ANALYSIS OF ROBIN ARNAUDS'S ARTICLE
"THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GIFT OF TONGUES"
(His article is found on http://www.the-highway.com/tongues_Arnaud.html)
By Paul Christensen, MA, DipTching, Elder of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand
When we read articles like this, we have to ensure that the author is accurately depicting what the Scriptures are actually saying, and not fitting and stretching the sense of the Scripture to fit his original premise. In this analysis of Mr Arnaud's article, we are going to examine his views and the Scriptures he uses to support them, and come to a conclusion whether his views are consistent with what the New Testament actually teaches about the gift of tongues.
The purpose of the analysis is not to discredit Mr Arnaud as a Bible commentator or to belittle his ministry. Rather, this is a review of his article in the interests of fair debate on a controversial Christian issue.
The text of the original article is in Times New Roman 14pt Bold to distinguish it from our analytical comments.
While still active in the charismatic movement, I became disillusioned with the obvious disparity between the bible descriptions and accounts of the charismatic gifts, especially the gift of tongues.
We get a clue of one of the motives for writing the article. Often, disillusionment with a church or a movement may arise out of events of a personal nature that can breed unforgiveness in a person. The natural heart can be very deceptive and we can think that we are doing something with a good motive, when the real motive could be a type of revenge against, not the church or movement as such, but against the people whose actions and conduct caused the disillusionment. I am not saying that this is the author's motive, but it gives the reader another possible perspective of why an article like this is written.
So I began a study of the bible and of church history in order to determine the true biblical nature and purpose of the charismatic gifts. I was not seeking to prove or disprove anything, only to discover the true nature of the gifts. Here are the results of that study:
This remains to be seen as we analyse the content of the article.
=================================
The PURPOSE of Tongues
God is a God of order and design (1 Cor 14:33). When He does something, He does so with a plan and a goal. The Lord did not speak in parables, for example, in order to be clever or to appear profound. Scripture teaches that He used parables with the express intent of obscuring the truth from the non-elect (Mark 4:11,12). Likewise, miracles and gifts are to be understood in terms of a particular purpose. They served as signs validating the messages which they accompanied (John 20:30,31; Acts 2:43, 4:16; 2 Cor 12:12; Gal 3:5; Rom 15:17-19). The purpose of the impartation of gifts by the Apostles (both scripture and subsequent church history demonstrate that the gifts were bestowed ONLY by the Apostles and no one else — ever), was to validate the Apostles’ teachings.
Let's look at the Scriptures that the author quotes in the above paragraph to see if his last sentence is supported by the Bible. His first quote tells us that God is not the author of confusion, etc. This is quite true. It is interesting that the Corinthians reference is in the context of Paul's teaching about the gift of tongues in the Corinthian church. There is no evidence that the gift of tongues the Corinthians practices was imparted by any of the Apostles, and yet Paul says later in the chapter that the Corinthians should not be forbidden to speak in tongues. Read it for yourself.
His second quote from Mark is quite true as well, in the general sense. Paul's teaching about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is designed for converted Christians and therefore is clear and plain.
John 20:30,31 says that the miracles that Jesus did were to encourage the readers to believe on His name. There is no problem about this quote. Acts 2:43, 4:16, 2 Corinthians 12:12, validates the miracles done by the Apostles.
The reference in Galatians 3:5 supports the hearing of faith, rather than the works of the Law. Paul is supporting Justification by Faith to the Galatians in response to the false teaching that Christians have to be circumcised if they are to be saved. His quote about miracles is in this context. Note that he does not mention that the miracles were done exclusively by apostles. Paul could have been referring to anyone who came and ministered in the Spirit to them. Paul's words in the Romans reference is not primarily about miracles, but the manner in which he preached the Gospel. He does not say that the signs, wonders and miracles were exclusively part of his ministry, but implies that they should be part of the ministry by anyone who preaches the Gospel. "Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:16). This supports Paul's desire that, among other things, anyone who wants to preach the Gospel like Paul, needs to have the same power of the Spirit working through his preaching as he has. This includes miracles, signs and wonders.
