One may affirm ANY doctrine but then contradict it or even deny it when affirming another doctrine. Grudem assuredly affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture and even Sola Scriptura, but his views of the continuation of the revelatory gifts flies in the face of what he affirms otherwise.
There are latent and more obvious caveats when extemporary "revelation" is accepted as a valid phenomena. One of the more salient issues is that of the interpretation of the Scriptures. In many cases the "tongue speaker" or "prophet" will bring some "teaching" which is allegedly based upon Scripture but is more an application of that Scripture. In other words, it is more "direction" to the hearers than it is new information, although I have witnessed this as well.
As you might quickly have gathered already, the problem is that the Lord Christ promised to send His Spirit, Who will dwell in each believer and guide believers into the truth. It is the Spirit, working within the believer in conjunction with the inscripturated Word and by means of the Bible's own hermeneutical principles that result in a right understanding of God's will.
[color:blue]2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Another interesting consideration is that many of those who accept contemporary "revelation", which is purported to be the Holy Spirit "speaking through" an individual, is that when that "word" is given, it is to be evaluated as to its verity by comparing it with Scripture. Not only is this redundant; the Spirit has already authored the Scripture, but this presents a very sticky wicket for those who practice such things. For, if after comparing the "word" with the "Word" and it is found wanting, from whence did this "word" originate?
I hesitate to get involved in this discuss, because I don't want you to think I am for the continuance of the sign gifts.
Your question to RefBap made me want to ask you a few questions.
What is the difference between someone such as Stephen and the many others in the book of Acts who were used in the charismatic gifts different than they may be today? (Note, I am not advocating that what is going on in charismatic circles today is biblical)
Do you believe that every time a charismatic gift happened in the early church, it was recorded as Scripture?
Also, many say that those who seek after spiritual gifts such as prophesy, are wicked and adulterous. Yet we read in 1Cor. 14:1 that we should desire spiritual gifts. Again I am not posing this question to support gifts like prophesy today, but it does seem to me that those who make that accusation are making their argument for the wrong context of Scripture. What do you think?
It seems to me the context of Jesus’ indictment of sign-seeking, is seeking signs from God is "wicked and adulterous" when the demand for more and more evidence comes from a resistant heart and simply covers up an unwillingness to believe. Whereas 1 Cor. 14:1 is talking about seeking sign for the edification of the church (1Cor.14:4).
What is the difference between someone such as Stephen and the many others in the book of Acts who were used in the charismatic gifts different than they may be today?
Perhaps you could supply some specific examples of what Stephen did and some of these "others"?
In reply to:
Do you believe that every time a charismatic gift happened in the early church, it was recorded as Scripture?
I seriously doubt that you could point to very few instances where the actual words of someone who spoke in tongues has been inscripturated. There are several places that record that people spoke in tongues or prophesied but are not equivalent to those which are universal and pedagogical in nature as is the majority of the New Testament Scriptures.
To show how inane the question is, consider the myriad times the Lord Christ must have taught people in His earthly ministry and the number of miracles, etc. which He performed which were not included in the inscripturated Word.
John 20:30 "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:"
John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
Were the unrecorded words which the Lord Christ spoke any less "revelatory"? Were any of those unrecorded miracles which He performed any less important or indicative of His identity and authority than they others which are recorded? All originated from God and were inherently authoritative "signs and wonders" even though the Spirit chose not to include them in the Canon.
The ecstatic gifts were present in the church for a designated time and for a specific purpose; i.e., until the "foundation" was laid and the whole world (Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles were brought in. Cf. Acts 1:8).
Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];"
The purpose of the "sign gifts" was far greater than simply filling a "void" until the Canon was complete. They served primarily as a sign of God's universal grace to save people out of tribe, nation and tongue.
These are definitely good points and I am thinking about them:-) I think I'll just listen and learn right now since I really don't have a lot of knowledge on this whole subject.
Tom here are some notes from Charismatic Chaos by MacArthur that may assist you: Sorry the Gk did not come out correctly:
TONGUES
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.
Though we are told here that all three gifts would someday cease to exist, two different verbs are used to indicate their cessation. Prophecy and knowledge will be done away, whereas tongues will cease.
1. Done away is from ƒÛƒÑƒäƒÑƒâƒ×ƒÕƒß„f,
a. which means ¡§to reduce to inactivity,¡¨ b. or ¡§to abolish.¡¨ c. The gifts of prophecy and knowledge one day will be made inoperative. Both forms of this verb in verse 8, as well as its form in verse 10, are passive; that is, something or someone will cause them to stop. As will be discussed below, that something is the coming of ¡§the perfect¡¨ (v. 10).
2. Cease is from ƒàƒÑƒåƒß„f,
a. which means ¡§to stop, to come to an end.¡¨ b. Unlike ƒÛƒÑƒäƒÑƒâƒ×ƒÕƒß„f, this verb is here used in the Greek middle voice, which, when used of persons. indicates intentional, voluntary action upon oneself. Used of inanimate objects it indicates reflexive, self¡Vcausing action. c. The cause comes from within; it is built in. God gave the gift of tongues a built¡Vin stopping place. ¡§That gift will stop by itself,¡¨ Paul says. Like a battery, it had a limited energy supply and a limited lifespan. When its limits were reached, its activity automatically ended. Prophecy and knowledge will be stopped by something outside themselves, but the gift of tongues will stop by itself. This distinction in terms is unarguable.
The cessation of tongues, however, is not mentioned in relation to the coming of the perfect. They will have ceased at an earlier time. That is why they are not stopped by the same thing that stops the other two gifts. The gift ended with the apostolic age.
1. In the first place, tongues was a sign gift and, as with the gifts of healing and miracles, it ceased to operate when the New Testament was completed.
a. Miracles during the ministries of Moses and Joshua, b. the second during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, c. and the third during the ministries of Jesus and the apostles. d. Each period lasted only about 70 years and then abruptly ended. e. The only other age of miracles will be in the millennial kingdom, and the sources of those miracles are described as ¡§the powers of the age to come¡¨ (Heb. 6:5). f. The last miracle recorded in the New Testament in which God worked directly through a human instrument occurred about the year 58 (Acts 28:8). From that time until about 96, when John completed the writing of Revelation, not a single miracle of that sort is mentioned.
2. The second evidence that the gift of tongues ended with the apostles is that its purpose as a judicial sign of Israel¡¦s judgment ceased to apply at that time.
a. Paul reminds the Corinthians that ¡§In the Law it is written, ¡¥By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,¡¦ says the Lord¡¨ (1 Cor. 14:21; cf. Isa. 28:11¡V12). In other words, because Israel refused to listen and believe when God spoke to them in clear language, the prophet said the day would come when He would speak to them in a language they could not understand, as a testimony against their rejection of Him. b. Tongues were not given as a sign to believers ¡§but to unbelievers¡¨ (1 Cor. 14:22), specifically unbelieving Jews. c. With the destruction of the Temple by the Roman general Titus in A.D. 70, Judaism ended except as a shadow religion.
i. When the Temple was destroyed, the sacrificial system was destroyed, ii. and the need for a Jewish priesthood was destroyed. iii. From that day it has been impossible for the requirements of the Old Covenant to be fulfilled. iv. When that destruction occurred, some 15 years after Paul wrote this epistle, the need for tongues as a judicial sign to Israel had no further value. v. There is no need today for a sign that God is moving from Israel to the world.
3. Third, tongues ceased because they were an inferior means of edification.
a. When properly interpreted, tongues had the ability to edify in a limited way (1 Cor. 14:5; 12¡V13; 27¡V28). b. But the primary purpose of 1 Corinthians 14 is to show that tongues were an inferior means of communication (vv. 1¡V12), c. an inferior means of praise (vv. 13¡V19), d. and an inferior means of evangelism (vv. 20¡V25). e. Tongues provided limited and inferior edification,
i. whereas prophecy is far superior in every way (vv. 1, 3¡V6, 24, 29, 31, 39). ii. Five words spoken intelligently and intelligibly in ordinary language are of more value ¡§than ten thousand words in a tongue¡¨ (v. 19).
4. Fourth, the gift of tongues has ceased because its purpose as a confirming sign of apostolic authority and doctrine ended when the New Testament was completed.
a. Genuine tongues¡Vspeaking involved direct revelation of God to the speaker, though it was veiled revelation that always needed translation or interpretation, often even to the speaker himself (1 Cor. 14:27¡V28). b. Revelation of God¡¦s Word was completed, however, when the New Testament was completed, and to that nothing is to be added or subtracted (Rev. 22:18¡V19). The confirming purpose of tongues was completed.
5. Fifth, it is reasonable to believe that tongues have ceased because their use is mentioned only in the earlier New Testament books.
a. Most of the books, in fact, do not mention it. b. Paul mentions it only in this one letter, and James, Peter, John, and Jude make no mention of it at all. c. Nor does reference to it appear in the book of Acts after 19:6. d. It seems clear from the New Testament record itself that tongues not only ceased to be an issue but ceased to be practiced well before the end of the apostolic age. Nowhere in the epistles is it commanded or enjoined on believers as a responsibility or spiritual exercise.
6. Finally, the gift of tongues has evidently ceased because, since the apostolic age, it has reappeared only spasmodically and questionably throughout nineteen centuries of church history.
a. The gift of tongues is nowhere alluded to or found in any writings of the church Fathers.
i. Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian church in the year 95, only about four decades after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
1. In discussing problems in the church, Clement made no mention of tongues.
2. Apparently both the use and misuse of that gift had ceased.
ii. Justin Martyr, the great church Father of the second century, visited many of the churches of his day,
1. yet in his voluminous writings he mentions nothing of tongues. 2. It is not mentioned even among his several lists of spiritual gifts.
iii. Origen, a brilliant church scholar who lived during the third century, makes no mention of tongues.
1. In his polemic against Celsus he explicitly argues that the sign gifts of the apostolic age were temporary
2. and were not exercised by Christians of his day.
iv. Chrysostom, perhaps the greatest of the post¡VNew Testament writers, lived from 347 until 407.
1. Writing on 1 Corinthians 12 he states that tongues and the other miraculous gifts not only had ceased but could not even be accurately defined.
v. Augustine, in his comments on Acts 2:4, wrote, ¡§In the earliest times the Holy Spirit fell on them that believed and they spoke with tongues. These were signs adapted to that time, for there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit. That thing was done for betokening and it passed away.¡¨
vi. The historians and theologians of the early church unanimously maintained that tongues ceased to exist after the time of the apostles.
1. The only exception of which we know was within the movement led by Montanus,
a. a second century heretic who believed that divine revelation continued through him beyond the New Testament.
vii. Apparently no other tongues¡Vspeaking was practiced in Christianity until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when it appeared in several
1. Roman Catholic groups in Europe a. (Cevenols and Jansenists) and 2. among the Shakers in New England. 3. The nineteenth century lrvingites of London were marked by unbiblical claims of revelations and by ¡§tongues¡Vspeak.¡¨
a. For over 1800 years the gift of tongues, along with the other miracle gifts, was unknown in the life and doctrine of orthodox Christianity.
b. Then, around the turn of the twentieth century, tongues became a major emphasis within the holiness movement, a large section of which developed into modern Pentecostalism.
c. The charismatic movement, which began in 1960, carried the practice of tongues beyond traditional Pentecostalism into many other denominations, churches, and groups, both Catholic and Protestant, filling the void in true spiritual living with false experience.
I wonder if you could expound on what you said in the following quote, by telling me why you believe this. Mainly the part that goes ("equivalent to those which are universal and pedagogical in nature").
"There are several places that record that people spoke in tongues or prophesied but are not equivalent to those which are universal and pedagogical in nature as is the majority of the New Testament Scriptures."
I was hoping you would also comment on the last part of my last post. To save you time, here it is again.
Also, many say that those who seek after spiritual gifts such as prophesy, are wicked and adulterous. Yet we read in 1Cor. 14:1 that we should desire spiritual gifts. Again I am not posing this question to support gifts like prophesy today, but it does seem to me that those who make that accusation are making their argument for the wrong context of Scripture.
What do you think?
It seems to me the context of Jesus’ indictment of sign-seeking, is seeking signs from God is "wicked and adulterous" when the demand for more and more evidence comes from a resistant heart and simply covers up an unwillingness to believe. Whereas 1 Cor. 14:1 is talking about seeking sign for the edification of the church (1Cor.14:4).
That first statement, which you quoted from me was in reply to the question: Do you believe that every time a charismatic gift happened in the early church, it was recorded as Scripture? The point is that before the death of all the Apostles, the Holy Spirit spoke through other individuals, giving direction, foretelling events, etc., which although not recorded as Scripture, were no less God speaking through those individuals. There was an inherent authority in what was spoken due to its Author. (cf. Lk 1:67; Acts 9:10f; 15:32; 21:4).
The difference between what has been preserved as the inscripturated Word and the "word" spoken by others through whom the Spirit spoke is that the former is universal (addressed to all the church for all time) and pedagogical (for teaching the will of God and His eternal truths) [cf. 2Tim 3:16, 17] and the latter were local (restricted to a narrow audience) and exhortatory (for encouragement for a specific time).
As to the second question, there is no conflict at all, IMHO. That which Jesus spoke concerning those who would seek after signs and wonders was prophetical; looking forward to the period of time after the death of the Apostles and the cessation of the "revelatory gifts". The passage in 1Cor 14 is a temporal admonition on how the use of the then existent gifts were to be used in the church.
Thanks, I take it then that you are not like some that say that only the apostles were used in gifts like prophesy etc...
That would be a valid "take".... since I mentioned more than once and included references to texts that clearly show that there were many disciples, apart from the Apostles, who exercised the "revelatory" gifts. I thought I made it quite clear that the main reason why the gifts continued after Pentecost until the death of the last Apostle, was to validate the inclusion of the "world" into the Church; Judea, Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the world", i.e., "Gentiles". In addition it is more than obvious that there was a group at Corinth where these "gifts" were being experienced.
Robin<br><br>You said: "Rare instances of some missionary giving the gospel to a remote isolated tribe in the own language which the missionary never learned is not the same thing as the biblical gift of tongues at all. "<br><br>What would you call that?<br><br>Tom
You said: "Rare instances of some missionary giving the gospel to a remote isolated tribe in the own language which the missionary never learned is not the same thing as the biblical gift of tongues at all. "
What would you call that?
I would call that a genuine miracle. The biblical gift of tongues, though, was a covenental sign-gift to the Jews, and in particular to that generation of Jews which saw the end of the old covenant of Moses.
It is all spelled out with supporting scriptural and historical evidence in the article I wrote on tongues, under the Charismatic Movement here: The Truth About the Gift of Tongues on the Highway.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]And this is more in the spirit of a devil's advocate approach, but weren't the scriptures founded on experience?
In a word, NO! Why would the devil's advocate even think this?
Those who would acquaint themselves with the things of God, and be assured of them, must know the Bible, for it is the summary of divine revelation.
In Paul’s letter to Timothy he wrote about the Word of God. For example in 2 Timothy 3:10-17 he provides us it’s usefulness and purpose.
”But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The Scriptures were written by over 40 authors and over a 1600 year period. Amazingly it provides a consistent testimomy of who God is and how He relates to His people. It is not a subjective document with differing interpretations based upon experiences. God’s revelation has had significant effect on the experiences of people but it is not founded on their experiences. Rather their experiences are founded upon it.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
I think you miss my point. You seem to be making an assumption that when I say 'experience' that man is his own arbiter of truth. The two do not necessarily cross paths. Were that what I was saying, your post would be appropos.
However, I will make one small point here. You said the following:
Those who would acquaint themselves with the things of God, and be assured of them, must know the Bible, for it is the summary of divine revelation.
This is an extrascriptural statement. You are basing this either on an extrascriptural assertion by another author, or on your own experience. Consider what Paul was writing to the church. He was writing based not on the written letter (though it was used at times to make an intellectual argument of some sort) but entirely on his experience with Christ:
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11,12
This, like grace, is no license to go our own way, but it is an exhortation (as Paul touches on in 2 Cor 3) to seek the Lord personally. It is simple to take an analogy of a friend. Supposing you had a friend that you knew intimately (your best friend, perhaps) and you wanted someone else to know him - the best way for anyone to get to know your friend would be meeting them in person. A book might give an overview, but one-on-one relationship is a MUST. Daily interaction is absolutely necessary.
Consider also, an historical figure (take Abraham Lincoln as an example). Now we have historians who are 'experts' in Honest Abe's life. Yet, like most biographers, they cannot fully agree with one another on everything. But we also have his contemporaries who wrote. This would definitely provide a reasonably good account of Abe's life - but since this is where our experts get their info, it is obviously not 100% perfect in reliability. Then, we have autobiographical information that Abe himself penned. Again, 'experts' have this info at their fingertips so, while these writings would be most reliable, they would be skewed by Abe's own biases. We might get some of his thoughts, but we still wouldn't really know the man. The letter CANNOT do what a relationship can do. Anyone who has EVER spent any amount of time emailing someone before they met that other person can attest to the limitations of writing - even as good writers as they may be. The spirit of a man cannot come across fully in writing, it can only come across in knowing the man personally. How much more with God? The letter, if it is insufficient to convey a man, it is infinitely more incapable of conveying God. It can ONLY be done through experience.
That is not to say the bible is wrong in any way. No. But to think that God is no longer the same, that He no longer hides things from the wise of this world and reveals them to the foolish of this world is not to be scriptural.
As an example of the secondary place of the scriptures to experience with God Himself, you should read a short bio of 'Holy Ann'. She was a simple woman - an Irish Immigrant to Canada in the late 1800's - who came to know the Lord personally. (I'm not sure about links on this site yet, so I'll refrain for now from posting it.)
Remember, Paul was entirely convinced that he had it all right when he was persecuting the Christians. He had the scriptures he commended to the churches. The same is true of Israel that saw Christ - they had the scriptures and most rejected Christ. Even the disciples were looking for the same thing the Pharisees looked for - a physical Kingdom. Unless something of spiritual truth is revealed by the Lord Himself, it will not be entirely real to the hearer - and thus not a thing of true faith. Merely intellectual assent.
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 5:37-40
The Pharisees had the scriptures - just as we do and many say 'I believe it from cover to cover'. But the truth of the scriptures is not to be uncovered intellectually, but only experientially. Then the scriptures become life - unfolding truth to the seeker by the revelation of the Holy Spirit as one opens one's heart to Christ (Rev 3:15-22 tells us that and ends with this:
"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Rev 3:22
In reply to:[color:"blue"]But the truth of the scriptures is not to be uncovered intellectually, but only experientially. Then the scriptures become life - unfolding truth to the seeker by the revelation of the Holy Spirit as one opens one's heart to Christ . . .
Unfortunately, whether you are really playing "devil's advocate" or not, this statement and all that preceded it is contra biblical teaching itself. The Scriptures, in myriad places, enjoin those who occupy offices, e.g., bishop, elder, pastor, to preach sound doctrine, to preach the word, to present an apologetic against heresy, etc. All of these injunctions necessitate the reality objective and rational propositions; not experimentalism. Further, all believers are exhorted to "search the Scriptures", to hold fast "the truth once delivered unto the saints", etc.... all which likewise presume and necessitate an objective, rational and intellectual repository of doctrinal statements. These objective propositions are discerned by the intellect through the means of language, grammar, etc. They are not discerned experientially.
Further, all that you have said is a denial of verbal plenary inspiration and a closed canon. The Scriptures are a "closed book". God no longer speaks, dispenses or reveals revelation directly to individual believers. His revelation was given through his inspired Prophets, Apostles and finally through His Son:
Hebrews 1:1-2 (ASV) "God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in [his] Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;"
And, to make this short.... what you have described is classic neo-Orthodoxy, aka: Barthianism, Crisis Theology, which posits that the Bible contains the Word of God but denies that it is propositionally the Word of God. Practically put, one can read a passage in the Bible and it is nothing different than any other piece of literature, UNTIL... God "speaks" to that individual directly in that reading and then it BECOMES the Word of God. Is this what you are trying to convey and in fact, embrace personally?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon}
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
