Dr Greg Bahnsen - Modern Tongues Movement: Conclusion (Part 6)

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

We come today, finally to the sixth and final installment of our series on the modern tongues movement. And I'm going to take as our scripture reading again First Corinthians, the 14th chapter. So let's turn in our Scriptures to First Corinthians 14. Let us all hear the word of God. Paul says, follow after love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts. But rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. For no man understandeth but in the Spirit. He speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men. Edification and exhortation and consolation. He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself. But he that prophesieth, Edifieth the church. Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye would prophesy. And greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret that the church may receive edifying. But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you, either by way of revelation or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching, even things without life giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war? So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For you shall be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian. And he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me. So also ye, since ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek ye that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. How 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. Else, if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unborn say thee amen at the giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest, for thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank God I speak with tongues more than you all. Howbeit, in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding than I might instruct others also than 10,000 words in a tongue. Brethren, be not children in mind, yet in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men. In the law it is written by the men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people, and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving. But prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe. If, therefore the whole church be assembled together, and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all, he is judged by all. The secrets of his heart are made manifest, and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed. What is it then, brethren, when ye come together? Each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God, and let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What was it from you that the word of God went forth, or came it unto you alone? If any man thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore my brethren desire earnestly to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues, but let all things be done decently and in order, and thus far the Reading of God's Word we began six weeks ago to deal with the modern tongues movement, and we've looked at various aspects of the theology of the Neopentecostal or Charismatic movement. And I'd like today simply to take the opportunity to give you some background historically on that movement, to tell you something about its distinctive claims, and then to summarize what we have learned from the Word of God by way of contrast to what the Charismatics have been teaching in our day. I suppose before I even begin, I need to remind you that to even speak of this movement as the Charismatic movement is to acquiesce to a modern tendency. It is certainly not linguistically legitimate to speak of those who desire or make claim to the gift of prophecy and healing in tongues. It is not linguistically legitimate to say that they alone are the Charismatics. You recall that Paul uses the word charisma in the charismatic gifts, simply of whatever gift God gives a person by his grace. Charismatic comes from the Greek word ultimately charis, which means grace. Any gift of grace is charismatic, and that's why Paul speaks of the charismatic gift of celibacy in First Corinthians, chapter 7. In fact, Paul says, one man has this gift, another man has the other. And so the gift of being able to have a good, stable marriage is a charismatic gift as well. And so anybody who has gifts of the Spirit, and we all have been distributed by the Spirit various abilities to work for the edification of the Church. Anybody who has such a gift is a charismatic. However, in our day and age, this term charismatic has come to denote especially the unique or extraordinary gifts like miracles or speaking in tongues or prophecy. And so I will, for the sake of convenience, go ahead and use that modern terminology. But I remind you it is not biblical terminology to say that these people alone are charismatic. All of us who name the name of Christ are charismatic. A number of things are happening today in the charismatic movement that impress a lot of people. I'm struck with the opening words of a recent book by John MacArthur on the charismatic movement, and I can't resist reading them to you. I think it's a good opening for our thoughts today, he says. Startling things are happening among Christians today. Amazing claims abound that God is doing signs, wonders, and miracles. These claims are being broadcast by Word of mouth, the printed page, television and radio, and at a rate so prolific that they can hardly be cataloged, let alone verified. Fantastic encounters with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are reported as commonplace. Healings of all kinds are reported. It's not unusual to hear striking testimonies about how God has corrected spinal injuries and lengthened legs and removed cancerous tissue in response to faith. One seemingly omniscient cross Christian TV talk show host discerns that miracles and healings of various types are happening right during his broadcast. He urges viewers to call in and tell of claiming certain healings that are available. Not surprisingly, many do so. Some of these miracles seem almost bizarre. Puppies are raised from the dead. Washing machines are healed. Empty gas tanks are supernaturally filled. People are slain. That is knocked flat by the Holy Spirit. One lady reports being given a new belly button. A man named Marvin Ford testifies that he has actually been to heaven and back. Amazing experiences like these seem to be the order of the day as God, in an apparent hyperkinetic outburst, puts on a supernatural performance rivaled only by the six days of creation and the Egyptian plagues. There's not a little tongue in cheek