The Rise of the Intellectual Charismatics
In times past, most serious theologians and biblical scholars could look to the modern Charismatic movement merely as the latest movement among folk Christianity that doesn’t take intellectual studies seriously. The sensationalistic tendencies of the movement could be easily written off knowing that soon this fad would end with disillusionment and an “I told you so” that followed.
Such is not the case any longer.
The answer to the question of whether one is a cessationist or a continuationist does separate the sheep and the goats like it once did. A cessationist is one who believes that the supernatural sign gifts of the Bible such as healing, tongues, and prophecy ceased at the end of the first century with the death of the last apostle. A continuationist (Charismatic) is one who believes that these gifts have continued throughout history and should be sought today by the church.
Cessationistism claimed most if not all respected scholarship for a time. With this claim came the ad populum comfort that their view was indeed correct. Since the nineties, however, there has been a rise in respected evangelical scholarship that no longer follows the traditional party-line of cessationism. Scholars such as Craig Keener, Sam Storms, John Piper, Jack Deere, and C.J. Mahaney, just to name a few, are continuationists. But the two that stand out more than any others in my opinion are Wayne Grudem and J.P. Moreland.
Wayne Grudem is a theology professor out of Phoenix Seminary. Grudem holds a BA from Harvard University, a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. He also served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1999. His Systematic Theology is one of the best selling and most respected Systematic Theologies available. Even cessationists agree that Grudem’s theology is orthodox on just about everything he touches. He is a balanced scholar who knows the issues well and who’s beliefs would never provide the easy target that cessationists are traditionally so used to. More than this, Grudem Reformed in his theology! He is a charismatic Calvinist! Grudem believes that the miraculous sign gifts are still available and prevalent in the church today.
J.P. Moreland is a distinguished philosophy professor at Talbot School of Theology at Biola. He hold a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Southern California. He is a first rate philosopher, theologian, and apologist. Moreland has written on many subject in his field and is respected by most leading philosophers today—Christian and secular. His intellectual abilities do not fit the bill of a Benny Hinn or a Pat Robertson to say the least. In fact, he has written one of the most compelling works of our generation concerning the need for Christians to reengage in the intellectual arena, criticizing the church for its inability to defend the faith reasonably. The book is called Love Your God with All Your Mind. If you were ever in a debate with an atheist or a philosophical naturalist, Moreland is the guy you want on your side. He, like Grudem, does not look like the stereotypical Charismatic. He is a recent convert to the Vineyard Movement, who believes that their are prophets who speak supernaturally on behalf of God today and that the gift of healing is not only available, but should be sought out.
With so many flies in the ointment what is a cessationist such as myself supposed to do? Continuationists are simply not supposed to be intellectuals! Yet they are, and they can defend their positions.
I believe the landscape is changing. There are now fewer hard cessationists who believe with absolute conviction that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased. You know that the battle lines are fading when C.J. Mahaney and John MacArthur can share the same pulpit! Because of the stature of these respected scholars, many cessationists are beginning to scratch their heads wondering if they might be wrong. Some are one experience away from fully embracing a continuationist theology.
While I find many of the biblical and theological arguments of cessationism compelling, I would be the first to admit that the primary reason I remain a cessationist is because I have never experienced any miracles, signs, or wonders and I have never seen or heard of a legitimate prophet. If someone were to ask me if I believe that God is still speaking through prophets and giving the gift of healing, I would confess my tentative cessationist beliefs. I have never seen nor heard of a prophet or divine healer, but this does not mean that God is not or cannot work in such a way today.
While going through the recent depression and suicide of my sister, I was more than willing for a someone with the gift of healing to come to the rescue, representing God’s benevolent hand of mercy. Even though my theology was predisposed against it, I prayed for God to bring someone. With my mom’s aneurysm and stroke last year which took away part of her brain, I live in hope of God’s miraculous healing to rescue us from what was only previously a nightmare. I certainly am not against Him sending someone with this gift. Yet He has not and I have had to learn to trust in Him in spite of the difficulties that these situations have introduced.
While the Bible does not ever say that the supernatural sign gifts ceased or were going to cease (in fact, it may imply the opposite), history does seem to suggest it, and my experience, to the degree that it can be trusted, verifies it.
One thing that we need to keep in mind is the if God has not tied His own hands, our nice clean theological system cannot tie them for Him. If He moves in such a way, we better recognize this. At the same time, if He is not moving in such a way, we discredit Him by claiming He is doing something He is not. This can cause great damage to His character and disillusionment to those who seek such interventions. Both sides need to be very careful about this issue.
I would, however, call upon fellow cessationists, especially hard cessationists, to consider continuationism from the “best of” and not create straw men by referring to the common abuses that are televised for all to see. Seek out the wisdom and scholarship of Grudem, Moreland, and the like before you dogmatize your beliefs. They represent the best of their belief and form what I believe to be the intellectual rise Charismatics.
With all this in mind, this blog could have just as well been titled “The Demise of Hard Cessationism.”
There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.
Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- The Rise of the Intellectual Charismatics
- Where I Stand
- Should the Church Seek for
MiraclesSigns? - Calvinists often make the worst Calvinists
- Do you really believe in hell?

Ed Komoszewski on 05 Oct 2007 at 12:12 am #
Well said, Michael.
Two prominent New Testament scholars worth mentioning in this context are Gordon Fee and Max Turner—continuationists and industrial-strength exegetes no less!
Nick N. on 05 Oct 2007 at 1:54 am #
Michael,
Man, you must have been tired when writing this one — the typos are too many to point out!
In all seriousness, as a continuationist who has had many experiences with charisms of 1Cor. 12, I have to ask the the cessationist (in this case you) who says: “While the Bible does not ever say that the supernatural sign gifts ceased or were going to cease (in fact, it may imply the opposite), history does seem to suggest it…” when and where exactly it is that history seems to suggest such? Even a decline in the charisms doesn’t suggest a cessation of them and I don’t believe that anyone has been able to demonstrate any period of history where there were absolutely no claims of the gifts being in operation.
See for example:
Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho XXXIX (2nd century)
Irenaeus - Against Heresies 2.32.4-5 (2nd century)
Tertullian - De Spectaculus XXIX (2nd century)
Origen - Against Celcus XLIV-XLVI (3rd century)
The Apostolic Constitutions 7.1 (4th century)
All of these patristic writers were continuationists claiming that the gifts were still in operation in their day and this just covers the first three centuries after the last apostle died… We can find evidence of continuation up until the present.
I think you just need to jump ship and become a Charismatic — trust me — it’s where it’s at!
And I couldn’t agree with Ed more — Fee and Turner definitely need a mention!
I have a few thoughts on why you didn’t get the results you were hoping for in prayer but I don’t want to change the direction of this post.
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 2:34 am #
Nice post, Michael. I hope we can profitably use it to converse about what you raised rather than simply hashing out the arguments and proof-texts for and against (like that’s never been done before). Overall, I think one very positive contribution of the renewal movement has been to make protestants develop their pneumatology. Historically (i.e., before the 20th century) that has been a weak area, and even now much needs to be done.
I do, however, have one challenge: if your cessationism is based primarily on a lack of experience, how do you feel about those of us who do have experience? On a global scale, the broader renewal movement utterly dwarfs benchmark evangelicalism. Millions of contemporary Christians have spoken in tongues, given or received prophecy, and experienced healing. Are they all wrong, deluded, deceived, or what? Some response to their testimony needs to be given.
David C. on 05 Oct 2007 at 6:30 am #
“Millions of contemporary Christians have spoken in tongues, given or received prophecy, and experienced healing. ”
I would love to know just one person in the past 1800 years that:
Has spoken in tongues as they did in Acts, has the gift of prophecy or the gift of healing
Just one will convince me. But the deal is, it has to be as it was with the apostles. Same gift, as demonstrated by them.
“Are they (millions of contemporary Christians) all wrong, deluded, deceived, or what? ”
Yes
ChadS on 05 Oct 2007 at 7:06 am #
Sean,
You said: “Millions of contemporary Christians have spoken in tongues, given or received prophecy, and experienced healing. Are they all wrong, deluded, deceived, or what? Some response to their testimony needs to be given.”
I don’t think Michael wants this blog to turn into something where personal experiences of the “gifts of the spirit” are used as proof of their holiness or reality. At the same time he doesn’t want to “create straw men by referring to the common abuses that are televised for all to see.”
Like you said the proof texting for and against these gifts has been done to death and so has the relaying the personal experiences as proof positive or negative.
I believe Michael is showing how Charismatics are developing very prominent & proficient theologians that are just as rigourous and academic as any non-Charismatics. This is then causing people to reevaluate their stereotypes of who and what Charismatics really do and believe.
As an outside observer (I’ve never seen or experienced “gifts of the spirit” in the way most Charismatics say you have to) I think that the gifts are still there or at least open to the idea. In all this talk about gifts we should keep St. Paul’s writings in mind about the proper use of the gifts. In 1 Cor. 14 he says that speaking in tongues is a gift best used to show the unbeliever the truth and if somebody isn’t in the congregation to interpret these words then that person should remain silent. That suggests to me that the gifts of the spirit are something that the believer can in some way regulate or control — since ultimately the gifts are only to be used in building up the church body.
ChadS
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 7:42 am #
Chad,
Your post is great. You are somewhat open to the gifts even though you have not experienced certain ones. My question is what “not hard” or “nice” cessationists like Michael–people who say they’re pretty sure they’re not around any more–think of people who claim to have experienced those gifts. (I already know what the not-so-nice cessationists think.)
For example, you (generic) have a good, sincere Christian friend who prays in tongues in his personal time everyday. What does the “nice” cessationist think is going on there?
Sure, I am making to some extent an argument for continuation from personal experience, but I am genuinely curious as to what, if anything, such persons think about other Christians who do claim such experiences.
J. P. Moreland on 05 Oct 2007 at 9:20 am #
I so very much appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of your post, Michael. And I am in agreement with your points. Fortunately, I worship in a Third Wave church that is cautious about making claims for things that are borderline or bogus, and non-Cessationists do great damage by being undiscriminating about various phenomena. I have some suggestions for progress among those who are Cessationists. First, remember that this is a Kingdom issue and a ministry-of-Jesus issue primarily, not a gifts issue. Second, Third Wave believers hold to one baptism of the Spirit at conversion, several fillings/annointings (which require yielding to the Lord as best one can and is not accompanied by any manifest phenomena in particular or, indeed, any at all; pretty standard Evangelical stuff), tongues is a minor gift and not a sign of anything. It’s a pretty healthy approach. Third, start reading about this sort of thing from credible witnesses, ask people what they have seen and heard, learn how to engage in healing prayer (I prefer not to talk of prophets or healers; I prefer to talk of all of us seeking to be more sensitive to the Lord’s guidance and voice and to learning how to pray for the sick; when I speak of a prophetic gift, it is like all gifts–it can grow, wax and wane, etc.) by reading and experimenting with this just as you would in learning how to do evangelism. Finally, these matters are also primarily about learning to live in your heart with tender intimacy with our Abba Father and the Son and Spirit (in addition to and not instead of living in your head!!). So work on exposing yourself to the best of contemporary worship (traditional and contemporary hymns each have a different role in worship and both are important). Let yourself feel warmth towards God, ask Him to manifest His presence to you as you obey and seek Him, etc. And as a final aside, Sam Storms is a Calvinist Third Waver. God help us all as we work out our journey with Him.
ChadS on 05 Oct 2007 at 9:34 am #
Sean,
This is my personal opinion and my opinion only. I think that if somebody has a gift of tongues and uses it in their prayer life then that is great. However as it is with any spiritual discipline they should have a mentor or spiritual director to make sure they are staying true to the Christian faith and not inadvertently being led down a false path. Also a spirit of humbleness and submission would be necessary so the person praying in tongues isn’t misled to believe they are more spiritual or more highly favored by God over their bretheren that do not pray or speak in tongues.
What if this person belongs to a church or congregation that does not regularly pray in tongues or exhibits other Charismatic traits? They should heed St. Paul’s advice and refrain from speaking in tongues at that service if nobody can interpret. Or, find a congregation that allows for this and has people with similar gifts that can interpret. It seems to me that these things must always go hand in hand and one can’t be neglected in favor of one or the other.
ChadS
Cliff Martin on 05 Oct 2007 at 9:56 am #
The “Great Divide” of the 60s and 70s which cut painful lines of separation right down the middle of conservative Christianity has narrowed, and I think we can all agree that is a good thing. This recent batch of intellectual theologians who have jumped the cessationist ship is the latest manifestation of this trend. And note that few, if any, of those theologians cited is a raving wide-eyed charismatic with pentecostal theology.
I was taught cessationism in my Baptist bible college 35 years ago. I understand the logic, but I could never buy the 1 Corinthians 13 “biblical” argument. Years before I ever spoke in tongues, I rejected the cessationist argument. It just did not make sense to me. And while I am open to the Gifts of the Spirit, and fellowship with many charismatics, my pneumatology remains markedly evangelical. The logic of pentecostal theology is no more sound than the logic of cessationism. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.
Thank you for the post, Michael. If I could be so bold, I predict you will abandon your cessationist view within the next five years, and that this will cause no major upheaval in your practice or thinking.
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:04 am #
Chad said:
Also a spirit of humbleness and submission would be necessary so the person praying in tongues isn’t misled to believe they are more spiritual or more highly favored by God over their bretheren that do not pray or speak in tongues.
(Not directed at Chad but a general comment): I hear this constantly brought up by non-charismatics, as well as the ubiquitous phrase “spiritual elitism.” Question for my brothers and sisters: do you really feel most pentecostals and charismatics you have met have this attitude? (Overly excited, yes. Obnoxious, unfortunately too common. Radiating superiority? Not so much.) It seems like a conversation about this subject can never come up without having this feeling brought out. Personally, from the reflexive way it is brought out, I think it says as much about those raising it as about those concerning whom they raise it.
Edited: Small change to last line.
stevemoore on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:18 am #
Sean,
Yes, sadly that is the case. I speak from personal experience.
My grandfather was often told that his salvation and/or spiritual standing before God, or his spiritual maturity were in question as he had not experienced a particular sign gift. He was a member of a charismatic church, very faithful and committed.
I’ve been told on numerous occasions the very same thing by various pentecostals and charismatics that I’ve encountered.
In fact, those of you who I’ve found on this blog who have not done so are a refreshing change, but in the far minority for my experiences and encounters.
Perhaps I’ve met all the “wrong ones” out there, and I am open to that possibility, but I really dont think it is about me for raising that question (when I have done so) but it is actually about those who I’ve come in contact with and the fact that they have not 1) matched the parameters laid out in scripture and 2) have promoted a higher level of spiritual standing before God not based on the work of Christ, but instead on an experience or work of man.
Again, those who I have seen on this blog are in stark contract to others who I’ve met, but again, this is the minority by far. But, to find people such as yourself who are in this pleasant minority, I do find encouraging.
-steve
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:40 am #
Sean,
You said:
“I do, however, have one challenge: if your cessationism is based primarily on a lack of experience, how do you feel about those of us who do have experience? On a global scale, the broader renewal movement utterly dwarfs benchmark evangelicalism. Millions of contemporary Christians have spoken in tongues, given or received prophecy, and experienced healing. Are they all wrong, deluded, deceived, or what? Some response to their testimony needs to be given.”
I believe that it would depend on the claim and the disposition of the person or persons making the claim. Those who are scholarly Charismatics, like I mentioned above, would also be skeptical toward many of the claims. Yet when you have someone who is credible and balanced, it causes you to rethink your position.
For the most part, I think that there are different types of gifts that are easier to fake or be self-deceived by. In other words, some gifts can be faked easier than others.
Tongues: I would normally not think too much if someone spoke in tongues since it is a hard sign to verify. If people are doing so illegitimately, I don’t automatically think that they are being deceitful. They legitimately think that it is from God.
Prophecy: It is hard to tell with this. I went to a third wave undergraduate school in the nineties. This is where my transition began. I used to believe that all Charismatics were demon possessed. Seriously! But being around those who loved the same Lord as I, yet believed differently challenged me. (Which is one of the reasons why we encourage a broader community in The Theology Program). At this school I was witness the prophetic “gift” many times. I did not know what to think. For the most part the gift can be faked or the one exercising it can be legitimately self-deceived, especially when the prophecy is simply recounting someone’s life. Of course, if someone were to have insights that could not be explained, then this ads to the credibility of the gift.
Healings: I believe this one is the primary legitimizer of the movement and God’s presence with the individual. While the other two can be faked or written of as self-deception, healing someone cannot. I have never seen this gift. Even though I believe God can and does heal people supernaturally, the gift is something different. With it, God is using a mediator who has this special function in the Body of Christ. Were I to witness this, I am certain I would cross the Charismatic line since I would not have any reason to doubt God’s continued movements in such a way.
Hope that is not too much of a dodge!
Mike Aubrey on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:41 am #
David C., you wrote:
“‘Millions of contemporary Christians have spoken in tongues, given or received prophecy, and experienced healing.’
I would love to know just one person in the past 1800 years that:
Has spoken in tongues as they did in Acts, has the gift of prophecy or the gift of healing
Just one will convince me. But the deal is, it has to be as it was with the apostles. Same gift, as demonstrated by them.
‘Are they (millions of contemporary Christians) all wrong, deluded, deceived, or what?’
Yes”
When I read these words, they sound suspiciously similar to what an atheist would say about the existence of God.
And yet, we as Christians view such words a illegitimate.
If that is the case, I think something needs to be clarified why one is illegitimate and not the other.
JohnT3 on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:42 am #
I am a cessasionist however, I will not say that God can not heal or make someone who speaks one language to be able to communicate with another person who doesn’t speak their language.
But under no, I repeat (and capitalize here) UNDER NO circumstances has God acted outside his character, person or against anything He has revealed to us in the scriptures.
If the expression of the so called miraculous gifts doesn’t toe the line with the scriptures then what ever it is it isn’t a gift from the Holy Spirit. No matter how good the intention id it is not from God.
Hopefully I haven’t strayed too far off point anyway in regards to another aspect of this topic, it is not something of such foundational issue that you need to cut off fellowship on this matter.
It is no surprise that John MacArthur would share a stage with someone who is opposite him on an issue such as this. He has always been friends with many pastors and scholars who do not see eye to eye with him.
I was at a conference that was ran by R.C. Sproul and MacArthur was a featured speaker and there are so many things that they are opposites on. One is a Covenant Theologian and the other is a Dispensational Theologian.
