Confused about Speaking in Tongues

[DHK]

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.

I am saying that "inspiration is a word that applies only to the Scriptures.
Look at well-established and accepted definitions:

"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)

"Inspiration may be defined as that operation of the divine Spirit which renders a speaker or writer infallible in the communication of truth whether or not previously known." (Bancroft, Christian Theology, p. 24)

Inspiration refers to the words of scripture. It is the words of the original manuscripts that are inspired, and thus the words of men today cannot be inspired. Who today can claim infallibility? We have enough false prophets within the ranks of the Charismatic circles.


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.
--Holy men of old are not the Charismatics!!!
They are the prophets of the Old Testament, and by extension the Apostles of the New Testament. They spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. And those words were recorded for us. That is how our Scripture came to be.
--2Pet.3:2 tells us that both prophets and apostles are used in authoring the Bible. We are reminded to take heed to the words of both the prophets of the OT, and to the Apostles of the NT. (not the modern-day false prophets of the Charismatic movement).


Since the Book of Revelation was completed in ca. 98 A.D. there has been no other Scripture written. God has not seen fit to inspire any other revelation. The revelation that God has given us was closed by the end of the first century. Everything we need to know is contained within the 66 books that now make up the canon of the Bible. Those who claim that they are receiving revelation from God are in grievious error, and may in fact be receiving revelation from demons. How would they know, since God doesn't operate that way any longer?
DHK

 

[Link]

DHK
It is clear from all the examples I showed you in the Bible that there was revelation given to prophets that was not recorded in the Bible. Whether you label them as 'inspired' or not, is another issue.

The Bible proves that there has been revelation given by God that is not in the canon. Thefore, your argument that if someone receives revelation now, he believes in an open canon is fallacious reasoning. One can recieve Revelation without putting it in the Bible. Saul did and so did th eprohpets that were with him. John received some revelation that he did not record in scripture.

DHK wrote

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.
--Holy men of old are not the Charismatics!!!

If I brought this up, it is in reference to what 'prophecy' means. 'Prophesy' does not simply mean preach as some believe. (Not that I have heard you argue this idea.)

The NT uses the Greek for 'prophecy', 'prophet' and 'prophesy' to refer to the Hebrew equivilents. It stands to reason that prophecy in the New Testament is the same kind of thing as it was in the Old Testament, especially considering the example of the prophet Agabus' utterance in the New Testament.

Old Testament prophets prophesied by speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost. It stands to reason that New Testament prophecy is the same thing.

This is what prophets did in the first century, and it is what any saints does when he truly prophecies today.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey - I agree with Link!!

 

[BobRyan]

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.
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.

I agree with Link "again"!!

 

[BobRyan]

Brian

Of course, Paul mentions the possibility of 'tongues of angels.' People interpret that different ways. And it's possible some people are repeating a phrase over and over in a genuine language. but I still suspect there are 'psychological tongues.' On the other hand, there are reports of people understanding 'tongues' without the gift of interpretation, like in Acts 2. Charles Greenoway, AOG missionary (is he still alive?) had an anecdote about that he used to tell. Don Basham wrote about this occuring with the Maori in New Zealand, and I've heard another account like this as well.

Anyway, that being said, maybe you can pick up on false tongues because of a gift of the Spirit, or maybe your just wrong. I don't know.

Real tongues and real prophecies are a blessing from the Lord, and it is a good thing God has given these gifts to His church. The fact that pagans have false tongues and prophecies are in no way a challenge to our faith or to the reality of the true gifts.

I notice that cessationist arguments are usually rather lengthy and convoluted. The plain meaning of the text isn't good enough. Rejecting commands of scripture like 'despise not prophesyings' or 'covet to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues' based on some shakey, long, out-on-a-limb argument about 70 AD and tongues being a sign for the Jews--wich doesn't match Paul's argument in I Corinthians-- is a pretty unwise thing to do. Theological arguments versus the direct commands of scripture...

Link hits another home run!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

It is clear from all the examples I showed you in the Bible that there was revelation given to prophets that was not recorded in the Bible. Whether you label them as 'inspired' or not, is another issue.

The Bible proves that there has been revelation given by God that is not in the canon. Thefore, your argument that if someone receives revelation now, he believes in an open canon is fallacious reasoning. One can recieve Revelation without putting it in the Bible. Saul did and so did th eprohpets that were with him. John received some revelation that he did not record in scripture.

There was a time to receive revelation, and a time not to.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

God spoke in various ways through the prophets at different times in during the Od Testament era. How did he speak through the prophets? It was through dreams, visions, audibly, sometimes a Christophany, that is, in various ways. With Moses it was through a voice through a burning bush at one time.

But today, it says he speaks through his Son. It doesn't say the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say dreams and visions. It doesn't say through tongues and prophecies. It doesn't say through miraculous gifts of the Spirit. It says non of those things Today he speaks through his Son His Son is revealed to us through the Word. We know the Son through the Word. That is the only way that we can know Jesus Christ--through the Word, by which he speaks to us, and through prayer by which we speak to Him.
Those who claim any other form of revelation are into heresy.

