A Friday Filler
January 12th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Exactly one year ago, I compiled an article entitled “Cessationism’s Noble Lineage,” tracing cessationism throughout much of church history.
Because it’s already Friday and I don’t have my next real post ready yet, I am reproducing this article here at Pulpit. Please understand, it is not part of the primary case I am hoping to build for cessationism, which will have to wait until next week. But it is on topic, and it should create some discussion.
The article itself is a survey of Christian leaders throughout church history who have held to a cessationist view. As men who eagerly desired to understand the Word of God correctly, I believe their insights are valuable though, of course, not authoritative.
Here then are some thoughts on cessationism from some of church history’s leading theologians:
*****
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407):
This whole place [speaking about 1 Corinthians 12] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. [1]
*****
Augustine (354–430):
In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. [2]
*****
Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466):
In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. . . . Even in our time grace is given to those who are deemed worthy of holy baptism, but it may not take the same form as it did in those days. [3]
*****
Martin Luther (1483–1546):
[Rather than acknowledging the availability of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, as the spiritual enthusiasts of his time did, Luther (in his Large Catechism) defined the Holy Spirit’s gifts as:]
· the holy Christian Church,
· the communion of saints,
· the forgiveness of sins,
· the resurrection of the body, and
· the life everlasting[Thus in the Large Catechism, he writes:]
Learn this article, then, as clearly as possible. If you are asked, What do you mean by the words, “I believe in the Holy Spirit”? you can answer, “I believe that the Holy Spirit makes me holy, as his name implies.” How does he do this? By what means? Answer: “Through the Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” In the first place, he has a unique community in the world. It is the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God. The Holy Spirit reveals and preaches that Word, and by it he illumines and kindles hearts so that they grasp and accept it, cling to it, and persevere in it” [4]
[As The Encyclopedia of Religion concludes: “Both Luther and Calvin wrote that the age of miracles was over and that their occurrence should not be expected.”]
*****
John Calvin (1509–1564):
Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity. [5]
“…the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the preaching of the Gospel marvellous for ever.” [6]
*****
John Owen (1616–1683):
“Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, that dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion.” [7]
*****
Thomas Watson (c 1620–1686):
“Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ’s time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased.” [8]
*****
Matthew Henry (1662–1714):
What these gifts were is at large told us in the body of the chapter [1 Corinthians 12]; namely, extraordinary offices and powers, bestowed on ministers and Christians in the first ages, for conviction of unbelievers, and propagation of the gospel. [9]
The gift of tongues was one new product of the spirit of prophecy and given for a particular reason, that, the Jewish pale being taken down, all nations might be brought into the church. These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast, 2 Peter 1:29. [10]
*****
Conyers Middleton (1683–1750):
We have no sufficient reason to believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any such powers were continued to the church, after the days of the Apostles. [11]
*****
John Gill (1697–1771):
[Commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:9 and 30:]
Now these gifts were bestowed in common, by the Spirit, on apostles, prophets, and pastors, or elders of the church, in those early times: the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, “by one Spirit”. [12]
No; when these gifts were in being, all had them not. When anointing with oil, in order to heal the sick, was in use, it was only performed by the elders of the church, not by the common members of it, who were to be sent for by the sick on this occasion. [13]
*****
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758):
In the days of his [Jesus’] flesh, his disciples had a measure of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, being enabled thus to teach and to work miracles. But after the resurrection and ascension, was the most full and remarkable effusion of the Spirit in his miraculous gifts that ever took place, beginning with the day of Pentecost, after Christ had risen and ascended to heaven. And in consequence of this, not only here and there an extraordinary person was endowed with these extraordinary gifts, but they were common in the church, and so continued during the lifetime of the apostles, or till the death of the last of them, even the apostle John, which took place about a hundred years from the birth of Christ; so that the first hundred years of the Christian era, or the first century, was the era of miracles. But soon after that, the canon of Scripture being completed when the apostle John had written the book of Revelation, which he wrote not long before his death, these miraculous gifts were no longer continued in the church. For there was now completed an established written revelation of the mind and will of God, wherein God had fully recorded a standing and all-sufficient rule for his church in all ages. And the Jewish church and nation being overthrown, and the Christian church and the last dispensation of the church of God being established, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were no longer needed, and therefore they ceased; for though they had been continued in the church for so many ages, yet then they failed, and God caused them to fail because there was no further occasion for them. And so was fulfilled the saying of the text, “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” And now there seems to be an end to all such fruits of the Spirit as these, and we have no reason to expect them any more. [14]
Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased. [15]
*****
George Whitefield (1714-1770):
[After being accused of practicing the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, said:]
I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues [since] the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church . . . have long since ceased. [16]
*****
James Buchanan (1804-1870):
The miraculous gifts of the Spirit have long since been withdrawn. They were used for a temporary purpose. They were the scaffolding with God employed for the erection of a spiritual temple. When it was no longer needed the scaffolding was taken down, but the temple still stands, and is occupied by his indwelling Spirit; for, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (I Cor. 3:16). [17]
