MacArthur and Tongues

[Maestroh]

Nebula,

I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I'm here on occasion, so feel free to reply but it may take a few days for me to get back with you. However, I won't ignore you or pull an "Internet hit and run."

There are, however, elements of your post that disturb me.

For starters, you seem to be unwilling to admit - despite correction by a number of people - that MacArthur has NOT taught that ALL of the gifts have ceased. What he has taught has been very clear. As I have been blessed by his ministry lo these seventeen years, allow me to demonstrate.

On his 1972 tape, "Miracles, Healings, and Tongues," MacArthur claims that four gifts - tongues, interpretation, healings, and working of miracles have ceased as a NOMRAL means of ministry. He does NOT, however, deny that those things can happen - he just puts them under the gift of 'faith' also listed there.

In his 1977 tape series, "Speaking In Tongues," he preaches seven messages exegetically against the revival of tongues. He also makes clear that other gifts like prophecy and knowledge have NOT ceased. One is free to disagree with is intepretation - but don't state incorrect things, either.

In 1978, the book "The Charismatics" came out and Mac again argued 'against' tongues.

In 1983, his book, "Spiritual Gifts," spelled out his acknowledgment of the baptism of the Holy Spirit - but not tongues.

He did it again in his 1990 radio broadcast, "Perfect Love," regarding I Corinthians 13:1 and the 'tongues of men and angels.'

In the fall of 1991, again he reiterated his support for 'permanent ediying gifts' and 'temporary sign gifts.'

In the spring of 1992, those fall 1991 messages were released as "Charismatic Chaos."

For a period of over twenty years, then, MacArthur has consistently maintained some gifts today and some not. He even dealt with the question you ask in the "Speaking In Tongues" message series on the first tape - listing three potential gift positions: all for today, none for today, and some for today.

What MAY have happened - and I'm trying to be gracious and give you the benefit of the doubt here - is that the editing that goes on to fit his tapes into a 24-minute message may have been irresponsible and may have put words in his mouth that were incorrect. But it is obvious from any perusal of Mac's ministry that he has consistently maintained the same position since at least 1972.

RE: TONGUES

I also find a touch of spiritual elitism in your, "You have to experience it." I have some major problems with this on numerous levels. The first is that this is the old, "Unless you agree with me, you can't be critical." Another way to state it is, "Non-tongue speakers cannot judge." To which I always reply, "Who sits on the jury for a murderer? Is it murder victims or murderers themselves?" The answer, of course, is neither one - our society realizes that people can make a judgment based on EVIDENTIAL reasons.

Secondly, I've been down that path. In fact, millions of people have been down that path and recanted just as I did. So you can't use the "You haven't had the experience, you can't judge" on many of us. Fact is that biblical tongues were HUMAN lanugages - a fact even the original Pentecostals (Parham and the Bethel Bible church) realized, which is why they floated that tale of 30 languages 'verified' at their school; never mind that NOT ONE of those people went to a foreign land and became a successful missionary based on the new use of the gift.

I would add this; if the so-called 'restoration' position is true, it actually proves the cessational position true.

Personally, I think all gifts operate today, but not in the way many (sincere) Christians believe. Ever notice how we only have tongues and healing movements? Never a giving or mercy movement!!

I'm guessing the preoccupation with the bizarre is a big reason.

[RGR]

I'm guessing the preoccupation with the bizarre is a big reason.

If believing in the full manifestation of the Spirit in regards to speaking in tongues (I don't mean barking like a dog, etc.) makes me preoccupied with the "bizarre" then "bizarre" I will gladly be!

[nebula]

For starters, you seem to be unwilling to admit - despite correction by a number of people - that MacArthur has NOT taught that ALL of the gifts have ceased. What he has taught has been very clear. As I have been blessed by his ministry lo these seventeen years, allow me to demonstrate.

On his 1972 tape, "Miracles, Healings, and Tongues," MacArthur claims that four gifts - tongues, interpretation, healings, and working of miracles have ceased as a NOMRAL means of ministry. He does NOT, however, deny that those things can happen - he just puts them under the gift of 'faith' also listed there.

My appologies.

The topic got so strayed from MacArthur that the references to him got left behind.

You are correct, I was wrong with the "all" statement. However, even this claim of "ceasing" goes against what I know to be true.

RE: TONGUES

I also find a touch of spiritual elitism in your, "You have to experience it."

No, I don't consider myself better than anyone else. I'm just tired of the accusation thrown at us who practice the gift of tongues. EricH was the first and only non-tongue-talker (if you will) who has not spoken with disrespect towards the gift.

Fact is that biblical tongues were HUMAN lanugages

And I am sure that mine is, too!

never mind that NOT ONE of those people went to a foreign land and became a successful missionary based on the new use of the gift.

Were they supposed to? Is there a Scripture that says speaking in tongues is supposed to make you a missionary?

I would add this; if the so-called 'restoration' position is true, it actually proves the cessational position true.

I disagree with your reasoning.

Ever hear of re-digging a well that had been filled in? The water never left, but either neglect or purposeful destruction clogged the ability to draw the water.

"Restoration" then is re-digging out the well to draw from the water that was never meant to run dry.

Personally, I think all gifts operate today, but not in the way many (sincere) Christians believe. Ever notice how we only have tongues and healing movements? Never a giving or mercy movement!!

I'm guessing the preoccupation with the bizarre is a big reason.

There, see - no you are being judgmental.

I do not speak in tongues because I have a preoccupation with the bizarre. I do so because, as Paul noted, it edifies my spirit - and my spirit needs all the edifying it can get!

And if you had a debilitating chronic illness or injury, wouldn't you desire for it to be healed?

I do agree, though, that this world would be a better place if Christians would mobalize themselves in giving and mercy.

[apothanein kerdos]

Nebula,

I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I'm here on occasion, so feel free to reply but it may take a few days for me to get back with you. However, I won't ignore you or pull an "Internet hit and run."

There are, however, elements of your post that disturb me.

For starters, you seem to be unwilling to admit - despite correction by a number of people - that MacArthur has NOT taught that ALL of the gifts have ceased. What he has taught has been very clear. As I have been blessed by his ministry lo these seventeen years, allow me to demonstrate.

On his 1972 tape, "Miracles, Healings, and Tongues," MacArthur claims that four gifts - tongues, interpretation, healings, and working of miracles have ceased as a NOMRAL means of ministry. He does NOT, however, deny that those things can happen - he just puts them under the gift of 'faith' also listed there.

In his 1977 tape series, "Speaking In Tongues," he preaches seven messages exegetically against the revival of tongues. He also makes clear that other gifts like prophecy and knowledge have NOT ceased. One is free to disagree with is intepretation - but don't state incorrect things, either.

In 1978, the book "The Charismatics" came out and Mac again argued 'against' tongues.

In 1983, his book, "Spiritual Gifts," spelled out his acknowledgment of the baptism of the Holy Spirit - but not tongues.

He did it again in his 1990 radio broadcast, "Perfect Love," regarding I Corinthians 13:1 and the 'tongues of men and angels.'

In the fall of 1991, again he reiterated his support for 'permanent ediying gifts' and 'temporary sign gifts.'

In the spring of 1992, those fall 1991 messages were released as "Charismatic Chaos."

For a period of over twenty years, then, MacArthur has consistently maintained some gifts today and some not. He even dealt with the question you ask in the "Speaking In Tongues" message series on the first tape - listing three potential gift positions: all for today, none for today, and some for today.

What MAY have happened - and I'm trying to be gracious and give you the benefit of the doubt here - is that the editing that goes on to fit his tapes into a 24-minute message may have been irresponsible and may have put words in his mouth that were incorrect. But it is obvious from any perusal of Mac's ministry that he has consistently maintained the same position since at least 1972.

RE: TONGUES

I also find a touch of spiritual elitism in your, "You have to experience it." I have some major problems with this on numerous levels. The first is that this is the old, "Unless you agree with me, you can't be critical." Another way to state it is, "Non-tongue speakers cannot judge." To which I always reply, "Who sits on the jury for a murderer? Is it murder victims or murderers themselves?" The answer, of course, is neither one - our society realizes that people can make a judgment based on EVIDENTIAL reasons.

Secondly, I've been down that path. In fact, millions of people have been down that path and recanted just as I did. So you can't use the "You haven't had the experience, you can't judge" on many of us. Fact is that biblical tongues were HUMAN lanugages - a fact even the original Pentecostals (Parham and the Bethel Bible church) realized, which is why they floated that tale of 30 languages 'verified' at their school; never mind that NOT ONE of those people went to a foreign land and became a successful missionary based on the new use of the gift.

I would add this; if the so-called 'restoration' position is true, it actually proves the cessational position true.

Personally, I think all gifts operate today, but not in the way many (sincere) Christians believe. Ever notice how we only have tongues and healing movements? Never a giving or mercy movement!!

I'm guessing the preoccupation with the bizarre is a big reason.

[Maestroh]

For starters, you seem to be unwilling to admit - despite correction by a number of people - that MacArthur has NOT taught that ALL of the gifts have ceased. What he has taught has been very clear. As I have been blessed by his ministry lo these seventeen years, allow me to demonstrate.

On his 1972 tape, "Miracles, Healings, and Tongues," MacArthur claims that four gifts - tongues, interpretation, healings, and working of miracles have ceased as a NOMRAL means of ministry. He does NOT, however, deny that those things can happen - he just puts them under the gift of 'faith' also listed there.

My appologies.

The topic got so strayed from MacArthur that the references to him got left behind.

You are correct, I was wrong with the "all" statement. However, even this claim of "ceasing" goes against what I know to be true.

RE: TONGUES

I also find a touch of spiritual elitism in your, "You have to experience it."

No, I don't consider myself better than anyone else. I'm just tired of the accusation thrown at us who practice the gift of tongues. EricH was the first and only non-tongue-talker (if you will) who has not spoken with disrespect towards the gift.

Fact is that biblical tongues were HUMAN lanugages

And I am sure that mine is, too!

never mind that NOT ONE of those people went to a foreign land and became a successful missionary based on the new use of the gift.

Were they supposed to? Is there a Scripture that says speaking in tongues is supposed to make you a missionary?

I would add this; if the so-called 'restoration' position is true, it actually proves the cessational position true.

I disagree with your reasoning.

Ever hear of re-digging a well that had been filled in? The water never left, but either neglect or purposeful destruction clogged the ability to draw the water.

"Restoration" then is re-digging out the well to draw from the water that was never meant to run dry.

Personally, I think all gifts operate today, but not in the way many (sincere) Christians believe. Ever notice how we only have tongues and healing movements? Never a giving or mercy movement!!

I'm guessing the preoccupation with the bizarre is a big reason.

There, see - no you are being judgmental.

I do not speak in tongues because I have a preoccupation with the bizarre. I do so because, as Paul noted, it edifies my spirit - and my spirit needs all the edifying it can get!

And if you had a debilitating chronic illness or injury, wouldn't you desire for it to be healed?

I do agree, though, that this world would be a better place if Christians would mobalize themselves in giving and mercy.

Dear Nebula,

Please consider the ENTIRE CONTEXT of the bizarre remark. My point is that we only have 'movements' for things like healing or tongues; there's never a 'mercy movement' or 'liberality movement' - it was NOT directed at you personally. Also, I appreciate your acknowledgement - I don't desire to misrepresent anyone, and I don't believe that you do, either. Thank you for rectifying it - and God bless.

Besides, I don't 'despise' the gift, either. But the burden of proof for human languages falls on you, ma'am - it is not anyone else's job to prove the negative. Maybe you do, I hope so.

If the gifts ever 'died out,' there's no Scripture that tells us they are 'restored.' It is mere human reasoning to argue that if they died, God brought them back in the twentieth century. Personally, I hold the view that just because there is a long period of silence (or seeming silence) regarding gifts doesn't prove conclusively that they ceased. I believe they were here; I also believe that much of what is called miraculous today is - well, poppycock. And some is divine providence.

[apothanein kerdos]

Sorry - I'm not trying to detract from this thread.

I'm just sick and tired of the work of the Spirit being called "not God."

No one said it wasn't God. What I did say is that tongues has no bearing on if we are baptized in the Spirit or not, and that baptism in the Spirit is present at salvation. That has nothing to do with denying the work of the Lord.

If you are refering to growth, again, this does not always mean that the work of the Lord is present.

The problem is the term "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" means different things to different people. We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit at salvation. The "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is separate experience that is accompanied by the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

No, it's not, and there isn't any scripture to teach otherwise. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at salvation; it is the same as the indwelling. Tongues is not an important gift, it is the least of the gifts. It is insignificant in the broad spectrum, and that is scriptural. Why then, would Paul call it these things if it marked the oncomming of the Holy Spirit? Why would a gift that only benefits the person having it mark such an important event?

[ayin jade]

EricH was the first and only non-tongue-talker (if you will) who has not spoken with disrespect towards the gift.

Im enjoying reading this discussion.

Neb, I do not speak in tongues, nor do I expect to. I rarely mention tongues as a gift. I know I have never posted anything negative about tongues on these boards, and fairly certain I have not done so elsewhere. I am still looking at scripture on tongues. I think perhaps instead of viewing EricH as the first and only non tongue speaker who has not spoken with disrespect, perhaps you should recognize that there are many sound Christians who have not experienced tongues, and have chosen not to speak for or against it. They show respect by their silence. It seems EricH was merely the first non tongue talker who was vocal (instead of silent) and spoke with respect.

One thing Im curious about. Charles Spurgeon spoke in tongues. He came long before the dates mentioned early in this thread about the "reappearance" of tongues. In fact, it was Spurgeon's tongue speaking that made me re-evaluate the tongue issue. I would like to know members' views on this.

My view, in case anyone is curious. I dont speak in tongues, nor do I expect to. The Lord has given me plenty already in the gift area. I think a lot of tongues are misused. I have seen a lot of pride in those who have tongues. (Not all people who have tongues have that pride. Neb, I have not seen that kind of pride in you, or any other in this thread. I have seen it in others though.) That pride has given me cause to doubt it. Spurgeon gave me cause to think there is something to it. I do not feel that a lack of tongues means a person is not baptized in the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that tongues is required as proof a person is saved. Lol, if that were true, then I would not be saved.

(Posting now, looking up reference on Spurgeon to post later on....cant find it for now, but it was a piece of writing he did, where he said he sometimes spoke in tongues privately, in prayer. He didnt say much about it.)

[nebula]

But the burden of proof for human languages falls on you, ma'am - it is not anyone else's job to prove the negative. Maybe you do, I hope so.

Well, on the other thread, I offered for anyone interested to PM me so we can arrange a phone phone, and you can record me speaking in tongues, and then see if you can determine if I am speaking in a human language the glories of God or not. So far, I have not had any takers.

If the gifts ever 'died out,' there's no Scripture that tells us they are 'restored.' It is mere human reasoning to argue that if they died, God brought them back in the twentieth century. Personally, I hold the view that just because there is a long period of silence (or seeming silence) regarding gifts doesn't prove conclusively that they ceased. I believe they were here; I also believe that much of what is called miraculous today is - well, poppycock. And some is divine providence.

I don't beleive they died out, either. In fact, my former pastor wrote a book where he's found writings from various church fathers and leaders through the centuries that showed they healed, prophecied, spoke in tongues, etc.

I believe however that faith has been lost, and that is what was restored.

[nebula]

No, it's not, and there isn't any scripture to teach otherwise. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at salvation; it is the same as the indwelling. Tongues is not an important gift, it is the least of the gifts. It is insignificant in the broad spectrum, and that is scriptural. Why then, would Paul call it these things if it marked the oncomming of the Holy Spirit? Why would a gift that only benefits the person having it mark such an important event?

OK, let's look at what the Scriptures say:

Acts 2

1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord* in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Tongues was the first gift manifested on the disciples when the Spirit came upon them.

Acts 10

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Here again tongues accompanied the outpouring.

Acts 2

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?" 13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine."

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: . . . .

Here we see the tongues were a sign to the unbelievers.

1 Cor. 14:2 - For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Tongues is used to speak to God (prayer).

1 Cor. 14:4 - He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,

Tongues is used for self-edification.

1 Cor. 14: 5 - I wish you all spoke with tongues,

The gift of tongues is valued.

1 Cor. 14:6ff - But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? . . . . 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

Speaking in tongues to the assembly needs to be accompanied by interpretation.

1 Cor. 14:14 - For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Praying in tongues is valid praying that comes from one's spirit.

1 Cor. 14:21,22 - 21 In the law it is written: "With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord. 22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Tongues are expessed as being a sign for unbelievers.

1 Cor. 14:23,24 - 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all.

Now it seems prophecy, not tongues, are for the unbeliever.

1 Cor. 14

26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Note that Paul does not say a person cannot speak in tongues period without an interpreter, for he follows by saying, "let him speak to himself and to God."

Paul's admonishion here with tongues falls together with his admonishion with prophecying and giving psalms and giving teaching. What is spoken to the body needs to be for the edification of the body, and whatever is spoken needs to be done in turn.

1 Cor. 14:39, 40 - 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

It is better to prophecy for the sake of the body; but do not forbid (might I add, do not despise) the gift of speaking in tongues.

[nebula]

1 Cor. 13

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Many people use this passage to argue that the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge have passed away since the formation of the Canon. But is this what the text says?

When will these things fail, cease, vanish away?

"When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

By the wording here, it seems that prophecy, tongues and knowledge are "in part." If they were "in part" back then, how did the formation of the Canon make things perfect? For we are still divided by languages, and the Canon has no meaning for those who have not had it translated into their own language. How many centuries were the people of Europe without the Scriptures in their language?

So, how do we know when "that which is perfect" is come?

Note what Paul says later: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face."

When shall we see "face to face"? Is it not when the Lord returns and makes all things new?