Number One Flaw in Cessationism

[Saint Steven]

So far I think we agreed that the devout Jews experienced prophecy. Right?

Are you saying that the mockers, whom you claim are Romans, simultaneously experienced the SIGN of tongues? Personally I've never pretended to understand what Paul meant by:

"Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers" (14:22).

Everyone seems to have an opinion on that verse but I take no stand on it as yet because I find it utterly bewildering.

The Apostle contradicts himself in context.
1) He says tongues are a sign for unbelievers. vs 22
2) Then he says everyone speaking in tongues makes the inquirers think you are out of your mind. vs 23 --- A sign of insanity?
3) Then he says prophecy makes the inquirers "fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” vs 24-25

1 Corinthians 14:22-25
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

 

[Saint Steven]

That's a very important point.

Cessationist aren't anti-spiritual gifts. We are pro-scripture.

That's good to hear, but MOST cessationists claim that anyone speaking in tongues or healing the sick is manifesting a demon. Cessationists don't have a leg to stand on scripturally. The Cessationists think we are far off. To that we say, "Thank you."

Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That's good to hear, but MOST cessationists claim that anyone speaking in tongues or healing the sick is manifesting a demon. Cessationists don't have a leg to stand on scripturally.

I've never come across a single cessationist in 35 years who has thought such a thing.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The Apostle contradicts himself in context.
1) He says tongues are a sign for unbelievers. vs 22
2) Then he says everyone speaking in tongues makes the inquirers think you are out of your mind. vs 23 --- A sign of insanity?
3) Then he says prophecy makes the inquirers "fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” vs 24-25

1 Corinthians 14:22-25
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Key point: "if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues"

If everyone did it at once was Paul's point.

 

[Saint Steven]

I've never come across a single cessationist in 35 years who has thought such a thing.

Perhaps you haven't met our own @Dave L -- he'll give you an ear full.

 

[Saint Steven]

Key point: "if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues"

If everyone did it at once was Paul's point.

What solution did he offer?
Not less tongues, but rather prophecy instead. (and everyone at once)

1 Corinthians 14:22-25
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What solution did he offer?
Not less tongues, but rather prophecy instead. (and everyone at once)

1 Corinthians 14:22-25
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Paul was big on doing things in an orderly manner, so I would tend to think he wouldn't encourage chaos in the prophesy department.

 

[Saint Steven]

Paul was big on doing things in an orderly manner, so I would tend to think he wouldn't encourage chaos in the prophesy department.

Right.
That's why I think this paragraph is so contradictory to the rest of the chapter. And we certainly can't come away claiming that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and prophecy is for believers. (both claims are herein contradicted)

1 Corinthians 14:22-25
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

 

[fwGod]

But they weren't speaking a form of Jewish Aramaic. They were speaking in tongues.

The 120? When they came out of the Upper Room and into the street.. and the Jewish born from surrounding nations heard them speak in each of their own learned languages? Is that what you mean?

If the (the 120) were speaking in tongues then according to the apostle Paul's teachings, those Jewish born from surrounding nations would not have been able to interpret the tongues. Because they hadn't gotten born again until after Peter explained the Pentacostal event to them, and invited them to receive the same experience.

To anyone without the gift of interpretation of tongues, it would have just sounded like gibberish, like some foreign languages sound to me. But each of the devout Jews listening heard them speaking their own language like listening to a choir. They didn't hear 120 different languages, they each heard just their own.

Which brings it back around to what I'd said to begin with..

That means that what the 120 spoke was "the gibberish" because they were not bilingual concerning different native languages. While those that spoke those languages could naturally recognize their own learned language. So they said that was what they heard.

Exactly, that is why Paul did not want all of them speaking their prayer language out loud just to show off, and all at the same time.

There's no verse that indicated that those in the Corinth church to be "showing off" by speaking in tongues. They were just ignorantly speaking in tongues all at the same time because that was all they knew about their experience.

