Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

[Saint Steven]

There was no 'tongues' like those seen in Pentecostal churches before the twentieth century. Tongues ceased. It's a historic fact. What we see in Pentecostal churches does not match the biblical description of tongues.

Not so fast. Check this out.

A.D. 100 - Eusebius (Church Historian):
Writing to the preaching evangelists who were yet living, Eusebius says:
"Of those that flourished in these times, Quadratus is said to have been distinguished
for his prophetical gifts. There were many others, also, noted in these times who held
rank in the apostolic succession... the Holy Spirit also wrought many wonders as yet
through them, so that as the Gospel was heard, men in crowds voluntarily and eagerly
embraced the true faith with their whole minds."

A.D. 115-202 - Irenaeus:
Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John.
He wrote in his book "Against Heresies", Book V, vi.: "In like manner do we also hear
many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit
speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light, for the general benefit, the hidden
things of men and declare the mysteries of God, who also the apostles term spiritual."

A.D. 300 - The Early Martyrs:
The early martyrs enjoyed these gifts. Dean Ferrar, in his book "Darkness to Dawn" states: "Even for the minutest allusions and particulars I have contemporary authority." He refers to the persecuted Christians in Rome singing and speaking in unknown tongues.

A.D. 390 - Chrysostom of Constantinople:
Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, writes: "Whoever was baptised in apostolic days,
he straightway spoke with tongues, for since on their coming over from idols, without any clear knowledge or training in the Scriptures, they at once received the Spirit, not that they saw the Spirit, for He is invisible, but God's grace bestowed some sensible proof of His energy, and one straightway spoke in the Persian language, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other tongues, and this made manifest to them that were without that it was the Spirit in the very person speaking. Wherefore the apostle calls it the manifestation of the Spirit which is given to every man to profit withal."

A.D. 400 - Augustine of Hippo:
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, one of the four great fathers of the Latin Church and
considered the greatest of them all: "We still do what the apostles did when they laid
hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues."

Source link

 

[Anto9us]

This traditional Pentecostal or charismatic position

Grudem's material, as reprinted in posts above by Swordsman, is complicated in that Grudem seeks to 'put words in the mouths of the Pentecostal' and define HIS OWN version of the traditional Pentecostal or charismatic position. He assumes that there IS such a thing, and seeks to define it for us. In his "numbered points" -- what we really have is Swordsman quoting Grudem and Grudem 'speaking for THE Pentecostal position' which he goes on to contrast with the only verse out of seven dealing with baptism of Holy Spirit that is NOT tied specifically to Penetcost:

1 Corinthians 12:13 (NIV mg): “For we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”

 

[Anto9us]

Excellent stuff Saint Stephen; we certainly do NOT have 19 centuries of 'nary a mention of Tongues' Far from it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Excellent stuff Saint Stephen; we certainly do NOT have 19 centuries of 'nary a mention of Tongues' Far from it.

Feel free to call me Steve. Thanks.

 

[Anto9us]

Rather - of the seven 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' passages that Grudem addresses, the first four are predictions of Jesus doing that baptizing, the next two depict Pentecost, and only this 1 Cor 12:13 passage is outside the predicted and actual Pentecost experience.

Grudem makes his own strawman of what "the Pentecostals" try to do with 1 Cor 12:13, and its really not worthy of him, he says Pentecostals wish they could prove this seventh reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit is quite different from the first six.

 

[swordsman1]

Not so fast. Check this out.

A.D. 100 - Eusebius (Church Historian):
Writing to the preaching evangelists who were yet living, Eusebius says:
"Of those that flourished in these times, Quadratus is said to have been distinguished
for his prophetical gifts. There were many others, also, noted in these times who held
rank in the apostolic succession... the Holy Spirit also wrought many wonders as yet
through them, so that as the Gospel was heard, men in crowds voluntarily and eagerly
embraced the true faith with their whole minds."

A.D. 115-202 - Irenaeus:
Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John.
He wrote in his book "Against Heresies", Book V, vi.: "In like manner do we also hear
many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit
speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light, for the general benefit, the hidden
things of men and declare the mysteries of God, who also the apostles term spiritual."

A.D. 300 - The Early Martyrs:
The early martyrs enjoyed these gifts. Dean Ferrar, in his book "Darkness to Dawn" states: "Even for the minutest allusions and particulars I have contemporary authority." He refers to the persecuted Christians in Rome singing and speaking in unknown tongues.

A.D. 390 - Chrysostom of Constantinople:
Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, writes: "Whoever was baptised in apostolic days,
he straightway spoke with tongues, for since on their coming over from idols, without any clear knowledge or training in the Scriptures, they at once received the Spirit, not that they saw the Spirit, for He is invisible, but God's grace bestowed some sensible proof of His energy, and one straightway spoke in the Persian language, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other tongues, and this made manifest to them that were without that it was the Spirit in the very person speaking. Wherefore the apostle calls it the manifestation of the Spirit which is given to every man to profit withal."

A.D. 400 - Augustine of Hippo:
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, one of the four great fathers of the Latin Church and
considered the greatest of them all: "We still do what the apostles did when they laid
hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues."

Source link

The early church fathers (c. 100 AD) did indeed say that tongues was still active. But that was before the completed canon was distributed among the churches. Notice that Iranaeus says he has only heard of such events - he hasn't witnessed them first hand. So already they were becoming rare.

The later church father reported that tongues had ceased. Notice your quote from Chrysostom is referring to those "in apostolic days", not his present time. It is written in the past tense.

Your quote from Augustine is bogus. That quote first appeared in a Pentecostal publication and has since been reproduced on several other articles and websites, but nobody can cite the work of Augustine's that it comes from.

Here is a few other quotes from Augustine, Chrysostom, and Theodoret:

Augustine (354-430), The Homilies On John
In the earliest time, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed; and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were the Sign adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.

Chrysostom (347-407), on 1 Corinthians 12
This whole passage is exceedingly obscure; and what creates the obscurity is both ignorance of these matters and the cessation of things which happened then but do not now occur.
Chrysostom on 1 Cor 13:8
For if both these [gifts of prophecy and tongues] were brought in for the sake of the faith; when that is every where sown abroad, the use of these is henceforth superfluous. . . . It is no marvel that prophecies and tongues should be done away.

Theodoret (393-458) Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians:
In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. ​

And none of the church fathers said tongues were heavenly or non-human languages. Every one of them said they were known foreign languages.

 

[swordsman1]

G'nite all.

 

[Anto9us]

Grudem makes every thing a "special point in history" concerning Pentecost itself, the "Samaria pentecost", Cornelius' household -- in other words, for every passage OTHER THAN 1 Corinthians 12:13, Grudem seems to say "Oh, this is a special case - a once-in-history time, and only 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the LASTING reference to baptism in the Spirit".

Lemme tell ya something -- the outpouring of Holy Spirit that Grudem acknowledges for the 60' and 70's was a once-in-history time that I LIVED THROUGH - received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in, was in college at the time and watched many many fellow-students receive the gift of Tongues, countless hours in informal gatherings where "so and so just got the Baptism!" and all the ensuing drama of "what did their church think about it? What did their parents think about it?" At the time I was a Methodist at the huge Baptist university -- Baylor -- and the rule, rather than the exception was that most of us students remained in our own denomination rather than saying "I'll xfer to a pentecostal/Assembly of God church".

Early 70's was a a special time in my life for sure, and I was far from alone -- Baylor kids of all denominations were getting the Holy Ghost LEFT AND RIGHT!!!

Whaddya think about them apples, Steve? Every week, somebody else got the Baptism!
It was unbelievable -- kids that you would have thought were the shyest, most timid -- gosh, that gal that you never heard a peep out of, raisin' her hands through the ROOF, Hillsage, turned into a Holy Ghost dancer in the blink of an eye!

 

[Anto9us]

G'nite, Swordsman.

 

[swordsman1]

Before I go....

I've quoted the most prominent charismatic theologian on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Here's the most prominent Pentecostal theologian:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians - By Gordon D. Fee
Some have argued for "Spirit baptism," by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term, nor clearly point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion, but on their common reception of the Spirit.

Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4-5).

If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase "in the Spirit" is most likely locative, expressing the "element" in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with "baptize' imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing), but it always refers to the element "in which" one is baptized.

In this sentence the goal of their common "immersion" in the one Spirit is "into/unto one body." The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized "into" the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like "baptize' this preposition most often has the sense of "movement toward so as to be in. In the present case the idea of "goal" seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that we be formed into one body. Hence, "we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body." This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.

To emphasize that the many ("we all") have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free." As in 7:17-24, these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture-race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.

 

[Anto9us]

ὥστε ἀδελφοί ζηλοῦτε τὸ προφητεύειν καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν γλώσσαις μὴ κωλύετε

 

[Saint Steven]

Grudem makes every thing a "special point in history" concerning Pentecost itself, the "Samaria pentecost", Cornelius' household -- in other words, for every passage OTHER THAN 1 Corinthians 12:13, Grudem seems to say "Oh, this is a special case - a once-in-history time, and only 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the LASTING reference to baptism in the Spirit".

Lemme tell ya something -- the outpouring of Holy Spirit that Grudem acknowledges for the 60' and 70's was a once-in-history time that I LIVED THROUGH - received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in, was in college at the time and watched many many fellow-students receive the gift of Tongues, countless hours in informal gatherings where "so and so just got the Baptism!" and all the ensuing drama of "what did their church think about it? What did their parents think about it?" At the time I was a Methodist at the huge Baptist university -- Baylor -- and the rule, rather than the exception was that most of us students remained in our own denomination rather than saying "I'll xfer to a pentecostal/Assembly of God church".

Early 70's was a a special time in my life for sure, and I was far from alone -- Baylor kids of all denominations were getting the Holy Ghost LEFT AND RIGHT!!!

Whaddya think about them apples, Steve? Every week, somebody else got the Baptism!
It was unbelievable -- kids that you would have thought were the shyest, most timid -- gosh, that gal that you never heard a peep out of, raisin' her hands through the ROOF, Hillsage, turned into a Holy Ghost dancer in the blink of an eye!

Them's good apples. I graduated from High School in '74.

When our practice becomes counterculture, we know we are on the right track. The Cessationist tyranny was the oppressor to be conquered. We had been robbed. They had stolen the very soul of the church Jesus Christ was building (lifeless religious zombies accusing us of emotionalism), and saddled us with a dry, powerless, ritualistic, dead religion of works. Makes me sick and angry. I won't stand for it. What did the Apostle say? (on what does the false religion of Cessationism rest?)

1 Corinthians 2:4-5
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,
5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When was this revoked?

 

[Saint Steven]

Before I go....

I've quoted the most prominent charismatic theologian on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Here's the most prominent Pentecostal theologian:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians - By Gordon D. Fee
Some have argued for "Spirit baptism," by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term, nor clearly point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion, but on their common reception of the Spirit.

Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4-5).

If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase "in the Spirit" is most likely locative, expressing the "element" in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with "baptize' imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing), but it always refers to the element "in which" one is baptized.

In this sentence the goal of their common "immersion" in the one Spirit is "into/unto one body." The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized "into" the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like "baptize' this preposition most often has the sense of "movement toward so as to be in. In the present case the idea of "goal" seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that we be formed into one body. Hence, "we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body." This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.

To emphasize that the many ("we all") have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free." As in 7:17-24, these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture-race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.

The pattern in Acts was two baptisms, if you will. Granted, the second experience is not always called a baptism. Though it was CLEARLY prophesied by John the Baptist. (Matthew 3:11)

1) Pentecost: Water baptism followed by receiving the "promised Holy Spirit"
2) Samaria: The Apostles were sent to lay hands on the new believers who had ONLY been baptized in water. (Acts 8:14-16)
3) Saul: Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
4) Cornelius: The gentiles were filled with the Spirit prior to water baptism. (Acts 10 and 11)
5) Ephesus: The Apostle Paul encounters disciples of John the Baptist. They are water baptized in Jesus' name and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7)

 

[Dave L]

Nah, tongues is easy, both to simulate and to dismiss.

Do you believe there is never any more activity by the Holy Spirit at all that is physically manifest among believers?

I'm only saying scripture is the perfect revelation Paul told us to look for that would cause tongues, prophecy and the word of knowledge to cease. Do you think scripture is perfect?

 

[Dave L]

The Bible(The Word of God) is perfect, for it comes from The Perfect. And when The Perfect comes.......

But the bible does better what tongues did in part. We need that now, not in heaven.

“For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:17–21)

 

[Dave L]

So is Paul



1. I never disputed that knowledge refers a higher knowledge...but it's like the gift of faith vs the measure of faith is what i'm getting at. One can have a higher knowledge of God and the scriptures becuase of this gift...just as one can have higher faith cause of the gift of faith.

The gift of knowledge/gift of faith/gift of tounques is just a higher level of something that exist already.

I can have knowledge/faith without the gifts is what i'm saying just not the Gift which is a whole other level.


2. I think the problem is you're ignoring verse 9-10...look at verse 9-10 and compare it with verse 12

1 Corinthians 13:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.


1 Corinthians 13:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.


John 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


Comment: Unless you want to argue we are perfect now....this is clearly referring to the perfect state we will achieve.

Scripture is perfect and does a better job for us than tongues and prophecy. Here's what Peter says;

“For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:17–21)

 

[Dave L]

1. The letter as a whole was written to Corinthians....it wasn't sent in sub sections or parts... as a result either paul was telling them the gifts are for all men...or they weren't for all men...cause again this was all sent at the same time. If your verse really meant what you claim it means...it would contradict this letter becuase then (if you were right) Paul argued for two different things...in the same letter.


2. you're taking this way out of context....

All Paul is saying is Love is more important then having any sort of gift... that's all this is saying... Charity in the greek here is agape LOVE ....that is the LOve of God...he's saying if one has gifts and not that...it means nothing... that's the focus...you're right about one thing though...your verse indicates gifts will go away...but that's a common sense thing and i'll explain why.
1 Corinthians 13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity (AGAPE LOVE), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.



2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (AGAPE LOVE) , I am nothing.

he continues to describe this love below

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity (AGAPE LOVE) suffereth long, and is kind; charity (agape love) envieth not; charity (agape love) vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.


ANd then we have this...


8 Charity (AGAPE LOVE) never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.


1. To say knowledge has vanished would be ludicrous....we can read the bible and can get knowledge and God can give certain people that gift...where they just know the mysteries of the word...and so forth. There are great men with this gift today.

2. Paul says it will cease....he never says it did cease.....


But he does say when tounqgues and prophecies and all this will cease....

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.


Comment: Paul is referring to a future state he will be in in the after life when he sees God face to face (look at the greek for face to face). Logically when we are in the after life...why would we need prophecy... to speak a word from God if he's right there? WHy tounques with interpretation to speak a word from God if God is right there?

This is what I mean by common sense....of course gifts will cease eventually...they aren't eternal...that's all Paul is saying...while AGAPE LOVE IS eternal...and God is love.... so value that more.




Lastly though why would God suddenly change his covenant....and you would need scripture to suggest he did....we had law.....then that transition period of law/Grace during JESUS time......now we have Grace...wehre one can have the HOly Spirit on the inside...and gifts with it.

Is there another covenant i'm not aware of? of course not.

Paul says, "for we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect [Or "when completion"] comes, the partial will be set aside." 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 (NET)

"And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NET)

Paul contrasts tongues, interpretation of tongues, and knowledge with love, faith and hope. If as some say, prophecy, tongues and interpretation remain until the end of the world, Paul's comparison is meaningless.

 

[Dave L]

Not necessarily. When I pray I am speaking to God and not to men. That doesn't mean that men cannot understand me.

Read Acts again and the implication is that the people praying were speaking in the languages of the listeners, not that the listeners were necessarily enabled to hear the the language of the speakers. The Holy Spirit enabled the believers to speak in the languages of the listeners.

Do you understand what you are saying when speaking in tongues?

 

[Dave L]

Paul spoke in tongues more than all of them.
1 Cor. 14-18 (ASV) I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all:

He spoke at least Aramaic and Greek. Having studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:3), Paul may have learned Hebrew. Having traveled the Roman world, Paul may have learned Latin.

When Paul was arrested as described in Acts 21, He spoke to the military commander in Greek. This is not some unknown tongue only the person speaking and God could understand.
Acts 21:37 As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he asked the commanding officer, "May I speak to you?" He said, "Do you know Greek? 38 Aren't you then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins?" 39 But Paul said, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city. I beg you, allow me to speak to the people."

We are not saying they did not speak in tongues. Just that those gifts became obsolete when scripture became perfect (complete).

 

[Saint Steven]

This is my view.

In the twentieth century, church goers went to leadership and demanded to know why we weren't operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Leadership considered the matter and decided on a course of action. Rather than falling on their faces before God in repentance and crying out for a fresh Holy Spirit visitation on the church, they decided to formulate an apologetic argument to explain why we weren't operating in the gifts today. The result was Cessationism.