Confused about Speaking in Tongues

[DHK]

1CORINTHIANS 12
1 Now concerning spiritual gifts , brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

How do you know that this person/s called Jesus accursed while speaking in tongues? How do you come up with that? The context here is spiritual gifts, not just the gift of tongues. They could have been standing up to prophecy in their own language, calling Jesus accursed.

From your previous post:



You just cannot prove this to be so.

How do you logically understand the verse. Think about it. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Unless you keep the verse in the context of supernatural spiritual gifts such as tongues, the verse tells a lie. It doesn't make sense.
For example:
My relatives are Catholic and are not saved. They do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, but I have no problem getting them to say: "Jesus is Lord." But they are not saying by the power of the Holy Spirit.
In fact I could bribe (offer a gift of money) and get a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and all kinds of unsaved people to say the words, "Jesus is Lord." I can have them read the statement out of a book without bribing them. It is not difficult to say those words, saved or not. You don't have to have the Holy Spirit to say that Jesus is Lord. Thus the verse is a lie, unless it is taken in the context of supernatural spiritual gifts such as tongues.

The problem was that they didn't know what they were saying in a foreign language for they did not have an interpreter. And Satan was causing them to say that Christ was accursed. I heard of this happening a few years ago, when a man in a Charismatic church was praising the devil in the Greek language without him knowing. It just happened that day that there was someone present who did know Greek. How do you know if you are not praising Satan when you speak in tongues? You don't.
DHK

 

[DHK]

The idea that all revelation is found in scripture:

1. Violates the principle of sola scriptura
2. Is not found in scripture.

How can it violate sola scriptura. It is the basis of sola scriptura. Not only the Baptists, but every orthodox branch of Christianity have always believed in a closed canon. Only the cults and the Charismatics believe in an open canon that they may have the freedom to add to the Scriptures their "own revelation" whether it be "the Book of Mormon," The Great Controversy," or all the extra added revelation of contemporary Charismatics. It is all the same. Do you accept Benny Hinn's revelation? His belief that we are all little Gods; that man is divine, that Jesus gave up his divinity so man could become divine, that the Godhead consists of nine persons, not three, a denial of the trinity, a denial of the deity of Christ, etc. This is the "revelation" that Benny Hinn has received from God. Do you also accept it from God.
If the canon of Scripture is not closed, but still open, then we can each write our own Bible. I can write: "Thus saith DHK, according to the Spirit of God given to me, the sign gifts have all ceased, and any who disagree with me shall surely die a painful death." And this would be Scripture because I deem it to be so. God said it I could claim. I can write my own Bible, and you have no argument against it because there is an open canon. According to you my "inspired words" would have just as much weight as the Apostle's Paul and you would have no way to prove it wrong. This is the mess that the Charismatic movement is in today.
No, rather, the Canon of Scripture is closed.

Since the Bible does not teach that lal revelation is found in the Bible, this doctrine violates the principle that all doctrine must come from scripture.

That is what sola scriptura is--That all doctrine comes from the Scripture alone--sola scriptura--only Scripture. That which we believe is that the Scripture is all sufficient in all matters of faith and doctrine. It is our final authority. We don't need any other authority. The Bible, in and of itself is sufficient for all doctrine. That is sola scriptura.
Again this principle has been accepted not only by Baptists, but by orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries. It is the cults and the RCC that have rejected it.

The people of Berea were more noble than those at Thessalonica in that they searched the Scriptures daily with all readiness of mind to see whether these things were so.
What did they do? They practiced sola scriptura. They searched the Scriptures. In this case it was the Old Testamet.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction..."
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Surprise, surprise! The "holy men of God" referred to here are not the Charismatics.

The Bible shows us that God gave plenty of revelation not found in scripture. We know that Saul prophesied when the Spirit of God came upon him, but the Bible does not tell us what he said. We don't know what the other prophets who were with him said either. The Bible refers to the book of Iddo the seer, but that book is not in scripture. The Bible tells us that there was a company of prophets with Elijah, but we don't know what they prophesied, for the most part. Micaiah had made some previous prophecies before the one he made to the king that is recorded in scripture, but we don't know what they were.

Satan said: "Thou shalt not surely die" It was a lie. It was right from the mouth of Satan. Any yet it is inspired of God, Scripture, recorded accurately just as God wanted it to be. Scripture is not all revelation.
The canon of Scripture that we have today are those words that God wanted accurately recorded for mankind. Sometimes they are the actual words of God, sometimes the words of the prophets or Apostles, or of God speaking through them. Sometimes they are the words of other men, or even of demons and of Satan. They are accurately recorded, whose ever words they may be.

