Well, this raises a disagreement all its own, so I won't start debating it in this thread. I would just note that that belief itself has been rejected by historic Reformed church and her standards, which affirm that all of biblical prophecy and tongues were revelational. And again, since it's beyond the scope of this thread, I'm not going to attempt here to show that to be biblically the case, but what I do not think can be denied is that even if non-revelational tongues and prophecy could be shown to be biblical, the historic Reformed confessions of all traditions have never been sympathetic to that classification, and thus if some charismatics were correct on that non-revelational concept of prophecy, it would mean that historic Reformed theology has been wrong on that point, not that that view is compatible with Reformed theology. Two threads I recall in which this was discussed are here and here. 1) Yes, through providence and sanctification, especially when we openly pray for such to happen 2) Absolutely - which is where the traditional Reformed difference between illumination and revelation comes into play. It has been explained by others here far better than I could, but for one thing the former is always completely attached to, and focused on, specific Scripture passages being understood, whereas the latter usually operates independently from (though not against, of course) specific Scripture text being referenced. 3) I would never deny this, and I don't see a denial of it in Scripture or in any of the historic Reformed conventions, either, as He is free to work beyond His normal means of providence whenever He chooses - and none of the confessions even imply that we have any reason from Scripture to doubt that He still does.