Are Tongues for Today? Part 2

Thanks Mark, for an engaging and beautifully written article. You obviously have studied the matter a great deal and provide excellent guidance. As a fellow cessationist, and one who is deeply disturbed by the continuationist position, I share your passion for the topic.

I’d like to offer several helps, I hope, to your goal of discrediting continuationalism:

1) Account for the full NT data.

In your argument that apostles must have been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ you have not included the full scope of data that contradicts this limitation. There is also a secondary sense for the term “apostle” in the NT.

Paul was the last see the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:8), but he called both Timothy and Silvanas “apostles” (1 Thess. 2:6). Your article was limited in space. Perhaps you wanted to include this matter, but were constrained.

To this secondary list we must add Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:1, 5-6), James, the brother of our Lord, (Gal. 1:19 – but c.f. 1 Cor. 15:7), and perhaps Andronicus and Junias (Roman 16:7). In fact, in 2 Cor. 11:13 Paul decries apostolic imposters, suggesting there many apostles of this secondary sense. If there were only a small number of apostles, Paul wouldn’t have needed to argue against the false ones in the manner he does in 2 Corinthians 11, by appealing to their evil deeds rather than experience of the risen Christ (11:15).

As you know, continuationists will allow for this secondary sense of apostleship to support their position, and until we can answer it convincingly, we needlessly cede territory to them. However, there is no need to do so.

2) Go to the root of the matter and expose its error.

Wayne Grudem has produced the theological underpinning that has influenced a generation of men to justify continuationalism. He did this initially in his PhD thesis, and then in his book, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. His theory was that there is a continuing gift of prophecy in the body of Christ. Many have used his work as a foundation to build their continuationalism upon. Such men are Piper, D.A. Carson, C. J. Mahaney, Sam Storms, and those who follow them on these matters.

In order to justify an on-going gift of prophecy, and its corollary gift of apostleship, Grudem claims that Eph. 2:20 and Eph. 3:5, which both speak of “apostles and prophets,” actually teach one gift, not two. He claims these texts refer to a single gift in some men who should be called “apostles-prophets.” He claims these men were infallible in their prophecies. He then claims other apostles and prophets were not infallible in the First Century, nor are they today (such as Agabus in Acts 21). This is the fallacy we need to slam shut in order to preserve God’s people from the spiritual danger of listening to so-called apostles and prophets today.

When Grudem asserts that Eph. 2:20 and 3:5 speak of one gift (“apostle-prophet”) he breaks the Granville Sharp rule which all Greek students learn in the first year of exegesis. His theory falls apart because he chooses to ignore that both words – “apostles” and “prophets” in Eph. 2:20 and 3:5 are plurals and therefore ineligible to be linked to mean a single “apostle-prophet,” as the Granville Sharp rule allows. Depending upon the article in the Greek, the Granville Sharp rule allows only for singular nouns to be linked together, not plurals. Yet Grudem has linked plurals and broken a foundational Greek rule. Expose the fragility of his foundation and the his superstructure falls down. There was no gift called “apostle-prophet,” and hence there were no fallible gift of apostleship or prophecy. From a Koine perspective, it’s hardly rocket science.

3) Reconsider the argument for “maturity” in 1 Cor. 13:10. Yes, it is debated, but that only means we should look at it more closely, not less.

The word translated “perfect” is telios. In the NT this word almost always means “mature,” not “perfect.” It does in 13:10 as well, for as verse 13:11 explains, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” That’s the process of growing up from immaturity to maturity. But its isn't “perfection.” Perfection comes in v. 12. Examine every author who reads “telios” as “perfect” in 13:11 and you will see they are incapable of giving a meaningful sense to v. 11.

Then compare the context of 1 Cor. 12-14 to Eph. 4. Both teach on spiritual gifts, and both share important words, among which are as apostle and prophet. They also teach on the building up of the church.

Notice the use of “telios” in Eph. 4:13: “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man (teleion), to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” This passage refers to maturity in the here and now, not perfection in eternity. In essence, the context of Eph 4:11-13 mirrors 1 Cor. 13:8-11.

Mark, an approach that refocuses us on the text will necessarily steer us away from an “analogy of the faith” approach. When we go that way, we can give up the ship too quickly on the text. That approach often offers us a slippery rescue that can run too quickly to other verses in order to handling theological controversy. Instead, let’s rest on the texts that are given. For in this matter, we are in the right, by God’s grace.

Richard, do you believe the gift of apostle of Jesus Christ exists today?

I would agree that there is a secondary meaning (see Philippians 2:25, for example, where Ephroditus is "your apostolos"). But I think there are only two senses: those sent/commissioned by Christ and those sent/commissioned by a local church. The former would consist only of the 12 and Paul.
The two senses could apply to individuals at the same time, though. In the case of Paul and Barnabas being sent out (Acts 13), Paul is both apostle of Jesus Christ and apostle of the church at Antioch. Barnabas is "one sent" only from the church (though the Holy Spirit is personally involved, Jesus is not). So when the term is applied to both of them, it is in the latter sense.

As for Dr. Snoeberger's case here, perhaps, Richard, it would be helpful to hear you interact with his evidence and reasoning. Where in particular to you think his case is weak or inaccurate?

[quote=Bob T. ]Lots of fuss over nothing. I mean literally nothing.

"Lets all face the reality. It's all about the tongues. The whole movement with Prophets, healings, miracles, etc. are all the outgrowth of the initial three speaking in tongues revivals. First Azusa street, then Denis Bennett and the Charismatics and then Wimber and Fullish Seminary with the third wavers."

