Are Tongues for Today; an Assessement of the Strength of the Cessationist Argument

LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

ARE TONGUES FOR TODAY; AN ASSESSEMENT OF THE STRENGTH OF THE CESSATIONIST ARGUMENT.

A Term Paper Submitted to

Liberty Theological Seminary

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for completion of the course,

THEO 530

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

By

Chase A. Thompson / 200436

Lynchburg, Virginia

June 2006

Table of Contents

I. Introduction Error! Bookmark not defined.

II. Brief History 4

III. The Cessationist Argument and Rebuttal. 6

IV. Conclusion 23

Bibliography 28

Introduction

One of the most controversial and divisive theological issues that the church has wrestled with in the last 100 years is the question of tongues; namely, is the spiritual gift of tongues still being given by God to the church today? That there is evidence of disagreement, even among evangelicals can be found by surveying the various definitions given for the gift. The Anchor Bible Dictionary defines the gift of tongues as “Ecstatic utterance associated with possession of the Holy Spirit.”[1] Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, defines speaking in tongues as, “prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker.”[2] S. Lewis Johnson, participating in Dallas Theological Seminary’s Symposium on the tongues movement, defines tongues as, “the gift of speaking in a known language for the purposes of confirming the authenticity of the message of the apostolic church.”[3] Finally, Oxford professor and Anglican Michael Green offers this definition, “The gift of tongues is the ability to speak in language that the speaker has not learnt, that he does not understand, and is incomprehensible to the hearer.”[4] Even with just a brief survey of the various definitions given for the gift of tongues, it is clear that opinions vary widely.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to answer the practical theological question of whether God is still empowering the gift of tongues in the church today. Issues of precise definition, practice, and function will be lightly addressed, but are somewhat beyond the scope of this project. The method of answering this most controversial question will be to examine and assess the strength and validity of the various cessationist arguments throughout church history and their counter arguments as put forth by non-cessationists. The conclusion will examine the results of that analysis and determine which argument has the most merit. The gift of tongues represents a unique issue within the evangelical church. The normal cessationist perspective is that the argument that they offer for the cessation of the gift of tongues is strong enough to nullify or overturn a Pauline directive, that is, to not forbid speaking in tongues[5]. The core issue dealt with in this assessment is to determine whether the cessationist argument merits the disregard of that directive.[6]

Brief History

A brief survey of the history of tongues speaking in the church shows that tongues were at least somewhat accepted up until the time of Chrysostom and Augustine[7]. Writing before their time, Origen remarks on the lessening (but not absence) of the gift of prophecy[8] Following Origen, Chrysostom wrote about Spiritual gifts (including tongues, presumably) in his Homily on First Corinthians, and seems to indicate that the more miraculous gifts had ceased in his day.[9] Similarly Augustine references the gift of tongues, suggesting that they were given in apostolic times as a token, and have since passed away.[10] Though there is not clear evidence that he ever reversed his thinking on the issue of tongues, Augustine later in life does concede that miracles of healing, among others were occurring in his day.[11]

The next major group to cover Spiritual gifts and tongues to any large degree were the reformers, and though they did not devote much ink to the practice, both Luther and Calvin seem to agree that tongues, and other miraculous gifts had ceased since apostolic times.[12] Commenting on 1st Corinthians 14:5, Calvin writes, “For God has conferred nothing upon his Church in vain, and languages were of some benefit.” [13] By languages, Calvin is referring to the gift of tongues, and seems to be writing as though the gift is in the past.[14]

As a reaction to the Pentecostal stirrings of the early twentieth centuries, Princeton Theologian B.B. Warfield wrote what was probably the most comprehensive and detailed treatment of the gift of tongues and other miraculous gifts in his work called Counterfeit Miracles. In it he writes, “Because Christ is all in all, and all revelation and redemption alike are summed up in Him, it would be inconceivable that either revelation or its accompanying signs should continue after the completion of that great revelation with its accrediting works.”[15] Warfield is considered the father of the modern cessationist movement and his works laid the groundwork for much of the current arguments that are employed by cessationists against the modern day use of the gift of tongues.

