Enthusiasm versus the Scriptures

In our day, the largest portion of evangelicalism consists of pentecostal denominations and charismatics within non-pentecostal denominations. Such groups are marked by their claims of miraculous gifts of unknown languages, prophecies, healings, etc.  I have explained before why I do not consider such "gifts" to be legitimate expressions of the Holy Spirit, such as here. Not only do I consider the original gifts to have ceased, but I do not believe that their modern forms are even like the biblical gifts.

One major concern I have with such claims is that people receive revelations from God. Especially in Africa and South America, so-called "evangelists" claim that God has given them messages, whether for the crowds they attract or for individuals. Sometimes they claim that such revelations are of less authority than Scripture; other times they don't. Theologian Wayne Grudem even claims that modern prophecy is fallible, while biblical prophecy was infallible. How can a revelation from God be fallible? And how can one revelation from God be less revelatory than another? These are distinctions without differences!

Furthermore, what happens when a "revelation" contradicts Scripture? That would be true of all of the revelations claimed by Mormonism. Yet, even a single isolated revelation would be the word of God! It would be from the same source as Scripture. Therefore, to claim that it has less authority is irrational.

This is why I don't just refuse to seek such revelations for myself, but I am forced to deny the biblical faith of those who claim such revelations. Either they are lying or they are under the influence of lying spirits. Either way, such claims are inconsistent with a sincere profession of faith, which must, necessarily, include receiving the Bible as the inerrant and all-sufficient word of God.

The Prophet Isaiah dealt with such men - let's call them by the term used by the Puritans, Enthusiasts - who claimed revelations from various methods of divination, including necromancy. Here was the answer that God gave such men through His real prophet: "When they say to you, 'Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,' should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isaiah 8:19-20). Point them to the Scriptures! If their revelation agrees with them, then those revelations are unnecessary. If they conflict with the Scriptures, then those revelations are lies. 

"A deep conviction of the fullness and sufficiency of the Scriptures, combined with a hearty regard for their disclosures, is the only effectual check to this [inquisitive and speculative] presumptuous pride of intellect" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

The Counterfeit Tongues Movement

When discussing the issue of tongues, the primary text used by Pentecostals is Acts 2, the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit at the first Feast of Pentecost (the origin of the Pentecostal name) after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They point especially to the first four verses: "When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Pentecostals still claim that a first or early sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in every individual is a repetition of this experience. They often describe it as a "prayer language."

But that isn't what you see if you continue in Acts 2.

The passage continues (verses 5-11): "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." This is not the description of some unknown gibberish. Rather, those upon whom the Spirit has come are speaking known languages, though they were unknown to the speakers.

The Apostle Paul talks about this same experience in his first epistle to the Corinthian church, especially in chapters 12 and 14.

Paul says this: "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me" (I Corinthians 14:10-11). As did Luke in Acts, Paul here talks about tongues, again not as random noises, but rather as known (though not by the speaker) foreign languages.

It is on this basis that I have issued a challenge several times to Pentecostals, especially of the Oneness variety, to prove that their "tongues" are real languages, and not merely random animal noises. While I have heard plenty of protestations of offense, I have yet to get even one effort to meet the challenge. Which, I think, proves what I have said elsewhere, that today's tongues movement is a counterfeit version of the original.

The Apostles, Tongues, and the Holy Spirit

Pentecostals claim that a sign (sometimes the sign) of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, a reference to the events described in Acts 2. Oneness Pentecostals go further and claim that a person must speak in tongues to be saved. I have expressed my views on tongues-speaking elsewhere (use the "glossolalia" tag at the bottom).

I have a real problem with either assertion (especially that of Oneness).

Here is one reason why: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness" (Luke 4:1). This refers to His actions after His temptation by Satan. Note that it explicitly states that He was "full of the Holy Spirit." What it does not say is that He spoke in tongues. 

What do the Pentecostals say about this passage? It belies their assertion about tongues. He didn't speak in tongues, yet the inspired commentary does not let us deny that He was filled with the Spirit. And it is even worse for the Oneness Pentecostals, because their doctrine means that Jesus needs to be saved. Surely it would be blasphemous to assert any such thing.