The topic under discussion is about tongues so the fact that "it's all about tongues" is self evident. The Holy Spirit's operating today however is not "all about tongues". Opponents would like to characature it as such but what it is all about is simply the Holy Spirit moving among His people as described in Scripture....or so it is as a continuationist looks at it. These kinds of things were occuring before Azusa St. If one majors on tongues then one is unbalanced in ones perception. All the gifts of the Spirit are to be received without necessarily imposing (in my view) a strict hierarchical order unless Scripture dictates such.

"So OK I am ready, take me to the leaders and practitioners. Where are these tongues speakers, healers, prophets, and modern day miracle workers? What have they to say? What have they contributed to the glory of the gospel and Christ?"

I can imagine if you were around in Jesus day that you may have been equally as sceptical of what He did and found plausible reasons for denying that His works were genuine and if you were were in Jerusalem at the time of the outpouring of the Spirit you may well have joined in the sceptical comments as you heard the disciples speaking in foreign tongues.
From your present vantage point of being a believer in Christ you might deny that if you had been there that you would have been sceptical but you would have no basis for believing otherwise.
I can imagine that even if you had someone before you who had been healed and the healing had been medically verified yet that you would find some reason to denounce it or like the world to rationalise it. Whenever anyone is healed it brings glory to the Lord. There are 1000s of everyday believers who are continuationists and who may exercise the gifts they have who by their lives contribute to the glory of God. Bringing glory to God is not the sole prerogative of cessationists.

"Countless linguistic studies exist with thousands of recordings of so called tongues. The unanimous verdict is no real language is spoken, just made up gibberish of syllables coming from the native language of the speakers. Many studies of the healers such as AA Allen, Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, and others, still fail to produce any miracle healing evidence. Many of the former and present national leaders are obvious money grabbers and fraudulent. Revivals in Indonesia, Toronto, and Pensacola brings forth fraud and nonsense and nothing more. Missionary vision and miracle reports turn out to be unsubstantiated big foot sightings of phenomena that is never verified with actual objective evidence. All sorts of Heresy and a false prosperity gospel are born out of the movement, but still we seek to find this as part of a continuation of phenomena allowed by scripture. Reports from Africa and South America indicate that no legitimate biblical gospel is being proclaimed. In its place the continuationists proclaim a non saving prosperity gospel This is Continuationism? Have we lost our common sense?"

It is a very sweeping statement to imply that all continuationists proclaim a non saving prosperity gospel...you might as well say that JWs are an offshoot of cessationist gospel preaching.

"This whole thing has been going on for decades with nothing but smoke and mirrors. Some whom we call theologians and scholars show their lack of common sense by ignoring the obvious in scripture to give some credence to the smoke and mirrors continuation movement. We out Greek the Greeks by overstating the specific in a text while ignoring the broader and immediate contexts of passages.. This happens with 1Cor. 13:8. A direct statement that tongues will cease is shunted aside by ignoring the whole broad argument and putting it off to the sweet by and by. There are three incidents in Acts of miracle language gifts that are obvious real human languages. There is one extended teaching passage in First Corinthians that is written not to promote but to deemphasize and regulate tongues. With this scriptural evidence we endeavor to give credence to movements that promote these phenomena as the very foundation for all that they claim to be emphasizing. Why?"

Characterizing the opposition as lacking common sense is using a belittling argument as cover for the blatantly false assertion that there is anything "totally obvious" in Scripture.
Politicians do the same, assassinating the integrity, character and motives of their opponents.

Your brother in the Lord.

I don’t follow the argument made from 2 Cor. 12:12 although I understand the reasoning in search of proof for the cessation of tongues. The “signs of an apostle” are listed as “signs, wonders, and miracles.” Are tongues included? Tongues were given as sign (I Cor. 14:22) but of what? It has not been clearly demonstrated that tongues are in view in 2 Cor. 12:12 since Paul had already addressed the issue of tongues that were present in the assembly in the absence of an apostle (whether languages or ecstatic speech). If tongues were among the signs they were still active, although abused, in the church of Corinth after Paul’s departure. A line of reasoning has been adopted that leads to the author’s conclusions but which conclusions cannot be drawn from the text.

A better argument for the cessation of tongues (or in my opinion rarity of tongues) can be made from the text where the relatively few occurrences of tongues speaking occur in the Book of Acts (chps. 2, 10, 19) in transitions of the gospel to different people. Three recorded times in 30 years does not constitute a movement or anything near normative for Christians or churches, much less a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as erroneously claimed by some. This observation would allow for the God-given ability to speak in tongues, an unlearned not unknown language, in analogous transitions today in pioneer missionary situations while rejecting the tongues movement as we know it today which lacks biblical support. The author suggests that the exercise of tongues in the NT involved special revelation, connects tongues to the apostles as a sign gift, then makes tongues disappear. His argument would be bolstered if tongues were used for special revelation. However, in the Acts passages it is not a question of special revelation - it is more a proclamation or clarification of the gospel.

But even aside from the issue of why so many would carefully study the "obvious," there is one thing that is obvious here: nobody has ever been persuaded of the error of his ways by "obviously you're wrong" and a dismissive wave of the hand. If they are persuaded at all, it's by someone giving thoughtful attention to the reasons they offer for their mistaken beliefs. My hat's off to all who thoughtfully wrestle with the issues involved, regardless of what they conclude in the end.

(The fact that nobody has been able to produce "objective" evidence tongues, healings, etc. only proves that they have not occurred in recent memory. Many reasons can be proposed as to why that's the case. The absence of observational evidence does not prove anything about what the Scriptures teach.)

Hi Ted;

Thank you for your comments although I'm not sure I should be counted as a fellow cessationist I have used the term "soft cessationist" for myself since I do allow (and believe Scripture does also) the use of tongues in pioneer missionary encounters. I also think the evidence for that is overwhelming in spite of some of the dismissive, huff and puff posted comments for whom their extensive experience and the charismatic confusion in our Western context is the guide. That does not mean I accept every experience related as genuine. You can see here for something I wrote in this vein. http://sharperiron.org/2009/01/07/dreams-and-visions

Your point about Corinth is well taken. However I am still not sure that we understand what was going on in the church. Tongues were "used" but the emphasis is on "abused." It's hard to work from the abuse of tongues in one church to imagine that they were prevalent in other churches in the absence of any indication of use or abuse in churches. Admittedly it's a argument from silence but a rather loud silence that points away from tongues as practiced or perverted at Corinth as anything but normative.

I would like to think that tongues in Corinth were the same as in Acts - known languages. However I have not yet been able to come down on one side or the other. Others seem to know better than I what was going on. It remains somewhat of a mystery for me and I am unconvinced at this point (and open to being convinced) that we can jump from Acts to I Corinthians and assume or prove that tongues are the same. Yet, whatever was going on, although tongues were not to be forbidden (I Cor. 14:39) in Corinth, Paul certainly relativizes the importance of them, regulates them, and said earlier "that tongues will cease" (I Cor. 13:8). This would make better sense if the tongues at Corinth were not the same as the tongues in Acts. This also would answer the point about tongues as special revelation.Clearly there was no special revelation in the Acts occurrences of tongues speaking. If there was special revelation at Corinth it wasn’t inscripturated so of only tempora and local value. So I don't think it's a tidy as some want to make it. I like things tidy as well but am still wrestling with this one. Either way there is no tongues movement in the NT or support for one, certainly not an experience to be sought or evidence of Spirit baptism.

Grace & Peace,
Steve

Hi Steve,

In 1 Corinthians the gift of tongues is listed as a spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12:10, 28-30), and this will distinguish it from the uses of tongues in Acts.

As a spiritual gift, it was under the control of the person thus gifted, to be exercised at will (same as your obvious gift of teaching is exercised at your will). This is why Paul could command tongues be regulated in 1 Cor. 14, because it was a gift, and therefore under the control of the tongues-speaker.

In Acts though, the tongues was a supernatural effect of the Holy Spirit not under the control of the tongues speaker, c.f., Acts 2:4). It sovereignly came upon the tongues speakers without permission of their will.

This distinction makes any present day experience of tongues in a missionary context analogous to Acts 2, but not 1 Cor. 14. The speakers cannot use tongues at will, but if you listen to the stories, it comes upon the tongues-speaker in a sovereign manner.

Sorry for labeling you a cessationist. But maybe now with this distinction in mind, perhaps you will become a hard cessationist?

Perhaps one problem here is that we have too easily kicked 1 Cor. 13 to the curb and driven on. It has been all about the tongues here. We need to look at the actual big picture of evidence and emphasis of scripture with regard to tongues as manifested in the present day Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. If these movements didn't exist the doctrine of continuationism would be a theory not given much attendance. The Biblical evidence for continuationism is not very compelling.

First, as most posting here know, there are three occasions of tongue speaking in Acts.

At Acts chapter two we have people who are Jewish and from various parts of the Roman empire hearing the gospel of the Jewish Messiah spoken in their various native tongues by men not versed in their languages. This could be termed as miracle gifts of languages. They were given actual existing human languages.

In Acts chapter 10 Peter goes to the house of Cornelius and preaches the gospel of the Jewish Messiah to gentiles and the Holy Spirit evidently again gave gifts of miracle languages. Peter defends his preaching to the Gentiles by referring to the fact that the same phenomena occurred as had occurred to them at Pentecost (Acts 11:15). These were then existing human languages.

In Acts chapter 19 Paul came upon some converts of John the Baptist. These may have been already saved under the OT economy but needed to know the message of the Jewish Messiah and believe in Him now that he had come and died for their sins. There was again the phenomena of a miracle of languages given. Since this is recorded by Luke without further comment we may assume that this phenomena was the same as that recorded earlier by Luke in chapters two and ten. This then was most likely actual human languages.

So far we have no Angelic languages or Heavenly prayer languages.

We have then, three NT occurrences of miracle languages. All appear to be known human languages. All were connected to the proclamation of the gospel of the Messiah to special people groups. First, Jews from all over the empire, then gentiles, and third followers of the OT message of John the Baptist received the gospel. All were evidently given a miraculous phenomena to authenticate the gospel of the Jewish Messiah. From a historical perspective we have three occurrences of miracle languages in the NT in Acts.

