Why Trichotomy is Wrong 3 F, The Errors It Spawns

3F Various Other Errors

As if the last 5 posts weren't enough to expose Trichotomy for the false doctrine that it most definitely is, we will conclude this series today by looking at a few other assorted erroneous theological consequences of Trichotomy.

1. Let us consider first what Trichotomy means for the doctrine of regeneration. On the Trichotomist scheme, regeneration is the miracle which occurs when God gives us a new spirit, since we are spiritually dead. Christians are said to have a new life which unbelievers do not possess. God has given us a new spirit, or as some prefer to put it, God has created in us a new spirit. B.B. Warfield clearly saw the inherent theological flaw in the Trichotomist scheme. He writes, "Thus the man is not saved after all; a different newly created man is substituted for him. When the old man is got rid of - and that the old man has to be ultimately got rid of [we do] not doubt - the saved man that is left is not at all the old man that was to be saved, but a new man that has never needed saving." (B.B. Warfield, Review of "He That Is Spiritual," by Lewis Sperry Chafer.) Warfield's point, while apparently philosophically obtuse, is actually a very valid objection. If regeneration means that the "old man" who was me is no more and has been replaced by a "new man" by God's miraculous act of creating a new spirit, then I am no longer me. If I replace an apple tree with a cherry tree, I no longer have the same tree. In other words: I was not saved; I was made into a man that didn't even need to be saved.

2. Trichotomy also allows for the false doctrine of free-will. The body, since it is flesh, we are told tends toward evil - and we are said to be spiritually dead. But the soul remains magically unaffected by the Fall into sin, therefore it is able, when properly induced, to make a decision to accept Christ and savingly believe on Him. Trichotomist anthropology lets its adherents appear to take seriously the passages of Scripture which speak of men as dead in their fallen sinful condition, while at the same time, making full allowances for this Baal of free-will. In the final analysis, this makes man's will, and not God's grace, to be the final arbiter and determining factor of each man's eternal destiny. If we reject Trichotomy, we are left with a man who is composed of two elements, a body and a soul, both of which are ruined by sin. Thus any hope of salvation must reside in God's good pleasure and not in man's pretended abilities to do that which is diametrically opposed to his nature. Fish can't fly; neither can dead sinners resurrect themselves.

3. Trichotomy is responsible also for many of the more flagrant errors of Pentecostalism and Charismaticism. Let's consider the issue of Tongues again for a moment. If I edify myself by speaking in a language which my mind does not understand, why is an interpreter required by Paul when I do this in church? If I can edify myself by hearing my babbling of unintelligible syllables, why can't the rest of the church be edified by hearing the same uninterpreted things which edify me? This alone is sufficient to demolish the whole modern tongues-speaking movement. It is obvious from the text that the speaker understood what he was saying in a language he knew but with which the rest of his hearers were unlearned. This is why his understanding was unfruitful. He knew what he was saying, but no one else did. I speak Tagalog fluently. If I were to stand up in a small country church in rural America and speak in Tagalog, I may edify myself by the wondrous truths I was proclaiming, but my understanding would be unfruitful because no one else in the room would benefit from my understanding without an interpreter.

4. Another potential danger of Trichotomy is dualism. By elevating the "realm of the spirit" over the body, i.e., by understanding the spirit to be higher than the body and soul, one creates an unscriptural dichotomy between the material and immaterial. This is plain old Greek speculative philosophy. It pits spirit against soul and body in a way that is unjustifiable. Matter is not evil. God proved this by (1) creating it in the first place, (2) by the Incarnation, and (3) by the promise of resurrection. If matter is inherently evil, how can we maintain that a good God created it? This is exactly what the ancient dualistic heretics did. If the body, as matter, is inherently bad, how can we maintain that Christ took on human flesh? If Christ did not take on human flesh, we are still in our sins, because a hologram cannot die. If our bodies, as matter, are inherently bad, how can we hope for their resurrection? Killing a flawed inferior thing is a good thing. It does not gain dignity simply by being brought back to life. Let me anticipate a question here, too. Why, you might ask, is the soul considered with the body as part of the lower nature of man and not up with the spirit in the higher nature? It is for this reason. "The most familiar, but also the crudest form of Trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man's nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology).

You might object that no professing Christian holds to such false views of the body. I beg to differ. Even if Trichotomists denied belief in such propositions, this would not make them invalid consequences of their system, mind you. Once you divide man into superior and inferior parts - and you put soul and body down into the inferior category, you have nowhere to go logically but to dualism. If you pit the spirit against the soul as the animal life of the body, soul and body must be viewed, and accordingly treated, as inherently bad. This has been proven repeatedly by Church history. Monasticism is a case in point. Why did men and women deprive themselves of sleep and food? Why did Simon sit on the top of a pole for decades? Why did countless monks sleep on the ground and not in beds? Why did they wear hair shirts? Because they saw their bodies as part of a lower nature with the soul, that was necessary to keep under wraps if one was to nourish and nurture his higher, i.e., spiritual nature. Animals eat, drink, bathe, breed, sleep, etc. If we are higher than animals, and the soul is the animal life of the body, then these impulses must be subdued if one wishes to be spiritual. Why was poverty considered such a noble state? To read some of the medieval mystics, or John Wesley for that matter, you'd think that being poor was already a deeply spiritual accomplishment on its own. If one had to choose between poverty and even sufficient provisions, there was no doubt in these people's minds that poverty was the more spiritual option. This foolishness is also what was behind the whole celibacy movement as well. How could a person who enjoys the bodily pleasures associated with the marriage bed be as spiritual as one who has deprived himself of such? Again, nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests that we should ask this question.

5. There is another potential Trinitarian error inherent in Trichotomy. If you recall when we dealt with the false teaching of the 'carnal Christian,' we quoted Chuck Smith, an advocate of such teaching, as saying, "We meet God in the realm of our spirit." Many people have misunderstood John's phrase "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10) to be describing a different realm or dimension of reality. This is an extremely dangerous idea. It depersonalizes the Holy Spirit into a 'force' or a 'dimension.' Think of Frank Peretti's novels. There is the realm of the physical and a spiritual realm in which is mirrored all the events of the physical realm. This spawned all the strange idea current in our days regarding 'spiritual warfare.' Christians, through mind-denigrating spiritual exercises can somehow influence unseen things in this spiritual realm, which in turn, impact events in the physical realm. There is nothing new under the sun. The Manicheans of old held the same view of reality. By referring to the Spirit as a realm, the Trinity is denied. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that God is one, and that He exists in one divine Essence, yet subsists in three Persons. 'Person' is the operative word. A realm is not a person. This seems to me to be latently pantheistic. Pantheism is the belief that God is the sum total of all existence. In other words, everything is God and God is everything. If my spirit and your spirit and God's Spirit are a realm, then they are all by definition one common realm of common experience for us all - which means that my spirit and God's are essentially the same thing. How can I distinguish my own spirit from God's? This is pantheism. If my spirit is a dimension or realm for experiencing the divine and your spirit is an entirely different realm, then there could be no talk of a "realm of the spirit." We would have to allow for an innumerable multitude of these "realms." But no one speaks this way. Trichotomists constantly and consistently speak of one "realm of the spirit." This has at least a tinge of pantheism in it. Therefore it is no surprise when the spiritual exercises proposed to nurture the spirit are identical, whether they be "Christian" or Pantheist. It also explains why their form of the spiritual gift of a "words of knowledge" looks suspiciously like mind-reading or a Vulcan mind-meld. We reiterate: the Holy Spirit is not a realm, a force, or a dimension of experience. Speaking this way is an implicit denial of the Trinity. Incautiousness in speech begets wrong ideas; wrong ideas beget false doctrine; false doctrine begets more false doctrine; and false doctrine damns, especially when it spawns idolatrous notions about the Godhead. Other doctrines may be negotiable; doctrines about God and His nature are not.

A Cessationist Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, Part 2

When we look at verse 12 in light of all that we have already established, a clearer picture emerges. Verse 12 is the linchpin in the Charismatic argument for their supposed "proof" that that which is "perfect" refers to heaven.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: for I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

These words are often construed by Pentecostals and Charismatics to refer to heaven. Even many who repudiate the Continuist position see here a reference to heaven. I think I can demonstrate that this is NOT the case.

1. If Paul is speaking of heaven, then he is saying that in his glorified state he would have omniscience. Since this is impossible, Paul cannot possibly be saying that. This contradicts plenty of Scriptural statements regarding God's infinitude and our finitude. Glorification is not deification. When Paul says, "then shall I know even as also I am known," he is speaking of how God knows him. So if he is referring to heaven, then we've made Paul claim that with glorification comes omniscience. This alone should put the nail in the coffin of this interpretation. Certainly our understanding will be enlarged when we get to heaven, but that is not the same as saying that glorified saints will receive a kind of omniscience. Heaven will be a perfect state, but we will not have omniscience any more than we will have omnipotence.

2. In verse 13, Paul places this in the present age. For he says, "And NOW abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." The word "abideth" means "remains." This is in direct contradistinction to what he has just said in verse 8-10 would fade away and cease. We have already pointed out how hope and faith do not survive the eternal state. I no longer need to hope to the arrival of what I already possess. So after saying that some things will fade away, he tells us about things that will remain. Spiritual graces will remain in the Church after the spiritual gifts pass away. This can only apply to the Church in this present age. Let me reiterate: The spiritual graces continue once the spiritual gifts pass away. There is no debating that point. But the spiritual graces are only applicable to the Church during this present age. Therefore, the spiritual gifts MUST pass away during this present age. This means that since "that which is perfect" comes after the miraculous gifts that do not remain, while the spiritual graces do, this places "that which is perfect" during this present age as well. 

3. To teach that "that which is perfect" refers to the state of Glory involves a contradiction. It affirms a passing away of knowledge at the very point when greater knowledge is said to be attained. If we will know perfectly in Heaven, how can knowledge pass away when we get there? Pentecostals use verse 12 to say that a perfect knowledge will be attained in heaven. In other words, we will experience an increased knowledge there. But this is said in the face of saying that our state of continuing revelation throughout the church age will only cease when we get to heaven. This is saying that A is A and not A at the same time. They make verse 8 say that when we get to heaven revelation will cease, and then they turn around in the space of a few verses, and make verse 12 say that when we get to heaven revelation will exponentially multiply!

4. To teach that "that which is perfect" refers to the state of Glory contradicts what the rest of Scripture teaches about the spiritual enlightenment of the child of God in this world. "Now we see through a glass, darkly," literally means, "Now we see as in a riddle." This is to say that until that which is perfect has come the believer does not possess a clear and full understanding of spiritual things because he only has a partial revelation, according to verse 9. If we put ourselves in Paul's position we can see this clearly. It is as if he were saying, "At this point in time, before the completion of the New Testament canon, we do not possess the entire body of revelation that God intends to bequeath to His Church, therefore we still see things as a riddle - through a glass, darkly. If the Pentecostals and Charismatics are right, then we do not nor will we ever have a complete revelation as long as the Church exists on earth. Moreover this is a contradiction of other tremendous Scriptural statements.

A. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 - "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Verse 9 is not teaching about heaven. It is speaking of the unsaved man's inability to understand the things of God. Verse 13 tells us what these things are, by a claim to Divine inspiration. The natural man left to himself will never arrive at the truth. The only reason why anyone ever arrives at the truth is because the Holy Spirit has revealed these things to the Church. The Holy Spirit has given the Church a sufficient revelation. I ask, Is that seeing through a glass, darkly? If God's Word is sufficient for all matters pertain to doctrine and practice, then we are not seeing through a glass, darkly. So back at 13:12, Paul is saying that he and his Apostolic era colleagues were still seeing through a glass, darkly because they still didn't have the full written Word of God. Paul is not teaching that when we get to heaven, only then will we receive the completed revelation, but that when "that which is perfect comes," in this lifetime - we will have a full, written revelation of all that God requires of us for faith and practice in this world. Once the New Testament was completed, the Church saw things fully. This doesn't mean that before the close of canon, the saints did not know enough to be saved; it merely means that we are in a more advantageous position.

B. 2 Peter 1:19 - "We have a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light in a dark place, until that dawn and the day star arise in your hearts." Neither this passage nor the above one is teaching that the Christian is presently seeing everything darkly or in riddles, but will gain a clear and full understanding when he gets to heaven. They are both teaching that God's people have a mature revelation and therefore, those things that are essential to life and godliness, doctrine and practice, here and now in this life are possessed by the Church in the Scriptures - the more sure word of prophecy.

