To avoid misunderstanding, let it be said that it has been my privilege to meet and fellowship with devout Pentecostals whose sincerity as Christians is unquestionably above reproach. Meeting with them at the annual conventions of the Evangelical Press Association, we definitely did not see eye to eye about speaking in tongues, but there was never any doubt that we believed the same Bible and belonged to and loved the same Lord and Savior. Believe me then, it is not something to be relished when it becomes necessary to differ with these good Christian friends as we seek to dissuade others from joining them in what we honestly believe to be a serious error.
An interesting announcement – That we of the Christian Reformed Church are not tilting at windmills or engaging in a merely academic exercise as we give further attention to the Pentecostals has become obvious from various recent reports and developments, not the least of which is the following announcement that appeared a few weeks ago in the Sunday bulletin of a C R Church in the Grand Rapids area:
“Because of the increasing prevalence of Neo-Pentecostal views, the Council has decided that any member of the congregation directly involved in the charismatic movement shall not be appointed or elected to a position of leadership or teaching in the congregation. It has taken this action on the ground that the teaching of a baptism of the Spirit (evidenced by an initial experience of speaking in tongues, healing, etc.), an experience distinct from and subsequent to conversion and one that every Christian should seek, has no basis in Scripture. The Council also calls attention to the fact that such a teaching has never been upheld in our creeds nor in the practices of our Reformed churches. The Council is also arranging for the near future a series of adult education programs in which the Scriptural teaching of the work and gifts of the Spirit will be emphasized.”
It is heartening and reassuring to learn that the council of a C R Church is taking such forthright leadership with respect to this error that appears to be leapfrogging from church to church and from one denomination to another. To be commended is the fact that this council’s leadership is not only negative in disqualifying for certain positions in the church those who practice or advocate this error, but also positive in that it is providing for the sorely needed instruction from Scripture about this matter.
Permit me, at this point, also to acknowledge the correspondence received from readers about the Pentecostal movements. Their patience will be appreciated as they await the publication of their material, hopefully in our following issue.
Pentecostalism – The church bulletin announcement cited above speaks of “Neo-Pentecostal views.”
Naturally the question arises: just what is the difference between Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism? First, a word about Pentecostalism.
Fundamentalist in their theology in general, Pentecostals have this in common: they hold that believers may expect and seek something additional to (and therefore not necessarily concomitant with) their initial salvation—the baptism in the Holy Spirit, as received by the early Christians on Pentecost, to enable them also to speak in tongues.
In Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Elmer T. Clark says of the Pentecostals: “Their distinctive emphasis is on sanctification as a separate work of grace subsequent to justification, the climactic experience of which is the outpouring of divine gifts, especially glossolalia or ‘speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance’ . . . The Pentecostal experience of Acts 2:1-4 is held to be the crowning attestation of salvation.”
Although no accurate count is available because some Pentecostal bodies do not report their statistics, a rather recent estimate has placed their number at about two million throughout the world. However, by this time the figure may he considerably higher due to their rapid growth and successful missionary endeavors. Time (Nov. 2, 1962) called Pentecostalism “the fastest growing church in the hemisphere.”
Clarity is needed with respect to the following terms: glossolalia, coming from the Greek, glossa, tongue, and laleo, to speak, is commonly used for speaking in tongues; charisma is the Greek word used in the New Testament for special gifts to believers; charismatic renewal has been defined as: “Term for spiritual renewal among Christians through the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, accompanied by the manifestation of speaking in tongues. During the latter half of the twentieth century, PROTESTANTS of many denominations experienced such renewal” (The Dictionary of Religious Terms, Donald T. Kauffman, pp. 108, 109).
Neo-Pentecostalism – Russell T. Hitt, editor of Eternity magazine, is credited as being the first to employ the term New-or Neo-Pentecostalism: Now commonly used, this term signifies the spread of the Pentecostal belief in “the baptism in the Holy Spirit” and the practice of “ecstatic utterance” or “tongue-speaking” to other non-Pentecostal denominations and organizations.
In a comprehensive article on the subject, Editor Hitt has written: “Now Pentecostalism has leaped into the drawing rooms of the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. But other historic groups have been equally touched by the wave of neo-Pentecostalism, including the American Lutheran Church, the American Baptist Convention, Reformed Church in America, the Methodist Church, the Evangelical United Brethren, and the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., to mention only a few. Even some of the leaders of these church bodies have spoken in tongues.”
