The Spirit — Cont.
Note: The following is an adaptation of a research paper I wrote during the pursuit of my Master’s Degree at Criswell College in 2019.
“Don’t stifle the Spirit.”
This four word command from 1 Thessalonians 5:19 is deceptively difficult to obey in churches today. Other translations such as the ESV and KJV use the word “quench” in place of “stifle”, but the idea remains consistent: we are not to cover up, hush, or dismiss the works of the Holy Spirit. Individually, we can stifle the Spirit through sin. Corporately, churches can neglect teaching about the Holy Spirit or diminish his role in the life of the church. There are many ways to stifle the Holy Spirit, but in this context, we’re primarily concerned with the ongoing discussion regarding cessationism and continuationism.
Each side of the debate believes that to have the proper perspective on the work of the Spirit. Cessationists state that in general, some of the more miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased after the age of the apostles and are therefore not normative for churches today. Continuationists on the other hand assert that nothing has changed and that spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and miracles should be expected in the modern church. Personally, I argue that the spiritual gifts of tongues, miracles, and prophecy have not ceased from the church today. However, the occasion for their usage, particularly in the western church, has narrowed over the years.
Within the following parts of this post, we will first define each gift individually. Next, we will examine the purposes of each gift as referenced within scripture. In the next section, we will discuss the potential occasions for their usage in the modern church. Finally, after examining the textual context, research, and references, we will discuss the findings in the conclusion.
Part 1 — The Gifts Defined
Before addressing the arguments for or against either cessationism or continuationism, it is important to lay the foundation of the discussion by defining key terms. In this case, spiritual gifts must be properly defined. It will hardly be fruitful to theorize about occasion unless we know the purpose, and we can’t know the purpose without first knowing what each of the gifts in question are specifically.
Unlike the fruits of the spirit (Gal. 5:22–23), spiritual gifts given to the church by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edifying the church. While every believer is expected to exhibit the fruit of the spirit, no believer will possess every spiritual gift. 1 Corinthians 12:8–10, Romans 12:6–8 and to a degree Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Peter 4:11 are key passages that outline potential spiritual gifts for believers. The lists in Corinthians and Romans are the longest and differ quite a bit (only sharing the gift of prophecy in common). In 1 Corinthians 12:8–10 we read about the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing spirits, kinds of languages or tongues, and the interpretation of languages. Romans 12:6–8 lists prophecy, service, teaching, exhorting, giving, leading, and mercy as spiritual gifts.
The focus this post is on the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and miracles. Given this scope, the list in 1 Corinthians will be our primary source as it details each of the contested gifts. However, attention will be given to the mention of prophecy within Romans. Though there are some differences of opinion regarding the definitions of these gifts, I will endeavor to take these perspectives into account at each stage. Of the gifts we will discuss, the gift of tongues is perhaps the most controversial and will therefore be addressed first.
Speaking in Tongues
Regardless of one’s position on continuationism or cessationism, the gift of tongues or languages can typically be defined in one of two ways. One interpretation is aptly described by Nathan Busenitz in his work “ Are Tongues Real Foreign Languages?: A Response to Four Continuationist Arguments” as,
“the miraculous ability to speak fluently in genuine foreign languages that were previously unknown to the speaker.”
In support of this view is the account of Pentecost in Acts 2, specifically verse 4 and 6:
“Then they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages, as the Spirit gave them ability for speech… a crowd came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.”
It is clear that in this event, the Holy Spirit enabled some select Christians to speak other languages without the need of an interpreter. Not only did this help communicate the gospel to a wide variety of listeners at Pentecost, but it also served to validate the testimony of the speakers. Theologians such as John Calvin therefore have made the claim that the gift of tongues is best defined using the Acts example of foreign languages being miraculously spoken.
In further defense of this view, proponents argue that the gift described in Corinthians is identical to the miracle at Pentecost. Evidence for this can be found in comparing the language used in Corinthians and Acts. In examining the original language and the context of the word “glossa” in Corinthians, Acts, and other contemporary literature, Busenitz notes that the word is never used to refer to ecstatic linguistic phenomenon, but rather always refers to known languages.
Additionally, interpretation is closely associated with the gift in Corinthians, which may highlight the idea that these languages can and should be interpreted. Finally, Busenitz and others like him would argue that proper hermeneutic practice is to rely on the clearer passages to explain the less clear ones. Since Acts 2 is clear in intimating what happened and how, we should rely on it to clarify the debatable aspects of 1 Corinthians.
On the other side of the debate are those who claim the tongues spoken of in Acts 2 and Corinthians 12–14 should not be equated with one another. Instead, the tongues in 1 Corinthians are, as Millard Erickson defines,
“Utterances of apparently unrelated syllables and therefore do not display the characteristics of any known human language.”
Due to the need for interpreters and a specific gifting of interpretation, some theologians interpret tongues in 1 Corinthians as ecstatic language.
Primary support for this viewpoint comes from Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 12–14. As previously stated, he mentions both the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues. Additionally, in chapter 14, Paul discusses the proper usage of the gifts within the church. While this will be discussed further later in this post, some of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 14 may indicate that the languages were not of human origin.
“Therefore, if the whole church assembles together and all are speaking in other languages and people who are uninformed or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” — 1 Corinthians 14:23
This verse seems to indicate that supernatural translation would be needed to understand such events.
Having examined the two main perspectives, what conclusions can we come to regarding a proper definition? Both camps appear equally convinced of their own evidence. I believe that the linguistic support of the first viewpoint is compelling. However, as Vern Poythress notes in his essay, The Boundaries of the Gift of Tongues: With Implications for Cessationism and Continuationism it can be difficult to discuss this concept due in part to its very label, “Speaking in Tongues.” Such a label can make it difficult to distinguish between the modern phenomenon in charismatic churches, and the actual events of the New Testament. In an effort not to prejudge, Poythress suggests using the label “Free Vocalization” instead. Poythress describes this term as,
“the human act of producing a stream of vocal sounds, subject to two conditions: (1) to a naive listener the stream sounds something like a foreign language; and (2) the speaker himself cannot identify or understand words or larger linguistic units within the stream.”
Using this label, we are no longer equating the modern idea with the accounts of the New Testament. Additionally, it allows for both interpretations to be accounted for in a fairly equal way.
We can therefore state that the Free Vocalization described in the New Testament appears to be a supernatural gift of communication from the Holy Spirit that requires an interpreter whether they be a native speaker (as in the case of Acts 2:4–6) or a supernaturally gifted interpreter (as in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 14:27). Under this definition, we are not required to affirm or deny either viewpoint. Given the subjective nature of the modern expression of speaking in tongues and the wording of 1 Corinthians 14, it is difficult to authoritatively state that these tongues only included known languages. Either way, interpretation is required for this gift to be used within the church.
Prophecy
As previously noted, between the lists of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, the one gift that both lists have in common is the gift of prophecy. While the modern idea of prophecy and prophets can conjure up images of a human receiving visions of the future, we see a different example in the New Testament. Douglas Moo provides the following definition,
“The gift of prophecy in the New Testament involves aiding the church by relaying to it truth gained from a “revelation” (see 1 Cor. 14:26, 30).”
Again, Paul has much to say on the proper usage of this gift in 1 Corinthians 14. In verse 3 Paul says,
“But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement, and consolation.”
Prophesying may in some cases refer to foretelling future events, but typically prophecies provide greater insight on something in the present time. Unlike the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament, prophesying in the church is not a means of providing new revelation about God. The canon of scripture is closed and therefore, to prophecy is to be spiritually guided in expounding on the Bible and applying it to present circumstances. As John Calvin said,
“Hence prophecy at this day in the Christian Church is hardly anything else than the right understanding of scripture and the peculiar faculty of explaining it, inasmuch as all the ancient prophecies and the oracles of God have been completed in Christ and in his gospel.”
We can therefore define prophecy as a supernatural gifting of the Holy Spirit on some believers to deliver truth to the church in reference to the Bible in a way that points the church toward God’s will. This is not to say that only those with this gift can properly interpret the word of God. Rather, those with this gift are chosen to deliver truth revealed to them in scripture by the Holy Spirit.
Healing and Miracles
The reason this paper is categorizing these two gifts together is due to the fact that all supernatural healings are fundamentally miracles. In either case, based on 1 Corinthians 12:9–10, these are gifts one might expect from the Holy Spirit. The gift of healing is not merely a talent for providing medical treatment, but rather the ability to miraculously heal people through the Spirit. John Calvin proposed that the gift of miracles was displayed in the works of apostles like Paul in blinding the sorcerer and Peter striking Ananias and Sapphira dead. He further posited that in general the gift is meant to display signs that confirm the word of God and point to God’s power.
In both cases, these gifts are different from stand alone miracles and incidents of healing. Those with this gift seem to be able to call on these powers at will (as with Peter, Paul, and certainly Jesus), while those without it can experience or witness miracles through prayer and faith. Evidence of miracles still occurring today is anecdotal but widely attested by Christians and churches around the world.
We can therefore define the gift of miracles and the gift of healing as the Holy Spirit working through a specific individual to perform miracles with a degree of consistency. Certainly, these gifts are not super powers and are still subject to the ultimate will of God expressed through the Spirit. However, for someone to have this gift, it would follow that they have used it on more than one occasion.
Part 2 — Purpose of the Gift
The general purpose of Spiritual gifts is to empower individual Christians for service in the kingdom through the church. 1 Peter 4:10 clearly outlines their purpose:
“Based on the gift each one has received, use it to serve others, as good managers of the varied grace of God.”
J. I. Packer sums up this idea nicely by saying that,“gifts, rightly used, build up Christians and churches.” Therefore, in order to rightly use a spiritual gift, it must be used in a way that magnifies Christ and edifies his church.
For more nuance, I believe these gifts in question have three general purposes. The first purpose is glorification. These miraculous gifts glorify God first and foremost. Secondly, they manifest the work of God in a tangible way. Finally, they edify the church by building up the faith of the witnesses and unifying them together in Christ.
In light of these general purposes, what can be said about the specific purposes of tongues, prophecy, and healing/miracles? In the first case, we can see from the examples of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 that tongues are meant to communicate something of value or truthfulness to those that hear. Whether it is a known or unknown language, the purpose is to communicate something in a miraculous way. For the apostles at Pentecost, they were able to speak in foreign languages that were understood by native speakers present (Acts 2:4–6). This enabled them to proclaim the gospel efficiently to a wide variety of people from around the known world at the time.
For the Christians in Corinth, being spiritually prompted to speak in tongues was evidence of the Spirit at work (1 Cor. 14:22), but Paul required an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27) so that the purpose of the gift, communication, was not lost. This purpose is only further emphasized by Paul arguing that without interpretation, it is pointless and even harmful to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:5–19). If there is no interpretation, then unbelievers and the uninitiated will be repulsed from the church rather than drawn in through understanding (1 Cor. 14:23–25). For this reason, Paul contends that while tongues is a useful gift, prophecy in known languages is more beneficial for edifying the church in most cases.
The purpose of prophecy is made clear through its comparison to the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, specifically verses 24–25,
“if all are prophesying and some unbeliever or uninformed person comes in, he is convicted by all and is judged by all. The secrets of his heart will be revealed, and as a result he will fall face down and worship God, proclaiming, ‘God is really among you.’”
Prophecy, like tongues, is meant to communicate truth. The key difference is in the clarity and directness of prophecy as it does not require an interpreter. In prophesying, one is able to supernaturally interpret scripture and apply it to a circumstance in question. Rather than just studying scripture and applying hermeneutical principles to the text, there is an element of divine revelation at play. Its purpose is to point the church or individual toward God’s will and clarify it to the listener(s).
Healing and miracles are meant glorify God and testify of his presence or approval of the one performing the act. They are to draw the witnesses of the act closer to God and cause them to recognize the hand of God at work. Their purpose is not to do away with traditional medicine or create Christian super heroes, but rather to advance the cause of the gospel and glorify God. Arguably, unless these things are being accomplished, there is no point for this gift to be given to an individual or church.
Part 3 — Gift Giving Occasion
The occasion for spiritual gifts and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit on all believers was foretold in Joel 2:28–29:
“After this I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your old men will have dreams, and your young men will see visions. I will even pour out My Spirit on the male and female slaves in those days.”
Previously in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit indwelt certain individuals at special occasions. Joel is prophesying that eventually, the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all and this will result in miraculous signs. These signs will serve to authenticate the work of God (the gospel) and draw people to himself.
Peter references Joel 2:28–32 in his sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2:16–21, indicating that the fulfillment of this prophecy and Jesus’ promise of the coming Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49, John 14:16–18) was coming to pass in their midst on that day. Pentecost was the birth of the New Testament church, and as it was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, we can reasonably claim that the occasion for spiritual gifts is arrival of the New Testament church. This clearly lines up with the previously discussed purposes of spiritual gifts in general and of the sign gifts in particular. As Christ advances his church, he empowers it by the Holy Spirit through individuals to break down potential barriers and testify the truth of the gospel.
With this truth in mind, the question shifts to whether we still need some of these sign gifts in highly reached societies. I believe that while miracles, healing, prophecy, and tongues are witnessed around the world, the occasion for these dramatic gifts has narrowed in the west.
If the occasion for use is to advance the gospel and verify it to the witnesses, the west is not conducive to these acts achieving that purpose. Post-modern society, and many western Christians included, are inherently skeptical of things that cannot be proven. Rather than embrace the miraculous, we can treat it with suspicion. Doubt, rather than faith, is our typical first response. Instead of building up the church and the faith of those who witness it, opinions fly and division can result.
Optimistically speaking, it could be that God knows what gifts are most effective in certain societies and which gifts will not best further his cause. A more pessimistic interpretation is that we are failing the command of 1 Thessalonians 5:19 and quenching the Spirit through skepticism.
I believe that the truth combines both viewpoints. Christ wants to advance his church, not hinder it, and equips churches in certain cultures with the tools they need to reach that culture. Unfortunately, the sign gifts will not be as effective in post modern cultures. Some gifts like healing can make appearances in unlikely places, but unless the root purpose of the spiritual gift is being achieved, we shouldn’t be shocked at its rarity.
Paul alludes to this concept in 1 Corinthians 14 in discussing the occasion for speaking in tongues. In verses 23–24, Paul makes the case that if an unbeliever comes into a service in which many people are speaking in tongues without interpretation, they will assume a negative about the assembly and be repulsed (23). However, through something more suited to the occasion (prophecy) the cause of the gospel is advanced and confirmed (24). For a gift to be most effective, its purpose must fit the occasion or context.
It is no coincidence that when we in the western church hear of miracles occurring, they are often taking place on the frontiers of evangelism. Unfortunately, due to our context and culture, the occasion for the effectiveness of these gifts has narrowed, leading people to doubt their very existence.
Part 4 — Usage Today
Even if the occasion for the use of these gifts has narrowed in the west or post modern cultures, that is not to say that the door has completely shut or that the gifts have fully ceased. While cessationism may point to verses like 1 Corinthians 13:8 as evidence of prophecy and tongues ceasing eventually, that same verse concludes with “as for knowledge, it will come to an end.” Though some claim a distinction between “knowledge” and “prophecy” as opposed to tongues in this verse, it can still be questioned whether this is sufficient evidence of tongues specifically ceasing. These gifts may be uncommon, but in my view, scripture doesn’t directly point to an expiration of them during the age of the church.
Anecdotally, Christians still encounter prophetic revelation of truth and tongues or “Free Vocalization” in the west. The gift of healing or miracles is rare even in scripture and again, refers more to an individual consistently utilizing it. While there are supposed faith healers that attract many, we can say that unless they are accomplishing the purposes previously listed, they are not practicing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But in general, what are the potential occasions, however narrow, for these gifts today?
Prophecy has arguably never ceased in the church, but it can be stifled if restricted to the office of a pastor, elder, or the work of the pulpit. Some argue that prophecy rightly practiced is preaching, but New Testament prophecy is specifically unrestricted to such offices as highlighted in Joel 2 stating that the young, old, slave, free, men, and women will prophesy. Certainly, the gift of prophecy benefits the pulpit ministry, but it should not be restricted to that alone.
A study done in 2009 on the use of prophecy in Christian gatherings (primarily Pentecostal) in Europe yielded informative results. The study showed that most of the churches examined report prophecies as typically being given during fellowships and church worship services. To protect against false or misguided prophecy, over 90% of the churches studied sought to judge the veracity of the prophecies with scripture. Over 60% of the congregations sought guidance from the pastor to help confirm prophecies.
This study is helpful because it provides some examples of how prophecy can be used to benefit the church. By sharing prophecy in the context of the fellowship, the congregation can confirm the veracity, be built up, and protect itself from false prophets. Additionally, while they don’t tend to restrict prophecy to the pulpit, the pastor has a role to play in examining the prophecies given which again helps to protect the church. Finally, all prophecies should be judged in relation to scripture with those that fail the test being rejected by the church.
As previously mentioned, the practice of speaking in tongues in the modern church is highly controversial. 1 Corinthians 14:39 instructs us not to prohibit the gift, but we must adhere to the guidelines given by Paul in the same chapter: a max of three people sharing in tongues with an interpreter. If no interpreter is present, then they should keep silent and use the gift in private devotion.
Not every believer should be expected to pray in tongues, as it is not a fruit of the Spirit. Nor should tongues be seen as proof of salvation or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Discernment should still be exercised and scripture consulted, as in the case with prophecy, but we shouldn’t discount the expression unless prompted by scripture, prayer, and the Holy Spirit. Just because someone is expressing a free vocalization doesn’t mean that they or the words are infallible.
Finally, regarding the gifts of healing or miracles, we have little data from which to draw proper procedures for the modern church. These gifts are rare and likely reserved for extra ordinary occasions. Not all signs and wonders are from God, as in the case of the coming antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:8–9, so again discernment is called for in the event of a potential expression of this gift. The church should acknowledge the event, but look beyond it to see what cause it is advancing. From there, church leaders can determine the best response to the event.
At the foundation of each use case is proper education, a dependence on scripture, the priesthood of believers, and prayer. This approach requires both a proper understanding of spiritual gifts and humility. The church must educate believers on these gifts without overly elevating them or making them markers of normative church practice. These gifts are given with a purpose for a specific occasion. God provides the right tool at the time it is needed. Just because one church has a particular need met by one tool and another church needs a different one does not make either inferior.
These gifts are exciting, but we must not get so caught up in that excitement such that we forget to exercise discernment. However, we must also reject cynicism. When faced with a potential use of one of these gifts the Christian should humbly submit the event to God and ask him for leadership on how to respond.
Part 5 — Conclusion
In the debate between cessationism and continuationism, I believe that a hard-lined stance on either side is not required. The goal of this post is to argue that the spiritual gifts of tongues, miracles, and prophecy have not ceased from the church today, but the occasion for their usage, particularly in the western church, has narrowed over the years. This paper sought to examine whether the purposes of these gifts is no longer applicable to our context.
The central questions to answer were whether these gifts were still needed today and if so, how should a modern church handle them biblically? It is my conclusion that the purposes and occasions for these gifts are still relevant today. Therefore, since we are not told directly in scripture that these gifts will expire, we must logically conclude that they can still appear today. Whether or not the expressions we see in modern churches are legitimate is up to the Holy Spirit to confirm. The most biblically sound response to these gifts is discernment rather than immediate rejection or cynicism.
Every church is a unique expression of the body of Christ. God can utilize whatever tools he pleases to accomplish his purposes. Our role is to seek his will and rejoice in the provision he provides to accomplish his will. May we be discerning and not quenching of the Holy Spirit.
P.S. I welcome feedback! As mentioned, this is an adaptation of a research paper. As such, I opted not to include all the footnotes and whatnot, but maybe I will in future posts of this nature. Also, not all my posts will be THIS long. Probably only the adaptations of research papers. Finally, my conclusions in this paper are not set in stone. I’m not married to these ideas, but I do think they are sound enough for me to stand by them presently.
