The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is all revelation found in scripture

Gotribe
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" /> That was very a very typical statement of Steve Camp. All one has to do is go to his site to see that Steve Camp is not afraid to say it like it is.
In that way, he is like his mentors John MacArthur and James White.

Tom

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> you touched a "sacred cow" indeed and it is called God's inspired written Word and not as you mistakenly thought, the WCF.

Men and creatures have been twisting the Word of God to suit their own fanciful ideas since Adam walked the face of the earth when Satan tempted he and his wife. Because something is in the Bible doesn't mean what you are doing with it is the teaching of the Bible. Wes also included the Scriptural texts upon which that section of the WCF was based. Funny how you blew right by them and chose rather to try and go around them by constructing the proverbial "straw man", aka: sacred cow tactic. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Lastly, if case you didn't notice, my cogent rebuttal of your silliness, contra: WCF being a sacred cow was only a preface to all else which followed, which included a number of biblical references and relevant logical conclusions from both them and your position, re: perpetual direct divine revelation. Funny that you didn't bother to even mention any of that never mind actually deal with it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

What is obvious to me and I probably can assume many others here is that you hold to a low view of the inspired written Word. For accordingly any revelation which comes to you and which you can somehow justify by finding something relevant in Scripture to attach it to, then it is to be accepted as infallible and authoritative. (see my argument in my previous reply which you circumvented) What is true is that there have been many who have taken your approach or one similar to it, i.e., to relegate the Scriptures to being but one of several different ways which God has or continues to communicate with mankind. For example, the RCC puts "oral tradition" on par with the Bible. And by inference, those who hold to a non-cessationist position put "aural and/or optical revelation" on the same level as the Bible, of course with the qualification that such revelation is in agreement with [your interpretation] the Bible.

On a more personal note, I simply can't seem to bring myself to trust someone who says they hear voices, particularly one who says it is God's voice and even more so that God spoke to them with a note of interest that applies to me.

In His grace,

And since we go by scripture here I will interpret for those of you who don't know latin. Pick up and read! Pick up and read!

Pilgrim

I notice people quoting confessions as they basis for their theological views, sometimes as much as scripture on these forums. I have not attacked the scriptures. I merely pointed out that they show that not all revelation from God, including prophetic revelation, has been included in scripture. This is obvious from the Bible, and if your confessions and creeds, or interpretations thereof do not agree, then you need to re-evaluate what you are basing your beliefs on.

I do not hold to a low view of the scriptures. In fact, I am arguing my case here based on scripture. The Bible shows us that God gave prophecies that were not recorded in scripture. The Bible teaches that God gives gifts like prophecy to the church. Where is the scripture that says that this is no longer the case? That is my question. No one has answered me. I have not challenged the inspiration of the scriptures. I do, however, challenge confessions and interpretations of confessions that claim that God only speaks through the scripture. Why do I challenge this? Because this claim contradicts scripture. I am not challenging the scriptures, but I am challenging certain unscriptural doctrines men have made about the scriptures.

Wes quoted a number of references that relate to the role of the scriptures that do not have any bearing on whether God speaks through the gifts of the Spirit as taught by the scriptures. Since I believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, and that was not the issue, I did not address every point. I addressed the one from II Timothy that has bearing on the topic in a previous post. But since you accuse me of blowing right by them, I will address them.

Wes wrote,
>>>
That "No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets' own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20 <<

Amen.

>>That all Scripture was written as "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21 <<

That was the nature of OT prophecy. But we would probably agree Peter wrote this to people during an era when there were prophets in the church.

>>That "God Spoke . . . through the prophets . . . and by His Son." Hebrews 1:1-2 <<

Amen. And when this verse was written, the church had prophets in it. There were prophetically inspired, canonical books that had not yet been written. Notice that the verse says that God has spoken by His son, not that He would not speak through prophets, and it does not specifically mention the issue of God speaking through the scriptures.

>>That "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Timothy 3:16

The Word of God, once given and written, is exact in all details down to each letter and stroke of the pen. Matthew 5:18

That "The Scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35

That "The Word of the Lord stands forever." 1 Peter 1:25
That "No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets' own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20 <<

These are all great passages. But none of them negate the teaching of I Corinthians 12, 14, Romans 12, and various other passages of scripture that teach that God gives the gift of prophecy to the church.

That all Scripture was written as "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21


The issue here is not whether the Bible is inspired. We agree on that. My point is that the Bible shows us that God gave revelations that are not included in scripture. I listed several verses in the initial post.

Does everyone agree with my thesis that God gave revelation, including spoken prophetic revelation, outside of scripture? If not, please deal with the verses in the initial post, one-by-one to explain why you disagree.

>>On a more personal note, I simply can't seem to bring myself to trust someone who says they hear voices, particularly one who says it is God's voice and even more so that God spoke to them with a note of interest that applies to me.<<

You must have a big problem with Moses, then, who heard God speaking the commandments at Sinai, and the apostles who heard God speak from heaven about Christ.

Wes quoted from the Cessation of the Charismata. I would like to respond to the quote:

>>Apostles is but an illustration. This deeper principle may be reached by us through the perception, more broadly, of the inseparable connection of miracles with revelation, as its mark and credential; or, more narrowly, of the summing up of all revelation, finally, in Jesus Christ.<<

When Christ ascended, He received gifts for men, including the gift of prophet. Christ told the scribes and Pharisees that He would send forth apostles, prophets, and wise men. After Christ's ascension, Peter said that the scripture was being fulfilled that God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. So while Christ is the ultimate revelation of God to man, and far superior to God speaking only through prophets, Christ's birth, death, burial, and resurrection did not do away with prophets, prophecy, or revelation-but rather brought a new outpouring of it as the Spirit was given to the church.

>> Miracles do not appear on the page of Scripture vagrantly, here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without assignable reason. They belong to revelation periods, and appear only when God is speaking to His people through accredited messengers, declaring His gracious purposes.<<

The problem with the 'evidential' view of the gifts is that it lacks scriptural support. Sure, God granted that apostles do signs and wonders. But Christ also gave Judas power to do miracles along with the other apostles. He was a son of perdition. God also had Caiaphas prophesy the death of Christ, and in the Old Testament, the soothsayer Balaam prophesied a true prophecy.

Philip did miracles when he brought the Gospel to new territory in Samaria. Philip was not an author of scripture, and was apparently not the Philip who was in the 12 apostles (since, as one of the 7, he had been chosen to help to alleviate the 12 of serving tables.) Yet he did signs and wonders when he preached the Gospel that he had received from the apostles. Philips miracles did not testify that he was a special messenger to receive apostolic revelation from heaven. They did draw attention to the Gospel that he preached, a Gospel he had no doubt heard from the apostles and them that heard them.

Paul wrote that the gift of working of miracles was given to members of the body of Christ. He did not say that it was only for approved messengers. The debated end of Mark says that these signs would follow 'them that believe.'

The idea that miracles was confined only to periods of time when scripture was being written is not a doctrine taught in scripture. As such, it should not be a doctrine of the church. It is 'human reasoning' that appeals to people who already hold to the idea that the gifts have ceased, and are looking for arguments to back up that idea. The new covenant era is different in many ways from the Old covenant era. It is an age of grace. Should we not expect that, now that we are under grace (charis), that there would be an abundance of gifts (charis-mata) in the church? The concepts of grace and gifts are closely tied together, as we can see in the meaning of the words and in the way Paul mentions 'grace' in gifts passages like Romans 12 and Ephesians 4.

MacArthur makes a similar argument to the one above in Charismatic Chaos. If I remember correctly, he argued that miraclees were done during times when scriptures were being written. One problem with this is that Kings was written long after the events occured. It would seem unlikely that any scripture was written in the time of the great miracles done by Elisha, for example. And scripture was being written by two prophets during the time of Ezra, besides the books of Ezra Nehemiah, and whatever other scriptures from the Ketubim that Ezra wrote. But is there any evidence of miracles occuring at that time?

