i appreciate how throughly you explained this. the concept of speaking in tongues is something that has become rampant in a lot of charismatic & Pentecostal churches & i find that a pastor random breaking into tongues invokes a reaction from the congregation that they aren't aware is emotional. many in the charismatic world attend church with the expectation that an encounter with the Holy Spirit will bring about certain miracles they desperately seek. So when a church leader suddenly breaks into speaking in tongues, they start praising ('even with noone explaining the sudden bout of tongues)
Thank you Sataya for taking the time to engage with the article. You have rightly identified something that is quite rampant in church life today. This is exactly the tension Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians 14. His main concern is that people don’t just react to what they don’t understand. He keeps pushing the idea that if something is spoken in church, it has to make sense to the listeners or be interpreted. Otherwise, it does not help the church, even if the moment feels powerful.
Thanks for the article. I suppose my question is still whether Paul was talking about people praying in human languages (but which other congregants were unfamiliar with), or whether he was talking about some mystical syllables that are completely unintelligible?
Thank you Veronica for your question which raises an interpretive issue that i wrestle with as well. You are asking whether Paul is referring to people praying in actual human languages that others in the congregation simply do not understand, or whether he has in mind something like mystical syllables that are completely unintelligible. It is important to separate what Paul describes from how it is sometimes imagined today. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul does not treat tongues as empty or meaningless sound. He consistently speaks of it as something that can be interpreted (14:13,27-28), and he describes it as “mysteries in the Spirit” (14:2). That means the issue is not whether something meaningful is being spoken, but whether it is understood by those hearing it.
Paul’s concern throughout the chapter is comprehension and edification, rather than dismissing the speech as meaningless or empty. Acts 2 gives a clear example where tongues are ordinary human languages understood by different groups of hearers in their own native tongues. That part of the Biblical text is clear. However, 1 Corinthians 14 is more complex, and here it is important to resist the urge to settle too quickly on a fixed position and instead pay close attention to what the text actually says. Paul states that the one who speaks in a tongue speaks to God, that others do not understand, and that the mind remains unfruitful in that moment (14:2,14). He also treats interpretation as a gift of the Spirit (12:10,30).These details raise the question of whether Paul is referring to a known human language that the congregation does not understand, or to a Spirit-enabled form of speech that is not immediately intelligible in normal linguistic terms. A human language understanding can explain much of the passage: if someone speaks a real language that no one else in the room knows, then it will not be understood until it is translated. On that view, interpretation makes sense as the means by which meaning is made clear to the church. At the same time, Paul’s repeated emphasis that “no one understands” and his description of speaking “mysteries in the Spirit” leaves room for the possibility that the phenomenon is not limited to ordinary human languages.
So my own view is that Paul gives us no way to settle the question with certainty and I am cautious about being more definite than the text itself. What he is clear about is that, whatever tongues are,(human languages or mysteries in the Spirit), they must be interpreted when used in the church. He does not forbid tongues but he governs them, so that they produce understanding, build up the church, and remain under the order and Lordship of Christ. If there is no interpretation, the speaker should remain silent.
This is a very balanced take on the subject of tongues, something that i have been pondering on for quite a while. I am edified by this. Keep writing indeed.
Tongues is practiced publicly in charismatic spaces majorly as a prayer language, being justified by the argument that the person isnt talking to the church but utterning mysteries to God! Does this have a scriptural precedence and/or backing? Would you care to expound on the subject of tongues as a prayer language?
Thank you Mcrue for the encouragement, and I am glad the article has spurred some thoughts for you. You have highlighted the exact line people often use to justify speaking in tongues out loud in a worship service. I do see a Biblical basis for the idea of tongues as prayer. Paul does say the person is speaking to God, not to people, and that they are “uttering mysteries in the Spirit” (v.2). He also says that when someone prays in a tongue, their spirit is engaged in prayer even though their mind is unfruitful. (v.14-15). And he even says he personally does this more than anyone in Corinth (v.18). So the idea of a God-directed, prayerful use of tongues is in the text.
But the problem comes when that same idea is used to justify public, uninterpreted tongues in the church gathering. In fact, Paul is doing the opposite of what people assume. When he says the speech is directed to God and not understood by others, he is not encouraging it to be spoken publicly, he is explaining why it does not work in the meeting. If no one understands, then the church is not built up (v.4,v.17). That is why he gives a very clear instruction: if there is no interpreter, the person should not speak in the church. Instead, they should “speak to themselves and to God” (v.28). In other words, “I am speaking to God” is not a reason to speak out in the service, it is Paul’s reason for keeping it private. So Biblically, i see tongues as prayer has a place. But that place, according to Paul, is private unless there is interpretation. The deciding issue for public worship is always “Does this build up the gathered church?”
Thank you for this article. It is truly eye-opening. I had personally asked you to speak on this topic as the Holy Spirit leads, and I appreciate your obedience and insight.
I do have a question for you. What is your perspective on worship leaders who begin speaking in tongues in the middle of a worship session within a church setting, especially when there is no interpretation given? If tongues are primarily for personal edification and are to be exercised privately, would this then be for the edification of the worship leader alone? How do you view this practice from a biblical standpoint?
I also have another question. What is your take on church leaders instructing the entire congregation to begin speaking in their heavenly language or "language of the Spirit"? Scripture emphasizes order in the church and speaks of interpretation when tongues are exercised publicly. Would you consider this primarily a charismatic practice, or is there a biblical basis for it that aligns with the New Testament teachings on spiritual gifts?
I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on these matters.
Thank you Maza for engaging, and I am glad the article served you. Both of your questions are ones the article speaks to directly. On a worship leader breaking into tongues mid-service with no interpretation, your instinct is right. Paul says that without interpretation the one who speaks in a tongue "builds up only himself" (14:4), and that "if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church" (14:28). So it edifies the speaker alone, which is why Paul commands tongues be interpreted or one keeps silent, there is no third option. On leaders and pastors commanding the whole congregation to speak in tongues together, this has no Biblical basis. The Spirit "distributes gifts as He wills" (12:11), so no leader can command a gift God alone gives. Paul asks "do all speak in tongues?" and expects the answer to be a no (12:30). And his order for the assembly is two or three, in turn, with interpretation (14:27).
If I am honest, much of this comes down to a serious doctrinal deficit in the African church. We simply have not had enough careful, patient teaching of Scripture, and so, people end up doing as they please because no one has shown them otherwise. I say this as someone who has had to repent in this very area. No one taught us these things, and for those of us who come from Pentecostal and charismatic backgrounds, it has taken time to bring our practice into alignment with God's Word.(Still learning).
And I will say this to encourage you: it takes courage to honour the Lord in keeping His Word. When everyone around you seems to be doing something different, choosing to be governed by Scripture can make you feel as though you are on the wrong. But our question must always be, does my practice honour God and His Word? If it does, then that is where you should stand, regardless of whether others agree or not.
Aaah, thank you, Wanjiku. (Iam tempted to call you Shiku ,like my daughter😊😊)The way you have debunked this matter is truly commendable. May God continue to give you grace and wisdom. Thank you for shedding light on this confusion. You are absolutely right—even if I were standing alone, I would rather stand on the truth of Scripture. May God help us all to align ourselves with His Word.
This is a sober view of the relevant texts. Even though I end up on a different conclusion, your process is so commendable in its commitment to exegetical priority that I heartily commend this article.
There are a number of things the New Testament instructs without a necessary expectation of their continuation throughout coming history, e.g. greeting one another with a holy kiss. It is possible for Paul to regulate a practice present in the church at the time of his writing but which will eventually cease.
In 1st Corinthians, he also deals with food offered to literal idols and head-coverings versus head shaving. He deals with real issues the Corinthians were facing. He does not expect that those issues will face all churches throughout all of history, but he expects that the principles he teaches as he addresses the first century specifics of that particular church in Corinth will carry over to all churches everywhere, forever.
Again, thanks! This article is well-researched and well-written. Keep at it. You’re great at it. 💪🏾💪🏾
I tend to come to a different conclusion, much like Caleb, though I have been wondering whether that is because I am truly convinced by Scripture or because, in some ways, being a cessationist feels safer and a complete turn around from the charismatic movement. That said, I still find the cessationist argument stronger overall.
One question I had based on Caleb's argument :
“There are a number of things the New Testament instructs without a necessary expectation of their continuation throughout coming history… It is possible for Paul to regulate a practice present in the church at the time of his writing but which will eventually cease.”
Based on that argument, where would dreams, visions, and prophecy fall? You mentioned them somewhat in passing, and I’ve been wondering how they fit within this framework.
If tongues may not have ceased because is not clearly stipulated, would the same logic apply to dreams, visions, and prophecy? Or would you distinguish those categories differently?
Reginah, I’d also like to read Wanjiku’s response to your question about dreams/visions.
My view is simply that God doesn’t regularly communicate via dreams and visions today because the canon of Scripture is complete. The completion of the of the New Testament Scriptures is a major part of the cessationist argument.
Hebrews 1:1-2 indicates that the nature of revelation changed after the Son showed up on the scene.
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (English Standard Version).
Hey Caleb, why don't we have the dream/ visions discussion when i get to write about them in future God willing? They are outside the scope of the article and I do not think they can be thoroughly examined by extending an article about tongues. Dreams/visions have their own texts: Joel 2, Acts 2, the experiences of Joseph and Daniel, Cornelius' vision, Peter's vision, and Paul's visions in Acts and 2Cor etc. Or perhaps you could explore the subject, reading the various accounts in Scripture, letting the texts speak for themselves as opposed to examining them through either a cessationist or charismatic framework. By the way, is Hebrews 1:1-2 about the closing of the canon, or is the author arguing for the supremacy of Christ? Of course the canon is closed. I'm simply pointing out the importance of paying attention to the context of what the writer of Hebrews is addressing here.
Thanks, Wanjiku. My dreams/visions comment was responding to Reginah. I think that subject matter is closely-related to spiritual gifts which your article discusses.
This is a comment under your article, though; I don’t intend to ignore that fact. I hope you don’t perceive my comments negatively. I haven’t pushed back on your handling of the relevant texts because it is good and commendable—not because it is perfect or agreeable to me.
Of course, we can talk about any of it further when/if you write and I’m able to engage. I really like your Substack. So, I’m likely to engage.
P.S. By nature, some orthodox and important Christian doctrinal positions are derivative from theology (biblical, systematic, historical etc.) than from mere exegesis of specific texts (some times called biblicism). For example, one cannot argue for the closure of the Christian canon from any specific biblical text, but they’d not be considered Christian at all if they argued that the canon was open, therefore.
Hebrews 1:1-2 is an important text in any attempt to understand the culmination of progressive revelation from the God of the Bible—the only true God, according to the Bible.
Thank you, once again! You are doing the Lord’s work here, and I support it heartily.
No worries, I did not take your comment negatively at all. Actually, i would appreciate the kind of pushback that challenges exegesis as opposed to going down the labels road. We all bring our own baggage and presuppositions to the text, so it would be helpful to me, if/ when you point out a different way of looking at the passages I bring up. Then this point here is an intresting perspective.I will find some time and read on. "By nature, some orthodox and important Christian doctrinal positions are derivative from theology (biblical, systematic, historical etc.) than from mere exegesis of specific texts (some times called biblicism). For example, one cannot argue for the closure of the Christian canon from any specific biblical text, but they’d not be considered Christian at all if they argue that the canon was open, therefore."
That you have been wondering if Scripture is your anchor on cessationism or not is a good question to keep pondering on. Our belief and practice should always be informed by Scripture, not by clever arguments both camps tend to have. Now, I precisely stated that the article was not meant to build a case for either continuationism or cessationism. I wish you had not introduced the subject, as it simply was not what the piece was about. I believe it is possible to have the "God talk" without sliding into rigid theological categories. Those make for great intellectual engagement in seminary spaces or structured debates, but for my goals on social media, I prefer to focus purely on "what does the Bible say?" This is because I am not interested in discussions centered on theological systems, because they often yield very little where Christlikeness is concerned.(or maybe i don't like debates as i see them on social media.They never end well). So let's keep engaging, not as cessationists or continuationists, but as people who love the Lord and and are endevouring to do His will.
This said, let me clarify a few things you mentioned, as well as try to respond to a really good question you and Caleb raised.
I hope I didn’t come across like one of those social media warriors trying to defend the different camps without grace.
My intention was simply to engage as a fellow believer. Of course, I know these are secondary matters to our faith, and I appreciate something R.C. Sproul often emphasized that if believers are sincerely trying to be faithful to Scripture, even if they land in different camps on secondary issues, there can still be charity and grace in those disagreements.
I also hope I didn’t sound argumentative. I was genuinely trying to engage and hear your perspective on some of the questions that naturally arise when discussing tongues. As you mentioned, the article was mainly about tongues and not necessarily the broader cessationist vs continuationist discussion. However, I sometimes find it difficult to completely separate the two, since many of the passages that speak about tongues such as Joel also mention prophecy and dreams.
No you didn't come across as “those social media warriors”🙂 and thank you for engaging. There was a time I would also gravitate towards continuationist/cessationists debates.But I realized,camps debates tend to do a lot of proof texting(using the Bible to defend their leanings)…not really caring about what the Bible really says…..
i appreciate how throughly you explained this. the concept of speaking in tongues is something that has become rampant in a lot of charismatic & Pentecostal churches & i find that a pastor random breaking into tongues invokes a reaction from the congregation that they aren't aware is emotional. many in the charismatic world attend church with the expectation that an encounter with the Holy Spirit will bring about certain miracles they desperately seek. So when a church leader suddenly breaks into speaking in tongues, they start praising ('even with noone explaining the sudden bout of tongues)
Thank you Sataya for taking the time to engage with the article. You have rightly identified something that is quite rampant in church life today. This is exactly the tension Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians 14. His main concern is that people don’t just react to what they don’t understand. He keeps pushing the idea that if something is spoken in church, it has to make sense to the listeners or be interpreted. Otherwise, it does not help the church, even if the moment feels powerful.
This piece as opened my eyes to a lot of truth and self gratification errors. Thanks for this🔥
I'm glad the article was eye opening.Thanks for engaging
Thanks for the article. I suppose my question is still whether Paul was talking about people praying in human languages (but which other congregants were unfamiliar with), or whether he was talking about some mystical syllables that are completely unintelligible?
Thank you Veronica for your question which raises an interpretive issue that i wrestle with as well. You are asking whether Paul is referring to people praying in actual human languages that others in the congregation simply do not understand, or whether he has in mind something like mystical syllables that are completely unintelligible. It is important to separate what Paul describes from how it is sometimes imagined today. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul does not treat tongues as empty or meaningless sound. He consistently speaks of it as something that can be interpreted (14:13,27-28), and he describes it as “mysteries in the Spirit” (14:2). That means the issue is not whether something meaningful is being spoken, but whether it is understood by those hearing it.
Paul’s concern throughout the chapter is comprehension and edification, rather than dismissing the speech as meaningless or empty. Acts 2 gives a clear example where tongues are ordinary human languages understood by different groups of hearers in their own native tongues. That part of the Biblical text is clear. However, 1 Corinthians 14 is more complex, and here it is important to resist the urge to settle too quickly on a fixed position and instead pay close attention to what the text actually says. Paul states that the one who speaks in a tongue speaks to God, that others do not understand, and that the mind remains unfruitful in that moment (14:2,14). He also treats interpretation as a gift of the Spirit (12:10,30).These details raise the question of whether Paul is referring to a known human language that the congregation does not understand, or to a Spirit-enabled form of speech that is not immediately intelligible in normal linguistic terms. A human language understanding can explain much of the passage: if someone speaks a real language that no one else in the room knows, then it will not be understood until it is translated. On that view, interpretation makes sense as the means by which meaning is made clear to the church. At the same time, Paul’s repeated emphasis that “no one understands” and his description of speaking “mysteries in the Spirit” leaves room for the possibility that the phenomenon is not limited to ordinary human languages.
So my own view is that Paul gives us no way to settle the question with certainty and I am cautious about being more definite than the text itself. What he is clear about is that, whatever tongues are,(human languages or mysteries in the Spirit), they must be interpreted when used in the church. He does not forbid tongues but he governs them, so that they produce understanding, build up the church, and remain under the order and Lordship of Christ. If there is no interpretation, the speaker should remain silent.
Thank you for walking through that!
This is a very balanced take on the subject of tongues, something that i have been pondering on for quite a while. I am edified by this. Keep writing indeed.
Tongues is practiced publicly in charismatic spaces majorly as a prayer language, being justified by the argument that the person isnt talking to the church but utterning mysteries to God! Does this have a scriptural precedence and/or backing? Would you care to expound on the subject of tongues as a prayer language?
Thank you Mcrue for the encouragement, and I am glad the article has spurred some thoughts for you. You have highlighted the exact line people often use to justify speaking in tongues out loud in a worship service. I do see a Biblical basis for the idea of tongues as prayer. Paul does say the person is speaking to God, not to people, and that they are “uttering mysteries in the Spirit” (v.2). He also says that when someone prays in a tongue, their spirit is engaged in prayer even though their mind is unfruitful. (v.14-15). And he even says he personally does this more than anyone in Corinth (v.18). So the idea of a God-directed, prayerful use of tongues is in the text.
But the problem comes when that same idea is used to justify public, uninterpreted tongues in the church gathering. In fact, Paul is doing the opposite of what people assume. When he says the speech is directed to God and not understood by others, he is not encouraging it to be spoken publicly, he is explaining why it does not work in the meeting. If no one understands, then the church is not built up (v.4,v.17). That is why he gives a very clear instruction: if there is no interpreter, the person should not speak in the church. Instead, they should “speak to themselves and to God” (v.28). In other words, “I am speaking to God” is not a reason to speak out in the service, it is Paul’s reason for keeping it private. So Biblically, i see tongues as prayer has a place. But that place, according to Paul, is private unless there is interpretation. The deciding issue for public worship is always “Does this build up the gathered church?”
Thank you for this article. It is truly eye-opening. I had personally asked you to speak on this topic as the Holy Spirit leads, and I appreciate your obedience and insight.
I do have a question for you. What is your perspective on worship leaders who begin speaking in tongues in the middle of a worship session within a church setting, especially when there is no interpretation given? If tongues are primarily for personal edification and are to be exercised privately, would this then be for the edification of the worship leader alone? How do you view this practice from a biblical standpoint?
I also have another question. What is your take on church leaders instructing the entire congregation to begin speaking in their heavenly language or "language of the Spirit"? Scripture emphasizes order in the church and speaks of interpretation when tongues are exercised publicly. Would you consider this primarily a charismatic practice, or is there a biblical basis for it that aligns with the New Testament teachings on spiritual gifts?
I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on these matters.
Thank you Maza for engaging, and I am glad the article served you. Both of your questions are ones the article speaks to directly. On a worship leader breaking into tongues mid-service with no interpretation, your instinct is right. Paul says that without interpretation the one who speaks in a tongue "builds up only himself" (14:4), and that "if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church" (14:28). So it edifies the speaker alone, which is why Paul commands tongues be interpreted or one keeps silent, there is no third option. On leaders and pastors commanding the whole congregation to speak in tongues together, this has no Biblical basis. The Spirit "distributes gifts as He wills" (12:11), so no leader can command a gift God alone gives. Paul asks "do all speak in tongues?" and expects the answer to be a no (12:30). And his order for the assembly is two or three, in turn, with interpretation (14:27).
If I am honest, much of this comes down to a serious doctrinal deficit in the African church. We simply have not had enough careful, patient teaching of Scripture, and so, people end up doing as they please because no one has shown them otherwise. I say this as someone who has had to repent in this very area. No one taught us these things, and for those of us who come from Pentecostal and charismatic backgrounds, it has taken time to bring our practice into alignment with God's Word.(Still learning).
And I will say this to encourage you: it takes courage to honour the Lord in keeping His Word. When everyone around you seems to be doing something different, choosing to be governed by Scripture can make you feel as though you are on the wrong. But our question must always be, does my practice honour God and His Word? If it does, then that is where you should stand, regardless of whether others agree or not.
Aaah, thank you, Wanjiku. (Iam tempted to call you Shiku ,like my daughter😊😊)The way you have debunked this matter is truly commendable. May God continue to give you grace and wisdom. Thank you for shedding light on this confusion. You are absolutely right—even if I were standing alone, I would rather stand on the truth of Scripture. May God help us all to align ourselves with His Word.
This is a sober view of the relevant texts. Even though I end up on a different conclusion, your process is so commendable in its commitment to exegetical priority that I heartily commend this article.
There are a number of things the New Testament instructs without a necessary expectation of their continuation throughout coming history, e.g. greeting one another with a holy kiss. It is possible for Paul to regulate a practice present in the church at the time of his writing but which will eventually cease.
In 1st Corinthians, he also deals with food offered to literal idols and head-coverings versus head shaving. He deals with real issues the Corinthians were facing. He does not expect that those issues will face all churches throughout all of history, but he expects that the principles he teaches as he addresses the first century specifics of that particular church in Corinth will carry over to all churches everywhere, forever.
Again, thanks! This article is well-researched and well-written. Keep at it. You’re great at it. 💪🏾💪🏾
Thank you Caleb for taking the time to engage with the article. Blessings!
Thank you Wanjiku the article is well written.
I tend to come to a different conclusion, much like Caleb, though I have been wondering whether that is because I am truly convinced by Scripture or because, in some ways, being a cessationist feels safer and a complete turn around from the charismatic movement. That said, I still find the cessationist argument stronger overall.
One question I had based on Caleb's argument :
“There are a number of things the New Testament instructs without a necessary expectation of their continuation throughout coming history… It is possible for Paul to regulate a practice present in the church at the time of his writing but which will eventually cease.”
Based on that argument, where would dreams, visions, and prophecy fall? You mentioned them somewhat in passing, and I’ve been wondering how they fit within this framework.
If tongues may not have ceased because is not clearly stipulated, would the same logic apply to dreams, visions, and prophecy? Or would you distinguish those categories differently?
Reginah, I’d also like to read Wanjiku’s response to your question about dreams/visions.
My view is simply that God doesn’t regularly communicate via dreams and visions today because the canon of Scripture is complete. The completion of the of the New Testament Scriptures is a major part of the cessationist argument.
Hebrews 1:1-2 indicates that the nature of revelation changed after the Son showed up on the scene.
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (English Standard Version).
Hey Caleb, why don't we have the dream/ visions discussion when i get to write about them in future God willing? They are outside the scope of the article and I do not think they can be thoroughly examined by extending an article about tongues. Dreams/visions have their own texts: Joel 2, Acts 2, the experiences of Joseph and Daniel, Cornelius' vision, Peter's vision, and Paul's visions in Acts and 2Cor etc. Or perhaps you could explore the subject, reading the various accounts in Scripture, letting the texts speak for themselves as opposed to examining them through either a cessationist or charismatic framework. By the way, is Hebrews 1:1-2 about the closing of the canon, or is the author arguing for the supremacy of Christ? Of course the canon is closed. I'm simply pointing out the importance of paying attention to the context of what the writer of Hebrews is addressing here.
Thanks, Wanjiku. My dreams/visions comment was responding to Reginah. I think that subject matter is closely-related to spiritual gifts which your article discusses.
This is a comment under your article, though; I don’t intend to ignore that fact. I hope you don’t perceive my comments negatively. I haven’t pushed back on your handling of the relevant texts because it is good and commendable—not because it is perfect or agreeable to me.
Of course, we can talk about any of it further when/if you write and I’m able to engage. I really like your Substack. So, I’m likely to engage.
P.S. By nature, some orthodox and important Christian doctrinal positions are derivative from theology (biblical, systematic, historical etc.) than from mere exegesis of specific texts (some times called biblicism). For example, one cannot argue for the closure of the Christian canon from any specific biblical text, but they’d not be considered Christian at all if they argued that the canon was open, therefore.
Hebrews 1:1-2 is an important text in any attempt to understand the culmination of progressive revelation from the God of the Bible—the only true God, according to the Bible.
Thank you, once again! You are doing the Lord’s work here, and I support it heartily.
No worries, I did not take your comment negatively at all. Actually, i would appreciate the kind of pushback that challenges exegesis as opposed to going down the labels road. We all bring our own baggage and presuppositions to the text, so it would be helpful to me, if/ when you point out a different way of looking at the passages I bring up. Then this point here is an intresting perspective.I will find some time and read on. "By nature, some orthodox and important Christian doctrinal positions are derivative from theology (biblical, systematic, historical etc.) than from mere exegesis of specific texts (some times called biblicism). For example, one cannot argue for the closure of the Christian canon from any specific biblical text, but they’d not be considered Christian at all if they argue that the canon was open, therefore."
That you have been wondering if Scripture is your anchor on cessationism or not is a good question to keep pondering on. Our belief and practice should always be informed by Scripture, not by clever arguments both camps tend to have. Now, I precisely stated that the article was not meant to build a case for either continuationism or cessationism. I wish you had not introduced the subject, as it simply was not what the piece was about. I believe it is possible to have the "God talk" without sliding into rigid theological categories. Those make for great intellectual engagement in seminary spaces or structured debates, but for my goals on social media, I prefer to focus purely on "what does the Bible say?" This is because I am not interested in discussions centered on theological systems, because they often yield very little where Christlikeness is concerned.(or maybe i don't like debates as i see them on social media.They never end well). So let's keep engaging, not as cessationists or continuationists, but as people who love the Lord and and are endevouring to do His will.
This said, let me clarify a few things you mentioned, as well as try to respond to a really good question you and Caleb raised.
Thank you, Wanjiku, for the reply.
I hope I didn’t come across like one of those social media warriors trying to defend the different camps without grace.
My intention was simply to engage as a fellow believer. Of course, I know these are secondary matters to our faith, and I appreciate something R.C. Sproul often emphasized that if believers are sincerely trying to be faithful to Scripture, even if they land in different camps on secondary issues, there can still be charity and grace in those disagreements.
I also hope I didn’t sound argumentative. I was genuinely trying to engage and hear your perspective on some of the questions that naturally arise when discussing tongues. As you mentioned, the article was mainly about tongues and not necessarily the broader cessationist vs continuationist discussion. However, I sometimes find it difficult to completely separate the two, since many of the passages that speak about tongues such as Joel also mention prophecy and dreams.
No you didn't come across as “those social media warriors”🙂 and thank you for engaging. There was a time I would also gravitate towards continuationist/cessationists debates.But I realized,camps debates tend to do a lot of proof texting(using the Bible to defend their leanings)…not really caring about what the Bible really says…..
I agree with you Caleb.
Thanks, Reginah.