It would be out of order.

The apostle Paul explained how to practice speaking in tongues in an orderly manner while they were assembled together.

Paul wanted only those few who had the gift for the profit of all to speak, and to limit it to just a few, and one with the gift of interpretation must be present to give the interpretation.

Assuming that all spoke in their regular use of tongues.. because it would presumably take time in practice to discover who is most used in a particular gift.

Since they knew nothing, they'd all have to practice speaking in tongues and praying to get the interpretation at home till they were confident they could interpret. (practice makes perfect)
The ideal is that, then while in the assembly they'd speak in tongues as they did at home, then interpret it.. and thus edify all there.

 

[JAL]

Right.
That's why I think this paragraph is so contradictory to the rest of the chapter. And we certainly can't come away claiming that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and prophecy is for believers. (both claims are herein contradicted)

1 Corinthians 14:22-25
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

I just looked it up in Gordon Fee's commentary. At least one scholar does think it is a contradiction and wrote it off as a bad-manuscript error. But Gordon Fee has a theory on it. The reference back to Isaiah 28:11-12 refers to Assyrians who "will invade Israel and their foreign gibberish will be God’s rebuke to them". This indicates a GENERAL PRINCIPLE that gibberish is a sign of rebuke to the unbeliever, in this case the unbelieving/rebellious Israelites, causing them to feel like outsiders since they cannot understand. Then in 14:22 Paul applies this principle to the GIFT of tongues (without interpretation) - because it's another example of gibberish - and that, without interpretation, it would TEND to function as a sign of rebuke to the unbeliever/rebel, which is not a sign appropriate for the Corinthian believers. Gordon Fee sums it up.

"Thus we paraphrase Paul’s sense here: Speaking in tongues is a sign not to affirm that the other believers are believers but to declare that they are like unbelievers, excluded from blessing."

That's the most convincing theory I've heard so far. I think it was precisely what CharismaticLady was trying to tell me but for some reason it didn't gel with me until Gordon Fee explained it. I have a lot of respect for Gordon Fee.

 

[JAL]

Fixed a typo: appropriate vs inappopriate.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The 120? When they came out of the Upper Room and into the street.. and the Jewish born from surrounding nations heard them speak in each of their own learned languages? Is that what you mean?

When they were speaking in tongues all together, each HEARD them like listening to a choir, and each listening heard THEM in their own language.

If the (the 120) were speaking in tongues then according to the apostle Paul's teachings, those Jewish born from surrounding nations would not have been able to interpret the tongues. Because they hadn't gotten born again until after Peter explained the Pentacostal event to them, and invited them to receive the same experience.

Examine Mark 16:16-18 given to all who are born again. Do you see interpretation of tongues there?

17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them (Hebrew idiom for receiving divine protection); they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

It is the Spirit who draws us to Jesus, and He can use whatever means He chooses, even one of His manifestations.

That means that what the 120 spoke was "the gibberish" because they were not bilingual concerning different native languages. While those that spoke those languages could naturally recognize their own learned language. So they said that was what they heard.

Out of 120 different languages being spoken all at once, how in the world would I be able to pick out the one speaking English without the 119 drowning them out? But not if I would supernaturally and sovereignly (before believing in Christ) hear all of them speaking English like a choir. And as we all talked among ourselves, we find that each one of us from different areas heard them speaking in their own language.

I am only using the mocking word, "gibberish," for what would naturally be heard, not that the disciples were speaking gibberish, and not an actual language that God can understand, for He can understand all languages.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Assuming that all spoke in their regular use of tongues.. because it would presumably take time in practice to discover who is most used in a particular gift.

Since they knew nothing, they'd all have to practice speaking in tongues and praying to get the interpretation at home till they were confident they could interpret. (practice makes perfect)
The ideal is that, then while in the assembly they'd speak in tongues as they did at home, then interpret it.. and thus edify all there.

No, the interpretation would be instant and supernatural. No practicing involved.

