CHARISMATIC CHAOS AND SPEAKING IN TONGUES
A Rebuttal
By
Phil Scovell
Copyright (C) 1992/2003
By Phil Scovell
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction of the following is granted by the copyright holder,
Phil Scovell, if such reproduction is done in the spirit in which
it was given. It may not be reproduced and sold for financial
gain without written permission of the copyright holder: Phil
Scovell. Electronic formats may be distributed freely but this
copyright notice must remain with each copy and the text cannot
be altered in any way. For convenience, this copyright
notification may be placed at the end of the document if
reproduced electronically.
Contact Information
Phil Scovell
840 South Sheridan Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80226-8017
Toll Free: 888-936-0001
Voice: 303-936-2188
Fax: 303-936-1841
Email: Phil@RedWhiteAndBlue.ORG
Web: WWW.RedWhiteAndBlue.ORG
CHARISMATIC CHAOS AND SPEAKING IN TONGUES
By
Phil Scovell
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
WHEN I RECEIVED THE GIFT
EXPERT WITNESSES
OUT OF MIND EXPERIENCE
THE UNFRUITFUL MIND
NO UNDERSTANDING
SECTION 2
BIBLICAL TONGUES
SIGN GIFTS
MARK 16:17
THE DEATH OF MIRACLES
THE POINT
SECTION 3
THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH
GUIDELINES
ONLY BY INTERPRETATION
OUT OF CONTROL
NEVER WOMEN
ANGEL TALK
HUMAN LANGUAGE
UNKNOWN TONGUES
PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE
GROANINGS WHICH CANNOT BE UTTERED
SECTION 4
TRUE TONGUES
ORGIASTIC CHARISMATICS
CURSING JESUS
BACKSEAT TONGUES
THE GREATER GIFTS
SECTION 5
TONGUES SHALL CEASE
THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME
WHEN TONGUES CEASE
SECTION 6
WHAT THE CHARISMATICS ARE REALLY DOING
WORSE THAN TONGUES
FINAL REMARKS
CHARISMATIC CHAOS AND SPEAKING IN TONGUES
By
Phil Scovell
FORWARD
John MacArthur is one of America's leading evangelicals. He
is equally well known for his stand against Charismatic doctrine;
especially the gift of tongues. This booklet is in response to
one of many of Brother Macarthur's sermons preached on the
subject of Charismatics. He has likewise written extensively on
this subject though I doubt the published works will add much to
what is found in the sermon upon which this writing is based.
May I begin by saying how much I personally appreciate John
MacArthur, his ministry, preaching, and stand upon the Word of
God as our final authority for salvation, doctrine, and life.
His testimony is outstanding and he is highly regarded by
Charismatics and noncharismatics alike as Godly in his walk
before the Lord. I have listened to him often on his radio
broadcasts, read from his books, and have many of his sermons in
print. I am thankful for how God is using him today both to
reach the lost and to instruct Christians in their walk with the
Lord.
As many others, Brother MacArthur has chosen to expose what
he considers the heretical teachings of the Charismatic Believers
when it comes to miracles, healings, and the gift of tongues. I
certainly agree we should expose false doctrine and am thankful
when national Christian leaders denounce those things they view
in the Body of Christ which are doctrinally erroneous. There
most certainly are things among the Charismatic churches which
should be addressed concerning doctrine and practice. Brother
MacArthur, however, in his sermon to which I refer, makes
interpretive errors in his doctrinal views of the Scriptures and
this is the purpose for the writing of this rebuttal.
My remarks are restricted to a transcript from a tape:( GC
90-61, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 10.) According to the
transcript, a copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word
of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412. The title of
the sermon itself is "Speaking In Tongues." Apparently he
preached a series on the topic of Charismatic Chaos and this was
one of several messages exposing the fallacies of the Charismatic
movement. I examined the transcript carefully and found no
copyright symbol nor mention of the document being copyrighted.
If I am in violation of copyright laws therefore, it was
unintentional and according to the Scriptures, as a brother in
Christ, I can't be sued by Brother MacArthur for my remarks. Of
course, he may decide, after reading my rebuttal, I'm not a
brother.
I discovered the transcript in electronic form on a computer
bulletin board system which I downloaded with my computer and
modem and then read accordingly. Those posting Brother
MacArthur's sermon in electronic form on their bulletin boards
are respectfully requested to allow this rebuttal to be posted as
well so that the reader may judge.
Though I will be quoting from this transcript extensively, I
recommend the reader of this booklet order the tape, or
transcript, and examine the sermon for yourself. In light of
this, I cannot guarantee all that I found reproduced
electronically was indeed the exact words of John MacArthur Jr.
but it claimed to be the basic wording of his recorded message.
I have spent a great deal of time reading and rereading
Brother Macarthur's message. Though what I have to say will not
be accepted by him, nor anyone else who has chosen to disbelieve
the Biblical evidence of the gift of tongues, I felt that proper
representation was necessary; not only for doctrine's sake but in
defence of some of the appalling things he says about all
Charismatics.
After reading over Brother MacArthur's sermon, I felt it
best to divide his teaching into six sections in order to address
each area of thought systematically and independently while at
the same time maintaining continuity in my remarks.
Brother MacArthur's attack on the Charismatic movement
generally, and the gift of tongues specifically, is standard
among fundamentalists and evangelicals. The reader may find it
interesting to know that I personally have been an independent
Baptist nearly all my life; though I was saved at the age of five
in an Evangelical Free Church. Let me also parenthetically state
that I am not a Biblical scholar nor have I ever had a single
hour of Greek or Hebrew. I do have a simple three year Bible
College degree but I doubt that counts. Furthermore, I don't
pastor a large church, I'm not well known nor desire to be, I
have no outstanding credentials, and I don't have a radio or
television show whereby I can promote my books and tapes. I do,
on the other hand, wear cowboy boots, drink black coffee
straight, and believe the Bible and live by it every day of my
life with Christ at the center. I am greatly disturbed, however,
when brethren such as John MacArthur make such blatant statements
concerning the gift of tongues which they claim to have gotten
from the Bible. I likewise used to believe everything Brother
MacArthur teaches concerning Charismatics, miracles, the gifts of
healing and tongues, apostles and prophets, and the likelihood of
demonic influence upon those who spoke with tongues. I traveled
as a Baptist evangelist for about five years preaching meetings
in Baptist churches and spoke out regularly against the
Charismatic movement and the gift of tongues. When I was given
the gift of tongues in the summer of 1985, however, I had to eat
my own bitter words. How did I come to such a place where I
would allow something like that to happen? I examined the
Scriptures and realized Brother MacArthur and many others to whom
I had listened, were Scripturally in error concerning their
interpretation. I'm not going to spend any time detailing how I
was led into the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of
tongues but if the reader is interested, I've written my
testimony in a booklet called "When Baptist Speak In Tongues."
It is available by writing to the address displayed with this
booklet.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The most detrimental error Brother MacArthur makes is that
he apparently concludes all Charismatics believe, act, and think
alike. Not once in his sermon does he ever mention that
Charismatics differ in any way, shape, or form. This
dramatically, in my opinion, reduces Brother MacArthur's
credibility. If he in fact has visited with as many Charismatics
as he claims and been in as many of their wild services as he
suggests in his sermon, he surely must know that the title
"Charismatic" is as universal as the word "Baptist." There are
multiple Baptist denominations which I wouldn't touch doctrinally
with a ten foot pole. I never would be so foolish as to go
around saying that all Baptist believe alike. Reading Brother
MacArthur's sermon, however, leaves one with the strong
impression that all Charismatics are identical in every respect.
He begins, for example, by telling how some Charismatics
teach their children to speak in tongues. This theme of tongues
tutelage is a hobbyhorse he rides several times throughout his
message including a quote he offers by Charles Hunt which,
apparently, proves all Charismatics "learn" to speak in tongues.
The implication is, therefore, all Charismatics have learned how
to mumble in ecstatic speech or, in Brother MacArthur's opinion,
as we will see later, they are demonically influenced.
WHEN I RECEIVED THE GIFT
I received the gift of tongues in July of 1985. I wasn't in
a hyped Charismatic service, I wasn't being taught to speak in
tongues by mimicking or imitating someone, I wasn't hissing like
a snake or cackling like a hen, I wasn't mesmerized or hypnotized
by the methodic voice of a preacher, and I wasn't repeating
"hallelujah" over and over until my tongue snapped off its
roller. I was in bed sound asleep.
Several months later, my wife, after asking me to pray with
her that she would be Spirit filled and be given the gift of
tongues, began praising the Lord in tongues on the spot without
any suggestiveness on my behalf. The same evening, after asking
me to explain what the gift of tongues was all about, my son was
filled with the Holy Spirit and given the gift of tongues while
standing in our living room. I never prompted him, I never
taught him, I never suggested he mimic me or gibber in baby talk,
yodel, motorboat his tongue, or pretend he was an auctioneer; I
simply prayed with him.
To add to the spiritual uniqueness of this evening with my
family, my son, only nine years old at the time, later said that
following our prayer, he immediately sensed a foreign word (a
word with which he was unfamiliar) come to mind. Being
embarrassed to say it out loud, he left the living room and
walked into his bedroom intent upon saying the word out loud to
himself. He reported that the moment he walked into his bedroom,
the word in his mind left and no matter how hard he tried, he
could not make it return. After a moment or two, he returned to
the living room and the moment he crossed the threshold of the
living room, the word popped back into his thought. He quickly
returned to his room hoping he might experiment by saying this
word to himself in the privacy of his room. The moment he left
the living room, however, the word vanished. Once again he
returned to the living room and the word appeared in his
thoughts.
As we were talking and praying together during this time, my
seven year old daughter dropped in my lap and asked if it was
okay for her to say, "Thank you Jesus." You see, as Baptist, we
knew that people who said "thank you Jesus" were weird tongue
talking screw balls so of course we never used that phrase. I
confirmed that to say, "thank you Jesus," was perfectly all right
and she immediately began saying it out loud. I opened my mouth
and began praising the Lord as well. My wife, who only moments
before had never spoken in tongues, walked into the living room
speaking what sounded like an almost musical language. Though
Brother MacArthur says from his experience all tongue talkers
sound basically the same, my wife's language was totally
different than the language I was using. In the middle of this
time of rejoicing by the Scovell family, my son stood in one
corner of the living room and began speaking a new language as we
joined together in praise and worship. I might point out that we
were not in a wild Charismatic service, we weren't rehearsing a
set of syllables, and we weren't being taught by anyone how to
speak in tongues. Does this prove tongues is for today? No!
EXPERT WITNESSES
Scattered throughout my Brother's sermon, he continually
quotes, and otherwise refers to, Bible teachers, scholars, and
former Charismatics who all say tongues today is counterfeit,
probably unholy, maybe even demonic, and certainly unscriptural.
Though I'm tempted to refer individually to each of these, it
would be superfluous. Why? Because it doesn't prove a thing. I
could easily parade before you dozens of people who lived holy
Godly lives, were active in their local church, taught Sunday
school, led people to Christ, and perhaps even preached the
Gospel as a pastor who have left the church, denounced Jesus
Christ and are atheists. Does that prove the God doesn't exist?
Of Course not. If I want to prove healing is for today and I
display a couple of hundred people who all could show medical
records before and after, would that prove the Bible is true?
What if we paraded several thousand Christians before us who all
claimed they believed God for healing and nothing happened.
Would that prove God doesn't heal today? If Brother MacArthur is
trying to impress us with quotes by former Charismatics or by
quoting theologians and what they say, he is wasting his time and
certainly being less than honest himself. Charismatics and
noncharismatics alike can prove nothing by experience; the Bible
is our final authority.
I do want to refer to one former Charismatic Brother
MacArthur mentions in his sermon simply because I am familiar
with his teachings. George Gardner was a Pentecostal evangelist
for thirty years. I have his tapes in my cassette library on
speaking in tongues. As with John MacArthur, I found
discrepancies with Mr. Gardner's Biblical interpretation but the
most ostentatious, howbeit overlooked, aspect of Mr. Gardner's
testimony is the admission of his own growing doubts about what
the Pentecostals were teaching. Look at it this way. If a
person confesses Christ as Lord and begins walking in
relationship with Christ but later begins to doubt his salvation,
what do you suppose will be the result. I've seen it happen
again and again. He'll walk away from what he confessed with his
mouth he believed. Simply stated, doubt will kill anything we
say we believe if we allow doubt to control our lives. It is of
little wonder, therefore, Charismatics walk away from what they
say they once believed.
As a Baptist, I know there are hundreds of professing Bible
college graduate Christians who have turned their back on God;
never to darken a church door again. Does this prove the
Baptists are Scripturally unsound, mentally unbalanced, demonized
misguided losers, and a bunch of heretics? Of course not. Then
why does Brother MacArthur use the same logic when referring to
Charismatics? He also states early in part of his sermon that he
knew a Charismatic pastor once who later left that church and
confessed he spoke in tongues out of plane will power and never
did it with any meaning. So what. Most Christians live their
entire life in the flesh, too, but that doesn't negate the truth
of God's Word.
My point is this. Every person I heard who left the
Charismatic church and denies the reality of the gift of tongues,
confesses the same: they grew weary of trying to perform what
they believed in the flesh and subsequently began to doubt what
they thought the Scriptures taught. George Gardner makes that
confession, or something like it, on the set of tapes I have in
my cassette library. It is only natural, therefore that someone
with these feelings will leave his former way of life for another
which is less demanding, less stressful, and less competitive.
OUT OF MIND EXPERIENCE
Often throughout my Brother's message, he reports that
Charismatics believe that tongues is experienced by emptying the
mind of all thought. When describing some literature he received
on how Charismatics teach there kindergarten children to speak in
tongues he says,
"Do you understand the picture? These gibberish words
are in the Spirit and they come out of his mouth, but
a question mark is in his brain. This is how they
plant in a Kindergarten child the idea that tongues
goes from the Spirit to the mouth, without ever going
through the brain, that it is some kind of mystical,
noncognative experience that somehow bypasses the
brain."
Unfortunately, many Charismatics over the years have
suggested such was true. As he mentions, they obtained this
erroneous information from Paul's writings to the Corinthians but
let's allow Brother MacArthur to speak for himself.
"And under that picture is 1 Corinthians 14:14, "If I
pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my
understanding is unfruitful." In both cases they have
misrepresented the intention of those verses. The
first verse they assume "speaking in an unknown
tongue" builds someone up, when in fact, Paul was
saying it in a negative sense. It puffs your ego, or
it, at best (if you do it in private) would benefit
you, which would be selfish and contrary to any proper
use of spiritual gifts. And the second one, "If I pray
in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, and my
understanding is unfruitful," is a way to say, "Don't
do that, because what's the point in having an
unfruitful understanding?"
The first verse to which Brother MacArthur is referring came
earlier in his description of this Charismatic Sunday school
material he had seen which taught children how to speak in
tongues. That verse, which he says Charismatics misinterpret, is
I Corinthians 14:4: "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue
edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."
I'm sorry but I read again I Corinthians 14:1-15 and how Brother
MacArthur comes up with this notion that Paul was saying to speak
in tongues is a selfish act and that to do so doesn't edify that
person but, in fact, has the opposite result is simply beyond my
ability to comprehend. Even reading it in the King James seems
pretty clear to me but then I'm not trying to read something into
what Paul said concerning the benefits of tongues to the
Believer.
Then his second reference to what Charismatic's believe
really tossed me for a loop:
"If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, and
my understanding is unfruitful," is a way to say,
"Don't do that, because what's the point in having an
unfruitful understanding?"
This is really confusing. Brother MacArthur later admits
that Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians not to forbid the
speaking of tongues during their day but here he claims Paul was
telling them it would be unfruitful for them to do so. I wonder
how Brother MacArthur explains the very next verse: "What is it
then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing
with the understanding also." Paul dropped the ball on that one
didn't he. Brother MacArthur claims Paul is instructing them
that praying in tongues not only doesn't edify them (builds them
up) but if they do it, it's unfruitful and selfish. Paul, on the
other hand, says he prays both with the spirit and the
understanding and even gets carried away and does it while
singing. I can't make up your mind for you but if you read the
Scriptures, it isn't that difficult to see exactly what Paul was
saying. Paul said it would build them up; Brother MacArthur says
it won't. Brother MacArthur says it's unfruitful; Paul says he
did it even if Brother MacArthur says it doesn't help anything.
Too bad Brother MacArthur wasn't around to straighten Brother
Paul out.
THE UNFRUITFUL MIND
Let me stop here to focus a little light on what Paul was
actually saying. The Greek word for "understanding" in I
Corinthians 14:14 is the word (intellect) and is employed by the
Holy Spirit some 24 times in the New Testament. The King James
translators used it 15 times as "mind," twice as "minds," and 7
times as "understanding." In every case it is clear that the
word refers to the intellect or thought processes. The word
"unfruitful" is (barren) and appears 7 times as either
"unfruitful" or "without fruit." Now if Paul meant what Brother
MacArthur said, why would he turn right around and confess he in
fact prayed both with his spirit and with his understanding.
That's right...he wouldn't. What did he mean? He confirms that
when he prays in tongues, his spirit indeed is in supplication
with God but his "intellect" is "barren." That is actually quite
easy to understand because our mind is not yet regenerate. The
mind, will, and emotions of our being is saved/delivered only by
the discipline of the engrafted Word of God (James 1:21).
Furthermore, we are told that spiritual things cannot be
discerned by the natural (secular; mundane) nature of man (I Cor.
2:9-16). It sure shooting is a good thing that Paul's
understanding/mind/intellect was unfruitful when he prayed in
tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit. Can you imagine what
would happen to the natural unregenerate human mind/intellect of
man if the raw sinless nature of God filled it? The intellect
has not yet been created which can receive the immensity of the
eternal God which has never known a beginning or end.
the truth is, Paul was in no way suggesting that when one
spoke in tongues his mind went into neutral. He was explaining
that the mind was never made to comprehend God. The redeemed
spirit of man, however, with the Holy Spirit dwelling within is
another matter. He, the Holy Spirit, does comprehend God because
He is in fact God. He, the Holy Spirit, imparts to us the
applicability of God's Holy Word. In other words, our spirit
communes in perfect harmony with God when we pray and if we pray
in tongues, the Holy Spirit helps us when we pray because we
don't always know what we should pray for as we ought (Romans
8;26-27).
NO UNDERSTANDING
Brother MacArthur also introduces his topic of tongues by
quoting several Charismatics who are attempting to explain not
only the experience of speaking in tongues but the benefits.
Brother MacArthur sharply criticizes them. I get the feeling he
is suggesting the Christian life is feelingless and emotionless
but perhaps he really means that Charismatics are to be suspect
for the joy and spiritual intimacy they experience when praising
and worshiping God in the Spirit.
Closely connected to the emotional part of this he said:
"Now, remember, all of this is occurring with
absolutely no understanding of what you are saying.
You have no comprehension of what it is you're saying,
and yet it is supposed to bring you into the deep
understanding and intimate communion with God."
Some Charismatics may say that but Paul never did. Paul
simply explained the human intellect cannot comprehend the nature
and Spirit of God. The mind can, and does, have intellectual
insight to such a relationship and holy union but it is the
regenerate spirit of man that spiritually understands. Nothing
in this passage gives indication that Paul was referring to an
empty mind or mindless trance as Brother MacArthur later suggests
in his sermon.
SECTION 2
BIBLICAL TONGUES
Following his introduction, Brother MacArthur says:
"Tongues are only mentioned in three books in the
Bible: Mark (one time in chapter 16:17); Acts (three
times, Acts 2, 10, 19); and then in 1 Corinthians.
Those are the only three books of the Bible that
mention tongues."
Later he says concerning the Corinthian record,
"This is the only epistle where we find anything about
this, and Paul wrote for sure 12 and maybe 13 epistles
beyond this one, and never in any of them does he even
mention this. Only in this very early epistle does
any discussion of tongues take place."
This, too, is a common argument, howbeit a mighty weak one,
among those who refuse to believe in the Biblical authenticity of
Scriptural tongues. The reasoning is that since we can't find
any other discussions of tongues elsewhere in the later epistles,
well, shoot then, I guess it must have passed away yet no where
does Scripture confirm this. For that matter, how much more
information could Paul have shared on the topic. Look how much
time he devoted to the Corinthians by way of explanation and
instruction. All the letters/epistles were shared among the
churches so they all had direct access to his teaching on the
subject. How much does Brother MacArthur want? Did the Holy
Spirit need to devote an entire book to the subject just so he
would get the picture? If we are going to use this form of logic
to prove tongues is spiritually worthless and in fact died out
with the last apostle, let's not stop there. How many books of
the New Testament can you name which explicitly detail the plan
of salvation. Sure, you can say that every book of the Bible
reveals Christ but do they all explain in simple child-like terms
how to be born again? Romans does for sure but how many more
could you name. You certainly wouldn't turn to the book of I and
II Timothy or Jude to try and win someone to Christ. Are they
questionable epistles therefore because they aren't salvation
books?
Additionally, I simply disagree with my Brother when he says
no other New Testament books mention tongues. I won't take the
time to explain what I'm about to say because I have already
written a book on the subject called "Praying In The Spirit," but
I believe Romans, Jude, and the book of Revelation all refer to
the gift of tongues. Even if Brother MacArthur is correct,
however, I'm not for sure how much more evidence and Biblical
teaching he wants.
I have heard it proposed by those who consider the book of
Acts a transitional book that no Bible doctrine can be based upon
the book itself. That's an alarming suggestion. Brother
MacArthur does not suggest this in his sermon but apparently in
earlier teachings he taught exhaustively on the Acts of the
Apostles. From the reading of the balance of his message under
study, I am guessing he would consider Acts transitional.
SIGN GIFTS
He also states in this section that the gift of tongues was
primarily a sign gift. First to unbelievers to attest of God's
Spirit in the earth, and secondly, as a sign to Israel that God
had come to the gentiles. I fundamentally agree with these
interpretations but as it will be seen later, I do not restrict,
nor does the Scriptures, the gift of tongues to the early church.
MARK 16:17
Mark's Gospel has always posed a big problem for those who
deny the Scriptural validity of the gift of tongues. Brother
MacArthur, however, voids the gift in a single succinct
statement:
"Then it appears in Mark 16:17; it simply mentions
tongues as one of the gifts that would be expressed in
the time of the apostles' ministry. And again it fits
into that unique historic Apostolic time period in
which there was miraculous phenomena, signs and
wonders, as God pointed to the apostles who were
speaking His truth. On the day of Pentecost this sign
drew the crowd to which Peter preached the gospel, for
example."
John MacArthur assigns miracles and sign gifts to what he
refers to as the "apostolic time period." In the balance of his
message he refers to this period of time as the "apostolic age,
apostolic period, apostolic time," and the "apostolic era." Once
he even says,
"Apostolic authority had already been affirmed; the
message needed no further confirmation. And before
the first century ended, the New Testament was written,
circulated through the churches, and the revelatory
gifts had ceased to have a purpose and so they passed
away."
If you are thinking that this view is mighty convenient, I
would agree. It is a common argument, however, because if one
can restrict, or otherwise limit, the sign gifts to a certain
period of time, they won't have to deal with their usage in this
time period. The problem is, though, there is no Scripture which
says there was an "apostolic age" and that miracles and the like
disappeared after the death of the last apostle. I wonder who
that last fellow was anyway.
Did you also know that some fundamental evangelicals
actually believe that Mark 16:12- is not really part of the New
Testament? Some modern translations have even removed it from
their pages. I even heard the late Dr. Walter Martin of the
Christian Research Institute say it was likely this passage of
Scripture was never a part of God's Holy Word and he, strange as
it may seem, believed in speaking in tongues. This is really a
nice and convenient idea because it quickly eliminates a very
difficult portion of Scripture for those who believe tongues and
signs no longer occur.
THE DEATH OF MIRACLES
Did you know that miracles are no longer part of God's
nature? I mean, He, God, doesn't do miracles any longer? He
apparently restricted his miraculous power to a certain period of
time. At least that's what Brother MacArthur says.
"First of all, tongues was a miraculous, revelatory
gift, and [as] we have noted repeatedly in this study,
the Age of Miracles and Revelation ended with the
Apostles and those who worked along side of them. The
last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred
around A.D. 58; note that, because the last book
wasn't written until A.D. 96. So you have almost 40
years with no supernatural wonders going on, even in
the time in which the New Testament is still being
written. From A.D. 58 to A.D. 96 when John finished
the Book of Revelation, no miracle is ever recorded.
Miracle gifts like tongues and healings are mentioned
only in 1 Corinthians, which is a very early epistle.
Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss
spiritual gifts, but neither mention these sign gifts.
Isn't that an interesting point? The later epistles
discussing the gifts don't mention the sign gifts. No
mention is made of the miraculous gifts; only in this
very early epistle. By that time miracles were
already looked on as something in the past; read
Hebrews 2, 3, and 4: it was something already in the
past. Apostolic authority had already been affirmed;
the message needed no further confirmation. And
before the first century ended, the New Testament was
written, circulated through the churches, and the
revelatory gifts had ceased to have a purpose and so
they passed away."
Yes, that is an interesting point Brother MacArthur but where in
the Bible does it say God stopped doing miracles? This is, of
course, one of the oldest deceptions which is used to explain
away sign gifts. Can you see how convenient this would be?
After all, if God doesn't do any miracles today, we can just
write tongues off for sure since it isn't even a miracle. Though
Brother MacArthur doesn't define a miracle in this sermon, I know
what he believes because everyone I've heard propose this fallacy
says the same. A miracle was something that defied scientific
and natural law. They will point to something like the day the
sun and moon stood still in the book of Joshua and when the
shadow on the sundial moved backwards in the rule of King
Hezekiah. [See Joshua 10:12-14 and II Kings 20:1-11.] Though I
can relate many modern day miracles which indeed defy science and
natural law, it would prove insufficient for Brother MacArthur
and others who have already decided miracles don't happen today.
As I said earlier, experience proves nothing; only the
Scriptures. If you don't believe the Scriptures, you won't
believe in miracles.
I am concerned with this false teaching, however, about the
death of miracles, signs, and wonders. The logic is this. Jesus
spoke and taught the twelve disciples repeatedly; offering them
instruction and insight to many things. He, for example, gave
them power to heal the sick (Luke 10:8-9). He gave them
authority in the spiritual realm over demons (Luke 10:17-20). He
told them they could remove mountains by their faith and nothing
would be impossible (Mat. 17:20). Jesus likewise told His
disciples that if they had faith the size of a mustard seed, they
could not only curse a fig tree as He had just done but they
could remove mountains (Mat. 21:21-22). Jesus later told His
disciples that they not only could do what He, Jesus, had done
upon earth but, since He was going to His Father in Heaven, they
could ask Him anything, and He would do it (John 14:12-14).
Jesus also told His disciples that He would send to them the Holy
Spirit (John 14:16-18). He also told them that if two of them on
earth agreed between them upon anything that they would ask of
Him, it would be done for them by their Father which is in Heaven
(Mat. 18:19). Furthermore, He told them that where two or three
of them were gathered, there He would be in the midst of them
(Mat. 18:20). Once, when the disciple Peter questioned our Lord
about how many times he had to forgive a brother who had wronged
him, Jesus said seventy times seven, that is to say continuously,
should Peter forgive his brother (Matt 18:21-22). Jesus
commissioned His disciples to go into all the world and preach
the Gospel and to baptize and disciple those they won to Christ
(Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:16-20). If, therefore, Brother MacArthur's
"apostolic age" is over and there are no miracles, signs, or
wonders, then all these things promised directly to the disciples
are not currently applicable. We can't lay hands upon the sick
and expect them to recover, we have no power or authority over
the demonic world, though Jesus said nothing would be impossible,
we must now be doomed to facing the impossible every day, we
can't remove mountains or curse fig trees by the power of His
name, we cannot ask anything of Him and expect Him to hear us, we
can't expect the Holy Spirit (Comforter) to come and abide in us,
two of us cannot agree together in prayer and expect God to
answer, He won't be in our midst even if two or three of us have
gathered together, we don't have to forgive our brother when
wronged, and last but not least, we don't have to go out and
preach the Gospel, baptize converts, and teach them the Bible.
Jesus made all these promises to His disciples but according to
Brother MacArthur, you are denied these promises because they are
restricted to only the "apostolic age."
Oh, yes. I did read Hebrews chapters 2, 3, and 4 as he
suggested. I can't find anything in those chapters which suggest
miracles, signs, and wonders ceased.
THE POINT
Brother MacArthur's point, in this section of his sermon, is
that the gift of tongues was, and is, a language. I agree. No
where in Scripture does it suggest otherwise. Though some
Charismatics, as my Brother points out, do suggest that tongues
is an "angelic" or "heavenly language," it isn't. I agree with
him when he says that tongues was a human language. Where
Brother MacArthur gets bogged down, however, is in the next
section of his sermon when he attempts to prove the Corinthians
were not speaking with the gift of tongues but with an unholy
gibberish.
SECTION 3
THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH
Here's where the mud hits the fan. Brother MacArthur spends
most of his time teaching on how experientially wrong,
spiritually sinful, doctrinally stupid, and foolish the
Corinthian Believers were. This apparently proves, somehow,
tongues isn't for today. He says the following:
"That leaves us really with only one epistle in which
tongues is even mentioned, out of the historical
uniqueness of Acts and Mark 16--we come to the Book of
1 Corinthians, chapters 12 through 14. This is the
only epistle where we find anything about this, and
Paul wrote for sure 12 and maybe 13 epistles beyond
this one, and never in any of them does he even mention
this. Only in this very early epistle does any
discussion of tongues take place.
Now, Paul wrote these chapters, and you must understand
this, to reprove the Corinthians for misusing the
gift. It's very difficult out of this passage to get
any kind of mandate to speak in tongues, to get any
kind of affirmation that this is something to be
sought, or something to be elevated, or something to
be used, or something that will last, because, what you
have here is primarily a corrective given to the
Corinthians, who had prostituted the gift of tongues
into something pagan that wasn't even representative of
the work of the Holy Spirit. And so what he wants to
do is correct and restrict the use of tongues."
I've already made mention of this tactic of suggesting that
since God only mentions something once or twice in the Holy
Scriptures, it probably means it isn't very important so I won't
reemphasize
that fallacy. I will, however, object to Brother MacArthur's
statement that Paul was writing to the Corinthians to reprove
them for the misuse of tongues. After reading over his sermon
repeatedly, it seems that Brother MacArthur is trying to say Paul
reproved them for even using the gift at all. I'm sure Brother
MacArthur would prefer the Corinthians had not even spoken in
tongues, thus making life in today's church a little easier to
manage. Since they did, however, we are forced to either
understand what Paul taught on the subject, or in Brother
MacArthur's case, simply dismiss it all together as part of the
"apostolic age." I'm not sure why he spent all the time in his
sermon trying to explain what Paul was saying since the gift
passed away and it isn't applicable for today. For that matter,
why not just take some scissors and clip a couple of those
chapters out since they serve no purpose. I hate to say this but
John MacArthur should be ashamed of himself. He spends a great
deal of time trying to show that Paul was telling the Corinthians
to knock it off when in fact, as we will see, Paul was doing just
the opposite.
GUIDELINES
In his sermon, he states six guidelines given by Paul when
the gift of tongues is employed in the church.
"1. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers. It's a sign
that God is speaking. It's a sign to unbelievers.
2. If used in the Church it must always be translated,
so that it can have the purpose of edifying the
believers who don't know what's being said.
3. Never are more than three people to do it, and they
are to do it in sequence, not at the same time.
4. There is to be no speaking in tongues unless it is
interpreted.
5. Any confusion or any disorder in the assembly is an
indication that what is going on did not originate
with God--it's a counterfeit; it's a prostitution.
6. Women are never to do it, for they are to remain
silent and not to speak in tongues."
Though I agree that Paul gave some guidelines to the
Corinthians concerning tongues, I have some problems with the way
Brother MacArthur applies them.
I certainly agree with the first guideline; it was a sign to
the unbeliever. The chapter itself confirms this to be true (I
Cor. 14:22).
ONLY BY INTERPRETATION
His second interpretation of Paul's guidelines makes me a
little suspicious however.
"2. If used in the Church it must always be
translated, so that it can have the purpose of
edifying the believers who don't know what's being
said."
I would guess, because of other statements Brother MacArthur
uses later in his sermon, that he believes that in the
Corinthian's day (the apostolic age) when tongues was used in
church services, it could only be used if someone interpreted.
In fact, he uses this to prove tongues should absolutely never be
used any other time. You see, he thinks unless it is
interpreted, it should not be used. Paul never said tongues was
restricted to only a church service; he said if it is used in a
church service in place of prophesying, it must be interpreted.
Why? No body will have the foggiest idea what was being said
otherwise. We do the same thing today but not supernaturally. I
once heard a Russian Baptist pastor speak in our Baptist church.
He didn't know English and thus an interpreter was employed to
translate. If there would have been no translation, we, the
church, could not have been edified by his message. I'll explain
further in a moment.
His next guideline tiptoes along the same lines.
"3. Never are more than three people to do it, and
they are to do it in sequence, not at the same time."
Later in his Sermon Brother MacArthur describes a chaotic
and confusing Charismatic service he attended. What he is
implying here is that tongues was restricted to a church service
only. Later he gets around to stating the tongues was never
meant to be used in private as a prayer language.
He clearly states what he is after in his 5th Guideline.
"4. There is to be no speaking in tongues unless it is
interpreted."
Of course this is true only within the context of I
Corinthians 14. Paul said, that tongues could be employed in a
church service when speaking directly to those in attendance by
as many as three people and then only one at a time. When they
spoke, what they said, as it was when the Russian pastor spoke,
had to be interpreted so those in the church could understand.
Does this mean that someone able to speak that language had to be
in the service to interpret? No, because Paul clearly states
that if no one else interprets the message in tongues, the one
doing the tongues speaking should pray that he interpret his own
message (I Cor. 14:13). The only way that could be possible was
a supernatural revelation by the Holy Spirit but then that's how
the guy spoke in tongues in the first place; by the power of the
Holy Spirit.
Something else I wonder about is what Brother MacArthur
means in his 5th guideline.
"5. Any confusion or any disorder in the assembly is
an indication that what is going on did not originate
with God--it's a counterfeit; it's a prostitution."
He employs this guideline, though Paul never said they were
counterfeiting or prostituting that which was holy, to try and
lay claim that anything which isn't understood by way of
interpretation isn't of God. Paul never said that anywhere in I
Corinthians 14 that I could find.
OUT OF CONTROL
This is what John MacArthur has gotten out of those services
he has attended which he said the Charismatics were out of
control. Here's what he said about it in his sermon:
"A few weeks ago when we were meeting with some of the
leaders of the Vineyard, they said, "Are there things
in our ministry that you would point out as a
violation of Scripture?" And we immediately brought
up the fact that having attended a recent meeting where
several thousand people were present, the leader of
that meeting invited everyone, all at once, all at the
same time to begin speaking in tongues. And there was
total chaos, confusion, disorder, people pushing chairs
back (as we told you before), falling on the floor,
stretching out their limbs, falling over, fainting,
all of that kind of chaos and confusion. No
translation of that was going on. Women were dominant
in it, and all of that violates the instruction for
the legitimate use of the gift, when it was legitimate
in the Corinthian time."
I'll address the issue of "women" in a moment but first let
me say something about what Brother MacArthur says is a
"Prostitution" and "total chaos." What would you think, and how
would you feel, if you walked into a room of chinese who were all
chatting among themselves in their own language? You would
probably think the whole thing was pretty weird and get pretty
nervous. Let's say, for arguments sake, that the preacher in
this Charismatic service Brother MacArthur attended had suggested
that everyone in the room offer praise to God and the whole crowd
began worshipping and praising God for His greatness. I wonder
if Brother MacArthur would object. He might not object as much
since he would understand the words being spoken around him but
if I were a betting Baptist, I doubt very seriously if such a
worship and praise offering to the Lord, even in English, would
ever be allowed in his church. You see, his reason for objecting
to this "chaos" is based upon what he thinks Paul was saying to
the Corinthians. Brother MacArthur thinks that no one was
allowed to speak in tongues in church unless it was interpreted
yet Paul never said any such thing. Paul said it was to be
interpreted if the tongues message was for the whole church; he
said nothing about tongues usage violating the sanctity of a
church service otherwise. Let me explain further.
When Peter was told by God in a dream that he was to go to
the household of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, he obeyed. Peter
actually got into a lot of hot water by doing this because
Cornelius was a gentile and thus far the disciples had not obeyed
our Lord's command to go and preach the Gospel to every creature.
Anyway, following a one-two-three punch Gospel sermon, something
unbelievable happened. Cornelius and his household all believed,
were born again, and the Holy Spirit filled them. Here's what it
says:
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell
on all them which heard the word. And they of the
circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as
came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard
them speak with tongues, and magnify God (Acts 10:44-
46).
Woops! Peter goofed. These screwed up Charismatics were
all speaking in tongues at once and no body but no body was
interpreting. If Brother MacArthur had been there, he would have
no doubt called this "total chaos." The other Jews in
attendance, however, said that the Holy Spirit had fallen on them
and they were, as they spoke in tongues, "magnifying God." How
could these silly Jerusalem leaders have possibly known they were
magnifying God as they spoke in tongues since there was no
interpretation? Because the same thing had happened to them, of
course, in Acts 2. If they recognized tongues was a gift of the
Holy Spirit and that when one spoke in tongues He was magnifying
God, why can't Brother MacArthur? Unless, of course, the gift
passed away with the last apostle whoever he was.
On the day of pentecost, the first two chapters of Acts
records that there were one hundred twenty disciples, not twelve,
gathered together waiting for what Jesus had promised would come
(I.E., the Comforter; the Holy Spirit). Then it happened. The
Holy Spirit came. All 120 began speaking in tongues as the Holy
Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4). Eventually they spilled
out of the upper room where they had been praying; waiting for
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the visitors in town began to
hear what was going on. A total of seventeen regions of the
world are mentioned in reference to the languages which were
heard by the onlookers (Acts 2:9-10). I've often wondered if the
120 disciples upon which the flaming tongues of fire rested as
they spoke in languages unfamiliar to them personally spoke just
seventeen foreign languages or, if as the Scriptures record, they
covered all the languages of the world.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men,
out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was
noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were
confounded, because that every man heard them speak in
his own language (Acts 2:5-6).
Perhaps I'm pressing my luck on this one because most
suggest this means the "known languages" of the world at that
time were represented; not all of them but I digress.
Brother MacArthur is not alone in his opinion that the
Charismatics are wild unruly counterfeiting prostituters of the
holiness of God. Some, on the day of pentecost, accused the
disciples of being drunk (Acts 2:12-13).
In all fairness, I have been in some pretty enthusiastic
Charismatic church services. Though i have heard accounts of
some services that went beyond the bounds of reality, I
personally have never witnessed one of these out of control and
total chaos services to which he refers. I'm not denying it
happens; I'm just saying I've never seen one. Brother MacArthur
said they were all speaking in tongues collectively, pushing
chairs out of the way, falling on the floor, stretching out their
limbs, fainting, and letting women participate in the whole mass
of confusion. My Brother most certainly has a different
definition of the word "chaos" than I. My American Heritage
dictionary defines "chaos" as (a condition or place of complete
disorder or confusion). To the unregenerate world, or even to
the spiritually naive Christian, witnessing a crowd of people
worshipping and praising God could be pretty frightening.
The Jews, thanks to King David's tutelage, became skilled at
worship. Entire battles were won with singing choirs marching
ahead of the Israelite armies. Their worship involved
enthusiastic hand clapping, the beating of tambourines, the
blowing of trumpets, dancing, leaping into the air and whirling
about, running, shouting, stripping off outer clothing as in the
case of David himself for which he was later criticized, and the
burning of sacrifices. Outsiders who witnessed this unorthodox
behavior were scared spitless. If, as we have already seen from
the book of Acts, tongues is an act of worship by one who has
been filled by the HOly Spirit, why would Brother MacArthur think
such was wrong in the confines of a church service?
He states these crazy people were pushing chairs back out of
the way, apparently so they could get to their knees or, as he
implies, to their faces flat on the floor. This is wrong? Since
when does the Scriptures condemn God's people from falling on
their faces before God in worship of Him? Were they throwing the
chairs or just pushing them back Brother MacArthur? If they were
throwing chairs, well then, maybe you could say the service had
gotten out of control. Some, he says, were "stretching out their
limbs." My! That certainly is chaos if I ever saw it. If it
bothers Brother MacArthur that Charismatics raise their hands in
praise or, in case of those who "fall on the floor," they stretch
out their "limbs," I don't blame him. It used to bother me
before I ever worshipped God in the Spirit of holiness, too.
He even mentioned that some were "fainting." People
unfamiliar with being in the presence of God and His holiness do
have a difficulty understanding this one. I'm surprised, with
all the personal contact Brother MacArthur claims to have had
with Charismatics over the years, he doesn't understand this one.
They weren't fainting dead away; they weren't hyperventilating;
they weren't passing out; they were being overwhelmed by the
presence of God. Apparently Brother MacArthur has never been
awed by God's holiness.
When I was filled with the Holy Spirit in 1982, I never
spoke in tongues. The reason? I didn't believe tongues was a
viable gift for today. The gift of speaking in tongues came
three years later. That's another story, however, but suffice it
to say for now that I was filled with God's Spirit during this
time and something really unusual happened. I became keenly
aware of God's presence in my life. He, God, was all around me
every moment of my day. I often found myself in the middle of
the day turning off my equipment as I worked in my basement,
dropping to the floor flat on my face, and praising and
worshipping God for several minutes because the presence of God
was so intense. The thing that's so strange about that is, I was
a Baptist; Baptist don't do that kind of thing. If they do, they
don't tell anybody about it. If Brother MacArthur has never
experienced the almost paralyzing presence of God's holiness in
worship, he will think it strange that people "faint" in His,
God's, presence. Actually, this is not all that uncommon. When
Charles Finney preached, it was commonly reported that people
fell flat on their faces, often by the hundreds, because the
presence of God was so powerful, it knocked them down. Because
the crowds were so large that came to hear John Wesley preach,
they climbed nearby trees to see him. He requested they remain
on the ground because people by the hundreds would fall as he
preached due to God's power and presence and people had been
getting injured. Some Christians, as do I, simply occasionally
prefer to lie flat when worshipping the Lord because they feel
the desire to do so. I haven't fainted; I've chosen this
position. I state again; it isn't fainting though I can easily
understand how Brother MacArthur might think it was.
Additionally, he says there was no translation of all of
this confusing tongues speaking in the Vineyard church service.
There was no need for any interpreting because what these people
were doing was individually, howbeit collectively, worshipping
and praising and magnifying God. It wasn't a prophesy to the
body of Believers. That occurs if someone stands to their feet,
speaks in tongues, and sits down. Another, led of the Holy
Spirit, may stand and, in English, speak the message. If no one
does, the one who spoke the tongues message is instructed by the
Scriptures to pray that he interpret. This may be repeated up to
three times and no more in a single service. Paul, on the other
hand, never told the Corinthian Believers that they could not
collectively worship God in tongues in a service but Brother
MacArthur says otherwise.
NEVER WOMEN
In Brother MacArthur's 6th guideline of how he says Paul
instructed the Corinthians in the usage of tongues, he says,
"6. Women are never to do it, for they are to remain
silent and not to speak in tongues."
This issue of women and their role in the local church
ministry has been kicked around for centuries and Christian women
have suffered the most in the debate. It has moved from the
early church days where women and men sat in separate parts of
the church meeting, apparently to insure female silence, to
women teaching Sunday school, preaching, pastoring, and
evangelizing. Since Brother MacArthur, in his criticism of the
Charismatic service he attended, said, "women were dominate in
it." Let's, in light of the issue of the gift of tongues, read
exactly what Paul said to the Corinthians concerning women in the
church. We need, however, to keep Paul's statement concerning
women in context so I am taking the liberty of quoting more than
just the two verses in question.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by
two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and
let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep
silence in the church; and let him speak to himself,
and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the
other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth
by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may
learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of
peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it
is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to
speak in the church (I Cor. 14:27-35).
We must interpret this passage by making sure we remember
the theme of Paul's instruction to the Corinthian Believers.
This chapter is, without doubt, on the topic of the usage of
tongues in a church service. His statement concerning women
appears within the context of this instruction. He is not
commanding women to keep their mouths shut in church; he is
referring to their participation in the speaking of tongues when
it relates to the preaching aspect of the fellowship. If you
read anything else into what he said, you are violating proper
Biblical interpretation. Paul flat out states that women are to
remain silent in context of speaking in tongues to the body of
Believers present in a given service. If you doubt that, read
the context again because it is absolutely clear.
Let me confuse this even further by quoting something Peter
said as he told the onlookers in Acts 2 what they were witnessing
with all of this tongues speaking business.
For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is
but the third hour of the day. But this is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my
Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my
servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those
days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy (Acts 2:15-
18).
Boy, does this open up a can of worms. Here's old Peter
full of the Holy Ghost preaching away to a big crowd of people
who are accusing the disciples of being a bunch of boozers. He
says that God is fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy that women
(daughters and handmaidens) in the "last days" are going to have
God's Spirit poured out upon them and they are going to
"prophesy." No wonder they thought he was drunk. Women were
never allowed any such representation in Israel not to mention
among other nations. Apparently, however, Paul wasn't familiar
with the prophesy of Joel nor Peter's sermon because he seems to
be saying the opposite when teaching the Corinthians?
The word "prophesy" used by Peter in his sermon and the word
"prophesy" used in every case by Paul in I Corinthians 14 means
(to foretell) and or (to speak with inspired speech). Paul and
Peter both used the same word to described the nature of this
particular form of utterance. If you stand back and just quickly
read over I Corinthians 14, you must conclude that Paul, when
using the word "prophesy," is referring to the type of speaking
we today call preaching. He, Paul, says this "prophesying" is to
comfort, exhort, and build up the Believers in order that they
might learn. He is not using the word "prophesy" to refer to the
prophetic, that is, the foretelling of future events.
The bottom line is this. Peter confirmed the prophecy of
Joel concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit and that this out
pouring would include women. They in fact would prophesy/preach
(speak with inspired speech). If you have read Acts 2 carefully,
you will noticed that the 120 disciples which had gathered to
wait, as Jesus had instructed, for the out pouring of the Holy
Spirit, included women. They, too, apparently were filled with
the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues as the Holy Spirit gave
them utterance. I bet that shook up a few men in the meeting.
Peter confirmed in his message that the women were "prophesying."
What do we do today when we prophesy/preach? The same thing. We
worship and honor the Lord in word and bring comfort and
exhortation to those listening. The problem is, however, Paul
said women were to remain silent in the churches.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, it can be clearly seen
that Paul was referring to the speaking of tongues in a church
service and that such utterances were restricted to men and even
then only two or three could exercise this utterance in a public
gathering. Women were not restricted in the worship of God; the
women with the 120 on the day of pentecost weren't. The women
were not forbidden to speak in tongues; the women on the day of
pentecost weren't. Women were not forbidden to testify in
Corinthians; the women on the day of Pentecost weren't. They
simply were instructed not to participate in the usage of tongues
by way of interpretation for the edification of the body of
Christ in a public gathering. What about women pastors? The
Scriptures offer no such liberty in the offices of apostle,
prophet, pastor, teacher, or evangelist. Might they have such a
gift? They might have the gift but all such offices which the
Scriptures offer instruction make no room for women in the
functionality of those positions. Can women participate in a
church service by worshipping God, testifying, offering
encouragement, singing, giving glory to God, comforting,
exhorting, witnessing, and magnifying God by speaking with
tongues? According to the Scriptures they may. Can they stand
before the church and speak in tongues and issue an
interpretation? No.
ANGEL TALK
Here is some additional things Brother MacArthur had to say
about what we (Charismatics) believe.
"Unfortunately, some of the Charismatic people have
taken Paul's statement, "If I speak with the tongues
of men and of angels," and they say, "You see, the
tongues of men are our normal language, and the
tongues of angels are our secret private prayer
language." And they believe that the gift of tongues
is a private prayer language, a heavenly language
known only to God that transcends the mind, as we said
earlier. It's celestial speech. It's interesting to
me that if it's celestial speech, and if it's angel
talk and comes from God, why is it that somebody has
to sit you down and teach you how to do it? There is
no warrant in this text for such a view."
I agree 100 percent with Brother MacArthur on this. It is
unfortunate that some Charismatics have tried to suggest that
speaking in tongues is a Heavenly, or otherwise angelic, prayer
language. There is simply no Scriptural bases for this teaching
and Charismatics who do teach this should stop it.
HUMAN LANGUAGE
Immediately following his statements concerning the gift of
tongues not being a celestial language, he says the following:
"Nowhere then, and this is very important, nowhere does
the Bible teach that the gift of tongues is anything
other than human languages!"
He then has the audience turn back to Acts 2 in order to
prove his point. He needn't bother. I believe that the gift of
tongues is always human language as well and the Scriptures
definitely support that interpretation.
UNKNOWN TONGUES
Brother MacArthur spends a little time explaining that some
Charismatics have gotten the idea the gift of tongues wasn't a
language from the King James Translators adding the word
"unknown" to I Corinthians 14. His point is that tongues was a
language, a human language, and that "unknown" doesn't refer to
something other than a human language. I already have stated my
agreement with this but it is what he says next that concerns me.
"There is an interesting footnote to that, that you can
look through carefully. Notice the plural and
singular usages of the word language, and that's
helpful. I believe when he uses the singular of
"glossa" he's referring to the false gibberish, and
when he uses the plural he's referring to languages,
because you can't have plural gibberishes. There
aren't kinds of double talk and gobbledygook and
gibberish--there's only gibberish. It doesn't have a
plural."
I hear what he is saying here but frankly I don't understand
it. Paul never said these Corinthians were speaking "double talk
and gobbledygook and gibberish;" he said they were speaking in
tongues/languages. One must note that Brother MacArthur admits
this is his own interpretation of the singular and plural usages
of Paul's wording. In other words; it proves nothing.
PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE
Brother MacArthur then focuses on trying to prove that
tongues could never, and I mean never, be used unless it was
interpreted. I've already spent a great deal of time on this so
I won't go over it again. Just a casual reading of I Corinthians
14, however, would clearly reveal that such was not what Paul was
saying. As you will see in the following quote, Brother
MacArthur is really building to making a point that tongues
should not, yea could not, ever be used as a personal private
form of prayer.
"Now, do you see here, it's never to be done in
private. It would be pointless. Wherever in the
Bible does it say that you are to speak in a private
tongue? Never! A private ecstatic, angelic speech--
never! It's hard for me to argue against those who
say that tongues is a private prayer language because
I can't go to some text and correct them because there
isn't any text! They just made it up. It's a pure
invention. It's a non-existence viewpoint. Some of
them try to use Romans 8, (The Holy Spirit makes
intercessions for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered). How obvious is that? In the first place it
is the Holy Spirit and He's making the intercession,
and He's doing it with groanings that can't be uttered,
not groanings that can be uttered! And it isn't us--
it's Him! How can you ever convolute that? There
isn't any Scripture to support it. All you have here
were times when God desired to speak in a language that
the people didn't know in order to reveal His
supernatural presence and His Word, and then it was
translated for the edification of everyone. It was a
very unusual situation. It happened early on;
apparently at the time of Corinth it was still going
on. We hear nothing about it from then on, in all the
rest of the New Testament, and when it was done, it
was totally restricted and very clear guidelines were
given.
John MacArthur can't even point to a single verse which uses
the word "rapture" but I bet he believes in it. He'll have the
same problem thumbing to a specific verse which uses the word
"Trinity" but he, and I, both believe it.
Though he claims he cannot point to a single verse in
Scripture where tongues is encouraged to be employed as a prayer
language, may I point out a few?
Paul begins right up front by revealing tongues is in fact a
personal communion shared with one filled with the Holy Spirit.
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not
unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him;
howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries (I Cor.
14:2).
Brother MacArthur says tongues was for a sign to unbelievers
and it must always be interpreted to be valid. If the Bible only
refers to one type of tongues, the kind which is spoken publicly
and must be interpreted for the understanding of the hearers, why
would Paul tell us that we are speaking unto God when we speak
with the gift of tongues? I thought it was only for public
interpretation. God doesn't need to hear us speak in tongues and
have it interpreted.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;
but he that prophesieth edifieth the church (I Cor.
14:4).
I realize that Brother MacArthur says this means that the
tongues speaker is being selfish, puffed up, and egotistical but
frankly you have to use your hyperactive unregenerate imagination
to pull that out of this verse. It's a flat statement Paul
makes. He's simply comparing preaching with praying. Preaching
edifies (builds up) those who hear the messages; tongues edifies
the one speaking in tongues. My question is, when does he get
built up? When he's publicly speaking in tongues in order of two
or three with the interpretation to follow? Of course that's not
what Paul was saying. He was comparing apples with oranges.
Preaching/prophesying at church; praying/tongues at home.
I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that
ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than
he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret,
that the church may receive edifying (I Cor. 14:4).
Woe here! Why would Paul want all of them to speak with
tongues if it, first; wasn't important, second; died out with the
last apostle, whoever he was, third; if it were a selfish act
done out of pride, and fourth; if only two or three per service
were allowed to speak in tongues by interpretation. How could
Paul possibly expect them to all speak with tongues. Perhaps
because there in fact was reference being made to tongues of a
more personal nature?
Then we have Paul's own shocking statement.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I
will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with
the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also
(I Cor. 14:15).
When was Paul doing this praying? If he was doing it in church,
I sure hope for his sake it was being interpreted by somebody
since Brother MacArthur says tongues couldn't be used unless
interpreted.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all
(I Cor. 14:18).
Man! If Paul spoke in tongues more than these crazy out of
control Corinthian Charismatics, he must have done it morning,
noon, and night. I wonder if Paul was speaking in tongues in
church by way of interpretation when he did all this tongue
speaking stuff?
I could point out other verses within the chapter, not to
mention other passages outside of this book, but let me simply
say that Brother MacArthur has to say tongues can never be used
outside the church service as a private prayer language by which
one can speak mysteries to God and be spiritually edified. If he
said otherwise, his whole church would split right down the
middle.
GROANINGS WHICH CANNOT BE UTTERED
Finally, in this part of his message, Brother MacArthur gets
around to shooting down the Charismatic's last foothold to their
claim that tongues can be used as a private prayer language.
"Some of them try to use Romans 8, (The Holy Spirit
makes intercessions for us with groanings which cannot
be uttered). How obvious is that? In the first place
it is the Holy Spirit and He's making the
intercession, and He's doing it with groanings that
can't be uttered, not groanings that can be uttered!
And it isn't us--it's Him! How can you ever convolute
that? There isn't any Scripture to support it."
I referred earlier to my first book I authored called
"Praying In The Spirit." I spend a great deal of time showing
how this phrase "groanings which cannot be uttered" is an old
English expression meaning (speaking words beyond the ability of
the hearer to understand and comprehend). I can easily prove
this with a single passage of Scripture which Paul himself wrote.
In the second letter to the Corinthians, Paul said he was
going to come to the subject of visions and revelations of God
(II Cor. 12:1). He then proceeds to tell the story about a man
(most believe he was speaking of himself) who was snatched up
into Heaven. Paul said, among other things,
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard
unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to
utter (II Cor. 12:4).
This is a most curious statement by Paul. Here this man
"heard" things spoken but they were so fantastic, so
unbelievable, so beyond man's capabilities or comprehension, they
couldn't be uttered. Obviously he was saying what was heard
simply was beyond the human ability to explain. That is
basically the meaning of "groanings which cannot be uttered."
They are prayers of the Holy Spirit beyond man's ability to speak
humanly. In other words, they are prayers not reproducible by
the flesh. One translation renders this phrase as, "prayers too
deep for words." The Holy Spirits utterances are not beyond
man's ability to speak, Acts 2:4 proves that, but simply beyond
man's capability of generating on his own. In fact, Acts 2:4
says exactly this:
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began
to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance.
Brother MacArthur is correct when he says it is the Holy
Spirit who does the speaking. Charismatics believe exactly that.
Is it learned behavior? Not if it is genuine. No one taught me
nor my wife nor my son. Can it, however, be learned? Not the
true gift of tongues but it can be imitated. How does one know
the difference? By their fruit, of course. I've bumped into
many who claim they are born again Christians but their behavior
and doctrine reveals they are imitators. The same is true
concerning tongues.
SECTION 4
TRUE TONGUES
As we come to the fourth major section of John MacArthur's
message on tongues, he leaves the Biblical evidence and unveils
some real scientific studies which, apparently, beyond a shadow
of a doubt proves Charismatics are phony tongue talkers.
"Frankly, whatever normally passes for tongues in the
Pentecostal-Charismatic movement today is not true
language. That and that alone eliminates it. Modern
tongue speaking, often called "glossolalia" (sp. Gk.,
which simply means to speak languages from "glossa"
and "laleo" to speak languages) isn't the same as the
Biblical gift."
Following this statement, he refers to William Sameron who
has apparently conducted a number of scientific studies, even
recording some of the tongue speaking, and Brother MacArthur then
announces:
"The studies all agree that what we are hearing today
is not language. And if it is not language then it is
not the Biblical gift of language!"
Unfortunately, Brother MacArthur doesn't name all the
studies to which he referred in his global statement of denial.
Too bad. I have also heard that many such recordings have been
made, analyzed scientifically by linguistic experts, and the
conclusion was that, though not translatable, it was language of
some form. Let me share some other stories about this.
On to occasions I have been praying in tongues with other
Christians and someone later told me what language I was
speaking. Once it was Spanish, and though I had two years of
high school Spanish, I never once recognized any Spanish words as
I prayed that evening. A second time I was told by someone in
the meeting that I had been praying some Filipino dialect. When
I questioned my prayer partner as to the content of what I was
praying, he admitted he wasn't fluent in the language but knew
enough to recognize that I was praying for Christian brethren in
the Philippine Islands.
A close pastor friend of mine once told me that he and his
intercessory prayer partners were gathered to pray one evening.
A visitor to the church was in attendance and following the
prayer meeting, the visitor asked the pastor if he knew French.
My friend said he wouldn't know French from any other language if
it were spoken in his presence. The visitor introduced himself
as a native Canadian who had been raised in Quebec; a French
speaking provence. the visitor confessed he did not understand
every word my friend had spoken because what the pastor had been
speaking was one which was consider somewhat classic in nature.
That is, he explained, it was more of a written language than a
common language spoken among the citizens of the provence. My
friend asked as to the nature of his prayers and the visitor told
him that he had been praying to specific people to receive Christ
and to become born again as well as encouraging them to grow in
the Word of God for their spiritual benefit. One thing is for
sure, that wasn't the devil.
I have often heard amazing stories along these lines but
never had any direct knowledge of their validity accept for what
I have stated thus far. I once heard that an African, an elderly
man who had never been more than a mile or two from his village
in his entire life, was born again and filled with the Holy
Spirit and when he spoke in tongues, it was English. He had
never heard English according to the story. Frankly, I really
didn't believe this story until it happened to a good friend of
mine just a couple of weeks before I wrote this booklet.
My friend reported he was praying with a small group of
Christians in their church building one evening. Denver has a
large Spanish populous and because we have so many Spanish
speaking people, we even have two full time Spanish speaking
radio stations and one all Spanish television station. There
are, of course, many all Spanish speaking churches in the area as
well. This particular church, however, was not Spanish but had
some members who are fluent in that language. I say all this to
explain that having one visit a church service who knows nothing
but Spanish is not all that uncommon in Denver.
This particular evening a very young lady was brought to the
prayer service, because, she later revealed, she had been abandon
by her husband shortly after they had arrived in Denver from
Mexico. She had meant a Spanish speaking person who had
encouraged her to come to church. She did not know English!
When the small group of Believers heard her story through a man
interpreting to the rest of the group, they explained to her the
way of salvation and she eagerly confessed Christ as her Lord and
Saviour. Since these brothers and sisters were Charismatic,
they, of course, wanted for her all that God had so they began to
explain to her from the Scriptures what the baptism of the Holy
Spirit was all about. Eventually, she said she understood and
wished to be filled with God's Holy Spirit and have this gift.
Now I know those who believe as John MacArthur that tongues isn't
for today and that in fact it is not a language won't believe
what I'm going to say. My friend who witnessed this is in his
mid 60's and has pastored churches all his life. He is one of
the most Godly men I know and isn't given to wild stories. He,
my friend said, clear as a bell, following their prayer with her
to be filled with the Holy Spirit, she began praising God in
perfect, flawless, fluent English. This is a firsthand story and
not a thousand times removed.
Let me remind the reader of something I stated near the
beginning of my rebuttal to this sermon by Brother MacArthur.
Such experiences prove nothing in my opinion. Christians who
live by experiences are shallow, easily led astray, and
spiritually unsound. Though these testimonies and experiences
are great to hear, and I'm not suggesting we forsake them, they
are not the Holy Word of God. If it cannot be proved by
Scripture, the experiences have absolutely no meaning. In short,
refer to all the studies, cassette recordings, scientific
evidence, and personal testimonies you want. Then get out your
Bible and let's talk about it. In prospective, I could offer
probably thousands of scientific papers written by scientists who
all claim the Universe wasn't created, the Bible isn't true, and
there is no scientific proof that God exists. I don't believe
them any more than those who claim tongues passed away with the
last apostle whoever he was.
ORGIASTIC CHARISMATICS
Listen to what Brother MacArthur says next:
"I have done some extensive study in years past on the
Oracle of Delphi, and the mystical gibberish and
ecstatic speech that was all wrapped up in that
horrible orgiastic religion. And some of the
Corinthians who were involved in all of that stuff had
come into the Church with their past pagan stuff and
corrupted the gift of tongues by counterfeiting it,
and using these past ecstasies as if they were the work
of the Spirit. What they were doing, by the way, is
very similar to modern day "glossolalia," and Paul was
trying to correct them by telling them such practices
circumvented the whole point of the gift of languages
and didn't qualify."
Boy I get tired of being lumped into all these kinds of
cults and occults just because they've mimicked the work of the
Holy Spirit. Godly Charismatics don't dance in the nude, roll
around on the floor, leap over tall buildings, spit fire balls,
walk on water unless called for, glow in the dark, pull rabbits
out of hats, or gibber jabber till their lips turn blue. Nor do
we share common doctrine with witches, devil worshipers,
voodoolists, fire walkers, new agers, snake charmers, satanists,
transcendental meditationists, channelers, palm readers, yogists,
fortune tellers, levitationists, astral projectionists, witch
doctors, medicine men, astrologers, ufologists, and psychics no
matter how hard Brother MacArthur tries to make you think
otherwise. Surely he knows the devil is out to counterfeit the
work of the Holy Spirit; he's been doing it for thousands of
years. I just wish Brother MacArthur wouldn't help him out by
lumping all Charismatics into the same ungodly barrel with all
these obvious unbelievers.
CURSING JESUS
I don't want to go overboard by quoting everything Brother
MacArthur said in his sermon on tongues so let me paraphrase what
he launches off into concerning Paul's writings and instruction
to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 12. This chapter details the
whole gamic of Holy Spirit gifts which Brother MacArthur
basically believes was restricted to the "apostolic age;" though
I am sure he leaves a few for today's usage. His remarks come
from the following two verses:
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb
idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand,
that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:
and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy
Ghost (I Cor. 12:2-3).
Now this is how Brother MacArthur interpreted this passage.
"It got so bad at Corinth that it actually was
shocking. Absolutely shocking. Notice verse 2, of
chapter 12, he says, "You know that when you were
pagans, you were led astray" (that's a technical term
for "flipping out," going into a trance, being spaced
out), "You were led astray to the dumb idols, however
you were led" I mean you just followed the flow of the
mysticism and the ecstasies, you just 'flipped-out',
you went into your trance. You did that when you were
pagans. Verse 3, "Therefore I make known to you,"
listen, "no one speaking by the Spirit of God says
'Jesus is accursed.'" Stop right there. This is
unbelievable. Do you know what was happening? Some of
those people were "flipping out" into their trance and
cursing Jesus, and because it was in a trance like
thing they claimed to be the gift of tongues, people
were accepting it on the basis of the phenomena, even
though the content was blasphemous! What this tells
us is that some of this stuff may be more than some
humanly induced gibberish; it may be satanic and
demonic."
I honestly cannot, in my wildest dreams figure out how
Brother MacArthur came up with this interpretation. Absolutely
no where does Paul say that these Corinthians were first: cursing
Christ, and second; he never says anything about them flipping
out into ecstatic gibberish as they "cursed Jesus." all Paul was
trying to say to these Believers is that, yes, some of the pagans
did things like this but the way we know that we aren't doing
that is because we don't curse Jesus; we praise and magnify Him
in the Holy Spirit. He's saying that the Holy Spirit could never
curse Jesus. Actually, Paul is stating there is a clear cut
difference between the pagans and the Christians. They curse
Christ; we bless Him by the power of the Holy Spirit.
BACKSEAT TONGUES
"Even the legitimate gift of tongues took a second
seat, for sure, to prophecy, which everyone clearly
understood."
Paul never said the gift of tongues in a church service took
a second, or backseat, to prophesy. Paul said, if the tongues
utterance was interpreted, it was equal to preaching (I Cor.
14:5).
After this, Brother MacArthur moves off into another
explanation of why it is wrong to have a prayer language because
the Corinthian Believers were misusing tongues.
"Paul is not commending the use of tongues for self-
edification, but condemning people who were using the
gift in violation of its purpose and in disregard to
the principle of love, which he covered in chapter 13.
If you do it for yourselves you miss the whole point.
It should never be done, except it be interpreted.
Right? That eliminates the private prayer language.
They were using tongues in Corinth and it wasn't even
the real language gift; it was a fabrication coming
from their pagan background. It was a counterfeit and
they were doing it to build themselves up; it was
egocentric. It was to make them appear spiritual.
They wanted to exercise the most spectacular, showy
display in front of other believers. Paul's point is
that nobody profits from that kind of exhibition except
the person speaking in tongues, and the chief value he
gets out of it is to build up his own ego."
Brother MacArthur can't have it both ways. Here he says
what the Corinthians had was a "fabrication" and a "counterfeit
coming from their pagan background." Earlier he said:
"Now, if we grant, and I think we must, that at the
time of the writing of 1 Corinthians the Spirit of God
could still use this unique ability, the fact that it
was still a gift in that time and that place in the
history of the Church--we know that because Paul said,
"Don't forbid it." Don't forbid people to speak in
tongues, don't eliminate it. There is still, he is
saying, a place for this (verse 39 of chapter 14), but,
he says you must regulate it carefully..."
Of course Brother MacArthur has already explained that this
apostolic gift has already passed away so I suppose it makes
little difference that one moment he says there was a place for
it and then later says the Corinthian Believers never even had
the same thing that was evident on the day of Pentecost.
He likewise began his sermon by saying:
"You might ask the question, What then is wrong with
such an experience? Well, on the one hand, there
really isn't anything particularly evil or immoral
about it if you just disassociate it from the Bible and
disassociate it from Christianity, and if you get some
pleasure out of standing in a corner all by yourself
or sitting in your room alone and talking gibberish to
yourself and that does something for you, then I
suppose in and of itself, from a psychological
standpoint, that it's not a moral issue--it may be
harmless. If something makes you feel good or makes
you feel somehow better in control of your life, or
like you've had some warm experience, so be it. But,
don't call it intimacy with God. Don't say it makes
you spiritually stronger, don't say it makes you
delirious with spiritual joy."
Then throughout the entire rest of his sermon, he does his dead
level best to prove tongues isn't for today, it died out with the
last apostle, it's counterfeit, gibberish mumbo jumbo, ecstatic
tongue clucking, Satanic, and evil. I wish he'd make up his
mind.
THE GREATER GIFTS
Before leaving this section of Brother MacArthur's message,
he refers to his interpretation on Paul's statement that the
Corinthians should "covet the greater gifts."
"somebody might say, "Well, look at the end of chapter
12, it says, 'earnestly desire the greater gifts.'
Shouldn't we take that as, 'Boy, we really ought to
desire this?'" That has to be properly understood.
See that little phrase, "but earnestly desire the
greater gifts." People say, "Well, see that's a good
reason for you to go out and desire this gift." Well,
first of all it is in the plural, not singular. It
doesn't say an individual Christian should desire a
certain gift. He already has said in chapter 12,
verse 11, that the Holy Spirit gives whatever gift He
wants to whoever He wants. It isn't the question of
desire, it is sovereignly given. What he is really
saying here is this, it should be translated this way,
"You are coveting the showy gifts." It isn't an
imperative, it really should be an indicative. It's a
statement of fact, not a command. And, by the way, in
the Greek the imperative and the indicative are the
same form. Albert Barnes takes it as the indicative;
so do many other commentators: Doderidge (sp.),
Locke, McKnight. Barnes observes that the Syriac New
Testament renders the verse the same way."
I heard this argument once before when listening to George
Gardner's tapes on tongues. Fortunately Brother MacArthur says:
"It isn't an imperative, it really should be an
indicative. It's a statement of fact, not a command.
And, by the way, in the Greek the imperative and the
indicative are the same form. Albert Barnes takes it
as the indicative; so do many other commentators..."
I'm glad to here that. He is saying that it's a personal
matter of interpretation. He wants us to believe him, however,
and not those who say the opposite. Frankly, I have read over I
Corinthians 12 repeatedly and I can't see it as a negative but
then I'm not trying to explain away the gift of tongues.
SECTION 5
TONGUES SHALL CEASE
This section of Brother MacArthur's sermon primarily deals
with proving that tongues has definitely ceased. I won't quote
exactly what he says because his argument is perhaps the most
famous of all arguments against tongues.
Here is the passage to which he refers:
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies,
they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall
cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish
away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which
is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I
spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as
a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish
things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but
then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I
know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith,
hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these
is charity. (I Cor. 13:8-13).
I took the liberty of quoting the entire passage because
Brother MacArthur, as do so many when using this argument,
conveniently leave off the last part which reveals the correct
interpretation.
The answer to this problem concerning the end of tongues is
quite easy to explain. Paul never said tongues had ceased, he
said they would cease at a certain time. If tongues have ceased,
then according to Paul's own statement, so has prophesy and
knowledge because they are listed together with tongues.
THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME
Though most say that the phrase "that which is perfect is
come" means the Bible has come to be in its final form, Brother
MacArthur has a little different twist. He states that this
"perfect" reference is to the "eternal state" which he says is
the millennial 1000 year reign of Christ upon earth following the
seven years of tribulation. He says that tongues and the other
gifts will apparently be revived during this time and will die
out all together. At least I think that's what he said; it was
kind of hazy. The point he makes, however, is that it is clear
that tongues have ceased for now though. Why doesn't he say
prophesy and knowledge has ceased along with tongues? I don't
know.
He then uses another quote by someone who is an expert to
remind us that people smarter than us also say tongues have
ceased. Besides this, he then names a number of groups who all
claimed they spoke with tongues and they all were proved to be a
bunch of heretics. This, I'm supposing, confirms tongues have
ceased, that is, if these groups he referred to were wrong, well
then, shoot, everybody must be wrong right along with them.
Listen to what he says:
"Now all of these supposed manifestations of tongues
were always identified as heretical, fanatical,
unorthodox, outside the Church; and we conclude that
when they ceased they ceased, and there have been
continual off and on fabrications of counterfeit
tongues. Since these gifts did cease, the burden of
proof is on the Charismatics to prove that what is
happening today is valid. Why do we always have to
get backed in the corner and prove our case? Why
don't they take the Bible and prove theirs and look at
history as well and do the same?"
Well, I'm trying to give proper representation but I wonder
if he's listening. Did you noticed he said, "we conclude that
when they ceased they ceased." He even suggests, that since the
early church fathers following the first century didn't believe
in tongues that such proves tongues ceased. It may prove that
tongues ceased to be used; it doesn't prove Biblical tongues died
out with the last apostle whoever he was.
WHEN TONGUES CEASE
Since Brother MacArthur seems to think tongues has ceased,
at least for now, why don't we let the Scriptures tell us when
tongues is a viable gift of the Holy Spirit and when it could be,
and not be, employed by Holy Spirit filled people.
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his
voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye
that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and
hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye
suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,
I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young
men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream
dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I
will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they
shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven
above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire,
and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into
darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and
notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to
pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord
shall be saved. (Acts 2:14-21).
Peter, after being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking
in tongues, apparently switching back into the common language of
the day, began to explain to the onlookers what they were
witnessing. Peter said that this was the age of the Holy Spirit
come to the church of God. He says this out pouring of the
Spirit of God, and the things which accompany the out pouring,
are going to continue throughout the entire period of the "last
days." Lest Brother MacArthur misunderstand and misinterpret
what Peter meant by the "last days," Peter continued by revealing
the signs which reveal the last days period of time. I am not
writing on the prophetic events in time talked about in the Bible
but suffice it to say that Peter clearly states that the "last
days" is a period of time where anyone calling upon the name of
the Lord can be saved (Acts 2:21). Whenever the time comes that
people on earth cannot call upon the name of the Lord to be saved
will be the time that the Holy Spirit is not poured out upon
God's children. That is when tongues, and all other Holy Spirit
gifts, will cease permanently. Can we call upon the name of the
Lord to be saved today? If so, Peter says this is the period of
time the Holy Spirit gifts are available. If Brother MacArthur
says we aren't living in the last days, then I give up. I don't
know any fundamentalist evangelical who would try and say that we
aren't living in those last days to which the Scriptures refer.
SECTION 6
WHAT THE CHARISMATICS ARE REALLY DOING
Brother MacArthur finally takes off the Christian gloves and
launches an all out attack on these ungodly, unholy, demonized,
egotistical tongue talking Charismatics in his closing remarks.
Though lengthy, I feel it important to allow the readers of this
booklet, in light of those who have not heard his sermon, to read
exactly what he said.
"Now, that leads us to a concluding thought. What
kind of things are they doing then? What is going on?
How do we explain what they do? Well, if you ask them
they will say things like this, What's the use in
speaking in tongues? The only way I can answer
that is to say, "What's the use of a Bluebird? What's
the use of a sunset? Just sheer, unmitigated
uplift. Just joy unspeakable and with it
health, and peace, and rest, and release from
burdens and tensions." Boy, that's pretty great stuff!
Or they might say, When I started praying in tongues I
felt, (and people told me) I looked 20 years
younger. I am built up, I am given joy,
courage, peace, the sense of God's presence, and I
happen to be a weak personality who needs this.
Now, that kind of testimony is a pretty heavy pitch,
pretty powerful. If it can give you health,
happiness, and make you look younger, then the
potential market is unlimited. On the other hand the
evidence to support such claims is dubious. Would
anyone seriously argue, seriously, that today's tongues
speakers live holier lives? Live more consistent lives
than believers who don't speak in tongues? What about
all the Charismatic leaders in recent years whose
lives have proved to be morally and spiritually
bankrupt? And does the evidence show that Charismatic
Churches are, on the whole, spiritually stronger and
more solid than Bible believing churches that do not
advocate the gifts? The truth is, you must look long
and diligently to find a Charismatic fellowship where
spiritual growth and Biblical understanding are
genuinely at the heart. If that kind of stuff doesn't
produce more spiritual Christians or believers who are
better informed theologically, then what is it doing?
And what of the many former tongue speakers who testify
they didn't experience peace, satisfaction, power, joy,
or find the fountain of youth when they spoke in
tongues. Why does it produce so much disillusionment?
Why is the emotional high in the initial ecstatic
experience harder and harder to duplicate? No, it is
significant to note that Pentecostals and Charismatics
can't substantiate their claim that what they are
doing is the Biblical gift. There's really no
evidence to prove it. There is no evidence that it's
language. You say then, "What is it?" Could be
demonic. Could be satanic. I think it was in
Corinth, in some cases. Could be that. Ecstatic
speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa,
East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is
exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don't
know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found
today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is
involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you
know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself
advocates speaking in tongues? It could be demonic.
Secondly, it could be learned behavior; you just learn
how to do it. If you can go to the Hunter's seminar,
they will "jump start" you. It could be
psychological. It could be a kind of a self-induced
hypnosis, a kind of a trance, where you just yield up
all of your will, and you yield up your vocal cords
and you empty out your brain, and the power of
suggestion takes over and you become psychologically
induced. And once you have that experience, you then
learn to do it and just do it. Many studies have been
done to show that it is psychological. But the burden
of proof is really not on us to prove what it is.
Suffice it to say that this unique gift given for the
Apostolic time is irreproducible today, and whatever
purports to be that is not that; it is something
counterfeit. A myriad of studies, which I'll deal
with in the book [Charismatic Chaos], and when you get
a copy you can read them in detail, give evidence of
the fact that motor-autonomism (sp.), ecstasy,
hypnosis, psychic-catharsis, collective psyche, memory
excitation, and all other kind of terms are used to
describe people who go into these kinds of trance like
experiences. And then on the majority of occasions it
is just learned behavior. You just learn to say it and
so you say it. It is interesting to me that I have
listened to people speak in tongues in many different
parts of this country, on many different occasions,
through many years, and I find very similar verbiage,
so what they learn kind of gets filtered and passed
through the whole movement."
I'm sorry Brother MacArthur, we are not attempting to market
the Holy Spirit and His gifts. I object to the implication that
we are playing around with God's holiness and commercializing
that which we consider Holy and sacred before God.
Why would you Brother MacArthur take a potshot at former
Charismatic leaders who have fallen morally when you know as well
as I that just as many Baptist, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists,
Presbyterians, episcopalians, and any other denomination one
wishes to name, has had many of their leaders fall into all kinds
of horrible sin. That doesn't prove what they preached was
wrong; it only proves the devil is out to get anybody and
everybody he can. He will especially hit those highly visible to
the unregenerate world since that's where it will do the most
damage. Besides, Judas betrayed Christ and he was one of the
twelve disciples. Does that mean all the other disciples were
rotten? Should we refuse to believe Christ because of the
downfall of one of His own disciples?
I resent the implication that one will have to "look long
and diligently to find a Charismatic fellowship where spiritual
growth and Biblical understanding are genuinely at the heart."
After a statement like that, I wouldn't accuse the Charismatics
of being too egotistical if I were you. I can, Brother
MacArthur, name a dozen such Charismatic churches right here in
Denver alone which don't have to take a backseat to any one in
the areas of evangelism, Bible teaching and instruction,
missions, family support, personal Bible studies for new
Believers, doctrine, and every form of the Christian walk you
would like to name. Are you, my Brother, the only one doing the
Lord's work? I am shock that a man of your stature and spiritual
reputation would make such an arrogant criticism as though you
were the final judge of what is, or is not, going on in the Body
of Christ.
I also feel sorry for those "tongue speakers" to which you
referred who never experienced "peace, satisfaction, power, joy,"
or found "the fountain of youth when they spoke in tongues. I
know a lot more former Christians who have left church for good
who claim the same thing and they never spoke in tongues nor
believed in it. Perhaps all these miserable former Charismatics
could find what they lost under your ministry. I hope so.
It isn't any more difficult for me to speak in tongues today
than it was when I received the gift. Those who claim it becomes
more difficult are always those who are beginning to doubt the
gift of tongues is real, often because they've read and heard
sermon such as yours, and they attempt to continue exercising the
gift in the flesh. The flesh is always a poor substitute for the
ministry and gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The reason Brother MacArthur only says, "Could be demonic.
Could be satanic. I think it was in Corinth, in some cases," is
because he's smart enough to know what Jesus said concerning
committing the unpardonable sin. This unforgivable sin, is
attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the works of the
devil. [See Matt. 12:22-32.]
By the way, I personally don't care what Joseph Smith said
about tongues Brother MacArthur. He was a heretic and everybody
but the Mormons know it.
finally, if Brother MacArthur has been proven incorrect in a
number of areas of Biblical interpretation, how in the world can
we believe him when he says all the Charismatics of the world
have "filtered and passed" verbiage all through the hole
movement. Has he examined every utterance since the closing of
the "apostolic age" which he has referred to so often throughout
his message? His statement is humorous, not to mention
unbecoming, for a man of his intelligence.
WORSE THAN TONGUES
Though I won't quote him, Brother MacArthur finished his
sermon by telling his people there are many things worse than
tongues today. One he says is "Gossip!" That's right. He says
gossip is worse than speaking in tongues. Boy, if them there
wild tongue talking Charismatics are demonized, what must the
rest of the gossipers be in the church. God help us!
FINAL REMARKS
It would be superfluous to comment on everything Brother
MacArthur said in his message because so many things overlap. I
touched on all those things that seemed necessary to clarify;
especially those things relating to his interpretation of
Scripture.
As I said in the beginning, I, too, believed all these
things as a Baptist but once I really began to examine the
Scriptures and question the things I was told the Bible said for
myself, I realized that we had twisted our interpretations to
match what we wanted to believe. If John MacArthur, or as in my
case the Baptists, were to begin to question their interpretation
of these things, they would have big problems with their
brethren. I did and had to leave my Baptist church lest I be
voted out of the church. These people that believe the gift of
tongues has passed away are so afraid of Charismatics that they
won't even fellowship with them, for the most part, on even a
casual bases. The devil has done a good job scaring them.
Here's what I always suggest to those wishing to discover
the answer to this question of the doctrine of tongues. In mid
1982 I got down on my knees with my Bible and asked the Lord to
reveal His truth to me personally about the Spirit filled life.
I never thought I would, or could, be filled with the Holy Spirit
but I needed God's power in my life. I prayed every day for a
certain period of time for God to reveal to me what it was all
about. As I prayed, I turned in my Bible and read and compared
John 15, Eph. 5, and Romans 8 as well as Acts 1:8. I stayed away
from Acts 2 because that had passed away with the last apostle or
so I was told. I never missed a single day praying about this
matter. If you wish full details about how this worked out,
write for my booklet to which I made reference earlier: "When
Baptists Speak In Tongues. I've also devoted a couple of
chapters to how I was led into the baptism of the Holy Spirit in
my autobiography: "Liquid Purple." Needless to say, after two
months of seeking God and His Word for the answer, I was filled
with the Holy Spirit in August of 1982. As I also mentioned, I
did not speak in tongues until three years later. Why? God
never gives us anything unless we first believe Him for it. I
did not believe in speaking in tongues. You see, the evidence of
one filled with God's Holy Spirit is power:
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost
is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me
both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8).
The gift of tongues is certainly evidence of that Holy Spirit
power but as Paul recognized, not every Believer will speak in
tongues. I know several Charismatics who do not speak in
tongues. They do, on the other hand, manifest other gifts of the
Spirit in their lives.
How can one be filled with the Holy Spirit? First you must
have a working knowledge of what has been discussed in this
booklet. You must believe it is available as a gift from God
just as you believe in salvation as a gift of God. If you
believe and make a simple request of God that you want to be
filled with His Holy Spirit, He will answer that prayer. If you
ask for the gift of tongues as well, you will receive that gift.
What if you don't speak with tongues right away? A lot of that
has to do with how much doubt you have to remove from your
thinking. As Paul Harvey says, "It's difficult to unring a
bell." Brother MacArthur and many others have been ringing the
bell against demonized tongue talking Charismatics for a long
time. It's difficult not to be swayed by their quotes by hordes
of experts, former disgruntled tongue talkers, irrefutable
linguists, and infallible theologians. It's up to everyone of us
to know God's Word. The decision is yours to either believe or
not in the gifts God gives us through His Holy Spirit.
Phil Scovell
April 1992
End Of Document
Go To HOME: The Zeneith Tube Website: RedWhiteAndBlue.org