--------------------------------
We have discussed cessationist thought rather frequently on this blog, including the ceasing of the gift of tongues. We continue to discuss it, because we have yet to find a persuasive biblical case for cessationism. We want to emphasize "biblical," because almost all defenses we have seen invoke silence, contemporary events or practices, and post biblical history. We have found precious little Scriptural apology.
Doctrine is derived from the Bible. Thus, we shall not tolerate any non-scriptural evidence in Mr. Faull's presentation below. Nor shall we accept bare assertions not backed up by Scripture. We shall summarily dismiss such evidence via highlight.
Read on:
-------------------------------
Dear Brother Faull,
It is my understanding that you do not practice "Speaking in tongues." Why?
Let me give you the reasons why I do not wish to "speak in tongues."
1. I could not defend it as having practical value. It does not prove that I am saved, nor that I'm spiritual, nor that I have the truth, for men of every creed claim this gift.
2. I could not defend it as an aid to devotions. It does not do anything the Holy Spirit does not do for every believer. He searches out our unspeakable requests and make intercession for us.
Romans 8:26-27, "26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God."
It is my understanding that you do not practice "Speaking in tongues." Why?
Let me give you the reasons why I do not wish to "speak in tongues."
1. I could not defend it as having practical value. It does not prove that I am saved, nor that I'm spiritual, nor that I have the truth, for men of every creed claim this gift.
2. I could not defend it as an aid to devotions. It does not do anything the Holy Spirit does not do for every believer. He searches out our unspeakable requests and make intercession for us.
Romans 8:26-27, "26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God."
(The author quotes a Scripture, but it is unrelated to his point.)
3. I could not defend it as a sign for unbelievers. If I do it publicly, men of all conflicting doctrines do the same. If I do it in my prayer closet, how will the unbeliever know of it?
(Confused thinking. The public/private expression of tongues is a discussion that does not yield for us a biblical case for their cessation.)
4. I could not defend its "continual existence" from the Word of God. The Scriptures neither imply nor promise the continuance of the gift, but, in fact, states that they will cease while faith, and hope yet abide.
I Corinthians 13:8-13, "8 Charity 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. 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. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I under-stood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 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. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity."
(Well, we finally get a claim based on Scripture. Not a very impressive start. We discuss this passage in great depth here. In addition, cessationist Tom Pennington tells us that this passage is not sufficient to establish cessationism. Indeed, the entire thing rests on the speculation as to what "the perfect" is, and that is certainly shaky ground.
3. I could not defend it as a sign for unbelievers. If I do it publicly, men of all conflicting doctrines do the same. If I do it in my prayer closet, how will the unbeliever know of it?
(Confused thinking. The public/private expression of tongues is a discussion that does not yield for us a biblical case for their cessation.)
4. I could not defend its "continual existence" from the Word of God. The Scriptures neither imply nor promise the continuance of the gift, but, in fact, states that they will cease while faith, and hope yet abide.
I Corinthians 13:8-13, "8 Charity 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. 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. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I under-stood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 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. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity."
(Well, we finally get a claim based on Scripture. Not a very impressive start. We discuss this passage in great depth here. In addition, cessationist Tom Pennington tells us that this passage is not sufficient to establish cessationism. Indeed, the entire thing rests on the speculation as to what "the perfect" is, and that is certainly shaky ground.
One other thing. The author writes, "The Scriptures neither imply nor promise the continuance of the gift..." This is an astonishing statement. It is a fallacy to expect that Scripture must tell us something will continue in order for us to not assume its end. Apply this reasoning to any other doctrine to see how preposterous this is.)
5. I could not defend its "continual existence" from Church History. History records that the gifts did cease. History records when and how the gift was supposedly revived. History records the deceitfulness of the modern day movement to increase the supposed gift among churches.
(Argument from silence.)
6. I could not defend its "continual existence" by commonsense. Since prophecy and divine knowledge have ceased, [I neither know, nor know of anyone with these gifts] commonsense assumes that the lesser gift has ceased.
(The author uses his premise as his conclusion. "Tongue have ceased because they have ceased" is a tautology.)
7. I could not defend its "continual existence" by the clichés of modern tongue speakers. Clichés such as:
(Argument based on contemporary expressions.)
"God is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
"God does not change."
"He could do it, therefore, He does do it."
"He once did it, and therefore, He is doing it."
Doesn't our God ever do anything singular or unique? Is He still making women out of man's ribs? Have you seen any world wide floods lately? Are there still virgins having babies?
8. I could not defend it as "unifying the Body of Christ." It is setting believer against believer. The only unity it promotes is unity of men of a thousand different conflicting doctrines agreeing to disagree. (How well is the author promoting unity by attempting to refute a doctrine many believe?
It may well be Romans 8:26-27, "26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God."
7. I could not defend its "continual existence" by the clichés of modern tongue speakers. Clichés such as:
(Argument based on contemporary expressions.)
"God is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
"God does not change."
"He could do it, therefore, He does do it."
"He once did it, and therefore, He is doing it."
Doesn't our God ever do anything singular or unique? Is He still making women out of man's ribs? Have you seen any world wide floods lately? Are there still virgins having babies?
8. I could not defend it as "unifying the Body of Christ." It is setting believer against believer. The only unity it promotes is unity of men of a thousand different conflicting doctrines agreeing to disagree. (How well is the author promoting unity by attempting to refute a doctrine many believe?
It may well be Romans 8:26-27, "26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God."
(The author repeats the quote from Romans, with no greater success in connecting it to the point offered.)
9. I could not defend it in light of those who have "spoken in tongues," who now admit that it was not of God. We are told that we cannot deny a man's experience. Can a man deny his own interpretation of his experience? He once thought that it was of God. He now concludes that it was not. Hundreds, who have spoken in tongues, now deny that the experience was of God. How can I defend that my experience was of God when others with the same experience admit that theirs was not of God?
(Another argument from contemporary expressions.)
10. I could not defend it "as a promise from God." He did not promise it to me, therefore I cannot accept it by faith. I can accept salvation, forgiveness, and redemption by faith. These were promised to all believers. I believe the promises. I "enjoy" them because I believe the promises. I cannot accept tongues by faith because they were not promised to every believer.
(This is a strange claim, that tongues are not a "promise from God." Has the author never read
Mk. 16:17, "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues...?"
9. I could not defend it in light of those who have "spoken in tongues," who now admit that it was not of God. We are told that we cannot deny a man's experience. Can a man deny his own interpretation of his experience? He once thought that it was of God. He now concludes that it was not. Hundreds, who have spoken in tongues, now deny that the experience was of God. How can I defend that my experience was of God when others with the same experience admit that theirs was not of God?
(Another argument from contemporary expressions.)
10. I could not defend it "as a promise from God." He did not promise it to me, therefore I cannot accept it by faith. I can accept salvation, forgiveness, and redemption by faith. These were promised to all believers. I believe the promises. I "enjoy" them because I believe the promises. I cannot accept tongues by faith because they were not promised to every believer.
(This is a strange claim, that tongues are not a "promise from God." Has the author never read
Mk. 16:17, "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues...?"
Or how about 1Co. 12:7-10? "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."
What else can these be but promises? And we note again the author supplies no scriptural backing for his assertions.)
I Corinthians 12:30, "Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"
Therefore, my "feelings" about tongues may be imaginary rather than real.
11. I would not want to be a possessor of a gift that I had to hide. Imagine having a gift for which you could not thank God publicly. If it is known that you possess tongues, YOU:
Cause division among your brethren.
Are suspected of false doctrine by those whom you know are Christian.
Lose opportunities for service with your real talents and abilities. I wouldn't want a billion dollars if it did those things to my witness.
(The author again appeals to contemporary situations. We shall note that many things are hidden by people for various reasons, including public professions of their faith. This does not negate or come to bear in any way regarding the veracity of the thing they believe.
The gifts don't cause division, people do. And by the way, there is division between Bible-believing Christians and liberal denominations. Should we abandon the Deity of Christ or the virgin birth because they cause division?)
12. I would not want to be a possessor of a gift which I could not know was genuine. Who would want a diamond or a ruby if it could not be proven to be such? it would have no real value. It would cause only bickering, arguments, and debates. Since there is no way to tell the apostate's "tongue speaking" from mine, why should I want it?
(Sadly, the author seems to lack spiritual discernment and thus rejects tongues. Yet this whole presentation is based on some level of discernment, i.e., tongues are bad. Thus he would rather have nothing from God than risk the possibility of a counterfeit. This is rather like refusing his change when making a purchase because the dollars might be fake.
And he provides no scriptural backing for this objection.)
13. There are more desirable gifts mentioned which would edify the Church. If it is an aid to devotions, I would get the benefit. [Incidentally, Paul didn't say it was.] But if I could prophesy or heal, I would be able to help others. I would enjoy being the steward of such abilities as these, but I would find "tongue speaking" in private or public a difficult stewardship with no real value.
13. There are more desirable gifts mentioned which would edify the Church. If it is an aid to devotions, I would get the benefit. [Incidentally, Paul didn't say it was.] But if I could prophesy or heal, I would be able to help others. I would enjoy being the steward of such abilities as these, but I would find "tongue speaking" in private or public a difficult stewardship with no real value.
(The author now finds himself at odds with no less than the Apostle Paul, and again offers no scriptural defense.
1Co. 14:5 "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy."
1Co. 14:39 "Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues."
He seems to accept prophecy [or maybe he doesn't], which also "shall fail," according to the author's previously quoted passage. And healing as well. I admit now that I am a bit confused.)
Conclusion: Tongue speaking is therefore undesirable because it is unneeded, unhelpful, undefendable, and uncertain.
(So twelve of his thirteen reasons are extra-scriptural. His one scriptural defense [reason four] is embarrassingly thin.
Greetings.
ReplyDeleteLet me first state that I believe in the physical manifestations of the Holy Spirit, not because I have seen them but because the Bible states that they exist. In the same way I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the only hope for salvation. I have never seen or heard Jesus personally but my faith in Him never the less is strong.
I will admit to wanting to be like the Apostle Thomas and demand physical contact in order to believe. Whether or not I ever experience a truly physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit, I will accept the truth of the Word of God.
Your rebuttal to his post seems to hinge on the lack of any direct scriptures proving that tongues (or any other supernatural gifts) have ceased. You are correct that with the exception of 1st Cor. 13:8 no one can show a verse that tongues or any of the other supernatural gifts have ceased. No one can show you that the office of Apostle or animal sacrifices or collecting of tithes or the celebrating of Jubilee, etc was to cease but they have.
My point is rather simple, the fact that the non-cessationists must defend their position with scripture is clear proof of the nonsensical basis of their argument. No one who believes in the laws of gravity pulls out a science textbook to prove that gravity exist, they just drop something.
The supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit were to prove the authority of the possessor, but instead we are here debating there very existence. This is very telling.
I sometimes think that the non-cessationists forget how amazing is their claim, but with all amazing claims comes the need for amazing proof.
Common sense trumps the non-cessationist theory
Hello, thanks for the comment.
DeleteI’m a little unclear about what you said. You admit that there is no scriptural support for cessationism, and then you criticize non-cessationists for defending their position with Scripture. All doctrine comes from the Bible, but using the Bible to establish a doctrine is like trying to prove gravity? This makes no sense!
Whether or not a claim is “amazing” is not relevant. The issues, is the claim scriptural? If not, then it needs to be abandoned. If what we believe cannot be documented, it is definitionally heresy.
Perhaps you could tell me the criteria that we should use to arrive at truth, if it isn’t the Bible.
Greetings.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply. I believe that the reason you are a "little unclear" is because you are glossing over my comments instead of truly reading them. A very common problem in blogging.
