There was a moment of silence and then the stranger replied, ---I don't understand. First Corinthians twelve and fourteen speak of spiritual gifts, I explained, We believe those passages are just as inerrant as the rest of the New Testament. You mean 'tongues'?!, He asked. Yes, I answered, We believe that all of the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, are included in the Scripture's inerrancy and are to be believed. Well, I don't!, He answered emphatically, That is only my opinion, but I don't believe that tongues edify. You are correct, I replied, (and my voice was loving), when you say that is only your opinion: It definitely is not the opinion of Scripture. Paul emphatically said that 'He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself. I Corinthians 14:4. I was gentle as I explained, As to the continuance of spiritual gifts, however, Paul exhorted the Corinthians to 'come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ'. I Corinthians 1:7. By that statement, I explained, Paul obviously expected the spiritual gifts to remain in the church until Jesus comes again; he warned the Corinthians not to lose any of them. Nowhere did Paul teach that the gifts would end when he and the other Apostles died. The caller interrupted, Paul said 'When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away'! His voice sounded defiant. 'Tongues' ended when the New Testament canon was complete! He was referring to Paul's statement that prophecies would fail, tongues cease, knowledge vanish away, when that which is perfect has come. I Corinthians 13:8-10.

Those who oppose the gifts of the Spirit frequently quote this passage to defend their position. It is their only reference-point. The assumption is, That which is perfect, is a reference to the completed New Testament. May I ask you a question about that verse?, I said. Reluctantly, he agreed. You have already assured me that you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. By that, you obviously believe Paul's Corinthian letter was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I Peter 1:21. Yes, he responded, I believe that. Are you also saying when the Bible was perfected --- completed --- that Paul's perfect writings about prophecy, tongues, knowledge, became imperfect? There was no response. It is very important that you see the implication of your claim. I pressed the issue gently, How can the Bible qualify to being 'that which is perfect' if parts of it became erroneous and unsafe for us to believe? There was a longer period of silence. Before I share my under-standing about that passage, I requested, let me quote it for both of us.

I then repeated this part of the text:

The key is the word 'then', I explained. It is used three times in the text and all three instances refer to the same future date. Observe the times it appears. I continued quoting the text, When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away ... For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall

know just as I also am known. I Corinthians 13:10,12. He waited. I continued. All three times the word 'then' appears, it points to the same future perfection. I did not wait for my friend to comment. Have we come to the time when we no longer see in a mirror, dimly," I asked, but 'face to face'? No, I answered. Have we come to the time when we no longer know 'in part' but 'as I also am known'? No, I replied again. Then we have not yet come to the time when 'that which is perfect has come'.

My telephone-friend did not reply. Finally, I broke the silence. Those facts should really concern, you, I said. You asked if my church were a Bible-believing Church' and if we held to the inerrancy of Scripture, asserting that you did. But then you back down and say that there are parts of the New Testament, which you refuse to believe. I think you have a problem and a very serious one. He listened uncomfortably. You can't go on claiming to be a Bible-believing Christian and upholding the total inspiration of the Word until you deal with your unbelief about spiritual gifts. They are not only a part of the Bible message but they are a very big part. God has not given you the privilege to select portions of scripture with which you build theology. Nor can you reject other vital parts simply because your denomination disapproves.

The point I was making is this: The controversy is really not over the question of tongues or other gifts of the Spirit; the real issue regards the reliability of Scripture. Can we believe the New Testament or can we not? If not, then we need to get honest with the public and quit pretending that we can. If it is reliable, then we need to obey God and preach every part of it with equal force. We have no other option. God is not so confused as to give conflicting messages, truth and error, fact and fiction, in His inspired volume of Scripture. Even you and I know better than to do that. What medical book would dare publish surgical procedures and treatments for disease that the publisher knows are already out of date? None! Yet that is the kind of foolishness with which the church accuses God. If a medical student had to determine on a line-by-line interpretation of his books what was intended for him to believe, he would spend more time in that fruitless search than he would in his actual learning. And that is precisely what much of the current church is doing with the Word. God simply wants us to preach His Word and to preach all of it. This was the point I wanted my new friend to recognize.

Next page

Gentle Conquest   * June  2002