And we should expect there to be more manifestations of gifts in an age of grace, when the Spirit is poured out on all flesh. Christians have the indwelling Spirit. Why should such manifestations be more limited now than they were in Old Testament times, if we obey the scriptures that say to desire spiritual gifts, and Jesus' teaching to pray for what we want (and yes I know the audience was the apostles on this last verse I mentioned.)

>> Their abundant display in the Apostolic Church is the mark of the richness of the Apostolic age in revelation; and when this revelation period closed, the period of miracle-working had passed by also, as a mere matter of course.<<

Historically, this is untrue, since there continued to be manifestations of miracles and other gifts of the Spirit in the church, including prophecy, after the last of the 12 died. The other major problem with this is that it is human reasoning. The Bible does not teach that these gifts would ceased when the 12 or Paul died. This is an unscriptural doctrine and does not line up with the Protestant principle of sola scriptura.

>> And when this historic process of organic revelation had reached its completeness, and when the whole knowledge of God designed for the saving health of the world had been incorporated into the living body of the world's thought - there remained, of course, no further revelation to be made, and there has been, accordingly no further revelation made. God the Holy Spirit has made it His subsequent work, not to introduce new and unneeded revelations into the world, but to diffuse this one complete revelation through the world and to bring mankind into the saving knowledge of it.<<


The Bible 'leaves us hanging' by leaving the teaching out there that there are gifts of the Spirit in the church. The Bible does not 'cancel' this teaching. So we need to believe it. God does deal with mankind as a whole, with the church as a whole. But He also deals with individuals through gifts of the Spirit.

In Old Testament times, there were prophecies given for specific situations that God did not see fit to have included in scripture. Perhaps they were not of such significance to the church that they needed to be included in the Bible. But they were revelations from God none-the-less. These revelations were not 'unneeded' for the individuals who received them. Someone or several people spoke prophecies over Timothy that were not recorded in scripture, but that does not mean that these prophecies were unimportant or unnecessary. Neither should we label revelations that God gives to people today about their ministries to be unneeded. How many missionaries have gone abroad because they sensed the Holy Spirit directed them to do so?

Link,

If you are going to insist that the passages you like to use to support your view teach that "new revelation" is perpetual, then you are going to have to answer my questions and statements concerning their nature and authority, i.e., they being from God must of necessity be inspired, infallible and inerrant. This being indisputable, how do they relate to the authority of the Bible, which is self-attesting to its divine origin, character and authority? On the practical side, what is a person to do who allegedly receives a word from God which doesn't contradict Scripture, e.g., "buy the blue Chevrolet"? Isn't this person under total obligation to obey this "prophecy"? And what is a congregation to do when a person stands up and says that "God has given me a word of exhortation" and tells them that God would have them do such-and-such? Are they not also under total obligation to conform themselves to what was spoken?

Again, the ecstatic gifts, e.g., tongues, prophecy and revelation were temporal and after they had served their divinely appointed purpose for the initial establishment of the Church. What the Church has now and which is its "SOLE and final authority in all matters of faith and practice" is the Scriptures.

Fred Zaspel's article here: A Brief History of Divine Revelation has some relevant things to say about this matter.

In His grace,

The Bible doesn't leave us hanging and we don't need more prophets. God has provided all the prophecy we need and Jesus Christ is the FINAL WORD! Today the church needs pastors and teachers that neither add nor subtract from God's revelation to us in His Word. A preacher must take a text of previously revealed truth and seek to expound it, and his authority extends only so far as the correctness of his interpretation of that text.

Whatever Happened to the Miraculous Gifts?






Wes

IN reference to tongues, have you read Isaiah 28:11?

This quote from the OT reveals that the Assyrians would become Israel’s teachers because of Israel’s unfaithfulness. Paul refers back to this verse in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 saying;

Tongues were a warning sign of judgment to come –to unbelieving Israel (not to the Gentiles). The Jews would rightly see tongues as a warning sign! When did judgment come? When was the judgment fulfilled? 70 A.D. Once judgment had come what further use would tongues be as a warning sign? Paul furthers his argument in 1 Cor 13:8;

The same Greek words are not used for the terms done away and cease! The word cease means that it will end, in and of itself (interpreted in light of Isaiah and 1 Cor 14:22 = 70 AD). Please note that the term done away is different in that it means that they will need to have something in the future to complete it. Thus, we are told here that all three gifts would someday cease to exist, however two (2) distinct verbs are used to indicate their cessation. Prophecy and knowledge will be done away, whereas tongues will cease. Tongues ceased!