First, I did not admit that there is no scriptural proof of cessationism, as a matter of fact I clearly used 1st Cor. 13:8. I did write that this is the only direct verse I can think of on cessationism. This may be what you meant.
Your comment, "but using the Bible to establish a doctrine is like trying to prove gravity?", is a straw man. I made no such statement. My comment was simply that attempting to PROVE that the physical supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are active today WITH SCRIPTURE is like someone using a science textbook to prove gravity is active today.
Your second paragraph is also off base. No one is debating that the doctrine of supernatural gifts is scriptural, of course the Bible teaches such things. But you seem to be missing the point that the debate between Cessationism vs. Non-Cessationism is do they exist today. Quoting verses from the Bible about supernatural gifts is fine to prove that those of that time had them, but it proves little about today. As a matter of fact, it makes the non-cessationist look rather silly.
If I could fly like a bird, it would be strange to try to talk people into believing me, instead they would just believe me when they saw me fly.
Finally, If you want a scripture that proves the abilities to preform the supernatural gifts has ceased read John 10:38. Jesus is attempting to make the leaders understand that the miracles He is doing is PROOF of His doctrines. If there was proof that the supernatural gifts were going on today, you and I would not be debating this today.
The question is not do the gifts exist, since we both agree they do, but do they exist today. Anyone claiming to heal the sick but tries to back up their claim by using scripture instead of just healing people is foolish.
The supernatural gifts were TO prove, not to be PROVEN.
Mr. Smith, since you admit that "with the exception of 1st Cor. 13:8 no one can show a verse that tongues or any of the other supernatural gifts have ceased," that means there is no scriptural support for the ceasing of the supernatural gifts at all, because 1 Cor. 13:8 does not do that. You may review my analysis in the link in the above commentary.
ReplyDeleteYou know, it was you who used the term gravity. I simply employed it according to your usage.
Unfortunately, Jn. 10:38 does not support your position.
It seems to me you want to avoid actually a dialog. Instead you employ convoluted language, and yell "gotcha" when you perceive a misstep.
It is also strange that you reject the scripture I quote to support my position, yet you rely on scripture to supposedly refute what I have written. I would like to know your rules for using scripture, because they are foreign to me.
Since you have your mind made up, and according to odd criteria you have done this, I sense that further dialogue will be fruitless. Thus, I will post no more of your comments unless they begin to show you are interested in a conversation.
Greetings again.
ReplyDeleteIt is of course your right to not post my comments about your views on this subject. Never the less, you should not imply that it is because of my words. I have reread my comments and can find no basis for your claims of "convoluted language" or a "gotcha" mentality on my part.
Also, my mind is not made up on this issue, as a matter of fact I prefer to be wrong on this most important topic. I am in need of the power that was shown during the days of the Apostles. Alas, I have not found even the smallest amount of truth to the non-cessationist belief. I have been to many churches and meetings that have claimed to be strongly involved in the "Holy Spirit Baptism" and sadly have found them to be bogus.
Like I wrote before, I certainly believe in the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, but common sense and basic logic leads me to believe that they ceased long ago. I suspect that it may be that God wants our faith to be not from sight.
I am sure my train of thought would be acceptable to you if I applied it to a different subject. Example, Mormons believe that they have 12 real apostles and each of these men have the power and authority as Peter, John or Paul. Mormons also use your argument that since no one can show them a verse that proves that the office of Apostle was to end it must still be active. This is also true of the Roman Catholic Church with the Pope being an Apostle.
I will assume that you will not post this message and in doing so I will of course not bother you will another comment.
Actually, I did not ban you, I restricted you to making a cogent biblical defense. Common sense and logic are not valid criteria. Nor is anecdotal evidence, like the meetings you have attended.
ReplyDeleteHow strange it is that someone like you, who seems to be a Sola Scriptura type person, rejects the biblical case I've made!
And I have written extensively on the subject. I refer you once again to the link contained in my article. I'm pretty sure you haven't bothered to read it.
As far as the case at hand, it would certainly be easier if you valued the biblical record. At least we would have something to talk about.
Greetings.
DeleteYour comment to my reply is very typical, basically it is no response at all.
The belief or claims of having the "supernatural physical manifestations of the Holy Spirit" goes beyond the need for scriptural proof. As Jesus preached, He spoke to those who doubted His words, to AT LEAST accept the truth of the supernatural events that were taking place. This is true today with the teachings of the Pentecostal movement.
If a claim is not proven, they are just words, nothing more. Your presenting of scriptures showing the existence of tongues IS NOT proof that it is happening today and if it is not happening today then the movement is false. These are not difficult concepts to understand.
Your labeling of my visiting churches that claim "Holy Spirit Baptism" as anecdotal is false. How else are we to prove the validity of supernatural events if we do not observe them? Are we just to accept any claim of miracles as true.
I hope my comments meet your criteria and you find my thoughts cogent. If not, I am sure you will not post them.
an·ec·do·tal
Deleteadjective
"not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." Thus your experience is definitionally anecdotal.
Let's stop the dance. My position is 2 Timothy 3:16. The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. From that we examine the Scriptures and find who we are and what we do.
What we do does not tell us the validity of what the Bible teaches. I flatly reject your idea that current practices in certain churches are evidence of the cessation of the supernatural. That is not logical, biblical, or even rational.
If the Bible teaches something, our response can only be faith followed by action.
Apparently you subject Scripture to present day experiences, but only those experiences you have personally witnessed. This is anti-intellectual and unbiblical.
Try again.
Greetings.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be missing the whole point of the non-cessationism debate. No one is trying to disprove that the Bible teaches the existence of supernatural abilities. The debate is and has always been are the modern claims of those in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement real?
We can argue theology and Biblical interpretation until the Lord returns and we won't reach an agreement. But this debate isn't an abstract/academic matter, it has practical implications not can not be ignored or brushed aside, as you seem to be advocating.
You can convince yourself that the Bible teaches that the gifts are around today, but until you can show this is the case, all you are doing is speculating.
Any church that claims the physical gifts are going on today can not use 2 Tim. 3:16 as proof-text. Since you have labeled my use of visual observation as "anecdotal", what would you suggest as proof that what is going on today real?
You seem to be a real smart guy and I can not understand why you can not see the illogical basis of this movement.
It is unseemly of you to try to redefine the nature of the debate. A cessationist is a person who believes the supernatural gifts of the Spirit ended with the death of the last apostle. A charismatic believes the gifts of the Spirit did not cease. This is the basic difference. Period.
ReplyDeleteThe continuing of the supernatural gifts is not validated by whether or not someone practices them today. There is no theological system of thought, doctrine, practice, or exegesis that appeals to present-day practice to make its case.
That would be total nonsense, ripping doctrine from its biblical roots and judging it by showing up at churches to make a survey. Is the Trinity real? Well, since we can't appeal to the Bible, instead we must listen to a few sermons and see. What about salvation? No, Scripture cannot help us. It's off limits in David Smith's mind. We can only look at the present practices of the church.
I don't have to prove anything except cite the plain statements of Scripture, sir. You appeal to experience, I look to the Bible. There may not be a single church in the world that correctly practices faith and doctrine of any kind. But that would in no way invalidate the truth of Scripture.
How completely odd that you appeal to experience to justify doctrine, which is exactly what cessationists accuse charismatics of doing.
Let's close this out. You don't value Scripture. I do. You want to see a church properly exercising the gifts. It's irrelevant to the Scriptural case. You pick and choose the Bible according to your world view. I resist that.
Sola Scriptura. The Bible alone as our source of faith and practice. Not experience. Not by what churches are doing today. No. Sir, I will not abandon the Bible for your fanciful and dangerous ideas.
The debate is now closed. Please do not comment again. I will certainly pray for your heart and mind to be opened to the truth.