problem related to praying in tongues
- Thread starter TheLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The words "Holy Spirit" can either refer to God Himself (Gen 1:2; Acts 5:3-4) or to the gift that is given to people.
God, who is THE Holy Spirit, gives some of what He is (holy spirit). Acts 2:38 and many others.
Not understanding the difference between the Giver (God) and the gift (holy spirit) has caused no end of confusion.
God, who is THE Holy Spirit, gives some of what He is (holy spirit). Acts 2:38 and many others.
Not understanding the difference between the Giver (God) and the gift (holy spirit) has caused no end of confusion.
This one's also been done ad nauseum -
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
Again, you have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense and in a passive sense. Yes, it's an adjective, but most people do not realize that an adjective has something similar to grammatical voice like verbs. Adjectives can be used with a passive sense/meaning, or with an active sense/meaning.
Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful ( to me ), or my understanding produces no fruit in/for me . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my original post).
Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for _clarity and understanding_ at a public worship such that _everyone there can benefit_ , an active understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful for others , or my understanding produces no fruit for/in others.
In other words, the fact I, myself understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.
This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators.
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James was even born.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding brings no one fruit”.
Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so all may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; specifically, his native language (which none in his audience speaks/understands - it kind if hinges back to 1 Cor. 14:2).
It seems that those Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues, as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s, will only entertain the passive passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit their concept of "tongues".
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, just like in 1 Cor. 14:2, it’s the audience who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.
Verse 15 - In this verse, the speaker will 'pray/sing in the Spirit' (as defined in my original post), and will pray with his mind/understanding. The context requires that praying/singing with 'his mind' is understood to mean with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful to others. Again, the active sense as already defined in verse 14. It's all about real, rational language. One the speaker knows, one the audience does not.
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
Again, you have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense and in a passive sense. Yes, it's an adjective, but most people do not realize that an adjective has something similar to grammatical voice like verbs. Adjectives can be used with a passive sense/meaning, or with an active sense/meaning.
Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful ( to me ), or my understanding produces no fruit in/for me . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my original post).
Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for _clarity and understanding_ at a public worship such that _everyone there can benefit_ , an active understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful for others , or my understanding produces no fruit for/in others.
In other words, the fact I, myself understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.
This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators.
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James was even born.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding brings no one fruit”.
Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so all may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; specifically, his native language (which none in his audience speaks/understands - it kind if hinges back to 1 Cor. 14:2).
It seems that those Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues, as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s, will only entertain the passive passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit their concept of "tongues".
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, just like in 1 Cor. 14:2, it’s the audience who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.
Verse 15 - In this verse, the speaker will 'pray/sing in the Spirit' (as defined in my original post), and will pray with his mind/understanding. The context requires that praying/singing with 'his mind' is understood to mean with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful to others. Again, the active sense as already defined in verse 14. It's all about real, rational language. One the speaker knows, one the audience does not.
if someone is faking it, you're saying they know they're faking it.
because, even if faking, a bunch of gibberish still has no meaning to the one faking it.
the thing that truly bothers me is this idea we can just Speak in Tongues at any whim. i think there has to be a spiritual issue involved first, other than, personal home alone prayer. i only do it when a miracle is needed or you're in middle of something and desperately need God against what's around you, or in the presence of evil and edifying ones self.
^
i said that, because those who get on youtube and begin rambling off, there's nothing spiritual related happening. to me, that is 100000000000000000000000% pure hogwash crap!
because, even if faking, a bunch of gibberish still has no meaning to the one faking it.
the thing that truly bothers me is this idea we can just Speak in Tongues at any whim. i think there has to be a spiritual issue involved first, other than, personal home alone prayer. i only do it when a miracle is needed or you're in middle of something and desperately need God against what's around you, or in the presence of evil and edifying ones self.
^
i said that, because those who get on youtube and begin rambling off, there's nothing spiritual related happening. to me, that is 100000000000000000000000% pure hogwash crap!
-
1
- Show all
Some supposed Christians will get a nasty surprise on judgement day. Causing a young believer to stumble is bad news - for the one who causes the stumble. The best response is to dig into the Word yourself. It took me 3 years to accept that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for all Christians. I was put off by the spiritual pride of some and the lack of fruit of others. I read a lot, studied the Bible and went to many meetings. When I did receive, it was Christmas Eve 1974, about 10.30 pm. It was the easiest thing ever. I was alone in my room, for once not being pestered by well meaning friends.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
here's what bothers me:
up till the 6th Century, we have Church Fathers telling us what happened in Book of Acts still was happening and EVIDENCE of being SAVED was Speaking in Tongues.
then the Catholics came and murdered Tongue Speakers.
what if....you really need to Speak in Tongues as Evidence of being Saved?
had the Catholics not murdered everyone, everyone, would still be Speaking in Tongues!
up till the 6th Century, we have Church Fathers telling us what happened in Book of Acts still was happening and EVIDENCE of being SAVED was Speaking in Tongues.
then the Catholics came and murdered Tongue Speakers.
what if....you really need to Speak in Tongues as Evidence of being Saved?
had the Catholics not murdered everyone, everyone, would still be Speaking in Tongues!
Thought I already commented on that, but guess not...apologies for the long post. Due to length, looks like I have to do it in 2 posts.
PART 1 -
When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter.
If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event.
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” – usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering.
This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up – “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference).
It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.
In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken.
So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part…
The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression – Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from.
We know that 1st century Judea was interesting linguistically – it illustrates a country/culture undergoing the process of Hellenization.....only Hellenization never fully happens in Judea. Greek ideas, thought and culture are prevalent, but Aramaic still wins out linguistically over Greek. Hebrew is still used as the sacerdotal language of Judaism, though, as we see in the Western Diasporan lands, Greek is actually becoming an accepted alternative to Hebrew.
People speak Aramaic, worship in Hebrew, but Greek is now becoming acceptable and, it's quite possible, some educated people in larger cities such as Jerusalem spoke it over Aramaic. Merchants would have had to have at least a working knowledge of basic Greek if they wanted to conduct business beyond 'local' markets and reach more 'global' markets (such that they were in the 1st century).
The land was also occupied by Rome, so Latin would have been heard, but likely not really understood. Educated Roman soldiers (as well as most upper-class Romans) would have spoken Greek, but the common soldier, likely not.
In short, the average Jew from Judea spoke Aramaic, but may have had a conversational knowledge of Greek.
Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek – all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Indeed, in the Western Diaspora, and to some extent, even in larger cities in Judea, Greek was becoming an acceptable alternative to Hebrew for use in the temples and synagogues.
The Eastern Diaspora was different – no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile – they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity.
To try and use a more modern analogy – think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born – that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic.
Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both.
PART 1 -
When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter.
If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event.
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” – usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering.
This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up – “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference).
It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.
In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken.
So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part…
The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression – Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from.
We know that 1st century Judea was interesting linguistically – it illustrates a country/culture undergoing the process of Hellenization.....only Hellenization never fully happens in Judea. Greek ideas, thought and culture are prevalent, but Aramaic still wins out linguistically over Greek. Hebrew is still used as the sacerdotal language of Judaism, though, as we see in the Western Diasporan lands, Greek is actually becoming an accepted alternative to Hebrew.
People speak Aramaic, worship in Hebrew, but Greek is now becoming acceptable and, it's quite possible, some educated people in larger cities such as Jerusalem spoke it over Aramaic. Merchants would have had to have at least a working knowledge of basic Greek if they wanted to conduct business beyond 'local' markets and reach more 'global' markets (such that they were in the 1st century).
The land was also occupied by Rome, so Latin would have been heard, but likely not really understood. Educated Roman soldiers (as well as most upper-class Romans) would have spoken Greek, but the common soldier, likely not.
In short, the average Jew from Judea spoke Aramaic, but may have had a conversational knowledge of Greek.
Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek – all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Indeed, in the Western Diaspora, and to some extent, even in larger cities in Judea, Greek was becoming an acceptable alternative to Hebrew for use in the temples and synagogues.
The Eastern Diaspora was different – no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile – they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity.
To try and use a more modern analogy – think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born – that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic.
Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both.
PART 2 -
Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is?
When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in??
The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that – a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption.
They spoke in “other tongues” – other than what? This phrase is found in numerous Jewish texts in which Hebrew, the “holy tongue,” is contrasted with the “foreign/other tongues” of the Gentile nations. For example, in the apocryphal book Sirach we read, “For the things translated into “other tongues,” have not the same force in them uttered in Hebrew.”