The miraculous gifts ceased with the Apostolic Age. Hebrews 2:3-4 assumes that the sign gifts had for the most part ceased. Further, it offers evidence of the purpose of the sign gifts: to confirm that God was doing something new. Hebrews reveals the fact that there is a new and final revelation in Christ (Heb 1:1-2). He is the One to whom the whole OT points. The author of Hebrews makes an argument on Scripture over against experience. What is the author’s evidence? The audience’s past experience is their present evidence! If the gifts were continuing then one would expect the argument to be stated much differently (i.e. the continuing of the gifts).

Now Hebrews was written in app 68 AD. The gifts were already on the way out. However, if the miraculous gifts of the NC age had continued in the church, one would expect an unbroken line of occurrences from apostolic times to the present. There is none. Except for a brief mention of the gifts in 150 AD, the history of the church it pretty silent on these sign gifts. The Montanist movement (a teaching that prized ecstatic and apocalyptic prophecy) was a revival of spiritual gifts after they “biblically” ceased. The fact that the church condemned this movement is significant! They had first hand memory of the true Charismatic gifts and saw the difference(s)! Montanism (Please read, The Church's Debt to Heretics, by Rufus M. Jones) was condemned because it represented heresy! There is no new revelation!

Have you ever read Warfield’s Counterfeit Miracles?

In reply to:


Hebrews 1:1. Since Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God, His word is the ultimate. What followed from the ascension of Christ to the end of the sign-gifts in 70 A.D. is all part of His first advent.

There is no record in church history from the period immediately following the Apostles that there were other apostles afterwards; and no record of anyone other than an Apostle who conveyed the "gifts of the Spirit" to others by the laying on of hands, or by prayer, etc. And no record that anyone receiving such gifting at the hands of an Apostle ever passed the giftings on to others.

The revelation gifts (described in 1 Corinthians 12-14) were an eschatological event that persisted for forty years from the ascension of Jesus to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. They were covenant signs to the Jews of Jesus' generation that the old (Mosaic) covenant was ended because Christ had fulfilled the entire law.

According to the writer of Hebrews, there is nothing left to be revealed now that Christ has fulfilled all.

-Robin

In reply to:


Jesus said the same thing in His Olivet prophecy (Matthew 23:31-36). And note, please, that Jesus said all those things would come upon His own generation. The "prophets and wise men and scribes (verse 34)" the Jesus would send them, who would be scourged in their synagogues and some killed and crucified (verse 34) was for the purpose of judgement according to verse 35:


Unbelieving Jews were the principle opposing force against the gospel in the early days of the church. The mystery that was being revealed by these "prophets and wise men and scribes" was that the Gentiles were to share in the blessings of Abraham on equal footing with Jews. Both groups were to have equal dining rights at the Lord's table. These were covenant signs of judgement upon the generation that rejected and murdered God's Son. And they came upon that generation and not the next.

You claim:


What early church documents? There are records of some supernatural events, but not records of God speaking new revelations beyond the writings of the Apostles.

I'm writing as an ex-charismatic, by the way, so please understand that I'm not unfamiliar with claims of modern "revelations" from God to modern-day "prophets" and seers, etc. I was once an apologist for present-day "new" revelations myself. But one thing that always troubled me was that if some "prophecy" utterred in my charismatic church was really a direct word from God, why was it not written down and published in the church newsletter so everyone could cut it out and paste in their Bible? Why do these prophecies and interpreted messeges in tongues qualify to be treated just like the Bible? Were they "lesser" words from God?