Mr. Hitt went on to add: “But what has jolted evangelicals more than anything else has been the fact that tongues-speaking has cropped up in the smaller conservative denominations and interdenominational groups like Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Wheaton College, Westmont College, Fuller Theological Seminary, the Evangelical Free Church, and Plymouth Brethren” (Eternity, July 1963). Now the evidence is mounting that the Christian Reformed Church must also be added to this list.
In his book, What About Tongue-Speaking?, Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema of Calvin Seminary gives this additional information: “Today glossolalia is being practiced by many Episcopalians. Frank Farrell reported in September of 1963 that some 2,000 Episcopalians were said to be speaking with tongues in Southern California alone. Glossolalia has also spread to the Presbyterian Church—over 600 members of Hollywood’s First Presbyterian Church (the largest in the denomination) were also reported to be speaking with tongues. Members of the Reformed Church in America have begun to speak with tongues; probably the best known of these is the Rev. Harold Bredeson, Pastor of the First Reformed Church of Mt. Vernon, New York. The Rev. Mr. Bredesen received the gift of tongues at a Pentecostal Camp meeting in Green Lake, Pennsylvania, and since then has been actively propagandizing glossolalia . . . It was Pastor Bredesen’s visit to the Yale University campus that sparked an outburst of tongues there” (What About Tongue-Speaking? by A. A. Hoekema, pp. 31, 32; 1966; Eerdmans; $3.50).
Neo-Pentecostalism refers then to the occurrence of distinctively Pentecostal beliefs and practices outside of the bounds of Pentecostal bodies or denominations; it is the adoption and pursuit of speaking in tongues and the gift of healing by persons who meanwhile retain their membership in non-Pentecostal churches.
Speaking in tongues today? – The question is whether the charismata or divine gifts to believers (speaking in tongues, healing) still continue today. There are those who insist they do. It is our conviction that they do not.
Consider, for example, as evidence for today’s tongue-speakers, the following excerpt from what a Canadian correspondent writes: “In 1963 and many times since I received the ability to pray and praise in tongues. The significant thing is that I was not seeking that sign or gift. My uncontrollable desire to pray, witness, study the Word, and fellowship convinced me thoroughly that it was not a human phenomenon of psychological origin, much less of Satan. He does not work against his own kingdom of darkness.”
Prior to a further look at pertinent Scripture passages, consider the following as considerations for believing that the charismata or special gifts of healing and speaking in tongues have ceased.
1. Although the first consideration given is a personal testimony, I do not believe it should therefore be summarily dismissed as being too subjective to be of value. Together with so many others, I do believe that the Holy Spirit dwells and works in me even as He does in all true members of Christ’s church; that He does witness with my spirit that I am a child of God (Rom. 8:16); and that He as the Holy Spirit within me recognizes His own voice as He speaks in Scripture to be the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. However, I have never experienced the slightest suggestion from the Spirit that I should ask for or attempt to practice the gift of speaking in tongues. On the contrary, my assurance of faith might become badly shaken, the fact of the leading of the Holy Spirit very uncertain, and my emotional stability questionable, if I were on record as uttering anything like the following examples of tongue-speaking that have been recorded:
“Prou pray praddy”
“Pa palasatte pa pau pu pe”
“Teli teratte taw”
“Terrei te te-te-te”
“Vole virte vum”
“Elee lete leele luto”
“Sine sirge singe”
“Imba imba imba”
(cf. Eternity, July 1963).
2. A second consideration is this that even among the most saintly parishioners, teachers, professors, pastors, ministerial colleagues, and church officers I have known, not one ever as much as hinted at having the gift of speaking in tongues. About church officers, Dr. Hoekema’s observation is certainly well taken:
“It is, further, highly Significant that the ability to speak with tongues is never mentioned among the qualifications for elders or bishops and deacons in I Timothy 3:1–13 and Titus 1:5–9. Surely if the gift of tongues were to remain in the church, one would have expected to find it a required qualification for office-bearers” (What About Tongue-Speaking? p. 112).
3. A third consideration, mention of which our space still allows, is the fact that since apostolic times so many great leaders in the Christian church did not speak in tongues. About these, Robert C. Cromacki (The Modern Tongues Movement; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; p. 72) has said:
“There have been and are many godly men who have not spoken in tongues: Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Carey, Judson, Taylor, Moody, Spurgeon, Torrey, Sunday, and Graham …. Certainly they have manifested more holiness and witnessed more effectively for Christ than many who have claimed to have spoken in tongues.”
If the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased, why? And what are we to make of the speaking in tongues at Corinth? These are questions that must wait for later consideration.
An interesting announcement – That we of the Christian Reformed Church are not tilting at windmills or engaging in a merely academic exercise as we give further attention to the Pentecostals has become obvious from various recent reports and developments, not the least of which is the following announcement that appeared a few weeks ago in the Sunday bulletin of a C R Church in the Grand Rapids area:
“Because of the increasing prevalence of Neo-Pentecostal views, the Council has decided that any member of the congregation directly involved in the charismatic movement shall not be appointed or elected to a position of leadership or teaching in the congregation. It has taken this action on the ground that the teaching of a baptism of the Spirit (evidenced by an initial experience of speaking in tongues, healing, etc.), an experience distinct from and subsequent to conversion and one that every Christian should seek, has no basis in Scripture. The Council also calls attention to the fact that such a teaching has never been upheld in our creeds nor in the practices of our Reformed churches. The Council is also arranging for the near future a series of adult education programs in which the Scriptural teaching of the work and gifts of the Spirit will be emphasized.”
It is heartening and reassuring to learn that the council of a C R Church is taking such forthright leadership with respect to this error that appears to be leapfrogging from church to church and from one denomination to another. To be commended is the fact that this council’s leadership is not only negative in disqualifying for certain positions in the church those who practice or advocate this error, but also positive in that it is providing for the sorely needed instruction from Scripture about this matter.
Permit me, at this point, also to acknowledge the correspondence received from readers about the Pentecostal movements. Their patience will be appreciated as they await the publication of their material, hopefully in our following issue.
Pentecostalism – The church bulletin announcement cited above speaks of “Neo-Pentecostal views.”
Naturally the question arises: just what is the difference between Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism? First, a word about Pentecostalism.
Fundamentalist in their theology in general, Pentecostals have this in common: they hold that believers may expect and seek something additional to (and therefore not necessarily concomitant with) their initial salvation—the baptism in the Holy Spirit, as received by the early Christians on Pentecost, to enable them also to speak in tongues.
In Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Elmer T. Clark says of the Pentecostals: “Their distinctive emphasis is on sanctification as a separate work of grace subsequent to justification, the climactic experience of which is the outpouring of divine gifts, especially glossolalia or ‘speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance’ . . . The Pentecostal experience of Acts 2:1-4 is held to be the crowning attestation of salvation.”
Although no accurate count is available because some Pentecostal bodies do not report their statistics, a rather recent estimate has placed their number at about two million throughout the world. However, by this time the figure may he considerably higher due to their rapid growth and successful missionary endeavors. Time (Nov. 2, 1962) called Pentecostalism “the fastest growing church in the hemisphere.”
Clarity is needed with respect to the following terms: glossolalia, coming from the Greek, glossa, tongue, and laleo, to speak, is commonly used for speaking in tongues; charisma is the Greek word used in the New Testament for special gifts to believers; charismatic renewal has been defined as: “Term for spiritual renewal among Christians through the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, accompanied by the manifestation of speaking in tongues. During the latter half of the twentieth century, PROTESTANTS of many denominations experienced such renewal” (The Dictionary of Religious Terms, Donald T. Kauffman, pp. 108, 109).
Neo-Pentecostalism – Russell T. Hitt, editor of Eternity magazine, is credited as being the first to employ the term New-or Neo-Pentecostalism: Now commonly used, this term signifies the spread of the Pentecostal belief in “the baptism in the Holy Spirit” and the practice of “ecstatic utterance” or “tongue-speaking” to other non-Pentecostal denominations and organizations.
In a comprehensive article on the subject, Editor Hitt has written: “Now Pentecostalism has leaped into the drawing rooms of the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. But other historic groups have been equally touched by the wave of neo-Pentecostalism, including the American Lutheran Church, the American Baptist Convention, Reformed Church in America, the Methodist Church, the Evangelical United Brethren, and the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., to mention only a few. Even some of the leaders of these church bodies have spoken in tongues.”
Mr. Hitt went on to add: “But what has jolted evangelicals more than anything else has been the fact that tongues-speaking has cropped up in the smaller conservative denominations and interdenominational groups like Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Wheaton College, Westmont College, Fuller Theological Seminary, the Evangelical Free Church, and Plymouth Brethren” (Eternity, July 1963). Now the evidence is mounting that the Christian Reformed Church must also be added to this list.
In his book, What About Tongue-Speaking?, Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema of Calvin Seminary gives this additional information: “Today glossolalia is being practiced by many Episcopalians. Frank Farrell reported in September of 1963 that some 2,000 Episcopalians were said to be speaking with tongues in Southern California alone. Glossolalia has also spread to the Presbyterian Church—over 600 members of Hollywood’s First Presbyterian Church (the largest in the denomination) were also reported to be speaking with tongues. Members of the Reformed Church in America have begun to speak with tongues; probably the best known of these is the Rev. Harold Bredeson, Pastor of the First Reformed Church of Mt. Vernon, New York. The Rev. Mr. Bredesen received the gift of tongues at a Pentecostal Camp meeting in Green Lake, Pennsylvania, and since then has been actively propagandizing glossolalia . . . It was Pastor Bredesen’s visit to the Yale University campus that sparked an outburst of tongues there” (What About Tongue-Speaking? by A. A. Hoekema, pp. 31, 32; 1966; Eerdmans; $3.50).
Neo-Pentecostalism refers then to the occurrence of distinctively Pentecostal beliefs and practices outside of the bounds of Pentecostal bodies or denominations; it is the adoption and pursuit of speaking in tongues and the gift of healing by persons who meanwhile retain their membership in non-Pentecostal churches.
Speaking in tongues today? – The question is whether the charismata or divine gifts to believers (speaking in tongues, healing) still continue today. There are those who insist they do. It is our conviction that they do not.
Consider, for example, as evidence for today’s tongue-speakers, the following excerpt from what a Canadian correspondent writes: “In 1963 and many times since I received the ability to pray and praise in tongues. The significant thing is that I was not seeking that sign or gift. My uncontrollable desire to pray, witness, study the Word, and fellowship convinced me thoroughly that it was not a human phenomenon of psychological origin, much less of Satan. He does not work against his own kingdom of darkness.”
Prior to a further look at pertinent Scripture passages, consider the following as considerations for believing that the charismata or special gifts of healing and speaking in tongues have ceased.
1. Although the first consideration given is a personal testimony, I do not believe it should therefore be summarily dismissed as being too subjective to be of value. Together with so many others, I do believe that the Holy Spirit dwells and works in me even as He does in all true members of Christ’s church; that He does witness with my spirit that I am a child of God (Rom. 8:16); and that He as the Holy Spirit within me recognizes His own voice as He speaks in Scripture to be the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. However, I have never experienced the slightest suggestion from the Spirit that I should ask for or attempt to practice the gift of speaking in tongues. On the contrary, my assurance of faith might become badly shaken, the fact of the leading of the Holy Spirit very uncertain, and my emotional stability questionable, if I were on record as uttering anything like the following examples of tongue-speaking that have been recorded:
“Prou pray praddy”
“Pa palasatte pa pau pu pe”
“Teli teratte taw”
“Terrei te te-te-te”
“Vole virte vum”
“Elee lete leele luto”
“Sine sirge singe”
“Imba imba imba”
(cf. Eternity, July 1963).
2. A second consideration is this that even among the most saintly parishioners, teachers, professors, pastors, ministerial colleagues, and church officers I have known, not one ever as much as hinted at having the gift of speaking in tongues. About church officers, Dr. Hoekema’s observation is certainly well taken:
“It is, further, highly Significant that the ability to speak with tongues is never mentioned among the qualifications for elders or bishops and deacons in I Timothy 3:1–13 and Titus 1:5–9. Surely if the gift of tongues were to remain in the church, one would have expected to find it a required qualification for office-bearers” (What About Tongue-Speaking? p. 112).
3. A third consideration, mention of which our space still allows, is the fact that since apostolic times so many great leaders in the Christian church did not speak in tongues. About these, Robert C. Cromacki (The Modern Tongues Movement; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; p. 72) has said:
“There have been and are many godly men who have not spoken in tongues: Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Carey, Judson, Taylor, Moody, Spurgeon, Torrey, Sunday, and Graham …. Certainly they have manifested more holiness and witnessed more effectively for Christ than many who have claimed to have spoken in tongues.”
If the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased, why? And what are we to make of the speaking in tongues at Corinth? These are questions that must wait for later consideration.