The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism.
Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them.
The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars.
Hebrew was to be exclusively used during “the declaration of first fruits,” which was the sacred liturgy associated with the festival of Shavuot, or Pentecost. In other words, during this particular festival, the crowds would have expected religious services presented in the holy tongue of Hebrew. But what they ended up hearing were powerful messages in “other tongues.”
Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority.
To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be ‘drunk’ to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner.
With regards to the concept of “initial evidence of tongues”, according to the Pentecost narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were baptized that day. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to some Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet *nothing* of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative, wouldn’t it?
If one argues they were not baptized in the spirit, but only in water, not only would the apostles have been violating a slew of work prohibitions on a high holy day (and would not likely have been allowed to do such a thing), considering one of the main focuses of the day was about being baptized in/receiving the Holy Spirit, that would be a rather anti-climactic ending to the narrative, wouldn’t it?
No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost – it didn’t need to be.
When we put all the above together, we see that in Acts 2, the actual gift being emphasized is the fact that the Holy Spirit has empowered the disciples to _prophesy_ and to boldly proclaim the Word of the Lord, and this is exactly what we find in verse 14. According to the ESV translation, Peter lifted up his voice and _addressed_ them, but perhaps a better translation would be that he lifted up his voice and _prophesied._ We tend to think of prophecy as a kind of foretelling of future events, but in the Hebrew use, it was more often associated with _speaking forth_ the Word of the Lord. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages.
Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is?
When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in??
The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that – a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption.
They spoke in “other tongues” – other than what? This phrase is found in numerous Jewish texts in which Hebrew, the “holy tongue,” is contrasted with the “foreign/other tongues” of the Gentile nations. For example, in the apocryphal book Sirach we read, “For the things translated into “other tongues,” have not the same force in them uttered in Hebrew.”
The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism.
Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them.
The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars.
Hebrew was to be exclusively used during “the declaration of first fruits,” which was the sacred liturgy associated with the festival of Shavuot, or Pentecost. In other words, during this particular festival, the crowds would have expected religious services presented in the holy tongue of Hebrew. But what they ended up hearing were powerful messages in “other tongues.”
Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority.
To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be ‘drunk’ to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner.
With regards to the concept of “initial evidence of tongues”, according to the Pentecost narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were baptized that day. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to some Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet *nothing* of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative, wouldn’t it?
If one argues they were not baptized in the spirit, but only in water, not only would the apostles have been violating a slew of work prohibitions on a high holy day (and would not likely have been allowed to do such a thing), considering one of the main focuses of the day was about being baptized in/receiving the Holy Spirit, that would be a rather anti-climactic ending to the narrative, wouldn’t it?
No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost – it didn’t need to be.
When we put all the above together, we see that in Acts 2, the actual gift being emphasized is the fact that the Holy Spirit has empowered the disciples to _prophesy_ and to boldly proclaim the Word of the Lord, and this is exactly what we find in verse 14. According to the ESV translation, Peter lifted up his voice and _addressed_ them, but perhaps a better translation would be that he lifted up his voice and _prophesied._ We tend to think of prophecy as a kind of foretelling of future events, but in the Hebrew use, it was more often associated with _speaking forth_ the Word of the Lord. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages.
here's what bothers me:
up till the 6th Century, we have Church Fathers telling us what happened in Book of Acts still was happening and EVIDENCE of being SAVED was Speaking in Tongues.
then the Catholics came and murdered Tongue Speakers.
what if....you really need to Speak in Tongues as Evidence of being Saved?
had the Catholics not murdered everyone, everyone, would still be Speaking in Tongues!
Did the Catholics fool us about evidence of being SAVED?
why would Protestants believe as Catholics do?
up till the 6th Century, we have Church Fathers telling us what happened in Book of Acts still was happening and EVIDENCE of being SAVED was Speaking in Tongues.
then the Catholics came and murdered Tongue Speakers.
what if....you really need to Speak in Tongues as Evidence of being Saved?
had the Catholics not murdered everyone, everyone, would still be Speaking in Tongues!
Did the Catholics fool us about evidence of being SAVED?
why would Protestants believe as Catholics do?