in those words, but they're very appropriate nonetheless in our day and age. One, if they were to be so gullible as to believe, all the reports we hear should have to think that the greatest outpouring of miracles ever take place in the history of man, much less the Christian church, has taken place in our own day. The reports do come in by the thousands as to what God is doing. And these reports, you will find, are all connected to what is the Charismatic or Neopentecostal movement. Let me say just a little bit historically about the Pentecostal movement. Something that will help you, I hope, put this in perspective. The Pentecostal movement is, surprisingly enough, restricted. It is limited historically to the 20th century. It is a uniquely 20th century phenomenon. Now, claims to tongue speaking claims to miracles and prophecy are to be found previously in the Christian church. But the amazing thing to anybody who studied church history is how extremely rare they are. Comparatively minor. If you do a study of the Christian church from the earliest days of the apostles to our own day, you will find that the extra exception to the rule is a Christian church in some locale that claims that its people or its minister have these miraculous gifts. And the sad fact is that often enough in the history of the Christian church for 1800 years, those who have claimed these sorts of gifts have been heretical groups and cultic groups as well. One thinks of the Montanists in the early couple centuries, the Christian Church, the Montanists believed that they were super spiritual. God had given them revelations which they said were superior to the word of God. These revelations led them to say things which were condemned as heretical by others in the church, those that would be considered the mainline and orthodox theologians of the Church. The Montanists felt that Jesus Christ was returning in their own day. To me, it's fascinating and I'd like to do a study sometime just of this one facet of the movement. How often those who have laid claim to the extraordinary charismatic gifts have also been those who have predicted the coming of Jesus Christ in their lifetime. That seems always to be one of the things God is telling these people that Jesus is coming right then and there. And as you can tell from the fact that we're here worshiping this morning, these claims have always been false, which of course we must conclude makes these people false prophets. God's word. Well, the Montanists were one such group. And the commissars, the urbanites, the Catholic Apostolic Church laid claim to these sorts of things, as did the Shakers and the Mormon Church. These are the outstanding examples previous to the 19th century, or, excuse me, the 20th century, in the first 1900 years of the church people making claim to these extraordinary charismatic gifts. So it's comparatively minor and usually confined to heretical and cultic groups. Now, how do the Charismatics explain that? Well, I think it's fascinating to listen to or to read the charismatic account of church history. The Charismatics explain the comparative silence of church history by saying that throughout the history of the church, after the Apostolic Generation, people were sinning against God. God's people were sinning. They were not believing fully the promises of God and their love had waxed cold. And that's why we wait till the 20th century for the revival of the extraordinary charismatic gifts. In fact, not a little twisting of the scripture is used to help verify this thought. Of course, in the Old Testament prophets, you think of Hosea, there was the prophecy of the early and later rains. God would give showers of blessing the earlier and the later, which referred of course, to the agricultural tendency of that day for the rain to be given in these two periods. But nevertheless, the Charismatics say that is but symbolic of the fact that God gave the early rains, the Apostolic generation, and then the later reigns are going to be the 20th century outpouring of the charismatic gifts. Not a little bit suspect, I should say, that this sort of thing would have to be read into The Word of God. But nevertheless, even as I have expounded to you, these extraordinary gifts were for the apostolic generation. Even the charismatics have to say, for the most part, they are restricted to the apostolic generation. And then in the 20th century, we find a great outpouring again. By the way, you might want to stop and think about this line of explanation if, as a matter of fact, we are to account for 1800 years of comparative silence for the extraordinary charismatic gifts of on the basis that the love of many had waxed cold. One thinks of the many martyrs and the reformers and the great preachers of the faith who have to be concluded to have had love that waxed cold because they didn't have these extraordinary gifts. But even if that doesn't bother you, what are we to make of the comparative silence of the New Testament about these extraordinary gifts, even in an age where we grant God was doing these sorts of things? The amazing thing is for anybody who will study the 27 books of the New Testament and is that these gifts are mentioned in only two of the 27 books. The day of Pentecost, in Acts, and a few other minor outpourings after the day of Pentecost, when the Gospel was spreading to the various boundaries, Jesus had spoken of Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth. And then after that we read of it only in Paul's Corinthian Epistle. The latter epistles of the New Testament mention nothing of the spiritual gifts that the charismatics are interested in today. In fact, many people, although it would strictly be an argument from silence, many people have concluded that the relative silence of the New Testament indicates that already in the ages of the apostles we see the tapering off of these gifts in the pastoral epistles when qualifications for the office of elder are given or deacon. You notice that never does Paul say somebody must have the spiritual gift of prophecy or speaking in tongues or miracles in order to qualify for office. That is, the very leaders in the church in the second generation of the church, the post apostolic generation of the church, were not expected to have these gifts. I think that's conspicuous by its silence. And so if the Pentecostalists are right that the silence of church history to the charismatic gifts indicates love that's waxed cold, then we'd have to say that love was waxing cold already in the New Testament as well, which I find very hard to accept. Well, however you account for the silence throughout church history, the charismatic experience