Coming from the other side....
Catez has brought the gauntlet to Intellectuelle. And I pick it up; sometimes you don't go looking for trouble - it finds you.
This is an old issue for me, and a personal one. For me, it dates back to my conversion experience and the Church that God decided to lead me into. I don't think the Lord had in mind, specifically, to hone my warrior instincts.... I don't think it was His intention that I immediately enter the fray of cessationism versus continuation. No, I rather think He took me along that path to introduce me to the importance of baptism at conversion rather than infant baptism. Although, that, too, is a contentious topic of debate. But God isn't interested so much in our carnal contentions as He is in the growth of the soul in Christ.
I haven't had to deal with these debates for a long time -except in internet venues, and indeed shied away from them as debate in real life, placing the conversation purely in witness form: "This is what the Lord has done for me" . But there are times to stand ground... and this is one of those times.
First, I dislike this placed in the black and white form: "is tongues of God or not?" Like it or not, that is exactly how it often articulated for people. Any time the topic comes up, I think Christians should be aware of that... it is an old argument and carries alot of baggage with it. Implied within, "is it for today, or has it ceased" is the conclusion that if it is not given by God today then the manifestation today must come from another source. You-know-who. And I don't have to outline where that thinking leads concerning the state of fellow Christians who claim to have the experience. 'Delusion' is the kindest term. So I think we need to consider our judgments on the matter. Just what are we saying?
I have put my thoughts out in the debate in the past year or so, if you are interested in reading my posts:
Is The Holy Spirit Baptism and Gifting Still For Today?
“Where now is the LORD, the God of Elijah?”
Continuing Continualist Continuation
why is it personal?
So what was that early conversion experience? I was seeking a personal relationship with Jesus Christ with a simple "come into my heart" prayer, and one night awoke with the answer along with the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the attendent "speaking in tongues". I didn't know it was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I didn't have any idea of the pentecostal idea of "speaking in tongues" ; I only knew that I had met the Lord and my soul was completely converted. Unequivocably and irrevocably.
The next challenge the Lord had for me was rejoining Church.... which turned out to be a church strongly convinced of the necessity of baptism, and as strongly opposed to tongues for today. The point for you reading here is that in the moves of God, which I was part of, this was not uncommon.
There were many like me who weren't taught to seek experiences and received them in a mass move of revival. I had no human influences... I had no preconceptions- unless you count my Presbyterian catechism at time of confirmation, with the picture of little flames depicted as hovering over the heads of biblically dressed figures... but God's answer to my seeking was this experience. And in those days of general outpouring known sometimes as "The Jesus Freak Movement" it happened thoughout denominations and in unchurched segments of society. It just happened! and books were written and sermons preached on what it was, but it birthed many Christians who are faithful to this day. Thank God, it also held the power, dunamis, to keep me growing in the faith when I faced the opposition of Christians who'd rather feel in control of what God allows and does not.
And that is the problem with alot of Christian debate: too many times we judge what God's gospel of salvation should look like and what it should include. We translate that to what the converts to Christ should look like and who gets included. And we never see the unabashed arrogance of that. At least, not when it is our point that needs to be pressed.
I quote from Adrian Warnocks post:" I long for a time when the recognition of the need for a real experience of the Spirit drives us away from both sterile formal religion and an excessive emphasis on tongues - which is, after all, only one of the gifts of the Spirit."
Absolutely.
But it is one... and tied with evidence of the real experience of the Spirit taking place.
answering the specifics
Libby is quoted:"Could it not just be that God hasn't given them the gift at all, because that particular gift is no longer appropriate?
An analogy - My children may well ask me for babyfood when they are 11. I'm not going to give them a snake instead, that's for sure, but I won't be feeding them babyrice, either, because it's a foundational food that they just don't have a need for anymore."
The difficulty with the analogy is that the only real difference between "big people" food and baby food is that baby food is ground up rather finely and introduced slowly... not any fundamental difference in what food is eaten, just in how it is prepared. The Biblical analogy is between infant milk and meat, with reference to levels of teaching- not less teaching or no teaching, but moving on to better assimilation of what God wants us to understand.
I'm sure this is an attempt to refer back to 1 Corinthians 13:8 in saying we have no need. But as I have argued elsewhere, our need for some of these gifts may seem diminished in Western civilations where Christianity has long been resident, but we cannot presume that to be true everywhere at this time. There are places as unfamiliar with the gospel as those in the early church times. But the basic question remains: on what scriptural basis would we judge the gifts as no longer appropriate? What test does God give to assess this? I venture, none. It is arbitrarily judged and usually simply on the basis of what the judge is familiar with, in experience and teaching.
And even if we seem to need the gifts less in Western cultures, I would debate that assumption as well. Just because we don't perceive need doesn't mean we are correct. The message to the church of Laodicia is evidence of that fact, a message with no little parallels to our own churches.
"Luke 11. You make a confusing argument there."
In the context of what Adrian was saying, aren't the comments following calling into question the veracity of millions of believers, many of them proven through years of faithfulness? Is the idea that they were somehow mistaken that God had given this gift when they practice it regularly?
This is a very large problem for the cessationists, not in the argument, but in the logical conclusions to make about fellow, faithful, Christians. Christians they would agree with on every point but this. It is the same logic that many Christians must use in the weight they have given to certain aspects of doctrine. The Catholics toward Protestants, the Protestants toward Catholics,etc.
Here are the facts: not every one is right about every doctrine all the time. Some of us are wrong in how we understand scripture, so what is the solution?
That instead of fighting over which is the right way to believe, we encourage all to seek more of Jesus Christ, to have more power to live godly lives, to be more filled with the Spirit, to work more of the ordained works of God, to pursue the goals of spreading the gospel throughout the earth and -in the end- hearing "well done" from the only One that matters.
Am I saying we shouldn't discuss and debate? Or that we won't have real contentions? No, but I am cautioning against extrapolating the platforms too far. It is plain that manifestation of the gift of tongues is not necessary to or evidence of salvation. It ought to also be obvious that it isn't outside the Christian experience.
.... and I will submit that speaking in tongues is an incredibly useful gift for those who receive it. It builds up my spirit,even though I don't understand how. I highly recommend seeking all the gifts that one can possibly receive from God.
But no matter where we are in discussing the debate we can understand that our basic test of whether we are Christian and whether led by the Spirit is what we know of Jesus Christ. Who do we say He is? That should be the overriding issue in all our conversations.
In the end it doesn't matter what we'd rather have or rather do in God's Kingdom, but giving ourselves to what The Lord has for us. He is simply the only one who sees the whole picture, and I think in many of our debates we tend to forget that. Perhaps this is an emotional appeal, when a reasoned debate is desired, but there have been reams of reasoned debates when sometimes what is needed is true desire to reconcile and keep the fellowship of the faith. Sometimes, I myself have been slow to see that, and mistook it for compromise. But I think of how often Paul used the word, "beseech" and how highly he recommended keeping peace and unity in our common faith, and I feel this is what is called for when looking at these contested scriptures. I feel Adrian Warnock was so successful in doing that in his post. And I'm glad it is being discussed, but there is whole segment of Christians who have been hurt by the deployment of some of the arguments. Because not everyone has been so even handed and kind. And so it gets back to that.... what does it matter if I speak in the tongues of angels if I don't show love?
