Bird,
Well written and an interesting topic for me, being a good ole' Free Will Baptist. I tend to yield to D.A.Carson on this topic. His exposition on 12-14 is, obviously, very good. His final opinion, I think, is that those gifts you mentioned are still given but not exhibited, for the most part, in a way that the Bible dictates. I think that makes sense.

Obviously above I meant 1 Corinthians 12-14 not just 12-14. This typing stuff can make you look like a fool can't it.

I'd love to get my hands on Wayne Grudem's response to Carson and others, written for the Association of Vineyard Churches. I think it is out of print, though (but probably still available through the AVC).

I know Carson doesn't do this really, but I personally get tired of people basing their cessationism on the abuses in some of the more out-there churches. We can find abuses of all kinds in all kinds of churches. I don't discount the gift of hospitality simply because Feed the Children had some employees taking loads of donated goods home.

It is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus Christ is perfection personified

Especially since, in the following verses, Paul writes "for now we see through a glass dimly, but then we shall see face to face" [my paraphrase]. That, to me, is the clincher. One could still argue that "perfection" is the completion of the biblical canon, for indeed God's Word is perfect. But the "face to face" line indicates, to me anyway, that Paul is speaking of the return of Jesus. When we are in His presence literally, we will no longer need the miraculous gifts.

Kenny, I'd love to read D.A. Carson's take on I Cor. 12-14, and the Grudem take that Rod mentioned.

Rod, I think you hit on something in regard to folks simply moving to cessationism simply because of some of the abuses by some fringe churches. For me, I've seen abuses that make me want to vomit, but it doesn't change what I think is clearly taught in Scripture. Same thing goes for the people who simply write off going to church because they've been hurt by various people in the Body.

good thoughts. i wish i had something to add.

The Carson book is definately about a lot more than abuses. In my experience, sadly, I have to say it has all been about the abuses. I don't guess I have ever seen those gifts displayed in a way that made me feel they were authentic. I am not however basing my theology on feelings. I believe they are still given. I personally however have never seen it. Does that make sense?

Kenny, are you talking about "Showing the Spirit"?
I have that, and I guess I need to pick it up again. I remember skimming it before, and the one thing that stood out to me the most was his general complimentary stance toward John Wimber, which I thought was cool.

The Grudem book is not in response to that book, but to a book Carson and others wrote, I think called "Power Religion" (but might be wrong on the title).

Jared,
I was talking about Showing the Spirit. You are correct about the complimentary stance toward John Wimber, one which HH would not be happy with. I also have Power Religion and Carson writes an essay in there called, "The purpose of Signs and Wonders in the New Testament." Also very good. Alister McGrath has an excellent essay entitled, "A Better Way: The Priesthood of All Belieivers."
I might add, the book is not solely about signs and wonders and such.

Bird, thanks for your FANTASTIC post. I really liked what you had to say about Jesus being the perfection that we wait for. And I agree with your post as written. It is interesting to me, that I believe all gifts are still possible in THEORY, but have never witnessed the "sign gifts" personally, and would probably be skeptical if I did. Nevertheless, I am not a cessationist. If you are familiar with the "4 views" book put out by Zondervan, I proably fall under the "open but cautious" category.

I have a question for you, should you choose to answer...

Do you believe that the tongues spoken in Acts 2 is the same gift that Paul speaks of in I Cor 12-14?

And do you believe that the gift of tongues Paul speaks of in I Cor 12-14 is different from a "private prayer language"?

I'm not looking for an argument here, just understanding, I promise.

This reminds me of Jonathan Edwards' description of the revival he witnessed under his and George Whitefield's teaching. What he described makes me uncomfortable, but he believed it was a genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit mixed with poseurs who wanted to feel the same thing. He talked about how town life changed during that time. Lewd singing in the streets and excess drinking at late night bars stopped. He watched his congregation for signs of real repentance and the fruit of the Spirit, and he saw them in many, though not all. Like I said, some of them were pretending to feel the Spirit's moving. But others apparently did and in reaction, they cried or threw themselves down or shook uncontrolably. They were wild, maybe even Wil'-a-Hart.

I've seen real evidence of the gifts, but I am still "open but cautious"!
I think much fewer actually have them than claim to. I also think that their presence is more authentic in 3rd world nations and other impoverished places than in the industrialized West for some reason. Could it be our skepticism and general rationalism (even in religious matters) that squelches their real proliferation here? I don't know. Just a guess.

"Shrode the wet sprocket" - that's hilarious.

Toad, er, Shrode, to answer your questions:

Acts 2 tongues ... I'll quote it here from my trusty Modern King James Version via my Palm Pilot (I love the freebie, MKJV, btw; though I'm not in the MKJV-only crowd because I also have the paraphrase-esque God's Word version available in my handheld as well (also a freebie). ß What a digression).

"And suddenly a sound came out of the heaven as borne along by the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And tongues as of fire appeared to them, being distributed; and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled of the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other languages, as the Sprit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:2-4).

What's interesting is that verses 6 to 10 show that the "crowd" heard them speaking in their own dialects. So, I think this could have been an instance where each person receiving this gift of "tongues" was granted the ability to actually speak in another dialect, or they spoke some sort of prayer language and the people hearing the tongues heard their own dialect. Verse 11 says they were speaking "the great things of God." While some of the listeners pondered what it meant, others accussed the Christians of being drunk - amazing! It's also amazing that in the midst of all this, Pete stood up and preached a pretty good sermon. (I think, regrettebly, any pastor now-a-days wouldn't be allowed to speak in public if they had previously hacked somebody's ear off with sword.)

To answer your question, I'm honestly not sure. I think in the Acts 2 passage and in I Cor. 12-14 the "tongues" spoken of are more than likely the same "gift," or, perhaps, variations of the the gift of "langues" spoken of in chapter I Cor. 12. I've always thought of a "prayer language" as the gift of tongues that is not spoken aloud (unless you're alone), thus prompting one to use it mainly in prayer. As I Cor. 14:14,15 says, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the mind ...."

In the same chapter, I believe Paul is clear that speaking in tongues is certainly a gift that edifies your spirit, but not your mind (or understanding). I also wonder how this one gift, the least of all gifts, really, causes so much uproar among believers. I think that if you're one who has the gift of tongues, the Biblical thing to do is to keep that tongue tucked behind that grill while attending church or corporate worship. "Yet in a church I desire to speak five words with my mind, so that I might also teach others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Cor. 14:19).

I have Grudem's Systematic Theology and will be interested to see what he says about the more spectacular gifts, particularly tongues.

Regarding "abuses," it truly does sadden me that the church, 2000 years later, is still dealing with these abuses that Paul corrects in I Cor. 12-14. Some even use Paul's words to justify their abuse. For example, Brandi and I visited a church in Houston a year or so ago. The church is relatively popular and pretty much considered to be charismatic. They had a baby dedication and while the pastor was praying for the babies, with mic in paw, he blatantly busted out with tongues - a lot! It was like this: "Lord, bless these babies. CooLalalalala. Lord, these babies are yours. Rooshahahahaha. Mold them, Lord. Eeshisisisisis." The painful event went on for minutes. I thought about 'fronting the pastor on his unbiblical utterances but after reading the bulletin I decided it was pointless. I'll quote it here as best I can from memory, this is from the FAQ section, "Q: Why does your church openly pray and sing in tongues? A: Paul encourages us to do this in I Cor. 14, he says "I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit and I will sing with my mind."

I'm still dumbfounded by all that.

Grudem spends 11 pages on tongues, which he says should be more often translated "speaking in languages," and 16 pages on the issue of cessationism.
In the former, he basically sets up a biblical case for the expression of tongues, disapproving of disorder or frenzy (those speaking in tongues should be self-controlled, he says). He's not a cessationist, but he's not a Pentecostal or anything, so his view is "approval" yet biblical. He also doesn't believe in a second-stage conversion experience called the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The direct discussion of tongues in in his ST, chapter 52, pages 1069-1080.
He discusses cessationism in the same chapter, pages 1031-1047.
(Page numbers will be contingent upon your edition of the book. Mine's the full ST (this stuff probably isn't detailed in his concise ST called "Introducing Bible Doctrine") published in 1994 with the marble-ized dust jacket. But the chapter info should be the same in any edition.)

Bird, props on a great post. It is harder and harder today to find conservative Christians who haven't jumped on the cessationist bandwagon as a reaction to the charismatic movement of the last century.

My experience with bad interpretations of 1 Cor. 13 has been more of the latter: that the "perfection" spoken of is the Bible, thus the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ceased by the writing of Revelation -- or, if you're going to be really gracious, by the formalizing of the NT canon in the fourth century. This view has resulted from, and no doubt contributed to, contemporary biblicism -- that the Bible, and not Christ Jesus, is at the center of our faith.

I find such interpretations of 1 Cor. 13 to be blasphemously unfaithful to the text. The Gospel message is that Christ is the heart of our faith, not the Bible. He alone is perfect, He alone is the Word (capital W) of God.

Thanks, athanasius.

Sorry, I accidentally sent the previous message, prematurely. Those were some of the issues that were brought up. Please note, I am not seeking to start a debate. Rather, I am looking for insight on this from both sides. Believe me when I tell you that this issue has plagued my soul and I am trying to settle my conscience. I ordered D.A. Carson's book and I have begun to read O. Palmer Robertsons. Thank you for any help you can give.

Marc

Dear brethren,

I now realize my previous message did not go through. I wanted to ask a few questions that have come up in my church with regard to this issue. This issue has been brought up recently and a lot of discussion has surfaced.

a) If the Spiritual gifts do exist and are not revelatory, than in what specific way are they used to edify the church today?
b) Does the office of Apostle still exist since it is listed among the gifts?
c) If we hold to an open view of the gifts, then ought we not to encourage one another to "strongly desire" them as Paul does the Corinthians? He tells them to desire the greatest gifts more, but he also tells them to covet all of the gifts. What would the ramifications of this be, in light of the abuses? Would this open a crack for full-blown Pentacostalism?
d) Finally, if "tongues" and "intrepretation of tongues" are two different gifts, where some would have one and not the other, how could "tongues" not be revelational in nature, if one could speak what he himself does not understand apart from the interpreter?
Thanks for any help you can give here. Again, this is not to promote a debate, but rather to gain information on some questions that I and others have been wrestling with in the church.

Marc, where did you leave your "previous message"? What are you referring to?
The reason I ask is that each Thinkling only receives email notices of the blogs they post. So I got this message of yours because I posted this blog. But I don't know what "previous message" you're referring to, so I assume you're referencing an earlier comment left on a post by another Thinkling.
Kindly direct me to the other comment of yours, and I'll be glad to help you out.
Thanks.

I don't think Marc's previous message exists. He tried to send it/post it and something happened, so I think post #20 is him rewriting the previous missing message. He asks good questions by the way...

Shrode,

You are right. I wrote a first message and thought I accidently sent it, but I actually must have erased it some how (I hit enter). So, I then wrote a second message, thinking the first went through (which is number 19). I then looked at the posted letters and saw my first one did not go through. Finally, I re-wrote the first one (number 20). Sorry about all of the confusion brethren. #20 contains my questions. Thank you for any help you can give.

Marc

Marc, just wanted to know that we're sorry to leave you hanging. I just wanted you to know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm forwarding your questions to Bird. I think he's best qualified to respond, but he can't access the net from work, so I have to send them to him via email. Hopefully he'll have a response for you soon.
Sorry.

Jared,

Thank you for your response. I understand as well that it may take a little time to answer the questions I put forth. I am sure that you all have much on your plate, as I do. Please take whatever time is needed. I just wanted to thank you for your kind and gracious response.

Marc

Marc,

Thanks for posting your questions, and thanks for being patient for a response. I’ll attempt to answer your questions to the best of my meager ability . . .

A. I think spiritual gifts are used to edify the church in a variety of different ways – it all depends on the gift, I think. For example, the gift of healing would obviously edify the person who is healed, as well as the person who administers the gift through the Holy Spirit. Also, the gift of prophecy edifies, exhorts and comforts. “But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men” (I Co. 14:3). Again, it depends on the gift. I think members of the Body are often times edified by spiritual gifts without even realizing it.

B. About the office of Apostle, I’m no expert by any stretch of the imagination. My understanding of the apostles is that they had certain qualifications that gave them the authority to speak and write the words of God. “Truly the signs of the apostle were worked out among you in all patience, in miracles and in wonders, and by works of power” (2 Co. 12:12). From what I can tell, the apostles had more authority in the miraculous than the average Joe Christian. I don’t believe that apostles exist today in the same manner as, say, Paul or Peter. If you’re a little more loose, I guess, with your definition of apostle, kind of making it synonymous to “missionary,” then that’s a different story altogether. According to Strong’s dictionary, an apostle is “a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.”

C. In regard to your third question, I’m not sure what you mean by “full blown Pentecostalism.” Should we desire spiritual gifts? Yes. Should be indulge in the abuses that Paul chides in I Corinthians? No. Assuming that “full blown Pentecostalism” is tantamount to the abuse of spiritual gifts, I don’t think that that should deter us from “earnestly desiring spiritual gifts.” You shouldn’t let the presence of abuse (or the threat of possible abuse) keep you from enjoying God’s gifts.

D. “How could "tongues" not be revelational in nature, if one could speak what he himself does not understand apart from the interpreter?”

I don’t think I’m quite grasping the nature of your question here. Could you please rephrase it? I’m hesitant to answer a question that I’m too dense to understand. ;-)

Bird,

Thank yo so much for your response. I wanted to better explain my last question.
(With regard to question B, I believe also that Paul states that an Apostle must have seen the risen Christ.)
With regard to my final question, what I meant was this: If the gifts are not revelatory in nature (not for the purpose of adding new revelation of some sort), and they still exist, it would seem to contradict what we are told about tongues (and prophecy for that matter). Paul states that one who has the gift of tongues may not also have the gift of "interpretation of tongues." When you follow his argumentation, it seems as if he states that one who speaks in tongues, can at times, himself, not understand with the mind what he is saying, apart from an interpreter. My question was, if this is the case, how can the gift not be considered revelational in nature?
I hope I haven't confused the matter even more? Anyway, thanks so much for your input.
Marc

Bird,

One point of clarification. When I said, "Paul states that one who has the gift of tongues "may not" also have the gift of interpretation of tongues, I do not mean that they "cannot," but rather it is "possible" that they don't.

Marc

Marc, sorry for my long absence, I was out of town. I still don't quite grasp your question. How would "not understanding with your mind" constitute a revelational gift?

Can anyone else help me out with this question? I'm stumped trying to understand it.