Why have the Sign Gifts Ended
- Thread starter Guojing
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dino.....you seem to think that I am not aware of Mr. Lee Strobel and his work. But why would I need to read comments from an Atheists' turned Christian and accept his thoughts above those of Drs. Magee, Green, Lindsey, Pentecost, Stidham and a host of others who produced hundreds of productions with a different perspective????
Why would I feel the need to question 50 years of Christian education just to be acceptable in your eyes and NOT be ignorant, because I did not choose to read a book that you enjoyed. Think about what you are saying my brother.
Why would I feel the need to question 50 years of Christian education just to be acceptable in your eyes and NOT be ignorant, because I did not choose to read a book that you enjoyed. Think about what you are saying my brother.
Rather, it is poor not to understand. Read the other verses, too.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
In verse 18, we see that Paul engaged in it. You would have us believe that Paul is talking about something completely different in verse 18 from the verses prior and afterward-- mundane use of a foreign language. Again, it's a game of Fizzbin.
Paul spoke in tongues, but in church he realized it did not edify others, unless it were interpreter. Earlier in the chapter he explained that he who speaks in tongues edified himself, and that he wished they all spoke in tongues. He that prophesies or interprets edifies the church, so he would rather that they do that. In verse 28, he allows the one who speaks in tongues when there is no interpreter who must keep silent in the church to 'speak to himself and to God.' Paul did not say that speaking in tongues does nothing. It edifies the one who does so. One can give thanks well in God. That is not nothing. It just does not edify the assembly unless it is interpret.
Your eisegeting a particular cessationist fundamentalist viewpoint into the Bible that the apostles did not hold to and that cannot be justified from the text of scripture, reinterpreting what the words mean. It's kind of like how the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses reinterpret passages of scripture.
There are commandments of the Lord in this passage, including if a revelation cometh to one who sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. If I held to your viewpoint, I would have to consider that command to be invalid and inapplicable. But you do not have the authority to overturn commandments of the Lord, and scripture does not teach that these commandments are no longer valid.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
In verse 18, we see that Paul engaged in it. You would have us believe that Paul is talking about something completely different in verse 18 from the verses prior and afterward-- mundane use of a foreign language. Again, it's a game of Fizzbin.
Paul spoke in tongues, but in church he realized it did not edify others, unless it were interpreter. Earlier in the chapter he explained that he who speaks in tongues edified himself, and that he wished they all spoke in tongues. He that prophesies or interprets edifies the church, so he would rather that they do that. In verse 28, he allows the one who speaks in tongues when there is no interpreter who must keep silent in the church to 'speak to himself and to God.' Paul did not say that speaking in tongues does nothing. It edifies the one who does so. One can give thanks well in God. That is not nothing. It just does not edify the assembly unless it is interpret.
Your eisegeting a particular cessationist fundamentalist viewpoint into the Bible that the apostles did not hold to and that cannot be justified from the text of scripture, reinterpreting what the words mean. It's kind of like how the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses reinterpret passages of scripture.
There are commandments of the Lord in this passage, including if a revelation cometh to one who sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. If I held to your viewpoint, I would have to consider that command to be invalid and inapplicable. But you do not have the authority to overturn commandments of the Lord, and scripture does not teach that these commandments are no longer valid.
-
1
- Show all
He passed away a few years ago. Why don't you bounce what I wrote off of someone who reads Greek that you trust. My guess is that you do not have a feel for the language like the retired university professor I mentioned in my previous post. I would really like to read his debunking of what you posted before.
You can learn a lot without submitting this idea to a Greek scholar for consideration. Just look up the words in an interlinear of the whole chapter, using the interlinear sites I referred you to. See if it makes any sense at all to say some other word is the antecedent in the examples I gave you. I picked examples that did not. The one in John, and maybe one of the others even had the form in the exact same grammatical form, a different verb. The definite article in these cases is used as a noun or pronoun to refer to individuals doing the verb, and is not referring to some grammatical referent. It is an issue of semantics, not some kind of overmechanical grammatical exercise that you can only decode with a secret Greek decoder ring. We can see from Mark 16 that it makes sense that 'them that believe' are the individuals referred to when it says 'he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.' The apostles preached, and there were listeners that believed. These signs shall follow them that believe. It is not rocket surgery. Since thee examples I gave conclusively showed the exact same definite article can be used in a substantive sense in the same type of verb phrase without referring to an antecedent earlier in the passage, you should go with the plain sense of the text. There is no reason to think the translators got it wrong.
What reason is there to hold to your gnostic approach to the Greek language except that it supports a doctrinal position you prefer?
What are you talking about? When did I say that? Your approach was 'mechanical', not a 'workman's approach.' I mean it was a stilted unnatural approach to language that doesn't take into account how human language works.
Mark 16 does not say each individual believer necessarily does each individual thing on the list. 'Them that believe' is the group. In I Corinthians 12, we see that one might prophesy and another might heal. It depends on how the Spirit distributes the gifts among the saints. In Romans 12, one might be gifted with leadership and another with prophecy.
The word, or part of it, is translated 'follow' and is used of disciples following Christ. You seem to be reading a lot into the word that isn't exactly justified, especially since the verse is about 'them that believe' in the context of discussing individuals who believe the apostles and are baptized.
The signs FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE. It doesn't say anything about whether the individuals are sedentary. It is the signs that follow, in this case, not the believers. I wouldn't be surprised if signs and wonders are more common among those who go out and do evangelism, as that seems to be the case, but you are making the verse to say something it doesn't really say.
Absolutely debunked by the examples I gave which show verses with the exact same grammar (except a different verb, but in same grammatical category and similar examples) where tois CANNOT be taken to refer back to an antecedant since there is nothing to pin it to. I really do not like people who know just enough Greek to cause some trouble claiming to have some secret knowledge of what the Bible teaches based on Greek that goes contrary to what translators say, which turns out to be false with a little study. I have disproven your assertion with actual Greek examples from the New Testament itself. Have bothered to look up those verses in an interlinear, look and see if there is anything that could be a grammatical antecedent and see if tois is functioning as a noun or pronoun?
When proven wrong you can go with 'I'm right because I am right' if you want to, but your assertions have been debunked. I would encourage you to put in the study time to see what I am talking about.
I actually don't need to contact a scholar. I disproved your assertion-- at least the idea that the passage __has to be__ interpreted that way grammatically, by showing examples where there is no antecedent and the same definite article has to be taken to function as a noun or pronoun since there is no antecedent for it to refer back to.
I am not on a discussion list with Greek scholars these days. That was back in the list serve days, but if you know any who really know Greek at a high level, you scan share it with them. The gentleman I referred to expressed his concern that many of the Bible colleges and seminaries did not really teach Greek that well, though he acknowledged someone from Princeton was quite good. A friend of mine with a masters in Hebrew studies considered this man's Hebrew to be better to his own as well. Occasionally, he would debunk assertions made about these languages, using Rashi's method of showing specific examples form the text that disprove the assertions about grammar, as I did in the previous message.
As Christians, we need to be careful of these sort of arguments about Greek and Hebrew that float around and buffalo the gullible. I've come across a lot of them, for example a 'Dr.' so-and-so (with a DMin of course) who argued that the Bible calls Sarah Abraham's 'lord' when the verse said the opposite (if you translation baal as 'lord' rather than husband.) Another website by someone who doesn't know Greek argues that Jesus taught that it is okay to divorce your wife with a certificate, based on some lame argument about the Greek that doesn't hold water. Along this line of conversation, there is this nonsense argument that 'the perfect' has to refer to the Bible because it is in the neuter, and this argument of yours that 'them that believe' refers back to the apostles because of this clearly debunked idea of yours about antecedents. I remember the advice of the retired professor and chair I mentioned, who grew tired of 'Baptist aorists', inaccurate rhema/logos distinctions, statements that 'agape is the God kind of love', and various other inaccurate ideas about Greek coming out of pulpits. Usually, the translations capture the sense of it reasonably well. I also learned to be skeptical about claims like this.
You can learn a lot without submitting this idea to a Greek scholar for consideration. Just look up the words in an interlinear of the whole chapter, using the interlinear sites I referred you to. See if it makes any sense at all to say some other word is the antecedent in the examples I gave you. I picked examples that did not. The one in John, and maybe one of the others even had the form in the exact same grammatical form, a different verb. The definite article in these cases is used as a noun or pronoun to refer to individuals doing the verb, and is not referring to some grammatical referent. It is an issue of semantics, not some kind of overmechanical grammatical exercise that you can only decode with a secret Greek decoder ring. We can see from Mark 16 that it makes sense that 'them that believe' are the individuals referred to when it says 'he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.' The apostles preached, and there were listeners that believed. These signs shall follow them that believe. It is not rocket surgery. Since thee examples I gave conclusively showed the exact same definite article can be used in a substantive sense in the same type of verb phrase without referring to an antecedent earlier in the passage, you should go with the plain sense of the text. There is no reason to think the translators got it wrong.
What reason is there to hold to your gnostic approach to the Greek language except that it supports a doctrinal position you prefer?
What are you talking about? When did I say that? Your approach was 'mechanical', not a 'workman's approach.' I mean it was a stilted unnatural approach to language that doesn't take into account how human language works.
Mark 16 does not say each individual believer necessarily does each individual thing on the list. 'Them that believe' is the group. In I Corinthians 12, we see that one might prophesy and another might heal. It depends on how the Spirit distributes the gifts among the saints. In Romans 12, one might be gifted with leadership and another with prophecy.
The word, or part of it, is translated 'follow' and is used of disciples following Christ. You seem to be reading a lot into the word that isn't exactly justified, especially since the verse is about 'them that believe' in the context of discussing individuals who believe the apostles and are baptized.
The signs FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE. It doesn't say anything about whether the individuals are sedentary. It is the signs that follow, in this case, not the believers. I wouldn't be surprised if signs and wonders are more common among those who go out and do evangelism, as that seems to be the case, but you are making the verse to say something it doesn't really say.
Absolutely debunked by the examples I gave which show verses with the exact same grammar (except a different verb, but in same grammatical category and similar examples) where tois CANNOT be taken to refer back to an antecedant since there is nothing to pin it to. I really do not like people who know just enough Greek to cause some trouble claiming to have some secret knowledge of what the Bible teaches based on Greek that goes contrary to what translators say, which turns out to be false with a little study. I have disproven your assertion with actual Greek examples from the New Testament itself. Have bothered to look up those verses in an interlinear, look and see if there is anything that could be a grammatical antecedent and see if tois is functioning as a noun or pronoun?
When proven wrong you can go with 'I'm right because I am right' if you want to, but your assertions have been debunked. I would encourage you to put in the study time to see what I am talking about.
I actually don't need to contact a scholar. I disproved your assertion-- at least the idea that the passage __has to be__ interpreted that way grammatically, by showing examples where there is no antecedent and the same definite article has to be taken to function as a noun or pronoun since there is no antecedent for it to refer back to.
I am not on a discussion list with Greek scholars these days. That was back in the list serve days, but if you know any who really know Greek at a high level, you scan share it with them. The gentleman I referred to expressed his concern that many of the Bible colleges and seminaries did not really teach Greek that well, though he acknowledged someone from Princeton was quite good. A friend of mine with a masters in Hebrew studies considered this man's Hebrew to be better to his own as well. Occasionally, he would debunk assertions made about these languages, using Rashi's method of showing specific examples form the text that disprove the assertions about grammar, as I did in the previous message.
As Christians, we need to be careful of these sort of arguments about Greek and Hebrew that float around and buffalo the gullible. I've come across a lot of them, for example a 'Dr.' so-and-so (with a DMin of course) who argued that the Bible calls Sarah Abraham's 'lord' when the verse said the opposite (if you translation baal as 'lord' rather than husband.) Another website by someone who doesn't know Greek argues that Jesus taught that it is okay to divorce your wife with a certificate, based on some lame argument about the Greek that doesn't hold water. Along this line of conversation, there is this nonsense argument that 'the perfect' has to refer to the Bible because it is in the neuter, and this argument of yours that 'them that believe' refers back to the apostles because of this clearly debunked idea of yours about antecedents. I remember the advice of the retired professor and chair I mentioned, who grew tired of 'Baptist aorists', inaccurate rhema/logos distinctions, statements that 'agape is the God kind of love', and various other inaccurate ideas about Greek coming out of pulpits. Usually, the translations capture the sense of it reasonably well. I also learned to be skeptical about claims like this.
God bless you my brother. Those who do understand Hebreww and Greek will not agree with your position and neither do I. You are absolutely free to do whatever you want to do because you will no matter what is proven to you. I can see exactly where this is coming from and going to and I do not want to be a part of it.
Be safe.
Be safe.
Well said, by the time people are interested enough to post what they believe in such discussion forums, which they probably have formed after years of reflection, they are not going to change their minds, at least not so quickly, the moment they received new information that makes their previously held position in suspect.
What's more, all of us are strangers here so it is naturally difficult for us to accept contradictory views, we would much prefer to seek people who share similar views as us, this is known as "confirmation bias".
So you are doing well, I feel all of us should just treat all with respect and kindness and not get too antagonistic when we share our different interpretations of scripture and have people respond to them aggressively. Even if no one seems to appreciate, I believe the Lord will remember all these, and in the bema seat of Christ in 1 Cor 3:10-15, we will be rewarded.
What's more, all of us are strangers here so it is naturally difficult for us to accept contradictory views, we would much prefer to seek people who share similar views as us, this is known as "confirmation bias".
So you are doing well, I feel all of us should just treat all with respect and kindness and not get too antagonistic when we share our different interpretations of scripture and have people respond to them aggressively. Even if no one seems to appreciate, I believe the Lord will remember all these, and in the bema seat of Christ in 1 Cor 3:10-15, we will be rewarded.
Thank you for your kind words. As far as those who read Hebrew and Greek are concerned, why don't you ask some of them and see. I challenge you to do so...someone who really understands the language, and show my examples.
What do you do with the fact that your argument about Greek antecedents does not work with the examples I have shown you? Can you follow what I wrote? Have you taken the time to study it and look up the references in an interlinear? There are interlinear tools online.
What do you do with the fact that your argument about Greek antecedents does not work with the examples I have shown you? Can you follow what I wrote? Have you taken the time to study it and look up the references in an interlinear? There are interlinear tools online.
I find 'sarcasm' as an explanation for why Paul mentioned tongues of angels in I Corinthians 13 to be the second stupidest interpretation of scripture I've read all week. Well, maybe the third, but it is up there. I've heard hyperbole, but sarcasm? If you can explain away scripture by calling it sarcasm, what's to stop someone from doing that with 'thou shalt not commit adultery' or some other passage?
Basically, you want me to rule out the idea of someone speaking in tongues of angels because you say so. The idea of tongues of angels shows up in intertestamental literature... the Testament of Job or something like that. Also, your argument doesn't hold water if we look at the flow of argument in the passage. There are parallel arguments there, examples of things that are possible...extreme but possible.. giving one's body to be burned, giving away all possessions. There are people who have done such things. If moving mountains in the gospel is meant as literal or as a metaphor, however it is meant, it is possible. Why would Paul list speaking in tongues of angels in a list of other things that are possible?
For your information, historically, Pentecostals have interpreted 'tongues' to mean 'languages.' Early in the Charismatic movement, Charismatics still do. I know there are some individuals who see it as some kind of spiritual code language among the various groups of Charismatics. I have no way of knowing, but I'd imagine it would be in the minority.
If you research a bit of history, Agnes Ozman wrote of spoking in tongues and individuals identifying it at Bohemian (which we would call Czech today.) If you read the Azusa Street revival newsletter, The Apostolic Faith, there are numerous testimonies of people hearing languages they knew 'in tongues' including a Canadian first nations language, Armenian, etc. There were testimonies from people at the Azusa Street Revival of hearing known human languages spoken 'in tongues' in the meeting, including at least one testimony of the interpretation of tongue aligning with the interpretation, if I recall correctly. (That may have been in another meeting outside of the mission.)
He did not suggest this idea in I Corinthians. There is no word 'all' in the verse.
Paul suggested it might be possible.
4) He did not have ALL knowledge.[/quote]
It might be true in the way the word translated 'all' is used in Greek.
5) His faith was not such he could move mountains.
[/quote]
These items were for contrast only. Paul was saying "IF" I could do all these things and had not love, then it would all be for nothing.[/QUOTE]
Jesus spoke about the one who does not doubt in his heart but believes can speak to this mountain and tell it to be cast into the sea and it would be done. If that was some kind of idiom and He meant it that way, it's true. If he meant it literally, that's true. Either way, you should not say Paul did not have faith to move mountains.
Why do you stop quoting there? What about the rest of the passage:
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Would it be possible for Paul to give everything away to feed the poor? What about to give himself to be burned? I seem to recall reading that Francis of Assisi gave all his possessions away, including his clothes at one point in time, and John Huss did not recant and was burned at the stake.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I will admit the use of the "sarcasm" was a poor choice on my part but since you are being technical in the rest of your argument, let me be equally technical in a way that matters.
