of the HS analogous to salvation. Scripture shows us Jesus breathed the HS on his disciples and scripture also shows us the baptism of the HS. Infilling and baptism.

Don't know how this supports your argument of a 'separate baptism of the Holy Spirit.'

The Gentiles heard, believed, received the Holy Spirit and were baptized. Sounds very familiar to me

the unique element of cornelius is water baptism. This shows baptism of the HS is separate to salvation and water baptism. I'll let you read the text to discover it.

Now we have teachings in the epistles which list out the gifts and the very same Paul who laid hands on people in Acts is the one who wrote most of the epistles.

Again this goes back to talking in circles and misunderstanding terminology. Those who see the baptism of the HS as a separate experience from salvation see it also as a separate doctrine. The doctrine of the baptism of the HS and the doctrine of the gifts of the HS each with a purpose that is developed through scripture, agree with scripture, and does not contradict scripture.

If we don't appeal to the Gospels and to the Epistles we are left trying to 'fill in the blanks' with the recorded historical events in Acts.

Silence does not create doctrine but of course we are not talking about silence. What happened with the ethiopian eunuch is regards to the baptism of the HS is not commented on so of course it can't be used to agree or disagree with specific doctrine on the baptism of the HS.

The baptism of the HS is shown in Acts to come with immediate power from the HS for a specific purpose to what seems to be strongly connected with the spread of the gospel. The gifts of the HS as shown in Corinthians are there to edify and develop a body of believers in a more narrowed focus; both can benefit the same purpose but their immediate mandate seems to be different. This is why in Acts we see manifestations like tongues, prophecy and boldness indiscriminately pour out, but in Corinthians we see a much more specific skill sets very uniquely given out to develop a body of believers and give each a role.

It would be rather silly to infer a supernatural power of administration being poured out during pentecost because the gift of administration is not well suited for evangelism but rather better at serving and developing a body of believers. In the same way, as Corinthians makes very clear, all receiving a gift of boldness... or a gift of tongues or prophesy does little to edify and build a body of believers and it just makes a bunch of noise. A confusion here again is terminology. I don't claim that all who spoke in tongues in Acts have the gift of tongues or all you prophesied in Acts have the gift of prophecy but rather the HS poured out his power for a more evangelistic purpose and the gifts of the HS more for a edification purpose.

Different experiences with a different focus and neither disagree with scripture.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Frankly that's a new one on me.

It's a new one on most people who just assume that they were speaking known languages. The text, however, does not say that as we see here from your reprint of it here.

The text's plain language says thus:...............4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.....................6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? .............. 11 we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

There we go - the plain words of the scriptures as you have provided for us.

"Other tongues" doesn't mean the known languages of those around the building any more than praying in an unknown tongue means praying in French when you're an Englishmen -- and "hearing" in their own language does not mean that the disciples were so speaking.

One has to truly wrest the text to deny these 'other tongues' are somehow one tongue but multiple people from multiple languages and dialects heard them speak their own language.

Not so.

The text says exactly what it says. Only when one makes a very big assumption, as you have, does it seem to say something different.

I outlined in my post before why that seems unlikely in light of the simple logistics of the situation and the fact that people were quite used to hearing many languages spoken and would not think anyone drunk for so doing at Pentecost.

In addition the tongues spoken at various other times in the Book of Acts were not necessarily known language either.

And tell me why you believe that the tongues used in the Corinthian church were known languages.

Why on earth would the Holy Spirit bring a message in French while ministering in an English congregation only to have it left unsaid because there were no Frenchmen there to interpret it?

Do you believe that the French message was for a Frenchman in the group? Why would he be sitting in an English speaking service without knowing English? If it was for his benefit in particular - why would he as a Frenchman or anyone else of English persuasion need it interpreted?

Do you believe that the French message was for the Englishmen who may have been the only language group represented there? Why not bring the message in English in the first place if that were the case?

Unless we are talking about interpretation of "other tongues" as believed by charismatics, it makes no sense at all - either in the Book of Acts of in 1 Corinthians.

I assume that you believe that the incidents of people receiving the Holy Spirit throughout the Book of Acts was an accompaniment of the original visitation by the Holy Spirit and not a second blessing as the charismatics believe it to be.

If so - you do not believe that regeneration is at the same time as belief but rather is administered to believers by a special group of people who lay hands on them - or is received in the salvational sense after tarrying in a special place for a period of time etc.?

Oh - I know - it is usually said that these incidents were special cases for this or that reason.

