Need help for research

[Gavin]

I am researching the different cessationist arguments that are put forth today and the scholars who endorse them.

I want to make sure that my list is somewhat complete.

It includes:

Warfield, Masters, MacArthur, Gaffin, Edgar, and a few others who have been dead for some time like Owen and Edwards.

Does anybody of know of some other cesstationists and their arguments and where I can find them?

Thanks for any info anyone has.

[Jaltus]

Those are all the big ones I can find. I'll let you know if I run across any others.

[Act9_12Out]

Gavin,

Bob Hill has written an excellent article on Tongues, the sign gifts and the revelatory gifts. I think it is posted at

www.biblicalanswers.com

If it's not, then you can e-mail him there, and he will be happy to send it to you...

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Gavin]

Thanks Jeremy, I couldn't find it, how do I find his email address?

[yxboom]

Here is a link to a number of questions regarding tongues that he addresses at BiblicalAnswers.com

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/questionsanswered/qa_tongues_signgifts_1_body.htm

As for his email just check on his member profile on TWeb :D

http://theologyweb.com/forum/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=111

[dizzle]

Dear Gavin:

I believe Kenneth Gentry is a cessationist and his works can be found maybe at www.kennethgentry.com

I will poke around also and see if I find anything else.

[Socrates]

I think the site Tongues Revisited: A Third Way (http://www.tonguesrevisited.com/) is interesting about tongues. I think his contribution is most important. The whole idea of "cessationism" v "non-cessationism" misses the point when dealing with the phenomenon. That is, before we decide whether something has ceased, we have to know what it is! And he argues that the modern charismatic phenomenon is not the Biblical glossa, so Biblical passages about whether Biblical tongues have ceased are irrelevant.

[Gavin]

Thanks everyone for their input.

Dee Dee, I couldn't seem to find anything on cessationism as Gentry's site. Rats.

Socrates, thanks for the website, that is exactly the kind of thing I am looking for. :thumb:

Incidentally, I agree that tongues should defined before cessationism can be meaningfully discussed, but I diasgree with Renton's definition of tongues as normally learned human languages based on I Cor. 14:14, the narratives of tongues-speaking in Acts, and other factors. Plus he is trying way too hard to sell his books.

Check out a full rebuttal here (http://www.christian-discovery.co.nz/Consideration/consideration.doc)

[bleedaggie]

Macarthur's book "The Charismatics" is a lot better than the revised version "Charismatic Chaos. His treatment, especially when it comes to tongues is a lot less condescending in his first work - see if you can get your hands on a copy of it.

Charles Swindoll, though not a theologian persay, did an excellent message on tongues as a part of his message series entitled "He Gave Gifts." You might check that out at insight.org

Finally, I think the guys at Netbible.com have some good stuff on their site discussing the issue of tongues, prophesy and other sign gifts. You might check it out.

[Socrates]

Socrates, thanks for the website, that is exactly the kind of thing I am looking for. No problemo.

Incidentally, I agree that tongues should defined before cessationism can be meaningfully discussed, but I diasgree with Renton's definition of tongues as normally learned human languages based on I Cor. 14:14, the narratives of tongues-speaking in Acts, and other factors.It is possible that the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 are supernaturally learned languages, contra Renton, but they are languages none the less not babbling. I also think that the diglossia explanation for Acts 2 is unnecessary, but I agree that these were normally learned normal languages spoken by the various Diaspora Jews.


Plus he is trying way too hard to sell his books. A matter of opinion. He's hardly going to become a millionaire with this book.

Check out a full rebuttal hereThat was pathetic! Sad to say, but charismatics already have their own agenda, and read their phenomena into Scripture. However, he fails to demonstrate that incomprehensible babbling has the slightest resemblance to anything in the Bible.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with translating the word glossa as language. That's what "tongue" meant in the KJV, but now it has so much baggage that it's necessary to use "language". After all, the same word clearly means normal human language elsewhere, so the translator should not pander to charismatic theology by giving it a special rendition in the "charismatic" passages. It is totally unreasonable to criticize Renton for doing what he says he will do, that is, use the NIV with the exception of rendering glossa as "language".