Then comes the gift of languages mentioned as occurring historically but within the context of a teaching passage. That sole teaching passage on miracle languages is of course at 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14. Here, in the midst of a geographical assembly of Christians, there is evidently an emphasis on manifesting gifts given by the Holy Spirit, and a special emphasis on the gift of miracle languages or tongues. The whole passage involving chapters 12 through 14 appears obviously written with the purpose of deemphasizing the seeking of Spiritual gifts and of leveling the playing field so that no one gift is seen as desirable above another. So the purpose is clearly not to promote "tongues" but to minimize their importance and temporarily regulate. Yet, this is looked at as the passage, along with the Acts occurrences, upon which the whole Pentecostal, Charismatic, and third wave movements are built. Now we have Heavenly prayer languages and Angelic languages as alleged to regularly given to all who shall seek. We have allowed a passage that deemphasizes something to be allowed to promote the very thing it deemphasizes. Some continuationists allow this to be so as they focus on the specific of tongues perhaps ceasing in the future and not during the church age. They then fail to denounce the present Charismatic movement because they fail to see that regardless of their exegesis on 13:8-13, the entire three chapters emphasis gives no place for the present day continuationism as practiced by the Charismatics and Pentecostals. Many then give some credence to the present day movements by focusing on this specific smaller portion while not giving proper value to the broad context. Regardless of when one postulates that the declared ceasing and vanishing of tongues and prophecy will occur, the entire passage is against any movements emphasizing those gifts and giving undue emphasis to any gifts.

It can be said with clear dogmatism that there is not one bit of scripture to support the present day manifestations of continuing tongues and prophecy. With that it can also be said that the rest of the manifestations and claims of the movement offer nothing but deceit and even heresy. Do away with these movements and you have no one left to defend with continuationism. From present day tongues miracle occurrences springs the faith healing, name it and claim it, prosperity gospel, words of knowledge and prophecy, and other such phenomena and claims. It is all part of the alleged present manifestations of the Spirit. It is a large part of the reason why continuationism exists in evangelicalism as a doctrine.

. Since the Azusa Street occurrences in a Black church from 1906 to 1913, many have been persuaded to seek the miracle of language gifting or tongues and accompanying miracles. This rapidly spread among many whites who left churches and started new ones. The Assemblies of God were established in 1914. Thus the Pentecostal movement was born. The racial issue is mentioned because in those days there was wide spread prejudice, even in Southern California. Some have said that this crossing of racial lines was an evidence of God being in the movement. This is interesting. A Black Pastor friend of mine, who also taught part time at Talbot, said he has studied this as much as possible and does not feel the church at Azusa Street was really preaching the true gospel. It was an emotional Jesus message. He offered the opinion that most among whom the original tongues outbreak occurred may not have been born again. It was just an emotional spiritual experience to them. He claims this has been, and continues to be, a problem in many Black churches.

If one looks at the big picture with regard to the Corinthian teaching passage, it appears to me it must be admitted that it was written to deemphasize and regulate tongues. But, more than that, Paul in chapter 13 de emphasizes all spiritual gifts and makes them subservient and less desirable than a character trait called "love." Spirit manifestation in Christian love is desirable above all. Characteristics of this love are given. One of those is that love "rejoices in the truth." It seems to me that many in the continuation movement have advocated a love that minimizes the truth and then seek to label as arrogant or unloving any who seek to claim the movement is not biblical or seek to cite the objective evidence gathered that reveals the fraud and deceit of the present day Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. This kind of pressure has been applied in the greater evangelical community for some decades now. The result has been an increasing attitude that minimizes the special nature of Biblical miracles and revelation and that is less willing to interpret scripture in a way that may criticize so called brothers in Christ. The bottom line result is that many are willing to minimize the statement of 1Cor. 13:8 that tongues and prophecy will cease and pass away. All sorts of non contextual theories are brought to bear on the passage. The person of Christ or His coming are often mentioned but not in the context. Instead, these temporal manifestations are in a context where this ceasing and passing away will be in contrast to temporal Spirit manifestations and then "faith, hope, and love" that will remain. Remain where? Obviously in the geographical assembly he is writing to. Has he not just stated to them to seek love above all? Then in chapter 14 Paul continues with the present status of the assembly with regard to requirements they should have while tongues are still being practiced. As then practiced, he makes the phenomena less desirable than meaningful prophecy. Why all the controversy of continuationism v. cessationism? Because there are many who cannot or will not take a definite stand against the present Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. It has come be to more acceptable to be tolerant of those who differ. However, in this case the Charismatic movement does continual immeasurable harm to the Gospel and Christ while we fail to speak loudly and clearly against them.

I appreciate the article by Mark Snoeberger and his endeavoring to stand clearly against the continuation doctrine and the harm it causes by giving some credibility to the present day Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. My only difference would be his passing by the weight of the arguments of the Corinthian passage because he perceived it as now being a minority argument.

Fundamentalism involves cessationism. The original Fundamentalists did not speak loudly or much against Pentecostalism because their focus was on faith essentials and it was not a very large or threatening movement. But they did speak against it. R.A Torrey, who held to a separate Baptism of the Spirit did contrast it to the new views and tongues. All had no place for the new movement. As Fundamentalism progressed as a movement, all who claimed the title gave no place to continuationism in their churches or elsewhere. Today, I do not believe you can classify yourself as a Fundamentalist and acknowledge the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement as having any validity. Also, if that is so, there is no reason for a Fundamentalist to embrace the concept of continuationism. If they insist they are Fundamentalist and do so, it would be but an empty optional theory with no support in present practice. In my opinion, the minute one advocates or acknowledges any validity in the Charismatic movement they move away from true Fundamentalism.

Aaron, sorry you feel that way about my approach to this matter.

Regarding my approach to this matter. In my subsequent post I give my perspective on the handling of the 1 Cor. 11 to 14 passage and that some have essentially ignored context to shunt the ceasing of tongues off to another time. Some of this may be due to the lack of Spiritual backbone by some academics. We can see that some we call scholars are not the most rigorous in standing against pressure to be accepted. This is seen regarding the present thread on SI about some alleged renown OT scholars such as Waltke and Creationism. I believe I have seen the cave in by several scholars, Pastors, and missioligists on the tongues, signs and wonders movement. Peter Wagner of Fuller Seminary was a church growth and Missions specialist. In the 1970s and 80s he hypothesized the signs and wonders gospel movement with claims that such were present in some missions work outside our western culture. Soon there were stories going around of all the wonders. Problem is they were checked out by some and just were not verifiable. A local Missionary Alliance church had several missionaries with stories. They actually checked them out and ended up dropping the missionaries and dropping out of the CMA denomination. They are today a growing independent church of 800 called Faith Community Church. Today I see this signs and wonders missionary hypothesis even being proclaimed by a few who claim to be "Fundamentalists." To me it is like last decades newspaper. Many who cave in for tolerance of Charismatics and signs and wonders are often attempting to be more open, or perceived as more scholarly, or more loving.

As far as what you said about a lack of evidence only proving present reality. I agree. But unless you have a new fangled time machine that is what reality is - the present! And that is what we're talking about. The reality of present practice does not prove scripture but it must not be contrary to scripture.

Richard Pejak, I reply to your reply to my post as follows: (Your posts in bold type)

"The topic under discussion is about tongues so the fact that "it's all about tongues" is self evident. The Holy Spirit's operating today however is not "all about tongues". Opponents would like to characature it as such but what it is all about is simply the Holy Spirit moving among His people as described in Scripture....Or so it is as a continuationist looks at it. These kinds of things were occurring before Azusa St. If one majors on tongues then one is unbalanced in ones perception. All the gifts of the Spirit are to be received without necessarily imposing (in my view) a strict hierarchical order unless Scripture dictates. "

First, most continuationists do not claim "these things" were occurring before Azusa Street. A few Pentecostals have. But the more informed have backed off of such claims. You need to read Vinson Synon, "The Holiness Pentecostal Movement." He was a Pentecostal leader and a well respected historian of the movement. Other than little known Charles F. Parham, he sees no prior tongue speaking. He traces the tongues movement as rising out of the 19th century Holiness movement where tongues were not practiced. You indicate that the Holy Spirit operating today is not all about tongues. All would agree to that. The only NT admonition to "be filled with the Spirit" does not mention any Spiritual gifts at all. It is at Eph. 5:18 and puts Spirit filling (control) in the context of the Husband wife relationship and also children and work. It involves character not gifts. I preached on this passage and its meaning to a Charismatic RV group. They promptly asked me to never come back again and called me a heretic. I did not even bring in the tongues or their view into the discussion. They were offended that I thought one could be filled with the Spirit without mentioning speaking in tongues. Are these the kind of things you allege were happening before Azusa Street? I take it then that you acknowledge the validity of the Pentecostal experience and viewpoint. Is that so?

"I can imagine if you were around in Jesus day that you may have been equally as sceptical of what He did and found plausible reasons for denying that His works were genuine and if you were were in Jerusalem at the time of the outpouring of the Spirit you may well have joined in the sceptical comments as you heard the disciples speaking in foreign tongues.
From your present vantage point of being a believer in Christ you might deny that if you had been there that you would have been sceptical but you would have no basis for believing otherwise.
I can imagine that even if you had someone before you who had been healed and the healing had been medically verified yet that you would find some reason to denounce it or like the world to rationalise it. Whenever anyone is healed it brings glory to the Lord. There are 1000s of everyday believers who are continuationists and who may exercise the gifts they have who by their lives contribute to the glory of God. Bringing glory to God is not the sole prerogative of cessationists."

In answer to this let me say that of course I would believe and accept all that Jesus and the Apostles did as I do so today. I believe and affirm all the miracles and phenomena of the Bible. I am a believer in Christ as my savior. However, the nature and type of biblical miracles are far different from the healing and miracle claims of most all today. I have been healed twice of Cancer. God used all the scientific and medical knowledge he has allowed us to discover. He used the training and wisdom of Physicians. All physical healing is of God. He is also able to answer the prayer for healing and always does so according to His will and plan. That has little to do with the approach of the present day healing movement. In an RV (Recreation Vehicle) group we attended for a while, two persons prayed and claimed healing and then testified that they knew God had healed them of Cancer as others had agreed with them in prayer. At another meeting six months later, they praised God for His healing. At the next meeting six months later they were not there. In spite of surgery and Chemo they had died of their Cancer. I had refused to claim healing and only asked that God do what He sought best. God used surgery and Chemo. He may have also intervened otherwise, I do not know. However I am alive ten years later. However, of course a time will come when God will say no and I will die. As will all. Richard, most cessationists believe that most Spiritual gifts are operative. They also believe God answers prayer for the sick. However, they believe some gifts are no longer operative and that we can't demand or claim healing. Your statement appears to be as one who acknowledges the faith healing and and name it and claim it concepts of the Charismatics. Do you really believe that Oral Robert (now deceased) and Benny Hinn were and are healing people?

"It is a very sweeping statement to imply that all continuationists proclaim a non saving prosperity gospel...you might as well say that JWs are an offshoot of cessationist gospel preaching."

Richard, first I did not say "all." However one can legitimately say "many." Their have been two very informative articles in "Christianity Today" recently. One was on the wide spread and devastating effect of the preaching of the health and wealth Gospel in Africa. Many are hearing a false gospel and being converted to a promise of prosperity rather than the believing in Christ for forgiveness of sin and salvation. Another major article stated the same about Christianity in South America. If you don't want to believe these articles by Christian leaders in those areas, then just turn on your TV to TBN or even other Christian channels. The evidence is obvious and extensive. The health and wealth gospel comes only from Charismatics and is increasingly more popular with them.

Characterizing the opposition as lacking common sense is using a belittling argument as cover for the blatantly false assertion that there is anything "totally obvious" in Scripture.
Politicians do the same, assassinating the integrity, character and motives of their opponents.

The term "common sense" refers to a world view and thinking process. It does not refer to integrity, character, or motive. It is a term referring to a common expectation that we have that people acknowledge the reality of evidence or facts and that they draw conclusions that recognize the obvious. There is a sense common to all of normal thinking ability. There is a book out by a lawyer titled "The Death of Common Sense, " He states that American culture has lost an ability to think as clearly as it once could. From a philosophical standpoint this has to do with the rise of existentialism in the universities in the sixties (we now call it postmodernity) and laid the foundation for the moral relativism of todays culture. This lack of common sense also laid the foundation of the rise of the Charismatic movement. Pentecostalism broke out into the broader evangelical culture. Today we have many (not all) who lack the ability to think clearly. We even call some of them scholars. I believe that we do have scholars who in key areas have rejected the obvious, and come up with detailed arguments which assert the not so obvious. We now have a thread on SI which is regarding renown OT scholars and their advocating the necessity of accepting evolution and rejecting simple creationism. There are more than just a little of this among evangelical scholars today. Some Fundamentalists want to be accepted as knowledgeable and may fail to point out this kind of scholarship for what it is.

Richard, I have answered your remarks. You state you are a continuationist. However, you seem to also be defending the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements and their miracle and healing claims. Are you Charismatic? If not, to what degree do you accept their claims?
Thank you for your interaction.

Possibly you might want to consider the platform on which you assert your strong rejection.

It is a rather difficult position for one to proclaim their rejection of an argument by someone whose argument is first, incomplete seeing this is a series, secondly it is based in a fair amount of scholarship and a consistent hermeneutic and thirdly the person making this immediate rejection admits they, themselves, have a diminished view of their own scholarship and theological training.

This does not make one unable to respond or their views without merit but your basis for dismissal so early is immodest, particularly when, if indeed you have a diminished view of your scholarship and theological training and you are reading a proposal by one whose argument is based in a consistent hermeneutic and fair scholarship your first response is to proclaim your lack of being convinced. By what measure do you claim this if indeed, as you have revealed, your own lacking debilitates your articulations and approach? I certainly do not see any rebuttal based in a demonstration of some fault with Snoeberger's hermeneutic? Where is his exegesis faulty?

Hi again Bob,
It doesn't matter to me what other continuationists believe( I have never liked following the crowd) as there will always be disagreements to some degree as there will be in the cessationist camp.
I have to make my own decision based on Scripture.
As I understand it the Roman church persecuted people who displayed anything of the Spirit that didn't fit in with their system so it seems that spiritual gifts were suppressed by the very church to whom it was meant to be a blessing.
It is possible, I think, to be filled with the Spirit and not speak in tongues or neccessarily have the other expressions of the Spirit (though I am happy for God to prove me wrong)
From Scripture itself it would be duishonest of me to deny the validity of the pentecostal experience both in the past and in the present. Though there are different emphases among the pentecostal branches just as there are are among cessationist groups.
I wouldn't be overly concerned about being called a heretic, after all continuationists are constantly being accused of this by hard line cessationists...they just get used to this as one of the default positions of the more zealous cessationists.
Regarding faith healing, I prefer to call it divine healing or God healing as faith healing has acquired negative associations like "psychologically induced" as well as detracting from the fact that it is God who heals.
I can't say I have studied Roberts or Hinn but they will be known by their fruits and God will be judge.
Being English I have a hard time listening to some American preachers who tend to be noisy and flamboyantly over-emotional so someone like Hinn I don't warm to. Kathryn Kuhlman I could listen to all day but not Benny.
As to naming and claiming well I wish I had the faith to do so but the Lord hasn't blessed me with that kind of faith but from Scripture I must believe that there is available a kind of faith that, in Christ's words, can remove mountains or that anything asked will be done for you.
It seems illogical and an excuse for failing that test of faith if I were to argue it away saying it doesn't mean what it says or that it is not relevant today.
So name and claim sits uneasy with me but I am willing to concede that this may be down to a lack of faith on my part.
I am not into the health and wealth gospel myself.
With regard to the issue of common sense, well, the evolutionist would use exactly the same argument against you saying that you deny the obvious evidence and they would accuse you of not exercising common sense.
It is often not any evidence that decides ones view but rather the interpretation of that evidence.
It is possible to have the same evidence but come to totally different conclusions.
I believe that God brought about the pentecostal renewal to revive a weak church and renewed the other operations of the Spirit.
I believe that God uses people, some in healing, some in preaching, some in evangelism etc
I see no shame or reason to apologise for defending the charismatic renewal or pentecostalism while at the same time acknowledging that all flesh is fallible and capable of going astray and corrupting what God wants to do.
I know that especially from my own frailties.
I fail to heed Pauls injunction to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts. I do however desire more of a vital relationship with God for if I am close to Him then I will have everything (in that closeness) that I could ever want...His very presence.