Not very comforting to those believers who bank on having the Holy Spirit in them simply because they have believed on and trusted God that it is so.

Any interpretation that makes the sealing of the Holy Spirit against the day of judgment dependent on the works of man in any way is a false gospel plain and simple.

I think I know that you will react to such words as mine in the same way you reacted to my original post.

This is probably a "new one on me" for you.

Perhaps you and others would be well served by looking at the text directly and not through the lens of traditions.

That also goes for the Pentecostals who supposedly message the Holy Spirit into new believers and proclaim them "Spirit filled" for the rest of their lives simply because they have managed to utter a few words of glossolalia at a certain time after becoming a believer.

That goes double for the weak theologians of the Pentecostal persuasion who say that tongues is necessary for salvation.

I have looked long,hard and in great depth at these issues.

I'm not just shooting from the hip here. I have to be sure that these ideas have been reasoned through thoroughly with an eye to the good systematic theological principles.

Sometimes I come across as a bit blunt and even belligerent when I answer posts like yours. I just like to lay things out plainly and not mince words.

No offense is intended toward you or anyone else in this post.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Actually if you read the entire passage, Paul makes a distinction and verses 16-20 make it clear the goal for edification is understanding.

Exactly. That is why in church Paul limits the speaking in tongues to the manifestation of the gift, not the sign, and then only 2 or 3 and 1 with the gift of interpretation of tongue to interpret.

 

[Marvin Knox]

....................... 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

So, if I'm hearing what you guys have been saying about tongues being known languages --- Chinese believers, for instance, speak to God in Russian?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Receiving the permanent indwelling of God The Holy Spirit occurs at the SALVATION EVENT...WITHOUT anything else!!

The JOY of SALVATION remains. It is NOT a "second blessing".

So you believe that the incident of receiving and being filled with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a "SALVATION EVENT".

You believe that salvation comes by tarrying in special places for certain periods of time after believing? You believe that salvation comes by the laying on of hands by select groups of people? You believe that salvation come at the time of baptism?

I suppose you believe that the visitation of the Holy Spirit in preparation for His ministry was a "SALVATION EVENT".

Do your believe in the omnipresence of God or do you really believe that the Holy Spirit actually traveled to the upper room for the first time when He fell on the disciples?

Don't you know that these supposed movements of the Holy Spirit from place to place are "relational" changes rather than actual movement?

I believe that the position you are presenting is just the party line of the majority and not, as one person here charged you with, very well thought out.

I've run up against your party line cut and paste theology before on other subjects.

If you'd care to dialog directly on any of these subjects rather than just post into the thread in general - I'm here and willing to do so.

 

[swordsman1]

Christian or not, a human linguist would come up dry when trying to apply the natural laws of linguistics to the groanings of the Spirit of God.

I presume by the 'groanings of the Spirit of God' you mean tongues (not that tongues is ever described as such)? Why would the laws of linguistics not be applied to a 'heavenly' language as any other language. Tongues is a languages according to scripture. And if it is a language then by definition it is a method of communication where the same words will have the same meanings. So if someone said "Mishalla ta famishundra" and someone in a Pentecostal service translated it is as "God is good", we would know that one of those words means 'God' and another one is 'good'. If it is indeed a language, the next time the person spoke those same words they would have the same meaning. Carry on like that and you can see it would be a relatively trivial matter to compile a lexicon of the language. Yet despite analyzing thousands of hours of recordings, professional linguists have concluded that modern glossolalia is nothing but unstructured syllables spoken more less haphazardly and is fundamentally not a language.

Unknown tongues - not known human languages. You assume too much.

You ought to know the word 'unknown' does not appear in the original text. It was added by the King James translator to indicate that the language was 'unknown' to the speaker. But Pentecostals later hijacked this word to mean 'unknown to the world'. Most modern translations do not add the word 'unknown'.

Again you assume that because they heard the disciples in their own language the disciples were speaking their particular language.

Of course, that is the natural meaning of the sentence. The natural meaning of 'we heard them speaking our language' is that they were speaking our language. Saying that 'heard' should be translated as 'automatic miraculous translation in the ears' is not the natural meaning. It is a very contrived and totally unwarranted claim with no support whatsoever in scripture or elsewhere. There is no mention in scripture of any kind of interpretation taking place at Pentecost.

If a miraculous gift of interpretation was taking place in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact. Instead Luke tells us plainly that the disciples spoke in other languages, and the hearers recognized those languages without any mention of interpretation taking place. The book of Acts is a detailed and accurate narrative of what happened in the early church. Omitting such a fundamental fact, and leaving us to second guess what really happened using some form of cryptic reasoning that goes against the plain meaning of his words, would be unthinkable for Luke.

The Holy Spirit fell on the disciples giving them the gift of miraculously speaking in foreign languages they hadn't learned. The Spirit didn't give the disciples a non-miraculous gibberish tongue, while He fell on the unregenerate crowd in a far more spectacular way and gave them a far more miraculous gift of interpretation. While all the time they remained unregenerate. There is no indication that hearers received the Holy Spirit at that point. They did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter preached the gospel and they believed in Jesus. Only Christians receive the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14; Rom 8:9). Therefore they could not have been given the gift of interpretation which is a manifestation of the Spirit (1 Cor 12).

So your idea of a miracle of interpretation in the ears of the hearer is both hermeneutically and theologically unsound.

Do you really believe that one disciple was speaking, say French, and a group of French passers by just happened by the back porch where those disciples were speaking?

Do you really believe that another disciple was speaking, say Spanish, and a group of Spanish passers by just happened by the front porch where those disciples were speaking?

And on and on it goes?

You think the events of Pentecost all took place in the upper room? So in addition to the 120, there were 3000+ people all crammed in to hear the tongues spoken and Peter's sermon? Of course that is silly, it is obvious the disciples moved to the Temple Courts where all the foreigners were.

Isn't it more likely - in light of the creation of the nations at Babel - what we are seeing here is a reversal of that scattering of nations and a bringing together of all nations through that reversal in the Kingdom of God by the same Spirit of God who scattered them in the first place?

It's a nice idea, but if tongues was a reversal of Babel then tongues speaking would be a single common language. Acts 2:4 then ought to read they "began to speak in another tongue (singular not plural) as the Spirit enabled them". Instead it is plural making clear the disciples were speaking multiple languages.

Do you really think that in a cosmopolitan city like Jerusalem at the the time of Pentecost anyone, let alone most, would think the speakers of a known foreign language to be drunk because they were speaking it?

Yes, the local inhabitants did not recognized the languages spoken, so to them it would sound like gibberish especially if multiple people were speaking different languages at the same time in a crowded environment, and speaking anything other than the holy language of Hebrew in the Temple Courts would have been totally out of order and completely unexpected. So it is not surprising that some of the locals thought they were drunk.

 

[swordsman1]

1. Paul mentions how he's glad he speaks in tongues more then them.

That's not in Acts though.

Mary was present at pentecost becuase remember she was one of the ones JESUS told to meet at the room for the power from on high.

Actually Mary was not present when Jesus gave those instructions. But if she was one of the those present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost who spoke in tongues then I had already included her.

The samaritans got the holy ghost though in acts...and many in acts who received it spoke in tounques...

That doesn't automatically mean they spoke in tongues. Luke doesn't say, but as I said they may have done. All we know is there was a manifestation of the Spirit that Simon the Sorcerer witnessed. Even if you include the Samaritans who the apostles' laid hands on, that is not a large number who spoke in tongues in Acts. Maybe around 200 or so? Hardly every beleiver in Acts of which there were thousands.

The fact the events were so significant indicate well it's important and the fact that there was a emphasis it seems on a variety of people receiving it emphasizes how this is for people even today.

Just because a couple of hundred people spoke in tongues at unique historical events in the church's early history as a sign that whole new groups of people were to be accepted into the church, doesn't mean it must automatically follow that all beleivers from then until today can also speak in tongues.

The fact is people stopped speaking in tongues shortly after the apostolic age, and the 'tongues' that appeared around 100 years ago at the start of the Pentecostal movement is not the same as the NT gift that is fully described in Acts.

Joel himself prophesied sons and daughters and fathers receiving it.

Joel didn't say they would speak in tongues.

And then peter goes up and says it's for everyone afar off it's not a coincidence.

Peter didn't say tongues was for everyone afar off who repents, he was referring to the Holy Spirit.

 

[swordsman1]

Paul leaves no doubt that praying in the Spirit is in fact how we pray to the Father within inarticulate Angelic tongues

Paul said no such thing. It is only possible to come to such a conclusion by committing exegetical fallacies - something in which charismatic/pentecostal teachers are well versed in order to try and get the 'experiences' they advocate to tie in with scripture.

 

[swordsman1]

I know there are doctrines that do not separate the baptism of the HS with the experience of salvation but it is important to point out that in Acts the baptism of the HS is shown as a separate experience from salvation and from water baptism.

Acts 4 shows us a subsequent baptism of the HS for the original 120 present during pentecost manifested through special measure of boldness.

Acts 8 shows that the early Samaritans accepted faith in Jesus Christ as they were "[water] baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" but had not yet "received the Spirit". Although not specific in the text it is clear from the reaction from Simon that by the act of laying of of hands and prayer that something noticeable happened as Simon immediately offered money so that he could have this power too.

In Acts 10 shows us the baptism of the HS being poured out to Cornelius and his household after Peter affirms salvation. Peter reports the "Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning"

Acts 19 Paul encounters some of John's disciples he then baptises them in water then lays hands on them to receive the HS.

These accounts in Acts do not show the HS giving out gifts each differently but rather like a blanket covering all and the results are the same for all. This is simply how the accounts of Acts shows the HS and I make no apologies that it does not following the rules laid out 1 Corinthians 12-14.

As for the 3000 on the day of Pentecost the text only says they were baptised but not baptised by the HS so it would be irresponsible to look at this as an example of the baptism of the HS in Acts. The example would be from Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance".

So Paul teaches one thing and Acts shows another. Both must be true experiences of the HS but rather sweeping the accounts of Acts under a rug why not teach that these experiences are also genuine. I recognize there is a lot of abuse but abuse should not deter us from teaching and acting upon what the bible shows is correct. Read Acts and it will show the baptism of the HS is a separate experience from salvation and water baptism, it shows this experience is like a pouring out (or as scripture explains a "falling") indiscriminately to all, that there are subsequent moments in a believer's life and the baptism of the HS manifests recognizable power of the HS most typically tongues.

The Baptism of the HS as a doctrine of subsequence is old school Pentecostal theology that has now been widely debunked. Virtually all respected theologians, whether continuist or cessationist, reject the idea of Baptism in the Spirit being an empowering event subsequent to salvation, but rather affirm it to be the act of uniting the believer to the body of Christ at their conversion (1 Cor 12:13). Even Pentecostalism's foremost theologian Gordon Fee now recognizes this:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians - By Gordon D. Fee
Some have argued for "Spirit baptism," by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term, nor clearly point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion, but on their common reception of the Spirit.

Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4-5).

If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase "in the Spirit" is most likely locative, expressing the "element" in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with "baptize' imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing), but it always refers to the element "in which" one is baptized.

In this sentence the goal of their common "immersion" in the one Spirit is "into/unto one body." The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized "into" the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like "baptize' this preposition most often has the sense of "movement toward so as to be in. In the present case the idea of "goal" seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that we be formed into one body. Hence, "we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body." This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.

To emphasize that the many ("we all") have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free." As in 7:17-24, these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture-race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.​

 

[DamianWarS]

The Baptism of the HS as a doctrine of subsequence is old school Pentecostal theology that has now been widely debunked. Virtually all respected theologians, whether continuist or cessationist, reject the idea of Baptism in the Spirit being an empowering event subsequent to salvation, but rather affirm it to be the act of uniting the believer to the body of Christ at their conversion (1 Cor 12:13). Even Pentecostalism's foremost theologian Gordon Fee now recognizes this:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians - By Gordon D. Fee
Some have argued for "Spirit baptism," by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term, nor clearly point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion, but on their common reception of the Spirit.

Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4-5).

If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase "in the Spirit" is most likely locative, expressing the "element" in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with "baptize' imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing), but it always refers to the element "in which" one is baptized.

In this sentence the goal of their common "immersion" in the one Spirit is "into/unto one body." The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized "into" the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like "baptize' this preposition most often has the sense of "movement toward so as to be in. In the present case the idea of "goal" seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that we be formed into one body. Hence, "we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body." This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.

To emphasize that the many ("we all") have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free." As in 7:17-24, these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture-race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.​

Even a cursory read of Acts shows differently. Undeniably the baptism of the HS in Acts shows us it can happen upon salvation, after salvation, before water baptism and after water baptism. It's purpose seems to be evangelistic in nature where the gifts of the HS seems to be focused at edification in nature. This is why everyone in Corinthians should not be speaking in tongues or no one in Acts gets an outpouring of administration. Different focuses for different purposes.

To reject this means accepting that the HS does not operate as he did in the book of Acts. Perhaps you already accept this however scripture does not support this mysterious transitional period. There are still millions of unreached peoples on this earth so why should we possibly think this immediate outpouring of power from the HS is no longer needed?

