A Rebuttal


                              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



                              Phil Scovell

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


          SECTION 1
               EXPERT WITNESSES
               THE UNFRUITFUL MIND
               NO UNDERSTANDING

          SECTION 2
               SIGN GIFTS
               MARK 16:17
               THE DEATH OF MIRACLES
               THE POINT

          SECTION 3
               OUT OF CONTROL
               NEVER WOMEN
               ANGEL TALK
               HUMAN LANGUAGE
               UNKNOWN TONGUES

          SECTION 4
          TRUE TONGUES
               CURSING JESUS
               BACKSEAT TONGUES
               THE GREATER GIFTS

          SECTION 5
               WHEN TONGUES CEASE

          SECTION 6
               WORSE THAN TONGUES




                              Phil Scovell


               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

               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

               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

               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

                               SECTION 1


               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.


               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

               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!


               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.


               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
               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

               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.


               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


               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
               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

               "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

               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

               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.


               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

                               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
          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.


               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
               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).


               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

               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

               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

               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-

               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
               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-

               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.


               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.


               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
               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.


               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

               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.

               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.

               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

               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


               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

               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

               "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.


               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.


               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

               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.


               "Even  the legitimate  gift of  tongues  took a  second
               seat,  for  sure,  to prophecy, which  everyone clearly

               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.

               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


               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

               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.


               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

               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.


               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


               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.


               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

               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: