There has been an on-going and interesting exchange between Sam Storms and Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen on the issue of the charismata. Storms has written a good article giving 10 bad reasons for being a cessationist and 10 good arguments for being a continuationist. Patton has responded with his case for cessationism. Unlike most traditional cessationists, Patton doesn’t claim that the Bible teaches cessationism per se. He admits that his primary reasons for holding to cessationism are experiential in nature: both his own lack of experience of the charismata, as well as the general lack of the charismata throughout church history. He calls this a de facto cessationism. This differs from traditional cessationism in that it claims the gifts have ceased as a matter of fact, rather than because of a matter of necessity. While he finds Biblical support to show reasons for this de facto cessation of the charismata, he does not believe the Bible demands that the charismata cease.
Storms also has a great treatment of tongues, clearing up many of the misconceptions about the gift, as well as demonstrating how so many of the non-charismatic criticisms of the gift miss the Biblical mark. Patton also addressed tongues, which Storms’ responded to. I would highly recommend reading through the dialogue.
October 26, 2011 at 12:01 pm
All we can say for sure is that not everybody receives each gift. Only some are given the gift of tongues. Whether any receive it today is debatable.
We know that the Holy Spirit is received by every single person who is baptized and repents. (Acts 2:38) And we know that not every such person speaks in tongues. So the teaching that tongues is connected to receiving the Holy Spirit is false doctrine.
LikeLike
October 26, 2011 at 12:17 pm
True, not everyone receives every gift. As for whether tongues are still in operation, as one who speaks in tongues, I can affirm by experience that they are.
Jason
LikeLike
October 26, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Arthur, How do we know that the Holy Spirit is received by every single person who is baptized and repents? How do you explain Acts 8 or 19? The Samaritans believed, repented, and were baptized, yet they hadn’t received the Spirit. Why?
I was unable to follow how you got from your first premise to your conclusion that the “teaching that tongues is connected to receiving the Holy Spirit is false doctrine” since your premises weren’t justified by scripture.
LikeLike
October 27, 2011 at 4:57 am
An interesting read.
However, my response to a cessationist would be to explain the charismatic churches outward signs of the Charismata still in action (tongues, healing, prophecy etc)
LikeLike
October 27, 2011 at 7:21 pm
CarolJean, Acts 2:38 says that if you repent and are baptized, you shall receive the Holy Spirit. “Shall” means it happens 100% of the time.
LikeLike
November 1, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Arthur, of course shall means shall. Who said it didn’t? And if a person doesn’t receive the Holy Ghost, it is manifest s/he hasn’t repented. Arguing a disconnect with tongues has nothing to do with the meaning of “shall.”
Moreover, you did not answer two of CarolJean’s questions.
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 9:01 am
CarolJean,
The Scriptures don’t say when receiving the Holy Spirit occurs. As those chapters show, it can happen after repentence and baptism. But it happens to 100% of those who repent and are baptized. Claiming you didn’t really repent, or that you weren’t really baptized, if you don’t receive a particular gift does violence to the Scriptures.
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 9:13 am
When you look at church history, you see virtually no mention of tongues from the time of Christ until 1900. That means either the gates of Hell prevailed against the church for nearly 2000 years, or else the new religion of the 1900s is false doctrine.
Gimme that old time religion, it’s good enough for me!
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 9:23 am
Arthur, you’re still not addressing CarolJean’s questions. Care to try again?
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 10:53 am
They were answered clearly and directly.
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 11:03 am
1) How do we know that every person who repents and is baptized shall receive the Holy Spirit? Acts 2:38.
2) How do I explain Acts 8 and 19? They strongly support what I stated, so there is nothing to explain. If you are asking why a person could receive the spirit after repentance and baptism, rather than at the moment both occur, then you misunderstand what I said. Sure, it could happen a year or two after repentence and baptism. The key is that all who repent and are baptized at some point receive the Spirit.
3) Why didn’t the Samaritans immediately receive the Spirit? That cannot be answered. Ask God.
But Scalia and CarolJean, you need to get your lives right with God. You need to repent of your newly-created, of-the-flesh religion and get your lives right with God. When you do that, you’ll finally be able to rightly discern the Word and God will forgive you. Good luck!
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Arthur, you initially stated,
CarolJean asked you about Acts 8 & 19. With the former, there were baptized believers under the ministry of Philip. With the latter, we have believers who had not heard of the Holy Ghost. It appears clear from the context their ignorance of the Holy Ghost is a decisive factor in their not receiving it. That’s part of what I mean by answering a question. Your reply, at best, is a truncated dismissal. You appear to be “driving by” as usual without even pretending to respect those with whom you disagree.
With respect to Acts 8, on what theological platform are you standing when you argue there can be a gap between repentance and Spirit baptism? I know Catholicism maintains Spirit baptism occurs upon confirmation, and that would appear to correspond to what you affirm, but all Spirit baptism accounts in Acts contradict that position. That is not to say you are Catholic, but your later appeal to “old time religion” then becomes incoherent. And if you are not Catholic (or Orthodox), what “old time” historical religion are you appealing to?
Since you believe a person can genuinely repent and be legitimately baptized, yet wait for an indeterminate period before receiving the Spirit (which is exactly what Oneness Pentecostals believe), what connection does that affirmation have with speaking in tongues? The only difference between us appears to be whether or not tongues accompany the Spirit.
The topic of this thread is the dialog on whether the gifts have ceased. Since you acknowledge that is “debatable,” you do not deny a continuation.
You write,
This is false, as shown by Bernard in the chapter The Witness of Church History: Tongues in his book, The New Birth. However, your argument is either scriptural or historical. If the former, your appeal to history is a non-starter. It is immaterial what “history” (that is, the one written by victors of a political struggle) says if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. If the latter, your appeal to Scripture equally fails. For if history trumps Scripture, scriptural quotations misfire.
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Clarification. When I earlier stated one without the Spirit has not repented, I do not mean that exhaustively. It appears from Acts 8 the Samaritans genuinely repented, but for some reason had not received the Holy Ghost. For such persons, the issue may be faith.
LikeLike
November 2, 2011 at 12:50 pm
The link to The Witness of Church History: Tongues appears to connect to the book itself. The relevant chapter is 11.
LikeLike
November 8, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Since Jesus Christ is the “same, yesterday, and forever” and that He has “an unchangeable priesthood”, it is hard to conclude that those things which the Lord placed in His body should suddenely disappear or fall away over time.
It would make more sense to me that the gifts of the Spirit, as an operation of the Lord in the Church are a part of His high priesthood, making them just as real and valid today as 1900-some years ago.
After all, the testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of PROPHECY, one the nine gifts.
LikeLike
November 10, 2011 at 10:30 am
When I read this, I had a feeling a can of worms would be opened here, and it was. Way to go Jason 🙂 ……
I’ll try to be brief so Scalia doesn’t jump all over me on this one 🙂
As we know the issue of tongues has always been a topic with varying opinions and beliefs. So I will add my opinion for what it is worth.
In my understanding of the scriptures I cannot say for 100% that all whoever will receive the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues. In addition, I do not see emphasis that the sign of tongues is the trademark of every believer in the teachings of the epistles. Jesus said they will know you by the love you have for one another, not, they will know you because you speak in tongues. (John 13:35).
I am 100% certain that Jesus died and rose from the dead. I cannot say that about tongues, therefore I have to give room to my brother if he sees it differently than I do. Nothing is compromised here, God gives the gifts, not us. Let’s try not to regulate and control which gifts the Lord gives or doesn’t. Perhaps he doesn’t give tongues just to see how we handle it and treat our brother ? Just a thought ?
I speak in tongues and I am not Charismatic or go to a Charismatic church. What does that prove ? Nothing.
God Bless you all.
Naz
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Naz writes,
I’m not certain what this “can of worms” is. If you’ve followed Arthur’s comments on this site, he’s typically a hit-and-run poster who consistently offers weak arguments (sometimes over and over). I was trying to get him out of his box so he could rationally dialog with the one he was hitting (CarolJean).
I can assure you your brevity or lack thereof has no bearing on any reply I may offer.
I can, but since it’s really not the topic of this thread, I forego comment unless Jason gives the green light.
Like the Corinthian church, there are modern believers whose emphasis is misdirected. However, my experience in this regard is consistent emphasis on the fruit of the Spirit, not tongue talking.
I am not aware this is going on. IF the Bible informs us tongues signal Spirit baptism, who does or doesn’t regulate is irrelevant. If the Bible doesn’t so inform us, the issue is mistaken doctrine, not regulation. In either case, regulation is ancillary at best. The real issue is what the Bible teaches, but as noted, the topic is the discussion over the continuation of the gifts, not the sign of Spirit baptism.
Regards.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Scalia, thanks for your response. Just curious, do you believe that every one that receives the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues ?
To follow that up, if said person does NOT speak in tongues, can we conclude that they are not saved since we know “whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is none of his” ?
Yes/No answers are fine for now. Thanks.
Naz
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Naz – yes to both questions. Again, since that isn’t the topic of this thread, we should leave it there until Jason gives the ok.
LikeLike
November 16, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Scalia and Naz, feel free to let your discussion go where it may. It doesn’t appear that anyone else is continuing to post comments on this thread anyway, so venturing off-topic wont’ hurt anything.
Jason
LikeLike
December 27, 2018 at 4:10 pm
I haven’t yet read up on what continuationism is, but I understand from your comments that it has something to do with speaking in tongues, and that’s enough of a reason for me to respond. I have been writing in places such as this one, i.e. discussion forums or comment sections, for the past several years. I have been using their windows as notebook paper: surface on which to compose drafts and test thoughts. I have only shown these texts on one occasion (and by showing, I mean displaying them in a place other than the webpage on which they were composed). For me, the debate is not between continuity and cessation, it’s between continuity and interruption. The terms are not antithetical: there is no continuity without interruption and there can be no interruption with continuity. The one requires the other in order for it to even be imagined, much less actualized. The texts I have been writing are clearly discontinuous, fragmentary, rooted in their respective contexts. With this posting, I would like to try something else, by composing a series of independent yet related texts, texts that can function both as a series of discrete fragments and as a unified sequence of parts. That’s my intention, but the activity of writing will, I am sure, take me elsewhere, even within the confines of that intention. I just read the comment above mine, so I know that “venturing off-topic won’t hurt anything.” Mynona, spelled backwards, is anonym, the German word for anonymous. It was a pseudonym that someone else coined and that I borrowed for its reversibility.
LikeLike