Let's examine the sentence construction and dig down into the grammar for a few minutes.
! Cor. 13:1, Starts out with the Greek word ἐάν, a conditional particle. Usually translated in the English with the word "IF". (In some translations, they chose the word "though"). This first verse, led by the conditional particle ἐάν sets up a series of verses, 1-3, each starting with the same conditional particle as in verse 1. This conditional particle sets an "uncertain" mood for the rest of the sentence.
Therefore, we have three third class conditional sentences in a row. The third class condition, sets these statements as far from the mood of possibility as one can in the Greek grammar. (Unless the writer uses a combination such as οὗ οὐκ, a double negative, which means: "by no means"). The writer expects the reader to see the things mentioned in an implausible way. That is, the things mentioned are not to be considered probable by the one writing and are to be understood as exaggerations for the purpose of the argument, such as we have in these three verses.
So Paul is basically saying, at the beginning of these three verses, "If these things are possible", however, I am not saying I can do these things but if I could.
One would be wise not to hang any doctrine or concepts on any third class conditional sentence.
Basically, you want me to rule out the idea of someone speaking in tongues of angels because you say so. The idea of tongues of angels shows up in intertestamental literature... the Testament of Job or something like that. Also, your argument doesn't hold water if we look at the flow of argument in the passage. There are parallel arguments there, examples of things that are possible...extreme but possible.. giving one's body to be burned, giving away all possessions. There are people who have done such things. If moving mountains in the gospel is meant as literal or as a metaphor, however it is meant, it is possible. Why would Paul list speaking in tongues of angels in a list of other things that are possible?
For your information, historically, Pentecostals have interpreted 'tongues' to mean 'languages.' Early in the Charismatic movement, Charismatics still do. I know there are some individuals who see it as some kind of spiritual code language among the various groups of Charismatics. I have no way of knowing, but I'd imagine it would be in the minority.
If you research a bit of history, Agnes Ozman wrote of spoking in tongues and individuals identifying it at Bohemian (which we would call Czech today.) If you read the Azusa Street revival newsletter, The Apostolic Faith, there are numerous testimonies of people hearing languages they knew 'in tongues' including a Canadian first nations language, Armenian, etc. There were testimonies from people at the Azusa Street Revival of hearing known human languages spoken 'in tongues' in the meeting, including at least one testimony of the interpretation of tongue aligning with the interpretation, if I recall correctly. (That may have been in another meeting outside of the mission.)
He did not suggest this idea in I Corinthians. There is no word 'all' in the verse.
Paul suggested it might be possible.
4) He did not have ALL knowledge.[/quote]
It might be true in the way the word translated 'all' is used in Greek.
5) His faith was not such he could move mountains.
[/quote]
These items were for contrast only. Paul was saying "IF" I could do all these things and had not love, then it would all be for nothing.[/QUOTE]
Jesus spoke about the one who does not doubt in his heart but believes can speak to this mountain and tell it to be cast into the sea and it would be done. If that was some kind of idiom and He meant it that way, it's true. If he meant it literally, that's true. Either way, you should not say Paul did not have faith to move mountains.
Why do you stop quoting there? What about the rest of the passage:
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Would it be possible for Paul to give everything away to feed the poor? What about to give himself to be burned? I seem to recall reading that Francis of Assisi gave all his possessions away, including his clothes at one point in time, and John Huss did not recant and was burned at the stake.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I will admit the use of the "sarcasm" was a poor choice on my part but since you are being technical in the rest of your argument, let me be equally technical in a way that matters.
Let's examine the sentence construction and dig down into the grammar for a few minutes.
! Cor. 13:1, Starts out with the Greek word ἐάν, a conditional particle. Usually translated in the English with the word "IF". (In some translations, they chose the word "though"). This first verse, led by the conditional particle ἐάν sets up a series of verses, 1-3, each starting with the same conditional particle as in verse 1. This conditional particle sets an "uncertain" mood for the rest of the sentence.
Therefore, we have three third class conditional sentences in a row. The third class condition, sets these statements as far from the mood of possibility as one can in the Greek grammar. (Unless the writer uses a combination such as οὗ οὐκ, a double negative, which means: "by no means"). The writer expects the reader to see the things mentioned in an implausible way. That is, the things mentioned are not to be considered probable by the one writing and are to be understood as exaggerations for the purpose of the argument, such as we have in these three verses.
