Brief argument(s) for cessationism?

[steven-nemes]

What, in brief, are some arguments in favor of cessationism? There are plenty on the web, I'm sure, but they are mostly very long articles that I am not currently up for reading...

And I know knowledge of Greek and Hebrew are properly helpful for debating this in a formal setting, but that's not what I'm doing--just small talks with friends at fast-food places and such.

I suppose I have a couple questions:

1. Is revelation from God ceased? Provide scriptural support.
2. Were "tongues" revelation from God? (If yes, then if (1) is true, then tongues have ceased also)
3. What is the meaning of "prophesy" and "[person x] prophecies" in 1 Corinthians?

I suppose some interesting verses to consider are Hebrews 1:1, which reads:

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.​

I don't know the Greek, or anything like that, but it seems to but the "but in these last days" indicates that:

(1) God is no longer speaking through the specially appointed prophets
(2) God has spoken (once for all?) through his Son

I'm sure this could take more analysis and such, but I suppose it's a start.

Anyone know of some arguments, scriptural or otherwise, for cessationism (which I take to be (a) the cessation of "special revelation" (which I take to be revelation apart from the existence and characteristics of God through nature) and (b) the cessation of special miraculous events, such as healings and such)?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

You may be equating continuationism with a belief in the canon being open. Though that may be one of the errors of the pentecostals it is not the error of Grudem, Piper, or any who are more orthadox.

The passage in Hebrews cannot disprove the gift of prophesy since the gift is claimed to exist in other passages. Though you may feel that pentecostals have erred in what this gift is, you can't argue that the gift is nonexistant.

 

[steven-nemes]

Well at the moment I a trying to argue against new revelation from God, which it seems to me is what Hebrews 1:1-2 is saying. Would you disagree?

What, in your opinion, is prophesy? And what are tongues? Are their contents revelation from God? In which case, are there different types of revelation from God, some of which are worthy to be put into the Bible, and some of which are not? If yes, how have decided that there are such distinctions?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I believe God can certainly give revelation today but not the kind that the bible is. He isn't giving new teaching or doctrine but He can certainly lead us. If prophesy is someone confirming what God is leading me to do or exhorting the people of God to obey God where He is not being obeyed that goes beyond common knowledge who am I to say it isn't valid? The scripture doesn't indicate that this sort of prophesy is to stop until we are in heaven.

-----Added 2/23/2009 at 06:53:45 EST-----

I don't believe Hebrews is teaching what you're saying because the word used is "Prophets". Since prophesy is taught as a gift in the NC it must not be talking about cessation.

 

[steven-nemes]

I believe God can certainly give revelation today but not the kind that the bible is. He isn't giving new teaching or doctrine but He can certainly lead us.

Ok, but this seems vague to me... What sorts of prophesy are there, in your view, and how have you decided to make the distinctions?

If prophesy is someone confirming what God is leading me to do or exhorting the people of God to obey God where He is not being obeyed that goes beyond common knowledge who am I to say it isn't valid? The scripture doesn't indicate that this sort of prophesy is to stop until we are in heaven.

(1) Is that prophesy, the type of prophesy spoken about in Corinthians, that will be "rendered inoperative" when the perfect comes?
(2) Can't someone simply "see" certain characteristics in you, certain tendencies in your behavior and opinions, etc., and tell you that God is calling you to a certain thing, preaching for example--based not on God personally telling him these things, but just by observing your behavior? Or, also just by "seeing", can't someone notice a lack of, I don't know, spirituality or eagerness with regards to the things of God, or what have you, and judge by your personality and behavior traits that you are probably in some kind of sin or something like that? Surely that has happened to me without God revealing to a person certain things.

-----Added 2/23/2009 at 06:59:18 EST-----

I don't believe Hebrews is teaching what you're saying because the word used is "Prophets". Since prophesy is taught as a gift in the NC it must not be talking about cessation.

If that is the case, then perhaps this "prophesy" is not God speaking to people? The text, to me, indicates that now God has spoken through his son...

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

A brief argument for cessationism:

The Bible teaches that, "tongues are for a sign," 1 Cor 14:22a. It is a sign to unbelievers that God is speaking. The unbelievers, in this context, happen to be Jews.

Consequently, speaking in toungues, whether in private or in public, is a sign that God is speaking.

God has spoken perfectly in the Bible of which nothing else is to be added therein, Rev 22:18-19.

Once the foundation has been laid - there is no reason to relay the foundation every generation:

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, Ep 2:20.

The Scripture teaches that the Church is built upon this foundation. The revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy were necessary in the first century in order to lay the foundation. Once this foundation is laid, the Church will be built upon it.

If we need the physical presence os the apostles and/or prophets today, then we will need the physical presence of Christ as well.

The gifts of tongues and prophecies have ceased with the completion of the Holy Scriptures in the 1st Century.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I believe God can certainly give revelation today but not the kind that the bible is. He isn't giving new teaching or doctrine but He can certainly lead us.

Ok, but this seems vague to me... What sorts of prophesy are there, in your view, and how have you decided to make the distinctions?

If prophesy is someone confirming what God is leading me to do or exhorting the people of God to obey God where He is not being obeyed that goes beyond common knowledge who am I to say it isn't valid? The scripture doesn't indicate that this sort of prophesy is to stop until we are in heaven.

(1) Is that prophesy, the type of prophesy spoken about in Corinthians, that will be "rendered inoperative" when the perfect comes?
(2) Can't someone simply "see" certain characteristics in you, certain tendencies in your behavior and opinions, etc., and tell you that God is calling you to a certain thing, preaching for example--based not on God personally telling him these things, but just by observing your behavior? Or, also just by "seeing", can't someone notice a lack of, I don't know, spirituality or eagerness with regards to the things of God, or what have you, and judge by your personality and behavior traits that you are probably in some kind of sin or something like that? Surely that has happened to me without God revealing to a person certain things.

-----Added 2/23/2009 at 06:59:18 EST-----

I don't believe Hebrews is teaching what you're saying because the word used is "Prophets". Since prophesy is taught as a gift in the NC it must not be talking about cessation.

If that is the case, then perhaps this "prophesy" is not God speaking to people? The text, to me, indicates that now God has spoken through his son...

To really discuss this we need to clarify whether you believe that prophesy has ceased or that it it exists but in a different form. Some of what you've said seems to say that it isn't operative and some indicates that it just doesn't mean what many believe it to mean.

 

[steven-nemes]

Well I am unsure of my position on what "prophesy" means. I am trying to understand your position, which is probably similar to what I would be arguing against with friends, and trying to refute it.

I would say that probably it doesn't mean what some take it to mean, but I don't know my position on it specifically.

That's why I asked you what you thought prophesy was, whether there are different categorizations of it, and what their functions are, and how you made these categorizations.

 

[Scott1]

I first posted this on the other thread, but it may fit more here.

ManleyBeasley

I consider myself continuationist though I don't believe there are apostles today. I am continuationist because I don't believe there is a good scriptural basis for cessationism not because I'm a holy roller. I've never been a member of a charasmatic church but I also don't want to say "God doesn't do this or that" when I don't believe there is a biblical basis.

I think I understand where you are coming from. I probably was of the same thinking for many years (and was even in a charismatic-influenced church for several years).

Let's look at this carefully, though. You are saying you don't want to limit God to what He can do. Agreed, God can do absolutely anything He wants with His creation. The Westminster Confession says this:

Chapter V
Of Providence

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;[8] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.[9]

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,[10] yet is free to work without,[11] above,[12] and against them,[13] at His pleasure.

So, we in the reformed theology, above all, profess and accept God’s complete sovereignty over His creation, which includes Him doing miracles any time He wants, without any limitation whatsoever.

The difference, however is that the nature of the gifts claimed are new revelation taken to be at least on the same authority as Scripture (e.g. "As long as the interpretations does not contradict Scripture..." they will say). The purpose, in both charismatic and Pentecostal circles are miracles to reveal guidance, essentially doctrine, preaching to the congregation, or in some cases specific directions to do or not do things. This process is apart from Scripture and is often in the context of corporate worship.

In practice, both Pentecostals and charismatics believe in a “second work of the Holy Spirit” which is, in effect, explicitly or implicitly, new revelation through "gifts."

Remember again, both groups will, in the midst of corporate worship, stop and have a "Word from the Lord" in what they present as first an unknown tongue, then an interpretation. Sometimes the unknown tongue will be skipped and a lay-person will speak "prophetically" (taken as authoritatively proclaim the Word). These pronouncements are taken as at least equal with Scripture. In practice, many will take it as, in effect, even more authoritative than Scripture, and will not even compare it with Scripture because, after all, it's a "word from the Lord."

They only differ as to necessary form, not substance.

“Continuationism” is used especially to mean new revelation continues, on a same authority as God’s Word. It is not really about whether God continues to work in miraculous ways. He does, and the Confessions all say this.

It's about how God has commanded that He be worship by His special revelation- the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture and not, ordinarily, at least, apart from His Word.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I first posted this on the other thread, but it may fit more here.

ManleyBeasley

I consider myself continuationist though I don't believe there are apostles today. I am continuationist because I don't believe there is a good scriptural basis for cessationism not because I'm a holy roller. I've never been a member of a charasmatic church but I also don't want to say "God doesn't do this or that" when I don't believe there is a biblical basis.

I think I understand where you are coming from. I probably was of the same thinking for many years (and was even in a charismatic-influenced church for several years).

Let's look at this carefully, though. You are saying you don't want to limit God to what He can do. Agreed, God can do absolutely anything He wants with His creation. The Westminster Confession says this:

Chapter V
Of Providence

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;[8] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.[9]

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,[10] yet is free to work without,[11] above,[12] and against them,[13] at His pleasure.

So, we in the reformed theology, above all, profess and accept God’s complete sovereignty over His creation, which includes Him doing miracles any time He wants, without any limitation whatsoever.

The difference, however is that the nature of the gifts claimed are new revelation taken to be at least on the same authority as Scripture (e.g. "As long as the interpretations does not contradict Scripture..." they will say). The purpose, in both charismatic and Pentecostal circles are miracles to reveal guidance, essentially doctrine, preaching to the congregation, or in some cases specific directions to do or not do things. This process is apart from Scripture and is often in the context of corporate worship.

In practice, both Pentecostals and charismatics believe in a “second work of the Holy Spirit” which is, in effect, explicitly or implicitly, new revelation through "gifts."

Remember again, both groups will, in the midst of corporate worship, stop and have a "Word from the Lord" in what they present as first an unknown tongue, then an interpretation. Sometimes the unknown tongue will be skipped and a lay-person will speak "prophetically" (taken as authoritatively proclaim the Word). These pronouncements are taken as at least equal with Scripture. In practice, many will take it as, in effect, even more authoritative than Scripture, and will not even compare it with Scripture because, after all, it's a "word from the Lord."

They only differ as to necessary form, not substance.

“Continuationism” is used especially to mean new revelation continues, on a same authority as God’s Word. It is not really about whether God continues to work in miraculous ways. He does, and the Confessions all say this.

It's about how God has commanded that He be worship by His special revelation- the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture and not, ordinarily, at least, apart from His Word.

The revelation that I believe can continue is not a teaching or doctrinal revelation but one that God leads us and directs us with personally or in the more wide sense (corporate worship) God directing us to specific exhortations to the congregation (not extra-biblical but biblical ones). This is mentioned in Acts 21 and proves that prophesy is not just another name for the inspiration of the scripture because the prophets mentioned in the text never wrote any scripture. My view is that the bible never teaches that this is to cease this side of heaven and so I believe we shouldn't assume it must cease.

-----Added 2/24/2009 at 03:54:45 EST-----

Well I am unsure of my position on what "prophesy" means. I am trying to understand your position, which is probably similar to what I would be arguing against with friends, and trying to refute it.

I would say that probably it doesn't mean what some take it to mean, but I don't know my position on it specifically.

That's why I asked you what you thought prophesy was, whether there are different categorizations of it, and what their functions are, and how you made these categorizations.

I think prophesy can be defined as any revelation from God that is meant to be communicated. I have (in my previous post) limited what type of revelation I think can be supported biblically.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Bible teaches that prophecy never ceases this side of heaven?

I beg to differ: 1Co 13:8 "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away."

This cannot mean that the Word of God ceases to be; or ceases to have meaning or relevance at all times, even in heaven. Jesus said, "My words shall NEVER pass away," and he is the Revealer of all of it.

And it certainly cannot mean "fail" (per KJV reading--not that they meant it crassly) in the sense that it does not come to pass. These are spiritual gifts. "Sign" gifts. Extraordinary gifts. This particular kind of "knowledge" spoken of will also pass away, and all three of them are spoken together as coming to a similar end, and presumably in a similar time frame.

These are items that belong to a time that has only "part" (vv9f). But a "perfect" or whole , relative to Paul, is coming (whatever tongues, prophecy and knowledge are meant to remedy), when all the partial things will have no more utility.

It is alleged that v12, speaking about the final state (?), therefore temporally qualifies the "perfect" of v10. Of course, that assumes Paul jumps to that eschatological figure; and even if he does so, that such a move is incompatible with reading "perfect" in the earlier context as something other than "the perfect state of glorification."

"That which is perfect" in v10 needs to be defined in connection with the nouns around it, and not guessed at based on a sentence that comes later, in the summary of Paul's conclusion. It should be understood on the basis of what the other three gifts (so prized by the Corinthians!) were incapable of fulfilling.

 

[Rich Koster]

LBC1689 Chapter 22 #3 ends in "and when with others, in a known tongue" (WCF XXI 3). Why is that in there?

 

[steven-nemes]

I think prophesy can be defined as any revelation from God that is meant to be communicated. I have (in my previous post) limited what type of revelation I think can be supported biblically.

The revelation that I believe can continue is not a teaching or doctrinal revelation but one that God leads us and directs us with personally or in the more wide sense (corporate worship) God directing us to specific exhortations to the congregation (not extra-biblical but biblical ones). This is mentioned in Acts 21 and proves that prophesy is not just another name for the inspiration of the scripture because the prophets mentioned in the text never wrote any scripture. My view is that the bible never teaches that this is to cease this side of heaven and so I believe we shouldn't assume it must cease.

If, then, this is what the prophesy of Corinthians refers to, why can't I quote:

Ephesians 2

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

and claim, then, that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles (Christ's 12 followers, plus Paul) and a few prophets here and there, until the church no longer needed the apostles (for the words of Christ had already been written and passed about, and the teachings of Paul had all already been completed) nor the prophets (for the "boost" the church needed had already taken place (after all, it seems to me many of the early Christians after the first century claimed the miraculous events peculiar to those times were no longer happening, like Augustine or John Chrysostom, for example) and was no longer necessary)?

And besides that: if the prophesy you are speaking of is not extra-biblical, why have it? Why not go to the Bible?

 

[Scott1]

my comments

ManleyBeasley

The revelation that I believe can continue is not a teaching or doctrinal revelation but one that God leads us and directs us with personally
I think the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture is the ordinary means God uses to lead His people

It seems to me, could be wrong about this, but that I Corinthians 14 is speaking of doctrinal revelation or doctrinal application by the gift of an unknown tongue and the gift of interpretation- that is what charismatics/pentecostal worship explicitly or implicitly treat it as.

or in the more wide sense (corporate worship) God directing us to specific exhortations to the congregation (not extra-biblical but biblical ones). This is mentioned in Acts 21
It seems the miracles attending the Apostle Paul were unique to the apostolic era, and establishing the apostles to (once and for all) build on the doctrinal foundation of the church from the (Old Testament) prophets

and proves that prophesy is not just another name for the inspiration of the scripture because the prophets mentioned in the text never wrote any scripture. My view is that the bible never teaches that this is to cease this side of heaven and so I believe we shouldn't assume it must cease.

Prophecy is the proclamation of God's Word in today's sense. God has established and set His doctrine and one who proclaims it, in a sense "prophesies it, and is a "prophet" but I don't think it is added to as it is full, perfect and complete until our Lord returns.

I would concede and even expect God continues to do miracles today. He can cause someone who never learned a language to suddenly speak it and perhaps use it for evangelism in a certain circumstance. But to say that new revelation ordinarily would be expected to come by an unknown tongue with a miraculous interpretation does not seem consonant with Scripture. But, charismatics/pentecostal worships centers corporate worship on it.

Why, ordinarily, would an unknown tongue be used for a congregation of believers in corporate worship to exhort them to follow God's Word which they already have in their own language? Unless someone really believes something new would be added to God's Word, why? (I submit many wrongly do believe that, expect that in charismatic/pentecostal teaching)

Even making that as a focus (rather than teaching God's Word in a known tongue) was a wrong priority in that day and I Corinthians 14 makes that clear. This was never to be a center of worship, it was a lesser priority gift (cf I Cor. 14:5), and appears to be more of an evangelistic tool if you read I Corinthians 14. Paul says proclaiming God's Word in a known language was the highest priority, and then in chapter 15 says particularly the resurrection of Christ is a center of worship.

Modern day charismatic/pentecostal teaching gets all this wrong, as the Corinthian Church did.

No wonder there is such disorder.

 

[MW]

"That which is perfect" in v10 needs to be defined in connection with the nouns around it, and not guessed at based on a sentence that comes later, in the summary of Paul's conclusion.

Very true. The word used by Paul is mostly used in the NT of a state of spiritual maturity, and it might even be questioned if it is ever used of a state of absolute perfection. It recurs in the same context of beneficially using spiritual gifts in 14:20, where the same contrast between childhood and manhood is utilised. When this broader context is taken into consideration, there is little doubt that "the perfect" in 13:10 is referring to a state of spiritual maturity, not to the absolute perfection of either the believer in heaven or the canon of Scripture when it is complete.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

The Bible teaches that prophecy never ceases this side of heaven?

I beg to differ: 1Co 13:8 "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away."

This cannot mean that the Word of God ceases to be; or ceases to have meaning or relevance at all times, even in heaven. Jesus said, "My words shall NEVER pass away," and he is the Revealer of all of it.

And it certainly cannot mean "fail" (per KJV reading--not that they meant it crassly) in the sense that it does not come to pass. These are spiritual gifts. "Sign" gifts. Extraordinary gifts. This particular kind of "knowledge" spoken of will also pass away, and all three of them are spoken together as coming to a similar end, and presumably in a similar time frame.

These are items that belong to a time that has only "part" (vv9f). But a "perfect" or whole , relative to Paul, is coming (whatever tongues, prophecy and knowledge are meant to remedy), when all the partial things will have no more utility.

It is alleged that v12, speaking about the final state (?), therefore temporally qualifies the "perfect" of v10. Of course, that assumes Paul jumps to that eschatological figure; and even if he does so, that such a move is incompatible with reading "perfect" in the earlier context as something other than "the perfect state of glorification."

"That which is perfect" in v10 needs to be defined in connection with the nouns around it, and not guessed at based on a sentence that comes later, in the summary of Paul's conclusion. It should be understood on the basis of what the other three gifts (so prized by the Corinthians!) were incapable of fulfilling.

Calvin, Luther, Gill, Henry, Spurgeon, Edwards all agree "the perfect" is heaven . The view that this is speaking of scripture and not heaven was not popularized until the pentecostal movement and is reactionary.

 

[MW]

Calvin, Luther, Gill, Henry, Spurgeon, Edwards all agree "the perfect" is heaven . The view that this is speaking of scripture and not heaven was not popularized until the pentecostal movement and is reactionary.

Actually Jonathan Edwards makes allowance for a temporal interpretation while still finding an ultimate reference in the heavenly state. In "Charity and its Fruits" (pp. 324, 325), he observes,

And so there is a twofold failing of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit here mentioned. One was at the end of the first or infant age of the church, when the canon of Scripture was completed, and so there was to be no need of such gifts for the church in its latter ages, when it should have put away childish things, and come to a state of manhood before the end of the world, and when the Spirit of God should most gloriously be poured out and manifested in that love or charity, which is its greatest and everlasting fruit. And the other will be, when all the common fruits of the Spirit cease with respect to particular persons at death, and with respect to the whole church at the end of the world, while charity shall still remain in heaven, and there the Spirit of God shall be poured forth and manifested in perfect love in every heart to all eternity.

The apostle, in the context, seems to have respect to both these states of the church, but especially to the latter.

It cannot be claimed that Edwards' view was reactionary to the pentecostal movement.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Calvin, Luther, Gill, Henry, Spurgeon, Edwards all agree "the perfect" is heaven . The view that this is speaking of scripture and not heaven was not popularized until the pentecostal movement and is reactionary.

Actually Jonathan Edwards makes allowance for a temporal interpretation while still finding an ultimate reference in the heavenly state. In "Charity and its Fruits" (pp. 324, 325), he observes,

And so there is a twofold failing of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit here mentioned. One was at the end of the first or infant age of the church, when the canon of Scripture was completed, and so there was to be no need of such gifts for the church in its latter ages, when it should have put away childish things, and come to a state of manhood before the end of the world, and when the Spirit of God should most gloriously be poured out and manifested in that love or charity, which is its greatest and everlasting fruit. And the other will be, when all the common fruits of the Spirit cease with respect to particular persons at death, and with respect to the whole church at the end of the world, while charity shall still remain in heaven, and there the Spirit of God shall be poured forth and manifested in perfect love in every heart to all eternity.

The apostle, in the context, seems to have respect to both these states of the church, but especially to the latter.

It cannot be claimed that Edwards' view was reactionary to the pentecostal movement.

From your quote it would be right to exclude Edwards from the list (thanks for the clarification). I'm happy to stand with the rest.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 02:59:42 EST-----

my comments

ManleyBeasley

The revelation that I believe can continue is not a teaching or doctrinal revelation but one that God leads us and directs us with personally
I think the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture is the ordinary means God uses to lead His people

It seems to me, could be wrong about this, but that I Corinthians 14 is speaking of doctrinal revelation or doctrinal application by the gift of an unknown tongue and the gift of interpretation- that is what charismatics/pentecostal worship explicitly or implicitly treat it as.

or in the more wide sense (corporate worship) God directing us to specific exhortations to the congregation (not extra-biblical but biblical ones). This is mentioned in Acts 21
It seems the miracles attending the Apostle Paul were unique to the apostolic era, and establishing the apostles to (once and for all) build on the doctrinal foundation of the church from the (Old Testament) prophets

and proves that prophesy is not just another name for the inspiration of the scripture because the prophets mentioned in the text never wrote any scripture. My view is that the bible never teaches that this is to cease this side of heaven and so I believe we shouldn't assume it must cease.

Prophecy is the proclamation of God's Word in today's sense. God has established and set His doctrine and one who proclaims it, in a sense "prophesies it, and is a "prophet" but I don't think it is added to as it is full, perfect and complete until our Lord returns.

I would concede and even expect God continues to do miracles today. He can cause someone who never learned a language to suddenly speak it and perhaps use it for evangelism in a certain circumstance. But to say that new revelation ordinarily would be expected to come by an unknown tongue with a miraculous interpretation does not seem consonant with Scripture. But, charismatics/pentecostal worships centers corporate worship on it.

Why, ordinarily, would an unknown tongue be used for a congregation of believers in corporate worship to exhort them to follow God's Word which they already have in their own language? Unless someone really believes something new would be added to God's Word, why? (I submit many wrongly do believe that, expect that in charismatic/pentecostal teaching)

Even making that as a focus (rather than teaching God's Word in a known tongue) was a wrong priority in that day and I Corinthians 14 makes that clear. This was never to be a center of worship, it was a lesser priority gift (cf I Cor. 14:5), and appears to be more of an evangelistic tool if you read I Corinthians 14. Paul says proclaiming God's Word in a known language was the highest priority, and then in chapter 15 says particularly the resurrection of Christ is a center of worship.