God spoke to the prophets of the OT in various ways. Not all of it was recorded. But when He did speak he spoke during times that revelation was being given. That was up until about 450 B.C., when Malachi was written. After that there was a period for at least 400 years when God was silent. God did not speak to any one for over four hundred years. This we know. God was silent.
After 400 some years God broke his silence and spoke once again, this time to a priest called Zecharias.

Luke 1:11-12 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

--This was unusual. It was unusual both in the OT and in the NT. God does not normally give revelation through angels. But now was a special time. God spoke to Zecharias, and then to Joseph, and then also to Mary.
Soon after John the Baptist was born and then Christ Himself was born. After Christ died, the Apostles continued to receive revelation, as did some others. Revelation was being given throughout the Apostolic age. That period of revelation ended with the Apostles as did the Old Testament revelation end with the prophets.
When John died at the end of the first century he had completed the Book of Revelation. The Bible was complete. God speaks through His Son now--through His Word, not through other different ways, not through the gifts of the Spirit. That is not what is taught here.

It is significant and interesting that only the cults believe in an open canon to allow for their extra-Biblical revelation.

1. The Catholics must believe in an open canon of some sort in order to make room for their Oral Tradition to have as much weight as the inspired Word of God.
2. The Mormons leave the canon open so that they can add to it the Book of Mormon.
3. Christian Science needs to add the writings of Mary Baker Eddy.
4. The SDA needs to leave the canon open to incorporate "The Great Controversy," and other works by Ellen G. White
5. The Charismatics beleive the canon is still an open canon so they can give into their fleshly desires of experential tongues, and so-callled prophecies that ceased long ago. What is practiced now is not of God. It is not of the Holy Spirit. Revelation has ceased. Whatever revelation you receive is not of God. God gave his final reveltation in the Book of Revelation itself about 98 A.D. Since that time, he has kept silent. He speaks only through The Word of God, the Bible itself.

If you believe differently, perhaps you are a gnostic. You beleive you have special knowledge outside the Bible that only you have access to. You call it revelation. We call it gnosticism. It was a heresy of the first century. Where do you get knowledge outside of the Word of God, that no one else can verify.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
DHK

 

[Gershom]

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

Let's look at the verses again.

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.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.


Seven verses is probably sufficient to see that the context IS spiritual gifts. But there are other speaking gifts, and not just tongues.

What you're selling here, I ain't buying. It is easily refuted because there are many speaking gifts in the church, and it may have been that someone with any other speaking gift may have been guilty of calling Jesus accursed.

 

[BobRyan]

4. The SDA needs to leave the canon open to incorporate "The Great Controversy," and other works by Ellen G. White
5. The Charismatics beleive the canon is still an open canon so they can give into their fleshly desires of experential tongues, and so-callled prophecies that ceased long ago.

While I don't agree with the speaking in tongues false gift seen today - I would not go so far as to "make stuff up" as you have done - to discredit the false gifts.

The Charismatics DO NOT add to the Canon NOR do they claim it is OPEN NOR do they ADD TO it whatever comes from spiritual gifts!

Lying about them does not help your case.

The same is true of SDAs. They do not add anything to the closed Canon of scripture.

Why dilute a GOOD case against false gifts of tongues - by simply "making stuff up" about current Christian groups - that can easily be debunked?

That trick of "making stuff up" probably works well inside your own group when speaking of other groups - but how could it EVER work out here WITH other groups that are not so easily influenced by accusation-alone?

 

[DHK]

While I don't agree with the speaking in tongues false gift seen today - I would not go so far as to "make stuff up" as you have done - to discredit the false gifts.

The Charismatics DO NOT add to the Canon NOR do they claim it is OPEN NOR do they ADD TO it whatever comes from spiritual gifts!

Lying about them does not help your case.

The same is true of SDAs. They do not add anything to the closed Canon of scripture.

Why dilute a GOOD case against false gifts of tongues - by simply "making stuff up" about current Christian groups - that can easily be debunked?

That trick of "making stuff up" probably works well inside your own group when speaking of other groups - but how could it EVER work out here WITH other groups that are not so easily influenced by accusation-alone?

It is not a false argument Bob.
ALL revelation ceased at the completion of the Bible. That is one of the major reasons why we don't accept the Book of Mormon. It is also one of the major reason why we can tell the Muslims that Mohammed was not the last and final prophet. Christ and his Apostles were. When the Bible was complete there were no more Apostles and prophets. Otherwise you leave the door open to Mohammed also being a prophet. Every falsre religion has its own extr-Biblical revelatin, and extra-Biblical leader. These are false prophecises, false revellation, and false prophets. They are not of God. Paul warned that they would come (Acts 20:29ff). Jesus warned that they would come (Mat. 7) John warned that they would come (1John 2), Peter warned that they would come 2Pet.3), Jude warned that they would come. Virtually every NT writer warned of false prophets that would come immediately after their death, immediately after the Bible was completed. We have no other needed revelation than the Bible. Everything that we need to know about God, about Christ, about theology and all doctrine in general is contained within the Bible. Extra-Biblical revelation only leads to heresy. You ought to know that very well. That is where the Catholics get all their heretical doctrines from. That is where the Apocrypha comes from. That is where all the writings from all the cults come from. Since the Bible has been completed there has been no need for extra Biblical revelation. What need does it have. We have the Word of God. We have God's revelation to mankind. God does not speak to us anymore in anyother way.
This is the teaching in Heb.1:1,2. Take up your argument with the author of the Book of Hebrews. He said it, not I. He also said:

Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
--God bore the Apostles witness that their witness was authentic by: different miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Aposltes are dead. The Bible is complete. The gifts are no longer needed. They authenticated the Apostles, their close associates, and the message (the gospel) of the same. Those people don't exist anymore. In their place we have the Bible. The gifts have ceased. Why argue with the Word of God.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Let's look at the verses again.

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.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.


Seven verses is probably sufficient to see that the context IS spiritual gifts. But there are other speaking gifts, and not just tongues.

What you're selling here, I ain't buying. It is easily refuted because there are many speaking gifts in the church, and it may have been that someone with any other speaking gift may have been guilty of calling Jesus accursed.

Sure the context is spiritual gifts as is chapter 13 and 14.
Chapter 13:8 says:

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

The question is when they ceased. Study the rest of the passage. It is clear that they ceased when the completed (perfect) Word of God was come.
Go back and study chapter 12 again. Paul was addressing the Corinthian Church. Not every Christian is able to apply what he says to the Corinthian church to themselves. This was a first century church in the Apostolic Age when the gifts of the Spirit were in operation. Everything must be taken in its context.DHK

 

[Gershom]

Sure the context is spiritual gifts as is chapter 13 and 14.
Chapter 13:8 says:

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

The question is when they ceased. Study the rest of the passage. It is clear that they ceased when the completed (perfect) Word of God was come.
Go back and study chapter 12 again. Paul was addressing the Corinthian Church. Not every Christian is able to apply what he says to the Corinthian church to themselves. This was a first century church in the Apostolic Age when the gifts of the Spirit were in operation. Everything must be taken in its context.DHK

You're avoiding the issue that I have with you. I'm not addressing whether or not tongues have ceased. I'm addressing your statement that the person or persons who were calling Jesus accursed were speaking in tongues. You simply cannot prove that to be true, as I have pointed out in my previous posts.

And yes, thank you, I have studied chapter 12.

 

[DHK]

You're avoiding the issue that I have with you. I'm not addressing whether or not tongues have ceased. I'm addressing your statement that the person or persons who were calling Jesus accursed were speaking in tongues. You simply cannot prove that to be true, as I have pointed out in my previous posts.

And yes, thank you, I have studied chapter 12.

Sorry, I didn't know you were still back on that topic.

1 Corinthians 12:1-3 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.

In verse one he tells them plainly that he doesn't want them to be ignorant of spiritual gifts, and then spends the next three chapters speaking of them.
In verse two he reminds them of their pagan past. In paganism they did speak in tongues. Their pagan past involved demonism. They knew what it was to be demon-possessed. They knew what it was to speak in ecstatic tongues such as people do today (even under the power of demons--though not all of it may have been). They knew what it was to speak another language under the power of a demon. Their pagan past was heavily into the occult. They were Gentiles carried away untl these dumb idols even as ye were led. That is, led by other spirits.

In verse three, Paul refers that pagan past, which they had fallen back into. Some of them were calling Jesus Christ accursed. Now you have to admit that anyone can call Jesus accursed and get away with it--even a saved person. But this verse says: "No man speaking by the Holy Spirit calls Jesus accursed." There is a contrast here. The contrast is to a demonic spriit. On the other hand no man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirt.
The questions you must answer: Is every person that calls Jesus accursed influenced by a demon, or possibly demon-possed (or at least oppressed0?
Secondly, Is every person that calls Jesus Lord, filled with the Spirit of God?

The answer to both of those questions is obviously no!
I can get an unsaved person, a Catholic to say either statement. I know that that person is neither under the influence of demons, nor under the influence of the Holy Spirit. So what is the meaning of the verse?

The key is in the pagan past of these Gentile believers, and their former past of speaking in pagan tongues. They were allowing themselves to come under the influence of another spirit, a demonic spirit, and say that Jesus is accursed. The Holy Spirit cannot say that Jesus Christ is accursed, therefore it is another spirit, a demonic spirit. They were not realizing this because they were speaking another language without an interpreter. But someone close by could recognize the language and recognize the langauge and were obviously shocked to hear what the person was saying. Thus the complaint to Paul, as to what was going on in the church in Corinth. This was absolutely abhorrent that some were actually cursing God under the influence of the so-called Holy Spirit. Paul says, NO!. It is another spirit, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit testifies that Jesus Christ is Lord.
This is what the passage means.

I have repeatedly challenged others to tell me why my explanation is wrong, but they cannot answer me, nor can they explain the passage any other way.
DHK

 

[Link]

1 Corinthians 12:1-3 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.

In verse one he tells them plainly that he doesn't want them to be ignorant of spiritual gifts, and then spends the next three chapters speaking of them.
In verse two he reminds them of their pagan past. In paganism they did speak in tongues. Their pagan past involved demonism. They knew what it was to be demon-possessed. They knew what it was to speak in ecstatic tongues such as people do today (even under the power of demons--though not all of it may have been). They knew what it was to speak another language under the power of a demon.

