Is Speaking in Tongues for Today?
- Get link
- Other Apps
I wrote This research paper several years ago (sometime in 2012) for a class. Edits are minor, and where my views have changed or evolved, I speak of that in brackets. The topic is one of controversy in evangelicalism. For me, in the years since I first wrote this, the issue has become less about whether speaking in tongues exists today but rather whether what passes for tongues-speaking is, in fact, the speaking in tongues we encounter in the Bible. I don’t wish to break fellowship with people who disagree with me on this particular issue but are passionate about the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as I am) and hold the Bible as God’s inspired Word (as I do). I believe that biblical tongues-speaking still exists and is rare. Moreover, most of what passes for tongues-speaking in churches today is not the phenomenon we see in the New Testament.
Is Speaking in Tongues for Today?
by Bart L. Denny, 2012 (updated in 2023)
Introduction
Does tongues-speaking continue today? This paper will
closely examine the Scriptures that proponents of the continuationist and
cessationist views see as bolstering their arguments. After carefully
considering the biblical witness, this paper will show that Scripture does not
conclusively support the cessation or the continuation of tongues. However, the
gift is probably rare. Moreover, even if speaking in tongues continues today,
much of what passes for glossolalia today does not meet the scriptural criteria
of this spiritual gift.
[I initially argued that tongues had probably ceased. I guess
you could say I held to a loose cessationism. Since writing this paper in 2012,
I have heard several missionary stories from people whose church traditions
don’t emphasize tongues; in other words, they considered themselves neither
charismatic nor Pentecostal in their theology. Now I believe true, biblical tongues-speaking
(or “glossolalia”) still occurs. However, the phenomenon is rare.
Moreover, as the biblical witness attests, it involves a human
language, unlearned by the speaker. The Holy Spirit uses glossolalia to build the
church and spread the Gospel. As it often was in the New Testament, glossolalia
can be a sign to Jewish people.]
Whether the experience of speaking in tongues—also known as
glossolalia—is a gift of the Holy Spirit that is still active in the church
today is a matter of (not inconsiderable) debate. Thousands of professing
Christians, usually belonging to churches in Pentecostal denominations and
other charismatic movements—”continuationists”—consider such experience evidence
of their having been “baptized in the Holy Spirit” and an essential part of
their spiritual experience.
Other Christians—“cessationists”—see tongues as a miraculous
gift that enabled Christ’s apostles to first witness to the Gospel, but a gift
that ceased with the end of the apostolic witness. This paper seeks to
examine the Scriptural evidence for both continuation and cessation. This
examination must determine what Scripture says is the purpose of this spiritual
gift and whether what is claimed as glossolalia today serves that end.
Tongues in the New Testament
The Bible records tongues-speaking in Acts 2, 10-11, and
19. The Apostle Paul addresses glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 11-14.
In these passages, Paul claims to speak in tongues and seems to acknowledge the
Corinthians do, too (14:18). At the same time, Paul has several purposes
in addressing glossolalia; he never examines specific instances of
tongues-speaking. As Edgar observes, no verse in the Bible explicitly says that
tongues will cease with the apostles’ deaths or that tongues will continue
through the entire Church Age. [1]
Yet we can reasonably appeal to the authority of Scripture
to determine whether purported occurrences of glossolalia meet the biblical
criteria laid out for the gift. If a purported contemporary instance of glossolalia
meets the descriptive and prescriptive standards, then it is reasonable to
conclude that the gift of tongues continues. Evangelical Christians typically
hold a high view of Scripture. Thus, we must appeal to Scripture as our authority,
whether or not tongues are a gift still in effect. And indeed, both
cessationists and continuationists appeal to the biblical witness to bolster
their views.
Continuationists see tongues in Mark, Acts, and 1
Corinthians as principal evidence for their insistence that speaking in tongues
is scriptural. Conversely, Cessationists typically appeal to 1 Cor. 13 as
indicating tongues would cease (usually, they argue that cessation came after
the closing of the scriptural canon). They further appeal to the church’s
experience throughout history; the phenomenon seems glaringly absent after the
apostolic age.
