Are Tongues for Today? Part 2
Originally published as a single article: “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” DBSJ 14 (2009). Part 1 explained the need for revisiting the tongues issue, defined key terms, and summarized the history of tongues-speaking.
An argument for cessationism
How, then, is this new, more careful continuationist to be answered? There are, after all, many descriptive texts in favor of tonguesspeaking in the NT, and even prescriptive texts that detail the proper practice of tongues in the church. Could it be that the continuationist who allows his experience to skew his exegesis has a counterpart in the cessationist who allows non-experience (or perhaps better, his rationalism) to skew his exegesis?1 Those who argue thusly are not without some warrant, and the cessationist does well to hear them. The dismissal of glossolalia because it is not “normal” to our postenlightenment sensibilities proves too much,2 and certainly cannot substitute for careful theological argumentation. This being said, however, I do believe that a careful theological argument for cessationism can be mustered.
The quest for an elusive proof text
Perhaps the easiest way to argue a point of theology or practice is to cite a concrete text or set of texts that unambiguously affirms the point to be made. Some, in fact, will accept nothing less than such a proof text. For cessationists in this category, 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 reigns as the end-all argument for cessationism. I do allow for the possibility that this passage argues for cessationism in the present age; however, I am also keenly aware that the two interpretations that argue thusly are minority positions that must compete with a formidable alternative interpretation that is held by the majority. To be specific, the point of cessation in this text, viz., the arrival of the “perfect” (v. 10)3 may possibly be the completion of the canon4 or the maturation of the church,5 but more probably refers to the state of affairs that accompanies the revelation of Jesus Christ to the believer either at the point of physical death or at the Second Advent—a revelation that immediately renders all lesser forms of revelation unnecessary. This final view is the majority view among modern commentators and the virtually unanimous understanding of continuationists;6 further, it is the preference of not a few cessationists.7 The latter would argue that the revelatory gifts will finally cease at the revelation of Jesus Christ, but are presently in a state of suspension (as is the case in much of biblical history) due to theological factors other than the message of 1 Corinthians 13.
In short, despite the great furor that surrounds this passage, the argument for cessationism does not rise or fall on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 alone. Further, the formidable exegetical case against this “proof text” for cessationism virtually guarantees that this passage alone will not convince skeptics. So while I allow the possibility that this passage might argue for the cessationist position, I am convinced that the more prudent course of action for the cessationist is to pursue a more robustly exegetical-theological argument for cessationism. This concession will no doubt scandalize some, but broad appeal to the analogy of faith instead of a single text does not, in my opinion, weaken the cessationist argument; instead, it deepens and strengthens it.
The argument from the nature of tongues as “signs of an apostle”
One of the foremost gifts given to the early church was the gift of apostleship—a gift that takes pride of place on at least two NT gift lists (Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28). The priority of apostleship is primarily temporal in nature, but there also seems to be a suggestion that this gift carries with it a broader scope of responsibility and authority than any of the other gifts. Specifically to our discussion, apostles are described in 2 Corinthians 12:12 as arbiters of the miraculous gifts (viz., signs, wonders, and miracles) such that these are denominated “signs of a true apostle.” If this designation is to have any meaning at all, it follows that we should not regard miraculous gifts (including tongues) as the property of all believers or of believers in every era. These are not signs of a true believer, but signs of a true apostle—phenomena exercised “by virtue of the presence and activity of the apostles…under an ‘apostolic umbrella,’ so to speak.”8
This being the case, the obvious follow-up question is whether the gift of apostleship continues today, a question that is increasingly answered in the negative today, even by continuationists. An apostle, by definition, is one who has been “given the legal power to represent another” so as to be “as the man himself,”9 an astonishing authority that the early church regarded with extreme sobriety. In keeping with the practice of the period, apostleship could only be awarded directly by the one whom the apostle represented—in this case, Christ himself. Great emphasis is placed on Christ’s appointment of the apostles (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:12; Acts 1:2; 10:41); even Paul, the “untimely born” apostle (1 Cor 15:8), was insistent that his apostleship could not have been had by any indirect agency (Gal 1:1).10 When the disciples sought to replace Judas as apostle, they expressed a compulsion to find someone who was an actual eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21–22), a qualification that, again, Paul regarded as absolutely essential to apostleship (1 Cor 9:1; 15:7–9).11 In order even to be eligible for apostleship, it would thus seem, one must have had literal contact with Christ during his earthly ministry, both seeing and hearing Christ physically. This understanding, which expressly limits the apostolic office to the first century, is furthered by the fact that the apostolic office, together with the prophetic office, is regarded as foundational of the church (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14).
In view of these exegetical considerations, the trend among more cautious continuationists today is to concede that the apostolic office no longer exists.12 This is a welcome reflection of fidelity to Scripture that we should celebrate. It raises, however, a theological corollary that cessationists do well to pursue, for as Waldron incisively notes, “The admission that the apostolate has ceased is a fatal crack in the foundation of Continuationism.”13 Note the following:
The admission that apostolism has ceased is de facto an admission that spiritual giftedness in the church today differs from spiritual giftedness in the early church. At least one (and potentially more) of the gifts possessed then are not possessed today.
The admission that apostolism has ceased also seems to lead necessarily to the admission that the “signs of an apostle” must likewise have ceased—that is, unless one can find some new biblical basis and foundation for these gifts.14
The admission that apostolism has ceased, finally, militates strongly against the continuation of all forms of special revelation (including tongues). The significance of Christ’s direct appointment of apostles and his literal, physical interaction with them is related directly to the prerogative to receive and transmit divine revelation. The privilege of bearing authoritative witness to Christ is restricted explicitly to those who had been with Christ from the beginning, were eyewitnesses of Christ’s earthly ministry, and who had been commissioned by him (Luke 1:2; John 15:26–27; Acts 10:39–41; 1 John 1:1–3). Direct, divine revelation in the early church was always channeled through apostles, either directly or by apostolic influence.
In summary, fidelity to the scriptural conception of apostleship, together with the necessary conclusion therefrom that the apostolic office is no longer active, casts a shadow of suspicion over all historical appeals to NT practice for the continuation of tongues.
Editor’s note: Part 3 will offer arguments from the purpose of tongues as attesting new revelation and as kingdom markers.
Notes
1 So, for instance, Craig Keener, Gift & Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p. 13 et passim.
2 That is, taken to its logical end, such a posture argues against all Christian supernaturalism, and thrusts the cessationist into the dubious company of theological liberalism, past and present.
3 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture citations in this article are drawn from the New American Standard Bible, updated ed. (1995).
4 So e.g., R. Bruce Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8–13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” DBSJ 9 (2004): 97–144; Merrill Unger, The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), pp. 138–45; Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles? pp. 30–36; Myron J. Houghton, “A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8–13,” BSac 153 (July–September 1996): 344–56.
5 So, e.g., F. David Farnell, “When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?” BSac 150 (April–June 1993): 171–202; Robert L. Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), pp. 77–84; Donald G. McDougall, “Cessationism in 1 Cor 13:8–12,” TMSJ 14 (Fall 2003): 207–13.
6 So D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), pp. 66–76; Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev.ed. (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 2000), pp. 227–52 et passim; Keener, Gift & Giver, pp. 105–7; Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 207–8.
7 See, e.g., Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, pp. 243–46; Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost, pp. 109–12; Stanley D. Toussaint, “First Corinthians Thirteen and the Tongues Question,” BSac 120 (October–December 1963): 311–16; R. Fowler White, “Richard Gaffin and Wayne Grudem on 1 Cor 13:10: A Comparison of Cessationist and Noncessationist Argumentation,” JETS 35 (June 1992): 173– 81.
8 Richard B. Gaffin, “A Cessationist View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? p. 39. Gaffin rejects Warfield’s understanding that miraculous gifts were exercised only by those upon whom the apostles personally laid hands as too “mechanical.” The extent of the exercise of tongues in the NT (and especially as described at Corinth) seems to bear out Gaffin’s broader understanding. See Acts 2:43; 8:18.
9 Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, 2nd rev. ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1988), p. 14.
10 Replying to the objection that Christ did not appoint Matthias to the office of apostle, two possible answers emerge: (1) some suggest that his appointment was not sanctioned by Christ and thus illegitimate (i.e., Matthias was not really an apostle); but more likely, (2) Christ instructed the eleven to appoint a replacement and then confirmed that appointment directly by lot (Acts 1:26). In this case Christ did not directly appoint Matthias to his apostolate, but was intimately involved in the selection process.
11 One might even argue from 1 Cor 15:8 that Paul considered himself to be not only the least but also the last of the apostles. The fact that he was the last to see Christ, and one who received his apostleship “abnormally” (NIV) strongly suggests that there are no other apostles.
12 See, e.g., Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pp. 906, 911; Carson, Showing the Spirit, pp. 91, 156; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, pp. 191–92. Exceptions to this general rule exist within the conservative evangelical world, most notably Sovereign Grace Ministries, over which C. J. Mahaney presides (see http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/ChurchPlanting/ApostolicCare.aspx), but they are relatively rare.
13 Waldron, To Be Continued? p. 23. This point represents Waldron’s thesis and the starting point from which all his arguments for cessationism flow in a linear fashion.
14 As we shall see, it is, in fact, the tack of many of today’s “open but cautious” continuationists to find a new biblical basis for tongues. More and more regularly, defenses of continuationism appeal not backward to the apostolic period, but forward to the eschaton, which is making rearward inroads into the present. This represents an important shift in the continuationist argument that demands a correlate shift in the cessationist defense. See part three.
Mark Snoeberger has served as Director of Library Services at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1997, and as a part-time instructor here since 1999. Prior to coming on staff at DBTS, he served for three years as an assistant pastor. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from DBTS in 1999 and 2001, respectively. Dr. Snoeberger earned the Ph.D. in systematic theology in 2008 from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. He provides pulpit supply for area churches on an active basis and teaches in the Inter-City Bible Institute. He and his wife, Heather, have two sons, Jonathan and David.
- 144 views
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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.
As I perceive it you have to try to argue away the plain teaching of Scripture in order for your argument to look reasonable.
Richard Pajak
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
In its meaning as messenger or someone sent out then the term seems to have an even wider application. I am wary of anyone who themselves proclaim to be an apostle( but I claim no discernment to back up this wariness) simply because it looks as if they are boastful of having a superior position but for others to use the term of someone else I am okay with that for example Smith Wigglesworth was called the “apostle of faith” because of his distinctive ministry.
So it seems to me that it has a primary meaning as well as secondary meanings nevertheless whichever view I had I cannot see that either would impinge on whether tongues or the other gifts were for today or not
Richard Pajak
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?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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?
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?
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?
OK , I surrender too. Take me to the tongues speaker, the miracle worker, and also to the prophet. Just where are they? Before we give in any further please find them. As a 70 year old Christian saved in the Navy, witnessed much of this phenomena, having several years of language study, and as a lawyer, I have asked for and sought out the continuation evidence many times. The answers have not shown any continuation of biblical phenomena such as miracle language gifts, healing miracles, prophetic information or visions.
I have not bothered to offer any arguments from scripture or to reference the linguistic studies. I may do that in another post. However, why should I need any arguments? In court this is a non suit. No legitimate evidence exists for any ongoing tongues or other miracles. No arguments to the contrary are needed yet. Show me some real continuation phenomena.
[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.
Richard Pajak
[Aaron Blumer] 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.To state the gifts are CURRENTLY in a state of suspension has no Scriptural basis as even Snoeberger says the “perfect” MORE PROBABLY refers to the state of affairs that accompanies the revelation of Jesus to the believer at physical death or the second advent. If it is the second advent then surely it is reasonable to assume the gifts are still available.
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?
I would argue that the case for cessationism can take no comfort from 1 Corinthians 13 without bending it to match preconceived views.
His use of 2 Corinthians 12:12 seems to imply that the gifts are the sole property of the apostles. I take the view that these may indeed be the corroborating signs of an apostle but I cannot see where it even hints that non apostles are excluded from the exercise of these gifts.
Tongues are not the property of all believers(in my view)The Spirit distributes His gifts as He chooses.
He makes a big jump from saying these are “signs of a true apostle” to arrive at the conclusion that “it follows” that one should not regard miraculous gifts as the property of believers in every age because we no longer have apostles with us.
He asserts “the admission that apostolism has ceased, militates strongly against the continuation of all forms of revelation” But it seems to me this assertion is made on the erroneous conclusion(in my view) that he reached earlier in his prodigious mental leap when he said the gifts are purely apostolic gifts.
To me that is an awfully big leap
I disagree that divine revelation in the early church was always channeled through apostles.
The Lord spoke through Ananias in Acts 9:10 and through Agabus in Acts 11:27-28 and there were several with him who are called prophets. These were not apostles.
Is it not assumption(to fit a preconceived view) to say these prophets received their gifting through the apostolic laying on of hands.
Yet even if one were to concede that point does it not show that others besides the apostles were used by God’s Spirit in the exercise of spiritual gifts.
My view for continuation is based on Scripture irrespective of how common the execise of these gifts are. Even if no one claimed to be exercising these gifts in the present day to me that would not get round the Scripture that encourages us to seek the gifts.
Richard Pajak
[Mark Snoeberger] The admission that apostolism has ceased, finally, militates strongly against the continuation of all forms of special revelation (including tongues).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.
It is important to point out the relatively scarce biblical data in Acts for tongues. It is a good supporting argument for cessationism. Its a point that I, as your fellow cessationist, will grant you.
But someone who is a continuationist probably won’t.
They will walk you two books to the right and expect you to agree that tongues was not merely used to communicate the gospel in transitionary missionary contexts, but was also used regularly in the Corinthian church worship services (1 Cor. 14:23).
They will show you that Paul didn’t consider it a rarity, for for he took the better part of a chapter to regulate its usage. They’ll even show that Paul commended tongues speaking, for he could say, “I wish that you all spoke in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:5).
You might also reconsider your small point at the end, that tongues was not special revelation. Paul links it firmly with prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14.
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 passagesBob, this is more than a little arrogant and insulting. What do you think motivates “some whom we call theologians” to study the passage carefully? They are just trying to make alliances with Charismatics, I suppose? Good luck convincing everyone of that. If it were obvious, sincere and respected theologians and scholars by the scores (and all different backgrounds) would not see the need to try to figure it out.
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.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Now this sounds familiar! :)
(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.)
Dave Barnhart
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
[dcbii]You got me. I should have hat tipped. I suppose I’m guilty of “journalistic malfeasance.” J-)[Aaron Blumer]Now this sounds familiar! :)
(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.)
For those wondering…. http://sharperiron.org/filings/4-15-10/14608#comment-13009
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion