
It is here that my greatest concern with tongues comes to the fore. If the foregoing is true, then the continuance of tongues implies either (1) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is inadequately attested or (2) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is insufficient for the needs of the present dispensation (violating the spirit of such texts as 2 Timothy 3:17 and 2 Peter 1:3–4). At best this understanding threatens Scripture’s unique authority and causes people to neglect Scripture in favor of other, more direct sources of instruction and guidance, and at worst it opens up the faith to an unbounded host of non-orthodox additions and emendations.3 It is difficult to see how the continuation of tongues and prophecy can coexist with the doctrine of biblical sufficiency, and even with the first-order doctrine of sola scriptura. And if church history tells us anything, it tells us that the denial of sola scriptura has functioned time and again as the threshold for heterodoxy in the development of the Christian church. Read the rest
HEREAre Tongues for Today? Part 1Are Tongues for Today? Part 2Are Tongues for Today? Part 3
1 comment:
Now this is only my personal opinion, but my studies of God's Word leads me to believe that tongues and prophecy applied only during the times of the apostles. Today we have the complete revelation of God in His Word--The Holy Bible. God bless, Lloyd
Post a Comment