1 Corinthians 12-14 - Tongues and Interpretation

[Scott1]

responses below.

you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.

I really do believe you are understanding more the inconsistency in the way you argue these points.

Advocating that special revelation comes extrabiblically through tongues/interpretation is what is meant by the (made-up) term "continuationism" which you advocate repeatedly. It's not a technical distinction of seeking vs. believing that the extrabiblical revelation "continues...."

I didn't make up the term continuationism, It isn't the point whether you made up the term, you use it, and it means extrabiblical special revelation despite sola scriptura. You must know that. And not say you believe it one one hand, not believe it on the other as you go back in forth on this in your posts. I learned it on this board where it was used to refer to broadly Reformed believers who were either experiencing present day parallels to or advocating the present day reality of all the spiritual gifts. (Outside the broader reformed tradition, such people would be called charismatics and that's the background I come from.)

A-hah! (Kidding).

Many of us had significant pentecostal/charismatic exposure as well. Now we can see the many serious errors of its doctrine and practice, including the seeking of special revelation outside of Scripture. And know our God is offended by His misrepresentation by His creatures.

When assessing any theological viewpoint, the first step is to see it accurately. In order to assess continuationism one must see it as it is. If we don't do so, when we try to help such people, we immediately discredit ourselves in their eyes since we appear not to know what we are talking about. One of the key differences between continuationists / the sort of charismatics I came from and the people I call charismaniacs is that the latter reject any biblical controls on what they think of as spiritual gifts. Another is that most continuationists deny that any "prophecy" that could occur today would have canonic status. Those two differences have to be faced squarely in dealing with people within continuationist circles. Outside their groups we may think say, the latter claim impossible, but they (and I mentioned Grudem as an example and I could have also mentioned Fee), have no trouble recognizing that canonic revelation will have ceased while remaining open to "prophetic" words that exhort individuals or groups in tactical ways and require testing by the biblical criteria for such claims. Nor do they see,

This is the point you are missing, you are almost getting to it, but not quite. It's not a matter of "controls" on seeking extrabiblical special revelation. It's a matter that the Scripture is now, and was always intended to replace, at least in any ordinary sense, e.g. I Cor. 12 speaking in an unknown tongue/interpretation of an unknown tongue as the special revelation of God.

continuationism of some sort as competition with . . .

Scripture, but as a form of spiritual guidance under it.

Do not confuse an accurate representation of a cessationist position with advocacy for it.

There you go again. You were for it before you were against it. You don't agree with the term but you agree with what the term means. Tim, we all need to pray for clarity and lack of confusion. God's Word is perspicuous, and He will be understood.

the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.

No, it's not a matter of exhorting modern day people to 'prove' that the unknown tongue (which they WERE seeking in public worship) is genuine by demanding an interpretation (also being sought in corporate worship).It's a matter of correct biblical teaching, scripture interpreting Scripture, that the purpose of this is fulfilled now that the Word is completed, which was always God's plan. The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, complete, and sufficient for you.

It's error to be seeking it in public worship as speaking in an unknown tongue and it's an error to be seeking it as interpretation of an unknown tongue, just like it would be to try and conjure up a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord.

Scott, the problem the Reformed face, like it or not, is that the evidence shows that the usual cessationist arguments to support your claim are not convincing in the majority of cases. In many countries of the world the Pentecostal/Charismatic varieties of Christianity are doubling evangelical growth, and more than doubling Reformed growth. On the basis of sheer compassion for our neighbours we need to make sure we have the most biblical arguments possible to help them avoid the spiritual tragedies that all too many of them will face in such settings.

Cults, heresy and false teaching and error is spreading like wildfire. It did in biblical times, it does in our time. (cf Rev. 1-3 about the 7 churches). You could use your logic to say since 75% of the world does not profess to be Christian, we need to re-think if Christianity is true. That's where that logical premise takes you.

As you are aware, the term "cessationist" is really a term imposed by the other side. It's like the dispensationalist saying that covenant theology is against God fulfilling His promises to (political? ethnic?) Israel. The promises were, are and forever shall be about Christ. The promises to political Israel as Messiah were in Christ. There is nothing to be added to His excellency, for Israel or anyone else.

It's not that I Cor. 12 spiritual gifts ceased as opposed to continued. It's about the word of God coming into focus as God established His Word for His people for all time.

And those of us who want to be confessional face an additional challenge.

Don't just want to be, just be.

If we argue that no spiritual gifts occur today

That's not a completely accurate description of the reformed position, nor does WCF Chapter I., which you cite below respond directly to your assertion. In fact, the opposite. Scripture (not extrabiblical special revelation through speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue) is what we seek for final authority. What you cite goes against your premise (once again).

