SBC to ban speaking in tongues?

[DHK]

Originally posted by gb93433:

Originally posted by DHK:
[qb]
3. Tongues was given for revelation before the New Testament canon was complete. The New Testament is now complete.

Certainly you must know that there are other books which we know which are referenced in the NT. What do you think they would do if those other books showed up which Paul makes reference to. It is generally thought that there are other books which were written by Paul. Or is it possible you are making Paul out to be a liar by your view?

Certainly there were other books written by Paul. There were also books written supposedly by Thomas and others--all uninspired by the Holy Spirit of God. It amazes me how so many people consider the first century either dense, brainless, uneducated, unspiritual, with no discernment, etc. These early churches of the first century were under the direct influence of the apostles. That is the period when the gifts of the Spirit were in operation. In the second century, the churches were led by Spirit-led men who had been taught by the Apostles. The Apostle Paul in many cases had ordained these men. Read chapter 14 of Acts, where Paul ordained elders in every church that he started. These were not uneducated dummies not having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
They could discern between right and wrong. And they could discern between the genuine inspired books of Scripture and the false forgeries that were floating around, most of which were promoting false teachings of gnosticism and other heresies.
Let me ask you: The manuscripts on which the Da Vanci Code come from: Are they inspired or not? How do you know? I trust you would come to the same conclustion that the early Christians would.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:

Originally posted by DHK:
[qb] Tongues have ceased, and are not for today. Those who think they are have not looked at the Scripture closely enough:

1. Tongues were a sign to the Jews of the first century. The sign has passed.
2. Tongues were a sign for the Apostles of the first century. The sign has passed.
3. Tongues was given for revelation before the New Testament canon was complete. The New Testament is now complete.

There is no need for tongues. Their purpose has been fulfilled. Tongues is a sign, a sign that passed at the end of the first century when it was no longer needed.
DHK

On what date at the end of the first century did this happen?

The gift of tongues gradually faded out. Even in the church of Corinth the gift was starting to fade out then. The First Epistle to the Corinthians was one of the first epistles written. There is no mention of tongues in the second epistle, or in any other epistle written after that. It had already begun to cease. By the time the New Testament was complete there was no longer any need for them. In any case tongues was the least of all the gifts as shown in 1Cor.12:28, where it is listed last in order of importance.

If a person was speaking in tongues the minute that this supposedly happened did their mouth cease to move?

non sequitor

When was the Bible canonized?

My view on the canonization of Scripture is different than others. I believe that the early believers knew what books were Scripture as they written. Many of the writers knew they were writing Scripture. Paul often uses the phrase: "as the Lord commands me." He was commanded by the Lord to write Scripture. As a book was written, accepted by the early churches, it was accepted as Scripture, and became part of the canon. Thus the canon developed gradually and was not completed until Revelation was complete at 98 A.D.

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; 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.
--Peter knew which of Paul's epistles were inspired Scripture.

Was it at the end of the frist century?

Approximately

When Peter said in Acts 2:39 that this promise
( which started the discussion that led to Peters sermon as men ask what meaneth this and others mocked)Is for you and to your children and to all who are afar off.
Shouldn't he have said this promise is for a few years until the apostles die and the bible is canonized?
Peter must have messed up in not telling us this?

What did Peter mess up? The only thing that is messed up is the Charismatic's dogged determination to force their pre-conceived theology into such Scriptures as these.

What this Scripture says is that salvation through faith in Christ is now to the Jews and to their generations from this time forth (Pentecost) to the end of time. Salvation will always by through Christ. There is no other way. This is not talking of tongues, the gifts of the Spirit, etc. It is speaking of salvation through faith in Christ.
DHK

 

[atestring]

dkh,
can you prove your 98ad theory?

 

[atestring]

dhh
The Bible does not say that tongues is the least of gifts.
there is no least of gifts.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
dkh,
can you prove your 98ad theory?

The date of the writing of the Book of Revelation is generally accepted and undisputed as between 96 to 98 A.D. You may check any number of NT Survey books or commentaries for this information.
DHK

 

[Hope of Glory]

I don't think he's trying to "prove" 98 AD, so much as he's using Scripture to show that tongues were for a limited time and for a specific reason.

 

[atestring]

Has he proved it?

 

[Matt Black]

BTW,

Originally posted by Matt Black:


No-one's actually explained to me why this issue determines whether one is Baptist(ic) or not, given it is not a Baptist distinctive.

Any takers?

Bump. Still waiting for an answer.

 

[atestring]

Matt,
I agree with you.
It is not a baptist distinctive.
If it were ,the Bible would override it.
The fact is that Baptist are up in arms about the ban on the missionaries.
How could The SBC enforce this ban anyway.
Are they going to bug our prayer closets.
If they do then they could get confessions that the National Enquirer would have a hayday with.
BTW
the resignation request that was called for on Wade Burleson has been removed.

 

[mcdirector]

This is a bit off-topic, but I usually read posts from the "Today's Active Topics" link. I just realized that a this thread about Baptists (SBC, but still Baptists) is on the "Other Christian Denominations" forum. I find this odd on a Baptist Board.

 

[music4Him]

Thats ok mcdirector~

The funny thing is I don't find it odd being posted here because to me its speaking about people who speak in tongues so then evidently they arn't concidered "one of the group" (ei Baptist).
----------------------------------------------------------------
BTW,
All I know is "what if" DHK is wrong and tongues is still for today and these SBC people have been inparted with this gift?

Paul said "in these last days" was he speaking of these last days all the way until Jesus returns or was it a 70 AD thing?

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

Perilous times are still happening so I figure we are still in the last days.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by atestring:
Has he proved it?

