I quite understand your unwillingness. especially in the light of verses like Psalm 78:41 and Psalm 115:3, but on a practical level I think it is quite dangerous. How does one deal with charlatans and false prophets or help those who are caught up in some of the dangerous nonsense that comes out of many charismatic churches?
I have in front of me what purports to be an open letter from God to the people of Britain dated February of this year, and telling Britons to vote to leave the E.U. It is written in the first Person as if God were speaking, but in fact it is written by some fellow called David Noakes who is claiming to be giving me God's very words. On what basis do I reject this document if I think that such prophecy may perhaps be genuine? It was given to me by someone whom I would have tended to regard as a reasonably steady sort of fellow. How can I counsel him if I think there is any real chance that this Noakes fellow may have been given this 'prophecy' by God?
If I think 'tongues'-speaking may be for today, then clearly Paul wishes me to practise it (1 Cor. 14:5) so perhaps I ought to be trying to speak that way. If I try, there is a real possibility that I shall discover the knack of speaking fluent gobbledegook.
For me, the only sensible course is to search the Scriptures and see that Apostles and prophets were given for the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). How many foundations does a building have? Just the one. When is the foundation built? Right at the start, and never again.
Hello Brother, As always I am grateful for your perspective.
The disagreement that I have had on this thread is mostly one of interpretation. I disagree that 1 Corinthians 13 dogmatically evidences that sign gifts are nonexistent today. Instead I have offered a different interpretation (one I believe the natural reading and meaning of the passage). Of those who agree with my position, some (John Gill) also believe that these gifts have ceased. Others (John Piper) do not. I am not sure where Joel Beeke and D.A. Carson stand on the continuation of these things, but it was their words that I used to represent my view. So on that part, I was not arguing for the continuation of tongues but against what I saw (and still see) as forced interpretation of Paul.
While I believe that these gifts may still be given today, I also share your concerns over the charlatans and false prophets that seem to have led many astray in churches today. I do not know the environment in which you find yourself, but I often see otherwise faithful believers looking to these types of people for “Christian” guidance. To answer your question, I do believe that this is one role of a local church. My concern is that as a whole (speaking from my experience and not as an indictment against any particular local church) modern Christianity has let slip the doctrinal bounds that once secured sound teachings. We are called to discernment, but so often this command is usurped by some sense of toleration and freedom of religious thought within the local church itself. There is a sense by where we have liberty, but there is also a sense by which the church, as the local expression of the Body of Christ, weighs carefully what is taught within its area of responsibility.
My answer as to how we deal with that type of dangerous nonsense is by discernment through the local church. Since I do not believe there is enough evidence to denounce the existence of these gifts today, I think we look at individual instances where these gifts are said to have been exercised and determine if that is indeed the case.
I understand the gift of tongues to be as a sign of God’s presence with His people. I do not believe “tongues” to be unintelligible utterances (although perhaps unintelligible to the speaker) but actual languages that the unbeliever would understand. Of all the instances where I have heard this “gift” exercised (only on video or audio), I have never been exposed to one that met the biblical criteria.
I understand the gift of prophesy as proclaiming what has already been revealed, not an announcement of a new or special revelation. This is how I understand Paul’s command to allow those who would prophesy to speak while others pass judgment. If what is declared is not Scripture then it is not prophesy. I believe the gift of prophesy is, as Grudem puts it, the work of the Spirit (supernaturally) spontaneously bringing to mind truths of God’s revelation. We have the benefit of testing these things against Scripture.
So I believe that these sign gifts were never given to the local church in order to introduce new revelations apart from what has been given by the apostles and prophets. Paul leaned not on the exercise of sign gifts to validate the authority of his words, but on the gift of apostleship. Tongues may have evidenced to the unbeliever God’s presence, and he was certainly given the gift of prophesy, but this was not enough to introduce doctrine into the church. His “badge” here was Christ and his calling as an apostle.
To summarize my position, you could say that I agree very much with TCassidy on the nature of these things. The exception is in application. Where some may apply this to a “Universal/Invisible Church” or a dispensation, I believe that it can be applied to the local churches and the environment in which they exist. The fact that Scripture exists and that local churches are functioning as the Body of Christ may be of no immediate consequence to peoples isolated from their influence. It is in this context that I believe God may, at His liberty, gift those “sign gifts” of which Paul spoke.
I apologize for the length of this post, but for clarity's sake I covered the ground I thought necessary. There seems to always be (at least) two accusations of me – either I am vague and unclear or I am rambling on without meaning (akin to the modern notion of “tongues”, I suppose). I pray neither is the case here, but suspect both flaws may be evident and would appreciate any correction or feedback you may offer.