For example Paul wrote as many as four epistles to the Corinthians. But God the Holy Spirit saw fit only to inspire two of those epistles as Scripture. The other two may have contained "revelation," but not inspired of God. After the canon was completed, Paul would not have received any revelation at all. That gift would have ceased all together. He then would have had the Word of God to depend upon. The gift of revelatory knowledge (1Cor.13:8) was given for the time when the church did not have the completed Word of God, the Bible.
"But when that which was perfect (the Bible) was come, then that which was in part (temporary gifts) were done away."

John recieved a revelation that sounded like a thunder clap, but he was not allowed to write down what it said. Paul wrote of a man who went into the third heaven and heard unspeakable things, things Paul did not record in scripture.

What they were allowed to write they wrote, and it is in the Bible for us today. And John plainly said that if any man should add unto these things then God would add unto him all the plagues that are written in this book. We are not to add to the Word of God.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is the ultimate Revelation of God to man. His every act revealed the Father. But the end of the book of John shows us that not all that Jesus did was recorded, and if it had been, John supposed the world could not contain the books. So we know all His acts and all that he said is not recordedin scripture.

And so?? What is your point? We don't know all that Jesus said or did. That is true. Does that mean by some false spirit we are to guess and make it all up?? No, God has recorded what He wants us to know in the Bible. There is no new Revelation. We can find out extra-Biblical things about Christ from other sources such as Josephus. But Josephus is not an inspired book. It is not Scripture. The Bible is Scripture. It is the only inspired, infallible source that we have. That is why we speak of sola scriptura.

So why is it that some people argue that if someone gets a prophecy today or a tongue and interpretation today, it must be added to scripture? Not all of the prophecies and tongues of the first century were added to scripture. Why would modern expressions of these things be a threat to the canon? They are not.

The reason for those gifts was that the Bible was not yet complete, and the churches of the Apostolic Age did not have all the revelation of the New Testament. Thus these gifts were necessary to give to the NT churches the necessary teaching that the NT would give to the churches once the canon was complete. After the Book of Revelation was complete these gifts ceased. They had no more purpose. The Bible is our final authority. We base our beliefs on Scripture, not on experience.

Denying these gifts challenges the canon, since the canon teaches that these gifts are real.

The canon only teaches that these gifts were real for the Apostolic Age and no more than that. It is no challenge to the canon at all. It is only a challenge to the modern day Charismatic Movement which started in the 70's as an extension of the Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the 20th century. Seeing that we are accused of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit now, I suppose some of you will now have lay that accusation on all Christians for the last 1900 years--all the years before the 20th century. This is a recent phenomena in case you didn't know it.
DHK

 

[Link]

Quote:
I wrote

The idea that all revelation is found in scripture:
1. Violates the principle of sola scriptura
2. Is not found in scripture.

DHK responded
[quote
How can it violate sola scriptura. It is the basis of sola scriptura. Not only the Baptists, but every orthodox branch of Christianity have always believed in a closed canon.
[/quote]
The issue is not a closed canon. It is whether all revelation is found in the canon or not. The scriptures clearly show that not all revelation is in the canon.
Therefore, anyone who argues that if you receive a revelation, it MUST be added to the canon, are using fallacious reasoning. Not all revelation in the past was included in the canon, and so it does not make sense that revelation now must be added to the canon.

Only the cults and the Charismatics believe in an open canon that they may have the freedom to add to the Scriptures their "own revelation" whether it be

Where do you get this? It would be rare indeed to meet a Charismatic who believed in an open canon.

That is what sola scriptura is--That all doctrine comes from the Scripture alone--sola scriptura--only Scripture. That which we believe is that the Scripture is all sufficient in all matters of faith and doctrine.

Since the Bible does not teach that all revelation is inscripture, believing that all revelation is in scripture violates sola scripture. In fact, scripture shows that not all revelation is in scripture.

It is our final authority.

Christ said that all power (i.e. authority) is committed unto Him.

The people of Berea were more noble than those at Thessalonica in that they searched the Scriptures daily with all readiness of mind to see whether these things were so.
What did they do? They practiced sola scriptura.

They didn’t do it, right, then, because they ran Paul off, too. That goes to show you that it is possible to search the scriptures, but still reject what God is doing in the here and now.

They searched the Scriptures. In this case it was the Old Testamet.

And revelation was still being given during this time as well, so the case of the Bereans does not prove your point.

For example Paul wrote as many as four epistles to the Corinthians. But God the Holy Spirit saw fit only to inspire two of those epistles as Scripture. The other two may have contained "revelation," but not inspired of God.

1. If you acknowledge that there was revelation from God not included in the Bible, then you should realize it is illogical to argue that Christians speaking in tongues and giving prophecies should not be seen as violating the canon. If Paul could receive revelation not in the canon, then it stands to reason that not all revelation from God has to go in the canon.
2. I don’t see any scriptural basis for your distinction between ‘revelation’ and ‘inspired.’ If you believe in Sola Scritpura, you shouldn’t believe in such a doctrine without having scritpure to back it up.

After the canon was completed, Paul would not have received any revelation at all. That gift would have ceased all together.

You have no scripture to back that up. Why will the two witnesses still prophesy and call down fire from heaven in the last days, after the canon is closed?

He then would have had the Word of God to depend upon.

Paul depended on the word of God before John wrote Revelation as well.
It is clear from the context of I Corinthians 13 that ‘the perfect’ in this context cannot refer to the completed canon. Having the Bible does not make us wiser or more mature than Paul.

What they were allowed to write they wrote, and it is in the Bible for us today. And John plainly said that if any man should add unto these things then God would add unto him all the plagues that are written in this book. We are not to add to the Word of God.

And as you have conceded, they did not write all the revelation they received in scripture. Therefore, those who receive revelation today are not (necessarily) challenging the scriptures. The verse that warns about adding to the scroll of Revelation is about adding to that scroll, not about receiving Revelation.
If you want to interpret that verse in Revelation so loosely, why not use it to condemn yourself for adding the doctrine that the gifts have ceased or taking away the function of the gifts.

And so?? What is your point? We don't know all that Jesus said or did. That is true. Does that mean by some false spirit we are to guess and make it all up??

You miss the point entirely. The point is that if Christ is the Revelation of God to man and His acts revealed God, and not all of His acts that He did before men were recorded, then it stands to reason that not all revelation is in scripture. Obviously the acts of Christ not in scripture are not in scripture, and they revealed God’s nature as well to those who saw them.

No, God has recorded what He wants us to know in the Bible.

The Bible doesn’t teach us that all God wants us to know is in scripture. Does God want farmers to know how to farm? He wanted John to know about a thunder clap and he wanted one man to know some things about the third heaven.

The reason for those gifts was that the Bible was not yet complete, and the churches of the Apostolic Age did not have all the revelation of the New Testament.

The problem is, the Bible doesn’t teach this. The Bible says the gift of prophecy is for edification, among other things.

The canon only teaches that these gifts were real for the Apostolic Age and no more than that. It is no challenge to the canon at all. It is only a challenge to the modern day Charismatic Movement which started in the 70's as an extension of the Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the 20th century. Seeing that we are accused of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit now, I suppose some of you will now have lay that accusation on all Christians for the last 1900 years--all the years before the 20th century. This is a recent phenomena in case you didn't know it.

As far as blaspheming the Spirit is concerned, what I have seen people do is simply point out that Christ warned those who attributed the Spirit’s work to Beelzebub that speaking against the Spirit was unforgivable. I do not believe that all cessationists have necessarily done this.
And you aren’t right on history either. I challenge you to find anyone before the Reformation who believed that someone receiving revelation was adding to the canon or a challenge to the canon. It would be rare to find someone during that time that believed that gifts ceased with the canon.
Ireneaus was one of the early writers promoting something pretty close to what we have as the canon now, and he believed in the continuance of the canon. There are plenty of accounts of gifts throughout history. Look up Patrick for example, or some of those other people who started churches in unreached nations throughout history.
Link

 

[Link]

DHK wrote

How do you logically understand the verse. Think about it. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Unless you keep the verse in the context of supernatural spiritual gifts such as tongues, the verse tells a lie. It doesn't make sense.

How is this an argument for the idea that the verse has to do with cursing in tongues?
Notice a few things about the passage.
1. The verse does not say that one has to be full of the Holy Ghost to speak by the Holy Ghost.
Balaam prophesied true things by the Spirit of God. Caiaphas prophesied something true as well, and John calls it prophesying. Were either of these men filled with the Holy Ghost? Where is it written that one must have the Holy Spirit dwelling in him to speak by the Spirit?
2. If you interpret the passage to refer to people saying “Jesus is Lord” in faith, by the Spirit, as true believers in Christ, this is not an argument in favor of the idea that the problem was cursing in tongues.
3. The context refers to paganism before speaking of cursing the Lord.
Paul may have n mind pagan idol worshippers cursing the Lord, in contrast to believers saying ‘Jesus is Lord.’ Both pagans and Christians had ‘pneumatika’—translated ‘spiritual gifts.’ The Corinthians may have experienced ‘spiritual gifts’ of the pagans before they experienced the ‘charismata’ that come form God.

The problem was that they didn't know what they were saying in a foreign language for they did not have an interpreter. And Satan was causing them to say that Christ was accursed.

The problem here is that you are just imagining something and reading it into the text. There is no reason to think that Christians were cursing Christ. If you think that one has to have the Spirit to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ then why would someone who has the Spirit curse Christ?

And if you do _assume _ that someone in the church had cursed Christ, it would make more sense to _imagine_ that someone had done it in the common language so Paul’s readers would know what he was talking about.

I heard of this happening a few years ago, when a man in a Charismatic church was praising the devil in the Greek language without him knowing. It just happened that day that there was someone present who did know Greek. How do you know if you are not praising Satan when you speak in tongues? You don't.