Modern day charismatic/pentecostal teaching gets all this wrong, as the Corinthian Church did.

No wonder there is such disorder.

I completely agree with you. My continuationism is because of my study of scripture and not seeing cessationism taught there. I am very skeptical of people's claims to the miraculous. I do not attend a charismatic church.

 

[Bern]

A lot of negative feeling toward gifts of the spirit is apparent today. This is mainly due to people witnessing counterfeit gifts used in Charismatic churches and running a million miles in the other direction. I've seen counterfeit gifts before, and I've always felt uneasy. I've also seen what I believe to be genuine gifts, and there is always order with them, never simply nonsensical babbling (thats a mark of counterfeit tongues), genuine tongues In my humble opinion always has structure like any other language. What sometimes happens is that people try in the flesh to be spiritual, and thats what muddles the issue.

As for the gifts in general, I don't see why God would include information about them in the New Testament if they are not for us today. Taking that view, it may be possible to explain away other teachings in the bible that we "don't think are for today".

If gifts were not for congregational use, why does Paul give instructions regarding their use?

 

[discipulo]

my comments

ManleyBeasley

The revelation that I believe can continue is not a teaching or doctrinal revelation but one that God leads us and directs us with personally
I think the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture is the ordinary means God uses to lead His people

It seems to me, could be wrong about this, but that I Corinthians 14 is speaking of doctrinal revelation or doctrinal application by the gift of an unknown tongue and the gift of interpretation- that is what charismatics/pentecostal worship explicitly or implicitly treat it as.

or in the more wide sense (corporate worship) God directing us to specific exhortations to the congregation (not extra-biblical but biblical ones). This is mentioned in Acts 21
It seems the miracles attending the Apostle Paul were unique to the apostolic era, and establishing the apostles to (once and for all) build on the doctrinal foundation of the church from the (Old Testament) prophets

and proves that prophesy is not just another name for the inspiration of the scripture because the prophets mentioned in the text never wrote any scripture. My view is that the bible never teaches that this is to cease this side of heaven and so I believe we shouldn't assume it must cease.

Prophecy is the proclamation of God's Word in today's sense. God has established and set His doctrine and one who proclaims it, in a sense "prophesies it, and is a "prophet" but I don't think it is added to as it is full, perfect and complete until our Lord returns.

I would concede and even expect God continues to do miracles today. He can cause someone who never learned a language to suddenly speak it and perhaps use it for evangelism in a certain circumstance. But to say that new revelation ordinarily would be expected to come by an unknown tongue with a miraculous interpretation does not seem consonant with Scripture. But, charismatics/pentecostal worships centers corporate worship on it.

Why, ordinarily, would an unknown tongue be used for a congregation of believers in corporate worship to exhort them to follow God's Word which they already have in their own language? Unless someone really believes something new would be added to God's Word, why? (I submit many wrongly do believe that, expect that in charismatic/pentecostal teaching)

Even making that as a focus (rather than teaching God's Word in a known tongue) was a wrong priority in that day and I Corinthians 14 makes that clear. This was never to be a center of worship, it was a lesser priority gift (cf I Cor. 14:5), and appears to be more of an evangelistic tool if you read I Corinthians 14. Paul says proclaiming God's Word in a known language was the highest priority, and then in chapter 15 says particularly the resurrection of Christ is a center of worship.

Modern day charismatic/pentecostal teaching gets all this wrong, as the Corinthian Church did.

No wonder there is such disorder.

Thank you, that is exactly the clarity in the terminology of Prophecy we need!

The Pentecostal / Charismatic movements «robbed us» of an important and biblical word, by adding and popularizing an impropriate Old Testament semantics / meaning / authority to the way the word is used in the New Testament.

How could a Prophecy be a Word with the OT Authority of Thus saith the Lord, if it must be weighed by the ones listening.

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 1 Co 14:29

Even Paul commended the Bereans for checking his preaching with Scripture.

Prophecy is not continuing or more Special Revelation, it is the Proclamation, the Teaching and Preaching of Scripture, of the Written Word, applied to the condition of the Church.

Prophesying is giving application, correction, doctrine, encouragement, to the Congregation according to its needs and through Scripture.

That’s how the puritans did and taught the meaning of the word.

The Art of Prophesying William Perkins (1558-1602)

Perkins - The Art of Prophesying

 

[Bern]

I totally agree. Some Charismatics view prophesy almost as fortune telling! I think "The Art of Phrophesying" sums it up very well.

 

[Scott1]

My comments

A lot of negative feeling toward gifts of the spirit

Sometimes our terminology is confusing. There are many "gifts" reformed theology believes operate within the context of God's revealed Word today. For example, Romans 12:6-8 "teaching" and "giving" and "mercy." We say someone has the "gift" of teaching God's Word, and reformed theology, especially looks for that. We say someone is gifted in "giving," etc.

Ephesians 4:11 speaks of "gifts" of "prophecy" and "evangelism" we believe prophecy exists but in the form or proclaiming God's Word now that God has completed His revealed Word.

When the term "gifts of the spirit" is used, it is usually used to refer (only) to I Corinthians 12:1-14, and particularly speaking in other tongues, and interpretation of other tongues.

So, we are only meaning, a small subset of "gifts."

"Cessationism" has taken on a meaning all its own to mean a debate about whether there is new revelation of God coming through speaking in other tongues and interpretation of other tongues or perhaps whether certain people today have a supernatural gift to heal other people. This is where the debate is.

