QT, Inc. of Elkgrove Village, Illinois, markets "ionized" bracelets which claim to benefit people by balancing the body's flow of "electro magnetic energy." It is said to have been invented in 1973 by Manuel L. Polo, a chiropractor living on the Spanish island of Mallorca.
In 1997 and 1998, the manufacturer's website stated: The Q-RAY bracelet is designed to achieve many of the same goals as traditional Chinese acupuncture. Acupuncture was developed to balance the body's yin (negative ions) and yang (positive ions), the two inseparable, complimentary energies that permanently circulate in the human body. When these energies become unbalanced the body's functioning is thought to be altered -- which can be at least very annoying and at worst debilitating. Acupuncture is BELIEVED to regulate these two energies.
In the human body, which is electro-magnetic by nature, bio magnetic alpha and beta waves circulate throughout the vital centres. When the flow is cut off and these alpha and beta waves become stagnant in one particular area of the body, bio-electrical alterations and ionic imbalances can result.
The Q-RAY bracelet's effectiveness is grounded in the phenomenon of radioelectrical "Resonance", balancing of positive and negative ions within the human body. Because of its unique characteristics and specialized configuration, the bracelet is considered to be an excellent Resonator of electro magnetic waves. (www.quackwatch.org)
For several years QT Inc., claimed that its bracelets could restore health, relieve cancer pain, improve muscle flexibility, improve sports performance, restore energy, and provide other health benefits. It was also claimed to "energize your whole body instantly." In 2000, an infomercial stated: "When you have a severe injury or a chronic injury or a chronic problem like arthritis, you have build-up of positive ions, wherever that is you are going to have pain. In order to remove this pain, Q-RAY bracelet rips it right out of the body!"
The above descriptions of bodily electrical energy flow are nonsense. Ions exist in solution throughout the body. There is no such thing as an "ionized bracelet" because solid objects are not ionized. There is no such thing as an ionic imbalance of the body, and no scientifically recognized connection between allegedly "ionized" objects and pain relief. Furthermore, the Q-RAY bracelet has no power source so even if "ionic imbalance" could exist, the claim that the Q-RAY could influence the body's "electrical energy" supply is preposterous.
In 2002, researchers from the Mayo Clinic published the results of a 4-week study involving 710 participants who wore either a Q-RAY bracelet (said to be "ionized") or an identical-looking placebo bracelet (said to be "non-ionized"). Subjective improvement in pain scores was equivalent in both groups, which indicates that the bracelet exerted no special effect.
Consumer Protection Actions
In June 2003, the FTC charged QT, Inc. Q-RAY Company, Bio-Metal, Inc., and their principals, Que Te (Andrew) Park and Jung Joo Park, with false advertising, and the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a temporary restraining order freezing their assets and prohibiting further use of misleading claims.
In September 2006, the Chicago Court sided with the Federal Trade Commission and ordered Que Te Park and his companies to turn over $22.5 million in net profits and provide up to $64.5 million in refunds to consumers who had bought the bracelets. During the trial, Park testified that he could not define the term "ionization" but picked it because it was simple and easy to remember. The court concluded that his testimony on ionization was "contradictory and full of obfuscation" and that "he is a clever marketer but a poor witness." Park also acknowledged that QT had at least a 25% refund rate from dissatisfied customers (more than 100,000 people). In January 2008, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court in an opinion which stated that the marketers "made statements about Q-RAYS, ionization, and bio-energy that they knew to be POPPYCOCK."
The Bottom Line
The Q-RAY bracelet is a line of costume jewellery that has been claimed to relieve pain and to provide various health benefits. It is claimed to work by balancing "energy" that cannot be measured with scientific instrumentation. Its supposed mechanism of "ionic" action is preposterous. The only published scientific study of the device found that it had no special effect against pain. Its marketing claims were greatly turned down by a private consumer protection lawsuit filed in California but I believe that the manufacturer still exaggerates what the bracelet can do. The Balanced Bracelet has been marketed with claims that were equally false.
Excerpts from "CBC MarketPlace"
Sandra Post, a famous Canadian athlete, who wears one was asked "what do they do?" She said that her arthritis was helped. When told that it makes no medical claims re. pain, she said that it had cured her pain for two years. She also said she doesn't know how it works but she believes that it does.
Due to deceptive advertising the company has been ordered to repay $87 million re. pain claims and for defrauding people. Over 150,000 bracelets have been sold in Canada at approximately $200 a pop using deceptive, misleading advertising and claiming that it has the ability to take pain away. The maker of the product said we can't control how vendors market and we can't dictate how they run their businesses. It's just jewellery. There's no harm in it.
The made-up science consists of performance enhancement, energy balance in the body and increased vitality. A serious performance bracelet claiming to achieve a state of Chi can cost up to $500. Golfers are the biggest fans -- it's a miracle!
It's all in your head. Claims about pain are a tricky business. All vendors are still making claims of pain relief. Over 600 retailers continue to sell the product while talking about its benefits for relief of pain. Retailers are not getting the message that ionization, analyzed in a lab, is not ionized at all.
GIBBERISH IS THE TONGUE-SPEAKER'S Q-RAY
When you are speaking gibberish, you are not actually speaking in tongues but that doesn't matter. What really matters is that you BELIEVE that you are speaking in tongues. It's not necessary for you to actually be speaking in tongues as long as you BELIEVE that you are. Gibberish creates this illusion for you. You actually believe that you are speaking in tongues when you really are not. Any child can do it and any non-Christian can do it. It can be taught to any man on the street. It is not divine, it is Satanic. Satan will do anything to throw Christians off the tracks, move them away from keeping the main thing - the main thing, keeping them in bondage to a wrong focus, and dragging the truth through the mud. Speaking gibberish accomplishes all of these things and much more for Satan. When you are speaking gibberish, you are assisting and supporting Satan's efforts in this area. He is working tirelessly to eliminate true Christianity and replace it with falsehoods.
The fraud that is being foisted on Pentecostals/Charismatics/Victory Churches people is that what they are claiming to be tongues is not tongues. Biblical tongues was an actual language which had a specific purpose at a specific time when the church was in the early stages. Scripture teaches that tongues will cease. "Restoring the fire" (Barrie Victory Centre's motto) is really the fire of hell. Speaking in tongues was not mentioned in the majority of the latter books of the New Testament which means that they had ceased and the Greek word for cease means permanent, never to be started up again. Speaking gibberish is the biggest hoax that has been perpetuated in the church in all of its history. Speaking gibberish is also very dangerous. It is addictive behaviour which acts like a drug that you cannot live without. It's primary purpose is to control and manipulate you so that you will remain with the cult which you are involved with and keep giving your money to provide the leader's lavish lifestyle.
Pentecostal healings and miracles, visions and divine revelations all have a Q-RAY element to them. Most of them are fraudulent and need to be purged out of the church. They are making false claims and promises which cannot be delivered.
The bottom line in all this is that you should not be speaking in "gibberish". It is Satan's most useful tool for distraction from truth. When you participate in gibberish, you are aiding and abetting Satan's efforts to derail Christianity. In actual fact, gibberish speakers are all Satan's accomplices in crime. The more people do it, the more successful he is!
GIBBERISH IS FRAUD. JUST LIKE THE Q-RAY, YOU THINK IT WORKS.
THERE'S A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE AND THEY SPEAK GIBBERISH.
Showing posts with label speaking in tongues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speaking in tongues. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Thank You God For 'Blessing' This Blog!
- F. Whitehead said...
- I found the last four articles extremely interesting as well as well-researched with respect to Biblical backups to support your position. As I never take anything at face value, I have reviewed all of the Scripture verses mentioned and my blinders have been removed from my eyes. I know now that I am involved in a church that probably has a satanic influence and this frightens me more than I can say. I have read horror stories about people trying to leave churches like these and have actually seen some of my former friends be put out of our church for questionning what the Board and Pastors are doing and teaching. Thank you for posting.
- G. Franklin said...
- Wow! Wow! Wow! What an eye-opening article! I have been convinced that there has been something wrong in our church for some time but could not get anyone to listen. I have made an appointment to speak to our Pastor right after Christmas.. he needs to explain where he is getting his "spiritual" guidance. Thank you.
- M. Dresdin said...
- How terrible that so many can be taken in by such an evil! We as Christians need to be more vocal when these charlatans start infiltrating our churches with the hysteria and falling on the floor. In our church it started with the raising of hands and within a few months.. full blown hysteria. We left our church and have found a good Bible-believing one where these goings-on aren't there.
- Herman Gregory said...
- Well-put! I enjoy following your blog and I must say that your insight into this strange and weird world of charismatic pentecostals is mind-opening.
- Maury Shipton said...
- What a frightening thing! This means that the Pentecostal movement could be infiltrated by Satan and hypnotists. This is awful! How do we begin to bring this to an end?
- S. C. Roweling said...