First, just because you could imagine how something _might_ have happened does not mean that it did happen. And making a doctrine out of what you _imagine might have_ happened is not a good way to inteprret scripture.

Can you show me the historical sources that show that the average Corinthian pagan was likely to have done something similar to speaking in tongues in paganism? I know that the pagan Greeks believed in prophesying by their false gods.

I have repeatedly challenged others to tell me why my explanation is wrong, but they cannot answer me, nor can they explain the passage any other way.
DHK[/quote]


This isn't true. I have offered alternative explanations in the past. You just didn't respond. Here are some possible scenarios.

1. Paul is just listing extremes to make a point. On one extreme is someone cursing Christ and the other is someone saying Jesus is Lord. There is nothing in the passage to demand that there was an issue of something cursing Christ.

2. It is possible that the pagans, while pagans, were cursing Christ in their 'pneumatika' from demon spirits. Paul may be contrasting pagan 'pneumatika' with the 'charismata' he would mention later in the passage. Btw, this makes a lot more sense in context than what you are promoting.

3. It is conceivable that someone cursed Christ in a false prophecy, perhaps some false prophet who came into the church or something of that nature. Again, this is imagining what _might have happened._ Remember the passage mentions the gift of prophecy before it even brings up the gift of tongues.

If people were cursing the Lord in tongues, it is unlikely that the Corinthians would have known about it. You are imagining that _Christians_ were doing this in tongues, and then imagining that someone who knew the language came along and knew what was being said. This is quite a stretch, and does not come from the text. It comes from your imagination. Your imagination is not scripture.

The questions you must answer: Is every person that calls Jesus accursed influenced by a demon, or possibly demon-possed (or at least oppressed0?
Secondly, Is every person that calls Jesus Lord, filled with the Spirit of God?

You are assuming that someone has to be 'filled with the Spirit of God' to speak by the Spirit of God.

Balaam spoke by the Spirit of God. Was he full of the Spirit of God? Did he have the fruits of the Spirit?

Is it possilbe that the Holy Spirit could enable an unsaved person to say 'Jesus is Lord' without faith? Some would interpret the passage to mean that Paul is talking about saying 'Jesus is Lord' with faith. No matter how you look at it, it does not justify basing doctrine on your guesswork.

There is no logical connection between your argument about saying 'Jesus is Lord' by the Spirit of God, and your argument about tongues. Even if someone did say something, there is absolutely no reason to assume it would have been in tongues-- which people would not have understood.

Also, in regard to pagan tongues, I am not aware that Greeks would have considered what you call speaking in tongues to be 'tongues' but rather some kind of riddled prophecy. The Oracle at Delphi was known for speaking so obscurely people could not understand what she said. Romans played this up in their mythology about their first king, who alone was able to understand what the oracle said to him in the sotry.

 

[Link]

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
What we have here is a 'lesser to greater argument'. In the past, God spoke by the prophets. In the last days he has spoken by his Son.
The author of Hebrews is not saying that God did not speak through prophets after Christ. We know from Acts and I Corinthians that there were prophets in the church. In fact, Christ said that he would send prophets, wise men, and scribes.

But today, it says he speaks through his Son. It doesn't say the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say dreams and visions. It doesn't say through tongues and prophecies.

So are you saying that when Hebrews 1 was written, God did not speak those ways because of the way you interpret this passage (wrongly?)
If that is the case, then you might was well throw out I Corinthians 12-13 on prophets, and the book of Acts which mentions prophets. Maybe you would want to throw out that passage where Jesus said after He went to the Father that the Spirit would take of what He had received from Christ, and give it unto them-- all those passages about the Comforter coming... oh yeah, and those passages about the Spirit speaking to people in Acts.
While you are at it, you could throw out your entire New Testament, if you believe that it was written under prophetic inspiration of the Holy Spirit...by God speaking to men through the Spirit.

Clearly, God speaking through the Son does not preclude God speaking through the Spirit. The Son speaks to us know through the Spirit. When we read the words of Christ and understand, we understand because of the Word, but also because of the Spirit.

It doesn't say through miraculous gifts of the Spirit. It says non of those things Today he speaks through his Son His Son is revealed to us through the Word.

This verse doesn't say that, but it doesn't say God does not say these things won't happen.

Soon after John the Baptist was born and then Christ Himself was born. After Christ died, the Apostles continued to receive revelation, as did some others. Revelation was being given throughout the Apostolic age. That period of revelation ended with the Apostles as did the Old Testament revelation end with the prophets.

When John died at the end of the first century he had completed the Book of Revelation. The Bible was complete. God speaks through His Son now--through His Word, not through other different ways, not through the gifts of the Spirit. That is not what is taught here.

The Bible does not teach that these gifts ceased. It does say despise not prophesyings and forbid not to speak with tongues, to covet prophesying, and that God gives gifts to His church. It also talks about the two witnesses prophesying and mentions prophets in reference to the time period spoken of in the book of Revelation.

