The Gift of Tongues, No. 9
This morning we look at the gift of
tongues number 9 just to tie up a few thoughts concerning this series.
The advocates of tongues for today, we have seen,
stress the first century and they stress the 20th century (and somewhat the 19th
century). But little is said of the
centuries in between. The reason for
this is that the voice of history is silent on tongues during these
intervening centuries. And because history is
silent, it is opposed to the idea that tongues continued through those
centuries or that it exists today. The
silent centuries indicate at least that after the first century there
was a cessation of the New Testament gift of tongues.
So if anybody wants to claim that today we have that
gift, they will have to at least admit that it was a revival of tongues after centuries
of the gift being discontinued.
When it came time for God to indicate
that the law era was
over and that the era of grace was now to replace the system of law,
God had a
way historically of indicating that the law was dead.
The way He did this was by tearing the veil
in the temple that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. God indicated that the law age was over by
tearing that veil, and in 70 A.D. by destroying the whole temple. Historically he was declaring His will
concerning Judaism. It was done
Tongues likewise was used to signal
the coming of the new
age of grace and then it was absent from the scene of history from the
century on. This is God’s way of
historically saying that the gift of tongues has been done away with
Judaism was done away with as signaled by the tearing of that veil.
Certain distortions in Pentecostalism
are illustrated in
syllogisms that we may set up that are based on false lines of
reasoning and of
interpretation. A syllogism sets up two
basic premises and then it draws a conclusion.
Upon lines of thought such as this, the current
tongues movement is
Syllogism number one:
Premise number one: When
apostles received the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues.
Premise number two is “I speak in
“Therefore I have the Holy Spirit.” And here is drawn the false conclusion that if
you speak in tongues, it is the evidence that you have the Holy Spirit. For as we have found from the Word of God (1
Corinthians 12:13) that all have received the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. Every Christian is indwelt at the
Syllogism number two:
Premise number one: When
apostles received the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues.
Second premise: You do
not speak in tongues. Conclusion:
Therefore you do not have the Holy Spirit. This is a variation of saying again the first
A third syllogism that arises from
these two: Premise number one: When people are saved they receive the Holy
Spirit and they speak in tongues. Second
premise: You do not speak in
tongues. Conclusion: Therefore
you are not saved and do not have
the Holy Spirit. This again is a false
conclusion—that people who are saved are going to receive the
(which is true) but that they will evidence it by speaking in tongues,
not true. Therefore, there are many
people who feel that if they do not speak in tongues, they have grounds
doubt their salvation. Incidentally, if
you have not already realized it, Pentecostalism does not hold to
security. People who are in the tongues
movement are constantly in doubt as to whether they’re going to
heaven or to
hell. Their destiny is never certain
Syllogism number four:
Premise number one: Believing
people are saved and they receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. Second premise: You
do not speak in tongues. Conclusion:
Therefore you do not believe and are not saved. This is another variation of no
Of course, these are lines of
reasoning which do not conform
to the way that God leads us into eternal life on the basis of the
that He has made through His son.
Why the present claims to tongues? Why the fantastic attachment and claims that
are made for tongues today? One is
because of ignorance of Bible doctrine.
Secondly, because of spiritual immaturity. Thirdly, because of emotional and
psychological maladjustment, and we have indicated, because of satanic
counterfeits. We indicated last week
that tongues can be explained on a physiological basis.
It can be strongly explained on a psychological
basis, and certainly on a satanic basis.
I’d like to add something to
that third one—tongues
originating with Satan. There are
striking similarities between Pentecostalists and a séance
medium. In the volume The Modern
Healing Movement by Carroll Stegall, he has collected some of
comparisons that I’d like to read to you this morning. He says, “There is another significant
of study connected with this activity of Pentecostalist which must not
ignored. It is the striking similarity
between the sensations which Pentecostalists feel while engaged in
or speaking in tongues and those which spiritualist mediums describe as
when in touch with the spirit world.
Pentecostalists resent this comparison in the
extreme. Call it blasphemy.
Charge those who make it with having
committed the unforgiveable sin, and so on.
They confidently declare that they are the modern
followers of Christ,
and anyone who challenges their claim are the modern counterpart to the
Pharisees who accused Christ of being in league with Satan.
“We have pointed out enough
differences between Christ and
Pentecostalism to show the fallacy of their charge, and we will proceed
compare Pentecostalism now with spiritism which it closely resembles. But I will at least give the Pentecostalists
the benefit of the doubt. I will quote
their own sources and compare that with the spiritualists’ source.
“In 1951, Rev. Carl C. Harwood,
the president of the Western
Bible Institute made an interesting study of the descriptive literature
tongue-speakers as compared with spiritualist mediums.
We will use some of the quoted material
First of all there is the comparison
of the physical effects
on the participants. “The first
interesting comparison is in the visible effects of the influence these
come under. Observe the striking
similarity of behavior described from these sources.
From the holiness paper, the Bridal Call, of
July, 1920, we have an article by E. W. Leach of Baltimore, Maryland. He described his sensations as he began to
speak in tongues. ‘All at once my
began to shake, gently at first, then violently, until my whole body
quaking under the power. On Sunday, May
16th in the prayer room I received the baptism.
The spirit came like a torrent as though he
would tear my body to pieces.’”
Now compare that with this excerpt
from Genuine Mediumship,
page 37: “In entering the trance
condition, your hands and body may twitch and jerk as if you were being
to a series of … shocks. When the
power comes, there is manifested a peculiar jerking, twitching, and
of the hands and arms, sometimes extending to the whole body.”
If you have attended Pentecostal
meetings, you will be aware
of the fact that these physical evidences are very much there. It is absolutely unbelievable how the
physical body can move into the vibrations and the uncontrollable
that you see in Pentecostal meetings.
This is exactly what happens to a medium in a
A second comparison is the feelings
that are experienced by
Pentecostalists in their meetings and by the spiritist mediums. He goes on to say: “The
next comparison can be made between the
descriptions given of what it feels like to be under the power. Notice how these two divergent sources use
the same terminology, almost as if they were quoting one another. From Leach’s article:
‘The Holy Spirit took hold of me.
What sensations I experienced—indescribable
as though I had in my hands the handles of an electric battery and the
passing through me from head to foot.’”
This is a common description by
Pentecostal people, that
they feel they are receiving an electric shock.
He goes on: “Now
to the book on mediumship: ‘When the
spirit enters, in the arms are felt peculiar tingling, prickling
like needles and pins—sometimes akin to a current of electricity
through from head to foot.
A third comparison is the effects on
the breathing and the
stance. He goes on: “Next
consider the effects of the power on
the individual’s breathing and stance and so on.
From a book by R. C. Dalton, Tongues Like
as of Fire, we excerpt part of a list of effects he declares to
manifested through the ages of the tongues movement as he sees it: “Fallen backward; body extended at full
length upon the ground; undergoing of strange and apparently
contortions; heaving of chest and inflation of stomach; voice being
by sobs; remembered nothing afterward, or retained in some cases
“Now we quote again from
mediumship: “A young medium will
probably find himself
either partly or completely conscious of what is being said and done by
spirit, through his body or vocal organs (that is, the demonic spirit). He will naturally try to escape the utterance
of strange cries, moans, and gasps. The
spirit which has entered you will stimulate your breathing which will
rapid and irregular. If you are likely to
become a trance-speaking medium, you will probably experience a
sensation as a
falling or dizziness as if you were going to faint.
This may continue until you become utterly
unconscious and you will know no more until you regain your normal
Then Mr. Stegall summarizes:
“Such comparisons lead us to the inescapable
conclusion that there is a
distinct connection between the sources of behavior in tongue-speakers
In another volume, The Modern
Tongues Movement by
Robert Gromacki, we have a description of a man who is giving himself
power of Satan while he thought it was the power of God, and how in the
midst of that experience something struck him that signaled to him that
was experiencing was not from above but from below.
On page 151:
“Raymond Frame, a former missionary to China,
attended a Chinese
Pentecostal service in which there was a definite appeal to receive the
of the Holy Spirit accompanied by the physical evidence of speaking in
tongues. During his attempt to receive
this experience, Frame came to the conclusion that the power of Satan,
God, was operating in his life. Here is
his complete testimony:”
“’However, when one of my
missionary associates standing
beside me suddenly became agitated and began shouting loudly in
Chinese, leaping and waving his arms and obviously under the control of
quite beyond himself, my resistance weakened.
I didn’t want to be left out of the blessing
that he was receiving. I let my mind
become quite blank and began
yielding myself to the external power outside myself that seemed to be
for full control of me. At once a
feeling of paralysis began to numb my feet.
It soon affected my legs. I
that before long I too would be lying helpless on the floor as were
others in the crowd. At the instance the
numbness reached my knees, I became alarmed.
‘This thing is coming upon me not from heaven
but from beneath. This is the wrong
direction,’ I said to
myself. Without a moment’s
cried out, ‘May the blood of Christ protect me from this
thing.’ At once it vanished and I
“’A month later I met that
co-worker of mine at another
place. He appeared to be a sober and
chastened man. ‘You know, Ray. That thing that happened to me that night
wasn’t of God. It was of the
devil.’ My friend then described the
spiritual darkness into which he was plunged following that ecstatic
So when we resist the tongues movement
today, we do it on
very good grounds on just the fact that it is so similar to what Satan
and what is clearly of the demonic world in other areas.
There is a similarity that you cannot simply
ignore or explain away.
Now there is another question that we
should consider in
tying up this series. Does 1 Corinthians
refer only to known languages? Are we
sure that 1 Corinthians does not refer to ecstatic utterances? This is the question. This
is what a Pentecostal believer is
convinced that 1 Corinthians speaks of.
He’s convinced it speaks of ecstatic
utterances. The Pentecostalist turns to 1
13:1. He says, “Yes, 1 Corinthians
speaks of ecstatic utterances.” He
proceeds to prove it by quoting verse 1, “Though I speak with the
men and of angels, and have not love …”
He uses this phrase, “tongues of men and of
angels.” Pentecostalists claim that
the language of
angels is a heavenly ecstatic gibberish.
While tongues of men here refers to known languages,
“tongues of angels”
refers to languages that are not spoken on this earth.
It’s angel language. It’s
heavenly talk. It’s happy language. So the meaningless ecstatic happy talk of a
Pentecostalist is defended as coming from God.
What’s the answer to this?
Well again we have to go back to what the grammar
says. The word “though” in the
Greek is the word
“if,” and it is that third class condition “if”
which in the Greek means it may
or may not (be so). Maybe you will speak
in tongues of men and of angels and maybe you will not.
This is the way of expressing a theoretical
condition. The third class condition is
the way you would express a “suppose so” condition. Suppose it were possible to talk in the
language in which angels converse.
Now he doesn’t claim that he
actually talks in angel
language. He goes through verse 2 and 3
and he mentions several other things. He
is not proposing that he does all these things—that he
mysteries, that he has all knowledge, and that he has all faith so he
tell a mountain to move and it would go.
Nor does he mean in verse 3, “if I give my
body to be burned” that he
actually means to give his body to be burned.
Obviously, the apostle Paul is not suggesting that
you douse yourself in
gasoline and touch a match to it in order to demonstrate your
spirituality. Now in some heathen
religions they do that—self-mutilation.
He obviously is speaking of a
“suppose-so” condition. He is
saying, “Suppose I even burned myself
alive in order to demonstrate my devotion to God.”
If I’m not a spirit-filled believer,
nothing. My self-sacrifice is
meaningless. That’s the point of 1
Corinthians 13:1. He is speaking of a
theoretical condition. He is not in the
process of it—supposing that a person can talk in heavenly
gibberish. He says, “Suppose we do speak in angels’ language.
Without the filling of the spirit represented here
by the major quality
of love, we have nothing.
Then they use 1 Corinthians 14:2 which
says, “For he that
speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God, for no man
understandeth him. However in the spirit
he speaketh mysteries.” Now the
Pentecostalist claims that this verse teaches that speaking in
legitimate and only God will understand it.
Now what’s the answer? Well,
this verse means is that a real language being spoken in the local
without an interpreter being present to translate it is useless to that
congregation. What Paul is saying is
that if you speak the gift of tongues with legitimate languages and
understands it, how are they edified?
Unless there’s an interpreter to translate,
it’s useless to the people
that are there. The only person that
understands it is you.
Remember, that’s what the
apostles did. On the day of Pentecost,
probably in Aramaic, and they were thinking in Aramaic, and out of
the foreign tongues were coming out.
Well that’s what he is saying here.
You are speaking in your language.
You know what you’re saying, and God knows
what you’re saying. How does God
know? He’s omniscient.
But nobody else knows. And
that’s why they don’t understand—because
they don’t know the language, not because they’re speaking
gibberish. So verse 2 does not say that
tongues is a heavenly gibberish and for that reason that it cannot be
understood. The Pentecostalist is wrong
in his interpretation.
Then there’s another defense
that is made. The Pentecostalist takes 1
Corinthians 14 and
he points out that the Greek word “laleo” is used in
word for “speak” here. Now
this word is
defined by the Pentecostalist as being incoherent speech because
Greek literature this word is used to describe the sounds that are made
by an animal. Now what Paul is doing
actually here is not
using only “laleo” in speaking in tongues, for in 1
Corinthians 14:16 Paul
says, “Else when though shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he
occupieth the place of the unlearned say “Amen” at the
giving of thanks, seeing
he understandeth not what thou sayest?” And
there the word “say” is a different Greek word.
It’s “lego.” So
Paul isn’t always
using “laleo,” the word that the Pentecostalists claim
utterances. Now “laleo” does
Greek refer to the utterance itself, while the word “lego”
refers more to the
When you use the word
“laleo,” you’re referring just to what
you hear—the utterance. When you use
word “lego,” you’re referring more to the content and
to the meaning. But Pentecostalists say
that the form of the
utterance therefore, because it uses “laleo,” is the thing
that is stressed,
and that form is gibberish talk. But in
1 Corinthians 14:21, Paul uses the word “laleo” because
he’s quoting the Old
Testament Greek translation—the Septuagint translation. In verse 21 where he uses “laleo”
the Old Testament Greek, he’s referring to the known language of
Assyrians. That was the language that
God was going to speak to the people in that day to signal his
Then in verses 34 and 35 he again uses
the word “laleo,” but
notice what it means. Here it’s
about women who are asking understandable questions of their husbands
asking them in church. “Let your
keep silence in the church for it is not permitted for them to speak;
are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn anything, let them ask
their husbands at home.” Now what
does it make to suggest they’re going and go and speak to their
gibberish? How much of an answer are
they going to get to a question that they delivered to him in
So the use of this word is not what
the Pentecostalists say
it is through this chapter? It is used
by Paul of intelligible understandable language. So
the general use, we find, of the word
“laleo” in the New Testament is of intelligible speech. It’s that kind of utterance.
Now we have some arguments in addition
against the idea that
1 Corinthians speaks of gibberish utterances.
There is the evidence of the terminology which is
used in the
language. The main term for tongues is
the word “glossa.” “Glossa”
the New Testament always to intelligible speech. Sometimes
in classic Greek literature it is
used of ecstatic utterance but we have no indication it is so used in
Bible. There are times when
be used of speech that is not intelligible, but then it is stammering
speech. It is people who talk in a
stammering way and
“glossa” is sometimes used of that, but it is not used of
gibberish. In both the New Testament and
in the Greek translation the Septuagint, it is always used of known
Now the term to interpret:
is the word
for “interpret” that we find regularly here in 1
Corinthians 12 through
14. This word in Greek always means
translating one known language into another.
It is never used of translating a gibberish into an
Then there is a third one.
First we had “glossa,” and secondly we
had “diermeneuo.” Thirdly we
have “dialektos.” “Dialektos”
is the term that is used in the
Greek New Testament and it only means known languages.
It is never used of anything else.
This is the word that is used in Acts,
interchanged with “glossa.” That’s
when these two are used interchangeably, we know that it only means
languages in Acts as well. For this
reason we say that when you get to 1 Corinthians and it uses this word
is using it on the basis of what it meant in Acts which was known
languages. It is the same in both
books. Language is on the side of known
speech, not of gibberish.
Tongues as a sign had to be different
from gibberish because
the pagan priests spoke in gibberish.
What kind of a sign would this be for Christianity
if all it was was
ecstatic utterances just like the pagan priests were doing? It had to be a distinct kind of authentic
language so as to be a sign to prove anything.
Gibberish didn’t prove anything in the New
Testament and it doesn’t
prove anything today. If the New
Testament tongues were ecstatic, it would also support the charge of 1
Corinthians 14:23 that the believers were mad.
People would come in and say, “They’re
out of their minds.” Paul in that
case would likely have
discouraged gibberish speaking because it would have tended to
Christianity. An unbeliever who listens
to it would reject it as being a testimony from the Lord.
Then 1 Corinthians 14:10-11 demands
that the tongues of the
context should be intelligible sounds just like a melody is
by a musical instrument.
The Reasons for the
Tongue Movement Today
So that brings us to the reasons for
the tongue movement
today. Why would you go into
tongues? Why would anybody go into
tongues? One of the first reasons is the
desire for a closer contact with God. “I
want to be closer to God.” Many
go into tongues with that in mind. But
God’s provision for getting close to him is that grace system of
spiritual things which enables us through grace through the learning of
doctrine to store his truth in our understanding. Pentecostalism
seems to be a religion of
action when look at it from the outside.
It promises voices, visions, miracles, and great
ecstasy, and people are
drawn to that. Certain people find this
very alluring. They see a special access
to the supernatural powers of God the Holy Spirit.
The same thing that draws people to
Pentecostalism, the alluring promise of supernatural power, is the same
that draws people to demonism.
You remember the man that we quoted on
one of the
tapes. Why was he drawn to demonism and
the spirit world? For the great power
that he discovered of the supernatural when he was in touch with that
world. Here again you have a strange
between Pentecostalism and the spiritistic world. Tongues
are an attempt to meet a person’s
anxiety and his neuroses which are caused by the old sin nature.
A second reason is for a sense of
spiritual status. Here is many a person
who is in modest
circumstances in life, and he finds his place of glory as a
tongue-speaker. It is a great boost to
his ego to find himself surrounded by a group of people who are urging
to speak in tongues and to demonstrate his spirituality.
He sits in a meeting and all of a sudden he
breaks out into his ecstatic gibberish and the whole place turns its
on him. Now if you want to become the
center of focus in a Pentecostal meeting, just go in and start talking
tongues ecstatic gibberish and you will be immediately the center of
A third reason is the desire for a
exaltation. The sense of rising above
the plodding life of the average Christian, the average daily orthodox
Christian and his walk. There is a sense
of a certain kind of blessing almost of a neurotic nature.
In the little volume of Speaking With
Tongues by Bergamot, he gives a good summary of it.
The effect of exaltation from being able to
speak in these utterances.