Well, your experience… or the anecdotal experience you once heard about…is not scripture. You may tell stories to try to scare people into thinking their gifts are not real, but the Bible doesn’t even hint at the idea of a believer having false tongues. Why would a genuine believer, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, need to worry about somehow cursing Satan without his knowledge, while using a genuine gift of the Spirit. It is clear from I Corinthians that the Corinthians did not know what they were saying in tongues without the gift of interpretation, but Paul still told the one who spoke in tongues without interpretation that he could ‘speak to himself and to God’ though he was to keep silent in the church. Why would Paul have allowed that if the man could be cursing God? Your line of reasoning does not line up with what Paul taught.

I suppose it is possible that a demonised person could try to imitate tongues by speaking in a demonically-inspired language in a church service. But that does not mean the saints should be afraid that God gave them a scorpion when they asked for an egg. Jesus’ teaching encourages use to believe that we receive good things when we ask from God, not bad things.

 

[Link]

DHK wrote

How do you logically understand the verse. Think about it. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Unless you keep the verse in the context of supernatural spiritual gifts such as tongues, the verse tells a lie. It doesn't make sense.

How is this an argument for the idea that the verse has to do with cursing in tongues?
Notice a few things about the passage.
1. The verse does not say that one has to be full of the Holy Ghost to speak by the Holy Ghost.
Balaam prophesied true things by the Spirit of God. Caiaphas prophesied something true as well, and John calls it prophesying. Were either of these men filled with the Holy Ghost? Where is it written that one must have the Holy Spirit dwelling in him to speak by the Spirit?
2. If you interpret the passage to refer to people saying “Jesus is Lord” in faith, by the Spirit, as true believers in Christ, this is not an argument in favor of the idea that the problem was cursing in tongues.
3. The context refers to paganism before speaking of cursing the Lord.
Paul may have n mind pagan idol worshippers cursing the Lord, in contrast to believers saying ‘Jesus is Lord.’ Both pagans and Christians had ‘pneumatika’—translated ‘spiritual gifts.’ The Corinthians may have experienced ‘spiritual gifts’ of the pagans before they experienced the ‘charismata’ that come form God.

The problem was that they didn't know what they were saying in a foreign language for they did not have an interpreter. And Satan was causing them to say that Christ was accursed.

The problem here is that you are just imagining something and reading it into the text. There is no reason to think that Christians were cursing Christ. If you think that one has to have the Spirit to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ then why would someone who has the Spirit curse Christ?
And if you do _assume _ that someone in the church had cursed Christ, it would make more sense to _imagine_ that someone had done it in the common language so Paul’s readers would know what he was talking about.

I heard of this happening a few years ago, when a man in a Charismatic church was praising the devil in the Greek language without him knowing. It just happened that day that there was someone present who did know Greek. How do you know if you are not praising Satan when you speak in tongues? You don't.

Well, your experience… or the anecdotal experience you once heard about…is not scripture. You may tell stories to try to scare people into thinking their gifts are not real, but the Bible doesn’t even hint at the idea of a believer having false tongues. Why would a genuine believer, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, need to worry about somehow cursing Satan without his knowledge, while using a genuine gift of the Spirit. It is clear from I Corinthians that the Corinthians did not know what they were saying in tongues without the gift of interpretation, but Paul still told the one who spoke in tongues without interpretation that he could ‘speak to himself and to God’ though he was to keep silent in the church. Why would Paul have allowed that if the man could be cursing God? Your line of reasoning does not line up with what Paul taught.
I suppose it is possible that a demonised person could try to imitate tongues by speaking in a demonically-inspired language in a church service. But that does not mean the saints should be afraid that God gave them a scorpion when they asked for an egg. Jesus’ teaching encourages use to believe that we receive good things when we ask from God, not bad things.

 

[tamborine lady]

:type:

DHK,

I have seen that statement from you since I came to this board, about someone cursing Jesus in tongues.

Now I would respectfully ask you for proof of that statement. Do you have documents to back it up? If so, I'm sure that we would all like to see it.

If you have posted it before,I must have missed it. In any case, I can't just take anyones word on a subject. I'm sure you understand.

Peace,

Tam

 

[mman]

I wouldn't have a clue how to "type" in tongues.

I would, however, be willing to record it to have someone who knows every language in the world listen to it and tell me if it's a real language. I think that would be neat, actually.

Have you ever been able to actually use this gift and communicate the good news to someone who speaks a foreign language? Since the Holy Spirit knows all languages, it shouldn't matter. The next time you meet someone who doesn't speak English, go up to them and ask them if they know the good news about Jesus, in their tongue, of course.

 

[mman]

I've been in places where revelation from God, specific messages in fact, were delivered through a tongues experience, a language that was identifiable and intelligible, spoken by a person who had no prior knowledge of it. I've also seen divine healing in several cases. God is sovereign and he can do what he wants to do, without our permission or our inclination to think that our own doctrine is right and that of others is wrong.

I have a couple of questions.

Was this a new message, not found in scripture, or the same message found in scripture.

If it was a new message, even if it comes directly from an angel in heaven, then it is to be rejected as per Gal 1:8. If it is the same message, then why weren't the scriptures sufficient (II Tim 3:16-17)?

 

[Jack Matthews]

It didn't come from an angel in heaven, it came from the Holy Spirit through tongues and interpretation within the guidelines found in I Cor. 14. The passage in Galatians does not apply to the written canon of scripture, since the canon was open at the time that passage was written.

The idea that all revelation from God is contained in scripture isn't consistent with what the scripture itself teaches, and this one extreme to the other attempt to prove the point is getting tiring. Not everyone who has experienced either tongues or divine healing is a "Charismatic." But the canon of written scripture teaches that these are gifts of the spirit and there isn't a single verse of scripture that teaches that these gifts ceased with the end of the apostolic age, or that they would cease at some specific point in the history of the church after the written canon was closed. The fact of the matter is that Jesus himself promised the dynamic of the Holy Spirit as a revealer of God's truth, not just for three hundred years until the canon was established, but for the whole church throughout time. To deny that is to deny the very nature of God himself.

Perhaps this legalistic nitpicking that so many Baptists seem so enamored with enroute to salvation by doctrinal purity is the reason that so many Baptist congregations are deader than doornails, dying on the vine and emptied out of everyone but the old people while Charismatic churches are thriving, attracting people who are seeking an encounter with the Holy Spirit, and full of life. Perhaps I am detecting a note of jealousy here. It's pretty obvious, from the extensive differences of opinion expressed even on this board, that "doctrinal purity" or "correct doctrine" is only a matter of one's opinion. What happens in most churches is that a small group of people succeed in controlling the leadership of the church and then impose their own beliefs about what is "correct doctrine" on the rest of the church. Those who hold different beliefs leave. No sweat though, even though people are pouring out the door, those people aren't "real" Christians, are they?

 

[mman]

It didn't come from an angel in heaven, it came from the Holy Spirit through tongues and interpretation within the guidelines found in I Cor. 14. The passage in Galatians does not apply to the written canon of scripture, since the canon was open at the time that passage was written.

The idea that all revelation from God is contained in scripture isn't consistent with what the scripture itself teaches, and this one extreme to the other attempt to prove the point is getting tiring. Not everyone who has experienced either tongues or divine healing is a "Charismatic." But the canon of written scripture teaches that these are gifts of the spirit and there isn't a single verse of scripture that teaches that these gifts ceased with the end of the apostolic age, or that they would cease at some specific point in the history of the church after the written canon was closed. The fact of the matter is that Jesus himself promised the dynamic of the Holy Spirit as a revealer of God's truth, not just for three hundred years until the canon was established, but for the whole church throughout time. To deny that is to deny the very nature of God himself.

Perhaps this legalistic nitpicking that so many Baptists seem so enamored with enroute to salvation by doctrinal purity is the reason that so many Baptist congregations are deader than doornails, dying on the vine and emptied out of everyone but the old people while Charismatic churches are thriving, attracting people who are seeking an encounter with the Holy Spirit, and full of life. Perhaps I am detecting a note of jealousy here. It's pretty obvious, from the extensive differences of opinion expressed even on this board, that "doctrinal purity" or "correct doctrine" is only a matter of one's opinion. What happens in most churches is that a small group of people succeed in controlling the leadership of the church and then impose their own beliefs about what is "correct doctrine" on the rest of the church. Those who hold different beliefs leave. No sweat though, even though people are pouring out the door, those people aren't "real" Christians, are they?

So, was it a new message from God or something already contained in his word?

Actually Jude 3 says "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

Since the faith was delivered once for all time, and a new message is given later, then that later message is not part of "the faith".

There is but one faith (Eph 4:4-6).

If new revelations came to men today, we could never know the whole truth, since it was still being revealed. God's word is truth (Jn 17:17) and he said we can know the truth and we must worship in truth (Jn 8:32, 4:24). This would be impossible if various people received various new truths.

God's word is all sufficient (II Tim 3:16-17). Either it is or it is wrong and incomplete. Either I have all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Pet 1:3) or I don't.

 

[Jack Matthews]

When the Apostle Paul wrote the passage you refer to in II Timothy, there was no "New Testament" that the church pointed to and called "God's Word." God's word, to Paul in prison at that time was not written down, it was the dynamic of the Holy Spirit in his soul, and the person of Jesus Christ as the living word. Your interpretation of that passage is out of context. Jesus is the Word, not a book. That's scriptural. The Bible clearly and completely teaches that it is not the sole source of revelation from God, that this task belongs to the spirit. The test of the spirit is whether or not it acknowledges Jesus as the Christ. Everything you have as a believer is because of the indwelling Spirit, not because you think you know what the Bible says. The Bible cannot be correctly interpreted without the presence of the Holy Spirit. You might want to take a good long look at I Corinthians 2 and get that straightened out so you can take God out of the little tiny box you have put Him in.

