NAME: Deve Fassam

COURSE TITLE: Systematic Theology 1 THS 501

INSTITUTION: Africa Centre for Theological Studies, Lagos

SUBMITTED TO: Dr. Victor Reasoner

DATE: 21st July, 2021

TITLE OF PAPER: Cessationism Vs Continuationism of Tongues

Introduction

I chose to write on this topic because I don’t speak in tongues, or have never spoken in tongues,
yet I know so many genuine and sincere Christians who do. I have never been able to reconcile
the tongues mentioned in Acts 2 at Pentecost, with those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14. For on
the one hand, those listening to the Apostles could understand what they were saying and even
exclaimed “we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues,” (Acts 2:11). While
on the other hand, Apostle Paul spoke of tongues as something that needed interpretation. He
made it clear that tongues can edify the speaker but not the hearers, since they are not able to
fathom what it is the speaker is saying (1 Corinthians 14: 6-22).

This discrepancy has divided the Christian church. Whereas the problem in the Corinthian
church was that the brethren spoke in tongues without caution, the problem today or in
contemporary Christianity is that some make too little of tongues, while others make too much of
them. This has led many to emphasize the phrase, “born again with the evidence of speaking in
tongues.” This phrase has left those who have never spoken in tongues, this writer inclusive,
feeling like they are not genuinely born again. Whole denominations have been built around this.
If the church has been divided over modes of baptism, with some advocating for immersion-only
and others for sprinkling-only, one begins to wonder why the disciples did not divide themselves
into two groups, when Christ healed two blind men, one with mud and the other without it. If
that happened, today we would have had the muddites and the anti-muddites.

Such is the nature of Christianity and some of those teachings that are a bit controversial. Based
on the Pentecost account in Acts 2 alone, I had taken sides with cessasionist (those who believe
that tongues and other spiritual gifts like visions, dreams, healing, prophecy and interpretation
have ceased), believing hook-line-and-sinker that indeed it is true that the gift of tongue was
needed only for evangelizing the non-Jewish world. And I have gone to town with this notion,
even meditatively drawing parallels the dispersal at Babel, when the Lord, due to his desire to
have them obey his command to fill the earth and also punish their idolatry, confused their
languages. I wanted to believe that the languages at Babel helped in this dispersal, just as much
as those the people heard at Pentecost helped in filling the world with the Gospel message.

But while the cessasionist theory better supports my tonguelessness or my inability to speak in
tongues, I understand that Paul instructs the Corinthian brethren not to “forbid speaking in
tongues,” as well as hinting that “when the perfect comes, the imperfect…tongues will cease,” (1
Corinthians 13:8-10), which leads me to ask myself series of questions, one of which is: has the
perfect come? In addition, in denying tongues still exist today, I am calling those trusted friends
of mine liars, babblers and pretenders (Keener, 2001). So I set out to examine the theory
continuationists posit, for I reasoned that if Paul encouraged us to desire these gifts, especially
those that are impactful and speaking in tongues happens to be a gift that edifies the speaker,
why shouldn’t I desire to be edified?

Furthermore, the Lord said in Mark 16 that those who believe in him will speak in new tongues.
Yet in Paul’s teachings on tongues, he talked of tongues as gifts that some could have, while
others will not have. But elsewhere in Acts 19, he prayed for some new converts in Ephesus to
be baptized with the Holy Spirit and they spoke in tongues (and also prophesied), forcing me to
ponder on why these brethren spoke in tongues if it were just a gift that some could or could not
be given? Yet we know that the Holy Spirit works in diverse ways, he showed different signs at
Pentecost and in subsequent cases, those signs varied. Advocates of continuationism hold that
speaking in tongues is a necessary sign for all those who are truly saved and have the Holy
Spirit. But can someone be saved and not have the Holy Spirit? Why did Paul ask the Ephesians
if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed? For if they believed without the Holy Spirit,
would their faith be considered genuine? Is the Spirit limited to just one way of manifesting
himself?

The questions abound and in this paper, this writer will attempt to answer them.

Speaking in Tongues: Why They Matter

Although speaking in tongues is not a fundamental Christian doctrine, it has divided the Church
since the 1st Century. Whole denominations, like the charismatic or Pentecostal movements, have
been formed based on speaking in tongues. However, in the early days of the church, believers
had many different forces to contend with in the form of doctrines and philosophies that struck at
the core of Christianity. The apostles had to ward off Gnosticism and defend the truth against
Judaizers. In the post-apostolic era came philosophies like Docetism, Cerinthianism,
Eutychianism, Nestorianism, Arianism, etc. While Ana-Baptists rose in the Dark Ages, the
period of the Reformers had to deal with issues bordering on series of denominations springing
up (Gromacki, 1967).

In the 20th Century, there arose a new movement in America called Pentecostalism with a very
serious emphasis on the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues in particular and spiritual gifts in
general. As it is with everything taught in scripture, speaking in tongues can also be abused and
counterfeited (Unger, 1971). I remember one of my roommates during my 3rd year in the
university, how he would organize tongue speaking classes where he would teach people how to
speak in tongues. I also remember my first cousin, who used to be an alcoholic and a cultist. He
got saved and started attending the foundation class in the church where he got saved. During his
time there, they kept telling them that if they don’t speak in tongues, their salvation was not
genuine. And as they kept hammering on tongues, without teaching them how to grow in Christ,
he walked away and went back to the world. He is still in his old ways even at this moment. It is
therefore important to take a closer look on the issue of speaking in tongues using scripture as
the lens.

But that is just one side of the problem. Fundamental Evangelicals have continued to argue that
speaking in tongues is not a gift for today. They hold that the modern tongues movement is not a
genuine continuation of the first century phenomena, but rather it originates from some other
source. In his paper titled Tongues Shall Cease, Gilbert B. Weaver concluded, “The condition for
the cessation of the spiritual gifts of knowledge and prophecy and tongues is the completion of
the New Testament canon.”

Four Views on Speaking in Tongues

Before I present these four views, what does speaking in tongues mean? Technically, the Greek
term used in scripture for tongues is glossolalia and comes from two root words, glossa (tongue)
and lalein (to speak). There are many definitions given for the word glossa, but three of them
stand out. In Luke 16:24, it is used to refer to the tongue. While in 1 Corinthians 12:10, it refers
ecstatic utterances. And when the word ekstasis (which may mean a trance as used in Acts 10:10;
22:17 and by extension, astonishment) is thrown into the mix, things get completely different.
Thirdly, “glossolalia,” as George Mallone (1983) said, “has also been used to mean speaking in
a new tongue (Mark 16:17), the other tongue (Acts 2:4), the diverse tongue (1 Corinthians
12:10), and the unknown tongue (1 Corinthians 14:2) which accompanied the beginning of the
church at Pentecost.” All these views are curled from

Cessationism
Cessationism is the view that miraculous gifts essentially ended after the formation of the
Apostolic Church. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. defends this view. He clarifies his position by noting
that he is not arguing that all gifts of the Spirit have ceased. Rather, the question
is “not whether but which spiritual gifts continue today” (41). He notes that God may choose to
miraculously heal persons, but expresses doubt over people being granted a specific gift of
healing. His greatest difficulty lies with the word “gifts” such as prophecy, speaking in and
interpreting tongues, and the like.
The problem with these sorts of gifts, argues Gaffin, lies in the question of the sufficiency and
closedness of the canon. Gaffin notes that those who hold to the continuation of these gifts
generally assert that tongues may be counterfeited and thus should not be given the same level of
importance as those gifts that are not too miraculous. Moreover, the gifts of the Spirit were
intended for the Apostolic Church as signs of God’s special activity during that period (56-58).
In his book, The Modern Tongue Movement (1967), Gromacki argues that tongues were intended
for the early Christians alone, as an initial sign of the coming of the Holy Spirit, and not a
necessary sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit like most present-day advocates of the tongues
movement affirm. He calls this notion of theirs a misunderstanding of the biblical doctrine of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. George Mallone (1983) also affirms this.
In my evaluation of the cessationist view, a few things stand out as I weigh the arguments on
show with scripture. Central to the cessationists view are the verses:
"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for
knowledge, it will pass away. (1 Corinthians 13:8, ESV)"
And Ephesians 4:11-14 which talks about the gifts of teachers, apostles, prophets and pastors
being necessary only until we all attain to the fullness of Christ. They also argue that tongues as
discussed were known human languages that were given the early apostles to enable them reach
the non-Jewish world (Unger, 1971).
I must say that 1 Corinthians 13:8 does not talk about the time when tongues shall cease, to
therefore suggest, like cessationists do, that they ceased after the passing of the first apostles is
highly probable. And where scripture does not expressly speak, it is important for us not to
suggest something else. Secondly, world evangelism is still very much on, as people are still
being reached for the Lord (Tatham, 1976). We know this is to be true because if all the world
had been reached, the Lord would have already returned (Matthew 24:14). Thirdly, we are yet to
reach perfection and we still don’t know in full despite the completion of the New Testament
canon. When Paul talked about perfection and us someday knowing in full (1 Corinthians 13:9-
12), he never meant that someday to be the completion of the canon. For even now, there is still
so much believers are yet to know. Paul meant the type of knowing that believers will know
when they see God. That is what the context of those scriptures suggest.
Open but Cautious
The “Open but Cautious” view is championed by Robert Saucy. He expresses the view that the
Bible does not make clear whether specific miraculous gifts continue today or not. Thus, he
remains open to continuation of these gifts, but cautious in their application and use.
Central to Saucy’s caution is the argument that miraculous gifts are centered on specific times
and purposes within salvation history. Thus, according to Saucy, miraculous gifts like the gift of
tongues act as signs of God’s activity within very specific contexts. The Apostolic Era is to be
considered unique, and the expression of spiritual gifts during this time should not be read
verbatim onto the present era (100-102). Moreover, he argues, the Biblical evidence for periods
of miraculous activity is “uneven” and “particularly concentrated at certain times,” specifically
“that of Moses and the Exodus, the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and Christ and the apostles”
(103). Miracles are thus to be understood explicitly as a “sign” with a specific purpose in mind to
“give credibility to something” (105). Miracles are used to “authenticate” specific individuals in
times of need (108). Tongues are to be understood only as a sign that served to authenticate the
first outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. And also as a sign to
unbelievers.
Saucy appeals to the history of the church to make his point. He argues that throughout the
history of the church, there is little miraculous activity noted. Thus, although we should be open
to the possibility that such gifts may manifest themselves, we should remain cautious of claims
to that effect. Saucy concludes with a discussion of individual gifts and what the Bible teaches
about them. Representative is his discussion on tongues, which notes several clarifications
regarding how it should be used and understood (including that it is to be done in an “orderly
fashion” and that there must be interpretation if spoken in a corporate meeting) (128).
Saucy’s cautious view on some spiritual gifts like tongues seems like the one I can relate with
the most. He takes a humble stance on the matter and approaches scripture with the right caution
like finite beings should. Like I earlier stated in my views on Gaffin’s cessationist theory, it is
better if we avoid taking definite positions on aspects of the written will of God that are
debatable. Therefore, if scripture never said when tongues will cease, we must refrain from
putting a date on it. More so, that the majority of theologians agree that Christ’s words “…but of
the day, no one knows, not even the Son,” mean he was limited by human nature, it then follows
that we mere men, saved as we may be, must always be willing to agree that some aspects of
truths are beyond us (Gillquist, 1974).
Third Wave
C. Samuel Storms argues that miraculous gifts do continue today, but that the doctrine of
“subsequence” should be rejected. Subsequence is the notion that after conversion, there is a
“baptism in the Holy Spirit” which is initially experienced by speaking in tongues and manifests
itself in various spiritual gifts (176).
Storms argues that cessationists misrepresent those who argue for continuation, for cessationists
often appeal to the “infrequency” of the miraculous in order to argue against the notion of
miraculous gifts. They argue that this demonstrates that such events are purely the actions of a
sovereign God acting whenever God chooses. In contrast, Storms notes that God’s spontaneous
action may indeed empower individuals and indeed that the intermittent nature of the practice of
such gifts does not undermine their classification as spiritual gifts.
Storms further asserts that although miracles have indeed been used as signs, this fact does not
allow one to reduce the miraculous gifts to being only signs and nothing else (188-189). Storms
analyzes a number of major arguments for cessationism and finds them all wanting. In particular,
Storms presses the notion that the Bible nowhere declares that the gifts found in the apostolic
period would have some cutoff time period.
The denial of the doctrine of subsequence by Storms is in line with scripture. The often quoted
scripture to prove this is Acts 19:1-7, where Paul prayed for some 12 disciples after they
believed and they were baptized with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and prophesied.
However, the word “disciple” could also mean follower or learner, there is no evidence as to
whether they were Christians. Paul, in his explanation, pointed out what kept them from
receiving the Holy Spirit, namely: their sole knowledge of the baptism of John, which was of
repentance alone. Secondly, even belief in Christ doesn’t make someone saved, not to mention a
belief in John’s sermons on repentance. James 2:19 makes it clear that even demons believe in
one God and even tremble, but that does not make demons saved (Bittlinger, 1973). It must then
be asserted like the rest of the New Testament asserts that, Christians do receive the Holy Spirit
the moment they are saved, even though the manifestation may vary, depending on what the
Holy Spirit wills (Acts 2:38, Romans 8:9). New Testament teachings often recognized salvation
and baptism with the Holy Spirit to be simultaneous.
Pentecostal
Douglas Oss argues that defining Pentecostalism as a “second blessing” theology must clarify
what they mean by “second blessing.” He notes that Pentecostals do believe that believers
receive the Holy Spirit post-conversion as an empowerment for charismatic gifts. However, this
filling is not part of salvation nor is it required for salvation. Instead it is part of sanctification: it
is empowerment by the Spirit. Moreover, Oss notes that there may be several empowerments or
“refillings” of the Holy Spirit, for there is diversity in the “manifestations” of the Spirit (242-
243).
Oss traces the Biblical data and concludes that the Old Testament shows that there is both the
“inner-transforming” work of the Holy Spirit and the “empowering” work located therein. In the
New Testament, Oss notes that the Holy Spirit works to empower the believers with various
manifestations of miraculous gifts.
The gifting of the Holy Spirit is initially observable through speaking in tongues, but again this is
not required for salvation. It is merely the pattern of God’s gifting. First tongues, later other gifts,
though this is not always the case or even a requirement (260-263). Oss appeals to Joel 2:28-32
to note that the last days will not conclude until Christ’s second coming and so we should expect
gifts of the Spirit throughout the present era (266ff).
The view that believers in Christ get a second work of grace or a second baptism of the Holy
Spirit with the evidence of speaking tongues, like it is affirmed in Pentecostal circles, is nowhere
taught in the bible, something Harold Horton in his 1934 book The Gifts of the Spirit (pg. 136)
agrees with. He noted that speaking in tongues is the only evidence he sees in scripture for the
Holy Ghost infilling. But this must be considered heretical. Third wave holds that this
subsequent baptism is what is referred to as sanctification. But in all scripture, nowhere are we
taught that some people got this second baptism and therefore became sanctified. I have met a lot
of tongue-speaking Christians today and I can assuredly say that when I weigh their lives against
the standard, Christ, they are not in any way more sanctified than those who do not speak in
tongues. If anything, I find them less sanctified. This may be because most of them prioritize this
so-called gift over and above becoming more Christ-like, just like a well-endowed girl today
would prioritize her looks more than her character.
Conclusion
I chose to write on this topic because I badly wanted to believe that what most Christians speak
today as tongues is true. And as such, I began this paper with the intent of proving from scripture
that those who speak in tongues today are truly manifesting the gift of tongues as mentioned in
scripture. But when I began, it became clear that what the bible speaks of as the gift of tongues
has little or no similitude to the babble we today hear our friends speak.
What the Bible Says
The gift of speaking in tongues is deeply involved with the great commission that Christ Jesus
gave to His disciples before He ascended to heaven. A closer look at what Jesus said to them
about speaking in tongues:
Mark 16:15–17 …..’And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall
be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils;
they shall speak with new tongues.’
Now many Christians take the gift of tongues as being able to speak in ecstatic “heavenly”
tongues, the way millions do in churches throughout the world today. But we cannot just take
Bible verses out of the context in which they were written.
Acts chapter 2 describes the first occurrence of the gift of tongues. On the day of Pentecost, the
apostles spoke in tongues. The chapter makes it clear that the apostles were speaking in a human
language (Acts 2:5–11).
That the word translated “tongues” in both Acts chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians chapter 14 is
GLOSSA which means “language.” It is the word from which we get our modern English word
“GLOSSARY.” Speaking in tongues is the ability to speak in a language the speaker does not
know, in order to communicate the gospel to someone who does speak that language. In the
multicultural area of Corinth, it seems that the gift of tongues was especially valuable and
prominent. The Corinthian believers were able to better communicate the gospel and God’s
Word as a result of the gift of tongues (Ayomide, 2018).
However, Paul made it abundantly clear that even in this usage of tongues, it was to be
interpreted or “translated” (1 Corinthians 14:13, 27). But in our churches today we rarely
interpret or translate these tongues.
A Corinthian believer would speak in tongues, proclaiming God’s truth to someone who spoke
that language, and then that believer, or another believer in the church, was to interpret what was
spoken so that the entire assembly could understand what was said.
We can clearly see that the purpose of the gift of tongues was so that the people from other
nations who spoke in different languages (tongues) could hear the good news of the gospel of
Christ Jesus.
The gift of tongues was given to the disciples in the upper room on the day of Pentecost, and
they were just speaking as they normally would, BUT the Holy Spirit had enabled them with the
gift of tongues to speak in the various languages of the people listening.
Throughout the Bible, the word tongue means language, NOT some ecstatic utterance that many
people utter today. Was the gift of tongues given to other people throughout the New Testament?
Yes, the Holy Spirit fell upon many others which enabled speaking in tongues (other languages)
to bring glory to God and the gospel message.
Acts 10:44–46 ….. ‘While Peter spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard
the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with
Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they
heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.’
So the Gentiles were given the gift of speaking in tongues. But what tongues were they
speaking? Were they speaking ecstatic tongues like so many do today? No, the gift of tongues
that they were given was to speak in other languages, and the Jews heard the Gentiles give glory
to God in their very own language. Many Christians who speak in this ecstatic gibberish called
tongues today, use a couple of verses from the apostle Paul to excuse their speaking in this
explosive tongue. The problem is, they ignore the rest of the evidence which points to speaking
in tongues as the sudden ability to speak in another language of the earth, and completely miss
the point Paul is making with tongues of angels.
What point was Paul trying to get across when he talked about speaking in tongues of Angels?
Let’s take a look at the Bible verse in question:
1 Corinthians 13:1 ….. ‘Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.’
Now the key to understanding this Bible verse about speaking in tongues of angels, is in the
VERY NEXT verse! What does Paul say in the next verse?
1 Corinthians 13:2 ….. ‘And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries,
and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not
charity, I am nothing.’….. This is amazing! Did any man or woman who has ever lived (except
Jesus) understand ALL mysteries?
Did any man or woman that has ever lived have ALL knowledge? Did any man or woman that
has ever lived have ALL faith? Of course not!
So what is Paul trying to get at? He’s basically making the point that even IF. Even IF he or
anyone could speak in all languages of men and angels. Even IF he or anyone had ALL
understanding and knowledge and faith. Even if they had ALL these things but did not show love
and charity, they would have NOTHING (Gromacki, 1967).
He’s not saying that we CAN speak in the language of angels, or have ALL wisdom and
understanding and faith. He’s just saying that IF we could do these things but still didn’t show
love, then they would mean nothing.
Saying it in another more worldly way. If we were like superman, but did not show love and
charity, we being like superman would count for nothing! Does it mean we CAN be like
superman? Of course not! Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 is talking about the importance of true love in
your life. Even if you had ALL gifts and wisdom and knowledge and faith (which you wouldn’t)
and did not have love, those gifts would count for nothing.
1 Corinthians 14:2, 9, 13, 14 ….. ‘For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto
men, but unto God: for no man understands him; howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
Vs. 9 ‘So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it
be known what is spoken? For you shall speak into the air. Wherefore let him that speaks in an
unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit pray,
but my understanding is unfruitful.’
This is another Bible verse that Christians who speak in ecstatic tongues use to defend what they
do. They cling to those words “unknown tongue” and make them mean a heavenly language of
tongues of angels. Suppose a Chinese person came into an English church and started speaking
in Mandarin or Cantonese. What would that be? It would be an UNKNOWN TONGUE. And if
there wasn’t anyone in the church who had the gift of interpretation, or the person himself could
not interpret, who would that Chinese person be speaking to? God alone! Because only God
would understand what that person was saying.
And look at what Paul said further on in this chapter, which clarifies what he was talking about:
1 Corinthians 14:18 ….. ‘I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.’

We know that Paul could speak in a number of different languages of the earth. He wasn’t
speaking in ecstatic tongues like many Christians do today, but simply different languages of the
earth. This is what he is talking about with speaking in tongues. And in verse 22 he wraps it up
by saying ….. ‘Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that
believe not: but prophesying serves not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.’
Speaking in tongues (speaking in different languages) is for a sign to those who don’t believe.
Now how can speaking in ecstatic tongues (gibberish) be a sign to those who don’t believe, when
all they think when they hear it happen is that the people are crazy! And it largely remains
behind closed doors. How can that be a sign to non-believers?
Satan has a counterfeit for many of God’s truths in the Bible, and he has a counterfeit for
speaking in tongues. That counterfeit is this ecstatic “gibberish” that is heard in many churches
today. Please don’t be fooled into thinking that speaking like that is the true gift of tongues,
because it is not. Many people will even teach that you don’t have enough faith if you are not
speaking in tongues. This is nothing but deception, because God gives different gifts to different
people (Ayomide, 2018).
Praying in Tongues
What, then, is praying in tongues, and how is it different than speaking in tongues? 1 Corinthians
14:13–17 indicates that praying in tongues is also to be interpreted. As a result, it seems that
praying in tongues was offering a prayer to God. This prayer would minister to someone who
spoke that language, but would also need to be interpreted so that the entire body could be
edified. This interpretation does not agree with those who view praying in tongues as a prayer
language. Those who view praying in tongues as a personal prayer language between a believer
and God (1 Corinthians 13:1) that a believer uses to edify himself (1 Corinthians 14:4). This
interpretation is unbiblical for the following reasons:
 How could praying in tongues be a private prayer language if it is to be interpreted (1
Corinthians 14:13–17)?
 How could praying in tongues be for self-edification when Scripture says that the
spiritual gifts are for the edification of the church, not self (1 Corinthians 12:7)?
 How can praying in tongues be a private prayer language if the gift of tongues is a “sign
to unbelievers” (1 Corinthians 14:22)?
 The Bible makes it clear that not everyone possesses the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians
12:11, 28–30). How can tongues be a gift for self-edification if not every believer can
possess it? Do we not all need to be edified?
 Some understand praying in tongues to be a “secret code language” that prevents Satan
and his demons from understanding our prayers and thereby gaining an advantage over
us. This interpretation is unbiblical for the following reasons:
- The New Testament consistently describes tongues as a human language, and
Satan and his demons are well able to understand human languages.
- The Bible records countless believers praying in their own language, out loud,
with no concern of Satan intercepting the prayer. Even if Satan and/or his
demons hear and understand the prayers we pray, they have absolutely no power
to prevent God from answering the prayers according to His will. We know that
God hears our prayers, and that fact makes it irrelevant whether Satan and his
demons hear and understand our prayers.
 Lastly, the feeling of “self-edification” is natural. The human body produces adrenaline
and endorphins when it experiences something new, exciting, emotional, and/or
disconnected from rational thought.
This Writer’s Final Words
a. Praying in tongues is most definitely an issue on which Christians can respectfully and
lovingly agree to disagree. Praying in tongues is not what determines salvation. Praying
in tongues is not what separates a mature Christian from an immature Christian. Whether
or not there is such a thing as praying in tongues as a personal prayer language is not a
fundamental of the Christian faith.
b. Do I believe that biblical tongues have ceased? No I don’t. But based on credible
evidence provided by scripture, as discussed above, I don’t believe the things some
Christians utter today as tongues are not the true tongues. The truth is, the gift of
speaking in tongues is the sudden ability to speak in another language of the earth, and
nothing more! It is not “shakarabos stamanahi hikarabos stamanahi jegerebos
stamanahi,” like I have come to hear a close relative constantly say (Akinbode, 2018).
c. I believe God can still empower some persons with the true gift to be used appropriately.
But to believe tongues have ceased only because the scripture has been concluded is to
commit the same error that is based on assumption, as those who assume that tongues are
ecstatic babble. Are there still people who are unsaved and need to be evangelized? Yes!
Are there still people who don’t believe, to whom tongues can be a sign? Yes! I affirm
that tongues are useful even today, but are not a valid way to measure one’s spirituality.
d. There is no second work of grace of subsequence when the Holy Spirit comes to baptize
the believer with evidence of speaking in tongues particularly. He may come to further
empower the believer for some specific tasks or for to become more like Christ. This is to
say that Paul is not calling anyone to a second or third work of grace. Paul is simply
calling us to a spirit-inspired life, by whatever initial and continuing experiences we are
introduced into it (Keener, 2001).
e. We Christians must focus more on the Holy Spirit’s provision of an intimate relationship
with our risen Lord and empowerment to make him known and to live out the fruit of
God’s power.
 Bibliography
Bittlinger, Arnold. (1973). Gifts and Ministries. United States: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Gillquist, Peter. (1974). Let’s Quit Fighting About the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Corp.
Gromacki, G. Robert. (1967). The Modern Tongues Movement. United States: The Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co.
Grudem, W. A., Gundry, S. N., Saucy, R. L., Gaffin, R. B. (1996). Are Miraculous Gifts for
Today? Four Views. United States: Zondervan Pub.
Horton, Harold. (1934). The Gifts of the Spirit. United States: World Map
Keener, S. Craig. (2001). Gift Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker
Academic.
Mallone, George. (1983). Those Controversial Gifts. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
Reasoner, Victor. (2010). Fundamental Wesleyan Theology. Culverson Avenue Evansville:

Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers.

Speaking the Tongues of Angels and Men: A Conundrumsconundra of the 21st Century Church.
(2018). Ayomide Akinbode. https://medium.com/@ayomideakinbode/speaking-the-tongues-of-
angels-and-men-a-conundrumsconundra-of-the-21st-century-church-696ecd22f930
Tatham, C. Ernest. (1976). Let the Tide Come In. Carol Stream, Illinois: Creation House

Unger, F. Merrill. (1971). New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Kregel Publications.