The solution is simple. There is no connection between tongues and the filling with the Holy Spirit. The circumstances in Acts (and mentioned nowhere else) reflect the transition from the the direct leadership of Jesus to His indirect leadership through the Apostles. The extraordinary signs were vindications of the Apostles, not the Spirit. 

What Is Baptism with Fire?

Speaking of the coming of Christ, John the Baptist told his audience (Matthew 3:11-12): "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not

John the Baptist

worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear His threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

We often hear verse 11 quoted, especially by Pentecostals, who claim that it refers to baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire, which is supposed to be what they're doing when they are writhing around spouting gibberish. Notice that they never go on to verse 12, because it shows that their interpretation is merely begging the question, not the actual intention of John.

John says that Jesus will do two things, baptize with the Holy Spirit, and baptize with fire. This is what the Pentecostals try to make into one thing. However, he goes on in verse 12 also to describe two different groups of people, the "wheat," and the "chaff" (compare the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). The first group He will gather (cp., Matthew 24:31) into the barns, that is, to be kept, while the latter group is intended for fire. Thus the baptism with the Holy Spirit is for the first group, while the baptism with fire awaits the other.

Thus, taken together, the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the baptism with fire are two distinct things, the first for believers and the second for unbelievers.

This is consistent with the rest of Scripture. For example, Paul tells us that all believers, not just some of a special class, are baptized with the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13, see also John 7:39). We also know from other passages that Jesus Himself described fire as the destiny of unbelievers (Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:42-49).

I think that this simple use of context and the analogy of faith, i. e., comparing one passage to another, demonstrates that the use of this passage is unwarranted, at best. It takes the mere proximity of two words to mean that the two words refer to the same thing. There is no glossolalia taught here.

"Baptism with Fire": What Is It?

In Matthew 3:11 (and the parallel in Luke 3:16), we see a quote from John the Baptist that has always seemed mysterious to me: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." John was making a clear distinction of status between himself and the One who was coming after him, i. e., Jesus. While John was performing an external rite with water, Jesus would do an internal work "with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Pentecostals take the reference as one thing, that "Holy Spirit" and "fire" are appositives, referring to their experiences of tongues, etc. Orthodox Protestants, on the other hand, consider the baptism with the Holy Spirit to be something that happens to every true believer when he is born again. I consider that understanding to be consistent with I Corinthians 12:13: "in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (see also John 7:39).

That phrase, "baptized with the Holy Spirit," occurs several times in the New Testament. We find it in Mark 1:8, John 1:33, Acts 1:5, 11:16, and 18:25. In none of these verse is it paired with "fire," even in the parallel verses in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33.

I think we must take that to mean that "with the Holy Spirit" and "with fire" are not different words for the same thing, but rather references to contrasting things. "Baptism with the Holy Spirit," as Paul indicates, is something that happens to every believer. Then, to whom does the contrasting "baptism with fire" apply?

On whom else does Jesus attribute a pouring out of fire? He mentions Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:29), and unrepentant unbelievers (Matthew 25:41). These verses indicate that "fire" is not used for an extra-spiritual experience of the saved, but rather for judgment on the wicked (compare Mark 9:42-49).

This gives, I think, by analogy of the faith, what John was saying of Jesus: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me will baptize you [believers] with the Holy Spirit and [you unbelievers with] fire." Note that "you" is plural, so he is addressing the whole audience, not anyone in particular. That is why he would have used an inclusive comment. To have spoken as the Pentecostals interpret him would have him to assume that all of his audience was - or would be - believers, which is obviously not the case. Also, look at the verse in both Matthew and Luke, where Jesus makes it explicit: "The chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

Is This the Time for Signs and Wonders?

In the debate between cessationists, those who believe that the Pentecostal gifts were for a particular time only, and continuationists, those who hold that they are permanent gifts in the church, the cessationist case is usually based on I Corinthians 13:10: "When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away," which is understood to refer to the completion of the New Testament canon. And I grant the importance of that. Pentecostals play fast and loose with the implications of continuing revelation, like teasing an unfamiliar dog. But I think there is more in Scripture to indicate that the extraordinary gifts were intended for the apostolic period only, not as a continuing phenomenon.

There are four verses that I want to consider.

The first is Mark 16:20: "They [i. e., the Apostles, v.14] went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs." This verse is especially important, because it is in the context of one of the strongest descriptions of the Pentecostal gifts, especially verses 17 and 18.

Next is Acts 14:3: "They [i. e., Paul and Barnabas] remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands."

The third is II Corinthians 12:12: "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works." Here the context is Paul's defense of his apostleship as equal to that of the original Twelve.

And finally, I refer to Hebrews 2:3-4: "It [i. e., the message of salvation] was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will."

What do all of these passages have in common?  They refer to signs and wonders, not as a permanent state of the church or as general to all Christians, but rather as proofs of the ministry of the Apostles in their evangelistic work. Now, that office is the role that was ultimately fulfilled by the completion of the canon, thus closing the office of apostleship.

Some Pentecostals, conceding the apostolic connection, claim to have a continuing office of Apostle (as does the Catholic Church). The error of that claim is particularly bold, considering that one of the qualifications for an Apostle was to have seen the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22). Observe also the doctrines associated with these so-called new Apostles: Pelagianism, Sabellianism, and the arrogance of claims to new revelation. Heresies of a feather flock together!

Preaching: New Testament Prophecy

"Pursue love and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands him, but he utters in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church."

Two contrasting images are set before us by Paul in this passage (I Corinthians 14:1-4).

On one hand he describes one who speaks in tongues, not understood by those around (unlike what happens in Acts 2). The distinguishing mark of that gift is that it is communication between the believer and God, i. e., a private conversation. Over against this is the gift of prophecy. The New Testament prophet addresses the church, for upbuilding, encouragement, and consolation.

Notice what he does not say: nowhere does Paul even intimate that this gift of prophecy is a revelatory gift. In that sense, this New Testament prophet is quite unlike his Old Testament counterpart. Isaiah, for example, was the intermediary between God and Israel in the proclamation of new Scripture. The New Testament prophet, i. e., the preacher of the Word, is proclaiming previous revelation, such as that of Isaiah, to the church for the purpose of edification. This is the historic understanding of this passage, at least among orthodox Protestants. The 1560 version of the Geneva Bible explains "prophesy" in verse 1 (with modern spelling), "That is, to expound the word of God to the edification of the Church." The interpretation that became popular among Pentecostals runs contrary to at least 350 years of Protestant history!

We see Paul encouraging his theology student Timothy to "guard the deposit entrusted" to him (I Timothy 6:20). What deposit was that? We see the answer in II Timothy 3:14-16, "As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from Whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Again, look at what Paul tells Timothy: continue in the deposit that he had received even from childhood, the Scriptures! What does he not tell him to do? To seek new revelation! Isn't this the very opposite of what today's continuationists, such as Wayne Grudem and self-described Pentecostals, advocate?

Someone will ask about I Corinthians 13:8, "As for prophecies, they will pass away." Doesn't that mean, if my interpretation is correct, that prophesying will cease? Well, no. "Prophesying" does not pass away; "prophecies" do. Or, as he phrases it just above, in verse 2, "prophetic powers." Related terminology, obviously, but referring to two different things. Prophecy is gone, because the Scriptures are sufficient, "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:17). "Prophesying" is still essential for teaching and applying those same Scriptures. That's why Paul describes it as the superior gift for the Corinthians. It is also why Paul exhorts Timothy (II Timothy 4:2) to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."

Was the Apostle Paul a Pentecostal?

In I Corinthians 14:18, the Apostle Paul makes a simple statement: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." Pentecostals love to quote this verse to prove that their theology has an apostolic origin. But does it?

Another thing that Paul says of himself, in Acts 21:39, is, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia." As a native of that mostly-Gentile city, he would have grown up as a native speaker of Greek. He repeats that information in Acts 22:3, and adds, "[I] was educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers." This refers to his training as a Pharisee (cf. Acts 23:6, 26:5, and Philippians 3:5). Both as a Jew by birth and as a Pharisee by training, he would have been intimately familiar with Hebrew. And the accounts of his defense before Roman authorities (e. g., Felix in Acts 24, Festus in ch. 25, and Agrippa in ch. 26) strongly imply a fluency in Latin.

In other words, the historical account describes Paul speaking at least three tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Nowhere does Scripture describe Paul sing-songing "la-la-linga-dinga," or any such gibberish.

So, does Scripture give us an Apostle Paul who spoke in tongues? Absolutely! Do we find anywhere a Paul who could be compared to modern Pentecostals? Only in the imaginations of those who claim that name for themselves.

Glossolalia in Acts 2

"When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues, as of fire, appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

"Now there were, dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And, at the sound, the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speak in his own language."
- Acts 2:1-6

This passage is so closely associated with the tongues movement that its common name, Pentecostalism, is even derived from it. However, I think that a careful reading of it will indicate that there is no Pentecostalism in it. I intend to make my case through three points: 1) the events described were of a special occasion, never intended to be normative; 2) the tongues were in the ears of the hearers, not in the mouths of the speakers; and 3) the glossolalia of modern Pentecostals is utterly unlike the tongues in this passage.

The passage in Acts 2 must be addressed in its context. I especially include the words of Jesus in Acts 1:4-5, "Wait for the promise of the Father, which, He [i.e., Jesus] said, 'You heard from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" And again in verse 8, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." That context indicates that the events of Pentecost must be considered the fulfillment of those words of Christ. He was sending the Holy Spirit (see also, e. g., John 14:16 and 14:26) to empower the disciples for their calling in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). The Holy Spirit isn't a heavenly yo-yo, being sent and then withdrawn repeatedly. When He came at Pentecost, He came to stay. Therefore, the events in Acts 2 can only be one-time, not to be repeated as a normative event.

Second, read the actual words of the passage: in verse 6, the listeners are said to hear the speakers speaking in the language of each one. This is repeated in verse 11, where the particular languages are even named. That indicates that this was less a matter of speaking in tongues than of hearing in tongues.

Third, Pentecostals cannot even prove that their tongues are actual languages. Their gibberish is no more capable of "telling the mighty works of God" (compare I Corinthians 14:22) than are the experimental vocalizations of infants. However, to point that out makes the sceptical observer the equivalent of a spiritual buzz-kill, and will be rewarded with scorn, not meaningful answers.

I am not attempting here to address the issue of tongues, in general. I have addressed that elsewhere (use the tag below). Rather, my intention in this post is only to address the use of this passage by Pentecostals. I think that use represents really bad exegesis, completely ignoring what the passage says, simply to justify an experience. That is backwards: experience should never be forced into Scripture; rather, Scripture must judge experience. That, I think, is the fundamental distinction between my theology and that of Pentecostalism.

Tongues: Not a Blessing, but a Curse

Deuteronomy literally means "second law," because it contains the second enumeration of the Ten Commandments. It is primarily a book of the covenant, the terms of the treaty of relationship between Jehovah and His people. It includes blessings for covenant faithfulness, as well as curses for treason against the covenant. The verse I wish to highlight is in the latter portion.

Deuteronomy 28:49, "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand."

There are a number of verses throughout the Old Testament that parallel this one. For example, Isaiah 28:11, "For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue, the Lord will speak to this people." Paul also quotes this verse to the same end in I Corinthians 14:21, and then adds in verse 22, "Thus, tongues are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers." That is, to unbelieving Jews. Yet, where do we see the promotion of "tongues"? In church worship services! The purpose of these verses, if I may paraphrase, is for God to tell Israel, "If you refuse to listen to Me, then I will continue to speak to you, but through languages that you do not understand." This was a judgment. It is as the parent who continues his warnings to an errant child, even as that child puts his fingers in his ears to keep from hearing. I refer to these verses as the defense of my belief that glossolalia, commonly referred to as "speaking in tongues," is not a blessing, and is not intended for today's Church. Hearing someone else speak in an unknown tongue is a final step in God's bringing discipline against a wayward believer or church. When a professing Christian hears other people speaking in tongues, that means that either he or his entire community has provoked the wrath of God and may soon anticipate some form of judgment. This is not a good thing!