jesse and frank on the gifts

I love this dialog between Jesse (pro) Phillips and Frank (con) Turk regarding the necessity of the Gifts of the Spirit. The set-up from Turk is as follows.

Paul's first letter to the Corinthians refutes the notion that "sign" gifts are necessary for the on-going life of the church.

I will take the affirmative; Jesse will take the other side. After the string of non-starters here at D-Blog, I hope this one will prove informative and useful for the larger charismatic/cessationist discussion in the blogosphere.

Phillips begins by summarizing the Apostle Paul's point in the first letter to the Corinthians.

in chapters 12-14, he is addressing the issue of spirituality as related to spiritual gifts. His point is that tongues are not the defining mark of true spirituality. Why? According to his argument:

A) Because God gives a “variety of gifts” (12:4), not just tongues
B) Other gifts are also spiritual because they come from the same Spirit, the “same God who empowers them all in everyone” (12:6)
C) The gifts were given as part of God’s assembly of the church body (12:30-12:31) and therefore are meant for “building up the church” (14:12), not puffing up the individual.

He notes that Paul's correction is:

A. Corinthians are proud and use gifts selfishly to puff themselves up
B. Paul says that these gifts should be used instead to build the church up

Therefore, if we deny that the gifts are at all necessary means of sustenance for the ongoing life of the church, we steal the thunder from Paul’s argument, which is: “Foolish Corinthians! Don’t use your gifts selfishly, use them to build up the church!” Paul’s correction assumes that the gifts do serve an ongoing function, and that part of the insidiousness of the Corinthian abuse is that it fails this goal, and seeks only self-edification.

Turk then clarifies his position.

My position is that 1 Cor refutes the necessity of the sign gifts, not the presence of the sign gifts. It in fact leverages the alleged presence of the sign gifts to demonstrate that they are not the main object of church life. I think the perpetual presence of the sign gifts gets refuted in the Pastorals and in the letters from James and Peter ...

Paul's purpose in writing this letter is to demonstrate to the church at Corinth what is necessary for their church to manifest that they are "to be saints together with all those who in every place ... enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge ... so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift" (1 Cor 1:2, 5-7). And in doing that, when he gets to what we are calling there the "sign gifts", Paul makes it plain that there is something greater than supernatural spectacles which is necessary for the church, contrasted against those things which may be present but are unnecessary for the church.

And the asks Phillips:

1 Cor 13 is a place where many Charismatic folk make a stand and say that Paul's view on the end of signs is escatological -- that is, that Paul is here saying that when Christ comes again, that's when the signs will cease because that's when we'll be perfected.

Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?

Phillips replies:

Yes, I do believe that Paul is speaking of the second coming (not with the completion of the canon, for instance).

Why do I believe this? Because the alternative interpretation has some difficulties to it, among other reasons. As I understand it, cessationist hermeneutic holds that prophecy is rooted in divine revelation and it is authoritative. Therefore, "when the perfect comes" refers to the perfect completion of scripture, prophecies and tongues and knowledge "will pass away".

After citing four reasons for this position, he asks:

I would like to know if you think the gift of healing continues today. I think we all acknowledge that with God all things are possible, and he can alter someone's physical state by a work of his providence. How would you build a biblical case for the cessation of the gift of healing and the continuation of God's providential "healings"? If I misunderstand your position, please provide the appropriate nuances my question lacks.

Turk replies brilliantly with confusion that often occurs in the continualist camp.

[A] The sign gifts are miracles
[B] Miracles still happen today
-therefore-
[C] the sign gifts still happen today

He adds his position:

God is active; God works. God is not a far away God who is sort of observing out plight. But the question at hand is whether or not the church has the power to command healing as a necessary function of its existence -- and I deny that this is a necessary aspect of the mission of the church.

Let’s be clear that we are not talking about the miraculous in general in this question of the necessity of sign gifts for the church: we are talking about particular giftings which a person is given which they actually have some ability to dispense. You and I would agree that someone gifted with administration, for example, doesn’t have a gift that sort of comes and goes -- God doesn’t periodically releases a budget or an insurance strategy for a church through that person from time to time. We would say instead that God gifts the person, and the person actively, obediently uses that gift.

Turk does not see that "God answering prayer sovereignly is not the same as a sign gift." and that "what ... does not happen today at any time is something resembling Acts 3:1-10 or Acts 9:32-35 -- that is, for the sake of establishing the apostolic nature of one's ministry, one is given the power to command healing, and that command is fulfilled immediately."

