Charismatic Chaos - by John MacArthur

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-52, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 1. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

I have made every effort to ensure that an accurate transcription of the

original tape was made. Please note that at times sentence structure may

appear to vary from accepted English conventions. This is due primarily to

the techniques involved in preaching and the obvious choices I had to make in

placing the correct punctuation in the article.

It is my intent and prayer that the Holy Spirit will use this transcription

of the sermon, "Charismatic Chaos" Part 1, to strengthen and encourage the

true Church of Jesus Christ.

Scriptures quoted in this message are from the New American Standard Bible.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 1

John MacArthur

We are going to embark upon a study of the Charismatic movement, the

contemporary Charismatic movement that surrounds us in the Evangelical

Church. Back in 1977, to be exact, I preached a series on the movement, or

maybe a little even before that year. But a book came from it which I spent

1977 writing. That book was entitled, "The Charismatics." And now we are

about a dozen or more years beyond that publication, and I felt that it is

time for an update. And from this series will come another book entitled,

"Charismatic Chaos." I believe that book will be released sometime after the

first of next year.

So many Christians are confused by the theology and the experiences of

Charismatic people. And they have become so visible because of Christian

television, radio, books, magazines, and because their ministries are so

aggressive that we all are inundated by them through direct mail. Television

and the media has spread this movement, it has created for them a tremendous

platform. In fact, it is probably not far from the truth to say that most

people would assume that Evangelical Christianity is what the Charismatic

movement represents, because it is such an exposed movement.

But we must deal with it in line with 1 Thessalonians 5:21, and that is to

examine it carefully, to determine what is true and what is not. Now as we

embark upon this examination, I want you to know at the very outset, that I

love my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, and I have no intent to convey

anything other than love for them. I think in the movement there are many

who are not genuinely saved, and I am equally concerned about their

salvation. My purpose is not to debate them, pitting our theology against

theirs, but to call them to the test of Scripture, to drop what Amos called

the "plumb line," to see if they are straight with the Word of God.

I have to say at the very outset that a rather powerful intimidation factor

works against those who wish to deal with this movement Biblically. To 37 3

Šcritique Charismatic doctrine or practice is commonly viewed as inherently

unloving, inherently unkind, inherently divisive, and even blasphemous. I

have personally been accused of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by calling this

movement to the test of Scripture. Anybody who wants to answer the movement;

to confront the movement; to measure it by Scripture; can be intimidated.

Because it is very hard, then, to find a platform to speak about the

movement. It runs almost rampant like wildfire.

Charismatic extremist can promote almost any idea they chose on television,

or on radio, or in their books. And those who attempt to examine those in

the light of Scripture are muzzled. I have been waiting for many years on

one of these Charismatic Talk Shows to hear the host say, "That's not true;

that is not true. That is not in the Word of God, we will not accept that.

You cannot verify that by Scripture." That never happens, no matter what is

said. It can be the most bizarre thing imaginable; it can be the most

whimsical, the most self-generated interpretation of Scripture or experience,

and no one ever stops and says, "Hold it! That's error; that's heresy;

that's not true!"

The number one book on the Christian Book Selling List right now, this month,

the latest one, is a misrepresentation of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

It is number one because so many Christians across America are buying it. It

is not a time to speak against this movement unless you want some flak and so

I am getting ready for it, I guess. But I am duty bound to assess everything

according to the Word of God.

Our radio program, "Grace to You," is heard on a network of 200 stations,

being broadcast about 600 different times a day, and there are satellites

that take it to even more stations. Nearly all of the stations that we are

on and all of the broadcasting mediums that we use would share our doctrinal

perspective; they would share our doctrinal commitment to the sufficiency of

Scripture. Yet, most of them "back out" at broadcasting any series on

passages that confront Charismatic error. Most of them would agree not only

on the sufficiency of Scripture, but they would probably even agree on our

theology with regard to the Holy Spirit, Signs, Wonders, Miracles, and

Tongues, but they simply do not want to offend.

Here is a typical letter, and I am quoting, written to us,

"Please reconsider your policy of dealing with the Charismatic

movement and other controversial topics on your radio broadcasts.

Though we share your convictions on these issues, many of our

listeners do not. These people are dear brothers and sisters in

Christ and we do not feel that it is helpful to the cause of

Christ to attack what they believe. We are committed to keeping

peace among brethren and unity in the Body of Christ. Thank you

for being sensitive to these concerns."

"It is not helpful to the cause of Christ to attack error anymore," that's

what it says. "It is not helpful to these dear brothers and sisters in

Christ to attack what they believe, even though it is wrong." It is more

helpful, under this philosophy, "to let them remain in error." "We are

committed to keeping peace, even if peace means error, and finding unity even

if unity means heresy. Thank you for being sensitive to our desire to

maintain heresy if it must be maintained for the sake of unity!" 3n 3

Apparently, these people, while being "Dear Brothers and Sisters," are not

dear enough to deserve to be taught the truth. Does real Christian love

leave them in a spiritually debilitating error, thus out of God's will and

out of the place of blessing, misrepresenting God's sacred truth? Is that

love that calls us to do that? But this is the kind of thinking that

pervades the Church. In effect, it has given Charismatic extremists the

freedom to propound fantastic views while imposing a code of silence on all

who object.

The legacy of such an attitude is not unity, and the legacy of such an

attitude is not peace, believe me; it is confusion, it is turmoil, and it is

chaos. How so? Churches, Mission Agencies, Schools, and other Christian

organizations that have tried to maintain unity by not confronting

Charismatic influence, and thus allowing it to come in never to be dealt

with, ultimately will all have to sacrifice their Non-Charismatic position or

split the organization. It does not bring unity, it brings the exact

opposite. Because, inevitably, you have the "haves," the Charismatics who

feel that they have reached a higher level, and the "have nots." And you

have pitted two theologies against each other. One gives in or it splits.

It is not unkind to analyze Christians' doctrinal difference in the light of

Scripture. That is not unkind; that is kind. We have a mandate from God to

do this, even if it involves rebuking certain people by name because they are

so well known. The Apostle Paul writing in Philippians 4 says, "I urge

Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord." And then he

says, "True comrade, help those women." He identifies two cantankerous,

troublemaking, disagreeable women in the congregation who were to be publicly

rebuked for all times, for their names have occupied a place in the permanent

record.

In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul identifies Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he had

delivered over to Satan, that they may be taught not to blaspheme. In 2

Timothy 2:17, he identified Hymenaeus and Philetus, who gone astray from the

truth and made up some kind of Spiritual resurrection, upsetting the faith of

some. In 3 John, that little epistle, he identifies another man, by the name

of Diotrephes, "who loves to be first among them, and does not accept what we

say."

When it comes down to the integrity of the Church, and when it comes down to

what is right and what is true, the Scripture will even name people publicly

and for the record, to be eternally embedded in the pages of Scripture, who

stand in the way of the movement of truth. Real love and real unity, and

real peace, are bound up with truth. Love apart from truth is hypocritical

sentimentality. And that kind of thing is frankly at an epidemic level. A

kind of sentimentality that does not want to confront truth. But remembering

again the words of Ephesians 4:15, "we are to speak the truth in love." That

is how the body "grows up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even

Christ."

Criticizing the Charismatic movement by Scriptural comparison should be

welcomed since truth that pleases God is the only concern that is valid.

Now, my purpose is not to mock; my purpose is simply to correct. In my first

book I was accused of using bizarre examples; that was not true. But some

accused me of using bizarre examples of the Charismatic movement. As I have 3¥ 3

Šaccumulated data over the past number of years since that first book, and in

going through that data more recently, I find that what we have now is even

more bizarre, and yet still commonplace. More visible now, more common now

with no end in sight.

When I was driving through the city of Dallas on Friday, I noticed a number

of huge billboards on all sides of the city as I was trekking back and forth

in meetings. And they were advertising the name of a man, Robert Tilton.

Robert Tilton preaches every Sunday in Dallas, and he will mail you a miracle

coin which by the way, is actually worthless; but it is a miracle coin. He

has mailed them to hundreds of thousands of people promising them a financial

miracle if they will send him, quote, "A check for the best possible gift you

can give." And then there is a reminder in this mailing, quote, "Only you

and God know what your best gift is." A little intimidation there, and if

you will send for him the best gift you can give, you will get a miracle coin

that guarantees you a miracle. A Secular paper calls Tilton's Television

program, quote, "The fastest growing empire in religious television." The

things that he promises and says are absolutely bizarre, and yet the bizarre

has become the commonplace.

An associate of mine attended a Charismatic Businessmen's meeting in Chicago,

where a Catholic Priest testified that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had given

him the gift of tongues while he was saying his rosary. Then the Charismatic

pastor, leading the meeting, rose and said, and I quote, "What an amazing

testimony that is. Aren't you glad that God isn't bound by any ideas by

what's doctrinally acceptable? Some people would try to dismiss this

brother's testimony just because it doesn't jibe with their doctrinal system,

but how you get filled with the Holy Ghost doesn't matter, as long as you

know that you have got the Baptism. Even if you got it from Mary while

saying your rosary, it has to be legitimate." The audience, by the way,

numbering in the hundreds, broke into wild affirmation and applause.

It is too easy to say that any critique of this movement is unfair and

unkind. It is too easy to say that and silence the Non-Charismatic, and

leave people in confusion, and let the movement spread unchecked even more

and more and more and then become exempt from Biblical criticism. Beloved, I

want to tell you that it is all over the globe. All over the globe.

Everywhere I go in the world I find that they have been making massive

inroads.

I was talking to a man in our church this morning who had for a number of

years worshiped here and then had returned to his native Scotland, living

just out of Edinburgh. And I said, "Have you found a church?" And he said,

"Well, yes we have." And I said, "Is it one of the Scottish Baptist Churches

(knowing that most of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches are long gone

liberal, with of course some exceptions)? He said, "No, it is not a Baptist

Church. For the most part, most of the Baptist Churches have moved into the

Charismatic Movement. Scotland.

It is a major problem in Eastern Europe and will continue to be one. It is a

problem in Australia. It is a problem is Asia. It is a problem of massive

proportions in Latin America. It is everywhere, confusing millions of

people. The Russian Church now is waiting patiently for the finishing of

this book, and they want the manuscript even before the American Publisher

publishes it because they desperately need it translated into the Russian 3Ü 3

ŠLanguage and distributed immediately in the Soviet Union because of the

rampant confusion about these matters.

Fantastic encounters with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are claimed as

commonplace; personal messages from God are routine; healings of all kinds

are claimed; miracles occur, everything from puppies being raised from the

dead; wash machines being healed; empty gas tanks and teeth are filled not

with the same thing); people are slain in the Holy Spirit; people go to

Heaven and go to Hell--comeback. There are some today who even say that the

Church can't do effective evangelism without such phenomena, without such

signs and wonders and miracles. The gospel, they say, is weak without signs

and wonders and this is the emphasis, by the way, of what they call the Third

Wave.

Charismatics say, "If you are not in the movement, then you have no right to

evaluate the movement." Howard Ervin (sp.), a Baptist pastor wrote some

years ago, quote,

"The attempt to interpret the Charismatics manifestations of the

Holy Spirit, without a Charismatic experience is as fatuous as the

application of the Christian ethic apart from a regenerate

dynamic. Understanding of spiritual truth is predicated upon

spiritual experience. The Holy Spirit does not reveal spiritual

secrets to the uncommitted."

There is the ploy they use, "Well, we would expect you to be against it since

you haven't had the experience." That is Gnosticism. That is believing that

you have been elevated to a higher level of comprehension which the

uninitiated have no understanding. Rodman Williams, who has written a number

of books and who was once the president of a local Charismatic school, and I

quote said, "Any vital information concerning the Gifts of the Spirit, the

Pneumatic Charismata, predisposes a participation in them. Without such a

participation, whatever is said about the Gifts may only result in confusion

and error." If you haven't had it, you have no right to talk about it. One

pastor said to me, "You talk exactly like one who never had the experience.

You are speaking out of ignorance." I wonder if they feel that way talking

about Heaven, Hell, murder, adultery, homosexuality, and numerous other

subjects. Do we have to have that experience too?

My experience and your experience is not the test or proof of Biblical truth,

it is the reverse--Biblical truth must validate or invalidate any experience.

Doctrinally, it is almost impossible to define the Charismatic movement. It

almost resists theology. It resists categorization because it has such a

wide and growing spectrum of viewpoints. If they don't rightly divide the

Word of God they are not going to come to a proper Systematic Theology. If

they determine what is true because of their own experiences then there is no

limit to the theology; it will take whatever form experience takes. And so

what you have is a very amorphous kind of volatile changing systems of

beliefs that ebbs and flows and rises and falls and refuses to find any

structure.

The Charismatic movement is achieving, by the way, what the liberal

Ecumenical movement tried for years to achieve, and that is a unity that is

indifferent to doctrinal truth. And so I say there is intimidation as we

approach this study because we are not supposed to have the right to do this, 3 3

Šsince we haven't had the experience. We are not suppose to do it because it

isn't loving and it isn't gracious and it doesn't make for unity. And so, I

just want you to know that I acknowledge the effort to intimidate, and I

reject that. I do not believe, furthermore, that I have to have some kind of

experiences in order to understand what the Bible says about them. I haven't

walked on water, but I can understand what it says when it says that Jesus

did.

Doctrinally, we must have structure, we must have sound doctrine. We cannot

fall prey to a system that resists any doctrinal categorization. But see,

once you allow experience to be the test of truth, then you can't limit

doctrine to the pages of Scripture.

Now, just a brief history. Historically, the Charismatic movement is the

child of the Pentecostal movement. That began about 1900 and it went along

for about 60 years and the Pentecostal Churches were primarily the Assemblies

of God, the Four Square Church, and then there were some other smaller

groups, the United Pentecostal group and so forth. But they were basically

off to themselves. People used to call them the "Holy Rollers." They were a

kind of a unique group that did not mainstream at all in Evangelical

Christianity because of their strange beliefs.

In 1960 a remarkable thing happened. In 1960, not far from here, in Saint

Mark's Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California, Rector Dennis Bennett

supposedly got the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And what happened was

Pentecostalism jumped out of its own box and landed in Episcopalianism, and

for the first time it transcended its denominational definitions. Since that

time it has moved through the major denominations like a flood. It went

beyond historical Pentecostal denominations and has continued to do that.

That second movement is called the Charismatic Movement. They borrowed that

concept of Charismatic because it is associated with the Gifts of the Holy

Spirit given to the believer.

But the Charismatic Movement can't be defined doctrinally. Why? Because it

involves Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians,

Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, anybody and everybody. So it resists, and

has resisted any kind of doctrinal definition that is too rigid. What they

all hold in common is an experience which they will call the Baptism of the

Holy Spirit. And they wrongly define the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a

post salvation experience that adds something to your Christian life that you

previously didn't have, and is usually is accompanied by signs and wonders,

most particularly speaking in tongues. And we are going to talk much more

about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Tongues at a later time. But once

you have had that experience, you have sort of jumped into this new level of

spiritual awareness, and you have reached the level of the Charismatic.

Without this experience, a Christian is second class. So, you have the

"spiritual haves" and the "spiritual have nots." I remember being sent a

tape of a "talk radio program" by Walter Martin, when he was still alive, and

he was interviewing Rodman Williams at the time; and for some reason they got

to talking about me because I had written a book on the Charismatics (and

both of them were certainly favorable to the Charismatic movement) and they

were discussing what I had said in the book and how that I really didn't

understand the movement. And Rodman Williams, on the tape said, "Well I'll

tell you one thing, I don't know who this man is but God will never bless his 3J 3

Šlife or his ministry." And there was a moment of silence, to which Walter

Martin simply replied, because he knew me and he knew the ministry, "I think

you have gone too far in saying that!"

But the bottom line is, that's what they have to say because if you haven't

reached that second level, then you are not participating in the fullness of

the Spirit of God. That's very intimidating to some Christians. No miracles

in your life, no spectacular revelations, Jesus never comes and talks to you,

no signs, no wonders: What's wrong with you?

I am convinced that these experiences are real in the sense that maybe they

have some emotional reaction or maybe there is something that they are

feeling at the time, but that they do not follow a Biblical pattern, they are

not authored by God, and they do not lift someone to a higher level. Now

what that means then, is that since they are not really true in terms of

moving people into genuine spirituality, since they do not increase your

understanding of the Word or your true knowledge of God they lead then to the

need to exaggerate, dramatize, or even invent experiences just to keep up

with everybody's expectations and just to be spiritual.

One nationally known television Charismatic Evangelist was recently

discovered using a hidden receiver in his ear, you remember that, a man named

Poppoff (sp.) through which his wife was broadcasting information supposedly

being revealed to him by the Holy Spirit as he stood in front of the

audience. Another healer was using the same "phony plants" in the crowd, in

every city, and rehealing the same bunch from city to city to city. Terrible

sex scandals abound in the ostentatiously spirit filled Charismatic leaders

circles. Sexual scandals seem epidemic and catastrophic. Admittedly, that

can happen in any group but you would think it would happen less, not more,

in those that have reached the higher level of spirituality, wouldn't you?

Such scandals reveal the fact that pursuing signs and pursuing wonders,

chasing spectacular experiences and speaking in tongues and reaching some

plane of esoteric mystical feelings has led some leaders not only to be

fraudulent, to be fake, but to miss the path to true spirituality, and

consequently to be on the path to moral disaster. You see, false standards

of spirituality don't restrain the flesh. Fundamental teachings of the

Charismatic movement create an emphasis on the external and they foster bogus

claims and false prophets and other forms of what I guess we could call

spiritual humbug.

Now, some of these people are sincere, but in the pursuit of experiences and

emotions, and miracles, and signs and wonders, they begin to imagine all

kinds of things and to falsify all kinds of things. And I also believe that

Satan invades with his deceptions. Well, that just gives you a little

feeling of what we are going to be dealing with. I want to ask one question

tonight and briefly answer it, that will take us into the flow of this

subject.

The first and foremost thing for us to consider is this question, "Is

experience a valid test of truth?" I know you know the answer to that, but I

want to help frame it up so you can understand it fully. Is experience a

valid test of truth?

A woman wrote to me seething with anger; this is what she said in her letter, 3 3

"You resort to Greek translations and fancy words to explain away

what the Holy Spirit is doing in the Church today. Let me give

you a piece of advice that might just save you from the wrath of

the Almighty God. Put away your Bible and your books and stop

studying. Ask the Holy Ghost to come upon you and give you the

gift of tongues. You have no right to question something you've

never experienced."

Such an attitude prevails in the movement, the tendency to gauge truth by

personal experience. Now what about experience is there such a thing as a

true spiritual experience? Sure. A true spiritual experience will be the

result, listen carefully, will be the result of the quickening of truth in

the Christian's mind. And I will sum it up that way and I don't know of any

better way to say it. A true spiritual experience will be the result of the

quickening of truth in the Christian's mind. In other words, the Spirit all

of a sudden gives dramatic life to a truth. It does not occur in a mystical

vacuum.

In an authentic spiritual experience there are emotions and feelings and

senses, and I want you to know that I believe that and I understand that. I

have some absolutely exhilarating spiritual experiences. And I have some

very difficult experiences, very sad and heart wrenching experiences. And I

am not talking about an emotional experience or an earthly experience, some

kind of worldly thing. I am talking about a spiritual experience. I have

them and I hope you have them. God has given us our emotions so that we can

respond to His truth. But I do not have an experience that is godly, that

leads me to truth in a vacuum. I have an experience in response to truth.

Let me show you what I mean. Here is one kind of spiritual experience:

strong feelings of remorse over sin. Have you had that experience? You go

along in life on a fairly even keel, you go along fairly happy and content

and satisfied and you've got the ability to balance your sorrow with your

joy, and sort of keep your head above water. But there are times in your

life when you have felt strong remorse over your sin. That is an experience

that was generated by the truth of the Word of God quickened to your heart by

the Holy Spirit. Right? That was the case in Luke 18:13 where the man who

was a publican, was in the corner of the Temple beating on his breast crying,

"God, be merciful to me, the sinner!" Why? Having been exposed to the truth

about his sin, his spirit was quickened and he had an experience of

conviction. He had an experience of remorse. He had a tearful experience of

repentance.

Another kind of spiritual experience you might have would be an almost

inexplicable sense of trust in God in the midst of a traumatic situation. An

almost inexplicable sense of trust in God, peace, calm, in the midst of a

traumatic situation. I remember taking off in an airplane from LAX and when

we were barely off the ground, maybe 100 feet, an engine blew up. Now that

is what I call a traumatic situation. We had to go in a circle, dump fuel

over the ocean and come back and land again, and then get out and get another

plane. But in the process, it was amazing the reality of the moment, the

whole plane is shaking and everybody has heard the noise, everybody knows

something dramatic has occurred, and to all of a sudden be literally

overwhelmed. The first question that came into my mind was, "Lord, are you

sure that this is the right plane? This is me, I am on this one, you know? 3¸ 3

ŠThat's my first response, and then I said, "No, no, the Lord knows, He's got

an OAG guide, He knows the airline schedule.

In the middle of that kind of trauma, I was overcome with a mighty sense of

trust in the sovereignty of God, and a perfect peace that came over me; and I

began to anticipate the realities of Heaven. Maybe, maybe that is a common

experience at some point in time, in the life of any faithful true believer.

In Acts 16, it was that kind of experience that the Apostle Paul had with

Silas. They were put in stocks, that means their limbs were stretched to the

limit, and locked in at a stretched point. There legs were pulled as far

apart as they could go, like a wishbone and then stuck in the stocks and

locked there, so that the muscle pain would be indescribable, unimaginable.

Their arms the same way, and there they were locked awaiting their execution,

and it says they were praying and singing hymns of praise to God. That's a

spiritual experience where the Spirit of God has quickened to their hearts

the great reality that their God is near, their God loves them, God is in

control of everything, and that confidence gives them a song to sing in the

night. That's an experience.

Maybe, maybe there are times when you have had an overpowering peace in the

midst of trouble, that made your spirit totally calm like that. Certainly

Paul had it. He said, "I have learned that in whatsoever state I am to be

content." And he said, "If you just learn to go to the Lord with everything,

He will give you perfect peace. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by

prayer and supplication let your requests be made known to God. And the

peace of God," right? "Will grant to you His peace."

Even in the face of death there is an overwhelming joy and peace that can

come over us. Stephen is there under the bloody stones as they crush out his

life, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. Don't blame them for this."

Quietly he reposes in rests. And then there is that other kind of spiritual

experience, that Paul had in Romans 9:1-3, where he said, "I have such a deep

and profound longing and sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart for the

salvation of Israel, that I could almost wished myself accursed, if it could

mean their redemption." Have you had that experience? Have you ever wept

over the lost?

I remember one time as a little boy, the first time it ever hit me. I was

sitting in a campfire and I became overwhelmed after hearing a message about

lost people. I think I was about 12, and I couldn't control the tears, and I

just began to weep over the lostness of people. That was a spiritual

experience, as the Spirit of God quickened to my heart something true from

His Word--the lostness of man, the sovereignty of God in the midst of my

trouble, the great peace that He gives, confidence in His care, repentance

and remorse over my sin, all of those kinds of things.

On the other hand, Have you ever rejoiced to the point where you could almost

not contain your joy because somebody you loved so much had come to Christ?

That's a spiritual experience. Have you ever just contemplated the glory of

God, and found yourself singing hymns to him in praise because you were so

exhilarated? Have you ever gone into a ministry and knowing that the Spirit

of God was on you and you were going to go and preach His truth, and felt

that you couldn't wait to get there, and when you got there you thought you

might tear the pulpit to pieces because of the joy, the exhilaration of what

you are about to do? 3ï 3

I don't want anybody to think for a moment that I don't have a spiritual

experience. People sometimes think I'm sort of cold and calculating, but I

am very emotional about those things. Spiritual experience by definition is

an internal feeling. It is an internal feeling that involves strong emotion

in response to God's truth, amplified by the Spirit and applied to me

personally. That's a true spiritual experience.

Now what is a false spiritual experience? That's the experience that

supposedly leads me to the truth. This must be true because look what I

experienced. That's backwards! The Charismatic movement errors because it

tends to build its teaching on experiences, as John Wimber (sp.) said, "We

are cataloging all of our experiences so we can develop a theology." They do

not understand that authentic experience happens in response to truth and

anything that doesn't square up with the revealed truth of the Word of God is

not authentic, not of God. Too many of their experiences are detached from

truth and they lead to false conclusions.

I spent a couple of hours with a prominent, well known, Charismatic pastor

last Sunday afternoon. I asked him a number of questions, and every time I

asked him a question he answered me with an experience. Visions, dreams,

prophecies, words of knowledge, private messages from God, are the real

authority in that movement. And Scripture, when used at all, is typically

employed for proof texts or twisted to fit some novel opinion. And many

Scriptures, beloved, are literally mauled.

Kenneth Copeland was teaching on Mark 10, The Rich Young Ruler, and of course

Kenneth Copeland teaches that Jesus wants everybody rich. Jesus wants

everybody healthy, wealthy, prosperous--big house, big car, big wardrobe, big

bank account. It's hard to teach that from the Rich Young Ruler because

Jesus said to him, "Sell all you have, give to the poor, come and follow Me."

It doesn't fit too well in that text. So how's he going to handle it? Well,

he twisted the text to make it seem to say that God wants His people wealthy.

Jesus' words in verse 21 are very clear, Mark 10, "One thing you lack: go and

sell all possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in

heaven; and come, follow Me." "Turn in your worldly treasure for heavenly

treasure." Here's Copeland's comment and I quote, "This is the biggest

financial deal that young man had ever been offered, but he walked away from

it because he didn't know God's system of finance." What? What he is trying

to imply there is that if he had given away everything God would have made

him richer. It doesn't say that.

The claims these people make just go on and on. I don't know if you read

about Percy Colette (sp.) a Charismatic Medical Missionary, claims that in

1982 he was transported to Heaven for five and a half days. A newsletter

describes the story,

While Christianity abounds with accounts of glimpses of the other

dimension from those who have had out of body experiences, Dr.

Colette's is unlike these. Obviously, he was caught up in the

third heaven even as Paul was, the difference being, Paul was not

allowed to utter the things he saw and heard, while Dr. Colette

was. Colette offers video tapes detailing his sojourn in Heaven

and his accounts are peculiar indeed. Quote, "Everything God

created on the earth is in Heaven, Horses, cats, dogs. Everything 3& 3

Š that He created on earth is in Heaven, in the way of animals, only

these are perfect. For example, the dogs don't bark."

Further, he says, "You don't need plumbing. You can go to the

Banqueting House and eat all you want and no plumbing is needed."

Colette then describes the "Pity Department." The "Pity

Department" is place the souls of aborted babies go and also some

severely retarded babies and it here that these little souls are

trained for a period of time before they go before the Throne of

God.

Then he claims he saw the "Record Room," an immense area where all

to idle words spoken by Christians are being retained until after

Christians give an account of them or are judged, at which time

these will be emptied into the "Sea of Forgetfulness."' Colette

then describes the "Garment Room," where angels are sewing our

robes, and Mansions under construction. And he found the "Holy

Ghost Elevator" and many other astonishing sights.

He adds one more detail, "While I was traveling back to earth, I

saw two girls, one brunette and one a redhead. We stopped to talk

to them, that is their 'soul bodies' on the way back. We had

asked them what had happen to them? And they indicated that they

had gotten killed in a car accident on the California Highway and

their physical bodies were in a funeral home. They said their

mother was weeping over them, so would I please tell her they were

ok?" Dr. Colette feels that he has conclusive proof to verify

that tale. "About a year later I went to that area where the

mother lived and was giving this testimony, a mother jumped up in

the congregation and said that's a description of my daughters! I

told her she shouldn't fret, that her daughters are in that

wonderful place, we saw them on the way to Heaven." She said,

"She would never cry again."

After Dr. Colette lectured on Heaven to his third straight

standing room audience in Montgomery, Alabama, he offered to take

questions from the floor. The first question was something I

admit I had never contemplated. The question was, "I'm a Cowboy,

will there be Rodeos in Heaven?" Dr. Colette was ready with an

answer, "There are horses in Heaven, beautiful horses, they are

all praising God, there is no foolishness in Heaven. I am not

saying that a Rodeo is foolish, but there is no Will Rodgers style

acting up there."

Just the silliness of these kinds of things that find their way into print.

By the way excursions to Heaven and back have become almost chic in that

movement, the ultimate experience for those who want something unusual, and

many say that they have made the trip. On April 11, 1977, a Charismatic

television network in Los Angeles, carried an interview with Dr. Richard Ebee

(sp.) who claimed to have died gone to Heaven and come back again. According

to Dr. Ebee he fell off a balcony, struck his head and was supposedly dead.

He reported,

"He experienced Paradise. His formerly weak eyes needed no

glasses, now he could see for a hundred miles. His body took a 3] 3

Š wonderful quality, he could move anywhere at will, he was visible

yet transparent. Dr. Ebee said he found some flowers, broke them

off and noticed they had no water in their stems because Jesus is

the Living Water. The aroma of Heaven was especially overwhelming

with the sweet savor of sacrifices, Ebee said. He discussed the

fact that the human brain has twelve cranial nerves and then added

that those twelve nerves represent the twelve tribes of Israel.

Furthermore, he said that the number one nerve in God's cranium is

the sense of smell. Ebee said he learned that the whole purpose

of sacrifice was to send a sweet aroma up to Heaven to satisfy

God's main cranial nerve."

In regard, by the way, in regard to that kind of silliness, in regard to the

twelve cranial nerves representing the twelve tribes of Israel, it would be

just about as reasonable to say, "That because you have ten toes, the bottom

half of your body has the image of the Beast mentioned in Daniel, chapter 2

and chapter 7." By the way, I checked with a medical doctor on the twelve

cranial nerves, and found that actually there are twelve pairs, which makes

twenty four, so perhaps it would be better to say that they correspond to the

twenty four elders.

And I know that it is hard to resist chuckling at these things because they

are so foolish. The reason we chuckle is because we know that it is so far

fetched, so strange. But you see, Charismatics have no way to judge and they

have no way to stop those kinds of things. They can't stop that because the

system validates experience, and the truth rises from the experience. And so

they spend their time trying to get the Bible to fit their experience.

Dudley Danielson, in the "National Courier," a Charismatic newspaper, ran an

ad. This is the ad,

"A Genuine Photograph of the Lord! Yes, I believe I have one

recorded on film. In mid-summer I awoke at 3:30 am to a strong

voice thought impression, 'Go and photograph my sunrise.' Beside

the river I set up my camera; waited for the sun, and that predawn

I felt so very close to God, perfect peace. On one negative is

the perfect shape of a figure, arms raised in blessing, as

reflected in the water, exactly opposite every other shadow. I

believe God gave me an image of Himself to share."

The item is signed Dudley Danielson, Photographer, and you can get a picture

of God for only $9.95. Doesn't seem to bother Dudley that the Bible says,

"No man has seen God at any time." Nor does it appear to matter to him that

the Bible says that, "God is spirit," and "No man can see me and live." It's

no different than people who think they see Jesus on a Pizza Billboard. Such

extreme examples are not uncommon. In the November 1990 issue of Charisma

Magazine, which is the most popular magazine in the movement, there is a

claim made by a lady named Aline Baxley (sp.), an ex-alcoholic and drug

addict, who says she has been to Hell and God brought her back to tell her

story.

Experience after experience is reported in the Charismatic press, television,

radio. A subtle but sinister pattern is developing. Instead of responding

to a proper interpretation of God's Holy Word, Christianity is collecting

preposterous tales producing a pseudo-Christian mysticism that's more like 3” 3

ŠHinduism and the New Age, than it is Biblical Christianity. And that's why I

quoted the woman who wrote me and said, "Put away your Bible, your books and

stop studying." Feelings are more important than the eternal Word of God.

Intuition surpasses interpretation. This is a tragic thing.

Now in a quick conclusion. When we turn to the Scripture, does the Scripture

validate experience as the proper source for truth? Look at 2 Peter, and

I'll just give you a couple of Scriptures because we have covered these. In

2 Peter 1:16, Peter says, "We did not follow cunningly devised tales when we

made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were

eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God

the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory,

'This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased.'--and we ourselves heard

this utterance made from Heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."

Stop at that point.

Peter says, "Look, I going to write in this Second Epistle about the Second

Coming of Christ. I am going to write about His coming glory, His coming

majesty, and I want you to know that I am not talking about something that I

don't know about, because this is not some tale that God passed down. I was

an eyewitness along with the other Apostles of His Second Coming Power and

Glory." When did you see it? "On the mountain." What mountain? " The

Mount of" what? "Transfiguration."

Matthew 17, Jesus took the disciples into a mountain and He was transfigured

before them, and they saw the Shekinah Glory of God. We saw it! We were

there! And the voice out of heaven, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am

well-pleased." That is an amazing experience, an amazing experience. Peter

said, "I had an experience, I saw the glorified Christ in His Second Coming

Majesty. I saw the Shekinah Glory shining through Him, I heard the voice of

God saying, 'This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.'" You

could make a career today just going around telling that experience. But look

what he says, verse 19, "But we have a more sure word of prophecy." We have

the even surer prophetic word, is the proper translation.

What is more sure than experience? The Word! Peter's point is precisely the

issue that many Charismatics fail to understand. The pilgrimage from

experience to experience, more and more spectacular is not only frustrating,

it is counter productive spiritually. Peter says, "I had an experience, a

real one. But I have a more sure word than my own senses. I can't even

trust my own senses in a real experience of seeing the glory of Christ. And

so he says, "We have a more sure word and you do well to pay attention to

that as a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning

star arises in your hearts." Until Christ comes in His day, you better stick

with the Word because, verse 20 says, "It didn't come by any private

interpretation. It isn't somebody's experience. It isn't somebody's

emotion. It isn't what somebody feels. "No, no prophecy was ever made by an

act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

If you want human experience articulated, you can have it. Peter says, I'll

take the more sure word, the Word of God, not of human origin, not of human

interpretation, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. I'll take

God's Word over your word or even mine. Peter was no Charismatic, no

Charismatic.

3Ë 3

ŠPsalm 19, another Scripture that must be dealt with. In Psalm 19:7-9, the

Psalmist writes, "The law of the lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the

testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the

Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure,

enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the

judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether." You have six

titles for Scripture; it is called the "Law of the Lord;" the "Testimony of

the Lord;" the "Precepts of the Lord;" the "Commandment of the Lord;" the

"Fear of the Lord;" and the "Judgments of the Lord." Two of those in each of

those three verses. Psalm 19:7-9.

Now, you'll notice this, he is talking then about the Scripture. He sees it

as law. It is God's Law for man's conduct. He sees it as testimony. It's

God's personal testimony to who He is. He sees it as precepts, principles

for life. He sees it as commandment; it is binding. He sees it as fear;

that is instruction on worship. He sees it as judgment, or verdicts from the

divine bench on the destiny of man. Scripture is all of that, but notice

what the Scripture is in terms of its character. It is perfect, sure, right,

pure, clean, true. You can trust it. All six of those characteristics. It

is perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true. And it will restore the soul,

make wise the simple, rejoice the heart, enlighten the eyes, endure forever,

and produce comprehensive righteousness.

That's why Jesus said, "If they don't believe the Word of God that came

through the prophets, they won't believe even though someone," what? "Is

raised from the dead." He was and they didn't believe. Miracles don't make

people believe. Signs and wonders don't make people believe, they never did.

If a man does not believe the Word, he is not going to believe some

experience.

Look at John, chapter 14, and see what Jesus said about whether experience is

the issue. John 14:6, Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the

life; no man comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you

would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.

Philip said to Him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.'" Do

a miracle! Show us God! Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you,

and you haven't come to know Me Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the

Father." What are you saying, "Show us the Father for?" In other words, I

have told you all you need to know. You don't need a sign and a wonder. You

don't need some mystical and ecstatic vision of God. I've told you all you

need to know! I've demonstrated it in my life and my teaching.

Paul was no Charismatic either, believe me. Paul was no Charismatic. He

made divine truth the beginning and the ending of his ministry. It was the

preaching of the truth revealed to him by the Spirit of God. Acts 17:2,

"According to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned

with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ

had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, 'This Jesus whom I am

proclaiming to you is the Christ.'" He was explaining the Scripture, he was

delineating the Scripture. He had an experience. He went to Heaven! But

God said, "You are not allowed to," what? "You're not allowed to talk about

it!" "I don't want anybody basing anything on your interpretation, on your

experience." Paul never built his ministry on his visions, his experiences.

He built it on what he knew was the revealed truth of God, and he called into

question any experience that violated Scripture. 3 3

The end of his ministry in the 28th chapter of Acts, we find him at his

lodging, and people were there in large numbers; and he was explaining to

them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God, and trying to persuade

them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from

morning until evening. He was in the Scripture trying to prove the truth

from the pages of the Word of God.

Charismatics, like Jews of Paul's day have zeal without knowledge.

Enthusiasm without enlightenment. They are often approaching truth without

their minds, without thinking. Some even claim that God deliberately gives

people unintelligible tongues in order to bypass and thus humble the proud

human intellect. Beloved this is a serious and tragic error. Clark Pinock

(sp.) once said, "We cannot allow these people to draw their theology out of

their experience. Whenever the existential cart is put before the historical

horse theology becomes a synthesis of human superstition and putting LSD into

the communion is fair play."

Anything to induce an experience. Christianity is in serious danger,

victimized by the experiential spirit of the day, the legacy of mysticism.

It must be tested by the Word of God. We are going to do our best to do

that. At least you know from the start that experience is not the valid test

for truth--the Word is. And your experience flows out of the ministry of the

Spirit through the Word to your life.

Let's pray. Father, we thank you for letting us cover these things tonight

and there is so much that could have been said. We thank you Lord that we

can take a stand where your Word does in love. We ask you to help us to do

that faithfully as we go through these things, remembering that not all we

say is true of all the folks in the Charismatic movement, but these are the

general trends. We thank you for those in that movement who are doing their

best to adhere to the truth, to search your Scriptures, and we pray that you

will lead them to a full understanding of your truth. Help us to be loving

even as we pass these things on and yet to confront error so we might be

faithful to you. In Christ's Name. Amen.

****************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-53, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 2. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Scriptures quoted in this message are from the New American Standard Bible.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 2

John MacArthur

I want to just preface the message tonight, really a study of an issue rather

than a text, which is a little unfamiliar to us as normally we are in certain

texts of Scripture. But I want to preface it with just a couple of comments. 39 3

ŠFirst of all, I want to say that I am very much aware of the fact that not

everyone who is associated with the Charismatic movement is engaged in the

kind of extreme error that we will be from time to time referring to. There

are people who are more moderate. There are people within the Charismatic

movement who themselves are very, very concerned about the heresies and the

aberrations that exists within that movement. And so the movement runs quite

a wide gamut and there are people at all different points.

However, there are some salient features and elements in the movement that we

are endeavoring to deal with and illustrate to you. But again, I ask you to

keep in mind that not everyone in the movement would affirm all these things.

There are various and sundry different kinds of viewpoints. To reinforce

that, there are, according to current statistics, 382 million members of

Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches worldwide, or 1 out of every 5

Christians. So when we talk about a widespread movement, indeed it is the

case. They gain about 19 million members per year and they donate about 34

billion dollars to Christian causes. It is a formidable group. The movement

now includes 11,000 Pentecostal and 3,000 Independent Charismatic

denominations covering 7,000 languages, and two-thirds of all Charismatics

live in the Third World. It is a worldwide movement. And thus it demands

our attention.

Now tonight as we come to the second in our series on Charismatic Chaos, the

issue at hand is, "Does God still give revelation?" That's our subject for

tonight: Does God still give revelation?

If someone were to write an anthem for the Charismatic movement it would have

to be titled, "God told me! God told me!" you hear that over and over

again. Strange prophecies abound in the Charismatic movement; in fact, it is

well nigh impossible to turn on a Charismatic television station or a radio

station without being exposed, almost on a daily basis to some new "Words

from the Lord." I was watching one today and sure enough, "The Lord said,

the Lord said, the Lord said," was repeated again and again.

This week I listened to a very fascinating tape by a man by the name of James

Ryle. In his tape he tells about the fact that God gives him revelation

through dreams, and that God revealed to him in this incredible dream, which

I listened to him explain,

"Pictures of guitars, blue guitars, iridescent blue guitars." And

then in the dream God showed him amplifiers, and then God told him

that, "The guitars and the amplifiers belong to the Beatles." And

God told him that, "The Church will win the world to salvation

when it goes into the world and sings anointed music like the

Beatles." The tape is filled with statements, "The Lord said, the

Lord said, the Lord said, the Lord said." And here are some

quotes, "The Lord said, 'I called those four lads from Liverpool

to myself. There was a call from God on their lives. They were

gifted by my hand and it was I who anointed them (speaking of the

Beatles). The purpose was to usher in the Charismatic Renewal

with musical revival around the world.'"

Then the Lord said, "The four lads from Liverpool went AWOL and

did not serve in my army. They served their own purposes and gave

the gift to the other side." And then the Lord said, "I lifted 3p 3

Š the anointing and for twenty years I've held it in my hand and I

am about to release it again." And then the Lord said, "It

doesn't belong to the world, it belongs to the Church." And then

the Lord said, "I will release an anointing in music that will

take the world by storm like the Beatles when they first came.

New, anointed music that will capture men's hearts." And then the

Lord said, "The same kind of reaction that the Beatles extracted

will come, only this time the girls will not scream, Ringo, John,

George, or Paul, they will scream, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus."

Did the Lord say that? Did the Lord say any of that? He says he did.

Surely the most famous of all the Lord's speaking to Charismatics is the

famous, "Oral Roberts Death Threat Prophecy" a preposterous and fabricated

supposed "Word from the Lord." Roberts told his nationwide audience in 1987

that God had threatened to call him home if he couldn't raise 8 million

dollars by his creditor's deadline. Whether or how that threat might have

been carried out the world will never know because Roberts received a last

minute reprieve in the form of a large check from a Florida dog track owner,

as you remember. Two years later when Roberts was forced to close his

massive, multi-million dollar City of Faith Medical Center anyway, in spite

of the 8 million dollars, he asked God, "Why?" And Oral Roberts said God

spoke to him and God said,

"I had you build the City of Faith large enough to capture the

imagination of the entire world, about the merging of My healing

streams of Prayer and Medicine. I did not want this revelation

localized in Tulsa, however, and the time has come when I want

this concept of merging My healing streams to be known to all

people and to go into all future generations." So said God.

Roberts said, "It is clearly in my spirit, as I have ever heard

Him, the Lord gave me an impression, 'You and your partners have

merged prayer and medicine for the entire world, for the Church

World and for all generations.' And then He said, 'It is done.'

And then I asked, 'Is that why after eight years you are having us

close the hospital and after eleven years the medical school?'

And God said, 'Yes, the mission has been accomplished in the same

way that after three years of public ministry, my Son said on the

cross, Father, it is finished!'"

Putting yourself in company with Jesus Christ is a bold move. That kind of

arrogance almost makes us catch our breath. I recently had the opportunity

to stand on the dandelion patch that now surrounds the City of Faith Medical

Center in Tulsa. A sixty floor building next to a thirty floor building. An

absolutely unbelievable edifice rising out of the midst of nothing, in the

outskirts of this city. A monument to a man's folly and certainly no

testimony to the character and the quality and the power of God, for it

stands empty and unfinished, wasted.

The arrogance that causes people to think that God talks to them and puts

themselves on a plane with even Jesus Christ and His work is amazing. But

Oral Roberts is not the only Charismatic who thinks he's receiving private

revelation from God. Most Charismatics, at one time or another, feel that

God speaks to them in some specific way. Either through an audible voice,

some kind of internal impression, a dream (and that's kind of a new one), a

vision, or a prophesy. 3§ 3

Linda Fell (sp.), founder of Rapha Ranch (sp.), sells a tape, a song she was

given by the Holy Spirit as she was being healed of cancer. An editor for a

Christian publisher once told me that he receives submissions every week from

Charismatics who claim God inspired them to write their book, article, song

or poem. My editor friend noted that these manuscripts are often poorly

written, filled with bad grammar, marred by factual and logical errors, or

full of poems that mutilate the language or attempt to rhyme but just miss.

And these are supposed to be authored by the Holy Spirit? Lest you think

that cranks and obscure eccentrics or naive Charismatic believers are the

only ones who would make such claims, you need to know that's not the case.

Even Jack Heyford (sp.), who is very near to us, and would be known even

among Charismatics is a man of honor and integrity and a man who believes the

Scripture, recently told the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America that God

had revealed to him that a new era is coming. He related a vision, in which

he had seen Jesus seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father. And

in his vision, Jesus began to lean forward and rise from His seat, and as the

anointing caught in the folds of His garment and it began to splash out and

fall over the Church, and then Jesus said, "I'm beginning to rise now in

preparation for My Second Coming, those who will rise with me will share in

this double portion of anointing." This is a private revelation that Jesus'

Second Coming is near.

Larry Lee, popular Charismatic preacher, wrote, "Recently, I was in Chicago

preparing to preach and the Lord's Spirit came upon me." He spoke, "I am

going to tell you now the name of the strong man over this nation. The

spiritual strong man that you are facing, the demonic strong man that has

your nation under his control. It is the strong man of greed."

Now, the question is, "Did God talk to this man about the Beatles? Did God

talk to Oral Roberts about the City of Faith? Did God write a song for Linda

Feld? Did Jack Heyford actually see Christ rise from His seat and get ready

for His Second Coming? Was Larry Lee's prophecy really a word from the Lord?

Are we to believe that that is revelation?" One television evangelist claims

that he had a seven hour conversation with Jesus Christ. Seven hours. And

during that time they talked about the problems on earth and discussed

decisions which he, the evangelist, was facing. And Jesus was trying to help

him work out some of these decisions. Significantly, this man also has said

he had some direct encounters with Satan, who has tried to choke the preacher

in his bed. Unfortunately, the man doesn't see the connection between the

two events. It seems to me that Jesus appearing to him was nothing different

than the manifestation of a demonic spirit who took the name of Jesus Christ

and was very likely the same spirit that wanted to choke him. Certainly,

there is no way to tell the difference in that kind of mystical experience.

Spirits who claim to be Jesus Christ abound in my limited experience. I have

even heard them take His name myself, and say they are Jesus Christ when it

is apparent that they are not. Anyone who seeks direct communication with

God or Christ is in serious danger of demonic impersonators of deity.

And there is another, even more basic issue than that, and that is, "Are

Christians still receiving, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, direct

revelation from God? Are we still getting it? Is God still talking?" Most

Charismatics would say a loud and resounding yes. 3Þ 3

One of their leaders, a theologian, by the name of Jay Rodman Williams,

former president of one of their schools, wrote this, "The Bible truly has

become a fellow witness to God's present activity." That's an amazing

statement. When you say that the Bible is a fellow witness to God's present

activity you mean that it is not alone, there is somebody else there

witnessing as well. He goes on,

If someone today perhaps has a vision of God, of Christ, it is

good to know that it has happened before. If one has a revelation

from God, to know that for the early Christians, revelation also

occurred in the community. If one speaks a "Thus says the Lord,"

and dares to address the fellowship in the first person, even

going beyond the words of Scripture, that this was happening long

ago. How strange and remarkable it is. If one speaks in the

fellowship of the Spirit, the Word of Truth, it is neither his

thoughts and reflections nor simply some exposition of Scripture,

for the Spirit transcends personal observations, however

interesting or profound they may be. The Spirit, as the Living

God, moves through and beyond the records of past witness however

valuable such records are as a model for what happens today.

Now what he is saying is that the Bible is simply a model of what is going on

all the time. It is one of many witnesses. There have been witnesses in the

past; there are witnesses in the present and they just stand along side the

Bible. The Bible is one of many. He is alleging that the Bible is not the

final source of God's revelation, but simply a witness, like a lot of other

witnesses and there is plenty of additional revelation that God is giving

today. He is saying that Christians not only can, but should add to the

Bible, and that such additions are normal and conventional. The Bible is

just a model for what the Holy Spirit continues to do today. This obviously

is a frightening view: relativistic, mystical, subjective. It tells us that

God continues to speak and there's all kinds of things that He has been

saying and continues to say that we need to place along side the Scripture,

and here we are and we don't have a record of that. That's inherent in the

Charismatic movement; the belief that there is continuing, ongoing

revelation, and God is continuing to speak (which of course is a denial of

the singular authority of Scripture).

Edward Gross in his book, "Miracles, Demons, and Spiritual Warfare," sees the

deadliness of this trend in the Church. He writes,

The age of models has come. A model takes the place of a law.

Models are human perceptions of truth, they are tentative and thus

subject to change as new data becomes available. These models are

open and constantly tested. No scientist dares claim any longer

that one model is the way to explain all known phenomena for fear

that some newly discovered data will prove that scientist to be a

precipitant old fool. The world of science has progressed from

the old approach, Closed Systems to a new approach, Open Systems.

And there are all kinds of new models. If the Bible is a Closed

System of truth, with no new revelation being given through

inspired Prophets or Apostles, then the model approach is an

erroneous and dangerous tool in hermeneutics. There should be no

confusion in this area, the orthodox teaching of Christianity has 3 3

Š always affirmed that God's special saving revelation to mankind is

restricted to the teaching of Scriptures. That is the issue. If

the Bible is complete, then it represents a Closed System of

truth. If it entails a fixed and absolute standard of truth, then

the teaching of Scripture must be ascertained and dogmatically

asserted. If God is still granting new revelation, then the truth

of God is still being progressively revealed; and if this were the

case, our duty would to be to faithfully listen to today's

Prophets as they unraveled God's truth and new and clearer

representations than we find in Scripture.

Well, he says, "I don't believe that." "I don't believe that the Bible is an

opened system, but a closed one." Scripture is a closed system of truth,

completely sufficient and not to be added to. Revelation 22:18-19, the last

chapter in the Bible says, "If you add to it, God will add to you the plagues

that are written in it." And yet we have all these supposed revelations.

What are they? Imagination? Fabrication? Demonization? But not divine

revelation. Now in understanding this issue we need to face some questions.

Question number one, "What does inspiration mean? When we say that the Bible

is inspired, what do we mean? What are we talking about?" Our word inspired

comes from a Latin root that means to "breath in, to inspire."

Unfortunately, that doesn't convey the true meaning of the Greek term used in

Scripture. Actually the concept of "breathing in" is not found in 2 Timothy

3:16, where it says, "All Scripture is inspired by God." It's not the word

for breathing in. That translation has unfortunately mislead some folks, and

they have assumed that men wrote a lot of words and God breathed into them

some kind of power; some kind of divine life--that's not it. When it says,

"All Scripture is inspired," the word "inspire" is theopneustos (GR.). It is

actually a word that said "God-breathed." It is God breathing it out, not

God breathing into it. Literally the verse says, "All Scripture is God-

breathed." It is the breath of God, not the words of men into which God

puffed some divine life. It is God's breath. It is God speaking.

Inspiration does not mean that the Bible has somehow been blown on by God and

given some supernatural quality. It means that the words of the Bible are

the words of God Himself, out of his own mouth. Every word of Scripture

breathed out by God. That's why at the Burning Bush God said to Moses, "Go

and I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say" (Exodus

4:12). And Jeremiah, the weeping prophet of Judah, received this charge from

God, chapter 1, "Whatsoever I command thee, thou shalt speak. Behold I have

put my words in your mouth." And God said to Ezekiel in chapter 3, "Son of

man, go get thee unto the house of Israel. All My words that I shall speak

unto thee, receive in thine heart and hear with thine ears and go and speak

them."

And so then, we have in the Bible the words out of the mouth of God. 2 Peter

1:21, that very important text says, "No prophecy," that is, "No revelation

was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke

from God." The word "moved" means "carried along." They were carried along

by the Holy Spirit. Theologian Thomas Thomas, recalls that as a boy he would

play in the little streams that ran down the mountainside near his home.

We boys like to play what we call "boats." Our boat would be a

little stick, which was placed in the water, and then we would run 3L 3

Š along beside it and follow it as it was washed downstream. When

the water would run rapidly over some rocks the little stick would

move rapidly as well. In other words, that little stick which

served as my boyhood boat was carried along, borne along, under

the complete control and direction of the water. It moved as the

water moved it. So it is with reference to the writers of

Scripture. They were carried along, borne along, under the

control and direction of the Holy Spirit of God. They wrote as

the Spirit directed them to write. They were borne along by Him

so that what they wrote was exactly that which the Holy Spirit

intended should be there, and what they wrote was in a very real

sense, not their words; it was the very Word of God.

That's what we mean by inspiration, that the Bible is the very Word of God.

Now, a second question faces us now that we know what inspiration means.

"What is the contemporary approach to Scripture? What's going on today that

threatens this?" Moving outside the Charismatic movement, just a very quick

lesson, but you need to understand it. Modern theologians want to allow for

continued inspiration. In liberal theology or neo-orthodox theology, which

is liberal in the sense that it denies the inspiration of Scripture: they

want to deny. They start from the denial point. Liberal theology, as I told

you this morning, and neo-orthodox theology came out of "The Enlightenment,"

when man began to worship his own mind, believing that he was the ultimate

judge of all truth, being enamored with his intellectual capability. Man

said, "I go to the Bible, I find all kinds of things that are not reasonable,

rational, logical. All the supernatural and miraculous things that I can't

comprehend, I eliminate." So he starts eliminating all of that. So

immediately he, of course, denies the inspiration of Scripture. It isn't the

Word of God, it's the word of men; it has to be changed because there is some

foolishness in here.

So, modern theology then reduces the Bible to just the best efforts of men.

Well, once it is reduced to the best efforts of men then you can have

continuing revelation. Right? Because men can continue to make those kinds

of efforts. So modern theology wants to allow for continued inspiration.

Continued, updated, Word from the Lord in some sort of mystical, personal

way. It is the best of men writing about their religious experiences, and

perhaps even prompted somehow by God to write down their own thoughts and

ideas. At least one of these modern writers, Dewey Beagle by name, believes

that some of the classic anthems of the Church are inspired in the same way

as Scripture. So this is how he would understand inspiration and he is very

popular. He has written, "Some of the great hymns are practically on a par

with the Psalms. And one can be sure that if Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley,

Augustus Toplaley (sp.) and Reginald Heber (sp.) had lived in the time of

David and Solomon and been no more inspired than they were in their own days,

some of their hymns and praise to God would have found their way into the

Hebrew Bible."

In other words, the kind of inspiration they're talking about is just the

kind of sort of emotional, intellectual, stimulation that makes you write

down some good thoughts about God, but it is a human effort. Beagle refers

in particular, for example, to George Matheson (sp.), a blind Scottish pastor

who wrote, "Oh love That Will Not Let Me Go," and he says, "It's that kind of

inspiration that characterizes the Bible writers." He says, 3ƒ 3

What distinguishes the Bible is its record of special revelation,

not a distinctive kind of inspiration. It is just that the Bible

has a unique revelation; that's what makes it distinct, but the

inspiration that brought that revelation, revelation being the

content, inspiration being the process, the process of inspiration

which brought that content is being repeated over and over again

with new content. So you have the Bible and then you have this,

and then you have this, and then you have this, and then you have

this, and it all comes through the same kind of inspiration. The

same kind of inspiration that, for example, is characteristic of

one who writes good music.

Beagle believes that the Canon of Scripture has never been closed. He has

written that, "The revelation and inspiration of God's Spirit continues, for

this reason there is no basis in considering all of the Biblical writers and

editors as qualitatively different from post canonical interpreters." It's

all the same. You just keep having revelation, you just keep having

revelation. That's neo-orthodoxy. That's liberalism. And that is, in

effect, precisely what the Charismatic movement believes. That is why,

beloved, you can have neo-orthodoxy and Charismaticism coexisting in an

institution, because they basically believe in an open canon. They basically

believe in ongoing revelation. They may define it a little differently, but

they believe that there's still inspiration and revelation coming.

That heretical view frightens any true Biblical scholar, any true believer in

Scripture, because it destroys the distinctiveness of the Bible. If God is

still inspiring revelation, we have got real problems. If the Canon of

Scripture is still opened, and God is still giving prophecies, and psalms,

and words of wisdom, and words of knowledge, then we ought to be seeking to

compile all that stuff, and we ought to be most interested in studying the

more recent revelations because they're the ones that speak most directly to

our times. By the way, some of the Charismatics can see the problem here.

Their most popular magazine is a magazine called "Charisma." An article in

Charisma recently said this,

To meditate on our personal prophecies, we should record them if

at all possible. If someone approaches us saying, he or she has a

word from God, we should ask the person to wait a moment until we

can get an audio recorder or else ask the person to write it down.

If the word comes from someone on the platform during a meeting

that is not being recorded, we must try to write down as much as

is possible, getting at least the main points.

"This is Scripture, we have to write it down!" My friend that's heresy.

That is outright heresy that the Bible is still being written. The Canon of

Scripture is not opened. God's Word, Old Testament and New Testament, is one

unique miracle. It came together over a period of 1500 years. More than 40

men of God, Prophets and Apostles wrote God's word. Every jot and every

tittle without error in perfect harmony, and when it was done it was done.

No hymn is worthy to be compared to Scripture. No modern mystical experience

can be spoken of in the same breath as Scripture.

And that leads to a third query, "Is revelation progressive?" These people

who say that it is progressive, are they right? Going back to J. Rodman 3º 3

ŠWilliams, a Charismatic theologian, he argues for ongoing revelation,

In the Spirit, the present fellowship is as much the arena of

God's vital presence as anything in the Biblical account. Indeed,

in light of what we may learn from this past witness and take to

heart, we may expect new things to occur in our day and in days to

come. In prophecy God speaks; it is as simple, and profound, and

startling as that. What happens in the fellowship is that the

Word may suddenly be spoken by anyone present and so variously a

"Thus says the Lord," breaks forth in the fellowship. It is

usually in the first person, such as, "I am with you to bless

you," or has the directness of an, "I, Thou" encounter. It comes

not in a heavenly language but in the native tongue of the person

speaking and with his accustomed inflections, cadences and

manners. Indeed, the speech may be coarse and ungrammatical, it

may be a mixture of King James and modern, it may falter as well

as flow. Such really doesn't matter for, in prophecy, God uses

what He finds and through frail human instruments the Spirit

speaks the Word of the Lord.

Now that is as clear as you can ever hear it, that God is still giving

revelation. Bad grammar, but revelation.

[He continues]

All of this, to repeat, is quite surprising and startling. Most

of us, of course, were familiar with prophetic utterances recorded

in the Bible, and willing to accept it as the Word of God.

Isaiah's or Jeremiah's "Thus says the Lord" we were accustomed to,

but to hear a Tom or a Mary today in the 20th Century speak the

same way! Many of us, also had convinced ourselves that prophecy

ended with the New Testament until suddenly, through the dramatic

thrust of the Holy Spirit, prophecy comes alive again. Now we

wonder how we could have misread the New Testament for so long.

"Now we wonder how we could have misread the New Testament for so long." In

other words he is saying, "The New Testament should have told us that

prophecy would continue." In a later issue of "Logos" magazine, when he was

taken to task for such foolish and heretical views, he tried to clarify his

view, and this is what he said,

I do not intend, in any way, to place contemporary experience on the same

level of authority as the Bible. Rather, do I vigorously affirm the

decisive authority of Scripture. Hence, God does not speak just as

authoritatively today as He spoke to the Biblical authors, but He does

continue to speak. Thus He moves through and beyond the records of past

witness, [that's the Bible], for He is the living God who still speaks

and acts among His people.

Double talk! Nonsense! Pointless! What do you mean? He says, "I don't

want to put this on the level of Scripture authority. God isn't speaking as

authoritatively today as He spoke in the Biblical time, but He is still

speaking." Well, what's the difference? This doesn't matter? This isn't

authoritative? This is erroneous? That is double talk. Are some of God's

words less authoritative than others, or less true, or less accurate, or less

important? The view of the Charismatics is not distinguishable as I said 3ñ 3

Šfrom the neo-orthodox, who have an incessant kind of free flowing revelation.

The Charismatics says it comes from a prophecy, a word of wisdom, a word of

knowledge, and the neo-orthodox says it's whatever you feel, it's whatever

happens inside of you becomes the Word of God to you. But both of them

destroy the central doctrine of "Sola Scriptura."

Once a congregation or a person sees Scripture as less than the final,

complete, infallible authority for faith and life, it has thrown open the

door to absolute chaos. Absolute chaos. Can you imagine being in a church,

where when people stand up and say they, "Have a word from the Lord," and

you're supposed to believe it every time? Anybody could claim anything, and

they do. They do, and pass it off as divine truth. And corrupt Charismatic

leaders, the ones that are corrupt, and the ones that are self-aggrandizing

and do it for their own gain, do it all the time.

Perhaps the most brazen example of that is a widely publicized prophecy

delivered by Kenneth Copeland. He claims that Jesus gave him a message

during a three-day victory campaign held in Dallas, Texas. Judge for

yourselves whether this could be a message from the Christ of Scripture. I

am quoting Kenneth Copeland; this is what he said,

It's time for these things to happen, saith the Lord [this is his

prophecy]. It's time for spiritual activity to increase. Oh yes,

demonic activity will increase along at the same time, but don't

let that disturb you. Don't be disturbed when people accuse you

of thinking you're God. Don't be disturbed when people accuse you

of a fanatical way of life. Don't be disturbed when people put

you down and speak harshly and roughly of you; they spoke that way

of me, should they not speak that way of you? (And again he's

quoting Jesus) The more you get to be like me, the more they are

going to think that way of you. They crucified me for claiming

that I was God, but I didn't claim I was God. I just claimed I

walked with Him and that He was in me. Alleluia, that's what your

doing.

You mean to tell me that Jesus gave him a revelation that said He didn't

claim to be God? Copeland's prophecy is clearly false. The real Jesus, the

Jesus of the New Testament did claim He was God. Using the covenant name of

God He told the Jewish leaders, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham

was, I Am." Is Copeland genuinely a prophet, or is he one whom Peter spoke

of when he wrote, "False prophets also arose among the people just as there

will be false prophets among you."

Now, not all of these bizarre prophecies and visions are as clearly in

conflict with Scripture. Some are merely frivolous, silly. Like the guy

with the blue guitars and the Beatles. Larry Lee wrote this,

Several years ago one of my dear friends said, "Larry, when I was

praying for you the other day I had a vision. I saw you with

great big Mickey Mouse ears. Everything else about you looked

normal except for those elephant sized ears. When I asked the

Lord to tell me what the vision meant, the Spirit of the Lord

spoke back to me and said, 'Larry Lee has developed his hearing;

he has developed his spiritual ears.'"

3( 3

ŠCharismatics have abandoned the uniqueness of Scripture as the only Word of

God and the result is a mystical trivial, silly, and foolish heretical free-

for-all. Longing for something new; longing for something sensational. A

longing for some emotional experience has replaced settled confidence and

diligent study of God's Word, and this invites Satan's deceptive

counterfeits. Melvin Hodges is a Charismatic pastor who has admitted his

strong reservations about these new revelations. He's an honest fellow.

Melvin Hodges is very worried about all of these even though he's a

Charismatic. Let me quote what he says, just to show you that some of them

are concerned.

Today some people tend to magnify the gifts of Prophecy and

Revelation out of their proper proportion. Instances have

occurred in which a church has allowed itself to be governed by

gifts of inspiration. Deacons have been appointed and pastors

removed or installed by prophecy. Chaos has resulted. The cause

is obvious; prophecy was never intended to usurp the place of

ministries of government or of a gift or a word of wisdom. Paul

teaches us that the Body is not made up of one member but of many,

and if prophecy usurps the role of wisdom or the word of

knowledge, the whole Body is dominated by one ministry, that is

prophecy. In other words, the whole Body becomes ruled by the

prophetic member. The idea that the voice of prophecy is

infallible has confused many people. Some have felt it is a sin

to question what they consider to be the voice of the Spirit.

However, in the ministry of all gifts there is cooperation between

the divine and the human.

What's he saying? Absolutely nothing! But he understands there's a problem,

but he hasn't got clue one how to deal with it. He didn't say anything. He

didn't say a word about anything. He didn't give you any criteria to judge

anything. All he's saying is that we got to cooperate, we can't have too

many prophecies, but he has nothing to say about how do you know it's true or

not true. He wants a way to resolve the confusion, but there isn't any!

Now, not all Charismatics would agree that the problem of abuse is one of

overemphasis. Some think people just aren't well trained enough. One group

has started a School of the Prophets. I'm quoting from their literature,

Perhaps you feel that you have been called to be an oracle of the

Lord; and have had difficulty explaining your experiences or

finding someone that you could relate to and learn from. The

School of the Prophets is designed to help bring grounding and

clarity to the myriad of dreams and visions that are the hallmark

of a prophet and seer ministry, and to assist in the restoration

of the prophetic ministry within the Body of Christ. There are

many that have become disillusioned and disenchanted with the

prophetic ministry because of abuses and ignorant usage of the

gifting. "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." For if

you have had the bitter experience of the counterfeit, know that

there is a reality to discover. Abuses and misrepresentations

occur simply because of the abomination of ignorance. Come and be

trained at the School of the Prophets, so that you will be

properly prepared to fulfill the destiny that God has chosen for

you. 3_ 3

So their suggestion is, you just got to have good training. Take some good

courses and you will be an accurate prophet. Is the distinction, by the way,

between true and false a matter of technique? Is a true prophet a true

prophet because he has gone to school to learn how to do it? Was there a

school to train the Biblical writers? Listen, false prophecy is no Picadillo

(that means a trivial thing, trifling fault). This is a major issue. In

fact, if you were a prophet in the Old Testament and you missed one, you got

killed. They executed you. In spite of this, some Charismatics believe

anybody with any claim to have a Word from the Lord should be believed,

should be heard, and don't even need a "Call" from God. "Charisma" magazine

carried an ad teaching people how to listen to God's voice and talk with Him

24 hours a day. It said they could really be good at it! They were teaching

how to get it and how to pass it on.

It's a lark! No accountability. And of course it points Christians away

from the Scripture which is trustworthy and teaches them to seek truth

through the Word. Nothing in the Charismatic movement is as destructive as a

failure to adhere to Scripture alone. It opens the movement to everything;

worse of all--demonic lies, seduction from spirits, pumping demon doctrine

through hypocritical liars (1 Tim 4). Once you have gone beyond the Word,

you are in chaos and confusion.

I want to conclude with just a brief statement about the close of the Canon

of Scripture, because I think it's important. Jude 3; you might want to look

at it. We'll bounce off of this for just a moment. Jude, chapter 3. It's a

crucial passage on the completeness of the Bible. Jude 3, verse 3, "Beloved

when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was

needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that we should earnestly

contend," now listen to this, "for the faith which was once for all delivered

unto the saints." Literally, the Greek text says, "The once for all

delivered to the saints, faith." In the Greek text the definite article

"the" preceding "faith" points to the one and only faith, there is no other.

The one and only true faith. Such passages as Galatians 1:23 refer to

preaching the faith. First Timothy 4:1, "Some will fall away from 'the'

faith." And so it is an objective use of the expression "the faith."

Greek scholar, Henry Alford is right when he says, "faith here is objective,

it means the sum of that which Christians believe. It is not subjective

faith; that is, believing in a verbal sense. It is a sum of what we believe,

the Christian faith." "The Faith," he says, "is once for all delivered."

"Once for all" is hapax (Greek), it refers to something done once and no

more. Done once and no more. It has lasting results; it never needs

repetition. The faith was once for all delivered. Delivered. The Christian

faith then is complete. It is unchangeable, which is to say, that it does

not need to be fixed; it does not need to be edited; it does not need

additions or deletions. Every doctrine and every revelation that has arisen

since is a false doctrine or a false revelation. All claims to additional

revelation are false claims and must be rejected.

The word "delivered" is important as well. In the Greek it is an Aorist

Passive Participle which in this context indicates an act completed in the

past with no continuing element. An act completed in the past with no

continuing element. Once in the past, once for all, never to be repeated,

the faith was delivered. And so through the Scriptures, God has given us a 3– 3

Šbody of truth that is final and complete. Our Christian faith rests on

historical and objective revelation. That rules out all prophecies, all

seers, all forms of new revelation until God speaks again in the end times.

Now you can see the pattern of this even in looking at Scripture. The Old

Testament was written. The final books, Ezra and Nehemiah, they're not the

final ones in your Bible chronologically, but they were the final ones

written. There was a rearrangement of the order of the books. But after the

time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Old Testament was completed, there was no

more revelation. Four hundred years of silence. No prophet spoke God's

revelation. For four hundred years, no prophet spoke. Why? God was making

a point, the revelation is complete, it is done. And no prophet existed for

four hundred years. And God was punctuating the completion of the Old

Testament Canon with silence and sending a message to us that said,

"Revelation doesn't go on all the time, it has an ending point."

The silence was finally broken and a prophet came. He was related to the

Messiah and his name was John the Baptist, and God began to speak the New

Testament revelation. And when the New Testament revelation was

done--revelation was done. The last book was Revelation, penned by John in

96 AD, and it was over. By the Second Century, the complete Canon (the word

canon means standard, rule, faith and practice), the complete New Testament

exactly as we have it today was popularly recognized. Church councils in the

fourth century made it official, the Canon was complete. And from then on

God has been silent as to revelation. Just as the close of the Old Testament

was followed by silence, the close of the New Testament has been followed by

the utter absence of new revelation in any form. Since the Book of

Revelation was written there has been no new written or verbal revelation

from God. Scripture is the test of everything, it is the Christian's only

standard.

Spurious books have been offered. The Roman Catholic Church includes the

Apocrypha. The Roman Catholic Church accepts it as Scripture but it is not.

If you study it you will find, as I did when I studied it in seminary, there

are errors of history, errors of geography, and gross errors in theology.

Jerome, who lived from 345AD to 419AD was a spokesman for excluding the

Apocrypha books. Some of the early Church fathers, most notably, Augustine,

did accept them, though not necessarily on a par with the Hebrew Old

Testament. Finally, in the 16th Century the Reformers affirmed "Sola

Scriptura," the truth the Bible alone is authoritative, denied the Apocrypha

any place among the inspired writings. It never had had any and it shouldn't

of have. The Roman Church reacted against the Reformers in the Council of

Trent from 1545 to 1563, stating that all of the Apocrypha was canonical.

And Protestants and Catholics have maintained the disparity to this day. If

you have a Catholic Bible you'll find the Apocrypha is in the middle. Those

are spurious, uninspired books.

How did Christians know the inspired books from the ones that weren't

inspired? There were three tests. One was Apostolic Authorship. It was

written by an Apostle or a close associated of an Apostle. For example, Mark

was not an Apostle but the companion of Peter who was. Luke was not an

Apostle but worked closely with Paul who was. A second test by the early

Church was content. Was the content consistent with Apostolic Doctrine? Was

it absolutely accurate doctrinally? This was very important because the

heretics were writing the false books, but in all of the false books there 3Í 3

Šwas false teaching because why would a heretic write a book about truth?

He'd want to get a heresy in. Heretics tried to worm their way into the

Church. Their doctrinal errors were easily spotted because they contradicted

the Apostle's teachings. A third test was the response of the Churches: if

God's people accepted it, used it for worship, made it a part of their lives.

If Christians were universally being taught and blessed by the Book that was

another stamp of approval.

By 404 AD, the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible was complete. It was the

earliest known translation of all 66 books of the Bible, and they were the

very same 66 in 404 AD that we have in our Bible today. God spoke once for

all, delivered it and preserved it through the ages and you have it exactly

the way he delivered it. True churches always believed the Bible is

complete. The Charismatic movement doesn't believe that. Now, they want to

deny that they are adding to Scripture, but their views on prophetic

utterance, prophetic gifts, knowledge, wisdom, visions, dreams, revelations,

add to Scripture. Unwittingly, they undermine the uniqueness and the

authority of the Word of God. You see, Christians can't play fast and loose

with inspiration and revelation, or they will never be able to distinguish

the voice of God, from the voice of man, from the voice of Satan.

The Holy Spirit is working mightily, I believe, in the Church today, but not

in the way that most Charismatics think. The Holy Spirit's role is to

empower the Church to preach the Word; to empower the Church to teach the

Word; to empower the Church to write about the Word, that it might be

understood. The Holy Spirit is empowering the Church to worship according to

truth, to witness to the truth and proclaim it, to grow by the study of the

Word, and to serve as the Word calls and commands. He does lead us into

God's truth and He directs us into God's will for our lives through the Word,

not through new revelation. "God told me," is a dangerous and heretical

model for anyone to take, because it opens to chaos, confusion, mysticism,

subjectivism, demons and deception.

"All Scripture, given by inspiration of God is profitable." It is completely

profitable. It is so profitable that the man of God is made perfect by it

thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Right? And the Scripture is

sufficient; we need nothing more than this. And once you introduce any more

than this the chaos is irretrievable. That's the tragedy of the Charismatic

movement and that is why it is in chaos. That is why there are some people

in the movement who are tearing their hair out because they can't control

what's going on. But once you allow for additional revelation its gone,

there's no control. This Word is all that God wanted us to have "Once for

all delivered."

Let's bow in prayer. Father, we thank you for the affirmation again tonight

as we think through these things. That your Word is sufficient. That we

have a faith once for all delivered to the saints. It had a beginning and an

end. You spoke and then you were silent, and now you work to implement and

apply and proclaim this already revealed truth. We pray for people caught in

the confusion of new revelations, the chaos. Who thus are turned away from

the single authority of Scripture and the responsibility to diligently study

it and find themselves running after and pursuing mystical experiences that

mean nothing. That is nothing holy and righteous but things confusing and

even demonic. Deliver folks from that Father. Take them into the green

pastures of your Word where their souls are fed with all the nourishment they 3 3

Šcould ever need. We thank you for this treasure. Nothing is to be compared

with it. We acknowledge the great gift that it is, and desire to live by it.

In Christ's name. Amen.

*****************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-54, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 3. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Scriptures quoted in this message are from the New American Standard Bible.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 3

John MacArthur

In our study of this most fascinating and important subject of the

Charismatic movement in our contemporary time, we come tonight to message

number three in our series; and we are going to be building on the prior

message dealing with "Does God still give Revelation?" as we talk about "Are

there still Prophecies from God?", another very important component of

understanding and assessing the Charismatic movement.

Certainly, in my mind, the most disturbing aspect of the Charismatic movement

and their thirst for supernatural experience and supernatural encounter is

their claim that God is still revealing Himself verbally to them. As we saw

in our last study, they claim that God is speaking to them: that is a

constant claim. In fact, there probably is nothing more commonly expressed

among Charismatics than that, "The Lord told me!" Or, "Jesus told me!"

They believe that the Lord is still telling them specific things in specific

terms. God is still breathing out revelation.

It has been a curiosity to me and should be to us, I think, that if God is

still giving revelation, the only ones that He gives it to are Charismatics!

Nobody else seems to be getting revelation with the exception of the founders

of various cults. But apart from the cults and the Charismatics I don't see

people within the framework, the broad framework of Christianity, claiming

revelation.

Now, I want to be very clear that when I talk about the fact that God is no

longer giving revelation, I don't want to be misunderstood. I do believe

that the Holy Spirit does lead Christians. Romans 8:14 says that, "As many

as are led by the Spirit, they are the children of God." I believe the Holy

Spirit guides us. I believe He empowers us to witness, to speak, to write,

to act with Spiritual Power and impact. I believe the Holy Spirit impresses

His will on our minds leading us to praise, leading us to obedience, leading

us to righteousness, leading us to spiritual service. We as believers can be

confident of his moving on our minds to lead us to truth. However, He does

not speak to us in audible words. He does not place inaudible, but specific

words in our minds. He is not breathing out any more revelation.

3; 3

ŠWe noted the importance of understanding that in our last study, and if you

weren't here you'll want to get the tape. You remember that Jude said that,

"Scripture was once for all delivered to the Saints." And when it was

"delivered" it was done. He was not only speaking of past Scripture when he

wrote that, he was speaking of present Scripture which he himself was even

writing, and he was speaking of future Scripture yet to be written by Apos

tles and their associates to complete the New Testament. He identifies the

composite of God's revelation and says, "It was once for all delivered to the

Saints," in God's plan.

And after all the Scripture was complete and "once for all delivered to the

Saints" the Early Church said, "The Canon is closed." Now that word "canon"

needs definition. We mentioned last time that it comes from a word "kanon"

(Greek) which is a reed. That reed was used as a measuring stick, and so the

word "kanon" in the Greek came to mean a rod, or a bar, or a measuring rule,

or standard, or limit. We would call it a measuring rod, or a measuring

stick, a ruler, a yardstick; something by which other things are measured.

In the more spiritual sense it became a standard by which you measure truth.

The Scripture metaphorically then became the standard of all truth; the

standard of all spiritual ideas, concepts, and theology. And so the Canon of

Scripture, that is Scripture completed, and the rule was "once for all

delivered to the Saints."

Just to give you a little deeper insight into that, the Old Testament Canon

was closed about 425 B.C., 425 years before Christ. The last prophecy was

written by Malachi, [and] placed into the Canon. There was no question which

books were inspired by God. No question. It was clear to the people of God

what they were. In fact, under the leadership of the scribe Ezra, there was

some work to pull all of that together, and the consensus of the people of

God was very clear on what the 39 inspired books were. How did they know?

Two simple ways. One, the writer, well known to be a spokesman for God,

claimed to be speaking and writing the inspired Word of God. First

principle, the writer, well known as a spokesman for God claimed to be

speaking and writing the inspired Word of God. Second principle, there were

no errors of history, geography, or theology at all in the book. And if the

writer was familiar to them, claimed the inspiration of God, and wrote

without error, they knew they had inspired revelation.

Now there were many attempts made by Satan to infiltrate the Old Testament

Canon with uninspired books. At least 14 of them have been accumulated and

together they are called the Apocrypha. You find them in a Roman Catholic

Bible. They are not a part of our Bible. They are not inspired books. They

are books: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, the Wisdom of

Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), Baruch, the

Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,

the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. All spurious. We call them

Pseudepigrapha--false writing. They were clearly fakes. How do we know they

were fakes? They were written long after the canon was completed and they

lacked the prophetic quality and authorship to stamp them as inspired

Scripture. None of their writers claimed divine inspiration and some openly

disclaimed it. And Apocrypha books contained errors of facts, errors of

ethics, errors of doctrine. For example, some of the Apocrypha books

advocate suicide. Some of them advocate assassination and some of them teach

praying for dead people. Therein lies one of the reasons you find them in a 3r 3

ŠCatholic Bible. The Old Testament Canon was unquestioned; it is still

unquestioned because it is so evident what was inspired.

The New Testament writers then came together to write the remaining 27 books

of Scripture. And they had similar tests to determine a book's canonicity.

One, was the book authored by an Apostle or someone closely associated with

an Apostle? They knew who the Apostles were and they knew who their close

associates were. The key question about the book's inspiration was tied to

Apostolic authorship or one closely associated. For example, the Gospel of

Mark was written by Mark, and Mark was not an Apostle but a close associate

of Peter, who was. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written by

Luke who was not an Apostle but a very close associate of Paul, who was. The

Apostles were known to the people, their associates were known to the people,

and when Apostles wrote and claimed inspiration the people were secure in the

veracity of their writings.

Another test applied by the Early Church was the test of content. Did the

writings square with what the Apostles taught? In those early years of the

Church, heretics such as the Gnostics tried to slip in phony books, but none

of them ever made it. If it didn't square with Apostolic doctrine--it didn't

pass. And the doctrinal aberrations were very easy to spot.

A third test was this, "Is the book regularly read and used in the churches?"

In other words, did the people of God readily accept it? Read it during

worship and make its teachings a part of their daily living?

A final test was determined that would sort of pull it all together, and that

was the book recognized and used by succeeding generations after the Early

Church?

All of those tests applied leave us with the 27 books that we have in our New

Testament. They all were written by authors who were either Apostles or

closely associated with Apostles. Their content is in complete and total

agreement and harmony with all the teaching of the Apostles, and with all

other books of the New Testament and Old Testament. All 27 of them were read

in the churches and used by the Church and by succeeding generations even

until now. There was also a formidable group of fakes that came in the New

Testament period, books like the, "Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of

Peter, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Shepherd of Hermas." And then there were

false books called, "the Gospel of Andrew, the Gospel of Bartholomew, the

Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip." They all failed to make it in

because they couldn't pass the test of authenticity.

The false books then of the Old Testament and New Testament, what we call, as

I said, Pseudepigrapha, were attempts to pollute the Biblical text with

spurious revelation. Now, listen to me. That attempt didn't end in those

days; it is still going on and before we are done tonight we are going to see

that in clear terms. People and groups have continued to claim their works

and their writings are inspired by God, and are true, and authoritative and

binding. And whenever they do that, it leads to aberrant doctrine.

Revelation 22:18 warns about this, it says, "I warn everyone who hears the

words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds anything to them, God will

add to him the plagues described in this book."

Now, someone will scoff and say, "Well, that's only a warning that applies to 3© 3

Šthe Book of Revelation and not the entire Bible." Before you congratulate

yourself, by the way, too loudly on such reasoning, realize this, Revelation

is the last book ever written, all the way as late as 96 A.D. It is the last

book penned; it is therefore the last book in the Bible. Therefore, if you

add anything to the Book of Revelation, you are adding it to the Bible and

you put yourself in danger of the curse of Revelation 22:18.

Now, someone will immediately say, "Now, wait a minute. If that's true then

why don't these people who add to the Bible go up in smoke? Go up in flames

or have some personal holocaust that takes their life." Well, one thing is

clear, God does keep His word. He doesn't keep it by your timetable or mine

but by His own; and He may be withholding the force of that curse until

"Judgment Day." Christ has put His stamp of authority on the Scripture. The

Church has clearly discovered the Canon of God's Word under the guidance of

the Holy Spirit, and has abandoned every spurious attempt to pollute it with

false writing. To add anything to Scripture or to downplay the singular,

unique, inspiration of Scripture, then is to not only go against the Word of

God and the warning of Scripture and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles,

but it is to bring yourself into the very dangerous place where you are

susceptible to the curse of God. And, of course, what happens when you

introduce something as true is [that] you open up a spiritual free-for-all,

unintentionally perhaps.

The Charismatic movement today has initiated that free-for-all as serious as

any error in that movement is the error of claiming revelation from God. It

is reckless; it is indiscriminate. Now, within that revelation claim, there

is a specific category that I want to deal with tonight and that's the matter

of prophecies.

Yesterday, I was watching television, and I have been watching Channel 40

frequently lately, in order to glean some illustrations of this. And a

preacher from Texas, by the name of Larry Lee came on and told about a

prophecy that he had had, that he [then] gave to a certain individual.

Verbatim, God gave it to him; verbatim he gave it to this certain individual.

This is common. This was not any big prophecy with far reaching implications

or application; this was a personal prophecy for one guy, and he repeated

that prophecy from God that was given to that man as expressing the very will

of God, in the very words of God. This is routine for them.

There has arisen recently a very interesting group that is sort of leading

the prophetic parade, if we can call it that, and they come from Kansas City.

They have gathered the name, "The Kansas City Prophets." They are the

subject of much writing today. They are self-proclaimed prophets in Kansas

City and they serve as a good example of how far prophetic abuses can go.

They are very popular. I was shocked, absolutely shocked, to find out within

the last week, that one of their leaders is speaking in Westminster Church,

the Church of G. Campbell Morgan and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in the city of

London. That is the level to which they have ascended, these Kansas City

Prophets.

Invited to speak as guests in a Kansas City church, these self-styled

prophets each prophesied that, "The Lord had told them that the Church was to

disband. That the Church's leaders had no right to challenge the prophecy

and that if the Church failed to heed the prophecy, 'Ichabod, the Glory Has

Departed,' would be written above the door." Now, imagine a man coming into 3à 3

Šthe pulpit of this Church, telling you he had a "Word from the Lord" that

you're to disband, and if you don't disband according to the "Word from the

Lord," Ichabod would be written over your Church.

The Prophets had allegedly received a message from God saying that all the

Christians in Kansas City were to be under the authority of the Prophets'

home church. So that all the Christians of Kansas City were to leave their

churches and go to the Church known as the Kansas City Fellowship. Similar

prophecies were delivered in and around Kansas City and other churches and

incredibly, one church at least, actually responded by dropping its ties with

the Assemblies of God and aligning with the Kansas City Fellowship. Now

that's a novel approach to "Church Growth!" But it has more in common with

the methodology of cults than it does with the work of the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, the Kansas City Prophets admit that they have prophesied

falsely on occasion--they admit it. They specialize, they say, in predictive

prophecy. They foretold, for example, that a nationwide revival would sweep

across England in June of 1990, one year ago. Hundreds of thousands were

going to turn to Christ and the movement would then spread to the entire

European Continent. Like many of their predictions, the revival never

materialized. One of their prophets concocted a novel explanation of why so

many of their prophecies go unfulfilled, and I am quoting, here's what he

said:

I figure, if I hit two-thirds of it, I'm doing pretty good. God

told me that, "If I release the 100% Rema (sp.) right now, the

accountability would be awesome, and you'd have so much 'Ananias

and Sapphira' going on that the people wouldn't grow, they'd be

too scared." But He said, "If it was 'on target' it would kill

instead of scaring the people to repentance."

Now, I don't even know what that means. But apparently what he meant was,

God told him I have to be wrong once and a while or people would be too

frightened of what I say. Kansas City Fellowship Pastor, Mike Bickel (sp.)

adds, "Now, the 'two-thirds,' you know when Bob first said it, I said, 'two-

thirds?'" He said, "Well, that's better than its ever been up to now, you

know. That's the highest level it's ever been." In other words, these so-

called prophets claim they have a "Word from the Lord" but the odds are one

in three at best that it will be false! No wonder their prophecies have

thrown so many churches into hopeless confusion. And what a blasphemy

against the God who is supposed to be the author of these.

Oddly enough, despite their poor track record, the Kansas City Prophets have

garnered an international following. They have aligned with John Wimbers'

(sp.) Vineyard Christian Fellowship, and they now speak worldwide about the

modern day prophetic ministry. In a forward to a book endorsing the Kansas

City Prophets, written by Dr. John White, he writes:

Battles about prophets have plagued the Church from time to

time. Early last century it was the Irvingite Controversy in

London with the leading prophet having to confess after years

that he had been deceived. Many of us have found that hearing

from God is no easy thing. In fact, the Church has had so many

bad experiences with prophets that we now react too rapidly and

fearfully. We could be in danger of discarding a live baby in 3 3

Š our horror over dirty bath water.

My question is, "Who says there's a baby in the dirty bath water?" White,

for example, fiercely defends the Kansas City Prophets, although he

acknowledges that they have, "made mistakes." He seems to believe that

criticism of them is inherently Satanic. Quoting White he says:

Satan fears those words that come fresh from God's lips.

Because Satan so dreads the fresh word, he will arouse

controversy wherever it comes forth miraculously through the

lips of a real prophet, or from the lips of an Evangelist,

aflame with the Spirit.

Now, do you see what a trap that is? Because if you hear a prophecy and you

reject it--Ah! Ha! That's satanic! So you're trapped. Curiously, White

believes that controversy about the Kansas City Prophets is strong evidence

of their genuineness. In a section titled (mistitled really), "Beware of

False Prophets," White quotes Jesus' warning about false prophets in Matthew

7:15, Matthew 24:11, and Mark 13:22. Then White writes this, listen to this:

We are warned that it is to happen. Most scholars feel the

words of Jesus apply particularly to the last days. They may be

approaching us now. How are we to discern the false from the

true? For one thing, true prophets will be unpopular.

Listen to me, let me say this as plainly as I possibly can, that is the worst

imaginable starting point for a discussion of how to discern false prophets!

Whether they're unpopular or not doesn't mean anything. Jim Jones was

unpopular, except with a few deceived souls. Certainly, those who speak

truth are often unpopular, but notoriety and unpopularity is not a test of

authenticity. Saddam Hussein is unpopular! And Jesus and John the Baptist

went through periods of their ministry when they were enormously popular.

That doesn't prove anything. The only test of a true prophet is the accuracy

of his prophecies.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not

spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not

come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken.

The prophet has spoken it presumptuously." Simple, Deuteronomy 18:21-22, "If

it isn't true it isn't from God!" And what was the penalty under the Law for

such a prophecy? Verse 20 adds, "But the prophet who shall speak a word

presumptuously in My name which I have commanded him to speak. . .that

prophet shall die." There weren't in those days a lot of false prophets

running around loose. Astonishingly, in a five page discussion, of how to

discern false prophets, White never once, in five pages, never once speaks of

accuracy or truthfulness as a test of their integrity. In fact, he

explicitly states that he believes that those are not valid tests of a

prophet's credentials!

He believes that lying prophecies do not necessarily disqualify a person from

speaking for God. He concludes his section on discerning false prophets with

this statement, "Prophets are, of course, human beings. As such, they can

make mistakes and lie. They need not cease to be prophets for their mistakes

and failings." That statement not only betrays an appalling ignorance of

Scripture, but it betrays a very strong desire to legitimize prophecy at any 3N 3

Šcost. Biblically a prophet spoke the mind of God. Every prophetic message

contained a "Thus saith the Lord," if not explicitly, implicitly. A prophecy

in the Biblical sense is not the prophets opinion, it's not the prophets

speculation, it is the Word of God and it could never be wrong--never! It is

not a mere impression on the prophet's mind. It is not a guess. It is not a

divination. It has nothing whatever to do with sooth saying; it is a Word

from the Lord. And the Lord never made a mistake. And since the prophet

speaks a Word from the Lord, he was held to the highest level of

accountability and judged with the utmost severity if he prophesied falsely.

It stands to reason that since a prophet is a mouthpiece for God's own words,

every authentic prophecy would be true, reliable, and inerrant. Otherwise,

God's a liar, for we must downgrade the meaning of prophecy and embrace some

secondary level of inspiration where you sort of give your opinion. We would

have to devise some kind of theory in which God somehow enables contemporary

prophets to deliver a message that maybe true or maybe false; it's sort of

"up for grabs." Beloved, the ecclesiastical landscape is literally filled

with Charismatics who are saying, "God talked to them and God gave them

prophecies," and they are pushing those prophecies at the Church. That is

serious, that is disastrous, and the results of it are all around us.

Last Sunday, in connection with talking about discernment, I quoted from Bill

Haman (sp.), who wrote an article in the magazine called Charisma, which is

one of the chief magazines of the movement. And in that article he shared

his belief about prophecies and I need to repeat that because you need to

hear it in this context. Haman believes:

"All personal prophecies are conditional, whether or not any

conditions are made explicit." That is, he says, "Prophecies

can be canceled, altered, revised, reversed, or diminished. For

prophecy of this kind to come to pass requires the proper

participation and cooperation of the one who receives the

prophetic word."

So in Haman's scheme, the fact that prophecy goes unfulfilled is no proof it

was false to begin with! If circumstances change or if the prophet himself

lacks faith, God may change the prophecy in any way or even cancel it. So

everything is "up for grabs." First, he may be right, he may be wrong. If

he's right, and he doesn't follow through with the right amount of faith, or

circumstances change, even though it once was right, it now is wrong. It

should come to pass, it might not come to pass, if it does come to pass it's

ok, if it doesn't come to pass it's ok. Just, endless, useless double talk!

Obviously, Haman would deny that he puts modern prophecy on the same level as

Scripture, but in practice it is absolutely impossible to discern any

distinction.

Now how do you determine if a prophecy is true? Here's what Haman says,

listen to this:

I have sometimes heard people say, "I didn't witness with that

prophecy," but after questioning them, I discovered that what

they really meant was that the prophecy didn't fit their

theology, personal desires, or goals, or their emotions reacted

negatively to it. They failed to understand that we don't bear

witness with the soul, the mind, the emotions, or will. Our 3… 3

Š reasoning is in the mind, not the spirit. So our traditions,

beliefs and strong opinions are not true witnesses to prophetic

truth. The spirit reaction originates deep within our being.

Many Christians describe the physical location of its

corresponding sensation as the upper abdominal area.

What is he saying? He is saying, "Ignore your beliefs. Ignore your

theology. Ignore your reason. Ignore your logic. Ignore your common sense,

and wait for a feeling in your upper abdominal area, so you will know whether

a prophecy is true!" Foolish! Nonsense! That kind of thinking, however,

permeates the Charismatic movement. In the end, many prophecies are judged

on nothing more than some kind of feeling in the gut. That is precisely why

error and confusion run rampant in the Charismatic movement. You cannot have

an approach to theological data like that without having Satan move in and

confuse everybody. The fact remains throughout the history of the Church, no

genuine revival, no orthodox movement has ever been led by people whose

primary authority was based on private revelations from God. None in the

history of the Church. Many groups have claimed to receive new revelation,

but all of them have been fanatical, heretical, cultic, and fraudulent. Both

Charismatics and Non-Charismatics need to consider whether there is a

parallel between these groups and the modern Charismatic movement. It moves

more, and more, and more into heresy and aberration, because it is not

controlled by the Word of God.

Several major heresies will illustrate this for you, and I will give you a

little history flow here. Let's take an old one from the second century,

Montanism. Montanism. Montanus was a second century heretic from Phrygia,

who believed he was a prophet sent by God to reform Christianity with new

revelation. He believed he was inspired by the Holy Spirit in all his

teaching and he wrote the very Word of God, and spoke the very Word of God.

Two "so called" prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, were instrumental in

the spread of Montanism. And I warn you at this point, that in most cults

there has been a dominating influence by a woman, which, of course, steps

outside the provision of Scripture, indicating clearly to us that women are

not to teach in the Church, but are to learn in submission. And so, there is

a reversal of that kind of role, usually in cultic activity. It was true in

Montanism back in the second century.

Of these women, Eusebius, one of the early fathers wrote, "Montanus also

stirred up two women and filled them with the bastard spirit, so that they

uttered demented, absurd, and irresponsible sayings." Some historians have

taken that to mean that these women spoke in tongues. Hippolytus, another

early writer, wrote about the Montanists and said this, and, of course, these

have been translated into English. He said of the Montanist:

They have been deceived by two females, Priscilla and Maximilla,

by name, whom they hold to be prophetesses, asserting that into

them the Paraclete Spirit entered. They magnify these females

above the Apostles and every gift of grace, so that some of them

go so far as to say that "In them there is something more than

Christ." They introduce novelties in the form of fasts and

feasts, abstinences, and diets of radishes, giving these females

as their authority.

Montanism spread rapidly throughout the early church and reached Rome by the 3¼ 3

Šsecond half of the second century. Eusebius described its birth and early

growth with these words:

Montanus, they say, first exposed himself to the assaults of the

adversary through his unbounded lust for leadership. He was one

of the recent converts and he became possessed of a spirit and

suddenly began to rave in a kind of a ecstatic trance and to

babble jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of

the Church, which had been handed down by tradition from the

earliest times. Some of them had heard his bastard utterances;

rebuked him as one possessed of a devil, remembering the Lord's

warning to guard vigilantly against the coming of false

prophets. But others were carried away and not a little elated,

thinking themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of the gift

of prophecy.

There you are in the second century. Satan already attempting to counterfeit

and confuse in the Church with supposed new revelation. Tertullian, one of

the leading Church Fathers converted to Montanism in the later years of his

life and wrote this description of a Montanist church service. Here is his

description:

We have among us now a sister who has been granted gifts of

revelations, which she experiences in church during the Sunday

services through ecstatic vision in the spirit. And after the

people have been dismissed at the end of the service, it is her

custom to relate to us what she has seen. "Among other things,"

says she, "There was shown to me a soul in bodily form and it

appeared like a spirit, but it was no more something void of

qualities, but rather a thing which could be grasped. Soft and

translucent and of ethereal color in a form at all points human."

And I ask, "Does that sound familiar?" Tertullian sounds like he might have

been describing a 20th century Charismatic church, and somebody having a

vision of something. Montanus and his followers claimed to receive

revelation from God and they claimed that it supplemented the Bible. They

believed the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouth of Montanus and Priscilla

and Maximilla. Montanus believed he was living in the last days immediately

before the Return of Christ. He taught that the Kingdom would be set up in

his own village, and that the Kingdom would be in Pepuza, and he would have a

prominent role in it. Those and other false prophecies were among the chief

reasons the rest of the Church considered his movement heretical. He opposed

formalism in the Church. He wanted everything to be free flowing, no

structure, no form, let it all happen. And he boldly intimidated Christians

by claiming his followers were more spiritual than those who had only the

dead letter of the Scripture. Sound familiar?

In most respects you might say Montanus held to an orthodox theology,

Trinity, Deity of Christ, etc., but the movement was schismatic. They

believed themselves to be the True Church. The rest of the Church branded

Montanism as a serious heresy to be rejected. Augustine wrote against the

movement and at the Council of Constantinople the movement was decreed the

equivalent of outright paganism.

It's sad to say, but much of the contemporary Charismatic movement could be 3ó 3

Šbranded Neo-Montanism. One Charismatic leader, Larry Christianson, who has

written a very popular book on tongues, [which has been] around for many

years, claims, believe it or not, "The Montanist movement as part of the

Charismatic historical tradition." So even they want to be identified with

Montanus.

Let's move in history to another movement--Roman Catholicism. Roman

Catholicism. You might not understand the close parallel between the

Charismatic movement and the Catholic movement. You might be curious about

why there are so many Charismatic Catholics; that would tell you a little bit

about the affinity that they have for each other. The similarity between the

Charismatic view of revelation and the traditional teaching of the Roman

Catholic Church is worth a look.

A good place to start is with the Roman Catholic concept of tradition. Roman

Catholic scholar, Gabriel Moran, will help us with that. He gives three

classifications of revelation or tradition. Dogmatic Tradition--that is the

revealed truth made known by God in Scripture before the death of the last

Apostle. That would be Scripture. Dogmatic Tradition is often called by

Catholics--Primary Revelation.

Secondly, he says there is Disciplinary Tradition. Disciplinary Tradition.

What does he mean by that? He says, well there is a tradition including the

practices and liturgical rites of the Church, in Apostolic or Post-Apostolic

times that are not a part of divine revelation in Scripture. Disciplinary

Tradition is commonly called Secondary Tradition. Tradition then, said the

French Roman Catholic, George Tafard (sp.), "Was the overflow of the Word

outside sacred Scripture. It was neither separate from nor identical with

Holy Writ. Its contents were the other Scriptures through which the Word

made Himself known."

You ask yourself the question, "Why do they believe in the perpetual

virginity of Mary? Why do they believe in the Immaculate Conception? Where

do they find that? Where do they get Purgatory? Where do they get lighting

candles for the dead? Where do they get that? It does not come out of

Scripture," you say. Yes. But it comes out of their Secondary Tradition,

which is the equivalent of Scripture in terms of its authority. It was

decided by the Pope or the Church or the Council.

Another Roman Catholic with a view similar to what Charismatics are saying

today is Caspar Schatsguire (sp.), who died in 1527. He taught, "That an

intimate revelation from the Holy Spirit is an everyday possibility. Once

known beyond doubt," he said, "It is as binding as the teaching that came

from Christ's own mouth." And there is the third level of revelation.

Dogmatic Tradition and Scripture, Disciplinary Tradition in the ceremonies

and the development of Catholic tradition, and then there is that Personal

Revelation that comes through some revelation from the Holy Spirit that comes

to an individual.

Now all of that raises the question, "Where does the Bible end?" Because of

their interpretation of the word "tradition," Roman Catholic Doctrinal

teaching is utterly opened ended. Church councils and Popes can still bring

in new doctrines, and individuals can have new revelations from the Holy

Spirit. So there is always the possibility of adding something that is equal

in authority to the Scripture. The Council of Trent, meeting from 1545 to 3* 3

Š1563, was convened to solidify Catholic opposition to the Protestant

Reformation. And here is what that Council said:

"The Holy, Ecumenical and General Synod of Trent, having this

aim always before its eyes, that errors may be removed and the

purity of the gospel be preserved in the Church, which was

before promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scripture, and

which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first published by

His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached through His

Apostles to every creature as a source of all saving truth and

of discipline of conduct. And perceiving that this truth and

this discipline are contained in written books and in unwritten

traditions, which were received by the Apostles from the lips of

Christ Himself, or by the same Apostles at the dictation of the

Holy Spirit, and were handed on and have come down to us

following the example of the orthodox fathers, this Synod

receives and venerates," listen to this, "with equal pious

affection and reverence, all the books, both of the New and Old

Testaments together with the said traditions as having been

given from either the lips of Christ or by the dictation of the

Holy Spirit and preserved in unbroken succession in the Catholic

Church."

They have all kinds of revelation. According to that, God has been giving

revelation through the Roman Catholic Church since the New Testament era on.

From the unwritten traditions handed down, it's a short step to the concept

of the infallibility of the Pope, who is the successor (supposedly) to Peter.

And the Roman Catholic theology teaches that when the Pope speaks

"ex cathedra" (that means out of the seat of authority) he does it with

supreme apostolic authority--nothing lacking whatsoever.

Since the Roman Catholic Church then, allows for additional revelation

they're very comfortable in the Charismatic realm, in terms of this

particular issue. They too, like the Charismatics, go beyond the Scriptures.

Their doctrines of Penance, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, Prayers for the

Dead, the whole Sacramental System, doesn't come out of the Bible at all--at

all.

My concern is, the Charismatic movement is building a tradition. An

unbiblical, extrabiblical, tradition that stands alongside Scripture as

equal. They are doing exactly what historic Catholicism did. When you ask,

for example, a Charismatic person, "How important is it to be 'Slain in the

Spirit?'" There are some who would say it's absolutely essential to be

"Slain in the Spirit." When you ask one of them, "Where in the Bible is

slaying in the spirit discussed?" You probably will get an answer that's

something like this, "I'm not sure but its got to be there somewhere!" Press

the issue, "Find it for me! It isn't there." "That doesn't matter, Jesus

told them to do it!" That's the tradition.

Moving into another category, let's talk about Neo-Orthodoxy. Moving away

from Montanism and Catholicism and looking at liberal theology in the form of

Neo-Orthodoxy. It's a term, it's a title for a theology that denies the

inerrancy of Scripture, the inspiration of Scripture. Neo-Orthodox theology

says the Scripture not the objective Word of God, but it's the subjective

Word of God. In other words, it would go something like this, "The Bible, as 3a 3

Šthe words sit on the page, was not written by God. But when you read these

words written by man God can make them alive to you and they become inspired

to you." That's Neo-Orthodoxy. It is not the Word of God, but it becomes the

Word of God in you as God kind of warms it up and makes it apply to you.

Sitting on the shelf it is not the objective Word of God, but some of its

truths will pop out at you and they become to you the Word of God.

J. K. S. Reed puts it this way, "God marches up and down through the Bible

Magisterially, making His Word come to life at any point throughout its

length and breadth. So too it is rightly said that the Bible becomes the

Word of God. The Bible becomes the Word of God by stated and steady

appointment." In other words, God just zaps you with it and it becomes the

Word of God, because of its effect on you.

Emile Brunner (sp.) says, "The Spirit of God is imprisoned within the covers

of the written word, and He is released in your experience." Mystical! So

Neo-Orthodoxy says, "The Bible is not all there is. God is still giving

revelation." C. H. Dodd, one of the most popular Neo-Orthodox writers says,

"If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, it is so, not as the last word."

Not as the last word. God has more to say. If it is the Word of God--its

not the last word. So the inspiration of the Bible depends on subjective

experience.

Now, what do you get then out of this? If you follow the path, God is still

talking, God is still speaking, and prophecies are still coming from the

Lord, you are following the tradition not of historic Christianity, not of

Reformation theology, you are following a tradition of Montanism,

Catholicism, and Neo-Orthodoxy. You're falling into the traps that have led

to those kinds of errors. This is not in line with historic theology.

And one last illustration--the Cults. The Book of Mormon says this, (this is

right out of the Book of Mormon):

Do you not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold!

I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I

have spoken are true. And how do you suppose that I know of

their surety? Behold! I say unto you, they are made known unto

me by the Holy Spirit of God. And this is the Spirit of

Revelation which is in me.

The Book of Mormon says this is the Holy Spirit's revelation. The Mormons

put two other books, written by Joseph Smith, on a par with Scripture, "The

Doctrine and Covenants" and the "Pearl of Great Price." From these "Further

Revelations" pour error, after error, after error concerning God, Christ, the

nature of man, theological chaos, [and] damning heresies. By the way, did

you know what the seventh Article of Faith is in the Mormon religion? Here's

the seventh Article of Faith, listen to it, "We believe in the gifts of

tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues."

They are very comfortable in that arena, because they believe in ecstatic

experiences and extended revelation.

Christian Science, which I always think is a ridiculous name because it isn't

Christian and it isn't scientific. It's like Grape Nuts; they're not grapes

or nuts. Christian Science is another cult. A cult that bases its teaching

on truths supposedly given by God in addition to Scripture. The Christian 3˜ 3

ŠScience Journal, July 1975, states, "Because it is not a human philosophy,

but a divine revelation, the divinity based reason and logic of Christian

Science necessarily separates it from all other systems." It is divine

revelation. That same issue of the Christian Science Journal calls Mary

Baker Eddy "The Revelator of Truth for this Age." Another woman, by the way.

Mrs. Eddy wrote:

I should blush to write of "Science and Health with Keys to the

Scriptures," as I have, were it of human origin and were I,

apart from God, its author. But as I was only a scribe echoing

the harmonies of Heaven in divine metaphysics, I cannot be super

modest in my estimate of the Christian Science Textbook.

She says, I can boast about it because God wrote it. God is its author. And

although the errors of Christian Science regarding God, Christ, and the

Scriptures are well documented in many books, Mrs. Eddy was convinced that

she was used by God to reveal His truth for her day. The truth was that she

was simply a dupe of Satan!

Perhaps the most visible cultists in our nation are called Jehovah's

Witnesses. Tireless in their efforts, they go from door to door spreading

their doctrine of salvation by works, negating the grace of God through

Christ--a damnable heresy. They claim Jesus was a created being, not God the

Son. And how did they come up with that? They got it from God! In

"Watchtower Magazine," it says, "The Watchtower is a magazine without equal

on earth. This is not giving any credit to the magazine publishers, but is

due to the great Author (capital A) of the Bible with its truths and

prophecies who now interprets its prophecies." Boy, God is sure giving a lot

of conflicting theology out.

And then there is the "Worldwide Church of God" founded by Herbert W.

Armstrong, "Plain Truth" magazine, "The World Tomorrow" television program.

And where did they get their start? Mrs. Armstrong had a vision, and the

angel laid out the whole system for Mrs. Armstrong. She told her husband and

a new cult was born. And then there is Sun Myung Moon, self-styled Messiah

from Korea, [who] says he is the divine messenger from God, and God gave him

ultimate truth. "Not from Scripture, not from literature, not from man's

brain," he says.

Virtually every cult, every false teaching ever spawned is built on the

premise that its leader or leaders have access to new revelation. And it

even goes into the New Age stuff all the way from Edgar Casey to L. Ron

Hubbard (sp.) and Scientology, who claim direct revelation of some kind from

God. You see, Charismatic acceptance of modern prophecies represents a turn

down a perilous road away from historic Christianity. The marker may read

"Something More," but the road of new revelation is a path of something less.

Some Charismatics, by the way, are troubled with the problem. Stephen Strang

(sp.) writing in "Charisma" magazine says:

When it comes to something such as personal prophecy, we believe

that extremism is more deadly than when dealing with less

volatile issues. That is because there is an element of control

involved when one individual is able to speak for God to a group

of individuals. It isn't always easy to tell when a person is 3Ï 3

Š really speaking for God or speaking carnally, or maybe even

speaking for the enemy.

What an amazing mess that is. You don't even know who they are speaking for.

We believe there are some who purport to prophesy that actually get their

unusual ability to know the future, not from the Holy Spirit, but from the

Spirit of Divination. That's false by the way, because no spirit, no demon

spirit knows the future, they only know the past. And there are some

Charismatics who are so eager to know God's will, or to get a word from God

to be singled out in service where the special gift may be manifest, that

they are susceptible to spirits that are not from God. In other words, they

want to "show off" so they are vulnerable. Strang (sp.) has identified the

central problem, but he offers no solution, How do we know if a true prophet

is speaking? How do we know if a message comes from an evil spirit or

divination? How do we know if it comes out of somebody's imagination? What

he is saying is, "We don't know!"

Now if we don't draw the line at Scripture, we are hopelessly caught. Once

you go beyond Scripture everything is out of control. Out of control. This

is a major issue. The Charismatics have never given sufficient attention to

it [or] supplied sufficient answer.

In closing, turn to 2 Timothy, chapter 3. 2 Timothy, chapter 3, a familiar

text, I only read it to pull all these "loose ends" in a sense, together.

The question I pose at the end is this, "Who needs new revelation? Who needs

it? Why? Why would God give it? What would be the purpose?" If, listen to

me carefully, the indwelling resident Spirit can lead you into the "Will of

God" then you don't need some more revelation to do it. That's why the

Spirit is there. Right? "As many that are lead by the Spirit are the

children of God." He's there to lead you. You don't need some revelation to

do it--He's there to do that.

Now, secondly, you say that, "Maybe God's giving more revelation because we

need it for our spiritual lives." 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is

inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,

for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be (perfect),

adequate, (complete), equipped for every good work." Listen, beloved, you

don't need new revelation for direction in your life; the Spirit is there to

lead you. You don't need new revelation for the virtue of your life; the

Scripture is able to make you perfect. What's the point of allowing this

confusion? Only this, that Satan uses it to pollute the clear stream of

revelation laid out in the Word, and to confound and confuse the otherwise

discernible leading of the Spirit of God in your life. Be warned of the

prophecies that claim to be from God.

Father, we thank you for the time in the Word tonight. What a very vital

subject. We pray that you will give us discernment, that we might examine

all things; find what is good and cling to it; find what is evil and shun it.

For Christ's sake. Amen.

*****************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-55, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 4. A copy of the tape can be 3 3

Šobtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Scriptures quoted in this message are from the New American Standard Bible.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 4

John MacArthur

Tonight, we have the great privilege, I think, of looking at a subject that

is important to all of us. I am not going to be dealing with a specific

text, although we will cover a number of texts before we are through tonight.

But I want to carry on our special study of "Charismatic Chaos," looking and

evaluating the Charismatic movement from the Word of God, by focusing on the

issue of interpreting the Bible. One of the things that allows for the

Charismatic movement to continue, to move ahead, is that it is engaged in

misinterpretation of Scripture. I know that is a strong thing to say, but it

is true. The movement continues at really an amazing pace, not only in

America but around the world. And as it moves and catapults itself along it

does so at the expense of Scripture.

There is, in my judgment, very little understanding, in the Charismatic

movement, of proper Bible interpretation. Much of what exists in the

Charismatic movement could be eliminated with just some very simple straight

forward basic understanding of how to properly interpret the Bible. It falls

technically under the title "Hermeneutics." Hermenutics is a theologians

word to explain the science of Bible interpretation. And Hermenutics is a

crucial building block in discerning theology. In fact, the absence of

Hermeneutics or misunderstanding of it feeds the Charismatic movement.

Pentecostals and Charismatics tend to base much of their teaching on poor

principles of Bible interpretation.

One of their own, a Pentecostal by the name of Gordon Fee, has written this,

Pentecostals, in spite of some of their excesses, are frequently

praised for recapturing for the Church her joyful radiance,

missionary enthusiasm, and life in the Spirit. But they are at

the same time noted for bad Hermenutics. First, their attitude

towards Scripture regularly has included a general disregard for

scientific exegesis and carefully thought out Hermenutics. In

fact, Hermenutics has simply not been a Pentecostal thing.

Scripture is the Word of God and is to be obeyed. In place of

scientific Hermenutics there developed a kind of pragmatic

Hermenutics. Obey what should be taken literally--spiritualize,

allegorize, or devotionalize the rest. Secondly, it is probably

fair and important to note that in general, the Pentecostal's

experience has preceded their Hermenutics. In a sense, the

Pentecostal tends to exegete his experience.

This is not, as I said, the appraisal of someone hostile to the movement, but

the appraisal of one who is himself a Pentecostal. His assessment is "right

on." You only have to watch the typical Charismatic television program to

see exactly what he is talking about. 3= 3

You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you

happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were

interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the

Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote,

"My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all

things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was

born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life

verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I

was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does

it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred,

he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need

of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need

of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but

now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the

studio audience began to applaud.

At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to

Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking

about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and

bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics

approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a

sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something

that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they

find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord

supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish

ways to approach the study of the Bible.

Perhaps you have heard the familiar story of the man who wanted guidance

about a major decision. He decided to close his eyes, not knowing where to

look, wanted God to answer him. In the dilemma, he open his Bible, put his

finger down to get guidance from whatever verse his finger happened to land

on. His first try brought him to Matthew 27:5, "Judas went out and hanged

himself." Thinking that verse was really not much help, he decided to try

again. This time his finger landed on Luke 10:37, "Go thou and do likewise."

Still undeterred and not ready to give up he tried it a third time and his

finger landed on John 13:27, "What thou doesn't, do quickly." Now I

certainly don't want to vouch for the authenticity of that particular

account, but it does make an important point.

Looking for meaning in Scripture through some mystical process is the way to

get an ill gotten theology. Looking for meaning in Scripture beyond the

Historical, Grammatical, Logical understanding of the context is unwise and

dangerous. It is possible, of course, to substantiate almost any idea or any

teaching from Scripture if you take it out of its context and twist it

around. I remember hearing about the preacher who didn't think women should

have their hair up on their head, because a woman's hair should be down. And

so he preached against what used to be called "Bobbed Hair"--women having

their hair up on their heads. His text was "Top Knot Come Down," taken from

Matthew 24 where it says, "Let those on the housetop not come down." So if

you just pullout, if you just pull out exactly what you want you can probably

get it. We laugh at that because it sounds so bizarre, but that is precisely

the process that many are using to substantiate their experiences or to

invent their theology.

3t 3

ŠNow, the task of hermenutics is to realize first of all that there is a God

given meaning in Scripture apart from you or me or anybody else. Scripture

means something, [even] if it means nothing to me. Understood? It means

something if it means nothing to you. It means something if it means nothing

to anybody. It means something in itself and that meaning is determined by

God the author, not by one who is going through some kind of mystical

experience. The interpreter's task, then, is to discern that meaning; to

discover the meaning of the text in its proper setting; to draw the meaning

out of the Scripture, rather than to read one's meaning into it. The

importance of careful Biblical interpretation can hardly be overstated. We

spend three or four years at the Master's Seminary trying to teach men how to

do this, because it is the heart and soul of effective ministry. In fact, I

would go so far as to say, misinterpreting the Bible is ultimately no better

than disbelieving it.

You say, "What do you mean by that?" Well, what good does it do to believe

that the Bible is God's final and complete word if you misinterpret it?

Either way, you miss the truth. Right? It is equally serious, along with

disbelieving the Bible, to misinterpret it. Interpreting Scripture to make

it say what it was never intended it to say is a sure road to division,

error, to heresy, and to apostasy. In spite of all of the dangers of

misinterpreting the Scripture, today we have these casual people who approach

the Scriptures whimsically, without any understanding of the science of

interpretation and make it say whatever they would like it to say. Perhaps

you have been in one of those Bible studies where you go around the room and

everybody tells you what they think the verse means. Or, worse than that,

"Well to me, this verse means so and so." In the end what you get is a

pooling of ignorance, unless somebody knows what it means apart from them.

The truth is that it doesn't matter what a verse means to me; it doesn't

matter what it means to you; it doesn't matter what it means to anybody else;

it doesn't matter if it means anything to anybody else. All that matters is,

"What does it mean? What did God intend to say?"

Every verse has intrinsic meaning apart from any of us and the task of Bible

study is to discern the true meaning of Scripture. That's why I can come to

you week after week, month after month, year after year, and explain to you

the meaning of the Word of God apart from any personal experience I'm having.

That's irrelevant. The task of the interpreter is to discern the meaning of

Scripture. In 2 Timothy 2:15, it says "Be diligent, or study to present

yourself approved to God as a workman who doesn't need to be ashamed,"

because he's handling accurately the Word of Truth. If you don't handle it

accurately, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. And if you are going to

handle it accurately you have to be diligent; you have to work hard at it.

Clearly, handling Scripture involves both of those things--hard work and

diligence. It must be interpreted accurately, and those who fail to do that

have reason to be ashamed.

Now there is so much to say about this that I can't give you a whole course

in hermenutics. I teach some of that in the seminary as well as other

professors, and I'm not intending to give you a seminary course. But, let me

just suggest three errors that need to be avoided, that are not always

avoided in contemporary interpretation. And they are very simple.

1. Do Not Make a Point at the Price of a Proper Interpretation. 3« 3

It's like the preacher who said, "I have a good sermon if I could just find a

verse to go with it." Do not prescribe your theology and then try to make

the Bible fit it. You might have a good thought, a good idea. It even might

be that the principle that you have in mind is true, but do not allow

yourself to make the point at the price of a proper interpretation.

I remember reading years ago a good illustration of this found in the Jewish

Talmud. One rabbi was trying to convince his people that the primary issue

in life is concern for other human beings. That's good; a good point. We

ought to be concerned about other human beings. But he wanted to illustrate

it so he took them to the Tower of Babel, and he told them that the stones of

the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the building of that through the carrying

of those stones illustrated his point. He said that the builders of the

Tower were frustrated because they put material things first and people last.

Now, where is that in Genesis? "Well," he said, "As the Tower grew taller,

it took a hod carrier (a stone carrier) many hours to carry a load of stone

up. The higher it got the longer the walk." And he said, "If a man fell off

the tower on the way down nobody cared because you only lost a man--not the

bricks. But if he fell off on the way up, they mourned because the bricks

were lost. And that," said the Rabbi, "Is why God confused their language,

because they failed to give priority to human beings over bricks!"

Now, none of that can be found in Genesis 11. None of that can be found in

the Bible. In fact, it totally skews the meaning of Genesis 11. It is true

people are more important than bricks, but that is not the point of the Tower

of Babel. Genesis 11 says absolutely nothing about the importance of people

or bricks. The point is, God is more important than idols, and God will

judge idolatry.

I remember being at a Bible Conference in Wisconsin one time. And I got into

this Bible Conference with another well known preacher, and we were preaching

every night. And one day we were eating lunch and I said, "What are you

going to preach on tonight?" He said, "I am going to preach on the Rapture

of the Church." I said, "Really, the Rapture of the Church. Great!" What's

your text?" He said, "John 11." I said, "What?" He said, "John 11." "I

said, "John 11? The Rapture of the Church isn't even in John 11." He said,

"You wait and see tonight." I said, "Fine, fine." That night he preached on

the Rapture from John 11. That's the resurrection of Lazarus. He

allegorized it; Lazarus was the Church, Martha was the Old Testament saints,

and Mary was the tribulation saints. And he got this thing going. And the

people were just sitting their going, "Deep, deep!" You know they were just

thinking this is the profoundest thing. They couldn't find it anywhere.

They thought he was going deeper than they had capability to go. And

afterwards, he said to me, "Had you ever seen that in John 11?" To which I

replied, as kindly as I could, "No one has ever seen that in John 11!" And

he took it as a compliment! The next night he got up and said, "John

MacArthur told me, 'That no one but me had ever seen that in John 11.'"

Now, I don't want to argue with the Rapture of the Church, but I will argue

that the Rapture of the Church is not in John 11. And if you are going to

make John 11 say something that is true, then you are just as likely to make

John 11 say something that what? Isn't true. That is not the way you

approach Scripture. God has not hidden His truth from us but His meaning is 3â 3

Šnot always instantly clear; it demands hard work. That's why in 1 Timothy

5:17 it says, "Those elders that labor in the Word and doctrine are worthy of

double honor." Because it's hard work. That's why God has given teachers to

the Church; so that we can work hard in understanding God's Word correctly,

instructing people in the Scriptures through persistent conscientious labor

in the Word.

Now, today we have, frankly, a lack of respect for the work of gifted

theologians, a lack of respect for the hard work of gifted expositors who

have spent years studying and interpreting Scripture. In fact, that lack of

respect tends to be somewhat Charismatically characteristic. They tend to

sort of look at all of us that way. I think I read to you the letter from

the lady who said, "Your problem is, you're too much into the Bible. Throw

away your Bible and stop studying." You see Charismatics place more emphasis

on letting people in the congregation say whatever they think Jesus is

telling them the verse means, than to listen to what one writer calls, "Airy

Fairy Theologians." There is a vast difference, by the way, between the

whimsical "kitchen table" interpretations of laymen, and the teaching of

skilled men who work very hard to rightly divide the Word.

I heard a radio interview with a Charismatic woman pastor. She was asked how

she got her sermons up. She replied, "I don't get them up--I get them down.

God delivers them to me." That's an all too familiar thing. I can promise

you that God has never delivered one to me. I haven't "gotten them down," I

had to "get them up." Some people even believe its unspiritual to study.

After all, some say, taking another verse out of context, "Didn't Jesus say,

'For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.'"

So you just go into the pulpit and whatever comes into your mind you say?

And that is why they invent their theology even as they speak. Because they

have no idea what's going to be said until they hear it. We should be

greatly concerned about this ad-lib approach. You never, ever make a point,

true or false, at the price of a proper interpretation. Otherwise, you are

the final authority and not the Word of God.

2. Don't Spiritualize or Allegorize the Text.

Some people think the Bible is a fable to teach whatever you want to get

across. A myriad of illustrations of this, but I remember back when Jerry

Mitchell was on our staff and a young couple came into him for

counseling--marriage counseling. He began to talk with them and after about

30 minutes, he said, "You'd been married only 6 months and you are already on

the edge of a divorce? Why did you ever get married? You're miles apart."

"Oh," said the husband, "it was a sermon that the pastor preached in our

church." "What was the sermon?" "Well, he preached on the walls of

Jericho." "Jericho? What does that have to do with marriage?" "Well, God's

people claimed the city, marched around it seven times and the walls fell

down." And he said, "If a young man believed God had given him a certain

girl, he could claim her, march around her seven times, and the walls of her

heart would fall down." "That's what I did and we got married." "That can't

be true," he said. "Your kidding, aren't you?" I remember him saying that.

"You got to be kidding!" "No, it's true. And there were many other couples

who got married because of the same sermon." Some people believe their

marriages were made in heaven; that one was made in an allegory, and a bad

one at that.

ŠThat's the kind of interpretation that has gone on since the early days of

the Church [and] continues today, especially in the Charismatic movement. I

remember listening to a series on the Book of Nehemiah. The whole purpose of

the Book of Nehemiah, by this Charismatic preacher was to teach Charismatic

doctrine. Jerusalem walls were in ruin and that was representative of the

broken down walls of human personality. Nehemiah was the Holy Spirit. The

King's pool was the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And the mortar between the

bricks was tongues. And what Nehemiah is teaching, is the Holy Spirit wants

to come, rebuild your broken walls through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and

Speaking in Tongues.

I had an opportunity to talk to that preacher about that and we had an

interesting conversation. I tried to show him that, that was nothing but the

invention of his own imagination--read from the New Testament back into the

Old but never the intention of Nehemiah. To which he agreed. That kind of

preaching is a form of "Hucksterism." And as I said, you may come up with a

truth that you teach, but if you spiritualize the text to do it, then you

legitimize spiritualization of any text, which leaves you with any fanciful

conclusion.

For the correct approach, you probably need to go to Jesus and remember when

He was walking on the road to Emmaus, He said, (Luke did), "That beginning

with Moses and with all the Prophets he explained to them the things

concerning Himself in the Scriptures." The word explain is hermeneuo (Greek)

from which we get hermenutics. He carefully interpreted the Old Testament.

He used hermenutics. He is the model of a teacher; He used sound

interpretative methods.

So when we teach the Word of God; when we come to the conclusions that we

come to, we want to be certain that we don't make severe errors:

1. By making points at the price of proper interpretations.

2. By somehow concocting or spiritualizing something that isn't there.

3. By superficial study. Superficial study is equally disastrous. Well, I

have said enough about that not to have to say more.

Now, if that's the case, if we are to avoid doing that, how do we then

interpret the Scripture? Let me give you five sound principles, all right?

If you work through these you'll be on the way to rightly dividing the Word.

1. The Literal Principle

Principle number one we'll call the literal principle: the literal one. When

we go to the Bible, this is so basic, we assume that God is talking to us in

normal speech. Okay? Normal language. Normal, common, everyday

communication. If fact, the theologians use to call it "Usus Loquendi" in

the Latin, meaning, "The words of Scripture are to be interpreted the same

way words are understood in ordinary daily use." If it says "horse," it

means "horse." If it says, "He went somewhere, he went somewhere." If it

says, "house," it means "house." If it says, "man," it means "man." And not

everything is to be extrapolated off into some mystical spiritualization,

allegorization, or whatever. It is literal. We understand Scripture, then,

in the literal sense of language. 3P

Now, there are figures of speech, there are simile, metaphor, hyperbole,

onomatopoeia, whatever else, ellipsis, all of the figures of speech will be

there. There may even be sarcasm, there may even be exaggeration as a

device. There may be symbolism, such as the symbolism in the prophetic

literature, which is obviously symbolic--clearly symbolic. But it is in the

normal language of speech. We use symbols in our language. We say, "That

man is as straight pine tree." Or, "That man is as strong as an ox." Well,

we're using a symbol to make a literal point or statement. So then when we

interpret the Bible, we are not hunting for some extrapolated mystical

experience. Now, the Rabbis really got into this. They started to look for

this long centuries ago, in fact, they use to say that (some of them said)

Abraham had 318 servants. Nothing in the Bible says that, but they said,

the secret meaning of the word Abraham is, in the Hebrew there is only three

consonants in Abraham's name--Br, Ra, Hm. All the rest are vowels or

breathing points. So, if you take the "Br, Ra, Hm," in his name, they had

numerical equivalents in the Hebrew language, and add them up and you get

318! So the secret meaning is that he had 318 servants.

And they were into all that kind of stuff. And it even got more bizarre than

that. There is occasionally, of course, figurative language in Scripture, as

I said. But they are quite evident to us in the normal course of

understanding language. Scripture was not written to puzzle people. It was

not written to confuse them--it was written to make things clear to them.

Even Parables are nothing more than illustrations. They are not

riddles--they're illustrations, and in most cases Jesus explained their

meanings. And in all cases He said that the meaning would be revealed to

those who belong to Him by the Holy Spirit. So we can't abandon literal

interpretation in favor of mystical, allegorical, metaphorical kinds of

interpretation that discard all hope of achieving accuracy and coherence and

throw us into some imaginary field.

I would venture to say that most Charismatic preaching is imagination run

wild, proof-texted. They have, at least the popular part of it; I don't know

whether "most" is a fair thing to say. But the popular part of it that I

hear has much imagination and very little hermenutics. When you do not take

the time to discern the literal meaning you are not serving Scripture by

trying to understand it; then you are making Scripture your slave by molding

it into whatever you want it to say. So we start with the literal principle,

its literal language.

2. A Historical Principle

Now, when the Scripture was written, they understood what was said clearly.

Just like the Constitution: when it was written everybody understood what

they meant. Here we are a few hundred years later trying to figure out what

they meant. Why? Because history is different. Time has passed. Culture

has changed. Circumstances have changed, and even language has changed.

Modes of expression have changed. And so we are trying to get in touch with

an old document and reconstruct what it must have meant to them when it was

written. The same is true of the Bible, only it is much older than the

Constitution. Any ancient document demands interpretation. And so what do

we have to do to interpret it? We have to reset it into its historical

context.

3‡

ŠI am always amazed when I hear someone say, "John 3, 'You must be born of the

water and the spirit,' means you must be born physically and you must be born

spiritually." Have you heard that? And when a woman has a baby, there's

water. We say, "The water breaks and the baby's born--that's born of the

water. And spiritually, you are born of the Spirit." The problem is that in

the Jewish context that wouldn't have been said, because the Jews didn't say

"The water breaks." So what you've done is take an American colloquialism

and read it into an ancient book that would mean absolutely nothing to those

people. The question is, when He said, "You must be born of the water and

the spirit"--what water would they think about? Right? What water was in

the historical setting? The only water they would think about, in their

Jewish context, particularly Nicodemus, would be that of Ezekiel who said,

"The day is coming when God is going to wash you with clean water and put His

spirit within you." And he would have put it into that context, the context

of the New Covenant, not some colloquial American expression for human

birth.

We must then understand the need for the historical principle. When Jesus

walks in, for example, to the Temple courtyard, and said, "I am the light of

the world." Why did He said that? Did He just go around saying strange

things at strange moments? Just, "I'm the light of the world!" And somebody

would say, "What did He say that for?" Or, why would He say, "I am the water

of life, whoever drinks of this water, out of his belly will flow rivers of

living water!" What is He talking about? Why does he outburst with these

obtuse remarks? No, when He said, in John 8, "I am the light of the world,"

He was standing in the Temple courtyard and there was a huge candelabra that

had been lit for eight straight days, in the feast of lights. And it had

just gone out the day before and He walks into that very setting and says, in

effect, 'This thing has gone out but I'm the light of the world and I never

go out. And when He said, "I am the water of life," they were going through

the Hallels, and they were celebrating the water that came out of the rock in

the wilderness, and He said, "There was water then, but it was temporary. I

am the water, and you drink this water--you'll never thirst but you will be a

gushing well of water!"

Always the context gives the meaning. We've got to go back. What are the

historical features? What is the characteristics of the city in which the

believers lived who heard this? What was going on there? What were the

politics? Who was ruling? What was the social pressures? What were the

tensions, problems, and crisis that they were going through? What was the

culture of the day? What was life like? What were customs like? I spend a

great amount of my time researching all of that information so that when I

get into the pulpit, I can make something clear. And I am always amazed, in

fact, it happened a couple of times this morning, people came to me and said,

"You know that passage is so clear--its so clear, I wonder why I have never

seen it before?" The reason it was clear, the reason you understood it, is

because I fed you the context in which it had its significance. It seemed

simple and clear to you, a lot simpler than you know. It is simple to the

one who was there and heard it the first time, but it is more complex to me,

as I have to discern what they heard and how they heard it. That's part of

the process.

To answer the cultural, historical questions, you use Bible dictionaries and

books on history, and Bible handbooks, and commentaries, and books about

Bible customs and so forth and so on. 3¾

3. Grammatical Principle

You go to a text of Scripture and you have to approach it grammatically.

This is called syntax. Lexigraphy is the study of words, syntax is the study

of the relationship of words. You have to learn about verbs and adverbs and

adjectives and you have to learn about infinitives and participles and you

have to learn about prepositions. You have to learn about conjugating verbs

and you have to learn about cases for nouns and substantives. Ablative and

genitive and all of that, accusative, nominative. You learn all of the

structure of language. You have to learn about antecedents, about

relationships. You have to learn about conditional and non-conditional

clauses. You know what makes this really difficult now in seminary? The

latest statistics that I've seen regarding our seminary, and we get the cream

of the crop, we get the finest young men coming out of the universities of

our nation, one out of four of the men coming into the Master's Seminary, one

out of four can pass the basic English exam! One out of four! They can all

talk English. They can all read English. They just don't understand the

structure of language. And because they don't understand the structure of

language, you can't teach them a foreign language until they do.

We have people today, who will never be able to understand the structure of

the foreign languages Hebrew and Greek because they don't even understand the

structure of English, trying to interpret the Bible! Now grammar is not

anybody's favorite subject. Sorry, those of you who teach English. Grammar

is just grammar! It just there and you have to learn it. But it is

essential in interpreting the Word of God. People say to me, "What is the

first thing you do when you prepare a message?" The first thing I do is

study the Biblical text in the original language and learn the grammar and

understand all of the word relationships: go over sentence structure and

grammar so I know exactly what is being said and what modifies what, and how

it all fits together.

In fact, more often than not, when I preach to you, the main idea that I am

trying to get across to you is contained in the main verb. And the

supporting ideas are contained in the participle that modifies the main verb.

Now, you can do this for yourselves by reading commentaries that will help

you in the process; by doing inductive Bible study. Breaking down into

diagraming sentences, remember that terrible thing you use to have to do,

that nobody does anymore? But, that's all a part of discerning grammatical

construction.

4. The Synthesis Principle

The Old Reformers used the expression "Scriptura Intra Pratatum" (sp.). What

that means is that Scripture is its own interpreter. And you use the

Synthesis Principle. What does that mean? That I always interpret a given

passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible. Right? I don't

come across a passage and say, "Wow! This is a new doctrine taught nowhere

else in the Bible." Wait a minute, if you think that passage is teaching a

doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible and appears contradictory to other

things taught in the Bible--you've misinterpreted it. Right? Because

Scripture will be consistent with itself. Why? One perfect author wrote it

all. Who's that? God.

3õ

ŠScripture will interpret Scripture. The Holy Spirit won't disagree with

Himself, and you can interpret the Word of God by the Word of God. That is a

very, very, essential thing. And then one more principle.

5. The Practical Principle

The final question you ask, you go through this whole process, starting out,

"All right what's the literal meaning here?" Then you move to, "What's the

historical background? The context? What are all the grammatical components

here? How does this synthesize with the rest of Scripture? You hear me do

that, don't you? I make a point and then I show you other verses where that

point exists, in order to see that this is the Scripture teaching and

elucidating on its own truth. And then the last question you ask is, "So

what? What does it mean to me? What does it have to do with me? How does

it apply to my life? But you never ask that question until you've gone

through all the other steps. That's right. Most people today read the Bible

and say all right, "What does this mean to me?" And they skip all the stuff

in the middle.

By the way, I would recommend to you a helpful little book, if you want a

good tool that's excellent for you. It's Dick Mayhue's book, "How to

Interpret the Bible." It's a paperback. It will be a tremendous tool for

you. I know that we have it in our book store. You can go in and buy them

all out tonight.

Now, in the process of this, [there is] one more thing that I need to say.

In these five principles of interpreting Scripture, there's another

component, and that's the principle of the Holy Spirit and illumination.

Even when I have taken it literally, and worked through the grammar, and

reconstructed the history, and when I have delved into all the terms and the

words and synthesize it with all of Scripture, all of that effort would come

up empty if it weren't for the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Because He alone knows the things that are coming from God, 1 Corinthians 2

says. And He is the one who teaches them to us. He is the anointing in 1

John 2:27, that teaches us all things.

You remember that verse, 1 John 2:27, John says, "The anointing which you

have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to

teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and

not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him." It's not

telling us we don't need teachers; it's not telling us we don't need those

who guide us, because He's given to the Church Apostles, Prophets,

Evangelists, Teaching Pastors, and even teachers to teach us. And He has

given some the gift of teaching and preaching, so that we can be taught. But

it is an assurance that we can know the difference between the heresy that is

being discussed in 1 John 2 and the truth regarding the Gospel of Christ,

because we possess the Spirit.

It doesn't guarantee that we are going to have the correct interpretation of

every verse in the Bible, even though we do nothing. It doesn't mean we

don't need human teachers. It just means regarding the Gospel, regarding the

basic truth of Christ, we can discern by the Holy Spirit leading--truth from

error.

Now, in closing, just a suggestion, four texts are commonly misinterpreted by 3, 3

ŠCharismatics. And I'll just apply what we have learned tonight to those four

very briefly, to help you understand how easily they could be rightly

understood.

The first one, I want you to turn to it, and we are not going to do all that

we could do because you can buy my commentary or get the tape on the passage

and go through it in detail. But, Matthew, chapter 12, is a good starting

point because they use this quite often to intimidate Christians. In

Matthew, chapter 12, you have the record of the blasphemy against the Holy

Spirit. And you remember that Jesus said, "Anything could be forgiven you,

anything said against the Son of Man, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

will not be forgiven you." If we had the time we could read from verse 22

all the way on, but just go down to verse 31, Jesus says, "Therefore I say to

you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the

Spirit shall not be forgiven."

Now, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Well, if you listen to two

very popular Charismatics, by the name of Charles and Francis Hunter, well

known husband and wife team, who have written numbers of books and speak on

the road all the time, this is what they say. They say, that anyone who

questions tongues, and this is pretty much what you hear from the Charismatic

movement, anyone who questions tongues or any other aspect of the Charismatic

movement is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. They imply that any critic of the

charismatic movement are perilously close to being condemned by Christ for

such blasphemy. Is that what this is teaching? They use this verse to

support that. Does a challenge to Charismatic error equal blasphemy against

the Holy Spirit?

When someone denies that tongues are for today or that the Baptism of the

Spirit is a post-salvation experience, has that person committed the

unpardonable sin? Not according to this passage. In this text you remember

that a demon possessed man was born blind and dumb; [he was] brought to Jesus

and He healed him. The Pharisees heard it; they said, "Jesus casts out

demons by Satan." Remember that? "By Beelzebul," which was their name for

the "Lord of the Flies," the Philistine Satan, the Prince of Evil Spirits.

They were saying Jesus does what He does by the power of Satan.

Now, according to the principles of interpretation which we've just learned,

the first thing to do would be to look at the literal meaning of the passage.

The Pharisees were literally saying, "Jesus Christ got His power from Satan."

All right, we understand that. Let's move to the historical principle.

Jesus' ministry had been going on for two years, and during that time He had

been performing numerous miracles that proved to everyone, really it should

have proved to everyone, that He was God. He was the Messiah. The

conclusion should have been, "He is God!" Their conclusion was, "He

functions under the power of Satan!" They concluded the exact opposite.

Using the synthesis principle, we go a step further. We check other parts of

the Bible and we find that at His baptism Jesus received the Holy Spirit. And

after being baptized, the Spirit of God descended as a dove [and] came upon

Him. And then we learned that when Jesus went out and performed His

miracles, it was the Spirit working through Him. He had yielded Himself up

to the Holy Spirit. And so it was the Holy Spirit working in Him, casting

out demons by the Spirit's power. They were coming along and saying He did

it by Satan's power. 3c 3

Blasphemy, then against the Holy Spirit, was attributing the works of Christ,

done by the Spirit of God, to Satan. That's what blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

It was being exposed to the full revelation of Christ's deity, seeing His

miracles, hearing His teachings, and concluding He's satanic. For that, you

can't be forgiven! Why? Because if you have seen it all and heard it all

and you conclude that He's satanic--you can't get saved! Right? Because

you've concluded exactly the opposite about Christ! That's the blasphemy

against the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12. It doesn't say anything about

tongues. It doesn't say anything about the contemporary Charismatic

movement.

We know that all of us as sinners resist the Holy Spirit. All of us who are

convicted by the Holy Spirit and fight back at that conviction are resisting

and in one way or another blaspheming Him, but still we can be saved. The

only way you can blaspheme to the degree where you couldn't be saved is if

you had had all the revelation and you concluded the opposite of the truth!

You're unsavable! Because, in order to be saved, you have to acknowledge

Jesus as God. Right?

First of all, the sin against the Holy Spirit referred to there is a

historical event. And secondly, if there was some application to us, it

would simply be rejecting Christ when you have full knowledge.

Look at another one, Hebrews 13:8, this is a very brief one, but again its a

classic illustration of the way they work. Almost every Pentecostal Church

you'll go into (certainly in the past this was true) will have a verse in the

front of the Church, in the back of the Church, on a plaque somewhere--it'll

be Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today, and forever,"

Have you ever been into a Pentecostal Church and seen that? It is in most

all of them, or was. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today, and

forever."

Now, why is that important? This is what they say, "If Jesus baptized with

the evidence of speaking in tongues yesterday, then surely He is doing it

today and He'll be doing it tomorrow. And so they used that to say,

"Whatever Jesus did in the past, He's doing now, [and] He'll be doing in the

future. The silliness of that interpretation is that tongues never started

until Acts 2! So, though Jesus is the same yesterday, throughout all the

yesterday of His eternal existence, He didn't do that! You see how obvious

that is? Then you say, "Now, wait a minute. In the yesterday He did

miracles." No, no, no, not in the yesterday of His eternal existence.

Before the world began He wasn't doing miracles. And before the world began

He wasn't sending the Spirit in cloven tongues of fire.

You see what you have here is a statement about the eternal, immutable,

essence of Christ. That He is eternal, yesterday, today, and forever, and

unchanging in His essence. Not that He has always, is, and will always do

everything the same way.

Well, we don't have time to look at the other Scriptures. One favorite they

like is Mark 16, which says, "That these signs will follow those that

believe . . . they will cast out demons, speak with new tongues." They love

to emphasize that. They are not so hot on picking up snakes and drinking

deadly poison. And then it says, "It will not hurt them if they drink it and 3š 3

Šthey will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." They say, "See, we

can heal the sick! And see, we can speak in tongues! And see, we can cast

out demons!" But they don't advocate picking up snakes and drinking deadly

poison! In fact how they handle that--I need to just tell you how they

handle that.

The Hunter's, for example, say,

Well, that only counts if you pick up the snake accidentally.

Is that what it says in Mark's Gospel, "If you happen to pick up

a snake accidentally?" Or, it only matters if you drink the

poison accidentally. In fact, they write, do you notice the

Bible says, "If we drink anything poisonous," it means

accidentally. It won't hurt us. Hallelujah, best insurance

policy we know of.

Now, the problem with their interpretation is its not literal. There is no

accidentally there. Furthermore, historically, He's talking about the

Apostolic age and those who responded to the ministry of the Apostles. They

even go so far as to make the silly remark, "And of course, we all know that

the biggest snake is Satan, and when he bites us, God delivers us from his

deadly poison," which just allegorizes the thing--spiritualizes it. They

play fast and loose.

The concern that I have is to share with you just the sense that there is an

awful lot of irresponsibility in dealing with these texts. And for you sake

and mine, we need not, listen carefully to me, we need not just to criticize

the movement. We need to be able to go beneath and to show where the

critical flaws lie.

One text in closing, and you know it very well, 2 Timothy 2:15. Just to

remind you, so you're armed if you get into any conversation with folks like

this. "Be diligent to present yourself approved of God as a workman who does

not need to be ashamed." And then the last phrase, "Handling accurately the

word of truth." Beloved, this is where we must lay down the law. We must

protect the integrity of Scripture by demanding a proper interpretation.

That phrase, "handling accurately," means "cutting it straight." Paul was a

tent maker and in order to make a tent he had to cut a lot of pieces of

material, either hide or woven hair. If he didn't cut the parts right, like

making a dress or a shirt, that the whole didn't fit together. Right? You

cut the parts right; you sew them together, it works. And he is saying, if

you don't cut the pieces right the whole theology doesn't fit together and

what you've got is people hacking up the pieces and putting together an

obtuse bizarre theology that does not make sense, is not coherent.

We must know how to rightly divide the word of truth. Because if we don't,

mishandling the Scriptures and not interpreting it properly just feeds

endless confusion. And that is why there is so much Charismatic chaos.

Father, thank you for our time tonight and looking over these things and

considering some of the basics of Bible interpretation. Make us faithful.

And Lord help us again to realize that many people in this movement love you

and are victimized. They are victimized by these foolish interpretations

that are given to them very authoritatively, by people who sound convincing.

We pray that your Spirit would give them great discernment. We know that 3Ñ 3

Šyour Spirit will grant them to discern if they are true believers, between

heresy about the gospel and the truth of the gospel. And we can only ask

that somehow your Spirit would lead them to true teachers who will teach them

the right interpretation of Scripture so they would not be confused and thus

miss the privilege and opportunity of spiritual growth and giving you glory

that you deserve. Lord thank you for giving us exposure to those who rightly

divided the Word so that we could follow in their stead. Make us faithful to

that Word which rightly understood, must be applied. And all for your glory

in Christ's Name. Amen.

*****************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-56, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 5. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 5

"Does God Do Miracles Today?"

John MacArthur

In our ongoing study of the Charismatic movement today, I want to jump right

into a subject that I know I can't completely cover. But I want you to learn

to think Biblically about this because I am very concerned about it.

Today, we hear an awful lot of talk about miracles. Somebody says, "I had a

financial need and a miracle happened. The mailman came and in the mail was

a check for just the amount of money I needed. It was a miracle!" Or, you

hear someone say, "I went to the Mall and there was a parking place right by

the entrance. It was a miracle!" Or, a mother might sense something wrong

in an adjoining room and investigate just in time to stop her little toddler

from putting a paper clip into an electrical outlet or something, and say,

"It was a miracle!" Or, maybe you were thinking and praying for somebody and

just seemingly at the time you were doing that, the phone rang and it was the

very person that you were thinking about and they were right there to be

encouraged. And you say, "That was a miracle!"

Well, we call those things miracles, but they are not miracles. A miracle is

a supernatural event which has no human explanation. More than that, a

miracle is a supernatural event which suspends natural law. In other words,

natural law stops and is suspended while God acts; moves back out and then

the natural course continues.

When you find a place to park at the Mall, when you catch your little toddler

just at the right moment, or when you get a check for what you needed, or

when a friend calls at precisely the right moment in time, those would be

acts of providence. Those would be acts whereby God is simply orchestrating

natural events; not suspending the natural, but controlling the natural so

that it does what He wants it to do.

A miracle then is an extraordinary event wrought by God that cannot be

explained by any natural means. That would be the technical definition. It

might sound something like this,

A miracle is an event in nature, so extraordinary in itself, and

so coinciding with a prophecy or a command of a religious

teacher or leader as fully to warrant the conviction on the part

of those who witness it, that God has wrought it with the design

of certifying that this teacher or leader has been commissioned

by Him.

Now, that takes us to another dimension, and I wanted to read that. That's

from Augusta Strong written way back in 1907. And what he is saying there

is, that anytime a miracle occurs, it is associated with the certification of

a teacher or a leader commissioned by God. Theologians prior, of course, to

the Charismatic movement, the Pentecostal movement in this century, were

united in the understanding that miracles did not happen randomly. They did

not happen through history in a "willy-nilly" sort of way. God did not do

them capriciously, or whimsically. There wasn't a continual flow of miracles

at all times and places through Church history, but rather, miracles, that is

God stepping into the natural world suspending natural law, doing something

that had no natural explanation and pulling back out again and letting

natural law then run it course, did that only in certification of a specially

commissioned teacher. In fact, miracles in Scripture all the way from

Exodus through Deuteronomy, to Nehemiah, through the Psalms, Jeremiah,

Daniel, into the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, Romans,

2Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Hebrews--miracles are called "signs and

wonders."

They are signs. And what is a sign for? A sign is to point to something.

And what were they signs of? They were signs authenticating a divinely

commissioned teacher. When God, supernaturally, superhumanly, suspended

natural law, and acted in human history. He did so as a sign to point to a

teacher who was speaking for Him.

I've collected through the years a very large file of supposed miracles.

They range all the way from 1977's newspaper article about Maria Rubio of

Lake Arthur, New Mexico, who was frying tortillas in her kitchen. She

noticed that one of them seemed to have the likeness of a face etched in the

burn marks. She concluded that it was Jesus, and even built a crude shrine

to the tortilla! Thousands of people visited the Shrine of the Jesus of the

Holy Tortilla, and concluded that it was indeed a miracle. "I do not know

why this has happened to me!" Mrs. Rubio said, "But God has come into my life

through this tortilla!" (from the Chicago tribune)

In 1980, in Deptford, New Jersey, Bud Ward, the town's fire dept photographer

was driving with his wife when he accidentally took a wrong turn. Noticing

flames in an abandoned chicken coup behind the Naples Pizzeria, he pulled

into the parking lot and began taking pictures. When the slides came back

from K-Mart Ward's nine year old daughter noticed what seemed to be an image

of Christ in one of the photographs. Word of this discovery spread and soon

people from all over New Jersey were talking about the "Pizza Jesus of

Deptford Township." Several people knelt and prayed under the image

projected from the slide and others asked that the image be projected onto

their chests. Hundreds believed that it was a true miracle. Again,

according to the Gloucester Country Times.

Such apparitions are often seen as miracles. In August of 1986, in Fostoria,

Ohio, the image of Jesus seemed to appear every night in the shadows and rust

marks on the side of a soybean oil storage tank. Hawkers sold thousands of

"I saw the vision" tee-shirts and coffee mugs to those who came to see the

miracle. Nearly a year later, Arlene Gardner of Estill Springs, Tennessee

noticed that when their neighbors turned on their porch light the image of a

face appeared in the glow reflected off her freezer. She believed it was the

face of Jesus, although several observers said it looked more like Willie

Nelson. Arlene and her husband were so convinced that it was a true miracle,

they quit the church when the pastor expressed skepticism.

Well, eventually, such skepticism is a rare commodity these days. People's

hunger for the mysterious and the astonishing and phenomena is at a level

unsurpassed in the history of the Church. It's pretty popular stuff in the

secular world and it has found its way into the Church. Eager to witness

miracles, many people seem willing to believe that almost anything unusual is

a genuine heavenly wonder. The problem with that is, it poses a severe

danger for the Church, because it plays right into the hands of Satan,

doesn't it? False wonders and false signs, false miracles--extremely

believable ones, the Bible tells us will be the primary tool of Satan in the

end times. Jesus said, "False Christs and false prophets will arise and show

great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect."

Then He added, as if knowing that many would ignore the warning, "Behold, I

have told you in advance" (Matt 24:24-25).

Surely in the light of the warning of Jesus and the warnings of the Apostle

Paul in the New Testament, we should have a healthy skepticism on the part of

these supposed miracles. Now, I want you to understand, that I am not by

nature a skeptic. I am not a naturalist and a humanist and an anti-

supernaturalist. I believe in miracles. I believe that every miracle

recorded in the Bible literally happened exactly as the Bible described it.

I believe, for example, that Moses and the Israelites actually walked

through the parted Red Sea and didn't get their feet wet or muddy. I believe

that Elijah raised a widow's young son from the dead. And that fire called

down from heaven was actually heavenly fire and consumed water. I believe

with absolute conviction that Elisha made an axe head float, an iron axe

head. I believe that all the healings signs and wonders attributed to Jesus

in the four gospels happened exactly and precisely as they are recorded

there. And I believe the Apostles literally performed all the miracles which

the New Testament describe.

That's not all. I believe God can still do miracles. I believe all things

are possible with God, as Matthew 19:26 says. His power has not diminished

the least since the days of the Early Church. But even though I believe all

of that and I believe that if God chooses to do something miraculous He can

do it, I am convinced that most of the miracles, signs and wonders, if not

all, being claimed today in the Charismatic movement have nothing in common

with what we know about Biblical miracles. They do not fit the Biblical

criteria. And I am persuaded by both Scripture and history that nothing

like the New Testament gift of miracles, noted in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12,

is operating today. The Holy Spirit has not given any modern day Christians

miraculous gifts comparable to those He gave the Apostles.

Now in spite of that, many Charismatics are making quite remarkable claims.

Oral Roberts, for example, speaking at the Charismatic Bible Ministry

Conference, in 1987, said, "I can't tell you about all the dead people I've

raised. I've had to stop a sermon, go back and raise a dead person." No

less an authority then Dr. C. Peter Wagner, Professor of Church Growth at

Fuller Seminary, School of World Mission, believes such things do happen,

I too now believe that dead people are literally being raised

in the world today. As soon as I say that, some ask if I

believe if it is normative? I doubt if it would be normative in

any local situation but it probably is normative in terms of the

universal Body of Christ. Even though it is an extremely

uncommon event I would not be surprised if it were happening

several times a year.

John Wimber of "The Vineyard" lists raising the dead as one the basic

elements of any healing ministry.

Now, with the supposed large number of people being raised from the dead, you

would imagine that somebody could manage to come up with one who could give

testimony to the validity. But not one modern occurrence of raising the dead

can be verified. You say, "What about Oral Roberts' claim the he has raised

many people?" Well, he was challenged to produce the names and addresses of

the people he raised and he balked. Later he recalled only one incident more

than 20 years before when he had supposedly raised a dead child in front of

10,000 witnesses. "During a healing service," he recalled, "A mother in the

audience jumped up and shouted, 'My baby is dead!'" Roberts said he, "prayed

over the child and it jerked, it jerked in my hand." Roberts conceded that

neither that child nor others he said he had brought to life had been

pronounced clinically dead. "I understand," he hedged, "there is a

difference in a person dying and not breathing and a person being clinically

dead."

Well, what are we suppose to make out of that confusion? It certainly is a

far cry from Jesus raising Lazarus, who had been four days in the grave. And

if, as Dr. Wagner supposes, dead people are literally being raised several

times a year, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that he would bring one

along so that we could meet him or her? The truth is, those who claim

miracles today are not able to substantiate their claims. Unlike the

miracles in the New Testament which were usually done with large crowds of

unbelievers watching who would be skeptical, modern miracles typically

happen either privately or in some religious meeting where there are a lot of

people who are in a wild kind of frenzy expecting a miracle, where it is a

lot easier to fabricate one in the imagination.

And the types of miracles that are being claimed today are absolutely nothing

like New Testament miracles: absolutely nothing like them. In fact, the

types of miracles today could be distinctly seen as different than New

Testament miracles. Jesus and the Apostles instantly and completely healed

people born blind, a paralytic, a man with a withered arm, all obvious

indisputable miracles. Even Jesus' enemies didn't challenge the reality of

His miracles and He had the people there to verify them. He raised the dead,

of course, as we well know. They never did a miracle that was slow. They

never did a miracle that took time. They never did a miracle that was less

than permanent. By contrast, most modern miracles are partial, gradual,

temporary, sometimes reversed and almost impossible to verify. And the only

instant miracles today seem to be those that deal with psychosomatic

diseases. People with visible disabilities are rarely, if ever, helped at

all by modern faith healers.

I recently watched a televangalist interview a man he had supposedly healed

of lameness. The man said he was free from his wheelchair for the first time

in several years, however, the man was walking with crutches and had heavy

braces on his legs. That's not a miracle at all like any in the Scriptures.

No modern miracle worker claims the kind of unequivocal success seen in the

ministry of Christ and His Apostles.

Now there are some in the Charismatic movement who try to defend these

supposed miracles which are not verifiable by saying that Jesus Christ is the

same yesterday, today and forever, so it's the same Jesus today. The Holy

Spirit is still with us today, and therefore with Him we have the Age of

Miracles. David DuPlasee (sp.) who is sort of the patriarch of the movement,

who has been called "Mr. Pentecost," believed (he's dead now) that the Age

of Miracles never ended, and that we are still in the Age of Miracles. And

he said that the miracles and the events described in the Book of Acts should

be normative throughout the Church's history. And it is that view that most

Pentecostals and Charismatics hold, that whatever the Holy Spirit did in the

past, He is still doing now; that miracles go on and on as long as there is

the Holy Spirit. They say that the Holy Spirit never changed. They say the

Early Church changed; it became doctrinal; it became formal; it became

ritualistic, and so the Holy Spirit pulled back His power, and now after

nearly 2,000 years He's released it again. And the thing that always amazes

me is, if the Holy Spirit were going to release His power, why would He

release it to authenticate the people who teach bad theology? If He wanted

to authenticate anybody with miracles, you could be sure it would be those

who were the truest and the purest and the most profound and Biblical, and

the most skilled and dedicated teachers of the Word of God who were teaching

the truth.

Many Pentecostals and Charismatics talk about the restoration of the New

Testament Holy Spirit Power through their movement. They say they are doing

again what the Apostles did in the first century. Is that true? If so, why

do modern revelations, visions, tongues, healings, and miracles differ so

dramatically from those done by the Apostles. And why is it that they're

associated with people who do not understand properly the truth of God? And

if miracles, and signs and wonders are so vital, then why is it that for

nearly 2,000 years the Holy Spirit didn't do any? Do you mean that there

weren't even a few people around who would have been worthy of such? Should

Christians today expect miracles? Is Oral Roberts right when he says,

"Everyone of you out there should expect your miracle today?" Are we

supposed to be able to do miracles? Heal people? Raise the Dead?

Well, in answer to all of this we need to take a look at Scripture, and I

want to give you just a fast look and overview at this matter of miracles,

that I think will set your thinking in the right frame.

Most Biblical miracles happened in one of three relatively brief periods of

Biblical history. You need to note this. Most Biblical miracles happened in

three relatively brief periods of Bible History:

1. The days of Moses and Joshua

2. During the ministries of Elijah and Elisha

3. In the time of Christ and the Apostles

None of those periods lasted much more than a hundred years. Each of them,

each of the three, experienced a proliferation of miracles unheard of at

other times in God's redemptive history. But even during those three times,

miracles were not just normal everyday occurrences that happened to anybody

and everybody. The miracles that did happen in the time of Moses and

Joshua--involved Moses and Joshua! The miracles that happened in the time of

Elijah and Elisha, happened around the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. And

the miracles that happened to Christ and the Apostles and through them,

happened through their ministries.

There weren't just miracles happening all over everywhere to all kinds of

people. And aside from those three intervals, the only other miracles

recorded in Scripture are very, very, isolated events. It is true in the

days of Isaiah, the Lord miraculously defeated Sennacherib's army, then

healed Hezekiah and turned the Sun's shadow back (2Kings 19-20). It is true,

in the days of Daniel, God miraculously preserved Shadrach, Meshach, and

Abed-nego, in the furnace (Daniel 3). But those are very uncommon and very

unusual. It is true that God did miraculously preserved Jonah in the belly

of a great fish. But for the most part, those are very isolated. And

miracles like those didn't happen to God's people as a course of life. Now,

God, of course at anytime can inject Himself into the human stream

supernaturally, and do a miracle. But He chose to limit Himself primarily to

three periods of history, and very rarely will you ever find a miracle in the

times in between. The rest of the time God just works through providence.

He doesn't need a miracle: He can just work through providence. The reason

that He did a miracle is because a miracle can only be attributed to God. It

can only be explained supernaturally, and there were times when that was

crucial.

Let me give you some points. Three characteristics of the miracles in

Scripture will help you understand this:

1. Miracles Introduced New Eras of Revelation.

All three of those periods of miracles were times when God gave His written

revelation.

a. Moses and Joshua--the time of the giving of the Law.

b. Elijah and Elisha--introduced the prophetic office, the prophetic

age, and all of the Books of Prophecies (Major Prophets, Minor Prophets).

c. New Testament--obviously. Christ did miracles, the apostles did

miracles. That introduced the era of the New Testament revelation.

So whenever God was going to pour out His word, he wanted to certify certain

prophets and teachers of His word; to authenticate them. Moses was given

the power to do certain miracles that people might know he spoke as God's

spokesman. There was no other way to explain what God used him to do other

than, "God was doing it," and therefore this was God's man; and when he

spoke, he spoke for God. And the same was true in Joshua's case when he

wrote his book. You come to Elijah and Elisha and the miracles that attended

their ministry as they were the prophets of God, and they were introducing a

very long era of prophetic literature as God revealed Himself through the

prophets, of which, really, they were sort of the introducers. And even

those rare miracles that occurred in other eras, involved people who were

used by God to write Scripture.

Hezekiah's healing involved Isaiah; the three men in the fiery furnace

involved Daniel. Those two were what we call "Major Prophets," who spoke and

wrote for God. Moses performed many miracles in an attempt to convince

Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go, to convince Pharaoh that this was

not some normal man. This was not some natural man, but this was God's man

who spoke for God. Miracles seemed to accompany the Israelites on their

journey out of Egypt, and miracles came in their journey through the

wilderness to remind the people of God that God was their God, and that Moses

was God's spokesman. How else would they know who to listen to? They

certainly didn't want to listen to Aaron or anybody else. And even when God

gave His law to Moses on the mount, Moses encounter with God was accompanied

by signs so dramatic--fire, smoke, a trumpet, a thundering voice, that even

Moses himself knew it was the voice of God (and Hebrews 12 says, it was

fearful). And thus began the first period of revelation. And Moses recorded

the truth of the Pentateuch (the five books), and Joshua wrote the book that

bears his name. Other books were added intermittently after the time of

Moses and Joshua, Samuel probably wrote Judges and 1st and 2nd Samuel, David

wrote the Psalms, Solomon penned most of the Wisdom literature. But those

books were not accompanied by the great outpouring of miracles that had

distinguished the days of Moses and Joshua. They were kind of a continuation

in some ways of that revelatory era.

The second major cluster of miraculous events accompanied a new era of

Biblical revelation, "The Age of the Old Testament Prophets." Following

Solomon's reign the nation of Israel divided into the northern kingdom,

Israel; the southern kingdom, Judah. The northern Kingdom quickly

deteriorated because of idolatry and hit a low point under King Ahab.

Remember his wife Jezebel? At that time God raised up two spokesmen, Elijah

and Elisha. The prophetic office in their lifetime was marked by dramatic

miracles to certify them as the spokesmen for God and to call back the people

to God. The prophets that followed them were the continuation of that era.

Then when that era closed out and the Old Testament was done, there was a 400

year period of silence in which no prophet spoke for God and no miracle is

recorded to have occurred.

Then came the New Testament, and the first miracle was the Virgin Birth. And

then the miracles began to flow out of the life of Christ, and they began to

flow out of His Apostles. Why? Because it was a new era of writing the

revelation of God--The New Testament. Always the miracles were associated

with the certification of those who were giving us God's revelation.

2. The second point, and that is the point we just led into, "Miracles

Authenticated the Messengers of Revelation." They only happened in three

eras and they authenticated the messengers of revelation. Elijah raised the

widow's dead son. And what was the widow's reply? Verse 24 of

1 Kings 17, she said, "Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the

word of Lord in your mouth is truth." That's a very important verse. That's

the whole purpose. So that anybody listening to Elijah would know this man

is a man of God and in his mouth is the word of the Lord and it is true.

You come into the New Testament in John 10, Jesus having a confrontation with

the Jewish religious leaders: they challenged Him, "How long will you keep us

in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus said, "I told

you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in my Father's name, these

bear witness of me." He was saying, "The miraculous works that I do

authenticate me and my message as being from God." In his Pentecost sermon,

Peter told the crowd that Jesus was a man attested to them by God with

miracles, wonders and signs. And the same kind of power belonged to the

Apostles. You'll remember that on Paul's first missionary journey, he and

Barnabas were ministering at Iconium, and it says, "They were speaking

boldly, with reliance on the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His

grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands." Beloved,

that is always the intention of the miracle. God does not need to do

miracles for everybody to accomplish His will. He does not need to do

miracles for every Christian everyday to prove His love. He does not need to

do miracles everyday to make people believe He exists. He only authenticates

the Word, and when the authenticated Word is revealed there is no need any

longer to authenticate a preacher. You can find out whether he speaks for

God by comparing Him with this [Bible]. And God can still control everything

without ever doing a miracle through providence.

It's foolish to assume that everybody should be able to do a miracle; that

we can go to a seminar in four days and learn how to do miracles. It's

equally foolish to assume that God is going to do miracles for you everyday.

People who keep saying they saw this miracle and that miracle have got caught

up in the fact that everything is a miracle, and their definition of miracles

lacks greatly Biblical parameters.

The Apostles performed miracles, signs and wonders, in Acts 5. Why? To call

attention to the fact that they were supernatural servants of the living God,

who spoke the truth. In Acts 15, it says, "The whole assembly became silent

as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and

wonders that God had done among the Gentiles through them." These things that

mark an Apostle, signs and wonders, and miracles, Paul said to the

Corinthians, "Were done among you." They mark an Apostle.

Moses, Joshua, introduced an era of revelation. Elijah, Elisha, introduced

an era of revelation. Jesus and the Apostles introduced an era of

revelation. And with all the spokesmen and no written word, with all the

spokesmen, God had to authenticate the right spokesman, and so He gave them

the power to do supernatural things in order that people might know this is

no human mortal teacher, this is a man of God who speaks the truth.

3. Thirdly, and tied right in with the others, miracles are designed to call

attention to the revelation. Miracles are designed to call attention to the

revelation. God did the miracle so that the people would listen to the Word

and see it as His truth. The miracle didn't stand alone--that's the point.

God doesn't do miracles for miracle's sake. The purpose of the miracle was

the effect of the miracle. For example, the miracles Moses did in Egypt

were meant to enlighten two groups, the Israelites and the Egyptians. In

Exodus 7, we read about Moses' first miracles and it was then that the

Israelites started to believe in the power of their God. Pharaoh was a "hard

case." He didn't believe until the tenth miracle, "the Death Angel," then he

finally let them go.

But the purpose of the miracle was not just to stand on its own, but the

purpose of the miracle was to get people to understand that God had something

to say! The miracles of Elijah and Elisha were effective in convincing both

believers and unbelievers that what these men spoke was the Word of God. And

a graphic illustration of that can be seen in 1 Kings 18, where Elijah

defeated 400 Prophets of Baal before a large crowd of Israelites, and the

Scripture says, "When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and

they said, 'The Lord, He is God; The Lord, He is God.'" They believed.

In the New Testament, miracles and signs were again used to confirm

believers and convince unbelievers. John said the miracles of Jesus were

done so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and

believing you might have life in His name; and the same was true with the

Apostolic miracles.

Only three eras, always to authenticate those who spoke the revelation of

God, and always with the purpose of pointing to the revelation so that it is

the revelation that is the important thing! And beloved, I submit to you,

that if you have this Book in your hand--you have what is the end product of

God's miraculous intervention. This is the purpose for which He did the

miracles. You possess this--you don't need the miracles! You have what God

intended them to produce. And that is why Jesus said it as simply as it

could be said, "If they do not believe Moses and the Prophets (that is

Scripture), they will not believe though someone be raised from the dead."

You must remember the people of Israel who saw the miracles of Moses, the

whole generation died in the wilderness--in what? Unbelief! You must

remember that the people who heard the prophets speak for God, for the most

part, refused to believe. One whole kingdom apostatized--the northern

kingdom; and in the southern, only a remnant. All those who saw the

miracles of Jesus did not believe: only a small group. And when it came down

to it in the Book of Acts, there were 120 of them dedicated enough to [be]

believing the Lord, that they were waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Miracles have never produced wholesale belief. They can't. They are

intended to point to the truth, and it is the truth which produces faith, of

course as the Spirit energizes it.

Now, the question comes, "Are miracles necessary today?" When the Old and

New Testaments were completed God's revelation was finished. Through many

signs and wonders He has authenticated the veracity of this Book. Anybody

who reads it can see that it's true. Does God have to keep doing miracles?

Is there a need for ongoing miracles to substantiate the Bible? Should

everybody with faith claim a miracle? Does God do miracles on demand? Are

the phenomena that are occurring today, hailed as "signs and wonders and

healings," really necessary and authentic? The answers to all those

questions is no. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the miracles of the

Apostle's Age were meant to be continuous. [If] you keep reading in the Book

of Acts and you will get to the part in the Book of Acts where you finally

say to yourself, "I haven't read a miracle in a long time," and you'll finish

the whole book and never see another one! They had begun to cease even in

the Book of Acts.

Charismatics today believe that the spectacular and miraculous gifts were

given for the edification of believers. Does God's Word support that? No!

They were not given for the edification of believers; they were not given to

edify Christians; they are a sign for those who do not believe: for those

who need to see that this is God's Word. Whether you are talking about

tongues or healings or miracles, they served as signs to authenticate an era

in which God was giving new revelation and people needed to listen. B. B.

Warfield, that great Presbyterian professor of the past generation, writing

in 1918, said,

Miracles do not appear on the pages of Scripture vagrantly,

here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without assignable

reason. They belong to "revelation periods" and appear only

when God is speaking to His people through accredited messengers

declaring His gracious purpose. Their abundant display, in the

Apostolic Church, is the mark of the richness of the Apostolic

Age in revelation.

You realize, don't you, that between about 36 A.D. and 95 A.D., all 27 books

of the New Testament were written. And so there was a proliferation of

authentication because of the vast volume of literature being revealed in a

brief period of time. Warfield goes on,

When this revelation period closed the period of "Miracle

Working" had passed by also as a mere matter of course. God the

Holy Spirit has made it His subsequent work, not to introduce

new and unneeded revelations into the world, but to diffuse this

one complete revelation through the world and to bring mankind

into the saving knowledge of it.

Abraham Kiper (sp.) the Dutch theologian writes this in 1898,

It has not been God's way to communicate to each and every man a

separate store of divine knowledge of his own, to meet his

separate needs. But He rather has spread a common board for

all, and invites all to come and partake of the richness of the

great feast.

I want to stop in that quote to say, that is such a very important rebuke to

the contemporary Charismatic movement which assumes that God talks to

everybody individually, has special revelation for everybody, separate

information for everybody to meet everybody's individual needs. That is not

the case. Abraham Kiper is right when he says,

He [God] has spread a common board for all, and invites all to

come and partake of the richness of the great feast. He has

given to the world one organically complete revelation, adapted

to all, sufficient for all, provided for all, and from this one

completed revelation he requires each to draw his whole

spiritual sustenance. Therefore, it is that the miraculous

working which is but the sign of God's revealing power cannot

be expected to continue, and in point of fact, does not continue

after the revelation of which it is the accompaniment has been

completed.

Great statement. In Acts, chapter 7, as Stephen preached his famous sermon,

he talked about Moses who performed wondrous signs in the land of Egypt, and

in the Red Sea, and in the Wilderness, "And received living oracles to pass

on to you," Stephen said. Note how God's Word draws the parallel between

Moses'signs and the living oracles--the direct revelation from God which he

was to pass on. Hebrews 2:3-4 confirms that the validation of the New

Testament writers was purposed to cause folks to see them as the agents of

God's revelation, "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

After it was at first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by

those who heard, God bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and

by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit." He was authenticating

the Apostles--the writers of Scripture.

Does God promise miracles for everybody? No! He never has: it's not their

purpose. You hear Charismatics say, "God has a special miracle for you

today!" No, He doesn't! "You better be seeking your private miracle. If

you're not getting it, it's because you don't believe strongly enough." Not

true! By the way, Jesus didn't do any private miracles, they were all

public. And they were, as I said, to authenticate the one who spoke for God.

There is so much more that can be said about this, and there will be much

more in the book. But I just want to wrap this up in the last five minutes

or so.

If you are going to say that God is doing miracles today, and be Biblically

consistent, you are going to have to say that, "God is also. . . " What?

Giving what? Revelation. And if God is giving revelation, it will be coming

through the people who are what? Doing the miracles. And I will say this

for the Charismatics, they are at least logically consistent in that sense.

They have got the whole package--God is giving revelation. He is still

giving it. The people who are getting it have miracle power in their view.

And what is the next logical step? To call them . . . what? Apostles. And

that is what they are doing.

We are now having a pretty common movement in the Charismatic scene, labeling

people as Apostles. Earl Palk (sp.), quite a prominent Charismatic, teaches

that certain anointed individuals have been called to be Apostles. Jack

Deere (sp.), former professor at Dallas Seminary, the chief theologian of

John Wimber's movement, isn't certain that Apostolic ministry is functioning

today, but he told a workshop in Sidney, he, "Is convinced that Apostolic

power is coming," listen to this, "and the new Apostolic age will be greater

than the first!" We are going to get the whole package back. New Apostles

doing new signs and wonders, receiving new revelation to produce a "New

Bible?"

You want to look at this very carefully, beloved. This almost looks like a

plot to deceive the whole Church. Doesn't it? The Apostolic office isn't

for today. The Church was founded upon the Apostles, Ephesians 2:20, they

were the foundation. You don't put the foundation on the 20th story. The

Apostles were all eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Eyewitnesses to the

risen Christ! They were chosen personally by Jesus Christ. They were

authenticated by miraculous signs. They had absolute authority, and they

were given an eternal, unique place of honor, Revelation 21:14 says that

Heaven, the city of the New Jerusalem, has a wall with twelve foundation

stones, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

There are only twelve! You can argue who the twelfth was, some say Matthias,

some say Paul, Judas being excluded. You might want to say Matthias, and

Paul was an apostle in due time, kind of an addendum.

But the point is, there are only twelve of those honored places. Each of

them will rule over one of the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom. There

is not room for more than twelve folks. They are a special breed. They had

no successors. The age of the apostles is over because the age of

authentication is over, because the age of revelation is over. You say, "Oh,

MacArthur, you have a weak view of God." No I don't! I have a strong view

of God. I think that He is consistent with Himself. And I think He is true

to His revelation. Jerry Horner, Associate Professor of Biblical Literature

at Oral Roberts, said, "Who in the world wants a God who has lost all of His

zip?" Well, has God lost His zip? Has He done nothing significant in 2,000

years? That's hardly the case. He has got plenty of zip, in fact, he is

able to do exceedingly, abundantly, beyond all you can ask or think,

according to the power that works in us.

He had a special purpose for the eras of revelation. He has a different

purpose now, just as powerful, just as wonderful. Don't buy into the

deception that there is something beyond the Scripture, because that's what

this deception is saying; that there is somebody getting a revelation;

that there is somebody with apostolic authority; that miracles are supposed

to be happening all over the place. It's not true. It's not consistent with

Scripture.

Father, we thank You, that we can look at Your Word tonight, and in just this

brief time discern its truth again. Help us to have that discernment. And

Lord help us to believe that You don't have to do a miracle to show Yourself.

Providence, in many ways, is a greater miracle than a miracle. It would be

easier to do something supernatural than it is to orchestrate all of the

infinite contingencies of life and make them work Your purpose, but You do it

every moment of every day. Thank You for Your Word which needs no update,

for the authenticated messengers gave us the once for all, delivered to the

Saints, faith on which we rest. We ask Lord that You will keep us true to

Your truth. Don't let us get led astray, for Jesus sake. Amen.

*****************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-57, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 6. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 6

"The Third Wave"

John MacArthur

It is a somewhat difficult task that falls to me this evening, to discuss

with you, in the series on "Charismatic Chaos," some of the matters with

regard to a movement known as the "The Third Wave." I cannot, by any means,

consider all of the issues, nor can I speak of all those who represent that

movement. But I do want to give you some perspective so that you can be

alert and aware in regard to what is happening.

Of all of the elements of the Charismatic movement, that are contemporary to

us today, this one is getting the most press. Of all the questions that are

asked to me by people who write and call with regard to issues facing us in

the Charismatic movement, this is the most commonly discussed one. The main

figure in what is known as the "Third Wave" is a man by the name of John

Wimber who is pastor of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Anaheim. He is

the major figure in this movement that has come to be known as the "Third

Wave of the Holy Spirit." It is sometimes called the "Signs and Wonders"

movement. And this latest Charismatic tide seems to have swept across the

globe in the last decade. It is literally everywhere in the English speaking

parts of the world.

The term the "Third Wave" was coined by C. Peter Wagner who is a Missions

professor at Fuller Seminary and the author of several books on church

growth. He is really the leading proponent of the Third Wave philosophy and

methodology. According to Wagner, he said, "The First Wave was the

Pentecostal Movement, the Second Wave was the Charismatic Movement, and now

the Third Wave is joining them." And by that he means an inundating wave of

the power of the Holy Spirit manifesting itself in visible ways. And while

acknowledging the Third Wave's spiritual ancestry, that is, that it is the

third of those three, Wagner nonetheless rejects the label "Charismatic and

Pentecostal." In fact, most of the people in the Third Wave don't want to be

identified in that way. Wagner says,

The Third Wave is a new moving of the Holy Spirit among

evangelicals who for one reason or another have chosen not to

identify with either the Pentecostals or the Charismatics. Its

roots go back a little further but I see it as mainly a movement

beginning in the 1980's and gathering momentum through the

closing years of the 20th century. I see the Third Wave as

distinct from, but at the same time, very similar to the first

and second waves. They have to be similar because it is the

same Spirit of God who is doing the work. The major variation

comes in the understanding of the meaning of "Baptism in the

Holy Spirit" and the role of tongues in authenticating this. I

myself, for example, would rather not have people call me a

Charismatic, I do not consider myself a Charismatic, I am simply

an Evangelical Congregationalist who is open to the Holy Spirit

working through me and my church in any way He chooses.

He refuses the label "Charismatic," not primarily because of any doctrinal

distinction, but primarily because of the stigma attached to the name. It's

important for me to mention that to you because if you talk to someone in the

Third Wave they might endeavor to distance themselves from classic

Pentecostalism or more contemporary Charismaticism, but the fact is that they

are basically the Third Wave by their own admission of the very same kind of

theology. It is accurate then to see the Third Wave as part of the whole

Charismatic movement as we know it. While it is true that many who identify

with the Third Wave will avoid using the term "Charismatic" and they'll even

avoid using Charismatic jargon when writing or speaking about Spirit Baptism

or other issues. Basically, the theology is the same. The terminology may

change; the theology is for all intents and purposes identical. Most Third

Wave teaching and preaching that I have listened to, that I have read, echoes

standard Charismatic theology, and therefore in evaluating the Third Wave, we

would assume that it is safe to say that the other issues that we have been

discussing, that we find unbiblical in the Charismatic movement, are

generally true of this movement as well, although there may be some

individuals in the movement who would vary from that.

So at its very core it is an element of the Charismatic movement. At its

core is an obsession with sensational experiences, a preoccupation with the

"Charismata" that is, tongues, healings, prophecies, words of knowledge,

visions, and ecstatic experiences, and that is, of course, where we find the

indisputable link between the Third Wave and the Charismatic and Pentecostal

movements. In all three movements there is a major absorption with these

supernatural, sensational kind of power encounters or power displays as they

like to call them. They de-emphasize what you and I would know as the

traditional means of spiritual growth: prayer, Bible study, the teaching of

the Word, and the fellowship of other believers. They don't intend to do

that and they wouldn't do that in statement or even in print. But because of

the very surpassing emphasis on the sensational experiences, those matters

tend to get pushed significantly, if not all together, into the background.

Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Third Wavers, all will affirm that any

Christian who is not experiencing some supernatural events, some supernatural

giftedness, some kinds of healings, some kinds of prophecies, words of

knowledge, or manifestations of the Spirit of God, in visible tangible ways,

is really stuck at a low level of spiritual progress; is denying the full

power of God and denying himself the blessing of God.

Now, while those in the Third Wave would like to distance themselves from the

first and second wave, because of its excesses. The truth of the matter is,

the third wave has not managed to avoid any of the excesses that are

characteristic of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. In fact, there

are some in the Charismatic movement who want to distance themselves from the

Third Wavers because they feel that they go to excesses that even those

Charismatics wouldn't go to.

A visit, for example, to the Vineyard, would reveal to you all the commotion

of many people speaking in tongues at the same time. It would reveal to you

intense kind of emotional experiences going on where people were falling on

the floor and laying in prone positions for as long as an hour, some people

with their limbs extended. It would reveal to you people giving multiple

prophecies, some of them rather bizarre, and some of them with poor grammar,

and yet claiming they come from the Lord. There would be likely an

experience in which they would clear the floor of chairs and they would be

dancing around in a completely liberated fashion in any form that they would

choose to do that, with people again perhaps falling over, climbing on

chairs, dancing on the top of chairs, and doing all the things that once were

associated with what we used to call, "Holy Rollers." In fact, Chuck Smith,

pastor of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, told one researcher, "John Wimber has

absorbed every abhorrent teaching developed by the Pentecostals into his

teaching."

Now, all I want you to understand is that the Third Wave people very often

want to see themselves as mainline evangelical. They want to distance

themselves from the Pentecostal, Charismatic excesses, and yet it seems to be

true that the excesses that occurred in both the Pentecostal and Charismatic

movements are very characteristic of the Third Wave as well. What makes them

a bit different is that they can line up some teachers and leaders that

appear to have more academic credentials than has been true in the

Charismatic and Pentecostal movement. That may mean, that in the future,

there will be some correctives that will come to some of those excesses,

which as of yet has not taken place. But despite all of their claims to the

contrary, Third Wave apologists have had astonishing success in selling their

movement as a non-Charismatic phenomena. Unsuspecting churches, and I think

unsuspecting denominations have opened their doors and their pulpits to Third

Wave teachers, I think because of their academic credentials and because they

claim not to be in the line of the Charismatics, but in fact, they are.

If you look very closely at the Third Wave you will see in it the very same

kind of things you see typically in the Charismatic movement. And so I want

to do a little bit closer inspection, and as I said we can't by any means

exhaust this in the next half hour or so as we examine it, but I will try to

put you in touch with some of the issues that need to be addressed in a much

more comprehensive way than I'll be able to do tonight. But I hope that I

can give you enough information to set you in the right direction.

I want to just consider maybe four of the promises that the Third Wave makes

that need to be inspected rather carefully. The first promise they make is

that they are experiencing supernatural Signs and Wonders, and that these

Signs and Wonders come at a rather proliferated rate. That is to say they

are not abnormal, they are not uncommon, they are not few and far between,

but rather they are normal, common, and very often come in a flurry. They

believe that fantastic Signs and Wonders demonstrate the genuineness of their

movement. The fact is that we cannot turn our back on it because

supernatural things are happening all the time. Miraculous phenomena is at

the very heart of the Third Wave credo and experience.

Third Wave people are persuaded they are having miracles, they are having

visions, they are speaking in tongues, giving prophecies, predicting the

future, reading peoples minds (that is, they can stand up in a meeting and

tell you your home address, your mother's maiden name, your father's mother's

maiden name), and all of those kinds of things that we have always associated

with people like the "Amazing Crescan" (sp.) who purvey a certain kind of

magic, a certain kind of con art or whatever you want to call it. But they

are into these very same kind of things. In fact, it was interesting to me

that one of their leaders said that the key to his really "buying into" and

believing this whole thing was when one of their prophets stood up and told

him, and told the whole audience, his mother's maiden name and the true first

name of his father who was only known by a nickname.

And so they believe that these kind of things are happening, that there are

healings; that there are resurrections from the dead, and they frankly view

Christianity without those things as impotent and adulterated by the western

materialistic mindset. And [they believe that] unless we can escape the

western materialistic mindset and catapult ourselves into the Third World

paradigm, and begin to think in terms of mystical phenomena, we are going to

be locked into a very shallow kind of Christianity. Signs and Wonders also

would be the key, they believe, to Third Wave evangelism. Third Wavers say

that unbelievers must experience the miraculous in order to be brought to

full faith. Merely preaching the gospel message, they believe, will never

reach the world for Christ.

One of their leaders has said, "That we cannot evangelize the world with the

simple gospel, apart from Signs and Wonders." This, in spite of the fact,

that Paul, in Romans 1, says that the simple gospel is the power of God unto

salvation to everyone who believes. But merely preaching the gospel, they

believe, isn't going to do it, it'll never reach the world for Christ. Most

people will not believe without seeing miracles, they say, and those who do

will be inadequately converted, and therefore stunted in their spiritual

growth. John Wimber, himself, cites Elijah's confrontation with the prophets

of Baal on Mount Carmel, as a classic example of power encounter, where the

power of God vanquishes the power of evil.

Similar Signs and Wonders, say third wave gurus are the chief means we will

be using to spread the gospel. And so what they are doing is traveling all

over the world endeavoring to teach the Church how to do Signs and Wonders.

And you will hear them openly confess, even the leaders at the highest level

and those that are kind of developing into their next generation of leaders,

that they are learning how to do miracles. They are learning how to heal the

sick, raise the dead, read minds, tell people their address and phone

numbers, and their names of their parents. They are learning to do that,

they are learning to call out healings, they are learning to read behind

somebody's face and see the sin that is in them. They are learning to do

that, because that is very essential if they are going to convince the world

that the message is from God.

Modern miracles workers have yet to call down fire from heaven as did Elijah,

but they may be working on that as well. Third Wave officials tell of some

fantastic Signs and Wonders, Wimber, for example, reported an incident where

a woman's toe, which had been cut off, supposedly grew back. He described

another woman in Australia whose cleft palate closed up miraculously three

days after God him a "word of knowledge" that she would be healed. Wagner

recounted a report from an Argentine faith healer, who's in the movement, by

the name of Carlos Anacondia (sp.), who said, two particular manifestations

of the Holy Spirit seem to impress unbelievers more than anything else in his

crusades, "falling in the power of the Spirit" and "filling teeth." On a

fairly regular basis, decayed teeth are filled and new teeth grow where there

were none before. Interestingly enough, according to Anacondia, most

unbeliever's teeth are filled and very few believers get their teeth filled.

Now, I don't why he said that, or even why that's supposedly true, but I have

another question, "Why does God fill teeth instead of just giving them new

teeth as long as He is going to do it?"

But, nonetheless, whether you are talking about Wagner or Wimber, they are

convinced that these miracles are happening. They are at least trying to

convince us they are happening. Both of them are convinced, for example, at

least from what they say, that many dead people are being raised from the

dead. Many of them, not just some, not just a few, but many. And it is

really difficult to resist the conclusion that these are either utter

fabrications, that have just grown with the telling, or that these people are

so caught in the wish that these things come to pass, that they have

convinced themselves that in fact they do. In the two cases that I mentioned

to you from John Wimber, he maintains that medical doctors witnessed the

events, yet he offers no documentation.

And you have to ask the question somewhere along the line, "Why don't they

publish proof that these events really took place?" It would seem to me that

if people are being raised from the dead, at a fairly regular clip through

the year, some of these people could show up somewhere and there could be

some evidence. Particularly if they had been in the grave for several days

like Lazarus, because somebody would have been there to see them put in the

ground. And we wonder why they don't publish the proof of these things,

phenomena such as digit and limb replacement, the healing of birth defects,

supernatural dentistry, and raising the dead. It seems to me that it would

be rather easy to document. It would certainly help bring about the kind of

world wide response the Third Wave people say they are hoping to have.

To borrow from one of them, you can only imagine if they could take four

quadriplegics and instantly heal them of their quadriplegia. Four who were

well known by many and been known for years to be in that condition, and they

could step out of the wheel chair and be absolutely 100% whole. It wouldn't

seem too difficult a thing to present the evidence for that. And it would

seem to me to be quite a powerful statement.

But a pattern has begun to emerge from the Third Wave literature, and that is

this, the truly spectacular miracles always seem to involve nameless people.

Real people's miracles tend to be mundane and hard to prove: cures involving

back pain, inner healings, migraine relief, emotional deliverance, ringing in

the ears, maybe some internal problem that is stated but not verified. The

only time you get a detailed, step-by-step, carefully laid out description of

a healing situation is an occasion when the healing doesn't happen. You hear

rather oblique references to the healing that did happen, and rather detailed

descriptions of the ones that don't.

A prime example is Wagner's account of his friend Tom Brewster, a paraplegic,

who believed in healing. Brewster was so hopeful that God would heal him

that he even distributed a "Declaration of Expectation" to his friends--an

expression of his faith that he would one day walk. That faith never

wavered, Wagner says, though it had been almost thirty years since a diving

accident left him confined to a wheel chair. But the miracle never came.

Brewster died after unsuccessful bladder surgery. It's difficult to read

that account without noting how markedly it contrasts with the many supposed

miracles that these Third Wave people account. The most dramatic miracles

come with only sketchy details and are almost nearly always anonymous.

Rarely do they ever involve people who are known personally to those who

report the miracles. You understand that? They are not first hand. And

whenever you hear the story told about the first hand it seems to have a sad

ending.

Perhaps the most significant man in the life of John Wimber was a British

Anglican who died of cancer, much to the great dismay and concern and sorrow

of John. A group of five medical doctors, Christians, attended a recent

conference the Third Wave had. These men were hoping to establish the truth

of the claims that miraculous healings were taking place. One of them,

Doctor Philip Seldon (sp.) reported,

The fact that John Wimber knew we were present and observing may

have served to tone down the claims which we understand were

made at previous conferences. Mr. Wimber, himself, referred to

bad backs and indicated that people could expect pain relief but

no change which could be documented by a doctor. He admitted

that he had never seen a degenerated vertebrae restored to

normal shape. And as I suspected, most of the conditions which

were prayed over were in the psychosomatic, trivial, or

medically difficult to document categories. Problems with left

great toe, nervous disorder, breathing problems, barrenness,

unequal leg lengths, bad backs and neck.

The doctor concluded, "At this stage we are unaware of any organic healings

which could be proven."

Now, what explanation is given for people who are not healed, because we know

that many people must go there who have real problems. Right? I mean, if

you hear that miracles are being done and you are looking for that to happen

in your life--you are going to go. And people do not get healed--obviously.

The reasons given are: some people don't have faith in God for healing;

another reason, personal unconfessed sin creates a barrier to God's healing

power; another one they say is persistent and widespread disunity, sin, and

unbelief in bodies of believers and families, inhibits healings in individual

members of the body.

In other words, they will say, one, "You don't have enough faith to be

healed. Your lack of faith is hindering God." Or they will say, "You have

unconfessed sin in your life and you put a barrier between you and God." Or

they will say, "You are going to a church that doesn't believe in healings so

you are not going to get healed as long as you are in that environment." Or

they will say, "Because of incomplete or incorrect diagnosis of what is

causing your problem, you do not know how to pray correctly, and if you don't

know what your problem is you can't pray correctly to get it fixed, it won't

get fixed, or it might not." "And some people," they say further, don't get

healed because they assume that God always heals instantly, and when they

don't get instantly healed they stop praying, so they don't get healed.

Oddly enough, John Wimber, himself, said, "I never blame the sick person for

lack of faith if healing doesn't come." That's a contradictory statement.

And eventually he is still trying to piece together the theology of this. He

struggles, because he said also, "I have a continually expanding group of

disgruntled people who have come for healing and don't get it."

Now, the reality is, with the Third Wave, with all of its emphasis on signs

and wonders, it has produced nothing really verifiable that qualifies in the

New Testament sense as an authentic sign or wonder, at least nothing that

they have made available. Jesus' miracles must, after all, be the standard

by which we make an evaluation. Right? No one before Jesus or since has

performed as many signs and wonders as He did during His earthly ministry.

His miracles were strikingly different from those produced by the modern

signs and wonders movement. None involved psychosomatic infirmities, all

were visible and verifiable, they were, in short, true signs and wonders.

We learned some other things about the miracles from our Lord's ministry,

chiefly that miracles do not necessarily produce faith in an unbelieving

heart. Let me say that again, they do not necessarily produce faith in an

unbelieving heart. I don't want to say that there aren't times when God can

use or has used the miraculous to produce or to assist in producing faith.

Faith is a gift from God but it is possible that a miracle has been a

component in God bringing about that faith. But that is not necessarily what

happens, and that certainly cannot be guaranteed to happen. In fact, in the

Gospel of John, Jesus did many signs and many wonders. In fact, He

proliferated that entire nation of Palestine with signs and wonders. And the

people were able to see them and even to participate in them, such as in the

feeding of the Great Multitude.

The net effect of all of that tremendous, tremendous, miracle working

enterprise could be summed up in the words of John 12:37, "But though He had

performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him."

There is no guarantee that because there are miracles there will be saving

faith. It is true that as I said, God may use miracles to bring about faith.

In Acts 9, you might want to look at it for a moment; in Acts, chapter 9, in

verse 32, "Peter was traveling through all those parts," writes Luke. "He

came down to the saints who lived at Lydda. And there he found a certain man

named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years, for he was paralyzed. And

peter said to him, 'Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; arise, and make your

bed.' And immediately he arose. And all who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw

him, and they turned to the Lord."

If you were to read into the next section, in Joppa, there was a woman there

named Tabitha (or Dorcas). She died and Peter was used to bring her back to

life. And in verse 42 it says, "And it became known all over Joppa, and many

believed in the Lord." We don't want to say categorically, that there would

never be a time when God wouldn't cause some miraculous act to be a component

in the producing of faith. But that seems to be the minority effect. The

majority seem not to have such a response. In spite of all of Jesus'

miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind,

having authority over demons, the people rejected Him, the people crucified

Him, and at the time of His death there were only about 120 followers

gathered in the Upper Room, and that after several years of miraculous acts.

The gospels contain numerous examples of people who witnessed Jesus' signs,

who witnessed His wonders, and yet remained in utter unbelief. He rebuked

the cities where He performed most of His miracles: He rebuked Korazim,

Bethsedia, He rebuked Capernaum, because they didn't repent, and because they

had seen so many miracles. And He even says that they were even worse off

than Sodom and Gomorrah, because Sodom and Gomorrah, as bad as it was, would

have repented if it had seen as much as they had seen. John 2:23 tells us

that, "Many believed in His name, because they saw the signs," yet that kind

of belief was not a saving belief. Jesus didn't consider them true

believers, according to verse 24.

In John, chapter 6, verse 2, the record says that, "A great multitude was

following Him, because they were seeing the signs which He was performing on

those who were sick." And yet, in verse 66, when He began to teach them, and

He began to speak about the spiritual issues that confronted them, it says,

many of the same crowd "withdrew, and were not walking with Him any more."

So there are times when, whatever kind of believing they did, was not

believing unto salvation. In John, chapter 11, Jesus raised Lazarus from the

dead, a monumental miracle. Absolutely monumental! Even His enemies

couldn't deny it, according to John 11:47. But far from believing in Jesus,

that simply accelerated their desire to plot His death.

Things really weren't much different than that in the Book of Acts, in the

early Church. In Acts 3, Peter and John healed a man who had been lame from

birth and again the Jewish religious leaders didn't deny the miracle had

occurred, according to Acts 4:16. They couldn't deny it, but their response

was far from saving faith. They ordered the Apostles to stop speaking in the

name of Jesus. Go back into the Old Testament and you can examine the record

of Old Testament signs and wonders, they didn't produce saving faith either.

Pharaoh's heart was hardened despite the powerful signs and wonders God did

through Moses. The entire generation of Israelites who witnessed those same

miracles, died in unbelief in the wilderness. It didn't seem to lead them to

any great spiritual level of devotion.

Despite all the miracles performed during the time of Elijah and Elisha, and

those times when God acted miraculously at other seasons, both Israel and

Judah failed to repent and were ultimately carried away into captivity. In

fact, the very account that John Wimber cites as Biblical justification for

power encounters, Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal, is an

example. The revival produced out of that amazing act by which God sent fire

from heaven and burned up stones and water, the amazing, amazing miracle

produced a very short lived response, and within a few days Elijah was hiding

for fear of his life, and Baal worship continued until God finally judged

Israel.

Now, that is not to say that signs and wonders were not important when God

used them. It is not to say that they never were used by God to be a part of

the production of faith. But that was not the normal result. They often

attracted people's attention so the gospel message could be [preached], and

people hearing that message were saved. But, miracles and signs and wonders,

in themselves, do not produce saving faith. And so when they say they

promise "signs and wonders" it's questionable whether the "signs and wonders"

are really legitimate, and it's questionable whether the "signs and wonders"

are necessary for producing saving faith, since that is not their purpose in

the Scripture generally.

Secondly, they make the promise of "Powerful Evangelism," "Power Evangelism."

What they are really doing (and this follows the first point) is being

powerful in terms of turning people to God. My conviction on this, however,

is that what they say is "Powerful Evangelism" lacks, very often, the very

necessary element of evangelism which is a clear proclamation of gospel

truth. The saving message gets badly corrupted and sometimes even omitted.

Third Wave books and Third Wave testimonies are filled with anecdotes about

people who supposedly became Christians on the basis of some miracle they

saw; some supernatural wonder they saw, with little or no mention of the

gospel having been proclaimed to them.

In fact, in the book, Power Evangelism, which was John Wimber's main book and

sort of set this thing in motion (it's the main textbook on evangelism),

there is no reference in that whole book to the cross of Christ or the

doctrine of the atonement. I understand, now, that some are endeavoring to

instruct him in that matter so that he can understand that, and that there is

a revision of that book coming out which will delineate a clear doctrine of

the atonement and the true gospel. But, up until now it hasn't seemed to be

necessary for the expansion and explosion of the movement. Soteriology, or

the doctrine of salvation, an accurate gospel message, can hardly be

considered as a major thrust of this movement. In all the fuss about the

signs and wonders, the content of the gospel seems to have been given second

place.

One report goes like this,

A serious consideration by observers in one of the seminars, was

that there was no gospel in the so-called evangelistic meeting.

The cross of Jesus was not central, the atonement was not

explained, and mankind's need and the provision of redemption

not even cursorily treated. Believing himself to be following

the example of Jesus and the Apostles, John Wimber called out

for those who needed to be healed: bad backs, short legs, neck

pain, and a whole host of diseases. People were asked to stand

and team members dispatched to pray for them while on the stage

John demanded that the Spirit come, and after a few minutes of

silence several screams were heard and people sobbing. A little

later it was declared that people had been healed and God had

given a token as a sign to those who did not believe. In short,

they were asked to base their decision on what they had seen, or

rather the interpretation of what they had seen, and the

sacrifice for sin through Christ didn't even get a mention. I

left wondering what faith people would have been converted to

that night? It didn't seem to resemble New Testament

Christianity.

Now, I realize that this may be but the observation of one individual, but it

seems as though in reading the material, this is a somewhat common thread.

Peter Wagner says that he marvels that Argentine evangelist, Omar Cabrerra

(sp.) has people saved and healed before he starts preaching. It's a

question to me, how can you get saved before you hear the message? But [it

is] not a question that seems to bother some of them. Most of the Third

Wavers believe that miracles are more effective than the gospel message

preached, that preaching is limited, and I shared some of that with you a

few weeks ago. That somehow preaching is a very poor way to get people to

come to Christ, the least of all ways desirable. Wagner further writes,

Christianity began with 120 in the Upper Room, within three

centuries it had become the predominant religion of the Roman

Empire. What brought this about? The answer is deceptively

simple, while Christianity was being presented to unbelievers in

both Word and deed, it was the deed that far exceeded the Word

in evangelistic effectiveness.

That's a remarkable statement: "That the deed is more powerful than the

Word," seems to me to "fly in the face" of Hebrews 4, which says that, "The

Word is sharper than any two-edged sword, and is able to pierce to depths

that nothing else can pierce." The Anglican, Michael Harper says, "Miracles

help people believe." The question is, "Believe what?" Is the gospel being

clearly, carefully delineated? In fact, it has been said that those of us

who don't do signs and wonders, and perform miracles, are doing what they

call "Programmatic Evangelism," instead of "Power Evangelism." It is

insipid, it is powerless, vapid, kind of evangelism. What is needed is

"Power Evangelism," supernatural encounters. Those are the things that bring

people to Christ.

Two fallacies, at least, lurk in that kind of thinking; both render it

utterly ineffective in winning people to genuine faith in Christ. When

modern miracles become the basis for an evangelistic invitation, the real

message of the gospel somehow becomes incidental. And you would have to be

in a meeting where you would see the "swept away attitude" of people who are

so deeply lost in an emotional experience, and this may not always be the

case, but often the case, that a clear message might not come through. There

is often a mystical, ethereal Jesus who replaces the historical, Biblical

one. And the focus of faith becomes faith in the miraculous, rather than

faith in the Savior Himself. Those who put their trust in modern miracles

are not saved by that faith no matter how earnestly they may believe they

are. You are only saved by putting your faith in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, Power Evangelism seems to me to be an unbiblical concept. "Faith

comes from hearing," doesn't it? "And hearing the Word of Christ." It is

the gospel, not signs and wonders, that is the power of God unto salvation.

And do you not remember what Luke 16:31 says, "If they do not listen to Moses

and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though someone rises . . ."

what? "From the dead." Despite the many signs and wonders that Jesus

performed, Jesus didn't practice that kind of Power Evangelism. In fact, He

repeatedly rebuked those who demanded signs, (Matthew 12, 16; Mark 8; Luke

11, 23; John 4). He rebuked the "signs seekers."

The emphasis of Jesus' ministry was not miracles but preaching. He often

preached without doing signs, without doing wonders. And then in Mark 1:29-

34, we read that Jesus did many miraculous healings in Galilee. Verse 37,

tells us that Peter and the others found Him the next morning and excitedly

said, "Everybody is looking for you. They want to see more of this. They

want to see more signs and more wonders." And Jesus said this, (Mark 1:38)

"Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, in order that I may preach

there also; for that is what I came out for." He came to preach, therein

lies the power. Preaching the Word was more important than the Signs and

Wonders, and I believe the Third Wave is advocating a different approach and

is out of balance with the Bible in that regard.

Well, there is more to say. Just briefly, let me share two thoughts with

you. They also promise a Biblical orientation, but I am very much afraid of

the fact, and by their own admission, that they have many errors in their

theology. And as I spoke to several of them this week, I asked the question,

"If God is giving Signs and Wonders, is it to authenticate His message?"

Which the answer has to be yes. "Then would you explain to me why the people

who claim to be doing the Signs and Wonders are the ones who have an errant

theology? Why would God be authenticating error?" It would seem to me that

if God was going to give somebody the ability to do Signs and Wonders, thus

to draw people to His message, He would give such a gift and ability to one

who was most capable of articulating accurately the proper message. And by

their own admission they realize that there are many theological

inaccuracies, Biblical inaccuracies, in the movement, and that poses the

unanswerable query as to, "Why in the world would God want to be using

miracles to authenticate those who, as of yet, don't even have their theology

straighten out?" John Wimber would be the first to admit that they are still

accumulating a theology. He made the statement that, "We are drawing

together our experiences so that we can frame up a theology." And it seems

odd to think that God would be vindicating such and authenticating such.

Furthermore, they are committed to the fact that the Bible is not enough,

that there must be further communication from God. One of their leaders says

that,

To believe that the Scripture is the end of God's revelation is

a demonic doctrine. In order to fulfill God's highest purpose

for our lives, we must be able to hear His voice both in the

written word and the word freshly spoken from heaven. Satan

understands the strategic importance of Christians hearing God's

Word, so he has launched various attacks against us in this

area. Ultimately, this doctrine, that is, believing that the

Scripture is the end of revelation, is demonic, even though

Christian theologians have been used to perfect it. So

Christian theologians who have perfected the idea that the

Scripture is the end of God's revelation, have perfected a

demonic doctrine, because God is still speaking.

And there is a great thirst for new revelation, that I believe imposes upon

the movement a low view of Scripture's sufficiency.

Well, let me just give you a final note. There is much more to say about

that, you can read it in my book [Charismatic Chaos] when it gets here in a

few months. There is just one other thing to note, and so much more that I

would like to say. They claim also an evangelical heritage, they claim also

an evangelical heritage. If you listen to them, you would believe that they

are in the mainstream of evangelicalism, that they are committed to a

traditional, Biblical theology. And yet that is not true. Statements of

faith and creeds are just not a part of that movement. John Wimber's

Vineyard is typical, I am quoting from one writer,

Another disturbing aspect of the Vineyard's ministry is their

lack of any written statement of faith. Because Vineyard

members come from a variety of denominational backgrounds, the

leadership has avoided setting strong doctrinal standards. This

de-emphasis of doctrine is also consistent with the leadership,

whose backgrounds, theologically include association with the

Quakers, who typically stress the inner experience of God and

mimimize the need for doctrinal expressions of one's

understanding of God.

That's from the Christian Research Institute. There is no way that they can

connect up with historic, traditional, evangelical, orthodox theology,

because they don't codify doctrine. They don't develop creeds and

theological statements, so how do they know where they stand? And yet in

spite of that, they want to position their movement in the mainstream of

historic evangelicism. They want to emphasize conservative, even

fundamentlist roots, but that does not bear out under examination. The

movement is broadly ecumenical and cencredic. There is an evangelical veneer

but the wide embracing of all kinds of experiences. Now, it is possible that

this could change. There maybe some winds of change, there may be some

doctrinal direction and structure coming, but at the present time this is

true. To reinforce that, may I say, Wimber is as comfortable with Roman

Catholic dogma as he is with evangelicism. He himself defends the Catholic

claims of healings through relics. He advocates a reunification of

Protestants and Catholics. A former associate said,

During a Vineyard Pastors Conference, he went so far as to

apologize to the Catholic Church on behalf of all Protestants.

In his seminar on Church Planting, he said, the Pope, who by the

way is very responsive to the Charismatic movement and is

himself a "Born Again" evangelical, is preaching the gospel as

clear as anyone in the world today.

You can see that there is some confusion. In their book on Power Evangelism,

he gives a catalog of individuals and movements. When he wants to seek to

establish Signs and Wonders, he reaches back and He identifies himself with a

whole list of people, Helleron (sp.), a fourth century hermit, Augustine,

Pope Gregory the Great, Francis of Assisi, the Waldenses who opposed the Pope

and were persecuted by the Dominicans, Vincent Ferrera (sp.) who was himself

was a Dominican, Martin Luther, Ignatius of Loyola, John Wesley, and the

Jansenists, a Catholic sect. It's a hodgpoge of all kinds of things. In a

booklet published by the Vineyard, he adds the Shakers. They were a cult

that demanded celibacy and thus went out of existence for obvious reasons.

He puts himself in line with Edward Irving, a discredited leader of the

Irvingnite sect in 19th century England. He also identifies himself with the

supposed healings and miracles worked by an apprition of the Virgin Mary at

Lourdes. So you can see that the heritage is not at all evangelical, but

quite confused. Even Wagner wants to link himself with contempory, positive,

possibility thinking as well as with the Fourth Demensional thinking of

Korean Pastor Paul Yongee Chow (sp.). It's a hodgpog of many, many things.

All of this to say we need to be alert. We need to be aware. We need to

test all these things by the Word of God. My only hope and prayer for these

people is that someone may come to them, someone who can lead them to a

proper understanding of the truth, pulling them away from this tremendous

preoccupation and domination that comes to them from experiences.

Experiences can be so deadly because they cannot always be certain that they

come from God.

Well, much more to be said. I guess what I can say in conclusion is, "Don't

be swept away by the Third Wave." And remember this, the only true test of

whether a person or a movement is from God is not Signs and Wonders. A true

test is, teaching in conformity to this Book. And the highest expression of

God's power in the world today is not some spectacular, unusual Sign or

Wonder. The highest expression of God's power in the world today is the

transformation of a soul from darkness to light, from death to life. And

equally wonderus is the tranquil godliness of a Spirit controlled believer.

Let me just say this in closing, I don't believe for one moment that we have

ministered here at Grace Church for 22 years without the Holy Spirit. And I

don't believe for one moment that we have never known the Power of God. I

shared with these gentlemen, with whom I spoke on Friday, that we see the

power of God, again and again. We saw it tonight, didn't we, when we heard

the testimonies, week in and week out. I see it in the trasformatioon of

your life. I see it in the transformations of your marriage. For the last

several weeks I have been praying for a marriage in our church. It was

coming apart at the seams, really sad, grieving. And I saw, apart from

anything that I did, apart from any intervention by me--God put that marriage

together in a glorious way. We've seen that again and again. I talked to a

mother and a father who had prayed for a wayward son and God brought that son

back to the point where that son embraced Christ and embraced his family in

Christ.

I don't for one moment search because I have never known the power of God in

this ministry, and I just affirm that, not for my own sake, not to bring

credit to me, but that no one would discredit what Christ has done here and

what His spirit has accomplished. Nothing that happens in the supernatural

dimension happens because of me or you, that's out of our league. But I will

not yield to any who would assume that what we have experienced here is a

cheap version of the real power. Many of you have come to faith in Christ

here. Many of you have grown in your knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and

been used of God in many ways in spiritual service, the benefits of your own

spiritual growth and maturity, because of the ministries here. Many have

gone out of this place and conducted powerful ministries all over the world,

and they go on even today. And I guess, all of that to say, to be real

honest with you, I am not looking for anything, because I have already in my

life lived through Ephesians 3:20, and I've seen God do, "exceedingly,

abundantly, above all I could ask or think." And to be honest with you, my

faith is strong enough to accept that this is the evidence of the power of

God and I don't have to have more proof. Some people say they have the faith

for all of that, but I think they have doubt looking for proof--very often.

And I want to affirm tonight my gratitude to God and to the Holy Spirit, and

to the Lord Jesus Christ for what They have accomplished in this place, and

what They have accomplished through the teaching of the Word and the faithful

ministry that God has given to this church, here and around the world. And I

want to give God all the glory for all of it, and I want to acknowledge along

with you that He has done it, and we have never ministered for a moment

feeling that He wasn't here in the fullness of His power accomplishing His

work for His own glory. And He has done it in an orderly way without chaos

and without confusion, and we praise Him for that.

Father, thank you for our time tonight to consider these things. Help us

Lord to be able to evaluate everything by the Word. We know that in this

movement there are some who, of course, are our brothers and sisters, who

love the Lord Jesus Christ, and we would pray for them, that your Spirit

might lead them to bring Biblical direction where they are able to this

movement. To confront its errors and excesses. We pray Lord too that no one

would be led astray and led away from the simplicity that is in Christ and

into chaos and confusion of emotional experience, and find it to be a

substitute for true regeneration. Father, we pray too that you would allow

us with grace and love to speak to folks who perhaps are in these kinds of

groups and to bring them the help that your Word and your Spirit would want

them to have. In Jesus' Name. Amen.

*****************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-58, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 7. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 7

"How Do Spiritual Gifts Operate?"

John MacArthur

As a preface to our study tonight, I want to just mention to you that we are

going through this study on the Charismatic movement, its contemporary form.

And I am unable in this particular study to cover every relevant passage of

Scripture, and so I would just encourage you that you will find a series of

tapes on all of the relevant passages that I have already preached on in

years past, out of the Book of Acts, out of 1 Corinthians, which are the

primary ones. You will also find in the bookstore and the tape room, a study

guide of about 300 pages on the issue of spiritual gifts; in some great

detail I cover that. I also have written a book on Tongues, and speaking in

Tongues, and all that is involved in that. And then we have the commentary

on 1 Corinthians, which is a verse by verse discussion of those passages, and

particularly focusing on chapters 12 through 14 that deal with Spiritual

Gifts. So there are some supplemental materials that would be very helpful

for you in filling out your understanding of this subject. What I am

endeavoring to do in this series is not go through every single passage in

great detail, but to take a kind of overall look at the contemporary

Charismatic movement and compare it with what we know to be true out of the

Word of God. We are looking at it more from the doctrinal side then we are

from the expositional side.

Now, I want you to turn in your Bible tonight, to a passage of Scripture that

I think sets a good context for what I want to say. Matthew, chapter 7, and

I want to begin reading in verse 15, and just read down a little ways, and I

think that you will catch the flow of what we find here. Jesus, here, is

bringing the Sermon on the Mount to its conclusion, and in so doing, this is

what He says, beginning in Matthew 7, and verse 15, "Beware of the false

prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous

wolves." By the way, sheep's clothing is wool and it was the garment of the

prophet. The prophet wore wool and so they are coming, not as false sheep,

but as false shepherds,

"You will know them by their fruits" (verse 16). "Grapes are

not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are

they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad

tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor

can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't bear

good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you

will know them by their fruits."

What Jesus is saying is, "Don't listen just to what they say; look at the

character of their life--the product." And then He says, in verse 21,

"Not everyone," and still in the context of false teachers, "who

says to Me, 'Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but

he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will

say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your

name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform

many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew

you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'"

An amazing passage, warning us about false teachers. These particular false

teachers appear to say the right thing--they speak about the Lord. "Lord,

Lord," they say. They even seem to do the right things--they prophesy or

preach in "The name of the Lord." "In the name of the Lord," they cast out

demons. "In the name of the Lord," they perform many miracles. But they

don't know the Lord, and the Lord does not know them, and we are to be aware

of that reality.

So as we come to any examination of the Charismatic movement that takes us

into looking at the phenomena of the movement, we have to very aware of the

fact that Jesus warned us already that even though they speak in the Lord's

name, and even though they cast out demons in the Lord's name, and even

though they do miracles and claim to do them in the Lord's name, they may be

false. They may say all of the right things but you have to look at the

fruit of their lives; you have to compare them with the divine standard of

good fruit.

This examination and this test must be held up in the issues of spiritual

gifts. As we look at these people who say they are prophesying in Jesus'

name, and casting out demons and doing miracles, we want to be sure of two

things: one, that their lives back it up, and two, that what they do is

consistent with the Word of God.

So I want to help you to evaluate that, if I can, tonight. And I want to

refer to some of the more well known of these Charismatic leaders today

because they're so very public, and they represent the kind of thing that is

going on that has to be tested.

In Orlando, there is a preacher in the Orlando Christian Center, named Benny

Hinn. Benny Hinn slays people in the Spirit. When Hinn feels the anointing

come upon his hand, he touches his followers on the forehead, or simply waves

an arm at them, and they fall down in a faint. If you've ever seen him on

television, then you have witnessed that. He has a nationally aired

television broadcast in which people are slain in the Spirit nearly every

week. In fact, the other night I was watching him and he slew everybody in

the entire auditorium--one section at a time. He waved his hand over this

section and they all fell down, and then he waved his hand over this section

and they all fell down, and he waved his hand over that section and they all

fell down, and then he waved his hand over the balcony and they all fell

down.

And the question comes to mind, of course, "Is Benny Hinn's ability a unique

spiritual gift? Is this God? Is God knocking all these people down? Or is

he simply using the techniques of mesmerism and the power of suggestion? In

fact, isn't it fair to say that he may even be using demonic power?" Surely

in the light of the warnings of Scripture (Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22, 2 Thess

2:7-9), demon inspired people are going to do "lying wonders." And so that

possibility must not be ruled out.

One thing is certain, Benny Hinn or anyone else who knocks people over, is

doing something that is never described, never discussed in the Bible.

Nothing like it is listed in any list of spiritual gifts, and no apostle, and

no early church leader ever did anything like that. The Charismatic practice

of slaying people in the Spirit, yet, has become so commonplace that many

Charismatics may be surprised to learn that Scripture is utterly silent about

such a gift. There is no record that anybody ever did that. The only time

anybody ever fell over was when Jesus spoke in the Garden when the soldiers

came to arrest Him. Yet the practice typifies the Charismatic movement's

obsession with some kind of strange and bizarre phenomena. There is no

indication that in the early church anybody had the power to knock people in

to some kind of spirit-filled catalepsy.

But there is a preoccupation today with the paranormal, the same fascination,

I think, that leads people to reading avariciously [greedily] as they do the

books of Stephen King and others like him. From the earliest days of

Pentecostalism the quest for more unusual and more spectacular manifestation

of spiritual gifts, has in effect, sabotaged rational thinking so that you

have people that are turning away from what is reasonable and rational. And,

as I have noted throughout the series, reports of inexplicable things, even

unbelievable things, mystical phenomena, are just rampant in the Charismatic

and Pentecostal tradition. And it doesn't matter what it is; no tale seems

too bizarre, too fantastic, too far out, to get a following. Peter Masters

and John Witcomb (sp.) have written a book called, "The Charismatic

Phenomena," and in it there is a quote that might be worth your listening

too,

There is no doubt that Charismatic teaching results in a

considerable lowering of the credulity threshold of all its

adherence. The practice of tongues, the relegation of the

understanding to a minor place, the diet of miracles, and the

extreme subjectivity of Charismatic thinking, all combine to

produce this effect, quickly and inevitably. Once people have

been mentally conditioned by a Charismatic environment, they are

able to take seriously such amazing ideas as Oral Roberts claim

to have seen a vision of Jesus 900 feet tall! Charismatic

practices loosen up the mind in such an unhealthy way that

people will believe almost anything.

You see, once you disconnect people from rational thinking, they are fair

game. In fact, many appear to believe that God's power can be displayed only

in ways that are irrational, unearthly, eerie, and somewhat preposterous.

Some Charismatics disdain logic, as we have noted, disdain reason, disdain

common sense in an eagerness to embrace these kind of things. Worse, the

entire Charismatic movement has absorbed the erroneous notion that whatever

is truly spiritual, whatever is truly of the Spirit must somehow transcend or

bypass a person's rational senses. They would, for the most part want us to

believe that anything that is rational, sensible, reasonable, is not

supernatural. Spiritual gifts supposedly operate by somehow suspending the

faculties of human reason. And you would think that the strongest evidence

of the Holy Spirit's working is when everybody goes into a stupor! And then

you are really seeing the power. When everybody falls over in some kind of

stupor, you are really seeing God at work. And so the lore of the

Charismatic movement is filled with outrageous accounts of behavior that

resembles trances, seizures, subliminal messaging, hypnosis, suspended

animation, frenzy, hysteria, and even dementia. And these are often cited as

evidences of the power of God. Churches where people think reasonably and

rationally, sensibly, discern with their minds the things of God--"Do not

know," they say, "the power of God."

Kenneth Hagan, another very popular leader in the movement, for example,

claims that one night while he was preaching, a cloud of glory enveloped him,

and he lost track of where he was and what he was saying,

I didn't know one word that I had said for 15 minutes. I had

been the "Glory Cloud." When I found myself walking around the

altar, I got so embarrassed. My face got red and I ran back on

the platform, got behind the pulpit, and said, "Amen, let's

pray" and gave the invitation. Sometimes when I am preaching

(Hagan writes) the Spirit of God comes on me, arrests my

attention, and I can't say a word in English. He goes on to

tell an incident when he was ministering with Fred Price, who is

down here in the Crenshaw area, and he said he was struck with

what he believed was an anointing in the church service. Hagan

said that he was unable to communicate in English for hours.

Now, the point is that this is to evidence the real power of God, when you

completely out of touch with reality! In a similar vein, Hagan relates this

story, and I am quoting from his writing,

Sister Maria Woodworth Edder (sp.) was an evangelist during the

early days of the Pentecostal movement in this country. I read

the newspaper account of what happened in Saint Louis sometimes

before 1920. She was in her 70's preaching in a tent which was

full, when right in the middle of her sermon, with her hand up

uplifted to illustrate a point and her mouth opened, the power

of God came upon her. She froze in that position and stood like

a stature for three days and for three nights. Think about

that, all of her body had to be under the control of the Spirit

of God! She had no bodily functions for three days and nights.

She stood there! According to the newspaper account, it was

estimated that more than 150,000 people came by to see her in

the three day period. The third night the Spirit of God

released her. She thought it was the same night and the same

sermon and she went on preaching at the same place in her

sermon.

It completely escapes me, why anyone would assume that such behavior

manifests God's power! Nothing remotely like it can be found in Scripture,

except Lot's wife. Still, whatever sermon she was preaching she never

completed. Still, Hagan tries to eclipse that tale with even more bizarre

ones, he says,

One night a sixteen year old girl was filled with the Spirit,

spoke with other tongues, went into a spirit of intercession,

then with her hands raised, stood in one spot for eight hours

and forty minutes. She never batted an eye, never shifted her

weight from foot to foot. It was January and she was standing

away from the stove. Her mother, concerned about her getting

cold, asked it if would be all right to move her nearer to the

stove, which was in the center of the room. "I don't know," I

said, "I have never seen anything like it." The pastor who

weighed 250 pounds said, "Brother Hagan, you get under one of

her elbows and I will get under the other and we will scoot her

closer to the heat." But she couldn't be moved--it was as if

she was nailed to the floor!

On another night, when we gave the altar call, I sensed the

power of God was upon one of the women. She began exhorting

people to be saved. I said, "Sister, go ahead and obey God."

With her eyes closed she stepped upon the wide altar and began

walking from one end to the other, exhorting sinners to be

saved. She would walk right up to the end of the altar and you

would think that she was going to step off! But, each time she

would turn. Folks started coming to the altar, her eyes were

shut, but every time one would come her spirit would know it and

she would dance a little jig for joy. Then she would go right

back to exhorting. When the twentieth person had come, (every

single sinner was saved that night, God is my witness, my wife

is my witness, and each person in that building is my witness)

she began to dance right off of the end of the altar! She stood

in midair dancing! Her feet were not touching the floor,

everyone saw it, I could have reached out and touched her, then

she turned and danced back on to the altar, down the altar to

the other end and stopped, opened her eyes and stepped off.

Frankly, that seems like a scene from a bad horror movie, more than [it does]

a true miracle. Levitation, altered states, feet nailed to the floor! That

is the apparatus of the Occult--not genuine spiritual gifts. You say, "Well,

you have chosen some isolated and atypical examples." Not so! And it is not

just provincial and old fashioned Charismatics who report such spectacles.

Virtually every major segment of the Charismatic movement feature stories

like those. Even the newest, the Third Wave movement, which we discussed

some last Sunday night, despite strong ties to the academic community,

exhibits a definite bias towards signs and wonders in which human intellect

is disengaged. Carol Wimber describes the watershed experience that launched

her husband's church into power evangelism (her husband being John Wimber),

It was Sunday evening, Mother's Day 1981, and a young man whom

John had invited to preach, gave his testimony. At the end of

his message, the guest speaker invited all those under the age

of 25 to come forward. None of us had a clue as to what was

going to happen next. When we got to the front the speaker

said, "For years now the Holy Spirit has been grieved by the

Church, but He is getting over it. Come Holy Spirit!" And He

came. Most of these young people had grown up around our home

and we knew them well. We had four children between the ages of

18 and 24. One fellow, Tim, started bouncing! His arms flung

out and he fell over, but one of his hands accidentally hit a

mike stand and he took it down with him. He was tangled up in

the cord with the mike next to his mouth. Then he began

speaking in tongues, so the sound went throughout the gymnasium.

We had never considered ourselves Charismatics and certainly

never placed any emphasis on the gift of tongues. We had seen a

few people tremble and fall over before and we had seen many

healings, but this was different. The majority of the young

people were shaking and falling over. At one point it looked

like a battlefield; bodies everywhere, people weeping, wailing,

speaking in tongues, much shouting and loud behavior. And there

was Tim in the middle of it all--babbling into the microphone!

Can you tell me that, that kind of chaos is to be accepted as proof that God

is at work? Even John Wimber at first seemed uncertain: "He spent all night

reading Scripture and historical accounts of revivals," Mrs. Wimber reports,

"He was afraid of doing anything that wasn't explicitly outlined in the

Bible." That's a healthy fear. But apparently that all night study didn't

yield him any conclusive answers, and so Mrs. Wimber goes on,

By 5:00am John was desperate. He cried out to God, "Lord, if

this is You please tell me." A moment later, the phone rang and

a pastor friend of ours from Denver, Colorado, was on the line.

"John," he said, "I am sorry I am calling so early but I have

really something strange to tell you. I don't know what it

means but God wants me to say, 'It's me John!'" That was all

John needed. He didn't have to understand the trembling, or why

everything happened as it did, all he needed to know was that

the Holy Spirit did it.

And how did he know the Holy Spirit did it? He got a phone call from Denver.

That's how he knew. If John Wimber had continued reading Scripture he might

have come to 1 Corinthians 12:13-14, and he might have seen the Apostle Paul

reprove the Corinthian Church for just such a scene. In verses 23 and 40 of

1 Corinthians chapter 14, it says, "If therefore the whole church should

assemble together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers

enter, will they not say that you are mad? But let all things be done

properly and in an orderly manner." And of course, you don't determine God's

will by a phone call from anywhere. God's Word is the only reliable test of

such things, and it seems clear that an honest reading of Scripture would

have given the plain answer. How can you take counsel from an unexpected

telephone call? But that's the mystical again. It must be God, because it

seems so extraordinary. I guess John Wimber decided that he didn't need to

make sense of what was happening in the church. He didn't need to reconcile

it with Scripture. He didn't need to understand it, he only needed a phone

call. He had a mystical sign and that was enough, so he put aside his fear

about extrabiblical phenomena, deciding and opting out, for the proof of a

phone call.

Now, these are simply illustrations of what goes on in the movement. The

Charismatic tendency to suspend the intellect and let mysticism run amuck is

the essence of what Paul wrote against in 1 Corinthians 14. There Paul

condemns primarily the misuse of the gift of tongues, but he also has other

things in mind as well. And he was bringing order to the very chaos which

has come back to the Church. And yet it is so true, that in the modern

Charismatic movement, chaos and confusion are typical, very typical.

Several of our elders from Grace Church attended the Vineyard, a few weeks

ago, to see this very kind of chaos. People lying on the floor prostrate for

a prolonged period of time with all their limbs sticking out, as if they were

in a catatonic state. People babbling in tongues and being incited to do

that by the leader. People pushing chairs off the floor and dancing all over

the floor and jumping up and down on the chairs. The same kind of hysteria.

Norval Hayes (sp.) describes an incident when he supposedly healed a man of

deafness,

The man fell straight forward, face down on the floor. You

would have thought all of his teeth would have been knocked out,

but they weren't. Then he bounced and fell back down again.

The impact could have broken his nose but it didn't. Again he

bounced up off the floor and fell back again. This time he laid

there real quiet for 60 seconds, then his mouth opened and a

little squeaky sound like a mouse began to come out. It got

louder, sounding like a big rat, and finally sounded like a

screaming hyena. In a little while the man shook his head and

pushed himself up off of the floor. He acted as if he had been

hit in the head with a stick, but both ears had popped opened

and the knot in his stomach was gone. People jumped out of

their seats and started running towards me and saying, "Pray for

me." As I reached out and began to pray, it was as though the

wind of God had come into my hands. People were lying all

around on the floor, including denomination pastors. God

baptized them in the Holy Ghost and the moment they hit the

floor they started to speak in tongues.

Kenneth Hagan tells us of incredible tales about unusual healings that he has

done when peculiar anointings have been manifest in his ministry,

Several times the anointing has come on me to do unusual things

while praying for the sick. Sometimes I go along 5 or 6 years

between times. The first time it happened to me was in 1950. I

was preaching in Oklahoma, a woman came forward for prayer, she

said she was 72, she looked like she was about to give birth to

a baby, of course, she had a tumor. I started to lay hands on

her to pray, when the Word of the Lord came to me saying, "Hit

her in the stomach with your fist!" On the inside of me I said,

"Lord, you're going to get me in trouble, going around hitting

women in the stomach with my fist. I don't believe I much want

to do that." "Well, if you want argue about it, the anointing

will leave you. It will lift from you just like a bird flying

away after sitting on your shoulder." It left me.

When it left me, I thought, "Well, I will go ahead and minister

with laying on of hands." I laid hands on her again and the

anointing came again, and the Word of the Lord came and said,

"Hit her in the stomach with your fist!" I decided I better

stop and explain that to the crowd before I started doing it.

So I told them what the Lord said and I punched her in the

stomach with my fist, and God and hundreds of people are my

witnesses that that stomach went down like you'd stuck a pin in

a balloon.

Hagan tells of another man he was told to "Hit in the head!" And a young

female college student he was to hit in the Kidney!

Now, all I am doing is reading you the testimony of these people. The words

are their words. And such tactics, apart from being dangerous, especially

with 72 year old people and other people who are under physical duress, leave

me dumbfounded, to say nothing of their foolishness. And recently, you might

be interested to know, that an 85 year old woman came forward for a healing

touch from Benny Hinn. And while she was in line, he slew someone in the

Spirit, who fell over and crushed the woman's hip and she died. And there is

now a $5,000,000 lawsuit against Benny Hinn. That kind of ridiculous chaos

that ends in the death of an elderly woman is not the power of God.

Charismatic chaos is usually not so physically fatal, but it is spiritually

fatal for many.

Some concerned parents wrote our church, and I get letters about this quite

regularly, my file is fairly large, but their daughter had become involved

with a spiritual gifts workshop in a large well known Third Wave church. The

mother wrote this,

In December of 1989 she began (speaking of the daughter)

speaking in tongues. Shortly thereafter she began to see

angels. An angel in armor always stands outside the front door

of her home and another stands inside her living room. He has

large wings. She says she asked God to send her angels for

protection while her husband was on a business trips. A few

months later she began to see demons also. A monkey like demon

sat on her husband's head one night and hissed at her. She sees

others riding on tops of cars or standing on rooftops and some

in battle with the angels. She sometimes sees darkness around

people. She believes seeing this is a God given gift. When I

told her to test the spirits, she got angry. She said the Lord

said, "Yes, it is I the Lord." I believe they are all demons.

I told her to read the Bible. She said she only reads the

Scripture numbers the Holy Spirit puts in her mind.

We visited her and attended one of her group meetings. A

prophet from Kansas City came (one of the Kansas City Prophets.

That's a group that I have mentioned); he said something about

the past, present, or future of nearly everyone in the room.

Somethings were incredibly true and other things haven't

happened yet. Our daughter now wants to develop this gift in

herself and can now sometimes see a person's sin written on

their forehead. She will then expel a demon. Since I told her

to test the spirits, as the Bible tells us, she will not tell me

what she's seeing anymore. I feel there is a wall between us.

I listened this week to five tapes of one of these prophets, who supposedly

can tell you your phone number, your address, and so forth. And by doing

those kinds of things, which can be done by chicanery, little different than

the Amazing Crescan (sp.) does them, or could be demonic, he thus convinces

people that, indeed, he is a prophet. And once the convincing is done by the

people who are already are under the power of suggestion, and are already

"setup" to buy into anything that is supernatural, whatever the person then

says is taken as truth. Like so many Charismatics, that young woman has come

to believe that her experiences obviate Bible study and spiritual

discernment. Why should she listen to her mother when God talks to her?

I've seen marriages break up. I went through the breakup of a marriage of a

wife who had no reason to listen to her husband because God talked to her.

These people believe that they have some kind of a superior relationship with

the Holy Spirit. They don't need Scripture, except an isolated verse or two

that supposedly the Holy Spirit brings to mind.

You see, the Charismatic movement breeds this kind of catastrophe in

marriages, in families, in churches, because it discourages people from

discerning the truth from Scripture. It discourages the people from using

the mind. Instead, truth is appraised subjectively, through signs and

wonders and mystical means. Kenneth Hagan again, who really is the Patriarch

of the Signs and Wonders movement, explains his criteria for judging between

true and false spiritual gifts,

When God moves everybody will be blessed. If something is of

the flesh, everybody will have a sick feeling. If something is

of the devil, it seems like the hair will stand up on neck.

That's a simple way everyone can judge whether they've got any

spiritual discernment or not.

You mean to tell me that I can know if I have spiritual discernment by

whether I feel sick or whether the hair stands up on the back of my neck?

There it is, as explicitly as it can be stated, by a leading Charismatic.

That's how you determine spiritual discernment. And he is defining there

exactly what is wrong with Charismatic mysticism. Spiritual discernment,

from the Biblical perspective is unnecessary. It's really a very simple

system of biofeedback. Again and again Charismatics hear the same message,

"Put your mind on hold, ignore your reason, listen to your feelings." That

kind of extreme mysticism contradicts everything Scripture teaches about true

discernment.

Spiritual gifts are not supposed to produce mindless chaos and mindless

pandemonium in the church, nor are they to be a way that a person can show

off his spirituality before the crowd. They are never to be used selfishly;

they are never to be used in some kind of performance; they are never to be

used to cause you to lapse into some kind of spiritual coma or put other

people in a state of unconsciousness.

Kenneth Copeland, a rather comedic child of Kenneth Hagan, in terms of having

the same theology, writes, and this is a quote, "Believers are not supposed

to be led by logic. We are not even to be led by good sense. The ministry

of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason." That's just not true. Now

there is so much that we can learn and look at in 1 Corinthians. Let me just

give you a little bit of a feeling for how Paul dealt with this. I don't

want to take much time, so listen very carefully. Very brief.

The Charismatic gifts as we know them, were operating in the early church,

for God had purpose for them at that time. And in the book [Charismatic

Chaos] there will be a chapter on the matter of tongues and I will deal with

it a little later in our series so I don't want to get into it in detail now,

but simply to say, there was a time when all the spiritual gifts were

operative, but they had become misused and abused and counterfeited in

Corinth. And we would have to say that the Charismatic Chaos of today is

very much like the Charismatic Chaos of Corinth. Some of the factors differ.

In that day all the gifts were operative, today they are not. But there were

abuses then and there are abuses now. The situation was so abusive that Paul

writes 1 Corinthians to correct it.

They had a lot of problems in Corinth: divisions, personality cults, cliques,

moral compromise, and other desperate ills in the church. Carnality

outweighed spirituality; sexual perversion, fornication, incest, adultery

were being tolerated. Worldliness was there, materialism was in the church,

church members were suing each other. There was rebellion against apostolic

authority. There was marital conflict going on. The role of single people

was misunderstood and misrepresented. Liberty was being abused. Idolatry

was being practiced. Selfishness was rampant. Pride was widespread. Demon

worship had come in. The church was abusing God's intention for the Lord's

Table and the Love Feast. And in the middle of all of this, spiritual gifts

were being perverted, misused and prostituted.

This is one corrupt church. The problem wasn't that they lacked spiritual

gifts: 1 Corinthians 1:7, Paul said, "You are not lacking in any gift." It

was how they fouled them up. So a major segment of that first letter, 1

Corinthians 12:13-14, directs itself at this terrible, terrible misuse of

spiritual gifts. The Corinthians, like the Charismatics today, had tended to

equate the Holy Spirits work with ecstatic involuntary frenetic and

mysterious activity. And if it was inexplicable from the human level, they

would say it was the Holy Spirit, even to the point that some people were

cursing Jesus and they were saying it was the Holy Spirit because the

phenomena seemed so bizarre. The wilder and the more agitated the person

was, the more godly and spiritual he was supposed to be. They got to the

point where in order for them to say it is the spirit, it had to be bizarre.

Then there was the desire to be seen and the desire to appear as being

spiritual. People were exploiting and perverting the gift of tongues

particularly, and counterfeiting it with ecstatic babble that came out of

their past paganism. They were confusing the work of the Holy Spirit with

mystical practices they had known from their former pagan religion.

You see for over a thousand years that part of the world had been dominated

with the mystery religions. The pagan mystery religions. They can be traced

all the way back to Babylon. But they cultivated, all of them had this in

common, they cultivated a magical, sensual, communion with deity. The

assumption in the mystery religions and their cultic kind of form of worship,

was that you get yourself in some kind of state, a mindless kind of state, a

transcendent kind of state, an irrational, not logical, not reasonable kind

of mystical state, and when you get into that you will then commune with the

deity. You can do it through drunkenness and so they got drunk in the pagan

religions. You can do it through the passion of sexual involvement, and so

there were priestesses who acted as temple prostitutes, and you could come in

and throw yourself into an orgy. And in the euphoria of that orgy, and in

the stupor of being drunk, in the stupor of that whole event, supposedly you

were to commune with deity.

Paul has that in mind, certainly in Ephesians 5, when he says, "Do not be

drunk with wine, in which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit." If you

really want to connect with God, be filled with the Spirit, don't be drunk.

They would do almost anything to get into a semiconscious, hallucinatory,

hypnotic, or orgiastic spell, because they believed that somehow that got

them in touch with deity. This is not very far different than going back

into the 60's in the drug culture, and the things Timothy Leary tried to say

about how you transcend this world and touch the divine, and what the Eastern

Mystics were saying, as they were advocating the same kind of stuff. Whether

from literal intoxication, or some kind of emotional hysteria, or

exhilaration, worshipers falling into some kind of euphoria assumed they were

then in union with the deity.

According to S. Angus, once professor of New Testament and Historical

Theology at Saint Andrews College at Sidney, the ecstasy experience by the

mystery religion worshiper, brought him into

A mystic ineffable condition, in which the normal functions of

personality were in abeyance, and the moral strivings which

formed character, virtually ceased or were relaxed, while the

emotional and the intuitive were accentuated.

In other words, the worshiper would get into a state where his mind would go

into neutral and his emotions would take over. The intellect and the

conscious would give way to passion, sentiment, and emotion. This was

ecstasy. Angus further said,

Ecstasy might be induced by vigil and fasting, tense religious

expectancy, whirling dances, physical stimuli, the contemplation

of the sacred objects, the effect of stirring music, inhalation

of fumes, revivalistic contagion, hallucinations, suggestions

and all other means belonging to the apparatus of the mysteries.

One ancient writer speaks of men going out of themselves to be

wholly established in the divine.

It is exactly what happened in Corinth and it is still going on today. As

the mystery worshiper experienced such ecstasy, he believed he was lifted

above the level of his ordinary experience into an abnormal sense of

consciousness and therein he could really see God. And according to Angus

again, he says, "Ecstasy could range anywhere from nonmoral delirium to that

consciousness of oneness with the invisible, and the dissolution of painful

individuality which marks the mystics of all ages." The person literally

became irrational, unreasonable, out of touch with reality. I don't think it

is too far afield to say that there are testimonies by Pentecostal

Charismatic believers that seem to me to sound very much like this. They

explain their various states of euphoria as engaging in communion with the

Holy Spirit, but is it that? Certainly not by Biblical definition. Is it

only an emotional high? Is it only some kind of psychological self-induced

hypnosis? Is it only falling under the spell of the power of suggestion? Or

is it demonic? In any case it is not Biblical. It certainly isn't, "Come

now let us reason together, says the Lord." It certainly is not, "Let

everything be done decently and in order."

The problem Paul dealt with in Corinth is the same problem he deals with

through his letters in the charismatic movement today. The problem is this:

"How do you tell the real from the counterfeit?" And the only answer I have

to you, Beloved, is to take it to the Word of God--and if it isn't there, it

isn't real. That's the only place we can go. You certainly can't believe

experience. Why? Because "Many will say, 'Lord, Lord,'" and they will

prophesy in His name, and they will cast out demons in His name, and they

will do miracles, at least what appear to be miracles, in His name. But He

will say "Depart from me, I never knew you. Who are you? You workers of

iniquity." We need to warn the true believers in the Charismatic movement

that Satan is having a field day counterfeiting, because you're not checking

with the Word, and because you are not using the mind that God has given you

to understand His truth. Christ is being dishonored.

Remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:2, he said to the Corinthians,

"You are being led astray, just like you used to be. You used to be led

astray to dumb idols, led astray like a prisoner. You were just led astray

to your false gods. Now, that you have become a believer, you can't let that

happen. You can't just throw yourself open and be carried away by demons in

the ecstasies of these events." The truly spiritual person is not someone

who sweeps away into trances, ecstasies, emotional frenzies, who falls over

in a dead faint. The true spiritual person isn't somebody who goes into a

glory cloud for 15 minutes, can't speak English, comes back and doesn't know

he has been gone. When a person is out of control, it is never the Holy

Spirit! The fruit of the Spirit is self-control (Galatians 5). No where in

Scripture do we see the real gifts of the Spirit operating when somebody is

out of control, or when somebody is under a supernatural seizure.

And so Beloved, as we look at this movement, we have to be concerned and

literally sad in our hearts because of so many people being led astray in the

Name of Christ. But I guess that we should expect it. My dad used to say,

"Nobody counterfeits brown paper and sticks, because brown paper and sticks

aren't worth counterfeiting. They don't have any value. Wherever you see a

counterfeit," he used to say to me, "just be sure there is a real, because

people only counterfeit what's real, and they only counterfeit what's

valuable." Counterfeiters copy what's valuable and what is priceless in the

Church. Listen to me, what is priceless in the Church is the true work of

the Spirit, and the true gifts of the Spirit, and the true ministry of the

Spirit. And how tragic it is that a whole generation of people are cut off

from the reality because they bought the counterfeit. Many of these people

have been saved but they are part of a system that cuts them off from the

true working of God's Spirit. The Church will be built up when spiritual

gifts are used properly; when the Scripture is understood properly, taught

accurately; and when the believers are walking in the Spirit with self

control, obeying the Word of God.

Well, let's bow in a word of prayer. Father, even as we have talked about

these things tonight, we have been brought back again to the great foundation

of your Word, where we must test everything. Help us to know that it is not

enough that someone lifts up your name and says, "Lord, Lord," and claims

you. It is not enough that they preach and cast out demons and do wondrous

things. They could be false prophets. They could be sheep dressed up in

prophet's garments, and the fruit of their life wouldn't support their

claims, and someday you'll bring it to light. Lord, give us discernment.

There are many that you love, that belong to you who are swept up in this

movement, tragically exposing themselves to error, demonic activity,

confusion, and on the other hand, cutting themselves off from the true path

of sanctification, the true work of the Spirit, and the true interpretation

and proclamation of your word. Lord, how tragic that they would be

dispossessed of that and think they've come to a higher level of

spirituality, when, in fact, it's a lower one. And what they think is

something more is really something less.

Father, I pray that you will bring clarity and sanity and the true work of

the Spirit to bear upon the confusion, that you true Church may be delivered

out of that confusion into the light of the true work of the blessed Spirit,

whose task it is to move us from one level of glory to the next, evermore

into the image of Christ. In whose name we pray. Amen.

****************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-59, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 8. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 8

"What was Happening in the Early Church?"

John MacArthur

Tonight we are going to go back to our study of this matter of Charismatic

Chaos. The message tonight will be a bit more technical and deal more

closely with the texts of Scripture than some of ours in the past, in which

we have been assessing the movement from a somewhat theological point of

view. Tonight we want to look a little more tightly at the Book of Acts,

because the Book of Acts is basically the location for most of the

Charismatic defense of their doctrine. Experience is the foundation upon

which much of the Charismatic system is built, and it is very important to

identify that. Experience is the authority that Charismatics most frequently

cite to validate their teachings. They have an experience-centered approach

to truth that even influences the way they approach the Bible. In fact, the

Book of Acts, which is a journal of the Apostle's experiences, is where

Charismatics usually turn in search of Biblical support for what they

believe.

Now, I want you to look with me to the Book of Acts tonight; we are going to

be looking at a couple of chapters, just giving you a feel for some very key

ones, in light of the Charismatic theology. The Book of Acts is a

historical narrative, in contrast, for example, to the Epistles of the New

Testament which are didactic, or doctrinal, or instructive to the Church.

This is a chronicle. It is a story, really of the early Church experiences.

The Epistles on the other hand contain detail instructions for believers

throughout all the Church Age. So in the Epistles you have the rather

permanent instruction and doctrine for the Church. In the Book of Acts you

have a chronicle of the history of the Early Church experiences.

Historically, Christians committed to a Biblical perspective have recognized

the difference. And it is an important difference to recognize. Evangelical

theologians, through the years, have drawn the heart of their doctrine from

Bible passages intended to teach the Church. They have understood that Acts

is an inspired, historical record of the Apostolic period, not necessarily

viewing every event or every phenomena that occurs there, as normative for

the entire Church Age.

But, on the other hand, Charismatics who have an insatiable craving for

experiences and particularly for the experiences described in the Book of

Acts, have assembled a doctrinal system that views the extraordinary events

of the early Apostolic Age as necessary and continuing hallmarks of the Holy

Spirit's work. They view the Book of Acts as normative, or what should be

normative for all Christians in all ages. They see the workings of the Holy

Spirit in the Book of Acts as tokens of spiritual power that are to be

routinely expected by all Christians living in all times. Now, that is a

rather serious interpretive error. In fact, it undermines the Charismatic's

comprehension of Scripture. It muddies several key Biblical issues, crucial

to a right understanding of Scriptural doctrine.

Gordon Fee, a writer, who himself is a Charismatic, commented on the

hermeneutical difficulties posed by the way Charismatics typically approach

the Book of Acts, with these words, and I quote,

If the primitive church is normative, which expression of it is

normative? Jerusalem? Antioch? Philippi? Corinth? That is,

why do not all the churches sell their possessions and have all

things in common? Or further, is it at all legitimate to take

any descriptive statements as normative? If so, how does one

distinguish those which are from those which are not? For

example, must we follow the pattern of Acts 1:26 and select

leaders by lot? Just exactly what role does historical

precedent play in Christian doctrine or in the understanding of

Christian experience?

Now, he introduces a very important point. If we are going to take the Book

of Acts as normative, then we must take the Book of Acts in its total as

normative, and we are going to have some immensely difficult issues to deal

with. The fact of the matter is, that Acts was never intended to be the

primary basis for teaching doctrine to the Church. The Book of Acts records

only the earliest days of the Church Age and shows the Church in tradition,

coming out of the old age into the new, coming out, as it were, of the Old

Testament into the New Testament. The apostolic healings, and miracles, and

signs, and wonders evident in the Book of Acts were not even common to all

believers even in those days, but were uniquely restricted to the Apostles

and those who worked alongside of them. They were exceptional events, each

with specific purposes and always associated with the ministry of the

Apostles; and their frequency can be seen decreasing dramatically even from

the beginning of the Book of Acts to the end.

It seems as though, at the opening of the Book of Acts, there is a flurry of

the miraculous, and towards the end it's absent. The Book of Acts was

written by Luke, the physician, as you know. Acts covers a crucial period

that started with the Church at Pentecost and ended about 30 years later with

Paul in prison, following his third missionary journey. Transitions are seen

from beginning to end in the Book of Acts. Changes come in almost every

chapter as the old covenant fades away and the New Covenant comes in all its

fullness. Even the Apostle Paul was caught in some of those changes, which

can be witnessed as you look into chapter 18 of Acts and chapter 21, and see

him, although he is fully under the New Covenant, still exhibiting ties to

the old, as indicated by his taking certain Jewish vows which were prescribed

in the Old Testament.

In the Book of Acts we are in a transition which moved from the Synagogue to

the Church. We are in a transition which moves away from an order of law

into an order of grace. The Church is transformed from a group of Jewish

believers to a body made up of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ. Believers

at the beginning of Acts were related to God under an old pattern. By the

end, all believers were in Christ, living under a new pattern, indwelt by the

Holy Spirit, in a new and unique relationship.

Acts, therefore, covers an extraordinary time in history. A time of

transition from the old to the new. And the transition it records, listen

carefully, is never to be repeated. There is only one time frame in which

you move from the old to the new, that history does not come again. It never

will come again, and those elements that are true of that transition are not

repeatable, for the transition itself needs no repetition. Therefore, we

must say, the only teachings in the Book of Acts which can be called

normative for the Church are those that are explicitly taught elsewhere in

Scripture.

Now, as you look at the Book of Acts from the Charismatic viewpoint, looking

at it as it were through their eyes, the major theological distinction of

that movement has to be supported in the Book of Acts, and they think they can

do it. It is what I would call the doctrine of Subsequence. That's a term

that others have used. The doctrine of Subsequence. What that basically

means is, that you get saved and sometimes subsequent to that, some later

date, hopefully, you get the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. That is primarily

the distinctive doctrine of Pentecostal Charismatic theology; that when

you're saved you receive the Lord Jesus Christ, you are redeemed: at some

later time you get the Baptism of the Holy Spirit--subsequent to that saving

work.

They will also say, secondly, that it is often, some of them will say,

always, associated with speaking in tongues. Old line traditional

Pentecostalism for the most part said, "The Baptism of the Spirit is

subsequent to salvation and is always identified by speaking in tongues,"

some will say, "Often identified by speaking in tongues." The third

component is that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit often manifests, or always

manifests by speaking in tongues, is something to be earnestly, zealously,

and passionately sought for. Now, that is really the essence of the

distinctive kind of Charismatic doctrine that so many of us are familiar

with.

They go to the Book of Acts to endeavor to prove this Subsequence doctrine,

this tongues as an attendant proof of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and for

some strange reason to even verify the seeking after the gift or the Baptism.

The doctrine of Subsequence [which says] that there is for Christians, a

baptism in the Spirit, distinct from and subsequent to the experience of

salvation, and that that is somehow associated with the matter of tongues, is

at the very heart of their theology. And so we must be able to deal with

this and I want us to do that tonight because we are really cutting into

the very core of what they historically have taught.

In his rather thorough investigation of Pentecostal theology, Frederick Dale

Bruner wrote, "Pentecostals believe that the Spirit has baptized every

believer into Christ's conversion, but that Christ has not baptized every

believer into the Spirit Pentecost." Not only do most Charismatics believe

that the Baptism of the Spirit happens at some point after salvation, but

that it only happens to those who seek after it diligently, passionately, and

zealously. And then as I said, when it does come it is usually, if not

always attended by speaking in tongues. Now, they are very definitive, may I

say, about this doctrine. May I also say, they are very vague about most

other doctrines. In most other areas of theology they are vague, but in this

one they usually speak a clear word regarding what they believe.

Now, some of them attempt to support their doctrine of Subsequence from the

Book of Acts because they really can't go anywhere else. Some of them don't

attempt to support it at all: they just say it's true. But the ones who

attempt to support it have to go to the Book of Acts because there is no

where else to go. Let me show you why. Maybe you say, "They ought to go the

First Corinthians, doesn't that talk about the Holy Spirit and Tongues?" It

does. Open your Bibles for a moment to 1Corinthians, chapter 12, and let's

see how well they would fare with that doctrine in 1Corinthians 12.

1Corinthians 12, verse 13 says, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into

one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all

made to drink of one Spirit." Now, there you have the Holy Spirit as an

agent in baptism, there you have the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, but you

have absolutely nothing about Subsequence. You have absolutely nothing about

tongues, and you have absolutely nothing about seeking. It is a fact that is

stated. There is no indication that it is subsequent to salvation; in fact,

the very statement that it has happened to all of us, indicates that it is

concurrent with salvation. It cannot take place at some point after

salvation or Paul couldn't say it was true of all Christians--but he does!

You say, "Well, maybe they ought to go 1Corinthians, chapter 14, doesn't that

talk about tongues? And doesn't that talk about the Holy Spirit?" Yes, but

if you go to 1Corinthians 14, you are not going to find any Subsequence

there. You are not going to find any discussion of the Baptism of the

Spirit. You are not going to find any connection of tongues with the Baptism

of the Holy Spirit, and you are not going to find any authorization to seek

after tongues or to seek after the baptism. So you can't find any of that in

1Corinthians 12 or 14, and if you have exhausted that section there isn't

anything else in the New Testament that mentions tongues, except Acts. So

they are stuck with Acts, even though the clear teaching of 1Corinthians 12

is that every believer has been baptized by the agency of the Holy Spirit,

Christ using the Spirit to place the believer into the Body, and that occurs

at salvation and it is true of every Christian. There is no connection to

tongues and it isn't something you seek for, it's something that god does for

you at your salvation.

And so they are left with no where to go but Acts. And so they violate the

nature of the Book of Acts, which is a historical record of the Early Church

and the unique transitional apostolic period, and make it normative for

everybody, because that is the only place they can go to defend their unique

theology. Now, when you go into the Book of Acts, and I want you to go there

with me, Acts, chapter 2 to start with, when you go to the Book of Acts,

you go to four chapters, chapter 2, chapter 8, chapter 10, and chapter 19.

Obviously, we can't cover all of that, that would be an absolute

impossibility; but those are the places that they go to support their view,

and I want to give you a little bit of a feeling for this because you need to

be able to understand and grasp this.

The truth of the matter is, that even the Book of Acts fails to support this

Charismatic theology of Subsequence, proof by Tongues and the need to seek.

For example, they want to go to Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, because those record four

different occasions in which the Holy Spirit came. In some of those

occasions there is Tongues. In some of those occasions there is the coming

of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation. But those four occasions are not

uniform. The first one describes the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of

Pentecost, the second one the coming of the Holy Spirit to the new group of

believers in Samaria, the third one, Acts 10, the coming of the Holy Spirit

to the Gentile converts, Cornelius and his house. The fourth one, chapter

19, the coming of the Holy Spirit to some hangover disciples of John the

Baptist, who were still living under an Old Testament economy, because they

didn't know the gospel yet; somehow it had missed them.

All four of these groups have unique experiences of receiving the Holy

Spirit, but their experiences are different. For example, in Acts, chapter

2, and Acts, chapter 8, believers do receive the Holy Spirit after salvation.

In Acts, chapter 10, and chapter 19, believers received the Holy Spirit at

the moment of salvation, so they are not in agreement on that issue. The

doctrine of Subsequence then cannot be convincingly defended even from the

Book of Acts, because it isn't consistent. You say, "What about Tongues?"

In chapter 2, chapter 10, and chapter 19, tongues are mentioned, but in

chapter 8, they are not. So you can't even find anything that is normative

at that point, at least that is written in Scripture. You say, "Well, what

about seeking after it?" The believers in Acts 2, they say, were in the

Upper Room seeking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. There is no seeking in

chapter 8, there is no seeking in chapter 10, and there is no seeking in

chapter 19. The truth of the matter is, there is no seeking in chapter 2

either; they were in the Upper Room doing nothing but patiently waiting. It

doesn't tell us that they were seeking; no seeking is mentioned.

Now the point is clear. To say that the Book of Acts presents a normal

pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit attended by Tongues and for seeking

that, presents a major problem because these separate accounts of four

different groups who received the Holy Spirit are all different. So if you

are going to make the Book of Acts normative, which group is the normative

group? It is true that Christians at Pentecost, in Acts 2, and that Gentiles

in Cornelius' household, in chapter 10, and the Jews at Ephesus who had only

the Baptism of John, did receive the Holy Spirit and Tongues or languages

followed, but because those three events occurred doesn't mean that they are

to be the standard for every other Christian.

In fact, none of these passages, 2, 8, 10, or 19, give any indication that

they are to be the norm for all believers for all time. In fact, there is

plenty of indication that they are not. If Tongues were to be the normal

experience then why aren't they mentioned in chapter 8, when the Samaritans

received the Holy Spirit? And why does the text of Acts 2 not say that

everyone who believed, following Peter's sermon, and received the Holy

Spirit, spoke in Tongues? Do you remember when Peter preached on the day of

Pentecost? Three thousand people believed; it says in Acts 2:38 that they

received the Holy Spirit. Remember that? Why didn't they speak in tongues?

In order for something to be normative, it has to be common to everybody.

And if the Holy Spirit wanted to say that Tongues was a normative attendant

to the coming of the Holy Spirit, the normative time for it to happen would

have been among the 3,000 that were converted. Right?

John Stott reasons,

The 3,000 do not seem to have experienced the same miraculous

phenomena, the rushing mighty wind, the tongues of flame, or the

speech in foreign languages; at least nothing is said about

these things. Yet because of God's assurance through Peter, they

must have inherited the same promise and received the same gift,

that is, the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, there was this

difference between them: the 129 were regenerate already and

received the Baptism of the Spirit only after the waiting upon

God for 10 days; the 3,000 on the other hand were unbelievers,

received the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit

simultaneously, and it happened immediately--they repented and

believed without any need to wait at all.

This distinction between the two companies, the 120 and the

3,000, is of great importance for the norm for today must

surely be the second group, the three thousand, and not as is

often supposed, the first group. The fact that the experience

of the 120 was in two distinct stages was due simply to

historical circumstances; they could not have received the

Pentecostal gift before Pentecost. But those historical

circumstances have long since ceased to exist. We live after

the event of Pentecost, like the 3,000 did. With us therefore,

as with them, the forgiveness of sins and the gift or Baptism of

the Spirit, are received together.

Without question, Acts 2 is a key passage from which Pentecostals and

Charismatics develop their theology of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and it

would be worth our while to just look briefly at it. Look at the first four

verses of Acts 2,

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in

one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a

violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they

were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire

distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak

with other tongues (or languages) as the Spirit was giving them

utterance.

Now, that describes what happened on the day of Pentecost. As noted before,

the Pentecostals and Charismatics say that is the doctrine of Subsequence.

They say,

Look, these people were already believers. They had already

been saved. And so they were saved first, at some earlier time,

and here they are sitting around waiting for the Holy Spirit.

But the obvious answer to that is, "Well, of course, because the Holy Spirit

hasn't yet come at all, and doesn't come until the day of Pentecost."

Certainly there is subsequence here, and certainly we would agree with the

Pentecostal theology that they had experienced salvation. I mean, you can go

all the way back into Luke 10:20, where Jesus tells His apostles to,

"Rejoice, that your names are recorded in heaven." You can go back to John

15:3, where Jesus says to the same apostles, "You are already clean because

of the Word which I have spoken to you," so He affirms that they have a right

relationship to God. We could call them saved. And so people say, "Well,

they were saved way back then, and see, the Holy Spirit comes later!" But,

how much insight do you have to have to realize that, of course it's

subsequent to their salvation because they were really saved prior to the

arrival of the Holy Spirit! Once the Holy Spirit came, there is no need for

a waiting for Him to come again, because He already comes to indwell His

Church on the day of Pentecost, and from then on continually indwells His

Church from the moment of salvation forward.

Most Charismatics would even go a step further. They would suggest that not

only were the disciples saved before the day of Pentecost, but watch this,

that the disciples also received the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost.

But they just got a little bit of Him. You need to remember this, if you

confront a Charismatic sometime and you say, "You don't believe that when

you're saved you received the Holy Spirit." They will say, "Yes, we do. Oh,

yes we do." And it's true they do. They believe that you receive the Spirit

in some small measure, but the Baptism of the Spirit is an explosion of the

Spirit's power in fullness that comes into your life. So you don't want to

accuse Charismatics of denying that a Christian has the Holy Spirit. They

would say that you have the Holy Spirit in a limited way, but you don't have

the fullness of the Spirit and the power of the Spirit. They would go back,

for example, to John, chapter 20. And in John 20, verses 21 and 22, Jesus

looks at His disciples, and the Scripture says "Jesus breathed on them, and

said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit." Wow! That's interesting.

Way back in John 20, He's saying that to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit,"

that's before the Holy Spirit is even sent on the day of Pentecost. And

according to standard Charismatic interpretation of that text, they say,

"Jesus then, was giving them the Holy Spirit, in a limited way. They had to

wait for the higher level explosion of the Baptism of the Spirit that gave

them their real power." We have to ask the question, "Is that really

correct?" When in John 20:21-22, Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," was

that a statement of fact? If you look very carefully at that text, the

Charismatic view doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The passage doesn't

say the disciple actually received the Holy Spirit, it doesn't say that. It

simply said that Jesus blew on them, a graphic sort of an illustration, and

said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." We would have to conclude that it was a

pledge, that it was a promise that wasn't fulfilled until the day of

Pentecost. In fact, all you have to do is look at them to know that they

hadn't received the Holy Spirit. Ensuing statements in John 20 seem to

confirm the disciples didn't receive the Spirit in the Upper Room, because

eight days later, [when] He came to where they were, they were hiding. They

were full of fear, they were in a locked room. This is more than a week

after He breathed on them, and more than a week after He promised them, and

they hadn't gone any where or done anything that would manifest the Spirit's

presence.

The strongest arguments, however, appear in the early verses in the Book of

Acts. Verse 4,

Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave

Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised,

"Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; for John baptized with

water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many

days from now."

Jesus said it hasn't happen yet, it's been promised, but it hasn't happened.

It's yet to come. That goes all the way back to John 14:16, where Jesus

said, "I will ask the father, and He will give you another Helper, that he

may be with you." They are still waiting. He gave them the promise when He

breathed on them, but it hasn't yet been fulfilled. Acts 1:8, "You shall

receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Which means, He

hasn't come yet. If the Spirit had come upon them in John 20, He wouldn't

have said, "He hasn't come yet."

Two other passages demonstrate very clearly that the Holy Spirit wasn't come

until the day of Pentecost, John 7:39, listen to what Jesus said, "This He

spoke of the Spirit," you know when He said, "out of you bellies shall flow

rivers of living water." "This He spoke of the Spirit," writes John, "whom

those who believed in Him were to receive," but listen to this, "for the

Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet," what? "glorified" (that

means ascended). That passage explicitly states that the Spirit would not

come until Jesus had been glorified, and He wouldn't be glorified until He

ascended into heaven. So until Jesus ascended there in Acts 1, went into

heaven and sent the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit had not

[yet] come.

In John 16:7, Jesus told the disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is to your

advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come

to you; but if I go, I will send Him." The same thing, He's not coming until

I get there. So the Holy Spirit had not come, they did not receive a little

bit of the Holy Spirit, only later to get an explosion. They didn't receive

any of the indwelling of the Spirit of God until the day of Pentecost. At

that point the Spirit of God took up residence in them and they were baptized

by Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit into the body. So we are at

a transition period, an obvious transition period between the old economy and

the new. And these apostles are caught right in that transition with the

others who made up the 120.

Now, what about the Charismatic idea that the Holy Spirit is to be sought,

eagerly sought? We have no indication in the Upper Room that anybody was

seeking anything. There is no evidence that they were pleading or seeking

anything; they were just waiting. Nor is there any indication throughout the

entire Book of Acts that anybody was seeking after some baptizing work of

the Holy Spirit. There is not one incident, not one incident, even where the

phenomena of the coming of the Spirit and tongues occurs that indicates that

anybody in the Early Church ever sought such an experience. Not one. This

must effect somehow the Pentecostal doctrine!

When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost a new order was established and

since that time the Holy Spirit comes to every believer at the moment of

faith and indwells that believer in a permanent, abiding relationship.

That's why Romans 8:9 says, "If anyone doesn't have the Spirit of Christ, he

does not belong to Him." Conversely, if you belong to Christ, you have the

Holy Spirit. Paul even says to the Corinthians, who were so fouled up,

"What? Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which you

have of God, and you are not your own? You have been bought with a price,"

chapter 6. We have all been made to drink of the same Spirit--every

Christian.

So, what you have in Acts 2 then, is the initial reception of the Holy

Spirit. The disciples were baptized by the Spirit accompanied by a sound

from heaven like a mighty rushing wind, cloven tongues as of fire, rested on

each of them. At that point, they being filled with the Spirit, began to

speak in other languages. The miraculous ability to speak the languages of

the people who gathered for Pentecost, to declare to them the wonderful works

of God, had a definite purpose: it was to be a sign of judgment on

unbelieving Israel. It was and unfolded to be, a sign of inclusion of the

other groups into the one Church, and we will see that in a moment, and it

confirmed the Apostles' spiritual authority. It had a very distinct purpose.

First of all, as I said, it was a sign to unbelieving Israel. Do you

remember that the prophet Isaiah had said, "If you don't listen to God when

He speaks a language you can understand, the day is going to come when he

speaks a language that you can't understand." That's a judgment. And when

they began to speak languages that were foreign to the dwellers of Jerusalem,

God was saying that it has come; the time has come. You have committed the

ultimate atrocity in the crucifixion of the Messiah; you didn't listen when I

spoke in your language; now, here's a language you won't understand. And

this was an indication of God's judgment about to fall on them as a nation,

which judgment fell in no small way in 70 A.D. Also, this unique gift of

tongues acted as a verification sign of the legitimacy of each new group

that was added to the one Body of Christ, as we shall see.

And so it had some very specific and wonderful purpose. It was a unique

wonder associated with Pentecost. Pentecost is not repeatable, and so

neither is the necessity of such a sign, except on very rare and unique

occasions also recorded in the Book of Acts. By the way, an interesting

footnote, in 1976, Pentecostals held a world conference in Jerusalem. A

world congress in Jerusalem, and I am quoting the program, "To celebrate the

ongoing miracle of Pentecost." Delegates came from all over the world and

had to use interpreters and headphones! Now, just think that one through:

so they could understand in their own language! That is not the ongoing

miracle of Pentecost.

Now, let's go to chapter 8, and see what happens in Acts, chapter 8, and why

that's important. They use this as a proof text. It discusses the

persecution of the Church in the early part of the chapter, and the

scattering of the disciples out of Jerusalem throughout Judea and Samaria.

Now, the result comes down in verse 14; they go into Samaria, receive the

Word of God; they believe. And you remember there was a choice preacher in

Samaria. Who was he? Philip. "And when the word came back to the Apostles

in Jerusalem," verse 14, "that Samaria had received the Word of God, they

sent them Peter and John." They are going to send the Apostles to find out

about this. "They came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the

Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply

been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their

hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit."

You say, "Now wait a minute, this proves their point, there is Subsequence

here." Yes, I didn't say there wasn't; there is Subsequence in chapter 2,

there is Subsequence in chapter 8, there just isn't any in chapter 10 or

chapter 19, so it's not normative; but here it has a very distinct purpose.

The Charismatics would say, "See, here's Subsequence. They had been

baptized, they had been saved, and later on they get the Holy Spirit. They

were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but they hadn't received the

Holy Spirit. That proves the point." It does not. There is a reason for

this, let me tell you what it is.

The Jews hated the Samaritans. Would you understand that to be true from you

knowledge of New Testament times? A Samaritan was a "half-breed." A

Samaritan was a Jew who thought so little of being Jewish that he

intermarried with the Gentile, and polluted, from the Jewish viewpoint, his

race, his racial identity. Samaritans were hated. It is said that Jews

traveling from the south to the north would go clear around Samaria just so

they wouldn't have to walk through it and pollute themselves by being there.

That's what made it so unique when it says in Scripture that, "Jesus must

needs to go through Samaria," Jews didn't do that. They looked down on

Samaritans. And the reason for this little interval between the Samaritan

salvation and the coming of the Spirit was in order that the Apostles might

get there.

Why? So that the Apostles would see the Samaritans had been saved, and that

they would see that the Spirit of God came upon them. Now it is possible

that they spoke in tongues and it is not recorded here. It is possible that

there were other phenomena that occurred which made it manifest to the

Apostles that they were indeed receiving the Holy Spirit. The point is, God

didn't want those Samaritans receiving the Holy Spirit until two Jewish

Apostles were there, because if the Samaritans had their own little private

Pentecost, it would be very hard for the Jews to accept them as one in the

same body and the same Church, the hatred of the Jews towards them being so

great. If the Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit at the moment of

salvation without any supernatural sign or fanfare, without the visible

presence of the Apostles to mark it and see it and note it and report it;

if it had been purely a Samaritan event, the Church born at Pentecost of the

Jews would never have accepted it as bonafide, or with great difficulty done

that. If the Samaritans would have started their own Christian group, the

age old rivalry and hatred could have been perpetuated with the Jewish Church

competing against a Samaritan Church.

And so God waited until the Jewish Apostles, the most significant ones, Peter

and John showed up, and then he demonstrated that these had truly been

converted, and they were being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the same body

as the Jews were in; the same Body of Christ, the same Church. It was also

important that the Apostles be present so that the Samaritans would

understand the power and authority of the Apostles, for they needed to be

subject to the Apostles' doctrine.

Now, because of all of these matters in the transition, there was

Subsequence, and there was an interval between the time they received Christ

under the ministry of Philip, and the time they received the Holy Spirit when

the Apostles could be there, because the crucial transition going on in the

Early Church was so essential to Church unity and Apostolic teaching and

authority. The amazing thing, first of all, was a revival among the

Samaritans, and even more amazing, these outcast "half-breeds" received the

same Holy Spirit we have and were placed into the same Body, and now we have

to love them and accept them as brothers and sisters. That's why the Holy

Spirit delayed that. It was an audio-visual lesson, if you will, that the

middle wall of partition that Paul talks about in Ephesians 2 was broken

down.

I say there must have been some powerful demonstration, I don't know what it

was; otherwise Simon wouldn't have come along and tried to buy the power. So

when the Holy Spirit came upon them there must have been some visible

manifestation of that and it could well have been similar to what occurred on

the day of Pentecost; that would make sense. What was really crucial though,

was that everybody understand that there weren't two churches, there was just

one--both had received the same thing.

Now go to chapter 10. Chapter 10 takes us the next step in the unfolding of

the Book of Acts. It starts in Jerusalem and goes to Samaria, and then it

begins to move out to the uttermost part of the world. And now we meet the

first Gentile convert in Acts chapter 10. And you know the wonderful story

about Cornelius. God gives a vision to Peter. Tells him that I am no

respecter of persons. And after the vision, three men came to the house

where Peter was staying and explained that they had been sent by Cornelius,

this Gentile, and that Peter was supposed to go and teach Cornelius about

God. Now, Peter had just had a vision, in which God had set him up for this.

Peter swallowed his Jewish prejudice, which already had been dented severely

by Samaritan conversions. And now he agrees to accompany these Gentiles back

to Caesarea, where Cornelius lived.

Now, you've got to understand, that for a Jew to get near a Gentile is a

serious thing. They didn't ever want to eat a meal cooked by a Gentile; they

didn't want to eat with a utensil touched by a Gentile; they didn't go into a

Gentile house; they didn't even want Gentile dust on their feet: when they

came back into Jerusalem they shook the dust off of their feet so they

wouldn't carry Gentile dirt into the Holy Land. They looked down on

Gentiles.

Peter goes there. It says, "The Holy Spirit," verse 44, "fell on all those

who were listening to the message. And all the circumcised believers who had

come with peter were amazed." They couldn't believe it! What's happening?

Gentiles are getting the Holy Spirit! And they said, "The gift of the Holy

Spirit is being poured out on Gentiles also." You know, they are kind of

like Jonah; they were looking for somewhere where they can cry. "For they

were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. And then Peter

answered," I love this answer, "Well, surely no one can refuse the water for

these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can

he?" It's almost like he said, "I wish there was some way out of this guys,

but there isn't. It has happened. It's tough to swallow, but it has

happened." "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

Would you please notice here that there is no subsequence. They were saved;

the Spirit came; they were placed in the Body. There is no Subsequence here,

but again they received the Holy Spirit attendant with tongues. Why? So

that Peter, and John, and all the circumcised (that's all the Jewish

Christians) would know that the Gentiles got the same thing the Samaritans

got, and the Samaritans got the same thing we got. Guess what? We are all

what? We are all one. We are all one. Gentiles are now a part of the Body

of Christ.

Peter, I love it, in chapter 11, Peter goes back to give his report. It's

almost comical. He goes back to give his report. Here's his report, verse

15, he says,

Well, as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just

as He did upon us at the beginning! Can you believe that? The

same thing. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used

to say, "John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized

with the Holy Spirit." If God therefore gave to them the same

gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus

Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?

And you can know why he said that, as soon as he said "they got the same

thing we got," somebody on the council would have said, "Well, why didn't you

stop them? Peter, how could you let it happen?" And Peter said, "I couldn't

stop it, I couldn't stop it! It just happened. I'm sorry fellows, God was

doing it, I couldn't stop it." Shocked as they were they couldn't deny what

happened. They held their peace, they glorified God, they acknowledged that

God had graciously granted life and salvation to the Gentiles. Verse 18,

"When they heard it, they quieted down," and you know it that there was noise

going on in there, "and they glorified God, saying, 'Well then, God has

granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

God made sure that the Apostles were there to see it, the Jewish Apostles.

God made sure the Spirit came. God made sure the tongues were there, so

nobody would think it was any different than Pentecost, so that everybody

would understand: "Jew, Gentile, Samaritan--one in Christ." But these

Gentiles received the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion, they were

baptized with the Spirit of God at that very moment. Then they spoke with

tongues to prove that there was no difference, they were part of the Church,

and there is no Subsequence here at all. None whatsoever. The norm then,

from here on out, is that at the time of salvation, the reception of the

Spirit comes at the same time.

Now, there is one final group in the Book of Acts, chapter 19, we can briefly

look at this group. This is a fascinating group. These are just some loose

people roaming around, who somehow missed the whole deal that was going on.

This is another group in transition. It is a fascinating group. Verse one,

"And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed

through the upper country came to Ephesus, and he found some disciples."

Here's some people around Ephesus. "He said to them, 'Did you receive the

Holy Spirit when you believed?' And they said to him, 'No, we have not even

heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. What are you talking about?' 'Well,

into what then were you baptized?' And they said, 'Into John's baptism.'"

Oh, we know who they are. They were, when John the Baptist was preaching in

the wilderness, baptized by him in preparation for the Messiah. But they

didn't have television, radio, newspapers--they hadn't heard that the Messiah

came and went! "We were baptized into John's baptism, and Paul said, 'Well,

John baptized with the baptism of repentance, (you know, turning from your

sins) telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is,

in Jesus.' And when they heard this, (and by the way, a lot more, they got

the whole gospel) they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when

Paul laid hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began

speaking with tongues and prophesying. And there were in all about twelve

men."

Fascinating, fascinating; just a loose group of Old Testament Saints roaming

around waiting for the Messiah to arrive, and He had come and gone and they

didn't know about it. Now they weren't seeking the Holy Spirit, they weren't

seeking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I will tell you something else--they

weren't even saved, in New Testament terms. "They said, 'We don't even know

anything about a Holy Spirit.'" They certainly knew there was a Holy Spirit,

but what they were saying was, "We didn't know about His coming, we don't

know what you're talking about." They hadn't even heard about this, because

they didn't even know about Jesus Christ. And Paul began to probe and he

realized they were disciples of John the Baptist, not Jesus Christ. Old

Testament people, Old Testament Saints in transition, still hanging on,

looking for the Messiah, twenty years after John the Baptist had died. He

says, "You're to be commended," Paul does, "You know, I mean, you're to be

commended. You repented as John taught, but now you have got to go the next

step, and that is, you have got to receive the One that John predicted was

coming--Jesus Christ."

He spoke about Christ. By the way, he didn't speak about the Holy Spirit, He

spoke about Christ. They received Christ and God gave them the Holy Spirit.

You don't seek the Holy Spirit, you seek Christ and He gives you the Holy

Spirit. Paul wasn't trying to teach them how to get to a second level.

There is no Subsequence here. What was missing from them was not information

about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as some Charismatics would want us to

believe. What was missing was information about Jesus Christ. When they

believed they were immediately baptized. Paul laid his hands on them, making

an apostolic identification with them: they received tongues. Why? So they

would also be included as sort of the last group. You had Jews, you had

Gentiles, Samaritans, and even had a group of Old Testament "Hangover

Saints," and they were all in one Church.

You might even say that the whole theme of the Book of Acts, is to show how

Jesus' prayer in John 17 was answered. Remember His prayer in John 17?

Jesus prayed, "Father, that they may be one, even as Thou Father, art in Me,

and I in Thee, that they may also be one in Us." That was His prayer and I

really believe that you see in the Book of Acts the answer to that prayer

as the Lord puts the Church together, baptizing by the Spirit into the Body,

Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, and these wonderful Old Testament Saints. That

brought everybody together.

Now these events, beloved, are not to be the Church's pattern as a whole. As

I said a long time ago, there is no specific pattern in any one case that is

airtight. They don't reflect to normal experience of Christians today. Get

this: they don't even reflect to normal experience of Christians in the Early

Church. After the few who had that experience on the day of Pentecost, and

the few in Samaria, and the household of Cornelius, and this small group of

twelve people, we don't know about any other believers who had that same

experience, even during the Book of Acts! And Paul goes many places. And

Peter and John went many places, and we don't see the pattern of this being

repeated over and over and over again. You can't make the tragic mistake of

teaching the experience of the Apostles, but rather you must experience the

teaching of the Apostles. Acts reveals a new era, a new epoch, a new age,

and not what is to be the constant pattern for every Christian throughout

history.

Are we supposed to seek the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? No, Simon tried

that. He wanted the power; he wanted to buy it. Still people do that, they

want the power; they want to buy it. We are not to seek it. Charismatics

seem always out for more, and Paul was always insisting that Christ was

enough, wasn't he? Any doctrine that adds something to Christ, as some

Charismatics seem to desire, stands self-condemned. Michael Green wrote,

The Charismatics were always out for power. They were elated by

spiritual power and were always seeking shortcuts to power.

It's the same today. Paul's reply is to boast, not of his power,

but of his weakness through which alone the power of Christ

could shine. Paul knew all about the marks of an Apostle and

Signs and Wonders and mighty deeds, but he knew that the power

of an Apostle or of any other Christian came from the patient

endurance of suffering such as he had, with his thorn in the

flesh, or the patient endurance of reviling and hardship, such

as he was subjected to in the course of his missionary work.

The Charismatics had a theology of the resurrection and its

power; they needed to learn afresh the secret of the Cross and

its shame, which yet produced the power of God. The

Charismatics were always out for evidence. That's why tongues,

and healings, and miracles are so highly esteemed among them,

but Paul knows that we walk by faith while we are in this life,

not by sight. There are many times when God calls upon us to

trust Him in the dark, without any supporting evidence.

Charismatics today, of course, share those same shortcomings that Michael

Green points out. The thirst for something more, the quest for greater

power, the desire to see evidences as familiar today as in the apostolic

time. They are more compatible, by the way, I think, with the spirit of

Simon, than they are with the Spirit of God. Instead of seeking for power

and miraculous evidences and the repetition of the unique events of a

transitional apostolic era, all Christians, Charismatics and non-Charismatics

should seek to know Christ, the fellowship of His suffering, the conformity

to His death, because that is what releases resurrection power that is

already resident in the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I just want to say this; I don't want to be misunderstood. I don't for one

moment disregard the fact that the Spirit of God can, while indwelling the

believer, uniquely fill, empower, direct, lead, and touch the Christian. I

don't want to use my own experience as a basis for that, but I am very

confident by reading the New Testament that the resident Spirit of God, who

lives within you, longs to fill your life, Ephesians 5:18. And what that

tells me is though you have the Holy Spirit, you may not be experiencing the

fullness of His power. And there are those times in our Christian

experience, when by our obedience and by the Word of Christ dwelling in us

richly, and by our yieldingness to the way of God, the Spirit of God's power

is released, and we feel the unique touch of His power in our ministry, in

our witness, and in our lives. And we seek those times. They are not

mystically apprehended. They come as we yield ourselves to Him and He works

His sovereign way with us.

And so I don't want to be misunderstood, as if to say, that the Spirit places

you into the Body of Christ, as it were, at the moment of your salvation and

then just hangs around to watch what's going on. He doesn't. He's active in

ministering in marvelous and thrilling ways, enabling and ennobling you to do

those things which otherwise would be impossible: gain victory over your

flesh and accomplish the purpose of God through ministry. And so we seek the

full expression of the Spirit of God in the life of every believer. We are

not seeking Him; we are seeking to know His fullness as we yield ourselves to

Him.

Well, I hope that helps you to get a grip on a very important issue. There

is more that I could say--time is gone. Let's bow in a word of prayer.

Father, thank you for the clarity, with which the Word of God yields its

truth; that if we simply read it and look openly and honestly at it, it will

show us the truth. Father, we do pray for dear brothers and sisters who get

caught up in wrong theology. And the great tragedy of it is twofold. One,

they therefore, cannot glorify you for what you are truly doing; and

secondly, they cut themselves off from the genuine means of sanctification,

and so they forfeit the true power.

Father, how deceptive this process is, of operating under illusions about how

you work, about your truth, and about the ministry of the Holy Spirit. How

dishonoring to you and debilitating to the believer, to so live and to try to

order his Christian experience. We pray Lord that you will give us clarity

of mind, that you will help us to discern your truth and walk in it, for your

glory, in the Savior's Name. Amen.

**************************************************************************

Note: Chaos 9 will be done after Chaos 10 which is very critical to get out

in a timely manner.

**************************************************************************

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama

City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape,

GC 90-61, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 10. A copy of the tape can be

obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.

Charismatic Chaos - Part 10

"Speaking in Tongues"

John MacArthur

Tonight, in one sense I have a difficult, impossible task; and that is to

cover a subject that needs to be covered thoughtfully and carefully. In

another sense, while very challenging and almost impossible to fully

accomplish, I welcome the opportunity to share with you some insights that

will help you to be discerning as you look at a very important issue in the

Charismatic movement today; and that is this matter of "Speaking in Tongues."

This is at the very heart of the Charismatic movement; one of their

distinctives. There is no question in my mind that if you were to boil down

the Charismatic movement as to its basic, several ingredients, one of them

would be the affirmation that speaking in tongues is a gift for today. Not

only a gift for today, but a gift to be sought by every Christian who wants

the fullness of the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the blessing of God. It

is so much a part of the fabric of the Charismatic movement that it is one of

the primary things that they endeavor to teach the children in that movement.

Someone sent me a sample of some Charismatic Sunday School literature which

is designed specifically to teach Kindergartner children how to speak in

tongues. It's titled, "I've Been Filled with the Holy Spirit," and it is an

eight paged coloring book. One page has a caricature of a smiling weight

lifter with a T-shirt and it says, "Spiritman", and under him is printed

1 Corinthians 14:4, "He that speaks in an unknown tongue builds himself up."

Another page features a little boy who looks something like (some of you will

remember) Howdy Doody, something like that, with his hands lifted up, and a

dotted outline pictures where his lungs would be. This evidently represents

his spirit. Inside the lung shaped diagram is printed this, "Bal Li Ode Da

Ma Ta Las Si Ta No Ma," (sp.). A cartoon styled balloon then comes out his

mouth and repeats the words, "Bal Li Ode Da Ma Ta Las Si Ta No Ma," (sp.). A

brain-shaped cloud is drawn in his head with a large question mark in the

cloud.

Do you understand the picture? These gibberish words are in the Spirit and

they come out of his mouth, but a question mark is in his brain. This is how

they plant in a Kindergarten child the idea that tongues goes from the Spirit

to the mouth, without ever going through the brain, that it is some kind of

mystical, noncognative experience that somehow bypasses the brain. And under

that picture is 1 Corinthians 14:14, "If I pray in an unknown tongue, my

spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful." In both cases they have

misrepresented the intention of those verses. The first verse they assume

"speaking in an unknown tongue" builds someone up, when in fact, Paul was

saying it in a negative sense. It puffs your ego, or it, at best (if you do

it in private) would benefit you, which would be selfish and contrary to any

proper use of spiritual gifts. And the second one, "If I pray in an unknown

tongue, my spirit prays, and my understanding is unfruitful," is a way to

say, "Don't do that, because what's the point in having an unfruitful

understanding?"

And yet, as early as Kindergarten, people are learning these things which are

in error. This is the typical Charismatic perspective, by the way. The gift

of tongues is viewed as a holy, mystical ability that somehow operates in a

person's spirit and comes out the mouth and bypasses the mind. And many

Charismatics are even told they have to purposefully switch off their mind to

enable the gift to function. That's pretty much the pattern. I've sat in on

a number of sessions where people were endeavoring to teach someone how to

speak in tongues, and they always follow that same format. Usually they say

something like this, "Don't think of anything. Try to empty your mind of any

conscious thought."

Charles and Francis Hunter, who travel all across the world in healing

explosion meetings, have as a part of their curriculum the seminars in which

they teach people how to speak in tongues. They have as many as 50,000

people in some of their meetings. Charles Hunter tells people, and I

quote,

When you pray with your spirit you do not think of the sounds of

the language. Just trust God, but make the sounds when I tell

you to. In just a moment, when I tell you, begin loving and

praising God by speaking forth a lot of different syllable

sounds. At first make the sounds rapidly so you won't try to

think as you do in speaking your natural language. Make the

sounds loudly at first so you can easily hear what you are

saying.

That's an interesting contradiction! Hunter doesn't explain what point there

is in hearing what you are saying since your mind isn't engaged anyway. But

he continually reminds his audience [that] they are not supposed to be

thinking, quote, he says, "The reason some of you don't speak fluently, is

that you try to think of the sounds. So when we pray this prayer and you

start speaking in your heavenly language--don't try to think!" Later he

adds, "You don't even have to think in order to pray in the Spirit!"

Arthur Johnson, in his excellent expose of mysticism, entitled, "Faith

Misguided", a very good book, calls the Charismatic movement, "the zenith of

mysticism." And he does so with good reason, because there is the desire, in

some cases and through some experiences, to switch off the mind and

disconnect yourself from what is rational, and reasonable, and logical.

We've already noted that earlier in our study and I won't go back and belabor

the point, but that is one of the primary characteristics of "Pagan, Mystery

Religions," one of the primary characteristics of the Babylonian mystery

religions that have found their way into all kinds of religious fabric,

through the history of the world. Nearly all the teachings, distinctive to

the Charismatic movement, are unadulterated Mysticism. And nothing

illustrates that more perfectly than the way Charismatics themselves depict

the gift of tongues.

They usually describe this gift of speaking these ecstatic syllables that

have no meaning, as a sort of ecstatic experience that has no equal. They

would tell us that it's a way to experience an emotion and a feeling that is

beyond anything else that you will ever experience. One author quotes Robert

Morris,

For me, the gift of tongues turned out to be the gift of praise.

As I used the unknown language, which God had given me, I felt

rising in me the love, the awe, the adoration, pure and

uncontingent, that I had not been able to achieve in thought out

prayer.

In other words, "I got more out of prayer I couldn't understand, than I did

out of prayer that I could understand!"

A newspaper article on tongues quoted the Reverend Bill L. Williams of San

Jose, and he said this,

It involves you with someone you are deeply in love with and

devoted to. We don't understand the verbiage, but we know we

are in communication.

If I could just interrupt and ask you to try that sometime on someone you

love very dearly, and see how effective it is in communication. You could

probably judge that statement accurately. He went on to say,

That awareness is beyond emotion, beyond intellect, it

transcends human understanding. It is the heart of man speaking

to the heart of God. It is deep inner heart understanding. It

comes as supernatural utterances bringing intimacy with God.

Now, remember, all of this is a occurring with absolutely no understanding of

what you are saying. You have no comprehension of what it is you're saying,

and yet it is supposed to bring you into the deep understanding and intimate

communion with God. The article also quoted the Reverend Billy Martin of

Farmington, New Mexico, who said, "It's a joyous, glorious, wonderful

experience." Reverend Darlene Miller of Knoxville, Tennessee said, "It's

like the sweetness of peaches that you can't know until you taste it

yourself. There is nothing ever to compare with that taste." And other of

those people who have that experience might echo sentiments similar to those.

And I am just quoting you what they themselves say.

And you might ask the question, "What then is wrong with such an experience?"

Well, on the one hand, there really isn't anything particularly evil or

immoral about it if you just disassociate it from the Bible and disassociate

it from Christianity, and if you get some pleasure out of standing in a

corner all by yourself or sitting in your room alone and talking gibberish to

yourself and that does something for you, then I suppose in and of itself,

from a psychological standpoint, that it's not a moral issue--it may be

harmless. If something makes you feel good or makes you feel somehow better

in control of your life, or like you've had some warm experience, so be it.

But, don't call it intimacy with God. Don't say it makes you spiritually

stronger, don't say it makes you delirious with spiritual joy.

And then ask yourself the question, "Could I, through this means be deceived,

could this be dangerous?" And the answer to that question has to be yes. A

man whom I knew and respected greatly, now with the Lord, George Gardner, who

was pastor up in Grand Rapids, who wrote a very excellent book on this

subject, was a former "tongue speaker" who left the Pentecostal movement.

And he poignantly described the danger of surrendering one's mind and

abandoning control of one's self for the sake of the euphoria of the tongues

experience. He said it is a very dangerous thing and this is what he wrote

in his own words,

The enemy of the soul is ever ready to take advantage of an out-of-

control situation, and thousands of Christians can testify with regret

to the end results. Such experiences not only give Satan an opening he

is quick to exploit, they can be physiologically damaging to the

individual. Charismatic writers are constantly warning tongue speakers

that they will suffer a "letdown." This is ascribed to the Devil and

the reader is urged to get refilled as soon as possible. So the seeker

for experience goes back through the ritual again and again, but begins

to discover something: ecstatic experience, like drug addiction

requires larger and larger doses to satisfy.

Sometimes the bizarre is introduced. I've seen people run around a

room until they were exhausted. I've seen people climb tent poles,

laugh hysterically, go into trances for days, and do other weird

things, as the "high" sought becomes more elusive. Eventually there is

a crisis and a decision is made; he will sit on the back seats and be a

spectator, fake it, or go on in the hope that everything will

eventually be as it was. The most tragic decision is to quit and in

the quitting abandon all things spiritual as fraudulent. The

spectators are frustrated, the fakers suffer guilt, the hoping are

pitiable, and the quitters are a tragedy. No, such movements are not

harmless!

The first time a person speaks in tongues there is usually a euphoria because

there have been so many people trying to get them to do that, that when they

finally do that, there is a tremendous sense that they have arrived

spiritually. And so psychologically there is a great sense of release and

relief, and then there is immediately the diminishing return. Many who speak

in tongues will understand the tensions that Gardner has described. He is

not the only tongue speaker, by the way, to turn against the practice and

expose its dangers.

A man by the name of Wayne Robinson, who was once editor-in-chief of the

publications of the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association, was an

enthusiastic tongues speaker, and he wrote a book, "I Once Spoke in Tongues"

and in it he says this,

In the past few years, I have become more and more convinced

that the test, not only of tongues, but of any religious

experience cannot be limited to the logic and truthfulness

supporting it. There is also the essential question, "What does

it do in one's life?" More specifically, does it turn a person

inward to self concern and selfish interests, or does it open

him up to others and their needs. I know people who testify

that speaking in tongues has been the great liberating

experience of their lives, but juxtaposed with them are the

great many others for whom speaking in tongues has been an

excuse to withdrawal from confronting the realities of a

suffering and divided world. For some, tongues has been the

greatest thing ever to happen, others have seen it disrupt

churches, destroy careers, and rupture personal relationships.

Another former Charismatic writes,

To say that speaking in tongues is a harmless practice, and is

all right for those who want to, is an unwise position when

information to the contrary is evident. Speaking in tongues is

addictive. The misunderstanding of the issue of tongues and the

habit, plus the psychic high it brings, plus the stimulation of

the flesh, equals a practice hard to let go of. But to equate

much speaking in tongues with advanced spirituality is to reveal

one's misunderstanding of Bible truth, and to reveal one's

willingness to be satisfied with a deceptive and dangerous

counterfeit.

That's from Ben Bird (sp.) who wrote a book entitled, "The Truth About

Speaking in Tongues." There are others who practice tongues and can turn the

phenomena on and off mechanically, and without feeling anything emotional.

Recently, I knew of a pastor, knew him personally, who spoke in tongues and

led his ministry in that direction for many, many years, and has since

admitted that it was something he just did. It was nothing spiritual or

divine, it was something he just did himself. There are many like that.

They have learned how to do it. They can turn it on, turn it off, hone the

ability to speak in those familiar sounds that most tongue speakers use, and

they do it without passion.

Now, I have just introduced the subject to you and given you a little bit of

a feeling for it. I want to go into the Word of God and try to show you some

things that you must understand about tongues so that you will have a handle

on it from the Biblical perspective. So let's talk first of all about the

Biblical gift of tongues; we do know it is in the Bible and we have to deal

with that. Now listen very carefully to what I say, because I don't want to

lose you and I am going to flow through this fairly quickly.

Tongues are only mentioned in three books in the Bible: Mark (one time in

chapter 16:17); Acts (three times, Acts 2, 10, 19); and then in 1 Corinthians.

Those are the only three books of the Bible that mention tongues. Now,

earlier in our study you will remember that we looked into Acts, didn't we?

And we saw something about this gift of tongues, as it has become known, in

the Book of Acts. We discovered that when it occurred in the Book of Acts,

it was a known language (we will say more about that in a few moments). It

had a very specific purpose in God's redemptive history. Along with other

miraculous events in the Apostolic period it had a very unique purpose. And

so we have covered the ground I think fairly well in the Book of Acts, and we

saw the unique historical purpose for that gift.

It was a sign that the Spirit of God had come, that God was speaking from

heaven His truth. It was also a sign to unbelieving Israel that when they

wouldn't listen in the language they could speak, God would now begin in

judgment to speak a language they couldn't understand. And so as Paul will

point out in chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians, it was a sign of judgment. It was

given as a sign gift on the day of Pentecost. Several other times in the

Book of Acts it was given again so that those believers being added to the

original Body of Christ would be seen to be participating in the same Body

and receiving the same Holy Spirit. So it had a unique historical place in

the Book of Acts.

Then it appears in Mark 16:17; it simply mentions tongues as one of the gifts

that would be expressed in the time of the apostles' ministry. And again it

fits into that unique historic Apostolic time period in which there was

miraculous phenomena, signs and wonders, as God pointed to the apostles who

were speaking His truth. On the day of Pentecost this sign drew the crowd to

which Peter preached the gospel, for example.

That leaves us really with only one epistle in which tongues is even

mentioned, out of the historical uniqueness of Acts and Mark 16--we come to

the Book of 1 Corinthians, chapters 12 through 14. This is the only epistle

where we find anything about this, and Paul wrote for sure 12 and maybe 13

epistles beyond this one, and never in any of them does he even mention this.

Only in this very early epistle does any discussion of tongues take place.

Now, Paul wrote these chapters, and you must understand this, to reprove the

Corinthians for misusing the gift. It's very difficult out of this passage

to get any kind of mandate to speak in tongues, to get any kind of

affirmation that this is something to be sought, or something to be elevated,

or something to be used, or something that will last, because, what you have

here is primarily a corrective given to the Corinthians, who had prostituted

the gift of tongues into something pagan that wasn't even representative of

the work of the Holy Spirit. And so what he wants to do is correct and

restrict the use of tongues.

Now, if we grant, and I think we must, that at the time of the writing of

1 Corinthians the Spirit of God could still use this unique ability, the fact

that it was still a gift in that time and that place in the history of the

Church--we know that because Paul said, "Don't forbid it." Don't forbid

people to speak in tongues, don't eliminate it. There is still, he is

saying, a place for this (verse 39 of chapter 14), but, he says you must

regulate it carefully; and then if you took the time to study through

1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14, (and by the way, if you want to read in detail,

I've written my commentary on 1 Corinthians which covers every verse, every

phrase in this whole section)--but in this section there are some

regulations.

The guidelines given were these:

1. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers. It's a sign that God is speaking.

It's a sign to unbelievers.

2. If used in the Church it must always be translated, so that it can have

the purpose of edifying the believers who don't know what's being said.

3. Never are more than three people to do it, and they are to do it in

sequence, not at the same time.

4. There is to be no speaking in tongues unless it is interpreted.

5. Any confusion or any disorder in the assembly is an indication that what

is going on did not originate with God--it's a counterfeit; it's a

prostitution.

6. Women are never to do it, for they are to remain silent and not to speak

in tongues.

And then as he comes to the end of chapter 14, Paul tells them to recognize

these regulations as a commandment of the Lord as absolutely imperative: you

have no option. In verse 37, he says, "If you think you are a prophet or you

think you are spiritual, then you better recognize that what I have just said

is the Lord's command!" And a few weeks ago when we were meeting with some

of the leaders of the Vineyard, they said, "Are there things in our ministry

that you would point out as a violation of Scripture?" And we immediately

brought up the fact that having attended a recent meeting where several

thousand people were present, the leader of that meeting invited everyone,

all at once, all at the same time to begin speaking in tongues. And there

was total chaos, confusion, disorder, people pushing chairs back (as we told

you before), falling on the floor, stretching out their limbs, falling over,

fainting, all of that kind of chaos and confusion. No translation of that

was going on. Women were dominant in it, and all of that violates the

instruction for the legitimate use of the gift, when it was legitimate in the

Corinthian time.

And so there are some very clear restrictions given here. To be honest with

you, if those restriction were followed in the contemporary tongue speaking

movement, the movement would come to almost a total halt. And again I point

out it isn't necessary for God any longer to give supernatural sign gifts to

point to those who speak His word since we know who speaks His word. We

don't need a sign, we just compare them with the Bible. Once the authority

was given then affirming speakers who speak His truth through Signs and

Wonders ceased to be necessary. I can tell you in a moment whether someone

speaks for God. All I have to do is listen and compare what they say with

the Bible.

Now, also there was another component. Tongues in the Corinthian church was

chaotic, out of order, confused--way out of its proper place. And not only

that, the attitude of the people in using this gift was one of pride, self-

centeredness, "look at me," they were putting on a show, they were parading

their supposed spirituality and they weren't using their gift for the benefit

of others; that's why he writes chapter 13, which is all about love. And he

is saying, "In all spiritual gifts the proper motive is love to other

people." And he says in verse one of chapter 13, "If I speak with the

tongues of men and angels, and don't have love, I'm nothing but a noisy gong

and a clanging cymbal." I don't care if you're talking human language or

angel talk, anything apart from love is noise. It's noise. And then he

launches into the magnificent 13th chapter, the classic in all of human

literature on love, to point to the fact that the Corinthians had adulterated

the gift in its expression, and they had adulterated the purpose and the

motive for it because it was something other than love.

Paul says, "I don't care how you talk. I don't care whether you talk in

human languages or whether you talk angel talk (and that's hypothetical

because every time angels ever speak they speak in the language of men)." But

he says, hypothetically, hyperbolically, "I don't care if you talk angel talk,

if you are not motivated by love, it's noise, absolute noise." Unfortunately,

some of the Charismatic people have taken Paul's statement, "If I speak with

the tongues of men and of angels," and they say, "You see, the tongues of men

are our normal language, and the tongues of angels are our secret private

prayer language." And they believe that the gift of tongues is a private

prayer language, a heavenly language known only to God that transcends the

mind, as we said earlier. It's celestial speech.

It's interesting to me that if it's celestial speech, and if it's angel talk

and comes from God, why is it that somebody has to sit you down and teach you

how to do it? There is no warrant in this text for such a view. Paul was

simply expressing a hypothetical case, just as in the subsequent verses. He

says, "If I have the gift of prophecy, and if I know all mysteries and all

knowledge, and have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but don't

have love, I am nothing." If I could move the earth and didn't have

love--what would it matter? "And if I gave away everything to feed the poor,

and delivered my body to be burned, and didn't have love, what good would it

be?" This is all hyperbole! He's not really suggesting things that are, but

he's taking it to its furthest expression. No matter what you did, no matter

how great it was, without love it's nothing. And as I said, angels don't

ever appear in Scripture talking in anything other than human language. You

can compare Luke, chapter 1 and chapter 2 for a good illustration of that.

Nowhere then, and this is very important, nowhere does the Bible teach that

the gift of tongues is anything other than "human languages!" And if you

have a question about that, all you need to do is to go back to Acts 2. Go

back there with me for a moment, verse 4, "They were all filled with the Holy

Spirit and began to speak with other languages (it's the word language, we'll

see that in a minute), as the Holy Spirit was giving them utterance." Notice

that they didn't have to learn how to do it. Somebody didn't sit them down

in a chair and say, "Empty your mind and start talking in unintelligible

syllables" No, the Spirit gave them utterance and they began to speak.

Really; and what did they speak? It's very clear, "The multitude came

together (verse 6), they were bewildered (they were from everywhere, by the

way), they were each hearing them speak in his own language." It wasn't

double-talk, it wasn't gibberish, it wasn't angel talk, it wasn't celestial

speech, it was just different languages.

"And they were amazed and marveled, saying, 'Why, are not all these who are

speaking Galileans?'" See Galilee was a kind of a "Hick Town" area. "Hay

Seeds" lived up there. Nobody was educated, they certainly didn't learn

languages up there. They could barely speak their own language. "Aren't

these Galileans? How is it that everybody is hearing them in our own

language? The Parthians and the Medes and the Elamites, and the residents of

Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia,

Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both

Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own languages."

This is incredible! It was very clear what the gift was--it was an ability

to speak a language you hadn't learned. And in that language they were

declaring the wonderful works of God and everybody was hearing them. But the

people were saying, "This isn't some human exercise. Something has happened

here today that is divine." And so it was a sign that God had come in a

marvelous way, and God had poured out His Spirit on this Church, on these

120, and the Church was born, and they all could see that a supernatural

event had happened. The Church was born and the unbelieving Jews now were

hearing the judgment predicted come to pass. God had through the prophet

Isaiah said, "The day is coming when, because you don't hear me when I talk

your language, I am going to talk a language you don't understand." And

that's a sign of judgment, and after all the judgment was coming wasn't it?

They had rejected and crucified their Messiah.

It was a sign that God had done something wonderful, that God had brought the

Spirit and the Church was born: Gentiles and Jews all together would come to

Christ and form one body; and it was a sign to unbelieving Israel that they

were going to be put outside, set aside, and that the God who spoke once to

them in a language they could understand, and gave them the oracles and the

covenants and the promises in the Hebrew tongue, would now speak in a

language they didn't understand as a judgment.

But very clearly it was language. The word in Acts 2 is "glossa" (Gk.) [and

it] means language. They were hearing people speak in their own language.

That's all, it wasn't some angel talk, some gibberish, some gobbledygook,

some nonsense talk. And then it says also they were hearing in their own

"dialektos" (Gk.)--dialects. That also we find used in Acts chapter 2. So

there were unbelievers present at Pentecost hearing God's message in their

own languages and their own local dialects, not ecstatic gibberish.

Now when you come to 1 Corinthians, curiously, the King James Version has

chosen to add the word "unknown" (unknown tongue), and some Charismatics have

sort of felt that that gave them the right to say they weren't languages.

The King James says, "an unknown tongue." You'll notice, if you have a New

American Standard [Bible], they took the word "unknown" out. Why? Because

it wasn't in the original! They spoke in a tongue. What is it? "glossa"

(Gk.) a language.

Whatever the gift is here in the Corinthian Church, it is the same as it was

then. This is early in the life of the Church and God was still speaking,

and God was still identifying Himself through this miraculous expression of

languages that had never been learned by these people, and it was a wondrous

thing. And it showed them that God was in their midst and God was speaking.

And it was also a continuing sign of judgment on Israel. But it was a

language again. The word "unknown" never appears in the Greek text. It was

a language.

There is an interesting footnote to that, that you can look through

carefully. Notice the plural and singular usages of the word language, and

that's helpful. I believe when he uses the singular of "glossa" he's

referring to the false gibberish, and when he uses the plural he's referring

to languages, because you can't have plural gibberishes. There aren't kinds

of double talk and gobbledygook and gibberish--there's only gibberish. It

doesn't have a plural. But that is something you can study in the commentary

and examine on your own.

Now, also, you will notice in 1 Corinthians, that Paul insists, verse 13 of

chapter 14, that any time someone speaks in a language you must pray that he

may interpret. When tongues are spoken in a church someone must interpret.

Down in verse 27, "If any one speaks in a language, it should be by two or at

most three, and each in sequence and let someone interpret; and if there

isn't an interpreter, then stay silent and just pray to God," because it

would be selfish, self-centered and have no edification for the Church, plus

it wouldn't accomplish anything. Right? Because if I am going to be the

instrument of God by which He reveals His presence and I say some things that

nobody understands, and nobody translates it, nobody knows whether it was

real or legitimate and nobody knows what the message from God was. So it had

to be translated for edification and to make the point.

You will also notice there is that word, "interpretation;" it is "hermeneuo"

(Gk.), which means translation. All he is saying is, "If somebody speaks a

foreign language, make sure he gets translated." That's not so difficult to

understand. If someone speaks a foreign language, make sure they get

translated. Why? So that everybody is edified. So that everybody can

learn. [In] verse 5 of 1 Corinthians 14, he says, "Greater is one who

prophesies than one who speaks in languages, unless he interprets, so the

church may receive edifying."

Now, do you see here, it's never to be done in private. It would be

pointless. Wherever in the Bible does it say that you are to speak in a

private tongue? Never! A private ecstatic, angelic speech--never! It's

hard for me to argue against those who say that tongues is a private prayer

language because I can't go to some text and correct them because there isn't

any text! They just made it up. It's a pure invention. It's a non-

existence viewpoint. Some of them try to use Romans 8, "The Holy Spirit

makes intercessions for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." How

obvious is that? In the first place it is the Holy Spirit and He's making

the intercession, and He's doing it with groanings that can't be uttered, not

groanings that can be uttered! And it isn't us--it's Him! How can you ever

convolute that? There isn't any Scripture to support it. All you have here

were times when God desired to speak in a language that the people didn't

know in order to reveal His supernatural presence and His Word, and then it

was translated for the edification of everyone. It was a very unusual

situation. It happened early on; apparently at the time of Corinth it was

still going on. We hear nothing about it from then on, in all the rest of

the New Testament, and when it was done, it was totally restricted and very

clear guidelines were given.

Another indication, as I noted to you, that Paul had in mind human languages,

is in verses 21 and 22, and that's what I refer to. Where he says, "In the

Law it is written, 'By men of strange tongues and by lips of strangers I will

speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me.'" Paul says

this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11-12, and Isaiah 28:11-12 is clearly a

prophecy telling the nation of Israel that God will speak His Word in Gentile

languages. Do you understand how hard that was for a Jew to accept? God is

going to talk in a Gentile language? Unthinkable! Absolutely inconceivable

to a Jew! But that was God rebuking Israel in their unbelief, and therefore,

in order to be a meaningful sign of judgment to the Jew it had to be Gentile

foreign languages because it was the Gentiles that the Jews despised and

[they] thought God would never speak through a Gentile. If it was angelic

speech that point would be nonsense.

Now, what was going on in Corinth obviously violated the standards that God

had set down and so He reiterates them through the Apostle Paul. But clearly

we can conclude then that the Corinthians were involved in counterfeiting

tongues. True Biblical tongues were not gibberish--they were languages.

They were Gentile languages and they were used only when interpreted for the

edification of the Church so that whatever it was that God wanted to

supernaturally say was clearly understood by everybody. Frankly, whatever

normally passes for tongues in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement today is

not true language. That and that alone eliminates it. Modern tongue

speaking, often called "glossolalia" (sp. Gk., which simply means to speak

languages from "glossa" and "laleo" to speak languages) isn't the same as the

Biblical gift.

William Sameron (sp.) is a professor of linguistics at the university of

Toronto. He has done some extensive research and writing on this. He says,

Over a period of five years, I have taken part of meetings in

Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada, and the United States. I have

observed old fashioned Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals (or

Charismatics). I have been in small meetings in private homes

as well as in mammoth public meetings. I have seen such

different cultural settings as are found among Puerto Ricans of

the Bronx, the Snake Handlers of the Appalachians, and the

Russian Molikhans (sp.) of Los Angeles. I have interviewed

tongue speakers and tape recorded and analyzed countless samples

of tongues. In every case, "glossolalia" turns out to be

linguistic nonsense. In spite of superficial similarities,

"glossolalia" is fundamentally not language!

William Sameron (sp.) is one of many men who have made studies of

"glossolalia." There are abundant tapes available of it. The studies all

agree that what we are hearing today is not language. And if it is not

language then it is not the Biblical gift of language! The mystery

religions, remember, in and around Corinth, as we have already noted in our

earlier studies, were involved in ecstatic speech and they were involved in

trance-like experiences. I have done some extensive study in years past on

the Oracle of Delphi, and the mystical gibberish and ecstatic speech that was

all wrapped up in that horrible orgiastic religion. And some of the

Corinthians who were involved in all of that stuff had come into the Church

with their past pagan stuff and corrupted the gift of tongues by

counterfeiting it, and using these past ecstasies as if they were the work of

the Spirit. What they were doing, by the way, is very similar to modern day

"glossolalia," and Paul was trying to correct them by telling them such

practices circumvented the whole point of the gift of languages and didn't

qualify.

It got so bad at Corinth that it actually was shocking. Absolutely shocking.

Notice verse 2, of chapter 12, he says, "You know that when you were pagans,

you were led astray" (that's a technical term for "flipping out," going into

a trance, being spaced out), "You were led astray to the dumb idols, however

you were led" I mean you just followed the flow of the mysticism and the

ecstasies, you just 'flipped-out', you went into your trance. You did that

when you were pagans. Verse 3, "Therefore I make known to you," listen, "no

one speaking by the Spirit of God says 'Jesus is accursed.'" Stop right

there. This is unbelievable. Do you know what was happening? Some of those

people were "flipping out" into their trance and cursing Jesus, and because

it was in a trance like thing they claimed to be the gift of tongues, people

were accepting it on the basis of the phenomena, even though the content was

blasphemous! What this tells us is that some of this stuff may be more than

some humanly induced gibberish; it may be satanic and demonic.

Imagine saying, "Jesus is accursed" and thinking that because the phenomena

was ecstatic, it was acceptable. In chapter 14, verse 2, Paul criticizes the

Corinthians, "For one who speaks in a language doesn't speak to men, but to

God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." He is

not suggesting that you do that. He's not suggesting that you go off all by

yourself and speak in a foreign language, or speak some kind of mystery,

speak some kind of gibberish. He's condemning that, he's criticizing that,

he's using irony; he's pointing out the futility of speaking in tongues

without an interpreter, without it being edifying, because only God knows if

anything was said. If you go off and do this privately, only God knows what

you are doing. You're just mumbling mysteries.

Spiritual gifts were never intended for that--never. And so in verse 4 he

says, "The one who speaks gibberish (and here I think he is referring to

gibberish in the singular) does nothing but build himself up; but the one who

prophesies edifies the whole church." And of course, he compares tongues

with prophecy. Even the legitimate gift of tongues took a second seat, for

sure, to prophecy, which everyone clearly understood. But his point in

verses 2 and 4 is that, never was any spiritual gift for self-edification.

So to say that I have my private prayer language to build myself up and

become "Spiritman," strong, full of spiritual muscle, is to miss the whole

point. You do know don't you that your spiritual gift really isn't for your

benefit? Do you know that? Your spiritual gift is to the benefit of others.

"As each one has received a spiritual gift," Peter says, (1 Peter 4:10),

"employ it in serving one another."

Paul is not commending the use of tongues for self-edification, but

condemning people who were using the gift in violation of its purpose and in

disregard to the principle of love, which he covered in chapter 13. If you

do it for yourselves you miss the whole point. It should never be done,

except it be interpreted. Right? That eliminates the private prayer

language. They were using tongues in Corinth and it wasn't even the real

language gift; it was a fabrication coming from their pagan background. It

was a counterfeit and they were doing it to build themselves up; it was

egocentric. It was to make them appear spiritual. They wanted to exercise

the most spectacular, showy display in front of other believers. Paul's

point is that nobody profits from that kind of exhibition except the person

speaking in tongues, and the chief value he gets out of it is to build up his

own ego.

Tongues posed another problem in Corinth, used as they were in Corinth; they

obscured, rather than clarified the message they were intended to convey.

They made it difficult. Look at verse 16, he says, "If you bless in the

spirit only, how will the one fills the place of the ungifted say the 'Amen'

at your giving of thanks, since he doesn't know what you are saying?" What a

statement. "For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not

edified." In other words, he says, the tongues speakers in Corinth were

being selfish. They were ignoring the rest of the people in the

congregation. They were muddying the message the gift was designed to

communicate, doing it to gratify their own egos to show-off and demonstrate

their spirituality, and nobody could even say "Amen" because nobody knew what

they were saying.

"You may be giving thanks well enough. I mean, it is possible that you may be

even exercising the true gift, but the way you're doing it doesn't edify

anybody." I tend to think that what he is saying here is mostly a

condemnation. In light of all this, somebody might say, "Well, look at the

end of chapter 12, it says, 'earnestly desire the greater gifts.' Shouldn't

we take that as, 'Boy, we really ought to desire this?'" That has to be

properly understood. See that little phrase, "but earnestly desire the

greater gifts." People say, "Well, see that's a good reason for you to go

out and desire this gift." Well, first of all it is in the plural, not

singular. It doesn't say an individual Christian should desire a certain

gift. He already has said in chapter 12, verse 11, that the Holy Spirit

gives whatever gift He wants to whoever He wants. It isn't the question of

desire, it is sovereignly given. What he is really saying here is this, it

should be translated this way, "You are coveting the showy gifts." It isn't

an imperative, it really should be an indicative. It's a statement of fact,

not a command. And, by the way, in the Greek the imperative and the

indicative are the same form.

Albert Barnes takes it as the indicative; so do many other commentators:

Doderidge (sp.), Locke, McKnight. Barnes observes that the Syriac New

Testament renders the verse the same way. The New International Version has

it right. The New International says, "you are eagerly desire the greater

gifts (1CO 12:31), you're seeking these showy things." Then he says, "But I

want to show you a better way; not that way. You're jealously coveting

spectacular things" (it's a rebuke), "I'll show you a better way." And then

he goes on to describe love, and then in 14 he goes on to describe the proper

use of the gifts. So they were abusing these things in a number of ways.

Now, a statement that Paul makes in chapter 13 bears repeating to you,

because it suggests to us that tongues would come to an end. That it served

a purpose in the Apostolic era, but it would end. I don't want to get too

tied up, but look down in verse 8. "Love never fails; but if there are gifts

of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease;

if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part, and we

prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."

Now, the statement made here in verse 8 is that tongues will cease. It

means, literally, "to cease permanently." It says there is going to come a

time when they stop; prophecy and knowledge will be "done away." That's a

passive verb; something will stop prophecy, something will stop knowledge.

But we know what it is because verses 9 and 10 tells us, "For we know in

part, and we prophesy in part;" there are those two things: prophecy and

knowledge. And what's going to stop them is "the perfect" (in verse 10).

You say, "What's the 'perfect' thing?" I believe it is the eternal state.

When the eternal state comes, prophecy will end and knowledge will end, but

they haven't ended yet. And there is going to be a flourishing of knowledge,

and a flourishing of prophecy in the Millennial Kingdom until the "perfect"

comes, the perfect state, the eternal state. Prophecy and knowledge will go

on and then they will be stopped. Something will act on them to stop them.

But tongues will cease by itself (it's a middle voice verb). Tongues will

cease by themselves. There will come a time when they cease, and they will

cease permanently.

Now this poses a very interesting problem. We need only to ask one question,

"Did they cease?" Because if they did, they ceased permanently! Right? Did

they cease? They are not going to be around when the "perfect" thing comes,

clearly verse 9 only refers to prophecy and knowledge being around at that

point, tongues will cease by itself. Nothing will stop it; it will cease by

itself. It will just end. Now our Charismatic friends tell us that all the

gifts continue and tongues have not ceased. We believe they have, and how

can we support that? Just very briefly. When you look at history, when you

look at theology, [when] you look at the Bible itself, I believe that you can

demonstrate that tongues ceased, and that when they ceased they ceased, and

that was it.

First of all, tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and [as] we have

noted repeatedly in this study, the Age of Miracles and Revelation ended with

the Apostles and those who worked along side of them. The last recorded

miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58; note that, because the

last book wasn't written until A.D. 96. So you have almost 40 years with no

supernatural wonders going on, even in the time in which the New Testament is

still being written. From A.D. 58 to A.D. 96 when John finished the Book of

Revelation, no miracle is ever recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and

healings are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, which is a very early epistle.

Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss spiritual gifts, but

neither mention these sign gifts. Isn't that an interesting point? The

later epistles discussing the gifts don't mention the sign gifts. No mention

is made of the miraculous gifts; only in this very early epistle. By that

time miracles were already looked on as something in the past; read Hebrews

2, 3, and 4: it was something already in the past. Apostolic authority had

already been affirmed; the message needed no further confirmation. And

before the first century ended, the New Testament was written, circulated

through the churches, and the revelatory gifts had ceased to have a purpose

and so they passed away.

Second, tongues were identified as a sign to unbelieving Israel. They

signified that God had begun a new work which encompassed the Gentiles, and

once that message was made, and that it was made clear to Israel, it was

really not necessary to keep repeating it. Again, it was a period of

transition. They had been the people primarily involved in the old covenant;

now the church was in the new covenant, in the time of transition. The sign

was made to Israel; that's done with. We are now in the new covenant; no

sense in repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating the sign.

O. Palmer Robertson articulates it this way,

Tongues served well to show that Christianity, though begun in

the cradle of Judaism, was not to be distinctively Jewish. Now

that the transition between old and new covenants has been made,

the sign of transition has no abiding value in the life of the

Church. Today there is no need for a sign to show that God is

moving from the single nation of Israel to all the nations.

That movement has become an accomplished fact, as in the case of

the founding office of Apostle, so the particularly transitional

gift of tongues has fulfilled it's function as covenantal sign

for the old and new covenant people of God. Once having

fulfilled that role it has no further function among the people

of God.

Furthermore, the gift of tongues was inferior to the other gifts. It was

primarily a sign gift; it couldn't really edify the Church as prophecy, that

is, preaching and teaching could. It was easily misused to edify oneself and

build oneself up. And since the Church meets for edification, better to

pursue prophecy. Furthermore, history records that tongues did cease. I

don't need to go into all the details. You'll find, as I said, it begins to

cease after 1 Corinthians; it doesn't appear any more. Peter never mentions

tongues; James never mentions tongues; John never mentions tongues; Jude

never mentions tongues; they just don't talk about them. In the Post

Apostolic age there is no mention of tongues. Cleon Rodgers (sp.) wrote, "It

is significant that the gift of tongues is nowhere alluded to, hinted at, or

even found in the Apostolic Fathers, which came after the Early Church.

Chrysostom, Augustine, those Early Church theologians of the Eastern and

Western Churches, considered tongues absolutely obsolete and non-existent."

During the first 500 years of the Church, the only time you really see any

claim to tongues are the followers of Montanist, who was branded a heretic.

The next time any significant tongue speaking arises is in the late 17th

century. A group of militant Protestants in the Sevenall (sp.) region of

southern France began to prophesy, experience visions, and speak in

tongues--now we're talking the 17th century. They were known as the Sevenall

Prophets and they were remembered for their political and military

activities, not their spiritual legacy. Many of their prophecies were

unfulfilled. They were rabidly anti-Catholic and advocated the use of armed

force against the Catholic Church. Many of them were consequently persecuted

and killed by Rome.

At the other end of the spectrum were the Jansenists, who were Roman Catholic

loyalists who opposed the Reformers' teachings on justification by faith and

claimed to be able to speak in tongues. And then there were the Shakers,

they were an American sect of Quaker roots that flourished in the mid 1700's,

the 18th century. They were led by Mother Ann Lee; and Mother Ann, a strange

name for someone like her, because she regarded herself as the female

equivalent of Jesus Christ and claimed to be able to speak 72 languages and

believed that sexual intercourse, even in marriage, was sinful. Now how you

can believe that and be called Mother Ann Lee, I'm not sure. Not only that,

how you can believe that teaching and expect your movement to last, I'm not

sure. They spoke in tongues while dancing and singing in a trance. In the

early 19th century a Scottish Presbyterian pastor, Edward Irving, and members

of his congregation practiced speaking in tongues and some of these other

Charismatic things. They became known as Irvingites. Their movement was

discredited [with] false prophecies. They were attributing some of their

gifts to evil spirits. They became the Catholic Apostolic Church, taught

many false doctrines; embraced several strange and bizarre things; created

Apostolic offices, etc.

Now all of these supposed manifestations of tongues were always identified as

heretical, fanatical, unorthodox, outside the Church; and we conclude that

when they ceased they ceased, and there have been continual off and on

fabrications of counterfeit tongues. Since these gifts did cease, the burden

of proof is on the Charismatics to prove that what is happening today is

valid. Why do we always have to get backed in the corner and prove our case?

Why don't they take the Bible and prove theirs and look at history as well

and do the same?

Some have said, "Well, this is the final outpouring of the Spirit." No it's

not. The final outpouring of the Spirit Joel wrote about, will be in the

Millennial Kingdom. This is not the Millennial Kingdom. And so there's so

many doctrinal, historical issues at hand. Now, that leads us to a

concluding thought. What kind of things are they doing then? What is going

on? How do we explain what they do? Well, if you ask them they will say

things like this,

What's the use in speaking in tongues? The only way I can

answer that is to say, "What's the use of a Bluebird? What's

the use of a sunset? Just sheer, unmitigated uplift. Just joy

unspeakable and with it health, and peace, and rest, and release

from burdens and tensions."

Boy, that's pretty great stuff! Or they might say,

When I started praying in tongues I felt, (and people told me) I

looked 20 years younger. I am built up, I am given joy,

courage, peace, the sense of God's presence, and I happen to be

a weak personality who needs this.

Now, that kind of testimony is a pretty heavy pitch, pretty powerful. If it

can give you health, happiness, and make you look younger, then the potential

market is unlimited. On the other hand the evidence to support such claims

is dubious. Would anyone seriously argue, seriously, that today's tongues

speakers live holier lives? Live more consistent lives than believers who

don't speak in tongues? What about all the Charismatic leaders in recent

years whose lives have proved to be morally and spiritually bankrupt? And

does the evidence show that Charismatic Churches are, on the whole,

spiritually stronger and more solid than Bible believing churches that do not

advocate the gifts? The truth is, you must look long and diligently to find

a Charismatic fellowship where spiritual growth and Biblical understanding

are genuinely at the heart. If that kind of stuff doesn't produce more

spiritual Christians or believers who are better informed theologically, then

what is it doing? And what of the many former tongue speakers who testify

they didn't experience peace, satisfaction, power, joy, or find the fountain

of youth when they spoke in tongues.

Why does it produce so much disillusionment? Why is the emotional high in

the initial ecstatic experience harder and harder to duplicate? No, it is

significant to note that Pentecostals and Charismatics can't substantiate

their claim that what they are doing is the Biblical gift. There's really no

evidence to prove it. There is no evidence that it's language. You say

then, "What is it?" Could be demonic. Could be satanic. I think it was in

Corinth, in some cases. Could be that. Ecstatic speech is a part of many

pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon

is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don't know the Zulu

language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan

monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that

the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? It

could be demonic.

Secondly, it could be learned behavior; you just learn how to do it. If you

can go to the Hunter's seminar, they will "jump start" you. It could be

psychological. It could be a kind of a self-induced hypnosis, a kind of a

trance, where you just yield up all of your will, and you yield up your vocal

cords and you empty out your brain, and the power of suggestion takes over

and you become psychologically induced. And once you have that experience,

you then learn to do it and just do it. Many studies have been done to show

that it is psychological. But the burden of proof is really not on us to

prove what it is. Suffice it to say that this unique gift given for the

Apostolic time is irreproducible today, and whatever purports to be that is

not that; it is something counterfeit. A myriad of studies, which I'll deal

with in the book [Charismatic Chaos], and when you get a copy you can read

them in detail, give evidence of the fact that motor-autonomism (sp.),

ecstasy, hypnosis, psychic-catharsis, collective psyche, memory excitation,

and all other kind of terms are used to describe people who go into these

kinds of trance like experiences. And then on the majority of occasions it

is just learned behavior. You just learn to say it and so you say it.

It is interesting to me that I have listened to people speak in tongues in

many different parts of this country, on many different occasions, through

many years, and I find very similar verbiage, so what they learn kind of gets

filtered and passed through the whole movement. Why do people want to do

this? Why are they getting into this? Well, many people are hungry to get

whatever is missing in their spiritual life and they don't know that it is

all about learning the Word and walking in the Spirit. They think they can

get it in one big dose, in a sort of a shot, a jolt out of heaven. Many

people are hungry to express themselves spiritually and they have been coming

to Church for years and they aren't involved, and they find a place where

they can speak out and go through this expression, and it kind of releases

their pent up feelings.

Some people want acceptance and security. Some people need to somehow

verbalize their spirituality because they have so many doubts, that they are

looking for something to prove that they are really Christians, and so they

want to find some act, some verbalization, some physical thing that can help

convince them their Christianity is real. And some people have been sitting

in dead, cold churches for so long that the lifelessness, that permeates

their religious experience, causes them to cry out for something other than

what they have experienced.

Now having said all that, let me say this, there are a lot of things worse

than speaking in tongues. Can I throw one at you? Gossip! Does that

surprise you? If you speak in tongues, that's bad, but it doesn't normally

affect other people in a negative way. If you gossip, that will! And so I

just needed to say that as a footnote, unless we walk out of here and think

because we don't speak in tongues everything is under control. Better you

should talk gibberish that nobody understands, than gossip. Just to put it

into perspective. Well, I have more to say, but I don't have any time to say

it, and I've got to come back in two weeks and move to the next theme.

Let's pray. Father, thank you for the clarity of your Word. We want to

basically understand these issues in the light of your Scripture. We want to

love our true brothers in Christ who are in this movement. We do recognize

what your Word teaches about this gift, and yet Lord, we want to be sensitive

and gracious and loving to those who are caught up in it. Father, we do pray

that you will help us understand that what you want is not for us to blank

out our minds, but to love you with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and

strength. That what you desire out of us is not that we think on nothing,

but that whatever is true and pure, and lovely, and honest, and of good

report, we think on these things. Not that we have a blank mind but that we

have a renewed mind.

Lord, not that we seek some mystical inexplicable experience, but that we

come to know you, the true and living God, and your Son Jesus Christ, through

the knowledge of the Word, wherein we are made strong. Father, we will find

no benefit spiritually in mystical, ecstatic, emotional highs. But we do

find great benefit in the truth, committed to our hearts through the Word and

applied by the Spirit. And so we pray Father, that you will direct us

continually into your truth, that we might live for your praise. In Christ's

Name. Amen.

Transcribed by Tony Capoccia of

BIBLE BULLETIN BOARD MODEM (318)-949-1456

BOX 130 300/1200/2400/9600/19200/38400 DS HST

SHREVEPORT, LA 71110

Search This Blog

Strange Texts

Charismatic Chaos - by John MacArthur

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BOTTOM LIVE script

Evidence supporting quantum information processing in animals

ARMIES OF CHAOS