- This phenomena of the mass hysteria has started to show up in our church here in the Jersey Island (UK). We currently attend an Anglican church but we have a new priest from the U.S. and this started with some of our young people's groups. We are sharing your blog with the Head Diocese here today! Thank you.
-
- Alice & Byron White said...
- We have been following your blog for over a year and really find these last two articles the most disturbing of any that we have read. Our teenage children have started attending a church (not the family one) where this is a common occurrence at every service. We do not understand how this practice has crept into the main stream churches and are at a loss at how to get our children out of this emotional experience that they seem to need.. they started going once a week and now they are involved with something almost every day of the week. Their schoolwork is suffering and all they can talk about is "pastor-says".. thanks for letting us vent!
- Marissa de Long said...
- Horrible, horrible, horrible! How can this be happening under our very noses. Are we so blind as to feel that we need that excitement each and every week from Church. If this continues, we are lost!
- H. & D. Hirams said...
- We are completely blown away by your blog. We have been deceived by our Pastor for a number of years and are appalled that this could happen to us. We got disallusioned with our former church and were befriended by some members of the local Victory Church who made us feel loved and wanted. Now, several years later, we can no longer afford our home and have it up for sale. Everything that we have read on your blog has happened to us in some form or another. Please continue writing so that others won't end up where we are now.
- Otto Schriber said...
- Honestly. How can people be so taken in by something that is so non-biblical in nature. I hope that you can continue to educate people in this area and that more will come to realize the errors of their ways.
- Syliva & Thomas Morton said...
- We are so thankful to have found your blog this week. We have read it with great interest as our children seem to think that we are "out to lunch" when it comes to what is going on in their church in California. We have sent them the link and hope that they will take the time to read some of the facts and research the verses that you quote.
- What an interesting review of "Slain in the Spirit". I was quite taken aback when I looked up the verses quoted and learned that, in fact, God's people always fall forward on their faces and not backwards as goes on in the Pentecostal movements. These Charismatic churches really should get their Biblical facts straight! I had no idea and look forward to reading the next section.
- Dave & Marcie Hedben said...
- We had no idea that falling down backwards was not of God. Our pastor always has catchers available so that no-one bangs their heads on the ground. We have always thought that our evening services became very hysterical and once one person falls over, everyone else just follows. We have looked up all of the verses and will be discussing this with our small group this evening.
- Graydon Blume said...
- Amazing! Where do you find this information? Penetcostals have been falling down on their backs for years and now it's become a "bad" thing? I am sending a link to this blog to our Board because if it is, in fact, true that only forward falling people are being influenced from God, we have a serious problem in our North American churches. I will be very interested to see what else you have to say on this subject.
-
H. Pathway said... - I have been saying this for years but it's like crying out in the wilderness. My children live for that explosive experience every week and nothing seems to get through to them. I am convinced more than ever that this is a satanic attack on the Christian church and more and more people will be drawn away. I am looking forward to reading the answers to the next question.
-
Rev. D.G. Browning said... - Great article. It's about time that someone took the time to investigate the "slain in the spirit" garbage that is pervading our church. Keep it up, Grand Poo-Bah!
- Dave & Marcie Hedben said...
- After having a very heated discussion with our small group, we have come to the conclusion that our church is teaching something that is not Biblical and that this practice should stop. We fully expect to be asked to leave our church as this is one of the cornerstone principles but now having this information directly from Biblical scriptures, we have no alternative but to follow it and not man's interpretation of being "slain in the spirit". We are also now looking into the tongues scriptures as well because you have made some valid points there as well.
- M. & G. Shipson said...
- We were in a small group this week that was discussing the verses that you outlined regarding being slain in the spirit. We are so appalled that our church has been teaching something so non-biblical and that our eyes were blinded by Satan in this area. If we cannot get our Board and Pastors to see reason, we will have no alternative but to move to a more biblically-based church.
- A. Smythe said...
- This is incredible! I had no idea that I was involved in a church that is teaching falsehoods. Thank you.
Please feel free to share if you have any personal experiences
regarding "SATANIC INFLUENCES" in the Penetcostal church.
'Pentecostal' includes any church where "Speaking in Tongues"
or being "Slain in the Spirit" is practised. These are only two of a
long list of problems which are rampant in the Pentecostal church.
long list of problems which are rampant in the Pentecostal church.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Temporary Gifts -- Prophesy, Knowledge, Tongues (3 of 8)
The temporary gifts referred to are listed together in 1 Cor. 13:8 -- Prophesy, Tongues, and Knowledge. We shall take them one at a time, define them, show their function and finally give the reason why they were then withdrawn.
1) Prophesy
Prophesy may have more than one meaning, but what we are concerned with here is its meaning in the context of 1 Cor. 13:8. First let me say that it is NOT "telling forth the truth of the written Word" because very little of the New Testament was available in written form at this stage. In other words, there was no New Testament as such. Prophesy in this verse (1 Cor. 13:8) means the God-given ability to interpret God's plan after they have been supernaturally revealed by the Holy Spirit AND TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE THOSE PLANS TO THE PEOPLE.
It was essential for the Lord's people to have in their possession, knowledge of God's plans for the Church Age and beyond, but how were they to acquire that knowledge when it was unavailable in written form? In the light of this fact, it can readily be seen why it was essential for at least some of the leaders in the Early Church to possess this supernatural gift.
It can be easily understood that after the New Testament was completed in written form, this special gift would no longer be necessary because all they needed to know was then available to them in written form.
This is why Paul lists prophecy among the temporary gifts in 1 Cor. 13:8 and says "where there are prophesies, they shall fail" which then paraphrased would read "the supernatural gift of being able to prophesy will pass away." As to WHEN this gift was withdrawn, this would have coincided with the completion of the Canon of Scripture because when the Body of Truth was complete and available to the Church in written form, this God-given but temporary gift, would obviously not be needed any longer. By then, it had served the purpose for which it had been given.
Biblical Warnings
To add further weight to the evidence already given, I would remind readers of the clear warnings given in Scripture to people who claim to have this gift today. For instance, in Rev. 22:18-19 we are told that God communicated with man for the last time. He has said all He intends to say. These verses contain very solemn warnings to anyone who would add anything (by way of further prophesy) or take anything away. A similar warning is given in Matt. 7:22-23 and is couched in the strongest possible terms.
2) Knowledge
The word 'knowledge' in this instance is not to be understood in the general usage of the term. It was not acquired knowledge. It was supernatural knowledge imparted directly and on the spot by the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way as the writers of the New Testament received it -- direct revelation by the Holy Spirit of the living God.
It was essential for believers in this transitional period to have in their possession knowledge of such things as the plan of redemption, their position in Christ and their eternal destiny but where were they to acquire such knowledge when it was absent in written form? The answer is, it was given to their leaders supernaturally and directly by the Holy Spirit. Now of course, when the New Testament was completed in written form, it contained a perfect system of truth. God did not forget anything that should have been included! He never has had to add anything. Everything of a spiritual nature that man needs to know is there but when the Canon of Scripture was completed in written form, knowledge supernaturally given, like prophesy, was no longer needed and was therefore withdrawn.
3) Tongues
Biblical tongues was the God-given ability to speak another language that the speaker had not learnt. It was not an acquired language but a language supernaturally given by the Holy Spirit.
The reason why this God-given ability was bestowed upon some of the early Christians is clearly stated in 1 Cor. 14:22 "Where tongues are for a sign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not."
The Purpose of Tongues
Paul could not have made plainer the purpose of tongues. A careful study of the passages in Acts Chs. 2, 10 and 19 clearly shows that the gift of tongues was an actual language and was used to bridge a barrier and thus speed up the spread of the Gospel, but the main purpose of tongues was to be a "sign." It was not a sign to other Christians that the speaker was "filled with the Holy Spirit" as is taught in charismatic circles today. Nor was it used as a supposed "prayer language." We are distinctly told that it was a sign (1 Cor. 14:22). Then for whom was this sign meant? This is also clearly stated. "Not to them that believe" but "to those who do not believe." This clear definitive statement is a fatal blow to the credibility of today's tongues movement.
"Tongues" in apostolic times was a sign to Israel as a nation. It was a sign of impending judgement (Isa. 28:11) if they did not accept Christ as their Messiah. God had faithfully taught them throughout history that their Messiah would come, and even gave them a supernatural sign to confirm to them that Christ was the Messiah.
Some Recognized the Sign
A small percentage of Jews did recognize the sign and turned to the Lord, but the nation as a whole did not recognize the sign
So to recap what I have said here:
Biblical tongues was not an unintelligible gabble [gibberish] such as is being spread throughout the church today. It was a supernatural gift given by God to speak in another language.
This God-given ability was given as a special sign to Israel as a nation. Having achieved the purpose for which it was given, it too was then withdrawn.
An Important Question
When was this gift withdrawn? The answer is "When that which is perfect is come" (1 Cor. 13:10).