Our view is that Mr Arnaud has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the gifts of the Spirit were bestowed exclusively by the Apostles. He has not been able to quote one Scripture to support that sentence. This is the nature of deception, Scriptures are quoted that give general information about a theme, but do not deal with it directly. The test for truth is that there are particular Scriptures that give direct support to the views expressed. Therefore, the view that only the original Apostles bestowed the gifts of the Spirit is a deception, not supported by any direct Scripture that actually states it.
Why do some people claim that tongues is Satanic?
Paul warned Timothy that in latter times many would fall away from the faith, giving heed to “seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.” A great majority of bible scholars believe that since Christ rendered Satan and all his demons powerless by His death and resurrection, the only power demons now have is the power of deceit. Demons today, then, are thought to be deceiving angels. They get people to listen to their lies by making their lies attractive and alluring. Paul called them “seducing spirits” (1 Tim 4:1), because they teach false doctrine.
While this is generally true, we have yet to see whether the author can give any direct Scriptural quotes to support that the contemporary use of tongues fits into this.
A major reason so many folks believe it is Satanic is because there are so many “gifts” which do not validate the Apostles’ teaching. Remember the slave girl with “a spirit of divination” who followed the Apostle Paul crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation!” (Acts 16:16-18). It turned out that her “prophesyings” were the work of a demon in spite of her message! Paul cast the demon from her and she stopped prophesying. How could Paul tell that the servant girl’s “gift” was demonic? Two reasons:
No Apostle had imparted the gift to her,
We have already shown that there are no Scriptures to support that the gifts of the Spirit have to be imparted by an Apostle. Paul does not say that this gift was demonic because it was not imparted by an Apostle. This is the author's own unsupported, speculative view.
Her prophesyings used Paul’s ministry to validate HER message, a purpose directly opposed to the one intended for genuine gifts of the Spirit.
There is absolutely no statement by Paul that this girl was emulating the New Testament gift of prophecy, nor did he give the view that she was validating her message. This is another unsupported, speculative view of the author.
Charismatic gifts today are often used to “validate” someone else’s ministry — someone whose teachings are NOT those of the apostles. They use the Apostles’ writings and borrow their words, but they use them to give credibility to their OWN ministry.
Here is another speculative statement that is not supported by any scriptural reference. It seems that the author has concocted his view from the experience of one limited area of the Charismatic movement. The author's views are certainly open to fair debate from many learned and experienced Christians within the Charismatic movement.
A demon did exactly that in Acts 16! Not supported by Scripture.
So it stands to reason that a seducing spirit would use that same tactic today — not to confirm the apostles’ doctrine, but the doctrines of a modern-day messenger who teaches something much different.
The inference that Mr Arnaud is drawing from this is that the use of the gifts of the Spirit by contemporary Charismatic Christians is on a par with the demonic utterance in Acts 16. We have already shown that he has not given sufficient support from Scripture to validate this claim. He might need to read what Jesus said about blaspheming the Holy Spirit when the Pharisees accused him of performing His miracles by the power of the devil.
—What the Bible Teaches about Tongues—
I. The FORM of Tongues in Scripture: Whenever we see tongues mentioned in the bible, it ALWAYS takes the form of a structured foreign language — never “ecstatic gibberish.”
There are no references in any of the Acts accounts or Paul's teaching about tongues that it was an "ecstatic" gift. The term "ecstatic" describing tongues was given by commentators like William Barclay, who did not believe in, or practice the gift of tongues. I know of no Pentecostal or Charismatic believers who have describe tongues as an "ecstatic" gift.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul's major teaching about tongues, says quite clearly that it does not necessary have to be a structured foreign language that can be understood by anyone in the world (1 Corinthians 14:2).
A) In Acts 2, many people from many places heard the gospel preached IN THEIR OWN DIALECTS. Peter told the crowd that that event was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel (Joel 2:28ff), which makes absolutely no mention of tongues at all but speaks of prophecy, dreams, visions, and SIGNS. Paul later wrote that tongues are “for a SIGN... to unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22).
This is quite true, and many Charismatic do believe that the events at Pentecost were a sign and a fulfilment of Joel's prophecy.
B) In every event subsequent to the one in Acts 2 where tongues was present, “the Holy Spirit fell on them... JUST AS HE DID ON US AT THE BEGINNING (Acts 11:15-17), which must mean that tongues on those occasions were like the tongues in Acts 2 — a verifiable foreign language, a sign to unbelievers.
In the other instances of tongues there is no reference to the unbelievers around understanding what was being spoken. Peter was merely explaining that these believers received the infilling of the Holy Spirit and he knew that it was the Holy Spirit because they received the gift of tongues like the 120 did on the Day of Pentecost. The 120 received the gift of tongues within the upper room before they went out on the street. It was only when they went out on the street that the tongues became intelligible by the unbelievers who were gathering around to see what all the commotion was. The context of the Acts 11 reference is Peter explaining to the Jerusalem believers that the Gentiles were being truly converted to Christ in the same way they were. So Peter was speaking about Gentile conversion, and was not giving any definitive teaching about the gift of tongues. So we cannot depend on the Acts references for absolute doctrinal teaching about tongues. These references are the observances of Luke about how the early Christian church came into being. 1 Corinthians 14 is the doctrinal chapter, and we can depend on what Paul taught there as the doctrinal basis for the gift of tongues.
C) The Pentecost form of tongues became the paradigm for all later forms of glossolalia.
This is nonsense. There is no Scriptural basis for this. It is Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 that is the paradigm for all later forms of tongues.
All references in the bible to tongues speaking employ the same basic terminology, implying similarity of form.
D) The Corinthian episodes are defined in terms fully compatible with those in Acts. Paul writes, “no language is without meaning” (1 Cor 14:10).
This quote does not support the author's notion that tongues has to be an understandable worldly language. Paul is giving a general statement about all languages, and in this context his statement is true. It is a stretch of the Scripture to say that Paul is telling the Corinthians that because no language is without meaning that tongues has to be an understandable language, which would contradict Paul's statement that "no man understands" the person speaking in tongues. Paul does not contradict himself.
He compares tongues to worldly languages and asserts that all of them have coherent meaning. Tongues, biblically, is certainly not the incoherent babbling gibberish that we see in charismatic and Pentecostal churches today.
When mentioning "incoherent babbling gibberish", has the author sat in a group where people are speaking Samoan, Maori, Hindi, Arabic, or Chinese? I have sat in groups like this, and their language sounds like gibberish to me. The Assyrian language sounded like "stammering" gibberish to the Jews. The author is not proving anything by his statement.
II. The CONTENT of Tongues in Scripture: Tongues was a REVELATIONAL gift — a vehicle of revelation from God to man. Tongues brought revelation from God as surely as the gift of prophecy brought revelation from God to the prophets and apostles of old. Thus, tongues must be understood in scripture to have brought inspired, inerrant, and authoritative communication from God to man:
Where does the Scripture say this? This is a direct contradiction to 1 Corinthians 14:2 where Paul says that a person speaking in tongues speaks mysteries to God. How can tongues be a revelation from God in this context? Paul says that the tongues speaker speaks not to men but to God.
A) The first occurrence of tongues is defined as prophetic by Peter (Acts 2:11-18).
B) Tongues are almost always related to other revelational gifts in scripture (Acts 2, 19, 1 Cor 13 and 14). In Acts 19 they “spoke with tongues and prophesied.” In 1 Corinthians tongues are dealt with at great length in association with prophecy. The difference was that prophecy was the ability to speak infallibly the will of God in one’s own language, while tongues was the ability to speak infallibly the will of God in a language one had never learned.
The author is partly correct when he is saying that tongues often occurs at the same time and in the same environment as the other revelational gifts. But there is no support for saying that tongues is the ability to speak the will of God. Paul teaches that speaking in tongues is directed to God and no one else. So, is he saying that the person speaking in tongues is speaking God's own will back to Him? Ridiculous. The author is again contradicting the clear teaching Paul gives about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14.
C) Tongues are specifically said to be a speaking of mysteries (1 Cor 14:2). When the word MYSTERY is used in scripture it is always in terms of revelation. A mystery spoken becomes a revelation.
Here again the author is using a general concept to prove something specific. Sorry, it does not meet the criteria of a doctrinal truth being supported by clear, specific Scriptural references supporting it. A general, non specific concept does not prove a doctrine.
The CONTENT of tongues, then, is seen to be infallible, inerrant, inspired revelation of God’s mysteries to man.
Mr Arnaud has not proved his point, therefore his sentence about the content of tongues is unreliable, and is the result of ineffective scholarship.
The tongues we see today among Charismatics and Pentecostals surely does not measure up to this lofty biblical standard. In fact in every service I ever attended in twenty years as a charismatic where tongues was used, it NEVER took the form of a discernable foreign language, and its “interpretation” was never treated as an infallible revelation from God. It used to trouble me very deeply that a direct word from Heaven could be treated so lightly by the hearers — instead of writing it down and being careful to obey it and publish it, the people would nod and say, “Thanks, Lord, for that good word,” treating it more like a divine Hallmark card greeting than a revelation from the Sovereign Master of the universe. The Almighty is not sitting on His throne blowing kisses to people on the earth — His word should be treated with the utmost care and held with extreme reverence — just as we claim to treat the bible. But tongues are not treated that way today.
The problem is, and it is a Pentecostal problem, that Paul gave teaching that tongues was not to be spoken publicly, but to be reserved for a person's private prayer time. This is where many Pentecostals and Charismatics have been unwise in their practice of it. If everyone was obeying Paul's teaching, Mr Arnaud would not have heard anyone speaking in tongues at all in the church services he attended.
III. The Purpose of Tongues: As I mentioned at the beginning, God is a God of order and design and when He acts, He does so with a purpose and plan. We see that parables had a specific purpose (Mark 4:11,12); that miracles have a particular purpose (Jn 20:30-31, Acts 2:43 and 4:16, Rom 15:17-19, 2 Cor 12:12), and likewise that the gift of tongues served a very specific purpose: They validated the Apostles’ message, and they were an anticipated sign of covenant curse upon unbelieving Israel.
A) Tongues were a sign to validate the message of the apostles (Mark 16:17), and Paul’s in particular (Acts 10:44-46, 19:6). ONLY the Apostles had the authority and ability to impart the gift to others through the laying on of hands or prayer. None of the people they laid hands on could pass he Holy Spirit or the gifts on to others.
The author does not quote one direct Scripture to support
this. He cannot say this for certain. But Paul does say something
direct about the impartation of spiritual gifts to Timothy. Look at this
reference:
There is not a single instance in scripture or in subsequent church history to support the contention that anyone other than the Apostles could “impart” the Holy Spirit and His gifts. Those who received these sign-gifts at the hands of the Apostles were not able to pass them along to others. If they were, then it would not have been necessary to send Apostles to Samaria in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit (and other examples).
The sending of the Apostles to Samaria can quite easily be explained. The new Christians were inexperienced in the things of the Spirit, nor was Phillip the evangelist, being a young deacon. Therefore it was natural that the experienced Apostles were sent for to support the work that the Spirit was doing there. There is nothing in this account that teaches that only the Apostles could impart the gifts of the Spirit. Remember, Acts is not a doctrinal book.
The example of Ananias (Acts 9:10-19) is often used to attempt to refute that argument, but the text does not say that Saul spoke in tongues or prophesied. It says only that his eyesight was restored and he was baptized in water. We don’t hear any more about Saul until way up there in chapter 13, where the APOSTLES laid hands on him and Barnabus.
Reading between the lines of the Book of Acts account does not provide any basis for doctrinal teaching on tongues or any of the other gifts of the Spirit. The only other Apostle that could have laid hands on Paul was Peter, but there is no record in Scripture that Peter ever laid hands on Paul. The group in Antioch did not include any of the Apostles. There is no record that any of the Apostles laid hands on Paul at all, other than Ananias. These statements are the author's own speculative opinions.
The fact that Paul passed the charismata to others was one of the proofs that he was to be counted among the Apostles (Acts 19, 2 Cor 12:12, Eph 3:7ff). It was extremely important to establish Paul’s apostleship with “the signs of an Apostle (2 Cor 12:12),” because God’s having opened the kingdom of God to the Gentiles was such a radical departure from the old covenant. And it was important that Paul be counted as an Apostle because Paul wrote most of the New Testament. That is why many of his letters to the churches open with the phrase, “Paul, an apostle by the will of God...”
At least Mr Arnaud has got something right...
B) Tongues were a sign of covenant curse upon unbelieving Israel. Since this is probably the most neglected and most misunderstood purpose of Tongues, it bears a lot more explaining, so be sure to examine these scriptures closely and in context: Paul explains this use of the sign in 1 Cor 14:21-22: “In the Law it is written, `by men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,’ says the Lord. So then, TONGUES ARE FOR A SIGN, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign not to unbelievers, but to those who believe”
Tongues then, were “for a sign” — a sign to unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Israel. God’s prophesied and anticipated sign of covenantal curse.
We accept this as one of the functions of the gift of tongues, and therefore have not commented on his extended explanation, but we don't accept that it is the sole function. If tongues being a sign to unbelieving Israel was the only purpose, then we do not believe that Paul would have gone to the trouble of devoting a whole passage of his letter to the Corinthians to explain the nature of tongues and how to use it correctly. Paul teaching about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is that it is a resource, a tool, that God has provided to enhance the prayer lives of Christians and to enable them to pray in the Spirit. A careful reading of the passage will fully support that.
IV. The transience of Tongues: Because scripture demonstrates what the PURPOSE of tongues was — to validate the APOSTLES’ ministry and to serve as the covenantal sign to Israel, it necessarily follows that once those purposes were achieved, the sign would cease. Even those who believe in modern-day tongues speaking agree that the canon is complete —’ thus they cannot possibly use the gift today in the same sense that it was used throughout the New Testament — inerrant, infallible oracles of God to man.
The author is using the old unproven chestnut that tongues and prophecy passed away when the Biblical canon was complete. This is a misquote of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. The reliable rending of this is that when the Bride of Christ is perfected at the Second Coming of Christ, then tongues and prophecy will pass away. See my article at http://personal-communication.net.nz/cessationist-incorrect.htm.
Also, to refute the idea that tongues is from the devil, read my article at
Modern-day manifestations of charismatic gifts defy the biblical and historical form, content, and purpose described in scripture, and thus it is clear that today’s form of tongues is an unbiblical counterfeit.
Our conclusion is that Mr Arnaud has not been able to produce sufficient clear and direct Scriptural support for his views. He has used indirect Scriptural quotes and has ignored most of Paul's teaching on tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. The test of true doctrine is that it is on the basis of direct Scriptural reference, and not indirect references and reading between the lines of Scripture. The signs of falsehood and deception are the twisting and adapting of Scripture to support the author's opinions. The greatest heresies which have attacked the Christian church have come from exactly the type of Scripture use that Mr Arnaud has demonstrated in his article.
The fact is, that Mr Arnaud has expressed his opinions about the Charismatic church through his own disillusionment of it, and has tried to fit Scripture into them, trying to turn his own opinions into some kind of Biblical study. A person competent in interpreting Scripture would soon find that the views expressed in his article are unreliable from a doctrinal point of view, and must remain the author's own personal, speculative views and should be treated as totally unreliable by any ready who is wanting to discover the truth about the gift of tongues. We think Mr Arnaud's title for the article is misleading, because he has not been able to demonstrate that he is writing about the truth of the gift of tongues at all.