*****
Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898):
After the early church had been established, the same necessity for supernatural signs now no longer existed, and God, Who is never wasteful in His expedients, withdrew them. . . . Miracles, if they became ordinary, would cease to be miracles, and would be referred by men to customary law. [18]
*****
Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892):
[The believers mentioned in the book of Hebrews] had attained the summit of piety. They had received “the powers of the world to come.” Not miraculous gifts, which are denied us in these days, but all those powers with which the Holy Ghost endows a Christian. And what are they? Why, there is the power of faith, which commands even the heavens themselves to rain, and they rain, or stops the bottles of heaven, that they rain not. There is the power of prayer, which puts a ladder between earth and heaven, and bids angels walk up and down, to convey our wants to God, and bring down blessings from above. There is the power with which God girds his servant when he speaks by inspiration, which enables him to instruct others, and lead them to Jesus; and whatever other power there may be—the power of holding communion with God, or the power of patient waiting for the Son of Man—they were possessed by these individuals. [19]
The works of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the Church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which have departed from us. The work of the Holy Spirit, by which men are quickened from their death in sin, is not inferior to the power which made men speak with tongues. [20]
[Speaking of the office of the apostles,] an office which necessarily dies out, and properly so, because the miraculous power also is withdrawn. [21]
*****
George Smeaton (1814–1889):
The supernatural or extraordinary gifts were temporary, and intended to disappear when the Church should be founded and the inspired canon of Scripture closed; for they were an external proof of an internal inspiration. [22]
*****
Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920):
Many of the charismata, given to the apostolic church, are not of service to the church of the present day. [23]
*****
William G. T. Shedd (1820–1894):
The supernatural gifts of inspiration and miracles which the apostles possessed were not continued to their ministerial successors, because they were no longer necessary. All the doctrines of Christianity had been revealed to the apostles, and had been delivered to the church in a written form. There was no further need of an infallible inspiration. And the credentials and authority give to the first preachers of Christianity in miraculous acts, did not need continual repetition from age to age. One age of miracles well authenticated is sufficient to establish the divine origin of the gospel. In a human court, an indefinite series of witnesses is not required. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses,” the facts are established. The case once decided is not reopened. [24]
*****
Benjamin B. Warfield (1887–1921):
These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church and they necessarily passed away with it. [25]
*****
Arthur W. Pink (1886–1952):
As there were offices extraordinary (apostles and prophets) at the beginning of our dispensation, so there were gifts extraordinary; and as successors were not appointed for the former, so a continuance was never intended for the latter. The gifts were dependent upon the officers. We no longer have the apostles with us and therefore the supernatural gifts (the communication of which was an essential part of “the signs of an apostle,” II Cor. 12:12) are absent. [26]
Before the dueling quotations battle begins, I want to thank you gentle men (persons?) for your Pulpit Mag. It is a well reasoned and thoughtful contribution to the blogosphere, even if perhaps some days I may disagree with some of the points.
Your dead on with this series, btw
Great list of quotes Nate, and most of these men I highly respect and study. But we must keep in mind, however, that these are indeed just men. There were many in the early days of Christianity and later who believed differently. Plus, it seems that the same premise is common in all of their arguements: because there is no longer a need to establish the foundations, there is no longer a need for the gifts. I do believe that the quality of miracles and signs done through the Apostles was unique to them alone in the early church in order to establish the authenticity of the message. But, God did not give the gifts for that purpose alone.
“But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” – 1 Co. 12:7
The gifts were given for “the common good”, not just to establish the early Church’s authority. I will concede that the majority of what we see in main stream charismaticism is a lot of hype and false manifestations. Now, I am not an authority, but most Reformed Charismatics believe in a certain level of control which is to govern the use of these gifts and we would never let them get out of hand like you see on TV and other places.
It is also interesting to note that though Martin Luther did not believe in the continuity of excessive miracles he did believe in prophecy. As a matter of fact he had a list of predictive statements concerning what he believed would happen to the pope and the turks. What’s even more interesting is that as far as I know, most of them came to pass. As I said, I love many of these great men of God and appreciate the legacy they’ve left us, but we must keep in mind that they are only men and our only source of infallible and inerrant truth is the Word of God.
Excellent quotes, and good food for thought! Thanks. My two favorites were Augustine & Luther.
Nate…I thank you for these quotes and your honesty that these aren’t a part of your “argument” for cessationalism
There is a difference between the sign gifts and the Gifts of the Spirit.
1) The sign gifts of Jesus:
John 10:25, 37-38; 14:11; 20:30,31; Acts 2:22
What were they for:
To attest and confirm the identity of Jesus
Who were these gifts given to – who did the signs?
Jesus himself
2) The sign gifts of the Apostles:
Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4; II Cor. 12:12
What were they for:
To confirm the identity of the Apostles and verify the their message
Who were these gifts given to – who did the signs?
The Apostles themselves
It is obvious that the sign gifts were given to the person or persons they were to confirm.
3) What about the Gifts of the Spirit listed in I Cor. 12:8-10?
Who are these gifts given to – who does them?
“the manifestation of the Spirit is given to EVERY MAN” – v7
“dividing to EVERY MAN severally as he will” – v11
What were they for:
“the common good” NASB or “to profit withal” KJV – v7
Paul says nothing about these gifts confirming the individuals they are given to.
The sign gifts were given to Jesus or to the limited group of the Apostles to confirm them and their message. The gifts of the Spirit were distributed across the whole body of the church. They were not to confirm anyone but rather for the benefit of the entire body.
It is clear that the distribution and purposes of the sign gifts and the Gifts of the Spirit are entirely different. Even if the sign gifts did cease in would have no bearing on the continuation of the Gifts of the Spirit. It’s an entirely different question.
I continue to say that discussing the cessation of the sign gifts is too limited of a scope and misses the question of the continuation of the present day Gifts of the Spirit.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
@ Riley (For yesterdays/thursdays post – I don’t have qualms with your current reply
)
Nice reply! Made me think a little, which is always good.
Here’s what I still think. I believe you made a false analogy/parallel with prayer and tongues. Prayer is a generic command for all, while tongues are a gift. The Bible has plenty of “pray like this…” including Jude 20, however
1) I don’t think that verse, nor the other prayer verses, can be applied or fulfilled with of tongues b/c 1 Corin 14:14 “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” Jude 20 is hardly talking about unfruitful prayer.
2) I would agree w/ what your saying in verse 16-17, but he doesn’t say anything of personal edification. I guess I have to start with this – that the focus of ch 12-14 are about the gifts their, purpose, utility, and goal.
i) Purpose: 12:1 “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.”
ii) Utilitly 12:8 “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”
This is especially important b/c this frames what the Apostle thinks of using the gifts which are for the common good, on the self ie that it is contrary to its uses. As you can see, prayer is not one of these gifts – it is something totally separate where Jude 20 can to build oneself up.
iii) Notice where tongues ends up in the listing of gifts in 12:28 (last) and 30 (next to last).
iv) Paul says to seek love, why? B/c it is greater and why so because one of the things he points out is “it does not seek its own” (1 Corin 13:5)
v) Now here come all the slams against tongues in ch 14. Paul is using prophecy as the measuring rod to show the negatives of tongues.
1) v1 Seek prophesy
2) v2 No one understands
3) v5 Tongues = prophecy when there is interpretation. In what context? In the church. Paul has always been focused on the gifts and not its corporate sense, ie there is no switch from personal corporate; just straight analysis of the gift
4) v12 – The goal is edification of the church
a. “So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.”
5) v13 “Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.”
6) v14 Why do you need interpretation? Well one reason is your mind doesn’t even know what’s going on
a. “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” I can only take this to be something negative. Paul has not said anything positive about tongues apart from edifying others, why? b/c that’s the purpose of tongues – not for self b/c if you pray in tongues even your mind is unfruitful.
7) v22 Seeing as how the Apostle has made the distinction of the purpose of gifts ie for others and how the using tongues in circumstances other than for “others” is unfruitful and is self-edfying ~ something that is looked down upon in context. He just flat out tells us the purpose of tongues and guess what its for others, others, others –
a. “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.”
Conclusion: Tongues are not for self-edification, neither are any of the gifts, that’s why prophesy is better b/c its usage benefits others right away, while tongues is made specifically for unbelievers or in conjunction w/ interpretation.
John,
That’s right, tongues are not for self-edification, unless one interprets. Here is a fact, no one knows how to pray as they should. Oh, they can pray anything. But, execpt that the Holy Spirit interprets for you the words you speak are not those of the Intercessor, there yours. Your conclusion is wrong and does not follow your own argumentation. It is prophecy that is given to convict the unbeliever and sinners in Corinthians, anyway. The first part of the passage confirms that tongues is indeed given to build up the believer as is the followed reason up to this point and beyond, but it is a sign to unbelievers, but only in the case that it is interpreted. The tongue then does not edify the church or convict the sinner, but it is the interpretation which is comprehended by the mind. Tongues do not build the believer up as a sign, for we need no such thing (for a wicked and adultrous generation seeks signs) except that we are in sin, but the tongue edifies the church through the interpretation because it confirms the working of the Holy Spirit. So, interpretation is given to convict the sinner that the tongue is truly of God and and so falls down to worship in His presence.
A question should be asked. On the day of Pentecost they spoke in tongues and there were men from all around the known world. When Peter got up to speak, he spoke with one tongue and all them understood him. We might conclude then that they all knew Greek, or Hebrew or what ever it was that Peter spoke. On the other hand, we do not know that. So, we might conclude that he spoke in his native tongue and they heard him in theirs. There are diversities of gifts and diversities of working of the same gift. So, just what is a tongue anyway? I do not think any of you know. Ever heard one, or them, or whatever? Then how would you know. Ever seen God, heard him or whatever, then how do you know Him except by a miraculous sign gift known as salvation and if you did not hear his tongue you had better go back to Scripture, because if you have not heard his voice you are not his…. Pride will get you everytime.
Even though the commands in Scripture tells us to pray this way or that, or even allows for us to self-determine our prayers, “make your requests known to God,” we still do not know if it is Christ praying through us, or not unless he illumines our minds to know. It is generally acknowledged that some prayers are answered, and those cannot be our will, but his. James makes it quite clear and since the heart of man is wicked beyond recognition, we do not know whether or not our prayers are coming from desires to consume them upon our own lusts, or not. The interpretation is in the answer, not in the prayer, and my mind is not edified except that it is declared in time to be the Spirit that has prayed through me. And, each of us prays for self- edification, John, so that we may turn and build up our brothers. What pastor do you know that does not pray for inspiration before preaching and to be strengthened personally in knowledge even if it is not in the end to preach the message. Do we not pray to be protected from speaking with our own tongue? But, we claim to know that it is inspired and at least some of what we preach is the very working of the Spirit of God, as is testified to by the manifestation of the interpretation by the workings of repentance and confession of faith in the hearers. You may not call it speaking in tongues, but then again, you do not even know what that means. There are many things that could be said that time is insufficient for and to the writing of books there is no end, and whether you want to admit it or not, much of what you know by the grace of God will never leave you head, and can only edify you. Your arguements are non-sequitor, since the question is have to deal with is if the sign gifts ended and all that you have is experiential knowledge of the facts, quotes from men with experiential knowledge, and Scripture that you have imposed your meanings on because by your own admission you cannot even interpret them because the sign gifts have expired!
Tongues do build up if they are coupled with understanding in the individual, yet they would still be only useful for the body if they then build up the church, and the individual is part of the body, is he not? So, if he rejoices, does not the church rejoice with him? And, if by the groaning of the Spirit he pleads for revival of the congregation and is heard, being a man like we are, and revival breaks out, will that not also edify the church even if he has gone in private to the Lord? And, will he not also be built up when God confirms in him the working of the Holy Spirit?
The question that is presented is “have the sign gifts stopped.” Each of the testimonies that were given in quotes depended upon “experiential observations of current events,” and those experiences then applied to the Scripture to make them say what they do not say.
Personally, I do not believe that tongues are necessary today in the congregation, but my beliefs do not eliminate the possibility that in some circumstances the use of them would be.
Was Luke an apostle? How is it then that he wrote a gospel? By what spirit did those men who incorporated his writings into the Scripture, decide that they were indeed inspiried? And, how is it that he employed a hermaneutic that allowed him to reinterpret OT texts with new meanings?
Let me tell you a story. There was a woman who came into the heretical charismatic Open Bible Church that I attended. Acting on a word of knowledge I gave a word that there was someone with cancer in their ankle that the Lord would heal. She was a stranger there and only happened to be there because there radio was stuck on the same Christian Station no matter where they tuned, while traveling down I-80. Seeing our church, they pulled off and came into the services. They remained in Cheyenne long enough to confirm that the cancer was no longer there. Now, how am I to reckon that? Was it a lying sign? Was it real? I do not know. It was surely perculiar. Since then I have ceased all manners of that form of charis, because, the groups that practice those kinds of activities are frought with all sorts of error in doctrine which throws everything into suspect.
I belong to an SBC church that is Arminian. They do not believe in the sign gifts. But, why should I trust them, seeing as they are in gross error? On the one hand they will deny prophecy and embrace the inspiration of divine preaching, or an inspired reading. They believe in the presence of the Holy Spirit in congregation, and they confess that when we take the Lord’s Supper that there is indeed a signature penalty for not correctly discerning the body of Christ. They lay hands on people expecting miracles. Do they not believe that God will grant at least some of their prayers for healing and thereby give a sign?
You list the gifts and say that the greatest of these is love, but if you have not received this gift in the beginning, you cannot receive anything by seeking it. And what does the ordinal listing have to do with anything? Faith is given first, does that mean the gift of repentance is of less importance?
The negatives about tongues? Come one. Paul is listing the necessities of confirmation of tongues, not criticizing them. Prophecy is also to be measured, for the prophet is subject to the prophets. By the way, it does not just say that if you pray in a tongue you are not edified in any way, but that the spirit is edified, but the mind is not, but if it is interpreted by word or event then the mind is edified. Do not chop the Scriptures in half to pad you prejudices.
The final analysis will not resolve this issue. The cessationists will interpret the Scripture according to their prejudicial experiences and tradition and the continuist according to theirs. To paraphrase someone else, “What doctrines are fundamental?” Cessation or Continuation, are not necessary, but the knowledge of the gifts is. One of the primary gifts is the discerning between spirits. Two ways that this can be taken are: discerning of demonic influences, or discerning of spurious teachings (like the pre-trib rapture theory), or manifestations, such as large churches. I think that all of us would like to have either the discerning of the demonic, or the more common place discernment by the practice of study and application. Even with the second, if it is taken to mean that it is not a sign gift but just a general working of the Holy Spirit as a “left over” since the establishing of the Church, it would do us well in being able to discern between the true and the false and might just move us toward the unity of the faith that is promised in Ephesians.
@ Thomas
Thanks for your reply, I wasn’t sure what you were quite getting at in the beginning, could you clarify about self-edification and interpretation?
1)“That’s right, tongues are not for self-edification, unless one interprets.”
a.I’ve already discussed that the purpose of gifts are not for self-edification, though thinks like, praying, giving, self-discipline are.
b.It is clear from the Bible that you are not just supposed to blabber on in prayer uselessly, so to pray in tongues without interpretation is possible per se, but Paul teaches against this in this chapter.
2)“It is prophecy that is given to convict the unbeliever and sinners in Corinthians, anyway.”
a.Whoa, I think you are WAY OFF the mark:
i.First 1 Corin 14:22 “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers;”
ii. Tongues are for unbelievers!
3) You also say “Tongues do not build the believer up as a sign, for we need no such thing (for a wicked and adultrous generation seeks signs) except that we are in sin”
a. but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.
b. Believer’s need signs – and that is prophecy and nowhere does it say it is just for sin. Besides look at the New Testament prophecies many of them are not for the conviction of sin.
4) The interpretation is in the answer, not in the prayer, and my mind is not edified except that it is declared in time to be the Spirit that has prayed through me.
a.I think if you list all the prayers in the Bible and list all the commands about prayers in the Bible, this is just not true and negates common experience. Besides understand in the tongues context, as you know is about simple understanding ie if I spoke to you in English you’d understand, but if I spoke to you in Korean (I think) you won’t understand.
b.Right now you are talking about some abstract idea of understanding which clearly is not taught in Scripture and in fact clearly taught against.
5)And, each of us prays for self- edification, John, so that we may turn and build up our brothers.
a.Yes, of course! However I already covered this in the previous post and clearly differentiated between the function of generalities ie praying, giving, self-disc. these things are not regulated like tongues b/c they are not a gift.
b.Tongues and prophecy have specific purposes as outlined by Paul. This is a common error for Charismatics as they tend to say, “Your supposed pray like this and this, so why can’t you use tongues that way?”
6)“The negatives about tongues? Come one.[sic] Paul is listing the necessities of confirmation of tongues, not criticizing them.”
a.You should read a little closer. Besides, he’s spelling out how the gift should be regulated and yes confirmation is part of that package ie no private prayer language
7)“Prophecy is also to be measured, for the prophet is subject to the prophets. By the way, it does not just say that if you pray in a tongue you are not edified in any way, but that the spirit is edified, but the mind is not, but if it is interpreted by word or event then the mind is edified. Do not chop the Scriptures in half to pad you prejudices.”
a.Touche brother! But if you SERIOUSLY think that this is “thumbs up from Paul” dig deeper brother. I’m serious now, do you think that Paul is saying, “Its cool to do things where you have no idea what your talking about” NO WAY – He is a God of order not confusion. I challenge you to look for anything that says that we can just shut off our minds and glorify God and be blessed somehow
a) I think you maybe be having a hard time discerning what spiritual gifts are. Everybody can love and have faith and yes these things are prerequisites. However, what does this have to do w/ an ordinal listing? B/c gifts are given to be used and in the exercises of those gifts you need LOVE b/c its the ultimate expression of the gifts a non-self seeking edification of others. That’s why Paul is condemning the use of gifts on self, b/c that’s not what they are for!
Conclusion:
Many people keep insisting gifts are okay for self-edification and they draw a false analogy to prayer (which is not a gift) as proof. That’s why in this section, Paul is looking down upon the exercise of these gifted people on their wrong use ie on the SELF.
Oops I forgot to say that my third point “3a” is a continuation of the previous verse 1 Corin 14:22 not my own words!
1 Corin 14:22 “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.”
Thomas Twitchell said:
(way too much in his post to comment on it all in one reply but here a thought on one point)
A question should be asked. On the day of Pentecost they spoke in tongues and there were men from all around the known world. When Peter got up to speak, he spoke with one tongue and all them understood him. We might conclude then that they all knew Greek, or Hebrew or what ever it was that Peter spoke. On the other hand, we do not know that. So, we might conclude that he spoke in his native tongue and they heard him in theirs.
Riley:
Some do believe that there was a miracle of HEARING on the day of Pentecost. While I don’t at all say the God couldn’t do such a thing I am hesitant to say that he did.
First of all the Bible never says there is such a gift as “Hearing in Tongues.” The gift that is stated in the text as being in operation on the day of Pentecost is SPEAKING in tongues not HEARING in tongues.
We also know that they HEARD 15 different languages (at least). There were plenty enough belivers speaking in tongues (perhaps 120 – Acts 1:15) to be speaking all those languages. 120/15=8 The Bible doesn’t specifically say there was anything supernatural about the hearing. The text says, “we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” It simply says, “we hear them…speaking…” Nothing special about the way that is stated. It also doesn’t say that they heard every single one of the disciples speaking in their language; just that they heard “them” which could easily mean “some of them.” The amazement was in the fact that these unlearned fishermen could speak in all of these languages of the world at all.
About Peter’s speech it says, Act 2:14 “But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them:…” Again, nothing supernatural about his mode of speaking is indicated. Nor does the text indicate that people continued to hear him speak in their own languages.
Because of this lack of textual evidence that any other gift was in evidence I think it’s safer to conlude that at least some of the disciples were accutally speaking in the languages that were heard and Peter was probably speaking in Greek or Hebrew that that he and everyone else could understand.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Hi John,
You’ve made numerous statements which I believe are in need of some Scriptural refining. I share your enthusiasm for the Scriptures, so I’d like you to compare some of your statements with what Paul says.
Your chief point, I believe is that “Paul is looking down upon the exercise of these gifted people on their wrong use ie on the SELF.” If I understand you correctly, Paul is generally critical of the exercise of the gift of tongues. Do correct me if I am wrong in this.
Paul makes a distinction between speaking in tongues in private, and speaking in tongues in public. Paul wrote, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (I Cor14:18-19)
If Paul is truly glad that he speaks in tongues more than any of the Corinthian believers, then he hardly seems to be denigrating speaking in tongues—privately. There is absolutely no question in my mind that in a Christian gathering, prophesy and teaching are more desirable than tongues.
You also state that “Tongues are not for self-edification.”
Yet Paul wrote that “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” Speaking in tongues strengthens the individual speaking. That cannot be denied. And—as I am sure you agree—in a meeting, it is better to strengthen others.
But I will accept edification from any godly source available to me, include speaking to God in tongues.
You also wrote, “I challenge you to look for anything that says that we can just shut off our minds and glorify God and be blessed somehow.”
Please look at what Paul wrote: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” I think this answers your question. Paul understood that praying in tongues was a function of the spirit, not of the mind. If my spirit is praying, then it is my SPIRIT which is fruitful, if not my mind.
As I understand the following verse, Paul endorses both the spirit and the mind, utterances in the spirit and utterances in (for us) English.
“So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.” (14:15) In other words, “I will pray in tongues and I will pray in English. I will sing in tongues and I will sing in English.”
You may not understand how “we can just shut off our minds and glorify God and be blessed somehow,” but apparently Paul did understand how. Paul acknowledged that they might actually be “praising God with [their] spirits,” (14:16) and “giving thanks” (14: 17). Certainly praising God and giving thanks to him “glorify God.”
So, in response to your challenge, “I challenge you to look for anything that says we can just shut off our minds and glorify God and be blessed somehow”—there it is. We can shut off our minds, OR use our minds, to pray, sing, give thanks and glorify God.
I absolutely understand and agree that Paul was urging the disciplined use of the gift of tongues, but he was nevertheless urging its use. “I am glad that I speak in tongues more than you all.” Paul said that “He who speaks in tongues edifies himself.” Who doesn’t need to be edified?
You wrote that “he’s spelling out how the gift should be regulated and—yes—confirmation is part of that package, i.e., no private prayer language.”
I’m sorry, but you are in total disagreement with what Paul wrote. “If there is no interpreter present, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.” This seems fairly clear to me.
The person is *commanded* to speak to himself and to God—and KEEPING QUIET IN CHURCH if there is no interpreter present. Yet you say there is “no private prayer language.”
You also wrote, “to pray in tongues without interpretation is possible per se, but Paul teaches against this in this chapter.” No, Paul COMMANDS speaking in tongues in private. But not in church if there is no interpreter present.
“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (14: 18-19)
I offer this as a good outline of Paul’s basic, balanced position on speaking in tongues:
1) “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself. (14:4)
2) “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. (14:18-19)
3) “If there is no interpreter present, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.” (I Cor. 14:28)
The self-edifying use of tongues is NOT criticized by Paul. The exercise of the gift in a public meeting without interpretation, however, IS criticized.
Paul does NOT teach against praying in tongues without interpretation, EXCEPT in a public assembly.
Speaking in tongues in private does edify individuals, because their spirits are praying and singing, their spirits are praising God and giving thanks.
There is authentic and legitimate edification and strength which does NOT have to pass through the intellect.
Yikes! You forgot John MacArthur’s quote!
) I agree that we don’t have the gift of tongues anymore, but I’m doubtful about not having the gift of healing. I’m not saying that one particular person has the gift and goes around healing people. However, there have been miraculous healings by the Holy Spirit (not through the placing on of hands) in the persecuted church that eventually brought many unconverted skeptics to the acknowledgement of Christianity, and thus, the Holy Spirit used this method for their salvation. Not that the Holy Spirit needs miracles done for people to get saved, but I guess He can use any method He wants.
@ Whyte Stone
Thanks for the reply and I really do appreciate the refining and constant challenge to understand the World better.
1) First you said, ”If I understand you correctly, Paul is generally critical of the exercise of the gift of tongues. Do correct me if I am wrong in this.”
What I meant was that he is critical of it outside of its designated purpose ie on others.
2) You said,“Paul makes a distinction between speaking in tongues in private, and speaking in tongues in public. Paul wrote, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (I Cor14:18-19)
Paul never says he prays in tongues aka personally prayer language, agreed? He just said he spoke it more than they did and that’s it! You assumed it out of context he was talking about private prayers. All the verse says is he spoke tongues more than them and I believe never out of the limits he sets in the same chapter as I have illustrated in my previous post. See Pentecost Acts 2, Acts 10 at Cornelius’ house, Acts 19 with John’s disciples here are times where people spoke in tongues and circumstances like these are most likely what he’s talking about. I cannot agree with your exegesis here.
3) You also state that “Tongues are not for self-edification.” Yet Paul wrote that “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.”
I wrote about this in my first post which you may have missed. Basically you have mistaken a denouncements as a commendation . *see my first post” Summary is = You’ve taken the verse out of context and read it by itself, but go back and look starting from chapter 12 how its all about others, than ch 13 outlines love its superiorities an that it is not self-seeking. Now he comparing tongues with prophecy (all of which is negative and only at best equal w/ interpretation) and what is one of those critcisms self-edification! the very same thing Paul is saying not to do, charismatics tend to pick up and say they do it!
You also wrote, “I challenge you to look for anything that says that we can just shut off our minds and glorify God and be blessed somehow.” Please look at what Paul wrote: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.”
Once again, I covered this in my first post, and it is an obvious criticism of tongues not a praise and most certainly not anything to seek after.
4) I’m sorry, but you are in total disagreement with what Paul wrote. “If there is no interpreter present, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.” This seems fairly clear to me.
Well I don’t think you’re seeing it clearly. B/c you seemed to have this verse 14:28 say “the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself in tongues and to God in tongues.” All Paul saying here is just talk to meditate to God and not exercise your gift? Don’t believe me, he gives the exact same command for prophecy and women to simply “keep silent.”
28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.
34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
Conclusion:
You inserted words into the verses that were never there and have come out with some common misinterpretations:
I will insert in bold the changes you force in and change the understanding of the verse.
“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you in a private prayer language. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (I Cor14:18-19)
14:28 “the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself in tongues and to God in tongues.”
And that (see my first post) if you look at every instruction on prayer and every prayer in the Bible there is no instruction for your spirit (not the Holy Spirit on your behalf) to pray without your mind. In fact there are no things that treat your spirit as a separate mind able to do things like praying thinking, apart from your mind. That was my original challenge, to find anything like that outside of this verse and it should be noted that there would be mass chaos if we could just pray, talk, and worship only in spirit without our minds. To have only our spirit edified is a foreign concept and one Paul here, with the correct interpretation, is declaring as a clear negative.
Regards,
-John
Whyte Stonne:
Nice post – I agree concerning tongues for personal edification.
Paul said speaking in tongues is prayer (v14) so it is.
Paul said speaking in tongues edifies the speaker (v4) so it does.
Paul said to speak in tongues to yourself and to God when there is no interpreter (v28) as an instruction so it’s OK.
Paul spoke in tongues more than the Corinthians (v18) and it obviously wasn’t in Church (v19). Since “no man understands” (v2) it also wasn’t to anyone outside the church either. What does that leave? Paul spoke in tongues privately for his own edification according to v4 and Jude 20.
Mayby, just mayby, all that personal edification was part of what enabled him to do all those signs.
Just a thought.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
I forgot to add one thing to this comment in the previous post.
Paul said to speak in tongues to yourself and to God when there is no interpreter (v28) as an instruction so it’s OK.
Addition:
This concluding instruction (v28) agrees with the primary definition of speaking in tongues in v2. Paul is very consistent throughout this passage and does not change definitions in mid stream. Therefore it is acceptable to interpret the phrase, “speak to himself, and to God.” as referring to speaking in tongues.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
@ Riley, Whyte Stone, Thomas
I sincerely, believe that you guys have misinterpreted those verses, but I want to say that I really have been pushed and have learned a lot from our exchanges (but I’m sure there’s some mutual frustration
)
Let’s keep sharpening each other as this series go on and on and focus on Christ.
Sincerely,
-John
PS My father is a preacher and also a firm believer in tongues, so I don’t want you guys to think that I believe ya’ll are some heretics!
Hi, Riley.
Any comments on my last line?
“There is authentic and legitimate edification and strength which does NOT have to pass through the intellect.”
My impression is that in some circles, if something is not didactic, or channeled through the intellect, then it is suspect, useless, or worse.
What do you think?
John wrote:
I sincerely, believe that you guys have misinterpreted those verses, but I want to say that I really have been pushed and have learned a lot from our exchanges (but I’m sure there’s some mutual frustration
No offense. I’m enjoying this.
Like someone said, “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” I don’t expect to “convert” everybody.;)
It’s forcing me to actually write these things down that I should have written down a long time ago.
Iron sharpens Iron.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Hi, John.
You wrote, “I’m sure there’s some mutual frustration
“Let’s keep sharpening each other as this series go on and on and focus on Christ.
“…I don’t want you guys to think that I believe ya’ll are some heretics!”
That was very edifying, John. I’m sitting here very happy and relieved, because of your love and how you can accept differences between us.
Whyte Stonne wrote:
“There is authentic and legitimate edification and strength which does NOT have to pass through the intellect.”
My impression is that in some circles, if something is not didactic, or channeled through the intellect, then it is suspect, useless, or worse.
What do you think?
Riley:
Hi Whyte,
The Bible says of the Spirit.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
While this verse is directly talking about being born again it also tells something of how the Holy Spirit works. We can’t tell or know with our intellect where it’s coming or going.
In the same way, the entire realm of the nine Gifts of the Spirit does not and cannot function through the intellect. You can’t understand or control the Gifts of the Spirit with your intellect and the intellectual mindset tends to fight tooth and nail against anything it can’t control. Also, the pride of man has no intention of doing anything that seems foolish to the mind.
Having faith for the supernatural and miraculous is somewhat different than having faith to believe the truths of the word. In having faith for the supernatural you have the trust God in an area that you cannot understand or figure out. When it comes to the Bible we are supposed to do everything we can to understand it.
Rom. 12:14 “…how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” (and understood)
Mat 13:19 “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and UNDERSTANDETH IT NOT, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart…”
You have to hear, know, and understand the word sufficiently in order to believe it. God has given us our mind and intellect and we are supposed to use it. We are to read, study, meditate, memorize, and seek to understand the Word of God as much as we can.
Nevertheless, you cannot understand or figure out the miraculous. If you could understand it then it wouldn’t be a miracle. You can’t figure your way into a miracle but you can sure figure your way out of one by doubting, double mindedness, and second guessing. Concerning the supernatural, reasoning with your mind can be a significant problem.
Mar 2:5 “When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. 6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and REASONING in their hearts, 7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit (not his mind or intellect – this is a gift of the Word of Knowledge) that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?…”
See also Mt. 16:7,8; Mk. 6:37 & 8:4 (the disciples reasonings were worthless)
If you prophecy (speaking by the Spirit of God-ICor.12:3) you cannot speak what you know with your intellect. Anything you know, make up, or add with your mind is illegitimate. All you can do is shut down your mind and speak only what the Holy Spirit gives you. After you hear it you can think about it and judge it (14:29) but not before or during the prophecy. The less a prophet knows about a person or subject the better they like it. That way it’s easier to keep your mind and intellect from getting involved and adding something and messing it up.
The same is true for the Word of Knowledge and the Word of Wisdom.
Act 14:9 “The same heard Paul speak: who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed…”
You can’t see faith with your eyes or figure it out with your intellect. You can only perceive these things by the Spirit. This is a gift of the Word of Knowledge given by the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:11).
While you can and should know the promises and instructions of the Jesus concerning healing and miracles you cannot figure out how God is going to do it. You don’t know and can’t figure out when, where, how, or through whom God is going to do something. Trying to figure it all out just causes doubt and unbelief. All you can do it act in simple obedience to the Word of God and believe with simple faith.
Intellectualism probably hates speaking in tongues most of all. The idea of “my understanding is unfruitful” is anathema to the intellectual. Frankly, the fact that you can’t understand it is one of its best benefits. Speaking in tongues teaches you to cooperate with the Holy Spirit to do something supernatural. This makes it easier to do something else supernatural like prophecy in which you do understand it without getting your mind involved.
Since the Bible plainly states that, “we know in part” [fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect)-AMP] (I Cor. 13:9) and that, “we know not what we should pray for as we ought” (Rom. 8:26) is it so surprising that God would give us a means of praying that goes beyond what our minds can understand?
In spite of anything I may say here, I still love and can fellowship with any true believer. We are all one in Christ and one in the Spirit even if our minds, including my own, haven’t got it all figured out yet.
Yours in Christ,
Riley Brown
Thanks for your insight, Riley. I can’t interact much right now (grandson, washing, tire change), but I agree with what you’ve written. I thought you opening quote–about how the Spirit blows where it will, but we can’t tell where it’s coming from or going to–was very evocative and appropriate.
Hi Riley,
You said “In having faith for the supernatural you have the trust God in an area that you cannot understand or figure out. When it comes to the Bible we are supposed to do everything we can to understand it.”
Agreed on both points.
You also said “If you prophesy (speaking by the Spirit of God-ICor.12:3) you cannot speak what you know with your intellect.”
When the Hebrew prophets prophesied, it was not only predictive, it was also speaking the word of the Lord to the people in their specific situation.
Why do you think so many people want to make Christian prophesying doctrinal or predictive? God speaks his very words through the one prophesying to the people who are present, and from what the Bible says it is for the edification of those assembled together.
It’s not as though those present are to uncritically accept whatever they hear. In Thessalonians, the believers are told to not despise prophesying, but to weigh carefully what is said, and to hold fast to what is good.
They are not told to weigh carefully what is said in order to then silence a person if something seems to “bleed through” which they discern to be more from the person than from the Spirit.
I’m not sure that the Old Testament’s rigorous test for Hebrew prophets is identical to how we are to treat Christian prophecy today. Some will argue that it is, and it’s fine for them to hold that view.
So, to repeat my question Riley, Why do you think so many people think of Christian prophesying as doctrinal or predictive?
Sorry to resurrect this one after a month of silence! I’m very disappointed (but not surprised) that you didn’t mention Eusebius in this. He’s widely regarded as being against spiritual gifts (prophecy in particular), and indeed is cited by cessationists such as David Farnell and even B B Warfield. Yet he argued that, “The prophetic gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming”. I’ve just blogged about that at my blog. What do you think?
“The prophetic gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming”…
The quote that heads this article is not a quote from me. It’s one from of the champions of cessationism, Eusebius. There have been several posts in blogosphere over the last few months giving the impression that the Church Fathers’ were a…