I find many sincere Christians are deceived concerning the correct interpretation of this statement. They have been taught to equate "that which is perfect" with the coming of the Lord, but I would like to point out that the Greek New Testament completely quashes this interpretation.
If Paul had been referring to the Lord when he said "when that which is perfect," he would have said "when HE who is perfect" or even more plainly "when the Lord comes." He would also have used the masculine gender to make clear his meaning but he did not do this. He distinctly said "when that which is perfect" and, in the Greek, the neuter gender is used to show clearly that he was referring to some thing and not to some person. The nouns Lord, Christ and Jesus are all masculine nouns both in English and in the Greek. "That which is perfect" is neuter. So if we abide by the simple rules of grammar "that which is perfect" cannot refer to our Lord, but refers to some thing which is neutral and non-personal.
Furthermore, the word 'perfect' can be translated as 'complete.'
A Paraphrase
If taken from the Greek and paraphrased vv 9-10 could read, "For the Knowledge that we now possess is fragmentary (meaning incomplete and imperfect) and our Prophesy (teaching) is also fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect) but when the complete and perfect Word of God is come, these temporary gifts which are in part will then disappear because they will have been superseded."
Readers should also take careful note of the comparison between "that which is perfect" and "that which is in part." In both instances, the translation is "that which." So in both cases, reference is being made to something that is both neutral and non-personal.
What Paul is saying here is simply this: During this period of transition, when we do not as yet have the complete body of truth in written form, we use the supernatural but temporary, gifts of prophesy, tongues and knowledge, but when the total body of truth is completed and comes in written form, then the fragmentary knowledge and prophesy which we now possess will no longer be needed and will then pass away.
So these three temporary gifts, prophesy, knowledge and tongues ceased or passed off the scene when the Canon of Scripture was finally completed.
This does not mean to say that if the Lord wanted to enable one of His servants to converse fluently with someone in another language which they had not learnt, he couldn't freely do so. We must always bear in mind the fact that our Lord is Sovereign and He can do anything that He sees to be right and proper. But one point I would like to make here is this: I and others have been testing tongues in Australia for some years. In fact, there are men personally known to me who have been testing them for over 20 years and none of us has ever yet found a genuine gift of Biblical Tongues. When the Spirit using the tongue is commanded to identify itself, in 95% of cases, a demon answers.
However, even if on some rare occasion the Lord did give someone this supernatural ability, it still would not negate the fact that in Apostolic times, tongues were a sign to them which believed not (Israel as a nation) nor would it negate the fact that Biblical tongues ceased, exactly as Paul said they would, as soon as they had served their purpose.
Further Proof
If additional proof is needed to verify that what I have said is correct it should be noted that after Paul's first letter to the Corinthian Church, tongues are never mentioned again!
1) Prophesy
Prophesy may have more than one meaning, but what we are concerned with here is its meaning in the context of 1 Cor. 13:8. First let me say that it is NOT "telling forth the truth of the written Word" because very little of the New Testament was available in written form at this stage. In other words, there was no New Testament as such. Prophesy in this verse (1 Cor. 13:8) means the God-given ability to interpret God's plan after they have been supernaturally revealed by the Holy Spirit AND TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE THOSE PLANS TO THE PEOPLE.
It was essential for the Lord's people to have in their possession, knowledge of God's plans for the Church Age and beyond, but how were they to acquire that knowledge when it was unavailable in written form? In the light of this fact, it can readily be seen why it was essential for at least some of the leaders in the Early Church to possess this supernatural gift.
It can be easily understood that after the New Testament was completed in written form, this special gift would no longer be necessary because all they needed to know was then available to them in written form.
This is why Paul lists prophecy among the temporary gifts in 1 Cor. 13:8 and says "where there are prophesies, they shall fail" which then paraphrased would read "the supernatural gift of being able to prophesy will pass away." As to WHEN this gift was withdrawn, this would have coincided with the completion of the Canon of Scripture because when the Body of Truth was complete and available to the Church in written form, this God-given but temporary gift, would obviously not be needed any longer. By then, it had served the purpose for which it had been given.
Biblical Warnings
To add further weight to the evidence already given, I would remind readers of the clear warnings given in Scripture to people who claim to have this gift today. For instance, in Rev. 22:18-19 we are told that God communicated with man for the last time. He has said all He intends to say. These verses contain very solemn warnings to anyone who would add anything (by way of further prophesy) or take anything away. A similar warning is given in Matt. 7:22-23 and is couched in the strongest possible terms.
2) Knowledge
The word 'knowledge' in this instance is not to be understood in the general usage of the term. It was not acquired knowledge. It was supernatural knowledge imparted directly and on the spot by the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way as the writers of the New Testament received it -- direct revelation by the Holy Spirit of the living God.
It was essential for believers in this transitional period to have in their possession knowledge of such things as the plan of redemption, their position in Christ and their eternal destiny but where were they to acquire such knowledge when it was absent in written form? The answer is, it was given to their leaders supernaturally and directly by the Holy Spirit. Now of course, when the New Testament was completed in written form, it contained a perfect system of truth. God did not forget anything that should have been included! He never has had to add anything. Everything of a spiritual nature that man needs to know is there but when the Canon of Scripture was completed in written form, knowledge supernaturally given, like prophesy, was no longer needed and was therefore withdrawn.
3) Tongues
Biblical tongues was the God-given ability to speak another language that the speaker had not learnt. It was not an acquired language but a language supernaturally given by the Holy Spirit.
The reason why this God-given ability was bestowed upon some of the early Christians is clearly stated in 1 Cor. 14:22 "Where tongues are for a sign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not."
The Purpose of Tongues
Paul could not have made plainer the purpose of tongues. A careful study of the passages in Acts Chs. 2, 10 and 19 clearly shows that the gift of tongues was an actual language and was used to bridge a barrier and thus speed up the spread of the Gospel, but the main purpose of tongues was to be a "sign." It was not a sign to other Christians that the speaker was "filled with the Holy Spirit" as is taught in charismatic circles today. Nor was it used as a supposed "prayer language." We are distinctly told that it was a sign (1 Cor. 14:22). Then for whom was this sign meant? This is also clearly stated. "Not to them that believe" but "to those who do not believe." This clear definitive statement is a fatal blow to the credibility of today's tongues movement.
"Tongues" in apostolic times was a sign to Israel as a nation. It was a sign of impending judgement (Isa. 28:11) if they did not accept Christ as their Messiah. God had faithfully taught them throughout history that their Messiah would come, and even gave them a supernatural sign to confirm to them that Christ was the Messiah.
Some Recognized the Sign
A small percentage of Jews did recognize the sign and turned to the Lord, but the nation as a whole did not recognize the sign
So to recap what I have said here:
Biblical tongues was not an unintelligible gabble [gibberish] such as is being spread throughout the church today. It was a supernatural gift given by God to speak in another language.
This God-given ability was given as a special sign to Israel as a nation. Having achieved the purpose for which it was given, it too was then withdrawn.
An Important Question
When was this gift withdrawn? The answer is "When that which is perfect is come" (1 Cor. 13:10).
I find many sincere Christians are deceived concerning the correct interpretation of this statement. They have been taught to equate "that which is perfect" with the coming of the Lord, but I would like to point out that the Greek New Testament completely quashes this interpretation.
If Paul had been referring to the Lord when he said "when that which is perfect," he would have said "when HE who is perfect" or even more plainly "when the Lord comes." He would also have used the masculine gender to make clear his meaning but he did not do this. He distinctly said "when that which is perfect" and, in the Greek, the neuter gender is used to show clearly that he was referring to some thing and not to some person. The nouns Lord, Christ and Jesus are all masculine nouns both in English and in the Greek. "That which is perfect" is neuter. So if we abide by the simple rules of grammar "that which is perfect" cannot refer to our Lord, but refers to some thing which is neutral and non-personal.
Furthermore, the word 'perfect' can be translated as 'complete.'
A Paraphrase
If taken from the Greek and paraphrased vv 9-10 could read, "For the Knowledge that we now possess is fragmentary (meaning incomplete and imperfect) and our Prophesy (teaching) is also fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect) but when the complete and perfect Word of God is come, these temporary gifts which are in part will then disappear because they will have been superseded."
Readers should also take careful note of the comparison between "that which is perfect" and "that which is in part." In both instances, the translation is "that which." So in both cases, reference is being made to something that is both neutral and non-personal.
What Paul is saying here is simply this: During this period of transition, when we do not as yet have the complete body of truth in written form, we use the supernatural but temporary, gifts of prophesy, tongues and knowledge, but when the total body of truth is completed and comes in written form, then the fragmentary knowledge and prophesy which we now possess will no longer be needed and will then pass away.
So these three temporary gifts, prophesy, knowledge and tongues ceased or passed off the scene when the Canon of Scripture was finally completed.
This does not mean to say that if the Lord wanted to enable one of His servants to converse fluently with someone in another language which they had not learnt, he couldn't freely do so. We must always bear in mind the fact that our Lord is Sovereign and He can do anything that He sees to be right and proper. But one point I would like to make here is this: I and others have been testing tongues in Australia for some years. In fact, there are men personally known to me who have been testing them for over 20 years and none of us has ever yet found a genuine gift of Biblical Tongues. When the Spirit using the tongue is commanded to identify itself, in 95% of cases, a demon answers.
However, even if on some rare occasion the Lord did give someone this supernatural ability, it still would not negate the fact that in Apostolic times, tongues were a sign to them which believed not (Israel as a nation) nor would it negate the fact that Biblical tongues ceased, exactly as Paul said they would, as soon as they had served their purpose.
Further Proof
If additional proof is needed to verify that what I have said is correct it should be noted that after Paul's first letter to the Corinthian Church, tongues are never mentioned again!
- This gift is not listed among the spiritual gifts given in Rom. 12 or Eph. 4.
- It is never mentioned at all in any of the other Epistles written later by Paul, Peter, John and James.
- Romans, which is regarded as the great doctrinal Epistle of the New Testament covers the whole gamut of Truth for this Church Age, but tongues is NEVER mentioned, NOT EVEN ONCE! Why?
Because they had served the purpose for which they had been given and either had already ceased or would soon do so. So there was no need for any further mention of them.
Now What?
Now if Biblical tongues ceased back in the Apostolic age, what explanation is there for the tongues phenomenon that is spreading like a grass fire through almost all denominations today? Are they supernatural? Are they of God, or are they satanic? These are vital questions and we will examine them Scripturally in upcoming blogs.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Have Biblical Tongues Ceased? (2 of 8)
Large numbers of believers around the world have been observing with interest some of the significant movements in contemporary church life.
It is now apparent that many Christians have been led into a deeper spiritual experience. Large numbers worldwide have been engaging in evangelism with varying degrees of success and missionary work has been given a much-needed boost. All of this is commendable, but if we study the great spiritual movements in past centuries, we will discover that with few exceptions, Satan has succeeded in introducing some element that was foreign to the true workings of the Holy Spirit. The work then either grinds to a halt, or else becomes contaminated and its effectiveness declines. Many commendable things can be said about contemporary evangelism and missionary endeavour. However, one highly dangerous element has been introduced that warrants closer examination. I refer to what is known as "speaking in tongues."
In his Epistles, Paul lists the spiritual gifts on three occasions:
It is now apparent that many Christians have been led into a deeper spiritual experience. Large numbers worldwide have been engaging in evangelism with varying degrees of success and missionary work has been given a much-needed boost. All of this is commendable, but if we study the great spiritual movements in past centuries, we will discover that with few exceptions, Satan has succeeded in introducing some element that was foreign to the true workings of the Holy Spirit. The work then either grinds to a halt, or else becomes contaminated and its effectiveness declines. Many commendable things can be said about contemporary evangelism and missionary endeavour. However, one highly dangerous element has been introduced that warrants closer examination. I refer to what is known as "speaking in tongues."
In his Epistles, Paul lists the spiritual gifts on three occasions:
- Romans 12:3-8
- First Corinthians 12:8-10, 28-30
- Ephesians 4:11
All such gifts were distributed by the Holy Spirit for the glory of our risen Lord Jesus Christ and the propagation of the Gospel. However, Paul indicated that while some of these gifts were to remain throughout the entire Church Age, others were only temporary gifts and would be withdrawn as soon as they had fulfilled their purpose.
It is not my intention here to define all the gifts, or to explain their function. I simply propose to draw attention to the fact that Paul is very careful to list separately those gifts which were of a temporary nature. They were in use during the transition period that began with Pentecost and ended with the completion of the Canon of Scripture. These gifts, after having served the purpose for which they were given, were then withdrawn by the Holy Spirit who had given them.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Hoo-Haw! (Sounds Like Hee-Haw!)
What is Hoo-Haw? Hoo-Haw is a phrase that I use to describe speaking in tongues because that's what it sounds like. A Hoo-Haw church is any church where they try to speak in tongues. They really don't speak in tongues. They really participate in glossolalia which is not speaking in tongues but they think it is!
Scripture clearly teaches that tongues is not for today. It was used at a specific time for a specific purpose and that time has passed. You will have to forgive me for my total lack of respect for people who try to do the Hoo-Haw thing when Scripture teaches against it. Not only are my three sons doing the Hoo-Haw thing but two of them are in leadership roles teaching others to do the Hoo-Haw thing which is in direct conflict with the teaching of Scripture.
Hoo-Haw is not a heavenly language. This term appears nowhere in Scripture. Hoo-Haw is not the Biblical gift of tongues. Hoo-Haw is "counterfeit tongues" which is gibberish and nothing more. Spiritual gifts were never intended for the benefit of the gifted individual. This is an abuse of tongues. Tongues, according to Scripture, is real language, not just noise, grunts and groans.
Tongues will cease permanently according to Scripture. The verb pauo in the Greek means "to cease permanently." That means that they will not start up again. Can I make it any clearer? If you are trying to speak in tongues, you are in error. You are in serious error!
There is only one conclusion that can be made about what is being touted as "tongues" today. It is really just so much "Hoo-Haw." Hoo-Haw is from Satan. It is a "deceitful spirit" and a "doctrine of demons." Tongues is nothing more than "learned behaviour." Anyone can learn to do it including non-Christians.
Why do people do it? They do it because of peer pressure to belong, to perform, to have the same gifts that everyone else has. Remember the devastating effects that peer pressure had on you when you were a teenager. Sounds dangerous and very destructive to me!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tongues Will Cease
In 1 Corinthians 13:8 Paul made an interesting, almost startling, statement: "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophesy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away." In the expression "love never fails," the Greek word translated "fails" means "to decay" or "to be abolished." Paul was not saying that love is invincible or that it cannot be rejected. He was saying that love is eternal -- that will be applicable forever and will never be passe.
Tongues, however, "will cease." The Greek verb used in 1 Corinthians 13:8 (pauo) means "to cease permanently." It implies that when tongues ceased they would never start up again.
Here is the problem this passage poses for the contemporary charismatic movement: if tongues were supposed to cease, has that already happened, or is it yet future? Charismatic brothers in Christ insist that none of the gifts have ceased yet, so the cessation of tongues is yet future. Most non-charismatics insist that tongues have already ceased, passing away with the apostolic age.
Who is right?
I am convinced by history, theology, and the Bible that tongues ceased in the apostolic age and when it happened, they terminated altogether. The contemporary charismatic movement does not represent a revival of biblical tongues. It is an aberration similar to the practice of counterfeit tongues at Corinth.
What evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and as we have noted repeatedly, the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58-96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the spirit at length -- but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time, miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Hebrews 2:3-4). Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. Before the first century ended, all the New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches. The revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose and when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:12).
Second, as we noted tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel. They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down and so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.
Tongues were therefore a sign of transition between the Old and New Covenants. With the establishment of the church, a new day had dawned for the people of God. God would speak in all languages. But once the period of transition was passed, the sign was no longer necessary. O. Palmer Robertson aptly articulated the consequence of that:
Tongues served well to show that Christianity, though begun in the cradle of Judaism, was not to be distinctively Jewish...Now that the transition [between Old and New Covenants] has been made, the sign of transition has no abiding value in the life of the church.
Today there is no need for a sign to show that God is moving from the single nation of Israel to all the nations. That movement has become an accomplished fact. As in the case of the founding office of apostle, so the particularly transitional gift of tongues has fulfilled its function as covenantal sign for the Old and New Covenant people of God. Once having fulfilled that role, it has no further function among the people of God.
Moreover the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Corinthians 14:22) and cannot edify the church in a proper way. It is also easily misused to edify self (14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.
History records that tongues did cease. Again, it is significant that tongues are mentioned only in the earliest books of the New Testament. Paul wrote at least twelve epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentioned tongues again. Peter never mentioned tongues; James never mentioned tongues; John never mentioned tongues; neither did Jude. Tongues appeared only briefly in Acts and 1 Corinthians as the new message of the gospel was being spread but once the church was established, tongues were gone. They stopped. The later books of the New Testament do not mention tongues again. Nor did anyone in the post-apostolic age. Cleon Rogers wrote, "It is significant that the gift of tongues is nowhere alluded to, hinted at or even found in the Apostolic Fathers."
Chrysostom and Augustine -- the greatest theologians of the eastern and western churches -- considered tongues obsolete. Chrysostom stated categorically that tongues had ceased by his time. Writing in the fourth century he described tongues as an obscure practice, admitting that he was not even certain about the characteristics of the gift. "The obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place," he wrote.
Augustine wrote of tongues as a sign that was adapted to the apostolic age:
In the earliest times, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues," which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance." These were signs adapted to the times. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? [To this rhetorical question Augustine obviously anticipated a negative reply.]...If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not now given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him.
Augustine also wrote,
How then, brethren, because he that is baptised in Christ, and believes on Him, does not now speak in the tongues of all nations, are we not to believe that he has received the Holy Ghost? God forbid that our heart should be tempted by this faithlessness...Why is it that no man speaks in the tongues of all nations? Because the Church itself now speaks in the tongues of all nations. Before the Church was in one nation, where it spoke in the tongues of all. By speaking then in the tongues of all it signified what was to come to pass; that by growing among the nations, it would speak in the tongues of all.
During the first five hundred years of the church, the only people who claimed to have spoken in tongues were followers of Montanus, who was branded a heretic.
The next time any significant tongue-speaking movement arose within Christianity was in the late seventeenth century. A group of militant Protestants in the Cevennes region of southern France began to prophesy, experience visions and speak in tongues. The group, sometimes called the Cevennol prophets are remembered for their political and military activities, not their spiritual legacy. Most of their prophesies went unfulfilled. They were rabidly anti-Catholic, and advocated the use of armed force against the Catholic church. Many of them were consequently persecuted and killed by Rome.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Jansenists, a group of Roman Catholic loyalists who opposed the Reformers' teaching on justification by faith, also claimed to be able to speak in tongues in the 1700s.
Another group that practiced a form of tongues was the Shakers, an American sect with Quaker roots that flourished in the mid-1700s. Mother Ann Lee, founder of the sect, regarded herself as the female equivalent of Jesus Christ. She claimed to be able to speak in seventy-two languages. The Shakers believed that sexual intercourse was sinful, even within marriage. They spoke in tongues while dancing and singing in a trancelike state.
Then in the early nineteenth century, Scottish Presbyterian pastor Edward Irving and members of his congregation practiced speaking in tongues and prophesying. Irvingite prophets often contradicted each other. Their prophesies failed to come to pass, and their meetings were characterized by wild excesses. The movement was further discredited when some of their prophets admitted to falsifying prophesies and others even attributed their "giftedness" to evil spirits. This group eventually became the Catholic Apostolic Church, which taught many false doctrines, embracing several Roman Catholic doctrines and creating twelve apostolic offices.
All of those supposed manifestations of tongues were identified with groups that were heretical, fanatical, or otherwise unorthodox. The judgment of biblically orthodox believers who were their contemporaries was that all those groups were aberrations. Surely that should also be the assessment of any Christian who is concerned with truth. Thus we conclude that from the end of the apostolic era to the beginning of the twentieth century there were no genuine occurrences of the New Testament gift of tongues. They had ceased, as the Holy Spirit said they would (1 Corinthians 13:8).
New Testament scholar, Thomas R. Edgar, makes this observation:
Since these gifts and signs did cease, the burden of proof is entirely on the charismatics to prove their validity. Too long Christians have assumed that the noncharismatic must produce incontestable biblical evidence that the miraculous sign gift did cease. However, noncharismatics have no burden to prove this since it has already been proved by history. It is an irrefutable fact admitted by many Pentecostals. Therefore the charismatics must prove biblically that the sign gifts will start up again during the Church Age and that today's phenomena are this reoccurrence. In other words, they must prove that their experiences are the reoccurrence of gifts that have not occurred for almost 1900 years.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
Tongues, however, "will cease." The Greek verb used in 1 Corinthians 13:8 (pauo) means "to cease permanently." It implies that when tongues ceased they would never start up again.
Here is the problem this passage poses for the contemporary charismatic movement: if tongues were supposed to cease, has that already happened, or is it yet future? Charismatic brothers in Christ insist that none of the gifts have ceased yet, so the cessation of tongues is yet future. Most non-charismatics insist that tongues have already ceased, passing away with the apostolic age.
Who is right?
I am convinced by history, theology, and the Bible that tongues ceased in the apostolic age and when it happened, they terminated altogether. The contemporary charismatic movement does not represent a revival of biblical tongues. It is an aberration similar to the practice of counterfeit tongues at Corinth.
What evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and as we have noted repeatedly, the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58-96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the spirit at length -- but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time, miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Hebrews 2:3-4). Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. Before the first century ended, all the New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches. The revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose and when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:12).
Second, as we noted tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel. They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down and so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.
Tongues were therefore a sign of transition between the Old and New Covenants. With the establishment of the church, a new day had dawned for the people of God. God would speak in all languages. But once the period of transition was passed, the sign was no longer necessary. O. Palmer Robertson aptly articulated the consequence of that:
Tongues served well to show that Christianity, though begun in the cradle of Judaism, was not to be distinctively Jewish...Now that the transition [between Old and New Covenants] has been made, the sign of transition has no abiding value in the life of the church.
Today there is no need for a sign to show that God is moving from the single nation of Israel to all the nations. That movement has become an accomplished fact. As in the case of the founding office of apostle, so the particularly transitional gift of tongues has fulfilled its function as covenantal sign for the Old and New Covenant people of God. Once having fulfilled that role, it has no further function among the people of God.
Moreover the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Corinthians 14:22) and cannot edify the church in a proper way. It is also easily misused to edify self (14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.
History records that tongues did cease. Again, it is significant that tongues are mentioned only in the earliest books of the New Testament. Paul wrote at least twelve epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentioned tongues again. Peter never mentioned tongues; James never mentioned tongues; John never mentioned tongues; neither did Jude. Tongues appeared only briefly in Acts and 1 Corinthians as the new message of the gospel was being spread but once the church was established, tongues were gone. They stopped. The later books of the New Testament do not mention tongues again. Nor did anyone in the post-apostolic age. Cleon Rogers wrote, "It is significant that the gift of tongues is nowhere alluded to, hinted at or even found in the Apostolic Fathers."
Chrysostom and Augustine -- the greatest theologians of the eastern and western churches -- considered tongues obsolete. Chrysostom stated categorically that tongues had ceased by his time. Writing in the fourth century he described tongues as an obscure practice, admitting that he was not even certain about the characteristics of the gift. "The obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place," he wrote.
Augustine wrote of tongues as a sign that was adapted to the apostolic age:
In the earliest times, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues," which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance." These were signs adapted to the times. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? [To this rhetorical question Augustine obviously anticipated a negative reply.]...If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not now given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him.
Augustine also wrote,
How then, brethren, because he that is baptised in Christ, and believes on Him, does not now speak in the tongues of all nations, are we not to believe that he has received the Holy Ghost? God forbid that our heart should be tempted by this faithlessness...Why is it that no man speaks in the tongues of all nations? Because the Church itself now speaks in the tongues of all nations. Before the Church was in one nation, where it spoke in the tongues of all. By speaking then in the tongues of all it signified what was to come to pass; that by growing among the nations, it would speak in the tongues of all.
During the first five hundred years of the church, the only people who claimed to have spoken in tongues were followers of Montanus, who was branded a heretic.
The next time any significant tongue-speaking movement arose within Christianity was in the late seventeenth century. A group of militant Protestants in the Cevennes region of southern France began to prophesy, experience visions and speak in tongues. The group, sometimes called the Cevennol prophets are remembered for their political and military activities, not their spiritual legacy. Most of their prophesies went unfulfilled. They were rabidly anti-Catholic, and advocated the use of armed force against the Catholic church. Many of them were consequently persecuted and killed by Rome.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Jansenists, a group of Roman Catholic loyalists who opposed the Reformers' teaching on justification by faith, also claimed to be able to speak in tongues in the 1700s.
Another group that practiced a form of tongues was the Shakers, an American sect with Quaker roots that flourished in the mid-1700s. Mother Ann Lee, founder of the sect, regarded herself as the female equivalent of Jesus Christ. She claimed to be able to speak in seventy-two languages. The Shakers believed that sexual intercourse was sinful, even within marriage. They spoke in tongues while dancing and singing in a trancelike state.
Then in the early nineteenth century, Scottish Presbyterian pastor Edward Irving and members of his congregation practiced speaking in tongues and prophesying. Irvingite prophets often contradicted each other. Their prophesies failed to come to pass, and their meetings were characterized by wild excesses. The movement was further discredited when some of their prophets admitted to falsifying prophesies and others even attributed their "giftedness" to evil spirits. This group eventually became the Catholic Apostolic Church, which taught many false doctrines, embracing several Roman Catholic doctrines and creating twelve apostolic offices.
All of those supposed manifestations of tongues were identified with groups that were heretical, fanatical, or otherwise unorthodox. The judgment of biblically orthodox believers who were their contemporaries was that all those groups were aberrations. Surely that should also be the assessment of any Christian who is concerned with truth. Thus we conclude that from the end of the apostolic era to the beginning of the twentieth century there were no genuine occurrences of the New Testament gift of tongues. They had ceased, as the Holy Spirit said they would (1 Corinthians 13:8).
New Testament scholar, Thomas R. Edgar, makes this observation:
Since these gifts and signs did cease, the burden of proof is entirely on the charismatics to prove their validity. Too long Christians have assumed that the noncharismatic must produce incontestable biblical evidence that the miraculous sign gift did cease. However, noncharismatics have no burden to prove this since it has already been proved by history. It is an irrefutable fact admitted by many Pentecostals. Therefore the charismatics must prove biblically that the sign gifts will start up again during the Church Age and that today's phenomena are this reoccurrence. In other words, they must prove that their experiences are the reoccurrence of gifts that have not occurred for almost 1900 years.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Abuse of Tongues at Corinth
Note that in 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul was criticizing the Corinthians for using their "gift of tongues" to speak to God and not to men: "One who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands. but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." Paul's comment is not suggesting that tongues should be used as a "prayer language"; he was using irony, pointing out the futility of speaking in tongues without an interpreter, because only God would know if anything was said. Spiritual gifts were never intended to be used for God's benefit, or for the benefit of the gifted individual. Peter made that clear in 1 Peter 4:10: "As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one and other."
Paul further added in 1 Corinthians 14:4, "One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself but one who prophesies edifies the church." Again, Paul was 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 of the principle of love ("[Love] does not seek its own."--1 Corinthians 13:5). The word "edify" in 14:4 means "to build up." It might carry either a positive or negative connotation, depending on the context. The Corinthians were using tongues to build themselves up in a selfish sense. Their motives were not wholesome but egocentric. Their passion for tongues grew out of a desire to exercise the most spectacular, showy gifts in front of other believers. Paul's point was that no one profits from such an exhibition except the person speaking in tongues -- and the chief value he gets out of it is the building of his own ego. In 1 Corinthians 10:24 Paul had already made clear this principle: "Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbour."
Tongues posed another problem: used as they were in Corinth, they obscured rather than clarified the message they were intended to convey. In 1 Corinthians 14:16-17, Paul wrote, "If you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified." In other words, the tongues-speakers in Corinth were being selfish, ignoring the rest of the people in the congregation, muddying the message the gift was designed to communicate, and doing it all just to gratify their own egos, to show off, and to demonstrate their spirituality to one another.
In light of all that, we might wonder about Paul's apparent command in 1 Corinthians 12:31: "But earnestly desire the greater gifts." The way that verse is usually translated presents some serious interpretive problems. Since Paul stresses God's sovereignty in distributing the gifts, and he writes to castigate the Corinthians for favouring the showy gifts, why would he command them to seek "the greater" gifts? Wouldn't that just encourage them to continue competing for status?
But in fact the verse is not actually a command at all. The English translation is misleading as to Paul's meaning. The verb form used here can be either indicative (a statement of fact) or imperative (a command). The indicative form makes better sense. The New International Version offers the indicative as an alternate reading: "But you are eagerly desiring the greater gifts." Albert Barnes takes the indicative view, pointing out that many of his fellow commentators in the mid-nineteenth century (Doddridge, Locke, and Macknight) did likewise. Barnes observes that the cyriac new testament renders the verse, "Because you are zealous of the best gifts, I will show to you a more excellent way."
In other words, Paul was actually saying, "But you are zealously coveting the showy gifts." That is a rebuke, which makes better sense of Paul's next words: "I show you a still more excellent way." He is not commanding them to seek certain gifts, but condemning them for seeking the showy ones. The "more excellent way" he speaks of is the way of love, he then goes on to describe in 1 Corinthians 13.
The Corinthians were selfishly seeking the most prominent, most ostentatious, most celebrated gifts. They coveted others admiration. They craved the applause of men. They desired to be seen as "spiritual." Evidently, people had even gone to the extreme of using counterfeit tongues. The abuse of tongues in Corinth was threatening that church.
Sadly, the very same problems are threatening the church today.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
Paul further added in 1 Corinthians 14:4, "One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself but one who prophesies edifies the church." Again, Paul was 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 of the principle of love ("[Love] does not seek its own."--1 Corinthians 13:5). The word "edify" in 14:4 means "to build up." It might carry either a positive or negative connotation, depending on the context. The Corinthians were using tongues to build themselves up in a selfish sense. Their motives were not wholesome but egocentric. Their passion for tongues grew out of a desire to exercise the most spectacular, showy gifts in front of other believers. Paul's point was that no one profits from such an exhibition except the person speaking in tongues -- and the chief value he gets out of it is the building of his own ego. In 1 Corinthians 10:24 Paul had already made clear this principle: "Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbour."
Tongues posed another problem: used as they were in Corinth, they obscured rather than clarified the message they were intended to convey. In 1 Corinthians 14:16-17, Paul wrote, "If you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified." In other words, the tongues-speakers in Corinth were being selfish, ignoring the rest of the people in the congregation, muddying the message the gift was designed to communicate, and doing it all just to gratify their own egos, to show off, and to demonstrate their spirituality to one another.
In light of all that, we might wonder about Paul's apparent command in 1 Corinthians 12:31: "But earnestly desire the greater gifts." The way that verse is usually translated presents some serious interpretive problems. Since Paul stresses God's sovereignty in distributing the gifts, and he writes to castigate the Corinthians for favouring the showy gifts, why would he command them to seek "the greater" gifts? Wouldn't that just encourage them to continue competing for status?
But in fact the verse is not actually a command at all. The English translation is misleading as to Paul's meaning. The verb form used here can be either indicative (a statement of fact) or imperative (a command). The indicative form makes better sense. The New International Version offers the indicative as an alternate reading: "But you are eagerly desiring the greater gifts." Albert Barnes takes the indicative view, pointing out that many of his fellow commentators in the mid-nineteenth century (Doddridge, Locke, and Macknight) did likewise. Barnes observes that the cyriac new testament renders the verse, "Because you are zealous of the best gifts, I will show to you a more excellent way."
In other words, Paul was actually saying, "But you are zealously coveting the showy gifts." That is a rebuke, which makes better sense of Paul's next words: "I show you a still more excellent way." He is not commanding them to seek certain gifts, but condemning them for seeking the showy ones. The "more excellent way" he speaks of is the way of love, he then goes on to describe in 1 Corinthians 13.
The Corinthians were selfishly seeking the most prominent, most ostentatious, most celebrated gifts. They coveted others admiration. They craved the applause of men. They desired to be seen as "spiritual." Evidently, people had even gone to the extreme of using counterfeit tongues. The abuse of tongues in Corinth was threatening that church.
Sadly, the very same problems are threatening the church today.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
Friday, March 13, 2009
Counterfeit Tongues
Clearly, true Biblical tongues are not gibberish, but languages. What passes for tongues in the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, however, are not true languages. Modern tongues-speaking, often called glossolalia, is not the same thing as the Biblical gift of languages. William Samarin, professor of linguistics at the University of Toronto, wrote:
Over a period of five years I have taken part in meetings in Italy. Holland, Jamaica, Canada, and the United States. I have observed old-fashioned Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals; I have been in small meetings at private homes as well as in mammoth public meetings; I have seen different cultural settings as are found among the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake handlers of the Appalachians and Russian Molakans in Los Angeles...Glossolalia is indeed like language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker (unconsciously) wants it to be like language. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language.
William Samarin is one of many men who have made studies of glossolalia. 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 tongues.
The mystery religions in and around Corinth in the first century made wide use of ecstatic speech and trancelike experiences. It seems some of the Corinthians had corrupted the gift of tongues by using the ecstatic counterfeit. What they were doing was very similar to modern-day glossolalia. Paul was trying to correct them by telling them that such practices circumvented the whole point of the gift of tongues. If they used tongues that way, they would do harm and not good for the cause of Christ.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
The Grand Poo-Bah says -- If tongues do not support the cause of Christ, the only logical conclusion is that tongues support the cause and purposes of Satan. If that is true and you claim to be a Christian, why would you have anything to do with speaking in tongues or what is known to be counterfeit tongues? It could logically be said that anyone speaking in tongues or attempting to speak in tongues is serving Satan.
Over a period of five years I have taken part in meetings in Italy. Holland, Jamaica, Canada, and the United States. I have observed old-fashioned Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals; I have been in small meetings at private homes as well as in mammoth public meetings; I have seen different cultural settings as are found among the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake handlers of the Appalachians and Russian Molakans in Los Angeles...Glossolalia is indeed like language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker (unconsciously) wants it to be like language. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language.
William Samarin is one of many men who have made studies of glossolalia. 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 tongues.
The mystery religions in and around Corinth in the first century made wide use of ecstatic speech and trancelike experiences. It seems some of the Corinthians had corrupted the gift of tongues by using the ecstatic counterfeit. What they were doing was very similar to modern-day glossolalia. Paul was trying to correct them by telling them that such practices circumvented the whole point of the gift of tongues. If they used tongues that way, they would do harm and not good for the cause of Christ.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
The Grand Poo-Bah says -- If tongues do not support the cause of Christ, the only logical conclusion is that tongues support the cause and purposes of Satan. If that is true and you claim to be a Christian, why would you have anything to do with speaking in tongues or what is known to be counterfeit tongues? It could logically be said that anyone speaking in tongues or attempting to speak in tongues is serving Satan.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Biblical Gift of Tongues
Tongues are mentioned in three books of the Bible: Mark (16:17); Acts (2, 10, 19); and 1 Cor. (12-14). Acts is primarily historical narrative and the extra-ordinary miraculous events it recounts do not represent a normative pattern for the entire church age. The disputed text of Mark 16:17 simply mentions tongues as an apostolic sign. That leaves 1 Corinthians 12-14 the only passage of Scripture that talks about the role of tongues in the church. Note that Paul wrote those chapters to reprove the Corinthians for their misuse of the gift. Most of what he had to say restricted the use of tongues in the church.
In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul discussed spiritual gifts in general, how they are received and how God has ordered the gifts in the church. In the fourteenth chapter of that book, he demonstrated the inferiority of tongues to prophecy. There he also gave guidelines for the proper exercise of the gifts of tongues and interpretation. Right in the middle of those two chapters -- in 1 Corinthians 13 -- Paul discussed the proper motive for using the gifts -- namely, love. Usually dealt with apart from its context, 1 Corinthians 13 has been called a gift of love. It is undeniably a supreme literary achievement and it deals profoundly and beautifully with the subject of genuine love. But it is helpful to remember that it is first of all a crucial point in Paul's discussion of the adulteration of tongues.
In 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Paul affirms the preeminence of love. Verse 1 plainly states that miraculous languages without love are nothing. Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for using gifts of the spirit, selfishly and without love. They were more interested in inflating their own egos or in enjoying a euphoric experience than they were in serving one another with the self-sacrificing concern that characterizes agape love.
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." is how Paul begins the chapter. "Tongues" is from the Greek work glossa, which, like our word tongue, can refer either to the physical organ or to a language. Paul is clearly referring to a gift of languages. Note that Paul had personally spoken in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18). He was not condemning the practice itself; he was saying that if the gift of tongues is used in any other way than God intended, it is only noise -- like the rhythm band in a kindergarten class.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul discussed spiritual gifts in general, how they are received and how God has ordered the gifts in the church. In the fourteenth chapter of that book, he demonstrated the inferiority of tongues to prophecy. There he also gave guidelines for the proper exercise of the gifts of tongues and interpretation. Right in the middle of those two chapters -- in 1 Corinthians 13 -- Paul discussed the proper motive for using the gifts -- namely, love. Usually dealt with apart from its context, 1 Corinthians 13 has been called a gift of love. It is undeniably a supreme literary achievement and it deals profoundly and beautifully with the subject of genuine love. But it is helpful to remember that it is first of all a crucial point in Paul's discussion of the adulteration of tongues.
In 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Paul affirms the preeminence of love. Verse 1 plainly states that miraculous languages without love are nothing. Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for using gifts of the spirit, selfishly and without love. They were more interested in inflating their own egos or in enjoying a euphoric experience than they were in serving one another with the self-sacrificing concern that characterizes agape love.
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." is how Paul begins the chapter. "Tongues" is from the Greek work glossa, which, like our word tongue, can refer either to the physical organ or to a language. Paul is clearly referring to a gift of languages. Note that Paul had personally spoken in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18). He was not condemning the practice itself; he was saying that if the gift of tongues is used in any other way than God intended, it is only noise -- like the rhythm band in a kindergarten class.
(from Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Is The Gift of Tongues For Today?
Someone sent me a sample of some charismatic Sunday school literature designed to teach kindergarten children to speak in tongues. It is titled "I've Been Filled with the Holy Spirit!!!" and is an eight-page colouring book. One page has a caricature of a smiling weight-lifter with a T-shirt that says "Spirit-Man." Under him is printed 1 Corinthians 14:4: "He that speaks in an unknown tongue builds himself up."
Another page features a boy who looks like Howdy-Doody [a clown] with his hands lifted up. A dotted outline pictures where his lungs would be. (This evidently represents his spirit.) Inside the lung-shaped diagram is printed "BAH-LE ODOMA TA LAH-SE TA NO-MO." A cartoon-style balloon coming from his mouth repeats the words, "BAH-LE ODOMA TA LAH-SE TA NO-MO." A brain-shaped cloud is drawn in his head, with a large question mark in the cloud? Also inside the cloud is printed, "MY MIND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING." Under the boy 1 Corinthians 14:14 is printed: "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."
That expresses the typical charismatic perspective. The gift of tongues is viewed as a wholly mystical ability that somehow operates in a person's spirit but utterly bypasses the mind. Many charismatics are even told that they must purposefully switch off their minds to enable the gift to function. Charles and Frances Hunter, for example, hold "Healing Explosion" meetings, attended by as many as fifty thousand people at a time. At those seminars the Hunters "teach" people how to receive the gift of tongues. Charles Hunter tells people,
When you pray with your spirit, you do not think of the sounds of the language. Just trust God, but make the sounds when I tell you to. In just a moment when I tell you to, begin loving and praising God by speaking forth a lot of different syllable sounds. At first make the sounds rapidly so you won't try to think as you do in speaking your natural language...Make the sounds loudly at first so you can easily hear what you are saying.
Hunter does not explain what point there is in hearing what one is saying, since the mind is supposed to be disengaged anyway. He continually reminds his audience that they are not supposed to be thinking: "The reason that some of you don't speak fluently is that you tried to think of the sounds. So when we pray this prayer and you start speaking in your heavenly language, don't try to think." Later, he adds, "[You] don't even have to think to pray in the Spirit."
[The Grand Poo-Bah says: "The words 'heavenly language' appear nowhere in Scripture and cannot be found anywhere in a Bible concordance. How can that be explained? My guess is the Pentecostal church made it up to serve their purposes. There is no such thing as a heavenly language -- it does not exist except in the minds of Pentecostals."]
Arthur L. Johnson, in his excellent expose of mysticism calls the charismatic movement "the zenith of mysticism" and with good reason. This desire to switch off the mind and disconnect from all that is rational was one of the primary characteristics of the pagan mystery religions. Nearly all the teachings distinctive to the charismatic movement are unadulterated mysticism and nothing illustrates that more perfectly than the way charismatics themselves depict the gift of tongues.
Charismatics [and that includes Victory Churches International] typically describe tongues as an ecstatic experience without parallel that arouses the spirit in a way that must be experienced to be appreciated. One author quotes Robert V. Morris:
For me...the gift of tongues turned out to be the gift of praise. As I used the unknown language which God had given me I felt rising in me the love, the awe, the adoration, pure and uncontingent, that I had not been able to achieve in thought-out prayer.
A newspaper article on tongues quoted the Reverend Bill L. Williams, of San Jose: "It involves you with someone you're deeply in love with and devoted to...We don't understand the verbiage but we know we're in communication." That awareness is "beyond emotion, beyond intellect," he said. "It transcends human understanding. It is the heart of man speaking to the heart of God. It is deep, inner heart understanding." "It comes as supernatural utterances, bringing intimacy with God."
The article also quoted the Reverend Billy Martin, of Farmington, New Mexico: "It's a joyous, glorious, wonderful experience." And the Reverend Darlene Miller, of Knoxville, Tennessee: "It's like the sweetness of peaches that you can't know until you taste it yourself. There's nothing ever to compare with that taste." Other tongues-speakers would echo sentiments similar to those.
And what could possibly be wrong with such an experience? If it makes a person feel good, closer to God, spiritually stronger, or even delirious with joy, can it in any way be dangerous or deceptive?
It can, and it is. The late George Gardiner, a pastor and former tongues-speaker, who left the Pentecostal movement, poignantly described the danger of surrendering one's mind and abandoning control of oneself for the euphoria of a tongues experience:
The enemy of the soul is ever-ready to take advantage of an "out of control" situation and thousands of Christians can testify with regret to the end results. Such experiences not only give Satan an opening he is quick to exploit, they can be psychologically damaging to the individual. Charismatic writers are constantly warning tongues-speakers that they will suffer a letdown. This is ascribed to the devil and the reader is urged to get refilled as soon as possible...
So the seeker for experience goes back through the ritual again and again, but begins to discover something; ecstatic experience, like drug-addiction, requires larger and larger doses to satisfy. Sometimes the bizarre is introduced. I have seen people run around a room until they were exhausted, climb tent poles, laugh hysterically, go into trances for days, and do other weird things as the "high" sought became more illusive. Eventually there is a crisis and a decision is made; he will sit on the back seats and be a spectator and "fake it" or go on in the hope that everything will eventually be as it was. The most tragic decision is to quit and in the quitting, abandon all things spiritual as fraudulent. The spectators are frustrated, the fakers suffer guilt, the hoping are pitiable, and the quitters are a tragedy. No, such movements are not harmless!
Many who speak in tongues will understand the tensions Gardiner has described. He is not the only tongues-speaker to turn against the practice and expose its dangers. Wayne Robinson, who served as editor-in-chief of publications in the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association, was an enthusiastic tongues-speaker. In the preface of his book I Once Spoke In Tongues, he wrote:
In the past few years, I have become more and more convinced that the test, not only of tongues but of any religious experience, cannot be limited to the logic and truthfulness supporting it. There is also the essential question, "what does it do in one's life?" More specifically, does it turn a person inward to self-concern and selfish interests, or does it open him up to others and to their needs?
I know people who testify that speaking in tongues has been the great liberating experience of their lives. But juxtaposed with them are a great many others for whom speaking in tongues has been an excuse to withdraw from confronting the realities of a suffering and divided world. For some, tongues has been the greatest thing ever to happen; others have seen it disrupt churches, destroy careers, and rupture personal relationships. [The Grand Poo-Bah has personally experienced the latter.]
Ben Byrd, another former charismatic, writes,
To say that speaking in tongues is a harmless practice and is all right for those who want to IS AN UNWISE position when information to the contrary is evident...Speaking in tongues is addictive. The misunderstanding of the issue of tongues and the habit plus the psychic high it brings plus the stimulation of the flesh equals a practice hard to let go of...But to equate much speaking in tongues with advanced spirituality is to reveal one's misunderstanding of Bible Truth and to reveal one's willingness to be satisfied with a deceptive and dangerous counterfeit.
Others who practice tongues can turn the phenomenon on and off mechanically, without feeling anything emotional, having learned the familiar sounds to repeat, they have honed the ability and can speak fluently and effortlessly -- yet dispassionately.
(from "Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
[The Grand Poo-Bah says: "To sum it up in a nutshell, speaking in tongues is learned behaviour; it is addictive, very dangerous and serves the purposes of Satan. Just so you know, the Grand Poo-Bah has not experienced speaking in tongues because he seems to know through discernment that it's dangerous and gives the devil an opportunity and I choose not to give the devil an open door. It has been my experience in over sixty years that you don't have to go to the sun to know it's hot."]
Another page features a boy who looks like Howdy-Doody [a clown] with his hands lifted up. A dotted outline pictures where his lungs would be. (This evidently represents his spirit.) Inside the lung-shaped diagram is printed "BAH-LE ODOMA TA LAH-SE TA NO-MO." A cartoon-style balloon coming from his mouth repeats the words, "BAH-LE ODOMA TA LAH-SE TA NO-MO." A brain-shaped cloud is drawn in his head, with a large question mark in the cloud? Also inside the cloud is printed, "MY MIND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING." Under the boy 1 Corinthians 14:14 is printed: "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."
That expresses the typical charismatic perspective. The gift of tongues is viewed as a wholly mystical ability that somehow operates in a person's spirit but utterly bypasses the mind. Many charismatics are even told that they must purposefully switch off their minds to enable the gift to function. Charles and Frances Hunter, for example, hold "Healing Explosion" meetings, attended by as many as fifty thousand people at a time. At those seminars the Hunters "teach" people how to receive the gift of tongues. Charles Hunter tells people,
When you pray with your spirit, you do not think of the sounds of the language. Just trust God, but make the sounds when I tell you to. In just a moment when I tell you to, begin loving and praising God by speaking forth a lot of different syllable sounds. At first make the sounds rapidly so you won't try to think as you do in speaking your natural language...Make the sounds loudly at first so you can easily hear what you are saying.
Hunter does not explain what point there is in hearing what one is saying, since the mind is supposed to be disengaged anyway. He continually reminds his audience that they are not supposed to be thinking: "The reason that some of you don't speak fluently is that you tried to think of the sounds. So when we pray this prayer and you start speaking in your heavenly language, don't try to think." Later, he adds, "[You] don't even have to think to pray in the Spirit."
[The Grand Poo-Bah says: "The words 'heavenly language' appear nowhere in Scripture and cannot be found anywhere in a Bible concordance. How can that be explained? My guess is the Pentecostal church made it up to serve their purposes. There is no such thing as a heavenly language -- it does not exist except in the minds of Pentecostals."]
Arthur L. Johnson, in his excellent expose of mysticism calls the charismatic movement "the zenith of mysticism" and with good reason. This desire to switch off the mind and disconnect from all that is rational was one of the primary characteristics of the pagan mystery religions. Nearly all the teachings distinctive to the charismatic movement are unadulterated mysticism and nothing illustrates that more perfectly than the way charismatics themselves depict the gift of tongues.
Charismatics [and that includes Victory Churches International] typically describe tongues as an ecstatic experience without parallel that arouses the spirit in a way that must be experienced to be appreciated. One author quotes Robert V. Morris:
For me...the gift of tongues turned out to be the gift of praise. As I used the unknown language which God had given me I felt rising in me the love, the awe, the adoration, pure and uncontingent, that I had not been able to achieve in thought-out prayer.
A newspaper article on tongues quoted the Reverend Bill L. Williams, of San Jose: "It involves you with someone you're deeply in love with and devoted to...We don't understand the verbiage but we know we're in communication." That awareness is "beyond emotion, beyond intellect," he said. "It transcends human understanding. It is the heart of man speaking to the heart of God. It is deep, inner heart understanding." "It comes as supernatural utterances, bringing intimacy with God."
The article also quoted the Reverend Billy Martin, of Farmington, New Mexico: "It's a joyous, glorious, wonderful experience." And the Reverend Darlene Miller, of Knoxville, Tennessee: "It's like the sweetness of peaches that you can't know until you taste it yourself. There's nothing ever to compare with that taste." Other tongues-speakers would echo sentiments similar to those.
And what could possibly be wrong with such an experience? If it makes a person feel good, closer to God, spiritually stronger, or even delirious with joy, can it in any way be dangerous or deceptive?
It can, and it is. The late George Gardiner, a pastor and former tongues-speaker, who left the Pentecostal movement, poignantly described the danger of surrendering one's mind and abandoning control of oneself for the euphoria of a tongues experience:
The enemy of the soul is ever-ready to take advantage of an "out of control" situation and thousands of Christians can testify with regret to the end results. Such experiences not only give Satan an opening he is quick to exploit, they can be psychologically damaging to the individual. Charismatic writers are constantly warning tongues-speakers that they will suffer a letdown. This is ascribed to the devil and the reader is urged to get refilled as soon as possible...
So the seeker for experience goes back through the ritual again and again, but begins to discover something; ecstatic experience, like drug-addiction, requires larger and larger doses to satisfy. Sometimes the bizarre is introduced. I have seen people run around a room until they were exhausted, climb tent poles, laugh hysterically, go into trances for days, and do other weird things as the "high" sought became more illusive. Eventually there is a crisis and a decision is made; he will sit on the back seats and be a spectator and "fake it" or go on in the hope that everything will eventually be as it was. The most tragic decision is to quit and in the quitting, abandon all things spiritual as fraudulent. The spectators are frustrated, the fakers suffer guilt, the hoping are pitiable, and the quitters are a tragedy. No, such movements are not harmless!
Many who speak in tongues will understand the tensions Gardiner has described. He is not the only tongues-speaker to turn against the practice and expose its dangers. Wayne Robinson, who served as editor-in-chief of publications in the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association, was an enthusiastic tongues-speaker. In the preface of his book I Once Spoke In Tongues, he wrote:
In the past few years, I have become more and more convinced that the test, not only of tongues but of any religious experience, cannot be limited to the logic and truthfulness supporting it. There is also the essential question, "what does it do in one's life?" More specifically, does it turn a person inward to self-concern and selfish interests, or does it open him up to others and to their needs?
I know people who testify that speaking in tongues has been the great liberating experience of their lives. But juxtaposed with them are a great many others for whom speaking in tongues has been an excuse to withdraw from confronting the realities of a suffering and divided world. For some, tongues has been the greatest thing ever to happen; others have seen it disrupt churches, destroy careers, and rupture personal relationships. [The Grand Poo-Bah has personally experienced the latter.]
Ben Byrd, another former charismatic, writes,
To say that speaking in tongues is a harmless practice and is all right for those who want to IS AN UNWISE position when information to the contrary is evident...Speaking in tongues is addictive. The misunderstanding of the issue of tongues and the habit plus the psychic high it brings plus the stimulation of the flesh equals a practice hard to let go of...But to equate much speaking in tongues with advanced spirituality is to reveal one's misunderstanding of Bible Truth and to reveal one's willingness to be satisfied with a deceptive and dangerous counterfeit.
Others who practice tongues can turn the phenomenon on and off mechanically, without feeling anything emotional, having learned the familiar sounds to repeat, they have honed the ability and can speak fluently and effortlessly -- yet dispassionately.
(from "Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)
[The Grand Poo-Bah says: "To sum it up in a nutshell, speaking in tongues is learned behaviour; it is addictive, very dangerous and serves the purposes of Satan. Just so you know, the Grand Poo-Bah has not experienced speaking in tongues because he seems to know through discernment that it's dangerous and gives the devil an opportunity and I choose not to give the devil an open door. It has been my experience in over sixty years that you don't have to go to the sun to know it's hot."]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)