Sam Storms on Fallible Prophecy: Points 6 and 7

Sixth, related to the above is 1 Corinthians 14:37-38, where Paul writes: “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” Paul is clearly claiming a divine authority for his words that he is just as obviously denying to the Corinthians. “According to Paul, the words of the prophets at Corinth were not and could not have been sufficiently authoritative to show Paul to be wrong” (Grudem, 68).

And yet Paul believed the prophecy at Corinth to be a good and helpful gift of God, for he immediately thereafter exhorts the Corinthians once again to “earnestly desire to prophesy” (v. 39)! Paul obviously believed that the spiritual gift of congregational prophecy that operated at a lower level of authority than did the apostolic, canonical, expression of it was still extremely valuable to the church.

First all, Paul is not directing his comments to the ideal of prophecy, or the content of prophecy. Nor is Paul directing his comments at the authority of prophetic words. In addition, Paul is not directing these comments at prophecy alone. His comments here are directed at everything he has just said. It is a solemn warning by the apostle that people that ignore his words are ignoring the commandment of the Lord. The closest thing we can say about how this command relates to prophecy is that it concerns the format and order for how it was to proceed in the ancient Corinthian Church. In addition, this command also applied to the use of the gift of languages or tongues in that Church. The truth is that this chapter is completely disregarded by nearly every Pentecostal church in existence. I can say without hesitation or exaggeration that I never witnessed a Pentecostal church or pastor that actually submitted to these plain teachings given to Corinth. Pentecostals and Charismatics claim that this does not apply to the supernatural “prayer language.” And in so doing, they reduce Paul’s commands to meaningless nonsense and logical absurdities. Storm and Grudem are simply wrong that Paul’s instructions place his command over the actual content of first-century prophetic utterances. It does nothing of the sort.

Seventh, although I don’t have space to provide an extensive exegetical explanation of Acts 21, I believe we see in this narrative a perfect example of how people (the disciples at Tyre) could prophesy by the Spirit and yet not do so infallibly or at a level equal to Scripture. Their misguided, but sincere, application of this revelation was to tell Paul ("through the Spirit," v. 4) not to go to Jerusalem, counsel which he directly disobeyed (cf. Acts 20:22).

There is nothing in the text to lead us to believe that these individuals were prophesying to Paul by the Lord, not to go to Jerusalem. If we look at Acts 20:23, Paul says the Holy Spirit is testifying to him in every city that bonds and afflictions await him. We see this played out in 21:4. These men knew by the Spirit, what was waiting for Paul in Jerusalem. They did not want this for Paul and tried to persuade him not to go near Jerusalem. However, just a few verses later, we see a different kind of event. We see Agabus prophesying that the Jews will certainly be responsible for his eventual captivity and the response of the brethren is the same as v. 4. They beg Paul not to go. Nowhere does God warn Paul directly not to go. After all, the Holy Spirit has told him all along what is going to happen to him. To understand this as the Holy Spirit commanding him not to go is simply wrong. There is no language in the text that demonstrates that Paul received any commands from the Lord that he disobeyed.

The Spirit’s role is best seen as informing them of those coming hardships for the apostle. Their very natural reaction was to urge him not to go. Their failure to deter him only heightens the emphasis on Paul’s firm conviction that God was leading him to Jerusalem and had a purpose for him there.^[1]

The fact is that the prophecy given by Agabus was realized. Everything the Spirit warned Paul about concerning his future actually came to pass. There was no false-prophecy as some like to claim. There was no disobedience on Paul’s part as others wish to claim. Paul was told that he was going into bonds and that great suffering awaited him. It happened just as God told Paul it would happen. If only modern Charismatics and Pentecostals experienced the same phenomena the ancient Church experienced, perhaps this conversation would be more stimulating. As it stands, what we see are men like Grudem and Storms stretching the text beyond its exegetical limits in order to read it through the modern, Charismatic grid. Thus far, Storms has failed to establish the validity of a single one of his points. He has three more opportunities to gain some traction.

---

^[1] John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 433.

Why is Belief in Modern Miracles Fair Game, When Belief in Miracles is Not?

A lot has been said on this subject over the last couple of months. There are good folks on both sides of the issue of modern miracles. To be specific, the issue about which I speak has to do with the claim that the gifts of miracle workers and healings are continuing in the Christian church. As a cessationist, I have my own particular way of dealing with that argument and have blogged about it a few times. It is clear that the cessationist and continuationist argument will continue for years to come, provided the Lord tarries. In this blog, I am going to attempt to point out the fallacious reasoning for the continuationist argument employed specifically by Stave Hays over at Triablogue.

Repeatedly, Hays refuses to draw any line of demarcation between the special revelation of Scripture and the general affairs of everyday life. Steve has continually argued what is good for Moses is good for us. If Paul could heal the sick, then we should be able to as well. He has gone so far as to adopt the causative-faith argument of charismatics, asserting that James 5 teaches that any prayer of faith ought to be able to produce healing. To my knowledge, he has not qualified God’s will in the process and seems to be drifting more and more toward the Charismatic camp on the issue.

In addition to this, Hays has consistently accused cessationists of employing the argument’s of atheist merely on the ground that we contend that such claims ought to be subjected to rigorous examination and proof. I have said on more than one occasion that these people are publicly claiming to represent Christ, to represent the Church, and therefore they must be subjected to the highest scrutiny. Hays doesn’t seem to think much of it. In fact, he seems far more concerned with argumentation than he does with the transforming nature of truth and the detriment done to the gospel by these false teachers and money-grabbing charlatans. That is most regrettable.

What most people do not realize is that Hays’ argument has a very basic flaw embedded in it. It is one of those flaws that is so obvious that it can slip right past you without notice. Fred Butler, in a nice analogy on UFOs hit on it the other day here.

I want to point you to three common methods of arguing in order to show that Steve Hays has employed a method in this case that is highly questionable. The following statements preclude properly basic beliefs. Hence, every belief or truth claim I reference is one that is not properly basic.

My underlying presupposition: self-justifying truth claims exist. My first premise goes like this: Every truth claim that is not self-justifying is subject to justification. My second premise: truth claims that are not self-justifying and that cannot be justified should be abandoned. My third premise: not all truth claims are justified in the same way.

Three common ways that Christians justify beliefs. The first one I want to discuss is induction. Here we are more consistent than the non-Christian, because we acknowledge the unity of the particular with the general, a unity that only makes sense in the Christian worldview. “Empirical truths – about the consequences of smoking, of the causes of cancer, and all others of that sort – cannot satisfy the standard of deductive certainty.” [Copi, Logic, 444-5] Copi tells us that the most common type of inductive argument is that of analogy. And it seems clear to me that Hays and other continuationists have called on argument by analogy often. “To draw an analogy between two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar. Hays has done this in terms of comparing biblical miracles with modern miracles as well as in his accusations that cessationists are really skeptics. Steve has reasoned that Jesus and the apostles performed miracles. Scripture does not say that miracles will cease after the apostles, therefore we should expect miracle workers to continue. Hays has also made the uncharitable argument that atheists deny miracles, and cessationist denies miracles, therefore cessationists argue like atheists. Inductive arguments never achieve certainty in their conclusions. Induction is a scientific way, the empiricist’s way for justifying beliefs. Not all truth claims can be justified by the inductive approach. For example, belief in the laws of logic cannot be justified using induction.

A second common form of argument is called deduction. “A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.” [Ibid, 164] In other words, a valid deductive argument is necessarily true if its premises are true. Deduction seeks certainty in its conclusion. Deduction is a rationalistic way for justifying one’s beliefs. However, not all truth claims can be justified using deductive reasoning. For example, you cannot justify empirical claims with deductive reasoning. In fact, the belief in the laws of logic cannot itself be justified using deductive reasoning.

You will recall a few paragraphs ago that I said that some beliefs are properly basic. I also refer to this type of belief as self-justifying. In other words, we do not need to, and in same cases we dare not, subject certain beliefs to the tests of justification. Perhaps belief in other minds would qualify as properly basic. You do not need to concern yourself with proving there are other minds because such a belief is self-evident (unless you are a highly educated philosopher who has learned how to be stupid in ways that the rest of us could never fathom). Every worldview has a chain of beliefs that is eventually anchored to something or perhaps nothing, depending on the worldview. A worldview anchored to air is one that, at bottom, provides no justification for it beliefs.

What kind of claim then is the claim that miracle workers are still present? What kind of claim is it to say that God is performing miracles today? Steve Hays and other continuationists seem to think it is an exegetical claim. They are wrong. It is not an exegetical claim. There is nothing in Scripture that provides the clear teaching that miracles will continue right up into the Parousia. Hence, this claim cannot be justified on purely exegetical grounds. However, on the flip side, the exegetical argument that God is not performing miracles today is about as weak. We cannot deny that God is performing miracles today on a purely exegetical basis. Belief in that claim cannot be justified on solely exegetical grounds. The claim is not an exegetical claim. It is an empirical claim.

How do we investigate empirical claims? Do we open our bibles to see if an empirical claim is true? First of all, we have to examine the source for the claim to determine if it meets the criteria of justification.

What are we observing? Are we actually observing miracles? We hear some reports, but what we need is something we can actually verify. Jesus healed in such a way that His miracles were self-verifying. He didn’t sneak off to someplace else, claim to perform a bunch of miracles and then come back with fancy stories about it all.

What is the difference between modern claims to miracles and biblical claims? It is simply this: the source. And the source makes all the difference in the world. Who is the source for the miracle claims of Scripture? Who is the source for the miracle claims in modern times? In the former case, the source is God Himself. In the latter case, it is fallen man.

Belief in modern claims of miracles is not self-justifying. All beliefs that are not self-justifying should be subjected to justification. All beliefs are not justified in the same way. Belief in modern miracles is empirical in nature. Empirical beliefs are subject to inductive justification. Hence, belief that a miracle has occurred should be empirically justified. Belief in the Bible as God’s word is neither, wholly empirical or entirely rationalistic. A basic Christian belief is that the Bible and all it contains is the self-justifying word of God. Hence, belief that all the contents of the word of God are true is a self-justifying belief. All biblical miracles are infallible records contained in the Bible and given by God Himself. Therefore, belief in Biblical claims of miracles is a self-justifying belief. Self-justifying beliefs are not subject to empirical or rational justification.

In summary then, it is easy to see the difference between cessationist beliefs concerning modern claims of the miraculous and the continuationists. The continuationist argument is guilty of applying the wrong criteria for justification of belief in modern claims of miracles. Such beliefs are empirical in nature and ethically speaking, must be subjected to inductive scrutiny. Not only is justification not unethical, as Hays seems to contend, it is morally necessary. On the other hand, the miracle claims of Scripture have a very different source and therefore are of a very different nature. These claims are made by a source that we dare not question. Scripture is self-justifying. Therefore, belief in the miracle claims of Scripture is a self-justifying belief. Plantinga tells us that any proposition is properly basic for an individual if and only if such proposition is incorrigible for the individual or self-evidence. For the Christian, Scripture is just that! Its testimony is elevated high above Hays’ fallacious argument by analogy, not to mention his sources for modern claims of the miraculous.

Sola Scriptura and the Non-Cessationist Argument

This will be one of my shortest blog posts on the subject of cessationism. My goal is to help folks understand the fallacious argument I continue to hear from people like Mike Brown regarding their so-called proof from sola scriptura that the spiritual gifts have not ceased. So here is the argument in its most basic form.

1. Whatever Scripture teaches is true.
2. Scripture does not teach that the NT gifts will cease.
3. Therefore, the NT gifts have not ceased.

Hopefully you can see the fallacy in this argument right away. The major premise (1) is absolutely true. There is no question that all that Scripture teaches is true. (Not here to argue with skeptics on this point). Now, is the minor premise (2) true? Personally, I believe it is. I do not believe that Scripture explicitly teaches that the NT gifts will cease. However, I do not think that is enough to get to the conclusion in this argument that the NT gifts are still in operation. The fact that the NT does not teach that the gifts will cease during this age or dispensation does not mean that they will not.

This form of the argument really is missing the point. I do not argue that the NT teaches that the gifts will cease. Therefore, to attack my conclusion that the NT gifts have ceased by arguing that the NT does not teach that the gifts will cease misses the point completely. The NT does not have to teach explicitly that the gifts will cease in order for me to conclude that they have in fact ceased. All I need to arrive at my conclusion is a clear understanding of what the NT gifts were, and a clear understanding of what modern Charismatic gifts are in order to decide if the NT gifts have continued according to the Charismatic claims. Here is a sample of my personal argument, imperfectly constructed as it may be:

1. Whatever Scripture teaches is true.
2. Scriptures teaches that NT glossolalia were real languages.
3. No modern instances of glossolalia are real languages.
4. No instances of NT glossolalia have been recorded.
5. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe that NT glossolalia continues.

Perhaps it is better to conclude that there is no good reason to believe that the NT gifts have continued as opposed to stating dogmatically that they have ceased. I survey the claims of modern Charismatics and see no convincing reason to believe that the miracle gifts, the healing gifts, and the revelatory gifts continue to the present day. There are other ways to get to this place and I suppose to get here more dogmatically. But I prefer to avoid theoretical arguments on the gifts since we are dealing with concrete claims.

In order for the continuationist argument to meet the standard of soundness, it must be demonstrated that Scripture affirms that the NT gifts will continue until the end of this dispensation. That argument looks like this:

1. Whatever the Scripture teaches is true.
2. The Scripture affirms that the NT gifts will continue until Christ returns.
3. Christ has not returned.
4. Therefore the NT gifts are still in operation.

Again, premise (1) is true. In addition, premise (3) is true. If it can be shown that premise (2) is true, then the argument would meet the standard of soundness. Can the non-cessationist argument show that the NT affirms that the NT gifts, all of them, will continue until the second return of Christ?

I will follow up this blog with a post about the exegetical argument for the continuation of the gifts as I review the Michael Brown - Sam Waldron debate moderated by James White.

Seeing Tongues as Languages: An Alternative Approach in Exegetical Exercise

In my series of posts regarding NT tongues, I have argued repeatedly that the NT phenomena should be regarded as real languages. To reinforce that concept, this post will perform an interpretive exercise to see if it is possible for us to read 1 Corinthians 14 with the view that every time Paul refers to tongues, he means languages. In fact, many commentators believe it is unfortunate that English versions are still translating glossolalia as tongues. Now, the game I propose is that we make an honest effort to understand every occurrence of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 to mean languages and determine if it is possible to make better sense of the verse and the chapter looking through that interpretive grid. We should remember that the Corinthian believer would have understood Paul’s instructions and statements much more clearly than we do. Moreover, there is the tendency in such communication to leave minute details out because of this presumption of knowledge. We do not have the luxury of being the in the shoes of the Corinthian believer. Therefore, Paul is likely to have assumed a certain level of knowledge among the Corinthians that unfortunately we do not possess.

I also want to suggest that we interpret this NT experience in light of other NT experiences. Is it possible to understand the phenomena of tongues as real languages and nothing more without doing damage to the text of Scripture? In other words, is it safer to interpret Corinthians in light of Acts 2 and 10 without resorting to the practice of inventing an entirely new kind of tongue that is nowhere else mentioned in Scripture? Is it necessary for us to invent the PC “prayer language” position in order to give sound and adequate interpretation to 1 Corinthians 14? From the standpoint of the literary context, can we glean Paul’s main points in that chapter without inventing the “prayer language” idea? I believe we can. The best way for you to practice this exercise is to replace tongues with languages and to replace interpret with translate. Remember, resist the urge to return to modern tongues. Glossolalia means languages and diermeneuo means translate. When the Corinthian heard these words, that is the definition that came to mind.

The first text that demands our attention is 1 Cor. 14:2, “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.” Notice the word “For,” which is an epexegetical. What this means is that we have to step back at least to the previous verse in order to understand why the “for” is there for. Paul begins this chapter with the command to pursue love and desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. The reason for this command is that Paul is concerned with those gifts that edify the body. This is the central concern of 1 Cor. 14. We must read 1 Cor. 14 with the understanding that Paul’s message to the Corinthian believer is that they’re goal is to edify one another. Now, with this understanding in mind, we can recognize that Paul is not describing the universal practice of tongues in general. He is dealing with tongues in Church. More than that even, he is specifically dealing with tongues in the Corinthian worship service. He begins by commanding them to seek out the gifts that edify and then he says “For” the one who is speaking in this language in your worship service is not speaking to men (because they can’t understand him) but to God (because only God can understand him). To miss the epexegetical in this verse is a serious literary misstep and it results in serious interpretive deviation. One misses the contextual meaning and significance of what Paul is getting at. This is reinforced by the next verse, which begins with the logical contrastive “but.” So we see that it is in fact possible to read 1 Cor. 14:2 with the understanding that “tongues” in this verse is a real language. Moreover, not only is it possible, it actually makes better sense than the alternative non-cessationist interpretation.

Now we turn to v. 4: “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.” This is not a good thing. Paul is after the edification of the church. In addition, can we read this as a real language? I think so. How can someone speaking in this language also engage in self-edification? The presumption is that they and only they can interpret it. In this case, edification takes place but only for the individual who is also interpreting the language. Those who cannot understand the language are not edified at all. And this is why Paul wants the practice to stop. Notice in the next verse that Paul makes sure he is guarding against a bad knee-jerk reaction where the pendulum swings to the other extreme. God gave the gift of tongues for a very specific reason and it is not to be neglected. What Paul wants is that it be used in the way God intended. Therefore, we can see how it is reasonable to interpret this verse to mean real languages.

Paul makes it clear in verse 9 that God is a rational communicator. He goes on to illustrate that the use of languages that others do not understand is indeed a waste of time. Others will think we are barbarians, or foreigners who do not understand our language. Then in v. 12 he once again restates his main concern, “So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.” This is the central focus of Paul’s concern. Paul concludes that everyone that prays in tongues should also pray that they might be able to interpret it, or translate it. The better word for διερμηνεύω (diermeneuo) is translate. It means to translate from one language to another. You cannot translate a non-language. There is nothing to translate. The whole idea is to take what is being said in one language and translate it into another language. If some speech is non-language, there is no meaning there to translate. Our English bibles really should render the word “tongues” as languages and the word “interpret” as translate. That would go a long way to help mitigate the confusion introduced by the PC movement on this subject.

Now we come to another Pentecostal favorite in 1 Cor. 14:14, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” The PC movement claims that the purpose for tongues is so that they can pray directly to God. But can we take this verse to mean the supernatural ability to speak in a real language? I think we can. If I pray in the spiritual-gifted language, I don’t do so from my mind but from my spirit. My mind cannot generate this language because it was not acquired by the mind. Therefore, in this sense, my mind is unfruitful. What should I seek to do then? I should seek the gift of translating this language. So, as Paul says in the next verse, “What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.” Paul is saying, I will pray in the gifted language and I will seek to translate it. Why does Paul speak this way? We understand why when we read the very next verse; “Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?” This indicates that v. 15 deals not with private prayer, but public prayer and the Corinthian must translate any prayers or songs that he gives in his gifted language(s). That is the principle theme that continues to occupy Paul’s thought.

Paul then issues the most ignored principle among Pentecostals-Charismatics in v. 19. He says that he would rather speak 5 intelligible words in Church than ten thousand in the gifted languages so that others would be edified. I can tell you that PC Churches ignore this statement completely, arguing that Paul is not talking about the prayer language here, but rather the gift of tongues, which is different. Such an argument is completely arbitrary. It is interesting to note that Paul issues a pretty stern rebuke in v. 20 as one gets the sense that he is very annoyed with this subject: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.” It is apparent that Paul thinks the Corinthians should have been able to figure this out without his instructions.

We move to verse 22, which is the culmination or summary of Paul’s argument regarding the use of Tongues in the NT Church. Paul informs us in no uncertain terms of God’s purpose for tongues: “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.” It is easy to see now how this phenomenon of tongues had to be divinely gifted languages. There is no way that unintelligible gibberish could meet the definition of sign. It is simply untenable to contend that the modern gibberish we witness in the PC movement could be some sort of sign from God for unbelievers. How could it? Anyone can do it. Non-Christian pagan religions do it. Anyone can copy it. There is nothing supernatural about it. It has no distinguishable miraculous features. Therefore, Paul had to be speaking about a real language in this context. In addition, it is fool-hardy to attempt to arbitrarily claim here that Paul means the gift of tongues, but in the previous section he means the prayer language. PC Churches weave their way back and forth in this chapter, bending the text to mean whatever they need it to in order to support their modern practice of tongue-speaking. The Scripture becomes literally, putty in their hands.

We now come to the very next verse, which seems somewhat confusing and contradictory. Verse 23, “Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?” The only way to take this is that Paul means in one sense, men who do not understand the language but in the other, some men do understand the language. Tongues can only serve as a sign for those who actually speak that language. So then, tongues are a sign to unbelievers as was demonstrated in Acts 2. But if men do not understand those tongues, then they will think you are mad. This is also a response we see in Acts 2. Paul’s point is that everything in the Church should be done with the goal of edifying the body. Tongues clearly do not do that. Tongues would typically be used outside the Church service in evangelism of the unbeliever. In this way it can serve as a sign. In the Church however, you should refrain from such practices, seeking to edify the other. Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever. They only edify when they are translated into an intelligible dialect, be it for the speaker or for the hearer.

I am not so naïve as to think that I have cut a new path through the maze of the ancient practice of glossolalia. I fully recognize that my interpretation is not without its difficulties. However, I have yet to investigate an interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 that was without difficulties. They are all filled with difficulties. The difficulties are the result of the distance of time, the distance of culture, and the distance of experience. However, I do think my interpretation has the following advantages:

·         It allows me to retain the more descriptive definition of tongues given by Luke in Acts 2.

·         It avoids the arbitrary and baseless view that invents a new kind of tongue known as the “prayer language.”

·         It does no violence to the text of 1 Corinthians even if it might leave some things open for discussion.

·         It contains no contradictions.

·         It retains the basic purpose of tongues given by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:22 as a sign for unbelievers.

·         It avoids the lack of distinction between the Christian phenomenon and the pagan parallel.

·         It avoids the conclusion of linguists that modern PC tongues are no different from tongues in other non-Christian mystic cults and religions.

From my perspective, it seems only reasonable that we hold this interpretation until better evidence can be given for why we should conclude that the tongues in 1 Corinthians were somehow different from the tongues mentioned in the rest of the NT text. This latter view is anachronistic, looking at ancient tongues through the grid of modern tongues. The fact that modern tongues are not real languages in any since of the word is not a legitimate reason for us to postulate that the same is true of ancient NT tongues at Corinth. The contrary should be our response. Why it is not is nothing short of baffling.

If it were true that modern tongues are the heavenly language mentioned in 1 Cor. 13, then linguists should at least be able to connect American tongues with Chinese tongues with Russian tongues, and with all tongues across all dialects. It should be something uniquely differently even if not entirely explicable. The Russian sounds should be the same as the Americans and the Chinese and the French and everyone else who speaks in tongues. The reason is that heaven has only one language. Moreover, that language is rational the same as our own. Man was created speaking that language if you remember. It wasn’t until the curse at Babel that that changed. No matter how you slice it, modern PC tongues is remarkably different from what was witnessed and experienced in the NT Church.

The Pagan Problem of Pentecostal - Charismatic Tongues

Chrysostom writing as early as the 380s, just 300 years after Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthians says this in his comments on 1 Cor. 14:2:

“At this point he makes a comparison between the gifts, and lowers that of the tongues, showing it to be neither altogether useless, nor very profitable by itself. For in fact they were greatly puffed up on account of this, because the gift was considered to be a great one. And it was thought great because the Apostles received it first, and with so great display; it was not however therefore to be esteemed above all the others. Wherefore then did the Apostles receive it before the rest? Because they were to go abroad every where. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages. See accordingly how he both depresses and elevates it. Thus, by saying, “He that speaketh with tongues, speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth,” he depressed it, implying that the profit of it was not great; but by adding, “but in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries,” he again elevated it, that it might not seem to be superfluous and useless and given in vain.”^[1]

It is clear that Chrysostom considered the Corinthian Glossolalia genuine human languages as opposed to the claim that it was some sort of mystical prayer language. This view is in direct contradiction to widespread view in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. For the remainder of this article, I will focus on some of the more significant problems with the claim that modern tongue speaking is identical to the Corinthian Glossolalia.

In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.^[2]

Now I should mention that the phrase “do also hear” literally means, “have heard.” We cannot be sure that Irenaeus of Lyons is speaking about a firsthand contemporary account or something he heard about from history or from other communities. What we can be sure of is that he calls them languages just as Chrysostom did.

Now, I want to point to the historical fact that mystical tongue-speaking like that spoken among modern Charismatics did not originate in and is not unique to the Charismatic community. The practice of mystical-glossolalia, so called, exists in other religions, such as Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic type religions. In fact, channeling has been one of the egregious next steps that can easily be traced to the roots of Charismatic theology. It is the natural progression of mystical emphases. Suffice it to say that modern Charismatic tongues are not unique to the Charismatic version of Christianity. They are shared by several other religions. That this could be true and that Paul teaches that tongues are a sign for unbelievers remains an irreconcilable mystery. What is so amazing about a phenomenon that is commonly practiced among other religions? How could such a thing be a sign in any sense of the word sign? If other religions were experiencing the same miraculous phenomena as Christianity, then Christianity would be illogical to point to such phenomena as a distinguishing feature of its religion.

The heretic Montanus is documented by Eusebius as having some kind of ecstatic experience. Here is how he records it: “He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times.” Hildegard of Bingen, a Catholic mystic, is said to have spoken in tongues. The LDS Church has numerous historical events of speaking in tongues. Brigham Young spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirkland Temple. The Moravians are also said to have spoken in tongues. Oneness Pentecostals, who deny the triune God, speak in tongues. Appalachian snake-handlers speak in tongues. In fact, it was not until the late 19^th and early 20^th century that glossolalia become associated with Pentecostalism.

Most Pentecostals recognize Charles Parham as the leader through whom God brought the renewal of the gifts. Parham was so excited about this new move of God that he declared the movement would send out missionaries around the world to declare the gospel in their respective languages. So, as it goes, the founder of modern Pentecostalism also thought they were speaking in known languages. The idea of the speech was entirely unintelligible never crossed his mind. However, when associate A.G. Garr traveled to India to preach the gospel, he was extremely confused when he found out the Indian people could not understand his gibberish.

Now, in addition to Parham’s misguided optimism, there was a host of other, far more serious problems with Parham’s theology. Parham believed in the annihilation of the damned in hell. He believed in two separate creations. He held that Adam and Eve were a different race from us. Parham claimed that men living before the flood did not have souls. What is amazing is that even Charles Parham condemned, in no uncertain terms, the Asuzu St. Revival to which most Pentecostal denominations trace their origin.

In addition to these facts, there is the issue of William Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto. In 1972, Samarin published a study containing the results of his intensive research into the phenomena of modern tongues. He study uncovered several stunning facts that many continuationists and Charismatics ignore to this day. His study covered groups like the Appalachian Pentecostals that practice snake-handing, groups in Italy, Canada, Jamaica, and even the Netherlands. What did he discover?

·         While glossolalia resembles a language in certain ways, it is not a real language. It only resembles a language because the speaker wants it to.

·         The sounds are taken from sets of sounds already known to the speaker.

·         The sounds of speech of Glossolalia reflected the speech of the individual’s native language. In other words, English speaks speak in English syllables, Russian speakers in Russian and so forth.

·         In her book, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia, Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the US, the Caribbean, and Mexico. These groups spoke English, Spanish, and Mayan. She compared what she found in these recordings with non-Christian groups she studied from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia, and Japan. Her conclusion was there was no distinction between what was practiced in the Pentecostal communities and what was practiced in the non-Christian communities.

Paul’s concerns in 1 Corinthians 14 had to do with how the gift was inappropriately being used in the Church service. It seems that the Corinthians were operating in this gift arrogantly. Apparently, they held the gift in high esteem likely because it was the first one received by the Apostles at Pentecost. At any rate, Paul’s concerns are for the edification of the body of Christ. It should not slip one’s notice that nowhere does Paul say that tongues are for the purpose of edifying the speaker. He never says that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God, not men. However, he does say that tongues are given for a sign to the unbeliever. Now, that sentence is a purpose sentence as opposed to some of the other sentences that are simply statements.

Pentecostals interpret 1 Cor. 14:2 as if it means that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God not men. They insist that men must be taken in a universal sense. But when we read that text in the context of Paul’s concerns around edification and then in the broader context of the meaning of glossolalia, we realize a different interpretation works much better. We realize Paul is not actually saying this is how it should be or even that it is a good thing. We realize that men must be understood as men in the local Church service. We also realize that the reason the person is speaking only to God is because no one in the Church service understands the language, therefore, only God could be the hearer.

In addition, I think we need to examine what Paul means when he uses the word οἰκοδομέω, oikodomeo, which is translated edify. This word carries the sense of enablement. It means to build up or enable, to increase one’s potential. Paul then links one’s understanding of the language to its ability to edify. In other words, Paul says the reason he does not want the Corinthians to use tongues in the Church service is because they do not edify those who do not understand them. He also says if a person prays in tongues and does not understand the language they are speaking, their own understanding is fruitless. This must mean that when Paul says that praying in tongues edifies the individual, that the individual understands the language he prays in. So there is praying in tongues that is edifying because one understands it, and praying in tongues that is not fruitful, and therefore not edifying, because the speaker does not understand it. It is as this point that we must remember that this phenomenon was remarkably different from anything we have ever experienced and therefore, our understanding of exactly what was going on remains somewhat limited.

Paul tells the Corinthians emphatically and with great clarity that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. This word sign has bound up in it the idea of miracle. If an unbeliever is aware of the pagan practice of ecstatic and unintelligible noises in the practice of their religions, how could the very same practice with the very same sound distinguish the Christian practice as something supernatural? Clearly, gibberish in religious worship, be it pagan, or in the Christian service does not meet the definition of a miraculous sign.

In conclusion then, l want to make the following observations:

·         Tongues in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, and 1 Cor. 12-14 were actual languages given supernaturally to those who spoke them.

·         Pagan religions were practicing ecstatic gibberish prior to the Christian experience at Pentecost.

·         Paul states that the purpose for tongues was to provide a miraculous sign to unbelievers. Unintelligible gibberish fails to meet the standard of miracle.

·         Simon, even though he witnessed Phillip’s miracles, only offered money to have the ability to impart this particular gift of tongues. That he would have offered money for gibberish and not other miracles is simply untenable.

·         Modern tongues have their root in leaders that held to damnable heresies.

·         Modern tongues are the same gibberish spoken by various other non-Christian and pagan religions.

·         Modern tongues are bits and pieces of the respective language of the speaker. Russian Charismatics speak in Russian tongues, English in English, Spanish in Spanish and so forth.

·         If modern tongues were heavenly languages, there would be no association with one’s native language and linguistic studies would be able to capture the very same sounds across language families. There is no reason to think that heaven has more than one language. The reason humans have multiple languages is due to the curse of sin at Babel.

The fact is that Pentecostals and Charismatics have no objective way of knowing if the tongues they speak are the same one's spoken in Scripture. The practice disappeared for centuries. There is no unbroken succession of tongues-speaking from Pentecost to today. Since PC tongues are not actual languages, the PC movement has no criteria by which they can distinguish fake or demonic tongues from biblical tongues assuming they're theology is correct. In fact, they can't even validate if the other person, any other person has the same gift they do or if that person is faking it because they are limited to experience in their validation of the practice. If Benny Hinn is a charlatan, then his tongue must be fake! But there are millions of Charismatics that claim Hinn is a great man of God. Therefore, his tongues are genuine! How could we ever know? It is an array of confusion and chaos and the truth is, given their own theology, the possibility of discernment is virtually impossible. And that, ladies and gentlemen makes it abundantly clear that it cannot be of divine origin. Any practice that cannot be tested, that creates confusion and chaos, and that eliminates the possibility of discernment cannot be biblical.

---

^[1] John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Hubert Kestell Cornish, John Medley, and Talbot B. Chambers, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 208–209.

^[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 531.