Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones criticism of Cessationist Argument in 1 Corinthinans 13

Discussion in 'Pneumatology' started by davenporter, Aug 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. davenporter

    davenporter Puritan Board Freshman

    Hi all,

    To preface, I am presupposing RBCBob's interpretation of 1 Cor 13:8-13. http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/cessation-tongues-question-74430/#post949498

    I was reading through Grudem's Systematic Theology on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (pp. 1032-1039) and had no problem refuting his views with this interpretation up to the point where he quoted Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who
    And then Grudem goes on:

    I have two questions:
    1. How would a cessationist taking the aforementioned view respond to Lloyd-Jones' criticism? (Or alternatively would any cessationists take an objection/modify RBCBob's exegesis of the passage?)
    2. I don't even understand what Calvin is talking about. Could someone explain to me what he means?

  2. Scott1

    Scott1 Puritan Board Doctor

    I have found it is important to be familiar with the whole of scope of a man's teachings to quote them authoritatively. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that the first esteemed gentleman came to an "uncertain" position on this matter and that that is reflected in his later pubic statements.

    The greatest theologian did expand and change some views over his prolific teaching career. That happened with his view of the Christian sabbath, many quote only his first writings.

    As far as I know, neither man ever taught that special revelation ordinarily comes through the I Cor. 12 spiritual gifts now that Scripture has been completed for the Church until the end of this world.

    That is the heart of this matter, not whether God can do miracles (He can), but whether church worship is centered on special revelation ordinarily coming outside of Scripture. Neither man is known for teaching or practicing that, occasional statements of wonderment not withstanding.

    If the modern day theologian, right though he is on many things, asserts that special revelation "continues" outside of Scripture, in any ordinary sense, he is quite wrong based on the context of Scripture and, I think, quite wrong in attributing such a few to these two esteemed theologians.
  3. Fogetaboutit

    Fogetaboutit Puritan Board Freshman

    Did Paul know what was revealed to the apostle John in the book of revelation when he wrote 1 Corinthians? This is a fallacious argurment In my humble opinion, even if we have the complete canon of scripture before us today we still need the enlightement of the Holy Spirit for it to be beneficial to us. It's not a competition on who's the greatest in the Kingdom of God, the apostles or us depending on the level of "knowledge" or information we have. This sound like gnosticism where "knowledge" is made the object of glory.

    The apostles were blessed with special honors, duties and gifts that are not bestowed on us today, but this doesn't mean that they had all of the Divine knowledge.

    I lean toward the interpretation that 1 Cor 13 was referring to the complete canon altought I'm not dogmatic, but no matter where you stand I don't think this is a valid argument.:2cents:
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
  4. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    Lutheran scholar Douglas Judisch, has one of the best books on this subject, including a chapter on I Corinthians 13:

    Amazon.com: An evaluation of claims to the charismatic gifts (Baker Biblical monograph) (9780801050824): Douglas Judisch: Books

    The Apostles and Christ Himself are rather unique cases, but the Church as a whole has advanced from childhood in the OT, through youth and adolescence, on to maturity. It's a historical and spiritual process.

    The Church looks back on OT times as an adult looking back with a new self-awareness on her childhood, a self-awareness she did not have when she was a child.

  5. davenporter

    davenporter Puritan Board Freshman

    I notice Paul goes from plural (we) to singular (I). Does this have significance in our interpretation of the passage? Why would Paul speak in terms of "we" and then immediately move to "I" if he is talking about the same group of people. Or is it just stylistic?

  6. Eoghan

    Eoghan Puritan Board Senior

    I am not sure that 1 Corinthians 13 does specifically refer to the teaching that what is 'perfect' is the completed canon.


    ...I think DMLJ's argument is false. It is one thing to have the completed canon of scripture it is quire another thing to master it. By master it I mean not only intellectual understanding but to have it in your heart. Yes we have more than the Christians of the NT era (when scripture was still being written) had by way of writings but do we have the life that lives up to them? They had the Apostles and disciples wandering round in itinerant ministries. They had prophets and apostles to bridge the gap - now we have the canon of scripture.

    Should they force the gentiles to observe the law? On this the OT was basically silent, it spoke of an in-gathering of the gentiles but not what to do with them. That "gap" was filled with the vision of Peter and the conversions and outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Cornelius's house. When the same issue arises today posed by the Messianic Christians we simply go to scripture and read Paul opposing Peter, in Galatians and the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

    When the Spirit prophesied Paul's arrest (and death) it was vital to know that this was his home-going and not the end of a Jewish sect. From our perspective this is clear from that of the NT era they needed to know it.

    In many ways special revelation helped converts to Christianity find their way, especially the Jewish ones. We having the NT have all we need.

    Kinda comin around to "perfect" = NT
  7. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    He's possibly returning to his analogy of child to adult, for which he uses the first person singular, whereas for his analogy of the Bible being a mirror - an analogy which is used elsewhere in Scripture - he uses the first person plural. If I had Judisch to hand I'd let you know what he says on that particular issue.

    Faith and hope - as we know them - cease at the Eschaton, which is another reason that this must refer to a period before then. If the particular Pentecostals are arguing that they are speaking in "the tongues of angels" (I Cor 13:1) - a particular hyperbole the Apostle uses - then they can be reminded that the tongues of angels don't cease at the Eschaton.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page