Experience is supposed to be the best teacher.
However, at times it also may be the worst.
It is my conviction, corroborated by some observation, that the latter is true concerning those who insist they have the gift of speaking in tongues today.
But where do we get by setting my experience of not speaking in tongues over against their avowed experience of doing just that? Probably nowhere. Of course, objective considerations must be adduced to validate my experience over against theirs. This I wish to attempt to do.
But will this suffice? Maybe not. Robert C. Gromacki (The Modern Tongues Movement, p. 142) writes: “Someone once penned the maxim: ‘The man who has an experience is never at the mercy of a man who has an argument.’” But if the Holy Spirit, by whom our Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal brethren claim to speak in tongues, is pleased to use and bless the arguments here adduced, what then? Of course, the answer is obvious. May God graciously grant then that a meeting of minds as well as of our hearts may be the answer.
Why do I not speak in tongues?
Following are reasons that are convincing to me that I need not and should not seek to speak in tongues.
1. As a believer endowed with the Holy Spirit, I do not find speaking in tongues listed under the fruit of the Spirit. To the Galatians Paul writes:
“But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh …. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy. peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:16, 22, 23).
If the gift of speaking in tongues is something for us to seek in our time, may we not expect that the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write this list would not at least have made a passing reference to it here elsewhere as belonging to the fruit of the Spirit?
2. It is not superfluous to repeat that I do not see to speak in tongues because the Bible does not include this among the requirement for those who are to serve as officers in the church (elders, teaching e1aers or ministers, deacons). If this is not required of the officers in the church, why then should it be expected of others?
Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Moody, Spurgeon, Kuyper, Bavinck, and a galaxy of other Spirit-led church leaders can be mentioned as those who did not speak in tongues or claim to have this gift. It seems unthinkable that these giants in the faith, who were so mightily endowed by the Holy Spirit as pillars in the church, would not experience this special “baptism in the Spirit” to receive this special gift if it were still available. Would it not be presumptuous on my part to claim that I now have received and exercise a gift in which these great men of God did not have a part?
3. Then too, I do not seek or aspire to speak in tongues because I am unaware of an earthly good that could be accomplished by doing so, To the contrary. I would judge this to be harmful rather than beneficial, especially when done in public.
Do not misunderstand this to mean that it is not beneficial to learn other languages in which to preach and teach the Gospel. Our missionaries are doing this right along, but I have still to meet the first one who did this without studying long and hard to accomplish it. My recollection from school days, when we had to study English, Dutch, Latin, German, Greek, and Hebrew in preparation for the ministry, is that some were better language students than others. However, even the saintliest member in our class, I am sure, would have flunked the course if he had been so foolish or lazy as to expect the Holy Spirit to give him the mastery of a language without him boning away and even being willing to burn the midnight oil to make the grade.
Recently while on a trip in Pennsylvania my wife and J made it a point to attend a Pentecostal service at which a woman broke out in what presumably was “speaking in tongues” to the congregation but nothing else than gibberish to us. There was no explanation or interpretation of the weird sounds she made. To us this disturbing eruption was just so much meaningless chatter and it was beyond us how this could be of any benefit whatsoever. Uncharitable as this may seem, we came away with misgivings about the woman’s emotional stability or possibly her mental soundness.
But may it be that these “ecstatic utterances” are of spiritual benefit to the speaker himself or herself? Earl P. Paulk, Jr., a prominent Pentecostal pastor, writes: “It [gift of tongues] is the green light to the Christian that he is now ready to compete against the forces of Satan, that he now possesses that power to be a true witness of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Your Pentecostal Neighbor, p. 65).
However, in the light of observation, it would to me seem far wiser and more considerate of others if those who believe themselves to be edified by their speaking in tongues would confine their practice to the “inner chamber.” It is true that Paul in writing to the Corinthians does say that we are to “forbid not to speak with tongues” but he adds immediately: “But let all things be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:39, 40).
4. No, I do not seek or aspire to speak in tongues. An additional reason for this is my conviction that also this miracle served its special purpose in the days of the Apostles and that the special need for it in our time is no longer present.
In his book, Counterfeit Miracles, the late Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield, renowned Presbyterian theologian, writes about the cessation of tongues and other special gifts of the Spirit as follows:
“Everywhere, the Apostolic Church was marked out as itself a gift from God, by showing forth the possession of the Spirit in appropriate works of the Spirit—miracles of healing and miracles of power, miracles of knowledge, whether in the form of prophecy or of the discerning of spirits, miracles of speech, whether of the gifts of tongues or of their interpretation. The Apostolic Church was characteristically a miracle-working church.
“How long did this state of things continue? It was the characterizing peculiarity of specifically the Apostolic Church, and it belonged therefore exclusively to the Apostolic age -although no doubt this designation may be taken with some latitude. These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church, and they necessarily passed away with it” (pp. 5, 6; italics added).
The miracles performed by the prophets in Old Testament times were their credentials to authenticate their divine mission and message. Our Lord performed mighty works or miracles to prove beyond a doubt the truth of His claim to be the promised Messiah and the very Son of God. Even so, speaking in tongues in the early church confirmed the truth of the Apostles’ teaching and verified the claim of the early church to be established by the Lord Himself.
The special need for speaking in tongues and other miracles is no longer present in our time. We now have the complete Bible, the canon is closed, and we are not to look for any addition to God’s written Word. Miracles are never performed by our Lord without a special purpose. Jesus refused to do wonders in the wilderness when He was tempted there by Satan because no good purpose would have been served in so doing.
God continues to speak through His Word and by His Spirit but He no longer adds to the Bible and therefore does not enable us to speak in tongues or to perform miracles to authenticate any additions to His Word. Of course, that God is still able to perform miracles through His people should go without saying. However, that He is no longer minded to do so, as in the days of the Apostles when the Bible was not yet fully given, is something we should clearly recognize lest we land in no end of trouble and misunderstanding.
5. To all this it may be added that I do not seek or or attempt to speak in tongues because I find Scripture as God’s Special Revelation to be altogether adequate for my every need. Why should we marvel at, be puzzled by, or take any pains to decipher what someone who is thought to have “the baptism in the Spirit” is supposed to be saying in an unknown tongue? The Holy Spirit reveals the full counsel of God in Scripture, and there are no favored ones to whom He reveals anything in addition to that.
Not to be satisfied with the fulness of God’s revealed Word in Scripture and to yield to the curiosity of “itching ears” is an offense far more serious than some suppose. Even though the Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals are not at all minded to deny the sufficiency of Scripture, the warning against doing this appears to be in order.
The stern warning in Revelation 22 about adding to or taking away from the words of Scripture ought to be seriously considered also in connection with this matter of speaking in tongues: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (vss. 18, 19).
In reply to those who would have us believe that this applies only to the last book of the Bible, Revelation, it should be pointed out that, whereas this is at the end of the Bible, a similar warning is found near the beginning and also at the middle of Scripture.
In Deuteronomy 4:2 we are told: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandment of Jehovah your God which I command you.” And in Proverbs 30:5, 6 we read: “Every word of God is tried . . . Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
To those who expect and ask for something more than the fulness of God’s special Revelation in Scripture, the Lord will say as Abraham said to the Rich Man in the parable in Hades: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
6. Moreover, I do not ask or attempt to speak in tongues because of my conviction that today this is something that can be spiritually detrimental to those who practice it as well as to others in the church.
To think that one has a special gift of tongues in our time, for which Scripture gives no warrant, could easily lead to a false assurance of faith. In II Peter 1:5–11 we are clearly told how to make our calling and election sure, or how to come to the assurance of faith. Note what it is we are told to do: “Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love.” That’s how I must make sure of my calling and election. Not one word do I find here about speaking in tongues to this end.
Moreover, to say that some have a special “baptism in the Spirit” that other Christians do not have is divisive. It is contrary to what Scripture teaches in the very passage that speaks at length about speaking in tongues in Corinth: “For in one Spirit were we all baptized unto one body . . . and were all made to drink of one Spirit” (I Cor. 12:13). How careful we ought to be not to undermine the assurance of others by claiming that we have a gift in which they do not share, something that the Bible gives us no ground to seek or to expect.
7. Finally, I do not seek or aspire to speak in tongues because the example of those who did this in the church of Corinth is one concerning which we may well beware. If this were the exemplary church in Philadelphia doing this it might be different. But this tongue-speaking went on at Corinth, of which church Marvin H. Mayers of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Wheaton College gives the following interesting account:
“As one reads the story of the Corinthian church in the book of I Corinthians, it is easy to be impressed with one kind of behavioral expression, that of enthusiasm for what one is doing. The Corinthian church seemed to go to extremes in every aspect of life. They were-an enthusiastic, hard-hitting, hard-living, extremist group. Whatever they did, they did it with everything they had.
“Their enthusiastic eating habits carried over into the communion.
“Their enthusiastic sexual practices violated the incest taboo.
“Their enthusiasm in discussion propelled them into debate and argumentation; to fragmentation into cliques or faction.
“Their enthusiastic development of a self-image brought Paul’s response, you’re ‘puffed up.’
“Their enthusiasm in worshiping God expressed itself in ecstatic utterance of ‘tongues.’
“Paul was forever saying, ‘Cool it! Why are you forever arguing and debating?’ Or, ‘Cool it! I have spoken tongues, more than you all, but you go beyond anything that I, a normal person, hope to experience. And not only are you doing it in public, but you are doing it in a way that lends itself to oddness and strangeness. You are doing it without interpretation. How can anyone be expected to comprehend, to be part of the experience if they cannot understand.’
“And so in a variety of ways, Paul was saying, ‘Listen, you Corinthian characters, you are just going whole hog! You’re way out! You’re extremists! Hold back! Cool it! Relax a bit! Many of the things you are doing are uncalled for!’ A more Biblical term that he used is ‘carnal’” (“The Behavior of Tongues” in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, p. 91).
Well, these are reasons that come to mind why I do not ask or seek or aspire to speak in tongues; and why I would, in all earnestness, also advise that you do not do so either.
However, at times it also may be the worst.
It is my conviction, corroborated by some observation, that the latter is true concerning those who insist they have the gift of speaking in tongues today.
But where do we get by setting my experience of not speaking in tongues over against their avowed experience of doing just that? Probably nowhere. Of course, objective considerations must be adduced to validate my experience over against theirs. This I wish to attempt to do.
But will this suffice? Maybe not. Robert C. Gromacki (The Modern Tongues Movement, p. 142) writes: “Someone once penned the maxim: ‘The man who has an experience is never at the mercy of a man who has an argument.’” But if the Holy Spirit, by whom our Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal brethren claim to speak in tongues, is pleased to use and bless the arguments here adduced, what then? Of course, the answer is obvious. May God graciously grant then that a meeting of minds as well as of our hearts may be the answer.
Why do I not speak in tongues?
Following are reasons that are convincing to me that I need not and should not seek to speak in tongues.
1. As a believer endowed with the Holy Spirit, I do not find speaking in tongues listed under the fruit of the Spirit. To the Galatians Paul writes:
“But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh …. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy. peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:16, 22, 23).
If the gift of speaking in tongues is something for us to seek in our time, may we not expect that the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write this list would not at least have made a passing reference to it here elsewhere as belonging to the fruit of the Spirit?
2. It is not superfluous to repeat that I do not see to speak in tongues because the Bible does not include this among the requirement for those who are to serve as officers in the church (elders, teaching e1aers or ministers, deacons). If this is not required of the officers in the church, why then should it be expected of others?
Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Moody, Spurgeon, Kuyper, Bavinck, and a galaxy of other Spirit-led church leaders can be mentioned as those who did not speak in tongues or claim to have this gift. It seems unthinkable that these giants in the faith, who were so mightily endowed by the Holy Spirit as pillars in the church, would not experience this special “baptism in the Spirit” to receive this special gift if it were still available. Would it not be presumptuous on my part to claim that I now have received and exercise a gift in which these great men of God did not have a part?
3. Then too, I do not seek or aspire to speak in tongues because I am unaware of an earthly good that could be accomplished by doing so, To the contrary. I would judge this to be harmful rather than beneficial, especially when done in public.
Do not misunderstand this to mean that it is not beneficial to learn other languages in which to preach and teach the Gospel. Our missionaries are doing this right along, but I have still to meet the first one who did this without studying long and hard to accomplish it. My recollection from school days, when we had to study English, Dutch, Latin, German, Greek, and Hebrew in preparation for the ministry, is that some were better language students than others. However, even the saintliest member in our class, I am sure, would have flunked the course if he had been so foolish or lazy as to expect the Holy Spirit to give him the mastery of a language without him boning away and even being willing to burn the midnight oil to make the grade.
Recently while on a trip in Pennsylvania my wife and J made it a point to attend a Pentecostal service at which a woman broke out in what presumably was “speaking in tongues” to the congregation but nothing else than gibberish to us. There was no explanation or interpretation of the weird sounds she made. To us this disturbing eruption was just so much meaningless chatter and it was beyond us how this could be of any benefit whatsoever. Uncharitable as this may seem, we came away with misgivings about the woman’s emotional stability or possibly her mental soundness.
But may it be that these “ecstatic utterances” are of spiritual benefit to the speaker himself or herself? Earl P. Paulk, Jr., a prominent Pentecostal pastor, writes: “It [gift of tongues] is the green light to the Christian that he is now ready to compete against the forces of Satan, that he now possesses that power to be a true witness of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Your Pentecostal Neighbor, p. 65).
However, in the light of observation, it would to me seem far wiser and more considerate of others if those who believe themselves to be edified by their speaking in tongues would confine their practice to the “inner chamber.” It is true that Paul in writing to the Corinthians does say that we are to “forbid not to speak with tongues” but he adds immediately: “But let all things be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:39, 40).
4. No, I do not seek or aspire to speak in tongues. An additional reason for this is my conviction that also this miracle served its special purpose in the days of the Apostles and that the special need for it in our time is no longer present.
In his book, Counterfeit Miracles, the late Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield, renowned Presbyterian theologian, writes about the cessation of tongues and other special gifts of the Spirit as follows:
“Everywhere, the Apostolic Church was marked out as itself a gift from God, by showing forth the possession of the Spirit in appropriate works of the Spirit—miracles of healing and miracles of power, miracles of knowledge, whether in the form of prophecy or of the discerning of spirits, miracles of speech, whether of the gifts of tongues or of their interpretation. The Apostolic Church was characteristically a miracle-working church.
“How long did this state of things continue? It was the characterizing peculiarity of specifically the Apostolic Church, and it belonged therefore exclusively to the Apostolic age -although no doubt this designation may be taken with some latitude. These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church, and they necessarily passed away with it” (pp. 5, 6; italics added).
The miracles performed by the prophets in Old Testament times were their credentials to authenticate their divine mission and message. Our Lord performed mighty works or miracles to prove beyond a doubt the truth of His claim to be the promised Messiah and the very Son of God. Even so, speaking in tongues in the early church confirmed the truth of the Apostles’ teaching and verified the claim of the early church to be established by the Lord Himself.
The special need for speaking in tongues and other miracles is no longer present in our time. We now have the complete Bible, the canon is closed, and we are not to look for any addition to God’s written Word. Miracles are never performed by our Lord without a special purpose. Jesus refused to do wonders in the wilderness when He was tempted there by Satan because no good purpose would have been served in so doing.
God continues to speak through His Word and by His Spirit but He no longer adds to the Bible and therefore does not enable us to speak in tongues or to perform miracles to authenticate any additions to His Word. Of course, that God is still able to perform miracles through His people should go without saying. However, that He is no longer minded to do so, as in the days of the Apostles when the Bible was not yet fully given, is something we should clearly recognize lest we land in no end of trouble and misunderstanding.
5. To all this it may be added that I do not seek or or attempt to speak in tongues because I find Scripture as God’s Special Revelation to be altogether adequate for my every need. Why should we marvel at, be puzzled by, or take any pains to decipher what someone who is thought to have “the baptism in the Spirit” is supposed to be saying in an unknown tongue? The Holy Spirit reveals the full counsel of God in Scripture, and there are no favored ones to whom He reveals anything in addition to that.
Not to be satisfied with the fulness of God’s revealed Word in Scripture and to yield to the curiosity of “itching ears” is an offense far more serious than some suppose. Even though the Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals are not at all minded to deny the sufficiency of Scripture, the warning against doing this appears to be in order.
The stern warning in Revelation 22 about adding to or taking away from the words of Scripture ought to be seriously considered also in connection with this matter of speaking in tongues: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (vss. 18, 19).
In reply to those who would have us believe that this applies only to the last book of the Bible, Revelation, it should be pointed out that, whereas this is at the end of the Bible, a similar warning is found near the beginning and also at the middle of Scripture.
In Deuteronomy 4:2 we are told: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandment of Jehovah your God which I command you.” And in Proverbs 30:5, 6 we read: “Every word of God is tried . . . Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
To those who expect and ask for something more than the fulness of God’s special Revelation in Scripture, the Lord will say as Abraham said to the Rich Man in the parable in Hades: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
6. Moreover, I do not ask or attempt to speak in tongues because of my conviction that today this is something that can be spiritually detrimental to those who practice it as well as to others in the church.
To think that one has a special gift of tongues in our time, for which Scripture gives no warrant, could easily lead to a false assurance of faith. In II Peter 1:5–11 we are clearly told how to make our calling and election sure, or how to come to the assurance of faith. Note what it is we are told to do: “Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love.” That’s how I must make sure of my calling and election. Not one word do I find here about speaking in tongues to this end.
Moreover, to say that some have a special “baptism in the Spirit” that other Christians do not have is divisive. It is contrary to what Scripture teaches in the very passage that speaks at length about speaking in tongues in Corinth: “For in one Spirit were we all baptized unto one body . . . and were all made to drink of one Spirit” (I Cor. 12:13). How careful we ought to be not to undermine the assurance of others by claiming that we have a gift in which they do not share, something that the Bible gives us no ground to seek or to expect.
7. Finally, I do not seek or aspire to speak in tongues because the example of those who did this in the church of Corinth is one concerning which we may well beware. If this were the exemplary church in Philadelphia doing this it might be different. But this tongue-speaking went on at Corinth, of which church Marvin H. Mayers of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Wheaton College gives the following interesting account:
“As one reads the story of the Corinthian church in the book of I Corinthians, it is easy to be impressed with one kind of behavioral expression, that of enthusiasm for what one is doing. The Corinthian church seemed to go to extremes in every aspect of life. They were-an enthusiastic, hard-hitting, hard-living, extremist group. Whatever they did, they did it with everything they had.
“Their enthusiastic eating habits carried over into the communion.
“Their enthusiastic sexual practices violated the incest taboo.
“Their enthusiasm in discussion propelled them into debate and argumentation; to fragmentation into cliques or faction.
“Their enthusiastic development of a self-image brought Paul’s response, you’re ‘puffed up.’
“Their enthusiasm in worshiping God expressed itself in ecstatic utterance of ‘tongues.’
“Paul was forever saying, ‘Cool it! Why are you forever arguing and debating?’ Or, ‘Cool it! I have spoken tongues, more than you all, but you go beyond anything that I, a normal person, hope to experience. And not only are you doing it in public, but you are doing it in a way that lends itself to oddness and strangeness. You are doing it without interpretation. How can anyone be expected to comprehend, to be part of the experience if they cannot understand.’
“And so in a variety of ways, Paul was saying, ‘Listen, you Corinthian characters, you are just going whole hog! You’re way out! You’re extremists! Hold back! Cool it! Relax a bit! Many of the things you are doing are uncalled for!’ A more Biblical term that he used is ‘carnal’” (“The Behavior of Tongues” in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, p. 91).
Well, these are reasons that come to mind why I do not ask or seek or aspire to speak in tongues; and why I would, in all earnestness, also advise that you do not do so either.