 

[BobRyan]

It is not a false argument Bob.
ALL revelation ceased at the completion of the Bible.

Fortunately for Christians - that is not a Bible text! It is nothing more than man-made tradition.

DHK
That is one of the major reasons why we don't accept the Book of Mormon.

We agree on that much.

The man-made tradition you mentioned above is often used to reject the Bible teaching in 1Cor 12 AS WELL as the false teachings of Mormons.

But it would be MUCH BETTER to debunk Mormonism using ACTUAL Bible doctrine.

Having said that -- this is not the part of your post I was objecting to. I don't mind having a difference of view on whether 1Cor 12 is still a valid text to read and believe.

What I do mind is making stuff up about what people believe - like SDAs and Charismatics having "an open Canon" of scritpure- they do not.

So while it IS true that you DIFFER with them on the validity of 1Cor 12 -- it is NOT TRUE that they consider the Canon of scripture to be open!!

No problem objecting to their doctrines - but why make stuff up -- in ADDITION?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

First, just because you could imagine how something _might_ have happened does not mean that it did happen. And making a doctrine out of what you _imagine might have_ happened is not a good way to inteprret scripture.

Scripture interprets itself. It is not difficult, especially when you don't have a bias, a prejudice. I don't have any pet doctrine to defend. I don't have a theology of tongues to protect at whatever cost to Scripture it may take. The Charismatics will go at lengths to make the Scriptures say anything they want to just to defend their pet doctrines. They will say that because Balaam's donkey spoke, is proof positive that tongues is for today. Whatever Scripture they can pull ouit of the hat will do, only to protect their pet doctrine. I don't have those pet doctrines to protect. I can read the Bible without having those biases.

Can you show me the historical sources that show that the average Corinthian pagan was likely to have done something similar to speaking in tongues in paganism? I know that the pagan Greeks believed in prophesying by their false gods.

With some research yes, but I am not going to take the time right now. I can also show you other Scriptural references how the Corinthians were into demon-worship. I can show you from various sources, both modern and otherwise how demon-worship involves speaking in tonuges.

This isn't true. I have offered alternative explanations in the past. You just didn't respond. Here are some possible scenarios.

1. Paul is just listing extremes to make a point. On one extreme is someone cursing Christ and the other is someone saying Jesus is Lord. There is nothing in the passage to demand that there was an issue of something cursing Christ.

This doesn't fit the context. Paul is contrasting that which is spoken by the Holy Spirit to that which is spoken by another spirit, a pagan or demonic spirit. Always keep that in mind when trying to understand this passage.
You said:
" There is nothing in the passage to demand that there was an issue of something cursing Christ."
Yet that is precisely what the problem was. People were cursing Christ. Did you not read the passaage in question??

1 Corinthians 12:3 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.

Paul didn't say that for the good of his health. That is what was happening in the church at Corinth. Some were cursing Christ under the influence of another spirit. It wasn't and couldn't be under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This was Paul's point.

2. It is possible that the pagans, while pagans, were cursing Christ in their 'pneumatika' from demon spirits. Paul may be contrasting pagan 'pneumatika' with the 'charismata' he would mention later in the passage. Btw, this makes a lot more sense in context than what you are promoting.

I am not sure what you are referring to. But I did say demon spirits in my previous posts. In fact that has been my point all along. People have been cursing Christ under the power of demons. Of course why would they right about this as a problem unless it was being done in tongues, a language that only a very few of them would understand. Remeber that Paul (according to 1Cor.7:1) is answering a letter that they had written. He is answering questions and problems that had arisen in the church. If this was demonic influence by some unsaved person, or by someone claiming to be a prophet, and then cursing Christ, the church would know what to do right away. They would excommunicate a false prophet. They would kick some one out immediately who started cursing. But someone cursing in another tongue not recognizable by most in the congregation is a different matter. Not everyone would recognize it as such. Besides, people speaking in tongues can pull the wool over peoples' eyes, put on facade of "spirituality." That was part of the problem. It was one of the "showy" gifts that was being abused, and being more desired for that carnal reason. If someone came into your church cursining and swearing in your own language would you stnd for it??

3. It is conceivable that someone cursed Christ in a false prophecy, perhaps some false prophet who came into the church or something of that nature. Again, this is imagining what _might have happened._ Remember the passage mentions the gift of prophecy before it even brings up the gift of tongues.

Again if someone came into your church and said: I have a message from God, and then began to curse and swear, would yoiu stand for it? That doesn't make any sense at all. The Corinthians didn't have to ask Paul about any such situation.

If people were cursing the Lord in tongues, it is unlikely that the Corinthians would have known about it. You are imagining that _Christians_ were doing this in tongues, and then imagining that someone who knew the language came along and knew what was being said. This is quite a stretch, and does not come from the text. It comes from your imagination. Your imagination is not scripture.

It is from the context; it is the only logical conclusion that one can come to.

You are assuming that someone has to be 'filled with the Spirit of God' to speak by the Spirit of God.

