Review of Michael John Beasley's "Fallible Prophets of the New Calvinism."

While this book is aimed at the general Continuationist faction within the movement broadly termed “New Calvinism,” the brunt of the attack is the bizarre notion of “New Testament fallible prophecy,” primarily proposed, advanced and defended in the works of Wayne Grudem. Since several other authors have responded to Grudem’s work in this field, Michael John Beasley responds to the features of Grudem’s position which have not generally be responded to. These would be the lexical, exegetical and historical concerns, but primarily the lexical defense of the position advanced by Grudem.

Beasley begins by noting that the position advanced by Grudem commits several gross errors, such as reversing the very definition of the word “Prophecy.” This is no small concern. Secondly, there is the mind-bending assertion that the gift of prophecy advocated by Grudem is simultaneously fallible and legitimate. Yes, you read that correctly. Imagine claiming that you are speaking an admixture of truth and error, with no way to gag the error, and this fact notwithstanding, your work as a untrustworthy communicator is still completely legitimate. Try that at work, I double-dog dare you, and see how long you keep your job.

But the strength of this small book is its handling of the feeble lexical argument used by Grudem. In order to defend a ‘gift’ of prophecy in the church which is not authoritatively binding (like OT prophecy), that doesn’t end the false prophet’s life (like OT prophecy), is not 100% accurate (like OT prophecy), Grudem is forced to redefine the word “Prophet.” But more than that, he must also affirm that his redefined, or rather reversed, term is how the New Testament writers understood the word “Prophet.” No small order, to be sure. Beasley then demonstrates how Grudem does this, not by going to the text of the NT, but rather by going to most bizarre fringes of secular usage and drags the word “prophet” into his Procrustean bed. Since pagans had ‘prophets,’ so-called, ergo, the Apostles used the term ‘prophet’ with the non-authoritative pagan connotations in mind, NOT what the whole flow of the OT teaches regarding prophets. It boggles the imagination. So much for the analogy of faith. So much for Sola Scriptura. So much for “Scripture interprets Scripture.”

In the lengthy exegetical section of the book, Beasley handles the lone spoof-text for fallible prophecy, which is Agabus’ prophecy. Make no mistake, what Grudem intends to do here is to prove that a legitimate, yet fallible gift of prophecy is to function in the church, based upon the notion that Agabus blew it. The assertion made by Grudem and other Continuationist Calvinists (including D.A. Carson), is that Agabus’ prophecy was an example of fallible prophecy. Agabus’ prophecy was full of factual errors. These are not my words. Carson, for example says, “I can think of no reported Old Testament prophet whose prophecies are so wrong on the details.” (This quote is cited favorably by Grudem.) Grudem himself goes so far as to say that Agabus’ introduction to his prophecy, “This is what the Holy Spirit says,” is roughly equivalent to, “This is what I feel God may want me to tell you.”

The reason behind these startling and amazing statements is that, in order to defend his belief in a gift of fallible prophecy in the New Testament church, Grudem and his fellow Continuists charge that Agabus’ prophecy was fraught with factual errors. Beasley goes to great lengths exegeting the Agabus’ prophecy and analyzing both the prophecy and the historical details chronicled by Luke in order to demonstrate that Agabus’ prophecy was factually correct in every detail. Those, who affirm the opposite do not do so on solid exegetical grounds, but sacrifice the facts (and the historic Protestant view of Inspiration) on the altar of their preconceived notions. Why not rather assume that Agabus was correct? Why not rather assume that Scripture does not blur the lines between true and false prophet? These are big questions which Grudem’s position creates and never attempts to solve.

If there is anything I would criticize the book for, it is this: before launching into an excellent survey of the notion of fallible prophecy, and before detailing the horrific dangers to which such a position makes us susceptible, the author prefaces his work by stating that he is not convinced that “fallible prophecy” constitutes an immediate assault on the gospel. I am at a loss with what to do with that statement. I cannot imagine a more ineffectual way to preface a critique and analysis of a movement which injects error into the mouth of God in Scripture, destroys the possibility of labeling anyone a “false prophet,” and removes any barrier to anyone claiming to speak authoritatively in the name of God, while simultaneously speaking a message full of error.

Edwards vs. Piper

In his book Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones gives us this interesting bit of information about Jonathan Edwards which is pertinent to the “Reformed Charismatic” issue spreading in our day. It seems that the Rev. George Whitefield made remarks to the effect that he occasionally experienced what he called “impressions” from God's Spirit. Whatever else Whitefield may have meant by the term “impression,” it is clear that Edwards understood him to be claiming some sort of direct, unmediated communication from God. And here’s the important point that Lloyd-Jones makes: Edwards frankly rebuked Whitefield for this.* However innocent it may have seemed to Whitefield and others, Edwards rightly saw that it was highly dangerous, because it was an unmediated approach to God and a deriving of knowledge of God's will which could not be verified, checked, or corrected by Scripture. Carried to its logical conclusion, which Whitefield thankfully did not do, it would lead to an outright denial, in practice, of the sufficiency of Scripture.  

Here's the puzzling thing about all this: There are a few modern Jonathan Edwards scholars, such as John Piper, who engage in the very thing Edwards rebuked Whitefield for. I’m trying for the life of me to figure out how a guy, who claims Jonathan Edwards as his “mentor,” so to speak, can turn around and advocate the very thing he must know that Edwards rebuked other folks for – George Whitefield, no less!

Here's an example of Edwards own words: “And yet some people actually imagine that the revelation in God's Word is not enough to meet our needs. They think that God from time to time carries on an actual conversation with them, chatting with them, satisfying their doubts, testifying to His love for them, promising them support and blessings. As a result, their emotions soar; they are full of bubbling joy that is mixed with self-confidence and a high opinion of themselves. The foundation for these feelings, however, does not lie within the Bible itself, but instead rests on the sudden creations of their imaginations. These people are clearly deluded. God's Word is for all of us and each of us; He does not need to give particular messages to particular people.” *

Notice that Edwards specifically ties the “God spoke to me” malarkey to “God's Word is not enough.” That should tell you something about Edwards' view of the charismatic movement. Moreover, he rebukes such people for being led astray by their own imaginations, and he goes so far as to call them “deluded.” Strong meat indeed!

Now let's compare what we have just read from Edwards own pen, with the words of an ardent “disciple.” This is clearly on record and the link is provided at the Desiring God website, no less, so that you may see that I am not making this up. Here are Piper's own exact words: 

“Let me tell you about a most wonderful experience I had early Monday morning, March 19, 2007, a little after six o'clock. God actually spoke to me. There is no doubt that it was God. I heard the words in my head just as clearly as when a memory of a conversation passes across your consciousness. The words were in English, but they had about them an absolutely self-authenticating ring of truth. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God still speaks today.” ᵻ

Note the familiar strains. Riding right on the surface sits the very things of which Edwards warned. There is a palpable rejection of the sufficiency of Scripture, seen in the words, “God still speaks today,” spoken, not in regard to Scripture's self-authenticating authority, but about his own little “experience.” That loaded phrase - absolutely self-authenticating – is terribly disturbing. This means that no one, but no one, is ever going to be allowed to call this into question. I should know. I posted the clip with a critical remark and had hell rained down upon me by devoted followers of Piper. So, not only are we not allowed to question the authority of these words Piper claims to have heard in his head, but he has legions of devoted followers who will have your head on pike if you dare to.

The standard response is usually that nothing in Piper's “message” contradicts Scripture. But that is begging the question. I hope we can all agree that if such a message contradicted Scripture, then it most certainly is not from God. But even more importantly, God has already said all that He intends to in His Word, so that if such a message agreed with Scripture, it is merely superfluous. If you are still inclined to say that it is fine as long as it agrees with Scripture, let me quote William Bridge (1600-1670), a member of the Westminster Assembly. 

Bridge writes:

“Yea, though the revelation or vision be not contrary to the Scripture, yet if it be brought to try or confirm the doctrine of the gospel, it is not the Lord's; for the doctrine of the gospel is confirmed already, and that sufficiently…Now the doctrines of the gospel are all confirmed by miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost; and therefore if any man have a revelation, to try or confirm any gospel doctrine, it is a delusion of Satan, not a revelation of God.” (Works, Volume I, page 418) As sharp as those words are, they are no less sharp than Edwards own statement that purveyors of this cockamamie “God speaks to me” stuff are “deluded.”

Personally, I don’t think it has anything to do with God's word or will. The whole affair seems like a big spiritual power play to me. Once I have established that God speaks to me in a special way – different from how He speaks to you through the crusty old Bible – my power is forever secure. If I say that in the Bible God commands X,Y,Z, I am merely preaching. But when I say that God revealed to me that He wants us to do X,Y,Z (even if this is merely repeating the very words of Scripture), I am propping myself up as an indispensable authority in your life. If you want fresh revelations directly from God, you need me. That, my friends, is called Gnosticism.  Volumes have been written, especially in the days of the Church Fathers, against all of the convoluted doctrines of Gnosticism. There is a sense in which I feel that this was wasted effort. The content was never the main point. The important point is that God speaks to me privately, and he doesn't speak that way to you. Neener-neener-neener! Once I have made that claim, I have the unassailable and unquestionable authority of an Old Testament prophet and if you dare to cross swords with me, you'd better beware.

*Lloyd-Jones seems to have agreed with Edwards at the time of writing this particular fact. He fell off the wagon later in life, which is most regrettable and has merely encouraged a host of “Reformed Charismatics” to pursue this same foolishness.

ᵻ Piper's words can be heard here and an analysis can be read here.

* I have found this quote on dozens of  websites, without reference to an exact location in Edwards' works. After a good amount of research, I am convinced that it comes from a modernized rendering of Edwards' classic, "Religious Affections." The quote I believe to be referred to is from Part III.1 of said work. In the passage under consideration, Edwards specifically treats what some have accused me of not believing about Piper: namely that he is simply saying that God directly impressed on him something already written in Scripture. Edwards says, “They have often particular words of Scripture, sweet declarations and promises suggested to them, which by reason of the manner of their coming, they think are immediately sent from God to them, at that time, which they look upon as their warrant to take them, and which they actually make the main ground of their appropriating them to themselves, and of the comfort they take in them, and the confidence they receive from them. Thus they imagine a kind of conversation is carried on between God and them; and that God, from time to time, does, as it were, immediately speak to them, and satisfy their doubts, and testifies his love to them, and promises them supports and supplies, and his blessing in such and such cases, and reveals to them clearly their interest in eternal blessings… confidence, is not anything contained in, or taught by these Scriptures, as they lie in the Bible, but the manner of their coming to them; which is a certain evidence of their delusion.” (last paragraph, page 111)

In John Owen's Defense of Scripture Against Fanaticism, he essentially argues, that the private revelations not necessary if they merely agree with Scripture. If they disagree, of course, they are false.

So, let's assume for the sake of argument, that all Piper is saying is that he had a deeply profound experience wherein God spoke directly into his consciousness the words of Psalm 66, we still find both Owen and Edwards disagreeing with this procedure by saying (a) All of God's promises to His people are for God's people, hence He doesn't need to personally reveal anything directly into your consciousness since He has already revealed it in Scripture and validated it. And (b), If the so-called revelation is merely in agreement with what Scripture has already revealed, then it is superfluous for God to reveal it again to you, and that in an unmediated way.

Of course, this is an unwarranted assumption, if Piper's own words are to be believed. He literally opens the article by saying that he knows "beyond the shadow of a doubt that God still speaks today" based upon his purported experience of God speaking directly into his consciousness.   He continues, "The he said, as clearly as any words have ever come into my mind, 'I am awesome in my deeds toward the children of man."

I know what you're going to say, because I have heard it a thousand times since this post originally aired: He's only quoting Scripture. What's wrong with that? But let us step back a second and analyze the situation. Piper does not claim to have read the Bible and found the Spirit strongly applying it to him. NO. He claims that God spoke directly in an unmediated way - straight into his consciousness. And that it was clearly self-authenticating, hence it could not be doubted but that this was God speaking. 

