The question cessationists must answer.

[Deborah D]

There are two sub-forums here at CF which should be considered SAFE HOUSES for charismatics; where Cessationists should not debate that tongues have ceased. I just wanted to point this out so charismatics know they have places to post free from the Cessationists' jive that the Gifts have ceased.

Equipping the Saints/Spiritual Growth/Spiritual Gifts/Sign Gifts

Sign Gifts


Congregation/Faith Groups/Spirit-Filled/Charismatic

Spirit-Filled / Charismatic


This thread, now 28 pages long, was one that from the OP encouraged debate.

But for those sick of the theology of Cessationists; there are those two places to discuss the gifts in the absence of the naysayers.

That would be a welcome relief! Then the charismatics can fight amongst ourselves about the gifts....

 

[swordsman1]

John Stott - Baptism and Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today

Probably at this point something needs to be said about “tongues”, the gift much emphasized by some. A question mark still stands over the contemporary phenomenon known as tongue-speaking, whether it is identical to the New Testament gift. It is clear that on the Day of Pentecost the Spirit-filled believers were speaking “in other tongues”, that is in foreign languages, “as the spirit gave them utterance” and that all these languages were intelligible to groups in the crowd (Acts 2:4-11). There is a strong theological and linguistic presumption that the phenomenon referred to in 1 Corinthians is the same. First, the Greek phrases are almost exactly the same, and one of the first rules of Biblical interpretation Is that identical expressions have an identical meaning. Second, the noun glossa has only two known meanings, namely the organ in the mouth and language. There is no linguistic warrant for the NEB rendering ecstatic utterance”. This is not a translation but an interpretation. Similarly the verb for the “interpretation of tongues” means the translation of languages. Third, the whole thrust of 1 Corinthians 14 is to discourage the cult of unintelligibility as a childish thing: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking... but in thinking be mature” (verse 20). The God of the Bible is a rational God does not delight in irrationality or unintelligibility.

This interpretation raises a few exegetical difficulties which has lead some to distinguish sharply between “tongues” in the Acts and tongues in 1 Corinthians. But the difficulties are small in comparison with the strength of the argument that the phenomenon is the same, not an unintelligible ecstatic utterance but an intelligible language - intelligible, that is to some present (as on the day of Pentecost); it would of course need to be interpreted or translated in a multilingual port like Corinth for the benefit of those who spoke another language. If the gift is essentially linguistic, one can understand better why Paul puts it at the bottom of the list, and why it is not even mentioned in the three other lists. It is true that he says ”I want you all to speak in tongues” (much as Moses said “Would that all the Lord's people were prophets” Numbers 11:29), because all God’s gifts are good and desirable, but in itself (apart, that is, from the content spoken) it does not have a particular ability to edify.

What then about the contemporary practice of private tongue speaking as an aid to personal devotion? Many are claiming to discover through it a new degree of fluency in their approach to God. Others has spoken of a kind of “psychic release,” which they have found liberating and which one would not want to deny them. On the other hand, it needs to be said (from 1 Corinthians 14) that if Paul completely forbids public tongues speaking without interpretation, he strongly discourages private tongue speaking if the speaker does not understand what he is saying. Verse 13 is often overlooked: “He who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret”. Otherwise mind will be “unfruitful” or unproductive. So what is he to do? Paul asks himself. His reply is that he will pray and sing “with the Spirit”, but he will do so “with the mind also”. It is clear that he simply cannot contemplate Christian prayer and praise in which the mind is not actively engaged.

Some readers will no doubt respond that in the early verses of 1 Corinthians 14 the apostle contrasts prophecy and tongue-speaking, stating that the prophet “edifies himself,” and therefore is actively encouraging the practice of private tongue-speaking. I confess that I question whether this is the right deduction to draw. Two reasons make me hesitate.

