The Gift of Tongues

by Gary Kukis

Revised and updated November 13, 2006

This doctrine is going to be quite lengthy, covering several passages of Scripture in great detail. Since this study is so lengthy, you may get the high lights by going directly to the summary. Also below, you will find quick links to the relevant passages of Scripture as well as other sub-topics covered:

P reface: I became interested in the gift of tongues early on in my Christian life. When I became a believer, my two younger brothers were charismatics, my best friend was a charismatic and my wife’s best friend was a charismatic. At the time of my salvation, I was reading everything Christian and quasi-Christian that I could get my hands on. I read Jehovah Witnesses’ literature, Children of God literature (a Christian cult back in the seventies), and just about every inexpensive pamphlet and booklet that I could find. Before I made any theological decisions, I did a lot of reading, pro and con. I learned early on as a believer that the final authority was the Word of God. This did not negate the other reading which I did. I just had to be careful to weigh the various arguments from Scripture. I also learned early on that the context of a verse, both literary and historical, as well as the correct understanding of the original languages, was the only way to evaluate proof texts. Let me give you a completely unrelated example of this. As you know, there are some Christian (and I use this term as the world uses it) cults that observe the Sabbath—that is, they believe that the Sabbath is Saturday (which is correct) and that all believers (or cult members) ought to observe the Sabbath as their holy day. And I recall seeing an extremely persuasive speaker, Gardner Ted Armstrong—one of the most dynamic and convincing of the cult leaders—tell me to just open up my own Bible and read it with my own eyes: Hebrews 4:9: There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. This, along with his other arguments, appeared to be pretty darned convincing to me, a relatively new believer. I later found out that there are several passages in the book of Hebrews that, if read outside their context, or apart from careful exegesis, that they meant something entirely different than what the writer of Hebrews was saying. The passage I used in my illustration does not mean that believers ought to observe the Sabbath as a special day of rest and worship, but to young believers, that’s what it appears to mean. So, we will, therefore, stop periodically in this doctrine, and look at some extended passages of Scripture in context and exegete them properly.

Keeping that in mind, do not expect this study to be like most of the tripe that you have been fed in church or on the web. I am not going to give you my point of view, quote a few Scriptures, and let it go at that. This study will take some time. God’s Word takes time. It is not instantaneous. Don’t think that you will begin reading this examination today and finish it in the next five minutes. Probably not the next five hours. Some of what you will read here, you have read before. However, there are a number of things covered here which you have never heard before. There is at least one passage that you have never heard correctly exegeted, and, as I examined it, I was amazed that no one has ever gotten it correct before (at least, not to my knowledge; and I include Thieme and McGee, two of the greatest Bible teachers of the 20^th century, in those who didn’t quite get it right). But this study will require your time. You must either choose to properly examine this gift, examining all the pertinent Scripture in context, from the standpoint of the original languages, lines upon line, precept upon precept; or you can allow what you have experienced to determine for you what is truth. It’s up to you. Salvation was instantaneous, although there may have been a long road getting you to that point. Spiritual growth is not instantaneous. Do not think that you progress from a spiritual baby to a spiritual adult in a year or two. And don’t ever think that your growing process comes to a halt. Therefore, anything of a controversial nature will require time to examine it. What I will guarantee you that, once we get through the history, the background, the pertinent portions of the book of Acts, and finally start with 1Corinthians, you will begin to see every hole plugged up, every single controversial stand clearly explained, and based upon exegeted Scripture. You must examine the background, which is why it is there. However, once we get into Paul’s writings, and we begin to tear some verses apart, word by word, examining the morphology and the context, you will find that there is no room for well, you see it this way, and I see it that way. There are some topics where there is only one clear view, and this is one of them. Prior to reading this, due to your sloppy spiritual upbringing, you may have a dozen different wrong ideas about the gift of tongues. If you stay with this study, then when you are finished, then the only way you will have any wrong ideas about the gift of tongues is you will consciously choose your experience over Scripture.

If I was allowed to approach this topic from my predisposition, then my personal preference here is to be able to say that I, a noncharismatic, should learn to co-exist and to work cooperatively with charismatics, accepting that most of them have the gift of tongues and that I do not. I don’t look up to them or down on them because they have a gift which I do not. I may or may not like everything which occurs inside their church, and they may or may not like everything which occurs inside my church, but those are non-issues. I would love to completely agree with David Shibley, the author of A Charismatic Truce, and say that my church could use a little more life and spontaneity, whereas the charismatic churches which I have attended could stand to focus more often on Bible teaching—however, we are all one in the body of Christ and family of God for eternity, and we should work together, capitalizing on each other’s strengths. You see, I have many friends who are charismatics. I don’t say that to sound condescending—it is the truth. However, I must take my theological stand with the Bible; and this issue is far more than just a slight, doctrinal difference. Tongues are either a part of today’s church or they are not; an additional experience with the Holy Spirit is either a part of today’s church or it is not. These are not two minor theological issues on which we can simply disagree, yet still enjoy Christian fellowship with one another. The basis of our salvation, our spirituality and fellowship are all called into question, depending upon where with stand with regards to speaking in tongues.

For you, there are two things that you need to check before you go any further: are you a believer in Christ Jesus? Have you placed your complete trust in Him so that your eternity is taken care of? If you have not done that, then you need to read what I have written on salvation first; or, you need to simply place your faith in Jesus Christ, Who paid for your sins, shortcomings, and mistakes on the cross. There is one Person Who stands between you and eternal fellowship with God, and that is Christ Jesus; you must go through Him in order to have a relationship with God the Father. Now, why anyone would read this (or begin to read this) apart from being a believer is beyond me.

If you are a believer, then you need to approach this study while in fellowship with God. This can be accomplished simply and quickly. You quietly, in your mind, name your sins to God. He will then forgive you those sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness (1John 1:9). That way you will walk in the light as opposed to walking in darkness.

Now, after awhile, you are going to wonder what ax I have to grind here—you might be a charismatic and more than willing to tolerate me as a fellow heir to the kingdom; so, why don’t I tolerate you? In fact, why do I not embrace your Christian fellowship? Have I had bad experiences with charismatics? Well, two, that I can think of immediately; but I have had more bad experiences with non-charismatic Christians (simply because there are more non-charismatic Christians out there). I’ve known a huge number of charismatics, some that I like a great deal and respect for some of their personal qualities; and others which I don’t like so much—just like anyone else. There are even several charismatics who are friends of mine that I would almost rather they didn’t read this because I don’t want them to be upset with me. The problem is drawing a line between that which is true and that which is false. Paul had to sweat Peter’s shadow into the wall when Peter was wrong (Gal. 2:11). So, no matter what, we must take a stand for the truth and a stand against error.

Not only will I make it abundantly clear, from Scripture, what is true and what is false; I will also tell you why I would not tolerate a charismatic practicing speaking in tongues in my own church (if I had one). Similarly, I know many Catholics, some that I like and some I don’t. The Catholic church has some saved people and some unsaved people. But their essential doctrine, at the core, is false. Therefore, I cannot condone what they teach. On the other hand, the essential doctrines of many Baptist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran churches is fundamentally the same and I therefore don’t have any real problems with those denominations. So, I have no personal ax to grind here; there are not a few charismatics out there who totally pissed me off and now I’m going to write some scathing criticism of what they believe. Furthermore, I am not jealous of what charismatics have or do, nor am I opposed to enthusiasm or excitement in worship services. I tend to be laid back, but I have attended churches where the congregation was much more vocal than I was and I have no problem with that. The problem is that the core and the thrust of their beliefs are anti-Biblical, and I therefore oppose their teachings for that reason.

I will spend a great deal of time on this topic—for most of you, much more time than you think is warranted. I will eventually begin exegeting verses of Scripture and spending much more time on them than you might think is warranted (it is actually less time than I would if I were specifically exegeting the passage). If you are a charismatic, you may think I just need to be slain; I simply need to get the baptism, and that would end all discussion. Not so—when it comes to the truth, sometimes it requires a great deal of time and effort. You won’t be able to sit back and read this in one or two sessions on the web. There is nothing more important than God’s Word, and it deserves the time and effort required in order to examine it. Because so many cults and charismatic groups have taken various Scriptures and have quoted them out of context, intending them to mean one thing when they mean something totally other—it will take time to carefully examine these Scriptures and to put them in their proper context and give them their proper interpretation.

You’re going to get several pages into this treatise and either think that I haven’t even begun to convince you, or, wonder when am I going to actually start talking about tongues. I plan to take my time with this doctrine and cover it thoroughly. What you will notice, however, is that, unlike other approaches to this subject, I will not be quoting from too many charismatic spokespersons. Although arguing against something because it is mis-used or misapplied has some merit, that is really not a sufficient argument against anything. I will mention some of the things spoken by charismatics and relate some of the stories of what occurs in these meetings often because I feel, you just have to hear this. However, in dealing with their doctrinal misinformation, that will be handled by God’s Word.

I am also going to make several assumptions here: first, I will assume that if you read over two or three pages of this, you are probably a believer in Jesus Christ. Although I will spend some time with the gospel, this information in this document is applicable only to believers and will have little meaning for the unbeliever. Secondly, I believe that the final word of authority is God’s Word, the Bible. I believe that the Bible is God’s complete and inerrant Word. Finally, as I will refer to him now and again, I do believe in a literal Satan. I paraphrase from the film, The Usual Suspects: “The greatest feat of Satan today is to convince people that he does not exist.”

A reasonable question is: Do I think that I might convince some of you who speak in tongues that you are wrong? Actually, in all honesty, no, I doubt that any person who speaks in tongues will change his mind after reading this. For those who read this, I suspect that most won’t get very far or give this a careful read (people who speak in tongues generally have a limited interest in Scripture). And I have spoken to many people who are charismatics without ever having one leave the charismatic movement. One person even told me that it didn’t matter what I showed her in Scripture, because she knows what is real because she experienced it for herself. In fact, I would think that it is safe to say that the charismatics gain many more converts from the non-charismatic body of believers than we ever get back. John exhorted us to test the spirits in 1John 1:4. Obviously, this would not be based upon whether they just feel right or whether they are really good, persuasive teachers, but testing the spirits depends upon their doctrine. John provides us a rule of thumb: if they confess that Jesus is from God, they are from God; and if they do not, then they operate in the spirit of the antichrist. Now, please understand that this is a basic test, which, at the time that John wrote, was sufficient. However, Satan has become more sophisticated since then. Whereas, in the first century, Satan eschewed all that had to do with Christ, he has since become a part of mainstream Christianity, attacking us more often from within than from without. Catholics, charismatics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the old Armstrong cult all confess that Jesus is come in the flesh and that He is from God. When a believer gives the gospel correctly, in that way, he is of the Spirit of God. However, some believers, influenced by the spirit of Satan, seek to derail you after salvation. Always bear in mind that Satan comes as an angel of light (2Cor. 11:14), and is able to confuse the very elect, if possible (Matt. 24:24). And always bear in mind that he can work signs and lying wonders (Matt. 24:24 2Thess. 2:9).

So, I don’t expect to change the mind of many charismatics. The experiences which they tout as spiritual act upon them the same way drugs act upon a drug addict. Some drugs, such as marijuana, may begin subtly, and not appear to cause to many changes in the user. However, the user requires it more and more and cannot give it up. A second common affect of a drug upon the drug addict is that, when first used, the drug causes an intense euphoria that, several weeks or months later, cannot be fully recaptured. The addict continues to take the drug in pursuit of these early intensively-pleasant experiences. He never quite hits those early high marks of euphoria, but is still spurred on to continue with the taking of the drug, even though the experience becomes less intense and less euphoric. In fact, at some point, for some addicts, the drug is taken just to get even or just to feel even. The charismatic is the same way. Let me give you the quote of a friend of mine who will go unnamed about his or her spiritual experience: So anyway, I went home that night and prayed all by myself in my bedroom. I told God that I wasn't sure what this experience was, and I was a little scared, but I wanted to receive everything He had for me. Right after that I had an experience that convinced me God was actually touching me and letting me know how much He loved me. I felt the sensation of hot oil being poured over my head and felt that I was loved, totally loved, beyond anything I had ever experienced. I also started speaking in tongues. It's not that I was TAKEN OVER or anything strange like that. I could start and stop as I wished. It's just as if I suddenly could speak a new language, even though I didn't know what the words meant. But I did know that it was sort of like a love language between me and God and I was telling Him how much I loved Him. I never again felt anything like that first experience, although I sometimes feel a milder sensation, almost like a breeze blowing over me when I'm singing in worship, or praying. (I pray mostly in English, of course!) I had never heard of any experience like that, although since then I've heard a few people describe similar sensations. It seems like it's different for each person. What I do know is that it has been an entirely benign experience. It strengthened me somehow, but I can't tell you the logic of why it would. The charismatic needs to have this charge, this experience, this boost in what he believes to be his spiritual life. Periodically, he must get the drug. It won’t do for him what it did at first, but it provides a boost or a jolt or, who knows, maybe it just gets him onto an even kilter. Just as I have been unable to convince an addict to give up his drugs, I don’t expect to convince charismatics to give up their experiences and this seemingly necessary jolt to their spiritual lives. What I do hope is that those of you who are on the fence, who are uncertain which way to go, that this will provide you with an over-abundance of reasons to pursue God and His Word as opposed to some false, quasi-spiritual experience.

Now, I will quote some charismatics occasionally, and you may think to yourself (if you are a charismatic), that isn’t what I believe. I may list some common doctrines shared by those in the charismatic movement, and you may think, that isn’t what my church teachers. I fully understand. While there are a lot of similarities in charismatic groups, they certainly have their differences. Most charismatics believe that they can lose their salvation; many are moving toward that oneness of God doctrine, which is actually a relatively recent doctrine in charismatic thought; and many believe that most people can and should have an experience with the Holy Spirit after salvation which usually results in the speaking of tongues. Obviously, there will be a few who would disagree with some of those points. All charismatics, of course, believe that they have had an additional experience with the Holy Spirit that I have not had; and all believe that the various sign gifts of the Apostles can still be found today.

The experience of tongues is a result of very, very sloppy exegesis—in particular, the exegesis of 1Cor. 13:1–3. I have never once heard or read, even in the church I attended, this passage properly exegeted. In all of the reading I have done, I have seen, at best, a half-assed exegesis of 1Cor. 13—obviously, Paul’s point is that love is more important and enduring that the gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge. However, that really is not exactly the point (most, but not all, exegetes miss that) and I have never once seen anyone correctly explain Paul’s reasoning, which belies great Greek debater’s technique that is apparently lost on most believers. In this treatise on tongues, you will see the passage more or less properly exegeted (I normally would go into more detail concerning that passage here; however, this study primarily deals with the gift of tongues). However, I want you to know right up front, right here in the preface of this examination, that the only Scriptural support for speaking in tongues to be some unknown, holy angelic language is in this passage. Personally, I would feel on shaky ground if one of the most fundamental elements of my faith—praying, speaking, singing or telling jokes in a holy angelic language—in a language unknown to man—depended upon one and only one passage of Scripture.

I have read quite a number of books on the tongues movement and I have spent innumerable hours studying it and far too many hours discussing it with charismatics whom I know. The primary difference between what I will do here and the works which I have read, is that much of my emphasis will be upon the classic passages taken to support tongues. These passages will be carefully exegeted with regards to their historic, linguistic and literary context. I will not state a controversial point, cite two Scriptural passages, and then move on. That is the lamest, most sorry way to ever deal with any difficult doctrine of Scripture. In all cases, I will exegete the passages in question phrase by phrase, and sometimes word by word. I guarantee you that there will be a great deal in this book which you have never heard about or thought about before. I just need to warn you that it will take awhile before we get to the proper exegesis of the passages at hand, and, that when we get there, they will be painstakingly examined.

Furthermore, in this study I will correctly explain, from Scripture, what the gift of tongues was about and what it was not. I will also tell you what the so-called gift of tongues is today.

O ne final note: When I began this study, I attempted to remain focused upon the gift of tongues. However, it is impossible to approach the gift of tongues in a vacuum. Contained herein is one of the better historical surveys of tongues throughout the Church Age, which required me to deal directly with the Pentecostal/charismatic movement; the post-salvation, baptism of the spirit experience; and the gift of healing. In other words, I strayed now and again from the intended topic, the gift of tongues. Herein is likely the most thorough approach to the gift of tongues that you will ever read. With regards to the other related topics, this study is adequate, but not nearly as detailed. However, in today’s day and time, when fantastic encounters with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are reported as commonplace. Personal messages from God are supposedly routine. Healings of all kinds are claimed. It is not unusual to hear striking testimonies about how God, in response to faith, has corrected spinal injuries, lengthened legs, and removed cancerous tissue...some of the miracles seem almost bizarre: one-dollar bills turn into twenties, washing machines and other appliances are “healed,” empty fuel tanks fill up supernaturally, and demons are exorcized from vending machines. When dealing with the issue of tongues, the personal experiences demand that we take a few side trips.

A cknowledgments: Although there were be certain thoughts and approaches in this book which, insofar as I know, are original with me, including a more careful exegesis of the pertinent Scriptures than I have found in any of the writings on this topic, the major portion of this examination is not original, and I have included material and relatively long quotations from those of both sides of the theological fence. I do not see this work as simply mine, but more as a compilation of information from several dozen different authors who wrote on the topic of tongues.

For the definitions of the Greek words, although I occasionally used Baur, Arndt and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon; the University of Chicago Press; ©1957; as well as Balz and Schneider’s Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament; Eerdmans Publishing Company; ©1978–1980; I depended first and foremost upon Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament; AMG Publishers; ©1992. I often quoted or paraphrased his definitions without giving him credit; however, his work in the Greek was invaluable to me. Furthermore, invaluable to this study was The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament; Thomas Nelson Publishers; ©1994. I owe a tremendous debt to R.B. Thieme Jr. for guiding me though my spiritual childhood, as well as the excellent teaching of J. Vernon McGee. In fact, Thieme probably had the greatest influence over my spiritual growth, and I will probably quote from him the least, as God’s Word, as taught from his pulpit, was inculcated into my soul. After getting about 80 or so pages into this study, I re-discovered Donald Burdick’s outstanding book Tongues—To Speak or Not To Speak. At about 170 pages, I reread John MacArthur’s tremendous book, Charismatic Chaos. Let me tell you, I was tempted to quote almost every page of these two authors verbatim (I must admit that I quote from MacArthur and Burdick extensively). For those whose appetite is whetted by this study, theirs would be the first books which I would suggest locating and reading. One of the last books that I read was Joseph Dillow’s Speaking in Tongues. By that point, I was pretty worn out and thought that I had examined the charismatic movement from every standpoint. However, his book added a great deal of information and you will see that I quoted liberally from him as well. In fact, at the end of his book, he had perhaps one of the most important set of chapters of any of these books stating what I scattered throughout these pages: he lists all of the reasons that the gift of tongues ceased in the first century. I have listed these reasons throughout this examination, and never thought to organize them into one section until I read Dillow’s book again.

You will also note that there are areas where I quoted extensively from John Nichol’s The Pentecostals. He presents a very well-researched, fair and even-handed history of the modern Pentecostal movement (he is a Pentecostal himself). Along with these principal reference works, I used approximately another 30 or so books and pamphlets in putting this little study together, along with another 30 or so Bible reference books (various translations and language helps). Few believers have any clue as to how many shoulders it is that they stand upon in order to grow. Barnard Ramm wrote: It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself.”  I am just the opposite. I wrote about 50 or 60 pages of this on pure steam, consulting only various Bibles and language textbooks; however, the bulk of this material came directly from other sources. I fully recognize that without the thousands of theological shoulders upon which I stand, that I would have very little more to offer.

Obviously in this study, I examined both charismatic and anti-charismatic literature. In general, the former quoted very little Scripture and when they quoted Scripture, it was often taken out of context. The books which were anti-charismatic concentrated on two things: they took the Scripture often quoted by charismatics and looked at it from its historical context as well as from the standpoint of the original languages; and they often examined where the charismatic movement has gone experientially. One might object to the latter approach; however, the validation most often given for the charismatic experience is the charismatic experience. Therefore, examining real and alleged experiences which have been recorded is legitimate in the examination of the charismatic movement.

Let me add something: do not think that after hours of study and after being a Christian for two or three years that you know what’s what. And don’t think that you can study carefully a topic such as this in a few hours. This particular book took me nearly three months to write, writing 2–4 hours each and every day. And as I wrote, I learned a great deal from the sources that I used. If you actually want to know about this topic, keep in mind it took me about 300 hours to compile this material. I am thinking that it might take you over an hour or so to peruse it.

I mentioned J. Vernon McGee; he prefaces his second book on the gift of tongues with: We recognize that the subject of this message is controversial, and we appreciate the fact that many good and sincere people disagree with us. Our thought is not to continue to controversy, but to present the Scriptural teaching on the subject of tongues. It is being given a prominence today that it never had in the apostolic church. Only one epistle discusses it, and that is to control and discourage the practice of it. If the Corinthians had not gone to excess in this practice, would there by anything in the epistles on the subject? 

1.    One of the most devastating influxes into Christianity over the past century has been the second-blessing crowd, those who speak with the so-called tongues of angels, those who manifest the so-called charismatic gifts. In general, they are known as charismatics, which comes from the Greek word charisma (χάρισμα) [pronounced KHAHR-ees-mah], which means gift, and it is found primarily in the book of Romans and 1 and 2Corinthians. Strong’s #5486. When I use the term charismatic, I will be referring to a group of people who believe that the gift of tongues is for today and, in most cases, they have that gift. These charismatics tend to emphasize the need for the second-blessing as well as a manifestation of same, which is usually the speaking in an unknown tongue, thought to be tongues of Angels. As of recent, some of the fringe and not so fringe elements have incorporating slaying in the Spirit into their repertoire.

2.    Throughout this study, I will tend to use the terms charismatic and Pentecostal almost interchangeably, even though they are not. Pentecostal, properly, refers to several denominations—however, some who belong to denominations without the word Pentecostal in it refer to themselves as Pentecostal. There is even a group or movement calling themselves the Third Wave, who specifically do not want to be called Pentecostal or charismatic; however, the distinction appears to be little more than semantic. You would know that someone from California would call something the Third Wave, as in surf mythology, waves always come in three’s, the third way being the strongest and the highest wave. C. Peter Wagner, a professor of church growth at Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission, and a leader in the Third Wave, coined the term (it has been used before for other things). He identifies the Pentecostal movement of the early 1900’s as the first wave; the charismatic movement of the 1960’s as the second (when charismatics began cropping up in mainline denominations), and this Third Wave began in the 1980’s. This is not a term which I have heard very often and will probably deal little with them specifically. Their doctrinal emphasis upon a post-salvation experience with the Holy Spirit, a belief in the contemporary gift of tongues and other sign gifts of the Spirit, places them in the same grouping as Pentecostals and charismatics. Although, the thrust of this study is the Doctrine of Tongues; one cannot fully separate this gift from the baptism of the Holy Spirit or from the gift of healing or from other gifts which supposedly accompany the post-salvation experience of the Holy Spirit.

3.    I’ve been told by various charismatics that I would just have to experience it before I should make a judgment. Charismatics of note have made the same sort of statements: Baptist charismatic, Howard Ervin wrote: The attempt to interpret the Charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit without a Charismatic experience is as fatuous as the application of the “Christian ethic” apart from a regenerate dynamic...Understanding of spiritual truth is predicated on spiritual experience. The Holy Spirit does not reveal spiritual secrets to the uncommitted, and quite frankly, the Pentecostal experience is one of total commitment. J. Rodman Williams: Against the background of sharing in the Holy Spirit and the consequent gifts of the Holy Spirit, information, instruction, and teaching concerning them becomes relevant. A fundamental thesis may here be set forth: Any vital information concerning the gifts of the Spirit, the pneumatic charismata, presupposes a participation in them. Without such a participation, whatever is said about the gifts may only result in confusion and error. I’ve also been told by others that no matter what they read, they cannot deny what they know to be true inside their own souls. Now, I want you to know that if every experience in your life and the lives of every person you know tells you that X is true, and the Bible tells you that X is false, then X is false. It is as simple as that. Now, if you are a charismatic and you do not believe that, then we have no basis whatsoever for argument. And why you would even bother to read one more paragraph into this book, I do not know. You really ought to go back to your little experiences, because I am going to cover this from the Biblical standpoint. When we get to the verses in the Bible which charismatics stand upon, we will evaluate those verses bit by bit, word by word, so that there is no confusion as to what they mean.

4.    That previous point being made, I have since come to find that there are several Bibles which lean toward the charismatic point of view—James Moffatt’s translation (more or less) along with the NAB, NEB, NJB, NRSV, REB, and the TEV (the Good News Bible). One of the key passages is 1Sam. 10:10. In the Hebrew, Saul simply prophesies with the four prophets that he meets. All of these translations have him going into this state of ecstasy (which is not found in the Hebrew or the Greek). Some mistranslations are more pronounced than others. The NRSV, which I had thought was a reasonably literal translation, says that Saul fell into a prophetic frenzy. If we were to accept that, then every time that Jeremiah or Isaiah went to prophesy before kings, they would therefore fall into a prophetic frenzy before these kings. In the TEV, Saul does not prophesy, but he joins in their ecstatic dancing and shouting. When a charismatic reads a translation like this, looks at the behavior of those in his church who also fall into these ecstatic states, how is he going to think any different?

5.    John urges us: Do not believe every spirit, but analyze the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1John 4:1). Now, how do we analyze the spirits? Do we have a really good feeling about them? Do they change and impact our lives, and therefore they are from God? Do they makes us feel really holy and spiritual? We analyze the spirits based upon the Word of God. Frederick Dale Bruner: The test of anything calling itself Christian is not its significance or its success or its power, though these make the test more imperative. The test is truth. In the next 250+ pages, we will cover each and every Scripture which deals with the so-called gift of tongues, and we will also spend a great deal of time examining a post-salvation experience with the Spirit of God. In this study, regardless of what side of the fence you are on, you will be exposed to things that you have never heard before and have never thought of before.

6.    Thirdly, when it comes to interpretation of Scripture, you must be absolutely careful when it comes to taking a meaning based upon inference. That is, there are a few incidents in the book of Acts which suggest one thing to some people and suggests another to others. It is obvious that when the actions of a person are looked at, or the history of something is examined, that two people can take it to mean different things, or for these incidents to have different inferences. I will grant that. However, you never ever base an important doctrine upon inference—NEVER! Furthermore, if you have taken the inference of one passage to mean one thing, but the direct, incontrovertible Word of God contradicts this later, by doctrine, then you must accept the Word of God and drop the inferred meaning which you got from that other passage. You can go to the book of Acts and tell me what this incident means to you—however, if Paul directly states something which contradicts your inference, then Paul is right and your inference, no matter how well thought out, is wrong. When Paul states a doctrine which you do not care for, he is right, and you, no matter how nice a person you are, are wrong.

7.    Frank Stagg, in introducing his portion of the book Glossolalia, writes: “Speaking in tongues” is the popular phrase for what scholars term glossolalia. This phenomenon, appearing from time to time in the Christian world, is unmistakably reflected in the New Testament. To some it is a sign of church renewal and is to be cultivated. To others it offers only dubious rewards to some individuals, cell groups, and sectarians but leaves disillusionment and disunity in its wake. To some it is the gift of the Holy Spirit, offering a new dimension in Christian fulfillment. To others it is an egocentric escape from the heavier demands of the Christian calling and is more damaging than helpful to the body of Christ and to its witness and work in the world. Some point to the “good” it does; others point to the “harm” it does.

8.    Vocabulary is extremely important, and it is upon vocabulary that doctrines are built. I have recently been to web sites where they first falsely defined baptism and repentance, and then built their theology upon those incorrectly defined terms. One great different between the Protestant and Catholic church is the difference between their respective definitions of the simple word grace. Even the tenor of a definition can be misleading. Conrad Murrell, almost at the beginning of his book, To Profit Withal, defines a spiritual gift as the ability to do something that cannot be accounted for in the realm of the flesh...Its success is not enhanced by training, practice or any skill developed through human resources. Now, whereas Murrell is not completely wrong in this definition, it lends itself to the wrong idea that a gift just is and anyone who has it can immediately use it. The gift of pastor-teacher, for instance, requires many years of study and preparation. Obviously, this must be done while filled with the Spirit of God, learning through the grace of God (which are not human resources); but the person who thinks he ought to preach should never go from that thought directly into a pulpit.

9.    We have three basic positions concerning the sign gifts found in the book of Acts:

       a.    These gifts have always been with the church (apparently some Catholics hold to this).

       b.    These sign gifts died out due to man’s unbelief, but have, in the past century or so, have been revived through the faith and perseverance of the Pentecostal movement. These gifts are the latter rain of God’s plan. A study of church history would bear out that these did disappear for about 18 centuries.

       c.    These sign gifts had specific purposes: (1) to verify the authority of those who had them (Matt. 11:1–6 Isa. 35:5–6 61:1 Rom. 15:18–19 2Cor. 12:11 Heb. 2:3–4); and, (2) to speak to the nation Israel (Isa. 28:11–12 Acts 2:1–12 1Cor. 14:21–22). When God set Israel aside for a time, when the authority of the Apostles was clearly established, and when the completed canon of Scripture came into being, then these gifts were no longer necessary, and God withdrew them (1Cor. 13:8–10 1Tim. 5:23 2Tim. 4:15).

10.  An historical perspective on signs and miracles is sometimes helpful to clear the air. Most people think of the Bible as being filled with miracles and wonders and healings, when in fact, in the Old Testament, there are perhaps a half dozen men who performed signs or miracles; and the relative amount of time in history during which these occurred is absolutely minuscule.

       a.    We think of the mighty miracles of Moses when in Egypt; however, most of these occurred during perhaps a two month time period. For well over four hundred years prior to this time, there were no miracles or signs—in fact, there appears to be no direct contact with God. For the first forty years of the life of Moses, there was very little by way of sings or miracles. Here is probably the greatest spiritual leader of the Old Testament and in forty years, he sees a burning bush and luckily escapes two life or death situations in Egypt. Don’t misunderstand me—I am not minimizing the burning bush, thereby his direct contact with God—however, I am putting that into perspective that over 400 years in Israel’s history had passed, as well as forty years of Moses’ life, and nada by way of signs and miracles. For a brief period of time, when God was to take Israel out of Egypt, there were a handful of signs and wonders. When Moses and the sons of Israel walked the desert, there were a few miracles—however, given the fact that they were out in the desert for forty years, it was damn few. In fact, at one point in the desert, Moses wrote just about the most mournful psalm you’ll ever read, one which he did not even include in his own personal writings, as it was so downbeat. So, if Moses viewed his time in the desert as slow and lacking in signs—a man who had seen more miracles than any other man to that point in time—then should we expect a lot more by way of signs, wonders and healings? Now, I chose a man from the Bible who would be naturally associated with signs and wonders. For every Moses, I can point out 40 or 50 named believers from the Old Testament who observed no signs or wonders. As I write this, I think of this woman who fancies herself an evangelist, who, in what she said to me, implied that I had a small god because my God didn’t heal or perform miracles like hers did. She simply believed in a Big God. God is very capable of performing miracles which would rock us to our very foundations—however, if the Old Testament record is to be believed, then He performed damned few miracles in the Old Testament. Does that mean that He was not a Big God in the Old Testament? Now, Moses, through these great signs and miracles which God allowed him to perform, established his authority, first before Pharaoh and then before his people (Acts 7:35–36). It was this established authority, along with the visible power of God (Ex. 20:18–20), which allowed Moses to bring the Word of God to the people (Acts 7:36–38, where Stephen calls them the Oracles of God).

       b.    After the time of Moses, we do not have some uninterrupted series of miracles. Miracles during his time were rare, most of them occurring during a couple years of their leaving Egypt and then that year prior to entering the land. It is noteworthy that not only did not the Egyptians or the Pharaoh believe, but that the generation of Israel who witnessed these great miracles, although they believed, went down in infamy as one of the most degenerate generations of Israelites (Heb. 3:7–11). Many psalms and several prophets look back on this period of time, glorifying God for the miracles which He gave; and almost an equal number excoriates that generation of Israelites. God killed off that entire generation in the desert! Two points: (1) they witnessed great miracles and signs, and yet had the hardest of hearts. Secondly, (2) had miracles continued uninterrupted throughout Scripture, there would be no reason for several psalms to glorify God for what He did in Egypt—the writers of Scripture would be too busy recording the myriads of miracles which were still occurring. However, in truth, there were not myriads of miracles to follow the time of Moses and Joshua.

       c.    The second time in the Bible where we find several consecutive miracles in during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. Although there are some miracles which occur prior to their time and some after; for the most part, those are isolated incidents. You may wonder why did God work miracles through them? God was establishing the authority of the office of prophet (Heb. 1:1). The prophet would record God’s Word to Israel, and this was confirmed by signs and miracles.

       d.    It would be important to note that following the confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Baal, when God clearly set Elijah apart from them by a miracle (1Kings 18), by the next chapter, Elijah is fleeing for his life.

       e.    The most concentrated time period of miracles was in the 1^st century at the hand of our Lord. Now, what is quite fascinating to note is that after three concentrated years of healing the sick, the blind, the lame, those indwelt by demons, and speaking to crowds of 4000–5000, but there were very few converts. Do you recall that some of the cities where our Lord did most of His miracles remained unrepentant? Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum—read Matt. 11:20–24. There are incidents where a large number of people followed our Lord because of His healings and signs (John 6:2), but withdrew from Him because of what He taught (John 6:66). Perhaps our Lord’s greatest miracle, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus had been dead for four days and his body was beginning to putrefy (John 11:39) and Jesus called to him from outside the tomb: “Lazarus, here, outside!” There were some who believed in Him as a result (John 11:45), but there were many who did not and went to the pharisees, who then began to plot His death (John 11:46–53). But, though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they continued not to believe in Him (John 12:37). Perhaps you are so focused on miracles that you never read what the historical records say. We only have a small cluster of dedicated disciples after our Lord’s death and resurrection (120 by Acts 1:15). This is fewer than the number of people who Christ appeared to after his crucifixion. Now, for those who read Scripture, they fully understand that Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17). Some think that the power is in miracles—even these puny, unverified and anemic healings performed by so-called divine healers; but the real power of God is in His Word, under the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit.

11.  It may also be good to have an historical perspective on the sign gifts in the days of the Apostles:

       a.    These sign gifts gave evidence that Jesus was the Messiah (Isa. 35:5 Matt. 11:2–5 Luke 7:18–35 John 10:25, 38). This does not mean that people would accept the evidence.

       b.    When Jesus sent to Apostles out to proclaim the good news and to perform signs and wonders, they were told not to go to the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 10:5–8 Mark 6:7).

       c.    These sign gifts continued beyond the cross into the beginning of the Church Age (Acts 14:3–11 19:11–12). These sign gifts were employed to convince the heathen gentiles (Rom. 15:18–19); to vindicate the ministry of the Apostles (2Cor. 12:12); and to confirm the message of salvation (Heb. 2:3–4).

       d.    Just because the Apostles performed great miracles, this does not mean that all those who witnessed these acts believed. In Acts 3:1–10, Peter cures a man who had been lame since birth—he went from completely atrophied leg muscles, which did not function since birth, to walking and leaping—no physical therapy. God did not heal him slowly, curing first his lameness and then allowing him to increase the strength of his leg muscles—God healed him all at once. Nor was this some completely unknown man—he spent all day, every day in front of the temple begging for money after being carried there and dropped off. Everyone in the temple knew who he was. Peter preached a sermon (Acts 3:11–26) and then he and John were arrested (Acts 4:1–3). Even though many believed in Christ Jesus (Acts 4:4) and even though the priests and the Sadducees could not deny this particular miracle took place (Acts 4:16), these same priests and Sadducees, who had day in and day out seen this lame man in front of the temple begging alms, still ordered Peter and John not to proclaim Christ (Acts 4:18).

       e.    As Paul turned toward the gentiles, we have fewer and fewer records of signs and wonders. From the book of Acts chapter 20 (which would be about 58 a.d.), we hear little or nothing about signs and wonders in the book of Acts nor do we hear anything of these things in any of the epistles written after this point.

       f.     After that point, in the epistles, we have four mentions of illnesses which were not cured by someone with the gift of healing (and some of them were not cured at all). These case histories will be covered in more detail later.

       g.    The Apostles performed many miracles until around the late 50’s a.d., and, suddenly, there is little or no mention of signs, miracles and wonders—not in the final few chapters of Acts nor in any of the epistles written from that time forward. I mention this, so that you who think that you should walk into a church a view a half dozen miracles are totally without historical perspective. These miracles and signs not only disappear from the Biblical record at the point, but also from extra-Biblical sources as well. So, as you go to church expecting to be jazzed by such things, realize you pretty much expect to see on any given Sunday morning, as much by way of wondrous events as any 1000 Old Testament saints combined. However, what the signs and miracles did was establish the authority of the Apostles, and through them came the final words of God to man (Heb. 2:3–4 Rev. 22:18–19).

       h.    When the spiritual gifts are named prior to 58 a.d., we have several sign gifts listed (1Cor. 12:9–10); when they are enumerated in a later epistle, no sign gifts are mentioned (Eph. 4:11).

       i.     We have a corresponding time period in the book of Acts—from Acts 1–19, we have miracles, tongues, healings, miraculous prison breaks, etc. This takes us to about 58 a.d. From Acts 20 on, we have no tongues, no baptism of the Spirit, no miracles or healings apart from Acts 28 when Luke and Paul are stranded on Malta.

       j.     Not only does Paul tells us that prophecy and tongues would cease (1Cor. 13:8–10), but that several things in the plan of God ceased when they were fulfilled. The ceremonial aspect of the Law ceased when our Lord was incarnated, thus fulfilling the shadows speaking of His coming. The pillar of cloud and of fire which led Israel in the desert wilderness was withdrawn when it fulfilled its purpose as well.

       k.    You see, things have a definite purpose; this purpose is stated in Scripture; and when this purpose has been fulfilled, then there is no longer any need for these things. The sign gifts had specific purposes, as did prophecy. Once those purposes were fulfilled; or once a gift was fulfilled by something else which came to pass, then there is no longer any necessity for the gift. Again—simplest and easiest to understand: animal sacrifices continued until they were fulfilled in Christ. The Old Testament writers of Scripture continued until there was no longer any reason for them to record Scripture. Then we had 400 years of silence from God.

       l.     For the first fifty years of the post-Apostolic church, we have practically no mention of signs or miracles. In the next 50 years, we have slight and unimportant mentions. We see an increase in the 3^rd century and a steady increase for the next several centuries, according to the ancient literature. Dillow: However, Warfield then goes on to devote the rest of his book to the thesis that this “evidence” really is evidence of counterfeit miracles and has no connection with the divine attestations of the first century. A. J. Maclean has reached the same conclusion: Moreover, most of the ecclesiastical miracles are mere prodigies, and can in no sense be called signs. In many cases they are demonstrably the invention of later biographers, and contemporary writers show no knowledge of them. What this means is that those who wrote during the time that these miracles allegedly took place do not record the miracles as occurring. It is those who lived sometime after the miracles occurred who record the miracles. It is like knowing someone who knows someone who got healed of an organic disease fifty years ago. This is not a dependable witness.

       m.   Certainly, most charismatics believe that the gifts of healing and miracles are in existence today, because we live during a time of great apostasy and unbelief, but, seriously, now—charismatic churches do very little, if anything, to convict the unbeliever, apart from their occasional use of God’s Word. We do not have unbelievers who flock to charismatic churches and are completely blown away by the signs and wonders. It is a sad commentary that many believers are less discerning that smart unbelievers. Our Lord told His disciples to be “...as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of believers who have very little doctrine who are bamboozled by all of this. Now, there are some bona fide conversions of unbelievers in charismatic churches—fewer than you would think—but they were not convicted by the signs and wonders, but by God’s Word when it is spoken. Very few believers, charismatic or otherwise, have any idea as to how powerful the Word of God really is.

12.  Summary points on signs, wonders and miracles:

       a.    Signs, wonders and miracles were both valid and vital during the time periods in which they occurred. They often signified a great change in the plan of God; and with that change, God would mete out authority (Moses, the prophets, the disciples). God also used them to verify the uniqueness of His Son.

       b.    If we are to take today’s signs and wonders as a fulfillment of what was spoken by Joel, then we must accept a watered-down fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Not only do we accept essentially lame signs and wonders as a fulfillment of God’s power but we then accept a kind of imperfect fulfillment instead of a full, literal, and glorious fulfillment which the plain reading of the ancient prophecies demands.

       c.    The Bible is not filled from cover to cover with signs, miracles and wonders. We have three relatively short periods of time where God performed many signs, miracles and wonders. God performed signs, wonders and miracles for relatively short periods of time (less than a generation), and then there would be long periods of time when few if any miracles were performed. Perhaps a chart might help here:

A Signs, Wonders and Miracles Time-Line

       d.    As you can see from the chart, the time period recorded in Scripture when there were signs, miracles and miracles is relatively brief. This is certainly not to say that God did nothing miraculous during those middle periods of time; however, the frequency of miracles was reduced considerably.

       e.    If miracles were the norm throughout history, then just how important were the signs and miracles of Moses? Of our Lord?

       f.     There was more to the miracles than the evidence of the divine power backing them. The miracles that we find in Scripture often teach a great truth or truths to those who witness them.

               i.     When God brought the various plagues upon Egypt, each one was an attack on a specific god of Egypt. We covered this in detail when we went through the book of Exodus.

               ii.     The miracles of Elijah showed the superiority of the God of Israel over Baal (1Kings 18:20–40).

               iii.    The miracles of Jesus often illustrated the power and reality of salvation; and they presented Him as the Messiah. People possessed by demons were cleansed of the demons, just as we are controlled by our old sin natures and are given temporary power over them in this life, and are separated from them in eternity. The cleansing of the lepers illustrates how we look to God before and after salvation, which is not based upon anything that we do, but is based upon His work.

       g.    Let me tell you one of the things that makes me grind my teeth. I heard it on the radio the other day, and had heard it from an acquaintance of mine: they used the term Big God. What they meant was, a person like myself, who does not believe that miracles (as we would so recognize miracles) are a commonplace activity on this earth in the plan of God, believes in a little God; that is, an impotent God who cannot, in our own estimation, perform miracles. Because of our lack of belief, God allows this prophecy to be fulfilled in my life and I therefore observe no miracles. It’s because I believe in a little God (they actually have not used this terminology, insofar as I know). However, they are big on using the term Big God. They believe in a Big God; their God not only can perform miracles but does so at the drop of a hat—at their churches, God is constantly performing this miracle or that, because He is a Big God, capable of performing such miracles. How do I express my thoughts here? That is the biggest load of crap the charismatic movement has tried to pawn off since tongues. I believe in the God of the Bible, the God revealed to us by His Word. This God has chosen, by His Own Divine Plan, to, historically, perform miracles on a very limited basis (in fact, it is very likely that many of the events which we classify as miraculous were actions of great power which conformed to the laws of this universe). He has also chosen to communicate with man on a very limited basis as well. During the 400 years that Israel was in captivity in Egypt, we have no evidence of God speaking to man. During the 400 years between the testaments, even though we have very sincerely religious men, we have no evidence of God speaking to man (and, of course, no recorded miracles during either period of time). I have chosen to believe in God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. Just because the God of Scripture does not routinely perform miracles like some divine magician, this does not mean that He is a little god. That is simply how He has chosen to fulfill His plan on this earth.

       h.    The result was not always that men were convicted and believed. In fact, there were innumerable instances where undeniable miracles were observed, and the hearts of the observers did not change.

               i.     Although the people of Israel believed Moses, the Pharaoh of Egypt and some of the people of Egypt did not (Ex. 7:14 8:15 11:9–10 14:9).

               ii.     Despite the miracles of Elijah, Ahab and Jezebel did not believe that he was a man to be feared as a prophet from God and pursued him, intending to take his life (1Kings 19:1–3). Although Elijah was not the only one faithful to God who remained, there was still widespread negative volition (1Kings 19:14, 18).

               iii.    Despite the ministry of our Lord, there were only a handful of believers at the cross (just one Apostle) and about 120 of them faithfully gathered in prayer after His resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:15).

               iv.    Despite the miracles of the Apostles, many of them were imprisoned and all died martyr’s deaths, except for John. Paul faced several riots whose overriding emotion was negative volition.

       i.     Signs, wonders and miracles were used to authenticate God’s power and His message. Once His Word and His messengers have been affirmed, God does not have to re-authenticate them. His Word stands and those who wrote it were clearly establish as genuine. God does not have to reaffirm His Word.

               i.     Even though there were some spectacular miracles in the book of Exodus and a few in Numbers and Joshua, once Israel was established, God did not reaffirm Israel with continued signs and wonders (there are very few miracles in the book of Judges, Ruth or 1Samuel—and none which are designed to confirm that Israel has been taken out of Egypt and none which are designed to prove that the Law of Moses is from God).

               ii.     The office of prophet is clearly authenticated in Elijah and in Elisha, but not every prophet then confirmed His message with miracles. The fact that what he said always came to pass was proof enough.

               iii.    As we will study in depth, the signs and miracles wrought by the Apostles came to an end—not just after their deaths, but actually during their lives. Whereas the first two-thirds of the book of Acts is filled with signs, wonders, and miracles, the final one-third barely mentions such things. Paul’s epistles written prior to 58 a.d. often mention various miracles and signs; his epistles written after that, if they refer at all to such things, do so in the aorist tense (which is similar but not equivalent to our past tense). If you will examine two preachers from charismatic groups who meet on friendly terms and discuss what is going on (on, say, some religious talk show), you will note a stark contrast between their conversations and Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus. Not only does it appear as though we are looking in on a different religion, it appears as though these faiths are from different planets.

       j.     Signs and miracles never preceded the coming of the messenger. John the Baptizer, the herald of our Lord, worked no miracles. Only after the messenger arrived were miracles done. Jesus was 30 before he performed any miracles. Moses was 80. Miracle-workers do not precede the coming of our Lord; it is the mystery of lawlessness which precedes the coming of the lawless one (2Thess. 2:1–10). God will send false signs and wonders. And for this reason, God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe the lie, in order that they all might be judged who did not believe the truth [God’s Word, the Bible], but took pleasure in unrighteousness (2Thess. 2:11–12). Although this study will examine in some detail the validity of the signs and wonders being done today, the thrust of this study will be what does the Bible say about tongues in this time period?

       k.    We have both internal and external evidence that the miracles performed by the Apostles came to an end.

       l.     There is a clear distinction between the quality of the miracles found in the Bible and those performed by charismatics today. Magicians perform more impressive miracles than do the so-called faith healers of today (we will cover that in much greater detail). The fact that signs and miracles in this time period are far less impressive than they were during the days of our Lord’s first advent only serves to cheapen what He did. Don’t you understand that when a wide-eyed believer points at some TV evangelist sign-worker and says “There’s the power of Jesus” that the discerning unbeliever can see right through this sham? The unbeliever is not convicted of his standing before God; furthermore, he clearly recognizes a huckster when he sees one and thinks less of you because you don’t.

       m.   MacArthur: [Thus]...The underlying assumption that drives the whole Third Wave [the newest charismatic movement] is wrong. Miracles, signs, and wonders are impotent to produce either faith or genuine revival. Furthermore, power-encounter ministry misses the whole point of our witness. We are not commissioned to confront satanic power with miracle power. We are commissioned to confront satanic lies with divine truth.

13.  I want to make this next point with great care: the great signs and wonders of the Bible always introduced a new message, new messengers and a change of God’s program. Is this what we have today in the charismatic movement? In this case, I would have to answer in the affirmative. We do have a new message, a different Jesus, a changed gospel, and new messengers. However, just as most of their signs and miracles are faked, so is their message one of false hope, lacking in power and authority. We really have a message of works instead of grace—it’s not a new message, it is just in somewhat different packaging. Do not forget the pattern for our age: We walk by faith and not by sight (2Cor. 5:7).

14.  No Apostle ever urges believers to seek after or to seek for signs and wonders and miracles. Paul urges pastors to study (2Tim. 2:15), for believers to let the Word of Christ indwell them (Col. 3:16) and to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25) and John urges believers to walk in the light (1John 1:7), but none of the writers of Scripture ever suggest that believers look to signs and miracles for their truth. MacArthur: The book of Revelation is full of visions, wonders, and signs. It would be a perfect place for the writer to urge believers to seek such miraculous manifestations, but what did he say? “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it” (Rev. 1:3).

15.  Dillow has a chart in his book Speaking in Tongues which I will replicate here, with some modifications:

16.  Part of the problem is that some do not actually realize what an Apostle is. Apostleship is a specific gift given to very few believers. In the New Testament, fewer than 15 are called Apostles, and a case could be made for the proper use of that office as versus the authority which was passed along to one who was called an Apostle, even though he really did not have the true office of Apostleship. However, that is a whole other topic. What is clear is that an Apostle had authority over more than one church, which authority Paul felt himself obligated to defend in 2Corinthians 12. The signs of a true Apostle were produced among you with all perseverance, by signs and powers and miracles (2Cor. 12:12). In fact, the only sign gift which is historically documented as being used by one who is not called an Apostle is the gift of tongues. The only other ones who ever demonstrated such gifts were those commissioned directly by the Apostles (Stephen and Philip in Acts 6). MacArthur: ...from the day the church was born at Pentecost, no miracle ever occurred in the entire New Testament record except in the presence of an apostle or one directly commissioned by an apostle.

17.  As a corollary to the above point, let me give you several reasons why we no longer have the gift of Apostleship today:

       a.    All New Testament Scripture was composed by either an Apostle or someone closely associated with an Apostle (Mark or Luke). The New Testament canon was closed (Rev. 22:18–19); along with several prominent bodies of believers throughout history. Once the canon of Scripture is closed, we no longer need authoritative pronouncements from an Apostle.

       b.    The Apostles proper were all chosen personally by Christ Jesus (Matt. 10:1–4 Luke 6:12–16 Gal. 1:1 1Tim. 1:1 2Tim. 1:1). I say Apostles proper, as there were a couple of others called Apostles to the Church (e.g., 2Cor. 8:23), which some take as the nontechnical use of the word Apostle. In case you are hesitant here, there is also the technical term Church (for the Church universal) and the nontechnical use, where it stands for a local church.

       c.    The Apostles (as well as others) were all eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. Am I not an Apostle? Have I not see Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? (1Cor. 9:1b; see also 1Cor. 15:7–8). there are charismatics who claim to speak with Jesus regularly: one has washed dishes while Jesus put his arm around his shoulder; another was watching Laverne & Shirley when our Lord dropped by to sit on his couch (the same person also got into a splash fight with Jesus in the River of Life in heaven); and still another was cruising down the road, and Jesus appeared on the passenger side and visited with him. Interestingly enough, our Lord only appeared to groups after His resurrection; and, after His ascension, He only appeared to Paul (who was with other people—Acts 9:1–9 18:9 23:11) and to Saint Stephen, who was also with others, who apparently did not see Him (Acts 7:54–60). Isn’t it odd that to charismatics, He only appears to one of them at a time?

       d.    The Church, for which Christ is the cornerstone, is founded upon the Apostles (New Testament) and the prophets (Old Testament) (Eph. 2:20).

       e.    In his epistles to Timothy and to Titus, Paul speaks of the leadership of a local church, and he never mentions the Apostles as a part of that leadership structure.

       f.     Only Apostles and those commissioned by the Apostles (who might be considered the nontechnical Apostles) performed signs, wonders and miracles.

       g.    Whereas, those in the early church with the gift of prophecy were subject to careful scrutinization (1Cor. 14:29–33), the Apostles had absolute authority (Jude 17).

       h.    In the New Jerusalem, there will be twelve foundation stones, upon which are written the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (Rev. 21:14).

       i.     MacArthur: The apostles were unquestionably a special breed; they had no successors...their office is unique, their ministry is unique; the miracles they did are unique...The age of the apostles and what they did is forever in the past...the apostolic age was unique and it ended. History says it, Jesus says it, theology says it, and the New Testament itself repeated attests to it. Let me add that we have no historical records of Apostles after the first century (this is Romanism aside, which began several centuries later).

18.  Pentecostals have two basic choices: (1) either the gift of tongues died out and was revived at the turn of this past century; or, (2) the gift of tongues has always been a part of the Christian church. Those who take the latter view will be quite interested in the next point:

19.  The History of tongues and the charismatic movement:

       a.    Introductory points:

               i.     It is my understanding the John Sherrill’s book, They Speak with Other Tongues, documents the occurrence of tongues over the past 2000 years. I thought that I had a copy of this book, but I do not. Dillow: The citations in Sherrill’s list are scanty and cover 2,000 years of history. There are often gaps of 500 years or more between the appearance of tongues outbursts. This can hardly be said to argue in favor of the gift remaining in the church. It may argue that God occasionally enables men to speak in tongues, assuming that the cited instances were indeed legitimate manifestations of the New Testament gift. But it no more proves that the gift of tongues is in the church today than does Jesus’ raising of Lazarus prove that god’s norm in the first century was to raise the dead. As alluded to above, it should be noted that some of the outbreaks of tongues speaking mentioned by Sherrill occurred in connection with known heretical movements. What I will provide herein is more instances of the gift of tongues with probably more detail than Sherrill provides.

               ii.     Nichol: [Despite differing opinions as to exactly when the modern Pentecostal movement began] ...all Pentecostals appear to agree on one fact: that the Pentecostal experience is not a religious innovation, and that in on form or another it has manifested itself throughout the history of the Christian Church. With that in mind, we will spend some time with the actual history of the charismatic movement itself. As you read these various occurrences of tongues in history, note that, no matter where you choose to see the beginning of the tongues movement, from that point on, there was always a certain amount of evolution which took place. That is, it starts out as one thing, but later becomes something else.

               iii.    There are some charismatics who believe that there are evidences for the gift of tongues throughout church history. Donald Gee writes: It is a commonplace of Church History that the special phenomena now associated with the Pentecostal Movement have occurred again and again during periods of spiritual revival and enthusiasm. A long list of such happenings could be cited, but it will be sufficient to quote such an acknowledged authority as the Encyclopedia Britannica...that the Glossolalia “recurs in Christian revivals in every age; e.g., among the mendicant friars of the thirteenth century, among the Jansenists and early Quakers, the converts of Wesley and Whitefield, the persecuted Protestants of the Cévennes, and the Irvingites.”  Nichol, who is rather level-headed about this, disagrees with Gee and the Encyclopedia Britannica; however, I will provide this long list. That is what is to follow. The most well-documented use of the gift of tongues in past times (apart from the Apostolic era) is by the Irvingites—we will spend a lot of time with them. Once we have finished, some Pentecostals will not want to be associated with their historical brethren.

       b.    There appears to be a Hellenistic gift of tongues—that is, those who belonged to some of the Greek religions spoke with ecstatic utterances during their religious services.

       c.    Historically, we do have a dying out of tongues and the sign gifts. Origen writes that he believed them to be still in existence. He lived in the late second and early third centuries.

       d.    There have been outbreaks of this movement or similar movements in previous times. There were the Montanists of Phrygia during the second century a.d. The Bishop of Hierapolis, Apollinaris, circa 170 a.d., described Montanus, the founder, saying: [Montanus]...became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church. The two associates of this sects founder were, surprisingly enough, female (Prisca and Maximilla) who claimed to be organs of the Divine Comforter promised of Christ. E. Glenn Hinson further writes: Apollinaris reported further, he enlisted two women whom he filled with “the false spirit,” “so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely,” like Montanus himself. The emphasis of this small group appears to be upon prophecy rather than upon tongues. Their prophetical statements tended to be very brief, but understandable. And note the emphasis, which was mine—the observer states that what Montanus did was contrary to the custom of the church—this was not a continuation of Pentecost but an aberration of same. This sounds more like the leader of a Pentecostal church rather than a representative of the early church. Bear in mind that if the use of tongues were as some have given, to bolster one’s faith and to make a person more at one with the Spirit by first surrendering their tongue, then our earliest historical records, even apart from the epistles, should be brimming with information about this particular use of the gift of tongues. However, what we have is this quote, which sounds modern, but is contrary to the custom of the early church. Hmmm...if you are a charismatic, doesn’t that pose some problems for you? And, as a charismatic, you cannot distance yourself too much from this early group. Larry Christenson (a charismatic author) accurately identified them as forerunners of the charismatic movement.

       e.    Irenæus, the Bishop of Lyons, mentions glossolia three times. On the first occasion, it refers back to the day of Pentecost. On the second occasion, he apparently is explaining the word perfect in 1Cor. 2:16 (obviously, it was not the same word to him). He wrote: [”perfect” refers to those]...who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he (Paul) used Himself also to speak. In like manner, we do also hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God. His third reference is to Marcus, possibly an early Gnostic, who would seduce women with the promise of some manifestation of the Holy Spirit. His encouragement to them, not too unlike the encouragement given by charismatics to those who have not yet spoken in tongues, resulted in: She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently, reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit...Henceforth, she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for heaving imparted to her of his own Charis.

       f.     Tertullian, the African theologian, converted to the cult of the Montanists in 206. He blasts Marcion for his doctrine of the two gods (the God of Wrath in the Old Testament and the God of Love in the New), and then challenged him to produce prophecy in his group as Tertullian observed in his own group, which were Montanists. An extended quote from Tertullian, which many be found in Glossolia, indicates that Montanists experienced ecstasy, rapture, and prophetical sayings. That they spoke in mysterious tongues is not stated directly, but might be inferred. The pagan philosopher, Celsus, made these comments, apparently about the Montanists: [They speak]...strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning; for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes.

       g.    We have two church fathers, Augustine and Chrysostom, who clearly state that tongues died out by their era (the 4^th century a.d.). I will quote these early church fathers in when we get to 1Cor. 13:10. However, let me give you a quote from Nichol: Except for a somewhat ambiguous reference in Irenæus (ca. a.d. 130) and Tertullian (ca a.d.160) little more remains in patristic literature concerning Pentecostal gifts in the second century. So that you don’t think that the early church fathers didn’t write much, it was determined by Sir David Dalrymple that, if all 24,000+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament had been lost, that he could piece together all but 11 verses of the New Testament from the writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries. If tongues are what charismatics say they are, and if their use was never terminated, and if their early church fathers were so prolific as to, in their writings, include the entire New Testament, save eleven verses, then don’t you think there would be some mention of this gift of tongues? If it is that important to bolster the faith and that important as a giving over of the will to the Holy Spirit, and if the early church fathers were so concerned with God’s Word that they wrote so much, why do we not find innumerable references to this gift? Pick up a book by any Pentecostal who deals with what he believes and count the number of times that we find the word tongues in his writings—now compare that to the early church fathers—do you see a problem with the modern charismatic movement? Do you see how incongruous their claims our with the historical record? Charismatics cannot point back to a contiguous use of the gift of tongues—particularly not as they present this gift for today. You should not be embarrassed that Satan has fooled you—he is more intelligent than all of us put together. Our only weapons against his lying deceptions are the filling of God the Holy Spirit along with a thorough knowledge of God’s Word. Some holy experience is not a reliable weapon against the confusion wrought by Satan.

       h.    The Gnostics, who were opposed to Christianity, also had prayers and incantations which were akin to the use of tongues. These gifts, not necessarily valid ones, died out with the Gnostic and Montanist movements before the beginning of the fifth century a.d.

       i.     At this point in time, we have few if any references to the gift of tongues. J. J. Görres wrote Die christliche Mystik, where he names at least seven different Catholic saints who were able to speak in foreign languages that they had not learned. At face value, this would seem to be a validation of tongues for all of Christianity; however, one of those named wrote several letters indicating the difficulties that he had encountered in communicating with different tribes. He had tried numerous approaches—translating some of the main church formulas into the language after he had learned enough of the language to do this, getting help from others to patch together some doctrinal statements to be memorized, employing interpreters, missing various dialects, or even using signs. His alleged gift of tongues was not mentioned until a century after his death. Just as everything that you read on the web is not necessarily true; not every historical document from the ancient world is accurate.

       j.     Apparently, there has been no similar systematic search of the East during medieval times, but it is theorized that they were probably more prevalent there than in the west (where they were almost nonexistent) due to their more mystical, individualistic, otherworldly, introverted piety.

       k.    There are the Ranters of England (I believe) between the years of 1648–1660. They were involved with various types of speech and they possibly believed that, because they were indwelt by God and Christ that they lay claim to being God and Christ, or so said one detractor. Excellent moniker, by the way.

       l.     The Quakers probably had some involvement with the gift of tongues. Fox and his followers often reported visions, groanings, quaking or trembling, weeping, outburst of prophecy, foaming at the mouth, faintings, and the like as a result of their meetings. Quakers got their name, of course, from the jerking spasms which they experienced when under strong religious emotion...[they] minimized glossolalia. They placed their primary emphasis on intelligible prophecy.

       m.   We also have the Camisards of France in the 1700’s. This was a strange group. During the heavy oppression of the Catholic church during that time, wherein public and private worship apart from Romanism was forbidden. This would have been the late 1600’s. France did have a significant Protestant population, who resisted these laws. One group of resistors were some peasants in the Cévennes Mountains of the Languedoc province Under the most distressing conditions of poverty and terror a sort of religious hysteria seized some of them. One of their own was a young girl named Isabeau Vincent, a woodcutter’s daughter, who was said to have prophesied for hours in perfectly cultivated French. Subsequently, as the fervor of persecution heightened, reports of spiritual inspiration increased, touching all ages and both sexes. Various physical phenomena accompanied it—convulsions, foaming at the mouth, sobbing, and glossolalia. One of the most surprising things was its incidence among small children, even infants. These peasants raised up an army in 1702, known as the Camisards, who were so successful in their resistance that the French authorities granted them considerable concessions in 1704. Their resistance died out around 1710, as apparently did their movement.

       n.    There was a group in England called the “French Prophets” who seem to have some relationship to the Camisards of France, although it was not clear what that relationship was, whether simply by being of a similar ilk or some of the Camisards who fled to England for religious freedom. They prophesied, worked miracles and spoke with tongues. There was a Mr. Dalton who spoke with great readiness and freedom complete discourses in Hebrew, for near a quarter of an hour together and sometimes much longer even though he did not know one Hebrew letter from another. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, if you have ever attended a Catholic mass spoken in Latin, then you pretty much have the idea of what it would have been like listening to Dalton expound in Hebrew. There was also a Mr. Lacy who could speak Latin, Greek and French, although French was apparently the only one of the languages that he actually knew. These prophets made the mistake of making predictions which were just too specific. They claimed that Dr. Emes, who had died on Dec. 22, 1707, would rise again March 25, 1708. Needless to say, the late Dr. Emes passed on this opportunity to wake up from his dirt nap, and Lacy had to back-peddle somewhat on his position, writing and publishing a paper on why Dr. Emes did not rise from the dead. They had also prophesied that great and terrible judgments would fall upon England in three weeks. When it didn’t happen, they decided that these must be three prophetical weeks. They explained, as do some charismatics today, that the Lord was returning during their time, and that this was the pouring out of the Holy Ghost in the last times.

       o.    The Roman Catholics have had at least one old encounter with the gift of tongues in 1731. The Jansenists of France had a tongues experience, which the church attempted to quench, making it more intense. The French state authorities apparently put an end to this behavior.

       p.    In the early -mid 1800’s, we have the Irvingites in England, a group that I will spend some time with, as there are many common characteristics between these people and the modern-day tongues movement, both as to their experiences and personal testimonies and as to the testimonies of their detractors. The leader of this movement was Scottish Edward Irving (1792–1834), who, by nature, was a mystic and a charismatic. He led a Presbyterian church in London. Irving apparently did not speak in tongues himself. He had heard of a young farm girl in Scotland, Mary Campbell, who claimed to speak with prophetic inspiration after being delivered from death’s door. Well, she had friends who had gifts of tongues and healing. On April 30, 1831, the gift of tongues was made manifest in his own church when a Mrs. Cardale spoke in tongues and prophesied (there are implications that an instance like this may have slightly predated this incident and there are three or four different women who are also named as a part of this beginning). A second-hand description of their speaking in tongues sounds decidedly modern: To some, the ecstatic exclamations, with their rolling syllables and mighty voice, were imposing and awful; to others it was merely gibberish shouted from stentorian lungs; to others an uneasy wonder, which it was a relief to find passing into English, even though the height and strain of sound were undiminished. These tongues appeared to give away to short bursts of English in the end. At first, these bursts into tongues were presented as real languages. Mary Campbell claimed to be speaking the language of the Pelew Islanders. Erskine, in his tract, On the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, 1830, wrote For the languages are distinct, well-inflected, well-compacted languages; they are not random collections of sounds, they are composed of words of various lengths, with the natural variety, and yet possessing that commonness of character which marks them to be one distinct language. I have heard many people speak gibberish, but this is not gibberish, it is decidedly well compacted language. Cardale, an observer, wrote: The tongues spoken by all the several persons who have received the gift are perfectly distinct in themselves, and from each other. J. Macdonald speaks two tongues, both easily discernible from each other. I easily perceived when he was speaking in the one, and when in the other tongue. J. Macdonald exercises his gift more frequently than any of the others; and I have heard him speak for twenty minutes together, wit all the energy of action and voice of an orator addressing his audience. The language which he then, and indeed generally, uttered is very full and harmonious, containing many Greek and Latin radicals, and with inflections also noticed that he employed the same radical with different inflections; but I do not remember to have noticed his employing two words together, both of which as to root and inflection, I could pronoun to belong to any language with which I am acquainted. Mary Campbell’s written-tongue was later submitted to a George Staunton and Samuel Lee, who concluded that it was not any real language at all. Soon thereafter, they began to regard their tongues as heavenly languages. Irving described the heavenly language of one as follows: The whole utterance form the beginning to the ending of it, is with a power, and strength, and fullness and sometimes rapidity of voice, altogether different from that of the person’s ordinary utterance in any mood; and I would say, both in its form and in its effects upon a single mind, quite supernatural. There is a power in the voice which I have never felt. Carlyle, another observer, gave a slightly different view: It was in a neighboring room...There burst forth a shrieky hysterical ‘Lah lall lall!’ (Little or nothing else but l’s and a’s) continued for several minutes...‘Why was there not a bucket of water to fling on that lah-lalling, hysterical madwoman’ thought we or said to one another. In writing all of this, I had decided that I have really spent too much time on the Irvingites, and then I read what appeared two more observations of a typical church service there. The first observer, Henry Vizetelly, in Glances Back Through the Years (1893), wrote: What chiefly attracted me to the chapel in Newman-street was the expectation, generally realised, of the spirit moving some hysterical shrieking sister or frantic Boanerges brother (posted in the raised recess behind Irving’s pulpit), to burst forth suddenly with one of those wild rapid utterances which, spite of their unintelligibility, sent a strange thrill through all who heard them for the first time...He has grown gray and haggard-looking, and this, with his long, straggling hair and restless look, emphasized by the cast in his eye, gave him a singularly wild and picturesque appearance. His voice, too, was piercingly loud, and his gestures were as vehement as those of any street ranter of the day. The second observer wrote, speaking of a prayer meeting which occurred before dawn, at six in the morning on a cold winter’s day: The church appeared to me to be pitch dark; only the lights from the gas lamps shining into the windows enabled us to grope our way forward. It seemed to be entirely full, but my friend accosted a verger, who led us to an excellent seat, nearly opposite the reading desk. After the people were seated the most solemn stillness prevailed. The sleet beating upon the windows was the only sound that could be heard. The clouded sky and the driving snow increased the obscurity, and it was not for some time that we could perceive our nearest neighbors, and assure ourselves that the place was full from one end to the other. I quite believe in the exquisite simplicity and entire sincerity of Mr. Irving’s whole character. I believe him to have been incapable of deliberately planning the scene which followed. Had he, however, been the most consummate actor that ever lived, had he studied the art of scenic portraiture and display from his youth up, he could not have produced a finer effect than on this occasion. Just as the clocks outside struck six, the vestry door opened and he entered the church with a small but very bright reading lamp in his hand. He walked with solemn step to the reading desk, and placing the lamp upon it, immediately before him, he stood up facing the audience. Remember, this was the only light in the place. It shone upon his face and figure as if to illuminate him alone. He had on a voluminous dark blue cloak, with a large cape, with a gilt clasp at the throat, which he loosened at once, so that the cloak formed a kind of a background to his figure. Tall, erect, and graceful, he stood for a few moments in silence, his pale face in the white light, his long dark locks falling down upon his collar, his eyes solemn and earnest, peering into the darkness of the building...After a few musical, earnest words of prayer, he opened the Bible before him, and began to read the twenty-second chapter of Revelation. If I were to live a hundred years I should never forget the reading of that chapter. I believe it exceeded in effect the finest speech and most eloquent sermon ever uttered. The exquisite musical intonation and modulation of voice, the deep and intense pathos of delivery, as if the speaker felt every word entering into his own soul, and that he was pouring it out to create a sympathy with his own feelings in others—all this was very wonderful, and totally absorbing every thought of the audience. But when he came to that verse, ‘I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and Morning Star,’ the effect of the last five words was electrical. The people could not cheer nor applaud, nor in any way relieve their feelings. There was a kind of hard breathing, a sound of suppressed emotion, more striking than the loudest plaudits could have been. The reader himself stopped for a moment as if to allow his unwonted emotion to subside. Before he could resume there came from a woman who was two or three seats behind me, a sound so loud that I am sure it might have been heard on the opposite side of the square. I have been trying to find a word by which to describe it, and the only word I can think of is the word ‘yell.’ It was not a scream nor a shriek; it was a yell so loud and so prolonged that it filled the church entirely, and as I have said, must have been heard far beyond it. It was at first one single sound, but it seemed in a short time to resolve itself into many separate sounds—not into articulate words by any means. They were far more like the sounds uttered by a deaf and dumb child modulating its tones, but wholly innocent of speech. This was the beginning and the ending of the so-called ‘unknown tongues’ in Regent Square, by which I mean they never varied from nor improved upon this type. How any one could be so deluded as to fancy in them any words or syllables, to say nothing of any language, I could never understand. There was no articulation, and no attempt at it. Had there been now and then something like a word, it was mixed up in such a jargon of sound, it was uttered with such rapidity, and in such a long continued and prolonged yell that, led up to it as I had been by the adjuncts of the scene, by the weirdness and obscurity of the building, I was never deceived by it for one moment. After a few minus’ utterance of these ‘unknown tongues,’ the excited woman began to speak in articulate English words. It was still in the same loud yell, slightly subdued by the necessity of speech. The utterances were chiefly texts of Scripture of an exhortative kind—the first word being uttered three times over, each one louder than the last, the last calling forth the woman’s powers to the utmost, her breast heaving and straining with exertion. On this occasion the English began oddly enough, with the word, ‘Kiss! Kiss!! Kiss!!! the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way.’ This morning there was only one manifestation. Generally there were two; on several occasions I heard three, and once four. They proceeded, however, from the same woman, for while the second was speaking the first recovered her strength, and as her companion’s voice died away in subdued murmurs, she burst out anew, as if a dozen spirits were contending in her. When I look back on that first morning, I feel moved with the deepest pty and regret for poor Edward Irving. He was greatly excited and overcome. In his honest heart, he believed that God had honored him and favored him above all the ministers in London. I can see him now before me, as I saw him then, meekly and humbly saying, “I will now finish reading the chapter in which I was interrupted by the Holy Spirit, speaking by this young woman.” Yes I heard him say this with my own ears. Already the charm of the service was gone. He seemed glad to conclude it, as if he were afraid his own gentle words could detract from and injure the holy impression that had bee produced. Into this church came a Robert Baxter, who, when under the spirit, would prophesy. He once ordered Irving to go to the Court of Chancery to deliver a message, which, apparently, would just come to him when he arrived there. He should then expect to be put into jail. Irving did go, no message came to him, and he was not cast into prison. Irving was later deposed from this ministry, in part due to his heretical view of our Lord (that, although Jesus was sinless, he nonetheless possessed an old sin nature), and he returned to his church as a deacon. He died two years later. It is possible that some members of that church continued to speak in tongues after his demotion and death. These appear to be scattered cults which possessed some decidedly non-Christian doctrine. However, for the most part, they seemed to have died out in the first century or two (at the longest). Near the end of her life, Mary Campbell recanted what she had presented herself as, which was, for all intents and purposes, the original push which got the Irvington movement started. She wrote, It is no light thing to use the holy name irreverently, as I have been made to feel. Robert Story sent Irving her note to Irving and also commented: [It was] disappointing a career hers had turned out, especially as eh was considered the most remarkable and conclusive evidence of the Holy Ghost being again with power in the midst of the church. Story, in his note, expressed great remorse that he had not exposed Mary Campbell earlier. Apparently, Story’s note was delivered after Irving had died. Irving did write him on January 27, 1841, saying: Oh, Story, thou has grievously sinned in standing afar off from the work of the Lord, scanning it like a skeptic instead of proving it like a spirited man! Ah! brother, repent, and the Lord will forgive thee!...Mrs. Caird [Mary Campbell’s married name] is a saint of God, and hath the gift of prophecy. Thomas Bayne wrote, concerning Robert Story: In 1830 his parishioner, Mary Campbell, professed to have received the ‘gift of tongues,’ and though Story exposed her imposture, she found disciples in London, and was credited by Edward Irving, then in the maelstrom of his impassioned fanaticism. On the basis of her predictions arose the ‘Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.’  In other words, here we have one of the most well-documented original tongues groups, and it is based upon a lie to begin with. You may think that this is an example of Satan counterfeiting God’s work, which, obviously it is. However, during that time period there was no other tongues group to counterfeit—that is, this is not an apostate tongues group which led some of the godly tongues people away—this was the only known group like this from that time period. When Satan counterfeits God’s works, it is to lead some astray. Satan was not leading people from other tongues groups astray; Satan was leading believers astray with he Irvingites.

       q.    Nichol: On October 19, 1832, the Exhibition Hall off Oxford Street was acquired and made into a church. Needless to say, “Pentecostal” manifestations occurred at the opening meeting and continued thereafter. As a matter of fact, the “Gifted Prophets” and the new order of “Apostles,” among whom Irving was not numbered, took over the church, subjecting their minister to their prophetic utterances and rulings, and even interrupting his sermons and the administration of the ordinances with their charismatic outbursts.

       r.     Nichol points out four similarities between the Irvingites and contemporary Pentecostals:

               i.     Speaking in tongues was considered evidentiary of spirit baptism.

               ii.     Speaking in tongues and receiving the spirit post salvation was initially necessary in order to receive one of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit.

               iii.    The gifts manifested by the Apostles at Pentecost and soon after are gifts which have belonged to the church throughout its history, which had been withheld as the church had been unfaithful.

               iv.    The Presbyterians expelled Irving and his charismatic following, forcing them to begin a new denomination, the Catholic Apostolic Church.

       s.    The early Methodist groups, particularly those in Northern England and Wales, had some experience with extraordinary spiritual phenomena. When Dr. Conyers Middleton claimed that the gift of tongues and miracles had died out with the Apostles, John Wesley countered with the example of the Cévenols. Wesley gave an account in both his Journal and in A Short History of the People Called Methodists of a meeting in Huntingtonshire in May of 1979, during which both the adults and children fell under the power of the Spirit. They shrieked, swooned, fell to the floor as if dead, babbled senselessly, cried out in praise of God, and so on...The Great Awakening and subsequent revivals produced some unusual by-products...the demand for a tangible display of the receiving of the Spirit...[created] astounding physical demonstrations. Barking, violent jerking, shrieking and shouting, wild dancing, fainting, and the like were common. I have seen short arguments that Wesley did approve and others which said he did not approve of this behavior. David Shibley claims that John Wesley was really the precursor to the charismatic movement in the 1700’s. In my five volume set, History of the Christian Church, it makes mention of Wesley having an interest, if not a leaning, toward mysticism early on during his days at Oxford, but that he later appeared to repudiate this viewpoint. Given that the Methodist Church does not have any stated doctrinal leanings towards mysticism, speaking in tongues or a second experience with the Holy Spirit, to me that would indicate that this was not a part of his doctrine. In any case, such a point is moot—that these things did occur has his testimony. I had personally thought, until this study, that the phrase slain in the Spirit was a relatively new one. John McGee, an evangelist of that group, recounts the following incident from the summer of 1799: William (John’s brother) felt such a power come over him that he quit his seat and sat down on the floor of the pulpit, I suppose not knowing what he did. A power which caused me to tremble was upon me. There was a solemn weeping all over the house. At length I rose up and exhorted them to let the Lord God Omnipotent reign in their hearts, and their soul should live. Many broke the silence. The woman in the east end of the house shouted tremendously. I left the pulpit and went through the audience shouting and exhorting with all possible ecstasy and energy, and the floor was soon covered with the slain.

       t.     The Shakers were founded by visionary Mother Ann Lee, who considered herself to be the female equivalent of Jesus Christ. She claimed to be able to speak in seventy-two languages. The Shakers believed sexual intercourse was sinful, even within marriage. They spoke in tongues while dancing and singing in a trancelike state. They moved from England to the United States in 1774, first settling in New York and then branching out from there. According to their “Summary View of the Millennial Church,” published in 1848, they regarded tongues, dancing, and various ecstatic states as the highest expressions of worship.

       u.    The Mormons, who are considered by the majority of Christendom to be a cult (they have additional Books of Truth besides the Bible), also had an involvement with these gifts of the Spirit. Joseph Smith, their founder, mentions the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation of tongues several times in the Book of Mormon, giving his tacit approval. Mormon 9:7–9: And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues; Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. For do we not read that God is the “same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing”? Joseph Smith, by the way, translated this book from a set of gold plates written in reform Egyptian hieroglyphics, and, surprisingly enough, even though this was translated in the mid-1800’s, it read as if old King James of England of almost three centuries previous had commissioned this work. He was able to read these reform Egyptian hieroglyphics by means of “Urim and Thummim,” a type of miraculous spectacles, which the angel Moroni had the foresight to provide for the budding seer. In more recent times, the Mormons have downplayed tongues, although they have not forbidden its use.

       v.    A separate experience with the Holy Spirit was reportedly espoused by Charles Finney in the mid-1800’s (again, according to Shibley). From him came several smaller denominations: the Church of the Nazarene, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Church of God, which Shibley classified as non-charismatic holiness churches, whatever the hell that means. Although I could not find evidence of Finney’s charismatic leanings in either the History of the Christian Church or in the World Book Encyclopedia, both mentioned that he believed in human perfection on earth, which is a sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (he only thought that perfection on earth was possible and did not claim to reach it himself). He was apparently an outstanding evangelist who probably should have stuck with the gospel and left theology to those with the gift of pastor-teacher.

       w.   Wesley had some trouble explaining sanctification, and his church split into a holiness faction and an anti-holiness faction. This took place during the last two decades of the 19^th century. My sources were unclear at this point, but I would assume that the holiness faction purported that a man could reach spiritual perfection here on earth. That faction eventually split from the Methodist Church entirely. I do not have any information concerning their views toward the gifts of the Spirit, but theologically, they don’t appear to be too far afield from some Pentecostal groups.

       x.    Interestingly enough, only one of my sources, Nichol, mentioned the Church of God. In 1896, several years before the beginning of the modern tongues movement, 100 people in Shearer, North Carolina, received the post-salvation baptism, as well as the gift of tongues, while worshiping at a local schoolhouse. Their organization was called the Christian Union, which they later changed, in 1902, to the Holiness Church, which gave way to the name the Church of God in 1907. I don’t know if this group is generally ignored because there is less historical record or because they were so small (by 1907, there were only 200 members of this group spread between five churches in three southern states). Their movement was also damaged when A. J. Tomlinson, the one who, throughout most of their early history, was their leader and responsible for their finances, was removed for financial impropriety in 1923. However, this group has grown considerably since then, establishing several Bible colleges and junior colleges, it’s membership at over 200,000 as of 1960. They are one of the few churches which practice foot washing ceremonies.

       y.    Donald Burdick and John Sherrill mark the beginning on New Year’s Eve, 1900, at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas. Charles Fox Parham, a former lay preacher in the Congregational Church, who had moved then to the Methodists, and then to the Holiness movement, founded Bethel Bible College in October of 1900. While he seemed to have more in common with the Holiness movement than with his previous two associations, he felt as though there was something lacking. In his own study of Acts 2, he said: If God had ever equipped His ministers in that way [then] He could do it today...Anybody today ought to be able to preach in any language of the world if they had horse sense enough to let God use their tongue and throat. Obviously, he did not take note of the fact that Peter preached the sermon in koine Greek, which Peter spoke and the crowd fully understood. In December of 1900, Parham had to go to Kansas City, so, upon his departure, he instructed his students to study their Bibles, examining the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. Upon his return, his students told him that the baptism of the Spirit was usually accompanied in the book of Acts with speaking in tongues. At that point, they began to pray for the same manifestations of the Holy Spirit. On New Year’s Eve, there were 40 students and 70 other gathered when a student named Agnes Ozman asked for the director of the school to lay his hands on her head and pray that she might receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When he did so, immediately Miss Ozman spoke fluently in syllables which no one understood. This occurrence was the beginning of the modern Pentecostal movement. Parham described it in this way: I had scarcely repeated three dozen sentences when a glory fell upon her, a halo seemed to surround her head and face, and she began speaking in the Chinese language, and was unable to speak English for three days. Seeing this marvelous manifestation of the restoration of Pentecostal power...we decided as a school to wait upon God. We felt that God was no respecter of persons and what He had so graciously poured out upon one, He would upon all. Then Nichol makes a phenomenal statement: This event was significant not because Miss Ozman had spoken in tongues, for there had been sporadic outbursts of glossolalia throughout the history of the church...The importance of these events in Topeka is that for the first time the concept of being baptized (or filled) with the Holy Spirit was linked to an outward sign—speaking in tongues Henceforth, for the Pentecostals the evidence that one has been filled with the Holy Spirit” is that he will have spoken in other tongues...This decision to seek for a Holy Spirit baptism with the expectation of speaking in tongues, says J. Roswell Flower, was a momentous one. “It...made the Pentecostal Movement of the Twentieth Century.” 

       z.    This group under Parham was struck with a tremendous sense of urgency. They had just experienced the gift of tongues, which they associated with the latter rain of the book of Joel. They decided that the events and time period of the book of Joel (the latter days) must be their time period. Therefore, Parham and company suspended all classes and those at the school prayed for each one of them to get this second blessing. Parham and his wife and Agnes Ozman and others began an evangelical tour. Obviously, if they were blessed by the Holy Spirit in this special way, then their evangelism would also be dramatic. Recall that the Apostles had 3000 converts in one day on the Day of Pentecost—so how could they expect less? The evangelical tour was unsuccessful and the school itself had to be closed and moved. It was not until 1903 that their movement began to gain some momentum. Two cures caught the attention of the outside world; then there were more. Mary A. Arthur of Galena, Kansas, had dyspepsia for fourteen years. She also suffered from prolapsus, hemorrhoids, paralysis of the bowels, her right eye was virtually blind from birth, and her left eye suffered from inflammation and nerve strain. Mrs. Author had tried oculists, allopathy, homeopathy, osteopathy, Christian Science and her own pastor. She went to a meeting of Parham’s where he was teaching divine healing, and returned to Galena healed. A friend of hers was soon thereafter healed of a cancerous tumor. Suddenly, Parham’s ministry took off. He was holding meetings at Mrs. Arthur’s house which then had to be moved to a tent outside, and then, due to the weather, moved to the Grand Leader building on Main Street. His fame quickly spread, and Nichol quotes a story from the Cincinnati Inquirer from January 27, 1904: Almost three months have elapsed since this man [Parham] came to Galena and during that time he has healed over a thousand people and converted more than 800...During the services there have been as many as 50 people at the altar at one time seeking to be restored in soul and body. Here people who have not walked for years without the aid of crutches have risen from the altar with their limbs so straightened that they were enabled to lay aside their crutches, to the astonishment of the audience. These cures, they claim, are effected solely through prayer and faith. Nothing else is done, though Mr. Parham often lays his hands upon the afflicted one while the devotions are going on...Here women who have formerly lived for society and gaiety kneel beside some fallen sister and endeavor to point her heaven war, and here the “followers” receive what they term “the Pentecost,” and are enabled to speak in foreign tongues, in languages with which they are, when free from this power, utterly unfamiliar. This alone is considered one of the most remarkable things of the meetings. By 1905, Parham had lit a fire which resulted in over a half dozen cities which had their own full gospel meetings and, in Texas alone, there were now 60 full gospel preachers and 25,000 full gospel converts.

       aa.  Burdick records that this spread from Topeka to Azusa Mission in Los Angeles by way of Houston, Texas. According to McGee, the modern Pentecostal movement broke out right down the street from his famous Church of the Open Door in a Methodist Church on Azuza Street in the heart of Los Angeles, April of 1906. Black minister W. J. Seymour, who had been schooled as a holiness minister in Houston at another school founded by Parham, was called to pastor a church in Los Angeles. For his first sermon, he preached that those who received the baptism of the Spirit would speak in tongues, as the Apostles had on the day of Pentecost. This severely offended Julia Hutchins, who believed herself to have received this baptism of the Spirit subsequent to salvation (as did many holiness types), and in Seymour’s sermon, he was telling her that she didn’t get it all. The congregation as a whole was apparently offended that, despite the fact that they had, for the most part, been baptized by the spirit, that Seymour told them that they did not get the fullness, so, when Seymour returned for the afternoon service, he found the church door bolted. A Richard and Ruth Asberry invited Seymour to conduct worship services which met at their home at 214 North Bonnie Brae Street in Los Angeles. On April 9, 1906 (another account gives the date as the 12^th), seven were apparently seized by a spirit and they spoke in tongues. Nichol says that they shouted and praised God for three days and three nights, which would account for the date discrepancy. The following week, they moved to new digs on Azuza Street, renting out a building which, ironically enough, had been, at one time, the meeting place for a Methodist Church. The place was filled with building supplies; they put long boards on top of empty nail buckets for seats. The meetings ostensibly began 10:00 am on Sunday and continued until 3:00 am the next morning, with people seeking salvation, sanctification, the Holy Spirit baptism, or healing. When the press heard of this unusual revival, they gave them enough publicity which helped the church to increase considerably in size. Shibley also agrees with this as the proper beginnings of the Pentecostal Church, and from this came several unabashedly charismatic churches, e.g., the Assemblies of God, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, and the Church of God (in Cleveland and Tennessee). So, either 1900 or 1906 seems to be the most likely date for the modern-day Pentecostal movement to begin. This is likely the first notable outbreak of the modern tongues movement, as my one set of church history books, completed in the late 1800’s, do not even mention this gift in the modern era (from the reformationist’s on).

       bb.  Interestingly enough, Seymour invited his mentor, Charles Parham, out to the Azusa Street Mission so that Parham could put the reigns on some fanatical behavior. Apparently, he spoke once or twice, and then was denied direct access (it is unclear whether this access was denied by Seymour or by prominent members of the congregation). William H. Durham received the holy ghost at Apostolic Faith Mission on Azusa Street, and had apparently became an early teacher of note. When he returned to his old church to teach, he was locked out, as his teaching contradicted a theory of sanctification held by Seymour. Nichol reported that a woman only identified as Bridgitt actually attacked him with her hatpin.

       cc.   Coterminous with the Pentecostal revival in Los Angeles, but more difficult to trace its roots, was a similar sort of religious happening in Mukti, India. We do not have a record of anyone speaking in tongues, but there appears to be ample evidence of a spirit baptism. ...the baptism of fire...burned away such negative qualities in the believer’s life as pride, anger, worldliness, selfishness, and immoral tendencies. Some of the girls responded to this “baptism” by shaking, dancing, seeing visions, and dreaming dreams. An actual instance of speaking in tongues in India appears to have taken place almost coterminously with the events previously described on Azuza Street. A nine year old girl had been to a meeting and was convinced that she needed the baptism of the spirit. When she returned to her boarding school, she and four other girls began to pray for the spirit. One of them began to speak in a language that she did not understand. A Canon Haywood sought a linguist to listen to this little girl, and later reported that she had been pleading to God for salvation in Libya in an unknown tongue. It is unclear who the linguist was or how much of this was Haywood and how much was the linguist.

       dd.  This movement has several synonyms: it is called the full gospel movement, the charismatic movement, the Pentecostal movement. Since it has only made true inroads into mainstream Christian thought in the past century, calling this the full gospel indicates that the Christian church has limped along for almost two centuries on the 80% gospel. Somewhere during the 1950’s and 1960’s, this full-gospel movement filtered into other major denominations, notably Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists.

       ee.  Along with this early infiltration, there came a reaction from the churches that they infiltrated. Many churches excluded those who were charismatic; some denominational churches which has become charismatic were separated from their original denomination; and there was even some scattered violence. Nichol chronicles much of this in his book, The Pentecostals. I am hoping that it is obvious that a fundamentalist church has the right to disengage from charismatics and to remove them from their congregation. I hope that it is also obvious that there is no excuse for violence or the destruction of property.

       ff.    Neo-Pentecostalism: the charismatic movement has gone full circle in its approach. It began in various denominations, and those who experienced the spirit were often urged to remain in the denomination wherein they were found. Many were forced out and they had to reorganize. Until about 1959, the charismatic movement was primarily confined to specific denominations. This more recent charismatic thrust has invaded Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Lutheran groups. Most of these churches then experience a split into charismatics and noncharismatics.

       gg.  Obviously, there is a great deal of history still to be covered, but the purpose of this study is not the historical background of the Pentecostal Church or of the holiness, full-gospel movement. For those who would like to continue this, may I recommend The Pentecostals by John Thomas Nichol or Glossolalia by Stagg, Hinson and Oates.

20.  Now, in this portion of the study, you will note that I have given you one of the most comprehensive lists of the use of tongues throughout the history of the church, and you will note that it has never been associated with any significant Christian movement or believer, apart from Wesley, and, as has been discussed, that is debatable. In the past, the tongues movement has always been viewed as an heretical movement or as a fringe element, when it existed. Harris Kaasa writes: In summary we may say that there is considerable evidence for the recurrence of this phenomenon. At the same time, no one can fail to be struck by its relative infrequency and by the fact that it occurs mostly among members of (in context) radical sects. Its exceptional presence should not blind us to its general absence in the main stream of church history. Hinson writes: If it is indeed to be seen as an evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work, why did it have such an inconsistent and intermittent history? If it were as significant as Pentecostals maintain, would it not have occurred regularly and without letup throughout the many centuries of Christian history?  The fact that we do not ever find this gift or movement associated historically with hundreds of great men of church history cannot be overemphasized. Only recently has the charismatic movement made great inroads into the church of God. We may have a large number of Christians and Bibles in this day and age, as well as a plethora of Christian radio stations, but we have very few believers who really know the Word of God and damn few pastor teachers who bother to teach it.

21.  Charismatics essentially have two choices: tongues have either been with the church for the past 2000 years or it has not.

       a.    This puts the charismatic in a bad spot. If the charismatic chooses to believe that the Christian church has always had tongues, then they are faced with their history, most of which is cultic in nature. If the charismatic believes that tongues are a revival for the last times, then he is faced with two problems: (1) where in Scripture can this be justified? And, (2) why do the tongues groups of the past century have much more in common with the cult groups of the past than they do with the gift of tongues used on the day of Pentecost?

       b.    The other option is that tongues returned to Christianity at the turn of the century, because we just happen to have men in this century who are deeper and more devoted to God than in the previous 18 centuries. This means that Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, Bullinger, Augustine, Whitefield, etc. just did not have what it takes as believers. However, those in the present-day charismatic movement are at a spiritual plateau superior to these men, and thus more deserving of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

22.  Charismatics often have a way of quoting a Scripture here or there, taken generally out of its context, to justify anything, and they often do so with Joel 2:28 and connect it with Joel 2:23. Peter quotes Joel 2:28 at Pentecost: “And it will come to pass after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind, and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams and your young men will see visions.” Then, the charismatic who has really studied, points to Joel 2:23, which mentions the early rain (which he interprets as Pentecost) and the latter rain (which he interprets as tongues in the 20^th century). However, the context of this passage speaks of Jesus Christ, the God of Israel, reuniting with Israel, as Israel returns to God (Joel 2:12–17). This will all take place in the tribulation, once the Church has been removed from this world. Israel will be back in the land and surrounded by armies—the northern army is in view in Joel 2:19 and the armies of the nations around Israel are in view in Joel 3:1–3. We cannot even interpret this as the early rain refers to Israel under God’s great blessing, under David and Solomon and the latter rain is the great blessing and protection from God in the end times (rain, in an agricultural society, is often a term for blessing from above). For an agricultural society, both rains are required. The early rains are fall rains and the late rains are those in the spring. Together, they refer to blessing—not to blessings at different times. Vv. 21–27 speak of the blessing that God gives to Israel in the last times. As a part of this, God will pour out His Spirit upon Israel, which is vv. 28–29. However, what will also be a part of the last days are great signs in the heavens, as are mentioned in vv. 30–31. As you see, there is nothing contextual whatsoever to refer to the gift of tongues; and certainly not convincing proof that men will speak in tongues during the times of the Apostles and during today’s time. Now, why did Peter quote this? What happened at Pentecost 30 a.d. got a lot of attention. Those who were there had never seen anything like it before. What Peter does is point to the Old Testament Scriptures which indicate that there are great works of the Spirit to come; and that Pentecost was simply one of them. Pentecost is not a fulfillment of Joel 2:28 by any means; it is a similar situation. We cover this in more detail when we get to that point in Peter’s Pentecost speech.

23.  Furthermore, we also have the speaking in tongues among Hindus, Mormons and other pagans. Actually, the list of those nonchristian cults and groups who speak in tongues is just about as long as the entire history of speaking in tongues in Christian cults. Dillow: Tongues speaking as manifested today is a purely heathen concept. Never since the Fall has God employed such a method to enable man to communicate with Him. It is entirely unnecessary. Pagan tribes all over the world have been speaking in tongues for centuries. The similarities between their practice and that of the tongues movement are striking. At its root the movement is simply a merger of Christianity with paganism. Now, just how on earth do you determine which is true and which is false? Any charismatic will tell you that they just know that it is from God, and if I was to experience what they experienced, then I would know as well. I’m certain that any religious person who experiences tongues will attribute it to God and that is how they will sincerely feel. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that we can discern between what is true and what is false by what feels right. I’ve been in several holy roller churches early on in my Christian life and let me tell you, they did not feel right nor did they feel holy to me. However, that in itself, was not good enough to write them off as unspiritual and unscriptural. In a couple of points, I will explain fairly thoroughly that charismatics deviate from the faith with regards to salvation and spirituality. Just because they continually shout out the name of Jesus, this does not make them believers. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Fathers who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ ” (Matt. 7:21–23; Psalm 6:8).

24.  Union by the spirit? Although there is an initial bond between people of different denominations who have received the holy ghost experience, there has also been some very serious internal dissension throughout the history of the century old charismatic movement. I already mentioned the schism between Parham and Seymour’s congregation, despite the fact that Seymour was mentored by Parham. Nichol records a great deal of this early internal dissension, attributing some to the original denominational affiliations and some simply to human failings.

       a.    One of the points of contention concerned sanctification. One branch, the holiness contingent, felt that, subsequent to salvation, there is this experience which a believer goes through which makes him dead to sin. His soul becomes free of sinful inclination. Once we had purified ourselves to a certain point, then the holy ghost would come and indwell us, as He obviously would not indwell an unclean vessel. Durham claimed that there was no need for this second work of grace, because salvation changed a man’s heart and his nature. Durham backed up his argument by the conversion of those who were also filled with the Spirit, although they had not gone through some cleansing period first (Nichol did not indicate that Scripture was a basis for arguments on either side).

       b.    There was also a serious schism in the Pentecostal faith in England, although I did not really understand the issues that they were disputing. It appeared to be more of debate over the extent of the practice of the gifts of the spirit.

       c.    The Pentecostal movement in Germany and Sweden butted heads as well. The Germans apparently leaned more toward visions, prophetic announcements and personal revelations than did the Swedes. The Scandinavians in particular objected to matters of dispute being settled by some prophetic statement. Interestingly enough, according to Nichol, these kinds of prophetic pronouncements were never given near as much credence in the United States when it came to matters of doctrine and organization. Personally, I see this as a problem for the charismatic—someone either is a prophet or he is not. In the Old Testament, God ordered false prophets to be executed. If any Pentecostal group has determined that Charlie Brown doesn’t always give prophetic utterances which deserve credence, then Charlie Brown should be, at the very least, disfellowshipped. You don’t get to have it both ways—you don’t get to flaunt all the gifts of the Spirit, but then denigrate one when you don’t like it.

25.  Additional miscellaneous descriptions of charismatic meetings:

       a.    Robert Richardson: Concurrently with the speaking in tongues, dancing is going on...An elderly matron arises and holding her arms out horizontally, pirouettes majestically to and fro in front of the altar. A sturdy, bearded, son of the soil jumps up and down, rising each time an astonishing distance in the air. On the platform the pastor, while likewise leaping up and down, whirls around and around like a dancing dervish. A female saint takes i into her head to dance up one aisle and down the other, and proceeds to do this, keeping time to the music provided by a burly negro who follow her with a banjo...All the saints proceed to stand on tip toe and groan and shriek at the top of their voices for several minutes.

       b.    Soon after becoming a believer, I attended several churches, looking for one which taught the Bible. One such church was called the Open Bible Church. Nothing really occurred for the first 45 minutes or so. The pastor’s sermon was a complete waste for 45 minutes as he had an electric guitar strapped on his person and he was complaining about the more recent gospel music and how we should return to the older gospel tunes; and, periodically, he would play what I guess was an old standard. At the end of the service, there was a prayer, and then dozens of people began speaking all at once in various tongues, one powerful woman’s voice was above all the others. That’s when I bolted for the door.

       c.    At another charismatic church that I attended, it was a small group and they tended to meander about the church in a pack in order to heal those who were sick. I recall the pack of a dozen people, led pretty much by the pastor and his wife (if memory serves) would go from person to person needing healing or prayer, place their hands on them (most everyone in the group would do this) and they would pray. I don’t recall whether praying in tongues was a part of this. One thing which I recall clearly, however, is, as they were about to leave one person and move on to the next, a young lady in the transient group suggested that they remain praying for this man until he was completely healed. The pastor flashed her what I can only imagine was a dirty look; they stayed another few minutes with this person, and then moved on (I don’t believe he got fully healed, however).

       d.    Tomlinson: Yesterday was a wonderful day in the camp [meeting]. In the beginning of the service in the morning, one or two messages were given in tongues, and I gave the interpretation. Afterwards I was seized with two or three spells of weeping and finally fell on my back under the overwhelming power of God. After screaming for a while as though my heart would break, I became a little more quiet...The meeting that followed during the day is indescribable. Men, women and children screaming, shouting, praying, leaping, dancing, and falling prostrate under god’s overwhelming power. Wonderful! 

       e.    This is not to say that each and every charismatic group have meetings which degenerate into carnivals. In the middle of a sermon, Pastor Frank Lindquist was interrupted by a woman who began to sing in the spirit. He asked her to be silent and she explained that she was moved by the spirit. Lindquist countered that he had been impelled by the spirit to deliver this sermon, so she would have to be quiet, as the spirit would not contradict himself.

       f.     Also, on the more conservative side, we have Dingman: It has been well said that the Holy Spirit is a gentleman—He does not disturb meetings. There is a proper time and place for manifestations of the Holy Spirit and it is not a time when it will inject a harsh note into the meeting and disturb either speaker, singer, or audience. May God grant that we may never quench the Spirit, but may He also grant that we do quench emotional outbreaks that are not of His leading.

       g.    I have mentioned the movement, the Third Wave; although they have attempted to distance themselves somewhat from Pentecostals and charismatics, and their excesses, that does not appear to be the case. MacArthur writes: Some men from our church staff recently visited Wimber’s Vineyard in Anaheim. The evening they were there, they witnessed virtual pandemonium. Wimber tried to get everyone speaking in tongues at once. Women were convulsing on the floor; one man lay on his back in a catatonic state; and all around, hundreds of people were dancing, running, shouting, and standing on chairs. If anyone speaks in a foreign language, two or at the most, three, and each in turn, and let one translate....let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner (1Cor. 14:27, 40).

       h.    I include these various happenings inside the charismatic church so that the reader does not need to experience it first-hand. Although such excesses to not show the charismatic movement in a favorable light, these actions are not in themselves the problem; they are the result of the problem, which is the teaching of anti-Biblical doctrines.

       i.     There are even television shows of various churches where the minister of the church, in front of the church, speaks in tongues; his wife following suit, as do the members of the congregation.

       j.     I need to add that not all charismatic churches are like this, which actually was a surprise to me. I have two personal friends of mine who attend The Home Church of San Jose, California, which is a church which believes in the second work of the Spirit after salvation, as well as in the gifts, which would include the gift of tongues. However, no one speaks in tongues during the service, and, apparently, no one gets the baptism while in church (or, there is no manifestation of it as is found in many other churches). What the church does is teach two classes, from time to time, on the gifts of the Spirit and Spirit baptism; and then, a third class is given, sort of as an option, to those who want to receive this filling or baptism of the Spirit. Whereas, this appears to be more civilized, we do have a problem here. If this second work of the Spirit is so important, to which all Pentecostals and charismatics would agree, then, isn’t there a problem where this is presented as an option in the Christian life? Salvation by faith in Christ is no option; you are either a believer or you are not. You have either chosen to spend eternity with God or you have chosen, each and every second of your life, to spend a life apart from God. If there is a second work of the Spirit, a baptism which occurs apart from salvation, and, because we can do nothing apart from the Holy Spirit, how can a church present this as an enhancement to or an option of the Christian life. Such a position denigrates the power of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, is there any Scriptural support for a person choosing that, at some point in time, they will receive the so-called spirit baptism, and then they do? That is, do I, by choice, have the option of living my life apart from the Holy Spirit for a month, two months, or ten years; and then, with some fervent prayer and assistance of others, can I suddenly call upon the Spirit to baptize me? It would seem to me that the first order of business of a charismatic church for the new believer would be to get that person baptized in the spirit. Now, I fully realize that I have placed the charismatic in the position of damned if they do and damned if they don’t. However, where would the proper balance be between the excesses found in most charismatic churches and a church where the ministry of the Holy Spirit is an option?

26.  Leadings of the spirit: it is difficult to determine when someone is speaking from the Holy Spirit and when they are speaking from their own spirit. Pentecostals have certainly discovered that. Nichol mentioned that some people were sent out to the mission field on the basis of the prophetic utterings of another—people who were wholly unsuited for that ministry. Others have been married, resulting in horrendous mismatches, having been first urged by prophetic utterance. When a person claims to speak from the spirit, and it is a matter outside the realm of doctrine, how do you determine whether it is true or false?

27.  Animosity between charismatics and noncharismatics. There has been fault on both sides here, but the animosity between the two groups does not go hand-in-hand with the unity of the Spirit.

       a.    Nichol records incidents early in the charismatic movement of persecution by noncharismatics which were utterly deplorable acts. There was a group of Pentecostals in Cherokee County, North Carolina, who had moved into a log cabin to worship. That log cabin was subsequently burned; and when a rain doused the fire, their opposition used dynamite. A leader of theirs was shot with buckshot, various homes were broken into and things were stolen, water sources were polluted and individual homes were burned. Although we do not have a plethora of such incidents, even just one is a black eye and a terrible embarrassment for noncharismatic believers. These methods of opposition are reprehensible.

       b.    Their doctrine of a post-salvation experience was declared heretical by many bodies of believers and charismatics were often disfellowshipped. For reasons which I have discussed, there is nothing wrong with a church excluding those who (1) do not adhere to their beliefs, and, (2) subvert the authority of the pastor or the denomination.

       c.    Charismatic leaders have also expressed some rather unkind thoughts toward their critics. Benny Hinn, in 1990, on television, said: Somebody’s attacking me because of something I’m teachings. Let me tell you something, brother: You watch it!...You know, I’ve looked for one verse in the Bible, I just can’t seem to find it. One verse that said, ‘If you don’t like them, kill them.’ I really wish I could find it!...Sometimes I wish God will give me a Holy Ghost machine gun; I’ll blow your head off!” 

       d.    Paul Couch’s public response to those who criticized him based on the basis of Scripture: “I think they’re [his critics] damned and on their way to hell and I don’t think there’s any redemption for them...I say, To hell with you! Get out of my life! Get out of my way!...And I want to say to all you scribes, Pharisees, heresy hunters—all of you that are going around picking little bits of doctrinal error out of everybody’s eyes...Get out of God’s way; quick blocking God’s bridges, or God’s going to shoot you if I don’t...Get out of my life! I don’t want to even talk to you or hear you! I don’t want to see your ugly face! Get out of my face in Jesus’ name.” 

       e.    One woman wrote to John MacArthur because of his stance on the charismatic movement, and said: You resort to Greek translations and fancy words to explain away what the Holy Spirit is doing in the church today. Let me give you a piece of advice that might just save you from the wrath of almighty God: put away your Bible and your books and stop studying. Ask the Holy Ghost to come upon you and give you the gift of tongues. You have no right to question something you have never experienced.

       f.     So there is no mistake: any body of believers can exclude those who do not adhere to their doctrinal teachings (I am hoping that it is obvious if a church removed all of those who had sinful transgressions which are against church teaching, then there would be no one left, including the pastor). Any group of religious types can go off and organize or not organize. Whereas, it is proper and correct for us to espouse what we believe to be true, even in opposition to other groups of believers; it is not our business to infringe on their rights to worship in whatever manner they deem proper. If we have animosity, it should be confessed as a sin to God. And there is no excuse on either side making threats or vague threats to the other—particularly by so-called spiritual leaders.

       g.    There is a more subtle disunity which is caused by those who have the baptism. MacArthur explains: If you are a Christian who has not experienced some supernatural charismatic phenomenon, perhaps you are feeling left out. You may be wondering whether God views you as a second-class Christian. If he honestly cares about you, why haven’t you had a special miracle or manifested some spectacular gift? Why haven’t you ascended to a higher level of spiritual bless? Why haven’t you heard Jesus speak to you in an audible voice? Why hasn’t he appeared physically to you? Do our charismatic friends really have a closer walk with God, a deeper sense of the Holy Spirit’s power, a fuller experience of praise, a stronger motivation to witness, and a greater devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ? Could it be that we non-charismatics just do not measure up?  it should be obvious that if just half of what the charismatics say is true, than we who have not had these experiences are truly second-class Christians.

28.  Schizophrenic unity:

       a.    However, what we do not have is one, all-encompassing denomination called the Charismatic Union which has a set list of doctrines to which they all adhere. We have covered the history of the charismatic movement. We have superficially examined the infighting and the doctrinal disputations. Dozens of charismatic-based denominations cropped up, not just one. Whenever I mention an historic viewpoint, and you, if you are a charismatic, thought, well, that’s from way back then; or if you heard a more contemporary charismatic viewpoint, and you thought, well, that’s just goofy, then you illustrate my point. There is no true doctrinal unity within the charismatic movement. Most agree that there is some big experience after salvation which adds something vital to the believer’s life, but after that, charismatics splinter—even, as has been documented, on the gift of tongues (some groups believing tongues to always be the result of the baptism of the spirit and some which believe that is often, but not always, the result).

       b.    On the one hand, the charismatic experience gives a superficial unity to those of different backgrounds. Catholics embrace Lutherans who embrace Pentecostals who embrace Baptists—as long as they have all had a similar experience. There are even some who hope for a united ecumenical coalition between many churches and church groups under the leadership of the Pope. Thomas Edgar: Is it not inconsistent that a movement which claims to be in direct contact with the Holy Spirit, to have all the gifts such as prophecy, apostleship, and the word of knowledge, to communicate directly with god by tongues-speaking and other means, can at the same time include Roman Catholics, conservative and liberal Protestants, amillennialists, premillennialists, Calvinists, Arminians, those who deny the verbal inspiration of the Bible, and those who reject Christ’s vicarious atonement on the cross? Apparently the Holy Spirit is not concerned with communicating any information to correct all these differences, many of which are crucial and some of which are incorrect. All this direct communication with the Spirit has apparently done nothing to correct even basic errors. It has not produced unity among charismatics regarding the nature and purpose of many of the gifts. This movement has solved no theological issue, produced no advance in biblical knowledge, and has not produced more spiritual Christians. Would such an effusion of the genuine Spirit of God produce so little? 

       c.    Gordon Clark: Several things immediately strike any reader who is not asleep. First, the tongues experience is tremendously important. If it is not true to say that nothing else matters, it nonetheless seems true to say that nothing else matters very much. Speaking in tongues is the chief mark of a dedicated Christian. The clear implication is that the worship of the virgin Mary is unobjectionable, if one speaks in tongues. There is little point in justification by faith alone, one can accept merit from the treasury of the Saints, transubstantiation can be acknowledged; if only one speaks in tongues. Still more fundamental, one can place tradition on a level with Scripture and even assert new revelations from God, if only one speaks in tongues. The Pentecostalist minister [mentioned in the article in question], note well, say, “There has been no attempt [by the Protestant Charismatics] to proselyte [Roman catholic Charismatics].” In other words, Romanism is acceptable, if only one speaks in tongues.

       d.    There are apparently charismatic cults cropping up in Asia which combine Christianity with Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

29.  Charismatic claim that the giving of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues is the latter rain given to the church because it had fallen into such a state of decay. Friend, the church has always been in a state of decay and one could take pretty much any century and find hundreds of things wrong with the church in general. There have always been great men who have stood their ground, standing on the firm Word of God, and there has always been a wayward church. Is our church filled with lame believers today? Absolutely. Was it this way a century ago or two centuries ago? Absolutely. From the Apostles to this day, the local church has always been in a deplorable state. There is no reason that God would suddenly restore something that believers have always had (the Holy Spirit); and no reason for Him to suddenly thrust upon the church gifts of healing, which are pretty unconvincing; and gifts of tongues, which do not bear any resemblance to their historic counterpart. Now, would Satan set up a program to lead believers and unbelievers astray with such a movement? The Bible continually points to that as the most reasonable explanation. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will continue to do so until He is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be delivered. And for this reason, God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe the lie in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness (2Thess. 2:7–11). If you speak in tongues and you have decided already, no matter what you say and no matter how carefully you exegete the Word of God, I know what I have experienced is of God and I am sticking with that. You, friend, have not received the love of the truth. God’s Word is greater and more important than any experience that we may have. It supercedes our upbringing and our prejudices. We either go with the Word of God or we don’t; but God promised, through Paul, to send you a deluding influence because you have not received the love of the truth.

30.  I should point out one of the conclusions of Hinson, that one cannot stereotype the charismatic. They come from all roads of life, various economic levels, and they have a variety of personality types. Hinson is more specific in his portion of Glossolalia and gives specific instances from the historical examples in his book.

31.  After examining the history, there are very few charismatics who would see their movement as one which has gone throughout all of history. Some very cultic groups practiced the gift of tongues and we have no historical mention anywhere of a group fundamental in doctrine which practiced these spiritual gifts until the turn of the century. Why now?

       a.    This is the latter rain; what the apostles practiced was the early rain and this is the latter rain. You cannot argue anything from analogy—this is not logic and it does not prove anything. Analogies are properly used to illustrate, but they do not prove anything.

       b.    We are in a period of spiritual decay. We have always been in a period of spiritual decay. Whereas, there are a number of very bright spots in Christian history, historically, in general, we are an embarrassment to Jesus Christ.

       c.    We are in a period of great revival because the reformation put the Bible in the hands of the common man. There are two problems with this explanation:

               i.     With the reformation, the Bible was in the hands of common man for several hundred years prior to the outbreak of charismata.

               ii.     Our reformation fathers, who put the Bible into our hands, were not charismatics nor did they teach any charismatic doctrine. The great Bible teaching over those past centuries did not bring out anything to do with charismatic doctrine. Strong, careful doctrinal teaching is not generally associated with charismatic groups as much as emotional displays, experiences and appeals are.

       d.    We are in a great period of revival. Throughout Christian history, we have many revivals which have broken out. In this past century we have the first time the those who spoke in tongues as a part of a giant movement. That we are in a time of great reform and revival is debatable.

       e.    These are the last days, and God is pouring out His Holy Spirit upon the church in these last days. Of all the arguments, this is perhaps the most compelling, particularly because Peter quoted this Scripture on the day of Pentecost. However, you need to stop for a moment and realize that when Peter spoke, he was not thinking about 1900 years in the future. He was speaking of his day and time, during which all of the Apostles thought that Christ was returning for them during their lifetimes. Now, this is the tricky part, but we will cover it in more detail. Peter lived during a time in which revelation was progressive. That is, God did not reveal His plan to anyone in its entirety until John penned those last words on the Isle of Patmos in 100 a.d. Whether Peter thought that he was living in the last days is one thing; however, this is not what he says in the books of Acts when he launches into his sermon. We will cover that when we move into the exegesis of that chapter.

32.  How do Pentecostals view themselves? It is obvious that I, as a person who does not believe in the validity of a necessary post-salvation experience with the Holy Spirit, and, as person who does not believe that speaking in tongues, might be the last person to write this point. I will try to stick with what I have read and with people I know.

       a.    John Thomas Nichol: Pentecostals...are sometimes crassly emotional, too often exhibiting holier-than-thou attitudes, often suspicious of change, anti-intellectual; but, on the other hand, [they are] genuinely sincere, vitally enthusiastic, and utterly evangelistic.

       b.    They trace their spiritual roots to Acts 2 where the Apostles tarried for the Holy Spirit.

       c.    Although I and others classify them with cultic movements, they do not see themselves that way. They see themselves as the third great force of Christianity, along with the Catholics and Protestants. They are likely to be part of mainline Catholic and Protestant churches and do not necessarily view themselves as being outside whatever institution they are a part of, even if there are significant areas where their doctrine clashes with that which is that church or denomination’s. Nichol: Pentecostals subscribe to the Reformation principles that salvation is a free gift of divine grace apart from deeds and efforts or ecclesiastical sanction; that all Christian believers are priests by virtue of their association in the Church, the Body of Christ, and as such minister to each other in matters of faith; and that the Word of God must be the norm for faith and practice, and that it is each Christian’s right and duty to interpret it for himself. I should mention that of every charismatic which I have personally interviewed—several of whom are either evangelists or closely related to evangelists—they all had repentance from sin as a necessary ingredient of salvation. Despite the subtlety here, that is still works being added to faith. Secondly, the Catholics believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ—however, they interpret grace as being infused rather than imputed (I am now referring to Catholic theologians who actually know something about their faith). The charismatic often has a concept of grace which is more akin to the Catholic’s concept of grace—i.e., after salvation, we sort of act like we are saved. And, I need to add one additional fact, which we will cover in great detail in the future: here, this Pentecostal says that we are all in the Body of Christ. 1Cor. 12:13 tells us that the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the Body of Christ. If this is the case, then why do charismatic feel that it is necessary for most Christians to be baptized by the Holy Spirit some time after salvation?

       d.    Although I personally would associate them more with the snake-handlers and the poison-consumers, the Assemblies of God in 1928 formally denounced that sort of activity in their 23^rd Annual Assembly.

       e.    They view the push of Pentecostalism as being a back-to-the-Bible movement and that their experiences can be firmly backed with Scripture. Conn: There is absolutely no evidence during any period of the Pentecostal revival that the people ever considered themselves other than simply, orthodox Christian believers. The British Pentecostal Fellowship concurs that they would heartily subscribe to the Apostle’s Creed.

       f.     Many Pentecostals and charismatics see their movement as one of the most powerful and one of the greatest movements in the history of the church. In terms of numbers, we do see a tremendous increase in the number of people who claim to have charismatic affiliations. However, bear in mind that many of these were confused believers who have already been evangelized and they were sucked into this movement; and realize that a great following is not validation of any ministry (II Peter 2:2).

       g.    One of the items suggested by Nichol is this: ...the Christian can attain full holiness (sanctification) only when he abandons all efforts and allows the Holy Spirit to live within him the life of Christ.” When the Spirit makes His abode within, it will be manifested by the believer’s experiencing a definite emotinoal reaction. This is his baptism in the Spirit—his “second blessing.”  in a footnote on the same page, Nichol adds: Sanctification, or the “second blessing,” is an experience subsequent to and distinct from justification or conversion, among holiness people. Its effect is the eradication of natural depravity or inbred sin. Now, I will certainly admit, that if I thought for even a second that this post-salvation experience would deliver me from my natural depravity or my inbred sin, I would be first in line to get it. Unfortunately, I have known too many people who have gotten the baptism and their lives are no better than mine.

       h.    They see themselves not only as a vibrant force which is interdenominational, but as a unifying factor, as the Spirit unifies those that are His. Thus Arminians and Calvinists, Holiness folk who believed in a “second work of grace” and Baptists who adhered to the theory of “the finished work at Calvary,” Methodists, Brethren, and Anglicans—all of whom represented variant forms of church doctrine and polity—all met around the same altar to pray and to expect the impartation of the Holy Spirit and his charismatic gifts...[they think] of themselves as a movement within the Christian Church, used of God to revitalize it. There are certainly divisions within the charismatic movement. Certainly, many charismatics stand ready to embrace their brothers from other denominations, including Catholics who have gotten the baptism, but there are disagreements as to the outward manifestations of getting this baptism. Nichol admits to this, saying that one faction expects, at the most, the experience might be attended by boisterous praying, great bodily exercise, or vociferous and constant shouting. However, there is the other group who expects that the experience would be certified by some supernatural sign—a vision, dream, speaking in tongues.

       i.     The Pentecostal’s view of tongues:

               i.     Charles W. Conn: When the disciples first spoke in tongues, it was in clear, precise, understandable languages. Those gathered in Jerusalem heard the gospel proclaimed in their own tongues. They speaking was not in unintelligible gibberish...God has not yet stooped to repetitious and meaningless banality. Gibberish is not the language of the Spirit!...The unknown tongue is not the stammering of excited vocal organs, but rather the clear utterances of spiritual ecstasy. When the Spirit speaks through you, it will be exalted praise and convicting exhortation.

               ii.     A Pentecostal Brit, Harold Horton, explains that tongues are a supernatural utterance of the Spirit of God employing human speech organs. When man is speaking with tongues, his mind, intellect, understanding are quiescent. It is the faculty of God that is active. Man’s will, certainly, is active, and his spirit, and his speech organs, but the mind that is operating is the mind of God through the Holy Spirit.

       j.     How Pentecostals view their own speaking in tongues:

               i.     Cutten: In this way a wonderful language arose in sounds that I had never spoken before. I had the impression according to the tones, that it might be Chinese. Then came an entirely different language with an entirely different position of the mouth and wonderful sounds...I do not know how long I spoke thus—surely some minutes. Then I had to break out in German in praise and worship of my God. I was sitting during all this; nevertheless my body was shaken by a great power, though in no wise unpleasant or painful.

               ii.     Reverend Bill L. Williams of San Jose: It involve you with someone you’re deeply in love with and devoted to...We don’t understand the verbiage, but we know we’re in communication. [That awareness is] beyond emotion, beyond intellect...It transcends human understanding. It is the heart of man speaking to the heart of God. It is deep, inner heart understanding. It comes as supernatural utterances, brining intimacy with God.

               iii.    James R. Brown: As I meditated and prayed the Holy Ghost came upon me. Deep within, I began to magnify the Lord. Soon there came from my lips a language I had never known or uttered. A warm fragrant oil, it seemed, was poured over me. I found a place of rest in God that I had never experienced until that time.

               iv.    T. B. Barratt: I was filled with light and such power that I began to shout as loud as I could in a foreign language. I must have spoken seven or eight languages, to judge from the various sounds and forms of speech used. I stood erect at [the] time, preaching in one foreign tongue after another, and I know from the strength of my voice that 10,000 might easily have heard all I said. The most wonderful moment was when I burst into a beautiful baritone solo, using one of the most pure and delightful languages I have ever heard. The tune and words were entirely new to me and the rhythm and cadence of the various choruses seemed to be perfect...Oh, what praises to God arose from my soul for His mercy! I felt as strong as a lion..

       k.    Pentecostal testimonies concerning the baptism of the spirit:

               i.     A. J. Tomlinson: On Sunday morning, January 12, [1908] while he [Cashwell] was preaching, a peculiar sensation took hold of me, and almost unconsciously I slipped off my chair in a heap on the rostrum of Brother Cashwell’s feet. I did not know what such an experience meant. My mind was clear, but a peculiar power so enveloped and thrilled my whole being that I concluded to yield myself up and await results. I was soon lost to my surroundings as I lay there on the floor, occupied only with God and eternal things.

       l.     A charismatic testimony: When I started praying in tongues I felt, and people told me I looked, twenty years younger...I am built up, am given joy, courage, peace, the sense of God’s presence; and I happen to be a weak personality who needs this.

       m.   And the Pentecostal’s rationale behind speaking in tongues can seem quite eloquent, humble and holy: As we humble our proud spirits and allow the Holy Spirit to speak through us in a language unfamiliar to our rational minds, we are making a step of consecration toward god. We are allowing Him to have His way with us rather than having our own way...The relinquishing of our tongue to God is, then, the first step toward the Spirit-directed life. Now, what is wrong with some very holy, sincere statement like this? The problem is that none of the meaning given to the experience gift of tongues comes out of Scripture. If this was an important and necessary step for some, you would think that Paul, who spoke in tongues more than all of the Corinthians, would be pushing this experience as an important step in one’s spiritual growth. Instead, Paul, in 1Corinthians, will seek to severely limit its use. If this is what the gift of tongues is all about, why don’t we hear that in Scripture? Yes, I am fully aware of all of the statements found in 1Cor. 14—if you stay with this study, you will be fully aware of each verse of that chapter as well.

33.  Here is one Pentecostal’s way of helping a person to speak in tongues. Charles Hunter: When you pray with your spirit, you do not think of the sounds of the language. Just trust God, but make the sounds when I tell you to. In just a moment when I tell you to, begin loving and praising God by speaking forth a lot of different syllable sounds. At first make the sounds rapidly so you won’t try to think as you do in speaking your natural language...Make the sounds loudly at first so you can easily hear what you are saying. Now, Charles and Frances Hunter hold what are known as the “Healing Explosion” meetings where up to 1000 people attend. Although the way a person is encouraged to speak in tongues is not any sort of a constant, the encouragement is similar, and has no foundation whatsoever in the Bible.

34.  The eight articles of faith subscribed to by Pentecostals (this was adopted and approved by 15 major Pentecostal groups in 1948):

       a.    We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible authoritative Word of God.

       b.    We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

       c.    We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning sacrifice through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and His personal return in power and glory.

       d.    We believe that for the salvation of the lost and sinful men regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

       e.    We believe that the full gospel include holiness of heart and life, healing for the body and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

       f.     We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

       g.    We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

       h.    We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

35.  It is obvious that these articles of faith are, for the most part, what any believer could subscribe to. In fact, all but the fifth article came from the Statement of Faith drawn up in 1943 by the National Association of Evangelicals. Because of this, many fundamentalists would hold that we should enjoy fellowship with our Pentecostal brethren. We have the following problems:

       a.    Even though there is verbal ascension given to the Word of God, I have been told on several occasions that it did not matter what the Bible seemed to say, they knew that what they experienced (the post-salvation baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues) is from God.

       b.    Article 5 is obviously the crux of our differences—where a post-salvation experience is deemed necessary.

       c.    And, finally, even though charismatics and noncharismatics hold to article 6—we believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life—we have the problem of millions upon millions of believers who have not gotten the post-salvation baptism of the Spirit—does this mean that there is no ministry of God the Holy Spirit in their lives? Since God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 8:34), that means that God does not give a small amount of the Spirit to the noncharismatic and a big helping of the Spirit to the charismatic. What this means is that we have a handful of believers who have gotten the Holy Spirit and we have a huge number of believers who have never received the Holy Spirit in any way, shape or form. Does this make sense?

36.  There are two reasons that we have experienced a recent outbreak in the speaking of tongues. It is not that we are entering into some great revivalistic period of time, but that careful Bible study is almost nonexistent, which means that believers have an incredible hunger for something, although most of them do not know what this is. If there is a void in your life because you lack God’s Word in your soul, then you will fill it with whatever you can. Thieme explains: There has not existed a bona fide gift of tongues since a.d. 70—more than two thousand years! Why do people who are born again accept this reversionistic doctrine? Why do they fall prey to its apparent attraction? When a believer fails to learn Bible doctrine on a daily basis, he inevitably reverts to the human viewpoint systems of rationalism, ritualism or emotionalism. These are as satanic as any system of modernism. Emotionalism has great appeal today, possibly because it is a reaction to the ritualism of the past generations and appears to be spiritual power.

37.  The problems experienced in Corinth were similar, but not the same as we find in the charismatic community today, the chief difference being that the gift of tongues is not a valid gift for today. The Corinthians had the greatest Bible teaching of their time—Paul and his traveling seminary taught in Corinth. But they rejected the truth and 2Corinthians 6:11–12 tells us why: O you Corinthians, our mouth is open to you [we are teaching you doctrine], our heart [mind] is enlarged. You [all] are not limited by us, but you are limited in your own bowels [which refers to their emotional patterns]. You must place God’s Word above how you feel.

38.  Arguments in favor of the gift of tongues:

       a.    If I ask God for the gift of tongues and receive it, then it must be valid. Then they quote Luke 11:12, which is Jesus speaking, telling the disciples that they should ask for the Holy Spirit and he concludes by saying, “Or, if he [a father] is asked for an egg, he will not give him [his son] a scorpion, will he?” Actually, this is not bad for a charismatic argument, because it is almost contextually accurate. However, Jesus is speaking to His disciples, who do not have the help of the Holy Spirit, as this was prior to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Even though the charismatic may appear to have the purest of motives, he is telling God in prayer that God has just not given him enough, even though God has given this person the Holy Spirit and a spiritual gift already. And for this reason, God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe the what is false (2Thess. 2:11). Near the end of this study, I will show that most people who speak in tongues do this as learned behavior

       b.    Let me give you an example of another passage taken out of context and misapplied. Charismatics have been known to quote 1John 4:2–3: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. Then someone will speak in tongues, then someone will interpret this as Jesus has come in the flesh; and that is their proof positive that they are from God. Not so fast. First of all, we have the problem with the interpretation of these tongues, to which we have already spoken. But also, there are millions of people who believe that Jesus was a real historical person who came in the flesh. In fact, most unbelievers believer that Jesus was a real person who came in the flesh, and if quizzed on that, they would confess to it. This does not make them believers nor is God the Holy Spirit speaking through them. The historical context of that passage is that the Gnostics were teaching that Jesus was not completely human—that he was an angel, or the Son of God, but certainly not human. The reason they would take that tact is that there were still too many eyewitnesses to His miracles to deny His deity, so they instead denied His humanity (it is just the opposite today). This is the historical context of John’s letter. For this set of false prophets, if they did not teach that Jesus was fully human, then they were not of God.

       c.    Charismatics claim that Paul spoke with the tongues of angels, quoting 1Cor. 13:1: If I speak with the tongues of men and the tongues of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. We will cover this passage in great detail when we exegete that passage.

       d.    Paul spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthians and specifically said, “Do not forbid to speak in tongues.” (1Cor. 14:18, 39). This will be covered in the exegesis of that passage.

       e.    Whenever someone received the baptism of the Spirit in Acts, all of them always spoke in tongues. We will cover each and every instance of this when we cover those passages as well.

       f.     The gift of tongues has been with the church since the first century. It never died out.

       g.    The gift of tongues in the 20^th century is a part of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as the latter rain spoken of in Joel 2.

       h.    Whereas, there are certainly abuses of the gift of tongues in many churches, there are many people that speak in tongues who: