Nailing the Coffin Shut on Continuationism: Does the Scripture Teach that God Gives Private Prayer Languages

 For the first time in this blog's history, I have re-opened a series. It comes after recent conversations with continuationists where my arguments have been rejected. Continuationist claim that cessationists  don't understand the nature of tongues. The debate between continuationist and cessationist almost always goes something like this:

Albert (the continuationist) almost always claims that there is no biblical basis for cessationism that it denies God's ability to work miracles.

George (the cessationist) points out that the assertion is a negative. A negative is not proof a of positive. If I say, "I say I did not catch a fish," that statement fails to say anything whether there were any fish in the pond, or whether I was even fishing.  An argument that cessationist do not believe something, is not an argument in favor of continuationism. Incidentally, it is a false claim. Cessationist do believe in spiritual gifts, and miracles, they just don't believe the gifts of apostleship, tongues, miracles, healings, prophecy and knowledge continues to function in the way they did contemporaneously to Pentecost.

Albert will counter that millions of believers around the world have experienced the gifts of the Spirit and Paul says all believers should pursue gifts so therefore all believers should seek the experiences that characterized the first century's use of gifts.

George will argue that Paul's was speaking to a contemporary situation in an historical context, and that due to the progress of the gospel and the completion of revelation the Scripture teaches that some of the gift's function differently and some have ceased. There are things that only happened once in Scripture or over a period of time to fulfill a purpose. They do not set a precedent for all time. It is clear from a cursory reading of the text that gifts as practiced in the New Testament do not resemble the way gifts are practiced in the modern church. So how can one claim they are a continuation of Pentecost that we all need to seek?

[It is interesting that this claim is almost never denied by continuationists. There are several side arguments about George's claim that often ensue, but every continuationist ultimately admits that tongues are not human languages as they were in Acts. That prophecies in the Scripture were 100% reliable, and that the Canon is complete, and scripture is sufficient. Yet they claim the tongue are something, deeper, better even more fulfilling, that prophecies today are not certain, and that miracles are under our control not God's. To establish their argument, they claim that a reading of 1st Corinthians 14 makes it evident that the tongues practiced in the Corinthian church were different from what took place at Pentecost. They were "private prayer languages]

After some discussion George asserts that the record in Acts as well as the uses of the term "dialectos" for tongues in first Corinthians 14 means tongues as spoken in the first century were spoken languages, given to fulfill the universal promise of that the New Covenant would be made with all nations and peoples. Further that the founders of the Pentecostal movement (from which continuationist draw their theology) believed that they had received human languages until they attempted to communicate in foreign countries where they were proved to be something else. It was then after experiencing failure that the contemporary view of tongues derived, not from a hermeneutic, but from failed experience. 

Albert will argue that while the tongues of Pentecost ceased after the first century and still have not arisen, there was another form of tongue that was practiced in Corinthians and continues today. It is this gift of tongues that Pentecostalism has recovered, and which they claim continues today.  Albert claims that Paul speaks of a separate private payer language that he commands every Christian to pursue. Albert finds this in: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.".... if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? ...if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful." (13: 8, 14:9,14) The claim is that these three passages clearly state that people in Corinth spoke in non-human languages regularly? Isn't Paul saying prayer in tongues is a private communication in a divine language.? 

 [Continuationists claim that these passages teach that the "gift of tongues" spoken of in 1Corinthians 14 is a private prayer language that God gives to communicate truths too deep for the human mind to comprehend. These private revelations are part of the Spirit's ministry to every believer. "Likewise, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words." (Rom 8:26). Thus, while they accept that the tongues given at Pentecost were human languages, the gift of tongues that Paul addresses and that were practiced in Corinth were something different. These ecstatic utterances have never completely vanished from the life of the church and appeared in a new Pentecostal wave at Azusa Street in1901 and should continue in the normal healthy Christian life today. Even A cursory reading of 1 Corinthians makes this interpretation seem valid and leads many who do not practice tongues concede that their continuation is a possibility, calling themselves "open but cautious." Cessationists reply that careful reading of text makes it unlikely that Corinthians practiced a private prayer language.]

George will respond that these 3 " if, then" statements are conditionals, they do not make assertions. In order to make a point about tongues, they describe the conditions under which private revelations would operate if they did in order to make a point about the appropriate use of tongues. None of these passages positively assert or refute that anyone in Corinth spoke in private tongues. Nor are they imperatives that we must follow.

[These kind of sentence constructions are called "hypothetical subjunctives" They define conditions under which possibilities might be realized. For many years I lived on the west coast with my wife and kids, while our parents lived on the east coast. When we discussed visiting family, we would often say, "If we visit Florida, we will fly." It meant that out hope of going to Florida was dependent on flying. There was neither an assertion or denial that we would visit Florida or that we would fly. It merely established the conditions under which a desired outcome would occur. Several years later while living in New York state I would sometimes say to my children, "If it snows tomorrow, school will be closed." These statements are hypothetical possibilities that illustrate a point or establish an expectation.]

George would continue that Paul had stated that the purpose of tongues is to edify the church. Gifts only edify when done in love, intelligibly. These statements are not assertions of that gift of tongues were private prayer language, but that private prayer language fail to accomplish the intended purpose of tongues, which is edification and evangelism. Far from commanding the gift of tongues usage, they diminish them. God gave the gift of tongues for evangelism and edification. Private gifts do neither.   

[There is no basis from 1Corinthians 14:1-9 to claim that God intends believers to speak to him in heavenly languages. There is no evidence that such a gift was even practiced, therefore, there the claim that modern charismatic practice us a continuation of Pentecost is dubious.] 

Albert would then assert that the blessing and wonders experienced by tongues speakers could only be attributed to God. George would remind Albert that we are commanded by scripture to test experience, and that first Corinthians 14 restrictions on tongues are usually ignored by those who claim to be practicing a private prayer language.

[There is no clear teaching that an unintelligible speech form was what the Corinthians were practicing when they spoke in tongues, or that believers are to do the same]

Albert would then argue that though the private prayer language is not specifically defined it is implicit in Paul's admonition that he "wishes everyone to speak in tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:5). Therefore, every believer is expected to speak in tongues. 

George would say this is again a misuse of language. While Israel was in the wilderness God told Moses to gather a group of 70 men on whom he would bestow a prophetic gifting in order to assist Moses in the leadership of over 6 million people. He gathered a group of men at the tent of meeting through whom the Spirit prophesied. However, for reasons we are not told, two of the men remained in the camp. They did not go to the tent of meeting. Yet the spirit fell on them as it did on the others. Joshus complained to Moses that the two who did not come to tent were not qualified to prophecy. Moses's response is similar to that of Paul's in Corinth. He says that God was sovereign in his appointment of leaders and elders and the bestowal of gifts. He did not control them. But notice how he said it. "[29] But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (Numbers 11:29ESV) Moses says, that he wishes everyone would prophesy? Just as Paul says [5] "Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more that you prophesy ..." (1Corinthians14:5 ESV) Moses was not teaching that everyone should expected to prophecy. Nor was Paul's statement an assertion that tongues are to be the normative practice sought by every believer.  There is no imperative for every believer to seek tongues or prophecy, but every believer is to pursue gifts for the edification of the body. 

The idea that tongues (knowledge, prophecy, miracles, healings) and apostleship are gifts that we are all to seek for our own personal sanctification or self-improvement is nowhere to be found in the Scripture. The whole purpose of the discussion is to emphasize that these gifts are to have a corporate benefit. So once again the continuationist argument fails to establish either that anything remotely similar to the 1st Century experience has been repeated or continues today. Nor can it assert any positive imperative or admonition for believers to expect a gift of tongues as a normal practice. 

When one looks examines the scripture and historical record it become clear that Paul's prediction that prophecy, knowledge and tongues would cease when the perfect came (1Cor 13:8) has been fulfilled in the completion of the Canon and the Revelation of the Gospel in the life of the church. Whatever, these modern phenomena are they have nothing to do with the spiritual gifts described in 1Cor 12, 14; Rom 12; Eph 4; and 1 Peter 4. When a person claim that the modern charismatic movement is "a continuation," a second, third or fourth wave of the promise of Joel 2:28-32, it is a claim made in error. Continuationism is false teaching.