It's been proven by a preponderance of the Scriptural evidence by him (and others) that the Biblical gift of tongues is not for today.

It's also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the gibberish being exhibited by so many people today is not Biblical tongues.

So, yes, he's proved it.

 

[Pete]

It is not a baptist distinctive...

...Unless of course you think that the Bible is fair dinkum (For the foreigners "fair dinkum" is Aussie term meaning "true, genuine") in 1 Corinthians 14:27...In which case places that have everyone babbling on "spaghettipizzalasagna" at once with no interpreters (been there, seen that) are anything but following "The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself."

Although he was probably speaking about the laughing thing and not tongues, Rodney Howard-Browne's comment seems to sum up most of today's tongues fans: "As long as something is happening it really does not matter if it is of God, of man or of the devil."

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atestring:
Has he proved it?

It's been proven by a preponderance of the Scriptural evidence by him (and others) that the Biblical gift of tongues is not for today.

It's also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the gibberish being exhibited by so many people today is not Biblical tongues.

So, yes, he's proved it. </font>[/QUOTE]That's your opinion!
\There is a preponderance of Scriptural evidence that says just the opposite.

Give Me a Greek word that is in the Biblical Text that is translated as gibberish.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by atestring:


Give Me a Greek word that is in the Biblical Text that is translated as gibberish.

That's the point: There isn't one.

This gibberish that so many people today calls "tongues" is anti-biblical. There is nothing in the Bible to support a "private prayer language" that is gibberish.

Tongues were real languages. (The word "unknown" never appears with "tongues".) They were for a specific reason for a specific time, and as evidenced in Scripture, that time and reason don't currently exist. (They will exist again, however, in my opinon.)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mcdirector:
This is a bit off-topic, but I usually read posts from the "Today's Active Topics" link. I just realized that a this thread about Baptists (SBC, but still Baptists) is on the "Other Christian Denominations" forum. I find this odd on a Baptist Board.

The OP was started by someone who was not a Baptist and thus could not post this topic in a Baptist forum, but because of its Charismatic link is still of interest to other denominations as well.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
BTW, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:


No-one's actually explained to me why this issue determines whether one is Baptist(ic) or not, given it is not a Baptist distinctive.

Any takers?

Bump. Still waiting for an answer. </font>[/QUOTE]No. It is not a Baptist distinctive just as meeting on Sunday is not a Baptist distinctive. And just as there are Seventh-Day Baptists, there are also Charasmatic Baptists (unfortunately). Under the umbrella of the Baptist Distinctives falls a great number of wide and varied Baptists.
Most are defined either by their statement of faith or their constitution.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by music4Him:

All I know is "what if" DHK is wrong and tongues is still for today and these SBC people have been inparted with this gift?

"This gift" does not exist and cannot be proven to exist. If it did missionaries would not have to learn foreign languagues. That is what the gift of tongues (languages) is--speaking in a foreign language, and it was used as such. It was always used for the entire edification of the church. It was a foreign language that everyone could understand. The one who could not naturally understand it was the one speaking it. It was given to him supernaturally. That is why it was a supernatural gift. This far different than the hocus pocus gibberish that is spoken today.

Paul said "in these last days" was he speaking of these last days all the way until Jesus returns or was it a 70 AD thing?

Are you talking of Peter or Paul? Can't answer your question without a direct reference.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

Perilous times are still happening so I figure we are still in the last days.

The fact that we have people speaking gibberish, faking Biblical tongues, calling it Biblical tongues when it isn't is indeed a sign that we are living in the last days. Yes these are perilous times. On the other hand please read the entire chapter of 2Tim.3 from which you just quoted this verse and tell me where it mentions the gift of tongues??

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Context is your problem with this verse.
First Peter is speaking to Jews on the Day of Pentecost. Tongues is a sign to the Jews. It is always a sign to the Jews. It was a sign to them then. And since it was a sign to them then, we know that it is not a sign now, for they rejected the sign. Judgement came in 70 A.D., and the sign was removed.
This was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel. The prophecy in Joel was two-fold. It is in two parts. It was partially fulfilled at Pentecost, and it will be fully fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom. IF tongues will ever be spoken as a miraculous gift again it will be during the Millennial Kingdom when the rest of the prophecy of Joel will be fulfilled, but only then. For this time tongues has ceased. It ceased sometime between 70 A.D. and the end of the first century.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:

Give Me a Greek word that is in the Biblical Text that is translated as gibberish.

Not to be rude or insulting but you have asked this question before and I can hardly think of a more ridiculous question to ask. It is an illogical question. For example:

Give me a Greek word that is in the Biblical text that is translated as "purgatory."
Give me a Greek work that is in the Biblical text that is translated as "baptismal regeneration."
Give me a Greek word that is in the Biblical text that is translated as "transubstantiation."

Gibberish, Purgatory, Baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, are not in the Greek Texts because they are not in the Word of God. They are all heretical doctrines. They are man-made doctrines that people have added to the Bible. They aren't in the Bible, so why would you ask someone to find a heresy that isn't in the Bible in the first place?
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
BTW, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:


No-one's actually explained to me why this issue determines whether one is Baptist(ic) or not, given it is not a Baptist distinctive.

Any takers?

Bump. Still waiting for an answer. </font>[/QUOTE]No. It is not a Baptist distinctive just as meeting on Sunday is not a Baptist distinctive. And just as there are Seventh-Day Baptists, there are also Charasmatic Baptists (unfortunately). Under the umbrella of the Baptist Distinctives falls a great number of wide and varied Baptists.
Most are defined either by their statement of faith or their constitution.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]So why has it become a hot potato for the SBC? It's not like it's even in F&M 2000...Sorry but I'm still confused as to why the Convention is making a ruling one way or another on the topic.