The baptism of the HS is not to glorify ourselves it is to glorify God. so it has nothing to do with a special secondary blessing or being able to call each other spirit filled, such a concept it grossly counter-gospel; it is to do with the HS empowering people to spread the gospel.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

That's not in Acts though.



Actually Mary was not present when Jesus gave those instructions. But if she was one of the those present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost who spoke in tongues then I had already included her.



That doesn't automatically mean they spoke in tongues. Luke doesn't say, but as I said they may have done. All we know is there was a manifestation of the Spirit that Simon the Sorcerer witnessed. Even if you include the Samaritans who the apostles' laid hands on, that is not a large number who spoke in tongues in Acts. Maybe around 200 or so? Hardly every beleiver in Acts of which there were thousands.




Just because a couple of hundred people spoke in tongues at unique historical events in the church's early history as a sign that whole new groups of people were to be accepted into the church, doesn't mean it must automatically follow that all beleivers from then until today can also speak in tongues.

The fact is people stopped speaking in tongues shortly after the apostolic age, and the 'tongues' that appeared around 100 years ago at the start of the Pentecostal movement is not the same as the NT gift that is fully described in Acts.



Joel didn't say they would speak in tongues.



Peter didn't say tongues was for everyone afar off who repents, he was referring to the Holy Spirit.

1. I have to double check if she ever received instructions but she was present for pentecost in acts 2 though.


2. Luke says those at pentecost spoke in tounques though so why wouldn't anyone else getting this experience in acts do the same?? Doesn't make sense logically. Additionally, 200 is a good sample size and look if the bible said some spoke in tounques out of those present then we could conclude that this sign wasn't a sign for everyone in acts who got the holy ghost. But since every single person who was initially there for the day of pentecost spoke in tounques then it's safe to conclude that the sign was meant for everyone. The bible doesn't indicate there was some speaking and some not when receiving the holy ghost.

3. Yes it does, especially if the bible doesn't indicate at all that it was limited for that time. Baptism and this experience were emphasized in acts the period of time we live in...so it's still real today.


4. this isn't true people didn't stop simply the church went through a dark period you could say and certain forms of worship went underground for a time.

But records show many that spoke post the pentecost age. One such example is Irenaeus another Tertullian. There are also records that show groups of people experiencing this without knowing what it was at first. It didn't just randomly come back 100 years ago, it just simply blew up 100 years ago.

 

[redleghunter]

The reason that some Pentecostals (but not many) attempt to say that the Holy Spirit fell upon the unregenerate so that crowd could understand what the 120 were saying to the Father, is so that the tongues of Acts 2 matches that of 1 Cor 13 & 14 where tongues is always unintelligible to the human ear.

This is what happens when eisegesis is applied instead of exegesis. Why would one conclude "the 120 were saying {speaking to} to the Father?" There is no evidence in the text for that.

Again, the Holy Spirit did not need to fall upon the unregenerate as the apostles were speaking in varying languages. It is the only plain explanation from the text without introducing something else.

What they seem to forget is that besides Luke not saying such a thing, is that the Day of Pentecost was about the Holy Spirit falling upon the fledgling Church and not the unregenerate. I agree that outside of the Day of Pentecost that tongues are always unintelligible to the human ear, but they need to remember that Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event where the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church was observed through the 120 speaking in tongues.

The Day of Pentecost was about 3000 new souls added to the Church. Everything leading up to 'they were cut to the heart' was to present them the truth of the Gospel. Not establish a church where everyone prays in an unintelligible language that no one can interpret for the edification of the church.

but they need to remember that Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event where the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church was observed through the 120 speaking in tongues.

Let's be precise:

Acts 2: NKJV
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

great, more bathtub homebrew theology

1 Corinthians 14 is not talking about "the tongue of angels" or any other unknown "heavenly" language. Paul is explaining that it doesn't benefit anyone to hear someone speak in tongues if there's no interpreter so people can understand what they're saying.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Show me the contradiction. The apostles on the day of Pentecost were not praying in the Spirit but proclaiming the Gospel.

No they weren't, they were praising God. It was Peter who PREACHED.

I don't know you (but welcome) so I don't know if you were taught that speaking in tongues was for the sole purpose of preaching the gospel to foreigners. Were you?

And to answer your question, it contradicts 1 Corinthians 14:2.

 

[friend of]

No. Speaking in tongues is not for us today. Pentecostal are horribly misguided.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

No. Speaking in tongues is not for us today. Pentecostal are horribly misguided.

Geesh that was a bit harsh. Everyone has an opinion though.