“The words begin to come,”
he says. “One is at first aware of
this … cadence, the
almost poetic rush of syllables, the … thrill like the first
plane ride and we
are lifted off the ground. We are
up. We have lost contact with earth and
reality. The glossalolist is now in a
phase unless he’s an absolute fraud or consciously staging an act. Most glossalolics remember nothing of this
phase. It is a pathological condition, a
neurotic condition in which anxieties are gone, the burdensome cares of
world are banished. One’s psyche is
an interested spectator watching a parade going past down there. While one ecstatically talks to the Holy
Spirit in mysteries, one neither comprehends nor understands nor
later. If pathology can be such bliss,
it is folly to be normal (non-glossalolic).”
If pathology can be such bliss, who wants to be
normal? There is a glow of a
that gives a great sense of exaltation.
A fourth reason people pursue in
tongues, and perhaps this
is a major reason: That is the ignorance
of Bible doctrine. Tongues as it is
practiced today, contrary to the claims of its adherents, leads into
doctrine and it prevents spiritual growth and production.
Claims are made to the contrary that this is
not true. Christians are actually
side-tracked into seeking some kind of ecstatic experience instead of
doctrine. The result is spiritual
immaturity so that you can’t discern what is of Satan and what is
of God. A believer who doesn’t know
always revert to certain systems. You
can check yourself. To the extent that
you are weak on doctrine, you will always make a substitution for that
weakness. You will revert out of
God’s pattern either
to rationalism to make a defense.
Because you are weak on doctrine you will
decisions. You will secondly revert to
experiences. You will deliberately seek
experiences because you lack doctrine.
Thirdly you will revert to ritualism.
Vast church are built on simple ritual that they
proceed through. Fourth, you will resort
to emotionalism. Pentecostalists lean
heavily on experience to
guide them, and not doctrine.
The expression goes something like
this: The man who has had an experience is
the mercy of the man who has an argument.
Now that seems reasonable, doesn’t it?
That seems to be a reasonable view.
After all, ask yourself: What
more convincing—a pie on the plate or in the recipe book? It seems reasonable to say that if
an experience, you’ve got the answer. But
you remember our friend doubting Thomas.
He claimed that seeing is believing, but Jesus
Christ said to him that
believing without seeing is the way of blessing because believing
facts, and facts of doctrine lead to blessing.
Experience does not lead to blessing.
An experience will never edify a believer. This is strange. People
believe if they have a certain
experience they’re going to get a great blessing from it, but an
will never build you up in the faith.
Only doctrine that you receive does that. Power is in the Holy Spirit, not in an
emotion (Acts 1:8).
Pentecostalists not only lean heavily
on experience. They also lean heavily on
emotions dominate the soul among Pentecostalists rather than the mind
dominating the soul. Under this
condition Satan is easily able to influence a person.
Anybody who is dominated by emotions is
easily controlled by Satan because divine viewpoint can only be
your mind. If you have not yet learned
that, you are on dangerous ground.
Divine viewpoint can only be received into your soul
mind. There is no other access to your
being for what God thinks. The only way
you can come to divine viewpoint is through the mind, never through the
emotions, never through your experiences, never through actions of your
will. Only through your
you get divine viewpoint. And it is a
very dangerous thing when we start trying to gain divine viewpoint
From the brochure called Conversion—Psychological
Spiritual by D. Martyn Lloyd Jones published by Intervarsity press,
39 and 40, he says, “Another principle is that in presenting the
gospel we must never in the first place make a direct approach either
emotions or to the will. The emotions
and the will should always be influenced through the mind.
Truth is intended to come to the mind.
The normal course is for the emotions and the
will to be affected by the truth after it has first entered and gripped
mind. It seems to me that this is a
principle of Holy Scripture. The
approach to the emotions and the will should be indirect still lest
ever bring any pressure to bear upon either the emotions or the will. We are to plead with men but never to bring
pressure. We are to beseech but we are
never to browbeat. This it seems to me
is a vital distinction which every preacher and missionary should
in mind. I would affirm that much of the
modern approach to evangelism with its techniques and methods is
we really believe in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and His
application of God’s
message. I suggest that our techniques
and our mechanics actually divert the attention of people from the
truth of the
message to some lower, particular, immediate, and practical action
have the opposite affect to what is intended.
The point I am making is that it is surely our
business to avoid
anything which produces a merely psychological condition rather than a
I think that is an excellent
paragraph, and it points out
the hazard not only in evangelism but in our teaching of the Word of
we seek some immediate response from the congregation, and so we give
something that would draw an emotional reaction or a movement of their
will. We give them some kind of a
description that causes them to rise up out of their seats and rush
do something. They’re acting upon
fact that we have moved their wills rather than that we have moved
mentality so that divine viewpoint of mentality can move the will and
the emotions. If God through His
thinking through your mind does not move your will and emotions, you
into some very dangerous things.
A person who is dominated by emotions
fantasies. This is what fills insane
asylums—people who are off their rockers because they are very
emotional. They’re emotional
qualities and their
instability have led them into daydreams and into fantasies. Emotions will cause you to be the kind of a
person that seeks your rights. When
emotions dominate, you’re going to want to have what’s
coming to you. You’re going to want
your place in the
sun. You’re going to want to keep
everybody straight and in line.
Emotional domination of the soul will cause you to
goals. It will distort your concept of
the plan of God and you’ll be pursuing what is not the plan of
you. Emotions will lead you to all kinds
of sins of your tongue, including the gibberish tongues.
It is emotional domination of the soul that
will take over your tongue and lead it to all kind of fantastic sins. You will be blabbering and slobbering and
saying things that you have no business saying.
It is only because emotions have distorted your soul
so that your being
is out of control and Satan is sitting there egging you on and moving
along, and you’re responding like a sheep—like a stupid
dumb sheep—to everything
he has to say.
Now be wary of emotions.
Be wary of emotional domination of your soul, but
enjoy the tremendous
emotions that God the Holy Spirit pours our through our being as a
doctrine that we have received in our mentality stored in our human
where God has taught us, and now the emotions of our soul well forth in
thrilling expression and that’s for real.
That is real Christian fellowship.
There is no other Christian fellowship that is
meaningful or that is
real or that is lasting except that which is based upon emotions that
brought forth from within your soul because your mind has been directed
right way to His thinking.
The tongues advocates prefer to base
their beliefs and their
practices on what the Bible possibly
teaches rather than on what it probably says.
So what does that mean—if I believe only what
the Bible possibly teaches? Remember that
all the cults have their
doctrine based on possible interpretations rather than on probable
interpretations. If I base my views on
what the Bible possible
says, then I am basing it on experience.
It may mean this, but in my experience I’m
going to see if it confirms
that it could mean that. Then, as my
experience deceives me on the basis of accepting a possible
Scripture, I have missed the mind of God.
Power is in the Word, not in experience (Hebrews
The Baptism of the
Holy Spirit vs. the Filling of the Holy Spirit
There’s one other thing perhaps
we should touch on in
closing this series, and that is distinguishing between the baptism and
filling of the spirit. The baptism of
the Holy Spirit you have in 1 Corinthians 12:13. This
is the act of God the Holy Spirit in
placing the believer into the body of Christ, the church.
Tongues cannot be a sign of this because 1
Corinthians 12:30 says that all Christians do not speak in tongues. Not everybody will speak in tongues. So tongue-speaking cannot be a sign of having
received the Holy Spirit. All Corinthian
Christians, spiritual and carnal—and most of them apparently were
by God the Holy Spirit. That was because
they received this at the point of salvation.
It had nothing to do with their spirituality. It is not an experience and it is received
But the filling of the spirit which
you have in Ephesians
5:18 is something else. The
Pentecostalists are always equating filling and baptism.
They interchange those terms. They
use them interchangeably, and that’s
wrong. As a Christian through confession
of known sins comes under control of the spirit of God, he is filled
spirit of God. Not all Christians thus
are filled by the spirit of God. This is
an experience and it is repeated again and again.
Now we know that filling and baptism
are different. Just briefly, here are the
reasons: We know from the language. In the Greek tenses, baptism of the Holy
Spirit is spoken of in the aorist tense which means a once for all
action. But when it speaks of filing, it
the present tense which means a continuous action, something that you
constantly have and repeat. In the voice
of the grammar baptism of the Holy Spirit is passive.
That means the subject is acted upon.
God does this for us. He
produces it. Same thing with filling. It’s passive.
God produces it when we meet the condition. Third, there is the mood.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply in
the indicative; that is, it’s a statement of fact.
Whenever it speaks of baptism it just states
the fact. But whenever it speaks of the
filling of the spirit it’s always imperative.
It’s a command. You
are told to
As far as purpose, the baptism of the
Holy Spirit places us
into Christ. That’s a position. But the filling of the spirit is power for
living and serving. That’s an
experience. As for the person it is for,
for whom it is provided, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is universal
believers, but the filling of the spirit is limited only to those who
faith through confessed sin.
Receiving the Holy Spirit is part of
salvation (Romans 8:9). We cannot be saved
without having received
the Holy Spirit. This is the problem
that the Pentecostalists have when they try to defend that the Holy
comes after salvation. Romans 8:9
declares to us that “Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit. If so be then the spirit of God dwell in
you. Now if any man have not the spirit
of Christ, he is none of His.” The
spirit of Christ is God the Holy Spirit.
Not to have God the Holy Spirit means not to be
saved. Therefore we cannot say that the
comes after salvation.
Testing the Spirits
Also in the book of Jude we have in
verse 19 this expression
describing those having not the spirit, describing unbelievers. “These are they who separate themselves
(sensual) not having the Spirit.” So
are one who does not have the spirit it means that you are not a
The book of Acts is a transitional
book. Certain things took place there
not the norm which was going to be the regular way things were done. That’s where the mistake was make. That’s where the syllogisms are wrong
God did certain things in a certain way in Acts which were just at the
beginning stage which were not the normal way.
Now we have to ask ourselves,
“So what shall we do?” Well
the bible tells us to test the
spirits. Is this for real or is this not
for real. Test the spirits.
1 John 4:1 warns us to check into origins. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but
the spirits, whether they are of God because many false prophets have
into the world.
Alright, how do we test the spirits? If you talk to a Pentecostal person,
usually say to you, “Oh, I can tell in a service when somebody is
wildfire.” That’s a
Pentecostal term for
the flesh falsely producing tongues or falsely producing a spirit
effect. They say, “We can tell that
it’s wildfire.” Then you say,
“Well, how can you tell?” Then
they say, “Well, I just feel it. I
I can sense it.” What
that they’re saying is I can tell what is true from false on
tongues by how I
feel about it. When the Pentecostalist
that, he opens himself to all kinds of delusions of the emotions by
But an experience is not the way we
prove things even if it’s
an experience of a godly person. Don’t
make the mistake of saying because this godly person has this
experience is real. The experience is
only real if it matches up to doctrine, and that’ how we test it. Here the subtlety of emotions cannot be taken
over by Satan to deceive us, to give us a sweet experience in order to
us. The test of doctrine, not of
feelings. All Scriptures that we have
covered by legitimate principles of interpretation are the way you test
tongues is true or not, not by how you feel, not by the facts when a
person exercises this.
This test shows us that there is no
parallel to the gift of
tongues going on today such as we have in the New Testament. No matter how good tongues makes one feel,
how much praise it generates, or how it revitalizes the walk with the
test still has to be doctrine.
It seems fitting that we should close
this series with the
words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8. In
referring to tongues, Paul says, “They shall
cease.” And they have.
Dr. John E. Danish, 1971
to the Basic Bible Doctrine index
the Bible Questions index