He then challenges Phillips' earlier response.

I appreciate your answer #1 -- though as you can imagine, I disagree with it. My objection would be wholly grammatical.

In your view, as I understand you, the sign gifts are a given which Paul says will last for all time and end in the eschaton, but not love -- love is eternal. However, the grammar in this passage, particularly v. 8 and the use of the conjunction "εἴτε", indicates possible but not necessary circumstances – meaning "if they are present, they will end". That's the way the NASB and KJV translate this verse, btw – "if" or "whether".

In that, Paul's point is that love is necessary for the church but these gifts are not. These gifts are possible but not essential – love is essential.

How would you respond to this objection?

Phillips replies and it is excellent so I'll copy it in its entirety.

There are at least two possible inferences you can draw from the statement, "If the gifts are present they will end."

1: Therefore they are unnecessary
2: Therefore let love (which won't pass), not pride, motivate you to exercise them

So, which interpretation is right? Let's consider A) the grammatical-historical context, and B) the literary context:

A) Historical context: The Corinthians were definitely experiencing these things. Paul was talking to a church that was very charismatic, and saying, "If prophecies are present..." But there was never any question of their presence at Corinth. This is where we must bridge the gap between ourselves and the original hearers.

The Corinthians didn't doubt whether or not prophecy, tongues and the other sign gifts were present or necessary. So, let me demonstrate what I believe the "charis-maniac" Corinthians would have understood Paul to say, versus your inference:

Corinthians: "If the gifts exist they will pass, but love remains" --> "Well, the gifts do exist, and you're saying they'll pass, so explain what you mean about love?" (Paul goes on to do this in 1 Cor 14, see point B below)

Cessationist: "If the gifts exist they will pass" --> "Okay, so they are unnecessary"

And our hermeneutic must interpret the actual meaning of a text as its original intent by the author to the original hearers. Therefore, I think the cessationist inference is premature, given the literary context of 1 Cor 14, to which we turn:

B. Literary Context: Chapter 13 falls directly in between chapters 12 and 14 (obviously!), two chapters which happen to be two of the most in-depth teaching on the gifts and encouragement to exercise the gifts in all of scripture. In my original answer post I mentioned eight different verses that specifically encourage the exercise of these gifts by all the Corinthians (12:7, 8-11, 14:1, 5a,b, 12, 13, 18, 25, 39).

What Paul does is he answers the question I posed above: "What's the big deal about love with respect to these gifts?" Well, love should motivate us to do all that we do. And it should be our love for the church (not pride or a desire to make ourselves appear more spiritual or 'in touch' with God), that motivates us to take advantage of the great potential the gifts have to edify, exhort, encourage and build up the church (12:7, 14:3, 4, 5, 7, 17, 26).

Summary: So, I agree with your interpretation of 13:8, which says "If the gifts are present, they shall pass." I think Paul uses that to say, "But love remains. Therefore lovingly and earnestly desire (14:1) to use the gifts while they remain to edify this great body."

Phillips then queries Turk.

Suppose someone came to you and said, "Paul tells me to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy."

My question has two parts:

1. What would be your initial reaction to that person?
2. How would you interpret 1 Corinthians 14:1 and apply it to this person (suppose they brought it up in your conversation)?

Turk's response is to challenge that person with what they think Paul is really saying in the context of what he said. Turk contends:

What Paul actually says is, "Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy." This statement is a bridge from Paul's exaltation of Love as the higher gift to the application that Love plus Truth edifies the church and wins people with the Gospel, not merely a raw command. And in that respect, Paul is correcting the false notion that the demonstration of gifts is some kind of personal blessing from God to you.

Turk believes Paul to be saying that "unless a gift is demonstrating love, which in this case is manifested in "building up the church", he'd rather not see it at all." That is that "it is possible that there are all kinds of sign gifts in any given church. They are not necessary." Turk believes that the prophecy referenced here is "something akin to preaching and teaching, both of which require Scripture as the foundation for their message."

Turk's next question to Phillips is as follows.

One of the interpretations you gave for what Paul says is “since the gifts will pass away, they are unnecessary”. Problematically, my point was that Paul makes the gifts a possible state by saying “if they are present”, not “because they will pass away”.

Let me hone in on that. Your view is that the gifts are necessary for the church, but I’ll bet you don’t think every believer has every gift.

Must every believer manifest every sign-gift, given Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 12-14, or does Paul presuppose that not every believer will manifest every sign-gift? How do we know this from the text?