I simply quoted Paul.
1 Corinthians 12:3 ...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
--These are Paul's words--speaking "by the Holy Spirit." What do they mean. And this does take place after Pentecost. It must refer to one who is speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit such as one who is speaking in tongues or one who is speaking with the gift of prophecy. Obviously the prophetic gift doesn't make sense because a person posing to speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit and then cursing would be kicked out of the church. But one speaking in tongues would not be noticed so quickly.

Balaam spoke by the Spirit of God. Was he full of the Spirit of God? Did he have the fruits of the Spirit?

1Cor.12 is after Pentecost. So what is your point. Believers in the Corinthian church were continually indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Those that had the gifts of the Spirit spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and those that counterfeited them spoke under the influence of demonic spirits. It is that simple.

Is it possilbe that the Holy Spirit could enable an unsaved person to say 'Jesus is Lord' without faith? Some would interpret the passage to mean that Paul is talking about saying 'Jesus is Lord' with faith. No matter how you look at it, it does not justify basing doctrine on your guesswork.

I don't base doctrine on guesswork, but Charismatics do. That is why a reference to Balaam's donkey is made. Anything to defend an errant doctrine.
Any person can say Jesus is Lord. That has been my point all along. I can get my Muslim friend to repeat those words. That is why they must mean something different than "the obvious." If a person is speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit (i.e., tongues), he will not testify by cursing Christ; he will testify by attesting to the deity of Christ.

There is no logical connection between your argument about saying 'Jesus is Lord' by the Spirit of God, and your argument about tongues. Even if someone did say something, there is absolutely no reason to assume it would have been in tongues-- which people would not have understood.

I can't help you if you can't see the logic, or understand the verse. The verse is speaking of those that are under the influence of either the Holy Spirit or another spirit. That is very simple and easy to understand. What spirit are you under? Paul says. Plainly if a person is found cursing Christ he is doing so under another spirit. But this would only be true of someone trying imitate tongues. I am sorry if you don't understand that. I have worked at secular places where many unsaved curse God. They are not all demon-possessed. They don't curse God under the powerr of another spirit. They just do it. This is not what Paul is talking about, and not what the Corinthians were writing to Paul about. The passage is not a difficult passage. You are trying to make it difficult becuase you are trying to find a way to defend the sign gifts which no longer exist today.
DHK

 

[Link]

I wrote

1. Paul is just listing extremes to make a point. On one extreme is someone cursing Christ and the other is someone saying Jesus is Lord. There is nothing in the passage to demand that there was an issue of something cursing Christ.

DHK wrote,
>This doesn't fit the context. Paul is contrasting that which is spoken by the Holy Spirit to that which is spoken by another spirit, a pagan or demonic spirit. Always keep that in mind when trying to understand this passage.<

And it still does not follow that someone necessarily said these utterances.

I could preach a sermon and say, “No one speaking by the Spirit of God would curse Christ.” If I preached that, does that mean someone in the church cursed Christ and claimed to do it by the Spirit of God? No. It could be that that happened. But just because something could have happened does not mean that it did happen.

No one would have ever had to have come into the church cursing tongues or otherwise for me to sincerely say a statement like that.

You said:
" There is nothing in the passage to demand that there was an issue of something cursing Christ."
Yet that is precisely what the problem was. People were cursing Christ. Did you not read the passaage in question??

Paul didn’t say that people were cursing Christ. He said that no one speaking by the Spirit of God would curse Christ. He was talking about what was possible, not what happened. You can imagine someone might have cursed Christ, and it might have happened. But the passage doesn’t say that. You are making up a story to go with the passage and then using that story as the basis for doctrine.

2. It is possible that the pagans, while pagans, were cursing Christ in their 'pneumatika' from demon spirits. Paul may be contrasting pagan 'pneumatika' with the 'charismata' he would mention later in the passage. Btw, this makes a lot more sense in context than what you are promoting.

I am not sure what you are referring to.

I am referring to I Cor. 12:1. When Paul says ‘spiritual gifts’ here he uses a Greek word pneumatika. If I understand I right, pagans can have ‘pnuematika’ too. That is, they have spiritual manifestations, too. Later, Paul talks about God giving spiritual gifts which he refers to with the word ‘charismata’—the grace gifts.

So Paul brings up the topic of spiritual manifestations and mentions the fact that the Corinthians used to be pagans. As pagans, they had probably encountered pneumatika, those kinds of ‘spiritual gifts.’ But pagan pneumatika are different from Christian pneumatika. Christian spiritual gifts come from the Spirit, and no one speaking by the Spirit curses Christ. Maybe the pagans did when they were demonically inspired. Or maybe that is the type of thing a pagan would say whether or not the Corinthians had experienced it. Likewise, the pagans who experienced pneumatika, pagan prophecy, or whatever, would not say ‘Jesus is Lord.’ They weren’t speaking by the Spirit.

This interpretation makes sense in context and does not demand introducing the idea of someone cursing Christ in the context of the church. There is indication here that anyone was cursing Christ in church or even than anyone pretending to be a Christian was cursing Christ.

People have been cursing Christ under the power of demons. Of course why would they right about this as a problem unless it was being done in tongues, a language that only a very few of them would understand.

You failed to make a logical case here. There is no proof in the passage that any of the Corinthian Christians or pretenders had cursed Christ. Why would Paul only write about this problem only if it were done in tongues? Even another poster here who agreed with you on this idea doesn’t see your idea of cursing in tongues in the passage. Why not? Because it isn’t in the passage. Paul tells us that no one speaking by the Spirit of God curses Christ. That is not proof that people were cursing Christ, or that Christians were doing it. Paul was contrasting the Corinthians FORMER paganism with their current Christian manifestations.

Notice the past tense, ‘even as ye WERE led’, not ‘are led.’

Remeber that Paul (according to 1Cor.7:1) is answering a letter that they had written. He is answering questions and problems that had arisen in the church.

So is this supposed to be proof that you did not just imagine the scenario about someone cursing Christ in tongues? Your proof is an imagined line in the letter the Corinthians wrote about someone cursing Christ in tongues?

The passage says nothing about cursing Christ in tongues. It is not even conclusive in the passage that anyone had cursed Christ in a church context. The cursing Christ may just be the way Paul described the kind of ‘spiritual gifts’ that pagans exercised or that the Corinthians would have exercised or witnessed before becoming Christians.

If this was demonic influence by some unsaved person, or by someone claiming to be a prophet, and then cursing Christ, the church would know what to do right away. They would excommunicate a false prophet. They would kick some one out immediately who started cursing. But someone cursing in another tongue not recognizable by most in the congregation is a different matter. Not everyone would recognize it as such.

And my question is, why doesn’t the Bible say anything about this happening? If this was the problem, why didn’t Paul write about it back then instead of us all having to wait for about 1950 years for you to imagine it into the text? Why is there no hint of a discussion of false tongues in this or any other passage?

And I doubt the Corinthians were excommunicating people. They hadn’t excommunicated that guy in chapter 5 who was sleeping with his father’s wife.

Also, do you believe Christians can be demonized, and have demons in them speaking through them? Do you advise Christians to go get the demons cast out of them?

 

[Link]

Not everyone would recognize it as such. Besides, people speaking in tongues can pull the wool over peoples' eyes, put on facade of "spirituality." That was part of the problem. It was one of the "showy" gifts that was being abused, and being more desired for that carnal reason.

Why doesn’t this book or any book of the New Testament say anything about tongues pulling the wool over people’s eyes, being used to put on a façade of spirituality, being a showy gift, or being used for a carnal reason?

Paul shows us that the reason the Corinthians were using uninterpreted tongues was childish reasoning. They didn’t think things through far enough to realize that tongues without interpretation didn’t edify others.

It seems to me that you are reading your own prejudices about tongues into the text.

3. It is conceivable that someone cursed Christ in a false prophecy, perhaps some false prophet who came into the church or something of that nature. Again, this is imagining what _might have happened._ Remember the passage mentions the gift of prophecy before it even brings up the gift of tongues.

Again if someone came into your church and said: I have a message from God, and then began to curse and swear, would yoiu stand for it? That doesn't make any sense at all. The Corinthians didn't have to ask Paul about any such situation.

If we are going to make up doctrine by imagining up stories and reading them back into scripture, then I can make up a story where a pagan DID come into church and give a false prophecy full of cursing, and they did tell him to leave, and he never came back again.

There, I proved it. The problem was false prophecy, not false tongues. I proved it by making up a better story than the one you made up.

Of course, I write this ‘tongue in cheek.’ We can guess at scenarios that might have happened all day long. That doesn’t mean it happened the way we imagined. If you are absolutely convinced that it happened the way you imagined it, that comes across as frankly a bit schitzophrenic to me. It’s like the guy who imagines people under the stairs, and because he imagines it, it must be so. It’s a notch below the Balaam’s donkey line of reasoning you gave.

No, we can’t invent sound doctrine by guesswork. If you were to say that you received a revelation that there were false tongues in Corinth, at least it would be logical for you to see that as a reason to believe your story is a fact, whether or not you were right about it. But being convinced of this story just because you thought it up and it could have happened is not sound reasoning.

I can get my Muslim friend to repeat those words. That is why they must mean something different than "the obvious."

I really don’t see how this has any connection at all to your argument that Paul must be talking about speaking in tongues here. It just doesn’t make sense.

If you can get Muslims to repeat the words ‘Jesus is Lord’, that doesn’t mean one of the Corinthians said something bad in false tongues. There is no connection.

And you have not dealt with my argument that it may be possible to speak by the Spirit without being filled with the Spirit, or even being saved.

Balaam spoke by the Spirit. Was he filled with the Spirit? Was he saved? Caiaphas prophesied when he was plotting to crucify Jesus. Was he filled with the Spirit? Was he saved?

On the other hand, one might assume that Paul is talking about saying “Jesus is Lord” with faith, not just reading something off a piece of paper. Either way, your point is not proved.

 

[Link]

The verse is speaking of those that are under the influence of either the Holy Spirit or another spirit. That is very simple and easy to understand.

