Sermon by Dr. David Allen
Posted by
SBC Today would like to introduce to you Dr. David Allen. Dr. Allen serves Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as Dean of the School of Theology, Professor of Preaching, Director of the Center for Expository Preaching, and George W. Truett Chair of Ministry. His positions are many and his focus is simple–preach the Word. Dr. Allen served for twenty-one years as Senior Pastor of two local churches. His experience in local church ministry is one of exemplary service. He proceeds in his teaching as a scholar with a pastor’s heart.
Dr. Allen presented this message at the First Baptist Jacksonville Pastor’s Conference. His command of the text and his grasp on theology is what makes this message so relevant. Dr. Allen certainly gives a prophetic voice to the issues facing the SBC in today’s environment.
Dr. David Allen [52:28m]: 
71 Comments
February 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
If you cannot listen to the whole sermon, the last ten minutes are the climax – ten reasons to repudiate charismatic theology. Great job Dr. Allen. I guess I’ll keep that seminary degree after all.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Good message. Fascinating work on the authorship of Hebrews. I look forward to reading his commentary on Hebrews and the forthcoming volume on the authorship of Hebrews.
Are the other messages from the conference available online somewhere?
February 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Brother Steve Weaver,
I purchased the two messages by Dr. Allen. I checked with FBCJax and they told me that the copyright covered the person presenting the messages. Dr. Allen approved for us to place these online. He also has them on his website.
As to the other messages at the conferences, I believe you can contact FBC Jax by clicking on the link below. Follow the link to the online store and I believe you may be able to purchase any of the messages from this conference.
Blessings,
Tim
February 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Brother Steve Weaver,
Sorry, I forgot to put in the link.
http://www.fbcjax.com/
Blessings,
Tim
February 19th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Thanks Tim!
February 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Brother Steve Weaver,
Also, we will post the other sermon by Dr. Allen sometime in the future. In that sermon he gives more exact evidence to the Lukean authorship of Hebrews. I sat next to a man that went to Stephen Olford’s School and has an earned Doctorate. I asked him about this evidence. He told me that Dr. Allen had not made a believer out of him for Luke, but he certainly was open to examining more of the evidence.
I must admit that he gives excellent arguments as to the authorship for Luke.
Blessings,
Tim
February 19th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
No one can deny the great preaching of Dr. David Allen. His knowledge of scripture and his ability to present the information is absolutely a treasure.
I want to comment on the last 10-15 minutes of his sermon. Obviously, this is what people will be discussing and arguing about in the blogosphere.
I, as a minister in the SBC, still struggle with the issue of speaking in tongues. I do not practice speaking in tongues, nor have I ever. So I am not presenting my concerns out of my own interest, but truly out of a sense to live out the inerrant, infallible word of God. It is my belief that not only Dr. Allen’s sermon, but others in the convention, are lumping those that believe tongues still exists today with Charismatic theology. I do not agree with Charismatic theology nor will I ever embrace it because it is wrong. Dr. Allen does a great job of showing its failure to line up with scripture. HOWEVER, I do struggle with whether tongues (and other gifts) still exist.
Men of God are on both sides of the issue of cessation, both in our convention as well as outside our convention. My concern is the labeling of people into groups which they do not identify with.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Brother Adam,
Thanks for the comments. I agree with you that there are good godly people on each side of the issue. Remember, that is not the issue. I have a biological sister that speaks in a PPL. She is one of the most gracious people you will ever meet.
The issue, as Dr. Allen has graciously placed before us, is the sufficiency of Scripture. Are we more tied to Scripture or experience? If we are going to focus on Scripture, then let us focus on Scripture. If we are going to have our experience judge Scripture, then we are removing the Sufficiency of Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
February 19th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Tim,
I think your absolutely right,…the scripture is the end all for any serious preacher. Dr. Allen was fun to listen to, and appears to be extremely confident in the message delivered. I think he is right on with the explanation of the gift of tongues. I also believe Patterson is right,…. to not go further than scripture allows on the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 to cessationistic interpretations.
I will be very curious to see future work by Dr. Allen on authorship for Hebrews. I am probably wrong, but it appears he may push for a later dating of the book to account for a cessationistic view of the “they” and “us” argument. I am very curious on his findings and what surfaces from a close look at the 2:4-8 passage.
As far as I have found so far according to scripture (with the Greek NT open), tongues have not ceased. I completely agree with the writer of the Hebrews, that “God adding further testimony both with signs and wonders and with various miraculous powers and distributions [fig., gifts] of [the] Holy Spirit, according to His will. emphasis mine…(ALT)
But, I have an open mind. I think it better to be found approved, ….so patience is probably in order.
Blessings,
Chris
February 19th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Chris
I agree with you (somewhat), I don’t believe scripture is clear on when tongues will cease, but I do believe they will cease on their own. I also don’t see where scripture points to a definite private prayer language. Praying in a tongue is always used with the hypothetical subjunctive.
Second, the big debate centers around whether tongues are some ecstatic babble like Camp did on TV or is it a human language unknown to the speaker?
I believe scripture speaks to human language.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Oh, come on Robin,
You and I are like two peas in a pod
I think Dr. Allen was right on target when he was discussing this new phenomenon known as a Private Prayer Language. It is interesting that the Apostle Paul never discusses such a thing in the scripture, but some have possibly have taken a real experience (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and then given it a definition relating it to tongues. The jump to “label” our private time with God as tongues is something new to scripture and a thorough contextual exegesis reveals that a jump is required.
Cessation is a whole other subject….which I am curious if Dr. Allen is going to argue for the late date. Hebrews 13 will be difficult to harmonize as the date gets later….. “us” may still be in very close proximity as “they”.