Purpose of Tongues
To judge correctly whether the gift of tongues is active in
the church today, one must examine Scripture’s teachings on the subject.
If an alleged instance of glossolalia today does not meet the scriptural
purposes of tongues-speaking, then it is not a valid, biblical incidence of the
phenomenon. Cessationists and continuationists, appealing to the same
biblical record, have reached both similar and markedly differing conclusions
about the purpose of speaking in tongues.
Known Language for Proclaiming the Gospel
Only in Acts 2 does the New Testament explicitly describe
the nature of tongues. Acts 2:8-11 clearly explains that, when the Holy Spirit
filled the apostles, they spoke in languages that visitors to Jerusalem from
Rome to Arabia—and everywhere in between—heard the Gospel proclaimed in their
native languages. There is broad acceptance among both cessationists and
continuationists that the Pentecost event described in Acts 2 depicts
xenoglossy—the apostles speaking in foreign but human languages, understood by
those visiting Jerusalem from abroad.[2]
Johnson agrees the tongues here were instances of
xenoglossy. He notes that in Acts 2:4, 11, Luke uses the word glossa,
which means (literally) the organ inside the mouth, but which metaphorically
means a language. Johnson sees confirmation of human language of this in
Luke’s further use of the word dialektos (from which comes the English “dialect”)
throughout the book of Acts. Johnson notes that eight times in Acts, Luke
uses dialektos, and the word refers to a humanly-known language each time.[3]
Edgar weighs in, agreeing that, in the New Testament, “glossa
means ‘language’ and is never used for ecstatic speech.” He further
counters that what passes for glossolalia today has “never been verified as
actual languages. All objective studies by impartial linguists indicate
that they do not have the characteristics common to languages.” [4]
Acts 10-11 records the conversion to Christianity of the
first Gentiles and Peter’s subsequent report of the incident to the church at
Jerusalem. Nothing in the account states explicitly that, in this case,
the tongues manifested as xenoglossy. However, in Acts 11:15, Peter
recounts, “(T)he Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the
beginning.”[5] Walvoord, for one, holds this to mean that Cornelius and
his family also spoke in earthly foreign languages, just as did those present
at Pentecost.[6]
The Apostle Paul’s writings on tongues, as contained in 1
Corinthians 12-14, speak more of the proper use of tongues rather than describing
their nature. However, in Edgar’s view, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul
condemns speaking in tongues before the assembly without an interpreter
precisely because the tongues are foreign languages that someone can interpret.
[SIDEBAR: I’ve often thought—perhaps speculatively, but I
think I’m correct—that since the Holy Spirit isn’t in the business of doing
things we can do for ourselves—He’s in the business of showing the power of
God, not doing our dirty work—He’s never going to allow the gift of tongues to
substitute for the hard work of learning a foreign language. More than that, I
can’t help but wonder if the indwelling Holy Spirit might not impart the gift
of tongues by aiding them as they go about learning a new language. Again,
speculation on my part.]
Further, says Edgar, 1 Corinthians 14:22 is clear that the
gift of tongues is a public sign specifically for unbelievers who, presumably,
would be little swayed by unintelligible utterances but might come to faith by
hearing someone proclaim the Gospel in a language the speaker had never
learned.[7] This author finds Edgar’s argument highly persuasive.
A Spiritual Language
Few disagree that biblical instances of tongues-speaking
include xenoglossy. However, in 1 Cor. 14:2, Paul writes, “For one who
speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him,
but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” Many believe that Paul was not
restricting glossolalia to public xenoglossy but that tongues-speakers may also
utter a language known only to God. [A prayer language, I’ve often heard it
called.]
Proponents of tongues as a spiritual language also point to
1 Cor. 14:14, where Paul writes that if he prays in a tongue, it is his spirit
that prays. Smith believes that at the beginning of 1 Cor. 13, when Paul
writes, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels,” the apostle suggests
that he does not believe glossolalia is human language.
[Another sidebar: I instead think that Paul was speaking
hypothetically throughout this passage. If I do all these incredible,
commendable things, what good is it if I don’t do so in love? I believe in
interpreting Scripture in a historical-grammatical, plain sense, and not
allegorizing. But just as hyperbole—intentional exaggeration to make a point—is
a literary device in use today, it was also a familiar way of writing during
biblical times. Jesus used hyperbole extensively.]
Smith also finds it strange that if, at Pentecost, the
apostles’ tongue-speaking was xenoglossy—and thus, intelligible to those that
spoke that language natively—some would accuse them of drunkenness (Acts 2:13,
15).[8]
Many people that find a spiritual language in glossolalia
also refer to Romans 8:26, particularly Paul’s declaration, “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.” Bertone explains that there is support for
this idea of a spiritual language (praying in tongues) because, in Paul’s day, silent
prayer was a foreign notion. Further, Bertone says Romans 8:26 could speak of
ecstatic utterances during prayer. However, as Bertone admits, Rom. 8:26
is probably too ambiguous to judge as definitively referring to tongues-speaking.
Moreover, he concedes that if Paul meant to write of glossolalia, he would
probably have been more precise in his wording.[9]
There is room for sincere people to disagree. However,
the overall biblical witness seems to weigh most heavily in favor of the
argument that glossolalia, as depicted in the New Testament, was speaking
unlearned human languages.
Tongues Governed
Because Paul discusses spiritual gifts there, including
tongues, and their proper use, 1 Cor. 12-14 is a central text in the argument
over whether the gift of tongues is operative today and, if so, how believers
should exercise it. Often appealed to by both cessationists and
continuationists, Paul’s treatment of tongues here definitively proves that they
will cease (1 Cor. 13:8), not when they will cease.
More importantly, Paul’s writing illustrates what the
biblical practice of tongues-speaking looks like.
As Fee—a notable voice in Pentecostal theology—notes, Paul’s
treatment of tongues in 1 Cor. 12-14 is corrective. It suggests that the
Corinthians were so enthusiastic about tongues that they neglected the rest of
the diverse, equally critical spiritual gifts. Moreover, the Corinthians’
tongues-speaking seems to have been a point of disorder during worship, which
Paul could not abide by.[10] The Corinthians’ tongue-speaking—whether
xenoglossy or not—no longer served the purposes God intended but had become a distraction
and an impediment to church health.
While Paul directs the Corinthians not to forbid
tongues-speaking (14:39), he also instructs them in properly exercising the
gift. As Schatzmann observes, Paul saw in spiritual gifts—including
tongues—a three-fold purpose of exalting Christ’s lordship, building up the
church, and loving practice.[11] Paul insisted on orderliness in tongues
speaking (14:27-28) and, as he saw intelligibility as vital to building up the
church, he emphasized that interpretation must accompany tongues-speaking
(14:13, 27).
If an alleged contemporary incidence of glossolalia does not
follow the governance Paul outlines to the Corinthians, then it certainly does
not bolster the case that tongues have continued.
Cessation vs. Continuation: Examining the Evidence
Gaffin finds great difficulty believing miraculous gifts,
such as glossolalia, continued beyond the apostolic period, noting that the
only instances of tongues-speaking recorded explicitly in Acts were either by
the apostles or by persons directly under the ministry of the apostles.
The apostles carried out their miraculous work as expressly commissioned by the
resurrected Christ, and the miracles they—or those under their apostolic
“umbrella”—performed testified to the authority of their eyewitness encounter
with the resurrected Jesus.[12]
Further, Gaffin wonders how it is possible that prophetic
gifts, such as tongues, can possibly continue today, given that even
continuationists remain confused, ambiguous, and divided regarding these
gifts.[13]
While not a theologically monolithic group, most
continuationists are part of the Pentecostal or charismatic movements.
For continuationists, the idea of a “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” or even the periodic
“filling” with the Holy Spirit is usually an integral part of the belief that
tongues-speaking—and other miraculous gifts—are active in the church
today. This baptism or filling with the Holy Spirit “charismatically”
empowers the recipient for a life of mission and witness for Christ.[14]
Mark 16:17
To those who claim miraculous gifts, such as glossolalia,
were limited to the apostles, continuationists refer to Jesus’ words in Mark
15:17, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name, they will
cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues.” Beare contends that
Mark 16:17 is a late addition and that nowhere else do the canonical Gospels mention
glossolalia nor depict Jesus ever promising his followers they will speak in
tongues.
[I’m not sure that Mark’s “longer ending” isn’t original;
I think it is. But that’s a discussion for another time. It is interesting
that, as Beare rightly observes, Jesus doesn’t promise the gift of tongues
anywhere else in the gospels—and he also doesn’t talk about picking up serpents
and drinking poison anywhere else in the gospels. Still, some people in Appalachia
have based their theology and practice on these sayings that are only present
in the longer ending of Mark. It certainly would have been helpful to the ongoing
debate if Jesus had addressed it in other places!]
Instead, Beare says of spiritual gifts of speech, Jesus promised
his disciples that when authorities brought them to trial, the Holy Spirit
would speak through them in their defense (Matt. 10:19-20, Mark 13:11, Luke
12:11-12).[15] That Mark 16:17 is a non-Markian addition to this passage
is far from settled, and overall, the verse argues quite plainly that gifts,
such as new tongues, are the province of all believers.
Acts and the Inherent Apostolicity of Tongues
Acts 2 dramatically shows the Spirit falling upon the
apostles who, with the gift of tongues, proclaim the Gospel in languages that
Jews visiting Jerusalem from across the diaspora recognize. Quite likely,
the diaspora Jews understood the Aramaic vernacular of Jerusalem. Had the
apostles proclaimed the Gospel in the local languages, the visitors would have
understood the apostles’ preaching. More than providing a needed means of
interpretation, the Pentecostal gift of tongues—and other miraculous gifts of
the Spirit–would have granted validity to the apostle’s eyewitness testimony of
the risen Christ.
Acts 10 recounts the conversion to Christianity of the first
Gentiles. That the Gentiles spoke in tongues proved miraculously to the
Jewish Christians that salvation through Jesus Christ was also available to
Gentiles. In Acts 11, Peter’s report of the Gentiles’ tongues-speaking
convinced the Jerusalem church to agree with Peter’s earlier conclusion
regarding salvation for the Gentiles. Nothing in Acts 10 or 11 says that
the miraculous gifts are necessarily for all believers. However, the presence
of Peter may show that the tongues-speaking of the Gentiles also served to
validate Peter’s apostolic authority as he proclaimed the Gospel to them.
In Ephesus, Acts 19 records Paul baptizing “about twelve”
disciples of John the Baptist who claimed not to have previously heard of the
Holy Spirit. Paul then lays hands upon these believers, and they speak in
tongues. Continuationists argue this passage means that speaking in
tongues—following the baptism in the Holy Spirit—is normative for the
church. Cessationists say this incident is far more illustrative of
Paul’s apostolic authority than it is of tongues as an enduring gift in the
church.[16]
Overall, the witness of Acts shows that Jesus’ apostles were
specially empowered and that true tongues-speaking may have been a gift
exercised only in conjunction with the apostolic authority.[17]
[NOTE: My professor felt that 1 Corinthians blew my
argument out of the water as the Corinthians spoke in tongues without an apostle
present. In retrospect, I think he was probably correct.]
1 Corinthians 13:8-13
In 1 Cor. 13:8, Paul says, in part, “as for tongues, they
will cease.” This verse fragment is a source of considerable debate
between cessationists—who see it as clearly championing their view—and
continuationists, who see it in eschatological terms. In the larger
context, 1 Cor. 13 is part of Paul’s corrective to the Corinthians, who seem to
have sought the more sensational gifts. Houghton believes this desire to
speak in tongues likely originates in the Corinthians’ pagan roots, where they
experienced ecstatic religious experiences they came to equate to speaking in
tongues.[18] By reminding the Corinthians that tongues are not
permanent—continuationists and cessationists agree tongues end at some point—, Paul
helps the Corinthian Christians place tongues in proper perspective against the
permanence of love. Scott, a cessationist, somewhat dubiously
contends that, in verse 8, Paul was reminding those possessing the gift of
tongues that their personal gifting would end. [19]
Both cessationists and continuationists appeal to verse
10: “but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” For
many cessationists, such as Dean, the “perfect” that comes is the closing of
the biblical canon, which negates the need for tongues or prophecies.[20] Continuationists
reject this notion, appealing to the “now-then” comparisons of verse 12.
The “now” is on earth, while “then” is in the presence of God. Taken with
verse 12, the “perfect” probably has an eschatological sense: when Christ
returns, and believers see him face-to-face, there is no longer any need for
tongues or prophecies to serve as an intermediary form of communication.[21]
As a whole, then, I Cor. 13:8-13 actually tends to grant
slightly more support to the continuationist position.
The Gifts Lists
In support of their position, continuationists often cite
Paul’s lists of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:1-11, Rom. 12:6-8, and Eph.
4:11). However, Paul seems not to have intended the lists to be
all-inclusive, and he does not mention the gift of tongues in each
passage. Further, in 1 Cor. 12:29-30, Paul demonstrates that believers
are individually gifted. He asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets?
Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing?
Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” The questions are rhetorical,
and Paul’s readers understand the answer is “no.” While Paul gives no indication
here of when tongues will cease, he certainly shows the gift is not normative
for the church, contrary to the claims of so many proponents of modern
tongues-speaking.
Other Evidence Examined
We must appeal to Scripture as our ultimate authority in
determining whether modern glossolalia is a valid phenomenon. However,
while not authoritative in the absolute, church history and even the sciences
may help shed some light on the subject.
Historical Evidence: The Early Church Fathers
Despite views to the contrary, the church cannot claim
infallibility, as the historical record proves. However, if miraculous
gifts, such as glossolalia, continued after the apostles, it is reasonable to believe,
as Edgar does, that the church would have recorded “an unbroken line of
occurrences from apostolic times to the present.”[22]
Indeed, if tongues-speaking continued beyond the apostolic
age, the early church fathers—notably, the disciples of the apostles and, in
turn, their disciples—would have borne witness that the phenomenon endured into
the second century. Yet, none of the second-century fathers’ writings
ever contended that tongues continued into the patristic era. By the
fourth century, John Chrysostom testified that the gifts had ceased long before
his time and claimed that no one in his day was entirely sure of the nature of
the gifts.[23]
Even though they had not observed the phenomenon, the early
church fathers did write about their understanding of the nature and purpose of
glossolalia —an understanding not nearly as chronologically far removed from
the apostolic witness as the church is today. As Busenitz observes, the
patristic evidence shows that tongues-speaking was a supernatural gift, not
given to all Christians, which enabled those so gifted to speak in “unlearned,
rational foreign languages” for the edification of fellow believers (after
translation by an interpreter), or for evangelism. Not all Christians
were so-gifted, nor, says Busenitz, commanded to seek the gift.[24]
Scientific, Psychological, and Linguistic Evidence
Modern tongues-speaking has been the subject of significant
study across various scientific disciplines. In reviewing the extensive
linguistic analysis, Mueller sees no xenoglossy in the modern glossolalic
phenomenon.[25] Poythress sees no xenoglossy and notes that babies,
psychotics, and adherents of other religions can produce noises that sound like
purported glossolalia. Moreover, ecstatic, unintelligible utterances have
long occurred among followers of numerous non-Christian religions.[26]
Further, Poythress argues that the average person can learn how to produce the
free vocalization that could pass for glossolalia.[27]
Busenitz observes that if modern incidents of glossolalia
are indeed examples of spiritual speech, there should still be persons who can
interpret for edification of the church, as Paul directed the Corinthians (1
Cor. 14). However, he says, “Even when two or more different Pentecostal
interpreters listen to the same audio recording of a tongues-speaker, their
interpretations are totally different—suggesting that the tongues themselves
are not real languages that are capable of being translated.”[28]
However, while their utterances are unintelligible,
glossolaliacs are far from insane. According to Hutch’s survey of
research on the subject, psychologists and psychiatrists have failed to show
definitively a particular psychological abnormality that explains
glossolalia.[29] Says Richardson, quite the opposite is true: most
tongue-speakers interviewed by mental health professionals have proven well
adjusted.[30] Still, proven instances of true xenoglossy would win over
many skeptics to the continuationist camp.
Conclusion
To be sure, nothing in Scripture convincingly shows that
tongues have ceased or that, on the other hand, tongues would continue
throughout the Church Age. It seems unwise to declare definitively that
the gift has ended when it is certainly possible for the Holy Spirit to allow a
believer to speak in tongues, should He choose to do so.
However, since tongues seem to have died out after the
apostles’ deaths, and it was not until over eighteen centuries later that a
phenomenon emerged claiming the return of the gift, it seems reasonable to
question why such miraculous gifts would return. It also seems sensible
to examine whether what passes for glossolalia today conforms to the purposes
and patterns of governance the Bible sets forth.
The bulk of the explicit biblical and patristic evidence
shows that instances of glossolalia in the early church were always the
speaking of unlearned, foreign languages. This notion harmonizes
perfectly with Acts 2 and does not contradict the other glossolalia accounts in
Acts. Nor does this idea explicitly contradict Paul’s description of
tongues in 1 Corinthians. Given the weight of Scriptural teaching and the
patristic writings, it seems most likely that true biblical glossolalia is
xenoglossy—speaking in an unlearned but very human and intelligible
language.
Whether it is in Acts or in Paul’s correctives to the
Corinthians, the New Testament affirms purpose of the gift of tongues is to
edify others or to miraculously proclaim the word of God to unbelievers in language
that at least some human hearer present will understand.
This author seeks neither to denigrate the claimed spiritual
experiences of hundreds of millions of Christians nor to attempt to “box in”
the Holy Spirit. However, the long break between the apostolic era and
the claimed reemergence of tongues argues against the gift’s modern
continuation. Further, that there are no scientifically proven examples
of a modern tongues-speaker talking in an intelligible human language or dialect
seems to weigh against the gift’s continuation into the present.
[SIDEBAR: Anecdotally, I have heard enough accounts of precisely
this happening—accounts told by people who do not consider themselves charismatic
or Pentecostal—that I think there is something to it. I have heard of Christian
groups visiting Israel and speaking Hebrew and Christians involved in missions
trips to remote islands speaking the language without having learned it. An African
pastor friend of mine—who is not charismatic or Pentecostal—told me of an
instance where he was preaching in his native language in his homeland of Togo.
A man from another African nation, whose mother language was different, approached
my friend after the sermon and complimented him on how well he spoke the hearer’s
native language. To this day, my friend says he didn’t know that language and was
speaking the language of Togo, yet the foreign listener heard the sermon in his
native tongue. So, that’s why I remain open to the idea that biblical tongues-speaking
still happens.]
The uniqueness of the apostolic witness and the mention of
the gift of tongues only in conjunction with the apostles’ ministry—and the
witness of the early church fathers—argues further that true biblical
glossolalia most likely ceased when the apostles finished their work in laying
the foundation of the church.
Bibliography
Beare, Francis Wright. “Speaking with Tongues: A
Critical Survey of the New Testament Evidence.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 83, no. 3 (September 1964): 229-246.
Bertone, John. “The Experience of Glossolalia and the
Spirit’s Empathy: Romans 8:26 Revisited.” Pneuma: The Journal of
the Society for Pentecostal Studies 25, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 54-65.
Bonung, Douglas C. “The Pentecostal Doctrine of
Initial Evidence: A Study in Hermeneutical Method.” Journal of
Ministry and Theology 8, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 89-107.
Busenitz, Nathan. “The Gift of Tongues: Comparing
the Church Fathers with Contemporary Pentecostalism.” The Master’s
Seminary Journal 17, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 61-78.
Charette, Blaine. “Reflective Speech:
Glossolalia and the Image of God.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society
for Pentecostal Studies 28, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 189-201.
Clifton, Shane. “The Spirit and Doctrinal
Development: A Functional Analysis of the Traditional Pentecostal
Doctrine of Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Pneuma: The Journal of the
Society for Pentecostal Studies 29, no. 1 (2007): 5-23.
Cottle, Ronald E. “Tongues Shall Cease.” Pneuma:
The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 1, no. 2 (September 1,
1979): 43-49.
Dean, Robert. “Three Arguments for the Cessation of
Tongues.” Conservative Theological Journal 9, no. 26 (March
2005): 63-86.
Edgar, Thomas R. “The Cessation of the Sign
Gifts.” Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no. 580 (October 1988): 371-386.
Fee, Gordon D. “Tongues - Least of the Gifts? Some
Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12-14.” Pneuma: The Journal of
the Society for Pentecostal Studies 2, no. 2 (September 1980): 3-14.
Gaffin, Richard B., Robert L. Saucy, C. Samuel Storms, and
Douglas A. Oss. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views.
Stanley N. Gundry and Wayne A. Grudem, editors. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996. Kindle e-book.
Houghton, Myron J. “A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians
13:8-13.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153, no 611 (July 1996): 344-356.Hutch,
Richard A. “The Personal Ritual of Glossolalia.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 19, no. 3 (September 1980): 255-266. ATLA Religion
Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 30, 2012).
Johnson, S. Lewis. “Symposium on the Tongues
Movement: The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 120, no. 480 (October 1963): 309-311.
MacDonald, William G. “Glossolalia in the New Testament.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 7, no. 2 (Spring 1964):
59-68.
McDougall, Donald G. “Cessationism in 1 Corinthians
13:8-12.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003):
177-213.
Mills, Watson E. “Early Ecstatic Utterances and
Glossolalia.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 24, no. 1 (1999): 29-40.
Mueller, Theodore. “A Linguistic Analysis of Glossolalia.”
Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, no. 3 (July 1981): 186-191. ATLA Religion
Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 30, 2012).
Poythress, Vern S. “Linguistic and Sociological
Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and
Limitations.” Westminster Theological Journal 42, no. 2 (Spring 1980):
367-88.
Richardson, James T. “Psychological Interpretations of
Glossolalia: A Reexamination of Research.” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 12, no. 2 (June 1, 1973): 199-207. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 30, 2012).
Schatzmann, Siegfried S. “Purpose and Function of
Gifts in 1 Corinthians.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 45, no. 1
(September 2002): 53-68.
Scott, James W. “The Time When Revelatory Gifts Cease
(1 Cor. 13:8-12).” Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 2 (Fall
2010): 267-289.
Smith, D. Moody. “Glossolalia and Other Spiritual
Gifts in a New Testament Perspective.” Interpretation 28, no. 3 (July
1974): 307-320.
Snoeberger, Mark A. “Tongues—Are They for
Today?” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 14 (2009): 3-21.Van
Elderen, Bastiaan. “Glossolalia in the New Testament.” Bulletin of
the Evangelical Theological Society 7, no. 2 (Spring 1964): 53-58.
Walvoord, John F. “The Holy Spirit and Spiritual
Gifts.” Bibliotheca Sacra 143, no. 570 (April 1986): 109-121.
Endnotes:
[1] Thomas R. Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no. 580 (October 1988): 379-80.
[2] Ibid, 377.
[3] Johnson, S. Lewis. “Symposium on the Tongues
Movement: The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 120, no. 480 (October 1963): 309.
[4] Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts,” 378.
[5] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are
from Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®). Copyright © 2001 by
Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.
[6] John F. Walvoord, “The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 143, no. 570 (April 1986): 115.
[7] Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts,” 378.
[8] D. Moody Smith, “Glossolalia and Other Spiritual Gifts
in a New Testament Perspective.” Interpretation 28, no. 3 (July
1974): 313.
[9] John Bertone, “The Experience of Glossolalia and the
Spirit’s Empathy: Romans 8:26 Revisited,” Pneuma 25, no. 1 (Spring
2003): 54-5.
[10] Gordon D. Fee, “Tongues - Least of the Gifts?
Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12-14.” Pneuma 2, no. 2
(September 1980): 7.
[11] Siegfried S. Schatzmann, “Purpose and Function of
Gifts in 1 Corinthians,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 45, no. 1 (September
2002): 54-7.
[12] Richard B. Gaffin, “The Cessationist Viewpoint,” In Are
Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views. Stanley N. Gundry and Wayne
A. Grudem, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), Kindle
location 554 of 7029.
[13] Ibid, Kindle Locations 847-848.
[14] Douglas Oss, “The Pentecostal/Charismatic Viewpoint,”
In Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, Stanley N. Gundry and Wayne A.
Grudem, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), Kindle Location 4450.
[15] Frank W. Beare, “Speaking with Tongues: A
Critical Survey of the New Testament Evidence,” Journal of Biblical Literature
83, no. 3 (September 1964): 229-30.
[16] Mark A. Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They for Today?” Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal 14 (2009): 10-1.
[17] Ibid, 10-11.
[18] Myron J. Houghton, “A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians
13:8-13,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153, no. 611 (July 1993): 345.
[19] James W. Scott, “The Time When Revelatory Gifts Cease
(1 Cor. 13:8-12),” Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 2 (Fall
2010): 272.
[20] Robert Dean, “Three Arguments for Cessation of
Tongues,” Conservative Theological Journal 9, no. 26 (March 2005): 75.
[21] Houghton, “A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13,”
352-4. Houghton disagrees; he merely restates the position.
[22] Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts,” 372.
[23] John Chrysostom, “Homily XXIX, 1 Corinthians 12:1-2,”
Christian Classics Ethereal Library, nd.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxx.html (accessed November 20,
2012).
[24] Nathan Busenitz, “The Gift of Tongues: Comparing
the Church Fathers with Contemporary Pentecostalism,” The Masters Seminary
Journal 17, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 68.
[25] Theodore Mueller, “A Linguistic Analysis of
Glossolalia,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, no. 3 (July1981): 190.
[26] Watson E. Mills, “Early Ecstatic Utterances and
Glossolalia,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 24, no. 1 (1999): 29-30.
[27] Vern S. Poythress, “Linguistic and Sociological
Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and
Limitations,” Westminster Theological Journal 42, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 369-70.
[28] Busenitz, “Gift of Tongues,” 70.
[29] Richard A. Hutch, “The Personal Ritual of Glossolalia,”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 19, no. 3 (September 1980): 256.
[30] James T. Richardson, “Psychological Interpretations of
Glossolalia: A Reexamination of Research,” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 12, no. 2 (June 1, 1973): 200.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. I welcome respectful disagreement with my posts. Such discussions can cause me to consider perspectives I hadn't examined before. However, I also reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Why? Simple enough, this is MY blog, with MY thoughts, and I want to have a civil conversation that is, at all times, God-honoring in nature.