The following quotes from the critic's website should give you an idea of his extreme charismania:


There is strong evidence God wants every Christian to pray in tongues in their personal communion with the Lord * God also wants all to be filled with the Spirit and to prophesy.

Tongues are not a message to people * Always interprets the prayer * The indwelling Spirit praying * Wait for interpretation * Private praying in tongues requires no interpretation.

Scripture informs us that inspired tongues are not in the vernacular (English), and not in any language naturally learned, and the words are not recognised by the speaker.

[Gavin]

Dear Socrates,

yeah, that site had some problems, although I did agree with a lot of what he had to say.

I agree that tongues are not babbling, but I disagree that the tongues at Pentecost were human languages that were learned naturally.

This writer says it better than I could:
When our Lord predicted the gift of tongues (the only mention of tongues in the four Gospel records) He said, “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues” (Mark 16:17). The adjective “new” (Gr. kainos) can only mean they were going to speak in languages new to them, that is, languages they had not learned or used until that time. If I say the Russian language is “new” to me, I do not mean that I never knew there was such a language, but rather its use by me is new to me because I can neither speak it nor understand it when I hear others speak it. On the other hand the German language is not altogether “new” to me because I can both read and speak it with a small degree of understanding.

In Acts 2:4 Luke uses a different adjective when he says, “they began to speak with other tongues.” The word “other” (Gr. heteros) simply means that they spoke in languages different from the normal language they were used to. The context substantiates this. Notice the surprised reaction on the part of the hearers—“And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:7,8). Every man heard them speak in his own language (Acts 2:6). Here the word “language” is the translation of dialekto from which our word “dialect” comes. The two words glossa (tongue) and dialektos (language) are used synonymously, making it obvious that the disciples were speaking in known languages other than the language native to them. In verses 9-11 the languages are then identified. It was a miraculous phenomenon which enabled the disciples to speak in languages which they had never learned. Here in this Acts passage we have tongues-speaking in its pure and unperverted form as God gave it.

Then you have Acts 10:46 and 19:6, which seem to present those speaking in tongues as if it were a sudden and invasive and Spirit-prompted phenomenon, which goes along with this interpretation, plus the evidence in I Corinthians 14 which you admit leave open the possibility of supernaturally learned tongues.

Conclusion: I don't see any reason to force a disjunction between the tongues at Corinth and the tongues at Pentecost as supernatural and natural, respectively, when there is such evidence that in both instances it was a miraculous phenomenon.

PS - I love you sig!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Gavin:
I am researching the different cessationist arguments that are put forth today and the scholars who endorse them.

I dare not call myself a scholar, but in my undergraduate years at seminary (not so long ago) I presented two seminars for one of my classes, covering the exegesis of a portion of 1 Corinthians 14 as well as the cessationist view. They are combined into one paper at http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/theonomy/1_Corinthians.html

You may or may not find it useful.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Gavin:
I diasgree with Renton's definition of tongues as normally learned human languages based on I Cor. 14:14, the narratives of tongues-speaking in Acts, and other factors. Plus he is trying way too hard to sell his books.


LOL. Renton is a friend of mine down here in New Zealand. Rest assured, he has no great financial aspirations in this book. He wants to help people.

[George Blaisdell]

Gavin:

I agree that tongues are not babbling, but I disagree that the tongues at Pentecost were human languages that were learned naturally.

This writer says it better than I could:

Then you have Acts 10:46 and 19:6, which seem to present those speaking in tongues as if it were a sudden and invasive and Spirit-prompted phenomenon, which goes along with this interpretation, plus the evidence in I Corinthians 14 which you admit leave open the possibility of supernaturally learned tongues.

Conclusion: I don't see any reason to force a disjunction between the tongues at Corinth and the tongues at Pentecost as supernatural and natural, respectively, when there is such evidence that in both instances it was a miraculous phenomenon.

PS - I love you sig!

There is a line of understanding in my tradition, a theologoumenon as we like to call it, that understands tongues as the praying of the Holy Spirit within a believer, and that it comes forth as a development in one's praxis of prayer, when we actually acquire real prayer, when we learn, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, HOW to pray. Paul calls this prayer without ceasing, where one's life becomes so saturated in prayer, that one is praying noetically with every breath, whether awake or asleep, whether doing dishes or writing a dissertation. So that it is a prayer of silence in which the tongue indeed moves, yet very little is heard... It [this level of prayer] is beyond me at this point, so anything I might say would be but mere speculation...

There are monks on Mount Athos who [I have read about them] conduct their worship services in the silence of this praying when by themselves, but when visitors come, they pray aloud the service...

Paul tells us to be praying without ceasing, and in this to pray well past the point of being tired, and to fall asleep praying, and to wake up praying, and if awakened to be awakened in prayer, and all this is to be acquired through our utmost efforts, and then only through the grace of the Holy Spirit. So that it truely IS a spiritual gift of grace, toward which we are enjoined to strive, and is associated with Paul's injunction to "pray without ceasing".

But it is definitely NOT a bunch of people hopping around on stage flapping their arms and quacking and honking and crowing like a bunch of ducks, geese and chickens, loudly proclaiming their acquisition of the Holy Spirit...

geo

[Gavin]

George,

thanks for your thoughts. Surely you are not suggesting, are you, that speaking in tongues is simply learning to pray without ceasing? If so I strongly disagree.

The extent to which tongues was ecstatic is another question which deserves a lot of discussion. For now, suffice to say that the believers at pentecost would not have been accused of being drunk merely for speaking in other lanuages calmly and normally - nor would an unbeliever observing a church speaking in tongues conclude that they were out of their mind if tongues was merely speaking in other languages calmly and normally in I Corinthians 14:23.

[Gavin]

I dare not call myself a scholar, but in my undergraduate years at seminary (not so long ago) I presented two seminars for one of my classes, covering the exegesis of a portion of 1 Corinthians 14 as well as the cessationist view. They are combined into one paper at http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/the...orinthians.html

You may or may not find it useful.
Thanks, I just read it.

Would you be interesting in debating cessationism? You certainly have studied it a bit.

[GrayPilgrim]

I have understood the tongues of Acts 2 to be a fulfillment of the judgment of Isaiah 28, that is a sign of God's judgment against the Jews. One extreme view I have heard, I don't thinkg its correct and have never seen it in writing, is that since tongues were a sign of judgment against Jews, one will only here a real manifestation of tongues in the rpesence of Jews. It is pedantic and silly but just something I'd heard.

GP

[George Blaisdell]

Gavin writes:


> George,

> thanks for your thoughts. Surely you are not suggesting, are you, that speaking in tongues is simply learning to pray without ceasing? If so I strongly disagree.

According to this theologoumenon, it comes as a gift of the Holy Spirit in our efforts to acquire ceaseless prayer. Praying without ceasing is an acquired gift in my tradition, paradoxical as that may sound! And it is definitely NOT something that is "simply learned"... Yet must be maintained... The prayers of a righteous man availeth much... And my prayers availeth little!

> The extent to which tongues was ecstatic is another question which deserves a lot of discussion. For now, suffice to say that the believers at pentecost would not have been accused of being drunk merely for speaking in other lanuages calmly and normally -

I think the father who wrote the theologoumenon differentiated the tongues of Pentecost, which established the Church, and therefore were really extraordinary, from the speaking in tongues in the churches, as Paul describes. When you get to the stage where you are no longer praying, but the Holy Spirit prays you, and this goes on without ceasing for the rest of your life in Christ, and your life becomes in this manner bedrocked in ongoing prayer [24/7], then you had better be washing your beard in grateful tears that sorrow in your sinfulness before such a gift...

> nor would an unbeliever observing a church speaking in tongues conclude that they were out of their mind if tongues was merely speaking in other languages calmly and normally in I Corinthians 14:23.

Well, the ever ongoing inner prayer of the tongue, given by the Holy Spirit, if brought up to audible level, would not be comprehensible, I should imagine, to those not so gifted. Assuming the Church all had the gift, that should not be all that much of a problem, but I think Paul's point here is that this is not the work of the Church, to get together with everyone speaking in tongues, but instead is more toward good order... Just as everyone should not be talking at once... Yet prophesy by all is good for the unbeliever, yes? Bringing him to belief?