is a uniquely 20th century experience. And I'd like to Give you, in the words of Anthony Hoikma, the history of the Pentecostal movement in our. I think it's very easy to give, and I will make use of this. He says that In October of 1900, a former Methodist minister, Charles Parham, opened a Bible college in Topeka, Kansas. Parham had been caught up in the holiness movement, which was then at its height. He believed that sanctification was a second definite work of grace which completely destroyed inbred sin. You'll remember that previously I've told you about the holiness movement, the idea of a second work of grace for entire sanctification, and that the Pentecostal movement is built right on that, and that's what we're seeing here. He was also convinced that after one had obtained real sanctification and the anointing that abides, there still remained a great outpouring of power which Christians should experience now. Just before Christmas in the year 1900, Parham, who was leaving for school for three days, leaving the school for three days, ask his students to learn from the Bible whether there is any evidence given for the baptism with the Holy Spirit, a blessing he felt the converted and sanctified believer ought still to receive. When Parham returned, he was amazed to find that all 40 of his students had come to the identical conclusion. When the Pentecostal blessing fell, the indisputable proof on each occasion was it they spake with other tongues. The group now actively began to seek a baptism with the Holy Spirit, the evidence of which was to be an ecstatic utterance in tongues. Take note of that. The group then sought the baptism of the Spirit and the gift of tongues on January 1, 1901. And thus, as Pentecostalists remind us at the very beginning of the 20th century, Ms. Agnes Osmond, one of Parham's students, became the first of this group to speak in tongues after Parham had laid his hands on her. This experience is called by Pentecostals the beginning of the modern Pentecostal revival. The important thing to see here is that the Pentecostals themselves date this revival, this movement, from January 1, 1901. Soon, other students began to speak with tongues, as did Parham himself. The latter became convinced that every Christian ought to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which he and his students had experienced and ought to speak with tongues. As proof that he had received this baptism. Parham now began to bring the Pentecostal message, or what he called the full gospel message, to various other cities. Kansas city, Missouri, Lawrence, Kansas, El Dorado Springs, Missouri, Galena, Kansas Joplin, Missouri Orchard in Houston, Texas. In 1905, Parham started a Bible school in Houston, Texas. Now, among those who attended. This is the next step now in the development of the Pentecostal movement. Among those who attended the Houston school and became convinced of the rightness of the Pentecostal message was W.J. seymour, a Negro Holiness preacher. Around this time, a Negro woman from Los Angeles, Neely Terry by name, visited Houston, attended Mr. Seymour's church there and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues. She was so impressed by Seymour that she persuaded the Los Angeles church to which she belonged to invite the brother to come and preach. Seymour's first message in Los Angeles, however, aroused such hostility that the visiting preacher found himself locked out of the church. When he returned for the afternoon service, they bolted the door and wouldn't let the man back in. Undaunted, Seymour began to conduct meetings in a home. And here on April 9, 1906, seven persons were baptized with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues. These happenings attracted so much attention that the group soon moved to a building on Azusa street which had formerly been a church, but had more recently been used as a livery stable. At this unpretentious place, Seymour continued to conduct services. Services which were attended by growing numbers of people from various denominations and races. These meetings continued for three years and became the center of the Pentecostal movement. People came from all over the country to the Azusa Street Mission to receive the baptism with the Spirit and the evidential sign of tongues. There now followed years of rapid growth. The so called Pentecostal Revival spread to Chicago, Winnipeg and New York city. Soon after 1906, a full gospel could be found on every continent. The movement continued to grow until today it's estimated that there are at least 26 churches or denominations which consider themselves as part of the Pentecostal movement. Where does all this come from? It doesn't come from the Reformation, it doesn't come from the Great Awakening. It doesn't come from the Middle Ages or the Apostolic Church. This comes from the 20th century. I mean, the Pentecostals pride themselves on the fact. 1901, finally you have somebody speaking in tongues. And around this, Reverend Parham then grows up a Pentecostal group. He starts a school in Houston, Texas. And then the second stage comes when this woman from Los Angeles has the gift of tongues, comes back and wants Seymour to come preach. He's bolted out of the church. He starts the Azusa Street Mission. And that is the origin of the Pentecostal movement. 1901 and 1906, and all the rest is history. Except I should mention that 1960. A new phase then, can be added to the history of the Pentecostal movement. 1960. We have the beginning of what has been termed the neo pentecostal movement. It all began with a fellow by the name of Dennis Bennett, who was the rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in van nuys, California. That's a little bit awkward for those of us in southern California to have to take note of the fact that it's the azusa church mission in van nuys, California, that are noted for the two big leaps, the quantum leaps ahead for the pentecostal movement. Anyway, this rector of St. Mark's through the influence of a couple in his neighborhood, received the gift of tongues and found it to be an exhilarating spiritual experience, the effects of which spilled over into his daily life. Soon there were about 70 persons in his congregation who had spoken in tongues, including the best known members of the church. Since the congregation was divided on the issue, Rev. Bennett resigned his rectorship on April 3, 1960, and the publicity following his resignation spread the news of this new outburst of tongues far and wide. Now, the significance of this is that the tongues movement had, up until 1960, been restricted to pentecostal churches and denominations. But with the widespread news of this episcopalian rector's resignation, it was clear that the pentecostal movement had invaded the mainline denominations as well. And so what is called neopentecostalism since 1960 has been the continued growth of the charismatic movement, but into all of the mainline churches, and not just those who would restrict themselves to the name pentecostal or assemblies of God or full gospel or what have you. Well, let's examine then the claims made for this unique 20th century movement, the charismatic movement. I'd like to just go through the ones that over the last five weeks we've been looking at. I'll add a couple more today, and I think that'll be sufficient for our instruction. The pentecostalists, the charismatic movement, tell us that greater works were promised by Jesus to his disciples, that greater works would be done. The pentecostalists interpret this as miracles. Greater miracles would be done by the followers of Jesus than were even done by Jesus himself. And here I think we have a sterling example of, first of all, their inability to interpret the word of God properly, and secondly, to understand the facts of history. If the greater works spoken of by Jesus are indeed greater miracles, then that the passage of scripture has not been fulfilled. As I've told you before, no Pentecostalist that I know claims to walk on water or to feed 5,000 with a few loaves of bread. The greater miracles have just not been done. Even the giving of a new belly button and the raising of a puppy don't match up to the works of Jesus in the New Testament. The greater works spoken of there were quite clearly the works of spreading the gospel and preaching were. For Jesus was rejected by all men and not even understood by his closest followers. The apostles had the privilege of seeing 3,000 added to the church in one day and the Gospel established throughout all the known world. And that march of the gospel called the Great Commission. Remember, the greater works Jesus has spoken of, the Great Commission has been in the process of fulfillment ever since that time. As further examples of how the Pentecostalists seize upon scriptural passages to hopefully prove their points. But it seems to me only twist the passages to their own destruction. In Matthew 10, 19, 20, we read these. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak, for it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaks in you. The Pentecostalists seize upon this in claim that that is a promise for us that God will give us utterance, that the Holy Spirit will give us our words. The difficulty here is that the promise given by Jesus, however, is not a general promise given to the Church. It was a promise given to the 12 that in the midst of the tribulation they would experience by preaching the Gospel, the Holy Spirit would supply them with words. There's no general promise here whatsoever. The same kind of thing applies to John 14:26, where in the upper room Jesus speaks of the giving of the Holy Spirit. And he says, but the comforter. When the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send you in my name, comes, he shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. And here, the Pentecostalists say the passage applies to us. The Holy Spirit's been given to us, and now the Holy Spirit's leading us into all truth. But you see, the very next phrase tells you very plainly that Jesus was talking to his followers. The Holy Spirit will bring to your remembrance all that I said to you in my earthly ministry. The promise was not a general one to Christians. It was to the apostles themselves. Or we think of Hebrews 13:8, where Jesus Christ is described as the same yesterday, today, and forever Pentecostal say, well, if Jesus was giving tongues and yesterday in the age of the New Testament, and he's the same always, he must be giving tongues today. And by the same logic, he must be giving tongues forever. The only problem being that in First Corinthians 13, Paul says tongues will cease. And so quite clearly, what we have here is you have to be very careful when you deal with Pentecostalists because they have a tendency to take passages out of context and apply them, I think, ex post facto, after the fact, that to their preconceived conclusion that tongues must be for today they have not been found to be a group that is very faithful in terms of the handling of God's Word. And that should make us initially suspect, I believe. Secondly, the Pentecostalists tell us that the day of Pentecost was a model for the repeatable experience of Christians throughout the history of the church. Pentecost was not a unique historical occasion. It was but a model of things that were going to continue to happen. However, In Acts the second chapter, verse 33, we are told, Luke tells us on God's own authority, that what Peter said about the day of Pentecost is that Jesus, having ascended on high, poured forth this Spirit in fulfillment of the promise that was made at his own baptism that he would baptize in spirit and fire. The Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost was part of the accomplishment of our redemption by Jesus Christ. It was not a repeatable experience. It was a unique once for all experience to be likened to the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Christ is not repeatedly dying. He's not repeatedly rising from the dead. He's not repeatedly ascending, and he's not repeatedly pouring out the Spirit on the church in the way that he did on the day of Pentecost. Pentecostalists tell us that spirit baptism is subsequent to conversion and that it takes place only for some believers. However, in First Corinthians 12:13 we have seen that spirit baptism is for all believers and that it takes place when they are incorporated into the body of Christ at their conversion. First Corinthians 12:13 is a passage that you should keep in mind for your speaking with Pentecostal brothers and sisters and the Lord. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond are free, and we're all made to drink of one Spirit. We all have been baptized with the Spirit, and it took place when we were baptized into the body of Christ. All believers at their incorporation into the church at the time of their conversion have been baptized with the Spirit. The difficulty with the Pentecostalist doctrine is that it divides the church, you see, into the haves and the have nots, those who have the charismatic gifts and those who don't have the charismatic gifts. And inevitably, even as their interpretation of church history, all of church history up to the 20th century is a history of cold love for the Lord and inability to believe the full promises of God. That same sort of application is made to the church today that those who don't speak in tongues are the have nots. There's something wrong with them. They don't have the power to lead an effective Christian life in this day. In First Corinthians 12:25, however, Paul stressed the equality of all members in the body of Christ. He said that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care, one for another. This is even the more unseemly members of the body have the greater honor that it's not right for us to divide the members of Christ's body into the superior and inferior, the haves and the have nots. Is it the case that spirit baptism and speaking in tongues, as the Pentecostalists understand it, that these things equip for effective Christian living? I pointed out to you that in Luke 24:53 we already see the boldness of the disciples and their constant love for Jesus Christ day by day being manifest before the day of Pentecost, even before the outpouring of the Spirit there. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12, moreover, that not all Christians speak in tongues, and yet he clearly thinks that all Christians are to lead effective Christian lives, that all have a form of service in the church, and all are able to be a witness for Jesus Christ by their lifestyle and their word. We move on then to the claim of the Pentecostalist, having said that greater things are to be done and that Pentecost is a model for Christian experience, both of these claims being contrary to the word of God. The Pentecostals tell us thirdly that all the gifts of the spirit mentioned in 1st Corinthians 12 or Ephesians 4 or Romans 12 are to be in the church and to continue in the church, to be exercised in the church until the coming of Jesus Christ again. But if you read those lists, you'll find in all three cases, the first gift mentioned is the gift of the apostles. And unless somebody believes that the apostles have continued in the church up until today, until Jesus Comes again, we cannot buy the general claim that all these gifts are for all ages of the Church. The fourth claim of the Pentecostal churches is that spirit baptism is always signalized by the speaking in tongues. The evident disproof of that is Paul's own word in First Corinthians 12:30, where he says, not all speak in tongues, do they? Paul says, not everybody has the gift of tongues. And yet he's already said, all have been baptized in the Spirit. And so even in the apostolic age, it wasn't true that all baptized in the Spirit spoke in tongues. Much less would it be true. Today, Pentecostalists want to tell us, fifthly, that tongues is ideally a gift for all people. However, ideally, all should speak in tongues. After all, doesn't Paul say in First Corinthians 14, verse 5, Now I would have you all speak with tongues? In verse 23, Paul says, if therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned. So Paul says that ideally everybody should speak in tongues. The problem being that in the Greek construction, both of these phrases are hypothetical. And if all speak with tongues, Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 7, he would that all men were, as himself, unmarried. And as I pointed out, if that were true, I mean, if Paul were sending that forth as some kind of definite thing to be sought by everybody, as the tongue speakers say, there wouldn't be a second generation of the Christian church, for none would be married and there wouldn't be any children born to believers. The fact of the matter is Paul always says, if all speak in tongues, the better thing is that you prophesy. So the hypothetical construction does not justify the ideal experience of tongue speaking. And it's at this point I think we should say just a word about the proportion and emphasis that the charismatics put on tongues. Charismatics make tongues. If you've had any experience with them at all, normative for the Christian life, this is crucial. We should be seeking this. It is encouraged in the churches, as I will say later, they actually have instructions for how you can learn to speak in tongues. We all should be seeking it. It's ideal. But is that the emphasis Paul had? No, it wasn't. First Corinthians 14:19, Paul said, In the church, I'd rather speak five words with my understanding than 10,000 words in a tongue. The proportion for Paul is he'd rather have a five word sermon, you see, than to go on for 10,000 words in a tongue. His emphasis was clear Then, upon understandable speech, the exhortation in understandable language of God's word. The charismatics, however, believe that tongues are given for the individual's enjoyment, for the individual's strengthening, for the individual's spiritual satisfaction. Yet Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12:7 that the gifts of the Spirit are given not for the sake of the individual, but for the sake of the corporate body. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. The profit is for all in Christ's body, and the experience is not for the sake of the individual. First Corinthians 14:12 tells us as well, so also ye, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church. So once again, we have to fault the Pentecostal experience in terms of the emphasis that is put on it. Even if tongues were for today, even if these passages of Scripture had not been twisted and perverted, even if everything was all right in terms of their foundational teaching, the emphasis put on that teaching is wrong. Paul's emphasis is not the same that the Pentecostalists give us today. Moreover, the Pentecostalists tell us they lay claim to a private and devotional use for tongues. Often enough, when you point out that tongues are not to have emphasis within the corporate body, they'll say, yes, but we're all to seek tongues and for our private individual use. Well, Paul's already said that tongues are for the sake of the corporate body for the most part. But the emphasis in the Pentecostal movement comes upon the private devotional use of tongues. Paul does say in 1 Corinthians 14:4, he that speaks in a tongue edifies himself. And in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul also tells us that if there should be no interpreter in the church, the tongue speaker should keep silence and speak to himself and to God. Now the question is, do these verses in fact teach us that there is a private devotional, if you will, in your closet, use for tongues? Well, I'm not going to say they definitely exclude it, but I don't see that they warrant the idea that you can go home and speak in tongues to yourself. Paul simply says, if there's no interpreter, it'd be better for you to speak to yourself. Speak to God. It doesn't say, go home and speak to yourself and speak to God. But you should keep quiet in the church if you think the Spirit's leading you to say something. But there's no interpreter present. And so I Don't see that there's even any definite evidence for a devotional use of tongues at home. But the important thing to see is that even if there is a devotional use of tongues, Paul says in First Corinthians 14, the tongue must be interpreted if it's to be edifying. There is no use of tongues apart from edification, even of the individual. And the individual is not edified if the tongue is not interpreted. The conclusion we have to draw is that if a person is to speak in tongues at home, the person must also be given the gift of interpretation at home so that that experience of tongues will not be for nothing. Paul says, I will sing and I will pray in the Spirit, but with the understanding as well. I recently had the experience of being told in a person's home that the Holy Spirit leads this person to speak ecstatically, just to go on and on and on. And although this person doesn't know what he or she is saying, nevertheless that is an exhilarating spiritual experience given by God. Well, no, it's not an exhilarating spiritual experience. It may be psychological release, it may be emotionally satisfying, but it has nothing to do with religious values, nothing to do with the word of God. For Paul says, edification comes only through the understanding. This leads us sixthly to the difficulty that the modern tongues movement tells us the tongues is, as a matter of fact, ecstatic speech. It may not correspond to any known human language, like French or German or Zulu or Spanish or what have you, but it's just some kind of mumble jumble of syllables. And yet in the Bible, that isn't what tongues was at all. On the day of Pentecost, tongues was speaking an unlearned foreign language for the sake of the visitors present, who could then hear the Gospel in their own language. In the Book of First Corinthians, Paul tells us that the tongues were interpretable, that is to say, translatable. They were ordinary language of men, expressions that were miraculously given to people and then interpreted by others. They were not mumble jumble. They were not babble, if you will. And even when Paul speaks of the tongues of angels, we aren't to assume that angels babble either. So the modern tongues movement, if nothing else, is convicted to be contrary to the word of God. And that what they call tongues is not what the Bible calls tongues. And over that barrier, the Pentecostalists and Charismatics can cannot leap. We have to add to this criticism of the tongues movement that although in the New Testament, tongues were not Given with instruction, tongues came surprisingly upon people and by the Spirit's miraculous work. Modern tongues, speakers and teachers actually give instructions to help their people prime the the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit. And I do say that tongue in cheek. I'm not sure how you can prime the Holy Spirit to give such a miracle, but I'd like to read to you. This isn't just what people who have actually heard said orally in their meetings, but these things are actually written up. I'd like to read just a couple of illustrations for you. Larry Christensen, who many of you will know as a writer on Christian family life, is a charismatic Lutheran writer, has this to in order to speak in tongues, you have to quit praying in English. Well, I think that's a price too big to be paid, frankly. But nevertheless, in order to speak in tongues, you must stop praying in English. You simply lapse into silence and resolve to speak not a syllable of any language you have ever heard. Your thoughts are focused on Christ, and then you simply lift up your voice and speak out confidently in the faith that the Lord will take the sound you give him and and shape it into a language. You take no thought of what you are saying. So far as you are concerned, it is just a series of sounds. The first sounds will sound strange and unnatural to your ear, and they may be halting and inarticulate. But have you ever heard a baby learning to talk? And how God is supposed to be glorified by that procedure is far from explained to me in anything I've ever read by the Pentecostalist. Harold Bredesen has written as well that the following instructions should be kept if you're going to speak in tongues, first, think visually and concretely rather than abstractly. For example, try to visualize Jesus as a person. Secondly, consciously yield your voice and organ of speech to the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, repeat certain elementary sounds which the author here says to say, such as ba, ba, ba, or something similar. And then this account of the Yale meeting in which he was giving these instructions goes on. He then laid his hands on the head of each speaker, prayed for him, and the seeker did actually speak in tongues by beginning by saying ba, ba, ba and letting whatever came out come out. The difficulty here, of course, is that in the New Testament, nobody ever stopped praying in their native language and kept utter silence and resolved never to speak a known word so that they could then speak in the gift of tongues. Paul commanded, in fact, that we pray with our understanding and not that we seek to say things which would make no difference to us. They were just unintelligible sounds. In fact, in the New Testament you won't find any instruction given to facilitate the miracle. The miracle comes by the Holy Spirit's operation, not with the laying on of hands necessarily, and comes often. Surprisingly. We begin to look at the tongues movement. And the sad fact is that from beginning to end we cannot endorse this. The greater gifts promised by Jesus were not tongues. Pentecost is not a model for the repeatable experience of the Christian Holy Spirit. Baptism is not subsequent to conversion. It's not only for some individuals. It's not always signalized by the speaking of tongues. Speaking in tongues is not ecstatic nonsense babble. Speaking in tongues is not primed in the New Testament. Moreover, the Pentecostalists tell us that tongues originate in the non rational inner human spirit. For Paul said that when he spoke in a tongue, it wasn't his understanding that was fertile, it was his spirit. And the Pentecostalists tell us today that that justifies the irrationality of the language or the sounds being made. Because it comes from this inner depth of feeling that really has a lot more to do with Freudian psychology than it has to do with any biblical understanding of anthropology. Man is not made up of a rational irrational part, with the irrational being the seething cauldron underneath that sometimes bursts forward. And then with the speaking of tongues. Paul said that he prayed that he spoke in tongues with his Spirit. He meant the Holy Spirit in him. The gift of the Spirit is what leads to tongues. And that isn't a non rational spirit. We come eighthly to the claim that tongues are for today. The Pentecostalists say all of us should speak in tongues. But it's a legitimate gift for today. But we've seen that in First Corinthians, chapter 13, Paul said that when the perfect comes, the complete comes. Tongues would cease. And what is the perfect? What is the complete? What is being completed there? Obviously special revelation, because he's talking about prophecy and tongues. He says, but when the completion of God's revelation comes, tongues will cease. With the passing of the apostolic generation, we have the completion of God's revelation. Paul says that tongues are a form of revelation. They are in fact prophecy in an unknown language. They are equal to prophecy. Spiritual gifts, according to Hebrews, the second chapter, were given in the early church to verify the work of the apostles. 2 Corinthians 12:12 Paul calls these gifts the signs of an apostle. In Ephesians 2:20, the work of the apostles and the Prophets, those who give revelation to the church, is said to be foundational to the building of God's house, not the ongoing work of building the house. It lays the foundation. And with the passing of the apostolic generation, and you have the passing of the miracles of the apostles, and you have the passing of the special revelation of the apostles, and thereby you have the passing of tongues. Jesus said that the kingdom of God was taken away from the Jews and given to a nation producing the fruit thereof. And he said that right after talking about the stone that was rejected by the builders having become a stumbling stone, even though it was really the cornerstone of God's house. And that comes from the prophecy of Isaiah, which, by the way, is in the very same passage that Paul quotes when he says tongues are a sign to the unbelieving that God has judged the Jews and now has established the Christian church in their place. This has been a very rapid survey, but given the five weeks of instruction previous to this, I trust you all can follow that now from beginning to end. From the most general claim that greater gifts are supposed to be for us today, right down to the specific claim that tongues are for today, we find the charismatic movement to be wanting. It's no surprise that it originates in the 20th century, along with liberalism and neo orthodoxy and every other form of cultic perversion. I'm not at all claiming that our charismatic brothers and sisters aren't brothers and sisters, but I'm saying they are woefully deceived when it comes to this matter. The Bible condemns every claim that is substantial and essential to their movement. The natural question is, well, then how do we account for what's going on? I mean, something is obviously happening, right? People are making claims to some kind of experience. And I'm going to answer that very briefly. I think for the most part, my own personal opinion is most claims today to speaking in tongues amount to psychological release. I mean, if somebody comes to me and tells me that if I just start going ba, ba, ba, and actually comes and taps me under the chin and prays for me and lays on the hands, and everybody around me is expecting me to do something like this, that, you know, I get worked up and it's just some kind of great experience to be able to let everything out, some kind of baby talk is what it amounts to. I mean, if I sit at home with my typewriter and just get a little frustrated with my writing and start banging on the keys, that might give me some sense of relaxation and release. And I think for the most Part, tongue speaking is just that psychological phenomenon which we've all seen in our lives in various ways. Secondly, some cases of tongues have to sadly be concluded to be artificial exhibitionism too. I mean, there's no want of testimonies of people who, having come out of this movement, say I was really putting on an act to show people that I was spiritual. And then thirdly, although it is perhaps not the most common explanation, it is one which I will not deceive you and I will not try to play good public relations by overlooking. Sadly enough, some cases are simply demonic. The Holy Spirit isn't the only one who gives supernatural powers to people. Satan himself does. And something has to be done with the numerous accounts of missionaries that tell us of people who speak in tongues in a foreign language out on the mission field and end up cursing Christ and what they're saying. See, Satan wants Charismatics to speak in tongues. I don't think he always leads them to speak in tongues. And I certainly don't want to say that's the most common explanation for what's happening. So I don't want to be misperceived. I think that is terribly harsh and unloving to say that anybody who claims to speak in tongues is demonic. I'm not saying that. I'm saying some cases cannot be analyzed in any other way but demonic. If Christ ends up being cursed, then that of course is a work of the devil, not the work of the Holy Spirit. For no man speaking in the Spirit says Jesus, be accursed. Paul says, rather, all Christians say Jesus is Lord, so it does happen that Satan does it. But I want to say that even when Satan is not inspiring the ecstatic, frenzied speech of the Charismatics today, I'm sure he's very pleased with it. If I were Satan, I'd be very pleased with it because instead of focusing upon the main life of the Charismatic Church, the true Charismatic Church, the life of love and scriptural doctrine and the advance of the gospel and the conquering of all areas of life for the lordly claims of Jesus Christ, the Charismatics, you see, you're being sidetracked. Even if it's a harmless experience, it's nevertheless taking up time. It could be given to more beneficial works in the kingdom of God. And so how do we account for the tongues experienced today, this ecstatic utterance? Well, some of its psychological release, some of it's artificial exhibitionism, and some of it, sadly, is demonic. Now, before we conclude our series, you know what's going to be said, anybody who hears these tapes or hears your point of view, if it's anything like what I told you, you're going to say, well, you're really trying to limit the freedom of God's Holy Spirit. It reminds me of an argument that comes from church history. In the Middle Ages, God was taught to be sovereign and with the sovereignty of God, with the claim that God is free to do whatever he wishes to do. How could God be sovereign if he's not free? But then certain theologians thought this through. If God is free and sovereign can do whatever he wants to do, God could even send us to hell after we believe the Gospel. Can anybody say God has to send us to heaven for believing the Gospel? To say that is to bind the hands of God, isn't it? This very argument was used. And so those who exalted the sovereignty of God in the Middle Ages often exhibited their commitment to this doctrine by saying God is so free and sovereign, he could even send the Virgin Mary to hell, Praise God. He won't, but he could. Well, the Reformers. The thing that set off the Reformers in terms of their teaching of predestination and the sovereignty of God and the freedom of God, is that God was bound by a covenant. They were covenantal theologians. And we praise God for the teaching of the Reformers about the covenant. Because we don't have a spooky sovereign God who can even send believers in the Virgin Mary to hell. We have a God who keeps covenant with his people. And therefore the Reformers were bold to say God is bound by His Word. God is not so free that he breaks his promises. And when God promises to save those who come to Jesus Christ, he doesn't send them to hell if they come to Jesus Christ. And so today to the Charismatics, we have to say we praise God that He is so free that he binds himself to His Word. He's free enough that he makes promise and keeps his word. So the question is not whether we want to limit the Holy Spirit. The question is how is the Holy Spirit deign to move? Does the Bible teach us that the Holy Spirit moves in the way the Charismatics tell us today, through irrational feeling, ecstatic speech in the continuation of the signs of the apostles? No, the Bible doesn't teach that. And to say that it doesn't teach that is not to limit the Holy Spirit. It's in fact to honor the work of the Holy Spirit as it's taught in the Word of God. The coming of the Holy Spirit will not mean that emphasis lies on individual experience. The coming of the Holy Spirit according to Scripture means the emphasis will come to lie on holiness of life, truth of doctrine. As Paul said very clearly in First Corinthians, I show you the greatest way. And the greatest way is the way of love. Every thought is to be made captive to the obedience of Christ in the life of the believer. And so if somebody has had an experience that they are tempted to call tongues, the question is whether their thoughts will be made captive to the teaching of God's Word, not whether the thoughts will be made captive to their own experience. At the time of the Reformation, the slogan was Sola Scriptura. And very few of us remember that that was a two edged slogan. Often enough we think of it as being directed against the Roman Catholics. And it was the Roman Catholics wanted to add tradition to the word of God, to which the Reformers said sola Scriptura. But if you read the Reformers, Luther and Calvin, you'll see that they were also directing that slogan against the Anabaptists, against those who were called enthusiasts or what Calvin called the fanatics, those who laid claim to spiritual gifts and visions and that sort of thing. And to them, the Reformers said sola scriptura. You see how that is the road of safety between the pitfall of tradition and the pitfall of extra revelations. The Reformed churches have always taught only and all of God's Word. Of course, we have to learn something from our Charismatic friends as well. Our Orthodoxy must not be a dead Orthodoxy. Scripture is inactive, activating power in our lives. The knowledge that we have of God's Word should not lead to a suppression of brotherly love, should not lead to a suppression of emotion and enthusiasm or aggressive promotion of the truth. In fact, if we truly are committed to orthodoxy, all those things which the Charismatics commend themselves to others with should be characteristic of us. We should remember that people participate in worship not in the way that they think, but. But worship is for you to participate in, and that we do have to have personal commitment in our lives that matches our commitment to orthodoxy as well. In fact, as we end our thoughts here this morning with the thoughts of the Reformers, I would remind you that the emblem Calvin used for his own teaching and the work of the Reformation was the flaming heart in a hand uplifted to God. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that our hearts don't burn with desire for Jesus Christ. The Reformers saw that, and I trust that we, the true Charismatic Church, will see it as well. Let's pray Lord, we thank you above all for the supreme gift of your word, the word of truth that does sanctify your people and set them apart. And we pray that indeed we would be consecrated and set apart by that truth, that we would understand it, that we would defend it, that we would take a stand for it, and that above all, that we would live it. Lord, we pray that if we have been so graced as to be delivered from the ecstatic and perverted planes of those who would sidetrack your people into alleged works of the Spirit, that we nonetheless would compensate in our own lives by the true works of the Spirit, that the fruit of the Spirit might be more manifest in our midst. And then we might honor the work of the Spirit in convicting the world of sin. And we might honor the work of the Spirit and the inspiration of the Scriptures. We pray, Father, that your Spirit would indeed fill us and continue to fill us, that we might lead the ordinary and the normal charismatic life of walking by the word of God and in the power of the Spirit. We pray that you would give us winsome speech as we have to confront our brothers and sisters who have been misled into false paths with respect to prophecy and tongues and miracles. And we pray that as we do speak to them, that our lives would be a testimony to the truth as well as our words. We pray that we wouldn't have to be embarrassed because our churches are dead and unenthusiastic, even though they claim to know the truth. And above all, we ask that that mark of love that Paul said was the greatest of all gifts would be seen in us, even as we have to testify against the error of the ways of others. For we pray in Jesus name, Amen.

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonsen Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged from. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our website, bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.