Phillips.

My short answer is no.

In his explanation he also offers clarification of what he understands prophecy to be.

I see that you understand prophecy to be almost the same as, or very closely related to preaching and teaching. The biggest issue I have with this understanding is that there are many references in scripture in the New Testament, that seem to understand prophecy as forthtelling and distinct from teaching and preaching, often based on non-scriptural revelation.

To Turk he then asks.

You called prophesying "akin" to preaching and teaching. Do you mean that prophecy is the same thing as teaching/preaching, or that it is similar but different than teaching and preaching.

Depending on your answer: If you think it's exactly the same, how would you object to my view that it is different, in particular the passages I cited in my last answer?

If you think it's similar but different, how would you nuance the differences?

Turk's reply is as follows (and while I disagree with his conclusion - I like his passion and this is a side of Frank Turk that I haven't seen before and I like).

... the Greek verb represented here as "prophesy" has about 7 distinct meanings ...

... Paul is contrasting the "sign" gifts with the "teaching" gifts ...

His point is that the sign gifts -- particularly "tongues" -- is frankly a gift prone to confuse men but that the church should seek to dispel confusion and edify both believers and non-believers.

In that, when Paul is affirming that one should seek to "prophesy", he places that kind of talk in the same company as teaching.

... the sign gifts only build one's self up while the prophecy/teaching gift edifies the whole church ...

Paul makes it clear that it is possible for a person to possess the sign gifts, but it is necessary for the sake of the church to have those who can, impromptu, teach and encourage others with truth. It's the same kind of contrast he makes earlier in this same letter when he admonishes that all things are "lawful" but not all things are "helpful".

Paul's call to them is to seek love and truth, not signs and wonders.

My plea to any charismatic enthusiast is exactly the same: you are forgetting the Gospel for the sake of an alleged experience, to attain a status in your own eyes, or others' eyes, or perhaps you may think it is in God's eyes. Pursue love, and seek to speak the truth as a gift to the whole church. This is what is necessary for the church.

Turk's question for Phillips then.

Paul makes a pretty radical affirmation in 1 Cor 14:28 . This is about a gift you are saying is necessary for the church, yet Paul says explicitly that this gift in the presence of the church needs either to be interpreted in order to be used publicly, or else it must be kept private -- frankly, for the sake of order and edification.

How is it that a gift necessary for the church must be kept private for the sake of order? That is, how can this gift, which not everyone will manifest, be an open source of confusion for the church when it is manifested in the church if it is necessary for church life?

The reply in its entirety:

I disagree that Paul's discouragement of the use of uninterpreted public tongues means that tongues is absolutely unnecessary. Part of the value and necessity of tongues is that when they cooperate with the gift of interpretation, they have immense potency to edify. Interpretation harnesses the power of the tongue and converts it to useful edification for the gathered body, like a solar panel would take the power of the sun and convert it to useful energy for a house.

"Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up" (1 Cor 14:5).

What's the implication of the conditional phrase "unless someone interprets"? The one who prophecies is NOT greater than the tongues-speaker provided there's an interpretation.

In other words, Paul is correcting the regular use of uninterpreted public tongues. But, if there's an interpretation, if that power of tongues is harnessed in the proper way, there is tremendous potency for tongues to edify the whole body. Therefore, tongues is necessary if we want the church to be edified in this way.

So, I don't think that only prophecy edifies the whole church, while the others only edify individual believers, as you say. All the gifts, used properly, edify the whole church, including tongues and interpretation.

"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret" (1 Cor 14:26-27).

He then asks Turk:

You said: "Paul is making it clear that the sign gifts only build one's self up while the prophecy/teaching gift edifies the whole church", and you used 1 Cor 14:4 to justify this point.

Yet, I raised the point that in the very next verse Paul provides an exception, "unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified" (14:5). This would make it clear to me that a tongue does have power to edify, provided that it is properly used in conjunction with interpretation, so that the content of the tongue is understandable. Sign gifts, therefore, when used improperly perhaps only edify the individual, but when used properly do edify the church.

How do you respond to this objection?

Turk:

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 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. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

The underlined parts are words which emphasize a point – “especially”, “even more”, “is greater than”. And what gets emphasized? The upbuilding, encouragement and consolation of people by speaking to them.

This is why it’s just critical not to disconnect this passage, in spite of the artificial chapter breaks, from the one which comes before it in Paul’s discourse on love as a “higher way”. Love is the motive and the context in which we take action, and the kind of action we choose speaks to whether we are doing “love” or not.

Here’s the syllogism:

[A] Gifts which are necessary for the life of the church can stand alone in their use.
[B] Tongues must not stand alone in their use.
-THEREFORE-
[C] Tongues are not necessary for the life of the church.

And his final question for Phillips.

My view of the activity of the church in the last 2000 years is that, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of churches did not display the sign gifts -- healing, prophecy in the "thus saith the lord" sense, tongues (both angelic and human languages), and interpretation (both angelic and human languages).

If the sign gifts are a necessary part of the ongoing life of the church, what should we make of all these churches which have never displayed the sign gifts once?

Before answering the question, Phillips responds to Turk's assertion that tongues are unnecessary because they can't edify alone.

Your logic is as follows: Thing A (tongues) cannot accomplish Effect C (edification) without help of Thing B (interpretation). Therefore, tongues is unnecessary for edification. Does this always work? Let's apply it to something else, like procreation: A woman (thing A) cannot accomplish procreation (effect C) without the help of a man (thing B). Therefore, a woman is unnecessary for procreation.

Clearly this doesn't always work. It only works if Thing B (man/interpretation) can accomplish the effect (procreation/edification) alone. Can an interpretation edify alone, without any tongue? No, because it would not be an interpretation if there was no foreign tongue to interpret.

He the addresses the question with a series of examples of Spiritual gifts through the ages.

Finally Phillips provides a summary of the exchange - it brought me to tears ... well done.

I think both sides would agree that the primary concern for Christians is to edify the church, not build up themselves, put themselves on some inside-track of super-spirituality based on some gnostic, hidden knowledge reserved for an elite few. No, the goal is love, and love motivates us to edify, build up and encourage others. On this we agree.

We disagree in that I believe all the gifts when properly used can edify the church, whereas some would think that only certain gifts edify the church, whereas some simply edify the individual. So, it is on this conclusion, that all the gifts edify the church that I make this final summary of my thinking and plea to pursue this edification:

Are the gifts necessary? Only if we desire the church to be edified in every way possible, in each way that God has told us it could be so. If we don’t desire a church to be edified in every way possible, if we are content that the church can be edified in the safe ways, while avoiding those means of edification that are fraught with potential abuse, then I admit the gifts are not necessary for the life of a church.

But if we desire the church to be edified in the full variety of ways God has given for it to be built up, the spiritual gifts are necessary. Why? Because Christians need to feel good about their super-spirituality? No, because God has invested into the gifts the inherent power to accomplish this essential task of encouragement. A church that does not pursue the gifts cannot be fully edified, or it would mean nothing for God to offer gifts that edify. Can we answer the wisdom of God who offers gifts to edify by saying, “No thanks, Lord! You offer something dangerous. We’ll content ourselves with the safe ways of edifying your bride.”

What irony, that we would neglect a God-ordained means of edification of His bride, out of the pretense that we are trying to protect it. Protect it from what? Protect it from abuse and excess. Carry on nutritionist; keep telling the church that she may not eat this dish lest she become a glutton. By implementing a diet of strict abstinence, for fear that eating from this portion of God’s table will lead to gluttony, you have shown great practical wisdom, even greater caution than Paul, who never once told the Corinthians they should not pursue the gifts. That apostle, for all he did well, surely missed an opportunity to reprimand those Corinthians for being zealous for the gifts, and could have saved himself a lot of trouble, if only God had given him such advice, and told them to get on to better things like love and abstain from these sin-fraught gifts that lead to so much trouble.

But Paul never did this. He recognized that even gluttons must eat. Even people who have abused gifts must still pursue them. Even people who have seen the gifts used for all manner of evil must still view them as necessary.

Why? Because the church must be edified. The gifts must be pursued. We who are earnest for the church to be edified must leave no stone unturned. The church must be edified through the preaching of the word. The church must be edified through the fellowship of the saints. The church must be edified through the sacraments. The church must be edified through fasting and prayer and the spiritual disciplines. The church must be edified through singing and through evangelism. And yes, the church must be edified through the charismata.

Be vigilant! Let the building up of the church consume you. Do not pursue all means of edification except one. Do not cease at the last point, though it may be the hardest and most dangerous. Press on. Rooted in love, earnestly desire the spiritual gifts that the church may be edified in every way possible, that the bridegroom may avail to the bride the full measure of divine nourishment.

Technorati Tags: cessationism, charismata, Signs & Wonders, spiritual gifts