What to do with 1 Cor 14?

[Davidius]

When I was still a Charismatic one of the big problems I had with Cessationism was that it seemed silly to think that large chunks of text in 1 Cor 12 and 14 would be obsolete if the gifts had ceased. Now that I've been convinced of Cessationism I pose the same question. What are we now to glean from didactic passages such as the ones I've mentioned, if anything?

 

[MW]

When I was still a Charismatic one of the big problems I had with Cessationism was that it seemed silly to think that large chunks of text in 1 Cor 12 and 14 would be obsolete if the gifts had ceased. Now that I've been convinced of Cessationism I pose the same question. What are we now to glean from didactic passages such as the ones I've mentioned, if anything?

I found it helpful to do a study wherein I noted indicative and imperative statements, and amongst the indicative I distinguished between statements which spoke of what the Corinthians were doing, and others which express the writer's mind. Most commentators agree that the didactic centre of the section is chapter 13, which undergirds the apostle's emphasis throughout on edifying the body, not self, in the use of gifts. Of note, confessionally, is the importance placed on those gifts which instruct the church (latter part of chap. 12), and that it be in a known tongue (chap. 14).

 

[Robin]

When I was still a Charismatic one of the big problems I had with Cessationism was that it seemed silly to think that large chunks of text in 1 Cor 12 and 14 would be obsolete if the gifts had ceased. Now that I've been convinced of Cessationism I pose the same question. What are we now to glean from didactic passages such as the ones I've mentioned, if anything?

D,

Perhaps a better question to begin with is: "What did the gifts DO in the early church?" "Why, the gift of tongues in Acts?" "What was that gift doing?"

The same applies to Jesus' healings. "Why heal blindness? Why lameness?..."

I mean, why don't we read of Jesus healing cavities or baldness?!

Read large portions of Text to get the whole idea and what it meant at the time -- this will really help!



The miracles are "signs"....they are "sign-ificant."

Robin

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

There is much that can be gleaned from 1 Cor. 14. When I was a student at Carolina, there was a Pit Preacher who asserted that there were two kinds of Christians: those that were Spirit-filled and those that were not. The former kind, of course, was that who could speak in tongues, which was the pinnacle of the Christian experience, without which one's Christian walk was essentially sans the "abundant life." This chapter and the one previous, to the contrary, taught me rather that, supposing I did have the gift of speaking in tongues, as understood by this charismatic preacher, it would be worthless without charity and without profit lacking the gift of interpretation ("vain" to use Simon Browne's term). Moreover, the Apostle highlights the significance of this gift not as a mark of the true Christian but as a sign for unbelievers. Having to deal with this text in light of what the Pit Preacher said highlighted for me at the time an error in emphasis which at first gave me unnecessarily great doubt and lead me into spiritual depression. Wrongly dividing this Word lead to the elevation of an emotional, unBiblical experience; while rightly dividing the Word has caused me to dig much deeper than a superficial reading that makes Pentecost normative for believers. The emphasis in 1 Cor. 14 is on the importance of edification, the importance of doing things decently and in order, the importance of understanding our roles as men and women in the church, the importance of valuing our gifts and utilizing them for the good of others. Much more could be said.

 

[AV1611]

A debate I have been having on another forum is here.

 

[puritan lad]

There is also a very good series and debate on this very subject at

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/11/a-couple-key-questions/

 

[Davidius]

Thanks, everyone. These materials have all been very helpful for me. One of the things I'm most interested in learning about is question #2 from the discussion at Pulpit Magazine, namely, what the purpose of the gifts in the Old and New Testaments was and how that shapes our understanding of their continued (or for our case, ceased) usage. As far as question #1 from the same discussion goes, it was interesting to me that one of the people who replied in favor of Continuationism said that, while he believes the same gifts still function, they don't (and should not be expected to) function to the same degree. My question is, if the Continuationist doesn't see any biblical evidence to support the cessation of the gifts at the end of the Apostolic Age, on what grounds would he assert that they shouldn't function to the same degree (either the same degree of power or same degree of frequency)? It seems to me that if you believe the gifts haven't ceased there's no reason to believe that they shouldn't be as frequent or as powerful as they were during the Apostolic Age.

 

[puritan lad]

I would also point out that charismatics are quite choosey about the gifts that they see continuing. Many will quote Matthew 16:17 to defend "new tongues", but ignore Matthew 16:18, which gives them the power to take up serpents and drink poison.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

David:

Do you have Wayne Grudem's systematic? His approach may be the wisest to refute. He is in agreement with many of the reformed doctrines, specifically church order, but yet still holds to a non-cessationist view on the gifts. Being that you were once involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries, you may be familiar with him. His theology is relied on heavily by CJ Mahaney and company.

If you don’t have the book, I will lend you mine.

 

[RiverCritter]

During my own days as a charismatic I heard many different arguments for cessation. The one that finally got my attention wasn't a theological argument at all, but a simple history lesson. Reading about the events of 70 A.D. got me to taking a look at how those events would have been perceived and interpreted by those who witnessed them. That got me to reading Josephus and Tacitus, and at several points their descriptions of events in Jerusalem that year sounded very much like Jesus' own description in His Olivet prophecy (Matthew 23-24).

"WHOA! Did Jesus come back only 40 years after the Ascension?!!" I thought, feeling a little panicked and feeling betrayed for not ever having heard any of this in church all my life.

Orthodox preterism was new to me, but suddenly the purpose of all those signs and miracles described in Acts and in 1st Corinthians became clear. Speaking in tongues in particular. They were covenant signs to a single generation of Jews - the generation that had murdered God's Son and was persecuting His Church.

Once the things they signified came to pass (in 70 A.D.), that purpose had been served.

Funny - it was eschatology rather than "charismatology" (is that a word?) that convinced me of cessation.

Grateful not to be a "low wattage" Christian (for not speaking in tongues) after all,
Robin