You are not paying close attention to the wording of the passage. Here, I’ll use the NIV, probably not your favorite translation, but it’s in arm’s reach for me.

I Corinthians 12:4
“Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus be cursed,’ and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Ghost. (NIV)

Notice the wording here. Paul does not say, in this verse, that someone said “Jesus be cursed.” He did not say that someone said ‘Jesus is Lord’ in this verse either.

He says no one ‘who is speaking by the Spirit of God’ says ‘Jesus be cursed.’ He says ‘no one CAN say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Ghost.

It is clear from the wording that Paul is talking about what is POSSIBLE, not about a specific event in the past. And there is nothing about speaking in tongues in the verse.

Paul says. Plainly if a person is found cursing Christ he is doing so under another spirit.

He says no such thing in this passage. You are adding to the passage. Paul says that no one curses Christ speaking by the Spirit of God. He does not say whether or not the person is speaking by another spirit.

Plainly if a person is found cursing Christ he is doing so under another spirit. But this would only be true of someone trying imitate tongues.

Logically, you have missed it here because the idea of ‘another spirit’ is not found in the passage. Also, you miss it here because you say ‘this would ONLY be true of someone trying to imitate tongues.’ (emphasis mine.) That isn’t true. People can say things under the influence of demons without trying to imitate tongues.

I have worked at secular places where many unsaved curse God. They are not all demon-possessed. They don't curse God under the powerr of another spirit. They just do it.

Well, if these people can curse Christ, you believe, without being under the power of another Spirit (not saying I agree with that), then there goes your whole argument. Paul doesn’t say anything here about these people speaking by another spirit. You assumed that. It just ‘aint in the text. So if your former co-workers could curse without being under the power of another spirit, you believe, then you should admit that it is possible for someone to curse Christ, as described in this passage, without being under the power of another spirit. Again, I’m not saying I agree with you, since it would seem to me that those who are cursing Christ are under the power of Satan in one way or another, even if they aren’t raving demoniacs.

The passage is not a difficult passage. You are trying to make it difficult becuase you are trying to find a way to defend the sign gifts which no longer exist today.

The passage doesn’t seem complicated to me. Of course, there is no natural way for one to know your complicated interpretation of it unless you explain it, since it involves so many things that you imagined that are not mentioned in the text.

Let’s summarize.

You imagine that Paul said that those who were cursing Christ were doing so under the influence of another Spirit. The verse doesn’t say that. The closest the passage comes to saying that is verse 1 talks about being influenced to mute idols.

You imagine that the passage says that someone cursed Christ in the context of the Corinthian church. It does not say that. It is equally likely, if not more so, that some pagans were cursing Christ with their ‘pneumatika’ (their equivalent of ‘spiritual gifts.’)

You imagine that the cursing was done in tongues. The text says nothing about this.

You think the text says more than is obvious because you have had co-workers that you don’t think were demonized who cursed Christ. So, you conclude (correct me if I am wrong) that because of this, the cursing must have been done in false tongues.

The problem is the passage in question does not have any evidence to support your theories of false tongues.

You also wrote,

They will say that because Balaam's donkey spoke, is proof positive that tongues is for today.

I have been around Pentecostals and Charismatics for decades and have never heard that. I’m not saying someone with shaky reasoning skills didn’t say that. But I suspect you are misconstruing what was said. I have heard people say that if God can speak through a donkey, he can speak through you. (Not that that is exactly accurate. God enabled the donkey to speak. The passage doesn’t tell us that he prophesied.)

Anyway, the donkey argument, the way you present it, is about as logical as your argument that someone in Corinth must have cursed Christ in tongues.

Also, it is very ironic that you accuse Charismatics of going to all kinds of lengths to protect their doctrines in the same post with the arguments you tried to make from I Corinthians 12 in that last post.

 

[DHK]

I

I am referring to I Cor. 12:1. When Paul says ‘spiritual gifts’ here he uses a Greek word pneumatika. If I understand I right, pagans can have ‘pnuematika’ too. That is, they have spiritual manifestations, too. Later, Paul talks about God giving spiritual gifts which he refers to with the word ‘charismata’—the grace gifts.

Let me address this one point quickly.
No, you don't have it right.[SIZE=+1] pneumatikos is a word that simply means spiritual. It cannot apply to unsaved pagans. Paul was writing to the Corinthians about spiritual things Note in your KJV that the word "gifts" is in italics. It is not in the Greek. It is supplied. Pneumatikos is an adjective that needs a noun. The noun is understood by the Greeks; and by us it is understood more by the context which is spiritual gifts. That is no doubt why the KJV put the word "gifts" in there. Without a noun the statement would not make sense. However not all agree that the word "gifts" is the right word. The word basically means "spiritual things," as Young, in his literal translation puts it:

1 Corinthians 12:1 And concerning the spiritual things, brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant;

Paul is writing to them about spiritual things, the gifts in particular. This has nothing to do with paganism being "spiritual." How could it? It is an adjective that refers only to the spiritual gifts which can be defined by believers as opposed to carnal or demonic.

You read too much into this word.
DHK
[/SIZE]