First, “edification” in the New Testament is invariably a ministry that builds up others. The Greek word oikodomeo mean literally “to build,” and is used of building cities, houses, synagogues, etc. Used figuratively it is applied to the church. “I will build my church,” said Jesus (Mt 16:16). “You are ...God’s building,” wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor 3:9; cf. Eph 2:20-21), and “like living stones” are being “built into a spiritual house,” added Peter (1 Pet 2:5). From this basic meaning the word came to be used of “strengthening, establishing, edifying” Christians and churches. Luke write that the Palestinian church was “being built up,” and Paul that his his apostolic authority had been given him “for your upbuilding” (Act 9:31; 2 Cor 10:8; 12:19; 13:10). In addition, Christians have a ministry of “mutual upbuilding” (Rom 14:19) in which they are to “build one another up” (1 Thess 5:11; cf. Rom 15:2; Eph 4:20; Jude 20). And if it be asked what edifies the church more than anything else, Paul would reply “truth” (Acts 20:32; cf Col 2:7) and “love” (1 Cor 8:1; cf 10:23). The same emphasis on building up others prevails in 1 Corinthians 14, in that not only does the prophet “edify” by his message (verse 3-4) but in public worship “all things” are to be “done for edification” (verse 26; cf verse 17) and all Christians are to “strive to excel in building up the church” (verse 12; cf. verse 5). Now in the light of this consistent New Testament emphasis on edification as a ministry to others and to the church, what are we to make of the one and only exception, which sat that the tongue-speaker “edifies himself”? Surely there must be at least some degree of irony in what Paul writes, for the phrase is almost a contradiction in terms. Self-edification is simply not what edification is all about in the New Testament.

Second, we have to read the expression in the light of the teaching we have already considered that all spiritual gifts are service gifts, bestowed “for the common good” for ministry to others. How, then, can this one gift be turned in upon itself and be exercised for personal good instead of the common good? Must one not say that this involves a misuse of a gift? What would one think of a believer with a teaching gift who uses it only to give himself private instruction, or of a man with a healing gift who healed no one but himself? It is hard to justify the self-directed use of a gift specifically bestowed for the benefit of others.

So for these two reasons it seems to me that there must be a note of irony, if not of sarcasm, in Paul’s voice as he writes of the tongue-speaker edifying himself. He takes it for granted that the Corinthians, to whom he had clearly explained the purpose of spiritual gifts in chapter 12, we get his meaning and not need him to spell it out any further.

 

[Deborah D]

John Stott - Baptism and Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today

Probably at this point something needs to be said about “tongues”, the gift much emphasized by some. A question mark still stands over the contemporary phenomenon known as tongue-speaking, whether it is identical to the New Testament gift. It is clear that on the Day of Pentecost the Spirit-filled believers were speaking “in other tongues”, that is in foreign languages, “as the spirit gave them utterance” and that all these languages were intelligible to groups in the crowd (Acts 2:4-11). There is a strong theological and linguistic presumption that the phenomenon referred to in 1 Corinthians is the same. First, the Greek phrases are almost exactly the same, and one of the first rules of Biblical interpretation Is that identical expressions have an identical meaning. Second, the noun glossa has only two known meanings, namely the organ in the mouth and language. There is no linguistic warrant for the NEB rendering ecstatic utterance”. This is not a translation but an interpretation. Similarly the verb for the “interpretation of tongues” means the translation of languages. Third, the whole thrust of 1 Corinthians 14 is to discourage the cult of unintelligibility as a childish thing: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking... but in thinking be mature” (verse 20). The God of the Bible is a rational God does not delight in irrationality or unintelligibility.

This interpretation raises a few exegetical difficulties which has lead some to distinguish sharply between “tongues” in the Acts and tongues in 1 Corinthians. But the difficulties are small in comparison with the strength of the argument that the phenomenon is the same, not an unintelligible ecstatic utterance but an intelligible language - intelligible, that is to some present (as on the day of Pentecost); it would of course need to be interpreted or translated in a multilingual port like Corinth for the benefit of those who spoke another language. If the gift is essentially linguistic, one can understand better why Paul puts it at the bottom of the list, and why it is not even mentioned in the three other lists. It is true that he says ”I want you all to speak in tongues” (much as Moses said “Would that all the Lord's people were prophets” Numbers 11:29), because all God’s gifts are good and desirable, but in itself (apart, that is, from the content spoken) it does not have a particular ability to edify.

What then about the contemporary practice of private tongue speaking as an aid to personal devotion? Many are claiming to discover through it a new degree of fluency in their approach to God. Others has spoken of a kind of “psychic release,” which they have found liberating and which one would not want to deny them. On the other hand, it needs to be said (from 1 Corinthians 14) that if Paul completely forbids public tongues speaking without interpretation, he strongly discourages private tongue speaking if the speaker does not understand what he is saying. Verse 13 is often overlooked: “He who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret”. Otherwise mind will be “unfruitful” or unproductive. So what is he to do? Paul asks himself. His reply is that he will pray and sing “with the Spirit”, but he will do so “with the mind also”. It is clear that he simply cannot contemplate Christian prayer and praise in which the mind is not actively engaged.

Some readers will no doubt respond that in the early verses of 1 Corinthians 14 the apostle contrasts prophecy and tongue-speaking, stating that the prophet “edifies himself,” and therefore is actively encouraging the practice of private tongue-speaking. I confess that I question whether this is the right deduction to draw. Two reasons make me hesitate.