 

[DHK]

When the Apostle Paul wrote the passage you refer to in II Timothy, there was no "New Testament" that the church pointed to and called "God's Word." God's word, to Paul in prison at that time was not written down, it was the dynamic of the Holy Spirit in his soul, and the person of Jesus Christ as the living word. Your interpretation of that passage is out of context. Jesus is the Word, not a book. That's scriptural. The Bible clearly and completely teaches that it is not the sole source of revelation from God, that this task belongs to the spirit. The test of the spirit is whether or not it acknowledges Jesus as the Christ. Everything you have as a believer is because of the indwelling Spirit, not because you think you know what the Bible says. The Bible cannot be correctly interpreted without the presence of the Holy Spirit. You might want to take a good long look at I Corinthians 2 and get that straightened out so you can take God out of the little tiny box you have put Him in.

Logos is one of the supreme titles of Christ, a title which indicates His deity. It was the logos that was with God, and the logos that was God. He was from eternity (in the beginning). The New Testament was not.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--It was the logos (the eternal Christ) that was made flesh so that man could get a glimpse of God. It was the only way that man could see God. For no man can see God and live.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
--We see God through Christ. Today we see Christ through the Word of God. That is where He is found—on every page of the Bible. If you are a mystic and claim to see him outside of the Scriptures you are in grievous error and are dealing in the occult.

The New Testament came into being through holy men of God (2pet.1:21).
To say that the Word (Christ) is equal to the Word (the Bible) is blasphemy of the greatest degree, for it implicates Christ as a created being.

There are other words that refer to Scripture: Biblios, graphe, rhema. But logos does not. It refers to Christ. You are in gross error concerning this.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
--Scripture in this verse is “graphe.”

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
--Scripture in this verse is “graphe.”

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Scripture in this verse is “graphe.”

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
The word “books” is from “Biblios.”
The word “parchments” is from membrana.
Biblios means scroll, wiriting, or book
membrane means the sheepskin or the parchments or the very manuscripts that had been written at that time.

Logos refers to Christ.
DHK

 

[DHK]

:type:

DHK,

I have seen that statement from you since I came to this board, about someone cursing Jesus in tongues.

Now I would respectfully ask you for proof of that statement. Do you have documents to back it up? If so, I'm sure that we would all like to see it.

If you have posted it before,I must have missed it. In any case, I can't just take anyones word on a subject. I'm sure you understand.

Peace,

Tam

What I find Tam, is confused Charismatics with no explanation of what these verses mean. They can't explain them. They don't know what they mean. They only deny any logical explanation that others will give them. I have told you what they mean. Now it is your turn.
DHK

 

[DHK]

The issue is not a closed canon. It is whether all revelation is found in the canon or not. The scriptures clearly show that not all revelation is in the canon.
Therefore, anyone who argues that if you receive a revelation, it MUST be added to the canon, are using fallacious reasoning. Not all revelation in the past was included in the canon, and so it does not make sense that revelation now must be added to the canon.

What revelation in the past did God not inspire that is not in the canon today? Please show me.

Where do you get this? It would be rare indeed to meet a Charismatic who believed in an open canon.

You do. You just stated it in your above post. You said: "Not all revelation is in the canon." You believe in an open canon. You just said it. That is what it means, that not all revelation is in the Bible.

Since the Bible does not teach that all revelation is inscripture, believing that all revelation is in scripture violates sola scripture. In fact, scripture shows that not all revelation is in scripture.

All the revelation that God intended to be inspired is in Scripture. Only inspired revelation is in Scripture. Any revelation outside of Scripture is not inspired of God.

Christ said that all power (i.e. authority) is committed unto Him.

Are you Christ?

They didn’t do it, right, then, because they ran Paul off, too. That goes to show you that it is possible to search the scriptures, but still reject what God is doing in the here and now.

Every person must face the choice: to reject the Bible message of the gospel or reject it. It is the Bible that is our final authoriy, not any man's experience. That is the essence of sola scriptura.

And revelation was still being given during this time as well, so the case of the Bereans does not prove your point.

The Bereans used the Scripture they had. They used the OT Scriptures to verify a NT message. They verified it as true and therefore believed it. Remember that in Acts 8 "Philip began at the same Scripture (in Isaiah) and preached unto him Jesus." You don't need the NT to preach the gospel.

1. If you acknowledge that there was revelation from God not included in the Bible, then you should realize it is illogical to argue that Christians speaking in tongues and giving prophecies should not be seen as violating the canon. If Paul could receive revelation not in the canon, then it stands to reason that not all revelation from God has to go in the canon.

That was only true as long as the canon was incomplete. When the canon was completed these gifts passed away as Paul said they would in 1Cor.13:8. Revelatory gifts were used only until the Revelation of God was complete. Then they ceased to exist.

2. I don’t see any scriptural basis for your distinction between ‘revelation’ and ‘inspired.’ If you believe in Sola Scritpura, you shouldn’t believe in such a doctrine without having scritpure to back it up.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
--We don't know all that Jesus said to these two disciples. None of it is "inspired" in the sense that it is not accurately recorded by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of mankind. You need to come to an understanding of what the word "inspired" means.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Inspiration refers to Scripture. It means God-breathed. These are the very words of God. They have life (Heb.4:12). They become alive when read. They breathe out the very life of God. They are God's actual words to mankind. They are inspired. The word inspired refers only to that which is written down for the benefit of manikind. It is not a term to be taken lightly. All the words and prophecies of all the prophets were not inspired; only some of them--only the words that God, the Holy Spirit intended.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Peter says to be mindfu, remember the words of both the prophets (the authors of the Old Testament) and the Apostles (the authors of the New Testament). He places the Apostles on the same level as the prophets of the Old Testament, something unheard of to the Jews. They were the authors of the inspired Scriptures. But keep in mind, that it is the words that were inspired not the authors. And not all the words that they spoke were inspired.

In the same chapter:
2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--In verse 15 he recognizes Paul as an Apostle.
In verse 16 he recognizes that Paul has written epistles.
He recognizes those epistles as Scripture. However, he seems to know which of Paul's epistles were Scripture and which were not. Second Peter was one of the later epistles.

Inspiration is both verbal and plenary.
It is verbal in the sense that every single word is inspired.
It is plenary in the sense that every part of the Bible is inspired--that is the whole Bible is inspired (including James which Luther wanted to omit).
It has nothing to do with the words of Jesus that are not recorded, the unrecorded epistles of Paul, the unrecorded words of Samuel the prophet, or of Nathan, or of Philip's daughters, etc.
Only what God wanted recorded was inspired of the Holy Spirit, and was thus accurately recorded by the Holy Spirit, even the recorded lies of Satan, and of Job's friends, the hated accusations of Haman, etc. All was recorded accurately just as God wanted it. All is inspired of God.

[FONT=&quot]DEFINITION: "Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)[/FONT]
DHK

 

[Jack Matthews]

Logos is one of the supreme titles of Christ, a title which indicates His deity. It was the logos that was with God, and the logos that was God. He was from eternity (in the beginning). The New Testament was not.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--It was the logos (the eternal Christ) that was made flesh so that man could get a glimpse of God. It was the only way that man could see God. For no man can see God and live.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
--We see God through Christ. Today we see Christ through the Word of God. That is where He is found—on every page of the Bible. If you are a mystic and claim to see him outside of the Scriptures you are in grievous error and are dealing in the occult.

The New Testament came into being through holy men of God (2pet.1:21).
To say that the Word (Christ) is equal to the Word (the Bible) is blasphemy of the greatest degree, for it implicates Christ as a created being.

There are other words that refer to Scripture: Biblios, graphe, rhema. But logos does not. It refers to Christ. You are in gross error concerning this.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
--Scripture in this verse is “graphe.”

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
--Scripture in this verse is “graphe.”

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Scripture in this verse is “graphe.”

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
The word “books” is from “Biblios.”
The word “parchments” is from membrana.
Biblios means scroll, wiriting, or book
membrane means the sheepskin or the parchments or the very manuscripts that had been written at that time.

Logos refers to Christ.
DHK

But none of these verses equates "scripture" with "the Word of God." And since they are all New Testament passages, the context of "scripture" that they are referring to is that of the Old Testament, and the oral tradition. You've proven nothing, except that you can insert your own view, scattered among a few prooftexts, and then draw a conclusion that just isn't there.

Obviously your mind is made up and even God isn't going to change it. The scripture is clear as a bell on this one. God is sovereign and he can do as he pleases in the distribution of spiritual gifts. Obviously, you don't have this one and for some reason, that makes you jealous of people who do.

 

[mman]

Obviously, you don't have this one and for some reason, that makes you jealous of people who do.

So Jack, can you speak in tongues?

 

[DHK]

But none of these verses equates "scripture" with "the Word of God." And since they are all New Testament passages, the context of "scripture" that they are referring to is that of the Old Testament, and the oral tradition. You've proven nothing, except that you can insert your own view, scattered among a few prooftexts, and then draw a conclusion that just isn't there.

Obviously your mind is made up and even God isn't going to change it. The scripture is clear as a bell on this one. God is sovereign and he can do as he pleases in the distribution of spiritual gifts. Obviously, you don't have this one and for some reason, that makes you jealous of people who do.

Every time I answer you with Scripture. I back my position up with the Word of God. What do you reply? "Your mind is made up."
No, your mind is made up not to believe the truth of the Word of God, but rather to rely on experience instead. You have offered nothing but opinion. You have not backed your position with the Word of God. Why should anyone believe you?
DHK

 

[Link]

I
Was this a new message, not found in scripture, or the same message found in scripture.

A message in tongues does not have to be found in scripture. The Bible shows us that not all revelation from God is found in scripture.

If it was a new message, even if it comes directly from an angel in heaven, then it is to be rejected as per Gal 1:8. If it is the same message, then why weren't the scriptures sufficient (II Tim 3:16-17)?

[/quote]

Galatians was a fairly early epistle. There were plenty of epistles written after it. Are you saying those epistles were false? In fact, Galatians may be the earliest Paulin epistle in scripture.

If a message in tongues preaches another Gospel, it should be rejected. The verse you cite says nothing that would lead us to reject a message in tongues. If it did, then the Corinthians would have not been speaking true messages, would they, since they spoke after Galatians 1:8 was written.

I assume you believe in Pauline authorship of II Timothy. If so, then you will have to acknowledge that the book of Revelation was written AFTER II Tim 3:16-17. At the very least, you should acknowledge that 3:18 and the rest of the book was written after these verses. These verses did not close the canon. There was still some scripture to be written after that. And they do not say that there was an end of revelation either.

Scripture is given so that we might be fully equipped. But scripture is not the only equipment. We also need to have the things the scripture talks about, like salvation, righteousness, and love. We also need gifts of the Spirit, which the scriptures also talk about. II Timothy 3:16-17 does not mean we don't need to have the things the Bible says we need just because we have the Bible. That doesn't make any sense.

Also, Peter wrote of having all things that pertain to life and godliness to people who did not have the completed canon. That's something for you to think about. Also, this passage is not talking about having the Bible per se.

 

[Link]

DHK wrote,

What revelation in the past did God not inspire that is not in the canon today? Please show me.

Please refer to previous posts. I won't use the word 'inspire' to avoid arguing over definitions of words that will lead us off on a tangent.
It is clear that God gave several prophetic revelations not quoted in scripture. Please see my previous post which mentions several of these revelations that scritpure refers to.

You do. You just stated it in your above post. You said: "Not all revelation is in the canon." You believe in an open canon. You just said it. That is what it means, that not all revelation is in the Bible.

No, believing in an open canon is believing that Holy Scripture can be added to. There is difference in believing in that and believing that God still gives revelation. You are the one who made a distinction between 'inspired'--what you call the writings of the Bible, and 'revelation' that God gave that was not recorded in the Bible. So you should be able to allow for the idea of revelation that you would not call Biblically 'inspired' that comes from God, even if you don't believe it occurs today.
I'm not accepting your definitions by the way.

Any revelation outside of Scripture is not inspired of God.

You are flip-flopping here. Are you know saying the words of the thunder clap that John heard was not from God? See previous posts.
What about the vision of the third heaven, in which the man received things he could not utter. Are you saying that Paul was wrong and that that revelation was not from God? What about the prophecies Saul gave when the Spirit came upon him? Do you reject that as being from God as well?
Your statement contradicts the teaching of scripture.
I wrote
Christ said that all power (i.e. authority) is committed unto Him.
You wrote

Are you Christ?

Go back and look at the context. You said that the Bible was the 'final authority.' I showed you that Christ said that all authority was committed unto HIM. If you think it is blasphemy to equate Christ with the Bible, then Who is the final authority?

The Bereans used the Scripture they had. They used the OT Scriptures to verify a NT message. They verified it as true and therefore believed it.

1. The Bereans were using the scriptures to verify a _revelation_ they had never heard before. That's the kind of reasoning Pentecostals use when they say prophecies have to be in line with scripture.
2. Read the passage. Some of the Bereans believed, but the Bereans ran Paul out of town, too.

We don't know all that Jesus said to these two disciples. None of it is "inspired" in the sense that it is not accurately recorded by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of mankind. You need to come to an understanding of what the word "inspired" means.

You seem to have a very circular definition of 'inspired.'
Also, you are saying Jesus said things that were not inspired to defend your doctrine. Really think about what you are saying.

 

[Brian30755]

Have you ever been able to actually use this gift and communicate the good news to someone who speaks a foreign language?

No, I haven't.

Since the Holy Spirit knows all languages, it shouldn't matter. The next time you meet someone who doesn't speak English, go up to them and ask them if they know the good news about Jesus, in their tongue, of course.

Okay, I will. Can't say that I very often meet someone who doesn't speak English, but as soon as I do, I'll go up to them and start speaking in this other language. I'll let you know how it turns out.