It is a difficult passage, Gavin... And a difficult topic... And the practice fell away in the Church, and all that now is left is noetic prayer without ceasing, which is ascertainably a gift of the Holy Spirit, as is all righteous prayer...

geo

[Gavin]

I have understood the tongues of Acts 2 to be a fulfillment of the judgment of Isaiah 28, that is a sign of God's judgment against the Jews. One extreme view I have heard, I don't thinkg its correct and have never seen it in writing, is that since tongues were a sign of judgment against Jews, one will only here a real manifestation of tongues in the rpesence of Jews. It is pedantic and silly but just something I'd heard.

GP
I have seen the same view in writing, even from respected (though dogmatic) scholars. It is actually fairly common, although silly and pedantic, as you say.

[Gavin]

George - are there any Scriptures where tongues is equated to ceaseless prayer, either by direct statement or by implication?

Maybe I will get a better sense of your view when you answer this.

[George Blaisdell]

Gavin asks:


> George - are there any Scriptures where tongues is equated to ceaseless prayer, either by direct statement or by implication?

No - And that is the difficulty.

> Maybe I will get a better sense of your view when you answer this.

The theologoumenon comes from a monk on Mount Athos in response to an enquirer with a Pentecostal Protestant background. It was writtn up in a book that I read, which I just re-located, titled: In Peace Let Us Pray to the Lord, An Orthodox Interpretation of the Gifts of the Spirit, by Fr. Alexis [Trader], Monastery of Karakallou, Mount Athos, Greece, and published by Regina Orthodox Press. [ http://www.reginaorthdoxpress.com ]

Chapter 3 section 3 is titled Kinds of Tongues in Corinthians and other Pauline Epistles and begins by quoting Galatians 4:6 "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

"In Corinth, the gift of kinds of tongues referred to the kinds of prayers and psalms from the Old Testament offered up silently by the tongue in the heart through the Holy Spirit as Saint Paul clearly describes it in 1Cor14:17: "I will pray *with the Spirit*, but I will also pray with the mind. I will *sing songs with the Spirit*, but I will also sing psalms with the mind." When the prayers and psalms are transferred by the fear of God [which is the first gift leading to repentance] from the reason to the spirit or inner man or heart, man's personality begins to be healed, he enters the stage of repentance, his heart is gradually emptied of both good thoughts and bad, .... By speaking in tongues, this silent prayer "with the spirit", the Corinthians were simply following the Lord's advice: "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret."...

I cannot type the whole book for you, but this should give you an idea of its direction and tone...

geo

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Gavin:

I have seen the same view in writing, even from respected (though dogmatic) scholars. It is actually fairly common, although silly and pedantic, as you say.

Silly? Pedantic? Whether the position you are referring to is right or wrong, is this really the way to comment on it? Just imagine if someone rejected the Pentecostal view of speaking in "tongues" because it is loopy and awkward. Would you conisder it a reasonable criticism, or just an affront?

What *about* the arguments you refer to is pendantic (not just incorrect, but actualy *pedantic*)?

Theonomy

[GrayPilgrim]

I called it pedantic because of the tenuous logic that the view employs.


In Isaiah 28 Tongues are a sign of judgment
That Judgment was against the rulers and priests
The Rulers and priests were Jews
Acts 2 employs toungues
Acts 2 was a message of judgment
Jews were present
All legitiamte glossalia are a sign of judgment against the Jews

Therefore a Jew must be present for the glossalia to be leigitmate.


It takes this torortured logic to make this argument. I call it pedantic because these assumptions take might big leaps at places. Besides think about 5 for a minute, was not Peter's message a sign of hope and a proclamtion of the Good News, to see it only as a sign of judgment is a little silly.

GP

[Gavin]

> George - are there any Scriptures where tongues is equated to ceaseless prayer, either by direct statement or by implication?

No - And that is the difficulty.
Well, at least you admit it.:hrm:
Silly? Pedantic? Whether the position you are referring to is right or wrong, is this really the way to comment on it? Just imagine if someone rejected the Pentecostal view of speaking in "tongues" because it is loopy and awkward. Would you conisder it a reasonable criticism, or just an affront?

What *about* the arguments you refer to is pendantic (not just incorrect, but actualy *pedantic*)?
I am not sure if you understood, I was agreeing with GP in his assessment of the argument. I think the primary adjective I would use to describe the argument is "reductionistic", although I would say it is pedantic as well, for reasons slightly different than the ones GP gave, although along the same lines.

It takes one verse and follows, to the exclusion of all other evidence a rather dubious course of reasoning in order to make tongues illegimate unless they are a sign to unbelieving Israel. I guess GP critiqued better than I could.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Gavin,
I remember J.I. Packer saying that, while he believed tongues were being used of God to renew his church, they still were not the same phenomenon as that described in the NT. I think he devotes some space to the discussion in Keeping In Step with the Spirit, or some such title.

Also, though there may be some problems with Geo's citation, I think it becomes interesting to compare the contemporary tongues phenomenon with other mystical practices, especially if Packer's perspective has any clout. The Charismatic movement involves all kind of phenomena besides tongues, and one could well analyze these as mystical phenomena, in comparison with contemplation, mental prayer, hesychasm, visions, and the kataphatic/apophatic approaches, etc. It would be legitimate to see charismatic phenomena against the historic backdrop of Christian spirituality. It would also be illuminating to treat the writings of the charismatics as part of a mystical genre under the rubric of historical theology.

Personally, I think cessationism is on shaky ground, but I also see a lot of emotionalism and fantasy masquerading as spirituality these days, as we've said before.

[Socrates]

Pereynol:
I remember J.I. Packer saying that, while he believed tongues were being used of God to renew his church, they still were not the same phenomenon as that described in the NT. Renton's book mentions this. And he is rightly appalled at Packer's departure from Sola Scriptura. Surely the only thing to assess the validity of a practice that's claimed to be a Biblical phenomenon is whether it is a Biblical phenomenon, not this subjectivist nonsense.

Personally, I think cessationism is on shaky ground, but I also see a lot of emotionalism and fantasy masquerading as spirituality these days, as we've said before.As I mentioned above, "cessationism" is a non-issue until we define what has or has not ceased. As you say, the modern charismatic phenomenon is not in the Bible and has a lot of emotionalism.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Socrates:
Renton's book mentions this. And he is rightly appalled at Packer's departure from Sola Scriptura. Surely the only thing to assess the validity of a practice that's claimed to be a Biblical phenomenon is whether it is a Biblical phenomenon, not this subjectivist nonsense.

If a phenomenon claims to be biblical, then that claim should be evaluated in light of the scriptures. Yet, most often, the results of such an evaluation become inconclusive, as conclusions are drawn across sectarian lines. Moreover, even if one concludes a phenomenon is not exactly the same as a biblical phenomenon, it would not be impossible for it to be a new work of God's Spirit in fact. I think this is the root of Packer's position, "subjectivist nonsense" aside. The question must after all be asked, Have we the authority or the basis to declare that God cannot manifest himself in new ways apart from past scriptural manifestations?

Further, the historic theological study of mysticism and spirituality remains helpful, even if one selectively rejects particular phenomena, or even the bulk of phenomena so considered.


As I mentioned above, "cessationism" is a non-issue until we define what has or has not ceased. As you say, the modern charismatic phenomenon is not in the Bible and has a lot of emotionalism.

Actually, I was alluding to a prior conversation I had with Gavin, which remains entirely independent of your desire for definitional clarity here, although I do sympathize will all such calls for clarity. It certainly isn't illegitimate for me to speak of cessationism offhand, because it is a pretty well defined doctrinal issue whose circumscribed parameters can be addressed intelligently. For you to call it a "non-issue" until it is clarified on this forum is a little out of place, IMHO, especially in light of the fact that my remarks were pretty tame. After all, I'm just responding to a simple "help with research" question. :wink:

(I do think you're a good guy, Socrates, and I have appreciated your contributions to these boards!)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

GrayPilgrim:
I called it pedantic because of the tenuous logic that the view employs.