5. In the passage, "then shall I know even as also I am known," the words, "am known," signify a knowledge without any need for additional information. This is how God knows us and all things. God is never in need of any additional information. That is what is meant by "knowing as we are known." With the closing of the canon, the Church knows in this way. That is not to say that we have omniscience, as I said earlier. It means that in the completed revelation of the Old and New Testaments, the Church has no need for additional information. Paul is juxtaposing the two conditions - the current condition of possessing the less than full written revelation, therefore seeing through a glass, darkly with the full body of revelation that has no need for additional revelation. Looking back, we see that what the spiritual gifts conveyed was fragmentary at best. Paul repeatedly uses the phrase "in part" when speaking of the state of revelation under the era of spiritual gifts prior to completion of the canon. Notice that he says, "we know in part; we prophesy in part," in the light of verse 8. Yes they were means of revelation, but it was only partial. This overthrows the whole tongue-speaking crowd whatever else one thinks about the rest of the passage; because even if tongues were still existent as in the Apostolic age, they would still be conveying fragmentary knowledge.

In conclusion, we have shown that Paul clearly states that the supernatural revelatory gifts would cease at the coming of "that which is perfect." We have further shown that this can refer to nothing else but the completion of the New Testament canon. Hence, I repeat what I have said many times on this blog: Any attempt at Continuism, in any form whatsoever, is a blatant and open denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, Reformed theological commitments notwithstanding. Continuism is a distinct doctrinal characteristic of popery, not true biblical Christianity.

A Cessationist Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, Part 1

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1 Cor 13:8-12

It is no secret that the traditional Reformed exegesis of this passage is solidly Cessationist. The whole weight of the Continuist position hangs on, what I hope to demonstrate, is an exegetical error. Much of the discussion turns upon the proper understanding of the phrase “that which is perfect” in verse 8.

Scripture not only tells us that the supernatural gifts would cease, but it also tells us when they would cease. Continuists always make "that which is perfect" refers to the eternal state. Cessationists take it to mean the completion of the New Testament. I wish to demonstrate that this is the only way this passage can be understood, then draw some inferences from it.

Why must "that which is perfect" refer to the completion of the New Testament canon?

1. Perfect simply means mature. When that which is mature comes, that which is in part will be done away with. Paul's illustration demonstrates that "perfect" means mature.

2. 14:20 In understanding be "men" - the same Greek word, in the same basic context.

3. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claim that God's Word makes us "perfect" or mature.

Based on these (2 & 3) passages, it is clear when Paul speaks of the perfect or of the mature, he has the present time in mind, not heaven. He does not have the glorified man in heaven in view. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul tells us that the man of God becomes mature or perfect not by miraculous gifts, but by the Word of God. This places the supernatural gifts within the realm of the immature. Furthermore he is referring to tongues, prophecies and knowledge as immature revelation. By that I do not mean defective. It is still Divine revelation, it is just not complete. Not only will the gifts cease or fade away, but even as they were, they were in part. Paul is telling the Corinthians that what they had then by way of those gifts was incomplete or immature compared to that which was to come - that which is perfect. The need for spiritual gifts places those in that situation at a disadvantage. Charismatics don't see this. A continued need for revelatory gifts means that what we possess now by way of revelation is not perfect and is at best in part. Now if you can say that about the Bible, then I repudiate your claim to be a Christian. Nor is there any self-consistent way to maintain the sufficiency and completeness of the Scriptures and leave a back door open to the continuation of the supernatural revelatory gifts. 

It is often objected by proponents of Continuism, even the adherents of a soft version of it, that the gifts were confirmational, that is, they confirmed the message of the Apostles; so that if we had a situation today in which the message of the Apostles had never been heard, God might still use these gifts in the same confirmational manner. The flaw with this logic is that the gifts as they operated in Scripture were MORE than simply confirmation of the Apostles message. They were themselves revelatory. If the gift is genuine after the manner of operation in Scripture, it would have to be BOTH confirmational AND revelatory. If it can't be one, it can't be the other.

The whole context of chapter 13 is the larger context of 12-14 which deals with supernatural gifts. I Corinthians 13 is not a rabbit trail off the subject Paul has in view. He is striving very hard to show that Faith, Hope, and Love (the greatest of which is love) are Gospel virtues which the Church will possess through her entire earthly pilgrimage. The partial immature, incomplete state of revelation prior to the arrival of "that which is perfect" will change. The tongues, prophecies and knowledge will pass away, or cease, but faith, hope and love will continue.

This is another reason why the "perfect" cannot possibly be referring to the glorified state. Faith and Hope will not survive this age. In Glory, hope and faith will be superseded by sight and experience. Having attained the promised kingdom, we will no longer need to live in hope of its arrival. Granted we will love each other in the eternal state, but that is beside the point.

But back to the passage, it is important to note that Paul juxtaposes the current immature state of the Church, possessing a revelation via spiritual gifts, and that only in part, with the perfect, full, sufficient revelation that had yet to be completed at the time of his epistle. This is important to grasp because Pentecostals and Charismatics place great stock in their own spiritual maturity based on their supposed practice of these gifts. They take tongues and prophecy to be great indicators of spiritual maturity. Yet the Holy Spirit tells us the exact opposite. Moreover if the Charismatics and Pentecostals are correct, the Church will never have a complete body of revelation throughout her entire existence on earth. This involves them in a massive contradiction. If knowledge, as one of the gifts, will vanish away, how can they turn around then and say that we know only in part now, but when we get to heaven we will experience an exponential increase in knowledge. Not only is this a direct contradiction of Scripture, it stultifies their own position. There is no other way to understand this, because Paul says quite bluntly that the immature was going to give way to the mature. In doing so, he relegates spiritual gifts to the realm of the immature.

When Paul refers here in verse 8 to tongues, prophecies and knowledge, he is referring back to chapter 12, verses 6-11. In fact the point he is making in chapter 13 has to do with all that he has already said in chapter 12. The point is this: Those gifts did exist in the Apostolic church; they were practiced by the Apostles. So when he comes to chapter 13, he says, naming three prominent gifts, that something better than these gifts was coming. And when it came, the temporary and immature would no longer be needed. If people could get this into their heads, the whole Charismatic movement would dry up overnight. What Paul is contrasting here is lesser and greater revelation.

All of the above explanation plays heavily on how we are to understand verse 12. At first glance, verse 12 might seem to countenance the Pentecostal interpretation to "that which is perfect" is a reference to Heaven or the glorified state of believers. It is important to remember that the gifts which Paul lists in verse 8, as a sample of all those he mentions in chapter 12, being miracles, belong to the realm of revelation. This revelation is said to be "in part." Therefore, his partial revelation will be done away with once the "perfect" revelation comes. If what is being replaced belongs to the realm of Divine revelation, the logical inference is that what replaces it which is perfect or mature is also in the realm of Divine revelation. This basic premise must be grasped to understand verse 12.