Ted... about post #19 http://sharperiron.org/article/are-tongues-for-today-part-2#comment-13174
That's got to me one of the most thorough answers to an "I'm not sure" I've ever seen. Thanks. I'm still not completely convinced (I think I can "explain away" most of those... but there may some I can't and my explainings might be pretty weak too), but when I get time to sit down and figure it out, I'm going to look for your post.

Here are some of the linguistic studies of religious tongues speaking. These studies include a few thousand recordings and include analysis done on missions fields.

1. Eugene Nida, secretary of translations for the American Bible society has headed up studies staring in the 1960s. The conclusion was: 'the phonemic strata indicates that the phonemes of glossolia utterances are closely associated with the language background of the speakers native language. There are not enough phonemes to have even the most primitive language known.

2. William J. Samarin PHD, of the University of Toronto headed the most extensive study group. He is generally recognized as the foremost expert on Pentecostal glossolia. Their samples were taken over a five year period and from several countries . Their description of glossolia as meaningless utterance having structure from the speakers native language. The phonemes present no organized or consistent pattern so as to be meaningful communication.

3. Other studies were headed up by the following linguists and their teaching universities: William Welmers, PHD, UCLA; Herbert Stahike, PHD, Georgia State University; James Jaquith, Washington University; Ernest Bryant and Daniel O'Connell, St. Louis University; Donald Larson, PHD, Bethel College.

The conclusions of linguists are basically the same. There was no meaningful communication possible.

Some Christians have maintained the possibility of the gift of tongues on mission fields and/or out of western culture, Such claims have been made from time to time since the 1960s. Linguistic studies of such occurrences are included in the above studies. It has not been verified as anything but nonsense syllables from the native language structure of the speaker.

What about Phillip the evangelist?

Not only was he not identified as an apostle (he was one of the seven appointed deacons-Acts 6:5), but he also performed miracles outside the presence of the apostles when preaching to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-8). Furthermore, he had four daughters that prophesied (Acts 21). It seems quite clear that Phillip and his daughters do not fit in with Mark's theory that one had to be in the apostle's presence to practice the sign gifts in the early church (unless I am not understanding Mark correctly).

The supernatural giving of languages was connected to the Jews and was a sign for them. This is seen at Is. 28:11-12. This somewhat obscure reference is in a context of the Jewish people rejecting God's revelatory teaching and then the ultimate rejection of their Messiah (Is: 28:16-22). The principle of God using supernatural languages as a sign for the unbelieving Jew is stated by Paul at 1Cor. 14: 20-22. He cites the Isaiah passage. This also appears to be involved with the supernatural languages given at Acts 2, 10, and 19. In each case unbelievers have a supernatural authenticating of the Gospel of the Jewish Messiah.

At Romans 3: 1-2 Paul gives a very important privilege of the Jewish people. It is "to them were committed the oracles of God." (NKJV). "were committed" is the Aorist. Act. Ind. of pisteuw. This indicates an entrusting or reliance upon for something. "Oracle" is the word "logigos" which was used of the pagan religious oracles who would speak and alleged their spoken words were in fact the very words of their god (falsely of course). The Jews were given the privilege of being entrusted with the very spoken words (revelation) of God. Most commentators, in keeping with the European deemphasis of the Jewish nature of Christianity, make casual passing comments ascribing this privilege to the OT. However, if one looks at the progress of Gospel proclamation and its foundation, it is seen as progressing with Jewish credentials of authenticating verified supernaturally by the sign gift of tongues.

At about 1977 to 1979 Robert D. Culver wrote an article (have it in files somewhere) that was in Bib. Sac. regarding the qualifications of an Apostle of Christ (in contrast to just a general use of the word of apostles (sent ones) of a church. He gave twelve qualifications of the twelve Apostles of Christ that were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:19-22). Among the qualifications was the fact that they must be Jewish. The oracles of God continued to be committed to the Jews through the Apostles. All the NT scriptures except, Luke and Acts, are written by jews. Luke may have been selected as the sole gentile author as he gives the transition narrative of the Gospel being taken from the exclusive custody of the Jews and given also to the Gentiles. However, his Gospel and Acts are accepted as scripture because they were authenticated by Paul and later other Apostles.
The inscripturation and authentication of the NT was a product of the Jewish Apostles.

When we come to the gift of tongues being exercised in the assembly at Corinth, we have Paul relating it to the statement by Isaiah and making it a Jewish related phenomena. It is sated clearly to be a sign for the unbeliever (1 Cor. 14:20-22). Gentiles spoke in tongues at Act 10. But it was a sign also for the Jews as Peter relates at Acts 11:15-17. Therefore any revelation given through the gift of tongues at the Corinthian assembly, would be valid only so long as it had some Apostolic authentication. They need not be present, but the revelation would not have continuing authority without Apostolic approval. This could be one reason why the broader passage (chapters 12 to 14) first diminishes the importance of one gift above another in chapter 12, then makes all gifts subservient to the Christian character of love in chapter 13. He then also speaks to the enduring nature of love in the church and the temporal nature of prophecy and tongues, and the knowledge that comes from those gifts. He makes a clear declaration that prophecy will be abolished, tongues will cease, and knowledge (presumably from those gifts) will also be abolished. This passing away is in contrast to the love the assembly is to seek and the characteristics of faith hope and love that will remain in Christian assemblies (13:13). This passing away is also connected with a coming concept of something that is mature or more complete. The adjective telios can mean "perfect" or be that which is seen as more relative, or complete in contrast, or mature. The illustration contrasting infancy and maturity in vv. 11-12 would seem to make this as not an event or person involving perfection but a state of maturity or completeness in contrast to the less partial which is less mature. All this gains better clarity when one keeps the larger context of chapters 12 to 14 in view, and then brings in the theological principle involved with the Jewish nature of revelation, and the role of the Apostles. They were Christ's Jewish emissaries on earth who were also the foundation of the new Jewish and Gentile assembly (church) established by the Messiah Himself. There is therefore no place for tongues or prophecy without the "umbrella" of the Apostles. They are the authenticators of all truth and revelation to the church. When the Apostles pass from the scene, so do signs and wonders. Signs and wonders are connected with the Apostles (2Cor.12:12) and occur confirming them and their message (Heb. 2:1-4).