Anyway, I decided to look into what the Bible said about the true nature of tongues and interpretation and prophecy, word of knowledge and word of wisdom, etc. Especially tongues, though, because we charismatics made such a big deal of tongues and I was becoming a little suspicious about how "shandola-bashiah" repeated a couple of dozen times could translate into full sentences expressing multiple ideas when translated into King James English. The results of that research are posted right here at the Highway under "the Charismatic Movement."

In His grace,
Robin

Actually, this is a different topic. If we reject prophesyings just because the idea of being responsible to obey true prophecies is 'scary' that is no reason to reject modern prophecy. It is the logical fallacy of an argument based on fear.

If a word is from God, yes the listener should be obligated to obey it. But if the word is not from God, He is not. men warned Paul, through the S/spirit, not to go up to Jerusalem. Paul thought he was supposed to go. He said he was 'bound in spirit' to do so. Agabus prophesied that he was going up to Jerusalem.

Some people think if they get a word of prophecy they are alleviated in responsibility for their decision making. They are not. We are all responsible for our own decisions.



Can you show me chapter and verse on this? It just does not show up in my Bible. I haven't checked the book of Opinions yet, though.


And I cannot find this statement in scripture either, particularly the word 'sole'.

What I do find is,

John 16:
13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

And:
II Corinthians 2
9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Isn't the reason we believe the scripture to be authoratative because the Spirit inspired it? Doesn't the Spirit have a role in leading the church today?

Link takes the bait:


Then every prophetic utterance in every charismatic church should have been recorded and all Bibles updated to include the latest word from God.

But the question is, how are we to know if it was from God or not? How do we know if we are obligated to obey it or not? What should be our measuring stick?

If you tell me, "the Bible," then you have destroyed your own argument because this latest "revelation" should be part of the Bible if you're right.

If you say, "because it feels right or wrong in your spirit," then you haven't answered the question at all and you've left us to do whatever seems right in our own eyes.

If you say, "the pastor should tell us," or "someone with the gift of discernment should determine whether or not that particular 'revelation' is from God or not," then you leave us to guess whether or not someone who claims to have the "gift of discernment" really has it.

Charismaticism has no foundation; no certainty, no Biblical basis. But I do understand how seductive the teachings can be. Nevertheless the teachings of modern-day "new revelation" is demonic. Modern "signs and wonders" are used to "validate" damnable heresies. And considering how many of these "prophecies" have totally failed to come true in any sense, it's a wonder that no one in the theonomist camp has yet spearheaded an effort to stone these false prophets to death!

-R

Wes wrote,

>>>The Bible doesn't leave us hanging and we don't need more prophets. God has provided all the prophecy we need and Jesus Christ is the FINAL WORD!<<

The Bible is clear that there were prophets after the ascension. Christ even received a gift of prophets at the ascension. So the fact that God spoke in the past by prophets and in the last days has spoken by His Son clearly does not mean there would be no more prophets. If it did mean there was no more prophetic revelation, why would you consider that verse in Hebrews to be authoritative?<<<

J Edwards wrote,
>>The miraculous gifts ceased with the Apostolic Age. Hebrews 2:3-4 assumes that the sign gifts had for the most part ceased. Further, it offers evidence of the purpose of the sign gifts: to confirm that God was doing something new. Hebrews reveals the fact that there is a new and final revelation in Christ (Heb 1:1-2). He is the One to whom the whole OT points. The author of Hebrews makes an argument on Scripture over against experience. What is the author’s evidence? The audience’s past experience is their present evidence! If the gifts were continuing then one would expect the argument to be stated much differently (i.e. the continuing of the gifts).<<

Hebrews does not say anything about miracles having ceased. It only points out that when the Gospel was first preached among the readers, it was preached with signs and wonders. To try to read cessationism into this is eisegesis pure and simple.

What we might see in this is a pattern that when the Gospel is preached in new areas or to a new group of people, it is sometimes accompanied by signs and wonders. This happened on many occasions in Acts. Of course, the Hebrews are a unique people in God’s dealings.

J Edwards wrote
>>>Now Hebrews was written in app 68 AD. The gifts were already on the way out. However, if the miraculous gifts of the NC age had continued in the church, one would expect an unbroken line of occurrences from apostolic times to the present. There is none. Except for a brief mention of the gifts in 150 AD, the history of the church it pretty silent on these sign gifts. The Montanist movement (a teaching that prized ecstatic and apocalyptic prophecy) was a revival of spiritual gifts after they “biblically” ceased. The fact that the church condemned this movement is significant! They had first hand memory of the true Charismatic gifts and saw the difference(s)! Montanism (Please read, The Church's Debt to Heretics, by Rufus M. Jones) was condemned because it represented heresy! There is no new revelation!<<<


The issue here is that the New Testament does not teach that the gifts were ‘on the way out.’ If we date the books and look at supernatural activity, they don’t just dwindle out of time. In fact, the last book on a lot of charts, which would be Revelation, is a spectacular visionary experience complete with visions of Christ and angelic visitations.

And as for Montanus, I suggest you read the Britanica Micropedia article on it from… maybe 98 or 99. The author of the article rightly argued that the church in Montanus’ day believed in the gift of prophecy, and that was not the issue. Montanus and his followers apparently had a very ‘ecstatic’ style of prophecy that was different from what the churches were used to. Montanus was generally accepted as a heretic after he appointed rival bishops.

Eusebius relates an account of a debate between a Christian and a Montanist at a time when the Montanists were apparently not claiming to prophecy. The Montanist told of Montanus’ two women co-workers prophecies—Maximillia and the other one. He said they were prophets like Philips’ daughters. The Christian argued against the Montanist by pointing out that prophecy had ceased among them, whereas the apostles [Paul, apparently] argued that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. (Possibly an interpretation of I Corinthians 13.)

And supernatural experiences like this, including prophecy, did not just show up once in 150 AD. Justin argued that there were prophets in the church. Ireneaus told of revelatory gifts in his own day, which you can also read about in Eusebius Ecclesiastical history when you look up the Montanist debate in the previous paragraph, if you are interested.

(You say 150. For Ireneaus, that sounds early, and late for Justin, so I am not sure what you are talking about.) I am no expert in this area. Before you state dogmatically that there is no reference to gifts after the first century, it would be good for the sake of integrity for you to actually look up all references to such gifts. If you want a compilation with commentary of all such gifts, you could look at The Spirit and the Church: Volume I Antiquity by Burgess. The book is 2 or 300 pages or so in length, and there are a lot of quotes to go through. I think he might have given a somewhat sympathetic treatment of Montanism, but it has been a while, and I may be mistaken. And if I recall correctly, St. Anthanasius had a reputation as a prophet, if you are interested.

There were a few people who promoted cessationists views, perhaps to try some reason to explain the lack of the supernatural in their own day, men like Chyrsostom, and I recall reading the younger Augustine made similar arguments, before he saw some supernatural occurences and started promoting them.


Robin wrote,

>> There is no record in church history from the period immediately following the Apostles that there were other apostles afterwards; and no record of anyone other than an Apostle who conveyed the "gifts of the Spirit" to others by the laying on of hands, or by prayer, etc. And no record that anyone receiving such gifting at the hands of an Apostle ever passed the giftings on to others. <<

You are mistaken. The Didache calls certain contemporary itinerant ministers ‘apostles.’ Many date it to the late first or early second century.

Gifts could be passed on through the laying on of the apostles hands. They could also be conferred through prophecy. And God could just give them to whomever He willed. He did not have to give them through the laying on of hands of the apostles. I can show you an example in scripture if you need one.

Paul was made an apostle, apparently, without the laying on of hands of the 12 apostles. There is no record of the 12 laying hands on Barnabas to make him an apostle. (Acts 14:4.)

>>The revelation gifts (described in 1 Corinthians 12-14) were an eschatological event that persisted for forty years from the ascension of Jesus to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. They were covenant signs to the Jews of Jesus' generation that the old (Mosaic) covenant was ended because Christ had fulfilled the entire law.<<

I would like to address this point also raised by J Edwards in more detail later. I will just say that I don’t see how one can read the idea that Paul is trying to argue that tongues was a temporary sign for the Jews exclusively into I Corinthians 14 without using some pretty convoluted reasoning. Paul was arguing that tongues was a ‘sign to them that believe not’. Just as in the OT case, when tongues were spoken, and yet for all that, the listeners would not hear, just as in the OT.

Also, if tongues were a sign for the Jews or the destruction of the temple, that is not a good case that they have ceased because there is clearly another purpose for tongues aside from being a sign—edification of the speaker, and with interpretation edification of the church.

If they used to use knifes to cut the ends off the buggy whips, does that mean when they stopped making buggy whips, they did away with the knife? No, because knives serve other purposes as well. Why would trying to argue away one function of a multi-function gift mean the gift had ceased?

And where is your evidence? Where is your exegesis? You offer nothing, but personal opinion, not supported by the Greek text! Hebrews reveals the fact that there is a new and final revelation in Christ (Heb 1:1-2). After the age of the Apostles there was no need for miracles to confirm their word, as they were no longer around, et. al.

You claim the author “rightly argued” and later you say of yourself, “I am no expert in this area.” <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> However, let us look further at these additional claims you are making.

Bishop Apollinarius found the church at Ancyra which was torn in two by the movement. He opposed the "false prophesy" (Eusebius 5.16.5). Eusebius preserved fragments from the works of two anti- Montanists from the 2nd century. These fragments DO NOT support your claim of “no prophecy.” The summary of them is stated herein:

Yes there were new revelatory gifts—false ones! Irenaeus, during the height of the Montanists controversy was inspired to write, Adversus Haereses. Ireneaus was against the movement, he was against these “new” revelations (Journal of Theological Studies New Series XX, 1969).

I did not say gifts, but rather sign gifts (referring to tongues, interpretation, the topic of my post <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> ). For the sake of integrity you had better learn to read!

In addition, there is a difference between no reference and a valid reference—I was speaking of the later. Of course there are references! Heresy always has its pulpit. Although the mainstream church prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, inscriptions in the Tembris valley of northern Phrygia, dated between 249 and 279, openly proclaimed their allegiance to Montanism. This sect persisted into the 8th century. However, this was “all” condemned by the Church as heresy!

What you fail to understand is that “false tongues” were in many faiths, but were looked upon as truthful revelation. While God demonstrated the true gift of “tongues” in biblical times “false tongues” persisted for centuries before and after NT times. In Jeremiah 27:9, it is said that prophets, diviners, and soothsayers were in the neighbouring countries of Judah: in Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon.

Outside of Scripture, we can look at the Report of Wenamon:

Can Satan imitate the real thing? Of course! Can this type of activity creep into the Church? Of course! In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul warned against the charismatic practice of the pagans (1 Cor 12:3). He is still warning you today!

Even Islam has “ecstatic experiences.”

Sound familiar? Glossolalia is evident in the Oracle of Delphi, whereby a priestess of the god Apollo (called a sibyl) speaks in strange utterances. Glossolalia has also been observed in shamanism and the Voodoo religion of Haiti. The Charismatic movement of today has its roots in paganism! Biblical tongues (which differ from these counterfeits above) lasted only a short time in the history of the church (as already demonstrated from the un-refuted original language of the Scripture). The only question which remains is which one has your tongue?

It is indeed very sad that you are intertwined with this movement. Unfortunately, Charismatic doctrine and missionaries are very active in Indonesia. This is an indictment of the Reformed camp who are not more involved in missions to the extent they should be. However, as the scripture states;

This is your individual responsibility. Hopefully you will listen to the counsel here and get out of the movement.

My only question regarding this is that Revelation is thought to have been written after Hebrews (The Reformation Studt Bible says it was written around 95 AD and The HarperCollins Study Bible [NOT one of my more trusted resources, but the historical stuff seems fairly accurate] seems to favor a date, because they won't make a firm claim to a date, after 70 AD). If the gifts had ceased, or were even on their way out, why would this book have been accepted as true and part of the canon? Why weren't other prophecies which may have been written before Hebrews or before Revelation and didn't contradict what they already accepted as Scripture included?