Replies

What happened at Pentecost was that men were preaching the gospel in a manner in which those hearing it could not naturally understand what was being communicated. The Holy Spirit miraculously made their incomprehensible language fully understandable to those to whom God had chosen to make it understandable.

That's absolutely not true. The men all heard the message in their own native language. It was not gibberish to them.

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? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?" 13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine." (Acts. 2)

With their natural ears they heard the message in their own language. Of course, God also needed to sovereignly open their spiritual ears to apply the message. God saves those whom He wills to save.

You got a problem with that?

You sound like a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics.

The men all heard the message in their own native language. It was not gibberish to them.

Translated by the power of the Holy Spirit in a manner in which each who heard it was convicted. Are you suggesting that the men who spoke the words were men of strong persuasive oratorical skills and that is why there was such an intense and unparallelled response to the gospel, or was it that these men simply spoke what they believed and the holy spirit convicted those who heard.

Does not the Holy Spirit have the power to turn hearts and minds at the preaching of an imbicile? Should credit be given to the speech writers or should it be given to the subject of the message?

You sound like a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics.

I offer no apologies for the gospel. I presuppose only that the Bible is true and that the facts presented in that book are facts and not fables. I have no reason to doubt that when God wrote upon the tablets that he made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in 6 days, that God did exactly as he said. If that makes me a presuppositionalist, then by gosh I'm proud to accept that title.