First, “edification” in the New Testament is invariably a ministry that builds up others. The Greek word oikodomeo mean literally “to build,” and is used of building cities, houses, synagogues, etc. Used figuratively it is applied to the church. “I will build my church,” said Jesus (Mt 16:16). “You are ...God’s building,” wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor 3:9; cf. Eph 2:20-21), and “like living stones” are being “built into a spiritual house,” added Peter (1 Pet 2:5). From this basic meaning the word came to be used of “strengthening, establishing, edifying” Christians and churches. Luke write that the Palestinian church was “being built up,” and Paul that his his apostolic authority had been given him “for your upbuilding” (Act 9:31; 2 Cor 10:8; 12:19; 13:10). In addition, Christians have a ministry of “mutual upbuilding” (Rom 14:19) in which they are to “build one another up” (1 Thess 5:11; cf. Rom 15:2; Eph 4:20; Jude 20). And if it be asked what edifies the church more than anything else, Paul would reply “truth” (Acts 20:32; cf Col 2:7) and “love” (1 Cor 8:1; cf 10:23). The same emphasis on building up others prevails in 1 Corinthians 14, in that not only does the prophet “edify” by his message (verse 3-4) but in public worship “all things” are to be “done for edification” (verse 26; cf verse 17) and all Christians are to “strive to excel in building up the church” (verse 12; cf. verse 5). Now in the light of this consistent New Testament emphasis on edification as a ministry to others and to the church, what are we to make of the one and only exception, which sat that the tongue-speaker “edifies himself”? Surely there must be at least some degree of irony in what Paul writes, for the phrase is almost a contradiction in terms. Self-edification is simply not what edification is all about in the New Testament.

Second, we have to read the expression in the light of the teaching we have already considered that all spiritual gifts are service gifts, bestowed “for the common good” for ministry to others. How, then, can this one gift be turned in upon itself and be exercised for personal good instead of the common good? Must one not say that this involves a misuse of a gift? What would one think of a believer with a teaching gift who uses it only to give himself private instruction, or of a man with a healing gift who healed no one but himself? It is hard to justify the self-directed use of a gift specifically bestowed for the benefit of others.

So for these two reasons it seems to me that there must be a note of irony, if not of sarcasm, in Paul’s voice as he writes of the tongue-speaker edifying himself. He takes it for granted that the Corinthians, to whom he had clearly explained the purpose of spiritual gifts in chapter 12, we get his meaning and not need him to spell it out any further.

Wow, SM, you're quoting Stott more than the BIBLE! There are plenty of commentaries that contradict Stott's conclusions.... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't put that much stock in Stott.

Edit: At least Stott has the smarts to say "it seems to me" in his concluding paragraph. So, he recognizes that it's his opinion.

 

[W2L]

The gifts are foolishness to the natural man, we know that.

You know what is foolishness to some charismatics? Being content when hungry. Thats foolishness to them because they think they can name and claim everything they need. The apostle paul however teaches us to follow his example and he was content in any situation, whether full or hungry.. He didnt name and claim his way out of hardship. He endured and prospered spiritually.

 

[swordsman1]

Wow, SM, you're quoting Stott more than the BIBLE! There are plenty of commentaries that contradict Stott's conclusions.... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't put that much stock in Stott.

Edit: At least Stott has the smarts to say "it seems to me" in his concluding paragraph. So, he recognizes that it's his opinion.

Would you prefer Gordon Fee, Pentecostalism's most respected theologian? Not even he is prepared to admit that today's tongues is the NT gift. The most he is prepared to say is it is something analogous to it.

Gordon Fee - God’s Empowering Presence, p890
The question as to whether the “speaking in tongues” in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot – and probably somewhat irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit, which function in many of the same ways, and for many of its practitioners has similar value to that described by Paul.

 

[Deborah D]

Would you prefer Gordon Fee, Pentecostalism's most respected theologian? Not even he is prepared to admit that today's tongues is the NT gift. The most he is prepared to say is it is something analogous to it.

Gordon Fee - God’s Empowering Presence, p890
The question as to whether the “speaking in tongues” in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot – and probably somewhat irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit, which function in many of the same ways, and for many of its practitioners has similar value to that described by Paul.

I just prefer the BIBLE! Maybe you can just chill now.

 

[Deborah D]

You know what is foolishness to some charismatics? Being content when hungry. Thats foolishness to them because they think they can name and claim everything they need. The apostle paul however teaches us to follow his example and he was content in any situation, whether full or hungry.. He didnt name and claim his way out of hardship. He endured and prospered spiritually.

Believe me, there are plenty of non-charismatics who don't care about others! I know a few of them. My guess is some churches are full of people who are content to have more than enough while others go hungry. This really isn't an issue of charismatics vs. non-charismatics.

It's an issue of whether Christians do as we're commanded to help those in need. John questioned whether a Christian who ignores the needs of others could have the love of God.

1 John 3:16-17--

This is how we have come to know love: He laid down His life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has this world’s goods and sees his brother in need but closes his eyes to his need — how can God’s love reside in him?
.​

 

[W2L]

This really isn't an issue of charismatics vs. non-charismatics.

It is actually.

 

[W2L]

The apostle Paul was a great charismatic? Agreed? Paul went without food and sleep at times. Why? Why did he live like that when modern day charismatic teachers live in mansions?

 

[Deborah D]

It is actually.

I'll tell you what I told Swordsman as he goes on and on and on.... Have a blessed Lord's day!

 

[W2L]

I'll tell you what I told Swordsman as he goes on and on and on.... Have a blessed Lord's day!

Yes, you as well.

 

[Deborah D]

The apostle Paul was a great charismatic? Agreed? Paul went without food and sleep at times. Why? Why did he live like that when modern day charismatic teachers live in mansions?

Why are you intent on painting ALL charismatic preachers as low lifes who don't care about anyone but themselves? When was the last time you gave $100 to someone in need even though you didn't have much more than that to give? Or gave canned food to someone out of a job even though your refrigerator was almost empty? HUH?

Edit: I just saw your last post. Thank you!

 

[W2L]

Why are you intent on painting ALL charismatic preachers as low lifes who don't care about anyone but themselves? When was the last time you gave money to someone in need even though you didn't have much more than that to give? Or gave canned food to someone out of a job even though your refrigerator was almost empty? HUH?

Edit: I just saw your last post. Thank you!

I dont need to boast in works in order to discuss this topic. The bible teaches me to beware of false teachers and false apostles. So im being aware.

 

[Deborah D]

I dont need to boast in works in order to discuss this topic. The bible teaches me to beware of false teachers and false apostles. So im being aware.

Well, you're judging others (which we're told NOT to do), so I was just wondering if you do better than those you're judging.

Edit: It's a fair question. But believe me, I have just as much cause as anyone to judge Christians who didn't care about my family when we were in great need. Some were charismatic, but most were not. I don't believe that we will be judged based on our theology, but on whether we love Him, love others, obey His words.... After all, Jesus said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. The one who doesn’t love Me will not keep My words. The word that you hear is not Mine but is from the Father who sent Me." (John 14:23-24)

 

[W2L]

Well, your judging others (which we're told NOT to do), so I was just wondering if you do better than those you're judging.

We are taught to judge the truth. The charismatics in this thread are suggesting that others cannot discern the ways of the Spirit. They open themselves up for criticism and so do their teachers. Lets stop using the "you're judging!" card and debate the issue.

 

[Deborah D]

We are taught to judge the truth. The charismatics in this thread are suggesting that others cannot discern the ways of the Spirit. They open themselves up for criticism and so do their teachers. Lets stop using the "you're judging!" card and debate the issue.

Not sure I understand what you're saying, but I added to my last post.

 

[W2L]

Not sure I understand what you're saying

Im saying that you should challenge my argument rather than to dismiss it.

 

[Deborah D]

Im saying that you should challenge my argument rather than to dismiss it.

Wow! That's exactly what I've done with REAL life examples. Did you read the rest of my post #574?

Edit: I've never said that non-charismatics cannot discern the ways of the Spirit. I don't believe that. This debate has been about whether the "charismatic gifts" are still given by the Holy Spirit.

 

[W2L]

Wow! That's exactly what I've done with REAL life examples. Did you read the rest of my post #574?

Jesus said beware of false teachers, and so does the apostles, and you say stop judging?

 

[Deborah D]

Jesus said beware of false teachers, and so does the apostles, and you say stop judging?

Actually, Jesus said, "Do not judge...." I completely agree that we need to beware of false teachers! There are plenty of them out there--charismatic and non-charismatic. But you've basically said that "modern day charismatic teachers live in mansions" and don't care about the needy. That's the kind of judging Jesus said not to do.

Edit: W2L, I'm concerned that you seem to have a lot of bitterness in your heart. Take it from me, bitterness can eat you alive! Again, I pray that you wiil have God's grace to forgive!