When Mark Snoeberger mentions that the majority of commentators do not see the 1 Corinthian passage as supporting cessationism, he may be right. However, many commentators are Reformed and have an orientation away from the Jewishness of Christian foundations. This may make them ignore the Jewish orientation of the tongues phenomena in scripture. Some earlier Reformed theologians were cessationists. However, there may be a trend by them away from this. Also, as I stated earlier, there is pressure in evangelical circles toward greater toleration of doctrine. This has had a definite effect on the academia of many evangelical seminaries. It appears to me that the majority do not offer very compelling reasons to see the "perfect" or "completeness" occurring in a future event or person still in the sweet by and by to the church. The broader context and immediate context appears to offer compelling evidence that we should not look any further than the time when the assemblies of Christ are still in existence but Apostolic sign gifts have ceased. It also fits well with the necessity of the presence of Apostles on earth. Some see the continuation of prophecy and Apostles by simply generalizing the terms and diminishing the unique Apostolic requirements and their connection to sign gifts and prophecy.

The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements that exists involve claims of present day tongues, prophecy, signs, and wonders and even Apostleship. They do so without having any Apostolic authentication of those called personally by Christ and with Him from the beginning (Acts 1:21-26). They rest on the same basis as most cults with post Apostolic revelation and even their own newer scriptures.. They also have the same basis as the KJVO or Divine Greek text advocates. They all seek and claim post Apostolic authority. This authority involves continuationism. Continuationism is not just that gifts are operative today,. It is that all gifts are operative along with the signs and wonders they are involved in. It is that they allow for these to occur post Apostolic. It also logically would allow for new revelation and scripture being given post Apostolic, and in the period of the church and prior to the coming "Day of the Lord."

One cannot be a historic Fundamentalist and a continuationist.

No, it will be the substance we answer for at the judgment, not the shorthand. The label is just shorthand since it's awkward to repeat the movements beginning and stands etc. every time we want to refer to it.
Bob's point is that it's significant that the set of beliefs fundamentalists were united around do not include continuationism. I'm not sure he's entirely right about that, but the role of early Pentecostals in the movement was certainly not a large one and other kinds of continuationism have had almost no representation in fundamentalism since then. (Seems to me that started changing some in maybe the 1980s)

I am not sure if the men to whom you are prescribing such a casual and careless approach in their study, exposition, exegesis and theological development are men about whom you have taken the time to investigate but may I suggest that before you impose such a minimizing dismissal of the integrity of their studies and the process, you take the time to discover who they are and their background, men such as (just to name a handful of many more like these men):

and then, after this see if you might want to reconsider whether they can fairly be reduced to teachers who "absorb the teachings and traditions passed on...without questioning whether these teachings are as infallible as they are made out to be" and that they simply have "absorbed cessationist ideas", if so it would be surprising to hear your justification for such a characterization after such research into their qualifications and work. I realize you have your body of belief but your strokes of dismissal are quite heavy and at quite a distance. It behooves us all to be a bit more reticent to the impulse to sweep such large groups of well studied men into disqualifying categories so that we do not have to attend to their instruction lest we be forced to discover something misaligned in our own thinking.

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-neo-montanism.htm

G. Campbell Morgan described the Azusa Street activities as "the last vomit of Satan." ("From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire" by Michael L. Brown, pages 197&198)

I agree with others that the argument that sign gifts pertained to apostles needs some shoring up or clarification. Concerning Paul's argument in 2 Cor 12:1-12, it could be that Paul's argument was one of quantity, not quality. Perhaps most believers were given a sign or two (including tongues), but only apostles were given sign in such great amount and variety. So Paul's argument for his apostleship didn't rest solely on his speaking in tongues (lots did that), but on the amount that he spoke (more than others) and on the various other powerful signs he was given.

You suggest that sign gifts belonged to apostles and those in their umbra. But that brings up two problems:
1) Various teachers in early church history claimed apostolic tradition. We can, even now, claim to be teaching in the tradition of the apostles. This we do. Couldn't a similar claim be used my modern continuationists to claim to be in Paul's umbra?
2) The umbrella idea hurts your argument based on 2 Cor 12. The umbrella system states that many people besides the Apostle were given tongues. That would make Paul's argument, read as you depicted, was insufficient for his purpose. Paul would only be able to use it to argue that he was either an apostle OR under the umbrella of one.

One other point that might be of interest. I myself believe that the "perfect" is the end-the return of Christ. I think that is pretty clear from the Text. But Eusebius remarks that it is the Canon.