In Isaiah 28 Tongues are a sign of judgment
That Judgment was against the rulers and priests
The Rulers and priests were Jews
Acts 2 employs toungues
Acts 2 was a message of judgment
Jews were present
All legitiamte glossalia are a sign of judgment against the Jews

Therefore a Jew must be present for the glossalia to be leigitmate.

It takes this torortured logic to make this argument. I call it pedantic because these assumptions take might big leaps at places. Besides think about 5 for a minute, was not Peter's message a sign of hope and a proclamtion of the Good News, to see it only as a sign of judgment is a little silly.

GP

Firstly, who says that there was nothing other than judgement on the Jews invoilved in Peter's preaching? No on that I know of. Given this fact, what makes it silly?

I cannot shake the impression you're creating a charicature.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

GrayPilgrim:
Therefore a Jew must be present for the glossalia to be leigitmate.


Can you cite an example of a cessationist writer (preferably one we've heard of) who argues that there needs to be a Jewish person present when tongues were spoken in order for them to be legitimate? Just one or two will be sufficient.

[GrayPilgrim]

Gavin said that he had seen this view in writing. Like I said orignally I have not seen this in writing. I've only heard it in a sermon, so we'll have to wait on Gavin.

[Gavin]

OK, I will give you some quotes, but my books are at home. Later this afternoon.

[Gavin]

Can you cite an example of a cessationist writer (preferably one we've heard of) who argues that there needs to be a Jewish person present when tongues were spoken in order for them to be legitimate? Just one or two will be sufficient.
I would say that a majority of the cessationists that I have read use some version of the "tongues as a sign to Israel" argument which I was referring to.

Here is Lee Irons summarizing Richard Gaffin's argument:

Paul states that tongues as tongues (that is, apart from their revelational content when interpreted) were given as a sign of God's judgment against unbelievers (I Cor. 14:20-22).
In a way analogous to Jesus' parables (Mark 4:12), tongues were given primarily (but not exclusively) to harden Israel in unbelief. This function "is bound up inseparably with the decisive transition from old to new and final in covenant history, a transition which issues in the founding of the church." (Gaffin, p. 107)
Characteristic of the NT's use of the OT, Paul's citation of Isaiah 28:11-12 intentionally brings to mind the broader context of Isaiah 28, particularly, v. 16 ("Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed"). "In the NT this verse is prominent in the church-house passages; it is quoted in I Peter 2:6 (cf. v. 4) and evidently underlies the imagery of Ephesians 2:20 (cf. I Cor. 3:11). Christ as the church's foundation is the fulfillment of this prophecy. But it is also cited in Romans 9:33 (cf. 10:11), where it is applied to the offense taken by unbelieving Israel (cf. 9:31f) at Christ and the gospel. The judgment on Judah foretold by Isaiah, including God's alien speech, is fulfilled by the foundation-laying realized in Christ and the apostles (and prophets). The time of God's (once-for-all) activity of laying a foundation in Zion is also the time of terminal judgment on the unbelief in Zion provoked by that activity." (Gaffin, p. 108)
"Within this larger framework of prophecy and fulfillment, then, Paul's point in I Corinthians 14:21f is that tongues are the sign of God's judgment at the inauguration of the new covenant and the founding of the church. Tongues are the sign correlative with this (foundation-laying) activity which occasions (primarily Jewish) unbelief and the eschatological judgment attendant on it."
While we should not restrict tongues as a sign exclusively to unbelieving Jews (since I Cor. 14:22 seems to apply it to all unbelievers), it remains true that it was specifically Jewish unbelief that led to the abrogation of the old covenant order and the establishment of a new covenant foundation. Besides, we know from Acts 18:1-17 that Jewish opposition to the Gentile mission was quite strong in Corinth.
"It should not be overlooked that, whatever the significance of tongues as a sign, Paul clearly teaches that this function as a sign is an integral characteristic of tongues, present wherever the gift is exercised." (Gaffin, p. 109)
Therefore, since tongues as a sign belonged to a transitional period of redemptive history when the old Israel was being rejected and the new Israel was being founded, they are no longer needed today.
Note that Gaffin (and thus Irons), to their credit, do aknowledge that tongues may have served other purposes other than a sign gift. Nevertheless they do hold that a sign gift to unbelieving Israel was its primary purpose, and use this to prove its cessation.

Here is David Brown:
The only passage in Scripture where the purpose of tongues is declared is in I Corinthians 14:21, where it is plainly stated that tongues was given as a sign for unbelievers. In discussing the purpose, Paul refers to an Old Testament passage, Isaiah 28:11 ("For with stammering lips and another tongue will I speak to this people."). The context of Isaiah 28 reveals that this passage deals with divine judgment upon the nation of Israel. Israel is pictured as a proud (28:1), rebellious, adulterous, drunken nation (28:7-8) which refused to hear the plain instruction of the Hebrew prophets in the Jews’ native tongue. Since they refused to hear the warning in their own language, God declared that he would send another nation whose tongue-language was unintelligible (unknown) to the Israelites, the tongue of the Assyrian conquerors! The unbelieving Jews refused to listen to both warnings: the Hebrew prophets in their own language and the foreign tongue of the Assyrians.

In I Corinthians 14, God indicated that he was going to give his chosen people another opportunity to prepare for coming judgment which had already been pronounced upon Jerusalem and the Hebrew nation for its rejection of the Messiah. Jews scattered across the face of the Roman Empire were given an extended opportunity to repent. The message of tongues was simple: tongues was given as a sign to the unbelieving Jew, a message designed to produce repentance in view of the impending national judgment. In 70 A.D. judgment fell upon Jerusalem under the hand of the despotic Roman emperor Nero, as the city was burned to the ground and left desolate.


Another site:

Key Question: Are tongues for today?
Answer: NO, there is no longer any need for tongues today. Here are some reasons why we believe that tongues are not for today.

Because speaking in tongues was a sign gift in another sense. It was a sign of judgment to unbelieving Israel.
1 Cor. 14:21,22 - Isaiah 28:11,12
another:
I do believe that Paul is quoting Isaiah 28:11 here in , 1Cor.14:21" In the law it is written, "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.",
1Cor. 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe",
These verses are clear that tongues purpose was as a sign to THIS PEOPLE.

We must ask ourselves who is....."THIS PEOPLE " and what kind of sign was it ?

The "law" was given to Israel.This people is ISRAEL.

another:

In the context of the above passage, the words "this people" are a reference to the nation of Israel, and do not include Uncircumcised Gentiles. Therefore, in this passage, the Lord promised to use tongues as an instrument through which He would speak to the children of Israel. In spite of this, the prophet continues, the Lord's people (Israel) would not hear Him.

It is therefore important to realize that the Lord promised to speak to Israel alone with tongues, and Uncircumcised Gentiles were not included in this promise. As a result, "this people" (Israel) would be those who not hear. The apostle Paul also quotes this prophecy of Isaiah, in order to explain the purpose for the gift of tongues, in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 -

21: In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22: Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

The context of this passage must remain the same as that of Isaiah 28, from which the quotation is taken; otherwise, Paul would be guilty of taking Isaiah's prophecy out of its context. Here in 1 Cor.14:21, Paul quotes Isaiah's prophecy that the Lord would speak to Israel with men of other tongues; yet they would not hear. In verse 22, he also states that tongues were for a sign to "them that believe not", which is a direct reference to those who would not hear in verse 21 (unbelieving Israel). As a result, we can only conclude that when Paul states that tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, he must be referring to unbelievers in Israel (not unbelieving Gentiles, as some churches would have us to think). After all, even though a small number of individual Israelites did believe, the nation of Israel did not. This is the context of the passage in Isaiah; therefore, this must also be the context of the passage in 1 Cor.14:21-22, as well. If, in fact, we were to attempt to make this passage mean that tongues are for a sign to "Gentiles" that believe not, we would indeed be guilty of taking the passage out of its context.
There are many others, it would be impossible to quote them all. MacArthur uses this argument, too, in his book on the subject.

Just do a google search for "tongues ceased sign unbelieving Israel" or something like that and you will find more articles on it than you would care to read in a lifetime.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Gavin:
Just do a google search for "tongues ceased sign unbelieving Israel" or something like that and you will find more articles on it than you would care to read in a lifetime.