The Cessationist Argument and Rebuttal

It is helpful in seeking to answer the question of modern day tongues application to look at the many varied reasons that cessationist give for their position. Several major cessationist arguments will be considered, and though this list does not include every cessationist argument made, it should stand as a fairly complete arrangement of the thought as a whole. These positions can be grouped as theological or Biblical arguments, and historical arguments. Following each major cessationist argument, the non cessationist rebuttal to that argument will be given, as well as a brief analysis of the relative merits of each argument. A myriad of writers and professors have been chosen to represent both sides of this argument; they represent those from a wide denominational background and include charismatics, pentecostals, cessationists, and those who would not identify with either of those three prior groups.

As basis for the purported lack of permanence of some Spiritual gifts, many cessationists use the example of the cessation of the office of apostle. The line of reasoning is that, if God originally gave the gift or office of apostle to the church, but now no longer does, then it is possible, or even likely that other gifts fall into that category. John Walvoord, the past president of Dallas Theological Seminary argues along these lines.[16] Similarly Zane Hodges uses this line of reasoning as the foundation for his argument for tongues cessation, “For clearly, the apostleship was itself temporary, and, if the principle be established, it is perfectly legitimate to inquire whether there may not be other first century gifts which were likewise temporary.”[17] The implication is quite clear, if indeed one gift can be withdrawn, then certainly others can as well.

This argument is not frequently rebutted specifically by non-cessationists, because it merely presents the possibility for tongues (and other gift) cessation. In addition, most protestant, and even many charismatic scholars assert that the gift or office of the apostle has indeed been withdrawn. Wayne Grudem, one of the top theological proponents of the modern day ministry of tongues writes thus, “God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age.”[18]

There are a few charismatic theologians that would dispute Dr. Grudem, most evangelicals and the cessationists on this issue, among them former Dallas Theological Seminary professor Jack Deere. Dr. Deere argues that Paul never applies the term charisma to apostleship, that there were more New Testament apostles listed than just Paul and the twelve (Barnabas, Jesus’ brother James, Silas, Andronicus and Junias), and that because Paul warns against false apostles, it is possible that others could have that designation and not be among the twelve.[19] Dr. Deere does not attempt to conclusively prove that the gift of apostle is still active, only to speculate on the possibility. He concludes that section by positing that even if the apostle gift has ceased, then it does not necessarily mean that the gift of tongues, or any other gift has ceased.[20]

Perhaps the primary argument that is given for the cessation of tongues is found in 1st Corinthians 13, where Paul writes that tongues will cease, or be stilled when “perfection comes”.[21] Many in the cessationist camp consider the perfection referred to here as the completion of the Canon of scripture. The thrust of the argument is that because God’s flawless revelation has been given to us in the Bible; we no longer have need of any extra Biblical revelation. This was Warfield’s position, as noted above, and is also held by many others in the cessationist movement. Former seminary Dean William Bellshaw writes, “Since the New Testament was not complete, the gift was needed to validate the message which was being preached. After the canon of the Bible was completed, this gift was no longer necessary.”[22] Bellshaw further argues that the perfect, mentioned by Paul in 1st Corinthians 13 refers not to the coming of Christ, since the adjective “perfect” is in the neuter gender, therefore it must refer to the completion of the canon.[23] John MacArthur, in his commentary on 1st Corinthians writes similarly, “Revelation of God’s Word was completed, however, when the New Testament was completed, and to that nothing is to be added or subtracted…The confirming purpose of tongues was completed.”[24] Gilbert Weaver also takes this position, using a detailed grammatical argument positing that the Greek ek merous (“for in part”, in 1st Cor. 13:9), “refers to the transmission of divine truth by revelation” thus to telion (“the perfect thing”, 1st Cor. 13:10) must refer to “God’s complete revelation of truth, the entire New Testament.”[25]

Because of the relative difficulty in proving that Paul was alluding to the completion of the New Testament Canon, in 1st Corinthians 13, not all cessationists use this as a principle argument, among them Dr. Stanley Toussaint, who argues that 1st Corinthians 13:12 is clearly anticipating the return of Jesus, thus “The perfect thing then is the rapture and resurrection of the church.”[26] Fellow cessationist Dr. Robert Thomas notes, “It seems inescapable that a reference to completed canon alone cannot satisfy the illustration given in verse 12.”[27] Thus, the possibility of 1st Corinthians 13 referring to the cessation of tongues when the canon of scripture is complete is not agreed upon by all in the cessationist camp.

Other cessationists argue that the perfection that Paul is referring to has to do with the full establishment of the church. Martin Luther apparently held to this position, writing that tongues were given as a sign, but when the church had been gathered and confirmed by the miraculous signs, the visible sending forth of the Holy Spirit (including tongues) was no longer necessary.[28] Dr. Thomas believes similarly, that Paul is referring to maturity in the church, and as the Body of Christ grew, at some point, continuing revelation became no longer necessary.[29]

Most non cessationists argue that 1st Corinthians 13 refers to the second coming of Jesus, thus the gifts mentioned will be theoretically operative until then. Dr. Grudem sardonically observes the strangeness of Paul assuring the Corinthians that love is so amazing because it will last at least 35 more years, until the canon is complete.[30] His point is that Paul is contrasting this age, with the age to come and that love will be permanent, not simply endure beyond apostolic age. Dr Grudem also proposes that “face to face” is a common Old Testament way of depicting a meeting with God, and thus Paul is talking about the second coming of Jesus.[31] Likewise Dr. Daniel Mitchell[32] and Martyn Lloyd Jones[33] argue that this passage cannot be a reference to the completion of the canon because it would imply that we have perfect knowledge or knowledge greater than the apostles in this present age. This would appear to be a very persuasive argument in general against the sense that the implication of 1st Corinthians 13 is that we are now in a face to face position, and that we know, as we are known, if in fact it refers to the canon completion, or some other event that has already happened. In light of the above objections, this particular cessationist argument appears to be very difficult to sustain.

The next cessationist argument is centered on another passage of scripture, Hebrews 2:3-4, and posits that the (sole) purpose of the spiritual gifts and miracles were to testify to the message of salvation as given by the apostles. The implication of this view is that these gifts are no longer necessary or functional because we now have the message of salvation in written form as the Bible. Augustine can be considered the father of this belief, in essence. As quoted above, he writes that tongues (as well as other signs) were given as a “betokening” of the Holy Spirit to show that the Gospel was to go to all tongues over the earth.[34] More recently, John Walvoord writes that the purpose of the gift of tongues is to attest to the gospel, referencing 1st Corinthians 14:22.[35] This is a general theme found in most cessationist thought- the gift of tongues, and the other miraculous, or “sign” gifts are for the purpose of attesting to the apostles, or attesting to the message of the apostles, and are no longer needed. As MacArthur writes, “Tongues has ceased because its purpose as a confirming sign of apostolic authority and doctrine ended when the New Testament was complete.”[36]

Walvoord’s reference above to 1st Corinthians 14:22 adds a new twist or depth to this particular cessationist argument. The essence of it is that because Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and because he references Isaiah in the previous verse, who spoke of God judging the Israelites using men of strange languages, therefore the gift of tongues is primarily (or solely) a gift directed at the Jews; and because we are now in the age of Gentiles, the gift is no longer active. S. Lewis Johnson presses this point particularly hard, noting that Jews were present in all three mentions of the use of tongues in Acts, thus proving Paul’s “statement” that the gift of tongues was for the Jews. In commenting on Acts 2, he writes, “The presence of Jews here confirms the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22. Paul states that the gift is a sign to Jews, as prophesied in the Old Testament.”[37] Zane Hodges also fleshes this argument out. His reasoning can be set down in a syllogism, very similar to Johnson: To determine whether tongues is intended to be used today or not, we must determine the purpose of tongues; if the purpose is still valid today, then tongues is valid, if the purpose is not valid today, then tongues is no longer useful.[38] He further reasons that because the gift is directed toward the Jewish people, and because passages like Luke 21:20-24 indicate that God’s attention is now on the gentiles, therefore the gift has ceased.[39]