 

[Dave L]

Perhaps you haven't met our own @Dave L -- he'll give you an ear full.

How well studied are you?

 

[Saint Steven]

How well studied are you?

If you are offering me another earful, I'll pass.

But if you would be so kind as to confirm your stance as a Cessationist and then inform these folks about your claims that the Charismatic/Pentecostal churches are practicing satanic voodoo and worshipping false gods, that would be most helpful. Thanks.

 

[Dave L]

If you are offering me another earful, I'll pass.

But if you would be so kind as to confirm your stance as a Cessationist and then inform these folks about your claims that the Charismatic/Pentecostal churches are practicing satanic voodoo and worshipping false gods, that would be most helpful. Thanks.

Google Curtis Edwards on Amazon. He wrote extensively on this.

 

[fwGod]

When they were speaking in tongues all together, each HEARD them like listening to a choir, and each listening heard THEM in their own language.

As far as I can tell.. I think that we can agree on that.
Sometimes when both speak the exactly same language, there can still be misunderstandings.

Examine Mark 16:16-18 given to all who are born again. Do you see interpretation of tongues there?

Do you? What are you trying to say?

17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them (Hebrew idiom for receiving divine protection);

Yes, the same phrase is found in Luk.10:19. However, that doesn't imply that a Christian should test it by drinking poison or handling snakes. These signs operate by faith.

they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

The same is implied in Jms.5:15.

It is the Spirit who draws us to Jesus, and He can use whatever means He chooses, even one of His manifestations.

Not in a way that violates His word.

Out of 120 different languages being spoken all at once, how in the world would I be able to pick out the one speaking English without the 119 drowning them out? But not if I would supernaturally and sovereignly (before believing in Christ) hear all of them speaking English like a choir.

The exercise of the sovereignty of God does not mean that He will violate His word if He so chooses.

You are contradicting yourself in your bending over backwards to defend the erroneous idea that an unsaved person could by your misuse of the sovereignty of God, for such unsaved person to hear the speaking in tongues but also hear English instead, or too.

Sovereignty means that things work according to God's rules.. that He does not violate. But you believe that He did in the case we are discussing.

The unbeliever is not given the ability to understand the speaking in tongues.. they cannot because in a church service where people are speaking in tongues.. the other Christians don't know what's being said. Further, even the person speaking in tongues doesn't know what they are saying.

So, no.. what you propose is not correct.

And as we all talked among ourselves, we find that each one of us from different areas heard them speaking in their own language.

Is that an actual event that you experienced, or is it a quote from Acts 2? I can't tell.

I am only using the mocking word, "gibberish," for what would naturally be heard,

However, they didn't indicate that what they naturally heard was "gibberish".

The Acts 2:5 from surrounding areas were not mocking what they heard from the 120 because the Acts 2:5 men each recognized their learned language. They marveled to hear the Galileans, not mocked.

However they were mocking that the 120 were acting as if they were drunk.

..not that the disciples were speaking gibberish,

Wait, are you speaking there (the underlined) of speaking in tongues, or of natural dialects that you don't know?

The verse in Acts said that they were speaking by utterance of the Holy Spirit. That would not be a naturally learned utterance. It was not a natural phenomenon.

.. and not an actual language that God can understand,

It would have to be a language that God can understand.

for He can understand all languages.

Exactly.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

That's good to hear, but MOST cessationists claim that anyone speaking in tongues or healing the sick is manifesting a demon. Cessationists don't have a leg to stand on scripturally. The Cessationists think we are far off. To that we say, "Thank you."

Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

And once again you have no clue what acts 2:39 is speaking about, wresting it from it's context.

 

[fwGod]

No, the interpretation would be instant and supernatural. No practicing involved.

The fact that non tongues speaking Christians everywhere who've been present at a church that practiced speaking in tongues.. have reported that none of those tongues talkers gave the interpretation.. shows that you are not correct in saying that the interpretation is immediate.

The scripture states by the apostle Paul that a tongues speaking person has to pray to interpret.
Praying effectively has to involve faith, and (Jude 20) faith has to be developed.

So, again, no.. you are not correct.

 

[JAL]

Take your time, read the whole article, I just put up a starter article..

The third way in which Scripture directs us to covenantal thinking is by the specific parallel between Christ and Adam that Paul draws in Rom. 5:12-18; 1 Cor. 15: 21 f., 45-49). The solidarity of one person standing for a group, involving the whole group in the consequences of his action and receiving promises that apply to the whole group as well as to himself, is a familiar facet of biblical covenant thought, usually instanced in the case of family and national groups (Noah, Gen. 6:18, 9:9; Abraham, Gen. 17:7; the Israelites, Ex. 20:4-6, 8-12, 31:12-17 (16); Aaron, Lev. 24:8 f.;Phinehas, Num. 25:13; David, 2 Chr. 13:5, 21:7; Jer. 33:19-22). In Rom. 5:12-1 8 Paul proclaims a solidarity between Christ and his people (believers, Rom 3:22-5:2; the elect, God's chosen ones, 8:33) whereby the law-keeping, sin-bearing obedience of "the one man" brings righteousness with God, justification, and life to "the many," "all;" and he sets this within the frame of a prior solidarity, namely that between Adam and his descendants, whereby our entire race was involved in the penal consequences of Adam's transgression. The 1 Corinthians passages confirm that these are indeed covenantal solidarities; God deals with mankind through two representative men, Adam and Christ; all that are in Adam die; all that are in Christ are made alive. This far-reaching parallel is clearly foundational to Paul's understanding of God's ways with our race, and it is a covenantal way of thinking, showing from a third angle that covenant theology is indeed biblically basic.

The fourth way in which Scripture forces covenant theology upon us is by the explicit declaring of the covenant of redemption, most notably (though by no means exclusively) in the words of Jesus recorded in the gospel of John. All Jesus's references to his purpose in the world as the doing of his Father's will, and to his actual words and works as obedience to his Father's command (Jn. 4:32-34, 5:30, 6:38-40, 7:16-18, 8:28 f., 12:49 f., 14:31, 15:10, 17:4, I9:30); all his further references to his being sent by the Father into the world to perform a specific task (3:17, 34, 5:23, 30, 36, 38, 6:29, 57, 7:28, 29, 33, 8:16, 18, 26, 9:4, 10:36, 11:42, 12:44, 13:20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5, 17:3, 8,18, 21, 23, 25, 20:21, cf. 18:37); and all his references to the Father "giving" him particular persons to save, and to his acceptance of the task of rescuing them from perishing both by dying for them and by calling and shepherding them to glory (6:37-44, 10:14-16, 27-30, 17:2, 6, 9,19, 22, 24); are so many testimonies to the reality of the covenant of redemption. The emphasis is pervasive, arresting, and inescapable: Jesus' own words force on thoughtful readers recognition of the covenant economy as foundational to all thought about the reality of God's saving grace.

Edit: I didn't realize you were citing an article. But the same comments apply.

I agree with you that the Bible teaches Covenant Theology but the defense of it doesn't need to be as complicated as you're making it here. You're referencing a hundred verses that do not even offer explicit support to that topic. The simple defense of Covenant Theology is that, since the cross is retroactive, OT saints were entitled to - and thus received - the same saving and sanctifying grace as we do, thereby establishing a single Covenant of Grace spanning both testaments. And the only passage needed to confirm it is chapter 3 of Galatians.

Also the Bible doesn't teach the TYPE of solidarity that you have in mind. To claim that either Adam or Christ was our representative is nonsense because representationalism makes for a self-contradictory jurisprudence, it is a miscarriage of justice. (I can point out the contradiction if you're not aware of it). As a result I have my own theory of Adam - pretty much the same as Millard J. Erickson's.