The reformed position would allow more leeway (not what you are advocating), but beyond "no spiritual gifts occur today." While I would not argue it dogmatically, it seems to be quite possible that forms of I Cor. 12 gifts occur as miracles in a faith building or edification capacity or a circumstantial miracle role. NOT as an ordinary means of grace, not as a center of worship, not as something to be sought for revelation, etc. etc.

while others argue that they do, the WCF mandates that since "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" therefore we must prove our contention that all the gifts have expired by either statements "expressly set down in Scripture, or [by conclusions that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." I think the utter failure of reformed teaching to prevail against charismatic errors argues strongly that our arguments need renewed testing by this standard and replacement where found faulty.

Found faulty by who?
Joel Olsteen?

Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.

Thankfully, the same God who ordains things that seem tragic from our standpoint, uses them for His Honor and His glory. And works them together for the benefit and good of the elect, too. (Romans 10:28)

What will direct the victims away, speaking in terms of secondary causes, is centering on the HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN SCRIPTURE.

Not to signs, wonders, or special revelation OUTSIDE of it.

.

 

[Leslie]

Certainly the supernatural gifts have ceased by and large from the church, as a matter of objective fact. Even in frontier missions where there are signs and wonders and epiphanies, there does not seem to be routine giftings in corporate worship. But whether these gifts have ceased forever is another matter. If radical cessationism is on the basis of scripture, what scripture? If it is on the basis of a person or a confession speaking ex cathedra, then what does one do with the book of Revelation where the 2 witnesses prophesy? A radical cessationist logically has to be a preterist, but that's deemed heretical.

 

[Scott1]

Thoughts below.

Certainly the supernatural gifts have ceased by and large from the church, as a matter of objective fact.

There are many stories, though, often second hand, unconfirmed that continue about miracles. I'm not sure of whether there are more in this generation compared to say, the last generation. Maybe not.

Even in frontier missions where there are signs and wonders and epiphanies, there does not seem to be routine giftings in corporate worship.

The gifting would primarily be through the teaching office, a man specially qualified by God to carefully and clearly handle teaching and preaching His Word.


But whether these gifts have ceased forever is another matter.

Here's where we have to be careful. Make sure we are using the same terms with the same meanings. Many "gifts" do continue, e.g. prophecy is the right preaching of the Word, etc. And, the Westminster Confession recognizes miracles.

Again, miracles can and do happen because of the nature of the God who does them. We might say a missionary in a remote (destitute) region might supernaturally speak in the tongue of the tribe he is visiting and it might be understood by the tribe or interpreted by someone there as a miracle. It's quite possible, and virtually all reformed would agree.

But it is not, in any ordinary sense, an ordinary means of grace for receiving special revelation. And even to teach that it is very serious error.



If radical cessationism is on the basis of scripture, what scripture?

No such thing as "radical cessationism."

If it is on the basis of a person or a confession speaking ex cathedra, then what does one do with the book of Revelation where the 2 witnesses prophesy? A radical cessationist logically has to be a preterist, but that's deemed heretical.

"Ex cathedra" has to do with a false doctrine of papal infallibility, preterism with the second coming already have occurred, neither with I Cor 12 gifts extrabiblical special revelation now that Scripture is given.

 

[timmopussycat]

Certainly the supernatural gifts have ceased by and large from the church, as a matter of objective fact.

Your sentence presumes that Corinth was the NT norm. Paul's statement that the Corinthians "come behind in no gift" argues that their situation was, in fact, exceptional.

Even in frontier missions where there are signs and wonders and epiphanies, there does not seem to be routine giftings in corporate worship.

And that is a very good observation. The compression of the NT documents gives worship giftings the appearance of routine, but it is worthwhile remembering that the timespan between Paul's first visit to Corinth and his writing of 1 Corinthians, and in which all these gift manifestations occurred was about five years.

 

[timmopussycat]

I didn't make up the term continuationism,

It isn't the point whether you made up the term, you use it, and it means extrabiblical special revelation despite sola scriptura. You must know that.

Scott, it is a sheer fact that all the Reformed leaning continuationists I am aware of deny that continuationism involves extrabiblical special revelation at the level of canon and require all claimed instances of “prophecy” to be tested against Scripture, a treatment which places all claimed “prophecies” in a category below special revelation. I am hesitant to provide representative samples of such statements on the board lest I be charged with advocating a view that I don’t hold, but if you google “reformed charismatic Vincent” then look for the information page for the “Reformed Charismatic Discussion Group” you will find one such.

When assessing any theological viewpoint, the first step is to see it accurately. In order to assess continuationism one must see it as it is. If we don't do so, when we try to help such people, we immediately discredit ourselves in their eyes since we appear not to know what we are talking about. One of the key differences between continuationists / the sort of charismatics I came from and the people I call charismaniacs is that the latter reject any biblical controls on what they think of as spiritual gifts. Another is that most continuationists deny that any "prophecy" that could occur today would have canonic status. Those two differences have to be faced squarely in dealing with people within continuationist circles. Outside their groups we may think say, the latter claim impossible, but they (and I mentioned Grudem as an example and I could have also mentioned Fee), have no trouble recognizing that canonic revelation will have ceased while remaining open to "prophetic" words that exhort individuals or groups in tactical ways and require testing by the biblical criteria for such claims.

