The question of whether speaking in tongues and the gifts of the Spirit are still available today is a significant one that touches on the core beliefs of many Christian denominations. Throughout church history, there have been varying perspectives on the continuation of these spiritual gifts. Some argue that these gifts were specific to the early church and ceased with the apostles, while others, particularly in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, firmly believe that these gifts are still active and vital for the church today. Understanding the scriptural basis for both views, as well as the practical implications for modern Christian living, is essential for engaging in this important discussion. How do you interpret the relevant biblical passages, and what role do you believe the gifts of the Spirit should play in the life of the contemporary church?
IMO cessationism is generally taken on tenuous grounds, and based more on aversion to chaos. As to [the relevant biblical passages], I shall touch but on a few.
I have heard that the Corinthians were so out of line with glossolalia, that Paul had to come down hard. Surely it is safer to have creeds, clergy, and canon, than charismania, strange fire? Fears make it easy to overlook that Paul thanked God that he spoke more in language he had not learnt, than these Corinthians, and that we oughtn’t put out Yahweh’s fire. On the one hand we can do without the charismata, but on the other hand as manifestations of grace they can be a great help.
Peter had spoken of something ongoing (Ac.2:38-9), and Luke is generally accepted as being both theologian and historian. But some folk now equate spirit-baptism with conversion, citing 1 Cor.12:13. But put in its historical context of a church big on both spirit-baptism and division, it may be translated thus: “We were all baptised
in one spirit
with reference to one body”—ie value unity. That’s how the Greek prepositions can function, as in Mt.3:11, where water-baptism was with reference to prior repentance—not
for penance, as Wycliffe thought. Historically all or most of Paul’s audience had been spirit-baptised—it was common then, though later church history shows that the early continent of commonality became islands of un-commonality (eg Tertullian): charismata became sidelined.
Acts shows conversion, sometime followed by water-baptism and spirit-baptism in no essential order:
Conversion/water-baptism/spirit-baptism: Ac.2:38; 8:12,17; 19:5-6.
Conversion/spirit-baptism/water-baptism: 10:45,47.
Some claim that when
the perfect came (1 Cor.13:10), the imperfect charismata ceased. Did Paul mean the completed NT canon? But why not take the perfect to mean the still to be return of Christ?
Some merely dismiss what they cannot explain—or fear. IMO glossolalia is psycho-spiritual, ranging from a spirit-enabled trickle from our inner psyche, into spirit-enabled fully fledged articulate speech in human language unknown by the speaker, even as one can hum ditties to themselves yet be a Pavarotti at an opera. Sherlock Holmes strained his violin in monotony, but was a virtuoso player (
A Study in Scarlet).