I'm aware of that. But what about my specific question? I realise you're not the one who claimed that anyone taught that a Jew needed to be present on each occassion for tongues to be valid (that was GrayPilgrim's claim), so it may be that you don't have any examples of people writing that. I'm familiar with the position you refer to, but I've never heard anyone argue what GrayPilgrim claims people argue.

As far as tongues being a sign to unbelieving Israel, I am of the view that no exegetical treatment that ends up denying this fact is really paying attention to all the relevant biblical data. I myself argue that this is the case at http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/theonomy/1_Corinthians.html

Like the authors you refer to, I would agree that what is said in tongues certainly achieves more than this.

Blessings

Glenn

[Gavin]

Thanks Glenn,

I was thinking that GP's claim about a Jew being present would follow from, or is at least related to, the idea that they are a sign for unbelieving Israel.

But I don't have any cites that put it just like that: "a jew needs to be present".

Thanks again.

[Gavin]

bump

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Does anybody of know of some other cesstationists and their arguments and where I can find them?

Aahhhh.....A man after my own heart......reading the opposition. Good for you.

I know you know where Wallace's site is. You'll find his comments there. :thumbdown:

I would say that a majority of the cessationists that I have read use some version of the "tongues as a sign to Israel" argument which I was referring to.

And how do they fit that in with Paul's comments to the Corinthians?
:no:

[Arminian]

I have understood the tongues of Acts 2 to be a fulfillment of the judgment of Isaiah 28, that is a sign of God's judgment against the Jews.

BT (Biblical Theology) theologians tend to see Acts 2 as the reversal of Babble. The nations are now united, the kingdom is upon us, the Spirit of Life, and so on.... :yipee:

[Gavin]

Aahhhh.....A man after my own heart......reading the opposition. Good for you.

I know you know where Wallace's site is. You'll find his comments there. :thumbdown:
Which one was Wallace's again?:huh:

[Arminian]

Which one was Wallace's again?

I could search for it, but I'm too lazy. You once posted a link to an article against corporate election which was his, so I know you've found it in the past.

[John Reece]

Dee Dee, I couldn't seem to find anything on cessationism as Gentry's site
I exchanged a number of letters with Gentry and Bahnsen on the subject of their cessationism in 1990 and 1991.

I don't have much in the way of records or memory resulting from those exchanges, except that they both shared the presupposition that all the New Testament pneumatika (the subject of 1 Corinthians 12-14) were abrogated by God as of AD 70.

If my memory isn't playing any tricks on me, they both argued that the purpose of the gifts was to produce the New Testament, which they regarded as the meaning of to teleion ("that which is perfect") in 1 Corinthians 13:10. The only other exegetical argument (that I recall) is that they made much of 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, which they interpreted as meaning that God's only purpose for the manifestation of speaking in tongues was as a witness to the Jews prior to AD 70.

Again, my memory is not very clear, and my records have been dispersed by periodic discarding of things I have not had room to store in my little cottage in the woods.

Ah! I just found a letter from Gentry in which he writes the following (re his views re charismatic gifts):

"I hope you will try to check out my The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Reformed Response to Wayne Grudem when it comes out in its second -- new and improved! -- edition this April [1990 - JR] (the Lord willing). I attempt to deal with the biblical text forthrightly."

[John Reece]

Gavin,

In case you read my last post before I edited in the following addition, I'm re-posting it below so you won't miss the reference to a published version of Gentry's views:

I just found a letter from Gentry in which he writes the following (re his views re charismatic gifts):

"I hope you will try to check out my The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Reformed Response to Wayne Grudem when it comes out in its second -- new and improved! -- edition this April [1990 - JR] (the Lord willing). I attempt to deal with the biblical text forthrightly."

[Gavin]

The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Reformed Response to Wayne Grudem

oooh perfect! Thanks a lot John. :thumb:

[John Reece]

You're very welcome, Gavin.

I hope the book has what you are looking for. I never got around to buying or reading it, so I don't know whether or not Gentry deals with cessationism therein the way he did with me in private correspondence.

[Gavin]

well, as long as he deals with Grudem, it will be very relevant to my studies. And cessationism almost always comes up one way or the other.:fight: