Tongues by Phil Scovell rebut

Tongues by Phil Scovell rebut

CHARISMATIC CHAOS AND SPEAKING IN TONGUES

By

Phil Scovell

This booklet is not copyrighted. It may be reproduced if such reproduction is done in the spirit in which it was given. It may not be reproduced and sold at any price nor may it be used in any way other than for its intended purpose. This notice must likewise be posted with any reproductions and the text cannot be altered in any way.

Additional copies are available upon request from THE EKKLESIA. It is also available on computer disk in wordperfect and ASCII formats along with a number of other articles. Braille and audio cassette versions are also available to anyone blind. Call 303-936-2188 for more information.

EKKLESIA RESOURCES INC.

P.O. BOX 19454

DENVER, COLORADO 80219

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18 TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD

SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION WHEN I RECEIVED THE GIFT EXPERT WITNESSES OUT OF MIND EXPERIENCE THE UNFRUITFUL MIND NO UNDERSTANDING

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

SECTION 3
THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH GUIDELINES ONLY BY INTERPRETATION OUT OF CONTROL NEVER WOMEN ANGEL TALK HUMAN LANGUAGE UNKNOWN TONGUES PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE GROANINGS WHICH CANNOT BE UTTERED

SECTION 4
TRUE TONGUES ORGIASTIC CHARISMATICS CURSING JESUS BACKSEAT TONGUES THE GREATER GIFTS

SECTION 5
TONGUES SHALL CEASE THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME WHEN TONGUES CEASE

SECTION 6
WHAT THE CHARISMATICS ARE REALLY DOING

WORSE THAN TONGUES

FINAL REMARKS

CHARISMATIC CHAOS AND SPEAKING IN TONGUES

By

Phil Scovell

FORWARD

John MacArthur is one of America’s leading evangelicals. He is equally well known for his stand against Charismatic doctrine; especially the gift of tongues. This booklet is in response to one of many of Brother Macarthur’s sermons preached on the subject of Charismatics. He has likewise written extensively on this subject though I doubt the published works will add much to what is found in the sermon upon which this writing is based.

May I begin by saying how much I personally appreciate John MacArthur, his ministry, preaching, and stand upon the Word of God as our final authority for salvation, doctrine, and life. His testimony is outstanding and he is highly regarded by Charismatics and noncharismatics alike as Godly in his walk before the Lord. I have listened to him often on his radio broadcasts, read from his books, and have many of his sermons in print. I am thankful for how God is using him today both to reach the lost and to instruct Christians in their walk with the Lord.

As many others, Brother MacArthur has chosen to expose what he considers the heretical teachings of the Charismatic Believers when it comes to miracles, healings, and the gift of tongues. I certainly agree we should expose false doctrine and am thankful when national Christian leaders denounce those things they view in the Body of Christ which are doctrinally erroneous. There most certainly are things among the Charismatic churches which should be addressed concerning doctrine and practice. Brother MacArthur, however, in his sermon to which I refer, makes interpretive errors in his doctrinal views of the Scriptures and this is the purpose for the writing of this rebuttal.

My remarks are restricted to a transcript from a tape:( GC 90-61, titled “Charismatic Chaos” Part 10.) According to the transcript, a copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412. The title of the sermon itself is “Speaking In Tongues.” Apparently he preached a series on the topic of Charismatic Chaos and this was one of several messages exposing the fallacies of the Charismatic movement. I examined the transcript carefully and found no copyright symbol nor mention of the document being copyrighted. If I am in violation of copyright laws therefore, it was unintentional and according to the Scriptures, as a brother in Christ, I can’t be sued by Brother MacArthur for my remarks. Of course, he may decide, after reading my rebuttal, I’m not a brother.

I discovered the transcript in electronic form on a computer bulletin board system which I downloaded with my computer and modem and then read accordingly. Those posting Brother MacArthur’s sermon in electronic form on their bulletin boards are respectfully requested to allow this rebuttal to be posted as well so that the reader may judge.

Though I will be quoting from this transcript extensively, I recommend the reader of this booklet order the tape, or transcript, and examine the sermon for yourself. In light of this, I cannot guarantee all that I found reproduced electronically was indeed the exact words of John MacArthur Jr. but it claimed to be the basic wording of his recorded message.

I have spent a great deal of time reading and rereading Brother Macarthur’s message. Though what I have to say will not be accepted by him, nor anyone else who has chosen to disbelieve the Biblical evidence of the gift of tongues, I felt that proper representation was necessary; not only for doctrine’s sake but in defence of some of the appalling things he says about all Charismatics.

After reading over Brother MacArthur’s sermon, I felt it best to divide his teaching into six sections in order to address each area of thought systematically and independently while at the same time maintaining continuity in my remarks.

Brother MacArthur’s attack on the Charismatic movement generally, and the gift of tongues specifically, is standard among fundamentalists and evangelicals. The reader may find it interesting to know that I personally have been an independent Baptist nearly all my life; though I was saved at the age of five in an Evangelical Free Church. Let me also parenthetically state that I am not a Biblical scholar nor have I ever had a single hour of Greek or Hebrew. I do have a simple three year Bible College degree but I doubt that counts. Furthermore, I don’t pastor a large church, I’m not well known nor desire to be, I have no outstanding credentials, and I don’t have a radio or television show whereby I can promote my books and tapes. I do, on the other hand, wear cowboy boots, drink black coffee straight, and believe the Bible and live by it every day of my life with Christ at the center. I am greatly disturbed, however, when brethren such as John MacArthur make such blatant statements concerning the gift of tongues which they claim to have gotten from the Bible. I likewise used to believe everything Brother MacArthur teaches concerning Charismatics, miracles, the gifts of healing and tongues, apostles and profits, and the likelihood of demonic influence upon those who spoke with tongues. I traveled as a Baptist evangelist for about five years preaching meetings in Baptist churches and spoke out regularly against the Charismatic movement and the gift of tongues. When I was given the gift of tongues in the summer of 1985, however, I had to eat my own bitter words. How did I come to such a place where I would allow something like that to happen? I examined the Scriptures and realized Brother MacArthur and many others to whom I had listened, were Scripturally in error concerning their interpretation. I’m not going to spend any time detailing how I was led into the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues but if the reader is interested, I’ve written my testimony in a booklet called “When Baptist Speak In Tongues.” It is available by writing to the address displayed with this booklet.

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The most detrimental error Brother MacArthur makes is that he apparently concludes all Charismatics believe, act, and think alike. Not once in his sermon does he ever mention that Charismatics differ in any way, shape, or form. This dramatically, in my opinion, reduces Brother MacArthur’s credibility. If he in fact has visited with as many Charismatics as he claims and been in as many of their wild services as he suggests in his sermon, he surely must know that the title “Charismatic” is as universal as the word “Baptist.” There are multiple Baptist denominations which I wouldn’t touch doctrinally with a ten foot pole. I never would be so foolish as to go around saying that all Baptist believe alike. Reading Brother MacArthur’s sermon, however, leaves one with the strong impression that all Charismatics are identical in every respect.

He begins, for example, by telling how some Charismatics teach their children to speak in tongues. This theme of tongues tutelage is a hobbyhorse he rides several times throughout his message including a quote he offers by Charles Hunt which, apparently, proves all Charismatics “learn” to speak in tongues. The implication is, therefore, all Charismatics have learned how to mumble in ecstatic speech or, in Brother MacArthur’s opinion, as we will see later, they are demonically influenced.

WHEN I RECEIVED THE GIFT

I received the gift of tongues in July of 1985. I wasn’t in a hyped Charismatic service I wasn’t being taught to speak in tongues by mimicking or imitating someone, I wasn’t hissing like a snake or cackling like a hen, I wasn’t mesmerized or hypnotized by the methodic voice of a preacher, and I wasn’t repeating “hallelujah” over and over until my tongue snapped off its roller. I was in bed sound asleep.

Several months later, my wife, after asking me to pray with her that she would be Spirit filled and be given the gift of tongues, began praising the Lord in tongues on the spot without any suggestiveness on my behalf. The same evening, after asking me to explain what the gift of tongues was all about, my son was filled with the Holy Spirit and given the gift of tongues while standing in our living room. I never prompted him, I never taught him, I never suggested he mimic me or gibber in baby talk, yodel, motorboat his tongue, or pretend he was an auctioneer; I simply prayed with him.

To add to the spiritual uniqueness of this evening with my family, my son, only nine years old at the time, later said that following our prayer, he immediately sensed a foreign word (a word with which he was unfamiliar) come to mind. Being embarrassed to say it out loud, he left the living room and walked into his bedroom intent upon saying the word out loud to himself. He reported that the moment he walked into his bedroom, the word in his mind left and no matter how hard he tried, he could not make it return. After a moment or two, he returned to the living room and the moment he crossed the threshold of the living room, the word popped back into his thought. He quickly returned to his room hoping he might experiment by saying this word to himself in the privacy of his room. The moment he left the living room, however, the word vanished. Once again he returned to the living room and the word appeared in his thoughts.

As we were talking and praying together during this time, my seven year old daughter dropped in my lap and asked if it was okay for her to say, “Thank you Jesus.” You see, as Baptist, we knew that people who said “thank you Jesus” were weird tongue talking screw balls so of course we never used that phrase. I confirmed that to say, “thank you Jesus,” was perfectly all right and she immediately began saying it out loud. I opened my mouth and began praising the Lord as well. My wife, who only moments before had never spoken in tongues, walked into the living room speaking what sounded like an almost musical language. Though Brother MacArthur says from his experience all tongue talkers sound basically the same, my wife’s language was totally different than the language I was using. In the middle of this time of rejoicing by the Scovell family, my son stood in one corner of the living room and began speaking a new language as we joined together in praise and worship. I might point out that we were not in a wild Charismatic service, we weren’t rehearsing a set of syllables, and we weren’t being taught by anyone how to speak in tongues. Does this prove tongues is for today? No!

EXPERT WITNESSES

Scattered throughout my Brother’s sermon, he continually quotes, and otherwise refers to, Bible teachers, scholars, and former Charismatics who all say tongues today is counterfeit, probably unholy, maybe even demonic, and certainly unscriptural. Though I’m tempted to refer individually to each of these, it would be superfluous. Why? Because it doesn’t prove a thing. I could easily parade before you dozens of people who lived holy Godly lives, were active in their local church, taught Sunday school, lead people to Christ, and perhaps even preached the Gospel as a pastor who have left the church, denounced Jesus Christ and are atheists. Does that prove the God doesn’t exist? Of Course not. If I want to prove healing is for today and I display a couple of hundred people who all could show medical records before and after, would that prove the Bible is true? What if we paraded several thousand Christians before us who all claimed they believed God for healing and nothing happened. Would that prove God doesn’t heal today? If Brother MacArthur is trying to impress us with quotes by former Charismatics or by quoting theologians and what they say, he is wasting his time and certainly being less than honest himself. Charismatics and noncharismatics alike can prove nothing by experience; the Bible is our final authority.

I do want to refer to one former Charismatic Brother MacArthur mentions in his sermon simply because I am familiar with his teachings. George Gardner was a Pentecostal evangelist for thirty years. I have his tapes in my cassette library on speaking in tongues. As with John MacArthur, I found discrepancies with Mr. Gardner’s Biblical interpretation but the most ostentatious, howbeit overlooked, aspect of Mr. Gardner’s testimony is the admission of his own growing doubts about what the Pentecostals were teaching. Look at it this way. If a person confesses Christ as Lord and begins walking in relationship with Christ but later begins to doubt his salvation, what do you suppose will be the result. I’ve seen it happen again and again. He’ll walk away from what he confessed with his mouth he believed. Simply stated, doubt will kill anything we say we believe if we allow doubt to control our lives. It is of little wonder, therefore, Charismatics walk away from what they say they once believed.

As a Baptist, I know there are hundreds of professing Bible college graduate Christians who have turned their back on God; never to darken a church door again. Does this prove the Baptists are Scripturally unsound, mentally unbalanced, demonized misguided losers, and a bunch of heretics? Of course not. Then why does Brother MacArthur use the same logic when referring to Charismatics? He also states early in part of his sermon that he knew a Charismatic pastor once who later left that church and confessed he spoke in tongues out of plane will power and never did it with any meaning. So what. Most Christians live their entire life in the flesh, too, but that doesn’t negate the truth of God’s Word.

My point is this. Every person I heard who left the Charismatic church and denies the reality of the gift of tongues, confesses the same: they grew weary of trying to perform what they believed in the flesh and subsequently began to doubt what they thought the Scriptures taught. George Gardner makes that confession, or something like it, on the set of tapes I have in my cassette library. It is only natural, therefore that someone with these feelings will leave his former way of life for another which is less demanding, less stressful, and less competitive.

OUT OF MIND EXPERIENCE

Often throughout my Brother’s message, he reports that Charismatics believe that tongues is experienced by emptying the mind of all thought. When describing some literature he received on how Charismatics teach there kindergarten children to speak in tongues he says, “Do you understand the picture? These gibberish words are in the Spirit and they come out of his mouth, but a question mark is in his brain. This is how they plant in a Kindergarten child the idea that tongues goes from the Spirit to the mouth, without ever going through the brain, that it is some kind of mystical, noncognative experience that somehow bypasses the brain.” Unfortunately, many Charismatics over the years have

suggested such was true. As he mentions, they obtained this erroneous information from Paul’s writings to the Corinthians but let’s allow Brother MacArthur to speak for himself. “And under that picture is 1 Corinthians 14:14, “If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.” In both cases they have misrepresented the intention of those verses. The first verse they assume “speaking in an unknown tongue” builds someone up, when in fact, Paul was saying it in a negative sense. It puffs your ego, or it, at best (if you do it in private) would benefit you, which would be selfish and contrary to any proper use of spiritual gifts. And the second one, “If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, and my understanding is unfruitful,” is a way to say, “Don’t do that, because what’s the point in having an unfruitful understanding?” The first verse to which Brother MacArthur is referring came

earlier in his description of this Charismatic Sunday school material he had seen which taught children how to speak in tongues. That verse, which he says Charismatics misinterpret, is I Corinthians 14:4: “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.” I’m sorry but I read again I Corinthians 14:1-15 and how Brother MacArthur comes up with this notion that Paul was saying to speak in tongues is a selfish act and that to do so doesn’t edify that person but, in fact, has the opposite result is simply beyond my ability to comprehend. Even reading it in the King James seems pretty clear to me but then I’m not trying to read something into what Paul said concerning the benefits of tongues to the Believer.

Then his second reference to what Charismatic believe really tossed me for a loop: “If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, and my understanding is unfruitful,” is a way to say, “Don’t do that, because what’s the point in having an unfruitful understanding?” This is really confusing. Brother MacArthur later admits

that Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians not to forbid the speaking of tongues during their day but here he claims Paul was telling them it would be unfruitful for them to do so. I wonder how Brother MacArthur explains the very next verse: “What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” Paul dropped the ball on that one didn’t he. Brother MacArthur claims Paul is instructing them that praying in tongues not only doesn’t edify them (builds them up) but if they do it, it’s unfruitful and selfish. Paul, on the other hand, says he prays both with the spirit and the understanding and even gets carried away and does it while singing. I can’t make up your mind for you but if you read the Scriptures, it isn’t that difficult to see exactly what Paul was saying. Paul said it would build them up; Brother MacArthur says it won’t. Brother MacArthur says it’s unfruitful; Paul says he did it even if Brother MacArthur says it doesn’t help anything. Too bad Brother MacArthur wasn’t around to straighten Brother Paul out.

THE UNFRUITFUL MIND

Let me stop here to focus a little light on what Paul was actually saying. The Greek word for “understanding” in I Corinthians 14:14 is the word (intellect) and is employed by the Holy Spirit some 24 times in the New Testament. The King James translators used it 15 times as “mind,” twice as “minds,” and 7 times as “understanding.” In every case it is clear that the word refers to the intellect or thought processes. The word “unfruitful” is (barren) and appears 7 times as either “unfruitful” or “without fruit.” Now if Paul meant what Brother MacArthur said, why would he turn right around and confess he in fact prayed both with his spirit and with his understanding. That’s right…he wouldn’t. What did he mean? He confirms that when he prays in tongues, his spirit indeed is in supplication with God but his “intellect” is “barren.” That is actually quite easy to understand because our mind is not yet regenerate. The mind, will, and emotions of our being is saved/delivered only by the discipline of the engrafted Word of God (James 1:21). Furthermore, we are told that spiritual things cannot be discerned by the natural (secular; mundane) nature of man (I Cor. 2:9-16). It sure shooting is a good thing that Paul’s understanding/mind/intellect was unfruitful when he prayed in tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit. Can you imagine what would happen to the natural unregenerate human mind/intellect of man if the raw sinless nature of God filled it? The intellect has not yet been created which can receive the immensity of the eternal God which has never known a beginning or end.

the truth is, Paul was in no way suggesting that when one spoke in tongues his mind went into neutral. He was explaining that the mind was never made to comprehend God. The redeemed spirit of man, however, with the Holy Spirit dwelling within is another matter. He, the Holy Spirit, does comprehend God because He is in fact God. He, the Holy Spirit, imparts to us the applicability of God’s Holy Word. In other words, our spirit communes in perfect harmony with God when we pray and if we pray in tongues, the Holy Spirit helps us when we pray because we don’t always know what we should pray for as we ought (Romans 8;26-27).

NO UNDERSTANDING

Brother MacArthur also introduces his topic of tongues by quoting several Charismatics who are attempting to explain not only the experience of speaking in tongues but the benefits. Brother MacArthur sharply criticizes them. I get the feeling he is suggesting the Christian life is feelingless and emotionless but perhaps he really means that Charismatics are to be suspect for the joy and spiritual intimacy they experience when praising and worshiping God in the Spirit.

Closely connected to the emotional part of this he said: “Now, remember, all of this is occurring with absolutely no understanding of what you are saying. You have no comprehension of what it is you’re saying, and yet it is supposed to bring you into the deep understanding and intimate communion with God.” Some Charismatics may say that but Paul never did. Paul

simply explained the human intellect cannot comprehend the nature and Spirit of God. The mind can, and does, have intellectual insight to such a relationship and holy union but it is the regenerate spirit of man that spiritually understands. Nothing in this passage gives indication that Paul was referring to an empty mind or mindless trance as Brother MacArthur later suggests in his sermon.

SECTION 2

BIBLICAL TONGUES

Following his introduction, Brother MacArthur says: “Tongues are only mentioned in three books in the Bible: Mark (one time in chapter 16:17); Acts (three times, Acts 2, 10, 19); and then in 1 Corinthians. Those are the only three books of the Bible that mention tongues.” Later he says concerning the Corinthian record, “This is the only epistle where we find anything about this, and Paul wrote for sure 12 and maybe 13 epistles beyond this one, and never in any of them does he even mention this. Only in this very early epistle does any discussion of tongues take place.” This, too, is a common argument, howbeit a mighty weak one,

among those who refuse to believe in the Biblical authenticity of Scriptural tongues. The reasoning is that since we can’t find any other discussions of tongues elsewhere in the later epistles, well, shoot then, I guess it must have passed away yet no where does Scripture confirm this. For that matter, how much more information could Paul have shared on the topic. Look how much time he devoted to the Corinthians by way of explanation and instruction. All the letters/epistles were shared among the churches so they all had direct access to his teaching on the subject. How much does Brother MacArthur want? Did the Holy Spirit need to devote an entire book to the subject just so he would get the picture? If we are going to use this form of logic to prove tongues is spiritually worthless and in fact died out with the last apostle, let’s not stop there. How many books of the New Testament can you name which explicitly detail the plan of salvation. Sure, you can say that every book of the Bible reveals Christ but do they all explain in simple child-like terms how to be born again? Romans does for sure but how many more could you name. You certainly wouldn’t turn to the book of I and II Timothy or Jude to try and win someone to Christ. Are they questionable epistles therefore because they aren’t salvation books?

Additionally, I simply disagree with my Brother when he says no other New Testament books mention tongues. I won’t take the time to explain what I’m about to say because I have already written a book on the subject called “Praying In The Spirit,” but I believe Romans, Jude, and the book of Revelation all refer to the gift of tongues. Even if Brother MacArthur is correct, however, I’m not for sure how much more evidence and Biblical teaching he wants.

I have heard it proposed by those who consider the book of Acts a transitional book that no Bible doctrine can be base upon the book itself. That’s an alarming suggestion. Brother MacArthur does not suggest this in his sermon but apparently in earlier teachings he taught exhaustively on the Acts of the Apostles. From the reading of the balance of his message under study, I am guessing he would consider Acts transitional.

SIGN GIFTS

He also states in this section that the gift of tongues was primarily a sign gift. First to unbelievers to attest of God’s Spirit in the earth, and secondly, as a sign to Israel that God had come to the gentiles. I fundamentally agree with these interpretations but as it will be seen later, I do not restrict, nor does the Scriptures, the gift of tongues to the early church.

MARK 16:17

Mark’s Gospel has always posed a big problem for those who deny the Scriptural validity of the gift of tongues. Brother MacArthur, however, voids the gift in a single succinct statement: “Then it appears in Mark 16:17; it simply mentions tongues as one of the gifts that would be expressed in the time of the apostles’ ministry. And again it fits into that unique historic Apostolic time period in which there was miraculous phenomena, signs and wonders, as God pointed to the apostles who were speaking His truth. On the day of Pentecost this sign drew the crowd to which Peter preached the gospel, for example.” John MacArthur assigns miracles and sign gifts to what he

refers to as the “apostolic time period.” In the balance of his message he refers to this period of time as the “apostolic age, apostolic period, apostolic time,” and the “apostolic era.” Once he even says, “Apostolic authority had already been affirmed; the message needed no further confirmation. And before the first century ended, the New Testament was written, circulated through the churches, and the revelatory gifts had ceased to have a purpose and so they passed away.” If you are thinking that this view is mighty convenient, I

would agree. It is a common argument, however, because if one can restrict, or otherwise limit, the sign gifts to a certain period of time, they won’t have to deal with their usage in this time period. The problem is, though, there is no Scripture which says there was an “apostolic age” and that miracles and the like disappeared after the death of the last apostle. I wonder who that last fellow was anyway.

Did you also know that some fundamental evangelicals actually believe that Mark 16:12- is not really part of the New Testament? Some modern translations have even removed it from their pages. I even heard the late Dr. Walter Martin of the Christian Research Institute say it was likely this passage of Scripture was never a part of God’s Holy Word and he, strange as it may seem, believed in speaking in tongues. This is really a nice and convenient idea because it quickly eliminates a very difficult portion of Scripture for those who believe tongues and signs no longer occur.

THE DEATH OF MIRACLES

Did you know that miracles are no longer part of God’s nature? I mean, He, God, doesn’t do miracles any longer? He apparently restricted his miraculous power to a certain period of time. At least that’s what Brother MacArthur says. “First of all, tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and [as] we have noted repeatedly in this study, the Age of Miracles and Revelation ended with the Apostles and those who worked along side of them. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58; note that, because the last book wasn’t written until A.D. 96. So you have almost 40 years with no supernatural wonders going on, even in the time in which the New Testament is still being written. From A.D. 58 to A.D. 96 when John finished the Book of Revelation, no miracle is ever recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healings are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, which is a very early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss spiritual gifts, but neither mention these sign gifts. Isn’t that an interesting point? The later epistles discussing the gifts don’t mention the sign gifts. No mention is made of the miraculous gifts; only in this very early epistle. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past; read Hebrews 2, 3, and 4: it was something already in the past. Apostolic authority had already been affirmed; the message needed no further confirmation. And before the first century ended, the New Testament was written, circulated through the churches, and the revelatory gifts had ceased to have a purpose and so they passed away.”

Yes, that is an interesting point Brother MacArthur but where in the Bible does it say God stopped doing miracles? This is, of course, one of the oldest deceptions which is used to explain away sign gifts. Can you see how convenient this would be? After all, if God doesn’t do any miracles today, we can just write tongues off for sure since it isn’t even a miracle. Though Brother MacArthur doesn’t define a miracle in this sermon, I know what he believes because everyone I’ve heard propose this fallacy says the same. A miracle was something that defied scientific and natural law. They will point to something like the day the sun and moon stood still in the book of Joshua and when the shadow on the sundial moved backwards in the rule of King Hezekiah. [See Joshua 10:12-14 and II Kings 20:1-11.] Though I can relate many modern day miracles which indeed defy science and natural law, it would prove insufficient for Brother MacArthur and others who have already decided miracles don’t happen today. As I said earlier, experience proves nothing; only the Scriptures. If you don’t believe the Scriptures, you won’t believe in miracles.

I am concerned with this false teaching, however, about the death of miracles, signs, and wonders. The logic is this. Jesus spoke and taught the twelve disciples repeatedly; offering them instruction and insight to many things. He, for example, gave them power to heal the sick (Luke 10:8-9). He gave them authority in the spiritual realm over demons (Luke 10:17-20). He told them they could remove mountains by their faith and nothing would be impossible (Mat. 17:20). Jesus likewise told His disciples that if they had faith the size of a mustard seed, they could not only curse a fig tree as He had just done but they could remove mountains (Mat. 21:21-22). Jesus later told His disciples that they not only could do what He, Jesus, had done upon earth but, since He was going to His Father in Heaven, they could ask Him anything, and He would do it (John 14:12-14). Jesus also told His disciples that He would send to them the Holy Spirit (John 14:16- 18). He also told them that if two of them on earth agreed between them upon anything that they would ask of Him, it would be done for them by their Father which is in Heaven (Mat. 18:19). Furthermore, He told them that where two or three of them were gathered, there He would be in the midst of them (Mat. 18:20). Once, when the disciple Peter questioned our Lord about how many times he had to forgive a brother who had wronged him, Jesus said seventy times seven, that is to say continuously, should Peter forgive his brother (Matt 18:21-22). Jesus commissioned His disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and to baptize and disciple those they won to Christ (Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:16-20). If, therefore, Brother MacArthur’s “apostolic age” is over and there are no miracles, signs, or wonders, then all these things promised directly to the disciples are not currently applicable. We can’t lay hands upon the sick and expect them to recover, we have no power or authority over the demonic world, though Jesus said nothing would be impossible, we must now be doomed to facing the impossible every day, we can’t remove mountains or curse fig trees by the power of His name, we cannot ask anything of Him and expect Him to hear us, we can’t expect the Holy Spirit (Comforter) to come and abide in us, two of us cannot agree together in prayer and expect God to answer, He won’t be in our midst even if two or three of us have gathered together, we don’t have to forgive our brother when wronged, and last but not least, we don’t have to go out and preach the Gospel, baptize converts, and teach them the Bible. Jesus made all these promises to His disciples but according to Brother MacArthur, you are denied these promises because they are restricted to only the “apostolic age.”

Oh, yes. I did read Hebrews chapters 2, 3, and 4 as he suggested. I can’t find anything in those chapters which suggest miracles, signs, and wonders ceased.

THE POINT

Brother MacArthur’s point, in this section of his sermon, is that the gift of tongues was, and is, a language. I agree. No where in Scripture does it suggest otherwise. Though some Charismatics, as my Brother points out, do suggest that tongues is an “angelic” or “heavenly language.” It isn’t. I agree with him when he says that tongues was a human language. Where Brother MacArthur gets bogged down, however, is in the next section of his sermon when he attempts to prove the Corinthians were not speaking with the gift of tongues but with an unholy gibberish.

SECTION 3

THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH

Here’s where the mud hits the fan. Brother MacArthur spends most of his time teaching on how experientially wrong, spiritually sinful, doctrinally stupid, and foolish the Corinthian Believers were. This apparently proves, somehow, tongues isn’t for today. He says the following: “That leaves us really with only one epistle in which tongues is even mentioned, out of the historical uniqueness of Acts and Mark 16–we come to the Book of 1 Corinthians, chapters 12 through 14. This is the only epistle where we find anything about this, and Paul wrote for sure 12 and maybe 13 epistles beyond this one, and never in any of them does he even mention this. Only in this very early epistle does any discussion of tongues take place. Now, Paul wrote these chapters, and you must understand this, to reprove the Corinthians for misusing the gift. It’s very difficult out of this passage to get any kind of mandate to speak in tongues, to get any kind of affirmation that this is something to be sought, or something to be elevated, or something to be used, or something that will last, because, what you have here is primarily a corrective given to the Corinthians, who had prostituted the gift of tongues into something pagan that wasn’t even representative of the work of the Holy Spirit. And so what he wants to do is correct and restrict the use of tongues.” I’ve already made mention of this tactic of suggesting that

since God only mentions something once or twice in the Holy Scriptures, it probably means it isn’t very important so I won’t reemphasize
that fallacy. I will, however, object to Brother MacArthur’s statement that Paul was writing to the Corinthians to reprove them for the misuse of tongues. After reading over his sermon repeatedly, it seems that Brother MacArthur is trying to say Paul reproved them for even using the gift at all. I’m sure Brother MacArthur would prefer the Corinthians had not even spoken in tongues, thus making life in today’s church a little easier to manage. Since they did, however, we are forced to either understand what Paul taught on the subject, or in Brother MacArthur’s case, simply dismiss it all together as part of the “apostolic age.” I’m not sure why he spent all the time in his sermon trying to explain what Paul was saying since the gift passed away and it isn’t applicable for today. For that matter, why not just take some scissors and clip a couple of those chapters out since they serve no purpose. I hate to say this but John MacArthur should be ashamed of himself. He spends a great deal of time trying to show that Paul was telling the Corinthians to knock it off when in fact, as we will see, Paul was doing just the opposite.

GUIDELINES

In his sermon, he states six guidelines given by Paul when the gift of tongues is employed in the church. “1. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers. It’s a sign that God is speaking. It’s a sign to unbelievers. 2. If used in the Church it must always be translated, so that it can have the purpose of edifying the believers who don’t know what’s being said. 3. Never are more than three people to do it, and they are to do it in sequence, not at the same time. 4. There is to be no speaking in tongues unless it is interpreted. 5. Any confusion or any disorder in the assembly is an indication that what is going on did not originate with God–it’s a counterfeit; it’s a prostitution. 6. Women are never to do it, for they are to remain silent and not to speak in tongues.” Though I agree that Paul gave some guidelines to the

Corinthians concerning tongues, I have some problems with the way Brother MacArthur applies them.

I certainly agree with the first guideline; it was a sign to the unbeliever. The chapter itself confirms this to be true (I Cor. 14:22).

ONLY BY INTERPRETATION

His second interpretation of Paul’s guidelines makes me a little suspicious however. “2. If used in the Church it must always be translated, so that it can have the purpose of edifying the believers who don’t know what’s being said.” I would guess, because of other statements Brother MacArthur

uses later in his sermon, that he believes that in the Corinthian’s day (the apostolic age) when tongues was used in church services, it could only be used if someone interpreted. In fact, he uses this to prove tongues should absolutely never be used any other time because unless it can be interpreted, it should not be used. Paul never said tongues was restricted to only a church service; he said if it is used in a church service in place of prophesying, it must be interpreted. Why? No body will have the foggiest idea what was being said otherwise. We do the same thing today but not supernaturally. I once heard a Russian Baptist pastor speak in our Baptist church. He didn’t know English and thus an interpreter was employed to translate. If there would have been no translation, we, the church, could not have been edified by his message. I’ll explain further in a moment.

His next guideline tiptoes along the same lines. “3. Never are more than three people to do it, and they are to do it in sequence, not at the same time.” Later in his Sermon Brother MacArthur describes a chaotic and

confusing Charismatic service he attended. What he is implying here is that tongues was restricted to a church service only. Later he gets around to stating the tongues was never meant to be used in private as a prayer language.

He clearly states what he is after in his 5th Guideline. “4. There is to be no speaking in tongues unless it is interpreted.” Of course this is true only within the context of I

Corinthians 14. Paul said, that tongues could be employed in a church service when speaking directly to those in attendance by as many as three people and then only one at a time. When they spoke, what they said, as it was when the Russian pastor spoke, had to be interpreted so those in the church could understand. Does this mean that someone able to speak that language had to be in the service to interpret? No because Paul clearly states that if no one else interprets the message in tongues, the one doing the tongues speaking should pray that he interpret his own message (I Cor. 14:13). The only way that could be possible was a supernatural revelation by the Holy Spirit but then that’s how the guy spoke in tongues in the first place; by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Something else I wonder about is what Brother MacArthur means in his 5th guideline. “5. Any confusion or any disorder in the assembly is an indication that what is going on did not originate with God–it’s a counterfeit; it’s a prostitution.” He employs this guideline, though Paul never said they were

counterfeiting or prostituting that which was holy, to try and lay claim that anything which isn’t understood by way of interpretation isn’t of God. Paul never said that anywhere in I Corinthians 14 that I could find.

OUT OF CONTROL

This is what John MacArthur has gotten out of those services he has attended which he said the Charismatics were out of control. Here’s what he said about it in his sermon: “A few weeks ago when we were meeting with some of the leaders of the Vineyard, they said, “Are there things in our ministry that you would point out as a violation of Scripture?” And we immediately brought up the fact that having attended a recent meeting where several thousand people were present, the leader of that meeting invited everyone, all at once, all at the same time to begin speaking in tongues. And there was total chaos, confusion, disorder, people pushing chairs back (as we told you before), falling on the floor, stretching out their limbs, falling over, fainting, all of that kind of chaos and confusion. No translation of that was going on. Women were dominant in it, and all of that violates the instruction for the legitimate use of the gift, when it was legitimate in the Corinthian time.” I’ll address the issue of “women” in a moment but first let

me say something about what Brother MacArthur says is a “Prostitution” and “total chaos.” What would you think, and how would you feel, if you walked into a room of chinese who were all chatting among themselves in their own language? You would probably think the whole thing was pretty weird and get pretty nervous. Let’s say, for arguments sake, that the preacher in this Charismatic service Brother MacArthur attended had suggested that everyone in the room offer praise to God and the whole crowd began worshipping and praising God for His greatness. I wonder if Brother MacArthur would object. He might not object as much since he would understand the words being spoken around him but if I were a betting Baptist, I doubt very seriously if such a worship and praise offering to the Lord, even in English, would ever be allowed in his church. You see, his reason for objecting to this “chaos” is based upon what he thinks Paul was saying to the Corinthians. Brother MacArthur thinks that no one was allowed to speak in tongues in church unless it was interpreted yet Paul never said any such thing. Paul said it was to be interpreted if the tongues message was for the whole church; he said nothing about tongues usage violating the sanctity of a church service otherwise. Let me explain further.

When Peter was told by God in a dream that he was to go to the household of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, he obeyed. Peter actually got into a lot of hot water by doing this because Cornelius was a gentile and thus far the disciples had not obeyed our Lord’s command to go and preach the Gospel to every creature. Anyway, following a one-two-three punch Gospel sermon, something unbelievable happened. Cornelius and his household all believed, were born again, and the Holy Spirit filled them. Here’s what it says: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God (Acts 10:44- 46). Woops! Peter goofed. These screwed up Charismatics were all

speaking in tongues at once and no body but no body was interpreting. If Brother MacArthur had been there, he would have no doubt called this “total chaos.” The other Jews in attendance, however, said that the Holy Spirit had fallen on them and they were, as they spoke in tongues, “magnifying God.” How could these silly Jerusalem leaders have possibly known they were magnifying God as they spoke in tongues since there was no interpretation? Because the same thing had happened to them, of course, in Acts 2. If they recognized tongues was a gift of the Holy Spirit and that when one spoke in tongues He was magnifying God, why can’t Brother MacArthur? Unless, of course, the gift passed away with the last apostle whoever he was.

On the day of pentecost, the first two chapters of Acts records that there were one hundred twenty disciples, not twelve, gathered together waiting for what Jesus had promised would come (I.E., the Comforter; the Holy Spirit). Then it happened. The Holy Spirit came. All 120 began speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4). Eventually they spilled out of the upper room where they had been praying; waiting for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the visitors in town began to hear what was going on. A total of seventeen regions of the world are mentioned in reference to the languages which were heard by the onlookers (Acts 2:9-10). I’ve often wondered if the 120 disciples upon which the flaming tongues of fire rested as they spoke in languages unfamiliar to them personally spoke just seventeen foreign languages or, if as the Scriptures record, they covered all the languages of the world. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language (Acts 2:5-6). Perhaps I’m pressing my luck on this one because most suggest

this means the “known languages” of the world at that time were represented; not all of them but I digress.

Brother MacArthur is not alone in his opinion that the Charismatics are wild unruly counterfeiting prostituters of the holiness of God. Some, on the day of pentecost, accused the disciples of being drunk (Acts 2:12-13).

In all fairness, I have been in some pretty enthusiastic Charismatic church services. Though i have heard accounts of some services that went beyond the bounds of reality, I personally have never witnessed one of these out of control and total chaos services to which he refers. I’m not denying it happens; I’m just saying I’ve never seen one. Brother MacArthur said they were all speaking in tongues collectively, pushing chairs out of the way, falling on the floor, stretching out their limbs, fainting, and letting women participate in the whole mass of confusion. My Brother most certainly has a different definition of the word “chaos” than I. My American Heritage dictionary defines “chaos” as (a condition or place of complete disorder or confusion). To the unregenerate world, or even to the spiritually naive Christian, witnessing a crowd of people worshipping and praising God could be pretty frightening.

The Jews, thanks to King David’s tutelage, became skilled at worship. Entire battles were won with singing choirs marching ahead of the Israelite armies. Their worship involved enthusiastic hand clapping, the beating of tambourines, the blowing of trumpets, dancing, leaping into the air and whirling about, running, shouting, stripping off outer clothing as in the case of David himself for which he was later criticized, and the burning of sacrifices. Outsiders who witnessed this unorthodox behavior were scared spitless. If, as we have already seen from the book of Acts, tongues is an act of worship by one who has been filled by the HOly Spirit, why would Brother MacArthur think such was wrong in the confines of a church service?

He states these crazy people were pushing chairs back out of the way, apparently so they could get to their knees or, as he implies, to their faces flat on the floor. This is wrong? Since when does the Scriptures condemn God’s people from falling on their faces before God in worship of Him? Were they throwing the chairs or just pushing them back Brother MacArthur? If they were throwing chairs, well then, maybe you could say the service had gotten out of control. Some, he says, were “stretching out their limbs.” My! That certainly is chaos if I ever saw it. If it bothers Brother MacArthur that Charismatics raise their hands in praise or, in case of those who “fall on the floor,” they stretch out their “limbs,” I don’t blame him. It used to bother me before I ever worshipped God in the Spirit of holiness, too.

He even mentioned that some were “fainting.” People unfamiliar with being in the presence of God and His holiness do have a difficulty understanding this one. I’m surprised, with all the personal contact Brother MacArthur claims to have had with Charismatics over the years, he doesn’t understand this one. They weren’t fainting dead away; they weren’t hyperventilating; they weren’t passing out; they were being overwhelmed by the presence of God. Apparently Brother MacArthur has never been awed by God’s holiness.

When I was filled with the Holy Spirit in 1985, 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 Finy 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 Westley 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, lead of the Holy Spirit, may stand and, in English, speak the message. If no one does, the one who spoke the tongues message is instructed by the Scriptures to pray that he interpret. This may be repeated up to three times and no more in a single service. Paul, on the other hand, never told the Corinthian Believers that they could not collectively worship God in tongues in a service but Brother MacArthur says otherwise.

NEVER WOMEN

In Brother MacArthur’s 6th guideline of how he says Paul instructed the Corinthians in the usage of tongues, he says, “6. Women are never to do it, for they are to remain silent and not to speak in tongues.” This issue of women and their role in the local church

ministry has been kicked around for centuries and Christian women have suffered the most in the debate. It has moved from the early church days where women and men sat in separate parts of the church meeting, apparently to insure female silence, to women teaching Sunday school, preaching, pastoring, and evangelizing. Since Brother MacArthur, in his criticism of the Charismatic service he attended, said, “women were dominate in it.” Let’s, in light of the issue of the gift of tongues, read exactly what Paul said to the Corinthians concerning women in the church. We need, however, to keep Paul’s statement concerning women in context so I am taking the liberty of quoting more than just the two verses in question. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church (I Cor. 14:27-35). We must interpret this passage by making sure we remember

the theme of Paul’s instruction to the Corinthian Believers. This chapter is, without doubt, on the topic of the usage of tongues in a church service. His statement concerning women appears within the context of this instruction. He is not commanding women to keep their mouths shut in church; he is referring to their participation in the speaking of tongues when it relates to the preaching aspect of the fellowship. If you read anything else into what he said, you are violating proper Biblical interpretation. Paul flat out states that women are to remain silent in context of speaking in tongues to the body of Believers present in a given service. If you doubt that, read the context again because it is absolutely clear.

Let me confuse this even further by quoting something Peter said as he told the onlookers in Acts 2 what they were witnessing with all of this tongues speaking business. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy (Acts 2:15-18). Boy, does this open up a can of worms. Here’s old Peter full

of the Holy Ghost preaching away to a big crowd of people who are accusing the disciples of being a bunch of boozers. He says that God is fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy that women (daughters and handmaidens) in the “last days” are going to have God’s Spirit poured out upon them and they are going to “prophesy.” No wonder they thought he was drunk. Women were never allowed any such representation in Israel not to mention among other nations. Apparently, however, Paul wasn’t familiar with the prophesy of Joel nor Peter’s sermon because he seems to be saying the opposite when teaching the Corinthians?

The word “prophesy” used by Peter in his sermon and the word “prophesy” used in every case by Paul in I Corinthians 14 means (to foretell) and or (to speak with inspired speech). Paul and Peter both used the same word to described the nature of this particular form of utterance. If you stand back and just quickly read over I Corinthians 14, you must conclude that Paul, when using the word “prophesy,” is referring to the type of speaking we today call preaching. He, Paul, says this “prophesying” is to comfort, exhort, and build up the Believers in order that they might learn. He is not using the word “prophesy” to refer to the prophetic, that is, the foretelling of future events.

The bottom line is this. Peter confirmed the prophecy of Joel concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit and that this out pouring would include women. They in fact would prophesy/preach (speak with inspired speech). If you have read Acts 2 carefully, you will noticed that the 120 disciples which had gathered to wait, as Jesus had instructed, for the out pouring of the Holy Spirit, included women. They, too, apparently were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. I bet that shook up a few men in the meeting. Peter confirmed in his message that the women were “prophesying.” What do we do today when we prophesy/preach? The same thing. We worship and honor the Lord in word and bring comfort and exhortation to those listening. The problem is, however, Paul said women were to remain silent in the churches.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture, it can be clearly seen that Paul was referring to the speaking of tongues in a church service and that such utterances were restricted to men and even then only two or three could exercise this utterance in a public gathering. Women were not restricted in the worship of God; the women with the 120 on the day of pentecost weren’t. The women were not forbidden to speak in tongues; the women on the day of pentecost weren’t. Women were not forbidden to testify in Corinthians; the women on the day of Pentecost weren’t. They simply were instructed not to participate in the usage of tongues by way of interpretation for the edification of the body of Christ in a public gathering. What about women pastors? The Scriptures offer no such liberty in the offices of apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, or evangelist. Might they have such a gift? They might have the gift but all such offices which the Scriptures offer instruction make no room for women in the functionality of those positions. Can women participate in a church service by worshipping God, testifying, offering encouragement, singing, giving glory to God, comforting, exhorting, witnessing, and magnifying God by speaking with tongues? According to the Scriptures they may. Can they stand before the church and speak in tongues and issue an interpretation? No.

ANGEL TALK

Here is some additional things Brother MacArthur had to say about what we (Charismatics) believe. “Unfortunately, some of the Charismatic people have taken Paul’s statement, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,” and they say, “You see, the tongues of men are our normal language, and the tongues of angels are our secret private prayer language.” And they believe that the gift of tongues is a private prayer language, a heavenly language known only to God that transcends the mind, as we said earlier. It’s celestial speech. It’s interesting to me that if it’s celestial speech, and if it’s angel talk and comes from God, why is it that somebody has to sit you down and teach you how to do it? There is no warrant in this text for such a view.” I agree 100 percent with Brother MacArthur on this. It is

unfortunate that some Charismatics have tried to suggest that speaking in tongues is a Heavenly, or otherwise angelic, prayer language. There is simply no Scriptural bases for this teaching and Charismatics who do teach this should stop it.

HUMAN LANGUAGE

Immediately following his statements concerning the gift of tongues not being a celestial language, he says the following: “Nowhere then, and this is very important, nowhere does the Bible teach that the gift of tongues is anything other than human languages!” He then has the audience turn back to Acts 2 in order to

prove his point. He needn’t bother. I believe that the gift of tongues is always human language as well and the Scriptures definitely support that interpretation.

UNKNOWN TONGUES

Brother MacArthur spends a little time explaining that some Charismatics have gotten the idea the gift of tongues wasn’t a language from the King James Translators adding the word “unknown” to I Corinthians 14. His point is that tongues was a language, a human language, and that “unknown” doesn’t refer to something other than a human language. I already have stated my agreement with this but it is what he says next that concerns me. “There is an interesting footnote to that, that you can look through carefully. Notice the plural and singular usages of the word language, and that’s helpful. I believe when he uses the singular of “glossa” he’s referring to the false gibberish, and when he uses the plural he’s referring to languages, because you can’t have plural gibberishes. There aren’t kinds of double talk and gobbledygook and gibberish–there’s only gibberish. It doesn’t have a plural.” I hear what he is saying here but frankly I don’t understand

it. Paul never said these Corinthians were speaking “double talk and gobbledygook and gibberish;” he said they were speaking in tongues/languages. One must note that Brother MacArthur admits this is his own interpretation of the singular and plural usages of Paul’s wording. In other words; it proves nothing.

PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE

Brother MacArthur then focuses on trying to prove that tongues could never, and I mean never, be used unless it was interpreted. I’ve already spent a great deal of time on this so I won’t go over it again. Just a casual reading of I Corinthians 14, however, would clearly reveal that such was not what Paul was saying. As you will see in the following quote, Brother MacArthur is really building to making a point that tongues should not, yea could not, ever be used as a personal private form of prayer. “Now, do you see here, it’s never to be done in private. It would be pointless. Wherever in the Bible does it say that you are to speak in a private tongue? Never! A private ecstatic, angelic speech–never! It’s hard for me to argue against those who say that tongues is a private prayer language because I can’t go to some text and correct them because there isn’t any text! They just made it up. It’s a pure invention. It’s a non- existence viewpoint. Some of them try to use Romans 8, (The Holy Spirit makes intercessions for us with groanings which cannot be uttered). How obvious is that? In the first place it is the Holy Spirit and He’s making the intercession, and He’s doing it with groanings that can’t be uttered, not groanings that can be uttered! And it isn’t us–it’s Him! How can you ever convolute that? There isn’t any Scripture to support it. All you have here were times when God desired to speak in a language that the people didn’t know in order to reveal His supernatural presence and His Word, and then it was translated for the edification of everyone. It was a very unusual situation. It happened early on; apparently at the time of Corinth it was still going on. We hear nothing about it from then on, in all the rest of the New Testament, and when it was done, it was totally restricted and very clear guidelines were given. John MacArthur can’t even point to a single verse which uses

the word “rapture” but I bet he believes in it. He’ll have the same problem thumbing to a specific verse which uses the word “Trinity” but he, and I, both believe it.

Though he claims he cannot point to a single verse in Scripture where tongues is encouraged to be employed as a prayer language, may I point out a few?

Paul begins right up front by revealing tongues is in fact a personal communion shared with one filled with the Holy Spirit. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries (I Cor. 14:2). Brother MacArthur says tongues was for a sign to unbelievers

and it must always be interpreted to be valid. If the Bible only refers to one type of tongues, the kind which is spoken publicly and must be interpreted for the understanding of the hearers, why would Paul tell us that we are speaking unto God when we speak with the gift of tongues? I thought it was only for public interpretation. God doesn’t need to hear us speak in tongues and have it interpreted. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church (I Cor. 14:4). I realize that Brother MacArthur says this means that the

tongues speaker is being selfish, puffed up, and egotistical but frankly you have to use your hyperactive unregenerate imagination to pull that out of this verse. It’s a flat statement Paul makes. He’s simply comparing preaching with praying. Preaching edifies (builds up) those who hear the messages; tongues edifies the one speaking in tongues. My question is, when does he get built up? When he’s publicly speaking in tongues in order of two or three with the interpretation to follow? Of course that’s not what Paul was saying. He was comparing apples with oranges. Preaching/prophesying at church; praying/tongues at home. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying (I Cor. 14:4). Woe here! Why would Paul want all of them to speak with

tongues if it, first; wasn’t important, second; died out with the last apostle, whoever he was, third; if it were a selfish act done out of pride, and fourth; if only two or three per service were allowed to speak in tongues by interpretation. How could Paul possibly expect them to all speak with tongues. Perhaps because there in fact was reference being made to tongues of a more personal nature?

Then we have Paul’s own shocking statement. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also (I Cor. 14:15).

When was Paul doing this praying? If he was doing it in church, I sure hope for his sake it was being interpreted by somebody since Brother MacArthur says tongues couldn’t be used unless interpreted. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all (I Cor. 14:18). Man! If Paul spoke in tongues more than these crazy out of

control Corinthian Charismatics, he must have done it morning, noon, and night. I wonder if Paul was speaking in tongues in church by way of interpretation when he did all this tongue speaking stuff?

I could point out other verses within the chapter, not to mention other passages outside of this book, but let me simply say that Brother MacArthur has to say tongues can never be used outside the church service as a private prayer language by which one can speak mysteries to God and be spiritually edified. If he said otherwise, his whole church would split right down the middle.

GROANINGS WHICH CANNOT BE UTTERED

Finally, in this part of his message, Brother MacArthur gets around to shooting down the Charismatic’s last foothold to their claim that tongues can be used as a private prayer language. “Some of them try to use Romans 8, (The Holy Spirit makes intercessions for us with groanings which cannot be uttered). How obvious is that? In the first place it is the Holy Spirit and He’s making the intercession, and He’s doing it with groanings that can’t be uttered, not groanings that can be uttered! And it isn’t us– it’s Him! How can you ever convolute that? There isn’t any Scripture to support it.” I referred earlier to my first book I authored called

“Praying In The Spirit.” I spend a great deal of time showing how this phrase “groanings which cannot be uttered” is an old English expression meaning (speaking words beyond the ability of the hearer to understand and comprehend). I can easily prove this with a single passage of Scripture which Paul himself wrote.

In the second letter to the Corinthians, Paul said he was going to come to the subject of visions and revelations of God (Ii Cor. 12:1). He then proceeds to tell the story about a man (most believe he was speaking of himself) who was snatched up into Heaven. Paul said, among other things, How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (II Cor. 12:4). This is a most curious statement by Paul. Here this man

“heard” things spoken but they were so fantastic, so unbelievable, so beyond man’s capabilities or comprehension, they couldn’t be uttered. Obviously he was saying what was heard simply was beyond the human ability to explain. That is basically the meaning of “groanings which cannot be uttered.” They are prayers of the Holy Spirit beyond man’s ability to speak humanly. In other words, they are prayers not reproducible by the flesh. One translation renders this phrase as, “prayers too deep for words.” The Holy Spirits utterances are not beyond man’s ability to speak, Acts 2:4 proves that, but simply beyond man’s capability of generating on his own. In fact, Acts 2:4 says exactly this: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Brother MacArthur is correct when he says it is the Holy

Spirit who does the speaking. Charismatics believe exactly that. Is it learned behavior? Not if it is genuine. No one taught me nor my wife nor my son. Can it, however, be learned? Not the true gift of tongues but it can be imitated. How does one know the difference? By their fruit, of course. I’ve bumped into many who claim they are born again Christians but their behavior and doctrine reveals they are imitators. The same is true concerning tongues.

SECTION 4

TRUE TONGUES

As we come to the fourth major section of John MacArthur’s message on tongues, he leaves the Biblical evidence and unveils some real scientific studies which, apparently, beyond a shadow of a doubt proves Charismatics are phony tongue talkers. “Frankly, whatever normally passes for tongues in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement today is not true language. That and that alone eliminates it. Modern tongue speaking, often called “glossolalia” (sp. Gk., which simply means to speak languages from “glossa” and “laleo” to speak languages) isn’t the same as the Biblical gift.” Following this statement, he refers to William Sameron who

has apparently conducted a number of scientific studies, even recording some of the tongue speaking, and Brother MacArthur then announces: “The studies all agree that what we are hearing today is not language. And if it is not language then it is not the Biblical gift of language!” Unfortunately, Brother MacArthur doesn’t name all the

studies to which he referred in his global statement of denial. Too bad. I have also heard that many such recordings have been made, analyzed scientifically by linguistic experts, and the conclusion was that, though not translatable, it was language of some form. Let me share some other stories about this.

On to occasions I have been praying in tongues with other Christians and someone later told me what language I was speaking. Once it was Spanish, and though I had two years of high school Spanish, I never once recognized any Spanish words as I prayed that evening. A second time I was told by someone in the meeting that I had been praying some Filipino dialect. When I questioned my prayer partner as to the content of what I was praying, he admitted he wasn’t fluent in the language but knew enough to recognize that I was praying for Christian brethren in the Philippines 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 lead astray, and spiritually unsound. Though these testimonies and experiences are great to hear, and I’m not suggesting we forsake them, they are not the Holy Word of God. If it cannot be proved by Scripture, the experiences have absolutely no meaning. In short, refer to all the studies, cassette recordings, scientific evidence, and personal testimonies you want. Then get out your Bible and let’s talk about it. In prospective, I could offer probably thousands of scientific papers written by scientists who all claim the Universe wasn’t created, the Bible isn’t true, and there is no scientific proof that God exists. I don’t believe them any more than those who claim tongues passed away with the last apostle whoever he was.

ORGIASTIC CHARISMATICS

Listen to what Brother MacArthur says next: “I have done some extensive study in years past on the Oracle of Delphi, and the mystical gibberish and ecstatic speech that was all wrapped up in that horrible orgiastic religion. And some of the Corinthians who were involved in all of that stuff had come into the Church with their past pagan stuff and corrupted the gift of tongues by counterfeiting it, and using these past ecstasies as if they were the work of the Spirit. What they were doing, by the way, is very similar to modern day “glossolalia,” and Paul was trying to correct them by telling them such practices circumvented the whole point of the gift of languages and didn’t qualify.” Boy I get tired of being lumped into all these kinds of cults

and occults just because they’ve mimicked the work of the Holy Spirit. Godly Charismatics don’t dance in the nude, roll around on the floor, leap over tall buildings, spit fire balls, walk on water unless called for, glow in the dark, pull rabbits out of hats, or gibber jabber till their lips turn blue. Nor do we share common doctrine with witches, devil worshipers, voodoolists, fire walkers, new agers, snake charmers, satanists, transcendental meditationists, channelers, palm readers, yogists, fortune tellers, levitationists, astral projectionists, witch doctors, medicine men, astrologers, ufologists, and psychics no matter how hard Brother MacArthur tries to make you think otherwise. Surely he knows the devil is out to counterfeit the work of the Holy Spirit; he’s been doing it for thousands of years. I just wish Brother MacArthur wouldn’t help him out by lumping all Charismatics into the same ungodly barrel with all these obvious unbelievers.

CURSING JESUS

I don’t want to go overboard by quoting everything Brother MacArthur said in his sermon on tongues so let me paraphrase what he launches off into concerning Paul’s writings and instruction to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 12. This chapter details the whole gamic of Holy Spirit gifts which Brother MacArthur basically believes was restricted to the “apostolic age;” though I am sure he leaves a few for today’s usage. His remarks come from the following two verses:

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost (I Cor. 12:2-3).

Now this is how Brother MacArthur interpreted this passage. “It got so bad at Corinth that it actually was shocking. Absolutely shocking. Notice verse 2, of chapter 12, he says, “You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray” (that’s a technical term for “flipping out,” going into a trance, being spaced out), “You were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led” I mean you just followed the flow of the mysticism and the ecstasies, you just ‘flipped-out’, you went into your trance. You did that when you were pagans. Verse 3, “Therefore I make known to you,” listen, “no one speaking by the Spirit of God says ‘Jesus is accursed.'” Stop right there. This is unbelievable. Do you know what was happening? Some of those people were “flipping out” into their trance and cursing Jesus, and because it was in a trance like thing they claimed to be the gift of tongues, people were accepting it on the basis of the phenomena, even though the content was blasphemous! What this tells us is that some of this stuff may be more than some humanly induced gibberish; it may be satanic and demonic.” I honestly cannot, in my wildest dreams figure out how

Brother MacArthur came up with this interpretation. Absolutely no where does Paul say that these Corinthians were first: cursing Christ, and second; he never says anything about them flipping out into ecstatic gibberish as they “cursed Jesus.” all Paul was trying to say to these Believers is that, yes, some of the pagans did things like this but the way we know that we aren’t doing that is because we don’t curse Jesus; we praise and magnify Him in the Holy Spirit. He’s saying that the Holy Spirit could never curse Jesus. Actually, Paul is stating there is a clear cut difference between the pagans and the Christians. They curse Christ; we bless Him by the power of the Holy Spirit.

BACKSEAT TONGUES “Even the legitimate gift of tongues took a second seat, for sure, to prophecy, which everyone clearly understood.” Paul never said the gift of tongues in a church service took

a second, or backseat, to prophesy. Paul said, if the tongues utterance was interpreted, it was equal to preaching (I Cor. 14:5).

After this, Brother MacArthur moves off into another explanation of why it is wrong to have a prayer language because the Corinthian Believers were misusing tongues. “Paul is not commending the use of tongues for self- edification, but condemning people who were using the gift in violation of its purpose and in disregard to the principle of love, which he covered in chapter 13. If you do it for yourselves you miss the whole point. It should never be done, except it be interpreted. Right? That eliminates the private prayer language. They were using tongues in Corinth and it wasn’t even the real language gift; it was a fabrication coming from their pagan background. It was a counterfeit and they were doing it to build themselves up; it was egocentric. It was to make them appear spiritual. They wanted to exercise the most spectacular, showy display in front of other believers. Paul’s point is that nobody profits from that kind of exhibition except the person speaking in tongues, and the chief value he gets out of it is to build up his own ego.” Brother MacArthur can’t have it both ways. Here he says what

the Corinthians had was a “fabrication” and a “counterfeit coming from their pagan background.” Earlier he said: “Now, if we grant, and I think we must, that at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians the Spirit of God could still use this unique ability, the fact that it was still a gift in that time and that place in the history of the Church–we know that because Paul said, “Don’t forbid it.” Don’t forbid people to speak in tongues, don’t eliminate it. There is still, he is saying, a place for this (verse 39 of chapter 14), but, he says you must regulate it carefully…” Of course Brother MacArthur has already explained that this

apostolic gift has already passed away so I suppose it makes little difference that one moment he says there was a place for it and then later says the Corinthian Believers never even had the same thing that was evident on the day of Pentecost.

He likewise began his sermon by saying: “You might ask the question, What then is wrong with such an experience? Well, on the one hand, there really isn’t anything particularly evil or immoral about it if you just disassociate it from the Bible and disassociate it from Christianity, and if you get some pleasure out of standing in a corner all by yourself or sitting in your room alone and talking gibberish to yourself and that does something for you, then I suppose in and of itself, from a psychological standpoint, that it’s not a moral issue–it may be harmless. If something makes you feel good or makes you feel somehow better in control of your life, or like you’ve had some warm experience, so be it. But, don’t call it intimacy with God. Don’t say it makes you spiritually stronger, don’t say it makes you delirious with spiritual joy.”

Then throughout the entire rest of his sermon, he does his dead level best to prove tongues isn’t for today, it died out with the last apostle, it’s counterfeit, gibberish mumbo jumbo, ecstatic tongue clucking, Satanic, and evil. I wish he’d make up his mind.

THE GREATER GIFTS

Before leaving this section of Brother MacArthur’s message, he refers to his interpretation on Paul’s statement that the Corinthians should “covet the greater gifts.” “somebody might say, “Well, look at the end of chapter 12, it says, ‘earnestly desire the greater gifts.’ Shouldn’t we take that as, ‘Boy, we really ought to desire this?'” That has to be properly understood. See that little phrase, “but earnestly desire the greater gifts.” People say, “Well, see that’s a good reason for you to go out and desire this gift.” Well, first of all it is in the plural, not singular. It doesn’t say an individual Christian should desire a certain gift. He already has said in chapter 12, verse 11, that the Holy Spirit gives whatever gift He wants to whoever He wants. It isn’t the question of desire, it is sovereignly given. What he is really saying here is this, it should be translated this way, “You are coveting the showy gifts.” It isn’t an imperative, it really should be an indicative. It’s a statement of fact, not a command. And, by the way, in the Greek the imperative and the indicative are the same form. Albert Barnes takes it as the indicative; so do many other commentators: Doderidge (sp.), Locke, McKnight. Barnes observes that the Syriac New Testament renders the verse the same way.” I heard this argument once before when listening to George

Gardner’s tapes on tongues. Fortunately Brother MacArthur says: “It isn’t an imperative, it really should be an indicative. It’s a statement of fact, not a command. And, by the way, in the Greek the imperative and the indicative are the same form. Albert Barnes takes it as the indicative; so do many other commentators…” I’m glad to here that. He is saying that it’s a personal

matter of interpretation. He wants us to believe him, however, and not those who say the opposite. Frankly, I have read over I Corinthians 12 repeatedly and I can’t see it as a negative but then I’m not trying to explain away the gift of tongues.

SECTION 5

TONGUES SHALL CEASE

This section of Brother MacArthur’s sermon primarily deals with proving that tongues has definitely ceased. I won’t quote exactly what he says because his argument is perhaps the most famous of all arguments against tongues.

Here is the passage to which he refers: Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (I Cor. 13:8-13). I took the liberty of quoting the entire passage because

Brother MacArthur, as do so many when using this argument, conveniently leave off the last part which reveals the correct interpretation.

The answer to this problem concerning the end of tongues is quite easy to explain. Paul never said tongues had ceased, he said they would cease at a certain time. If tongues have ceased, then according to Paul’s own statement, so has prophesy and knowledge because they are listed together with tongues.

THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME

Though most say that the phrase “that which is perfect is come” means the Bible has come to be in its final form, Brother MacArthur has a little different twist. He states that this “perfect” reference is to the “eternal state” which he says is the millennial 1000 year reign of Christ upon earth following the seven years of tribulation. He says that tongues and the other gifts will apparently be revived during this time and will die out all together. At least I think that’s what he said; it was kind of hazy. The point he makes, however, is that it is clear that tongues have ceased for now though. Why doesn’t he say prophesy and knowledge has ceased along with tongues? I don’t know.

He then uses another quote by someone who is an expert to remind us that people smarter than us also say tongues have ceased. Besides this, he then names a number of groups who all claimed they spoke with tongues and they all were proven to be a bunch of heretics. This, I’m supposing, confirms tongues have ceased, that is, if these groups he referred to were wrong, well then, shoot, everybody must be wrong right along with them. Listen to what he says: “Now all of these supposed manifestations of tongues were always identified as heretical, fanatical, unorthodox, outside the Church; and we conclude that when they ceased they ceased, and there have been continual off and on fabrications of counterfeit tongues. Since these gifts did cease, the burden of proof is on the Charismatics to prove that what is happening today is valid. Why do we always have to get backed in the corner and prove our case? Why don’t they take the Bible and prove theirs and look at history as well and do the same?” Well, I’m trying to give proper representation but I wonder

if he’s listening. Did you noticed he said, “we conclude that when they ceased they ceased.” He even suggests, that since the early church fathers following the first century didn’t believe in tongues that such proves tongues ceased. It may prove that tongues ceased to be used; it doesn’t prove Biblical tongues died out with the last apostle whoever he was.

WHEN TONGUES CEASE

Since Brother MacArthur seems to think tongues has ceased, at least for now, why don’t we let the Scriptures tell us when tongues is a viable gift of the Holy Spirit and when it could be, and not be, employed by Holy Spirit filled people. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Acts 2:14-21). Peter, after being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking

in tongues, apparently switching back into the common language of the day, began to explain to the onlookers what they were witnessing. Peter said that this was the age of the Holy Spirit come to the church of God. He says this out pouring of the Spirit of God, and the things which accompany the out pouring, are going to continue throughout the entire period of the “last days.” Lest Brother MacArthur misunderstand and misinterpret what Peter meant by the “last days,” Peter continued by revealing the signs which reveal the last days period of time. I am not writing on the prophetic events in time talked about in the Bible but suffice it to say that Peter clearly states that the “last days” is a period of time where anyone calling upon the name of the Lord can be saved (Acts 2:21). Whenever the time comes that people on earth cannot call upon the name of the Lord to be saved will be the time that the Holy Spirit is not poured out upon God’s children. That is when tongues, and all other Holy Spirit gifts, will cease permanently. Can we call upon the name of the Lord to be saved today? If so, Peter says this is the period of time the Holy Spirit gifts are available. If Brother MacArthur says we aren’t living in the last days, then I give up. I don’t know any fundamentalist evangelical who would try and say that we aren’t living in those last days to which the Scriptures refer.

SECTION 6

WHAT THE CHARISMATICS ARE REALLY DOING

Brother MacArthur finally takes off the Christian gloves and launches an all out attack on these ungodly, unholy, demonized, egotistical tongue talking Charismatics in his closing remarks. Though lengthy, I feel it important to allow the readers of this booklet, in light of those who have not heard his sermon, to read exactly what he said. “Now, that leads us to a concluding thought. What kind of things are they doing then? What is going on? How do we explain what they do? Well, if you ask them they will say things like this, What’s the use in speaking in tongues? The only way I can answer that is to say, “What’s the use of a Bluebird? What’s the use of a sunset? Just sheer, unmitigated uplift. Just joy unspeakable and with it health, and peace, and rest, and release from burdens and tensions.” Boy, that’s pretty great stuff! Or they might say, When I started praying in tongues I felt, (and people told me) I looked 20 years younger. I am built up, I am given joy, courage, peace, the sense of God’s presence, and I happen to be a weak personality who needs this. Now, that kind of testimony is a pretty heavy pitch, pretty powerful. If it can give you health, happiness, and make you look younger, then the potential market is unlimited. On the other hand the evidence to support such claims is dubious. Would anyone seriously argue, seriously, that today’s tongues speakers live holier lives? Live more consistent lives than believers who don’t speak in tongues? What about all the Charismatic leaders in recent years whose lives have proved to be morally and spiritually bankrupt? And does the evidence show that Charismatic Churches are, on the whole, spiritually stronger and more solid than Bible believing churches that do not advocate the gifts? The truth is, you must look long and diligently to find a Charismatic fellowship where spiritual growth and Biblical understanding are genuinely at the heart. If that kind of stuff doesn’t produce more spiritual Christians or believers who are better informed theologically, then what is it doing? And what of the many former tongue speakers who testify they didn’t experience peace, satisfaction, power, joy, or find the fountain of youth when they spoke in tongues. Why does it produce so much disillusionment? Why is the emotional high in the initial ecstatic experience harder and harder to duplicate? No, it is significant to note that Pentecostals and Charismatics can’t substantiate their claim that what they are doing is the Biblical gift. There’s really no evidence to prove it. There is no evidence that it’s language. You say then, “What is it?” Could be demonic. Could be satanic. I think it was in Corinth, in some cases. Could be that. Ecstatic speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don’t know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? It could be demonic. Secondly, it could be learned behavior; you just learn how to do it. If you can go to the Hunter’s seminar, they will “jump start” you. It could be psychological. It could be a kind of a self-induced hypnosis, a kind of a trance, where you just yield up all of your will, and you yield up your vocal cords and you empty out your brain, and the power of suggestion takes over and you become psychologically induced. And once you have that experience, you then learn to do it and just do it. Many studies have been done to show that it is psychological. But the burden of proof is really not on us to prove what it is. Suffice it to say that this unique gift given for the Apostolic time is irreproducible today, and whatever purports to be that is not that; it is something counterfeit. A myriad of studies, which I’ll deal with in the book [Charismatic Chaos], and when you get a copy you can read them in detail, give evidence of the fact that motor-autonomism (sp.), ecstasy, hypnosis, psychic-catharsis, collective psyche, memory excitation, and all other kind of terms are used to describe people who go into these kinds of trance like experiences. And then on the majority of occasions it is just learned behavior. You just learn to say it and so you say it. It is interesting to me that I have listened to people speak in tongues in many different parts of this country, on many different occasions, through many years, and I find very similar verbiage, so what they learn kind of gets filtered and passed through the whole movement.” I’m sorry Brother MacArthur, we are not attempting to market

the Holy Spirit and His gifts. I object to the implication that we are playing around with God’s holiness and commercializing that which we consider Holy and sacred before God.

Why would you Brother MacArthur take a potshot at former Charismatic leaders who have fallen morally when you know as well as I that just as many Baptist, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, episcopalians, and any other denomination one wishes to name, has had many of their leaders fall into all kinds of horrible sin. That doesn’t prove what they preached was wrong; it only proves the devil is out to get anybody and everybody he can. He will especially hit those highly visible to the unregenerate world since that’s where it will do the most damage. Besides, Judas betrayed Christ and he was one of the twelve disciples. Does that mean all the other disciples were rotten? Should we refuse to believe Christ because of the downfall of one of His own disciples?

I resent the implication that one will have to “look long and diligently to find a Charismatic fellowship where spiritual growth and Biblical understanding are genuinely at the heart.” After a statement like that, I wouldn’t accuse the Charismatics of being too egotistical if I were you. I can, Brother MacArthur, name a dozen such Charismatic churches right here in Denver alone which don’t have to take a backseat to any one in the areas of evangelism, Bible teaching and instruction, missions, family support, personal Bible studies for new Believers, doctrine, and every form of the Christian walk you would like to name. Are you, my Brother, the only one doing the Lord’s work? I am shock that a man of your stature and spiritual reputation would make such an arrogant criticism as though you were the final judge of what is, or is not, going on in the Body of Christ.

I also feel sorry for those “tongue speakers” to which you referred who never experienced “peace, satisfaction, power, joy,” or found “the fountain of youth when they spoke in tongues. I know a lot more former Christians who have left church for good who claim the same thing and they never spoke in tongues nor believed in it. Perhaps all these miserable former Charismatics could find what they lost under your ministry. I hope so.

It isn’t any more difficult for me to speak in tongues today than it was when I received the gift. Those who claim it becomes more difficult are always those who are beginning to doubt the gift of tongues is real, often because they’ve read and heard sermon such as yours, and they attempt to continue exercising the gift in the flesh. The flesh is always a poor substitute for the ministry and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The reason Brother MacArthur only says, “Could be demonic. Could be satanic. I think it was in Corinth, in some cases,” is because he’s smart enough to know what Jesus said concerning committing the unpardonable sin. This unforgivable sin, is attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the works of the devil. [See Matt. 12:22-32.]

By the way, I personally don’t care what Joseph Smith said about tongues Brother MacArthur. He was a heretic and everybody but the Mormons know it.

finally, if Brother MacArthur has been proven incorrect in a number of areas of Biblical interpretation, how in the world can we believe him when he says all the Charismatics of the world have “filtered and passed” verbiage all through the hole movement. Has he examined every utterance since the closing of the “apostolic age” which he has referred to so often throughout his message? His statement is humorous, not to mention unbecoming, for a man of his intelligence.

WORSE THAN TONGUES

Though I won’t quote him, Brother MacArthur finished his sermon by telling his people there are many things worse than tongues today. One he says is “Gossip!” That’s right. He says gossip is worse than speaking in tongues. Boy, if them there wild tongue talking Charismatics are demonized, what must the rest of the gossipers be in the church. God help us!

FINAL REMARKS

It would be superfluous to comment on everything Brother MacArthur said in his message because so many things overlap. I touched on all those things that seemed necessary to clarify; especially those things relating to his interpretation of Scripture.

As I said in the beginning, I, too, believed all these things as a Baptist but once I really began to examine the Scriptures and question the things I was told the Bible said for myself, I realized that we had twisted our interpretations to match what we wanted to believe. If John MacArthur, or as in my case the Baptists, were to begin to question their interpretation of these things, they would have big problems with their brethren. I did and had to leave my Baptist church lest I be voted out of the church. These people that believe the gift of tongues has passed away are so afraid of Charismatics that they won’t even fellowship with them, for the most part, on even a casual bases. The devil has done a good job scaring them.

Here’s what I always suggest to those wishing to discover the answer to this question of the doctrine of tongues. In mid 1985 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 lead into the baptism of the Holy Spirit in my autobiography: “Liquid Purple.” Needless to say, after two months of search God and His Word for the answer, I was filled with the Holy Spirit in August of 1985. 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 being 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

Denver, Colorado

Electronic Library Exchange
BBS: 303-935-6323
FidoNet 1:104/810.0
EchoNet: 50:5015/810.0
FamilyNet: 8:7703/11.0
CFC 8:7000/49.0
CFN: 8:3012/11.0
CDN: 8:7003/2020.0

End Of File