Anthony Faggiano writes:
“The gift of speaking in tongues, as the New Testament describes it, has ceased. That isn’t a novel claim. It belongs to the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity, to John Calvin, Francis Turretin, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, and R. C. Sproul, and to the major cessationist works: B. B. Warfield’s Counterfeit Miracles, John Owen’s Pneumatologia, and Richard B. Gaffin Jr.’s Perspectives on Pentecost. The Reformed witness on this point is consistent across the tradition.
Faggiano is correct to argue that cessationism isn’t “novel”. Further, there has traditionally been a strong tendency towards that position amongst historical reformed authors. Whether or not this means that the interpretation is uniform and even interpretations of some of those authorities may be open to at least discussion if not dispute. However, despite seeking to offer a “reformed” argument, Faggiano does not engage in detail with the referenced authors, he simply appeals to them as authorities. If he had cited them, then we would have been able to delve into their arguments, ensure we had heard them accurately and perhaps understand their context and reasoning better. Since he has not, we will leave that discussion there for the time being.
Faggiano believes that the gift at Pentecost involved real, human languages. I agree as would many, continuationists, though there are some who argue that the gift observed today represents heavenly languages. I find the argument unconvincing. I believe that when Paul refers to “tongues of men or angels” that he is using hyperbole. Angels as spirits would not be dependent upon speech for communication. I also agree that there is a redemptive-histroical significance to the event at Pentecost that parallels Babel, though this is inferred rather than explicitly stated.
I also partially agree with him when he argues that in 1 Corinthians he writes to believers that are mishandling the gift. However, there are a number of issues with the argument he proceeds to make.
“By the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, the gift had come to a congregation that mishandled it. He ranks tongues at the bottom of the gift list (1 Corinthians 12:28), requires interpretation for public use on pain of silence (1 Corinthians 14:27–28). Paul even framed the gift’s covenantal function as a sign of judgment on unbelieving Israel, citing Isaiah 28:11–12 (1 Corinthians 14:21–22).
The first issue is that Paul offers a number of gift listings in the New Testament, so this should not be seen as an exhaustive listing. Secondly, notice that Paul includes tongues with administration as well as healing. It’s not, and cannot in the wider context of 1 Corinthians 12 be about ranking in terms of a kind of hierarchical status. You are not lesser in God’s kingdom if you are an administrator who prays for healing and sometimes speaks in tongues. The point is that gifts in the church flow out of revelation so that Apostles, prophets and teachers are identified with evangelists in Ephesians 4 to build up the whole church so that all are equipped and use their gifts to build up the church to unity. We don’t get these gifts without first having revelation which is proclaimed and taught.
Faggiona adds that:
“Paul himself sets an expiration date. In 1 Corinthians 13:8 he predicts the gift’s termination:
He goes on:
“A continuationist will reply that “when the perfect comes” (v. 10) is Christ’s return, so tongues continue until then. Reformed exegetes read “the perfect” two ways: some as the Parousia (Second Coming), others as the closing of the canon.4 The cessation case stands either way.
It is worth noting that here he acknowledges a diversity of views amongst reformed exegetes. I am confused though as to how the cessationist argument “stands either way”. If certain gifts ceased because of the closing of the canon, then that might support a cessationist argument. However, I’m not at all sure how it would be supported if 1 Corinthians 13:8 pointed to Jesus’ second coming.
It is of interest that Paul not only refers to tongues passing away but also knowledge. Additionally, he refers to prophesying in part. This suggests that there is a limitation even to Paul’s revelation. Both of these do point to “the perfect” being a reference to the Second Coming.
Paul goes on to say
“13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
This helps give us some context. The point Paul is seeking to make is answering the question raised in chapter 12, what are the higher gifts we are to desire? The answer is that it is the abiding gifts of faith, hope and most of all, love.
A crucial argument from the cessationist position is as follows:
“The gift was a credentialing gift (tongues, prophecy, apostolic miracles), not an ordinary one (teaching, mercy, hospitality). Hebrews 2:3–4 frames the apostolic miracles as God’s witness to “such a great salvation,” and 2 Corinthians 12:12 names “the signs of an apostle” as a distinct mark of a definite class. With the apostolic deposit completed and inscripturated, that function is fulfilled. No one today can claim the office of apostle.
The important question then is whether Hebrews 2:3-4 is singling out the apostles and saying that the gifts were there to attest the apostles only. The verses in question read:
“3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, 4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
I’m not convinced that those verses teach an exclusive bestowal of attesting gifts on the apostles. It is the message that is validated by signs, not the individuals. Gifts are given according to the Lord’s will. Sign gifts were certainly available to the early church, not just to the apostles.
Faggiano’s argument seems to rely on presuming that “Tongues” is intended as a revelatory gift and therefore no longer needed since Scripture is complete. However, I don’t think I have really heard anyone seriously argue that it is intended as revelation and certainly not as special revelation. So, I find his argument unconvincing.
Faithroots 