Two things should be said in response to this: (1) Those who are angry about this post should stop pretending that Piper is not a Charismatic. He has openly admitted such and advocates the continuation of the so-called charismata. So when he criticizes the author of "My Conversation With God," we are left to wonder what is his gripe. He is describing his experience in exactly the same terms. This leads to another point: (2) Piper's position begs the question. It assumes without biblical defense, that such direct, unmediated, straight-into-my-consciousness communication from God is real. We have already quoted the Westminster divine Bridge in refutation of such a position. 
I might further ask why, if the Bible is so important, and so neglected due to a craving for personal communications from God, does Piper speak in such glowing terms of his experience, which is virtually indistinguishable from the one he criticizes? If he merely wanted to say, "Don't look for revelations from God outside of Scripture. Read, study and love your Bible," why didn't he just say that? Why begin with the esoteric  "God actually spoke to me... I heard the words in my head..." He does not say, "I was reading my Bible out loud." In fact, he actually distinguishes what he heard in his head from the written Word of God, otherwise he wouldn't have to defend it with the "self-authenticating ring of truth" line.

Let's hear Edwards again. "But here some may be ready to say, What, is there no such thing as any particular spiritual application of the promises of Scripture by the Spirit of God? I answer, there is doubtless such a thing as a spiritual and saving application of the invitations and promises of Scripture to the souls of men; but it is also certain, that the nature of it is wholly misunderstood by many persons, to the great ensnaring of their own souls, and the giving Satan a vast advantage against them, and against the interest of religion, and the church of God... An application not consisting in this divine sense and enlightening of the mind, but consisting only in the word's being borne into the thoughts, as if immediately then spoken, so making persons believe, on no other foundation, that the promise is theirs, is a blind application, and belongs to the spirit of darkness, and not of light.

"When persons have their affections raised after this manner, those affections are really not raised by the word of God; the Scripture is not the foundation of them; it is not anything contained in those Scriptures which come to their minds, that raise their affections; but truly that effect, viz., the strange manner of the word's being suggested to their minds, and a proposition from thence taken up by them, which indeed is not contained in that Scripture, nor any other; as that his sins are forgiven him, or that it is the Father's good pleasure to give him in particular the kingdom, or the like. There are propositions to be found in the Bible, declaring that persons of such and such qualifications are forgiven and beloved of God: but there are no propositions to be found in the Bible declaring that such and such particular persons, independent on any previous knowledge of any qualifications, are forgiven and beloved of God: and therefore, when any person is comforted, and affected by any such proposition, it is by another word, a word newly coined, and not any word of God contained in the Bible. And thus many persons are vainly affected and deluded." 

Saying that one should love the Bible more than any direct "in your own head" communication from God - and then defending that by telling the rapturous details of the time when God spoke directly into your head - is logic I cannot follow.

Hooked on a Feeling

I have recently encountered, again, a strange infatuation among Reformed folk for the strange goings-on in Pentecostal circles. I could say a lot about this, but I will limit my remarks to a few salient points.

First of all, some exegetical remarks are not out of line. It is as clear as day that whenever the Spirit of God did anything out of the ordinary in Scripture, the result was doctrine, content. Peter stands up on the day of Pentecost and preaches theology. No one on Pentecost raved about how wonderful they felt! There is nary a mention in Scripture to feeling in conjunction with any revelatory activity by the Holy Spirit. Period!

Fast forward to the present, and all you find when the Spirit supposed moves (whatever that un-defined term is supposed to mean), is nothing but fluff and goose bumps. People go on and on about how wonderful and sublime they felt, but not a word is mentioned about content. And that right there is enough to prove false all the professed manifestations of the Spirit among Pentecostals.

Secondly, there is simply no way to get around the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture. Either God has revealed all He intends to reveal to us in the Bible or not. There is no third choice. Admit even the slightest sliver of a possibility for any kind of revelation however inane, and you have in practice, if not on paper, jettisoned Scripture as any kind of authority at all. It is all or nothing.

In his book The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, written in 1882, George Smeaton nails it perfectly when he writes:

“These extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were no long needed when the canon of Scripture was closed. Up to that pint they were an absolute necessity. They are now no longer so. Nor is the Church warranted to expect their restoration, or to desire prophetic visions, immediate revelations, or miraculous gifts, either in public or in private, beyond or besides, the all-perfect canon of Scripture. The Church of Rome, which still claims these extraordinary gifts, is to that extent injurious to the Spirit as the author of Scripture. And enthusiastic sects that cherish the belief of their restoration, or an expectation to that effect, have not learned or duly pondered how great a work of the Spirit has been completed and provided for the Church of all times in the gift of the Holy Scriptures.”

Sometimes people grow accustomed to things and forget the reasons why they do them. Reformed folk need to be reminded of why we have always held to the cessation of revelatory sign gifts. Warfield wrote that this was one of the protests of the Reformation that earned us the name “Protestant.”

Cessationism in the Early Church

The two following quotations are from the 4th Century. The matter-of-factness of both statements is rather startling. Neither author feels that any explanation is necessary. The study of Church History is important, and the following two quotes will show how history can speak to our current situation. Most Continuists assume (and many assert) that the so-called charismata have been uninterruptedly active throughout the history of the Church. Having said that, ponder the two quotations below by Chrysostom (d.407) and Augustine (d.430).

Chrysostom - writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, "This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?" (AD 347-407). Homily XXIX. 1 Corinthians

Augustine - comments on Acts 2:4: "In the earliest times, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed; and they spake with tongues," which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance." These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away." Homily 6 on the First Epistle of John

Doctrine Is Not Important If Continuists Are Right

Acts 15:6-21 tells us of the Jerusalem Council which was convened to sort out the question of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. Circumcision was more specifically the issue addressed, but the acceptance of Gentiles into the covenant community was the underlying issue. With regard to the inclusion of Gentiles, an argument is made from the ministries of Peter and Paul and the experience of their Gentile converts. In verse 8, Peter makes the explicit claim that the former distinction between Jew and Gentile must no longer exist because God has given the Holy Spirit to the Gentile converts in the exact same validating way that He gave to them. In other words, God has validated these converts; therefore, whatever differences between them which the Jews thought to be important must actually be insignificant

That is why I am so hard-line regarding the correctness of Cessationism. Peter agued the validity of Cornelius' salvation because his household experienced the same outpouring of the spirit that the Apostles did on Pentecost. Continuists, if they are going to be consistent, will recognize anyone (Oneness, Romanist, Greek Orthodox, Mormon, whatever) as long as they can attest to the same spiritual gifts. They reason that if God isn't concerned enough about their doctrine to withhold Holy Ghost baptism, then surely these doctrinal differences must be insignificant. Before the so-called Charismatic renewal, no self-respecting evangelical would be caught dead “fellowshipping” with Roman Catholics. Now all this has changed. The existence of Charismatic Catholics has removed the barrier created by pesky little doctrines like worshipping, or praying to the saints, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and image worship. That is why TBN is riddled with screwballs. Tongues-speaking, prophecy and words of knowledge are the equalizers for them. If they can do these things, nothing else matters.

They are wrong, wrong, wrong; but their logic is accurate. If these spiritual manifestations are genuine, then God must not care about their doctrine, because He is validating their ministries with His power. If it really is the Holy Spirit at work among the denizens of TBN, then we have no other option but to accept that God doesn’t mind Benny Hinn’s 9-person deity, or the manifold other blasphemies of the Word of Faith crowd. If God is truly passing out powerful manifestations of His Spirit to image-worshipping papists, then who are we to be more persnickety about doctrine than God? Of course, this leaves us only one of two alternatives: accept Continuism, or insist, correctly, on Cessationism.

As Reformed Cessationists, we affirm that all of the so-called manifestations of spiritual gifts among Charismatics of all stripes are in fact, false. God does not violate His own Word. He has emphatically closed the canon of Scripture with the book of Revelation. We can therefore rule out of hand that anything which emanates from, relies on, or promotes the existence and/or exercise of any one of the revelatory sign gifts is simply fraudulent.

Calvinist Continuists?

Recently I was perusing a well-known systematic theology when I come across a rather large section dealing with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Mind you the book is not authored by one who would consider himself a Pentecostal. But I was amazed at how tainted by Pentecostalism this man's thinking was. He argues vehemently against the Cessationist position, whilst claiming to be "Reformed" (broadly defined). I have quoted from Warfield more than once that the Continuist position of Rome with regard to the supernatural gifts was one of the things for which the Reformers earned the name "Protestants. So, it is quite bewildering to me to see someone claiming to be Reformed, yet eager-beaver to defend the full gamut of Pentecostalist "gifts."

What perplexed me most of all was his way of handling the gift of prophecy. He essentially argues that prophecy in our day happens exactly like it did in Old Testament times, yet it does not carry the same authority. Somehow or other, God has decided to let the human mouthpiece taint the message more than the Prophets and Apostles. So now we have prophecy that is true, yet not necessarily accurate. What amazes me about this definition is that this is EXACTLY the same position taken by the Liberal Theologians of yesteryear regarding the Bible. Moreover, this brave defender of Scripture and its inspiration and authority has, with this definition, effectively destroyed the foundation for both.

If, in our day, God can allow humans to color revelation in such a way as to remove its absolute authority and inspiration, how pray tell, can we have any certainty that He wasn't making revelations this same way during the writing of the Bible? If Brother Billy Dwayne can inject something of himself into his prophecy so as to lessen its accuracy, and thereby its authority, how do I know that St. Paul didn't do the same thing? If Pastor Wayne can be inspired to give a direct revelation by God, which we are not allowed to inscripturate as a new New Testament, how do we know that Titus or 3 John has a higher form of inspiration?

This is one of many reasons that I hold to a strict form of Cessationism. Considering passages like Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18, 19, I wonder how people expect to escape the wrath of God when they hold such an abominably low view of inspiration.

Lest one be tempted to think that I am misrepresenting the Pentecostalist or Charismatic view of prophecy, let me tell you that I met an Assemblies of God pastor in Amboy, Illinois who told me personally that he was part of a team of Pentecostal scholars (ain't that a kick in the head!) who were compiling prophecies that had been given over the last decade or so, to be published as a special section in the back of a new Pentecostal Bible. They were going to publish a Bible with contemporary prophecies included. I want to know who gets included among this illustrious group of prophets? Who makes the call that you are one of them? And who decides which prophecies of yours get included? I defy anyone, including the author of the famed Systematic Theology to prove: A) That these Pentecostalists are not being consistent with their own principles, B) That this is not a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, C) That any type of Continuism does not eventually lead here, and D) That the Biblical doctrines of the authority and inspiration of Scripture are not hereby destroyed.

Talking Like a Charismatic

I have a small request to make of people who claimed to be Reformed: Stop using Charismatic lingo. I constantly encounter people who, while they abhor Pentecostalism, use the same ridiculous expressions.

I grew up as a dyed-in-the-wool Arminian, a Pentecostal, who was also an adherent of post-trib premillennialism. I have since become a thoroughly convinced adherent of Reformed theology. By Reformed, I do not mean simply the so-called “Five Points.” I mean the whole worldview that Reformed theology has traditionally always entailed.

As my doubts about my inherited theological system grew, I would ask questions. I cannot count the times that the person of whom I had inquired appealed to a mystical experience as the great clinching assurance of his doctrinal stance. “The Lord just really showed me that this is what the Bible teaches about the end-times.”

Now, Pentecostals believe this is the norm; therefore I can’t fault them for answering me with such weak-kneed responses. But I am alarmed at the number of Calvinists who use such language.

I am astounded at the number of people who claim to be Reformed that have been infected by Pentecostal jargon. You hear it all the time. “The Lord told me…;” “God has been showing me…;” “I just sense that…;” “I really sense in my spirit that…;” “I really feel an anointing on…” - This is unacceptable. Much of it is the result of our Reformed leaders and spokespersons’ unwillingness to confront the errors of Pentecostalism, or their lack of certainty about their own Cessationist position. By refusing to refute the error of Continuism, many Calvinists are left in the dark about the validity of the Charismatics’ experiences. And because we aren’t warned clearly enough, we started to assimilate their ways of expressing ourselves.

I am Reformed, which, among other things, means that I believe in Covenant Theology. I am a Cessationist, a paedobaptist and an amillennialist. But I wouldn’t dream of appealing to some mystical experience as my source of assurance of the veracity of any of these doctrinal positions. I have never had the Spirit tell me, “Calvinism is true.”

If you are Reformed; if you believe in the sufficiency of Scripture; if you disbelieve in Pentecostalism, then please, do me a favor: Stop talking like a Charismatic.

Defining Cessationism

I will not venture to speak for every Cessationist in the world, but I can at least assume that on the whole, the gifts we/they affirm as having ceased are the revelatory sign gifts. I say that because in my discussions with Continusists I frequently encounter this mistaken notion that the Cessationist position denies the continued existence of any and all spiritual gifts. This is simply false. I have never heard a Cessationist claim that the gifts of administration, marriage, celibacy, giving, etc., have all ceased. If anyone holds this position, I will say with all the Christian charity that I can muster that he or she is a brick shy of a load.

Continuists, listen: We do not believe that all the spiritual gifts enumerated in Scripture no longer exist or function in the Church, nor do we believe that God cannot and/or does not ever heal people who are sick when we pray for them. What we assert is this: All of the gifts that were revelatory in nature, those have ceased. They must have ceased at the close of the canon otherwise we would still be receiving revelation from God in addition to the Scriptures. Prophetic utterances which claim to be direct communications from God, messages in tongues, with their corresponding interpretations – these have ceased. There is simply no way to affirm that Scripture is complete, that the canon is closed, that the Bible is sufficient and is the only rule for doctrine and practice, and yet believe that there are continuing in the Church gifts which are revelatory in nature.

When we pray for someone who is sick, and God heals that person, there is no doctrine affixed to this event. There are no great doctrinal or theological conclusions to be drawn apart from noting that God has shown His loving-kindness. Hence it is not a revelatory event. And for that matter, neither is it a spiritual gift.

It seems that Continuists just can’t quite appreciate how great a gift Scripture is. Let me go on record and say that it would not be better to live in the days of the Apostles when miracles, tongues, and prophecy were the norm. Why? We would not have a complete Bible. We would be living with less than the full revelation God has given us in His Word. Peter himself tells us that his experience with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration was not and is not as certain and firm as the words of the prophets, i.e., the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:16-19).

Sign-Worship

Imagine you are on a trip to the Grand Canyon. All along the highway you have seen distance markers informing you of how many miles are left. You have driven for hours and crossed numerous states. You, your wife and kids have reminded each other for hours of how amazing it is going to be to finally see in person this great wonder of the natural world.

At the last road marker before arriving, you are surprised to see a large crowd standing around the sign, touching it, looking at it from all angles and taking pictures with it. You pull over to get a better look at this strange behavior.

Slowly, it begins to dawn on you: These people aren’t going to the Grand Canyon at all; they are here to see the sign! You try reasoning with a few of them, only to be ridiculed as a skeptic. You explain repeatedly that the sign is not the attraction, but merely a pointer toward it. This doesn’t seem to help. It merely irritates the crowd, which seems to be continuously growing larger.

Your wife nudges you with her elbow and points discreetly at some tables a few yards from the sign. These tables contain all sorts of products promoting the sign. There are books: fiction and non-fiction; there are music CDs and DVDs. There are T-shirts, audio and video sets of lectures, there are knick-knacks and a host of other items all celebrating the wonder, beauty and greatness of the Sign.

Sound strange? This is exactly what Pentecostalism is and does. Pentecostalism looks to the signs and not to the things signified. This is why I find it alarming when people who claim to be Reformed start defending continuism.

In a response to a previous post on this subject, someone commented that maybe I was throwing out the baby with the bath water by my Cessationism. 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.

Getting back to my illustration above, “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 1Corinthians 14:22: “Tongues are for a sign.” They are deliberately given as sign miracles. Hebrews 2:3 says “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” This wonderful text 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.

The opponents of Jesus’ ministry were sign-seekers. That fact alone should be warning enough to us. Plus, it is evident that Jesus never performed a miracle in response to a challenge. Miracles and signs accompanied the ministries of those who were instrumental is communicating to the Church God’s final Word: Scripture. The itch for signs and wonder is a denial of Sola Scriptura, despite what any of its advocates claim.

Closet Popery

Continuists are wrong when they refuse to accept the traditional Reformed exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. “That which is perfect,” is an obvious reference to the completion of the New Testament canon because the whole context is about revelation being in part, and so on. Paul is looking forward to a time when revelation will be complete and we will no longer know in part. And when this time comes, tongues will peter out. That is the exact meaning of the Greek verb in middle voice which says “tongues will cease.”

People who profess to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and yet maintain the continuing presence of the revelatory sign gifts in the Church are talking out both sides of their mouths. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. It is incomprehensible to me that any proponent of Reformed theology can entertain the notion that continuism/Cessationism is adiaphora. How can the sufficiency of Scripture be a matter of indifference?

The roots of Continuism are in Popery anyway. Surely this should count for something, at least among those who profess allegiance to the Reformation! Continuism is, in fact, one of the doctrines against which the Reformers protested, thus earning the name Protestants. If continuism is true, not only should tongues and the whole slew of revelatory sign gifts be openly encouraged, but all of us should return to Rome.

Listen. If the sign gifts are revelatory, then it is theological double-talk to profess belief in the sufficiency of Scripture – because Scripture is not sufficient when we need fresh, new messages in tongues or “prophecy.” If these signs gifts are not revelatory, then they are superfluous, since all the revelation God wants to give us has already been given in Scripture. The canon of Scripture is complete. This hankering after fresh revelations is a desire to go back to the Old Testament. It is a rejection of the certain and sure Written Word of God in favor of mystical tongues, dreams, visions, etc. It is closet Popery.

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.

Something For Continuists To Ponder

I was recently reading Warfield’s Counterfeit Miracles when I came across this incredible paragraph.

“Pretensions by any class of men to the possession and use of miraculous powers as a permanent endowment are, within the limits of the Christian church, a specialty of Roman Catholicism. Denial of these pretensions is part of the protest by virtue of which we bear the name of Protestants. ‘In point of interpretation, the history of Protestantism,’ as an Edinburgh reviewer, writing in trying conditions in 1831, justly puts it, ‘is a uniform disclaimer of any promise in the Scriptures that miraculous powers should be continued in the Church.’ In point of fact (we may slightly modify his next sentence to declare), the claim to the possession and exercise of powers of this description by individuals has always been received in Protestant circles with a suspicion which experience has only too completely justified.” (B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, Lecture 4)

I can only hope that the reader grasps its significance. Warfield is as much as saying that belief in the cessation of the charismata is distinctly Protestant and belief in the continuation of the charismata is distinctly Roman Catholic. That is an incredible statement. I am certain that it is also a very correct assessment.

One of the doctrine distinctions of the Reformation was the insistence on the principle of Sola Scriptura. Whatever else that may mean, this much is certain: since the completion of the canon we do NOT look for any further revelation from God. To do so is to sin against the Triune Godhead, since He is the divine Author of it. One cannot with consistency hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and believe in continued revelatory gifts. Sola Scriptura and charismatism are like oil and water.

Roman Catholicism has no problem adding to Scripture. Every time the pope speaks, he is assumed to speak infallibly for God (as God in fact since he is said to be Christ’s vicar). Now comes the burning question. Where the Reformers right? The answer: Of course they were. Ergo, enough of this spineless compromise with popery! Millions of evangelical churches, so-called, have already compromised with Rome in her Pelagian worship of free will and her denial of substitutionary atonement.

When I was a Pentecostal, I used to get angry when someone claimed that charismatism was popish. I know better now. Warfield reminds us that rejection of charismatism is one of the things that makes us Protestants.

I hate when people pull punches, so I won’t. I am amazed at the supposedly “Reformed” people who entertain the idea of the continuation of the charismata. I have heard a hundred arguments, and to be honest, they all sound just as weak and mystic as the Pentecostal arguments. So to all those Reformed folks out there who entertain the possible continuation of the charismata, I have one thing to say: Refute Warfield point by point, then we’ll talk. And to those who enjoy dissing the Reformers, I say: Go back to Rome where you belong!

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