Blessings,
Chris
February 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT!!!!!!
Many many thanks
Steve
February 19th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Robin,
Thank you for stating that the debate centers on the nature of the tongues in the NT and not “Charismatic theology”. I agree with your assessment, and wonder why all parties can’t therefore agree to call it what it is–a debate or discussion about the nature of tongues in the NT?
Incidentally, David Rogers wrote a post many moons ago (in the early days of blogtown) explaining the differences between Pentecostalism, neo-Pentecostalism, and the so-called “Third Wave”. If parties could even agree that the current discussion in Baptist life is about the influence of the so-called “Third Wave”, particularly among our foreign personnel, that would be far more constructive than periodic broad-brush polemics about Pentecostalism, neo-Pentecostalism, and Charismania.
I don’t think that kind of conversation happens because it could get tedious and nuanced, and isn’t particularly useful for troop-rallying.
Just my $.02
February 19th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Please let the record state that I’m not charging Dr. Allen’s sermon with “troop rallying”. I haven’t had a chance to listen yet. My comment was based on numerous other sermons, articles, and blog posts of the last 18 months.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Dear Seminary Student
Comparing the practice of singing hymns in church to the practice of either PPL or use of tongues in the church misses the point of my argument. I have not stated that God cannot use tongues during the worship service. Of course, Paul laid out some specific guidelines. If you read my comment carefully, the question is what constitutes Biblical tongues.
Second, I don’t understand what you are trying to state with verse 18. Please elaborate how that verse proves my statement to be false.
Finally, while I respect and appreciate Jason, I don’t believe he disproved the subjunctive argument.
One final thing, I ask that you reveal your name instead of posting anonymously. Many of us have been on the forefront with our reputations and honor. If you feel you can’t do it publicly, I would appreciate your response via email. Your identity will be kept confidential. If you are a student at SWBTS, I will be there next week and maybe we can talk about this further.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
BTW, my email is rfoster@sbctoday.com
Thanks again.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Bro tim,
Where is David Allen’s website (comment #3) many thanks
Steve of the true South
February 19th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Brother Steve,
I do not know. I have tried to find it and I cannot. I am gong to have to double check with Dr. Allen, because I must have heard something he did not say.
I will check on it and get back to you.
Blessings,
Tim
February 19th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
many thanks,
Steve
February 20th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Brother/Sister Seminary Student,
I would humbly and politely ask that you reconsider your use of the name Jeremy Green as one that is a “back-slapping, toe-the-party-liner“. Brother Jeremy is not the antonym to Brother Ben Cole. You have proven, regardless of your education, that you do not understand the nuances of the arguments by that statement.
No one has quizzed you as to who you are other than Brother Robin. Have you responded to him privatively by email? Before you respond publicly in the comment stream you will need to respond to him privately. I say this because of our policy which states: “Anonymous posting is welcome. If you post anonymously you will be held to a higher standard. If there is anything deemed inappropriate by our resource managers your comment will be removed.” I pray that you understand our reasoning in this matter.
You have presented some more thought for further research as to the authorship of Hebrews. However, regardless of the strength of your thoughts, we must know that your are not some fire-bomber just trying to begin a riot. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Seminary Student
I still believe you miss the point of my argument. In verse 18 Paul doesn’t say that he “prays” in tongues more than the Corinthians, only that he “speaks.” I would allow for tongues (known human language unknown to the speaker) following the biblical guidelines laid out by Paul.
The argument is the subjunctive use on the verses containing statements on praying with tongues. Verse 18 talks of speaking, not praying.
Thanks again for commenting. I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you.
God Bless
February 20th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Robin: You are attempting to convince that there is no praying in tongues aka private prayer language today. I would allow that interpretation as that is not the issue, it never has been. The issue will always continue to be that this is one of the many things that I and others disagree with you on. The issue is that I would still allow you to serve in the SBC, but I do not think you would allow me to serve on any board, or any other place. Why can’t we stick to the real issue instead of attempting to convince each other of something Biblically we will both never convince each other of?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Sister Debbie,
Your argument is once again, as it always has been, one from experience trumping Scripture. No one has ever argued that PPL is not around today.
The argument has always gone something like this: I have PPL and I know what has happened to me. This happened and I can show you verses where the Bible allows for this phenomena.
I, along with others, have countered that argument with something like this; The Bible does not allow for PPL. You are calling into question the sufficiency of Scripture when you argue that it does. Every argument that is produced for PPL is based on Scripture that Paul has given instructing the church on how to conduct herself during public worship. The PPL argument has never been there in 1900 years of church history. The only tongues ever argued in church history has been the Charismatic practice of speaking in tongues.
The argument for a PPL is set completely on experience. Take the experience of a PPL out of the equation and look straight at scripture. It speaks only of a Public Worship setting whenever people spoke in tongues. Oh, and those tongues were known languages and dialects. It was nothing at all what we see today as speaking in tongues.
Me, I am a cessassionist, but cautious, on this issue. I am not ready to say that God will not allow the use of tongues in public worship today. But neither am I ready to say all of the sign gifts are still in operation today. Let’s say they Apostle gift is still active today. Where are the people that any of today’s “Apostles” have raised from the dead? I am not trying to be trite, I seriously am asking the question. If the sign gifts have not ceased then all of them should still be in operation today.
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Tim: And again I would disagree. Ample scripture has been given but you have proved the exact point of my last comment. For that I thank you.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am
BTW Tim, I do not believe all sign gifts have ceased, I believe them to be in operation today.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Dr. Allen spoke of proper exegesis. So I ask you what is the main purpose of Hebrews? What was going on in the church in that day that caused Hebrews to be written no matter who you believe wrote it. Was the purpose of Hebrews, especially the first 4 verses in chapter 1, to refute private prayer language? Was it because there was an improper view of angels in the church of that day?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
FYI: All comments by “Seminary Student” in this thread have been removed, and no further comments will be allowed until the identity of this person is revealed to all. A false email address was used to gain access to this conversation. It is our belief that if a person will use a falsehood to gain entry, nothing that person has to offer in the conversation can be trusted.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Sister Debbie,
My spam word was “kindness” so I am crucifying the flesh in order to respond to you. :>)
Seriously, you have stated well that ample Scripture has been given, and I would agree that you and others make a strong case from Scripture. Brother Allan Cross is one that has presented some convincing arguments. However, it all comes back to the context of the Scripture used. No scripture given is in reference to a PPL. The only scripture listed is in the context of a PUBLIC WORSHIP SETTING Once again, that is where we are today. The issue centers around experience. This doctrine was pulled out of an experiential understanding of tongues.
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Tim,
I love the “tongues” subject. Paul was very instructive on the subject and he found “tongues” a very simple thing. In fact, he was dealing with the same issue of abuse that we deal with today in the church…..that’s the reason he has said “1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however……” the however is always overlooked by those seeking to speak in tongues.
Paul is making it clear in the section that the tongues being manufactured in Corinth were immature by nature. The tongues were by their sound and by their content, not just mere babblings, but evidenced the infantile nature of the church.
1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.
Paul is building on this same argument from a few lines earlier in the letter….
1 Corinthians 13:9-11 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; (10) but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (11) When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
Paul is simply saying, that if tongues are any different than what the Spirit has already established for the church, then you (immature Christian) misunderstand,…. you are acting like children….running around, making immature sounds that are not the real thing. It may impress your friends or make you feel better, but if I (Paul) am correct, by Apostolic authority, then I can guarantee you that you are not speaking in tongues.
It is not a new story that Paul has had his instruction or credentials questioned, ….especially by this young, immature group….
1 Corinthians 3:1-3 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. (2) I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, (3) for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
We should not make “tongues” complicated….its certainly not complicated or confusing at all!
Blessings,
Chris
February 20th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Sister Debbie,
I believe if you will look at Chapter 1 of Hebrews you will notice that the author, Dr. Allen argues for Luke, presents the case for the superiority and exclusivity of Jesus concerning salvation, creation, sanctification and His unchanging nature. As Chapter 2 begins, there is a word in that sentence that is a conjunction–”Therefore“. I have always been taught that when you see a therefore in Scripture you go back there to see what there was put there for. :>)
Looking back and understanding the purpose of the first Chapter–exclusivity, and superiority of the Savior, we move into giving more earnest heed to the doctrines the author is about to direct us and not allow them to slip. The author, which Dr. Allen argues is Luke, presents in verses 2 & 3 the dangers of allowing what has already been taught to slip. Then in verse 4 he explains that God bore witness of these Gospel messages with “signs and wonders, with divers miracles, gifts (better translated–distributions) of the Holy Ghost”
Why would that be necessary? For the simple reason the Scripture was not completed in canonical form. Today we have a complete revelation, it is called the Bible. Today, the Holy Spirit does not need to confirm a message by “signs and wonders, with divers miracles, gifts (better translated–distributions) of the Holy Ghost” because the Bible will do just well. That, my precious Sister, is the sufficiency of Scripture–on which I stand.
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Tim: I have a answer to your last comment, I believe you know that answer as it has been finely discussed by Alan Cross, Dr. McKissic and myself. But you have failed to answer what is the reason Hebrews was written. The answer is that the church of that day had a wrong view of angels, the purpose of Hebrews was to say that Christ is better than the angels because of his life, death, resurrection. He is at the right hand of God. It is not to refute the gifts. It has nothing to do with PPL or any gift. That is not the point of Hebrews. Dr. Allen is correct in that Hebrews was pointing to Christ. But to put this with an effort to refute PPl , I do agree that it would refute what Charismatics as a denomination believe. This is why I am not Charismatic. I believe in the all the gifts being active today, I would not go as far as Charismatics do on the subject. Not by a long shot. Let’s keep Hebrews in it’s proper context.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am
That should be to use this passage (only 4 verses so far) to refute PPL is to take the text away from it’s proper context.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Verse 14 tells us that angels are to minister to us and that would include today Tim. The Bible is the final authority that we should measure all experiences by. But salvation is Biblical yet it is an experience. Being filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit is something that happens to us supernaturally, it is the Holy Spirit that supernaturally translates that scripture from our brain into our hearts. None of it is under our own power, it is supposed to be supernatural. Would you agree or disagree. We study, the Holy Spirit enlightens, according to scripture. That would be considered a gift would it not? The Bible says that God endows us with gifts at the time of our salvation, does He not? This is done through the Holy Spirit. This is supernatural, not natural gifts. Preaching, teaching, mercy, etc. Should we throw all of that out? It is experience associated is it not?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
While I love to debate the intricacies of tongues, I would like to bring us back to the big picture of Dr. Allen’s sermon.
The issue is the sufficiency of scripture in light of charismatic practices. Should a “tongue” spoken or a prophetic utterance of the kind that Camp endorsed on TBN be considered as, “thus saith the Lord?”
Dr. Allen said that while we won the battle for inerrancy, we are now faced with the battle for the sufficiency of scripture. Do many of the charismatic practices tear down the truth of scripture’s sufficiency to guide the believer in all areas of life?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Debbie,
I believe you are correct about the thrust of Hebrews. It is evident in the text. It is a bit tenuous to build a case for the cessation of tongues from one verse that is not directed at a problem.
However, …I believe that Dr. Allen has said this verse is used by many to try and build a case for cessation. I not sure if that was his purpose in the message..??
On the other hand, the passage does give very good evidence to the church that “signs and wonders” accompanied the event ushering in the Messiah. This should speak to us more as prophetic confirmation than to the cessation of the Spirits gifts. These prophetic confirmations are the lifeblood of the sufficiency of scripture.
On the other, other hand….. a PPL is not what Paul is arguing about with the Corinthians.
So, I am curious if there is more to come from Dr. Allen on this subject.
Blessings,
Chris
February 20th, 2008 at 11:32 am
To All,
We have tried very hard to be as patient as we can with Seminary Student. He/She has give false email addresses at every comment. We have tried to explain that we hold anonymous comments to a more strict standard. This person has made disparaging remarks concerning people. We suggested that this person contact Robin to inform him of his/her identity. This person refuses to do just that.
Seminary Student has figured a way around our block of his/her IP address by using the seminary computers at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary to post two more Anonymous comments. One comment was a slam against Brother Wes, one of the blog administrators, for taking down his/her previous comments. If we try to block that IP address, then we block anyone using NOBTS’s computers from posting. Thus, this individual has involved an entire theological institution in his deception. It appears he/she is connected somehow to NOBTS in order to be able to access the seminary computers. We are in touch with NOBTS to inform them of this apparent deception involving their computers.
If Seminary Student persist in this deceptive practice we will probably need to moderate anonymous comments. If we move to that level and you need to post comments anonymously then we may need you to email one of us and we will post the comment, unedited, for you.
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Thanks Tim,
“Seminary Student” just needs to grow up….regardless of his or her age.
I’m an Information Technology expert and we do nasty things to guys that try those things in our networks
Blessings,
Chris
February 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Sister Debbie,
As soon as I can get this together, I will get back to you.
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Brother Chris,
Email me here at SBC Today and give me your phone #, I need some 411.
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
wow! great sermon. this ole boy can preach. why dont they ask him to preach at the pastors conference in indy? or, at the convention itself?
thanks for posting this sermon….what a blessing!
david
February 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Sister Debbie,
Sorry it has taken so long to respond. I had to do the work that pays the bills, if you know what I mean. :>)
First, as to the purpose of Hebrews, I believe you may have missed my statement; “the superiority and exclusivity of Jesus concerning salvation, creation, sanctification and His unchanging nature“.
Second, as to your questioning Dr. Allen on his hermeneutic acumen concerning Hebrews and the pulling Scripture from its context, you need to know that his dissertation dealt with the Author of Hebrews. He has devoted his life and study to the book of Hebrews. I believe his years of study trumps your commentary research on that. He has clearly defined, in his message how he arrives at this point. Did you listen to his sermon?
Third, I would agree with your discourse in your third comment as to the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives for salvation. No one is denying that we receive gifts at salvation. My direction is which gifts are available to be received. Are the sign gifts still available today? If so, where? Also, you state that you are not Charismatic because; “I believe in all the gifts being active today, I would not go as far as Charismatics do on the subject.” If all of the gifts are being active today, but you would not go as far as the Charismatics on the subject, then where do you stop with the active gifts? Are you saying that one with the gift of Apostle is not able to raise people from the dead?
I am merely trying to establish that even those who believe in the full gifts of the Holy Spirit are more tied to the experience than to the Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
February 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Tim: It’s not my commentary research, it’s what the chapter is addressing. Show me where I am wrong. It doesn’t matter how long someone has studied something if it’s wrong. Don’t you think a good sermon would be keeping the chapter in it’s proper context and not jumping around? That would be proper exegeses. I am going to echo whoever said put your seminary education down if this is what is being taught on sermon giving. You have heard the saying I am sure, reading without context is just pre-text.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I am merely trying to establish that even those who believe in the full gifts of the Holy Spirit are more tied to the experience than to the Scripture.
I realize that is what you are trying to do and I would not at all argue that this occurs.One cannot use the Bible to fit to their view, one must fit the view to scripture. Using this as my guide, do you know how many views I have had to change? More than I can count. Use scripture that would actually refute whatever it is you are trying to refute and if you can’t it may be the view that needs changing or tweaking. Let’s be people of the Bible, not just using the words to try and justify or not justify something, but let’s really preach using proper exegeses and that would include keeping it in the context in which the original authors intended. I do not see that at all in Dr. Allen’s sermon posted here.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Tim: There is not a sign gift I would not include in my statement. What I meant by I would not go as far as many Charismatics do is this: I do not see all Christians having the same gift, not all have sign gifts, sign gifts are sometimes given for a certain situation although some are permanently given. I do not believe it is a second receiving of the Holy Spirit as this comes at the time of salvation. It is not a sign of one being a Christian or not, more spiritual or not. I hope that clarifies. As for the rest of your question, I hesitate to begin again on a discussion that has been going on for two years, where scripture has been given and the whys and wheres answered. I would only be repeating what has already been given and respect this space to much to do this, unless you would insist that I do so. I would be happy to comply but my answer has not changed. As I said earlier however, it is not that I would wish to convince you other than to convince you that you would need to allow an agree to disagree on this subject. I would want to convince you that we need men such as Dwight McKissic on trustee boards, even as President of the SBC. They need not be run off or excluded. That would be the issue to me. Yet, it seems to be the one issue that no one “shoots straight” on. When the question is asked it is ignored and the doctrine debate brought in. The one question I would want a “straight shooting” answer from Dr. Allen would be are those who would disagree with him on this Southern Baptist or not, if yes, are they leadership material or not. I am just guessing but in light of the recent events at Southwestern concerning the censoring that occurred and the closed door meetings for Dr. McKissic, I would venture the answer would be no. But I could be wrong. Sorry I have rambled on gentlemen. Thank you for the dialog.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:43 am
It appears that Dr. Allen is simply saying that Hebrews is confirming the already revealed Word of God by way of the Savior Jesus Christ.
The gift of speaking in tongues has never been a “revelatory gift”, i.e. something new beyond what has already been revealed in the Word of God. The gift of tongues is, has always been, and will continue to be a “testimony” to the unbeliever concerning the revealed Jesus Christ and God’s Gospel and it is God that determines its usefulness and life expectancy. And according to God’s sufficient Word, the gifts of the Spirit do exist in the church. I believe the church on the earth today is the adopted ones that God has chosen to redeem and bring to Himself under the headship revealed in Jesus Christ. How the gifts of the Spirit operate in the church is completely dependent on God, not man. Man cannot manipulate any of the gifts no matter how much effort he or she exerts whether preaching or praying. That also means that gifts show up when God pleases and to His glory, and we should be encouraged by them not discouraged….but we should know and be able to recognize them because of the revealed and sufficient Word of God, not our experiences.
Any other attempts at the use of tongues are merely a sham. Sham’s occurred in the day of the Corinthians, sham’s occurred in the days of John Chrysostom, sham’s occurred in the days of Thomas Helwys, sham’s occurred in the days of those following Charles Finney, and they continue without delay, even today, revealed in men like Benny Hinn and others. So, what’s new? What’s new is creative new ways that we think tongues are being used “in our lives” and that type of thinking is antithetical to the revealed Word of God concerning Jesus Christ, His life and His revealed mission.
New revelation beyond God’s sufficient scripture is merely a sham and the shams are not difficult to discern, unless of course you ignore the Word of God, or you are trying to sell books, or you are more apt to follow your emotions. History rubs up against selfish endeavors all the time.
Blessings,
Chris
February 21st, 2008 at 9:42 am
Sister Debbie,
You post three back-to-back comments before I can answer one. Debating you is like drinking water from a fire hydrant. :>)
Comment #42
You may wish to critique Dr. David Allen’s ability to exegete and then do exposition of a Biblical text if you like. I, on the other hand, do not call into question a person’s ability who hold earned Doctorate degrees in linguistics and is serving as Dean of Theology, a man that is Dean of the School of Theology, Professor of Preaching, and Director of the Center for Expository Preaching at one of the world’s leading Seminaries. Also, I take from your statement; It’s not my commentary research, it’s what the chapter is addressing. Show me where I am wrong. You are ready to defend your position because you have studied the original languages of the Biblical Text in question. I am not one to advocate that we blindly follow someone in a sermon. However, Dr. Allen has taken extreme caution to present his case. Once again, Have you listened to the sermon?
Comment #43
Let’s be people of the Bible, not just using the words to try and justify or not justify something, but let’s really preach using proper exegeses and that would include keeping it in the context in which the original authors intended. I do not see that at all in Dr. Allen’s sermon posted here. What is taken out of context for Dr. Allen to address signs and wonders and divers miracles? Does one have to be in 1 Corinthians to address the gifts of the Spirit?
Comment #44
From what I have heard Brother Dwight reference as to the spiritual gifts, there is only one difference in his position and the position of most Charismatics. He has a different Pneumotology. His Pneumotology does not call for a “second blessing. That is the only difference. I believe I am reading you correct in that is what you mean when you say that you will not go as far as the Charismatics. Is that correct? (If I am not correct on that then the rest of this may need to be revised.) Having established the difference, I now respond to your statement; There is not a sign gift I would not include. Show me where a person that has the gift of Apostle has raised someone from the dead. Show me where a person with the gift of Apostle is praying over prayer clothes and people are being healed. Show me where a person with the gift of Apostle is walking around and people are being healed merely by being in their shadow.
I am not making these statements merely to be flippant. I am trying to say that by making the kind of statement you have made it leaves you open to this proof. If you cannot prove these things are happening today, because we are inerrantist when it comes to Scripture, we only have one alternative and that is we call into question the sufficiency of the Scripture.
Brother Chris,
I hate to do this, especially after how helpful you were to me on the phone yesterday, but… :>)
I am going to disagree with your statement; The gift of speaking in tongues has never been a “revelatory gift”, i.e. something new beyond what has already been revealed in the Word of God. I believe that is what they were dealing with at Corinth. Remember the cannon was not complete. All they had was the OT and portions of letters written at the time. According to Dr. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians was probably written 55/56 AD. According to Dr. Edwin Blume, 1 Peter was written 62-64 AD. Remember it was Peter that told the churches that Paul’s writings were Scripture. So, in Corinth Paul was dealing more than just a worship war. People were Speaking in tongues as revelation of scripture, and that is what Paul was dealing with. I believe that is the reason he made the statement, “forbid not to speak in tongues“, because you could be forbidding someone from giving a new revelation outside of the scriptures already in hand.
Blessings,
Tim
February 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Brother Tim, (you rascal)
I think I understand what you are saying, and there possibly could be more revelation that would be brought forward by the testimony through tongues. But the evidence has to surface.
What I am specifically referring to is the evidence of that Isaiah; and Joel; and Peter chimes in as well….
Isaiah 28:11-16 Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, (12) He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,” And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen. (13) So the word of the LORD to them will be, “Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there,” That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive. (14) Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, (15) Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we have made a pact. The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by, For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception.” (16) Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
Acts 2:16-24 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: (17) ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; (18) EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy. (19) ‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW, BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE. (20) ‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME. (21) ‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’ (22) “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know– (23) this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (24) “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
The Spirit used men to testify to the revealed Word of God that was written. This was the sign to the unbeliever. Those that believed were not surprised, Peter and the gang simply said “There it is”… “Isaiah was right” … “Joel is no sissy” … “Praise God”, not only was Jesus on target, but our Lord never contradicted His Word.
I guess I should be more cautious with the word “never”,…. However, what are any other things that tongues have revealed that we know of in scripture outside of Christ and the Gospel?
Blessings,
Chris
February 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Brother Chris,
Don’t let it bother you because Brother Robin called as soon as my comment posted and laughed at me. (I will hunt him down like the dog he is. I find it interesting that a person that takes me to Golden Corral to get a steak in Texas is laughing at my understanding of doctrine. :>) )
Seriously, Brother Robin has taken me to task as the “sign gifts” not being “revelatory gifts”. I do not want to change the comment stream here, but what do you think? Do the sign gifts only deal with signs, but not revelation?
Blessings,
Tim
February 21st, 2008 at 10:55 am
Brother Tim,
You are right… that is not a simple question to answer, and it is an important distinction to try and understand. It causes all of us to dig deep into the scriptures of both the OT and NT to bubble up its sufficiency.
I think I would probably need to express an answer in more than a “yes or no”, or a “one or the other” to avoid confusion.
My “little mind” may not be able to do it justice in this particular post. But, I’ll certainly give it more thought.
Blessings,
Chris
February 21st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Debating you is like drinking water from a fire hydrant. :>)
February 21st, 2008 at 11:52 am
Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth was written to me as well as it is to you. Would you agree or disagree?
February 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
Tim,
For the record, I did not state that all the sign gifts were not revelatory gifts. Second, for someone to want to go to a burger joint to get a steak, you have a lot of gall to condemn me for taking you to Golden Corral.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Brother Tim,
When you said “I believe that is the reason he made the statement, “forbid not to speak in tongues“, because you could be forbidding someone from giving a new revelation outside of the scriptures already in hand.”
The context in which Paul was working and teaching would contradict your finding in the Corinthian letter. Paul is not making a case for anything new; he is correcting something that exists (That’s the same mistake made by PPL supporters at this point in Paul’s letter). Paul would never forbid the proclamation of Christ and Gospel, because that was always his main message and he is admonishing the Corinthians for paying attention to their selfish desires and experiences “instead” of proclaiming Christ and the Gospel.
He approaches that fact with the Corinthians later in chapter 15……
1 Corinthians 15:1-5 “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, (2) by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. (3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4) and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (5) and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
I believe Paul’s continued instruction to these immature believers was not to reveal anything “new”. That would be odd to this highly corrective situation Paul was addressing to this Corinthian gathering; but as he concludes this part of his correction, it was to reveal what was confirmed by the Prophets, and what He was writing.
1 Corinthians 14:37-40 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. (38) But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (39) Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. (40) But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.
Blessings,
Chris
February 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Sister Debbie,
I had a great response to you and when I hit “submit comment” the wifi died. I is lost out there. I will get back to you.
Brother Robin,
I will set the record straight. I believe most Texans will agree with me that a burger from Whataburger is much better than a steak from Golden Corral. :>)
Brother Chris,
I will get back with you on your last comment.
Blessings,
Tim
February 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Gotta be kidding tim,
Even I know whataburger is some strange form of meat that probably was something else before theyc alled it “meat”.
but I have toa gree with you on your proposal of tongues having a somewhat revelatory nature.
In 1 Corinthians 14:1-5, Paul puts tongues as pretty useless UNLESS it is combined with an interpretation, which then would make it like prophesy.
1 Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, and above all that you may prophesy. 2. For the person who speaks in [another]language is not speaking to men but to God, since no one understands him; however, he speaks • mysteries in the Spirit. 3 But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement, and consolation. 4 The person who speaks in [another]language builds himself up, but he who prophesies builds up the church. 5 I wish all of you spoke in other languages, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in languages, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up.
prophecy seems to have elements of “edification, encouragement, and consolation” al within the context of speaking forth the uinknown Word of God.
Perhaps it was giving the unwritten Word of God (the incomplete New testament) in spoken format before the New Testament ws completed.
Tim.. Bro Allen’s webpage?
And I’ll gladly shout you is “whatisitinthe burger..eeeeeeeew?”
Steve
February 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Brothers Tim and Steve (and Burger Connoisseurs everywhere),
When you use “perhaps” and “could have”, those terms are less than evidence. My point was that we have evidence that the Spirit was revealing the savior and the gospel through tongues.
I too would like to think that there was a lot said in those early church meetings with the Apostles…. It would be great to know. But, what we have should be sufficient. And what we have is not based upon “perhaps” and “could have’s”.
Of course, ….I am not accusing either of you of that line of thinking, but thought it was worth the distinction.
Blessings,
Chris
February 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
mmm very understandable bro Chris, but because the statement is not made as distinctive and unequivocably clear as “Thou shalt not “, is it not safer to state something as probable when it is only probable and not definitively set forth?
Would it not be better to stay in the vein of “where scripture speaks, we speak and where scripture is silent, we are silent” and where scripture seems to indicate something to say so?
Many thanks Chris,
Steve
February 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Brother Chris,
I am behind in answering Sister Debbie and if I respond to you first, it may reveal something to our Sister that I do not want. I will respond though.
Brother Steve,
Sorry, I did address this to Dr. Allen. He is thinking of opening his own website, but has not yet. I misunderstood him in our conversation. When he gets his own website, I will make certain that you know about it.
Blessings,
Tim
February 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Sister Debbie,
Comment #51
You are correct that you can study the scriptures and come to your own conclusion. However, I am arguing your presumption that you would know better than Dr. Allen the context of this scripture being pulled out of its original intent. Notice that, regardless of how much one may object, the use of signs and wonders and divers miracles is a reference to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Also, I would never try to argue that just because you do not have the education of Dr. Allen then you do not have the right to question him. A little of my background reveals that I grew up in a home with a Daddy that had a 7th grade education. I saw him stand toe-to-toe with an OT Prof whose PhD. was from Oxford and argue with him the points of scripture that affirm Jonah was in the belly of a fish. However, you are not questioning Dr. Allen’s belief of the veracity of Scripture. You are questing Dr. Allen’s ability to exegete Scripture. Once again, note the positions that Dr. Allen holds. You do not get these positions just because of who you know. Your name may come to the top because of a recommendation, but when you are in that position you have to deliver. Dr. Allen has done so without blemish.
Blessings,
Tim
February 21st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Tim, not a problem my friend.
Steve, no doubt…and I agree with you that we can infer from scripture as much as we would like and I probably do that to often, but we should be quick to footnote the attempts.
In this circumstance with Paul correcting the Corinthians, he seems to be contextually confident to correction. I guess it could be conjectured that Paul is begging for tongues to persist so that scripture can be completed. But, I find that a little hard to harmonize with the previous 13 chapters of his letter.
At this point in my understanding, I don’t think I could preach it in that context.
Blessings,
Chris
February 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Brothers Steve and Tim,
I have been working on a project the last several years concerning all the “introductions” of the New Testament letters. I am hopefully binding it up next year in a work called “A Common Greeting”. In the greeting of the 27 books of the NT this particular subject we are discussing surfaces. It is very interesting to allow the greetings to help us catch a glimpse of motive for each of the letters.
Based upon what I have learned so far… our friend Robin may be on to something….
Blessings,
Chris
February 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Brother Chris,
Here is the basis of my argument. 1 Corinthians 14:1-4 says; 1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
Paul is speaking about edifying the church and speaking in a language without the interpretation does not edify the church. The prophecy gift is one where God speaks through the speaker. The tongues, uninterpreted, is a gift that the speaker uses to speak to God. Paul instructed them in public worship to have interpretation because it would then be beneficial for the entire church, thus in effect making it prophetic. I like the way the Bible Knowledge Commentary explains it; The context of this verse is the assembled congregation in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:2-14:40, esp. 14:4-5) in which utterance in a tongue was given without the benefit of interpretation (cf. vv. 13, 19). Apparently no native speaker of the tongue was present in the assembly (cf. vv. 10-11), and no one was given supernatural enablement to interpret it. The utterances therefore were mysteries, truths requiring a supernatural disclosure which God had not provided the Corinthians in this particular instance. As a result, the expression of tongues became an exercise in futility for the assembly as a whole, with only the speaker deriving some benefit (v. 4) in his spirit (cf. v. 14), the sentient aspect of his being (pneuma; cf. Matt. 5:3; Acts 17:16; 2 Cor. 2:13).
14:3. One with the gift of prophecy (cf. 12:10), on the other hand, spoke in the tongue of his listeners, in this case Greek, and edified them by proclaiming God’s Word in such a way that it gave them strengthening, (oikodomēn, “edification”), encouragement, (paraklēsin), and comfort (paramythian, “consolation,” used only here in the NT).
—Bible Knowledge Commentary
Some may say that I am making a leap to move tongues to prophetic utterances, but I do not believe I am. Remember, I am a cessassionist (with caution) so I do believe the purpose of tongues with interpretation has ceased.
Blessings,
Tim
February 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Brother Chris,
I agree, Robin is on something alright. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
February 21st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Tim: This is the problem I have with some preachers, I was raised on this kind of preaching. The jumping around method to come to what I would consider a pre-conceived conclusion. I am always willing to change my view based on scripture. I have done it many times, but not based on jumping around, getting away from why this book was written for example. That has a lot to do with the text. I think the passage concerning the gifts being mentioned needs to be kept in context. The reason these gifts were mentioned was because it was the angels that spoke to the prophets, it was the angels that announced Christ’s birth etc., the church Hebrews was written to was getting out of hand in the teaching and thinking of angels. This is clear because of verses 1-4 where the author is setting things up to address this. Chapter 2 deals with angels. The purpose of verses 3 and 4 is to point to the fact that Christ’s birth had been foretold by angels. There were witnesses. There have been confirmations. Christ is God, He is real, our salvation is real, what was foretold about Christ is real. He is over the angels.
This is not speaking of spiritual gifts, but of angels who miraculously and truthfully foretold Christ. This cannot be used to refute PPL, or even Charismatics. It is totally taking the passage out of its original meaning and context. That can be serious Tim. It is also a wrong way to preach the Bible, yet I realize it is a common way. It’s why so many in our pews are Bible illiterate, in my opinion. I truly mean no disrespect to Dr. Allen nor you, but wrong exegeses is wrong exegeses.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Brother Tim,
Sorry for the late response, I was busy coaching a High School Basketball City League team in our February Madness tourney in Nashville. We won 93-80, ….one more game to the finals! But here’s my response to your gracious response earlier.
Again, I see your point of basis for how tongues were operating or more appropriately “not operating” in the midst of the Corinthian church. It is possible to be even more harsh toward the expression of tongues as legitimate at all, based upon the “noisy gong and clanging cymbal”….which is really just noise not even necessarily content, whether interpreted or not as in this case being compared and referenced to love…..along with the condition of the church on a host of other problems.
The main point I was trying to make, is that edification of the body is “one thing” as Christ is proclaimed and the Gospel is corroborated through this sign provided by the Spirit. “Revelation”, on the other hand (other than what was being revealed in Christ concerning the Gospel) coming as a result of tongues is a whole “other” endeavor that would need to be substantiated by evidence somewhere within the letters. For instance, if Paul would have interpreted someone speaking in a tongue or wrote down as he was listening and disclosed this into scripture, we would have our evidence, but I just have not found that type of connection. Most of the letters were written from prison or on the road and sent to these churches. So it is very unlikely that the sign gift would be a factor in the writing. There is a dominant connection and point of evidence we receive from Joel and Isaiah concerning Christ and the Gospel, which is corroborated by Luke and Paul in their letters concerning God’s signature of His Son through tongues. This seems to be a more sure way of interpretation.
This then flows into how Hebrews is interpreted as well. Even though there is not a sure fire author identified (maybe Dr. Allen can close the gap), there is proof positive that the writer was depending upon the OT Word of God to substantiate the claims.
Hebrews 2:3-8 “how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, (4) God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. (5) For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking. (6) But one has testified somewhere, saying, “WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM? (7) “YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; (8) YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.” For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”
This salvation is not able to be neglected because the Lord spoke it, being confirmed to the church by eye witnesses, the Spirit giving testimony by signs and wonders according to Him, and it could not be refuted by unbelievers.
Ultimately the Hebrew author argues from the OT Davidic foundation, lifting Christ higher than the angels and above all! It is a bit tenuous to get cessation of God’s signature from the author’s argument which demands the exalting of His Son.
I will have to stick with Paul’s directive for tongues, even in the midst of correction.….1 Corinthians 14:21-22 “In the Law it is written, “BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME,” says the Lord. (22) So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.”
Blessings,
Chris
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Tim,
One other thing about “Tongues” and then I will step back into my cave. I believe you will find it difficult and possible dangerous to support the notion that glossolalia is the revealer of the actual words of scripture when it is not corroborated by the actual words of scripture, whether connected to the OT (i.e. demonstrated by the OT prophecy, Isaiah, Joel, Ezekiel, etc) or expressed by the writer of the NT text. Please let me know if you can find any direct corroborating evidence to “tongues” being used in this manner.
I would argue that the actual words of the scriptures were already provided so that “tongues” are understood as the sign that God provided. Prophesy makes the sign known and understandable concerning Christ. This is the main concern for the “private prayer language” phenomenon advocate and was Paul’s corrective stance at Corinth.
So as Paul has concluded,…if “tongues” were not in the context of instruction to the work of the church concerning Christ and the gospel, then they would not be classified as “tongues”.
1 Corinthians 14:27-33
Paul would go onto say “if anyone” (I think that includes anyone), and then he adds a little phrase if there are no interpreters “keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.” Paul is certainly not advocating running into a prayer closet and speaking to yourself and to God. We would understand this better today as …if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church;….so “be quiet” or “just shut up”. This flows into the next section with the same instruction to women because of similar abuse.
Fascinating subject….I’m afraid I am way beyond Dr. Allen’s take on Hebrews 2.
Blessings,
Chris
February 24th, 2008 at 12:44 am
many thanks Tim… Much appreciate your efforts and your position
Steve
February 24th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Brother Steve,
Which position of Tim’s are you referring? ( I may not have characterized this properly for Tim. )
1. That tongues are required by scripture to cease?
2. That a portion of the written word of God is a result of tongues?
One or both or neither? Or was there another position?
Thanks,
Chris
February 25th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Well bro Chris, I don’t think that books of the NT are translated tongues,
I understand the angst my position creates for you bro Chris, but please be patient with me, I learnt it from the scriptures as I grappled with the issues for over 33 years, including pastoring a charismatic church.
but I do see a position for saying that one purpose of prophecy and also of interpreted tongues was to fill the revelational vacuum for the local churches until the completion of the NT canon. At which time, the purpose of tongues as a sign to the Jews of their imminent rejection through not recognising their Messiah was made clear by the destruction of the Temple. I think tongues had a dispensational purpose, and once the purpose was completed, were no longer necessary.
I guess, yes I suppose that is called cessationism, although I would be a careful cessationist, just like bro Tim, careful because I hate getting yelled at by those whose “experience” of tongues runs counter to what I perceive in the Scriptures on the subject.
Steve
February 25th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Brother Steve,
Thank you for the kind response. I am probably the last guy alive that would despise anyone thinking that speaking in tongues have ceased. There may be hints of that in scripture, but I am sure there is ample evidence that the operation of tongues were demonstrated prominently in the day of the Apostles and some thereafter, representing a slow down if nothing else. The slowdown would seem plausible, as the work of the church continued to build a foundation and substantiate the true cornerstone in Christ. Therefore tongues would someday cease, especially at the return of our Savior.
I completely agree with you that the doctrine of Christ and the gospel was building through prophesy in the church. The gift of prophesy did not only follow tongues, but was a gift used for the very purpose you espouse, declaring the works of the Lord in inspired consistency as the church is gathered. This same thing goes on today as the Word of God is proclaimed by the gifted preachers and teachers in the church for her edification.
Thanks to both you and Tim,
Blessings,
Chris
February 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Thank you Chris for your kind and gracious response.
And yes, the decline in frequency of the true gift of tongues in the early church would certainly add weight to a cessationist position.
(I say true gift of tongues, because often some of the early false teachers such as the montanists, or the French Prophets at the time of the reformation with their local and violent millennialism claimed veracity for their beliefs by the manifestation of tongues).
Every blessing brother Chris, and wonderful to talk with you via this method.
Steve