Paul was telling the Corinthians that what they then had by way of Divine revelation was immature and temporary, and would be superseded by "that which is perfect." I want to reiterate that by calling Divine revelation "immature," I do not mean to say that it was defective. I merely mean to say that it was not complete. It is a contrast between lesser and greater revelation. We must remember that we are dealing with a period in history when the New Testament was not complete. Paul is telling them that what they had was a lesser 'version,' if you will, of the complete revelation that was coming. Paul doesn't specify when it would occur, but he is exceptionally clear in saying that once the Church possessed the perfect revelation, there would be a cessation of the immature revelation.

To make "that which is perfect" refer to the state of Glory is to say that the Church, while on earth, will never possess perfect revelation. This contradicts statements found throughout the New Testament. For example, in John 16:13, Jesus promises the Apostles total and perfect recall of all that He taught them so that they could write the New Testament. And notice that Christ says, "all truth." Christ is stating quite plainly that at the close of the New Testament canon, the Church possesses "all truth." Nothing can be added to "all." So if Paul means that the "perfect" is heaven, then, in direct contradiction to Christ, he is saying that the Church will have to put up with partial revelation throughout her entire history. Furthermore, it is during the Church's earthly pilgrimage that she needs the mature or perfect revelation. How could it be any consolation to the Corinthians for Paul to say that they will have to wait to get to heaven before they will possess the full revelation God means for His people to have while on earth?

The Missionary "Tongues" Story

Ever since I was a child, I have often encountered a particular story. It is something of an urban legend in certain church circles.

It goes like this: There was a missionary who met up with a person, usually a tribeman of some sort in a remote jungle area, with whom he wished to share the Gospel. Unfortunately, though, they could not understand each other's languages. Somehow the missionary felt compelled to open his mouth and just speak. To his surprise, he found himself speaking the other person's language fluently, though not aware of what he was saying. The tribesman was miraculously converted.

I have heard a dozen or more incarnations of this story, but those are the central story factors that are always present. As I said earlier, in some church circles, especially Pentecostal ones, this is something of an urban legend. It is always recounted third or fourth hand. I have never spoken with someone who actually claims to have personally had this experience.

The unspoken assumption, and often very clearly spoken assumption, of this story is that egghead cessationists are wrong and the supernatural sign gift of tongues still functions in the church today. Usually, this idea is further 'established' by claiming that while much of the tongues speaking that goes on in many Pentecostal churches is fraudulent, this kind must be real because it occurs in situations that seem to replicate the condition of the 1st Century Church.

This is a problematic assumption. I am not satisfied that this situation replicates the situation of the Apostolic age. I don't think it even comes within a hundred miles of the situation that existed on the Day of Pentecost.

1. On Pentecost, there was, as yet, no New Testament.

2. Tongues did not miraculously preach the Gospel to people in need of an interpreter.

3. The 3,000 converts were converted by Peter's plain preaching of the Gospel in Aramaic, a language they all understood anyway. Peter did not preach in tongues. The witnesses, though fluent in other languages, were all Jews who understood Peter's Aramaic sermon. The elect were converted, the non-elect mocked them, in direct fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11-12.

4. Pentecost was the event wherein the New Testament Church emerged from the cocoon of the Old Testament Church. This can never be repeated.

5. Virtually the entire visible church was present - something that has not been repeated since.

6. Tongues, on the Day of Pentecost, was not a conversation between a believer and an unbeliever. It was not an evangelism tool.

In short, Tongues was not a solution of how to preach to someone whose language Peter and the Apostles did not speak. It was not a miracle to overcome the absence of an interpreter. Every one present was Jewish; they all spoke Aramaic. Peter preached to them immediately after the tongues event occurred. He did not preach in tongues; he preached in Aramaic. Furthermore when one compares 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 with Isaiah 28:11,12 one sees that the occurrence of tongues on Pentecost was a sign of God's judgment upon unbelieving Israel. This was proven on Pentecost. The elect repented upon hearing Peter's sermon. The rest, judged as unbelievers, simply mocked the Apostles.

When people interpret "sign to the unbeliever" to mean that it is something that convinces an otherwise skeptical person, they flatly misunderstand the text. The idea of a sign in Scripture is always a judgment. Besides that, God never performs miracles like as if they were tricks to convince doubters. This turns the power of the Holy Spirit to a parlor trick.

A further problem arises when we wonder about the validity of the experience itself. Assume for the sake of argument that the story is actually true. One thing is immediately clear, whatever else may be said about the situation, it is certainly unusual, and therefore not to be appealed to as the norm. Secondly, this is not how tongues functioned on Pentecost. So, even assuming the story to be true, this is still not an example of tongues in the Biblical sense. Furthermore, what do we do with experiences that seem to point to the opposite assumption? Both positions cannot be equally true.

Anyone with even slightly Reformed leanings will agree that Scripture is the rule of doctrine and practice and that experience never trumps Scripture. I am reminded of Anthony Flew. He was the foremost scholarly atheist of the past generation. Late in life, however, he recanted his atheism due to something like a near-death experience. He did not convert to Christianity, mind you. If anything, he became a deist. And when he died, he was as hardened to the Gospel of Christ as he ever was during his staunchly atheistic days. If experience determines what one believes, then we must accept the validity of Mormonism based on their "burning in the bosom." We must also accept the trance-like experiences of Hindus. Furthermore, we cannot reject the experiences of millions of Charismatics, many of whom are Papists, Unitarians, modalists and Pelagians.

Rejection of the Continuist position has always been a part of the Reformed theological tradition. When Calvin and others wrote against it, they did not have an axe to grind with Benny Hinn or some other screwball Charismatic. Their opponent was Popery. The idea that the supernatural sign gifts were to remain in active function throughout the church for all time is a distinctly papist idea. Rejection of this is one of the tenets for which our Protestant forefathers were called "Protestants." They affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture and therefore rejected the notion that Scripture needed to be supplemented by weekly messages in tongues or visions and prophecies by the mystics. If the canon is closed, these sign gifts are either superfluous to Scriptural revelation or additions to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a message in tongues is revelatory, then it is anathema for adding to Scripture. If it is merely confirmational, then it is not needed. Scripture tells us all we need to know. A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign.

One last loose end needs to be tied up and that is this: Assuming again that the story is true, and the tongues speaking is neither revelatory nor confirmational, but simply proclamation of the Gospel, why is this needed in the first place? Why should we assume that God, in order to have the Gospel preached to one of His elect, would send a missionary that is not linguistically competent, or that He wouldn't send a fellow native? This is what makes me most skeptical of the story. It presupposes that God is forced to use a missionary that hasn't done his language preparation. It presupposes that God's timing in saving His elect is rushed. He can't wait until the missionary learns the language, or He can't send someone to preach who already speaks the language. 

Besides, the whole story comes off very contrived. It reminds me of the Sadducee story of the woman married to seven men. Its whole existence seems contrived simply to disprove the Reformed Cessationist position. Again, assuming for the sake of argument, that the story is true and God did actually give someone for a brief moment the supernatural ability to converse with someone in a language they did not know, this still would not be the tongues of the Day of Pentecost. It may be a wonderful providential blessing to a lost soul, but it wouldn't be the tongues of the Day of Pentecost.

Why I No Longer Speak in Tongues

The main point that I would argue in the paragraphs that follow is that “Tongues” was a gift given by God for a particular time and reason. Once that time and reason passed, Tongues ceased to operate in the Church. This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit has no function in the Church: He has a very important function, but I do not believe it is “signs and wonders.” I heard a preacher once say that if you got all the Charismatic leaders in the world together on one stage, they couldn’t produce a single sign, except one that’d make you wonder! And the man who said that was a Pentecostal!

An argument to which I will appeal a little later on, presented by Conyers Middleton, is that the gift Tongues is the stand-out, or primary gift of the extraordinary charismata. Hence, if they have ceased, then it is only reasonable to conclude the same for the other extraordinary charismata. Therefore, I assert that if the gift of Tongues was a sign gift for a temporary time and purpose, then we are not to seek it today.

Those who would argue that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, hence the gift is for all ages, neglect the clear Scriptural fact that God has often given gifts for a distinctively limited time. Israel ate manna in the wilderness for 40 years, but Joshua 5:12 tells us that the very day after Israel ate the produce of Canaan, the manna ceased forever. In 1 Kings 17, God miraculously increased the oil and flour of the widow until it rained again.

Furthermore, the desire for Tongues, or for that matter any of the extraordinary charismata, neglects the true work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Many people don’t have a clear idea of the Spirit’s work, thus the Pentecostal argument seems at least plausible

Another thing I want to assert right from the beginning is this: As a former Pentecostal, I am not being simply reactionary. I am not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I am not, upon seeing fraudulent gifts, making an unwarranted leap to the conclusion that there are no real gifts. It seems to me that each generation has to relearn these things. There would be no Arminianism had people learned from the Pelagian/Augustinian debate. I talk with people all the time who are completely unaware that these issues were dealt with in more than sufficient detail by the Fathers, the Reformers, and the Puritans, never mind men closer to our own age. I repeat: Cessationism is not throwing out the baby with the bath water. In fact, I would assert that Pentecostalism is throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water. Why do I say that? Well for starters, Tongues was a sign gift. You don’t need to take my word for it. Jesus Himself called Tongues a sign. Mark 16:17, Jesus said, “These signs...” (This word is sometimes translated “miracle”). “These signs [these sign miracles] shall follow them that believe.” And part of the text says, “In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.” It is a sign miracle. Then Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:22, “Tongues are for a sign.”

Hebrews 2:3 says “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” That is a wonderful text. But it raises the question: How will we escape what? How will we escape the wrath of God? How will we escape the just reward of our sins if we neglect so great salvation? Now look at the rest of the passage “so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” How was it confirmed? “...signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.” So right here the author is telling us that even before the apostolic age comes to a close you have someone looking back saying, “We got this message first from the lips of those who heard the Savior. The Lord confirmed the message by signs and wonders.” They are already looking back on a time when there were signs and wonders in abundance, but the purpose of them was to authenticate the message and the messenger. So who is throwing out the baby: He who believes the message is authenticated, or he who still demands a sign? An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign.

Pentecostals are notorious for their poor theological skills and I think this is the main reason behind their whole teaching on the Holy Spirit. For instance, how many times have you heard, “In the last days, I will pour out My Spirit…and your young men will see visions, etc.”? That is from Joel 2. On the actual day of Pentecost in 33 A.D., Peter affirmed to the Jews present that what they were witnessing was the fulfillment of that prophecy. Now, my question is this: How many fulfillments do prophecies have? Jesus was not born of a virgin two times; Jerusalem was not destroyed three times, Jesus did not die and resurrect 20 times. A prophecy has one fulfillment; otherwise it would not be miraculous. Prophecy is miraculous exactly because it doesn’t happen often. I mean, if I predicted that the Yankees will win the World Series in the 21st century, that wouldn’t be a miracle because they win all the time. Now if you wanted to believe that I really was a prophet you would have to figure out which one of their World Series victories is really the fulfillment of my prophecy. So if every Sunday at “Tabernacle of Power” is a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, how could Peter have been right when he said that what happened then was the fulfillment? Do you see what I mean?

The gift of tongues was clearly the ability to speak a language that one had not learned. It was a means of proclaiming the Gospel; it was not a “prayer language.” The hearers at Pentecost said, “we hear them in our own languages, and even dialects, proclaiming the glory of God.” They did not say, “We hear them praying in our own languages.”

From the Acts 2 passage, it is actually quite difficult to prove that the gift of tongues extended beyond the Twelve on the actual Day of Pentecost. It might have; it might not have. If it went beyond the Twelve later it was because they had laid hands on people and transmitted the gift of the Holy Spirit. Indeed Philip couldn’t do it. When his converts in Samaria were to be given the gift, the Apostles had to be called down there to do it.

In fact, there is no incident in the entire New Testament of the gift being transmitted by any other means than the laying on of hands by an Apostle. This limits the gift to the time of the Apostles. Out of the 120 disciples, only two met the qualifications for being an apostle (Acts 1:15-26). This tells us that the office of Apostle was clearly intended by Christ to be a temporary office. No living human being meets the qualifications: being present with Christ from His baptism until His resurrection. and if there are no living Apostles, then there is no one to lay hands and transmit the gift, either.

Lest one be tempted to accuse me of a novel view, let me point out that this was the view held in antiquity. The famed Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, (310-403), wrote a monumental work against all the known heresies of his day. In the section of this work, known as the Panarion (medicine chest), dealing with Simon Magus, Epiphanius writes, "Simon made up to the apostles and, together with many he too, like the others, was baptized by Philip. All except Simon waited for the arrival of the chief apostles, and received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands. (Philip, being a deacon, did not have the faculty of the laying on of hands in order to give the Holy Spirit through it.)" * Notice that Epiphanius explicitly claims that Philip did not have the ability to convey the gifts of the Spirit because he was not an Apostle. Hence, once the last of the Twelve Apostles died, this phenomenon would have naturally ceased.

Three characteristics of Tongues indicating its temporariness:

1. It was a sign miracle to confirm the Apostle’s message: Mark 16:17; Heb 2:4; 2 Cor. 12:11, 12.
2. It was a means of proclaiming the gospel to foreigners – a head start on the Great Commission – Acts 2:7-11.
3. It was a means of chastising unbelieving Israel. 1 Cor 14:21, 22. It is a sign to those that believe not: It is a sign of God’s chastisement of apostate Israel. Isaiah 28:11, 12; Deut 28:49.

There are several points I would use to show that “tongues,” was not intended by God to be a permanent feature of the Church’s experience. It was given at Pentecost for a specific reason. Once that reason had been attained, it would naturally cease to operate.

I. Tongues was intended to establish the divine authority of the Apostles as proclaimers of God’s Word. Joel’s prophecy foretold of new revelations from God. God gave the Tongues in order to verify to Israel that this was the time. In other words, the gift of Tongues was intended to validate the authority of the New Testament revelations. It may seem strange to hear this, but there is an example of this very thing in the Old Testament. When Moses was overloaded with the burden of leading Israel, God gave him 70 assistants. In order to validate these people to Israel, God placed His Spirit on them as He had done to Moses. These men then prophesied. This showed the congregation of Israel that these men were to be listened to. But Numbers 11:25 tells us that they did not prophesy again. Why? It wasn’t needed: Moses was the prophet. One time was enough to demonstrate that they had been commissioned by God.

If you read Scripture carefully, you will notice that miracles and extraordinary signs are confined pretty much to three periods in the history recorded in the Bible. They were:
1. The time of Moses;
2. The beginning of the era of the prophets; and
3. The time of the Apostles.

What do these times have in common? They were the times when God was giving revelation – that is, Scripture. Now think about some of these churches with their tape recorded copies and printed copies of “prophecies” by Bro. So-and-So and Sis. Such-and-such. Aren’t they making their own Scriptures? Why? It’s because the miraculous always accompanies revelation and this is implicitly understood.

II. “Tongues” was given to show the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Church. The gift of tongues occurs four times in Acts and in four ever increasing levels of ethnic inclusion. The Jews were notoriously prejudiced against the Gentiles. All other races were simply dogs in their sight. God had to prove that it was His plan to call the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, to faith in Christ. He did this via the “four-peat” of the Pentecost experience.
(a.) At Pentecost, only Jews were present. They spoke in a variety of Gentile languages, but they were still all Jews.
(b.) The gift surfaces again under Philip’s ministry in Samaria. This was a huge shock to the Jewish believers. They had been born and raised to hate and despise the Samaritans; now they were brethren in Christ with them. This was indisputable, for God Himself had proven it by giving them the same manifestation of the Spirit as the Jews received at Pentecost.
(c.) Then, it happens again under Peter’s ministry to the Roman centurion, Cornelius. Now God has shown that salvation in Christ was not merely for the Jews and the half-breed Samaritans, but it was also for Romans.
(d.) Then, finally, under Paul’s ministry, the Ephesian believers experience the same thing. This expands the reach of the Church to include Greeks as well. So by a four-fold demonstration, God proves to the Jews that salvation was not restricted to their race alone.

III. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:8, “tongues shall cease.” There are some interesting facts about the Greek wording of this passage. The verb, “will cease,” is in what students of New Testament Greek know as the “middle voice.” In English, verbs have two “voices”: active and passive. If a verb is in the active voice, it means that the subject of the sentence is the doer of the action. If a verb is in the passive voice, it means that the subject is the receiver of the verb’s action. (Example: Michael ate the apple: active. The apple was eaten by Michael: passive). However, Greek has another voice: the middle voice. It is a bit technical to explain just what this means in English, since our language has no counterpart. Generally, it is used to mean that the action will just naturally occur. And that is the sense in which Paul uses the middle voice here. In other words, he means that Tongues will just naturally, on its own, cease. Pentecostals usually interpret this verse to mean that when we get to heaven, we won’t speak in tongues anymore. But this verse does not say that. It simply states that tongues “will cease.”

The best way to render this middle voice verb would be to say that the gift of tongues will “peter out.” 1 Cor. 13 also tells us why they will peter out: they will be superseded by “that which is perfect.” What is “perfect” can be either the completion of the NT canon or the eternal state. We can rule out the eternal state because hope and faith survive the arrival of that which is perfect. Romans 8:24 tells us that hope attained isn’t hope anymore. We do not need hope or faith in the eternal state. Hence the only option for what is “perfect” is the completion of the NT canon. This is clear anyway from the text since Paul compares the perfect to their ten current situation of partial revelation.

Charismatics are prone to reply to this with something flimsy like, “Why would God put in the Bible if it weren’t for us to experience?” The problem with this logic, or rather, illogic, is far too obvious. Are we to suggest that the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion and Resurrection have no meaning for us because they didn’t occur in our lifetime to be validated by our own personal judgments?

The history of the Church has demonstrated this. After the Tongues event in Ephesus, we never hear of it again in the New Testament. Indeed, outside of 1 Corinthians, the entire New Testament is silent about it. Surely this must count for something. I mean, why doesn’t John or James or Peter mention it? None of the Church Fathers mention it as functioning in the Church in their day.

I read a book (The Shepherd’s Guide) by the Pentecostal Ralph Mahoney who tried to prove from the writings of the Church Fathers that Tongues had never ceased throughout the history of the Church and that they believed in it and practiced it. Of course I was curious since Church History, especially the writings of the Fathers, is one of my primary interests. When I verified his quotations, he was misreading them every time. In many cases, he lied through his teeth about what a Father had said. For instance, there was a cult group in the 2nd century who practiced Tongues, and the quotations Mahoney used from the writings of Irenaeus were dealing with this cult's teachings, not the Church’s doctrine and practice. Mahoney could only get away with this baloney because virtually no one will take the time and trouble to verify his claims. And this is true whether his misrepresentations were intentional or not.

The 18th Century author Conyers Middleton D.D. writes this: “In collecting all the facts and testimonies, which relate to the present argument, from the earliest inquiry, after the days of the Apostles, our first thoughts are carried of course to the Apostolic Fathers, that is, to those, who had lived and conversed with the Apostles, and who, by the special appointment, were ordained to succeed them in the Government of the Church. For as there are several of this character, whose writings still remain to us, St. Barnabas, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Hermas, so it is natural to expect, that, in these valued remains, the History of the miraculous gifts, which are so much celebrated by the writers of the New Testament, should be carried on still in the same manner by these their immediate successors through the next generation. For if any such gifts had been actually subsisting in their days, it is highly probable, that men of their eminent zeal and piety, who had seen the wonderful effects of them, under the management of the Apostles, and must have themselves possessed a large share of them, would have made some appeal or reference to them, in their circular epistles to the Churches, as their predecessors had done, for the honor of the Gospel, and the credit of their own ministry. But instead of this, it is remarkable, that there is not the least claim or pretension, in all their several pieces, to any of those extraordinary gifts, which are the subject of this inquiry; nor to any standing power of working miracles, as residing still among them, for the conversion of the Heathen world." quote from - - - A Free Inquiry Into The Miraculous Powers Which Are Supposed To Have Subsisted In The Christian Church From The Earliest Ages Through The Several Successive Centuries by Conyers Middleton D.D. 1749

Another factor that clouds up the subject is the very name itself: Tongues. It sounds so strange and mysterious. I wonder how advanced the Pentecostal practice of Tongues would have gotten if none of our English translations used the word “tongues.” The word “tongue” is just an outmoded English term that means “Language.” Our English word, “Language” comes from a Latin word for “tongue” (The pink instrument of taste and pronunciation inside our mouths). It doesn’t sound as mystical to say that you have the “gift of languages”, does it? It is only because we use the word Tongues that there is any mystery attached to it. Think about it. In 1 Corinthians 14:18, Paul says, “I thank God that I speak more languages than all of you.” Now if we read the verse that way – which is a fair rendering of what it says – there would be little or no room for the strange and mysterious interpretations that abound regarding that whole chapter. Actually, 1 Cor 14 refutes the idea of a language being spoken that no one but God understands. The speaker clearly understands what he is saying because he “edifies himself.”

IV. Is the Canon of Scripture closed? In other words, are there anymore revelations coming from God apart from the Bible? Is the Bible complete? Are we still going to get more new revelations from God? This is the biggest problem I see in the whole Tongues phenomena as it exists in the Pentecostal Church. If I claim to have a “word from the Lord,” how is that any different from the Scriptural declaration “Thus saith the Lord”? I don’t see how you can argue that one word of God is more “real” or binding than another. If my word in Tongues is really a Word from God, is it a sin to disobey it? If it is a sin, then my word in Tongues is identical to Scripture, at least in its authority. In fact, it is even more authoritative than Scripture bacause it comes after Scripture has been given. And it makes me just as much a prophet as Jeremiah, Daniel or Elijah. There’s just no way to get around this. If God speaks, we must obey or perish. Can we honestly say that our eternal souls hang in the balance based on our obedience to all of the various “words” that are given in Tongues every Sunday throughout the Charismatic world? I think not. If we can’t say this, then how can we say that they are really words from God? God’s word is God’s word, right?

V. What about 1 Corinthians, right? Well, I can give you several (nine, to be exact) points of contrast between what occurred in Acts and what happened in Corinth. Based on these facts, it seems impossible to me to assert that they were the same thing. I do not doubt that there were still genuine manifestations of Tongues at the time of the Epistle to the Corinthians, but there was most certainly other things going on as well.

Differences between the Tongues of Acts and the Tongues of 1 Corinthians

Acts --------------------------------------------------- 1 Corinthians
All spoke (2:4) -------------------------------- Not all spoke (12:30)
No limitations --------------------------------- Use limited (14:27, 28)
Understood by all (2:6) --------------------- Understood by none (14:2, 9)
They spoke to men (2:11, 17) ------------- They spoke to God (14:2)
No interpreter needed (2:6) ---------------- Forbidden without one (14:23, 28)
A sign to believers. (11:15) ---------------- A sign to unbelievers (14:22)
Brought salvation to hearers (2:41) ------Edified only the speaker (14:4)
Strangers amazed. (2:7, 8) ----------------Strangers thought they were insane (14:23)
There was perfect harmony (2:1) --------There was confusion (14:33)

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that there were no genuine tongues (in the Acts 2 sense) in Corinth at the time of the Epistle, but there is no doubt that there was a lot of gibberish and babbling. This in itself seems to call modern Tongues into question. Who can confidently assert that mindless, incoherent babbling is a natural outgrowth of genuine worship? When I use the word “babble,” I mean no disrespect. I just don’t know of any other way to refer to voicing things that aren’t real words from a real language. (Besides, incoherent babbling was a mystical religious experience known to the Corinthians from the Delphi cult.) 

There is another issue regarding “tongues” (i.e., languages) at Corinth that few people seem to consider. Corinth was a international shipping hub. There were people residing in Corinth from all parts of the world. On any street of the city, on any given day, one could expect to hear languages from all over the known world. This would naturally have been reflected in the church’s worship as well. And here is where it seems to me that the easiest solution for the “tongues question” in Corinth arises.

Isn’t it entirely possible, indeed likely, that what Paul is concerned with is a worship service in which people are speaking multiple languages (because these are their native languages), but where no one is there to interpret so that the whole congregation can benefit from what has been said?

Picture this scenario: In a church in Corinth, a Celtic believer has something he’d love to share with the congregation. Most, if not all, of the congregants are fluent in Greek, but no one speaks his Celtic tongue. He stands up anyway, and proceeds to speak for 15-20 minutes. As Paul says, he “edifies himself,” because he is the only one who knows what he has just said. His “understanding is fruitful.” In other words, he is encouraged by the words spoken, but no one else is. He just comes off like a “barbarian.” Hence, Paul says that there should be an interpreter in such cases. Unless the languages Paul has in mind were actual human languages, and not ecstatic gibberish, how else could the presence of an interpreter be ascertained? If the pastor stood up and said in Greek, “Is there anyone here who can translate into Greek the language of this Celt?” and there was such a person present, then, by all means, let him speak. But if no interpreter was present, he should keep quiet.

This brings me to my next point.

VI. Modern “Tongues” are not a real language. If it is, what are its nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, etc.? There have been many scientific studies done on this where samples of Tongues have been recorded on tape and studied by experts in languages. There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that our modern Tongues is a language. It does not match any language on earth, which it should if it is a real language. Some Pentecostals admit this, but reply that it is a heavenly language. They base this on 1 Corinthians 13:1. Paul says, “If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but have no love…” They then assert that this means that our native language is the “tongues of men,” and Tongues is the “tongues of angels.” This is extremely questionable interpretation. First of all, Paul is being rhetorical. He is exaggerating to make his point. Anyone can see that. Besides that, every time an angel speaks in the Bible, it is always in a human language.

My question is this: Paul says “test all things.” So, how are we to test the interpretation? If Tongues is not a real language, how do we prove that the interpreter got it right? Even if it is a real language (angel language) unless we have someone who actually speaks that language, we can’t prove whether the interpretation was right or not. So to circumvent the potential confusion, wouldn’t it be better to just speak words we all understand? (cf. 1 Cor. 14:19)

I think if you read 1 Corinthians 14 without trying to read Pentecostal theology into it, it really sounds as if Paul isn’t particularly thrilled about it. No one will argue that Paul is establishing regulations for the use of gifts in this passage. And this leads to an important point: Men need to be regulated. Men’s utterances need to be regulated. Men’s claims to be led by the Spirit need to be tested and regulated. The Holy Spirit cannot and must not be regulated.

Think for a moment about this. Can the Holy Spirit ever say something wrong? Can He speak at the wrong time? The very thought is ridiculous. And yet the true gift of tongues was a gift whereby the Holy Spirit was speaking and acting miraculously and directly through men. He was not using (as, for example, in inspiration) their vocabulary. He was supplying something for which there was no foundation in their consciousness. The Holy Spirit was acting directly and miraculously. So let me repeat the question: In the genuine gift of Tongues could the Holy Spirit ever speak at the wrong time? Could he ever speak out of turn? Could he ever say the wrong thing? Of course not! That is impossible! And that is precisely why there were regulations in 1 Corinthians 14. They were needed not because of the use of the gift of tongues, but because people were either talking gibberish in some ecstasy or they were misusing a foreign language naturally acquired.

Now, of course, I anticipate someone saying, “It wasn’t the use of the gift of Tongues he is regulating; it was the misuse.” But we just established that this cannot be the case. The gift of Tongues could not be misused and it could not be perverted. By definition the gift of Tongues is the Holy Spirit speaking directly through a man. How can that be perverted? How can a carnal individual or deluded soul induce the Holy Spirit Ghost to speak through him and pervert something that only God can do? It is a ridiculous, almost blasphemous idea that the true gift of Tongues by the Spirit can be perverted. You see, the simple truth here is that Paul was not dealing with perversions of the gift of tongues. He was not dealing with the misuse of the true gift of tongues. What he was dealing with was a misuse of a naturally acquired language—either because you are born into it or you learned it—or a counterfeit of the spiritual gift as people simulated tongues in this ecstatic gibberish.

Look at verses 14 to 18 because this is a very controversial passage. Much nonsense has been taught on this passage. So we must understand what Paul is saying. He is talking about praying with the Spirit and with the understanding. Many people think, “Well, if you are speaking this ecstatic utterance you are praying in the spirit. But your understanding is suspended.” I can tell you from personal experience in Pentecostal circles that when someone was seeking the gift, they were told to just let their mind go blank. “Clear your mind of all thought. Suspend all thought processes. And when the mind is clear and blank, then this is when it will happen.” God never, ever calls a Christian to suspend thinking, Never. Anything that is religious which proceeds upon a blank mind is by definition satanic. The command of Scripture is always, “think,” “reckon,” “get your mind at work on this,” “meditate.” That is what the Scripture commands. True Christian spirituality is mindful: it is not Jedi religion. "Clear your thoughts, my young padawan"

So the idea here when Paul talks about somebody speaking in tongues and his understanding is completely suspended, is that nobody knows the inner workings of the gift of tongues. Nobody knows just how far or in what way their minds were engaged. We can’t say that because the Bible doesn’t tell us. But what Paul is talking about here is an unfruitful understanding. He is not saying he didn’t understand. He is saying an unfruitful understanding is speaking in such a way that the people hearing you don’t understand. When God reduces his people to hearing his Word in a language they can’t understand, it is an evidence of his judgment on their unbelief. In Isaiah 28:11, you have got the text that is quoted here, “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.” God was saying, “You wouldn’t listen to me when I was preaching to you in your own tongue. I am going to preach to you in another tongue. You will not understand the words, but you will feel the sword of judgment.” So when Paul says that it is a sign to the unbeliever, he is not saying that is a wonderful tool that will speak God's greatness to someone in his/her native language. Rather, when the word of God is proclaimed to you in a language you can't understand, it is a sign - a sign of God's judgment upon you.

If you are looking for a book on the Holy Spirit’s role in the Church, I would very, very highly recommend a book called “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit” by George Smeaton. It was written in the 1800’s but it is still easily available through Banner of Truth. Parts of are fairly scholarly, but he has several exceptional chapters on the work of the Holy Spirit. It is hands down the best book I have ever come across on the subject.

In the book I cited earlier by Middleton, he uses the gift of Tongues as a litmus test for all other claims of supposed extraordinary gifts because it was the first gift given. Let’s allow Middleton to speak in his own words, “In short, if we trace the history of this gift (tongues – A.U.) from its origin, we shall find, that, in the times of the Gospel, in which alone the miracles of the Church are allowed to be true by all Christians, it was the first gift, which was conferred upon the Apostles, in a public and illustrious manner, and reckoned ever after among the principal of those, which were imparted to the first converts. But in the succeeding ages, when miracles began to be of a suspected and dubious character, it is observable; that this gift is mentioned but once by a single writer, and then vanished of a sudden, without the least notice, or hint given by any of the ancients, either of the manner, or time, or cause of its vanishing. Lastly, in the later ages, when the miracles of the Church were not only suspected, but found to be false by our Reformers, this gift has never once been heard of, or pretended to by the Romanists themselves, though they challenge at the same time all the other gifts of the Apostolic days. From all which, I think, we may reasonably infer that the ‘gift of tongues’ may be considered as a proper test and criterion, for determining the miraculous pretensions of all Churches, which derive their descent from the Apostles: and consequently, if, in the list of their extraordinary gifts, they cannot show us this, we may fairly conclude, that they have none else to show, which are real and genuine." pg 122

Middleton's book can be found here.

*  Epiphanius' Greek is:

ὑπεκορίσθη δὲ οὗτος τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ [ὁμοίως] ἴσα τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπὸ Φιλίππου ἐβαπτίσθη μετὰ πολλῶν. οἱ πάντες δὲ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐξεδέξαντο τὴν τῶν μεγάλων ἀποστόλων παρουσίαν καὶ διὰ τῆς αὐτῶν χειροθεσίας ἔλαβον πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἐπειδήπερ Φίλιππος διάκονος ὢν οὐκ εἶχεν ἐξουσίαν τῆς χειροθεσίας τοῦ δι' αὐτῆς διδόναι πνεῦμα ἅγιον