Responding to the 'closed canon' argument against special revelations and sign gifts?

[ARBITER01]

Once again you are just focusing on one scripture while ignoring others.

The gift in 1 Cor 12 is called "different kinds of tongues", meaning it manifests in different ways. Then in 1 Cor 14, which is still a continuation of Paul's teaching on the gifts, Paul makes mention of the 3 major "kinds" or manifestations. 1) tongues for personal edification, 2) tongues for interpretation, 3) tongues as a sign to unbelievers. You are so focused on one that you can't see the others. If only one were true that would make Paul schizophrenic or some such thing because without different "kinds" he would contradict himself several times in the chapter. Heck even from one sentence to another. Paul wasn't mentally ill, nor contradicting himself, he was teaching the different "kinds".

Further, in actual practice (as others have pointed out), all the various "kinds" of tongues - when they happen in the appropriate situation - not only are extraordinarily useful, but they clearly point to God, His power, and His love for us. THAT is the entire point of the gifts. THAT is the type of fruit Jesus told us to follow as opposed to doctrinal games like "unless you want to ignore this passage". Nobody here is ignoring that passage or any passage, they just see things differently and to suggest they are ignoring scripture is just plain petty.

You have no real experience in this, and please quit talking to me.

 

[topher694]

You have no real experience in this, and please quit talking to me.

You have zero foundation to say that.

I have decades of real actual experience in this. I've personally operated in every form of tongues. I've taught entire semester classes on tongues alone. I've written curriculum on the subject... but hey, yeah, you know what my experience is.

You can always use the ignore button... that's what it's for. You want me to stop addressing you directly, fine, I'll do so... but I may address your content as pertains to the given thread, I'll just keep it more general and we should be fine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There's only one possibility with this Oscarr,....

If there is an utterance by The Holy Spirit, there must be a follow up utterance by The Holy Spirit in the gift of interpretation. Acts 2 was utterance by The Holy Spirit, so it required someone to interpret it in a known language by The Holy Spirit. Same as one would find in a church operating this way, they just didn't have a building yet.

If,..... a born again Spirit-filled Christian has the gift of interpretation already, and someone speaks in tongues nearby them, that gift could operate in a personal capacity as they were speaking. It's a rare operation of the gift, I only met one person who had it that way, but it is a legit operation of the gift nonetheless.

The 3 inspirational gifts can operate in a personal capacity, not just tongues alone. The Holy Spirit had to remind me about that.

The fact is that Mrs Samuels does not have the gift of interpretation of tongues, and had never given an interpretation to any tongue spoken out in a meeting. She heard me speaking fluent Maori language, the language she was brought up with as a child. She was quite definite that I was speaking encouraging things to her in her own first language. This is not interpretation. This was hearing me speak fluent Maori.

Similarly, my friend spoke fluently in a Ghanaian rural village dialect. It was the visitor's own language, and he never demonstrated the gift of interpretation. He actually heard my friend praising God in his own language.

The gift of interpretation of tongues is a supernatural gift manifested by faith by the person giving the interpretation. He is not hearing the tongue in his own language. He does not understand what is being spoken, and is trusting the Holy Spirit that the interpretation he is giving is what the Holy Spirit wants him to say in response to the tongue being spoken out.

You may very well be convinced that all tongues cannot be understood, but on at least two occasions out of many, the Holy Spirit has done something quite different to what you believe He should be doing. So, who is correct? Your opinion of what you think the Holy Spirit should be doing, or the actual testimonies about what the Holy Spirit actually did?

 

[ARBITER01]

So, who is correct? Your opinion of what you think the Holy Spirit should be doing, or the actual testimonies about what the Holy Spirit actually did?

I'll take what The Holy Spirit had to say about it for 200 Alex.

I'm not sure what to tell you Oscarr. You're basing your opinions on people, and doing this also with your scripture knowledge from what you've said.

There are only two types of tongues listed in scripture, those by the human spirit, and those by The Holy Spirit. One operates in a personal capacity for personal edification, and one that operates in the assembly for corporate edification. Both are unable to be understood unless the gift of interpretation is operated.

It's that simple.

A lot of folks can say all sort of things in videos, you and others on here can have all sorts of personal experiences,.... what matters in the end is what The Holy Spirit says. Each of us has to tend to our own salvation.

Laters

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'll take what The Holy Spirit had to say about it for 200 Alex.

I'm not sure what to tell you Oscarr. You're basing your opinions on people, and doing this also with your scripture knowledge from what you've said.

There are only two types of tongues listed in scripture, those by the human spirit, and those by The Holy Spirit. One operates in a personal capacity for personal edification, and one that operates in the assembly for corporate edification. Both are unable to be understood unless the gift of interpretation is operated.

It's that simple.

A lot of folks can say all sort of things in videos, you and others on here can have all sorts of personal experiences,.... what matters in the end is what The Holy Spirit says. Each of us has to tend to our own salvation.

Laters

You are avoiding my question. The reality was that a lady in my church whom I knew on a personal basis told me she heard me saying encouraging things to her in the Maori language. This is not her opinion. This is what she actually heard! To say that it didn't happen is to call her and me liars! Are you prepared to do that?

I think that your theology is blinding you to established, validated facts of events that actually happened.

 

[ARBITER01]

Let GOD be true and every man a liar.

It's not personal Oscarr, I'm just not going to agree with people's opinions and experiences most of the time. My dependency is on GOD, not people.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Let GOD be true and every man a liar.

It's not personal Oscarr, I'm just not going to agree with people's opinions and experiences most of the time. My dependency is on GOD, not people.

Let's look a little closely at your quote in context:

Romans 3: 1-8
"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And prevail when You are judged.”

5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just."

As we can see, the context has nothing to do with tongues and it all has to do with with faithfulness and righteousness of God against man's unbelief. What the passage is saying is that God's Word concerning His righteousness and faithfulness is true and that man's unbelief will never nullify the faithfulness of God. So it is the unbelieving man (Gospel wise) is found to be a liar in comparison with the faithfulness of God in the Gospel of Christ.

So, you cannot apply your quote to try and deny that my friend Mrs Samuels heard me speaking encouraging words to her in fluent Maori language. Her observation about what I said in her language is not an example of man's unbelief of the Gospel of Christ. In actual fact, quoting a Bible verse out of context and twisting it to mean something else that what it is supposed to me, is a lie in itself.

 

[ARBITER01]

Let's look a little closely at your quote in context:

Romans 3: 1-8
"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And prevail when You are judged.”

5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just."

As we can see, the context has nothing to do with tongues and it all has to do with with faithfulness and righteousness of God against man's unbelief. What the passage is saying is that God's Word concerning His righteousness and faithfulness is true and that man's unbelief will never nullify the faithfulness of God. So it is the unbelieving man (Gospel wise) is found to be a liar in comparison with the faithfulness of God in the Gospel of Christ.

So, you cannot apply your quote to try and deny that my friend Mrs Samuels heard me speaking encouraging words to her in fluent Maori language. Her observation about what I said in her language is not an example of man's unbelief of the Gospel of Christ. In actual fact, quoting a Bible verse out of context and twisting it to mean something else that what it is supposed to me, is a lie in itself.

Are you making this personal Oscarr?

 

[topher694]

In actual fact, quoting a Bible verse out of context and twisting it to mean something else that what it is supposed to me, is a lie in itself.

Excellent point

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Are you making this personal Oscarr?

No. I am merely reviewing your verse quote and explaining it how it has been quoted out of context. This is a problem with Pentecostals. Having spent the first 12 years of my Christian life in Pentecostal churches I came up against the anti-academic attitude where the study of the written Scriptures as the foundation of sound doctrine was seen as "the dead letter", and doctrine received by "revelation" from the Holy Spirit is superior. Over the years, this attitude has given all sorts of weird and crazy doctrines that are not found anywhere in the Bible, and the "proof texts" for these doctrines are quotes of random verses out of their natural context.

In actual fact, the "dead letter" is the Mosaic Law as the basis for justification. It is not the Bible as a whole. Pentecostals don't believe that God has said all He has to say in the written Scriptures. Also, I encountered people saying "the Holy Spirit told me"...this or that, when there is no support in Scripture for it. Many of these people give the impression that God is speaking to them all the time in a way that ordinary believers don't experience. Also, much reliance is based on experiences and sensory impressions, when the truth is that nine out of every impression comes from the world, flesh or the devil.

The reason why the Charismatic movement has been hijacked by the ultra word-faith prosperity preacher, is that the nature of the Pentecostal movement has allowed it to happen. Now, the prophetic waters have been definitely muddied, and many believers are confused as to how and when the Holy Spirit really does speak to us.

When I became a Christian in the Pentecostal movement in 1966, teaching on tongues and prophecy was clear-cut. Tongues was the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit, and prophecy was to encourage the believers and did not include predictive prophecy. It was accepted that the apostolic and prophet ministries were no long operative in the church. But now, 45 to 50 years later, there are all sorts of various teaching about tongues and prophecy that have nothing to do with 1 Corinthians 14.

So it seems to me that modern Charismatics get some sort of impression which they believe is from the Holy Spirit and then form a doctrine about it, rather than be like the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see whether these doctrine are actually true.

So, it is not personal against you. What I am saying is fair debate.

 

[ARBITER01]

No. I am merely reviewing your verse quote and explaining it how it has been quoted out of context. This is a problem with Pentecostals. Having spent the first 12 years of my Christian life in Pentecostal churches I came up against the anti-academic attitude where the study of the written Scriptures as the foundation of sound doctrine was seen as "the dead letter", and doctrine received by "revelation" from the Holy Spirit is superior. Over the years, this attitude has given all sorts of weird and crazy doctrines that are not found anywhere in the Bible, and the "proof texts" for these doctrines are quotes of random verses out of their natural context.

In actual fact, the "dead letter" is the Mosaic Law as the basis for justification. It is not the Bible as a whole. Pentecostals don't believe that God has said all He has to say in the written Scriptures. Also, I encountered people saying "the Holy Spirit told me"...this or that, when there is no support in Scripture for it. Many of these people give the impression that God is speaking to them all the time in a way that ordinary believers don't experience. Also, much reliance is based on experiences and sensory impressions, when the truth is that nine out of every impression comes from the world, flesh or the devil.

The reason why the Charismatic movement has been hijacked by the ultra word-faith prosperity preacher, is that the nature of the Pentecostal movement has allowed it to happen. Now, the prophetic waters have been definitely muddied, and many believers are confused as to how and when the Holy Spirit really does speak to us.

When I became a Christian in the Pentecostal movement in 1966, teaching on tongues and prophecy was clear-cut. Tongues was the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit, and prophecy was to encourage the believers and did not include predictive prophecy. It was accepted that the apostolic and prophet ministries were no long operative in the church. But now, 45 to 50 years later, there are all sorts of various teaching about tongues and prophecy that have nothing to do with 1 Corinthians 14.

So it seems to me that modern Charismatics get some sort of impression which they believe is from the Holy Spirit and then form a doctrine about it, rather than be like the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see whether these doctrine are actually true.

So, it is not personal against you. What I am saying is fair debate.

Oh really,... it certainly appears like it's becoming personal.

I suggest this, we agree to disagree and go about our ways.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Also, I encountered people saying "the Holy Spirit told me"...this or that, when there is no support in Scripture for it.

The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. Acts 11:12

Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” Acts 8:29

While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” Acts 10:19-20

While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Acts 13:2

6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. Acts 16:6-10

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oh really,... it certainly appears like it's becoming personal.

I suggest this, we agree to disagree and go about our ways.

Not a problem.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. Acts 11:12

Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” Acts 8:29

While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” Acts 10:19-20

While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Acts 13:2

6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. Acts 16:6-10

Yep. That happened in the early church alright. But those ones were more open to the Holy Spirit, and the early church was born in the power of the Holy Spirit. Not like today's churches that are still caught up in the aftermath of the apostate church with its rituals and ceremonies.

The problem we have today is knowing when and if the Holy Spirit is speaking to someone; especially when nine out of every ten impressions are from the world, flesh or the devil. How does someone distinguish between the voice of the Spirit and the inner voice of their own desire?

How come all those who say that God speaks to the by the Spirit were never warned about Covid-19 or the Delta variant, or the Taliban takeover of Afganistan. What about those scores of prophets who were totally adamant that God told them that Donald Trump was going to win the U.S. election. I saw video clips of prominent and respected prophets and teachers saying that God told them distinctly that Trump was going to a second term as President, but it didn't happen. But these are men at the cutting edge of the Prophetic movement today! Because they are much closer to God and more open to His voice than us mere mortals who are not called to the prophetic ministry, you would think that they would get it right! But they didn't. So where did the impression that the Holy Spirit spoke to them come from? If it was the Holy Spirit, then Donald Trump would be occupying the White House today, wouldn't he?

What about the man who came into a Christian conference in New Zealand and started giving personal prophecies to people? He said the Holy Spirit told him to travel over 1000 kilometres to the venue to do that, and he wouldn't leave when told by the leader of the conference until a very nice but very large usher came over to help him to make the decision to leave. Then the man said, "The Lord is leading me to leave right now." Was this man hearing from the Holy Spirit? How did he know? And how did the leader know he wasn't?

What if someone came up to you and told you that he had a word from the Holy Spirit for you? Would you accept it as from the Lord? Why, or why not? How would you know whether it is the Holy Spirit who is speaking to him, or whether it is because the guy is wanting to use the name of the Holy Spirit to manipulate you into doing what he wants?

If a young man goes up to a young woman in the church and says to her, "The Holy Spirit has told me that you are going to be my wife", how does she know that it is really the Holy Spirit speaking to Him? What if she rejects the word; is she disobeying the Holy Spirit? How would she know? I said this one because of the great number of disastrous marriages and divorces that have been the fruit of such words "from the Holy Spirit".

So, the challenge is, how to we know that a particular impression is really from the Holy Spirit? That is the question.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

What if someone came up to you and told you that he had a word from the Holy Spirit for you? Would you accept it as from the Lord? Why, or why not? How would you know whether it is the Holy Spirit who is speaking to him, or whether it is because the guy is wanting to use the name of the Holy Spirit to manipulate you into doing what he wants?

I'm talking from inexperience, but I would probably pay attention to two things:

• The fruit of the person.
• Whether they confirm their message with words of knowledge (i.e. information they couldn't have possibly known or guessed about me, which the Holy Spirit has to have revealed supernaturally to them).

 

[Hidden In Him]

Okay. We will have to agree to disagree on it. If you can actually demonstrate the use of the spiritual gifts, including tongues as a confirmation of the Gospel preached to the unconverted, and be able to testify that unconverted people have turned to Christ and become long-term committed believers, then I might have reason to concede.

Well I thought this thread was pretty good (below), but I admit that such evidence is tougher to come by these days than it was during the early days of the NT era. But we may have to agree to disagree to agree, or was it the other way around? Lol.

Tongues for unbelievers - Amazing Testimony

 

[Francis Drake]

What do you think Ephesians 2:11-12 is saying then?

I'm not sure of the purpose in your question because Eph2v11 is plain for all to see.
Eph2v11Therefore remember that formerly you—the Gentiles in the flesh, the ones being called the uncircumcision by that being called the circumcision, made by hands in the flesh— 12that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, not having hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you, the ones once being far off, have become near by the blood of Christ.

In contrast to these words, you previously claimed-

Under prophecy, Israel the nation is to be saved first, before any gentiles can be reached. Gentiles were still cut off in Acts 2 (Ephesians 2:11-12).
Whenever you interpret what the OT prophets are saying, whether Isaiah or Joel, you have to bear Ephesians 2:11-12 in mind.

A simple face value reading of the scripture above shows it says nothing like what you claim.
Clearly Israel as a nation is still not yet saved, whilst millions of gentiles have been saved, as are individual Israelites and Jews

 

[Francis Drake]

It's not my theology, it is scripture,....

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but by the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

There is no way around this, unless you want to ignore this passage.

Experiences from people have to agree with scripture, if they don't, they are not to be accepted.

You are taking that one verse in isolation and missing the bigger picture, including that the above scripture is either denied or perhaps qualified by subsequent verses.
v5b...Now the one prophesying is greater than the one speaking in tongues, unless he should interpret, so that the church might receive edification.
If as the above clearly implies, the interpretation is speaking from God to men for their edification, then the initial tongue was also speaking to from God men.

So from this we can see that tongues can be directed at God, or at men.
And those men may understand the tongue, or may need the aid of an interpretation.

 

[Guojing]

I'm not sure of the purpose in your question because Eph2v11 is plain for all to see.
Eph2v11Therefore remember that formerly you—the Gentiles in the flesh, the ones being called the uncircumcision by that being called the circumcision, made by hands in the flesh— 12that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, not having hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you, the ones once being far off, have become near by the blood of Christ.

In contrast to these words, you previously claimed-

A simple face value reading of the scripture above shows it says nothing like what you claim.
Clearly Israel as a nation is still not yet saved, whilst millions of gentiles have been saved, as are individual Israelites and Jews

I am claiming that, before Paul was saved, if gentiles wanted to be included in the the salvation plan, they have to become Jews and join the nation of Israel.

An example can be seen in Esther 8:17.

That is what gentiles being "cut off" meant.

 

[Francis Drake]

I am claiming that, before Paul was saved, if gentiles wanted to be included in the the salvation plan, they have to become Jews and join the nation of Israel.

It might have saved a little confusion if you made your posts clearer. However, it's still not true. Long before the nation of Israel existed, men were being saved.
Go read Hebrews11 and you will see all the Gentiles who served the Lord before Abraham, Isaac or Jacob were born.
Abel, Enoch, Noah, plus countless others unnamed.
And of course, Cornelius was born again long before Peter arrived at his doorstep.