Reformed theology believes miracles continue, that God can miraculously heal a person today, in a sense more than all, because it is centered on the doctrine of God- He is omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent. He is not limited in any way in what He can do.


is apparent today. This is mainly due to people witnessing counterfeit gifts

I think the issue is whether the "gift" is really an ordinary means of grace God has provided given that He has given His completed special revelation by the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
used in Charismatic churches and running a million miles in the other direction. I've seen counterfeit gifts before, and I've always felt uneasy. I've also seen what I believe to be genuine gifts, and there is always order with them,
What is your biblical basis for this?

never simply nonsensical babbling (thats a mark of counterfeit tongues), genuine tongues In my humble opinion always has structure like any other language. What sometimes happens is that people try in the flesh to be spiritual,
It seems what often happens is that sinful, fallen human beings (all of us) tend toward idolatry. Mr Calvin describes our hearts as "idol factories" in accordance with what Scripture says about us. Therefore, we are prone to seek God outside of His revealed Word, prayer, the sacraments- the ordinary means by which He has provided- and commanded that we grow in faith.

and thats what muddles the issue.

As for the gifts in general, I don't see why God would include information about them in the New Testament if they are not for us today. Taking that view, it may be possible to explain away other teachings in the bible that we "don't think are for today".

Actually, that's not the only way to look at this. By analogy (I realize this isn't a perfect comparison), the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ. It's "no longer for today" in that we don't sacrifice because it's purpose has been fulfilled, according to Scripture we learn that. It's not irrelevant, there are types and shadows for us to learn of Christ's perfect obedience in life and death.

Similarly, speaking in an unknown tongue, followed by an interpretation was a practice at a time the Scripture was not yet completed. The question is, has the completed revelation of Scripture, at least ordinarily, replaced or fulfilled that function?

If gifts were not for congregational use, why does Paul give instructions regarding their use?

I realize this is not directly to your point here but this may be helpful to those following. I Corinthians 14 says, in my understanding says at least three things about "tongues"

1) Prophesying (proclaiming God's Word in a known language) is a greater gift than "unknown tongues" (I Cor 14:5,12,19)

2) "Unknown tongues" is not to be the priority of worship, the proclaiming of God's Word, particularly the gospel is (I Cor 15:1-10)

3) "Unknown tongues", apparently, were an evangelistic tool (I Cor 22)

Charismatic/Pentecostal practice, generally, goes against all three. The same incorrect behavior gently admonished by Paul to the Corinthians. Corporate worship is focused on "tongues," it is treated with preeminence, and it is used as a substitute or compliment to revelation through Scripture.

And all this before we even get to the issue of whether these few gifts have completely ceased or in what way they might continue...

I would say it's not a matter of "abuse" or "balance," it is a matter of biblical theology.

No wonder there is so much disorder.

 

[timmopussycat]

Greetings:

A brief argument for cessationism:

The Bible teaches that, "tongues are for a sign," 1 Cor 14:22a. It is a sign to unbelievers that God is speaking. The unbelievers, in this context, happen to be Jews.

Consequently, speaking in toungues, whether in private or in public, is a sign that God is speaking.

God has spoken perfectly in the Bible of which nothing else is to be added therein, Rev 22:18-19.

I am very wary of getting involved in this issue since one of the moderators seems to think I am a charismatic, when in fact I am not one. But linking tongues to pre-canon closure is a bad argument that cannot stand.

1) "Tongues" are indeed a sign to the Jewish unbeilievers, (Is. 28:11,12) and what that sign was was made clear on the day of Pentecost. "Parthians and Medes, Elamites, residents of Macedonia, Cappodocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya and Romans" all heard Galileans tell in "our own tongues" i.e. their local languages, the mighty works of God. (Note that the claim that the languages were Hebrew or Aramaic, the common languages of Jewish diasporites founders upon the fact that Isaiah prophecies that it will be by strange tongues that God will speak to his unlistening people.)

2) It seems that we need to split the theological category of revelation into two subcategories i.e. canonical revelation and non-canonical situational revelation. The OT clearly documents instances in which prophets were known to prophesy accurately yet those prophecies were not included in the canon e.g. 1 Sam. 3:19, 20. Canonic Revelation is complete, but situational revelation along the lines of 1 Sam 3:19:20 may not be. And tongues if given today would fall into situational revelation not canonical revelation. If God wants to testify to the heirs of Abraham today by tongues, he is free to do so since the question of canon won't be involved.
To adapt slightly what I wrote in another thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/tongues-25874/

1)The Holy Spirit is the sovereign giver of the gifts and he gives them whenever and to whomever he pleases (1 Cor. 12:11) to build up the church (1 Cor. 14:12) and glorify God (1Cor. 14:25).
2) We know that tongues in Scripture were human languages previously unknown to their speakers who found themselves suddenly praising God in those languages fluently and supernaturally.
3) We do not know that tongues have ceased. While inferring that premise from 1 Cor. 13:13 is valid inference from that verse, it cannot stand as a valid deduction from Scripture as a whole since one may also infer, with equal validity that "knowledge [is not] done away" before the end of the age (1 Cor. 14:8) and it is an equally valid to infer from 1 Cor. 14:12 that the point at which we shall "see face to face" is also the end of the age. Therefore any given case of tongues today MAY be valid and must be tested by Scripture to see if it is valid. And if we infer that the gifts pass with the apostles, we must also conclude that pastors and teachers of Eph. 4:11 must have passed with the apostles.
4) We do not know that tongues of Scriputure were those of "angels". While the gift of tongues includes "angelic languages may be inferred from 1 Cor. 13:1, that inference is not a necessary deduction from that Scipture. Paul could well have been using hyperbole to trump the Corinthians tongues excess. Given that...
5) We know that what is often presented to us today as biblical tongues is not human languages but something that sounds like run on English syllables. This pheonomenon called glossolalia can be produced by people who have no pretensions to Christianity....
6) any given case of tongues today MAY NOT be valid.
7) So what criteria does the Bible provide to help us manage tongues?
8) We know that the purpose of tongues were
a) that of being a sign to unbelieving Jews (1 Cor. 14:21,22)
and
b) speaking to God in private prayer (1 Cor. 14:2)
Therefore
8) Those who have the gift should ONLY use it privately unless someone known to have the gift of interpreting tongues iis in the congregation, (1 Cor. 14:28)
for
9) Public misuse of tongues hinders evangelism (1 Cor. 14:23)
Yet
10)It should be remembered that public use of previously unknown languages taught by the Holy Spirit did not always harden unbelieving Jews in their unbelief. Some heard the praises of God, wondered what was going on and asked for further information. Result: Peter's Pentecost sermon, multiple hundreds converted, and the launch of the church. (Acts 2:7-12).

There have also been some odd instances in later church history where something of the same sort of thing seems to have happened. One incident was recounted like this. According to the writer, a minister, one night in a prayer meeting, he asked his wife (whose prayer tongue was a known language) to pray aloud. She did so and the minister knew enough French to recognize that she was offering praise to God. Another lady with the gift of interpretation then translated (accurately as far as the minister could tell.) After the meeting a young Jewish girl was introduced to him. She had been invited to the meeting by Christian friends as her heart was under conviction. Now she wanted to become a Christian, but she had one question. "Why did that one lady speak in French in the middle of the meeting and the other lady translate?" "How do you know that was French?" asked the minister. "It's my major. Not only that I'm specializing in that particular dialect" replied the girl. "Was the translation accurate?" the minister then asked and got the response "Yes" Then he said: "Would you believe that neither of those two ladies knows French?" and pointed her to 1 Cor. 14:21." Imagine what that did for the girl's nascent faith.

What are we to make of this? I can't accept it as certainly valid because I know no second witness to these events who has confirmed the story. And I am stopped from arbitrarily dismissing the account as an outright lie because that the minister concerned was Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapels fame. If Smith had descended to deception over this account, I must wonder why he later broke from John Wimber when Wimber decended into the deeper aberrations. Usually deceivers go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived, (2 Tim. 3:13) and if Smith's account was deceitful, one would have expected Smith to go with Wimber.

Once the foundation has been laid - there is no reason to relay the foundation every generation:

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, Ep 2:20.

If the revelation involved is non-canonical and situational then this argument doesn't necessarily win the day. For while the apostles have gone, the apostolic revelation remains with us in the form of the canon and by it, responible charismatics judge both situational revelations and those who give them.
As for the "prophets" in Eph 2:20 that is best taken as a reference to the canonical prophets of the OT (whose revelation also remains with us) as Peter clearly attributes to the OT prophets a foundational role in the church at 2 Pt. 1:19-20).

The Scripture teaches that the Church is built upon this foundation. The revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy were necessary in the first century in order to lay the foundation. Once this foundation is laid, the Church will be built upon it.

If we need the physical presence os the apostles and/or prophets today, then we will need the physical presence of Christ as well.

Since we have the canonical revelation of apostles and prophets not to mention the Lord's own teaching, we don't need their physical presence since the Holy Spirit through the word teaches us the foundational truths we need.


Blessings,

Rob[/QUOTE]

 

[MW]

From your quote it would be right to exclude Edwards from the list (thanks for the clarification). I'm happy to stand with the rest.

It might be worth your while confirming whether the rest are actually standing with you, and that their words are not taken out of their historical context by making them speak to an issue they never addressed.

 

[MW]

If the revelation involved is non-canonical and situational then this argument doesn't necessarily win the day.

It certainly does win the day for the simple reason that if the revelation is non-canonical and situational then it is not a "continuation" of biblical revelation. If one is going to argue for the presence of a completely different kind of revelation, then it should not be classified as an ongoing manifestation of what brought the Bible into existence.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

From your quote it would be right to exclude Edwards from the list (thanks for the clarification). I'm happy to stand with the rest.

It might be worth your while confirming whether the rest are actually standing with you, and that their words are not taken out of their historical context by making them speak to an issue they never addressed.

They are standing with me on the issue being discussed related to them; the interpretation of "the perfect" being heaven not the completion of the scripture. And though Edwards isn't totally there he certainly isn't against my position on that text but seems pretty unsure.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 02:49:27 EST-----

If the revelation involved is non-canonical and situational then this argument doesn't necessarily win the day.

It certainly does win the day for the simple reason that if the revelation is non-canonical and situational then it is not a "continuation" of biblical revelation. If one is going to argue for the presence of a completely different kind of revelation, then it should not be classified as an ongoing manifestation of what brought the Bible into existence.

Who says we are classifying it that way? I thought we stated very clearly that it wasn't the same kind of revelation. Am I misunderstanding?

 

[timmopussycat]

Once the foundation has been laid - there is no reason to relay the foundation every generation:
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, Ep 2:20.

If the revelation involved is non-canonical and situational then this argument doesn't necessarily win the day. For while the apostles have gone, the apostolic revelation remains with us in the form of the canon and by it, responible charismatics judge both situational revelations and those who give them.
As for the "prophets" in Eph 2:20 that is best taken as a reference to the canonical prophets of the OT (whose revelation also remains with us) as Peter clearly attributes to the OT prophets a foundational role in the church at 2 Pt. 1:19-20).

If the revelation involved is non-canonical and situational then this argument doesn't necessarily win the day.

It certainly does win the day for the simple reason that if the revelation is non-canonical and situational then it is not a "continuation" of biblical revelation. If one is going to argue for the presence of a completely different kind of revelation, then it should not be classified as an ongoing manifestation of what brought the Bible into existence.

The problem we need to work through here is this: since God has in some way "revealed" both the canonical documents of Old and New Testaments which are foundational to the gospel and church, and the situational revelations not included in the canon, we cannot limit the term "revelation" to the former content and exclude the latter unless we can show he used a different communications methodology in each case. Until we can show that, we must include both canonical and situational prophecies within the category of revelation. But we must remember that the subcategories are not identical: although they are both fruit, one is an apple and the other an orange.

In the case of Biblical tongues, it is clear that what we have is not canonical revelation since the specific contents of such incidents in the NT have not been recorded. And it is canonical revelation which is the foundation the apostles and the prophets provide.

Now I, and the responsible charsimatics, not only agree that that situational revelation is not a "continuation" of canonical revelation, we assert the point.

But C&H is using a text from which by necessary consequence, one may assert that canonical revelation has ceased in his attempt to prove situational revelation has ceased, which is a confusion of apples and oranges.

In fact, on second thought, perhaps we should entirely remove biblical tongues from the revelation category since they may not have been technically revelation at all, but the only supernatural enabling of individuals to give praise to God in languages that they have not learned by natural means without any doctrinal novelties being revealed to them as they did so. We have no indications whatever about whether or not the objective content of such praises were supernaturally revealed to the individuals at the time they were so praising God or whether the content of their praises referred to detauks of God's actions and character that the praisers would have known, had they understood the languages they were speaking. If this thought is correct, denying tongues because of the cessation of canonical foundational revelation is even more a case of confusing apples and oranges.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:07:54 EST-----

The Pentecostal / Charismatic movements «robbed us» of an important and biblical word, by adding and popularizing an impropriate Old Testament semantics / meaning / authority to the way the word is used in the New Testament.

How could a Prophecy be a Word with the OT Authority of Thus saith the Lord, if it must be weighed by the ones listening.

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 1 Co 14:29

Even Paul commended the Bereans for checking his preaching with Scripture.

You have answered your own question. Peter tells his readers that Paul's teachings were on the same level as "the other Scriptures" in 2 Pt. 3:16. So Paul's writings were definitely "a Word with the OT Authority of Thus sith the Lord" yet both Luke and Paul commended checking even apostolic teaching by Scripture. So also did Peter.

Even in the OT the Israelites were required to discern between the true and the false prophet. The true prophet would preach words in accordance with the covenant and his predictions of future events would come to pass: the false prophet would ultimately preach contrary to the words of the covenant and sometimes his predictions would not come to pass.

 

[Scott1]

Here's a question to seek clarity for those following discussion here:

For purposes of the question, let us assume:

1) "speaking in an unknown tongue," as part of corporate worship is not taken as new revelation of biblical doctrine of any kind

2) "speaking in an unknown tongue" requires an immediate "gift of interpretation" to follow it immediately in corporate worship

What would be the corporate worship purpose?

(I'm constrained to say I do not believe it is commonly viewed or practiced this way in charismatic/pentecostal practice, but for purposes of clarifying only)

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

TimO and Meanly:

Situational revelation? Why the Scriptures speak about prophets of whom we know little or next to nothing concerning their prophecies - such as the Daughters of Philip, Acts 21:9. Were their prophesying "situational" and, if so, would you argue that we can have "situational propheysing" going on today? And, if so, then are our consciences bound by such "situational prophesying"? And, if our consciences are bound by such prophesyings, then how is it different from canonical revelation? Canonical Revelation has spoken to situations, 1 Kns 22:8.

Chuck Smith may have abandoned Wimber's ministry, but he has not abandoned the idea that the "gifts are for today." Not a very good argument there, TimO.

Paul, in saying that tongues are a sign to the Jews, is writing post-Pentacost. In this situation the gift is no longer necessary, because throughout the whole world there are men, women and children giving thanks and praise to God in many different tongues: Germans, Italians, Russians, Chineese, Koreans, Japaneese, Sudaneese, Kenyans, Nigerians, and Brazilians to name a few.

I am in the midst of finals here - sorry for the brevity.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[timmopussycat]

Hi:

TimO and Meanly:

Situational revelation? Why the Scriptures speak about prophets of whom we know little or next to nothing concerning their prophecies - such as the Daughters of Philip, Acts 21:9. Were their prophesying "situational" and, if so, would you argue that we can have "situational propheysing" going on today? And, if so, then are our consciences bound by such "situational prophesying"? And, if our consciences are bound by such prophesyings, then how is it different from canonical revelation? Canonical Revelation has spoken to situations, 1 Kns 22:8.

You are correct to note that canonical revelation has addressed particular situations at different times, but what differentiates situational revelation from canonical revelation is that situational prophecies are not inscripturated into the canon. They are therefore neither apostolic nor prophetic ("the other Scriptures") and are not foundational.

Since the canon does not tell us exactly what Philip's daughter's prophecied, their prophecies were and are not canonical. Nor were their prophecies apostolic or OT scripture. So by elimination they must be situational.

As far as I have seen nobody has deployed an argument from Scripture that demonstrates by good and necessary consequence that God has determined that sitatuational prophecy will never occur in the post apostolic era. And if anybody claims to make any such prophecy, we should never accept such as even potentially binding on conscience unless it is in conformity to Scripture, does not contradict the moral law and any predictive prophecy in the alleged prophet's past history has proven true.

Chuck Smith may have abandoned Wimber's ministry, but he has not abandoned the idea that the "gifts are for today." Not a very good argument there, TimO.

It's not conclusive, but it is suggestive because it breaks a pattern of what often happens to deceivers. Scripturally they go from bad to worse being ever more deceived. Yet Smith broke from Wimber over the latters non Scriptural abuse of the gifts, something one would not have expected him to do if he had put forward a deception in the area himself.

Paul, in saying that tongues are a sign to the Jews, is writing post-Pentacost. In this situation the gift is no longer necessary, because throughout the whole world there are men, women and children giving thanks and praise to God in many different tongues: Germans, Italians, Russians, Chineese, Koreans, Japaneese, Sudaneese, Kenyans, Nigerians, and Brazilians to name a few.

Indeed: and they are so witnessing even to Jews and the mass of that people still don't listen. But a few do, and if God has not caused all his gifts to his church to vanish with the deaths of the apostles, he is free, if he wants to do something like what Smith describes, if for no other reason than to give a dose of encouragement to a Jewish convert's initial faith.

By the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Pentecost was 20 years past and there were people of many languages already so witnessing to the Jews. But Paul does not prohibit tongues and prophecy in the assembly, summoning the Corinthains to a maturity of abandoning the gifts, instead he first points to the necessity using them in love (with the implied point to build up the body 1 Cor 13:1 -14:1) then he regulates them. And from that regulation we get a sense at least part of what prophecy really was in the NT church: it could and did involve the laying bare the secrets of someones' heart with resultant case of conviction. I never saw anything like this in my time exposed to charismatic "prophecies".