Continuing on the subject of a biblical response to the claims of Cessationism.
Here again is the
first of six points the Cessationists claim prove that
the gift of tongues have already ceased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) The apostles, through whom tongues came, were unique in the history of the church.
Once their ministry was accomplished, the need for authenticating signs ceased to exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of things
remain to be covered on this point and then we can move on to point two.
One is old business and one is new.
Here they are:
A) Point one above says as a basis: "The apostles, through whom tongues came..." Is that true? (nope)
B) What were the gifts for? (old business)
Now we can move on to the
new business.
The Cessationists claim that tongues came through the Apostles.
And while this is
partially true, in the final analysis it is false.
What the
Cessationists are trying to prove is this.
No Apostles =
no tongues.
When the Apostles died, the "sign" gifts of tongues and healing died with them.
The only way it could be completely true is if tongues
ONLY came
through the Apostles and were
never distributed any other way.
So, let's focus on that. When did tongues
not come through the Apostles?
I can think of
three instances right away.
1) The outpouring at Pentecost.
2) The house of Cornelius.
3) Ananias with Saul.
At Pentecost the Apostles were told to wait. The
tongues came to them.
In fact, I don't think they were even told what was coming. They were waiting
for the promised Holy Spirit. They knew they would receive power,
but beyond that,
what were they expecting?
Acts 1:4-6
On one occasion, while he was eating with them,
he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem,
but
wait for the gift my Father promised,
which you have heard me speak about.
5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days
you will be
baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him,
“Lord, are you at this time going
to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
You know the rest of the story. The Holy Spirit, including tongues,
came to them,
not through them.
The Cessationists
might say, "Yes of course, but after that..."
Let's look at what happened at the house of Cornelius. Hopefully
you are familiar with that story, so I won't post the whole story here on
this post. If you are not familiar, I encourage you to read the whole thing in
Acts chapters ten and eleven. There is a telling and a retelling of the story.
Acts 10:44-48
While Peter was still speaking these words,
the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished
that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said,
47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water.
They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
The Cessationists might argue that
Peter was an Apostle and the tongues had
come through him. I don't agree, but let's continue with
Ananias and Saul.
Acts 9:10-11, 17-19
In Damascus there was
a disciple named Ananias.
The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.
11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas
on Straight Street and ask for a man from
Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.
...
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it.
Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul,
the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as
you were coming here—has
sent me so that you may
see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes,
and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,
19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
The Cessationists might complain that this
says nothing about speaking in tongues,
which is true. However, can you find any other examples of the filling with the Holy Spirit
in the book of Acts that
did not include tongues? And we certainly couldn't conclude
that Saul (Paul) wasn't a tongues speaker. Probably the most notorious.
1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
The church in Corinth was so
notorious for manifestations of the Holy Spirit that
the Apostle had to write them a letter about reigning it in and conforming to a pattern
of more
orderly worship. Yet he spoke in tongues more than all of them.
However, we could certainly argue that it was
typical for the Apostles to administer tongues.
Here's a good example.
Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God,
they sent Peter and John to Samaria.
15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there
that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them;
they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then
Peter and John placed their hands on them,
and they received the Holy Spirit.
We'll have to assume tongues in this situation. Although it could be argued that tongues
was
not always the only manifestation to follow the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them,
the Holy Spirit came on them,
and they spoke in tongues and
prophesied.
The bottom line.
In the final analysis, the Apostles were not always needed to administer the
baptism with the Holy Spirit. The disciple Ananias was used, and sometimes it
happened spontaneously. In fact there are still
testimonies to this day of
spontaneous baptisms with the Holy Spirit coming to those who knew nothing about it.