Ok so I will summarize I hold firmly to cessation and hold just as firmly that anyone who believes in the gifts is not the enemy. This is not one of the foundational truths that should be used to determine whether fellowship is to be broken.
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:52 am #
John:
Ok so I will summarize I hold firmly to cessation and hold just as firmly that anyone who believes in the gifts is not the enemy. This is not one of the foundational truths that should be used to determine whether fellowship is to be broken.
Amen! Were that more saw this as it is. Having and recognizing differences is not as important as deciding what we are going to do about them.
Michael,
Good response. I’m having trouble following at one point. Wouldn’t just one legitimate demonstration or report (of a gift through a believer) falsify the whole cessationist outlook? If Wayne Grudem or someone you respected testified, “I have seen this and am confident it is legitimate,” doesn’t that mean the whole position needs to be revisited, at least a shift from “nice cessationism” to “open but cautious”?
(Don’t take this comparison personally.) I am reminded of Bultmann, who was brilliant on many points. He couldn’t accept the biblical miracles because there were none in the modern world. He was, however, confronted with testimony of the same in Blumhardt (who was respected by Barth and Moltmann and others.) He replied, “The Blumhardt stories are to me an abomination.” Same thing with the new atheists who say, “There is no supernatural because I have not experienced it.” A thousand reports of miraculous healings can be hoaxes, but just one will send their entire worldview crashing down.
Conversely, a myriad of hoaxes would not falsify the continuationist view, though they would be a sign we need to do some serious housekeeping. “I’m not sure” or “I’m open but very cautious” seem much safer to me than any sort of commitment to cessationism. Understand what I mean?
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:53 am #
Nick, by “history suggesting it” is am referring to personal and church history. Personally, I have never experience anything that I believe would justify a change in my position. Although I am open to God moving in such a way, I am very skeptical knowing the abuses that this movement can bring.
I have not found anything in Church history that would suggest that the supernatural gifts continued on in the way described in Acts. Most of the few instances from the fathers refer to their hearing about these things second hand. Or they simply refer to God’s continued miraculous healing.
You must understand, I, as well as most cessationists I know, do not deny miracles or God’s intervention…we are not Christian deists! I believe that God can and does heal people and bring about miracles. I just have never seen Him use a mediator of sorts that I could say has this “gift” and, therefore, this placement in the body of Christ.
I think of John Chrysostom in the 3rd/4th century. When speaking on 1 Cor. 12 he says,
“This whole place [1 Cor. 12 on spiritual gifts] is very obscure . . . but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place.†(ECF 2.12.1.1.29.0)
As well, Augustine on tongues:
“In the earliest time the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For it was proper for the Holy Spirit to evidence Himself in all tongues, and to show that the Gospel of God had come to all tongues [languages] over the whole earth. The thing was done for a authentication and it passed away.†(Ten Homilies on the first Epistle of John VI, 10)
However, you must understand, I don’t believe that if they ceased for a time, this necessitates a permanent ceasing. Why would it? If God began to give these gifts again in modern times, why should/how could we object? On what basis?
Hope this makes sense.
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:00 am #
Sean, yes, I understand what you mean. Believe me, these type of legitimate testimonies do effect me. J.P. Moreland told me about someone’s ear regenerating—he witnessed it. I believe him. He is not one who would lie about this and it is not something that can be faked!
At the same time, this was not my experience. I know that that sounds disingenuous, but I have to be honest. I am more like Thomas. “Unless I see it with my eyes.”
If I were to see such occurrence with my eyes and the person who healed another claimed to have the gift of healing, I am sure that my view would adjust.
Yet the occurrence spoken of above, if I remember correctly, was brought about through community prayer, not someone who had the gift of healing. This already fits within my world view as a cessationist (soft-cessationist).
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:07 am #
Dr. Moreland. Thanks for the comments and the wise advice.
It seems that in many ways both cessationists and continuationist are speaking past each other. In The Theology Program we encourage people to seek God’s guidance through their experience, knowing that God is immanent and did not God AWOL after the death of the last Apostle. The language Grudem uses for prophecy can almost already fit into my belief system.
But if we are defining “prophet” as a spokesperson for God, then any claim to be such is a very serious claim and something that I don’t take lightly. I know you don’t either. I am not going to believe anyones who claims such as it is an easy claim to make and is often abused.
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:08 am #
Michael wrote:
You must understand, I, as well as most cessationists I know, do not deny miracles or God’s intervention…we are not Christian deists! I believe that God can and does heal people and bring about miracles. I just have never seen Him use a mediator of sorts that I could say has this “gift†and, therefore, this placement in the body of Christ.
All spiritual gifts work through human mediators; they are not direct interventions. We understand this with the less controversial gifts. You don’t say, “Well, instead of using my gift of teaching today, I’ll just pray for an hour that God teaches the students all they need to know”–even though the Holy Spirit is their Teacher. Yet, for the more “supernatural” gifts (they’re all supernatural, but you know what I mean), we don’t seek to exercise them the same way or make ourselves available to God for him to work through us.
The times I have seen God do healings through me have been precisely those times when I’ve been willing to step out and speak boldly like Peter did in Acts 3, times when if God doesn’t work the gift through me, I’m going to fall on my face and look like a fool. Some times (certainly not all) when I’ve been willing to do that, I have seen healing take place and can call it nothing other than a gift of healing, small as it may be. (I do not believe one has to have a gift to the same magnitude of Peter or Paul or Billy Graham for it to be a legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit. Again, we don’t place this burden on the less controversial gifts.)
On the other hand, when we’ve all gotten together in a holy huddle, held hands and prayed, I’ve never seen a (miraculous) immediate healing take place. An eventual healing in answer to prayer, yes, but that’s not the same thing as a gift of healing as we see in the NT.
/My 2 cents.
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:12 am #
Sean, can you step out boldly and pray for my mom?! We don’t need to do the holy huddle thing.
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:12 am #
Michael said:
But if we are defining “prophet†as a spokesperson for God, then any claim to be such is a very serious claim and something that I don’t take lightly. I know you don’t either. I am not going to believe anyones who claims such as it is an easy claim to make and is often abused.
As a pentecostal-charismatic, personally I think we have “won” on the issue of contemporary healing. Mostly at this point we are squabbling over the details. The big issue remaining, as I see it, is the continuation of revelation as is implied by the gifts of tongues with interpretation and prophecy. That is a very big problem for those in the stream of protestant orthodoxy. One represents the real difference in our theologies.
After the edit: Michael, I will certainly pray, though I too constantly have to pray, “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!” Believe it or not, these issues don’t get any easier on the other side.
JohnT3 on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:44 am #
Sean,
You Said:
“As a pentecostal-charismatic, personally I think we have “won†on the issue of contemporary healing.”
Sorry, a red challenge flag was thrown on the filed. Here is the referee:
“After review the call on the field has been reversed and victory has not been granted”
I have many friends that are pentacostal-charasmatics and have seen speaking in tounges and acts of healing and I do not agree with any of it. I havenot conceeded victory.
At the core of all the exercising of the “gifts” I have seen is a subbordination of God to a genie or a magic wand that is at our command. While they (my dear brothers and sisters who are pentecostal-charismatic) would never admit or teach that so they have credit for that. But, their actions convey that postion.
In brief Tounges was simply speaking a foreign language not some spiritual language that made us more spiritual. It wasn’t even intended for one person to speak it and then someone to interpret what was said. It was for someone who did not speak a language to be able speak to a group of people in their own language so they would know that God was speaking to them. It was God’s gracious act towards an undeserving lost people.
Healing well we all know God heals and as is nicknamed is the “Great Physician”. God has also creadted the human body to do things that we take for granted and one of them is the ability that God gave the human body to heal itself.
God doesn’t owe us a single thing. Not one thing. That includes healing when we are sick. There are times when we will be sick to glorify God. Even if it means we don’t get healed. “ALL THINGS! All things work together for good……” I don’t know if this will shock anyone but there will be times when God will make us sick for his glory.
Alex on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:52 am #
Sean,
So let’s assume at least several thousand people have experienced speaking
in tongues. They share their stories of experiences with the rest of us. I’ve had
people share these stories with me. I’d be interested though, to hear the
stories of the experiences of interpreters. Do you know of any testimony
out there (possibly available on the web or in book form) where interpreters
share their experiences? That would help to convince me, but I’ve never
heard anything like that.
Also, let’s assume a lot of these people speak not in public where an
interpreter would be relevant but in private prayer to God. My question then
is, what is the point of speaking in tongues to God since he understands
English?
Lastly, one thought. When I put myself in the apostles shoes, particularly
whichever one wrote that an interpreter should be present, I ask myself, why
did he say this? Why did he require an interpreter and say not to speak if
there was no interpreter? My only guess, though it could be innaccurate, is
that the apostle (Paul I believe) was keenly aware of the danger of many
people claiming to speak in tongues. So are we blatantly ignoring him by not,
as a church heeding his command to the best of our ability without suppressing
individual expression?
P.S. I once faked tongues and being “slain in the Spirit” when I was an 11
year old in a Charismatic “Calvary Chapel” church. I’m not sure that
everybody does this or does it for the same reasons I do, but I just share
the confession so you can get an idea of my background. My reasons were
entirely because I genuinely wanted it to happen so I was trying to get
myself “into it” by saying “blah, blah, etc., etc.” as a first step of faith after
which God would take over and move my mouth. He never did.
Thanks,
Alex
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 11:59 am #
John, I’ll clarify since I may not have been clear enough: I think “we” have “won” only in the sense that very few, except those who are borderline deists, would still argue that “God doesn’t heal today.” How and when and why and why not constitute the details being squabbled over. The continuation of revelation implied by some gifts and explicitly claimed by most charismatics is the real, substantive issue, not healing.
And with that, I have to bid all good night. (This time zone thing unfortunately truncates my participation.)
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 12:20 pm #
Nick, I would love to hear your thoughts about my situation!
ChadS on 05 Oct 2007 at 12:38 pm #
Sean,
When I wrote the comment you quoted I had examples in mind like that posted by stevemoore in post #11. I have also read and heard of (though never experienced) those types of spiritual elitist thoughts associated with Charismatics. This isn’t just something that Charismatics do and I don’t want to single them out, but it can occur from any perspective. Couldn’t you imagine someone saying “I must be more spiritual than so-and-so because I pray for 2 hours a day and I’ve read the Bible the whole way through 3 times.”
ChadS
stevemoore on 05 Oct 2007 at 12:51 pm #
Sean, ChadS,
I concur and in no way limit this to my experiences with just those of the pentecostal and charismatic variety.
Unfortunately, I have also had the hardest of cessationists make equally bad statements like ChadS mentioned and have experienced them all to often. (Now you guys must think that all the people I know just like to pick on me! ;^).
I’ll spare the details in attempt to keep it on subject.
-steve
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 12:58 pm #
Considering this conversation, a funny thing happened last night that my sister just told me about. They were at a party and my sister took my mother in her wheelchair. A man came up to them and asked what happened. Having been told he said that the Lord was going to heal her and to call him tomorrow (that is, today!). He told my sister that it depends on her faith . . . my mom’s. “If she has enough faith, God is going to heal her.”
The problem is that my mom is probably too mentally incapacitated to exercise faith the way he may require! Can’t God just work off our hope? Why does she or I have to muster up faith for a promise that God has not made?
I know that this is not the way that many Charismatics function, but this illustrates how this type of thing can be very disillusioning to those who do muster up the faith and God does not move in such a way.
Nevertheless, I told her to call him
. . . What a contradiciton I am.
Nick N. on 05 Oct 2007 at 1:05 pm #
JohnT3,
When one reads Acts and 1Cor. 12-14 they can discern at least 2 at most 3 types of tongues. I don’t think anyone would disagree that in Acts 2 we see known languages being spoken that were unknown to the speakers but the case is not so clear cut in 1Cor. 12-14. We have essentially Paul writing to the Corinthians to legislate their misuse and abuse of the spiritual gifts. Paul maintains that tongues should not be spoken publicly in the context of a worship service without an interpretation — why? Because no one would be edified except the one speaking. In chapter 13 he speaks of how these gifts mean nothing if not grounded in love. To edify yourself above and against the group is the opposite of love. Now turn to chapter 14 where Paul is happy to speak in tongues more than everyone else, but he recognizes that no man understands these tongues. This doesn’t quite jive with the Acts 2 presentation of tongues that were in fact understood by the hearers though not the speakers. When Charismatics speak of tongues as a ‘gift’ or a ‘prayer language’ we are not referring to the Acts 2 type of tongues — we have in mind the tongues that no man understands (i.e. ecstatic utterances). In the end though I have to say that tongues isn’t really as big an issue for Charismatic-Pentecostals as one might think (Oneness Pentecostals are another story).
Alex,
I believe that many people fake it because they believe that a certain action/reaction/response is expected in certain settings. Sadly, this type of behavior damages the credibility of the genuine experiences/practices in the Charismatic movement to those looking from the outside in. Of course those of us on the inside who have had genuine experiences know better so we don’t (or at least shouldn’t) let it disaude us.
Michael,
My initial thoughts are that there is still some doubt underlying the prayers. I was reminded of James 1:6-8 when originally reading that section of your post. To draw an analogy, it’s kind of like the canon issue. You believe that it is certainly *possible* that God can add to the canon, but you *doubt* that he will because based on your past experiences this is not *probable*. I can’t fault you for this because most of us are like that, especially as time goes on. I can admit that my faith isn’t where it was when I was newly converted. In the beginning I was all heart — now it seems like I’m all head — but in the end I think we need to strike a balance of the two.
My prayers are with your mother.
Nick N. on 05 Oct 2007 at 1:09 pm #
Michael,
I think that gentleman is is misunderstanding the difference between the ‘gift of healing’ and simply having faith that God will heal someone. I don’t believe that faith is required on the part of the person being healed when the ‘gift’ is in operation. This would seem to be the only gift listed in 1Cor. 12 that would require such, which in my reading of the text can’t be supported.
I believe I am right but I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong.
JohnT3 on 05 Oct 2007 at 1:32 pm #
Sean and Nicl,
First Sean;
With all respect I wasn’t aware that there was a debate over whether God heals or not. I can say with absolute asuurance there has never been a problem of lack of Knowledge of the concept that God heals. And with all do respect the “pentacostal-charismatic” traces back to the 1800’s as a unified movement or denomination. Prior to that bith Calvin and Luther and others all beleived and taught that God heals. So when did that become an issue to be won?
Second Nick:
Again with all do respect you may want to examine your positins your standing on in respect to the scriptures. You have put forward at least two points that are neither scriptural no orthodox.
There is no teaching in scropture that a believe is gifted with some self edifying secret prayer language.
Also from begining to end of scripture faith is always a central component to walking with the Lord. Both in wanting to be healed and in accepting God’s will that you don’t get healed.
Jason on 05 Oct 2007 at 1:42 pm #
John G. Lake regarded the faith necessary to be healed as simply being enough faith to ask God for healing. Remembering that biblical faith is basically just trusting God.
I will pray for your Mum, Michael.
Nick N. on 05 Oct 2007 at 2:12 pm #
JohnT3,
You said: “There is no teaching in scropture that a believe is gifted with some self edifying secret prayer language.”
You’ll have to forgive me for being less than persuaded by your assertion. I would direct you to 1Cor. 14:14-17 which says:
“For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.”
This is clearly different from the tongues we see in Acts 2 where the tongues were understood and did edify the hearers. I would also point out that I never claimed anything about a ’secret’ prayer language — with all due respect I’d ask that you allow the Scriptures to reshape your presuppositions rather than allowing your presuppositions to shape Scripture which appears to be the case here.
As to the second allegedly unorthodox point — I don’t have time to explain my position more fully. But in short I’d just say that what we call ‘gifts’ are more accurately described as ‘manifestations’ of the Spirit and as sovereign Lord and Creator, the Spirit does not need to elicit the faith of anyone to heal or work a miracle in their life. And again, in regard to 1Cor. 12 this would be the lone example of something required on the part of the believer for the Spirit to manifest himself. It doesn’t require faith for a prophecy to be spoke, for tongues to be spoken or interpreted, for a word of knowledge or wisdom to be proclaimed, for spirits to be discrened, or for faith to be imparted (imagine that! needing faith to have supernatural faith imparted to you!), etc…
historic salve on 05 Oct 2007 at 3:21 pm #
As a cessationist, but someone who *came* from a Pentecostal home, I think it’s interesting that Michael says he’s never seen or heard of a real prophet. As a child, I remember my mother pretty much devouring whatever the preacher on TV said; and I think the tendency of charismatics is to accept most “prophets” without any critical evaluation. Again, speaking from personal experience, my mother would recommend people like Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson, but she’s never read a scholarly book as far as I know. The closest she’s come to anything like that is an interlinear Bible (why she got it, I don’t know; she can’t read Hebrew or Greek).
ChadS on 05 Oct 2007 at 3:42 pm #
Steve,
(Now you guys must think that all the people I know just like to pick on me! ;^) Perhaps you need to hang around with new people
All joking aside…the story that Michael relayed concerning the person at the party with his mother can be very disheartening and cause great disillusionment if the promised healing doesn’t occur (I’m reading the story assuming the man was promising a physical healing).
What happens the next day when you call the man and there was no healing as expected. Best case scenario he says God’s healing is more than just physical it can be spiritual as well. Or maybe he says it’s not in God’s plan at this time (begs the question of why the guy said God would heal tonight and to call tomorrow). Or at the worst he says something like faith is lacking. Two of those responses strike me as potentially very hurtful and disingenuous not to mention un-Christian.
I’ll leave the speculation aside now and just say I’ll say a prayer for your mother Michael.
ChadS
JohnT3 on 05 Oct 2007 at 4:17 pm #
Nick,
The context of chapter 14 is Paul discouraging the Corinthians from speaking in tongues. The section you are citing furthers his case. The word in Greek is better translated Language which is what the word means. A human spoken language, Paul down plays the importance of the gift of tongues. If it was such an important manifestation of the Holy Spirit why does he discourage its use? Why don’t the other writers of the New Testament encourage its use?
In fact John in his epistles states that a true manifestation of the Holy Spirit is our desire to obey God’s word and loving our fellow believers.
In fact the use of the word mind is important in the passage you mention because Paul is saying that when praying and singing you should understand the words you are praying and singing. So when it is heard then those around you will be edified.
Let me quote Paul just a few verses away:
“however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.â€
Jason on 05 Oct 2007 at 4:35 pm #
John, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is not Paul discouraging the Corinthians from speaking in tongues, but encouraging the speaking in knowledge.
As he puts it, what good is speaking tongues to others, better by far to speak a few words with understanding than many in a language no one knows. That way many are built up rather than just one.
One the subject of prophesying Paul himself believes it will continue until that which is perfect has come. Since I see no sign that the perfect has come (assuming Paul refers to the Kingdom of God) I must assume that the gift of prophecy still exists, even if there are no prophets.
I do have an aversion to some being titled “apostles” though. That is an institute that would be very difficult to establish today because those few who are were directly commissioned by Jesus in the flesh, apart from Paul who got a dispensation.
Eric W on 05 Oct 2007 at 4:46 pm #
FYI - J. Rodman Williams, whose background is/was Reformed, wrote a systematic theology from a Charismatic perspective in the late 1980s/early 1990s entitled RENEWAL THEOLOGY. Originally issued in 3 successive volumes, it was published as a large 1-volume book in 1996.
“J. Rodman Williams is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Davidson College in North Carolina (A.B. degree), of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia (B.D. and Th. M. degrees), and Columbia University in New York (Ph.D. degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics). He has served as a chaplain in the U.S. Marine Corps, taught philosophy and religion at Beloit College in Wisconsin, pastored the First Presbyterian Church of Rockford, Illinois, taught theology and philosophy of religion at Austin Presbyterian Seminary in Texas, and served as president and professor of theology at Melodyland School of Theology in Anaheim, California. Beginning in 1982, he taught theology at Regent University School of Divinity in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and became Professor of Renewal Theology Emeritus there in 2002. He is married and has three children.”
Nick N. on 05 Oct 2007 at 5:33 pm #
JohnT3,
I think you need to go back and re-read my comments.
I addressed Paul’s reasons for writing 1Cor. 12-14 in comment #29. It certainly wasn’t to doscourage the use of tongues — it was to regulate them. The Corinthians were a carnal bunch who were more excited about the gifts of the Spirit then properly using the gifts of the Spirit. Their abuse caused confusion in the worship setting and Paul wrote to rebuke and correct them — the entire purpose of chapter 13 is to say that if you have all the manifestation of the Spirit in the world but you don’t have love then it is useless. The manner in which they acted was self-serving, which is the opposite of love.
In the same comment I ended by saying: “In the end though I have to say that tongues isn’t really as big an issue for Charismatic-Pentecostals as one might think” so I am not claiming that it is “such an important manifestation of the Spirit” although I certainly believe it is important, I don’t hold it above any other manifestation of the Spirit.
To answer your question of why other NT writers don’t address the issue I think it is clear that they had no reason to do so. Paul wrote to a specific people who were misusing/abusing the gifts of the Spirit, especially tongues. We have to remember that Paul was a pastor as well as an apostle. He didn’t write just to write — he wrote to address specific issues and concerns.
And let me just point out that it doesn’t much matter if we say languages, tongues, or γλωσσων — Paul still speaks of no one other than God understanding the tongues because the speaker is speaking mysteries in the Spirit (1Cor. 14:2) — known languages are just that, known — people understand them! (Again refer to Acts 2)
And I agree completely with Paul that speaking something which will edify the body as opposed to something that will only edify the speaker is far greater — that’s what love is concerned with — the building up of others.
veritas83 on 05 Oct 2007 at 6:52 pm #
Michael: I heard a preacher once say that he was not a cecessationist but that he did not believe that tongues were still operational today. Are you aware of a nuanced middle position?
Stephen Stallard
Lisa R on 05 Oct 2007 at 7:02 pm #
Well, what a topic! Since the point of the post was on being open to the continuation of gifts, I do agree that it is necessary. The openess, I mean. While I don’t believe that personal experience should be our foundation for acknowledging that something is true, I also don’t believe it can be ignored either, especially by those who have encountered legitimate experiences. I appreciate Dr. Moreland’s comments as well. I heard him not too long ago being interviewed by Greg Koukl re his book Kingdom Triangle and he spoke of miraculous healings and visions in more remote parts of the world and that’s how God was moving. It’s pretty diffcult to refute such claims especially by a trusted source.
As a person that has had significant experience in the pentacostal/charasmatic movement first-hand, I have experienced the good, the bad and the ugly. I wholeheartedly concur with Michael that some things can be faked. When immersed in an environment of that makes tongues, interpretation and prophecy a standard for the true spirit-filled believer, our psychological make-up can rise to the occasion and generate a result. But I dare say, that it may be influenced by the expectation of the moment, than on a legimate experience.
I will agree with my cessationist oriented brothers here, that the purpose of tongues and interpretation had it’s place in an enviroment experiencing a brand new movement…the Gospel of Jesus Christ What they needed then to spread that gospel, we do not need today. The whole point behind the sign gifts WAS the gospel, not the gifts. And I disagree with Nick’s assessment of I Corintthians 14 that it does not de-emphasize tongues because I believe it absolutely does. Rather it promotes the edification of the body by proclaiming what can be understood, because you’re right…it’s about the edification of the body NOT the gift.
And while I have come to understand these gifts more and more in the context of the times, I would have to disagree with the hard cessationists that says it can’t exist anymore, ever. If Paul writes in Eph 2:20 that God’s household is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles and is the foundation for cessationism, then why is he giving instruction to the Corinthian church on the regulation of such gifts?
So continuation vs. cessation? I like how my pastor puts it…”some will drink the koolaid and some won’t.” We can get caught up in proof-texting to death to prove our claims but I believe the greater priority is to love one another and do what Paul encourages in Eph 4:1-3.
Oh and regarding the spiritual elitism caused by the “full-gospel” mentality, I think this is more a function of pride that I’m afraid both sides can be guilty of. It’s what happens when we want to lead by making more important, the gift or proving the gift shouldn’t be.
And I do very much appreciate the charasmatic scholars that post here. You guys are great.
Lisa R on 05 Oct 2007 at 7:04 pm #
What happened to the edit function? Never mind, it’s working.
Vangelicmonk on 05 Oct 2007 at 7:45 pm #
Good article. As a Charasmatic myself I appreciate your balanced
observations. This is a distinctive of course, but I think it is important to
understand one’s view and the other sides view as well.
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 7:53 pm #
Stephen, no! That sound kinda odd. All the gifts but tongues are in effect? Hmmm…
C Michael Patton on 05 Oct 2007 at 7:56 pm #
Thanks Lisa and Vangelicmonk!
Eric W on 05 Oct 2007 at 8:22 pm #
Okay, I’ll try again (5th attempt) to get a post to appear here:
FYI - J. Rodman Williams, whose background is/was Reformed, wrote a systematic theology from a Charismatic perspective in the late 1980s/early 1990s entitled RENEWAL THEOLOGY. Originally issued in 3 successive volumes, it was published as a large 1-volume book in 1996.
Nick N. on 05 Oct 2007 at 8:28 pm #
Lisa R.,
You said: “And I disagree with Nick’s assessment of I Corintthians 14 that it does not de-emphasize tongues because I believe it absolutely does.”
I don’t know that I spoke of emphasis at all in my assessment of 1Cor. 14. I did speak of Paul not discouraging tongues and I can’t see how anyone can read 1Cor. 12-14 (esp. 14) and come away with any other understanding. Paul very clearly says to desire spiritual gifts (1Cor. 14:1) which necessarily includes tongues. Yes he places prophecy above tongues so perhaps that’s what you mean by his de-emphasizing tongues. I would agree if that is your meaning. But Paul continues and says he wanted all of the Corinthians to speak in tongues (vs. 5) but again mentions the superiority of prophecy. He then tells the people that speak in tongues to pray for interpretation (vs. 13) and later thanks God for speaking in tongues more than any of the Corinthians (vs. 18) but demonstrates that it is better to be understood in the context of a church service so everyone can be edified (vs. 19). He continues with clear directives about how speaking in tongues should be handled in a corporate setting (vs. 26-28) — From this passage we can see that there was a problem with the way the Corinthians conducted themselves — everyone had a hymn, a tongue, and interpretation, a lesson, a revelation, etc. but it wasn’t for the building up of the body — this behavior caused confusion (vs. 33). So Paul tells them that two or at the most three should publicly speak in tongues and then only with an interpetation (vs. 27). If there is no one to interpret then keep silent (vs. 28).
So again, Paul is not saying don’t speak in tongues — he’s telling the Corinthians the proper way to speak in tongues. The thrust of 1Cor. 12-14 is the unity of believers and building up of the body in love.
lindsey on 05 Oct 2007 at 8:36 pm #
Nick,
I am Michael’s sister and I was the one who encountered this man yesterday evening. Before he told me about her faith, (to which I answered that my mother has more faith than anyone I know) he gave me his business card and told me that her healing was going to be a great testimony for the Lord.
As much as I appreciate that and anyone else who believes this to be possible (as I wish it were), it is also a bit insulting and diheartening.
I have been primarily taking care of my mother for 8 months now. She weighs much more now due to her inactivity. I have to lift her into the bathroom and my back is much worse for wear due to it. I cook, clean, bathe her, do the grocery shopping, and take her places so she is not just wasting away in her chair. She can do nothing on her own nor can she tell us what she needs or why she is in pain. I do all this while trying to take care of my 2 year old son, my husband and my household. I hope that I will get to have another child, but I am not sure how well that will work out. We cannot afford a nursing home or any more help unless my dad loses his house and I have a very difficult time asking him to do so having lost his daughter and his wife in a span of about 2 years.
I only say all of this to shed light on the reason that I am highly skeptical of this healing power. I promise you, it has nothing to do with lack of faith. I know our God is an awesome God and He could cause her to walk or speak as I type, however, within the circumstances of the last four years (my sister and my mother) I think He just wants me to love Him and trust that this will all work together for His glory. I worry about this healing power because it causes us to expect something from God and I don’t believe He likes to be controlled (or so I heard in the Theology Program!). I know if I did believe in it, I would be trying to control Him and I would be highly disappointed when He didn’t follow through.
I guess it is also difficult to swallow not only because of my personal struggles, but also because we see so many gifts being excercised every day but I have never legitamately seen someone healed to the extent of the Biblical accounts (or the extent that my mother or sister would need) by a person with the gift. I have never heard of anyone walking into a room and speaking the language of those there without having studied and learned that language. And short of finishing the sentences of those closest to me have I seen prophesies coming true.
However, like Michael, I am absolutely open to it and if you know anyone who you really believe is credible, PLEASE, send them our way! And unlike Micheal, and probably you, I am just a lay person who is not well read or aquainted with much outside of my personal realm.
Just some thoughts from a lay theologian! Thanks for reading.
lindsey on 05 Oct 2007 at 8:50 pm #
I guess I just think that it is easy to believe in something until you’ve gone through something that might make you realize “the more you know the less you understand” and really test your beliefs. Again, I would be thrilled if I was wrong!
Sean on 05 Oct 2007 at 8:53 pm #
Good morning! I’d love to get into the tongues issue, but then my post would be a book. There are a ton of exegetical issues and insights that often get overlooked.
Regarding healing: it’s not an easy subject. I remember teaching on healing and coming up with a list of “20 reasons healing doesn’t alway occur.” (Don’t have any idea where the list is now; it’s been around the world a few times.) There’s no easy, all-purpose answer; just as with the broader question of the problem of suffering, all oversimplifications must be shunned. And yet I believe in healing. If we pray and seek and none are healed, that’s as many as we’d see if we don’t believe and do nothing. If any are healed, we give thanks to God for that.
All gifts of healing are temporary pending the resurrection when full healing will come.
Lisa R on 05 Oct 2007 at 9:41 pm #
Nick,
I like that you stopped before vs. 34…”The women are to keep silent in the churches
”
Yes, he does say in vs. 5 that he wishes that all would speak in tongues. But I don’t think in context of the whole passage that he is encouraging the body to speak in tongues. And to that extent he is not emphasizing it. But rather they prophesy to edify the body by what could be understood (vs. 1-25).
I also think it is important to note vs. 22:
“So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to believers but to those who believe.”
Tongues had a place but not for the body. To this extent I believe it was necessary for Paul to address the issue of tongues but not for the purpose of saying “hey you guys should do this”. And Vs. 19-20 suggests that there could have been a preoccupation with tongues, which is easy to see considering the carnal group of self-interest motivated folks that they were. And you’re right, ch 12-14 are all about how the body is to be to one another. So if it’s about the body, then doesn’t vs. 22 suggest that there should no be an emphasis on tongues?
So I see vs. 27 as the regulation being more of a resignation than of a promotion. Here is where I would put an editorial comment to say “despite everything I told you about the fact that you should prophecy rather than speak in tongues….if you do, here are the guidelines…
Joanie D on 05 Oct 2007 at 9:57 pm #
Dr. Moreland wrote in #7 above, “Finally, these matters are also primarily about learning to live in your heart with tender intimacy with our Abba Father and the Son and Spirit (in addition to and not instead of living in your head!!”
Exactly.
And Michael again has started a topic in a respectful, searching-for-the truth kind of way. It’s kind of like Michael is leading us on a trip through the woods to what is going to be a WONDERFUL cabin at the end. He has HEARD that the path is clear, but he has also heard that there are little “mini” paths branching off the main path and returning and that the people taking those little mini paths SEEM to be enjoying the trip to the cabin a lot! But the SEEM is the problem. Are they REALLY enjoying the trip more than he is or are they just delaying the rest of us if we follow them on the mini paths? And what about those fellow trippers who come off those mini paths having stumbled over dangerous roots and rocks? They surely look bruised. What is THAT about?
Anyway, I could continue with that analogy and do a better job with it, but I do like it that the folks (most of them anyway) on this blog do seem to be trying to assist one another on this path.
I have read and wondered about the different ways that speaking in “tongues” is spoken about in Acts and Corinthians too. As folks said above, in Acts, the hearers understood the Apostles as if the Apostles were speaking in the language of the hearers. The speaking in tongues that Paul is talking about seems different. It may be that he is aware of two different ways of speaking in tongues. It may have been that there WERE some people who were praying or speaking out loud in in an actual language that was not their own, but if there was no one in the group who understood that language, Paul said there was no point in doing that. But then when he is talking about speaking in the Spirit to God in a language that no man understands….that is something different. And he does not discourage people from doing that at all and says he does pray in the Spirit to God. But what IS it that he is doing and are people doing it today? That is an important question. I was brought up Catholic but then got involved with an independent charistmatic church. I would see people “speaking in tongues” and it looked and sounded pretty weird to me, but the pastor assured me that God provided this way of communicating with Him that would be helpful in our walk with God. He told me I was already baptized by or into the Holy Spirit and I didn’t need to wait until something took over me and MADE me speak that way. He told me to just do it. It seemed weird but I slowly “experimented” with this and even though I was not one to like publicly praying, either in English or in tongues, I found ways to use this way of praying silently or very quietly. I then discovered “Centering Prayer” as taught by Thomas Keating and Basil Pennington (Catholic priests and monks) based on ancient Christian ways of praying that open us up to being receptive to God’s love. It all kind of came together for me. Formal prayer, prayer in tongues, Centering Prayer, prayers of intercession, reading, pondering, studying the Bible…they all worked together.
Healings: like Michael, I have not SEEN someone healed in a major way through God working through a human intermediary. Actually, I haven’t seen someone healed in a major way supernaturally at all. I believe it happens though. Why it happens to some people and not others, I don’t understand. I don’t think it is “right” to say people don’t get healed because they lack faith. Jesus gave some of his “power” to his disciples during his three year time of intensive teaching and yet, there were some people they could not heal. Jesus said sometimes those types of healing needed a great amount of prayer. It seems that prayer IS power and how that power gets directed to a human being we don’t always understand.
I find it hard to feel I am really praying for someone if I don’t know how they look or sound or anything about them. I feel like I need to know them, at least a little. Jesus didn’t need to be near a person to heal them, as we know, but we know that he really KNEW everyone, so he didn’t have the problem I have. And if I pray, “God, if it is your will, heal this person”…did God REALLY need me to pray that way if it was his will to heal that person? Jesus prayed with power for the complete healings of human beings. He KNEW they would be healed because he knew he was working His Father’s will. But we…we don’t KNOW what the will of the Father is. We flounder around: what if I do this wrong? what if I really don’t have this right? There was a time when I was actually AFRAID to pray for anyone because I did not know what God wanted.
So…HOW do we pray for Michael’s mom? Personally, I think it is best if she was physically surrounded by people who could touch her as they pray for her in a powerful way. (I like that term….holy huddle! Cute.) But if we can’t have that, then I FEEL like it would help me to see a photo of Mike’s mom as I pray. Again, this is really just a “problem” I have. God can surely heal us without the intercession of any of us. But maybe God WANTS to heal us through the intercession of fellow human beings. Maybe he wants us to need one another and love one another because that is how we come to know Him best. And, when someone is not healed even though we prayed….maybe THEN is when the remaining loved ones need even more than ever to be surrounded by our love. Maybe then they will feel, know, trust God in a way they never did before. I don’t know, I really don’t. I am just trying to find my way like so many others here.
Joanie D.
Lisa R on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:04 pm #
I can relate very well to what Lindsey is saying. I am widow and before my husband passed away 3 years ago, he had a chronic illness for 5 years. I had a long commute, a demanding job and a rambuncious preschooler (my son was 2-7 during these years). And I had to take care of him, dialysis, dr. appts, repeated hospital visits, etc.
At that time, I was part of a pentacostal/charasmatic based church and had (ignorantly) believed that if I confessed and prayed hard enough, then my husband would be healed and turn his heart to the Lord. Because that’s what one did when they were expecting healing. I can’t tell you how many times I “stormed the gates” in my living room, declaring healing and deliverance for him.
But the word and Holy Spirit eventually got the better of me, so that shortly before his death, I could only drop to my knees and say to God “not my will, but Yours be done”.
And this is the danger of healing ministries, especially the radical fringe group that declares divine healing a right to be expected of all believers. Imagine if I still clung to the notion that it was a right and if it didn’t happen, then there must have been a lack of faith on my part. Man, I would be needing some healing and deliverance myself right now for a hard blow to expectations.
Nick N. on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:21 pm #
Lindsey,
Thanks for sharing. You said: “As much as I appreciate that and anyone else who believes this to be possible (as I wish it were), it is also a bit insulting and diheartening.” I would agree with you that something like that is insulting — my point was that as I understand the ‘gift’ or ‘manifestation’ of healing, it doesn’t require the faith of the person being healed. It is a supernatural working of the Spirit.
I believe that if the man had the ‘gift’ in mind then he was incorrect to say that if your mother was not healed that it would be because she didn’t have enough faith — if the gift was in operation then healing would occur no matter what. Now perhaps he just had healing in mind (which is possible) — then he would have a point. We all remember the account of Jesus returning to his hometown but not being able to perform miracles and healings except for laying hands on a few sick folks — but the text says that the inability to perform these works was due to the unbelief of the people. But again, I see this as something different than the ‘gift’ mentioned in 1Cor. 12.
You also said: “I worry about this healing power because it causes us to expect something from God and I don’t believe He likes to be controlled (or so I heard in the Theology Program!).”
I don’t see anything wrong with expectations — we all expect something or other from God and I believe we are well within our bounds to do so based on the promises he has made in Scripture. I am of the belief that healing was provided for us in the atonement of Christ. When I read Isaiah 53 and 1Peter 2 I can’t help but believe this — and I also don’t believe that it speaks simply of a ’spiritual healing’ or a ‘healing of the soul’ (we were dead in sin, we needed to be regenerated, not healed). Now I can’t tell you exactly how God works or why he does for some and not for others… I just don’t have those answers — but I can testify to what I have witnessed and experienced. I have both witnessed and experienced healings based on nothing more than a consistent belief and confession that I was healed. Regardless of the ‘gift’ of healing, the ‘prayer of faith’ does work. So if you never come across a person with the ‘gift’ of healing just continue to pray the prayer of faith, lay hands on your mother, and I would also suggest receiving daily communion — you’d be surprised at how well that works. I’d recommend the book The Meal that Heals by Perry Stone, Jr. — it’s been very helpful to me.
And I think Sean brings up a very good point — all healing is temporary until we receive our glorified bodies. That’s something we often forget. God bless you!
Lisa R.,
I would sum up Paul’s point in 1Cor. 14 not as a dicouragement of speaking in tongues, but rather as an encouragement to speak in tongues properly. And I have my doubts about the authenticity of vs. 34
But again, if by emphasis you mean exalting tongues above the other gifts then I would agree, Paul does not emphasize tongues, but vs. 27 is a promotion on how to speak in tongues in a corporate setting in an orderly fashion.
Lisa R on 05 Oct 2007 at 10:47 pm #
While there is certainly nothing wrong with expectations with respect to prayer, I do believe our expectations should align with God’s sovereign will. Sometimes, its not clear what that is, unfortunately. But at the very minimum, we can place it at His feet and say “You are in control”.
kolabok21 on 06 Oct 2007 at 9:46 am #
This is primarily for Michael, though for all to read. I feel as you do Michael, I believe yet I have not seen such things happen.
I think the most important issue of all is to OBEY. That may not fit well in NT theology and it is true its roots are deep in the OT, but the lesson is the same for today.
I can only imagine if by witnessing a true miracle, how my whole world would change not any less or any more in faith, but in spirit. The fact God has touched my spirit to let me know in some way of his “I am that I am†would elevate me to, well I could not imagine.
It is not that I do not believe in tongues, healings, and (nobody, I think long post, mentioned raising the dead & casting out demons) other wonders.
It is more than not we see a man centered performance vs. a truly Christ centered experience.
I do not doubt it happens (tongues, healings, etc…) but I think it happens more often in the obscure places that are not dramatized by 21st means.
It’s like in western Christianity we need to see to believe and IMO this is causing us to lose the blessings of God through our ignorance of disbelief.
As you said “doubting Thomas†but those you have not seen blessed are they.
It is not about what who believes or what denominations adhere to. It is about one people of God who say Holy, Holy, Holy.
God said to Jeremiah to say to the people in chapter. 7 Obey my voice and all will go well with you.
Do we really do that today?
I do struggle too Michael, it is like,”just one time God let me see”.
Yet what next; better to leave it alone and focus on obedience, prayer and worship, witness will follow as a result of these principles and so will what we pray for, remember in James 4:2 yet you do not have because you do not ask.
No one misunderstand, this is not materialistic asking but of the things of God spiritually speaking. If it does not bring praise & glory to God it is wasted in vain, and that is where the rubber meets the road with the gifts IMO.
Here is a link for you Michael and others, “Derek Prince Ministriesâ€
http://www.derekprince.org/site/PageServer
He is Pentecostal, yet a teacher of the Bible like none I have heard, very life changing for me (his teachings), enjoy.
Bryant
Charismatics and Cessationists Joining Together « Mere Humanity on 06 Oct 2007 at 1:10 pm #
[...] religion, unity. Tags: Can unity among charismatics and cessationists bring he trackback at his blog, C Michael Patton said, “While going through the recent depression and suicide of my sister, [...]
nathanimal on 06 Oct 2007 at 4:41 pm #
I spoke in tongues since I was a wee-little-lad. Now I don’t anymore. I’m now 31 and have no desire to do so. I was a Charismanic, but now I’m just tolerant. What happened? Well, I don’t think it was just one event. Gradually, over time I started to think differently. Really, honestly, I think it happened when I started to really study scripture. What? Yeah, I know. How could scripture make me see things differently? I have many thoughts about this, but I’m still not completely sure why. Maybe I never really had the gift of tongues. I spoke/prayed in tongues on a daily basis for 15 years. I have no desire to do so, now. I love Jesus more than I ever have and respect and fear him more than ever have. I saw way to much abuse in the 30 something church’s I went to growing up. But I never had anything to balance these events to. I feel betrayed in many ways. I never felt that people I went to church with were trying to be unbiblical. I think that it was mainly the lack of discernment or something. Mostly, I have recently felt like tongues has been a great distraction to the uniqueness of the Gospel and the power of it’s message. I felt like I was in a lifelong episode of “Corinthians: Christians Gone Wild.” I could be wrong, but for sure this sign gift was a great stumbling block for me. And I thank God that he delivered me from this environment. Maybe there really are some folks out there with the gift of tongues. I’m just heavily swayed to run away from folks who think they have this gift. I wish this abuse were the exception and not the rule.
Nick N. on 06 Oct 2007 at 5:57 pm #
nathanimal,
I can relate to what you’re saying. I do speak in tongues and have done so since very early on in my salvation (although I do not speak in tongues as much as I used to). Once I engaged in a deeper and more rigorous study of Scripture I began to see that many of the things that Paul was correcting the Corinthians on were the very things happening in my church. That’s why I am very critical of abuses of the ‘gifts’ in a corporate setting.
There have been plenty of times when I have prayed for a release but God has me where he wants me. Reform has to begin somewhere and if only one person in the messed up environment has it right then that is enough to affect someone else in the right way.
The problem with tongues (like anything else) is not tongues itself, but rather an imbalanced emphasis on tongues. Sadly I have known many people who have acted as if a person didn’t have the Holy Spirit if they didn’t speak in tongues, or believed that unless one speaks in tongues then they have no power. I know many Oneness Pentecostals who deny salvation to all non-tongue talkers. But in the end I don’t think it wise to renounce the ‘gift’ just because of the misguided views of some concerning it or the misappropriation of the ‘gift’ in a church service.
Just my thoughts…
JohnT3 on 08 Oct 2007 at 9:14 am #
Nick,
I am currious. If you don’t mind explaining it to me that is. Where and when do you speak in tounges? Do you know what you are saying?
Thanks
Nick N. on 08 Oct 2007 at 10:55 am #
JohnT3,
No problem at all. I speak in tongues at various times throughout the day, at home, in my car while driving, in the super market, etc. If I do speak in tongues in church I am very careful to speak softly and never to let it interfere with any part of the service (I only wish everyone were so mindful).
In regard to the second part of the question, no, I do not know what I am saying. It is a language that no man understands. I am confident that God understands me and that suffices. But I would also like to point out that while I pray in tongues, I also pray in English (and even sometimes in Hebrew!). A lot of times people will ask, well, why not just pray in English so that you know what you are saying, to which I answer, I do! For me it’s both/and, not either/or.
Hope this helps.
David on 08 Oct 2007 at 11:06 am #
It has been a long time since someone compared me to an aeithist, but I will give a shot at an irenic answer
If someone questions the existance of Jesus, I have the historical record to point to. They may agree or disagree, but I have alot of, what I would consider good, historical evidence.
But I am not questioning historical actions when I ask for any evidence of a current prophet, healer or speaker in tongues - I am asking a here and now question, not a historical question
So I think it is quite reasonable to ask for evidence today, much as Thomas asked so long ago.
What strikes me about this issue is how terms get redefine the terms in order to prove the gifts still exist. I am unwilling to redefine the term to something different than the bible defines them.
I agree - the evidence is complete. There is no one today who has the demonstrated gifts that the apostles did in the book of Acts. God may yet reinstate them - but he has not done so yet.
kolabok21 on 08 Oct 2007 at 11:24 am #
I hate to be a pious word monger, but is there any phonetic structure to the words spoken in (un)known tongues?
Can you spell, sound out, or even transliterate it into a human understanding of any of the known tongues of the word?
You know sort of like pig Latin, I guess. No offense to anyone that does speak in tongues, but truly there must be some conforming act of proof for those of us that are weary of such. The proof is in the pudding!
Maybe a sound recording would do.
JohnT3 on 08 Oct 2007 at 11:41 am #
Nick,
How do you know then what you are saying is a language? And how do you know that what you are saying is actually a prayer and not cursing or something that would be blasphamous? Do you you have an interpreter with you?
I am seeking to understand your side. You have said that people jump to preconceived ideas and stero types. So I thought I would ask you some questions and get your full side of the situation.
nathanimal on 08 Oct 2007 at 12:31 pm #
I go to a baptist church where speaking in tongues is not allowed. There was a questionnaire that all pastors that come on board at the church have to fill out. One of the questions was “Do you speak or have ever spoken in tongues?” To which one of the new youth pastors said “Yes.” After all the questionnaire’s were filled out there was a meeting where all the pastors and bible teachers had to attend. In that discussion the man who said that he spoke in tongues was asked to explain his experience. He said that while he was in Africa, at point was without a translator for a little while. He ran into some locals and was compelled to share the gospel. The local language was Swahili. The man only new about 30-40 words in this language. But when he spoke to them he began to speak the language at an expert level. He shared the entire gospel message and had an hour long dialog with these men. He himself could not explain what was happening. All he knew was that he was communicating to them in their own tongue! This man does not have a prayer language. He does not claim to the gift of tongues. All he knows is that he spoke in these locals native language perfectly. These men became believers. It must have been an awe-inspiring moment. So once the evidence was examined, the man’s account was credited to him as valid. And he was to remain on staff.
This to me was a very convincing and powerful display of God’s Spirit. And not only that, it is totally and completely logical to me. On the other hand, the semantic issue of tongues that western society is accustomed to is not very logical. Please refer to my previous comments to see why.
I am totally open to God moving in such a way to reach the lost. I am less than impressed with modern day tongues issue. I will never limit God on this issue. But the evidence seems to fall flat in my opinion. If you speak in tongues, that is between you and God. If it’s for real, good. I am just not convinced that it is legit.
Joanie D on 08 Oct 2007 at 12:59 pm #
JohnT3, when I have spoken in tongues, I don’t believe I was speaking any language and I don’t believe it was a prayer in the sense that many may view prayer. But it seemed to “unblock” mental blocks that I had and somehow open up the connection between the emotional, intellectual and spiritual “parts” of me. (So, maybe you can call it a type of prayer if it is connecting you to God.) Really, though, after years of doing that off and on, I think using my prayer “word” during my prayer time does the same thing. Speaking in tongues just seemed to give me the “direction” I was going when I was freed up from TRYING to think of God in the limited way I had thought of God so far.
Joanie D.
Nick N. on 08 Oct 2007 at 1:03 pm #
JohnT3,
I don’t know what I am saying. It is entirely possible (theoretically) that I am cursing someone — but we can read plenty of cursing prayers in the Psalms in language that we do understand so I can’t see that it’s really all that much of an issue. I could possibly be blaspheming although I have no reason whatsoever to think that I am.
I understand that you’re trying to understand my side of things and I appreciate that, but honestly these are only questions that someone who denies the validity of tongues would ask. For example let’s suppose I’m an atheist who doesn’t believe in prayer of any sort. I then ask you how you know that the prayers you are praying are genuine, sincere, from your heart, acceptable to the God you believe in, etc. — these aren’t questions that would really cross your mind [not that they shouldn't but the answers are axiomatic to the believer] but to the doubter they would.
In the end I guess I would say that my assurance that I’m not cursing someone or blaspheming is the same as my assurance that my prayers in known languages are acceptable to God and are sincerely said from my heart. And this assurance is something that I can’t prove empirically.
nathanimal,
I’d just point out that there’s nothing modern about the phenomenom of tongues. I would say the experience that the gentleman from your church had in Africa was akin to the experience of the disciples in Acts 2 and that’s great. But we can see a demonstrable difference between those tongues and the tongues from 1Cor. 12-14. I understand that you’re not convinced but I don’t think it fair to assert that this is somehow a new fad or something like that.
JohnT3 on 08 Oct 2007 at 2:10 pm #
Nick,
Let me reiterate a point I made earlier. I do not deny the gift of tounges. As long as they measure up to scriptures.
My questions may seem like someone who disagrees with you on this becasue at this time I do not see your argument as either valid or scriptural. I am asking questions to see :
1. If perhaps there is something in the edvidence you make your stand on to accept your view.
2. To make sure that you are not someone who goes to a blog and likes to pretend to be someone they are not just to antagonize others. (By the way I am sure this is not the case but I am just listing my reasons)
3. And 1 John 4:1 commands all believers to test every spirit and make sure it is of God.
Based on Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians when ever the gift of tounges was employed properly then understanding was included in the equation. The imprecatory prayers you refer to were directed at the enemies of God and His people no where does the idea that the person praying was unaware of what they were saying. As you mention the difference between Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12-14 use of tounges I agree that there is a difference but the difference lay in the context that the Corinthians were improperly manifesting the gift of tounges.
In scripture when the concept of praying in seceret comes up it is so that the person may seek the reward of God not of man.
I respect your intelligence and don’t believe that your some idiot. I think your points you raise ane very articulate and thought out. That being said I still don’t agree with you stance and it not only because of the gift of tounges. That is a small paortion of it but my main disagreement is that your defense of the use of the gift put forth principles that are not found in the scriptures.
So I ask questions to see if I am missing something as your fully defend your point.
Also while I may disagree with you I have found nothing to where if we were neighbors I would not want to fellowship with you or invite you to share a meal.
Nick N. on 08 Oct 2007 at 2:18 pm #
“Also while I may disagree with you I have found nothing to where if we were neighbors I would not want to fellowship with you or invite you to share a meal.”
I appreciate that very much!
kolabok21 on 08 Oct 2007 at 3:18 pm #
A couple of things, this is about the signs, gifts & wonders. Why are tongues the only one being mentioned? Did not the healings (restoring sight, walking again, etc…) casting out demons and raising the dead, part of the sins and wonders of the gifts?
Where is Michael? This is his baby. Michael you should weigh in on the discussion. I believe sitting idly by is good for observation, but this is your boat, it is listing to one side.
Secondly, I for the short of it, follow JohnT3’s post I could not add anything else including the invitation to share with the gang that holds to tongues. Well maybe in light of the scripture quote of 1 John 4:1 I think it appropriate to add Matthew 7: 1-5
We should test the spirits and be non-judgmental.
Third, I still have a difficult perception of tongues for lack of a transliteration method based on known tongues usage vs. an unknown tongue, help me here please.
I want to believe, but my humanistic approach (nothing to do with my walk) needs to see it to know it (I did not say believe, because God can do anything including giving gifts to believers) is right.
The one test of all things is this, does it bring worship, praise and glory to foot of the throne of God.
Edward J. Vasicek on 08 Oct 2007 at 3:35 pm #
Great post.
I too am in neither camp. I tend to think that perhaps gifts like tongues (foreign languages) and miracle working might be more common in areas where the Gospel is new (kind of like Acts) but then fade out as the church gets established. That would fit the pattern of early church history.
I have great respect for Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson (who holds similar views), but they bend over backwards too much. They are right, I believe, in teaching the Bible nowhere says that these gifts will cease during the church age. But they fail to face the implications that tongues have shown NOT to be real earthy languages and intepretations of tongues have shown themselves not to be legitimate. The logical inference is that what we see today is not what happened in Acts 2.
This is different from saying it cannot happen. Like you, Mike, I just think that the genuine thing is not happening — or at least not happening MUCH.
If one understands prophesy as Grudem defines it, I think we can fairly say that prophesy IS happening today. Basically, Grudem says prophesy is simply sensing God wants us to say something. It is not infallible.
I have had many occasions where I felt led to say something to someone. I think prophesy is described in Scripture as a very important gift; but NT prophecy is judged per prophecy, not per prophet because the NT gift is NOT like the OT calling to be a prophet.
Nick N. on 08 Oct 2007 at 11:09 pm #
kolabok21,
Tongues can be transliterated but what purpose would that serve? They’d still be a language that no (wo)man understands. But it’s not hard to write down what you hear phonetically. For instance, I might hear someone saying, kiwibananna, toyotacelica, he’scominonahonda
and write it down as such but that doesn’t mean it will be interpreted. Here’s Paul’s thing about tongues — he recognizes that they’re good but prophecy is better — why? Because prophecy edifies the group, tongues without interpretation edify the individual. Now tongues with an interpretation in Paul’s thought seems to be on par with prophecy because the group is edified. It’s kind of like prophecy is a dime and tongues with interpretation are two nickels. But take the nickel of interpretation away and the value decreases.
Edward J. Vasicek,
I don’t pretend to know every tongue that was ever spoken or every interpretation that was ever given but I can tell you that many times the tongues and the interpretation are very much on point and quite legitimate. Having said that, I think if you follow the comments in this thread you will see that I have argued for at least two different types of tongues. The tongues spoken in Acts 2 were known languages that were unknown to the men speaking but understood by their audience. The tongues in 1Cor. 12-14 are tongues that are not understood by either the speaker or the hearer hence Paul’s emphasis on needing an interpretation if you are going to speak in tongues.
Concerning the prophecy issue, Charismatics regularly assert a difference between the ‘gift’ of prophecy and the ‘office’ o