So Paul is basically saying, at the beginning of these three verses, "If these things are possible", however, I am not saying I can do these things but if I could.
One would be wise not to hang any doctrine or concepts on any third class conditional sentence.
The idea of further revelation being given to an individual, apart from Scripture study, is a dangerous proposition. Any personal revelation, if possible, would certainly have to be compared to Scripture, in order to determine revelatory accuracy. I want to put forth this example:
When the Mormons, being led by Brigham Young, were told that God authorized polygamy through a new revelation - how would a believer know if this came from God or man? They later were told that God rescinded this ordinance, when it was getting in the way of Deseret, (Utah), becoming a State. So was this ordinance of polygamy God sent or did it come right from the pit of hell?
The teaching of personal revelation being possible, is a dangerous thing!!!!! We also know what the Bible teaches as to false prophets and what should be done to them in OT times.
Deu_13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
When the Mormons, being led by Brigham Young, were told that God authorized polygamy through a new revelation - how would a believer know if this came from God or man? They later were told that God rescinded this ordinance, when it was getting in the way of Deseret, (Utah), becoming a State. So was this ordinance of polygamy God sent or did it come right from the pit of hell?
The teaching of personal revelation being possible, is a dangerous thing!!!!! We also know what the Bible teaches as to false prophets and what should be done to them in OT times.
Deu_13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
It is sad that you quote Scripture to make your case, but fail to include the critically-relevant CONTEXT. Here it is:
1 If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let’s follow other gods (whom you have not known) and let’s serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken falsely against the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to drive you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you.
Scripture does NOT teach that personal revelation is "a dangerous thing". Rather, we are encouraged repeatedly to seek the Lord, and also to test the spirits.
Instead of fear mongering, it's better to teach people what Scripture actually says, in context, so that they are equipped to test their personal revelation against the whole counsel of Scripture.
1 If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let’s follow other gods (whom you have not known) and let’s serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken falsely against the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to drive you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you.
Scripture does NOT teach that personal revelation is "a dangerous thing". Rather, we are encouraged repeatedly to seek the Lord, and also to test the spirits.
Instead of fear mongering, it's better to teach people what Scripture actually says, in context, so that they are equipped to test their personal revelation against the whole counsel of Scripture.
-
2
- Show all
We know it was mentioned in the gospels that is everything Jesus did had been written it would have filled all the books in the world. True as well with the Apostles, they only wrote a portion we can be sure.
Most people are encountered by God as a way of drawing them near to Him to complete full relationship "with every thought, word, and deed". Everything is to be taken to the Lord for His guidance and confirmation, Holy Spirit guides us "in all truth" for He only speaks as He is given to speak.
Job tells us in 33-14 " God speaks first one way, then another, though you don't perceive it", once we perceive it we can grow in Him.
blessings
Most people are encountered by God as a way of drawing them near to Him to complete full relationship "with every thought, word, and deed". Everything is to be taken to the Lord for His guidance and confirmation, Holy Spirit guides us "in all truth" for He only speaks as He is given to speak.
Job tells us in 33-14 " God speaks first one way, then another, though you don't perceive it", once we perceive it we can grow in Him.
blessings
The context for my post was not relevant. All I did at the end was to tack on a Scriptural warning, it was not being used as a proof text for my above argument. There is nothing wrong with personal revelation as one receives it from the study of Scripture. This was not my argument. My argument was solely against those who believe in a personal revelation APART from Scripture. Ie.. by a dream or a small voice, etc,,,,
You might want to read the first sentence of my original post again.
You might want to read the first sentence of my original post again.
I re-read the first sentence of your post, and I stand by my post. Personal revelation outside of Scripture is not inherently dangerous. It is no more dangerous than listening to a sermon or reading a topical book by a Christian author; it must be tested against Scripture. However, God speaks to His children about everyday concerns and subjects that Scripture doesn't directly address; the key is knowing what Scripture does say so that you know whether the direction you receive is consistent with it.
-
2
- Show all
I do not see where Paul makes a distinction between the two. He treats the language that is not interpreted that edifies oneself as the same sort of thing that can be interpreted.
I Corinthians 14
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
I Corinthians 14
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.