This is the point you are missing, you are almost getting to it, but not quite. It's not a matter of "controls" on seeking extrabiblical special revelation. It's a matter that the Scripture is now, and was always intended to replace, at least in any ordinary sense, e.g. I Cor. 12 speaking in an unknown tongue/interpretation of an unknown tongue as the special revelation of God.

And the point you are missing is this: to a continuationist, the idea that Scripture was intended to normatively eliminate either unknown tongues or NT prophecy, as they define it, remains a premise yet to be biblically proven. My major concern in this whole discussion is that since many arguments intended to prove the normative elimination of these gifts by Scripture simply do not meet the WCF’s “good and necessary consequence” standard of proof, there is something to be said for that view.

Do not confuse an accurate representation of a cessationist position with advocacy for it.

There you go again. You were for it before you were against it. You don't agree with the term but you agree with what the term means.

I don’t agree with your definition of what the term continuationist means. I think there is a real difference that you are not seeing between the continuationist position as its advocates see it and your understanding of it.

(To get the distraction of my own position out of the way: I would not call myself a continuationist for two main reasons. 1) Continuationists (together with all Charismatics, Charismaniacs and many Cessationists read the New Testament situation and presume that the plethora of gifting found in Corinth was a phenomenon equally present in the other churches of the era. I believe Paul’s comment “You come behind in no gift” implies that the Corinthian situation was exceptional even by the standards of the NT era. 2) Most continuationists (Grudem) tout a reduced view of the standards for testing NT prophecy that I find does not match the biblical evidence.

Where I stand on the subject of contemporary spiritual gifts is this: If a contemporary parallel to a NT spiritual gift occurs it is an instance of WCF V. III. Such should not be sought, nor overemphasized, nor rejected but accepted as and when they occur after being tested by any applicable biblical criteria.)

Scott, the problem the Reformed face, like it or not, is that the evidence shows that the usual cessationist arguments to support your claim are not convincing in the majority of cases. In many countries of the world the Pentecostal/Charismatic varieties of Christianity are doubling evangelical growth, and more than doubling Reformed growth. On the basis of sheer compassion for our neighbours we need to make sure we have the most biblical arguments possible to help them avoid the spiritual tragedies that all too many of them will face in such settings.

Cults, heresy and false teaching and error is spreading like wildfire. It did in biblical times, it does in our time. (cf Rev. 1-3 about the 7 churches). You could use your logic to say since 75% of the world does not profess to be Christian, we need to re-think if Christianity is true. That's where that logical premise takes you.

If it can be shown, and it can, that many cessationist arguments don’t meet the “good and necessary consequence” standard required by the confession for reaching theological conclusions, then our situation vis a vis continuationism is not analogous to your claim.

If we argue that no spiritual gifts occur today

That's not a completely accurate description of the reformed position,

Some reformed do push matters that far. Feel free to insert “either regularly or at all” after “today” to cover both groups.

nor does WCF Chapter I., which you cite below respond directly to your assertion. In fact, the opposite. Scripture (not extrabiblical special revelation through speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue) is what we seek for final authority. What you cite goes against your premise (once again).

And once again I note that continuationists place their version of tongues and prophecy on a level below Scripture and require their version of tongues and prophecy to be tested by Scripture. Which is why what I cite does not go against my premise.

The reformed position would allow more leeway (not what you are advocating), but beyond "no spiritual gifts occur today." While I would not argue it dogmatically, it seems to be quite possible that forms of I Cor. 12 gifts occur as miracles in a faith building or edification capacity or a circumstantial miracle role. NOT as an ordinary means of grace, not as a center of worship, not as something to be sought for revelation, etc. etc.

Which is exactly where I am coming from. In addition some continuationists could echo your statement in good conscience too.

. . . the WCF mandates that since "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" therefore we must prove our contention that all the gifts have expired by either statements "expressly set down in Scripture, or [by conclusions that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." I think the utter failure of reformed teaching to prevail against charismatic errors argues strongly that our arguments need renewed testing by this standard and replacement where found faulty.

Found faulty by who?
Joel Olsteen?

Reformed continuationists in addition to many charismatic leaning evangelicals (Piper) or WCF compliant occasionalists such as Lloyd-Jones. (Contrary to charismatic propaganda and cessationist rejection, this position is where the Doctor belongs).

Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.

Thankfully, the same God who ordains things that seem tragic from our standpoint, uses them for His Honor and His glory. And works them together for the benefit and good of the elect, too. (Romans 10:28)

What will direct the victims away, speaking in terms of secondary causes, is centering on the HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN SCRIPTURE.

Not to signs, wonders, or special revelation OUTSIDE of it.

And what will be the relevant portions of Scripture to a continuationist? Those Scriptures that set the controls for biblical evaluation of claimed “gifts.” If you want to argue that there are relevant portions of Scripture that teach the normative replacement of such gifts by Scripture, then you are obliged to ensure that your case for that view meets the WCF’s “good and necessary consequence” standard of proof.

 

[timmopussycat]

I am intrigued by the word dumb - this to me suggests someone incapable of speech and is not mute. Mute to me means incapable of any sound. Does this subtle distinction occur in the greek though?

According to Baur's Lexicon (BAGD) that distinction is one that appears in the Greek. BAGD's distinctions are 1) "silent, mute of idols" and 2) "incapable of speech" human speech as in 2 Pt. 2:16 or "incapable of conveying meaning as a language normally does" 1 Cor. 14:10.

 

[Scott1]

Tim, you have now invented a new term as well as re-defined "continuationism" (yet again).

I am hesitant to provide representative samples of such statements on the board lest I be charged with advocating a view that I don’t hold,

What on earth is

Reformed leaning continuationists I am aware of

Does that mean they "lean" sola scriptura?

What are you asserting "good and necessary consequences" in Westminster Chapter I. Of Holy Scripture has do with tongues and interpretation?

 

[timmopussycat]

Tim, you have now invented a new term as well as re-defined "continuationism" (yet again).

I am hesitant to provide representative samples of such statements on the board lest I be charged with advocating a view that I don’t hold,

What on earth is

Reformed leaning continuationists I am aware of

Does that mean they "lean" sola scriptura?

What are you asserting "good and necessary consequences" in Westminster Chapter I. Of Holy Scripture has do with tongues and interpretation?

1) It added reformed leaning to emphasize the point that these folk claim to buy into the 5 solas. I shouldn't have bothered having already pointed out that the continuationists, as the term was previously used on this board, as those who accept the normativity of the spiritual gifts while holding to reformed orthodoxy in other areas.
2) GNC deductions from Scripture are what the WCF requires to authoritatively settle theological disputes arising over issues where Scripture has no explicit statements settling the matter. In the case of continuationists and spiritual gifts, they rightly see that such proofs are needed for the cessationist thesis to hold.

 

[Scott1]

1) It added reformed leaning to emphasize the point that these folk claim to buy into the 5 solas. I shouldn't have bothered having already pointed out that the continuationists, as the term was previously used on this board, as those who accept the normativity of the spiritual gifts while holding to reformed orthodoxy in other areas.

Very confusing to follow.
Are you saying the other (non reformed leaning) continuationists do not "buy into" the 5 solas? If so, how could they even be Protestants? If so, how do these non-buyers interpret continuationism? Do they have a different meaning for continuationism?




2) GNC deductions from Scripture are what the WCF requires to authoritatively settle theological disputes arising over issues where Scripture has no explicit statements settling the matter. In the case of continuationists and spiritual gifts, they rightly see that such proofs are needed for the cessationist thesis to hold.

This is somewhat amazing.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I, "Of Holy Scripture" begins with a paragraph (emphasis added)

. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

In paragraph 3, (emphasis added)

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

It summarizes Scripture to say Scripture or good and necessary consequence from it are the means of special revelation.

Yet you assert that the good and necessary consequence, somehow, is the reason us reformed (or those reformed leaning, those who "buy into" the 5 solas) must accept what you call continuation of special revelation through I Cor. 12 gifts. Yet, paragraph 1 says those ways have ceased, and in the same paragraph, 3, it specifically says nothing is added "by new revelations of the Spirit."

Your argument is logically inconsistent. The WCF specifically excludes "continuationism" here yet you cite "GNC" as requiring it.

 

[MW]

When you rely solely on the repetition to prove Paul intended to "shun" (your word) tongues speaking, where a man "in his spirit he speaks mysteries," when Paul claimed to engage in the practice himself, you are making an exegetical overreach.

I don't rely on the bare repetition of the word, but on the repetition of the word in the flow of the argument and with the same focus on "intelligibility." Following Fee's analysis of the BAB structure of the passage (a structure which is also seen in chaps. 8-10), it is clear that the apostle addresses the problem of "speaking" in general terms in 12:2-3, and then comes to specifics in chap. 14 after he has provided the necessary theological motivations in chap. 13. As Fee points out, 12:2-3 establishes the test of intelligibility and Christian content. I point out, on top of this, that 14:2-19 is also concerned with intelligibility.

A dictionary is helpful to grasp the range of meanings of a word within a variety of contexts, but it does not bring out the full impact of words in the flow of a discourse. There is a wide range of literary devices and rhetorical nuances that a dictionary is not going to account for.

That the apostle spoke in tongues is not in dispute. That there was a genuine gift of tongues is also not in dispute. The purpose of the passage, however, is to correct the Corinthians as to the nature and function of spiritual gifts and to set forth criteria for discerning and using them aright. Speaking "mysteries" does not meet the criterion of intelligibility and edifying oneself does not conform to the standard of profiting everyone.

It appears you have confounded "speaking mysteries" with "speaking in tongues" in my opening statement. My original statement pertained to "speaking mysteries." The Corinthians believed this is what they were doing when they spoke in tongues. The apostle's test, however, demonstrates that this was not a valid use of the gift.

 

[MW]

I am intrigued by the word dumb - this to me suggests someone incapable of speech and is not mute. Mute to me means incapable of any sound. Does this subtle distinction occur in the greek though?

I think the word "dumb" is being used in the sense of "mute," and both fairly represent the Greek thought. It is important to note in 12:2 that this is what the Corinthians were being carried away unto in their former state. The passive verb conceals the agent of the action, and this appears to be deliberate. It indicates that the "effect" is the main point of concern regardless of the agency employed to bring it about. Tongue-speaking without interpretation was having the same effect. The negative use of the word in chapter 14 makes the connection explicit.

 

[Peairtach]

Tim

Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.

Well you could do a "damage limitation" exercise, whereby you tell people that from your reading of Scripture, you don't believe that the modern tongues are the real deal because they were for a particular point in redemptive history, like certain aspects of the Mosaic administration, but that if they will follow the Scriptural principles laid down by the Apostle in using the counterfeit tongues, they will minimise confusion, trouble, and error in their lives and churches.

How would that work? Like managing the use of illegal drugs by providing clean needles?

I wonder if the biblical principles were enforced in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, the whole modern "tongues" movement would die out?

 

[timmopussycat]

Tim

Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.

Well you could do a "damage limitation" exercise, whereby you tell people that from your reading of Scripture, you don't believe that the modern tongues are the real deal because they were for a particular point in redemptive history, like certain aspects of the Mosaic administration, but that if they will follow the Scriptural principles laid down by the Apostle in using the counterfeit tongues, they will minimise confusion, trouble, and error in their lives and churches.

How would that work? Like managing the use of illegal drugs by providing clean needles?

You don't even need to make such an announcement as you describe. If you're a pastor in a cessationist church, you simply teach your flock on the principles that governed the use of those gifts then, and point out that nothing in Scripture has abrogated these principles: they have not been superseded so this is how any claimed manifestation of the gifts in charismaniac, charismatic or continuationist circles should be judged today. If you are a layman in that church you can then ask your continuationist / charismatic leaning or practising friend, relative or acquanitance if the church they attend observes the biblical rules for managing the gifts. When they say no, you take them through your pastor's sermons. Thus prepared, your friend family member or acquaintance will be able to compare their church practices with biblical guidelines for gift management. Such information has the potential to steer people away from the most dangerous charismaniac and minimally controlled charismatic or continationalist circles.

I wonder if the biblical principles were enforced in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, the whole modern "tongues" movement would die out?

I have good reason to suspect you are correct.

My own experience, travelling through 3 charismatic churches in 2 denoms over 18 years, (all of which enforced some or all of the biblical principles for gift management) demonstrates rather strongly that if the biblical principles of gift management were enforced in Pentecostal / Charismatic churches coupled with an emphasis on exegetical preaching, that the following will occur: the focus would move from the gifts to the giver, reported incidents of claimed gifts in operation would drop to a relatively low rate compared with unregulated situations, and that serious abuses of the gifts would almost entirely disappear. I only saw one incident that might have been biblical tongues and interpretation (I can't say yea or nay on this for certain because I can't identify all human languages on first hearing but what I heard did not sound like the usual glossolalia, of which I had previously heard a good deal). I also was present at one incident of claimed prophecy and the latter was in an outside conference setting - the conference was on spiritual gifts - not the church meeting, and the prophecy rebuked attendees for an overemphasis on the spiritual gifts in very strong terms.

The Pentecostal situation is different and my exposure to it is minimal - and, I think atypical - but I think the same thing would happen there. It is worth noting that I was recently informed that a major local Pentecostal church some years ago has rejected the view that glossolalia is biblical tongues.

 

[timmopussycat]

1) It added reformed leaning to emphasize the point that these folk claim to buy into the 5 solas. I shouldn't have bothered having already pointed out that the continuationists, as the term was previously used on this board, as those who accept the normativity of the spiritual gifts while holding to reformed orthodoxy in other areas.

Very confusing to follow.
Are you saying the other (non reformed leaning) continuationists do not "buy into" the 5 solas? If so, how could they even be Protestants? If so, how do these non-buyers interpret continuationism? Do they have a different meaning for continuationism?

Let’s review the differences among those who advocate for the contemporary validity of the spiritual gifts (SG’s) as if Corinth was the norm both then and now. NB Pentecostals are not included in the following list since their tradition doesn't easily fit on the arc between full cessationist and charismaniac.

Charismaniacs – people who accept no biblical controls on the exercise of what are claimed to be SG’s. Examples (Vinyard, Word of Faith, Hinn and further out)

Charismatics – people who accept some or all of the biblical controls on the exercise of claimed SG’s. Examples: Calvary Chapel in the 1980's, the Church of England / Canadian Anglican axis (i.e. Watson, Harper, Green) of the 80's and 90's.

Continuationists – people who claim either adherence to the reformed solas and / or Calvinistic soteriologyin addition to accepting some or all biblical controls on the exercise of claimed SG’s. (Examples: Grudem, Vincent, and perhaps Piper)

Now we can answer your question about those who accept contemporary Spiritual Gifts but not the 5 solas. The are either Charismatics or Charismaniacs.

And to complete the picture we have:

Occasionalists – those who accept that sometimes contemporary incidents of SG’s do occur but deny that they ever were or are a normative experience for any and every church fellowship, (Example: Lloyd Jones)

Cessationists - those who believe that something at the end of the church age changed the status of the SG's from normative to occasional, (Example: Confessional Westminsterians), and

Full Cessationists - those who deny that any SG occurs today.

2) GNC deductions from Scripture are what the WCF requires to authoritatively settle theological disputes arising over issues where Scripture has no explicit statements settling the matter. In the case of continuationists and spiritual gifts, they rightly see that such proofs are needed for the cessationist thesis to hold.

This is somewhat amazing.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I, "Of Holy Scripture" begins with a paragraph (emphasis added)

. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

In paragraph 3, (emphasis added)

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

It summarizes Scripture to say Scripture or good and necessary consequence from it are the means of special revelation.

Yet you assert that the good and necessary consequence, somehow, is the reason us reformed (or those reformed leaning, those who "buy into" the 5 solas) must accept what you call continuation of special revelation through I Cor. 12 gifts. Yet, paragraph 1 says those ways have ceased, and in the same paragraph, 3, it specifically says nothing is added "by new revelations of the Spirit."

Your argument is logically inconsistent. The WCF specifically excludes "continuationism" here yet you cite "GNC" as requiring it.

First of all it is not my argument. I am simply setting out the continuationist position so that it can be accurately assessed. Second, the problem with your response is that it is simply a reiteration of the usual cessationist understanding of the cited clauses of the WCF and it suffers from the shortcoming of not dealing with the continuationist argument that challenges that understanding. I previously posted one version of this argument in a reply to you in post 150 of the following thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/jo...e-reformed-continuationists-81096/index4.html

and I'll repost it here for convenience.

The entire first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith is relevant to this topic, in particular Paragraphs One, Six and Ten.

"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased" (WCF, I, i).

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF, I, vi).

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (WCF, I, x).

A facile reading of these paragraphs, particularly the last clause of the first one, outside of their historical contexts, has lead some Presbyterians actually to believe that the Confession teaches Cessationism. However, an examination of the teachings of the theologians who helped to produce the document should give us sufficient pause that we slow down and read these paragraphs more carefully.

If we look more carefully at these three paragraphs we will see what it is that is no longer being revealed to the Church. Paragraph One states, "those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

Most people lift that clause out of its grammatical moorings, and distort what it is stating. However, one must notice how it is part of a larger statement and must be understood in its context: "his will" refers back to "the same," which points back to "that his will unto his church," which refers to "that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary for salvation."

In other words, we do not need the "traditions" of an infallible Church or the "new revelations" of the Antinomians to tell us what is necessary for salvation. All that we need to know about what is necessary for salvation has been written in the Bible, where the Apostolic gospel has been deposited once and for all. As such, this clause is stating that the canon is completed and that the Bible gives us all we need to know in order to go to heaven. It is not denying God's continued use of certain methods of guidance, only that he is not using them to impart further propositions to the Christian faith or in such a way that what is communicated is universally binding on the Church. As Jude affirmed, the corpus of Christian truth, the Faith, has been "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Paragraph Six expands this understanding:

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit (against the Antinomians) or traditions of men (against Roman and Anglo Catholicism)" (WCF, I, vi).

The Westminster theologians understood that both the traditions of men and new revelations of the Spirit were being presented as God's truth to bind the Church. As over against such, they lifted up the Scripture as the infallible Word of God, with nothing on its par and nothing to be added to it.

Pragraph Ten sums up the Reformed position:

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Matt. 22:29, 31; Acts 28:25; I John 4:1-6)" (WCF, I., x).

We should understand the phrase "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men" as referring to the "traditions of men" in Paragraph Six, while "private spirits," points back to the "new revelations of the Spirit" mentioned there. The proof texts corroborate this, because the Westminster theologians listed 1 John 4:1-6 there, which says:

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

John, writing at the end of the first century, does not tell us to reject continuing directions; he tells us to test these things by the Yardstick, or canon, of Truth, the Apostolic Faith, which is now contained in its entirety in the Holy Scriptures alone.

This understanding is corroborated by reading the Westminster Confession within its historical context as well. Consider, for example, these words written by one of the most influential theologians at that assembly, Samuel Rutherford. Pastor Rutherford published the following during the time that the Westminster Confession of Faith was being adopted in London. Standing in the Reformed tradition, Rutherford affirmed that the gift of prophecy, including foretelling the future, continues on after the closing of the canon of Scripture. However, he distinguishes between immediate inspiration, which produced the Bible, and this other guidance which was not infallible.

"Of revelations extraordinary of men in our ages not immediately inspired and how they are charactered from Satanicall Revelations

"There is a 3 revelation of some particular men, who have foretold things to come even since the ceasing of the Canon of the word, as Iohn Husse, Wickeliefe, Luther have foretold things to come, and they certainely fell out, and in our nation of Scotland, M. George Wishart foretold that Cardinall Beaton should not come out alive at the Gates of the Castle of St. Andrewes, but that he should dye a shamefull death, and he was hanged over the window that he did look out at, when he saw the man of God burnt, M. Knox prophecied of the hanging of the Lord of Grange, M. Ioh. Davidson uttered prophecies, knowne to many of the kingdome, diverse Holy and mortified preachers in England have done the like . . . .. These worthy reformers tye no man to beleeve their prophecies as Scriptures .. . . they never gave themselves out as organs immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost . . . yea they never denounced Iudgement against those that beleeved not their predictions, of these particular events & facts . . . .." (_sic_. throughout) (Samuel Rutherford, _A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist Opening the Secrets of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichristian Doctrine of Iohn Saltmarsh, and Will. Del, the Present Preachers of the Army Now in England, and of Robert Town, Tob. Crisp, H. Denne, Eaton, and Others. In Which Is Revealed the Rise and Spring of Antinomians, Familists, Libertines, Swenck-feldians, Enthysiasts, & c. The Minde of Luther a Most Professed Opposer of Antinomians, is cleared, and Diverse Considerable Points of the Law and the Gospel, of the Spirit and Letter, of the Two Covenants, of the Nature of Free Grace, Exercise Under Temptations, Mortification, Justification, Sanctification, are Discovered_, (London, 1648), p. 42) (Wow! Did those authors like huge titles! I have this interesting work in my library; it and many other out of print works can be obtained through University Microfilms of Ann Arbor, Michigan, A survey of the spiritvall Antichrist : Opening the secrets of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the antichristian doctrine of John Saltmarsh, and Will. Del., the present preachers of the army now in England, and of Robert Town, Tob. Crisp, H. Denne, E).

Because the Bible is the only revelation from God which he has left to the Church as an infallible and authoritative rule, only its teachings can be imposed on other people. Here, says Samuel Rutherford, is the difference between the Reformers and the Enthusiasts: both believed that God was directing them, but the Reformers never presented their prophecies to people as something that was infallible or binding on the consciences of believers. The Enthusiasts, on the other hand, claimed the same kind of immediate inspiration as that of the authors of Scripture and therefore demanded that their prophecies be received on a par with Scripture (_Ibid._, p. 43).

_Sola Scriptura_ is a vital truth -- indeed, one may say it is the fundamental of fundamentals of Presbyterianism and the Reformed Tradition -- that the Bible is infallible and only its teachings can be imposed on people. This is what separates Reformed people from many other Christians: we allow for true liberty of conscience and forbid all non-biblical rules, and not simply anti-biblical rules, from the life of the Church. We believe that the Church is limited to the written Word in what it requires of people.

As a Presbyterian minister, I stand within the historic, mainstream, which affirms that God can still speak today -- indeed, which understands that still speaks in preaching, which is the primary way that God confronts people with his Word -- but which also affirms that there is but one rule or standard for how we ought to believe and how we ought to live, Holy Scripture.

Presbyterians are the heirs of godly ministers such as the "prophet," Alexander Peden, who foretold numerous future events. I would submit that Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Calvinism, particularly involving the Scots and the French -- the French Reformed Church, the Huguenots, who experienced the gift of tongues centuries ago -- was much more liberated with regard to the work of the Holy Spirit than some in the modern American branch of the Presbyterian stream. In many quarters of the Reformed world, we have lost a measure of our heritage and sold a bit of our birthright for a mess of intellectualistic porridge, producing an intellectually sound Church, but one that often seems to offer its adherents little more than stoical resignation in the face of the tidal wave of chaos that is coming on the Western world.

This refutation argues that the Confession was not intended to be read as you read it above. I cite this argument not necessarily because I accept it as valid, but because it presents us with a perfect example of the challenge that continuationists presents to those who disagree with them on the point. How must this argument be dealt with? Can it be shown that his grammatical analysis (which is the heart of his argument) is in error? If error at that point cannot be demonstrated, his argument will stand by default.

How should one respond to arguments like these? One may merely reassert the traditional ceassationist reading as if Rev. Vincent has said nothing to change matters. Or, one may respond with irrelevant ad hominem arguments. Many do one or the other. But that leaves the field wide open for either the earnest inquirer or the continuationist, charismatic or charismaniac proponent (whichever one is encountering at the moment) to say: “Notice how these so-called reformed folks are copping out and not living up to their confessional commitments by not addressing the challenge to their understanding that argument x presents.”

There are two ways one can go about refuting Rev. Vincent’s understanding that do not suffer from the aforementioned liability. One may attempt to demonstrate that his grammatical analysis of the text is incorrect or show that he has not taken relevant scriptural data into account. If one attempts the former, only the use of standard grammatical tools is required, but if one attempts the latter, than one’s deduced Scriptural proof must meet the WCF’s “good and necessary consequence” standard, not because I say so, but because, if one's proof doesn’t do so, then the continuationist one is talking to can rightly point out that proofs of a less rigourous standard fall short of the standard the Confession requires to settle theological disagreements. (Note well that while educated charismatics and charismaniacs may recognize the challenge they can wield by deploying the confessional standard, we must presume, however, given their background in the reformed tradition, that continuationists will do so.)

Reformational Christians of all stripes recognize that our churches cannot afford to ignore either apologetics or the major cults today. The best of us don’t teach our people to parrot our positions, we explain them so our people can understand them and share them with families friends and neighbours. In dealing with a cult, many of us are being trained to assess their positions as they are, then deploy Scripturally and grammatically sound arguments against them. If any want to challenge continuationalist arguments, they will need to do likewise.

 

[Scott1]

Continuationists – people who claim either adherence to the reformed solas and / or Calvinistic soteriologyin addition to accepting some or all biblical controls on the exercise of claimed SG’s. (Examples: Grudem, Vincent, and perhaps Piper)

??

 

[Scott1]

Charismaniacs – people who accept no biblical controls on the exercise of what are claimed to be SG’s. Examples (Vinyard, Word of Faith, Hinn and further out)

 

[Scott1]

Cessationists - those who believe that something at the end of the church age changed the status of the SG's from normative to occasional, (Example: Confessional Westminsterians), and

"Cessationism" is about extrabiblical special revelation through I Cor. 12 gifts being fulfilled in the completion of Scripture. What ceases is special revelation in that way, in any ordinary way. (Reformed believes the church age includes Israel in the Old Testament).

 

[Scott1]

“Notice how these so-called reformed folks are copping out and not living up to their confessional commitments by not addressing the challenge to their understanding that argument x presents.”

It seems rather, this has been settled for the 350+ years since the Confession, but some x arguments just refuse to accept it.

 

[MW]

It seems rather, this has been settled for the 350+ years since the Confession, but some x arguments just refuse to accept it.

Yes; the "challenge" is a little like a small boy swinging his fists at a grown man while the grown man places his hand on the small child's head and smiles.

 

[Free Christian]

Yes; the "challenge" is a little like a small boy swinging his fists at a grown man while the grown man places his hand on the small child's head and smiles.

I like that one.
To me I see the issue like this.
When the Jewish people were lead into the wilderness they did not have natural means of survival, food or water in any abundance or supply, so they needed special miracles from God to supply their needs. When they reached the promised land they then had these in natural supply. Like Christians, in the early days they had little of what God wanted them to know and do, compared to us, many needs were met with the supernatural means, miracles and gifts. But today and before us Gods will and guidance became known, we reached the promised land, the supernatural was not needed as it was. We then had the natural. Why supply us with food from God when we can grow our own or get it from a shop. I know some might think along with other things but hey what about people starving or those who don't have access to Bibles? But my response is not a definitive answer but a simple my style explanation based upon what I see in Gods Word. A way of myself explaining it. How something once happened that did not always forever happen.
God revealed all we needed to have revealed through His living Word. A Word that lives for ever more. I can read a passage that I have read a dozen times or more and yet today still see it unfold Gods truths like I have just started reading it. His Living Word.
Like a wise man who has something wise to tell you each time you speak.
Is Gods Word not complete that I need extra, something more revealed through some one speaking in tongues? Something that His Word does not teach me? Or cannot that it needs to be told to me that way?
Many things happened in Gods Word that happened in a particular time that were not repeated in others. Like many of the Gifts.
My thoughts only.

 

[Ben_Ives]

Best sermon on this topic you will ever hear: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=42008957246

Sent from my RM-941_apac_australia_new_zealand_236 using Tapatalk