A Biblical Critique by Brian Schwertley

Introduction

The Charismatic movement is one of the most popular and growing forces within Christendom
today. The major doctrinal distinctives of the Charismatic movement—the baptism in the Holy Spirit,
tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing and the emphasis on having a personal experience—
are primary reasons for the movement’s growth and popularity. While growth and popularity are
certainly desirable, they cannot be used as a test for truth-claims, because various cults (e.g.,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons) and false religions (e.g., Islam, Eastern mysticism) have also
witnessed great popularity and growth. The Charismatic movement is a twentieth-century
phenomenon. Since the teachings and practices of the Charismatic movement are different than
what orthodox Christians have taught for 19 centuries, we believe it is wise to examine these
teachings under the light of Scripture. We are not saying that Charismatics are not Christians. And
we are not examining their distinctives because we dislike Charismatics personally (the author was
a Charismatic for over three years, and many of his friends are still Charismatic). God commands us
to “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Th. 5:21 [1]). We are commanded to “hold fast the
faithful word” and “refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9 NASB). Thus, we offer this booklet in the
spirit of Christian love—love for our brethren, and above all, love for God’s truth. In examining any
issue, the most important question is, “What saith the scripture?” (Gal. 4:30 KJV).

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

One of the hallmarks of the Charismatic movement is what is called Spirit-baptism or the “baptism in
the Holy Spirit.” The baptism in the Holy Spirit is regarded as an experience that usually happens
after conversion. Most Charismatics would say that at conversion a Christian receives the Holy
Spirit. But only at the subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit does the Christian receive the fullness of
the Spirit, the full empowerment for Christian service. Many but not all Charismatics believe that
Spirit-baptism is always accompanied with the gift of speaking in tongues as evidence for the
baptism. Spirit-baptism is considered a second work of grace; that is, one can be a genuine Christian
yet not be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after
conversion is the cornerstone of Pentecostal theology. If this doctrine is unbiblical, we should regard
the Charismatic movement as unbiblical.

The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Thus, our experiences, impressions and
feelings must be subordinated to what the Bible teaches. Does the Bible teach that every Christian
should seek the baptism in the Spirit? Or does the Bible teach that the outpouring of the Spirit was a
unique historical event related to Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God the Father? If the
outpouring was a crucial aspect of salvation history (like the resurrection and ascension), then we
must regard it as a non-repeatable, once-for-all event. Pentecost marked “the final transition from
the old era of shadows and types to the new era of fulfillment. Pentecost was the birthday of the
Christian church, the beginning of the age of the Spirit. In this sense, therefore, Pentecost can never
be repeated, and does not need to be repeated.” [2]

The first reason that Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event in salvation history is
the fact that the outpouring of the Spirit was a prophesied event. Peter specifically says that
Pentecost is the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: “This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.”
John the Baptist said of Christ, “This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; cf. Mk. 1:7-8,
Lk. 3:16). Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would be poured out after His ascension: “It is to your
advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will
send Him to you” (Jn. 16:7; cf. Ac. 1:5).

The second reason Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event is the way Scripture
connects Pentecost with Christ’s glorification or enthronement at the right hand of God. Jesus
Christ, as the divine-human mediator, humbled Himself, obeyed the law in exhaustive detail, and
suffered and died as a vicarious atonement for the sins of His people. After His resurrection, God
exalted Christ and glorified Him as the divine-human mediator (in His divine nature, Christ could not
receive any more glory or exaltation, because He was God). An aspect of Christ’s glorification is His
baptizing His church with the Holy Spirit. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed
in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:39).
In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter explains what occurred: “Therefore being exalted to the
right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ]
poured out this which you now see and hear” (Ac. 2:33). The participles “being exalted” and “having
received” are both aorist [3]; the verb “poured out” is also aorist. Thus it is evident that Peter was
talking about a historical fact not an ongoing process. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension and
pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the church are all treated in Scripture as historical events in
salvation-history, never to be repeated.

The third reason Pentecost must be regarded as a unique historical event is the fact that after
Pentecost (with the exception of Ac. 8:14-17, which will be discussed later) believing in Christ and
receiving the Holy Spirit are simultaneous. The account of Peter’s preaching the gospel to the
Gentiles in Acts 10:34-48 reveals that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed.
At the climax of Peter’s sermon, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. That Peter equated their
baptism in the Spirit with their salvation is clear from the fact that Peter immediately “commanded
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac. 10:48). “The norm is salvation and the Spirit at the
same time. The Apostle Peter was present and therefore he could report to the church council (made
up of Jews) that the Gentiles were true believers. At the same time, the Gentiles would recognize
apostolic authority because Peter had been with them and indeed [was] the one who led them to
Christ. And both groups knew they had the same Holy Spirit.” [4] Note that the focus of Acts 10 and
11 is not how to receive the Holy Spirit or how to receive a second blessing, for the Gentiles did not
ask for or seek Spirit-baptism. The point of both chapters is to show that “God has also granted to
the Gentiles repentance to life” (Ac. 11:18).

A passage which has been often used as a proof text for receiving Spirit-baptism subsequent to
believing is Acts 19:1-7. The use of this passage by Pentecostals is based on a faulty translation in
the King James Version: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” (v. 2). The passage
literally says in the Greek, “The Holy Spirit did you receive, having believed?” The New King James
accurately translates the passage: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” This passage
is actually an excellent proof text against the Charismatic doctrine of receiving the Holy Spirit as a
second work of grace after salvation. Why? Because Paul’s question assumes that in the normal
course of events, salvation and Spirit-baptism occur at the same time. The fact that the disciples of
John the Baptist had not even heard of the Holy Spirit indicated that they had not received Christian
baptism and were still Old Covenant believers and not yet Christians. The problem for these
followers of John the Baptist was not that they needed a second work of grace but that they needed
to believe in Jesus Christ. After believing and being baptized they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Why was it necessary for the Apostle Paul to lay hands on these men? The laying on of hands in Acts
19:6 (like that in Ac. 8:17) is related to the unique authority of the apostles. Otherwise there would
have been no need for the Samaritans to wait for the apostles (Ac. 8). “It seems he did it to show
them as Jews that it was no longer John the Baptist’s teaching they were to follow but the teaching
of the Apostles.” [5]

What about Acts 8:14-17? Does not this passage record that the Samaritans received the Holy
Spirit after believing in Christ? Yes, it does. But this passage still does not support the Charismatic
doctrine of subsequence as a normal state of affairs. This passage is an excellent proof
text against the Charismatic movement. For if what Charismatics teach is true, the evangelist Philip
would have encouraged these new believers to pray and seek the second blessing. Philip, who was a
great miracle worker (unlike modern Charismatics), did not teach anyone to seek, or plead, or empty
himself in order to receive Spirit-baptism. The fact that God did not baptize the Samaritans with the
Holy Spirit until the laying on of the hands of the apostles is clearly due to the unique historical
situation at that time. Because of the racial hatred between the Samaritans and Jews, it was
necessary for both the Jewish apostles and the Samaritans that the laying on of hands take place.
The apostles approved the Samaritans as accepted by God in Christ and full partners in the
kingdom. The Samaritans recognized that the Jewish apostles were the authoritative leaders in the
church. If this passage were normative for the modern church, then we should teach that all
believers must wait for the laying on of hands by an apostle before receiving Spirit-baptism. Thus,
the only passage which could be used to support a doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of
grace after salvation proves too much. If Charismatics were consistent, they would not seek Holy
Spirit-baptism but simply wait for an apostle to stop by. The last genuine apostle died almost 1900
years ago.

Not only does the book of Acts not support the Charismatic doctrine of subsequence, the epistles
explicitly deny such a doctrine. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews
or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13).
Paul says that all Christians have been baptized in the Spirit. “You don’t need to seek a Spirit-baptism
as a post-conversion experience, Paul is saying to the Corinthians and to us; if you are in Christ, you
have already been Spirit-baptized!” [6] Some Charismatic writers have attempted to circumvent the
clear teaching of this passage by an appeal to the Word “by” in the KJV. They argue that “by one
Spirit” is different than “in one Spirit.” The only problem with this argument is that the Greek
word en (translated “by” in v. 13) can also be translated “in” or “with.” Thus the baptism in the Spirit
in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is identical to every occurrence in the book of Acts. [7] Other Charismatic
writers claim that the first part of the passage refers to conversion and the second part to Spirit-
baptism. This interpretation is rendered impossible by Paul’s use of the word “all.” Paul says
that all members belong to one body. If Paul was referring to two separate groups, he could not have
used the word “all.” “Verse 13, then, plainly teaches (1) that all believers share in the gift of the Spirit
and (2) that they do so from the time of their incorporation into the body of Christ. This verse is the
hard rock which shatters all constructions of the Holy Spirit baptism as an additional, post-
conversion, second-blessing experience”  [8]
The teaching that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit at conversion is supported by other
passages. Paul spends much of Romans chapter 8 discussing the Holy Spirit. Does Paul ever hint at
the idea that receiving the Holy Spirit is a two-stage process? No. Paul clearly says that if you are a
Christian, you have the Holy Spirit. If you are not a Christian, you don’t. “Now if anyone does not have
the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Rom. 8:9). “To suggest, as our neo-Pentecostal friends do, that the
Spirit comes into one’s life only in a small trickle when one is first converted and does not come in
His totality until some later time contradicts the plain teaching of this verse. If you’re a Christian,
Paul says to us all, the Spirit is dwelling in you. What more can He do than dwell? Can He double-
dwell or triple-dwell?” [9] Paul says, “Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you” (1 Cor.
6:19). He also says, “You are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will dwell in them...’” (1
Cor. 6:16). We must base our doctrine of Spirit-baptism on the plain teaching of the epistles.
Doctrine must be based on the clear, didactic passages rather than on a unique historical event.

While the Bible teaches that everyone who becomes a Christian is baptized in the Holy Spirit, it also
teaches that Christians need to be continually filled with the Spirit. We must not confuse these two
concepts. Spirit-baptism refers to what occurs when we become part of the body of Christ (the Holy
Spirit dwells within us). The filling or fullness of the Spirit refers to the Spirit’s ongoing activity within
the believer after conversion. Believers are dependant on the Holy Spirit’s transforming power for
growth in godliness and sanctification. The only passage in the New Testament where Christians are
commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit is Ephesians 5:18: “Be filled with the Spirit.” The verb “be
filled,” in the original language, is a command (imperative) in the present tense. This means that
Christians are commanded to continually, day by day, be filled with the Spirit. How are we to be filled
with the Holy Spirit? Is it some mystical experience only for “super-spiritual” believers? The Bible
teaches that we are filled with the Holy Spirit by believing in and obeying the Word of God.

You should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind.... But you have
not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in
Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according
to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man
which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:17, 20-24).

It is not an accident that the parallel passage to Ephesians 5:18, which says, “Be filled with the
Spirit,” is Colossians 3:16, which says, “Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly.”

In view of the parallelism involved we are bound to conclude that filling of the Spirit and the richly
indwelling Word of Christ are functionally equivalent. That indwelling Word is not some specialized
or restricted truth granted only to some in the congregation but “everything I have commanded you”
(Matthew 28:20), faithfully believed and obeyed.... The reality of the Spirit’s filling work is the reality,
in all its breadth and richness, of the ongoing working of Christ, the life-giving Spirit, with His Word.
To look for some word other than His Word, now inscripturated for the church, is to be seeking some
Spirit other than the Holy Spirit. [10]

Jesus stressed the importance of the Scriptures: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth”
(Jn. 17:17).
Charismatics teach that believing in Jesus Christ is not enough for the fulfilled Christian life. They
believe that a second work of grace (the baptism in the Holy Spirit) is necessary for spiritual fullness.
This teaching is a subtle denial of the sufficiency that we have in Christ; it detracts from the glory
due to Jesus Christ and clearly contradicts Paul’s teaching regarding the fullness we have in Christ.
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him...” (Col. 3:9-
10). “The work of the Spirit is not some addendum to the work of Christ.... The Spirit’s work is not a
‘bonus’ added to the basic salvation secured by Christ. Rather, the coming of the Spirit brings to light
not only that Christ has lived and has done certain things but that he, as the source of eschatological
life, now lives and is at work in the church. By and in the Spirit Christ reveals himself as
present.” [11] Paul’s teaching is supported by Peter’s: “[Christ’s] divine power has given to
us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us...” (2 Pet.
1:3). Both apostles assume that we receive everything we need when we believe in Christ. If a
second work of grace is needed beyond Christ, these passages simply could not be true. Thus you
need to decide whether to follow the teaching of the Word of God or the teaching of Pentecostalism.

Why is it that Jesus Christ is sufficient? Why is it that, in the epistles, receiving the baptism in the
Holy Spirit is never separated from believing in Christ? Why is it wrong to think of Spirit-baptism as
something added on to the work of Christ? Because Christians are justified in Jesus Christ. The full
guilt of sin that every believer incurred is imputed or placed on Jesus Christ on the cross. And
Christ’s perfect righteousness is imputed to the believer. The believer is clothed with Christ’s perfect,
sinless life. Thus we ask the question: Does God’s verdict of righteousness upon the fallen sinner
qualify him to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Yes, absolutely! The person who believes in
Jesus Christ receives Christ’s perfect righteousness as a gift from God. In God’s sight he is just as
righteous as Jesus Christ. Is Jesus Christ righteous enough to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
If Christ’s work which renders the Christian perfect, sinless, and absolutely righteous (before God the
Father judicially in the heavenly court) is not enough to receive Spirit-baptism, then what else is
required? Paul says, “Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13).
He asks, “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal. 3:2).

The doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of grace subsequent to salvation does not have

biblical support. The unique outpouring of the Holy Spirit from heaven by Christ was an aspect of
Christ’s glorification and, like the resurrection and ascension, is never to be repeated. The New
Testament epistles teach that believing in Christ, becoming a part of His body, the Church, and
receiving Spirit-baptism all occur at the same time. There are several discussions of the Holy Spirit’s
ministry in the epistles, yet in each discussion, Spirit-baptism is never mentioned. Nowhere in the
epistles are believers told to seek Spirit-baptism. The Bible teaches that receiving Jesus Christ and
submitting to His Word are all the Christian needs to be complete. The Charismatic doctrine of the
second blessing (i.e. Spirit-baptism) is a deviation from Protestant orthodoxy. It was not taught by
the Spirit-filled Protestant Reformers (e.g., Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Knox, etc.). It was not
taught by any of the great theologians of sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth centuries (e.g.,
Gillespie, Rutherford, Owen, Edwards, Turrentin, Hodge, Dabney, Warfield).

The doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of grace grew directly from the heretical soil of the
second-blessing holiness movement of the nineteenth century. Many holiness teachers in the
eighteenth century rejected the orthodox doctrine of sanctification as a lifelong process of spiritual
growth, in which sin is never completely eradicated in the believer. Methodistic holiness teachers
taught that Christians could receive a “second blessing” which gave the Christian in one moment
“entire sanctification.” The sinful nature was completely eliminated in the believer. And, thus, the
believer was perfect and sinless. The second blessing doctrine of entire sanctification, of sinless
perfection, is condemned by the Apostle John: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves;
and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8). The original Pentecostals took the second blessing doctrine
one step further and taught the “baptism of the Spirit” as a third blessing. Although most
Pentecostals eventually rejected the idea of entire sanctification, nevertheless the fathers of modern
Pentecostalism were heretical.

In 1901 Charles F. Parham carried the prevalent “Pentecostal” insistence on “baptism of the Holy
Spirit” (as described in Acts 2) to the conclusion that tongues should still be the sign of a
Pentecostal experience. Parham’s student, W. J. Seymour, popularized this new Pentecostalism
beginning in 1906 at the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles, after which this movement grew into its
many varieties.... The original Pentecostal teachers, Parham and Seymour, taught a Methodistic
Holiness view of a “second blessing” of entire sanctification in which the sinful nature was
eradicated. This, they said, was followed by a third blessing, “baptism of the Spirit,” accompanied by
tongues. [12]

Within twenty years of the founding of modern Pentecostalism by Charles Parham, many people
became Pentecostal who had Baptist rather than Methodist holiness backgrounds. These new
Pentecostals rejected the second blessing idea of entire sanctification. Thus, the third blessing, “the
baptism of the Spirit” [13] became the “second blessing.” Pentecostal theology has retained the
second blessing idea to the present. Pentecostalism and the modern Charismatic movement did not
grow out of the careful exegesis of God’s Word but rather out of heretical holiness revivalism.

It is ironic that Charismatics, who consider themselves experts on the Holy Spirit, completely
misunderstand the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit
came so that we could have a wonderful, subjective experience? So that we could have wonderful
religious sensations? So that we could feel electric current in our bodies? So that we could have an
exciting, mind-blowing experience? So that our worship services would make people go, “Wow, how
thrilling”? Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit came so that people would focus on the Holy
Spirit? So that people would hang banners with representations of doves in their churches and have
seminars on Spirit-baptism, etc.? No, not at all. Listen carefully to what Jesus Christ says about the
Spirit’s ministry: “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come...He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is
Mine and declare it to you” (Jn. 16:13-14). The Holy Spirit came to point men to Christ and to glorify
Christ. After Peter was baptized in the Spirit, did he stand up and tell the crowd about his wonderful
experience? Did he say, “Men and brethren, I have just received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and I
want to tell you how wonderful it is. When it came upon me, it was like being thrilled with a vital
electric current. I felt such a beautiful love and peace course through my whole body, right down to
the balls of my feet”? On the contrary, Peter made no reference to himself or his feeling. His
message was Jesus Christ and Him crucified: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of
Nazareth, a man approved of God...” (Ac. 2:22). [14]

Tongues
One practice that all Pentecostals and Charismatics hold in common is the practice of speaking with
tongues. Since there are differences of opinions regarding what tongues are and how they should be
used in public worship and private devotions, we will deal only with views which are common within
the Charismatic movement.

Charismatics generally hold to three different uses of tongues. First, most Charismatics argue that
speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. [15] They regard
the historical occurrences in the book of Acts (ch. 2, 10, 19) as normative for the church for all ages.
Second, tongues are to be used in public worship for the edification of the body. These public
tongues must be interpreted or translated, so that the edifying message can be understood by all. (In
many Charismatic churches, people blurt out “tongues” which are never interpreted.) Charismatics
differ over whether or not “tongues” in the assembly are a form of direct revelation from God. The
third use of tongues is speaking in tongues for private edification. This is based on a false
interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:1-4. This form of tongues is considered a private prayer language
to God.

There are a number of questions relating to tongues that we want to answer. What are biblical
tongues? Are tongues real human languages or unintelligible, ecstatic gibberish? Are there two types
of tongues in the Bible: one for the church and one for private prayer? Are tongues revelational in
nature, like prophecy, or just another method of uninspired exhortation?

The only way to define tongues biblically is to study the usage of the term by biblical writers. The
Greek word glossa, translated “tongue” (pl. glossais), when not referring to the actual bodily organ
called the tongue, refers either to an ethnic group (that is, a group separated by language) or to
actual human languages. “The word glossa is used some thirty times in the Greek Old Testament
(the Septuagint) and always its meaning is normal human language” [16] Our primary concern is
what the term refers to when speaking of the New Testament spiritual gift of tongues. The Bible
clearly teaches that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues always refers to real, known human
languages.

On the day of Pentecost, the disciples “began to speak in other tongues” (glossais, Ac. 2:4). Were
they babbling unintelligible nonsense or speaking in real human languages? Because this first
instance serves as a paradigm or pattern for all subsequent tongue speaking, the Holy Spirit
carefully defined the nature of tongues, It is clear that the disciples were speaking real, known
languages. They even spoke different dialects of the same language (e.g., the Phrygians and
Pamphylians spoke different dialects of Greek).

There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this
sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them
speak in his own language (dialektos). Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one
another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own
language (dialektos) in which we were born?” (Acts 2:5-8).

As if to emphasize that the disciples were speaking real languages and not gibberish, Luke even lists
the peoples which heard their native tongues: “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in
Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts
of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we
hear them speaking in our own tongues (glossais) the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:9-11). In Acts
2, glossais is used by Luke interchangeably with dialektos (“the tongue or language peculiar to any
people,” J. H. Thayer). The biblical account records that on three occasions the multitude said that
they heard their own language being spoken. Luke even records the different national languages and
regional dialects which were spoken by the disciples.

In Acts, tongues are always real, human languages. This fact is confirmed when we examine the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48. Peter says that the Gentiles “received
the Holy Spirit just as we have” (v. 47). He tells the Jerusalem church that “the Holy Spirit fell on
them [the Gentiles], as upon us at the beginning” (Ac. 11:15). Peter says that God gave the Gentiles
“the same gift as He did unto us” (v. 17). Peter is saying that the gentiles experienced the same thing
as the Jewish disciples did at Pentecost, “This likeness of experience extends not only to the fact of
receiving the Spirit but to the nature of tongue-speaking in foreign languages” [17] Thus, there is not
a shred of evidence within the book of Acts that tongues-speaking is anything but real foreign
languages. But what about 1 Corinthians?

In 1 Corinthians, tongues are also real foreign languages. Let us first examine the clear passages
regarding tongues and then examine the passages which are quoted by Charismatics as a
justification for non-foreign language, ecstatic, private-prayer language to God.

Paul designated the gift of tongues as gene glossen, translated as “kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10)
and “diversities of tongue” (1 Cor. 12:28). This term genos refers to a family, offspring, race, nation,
kind, sort, and class in New Testament usage. It always designates items which are related to each
other. There are many “kinds” of fish (Mt. 13:47) but they are all fish. There are several “kinds” of
demons in the world (Mt. 17:21), but they are still demons. There are many “kinds” of voices (1 Cor.
14:10), but they are all voices. From this it can be concluded that there are many “kinds” of
languages, but they are all languages. There are several families of languages in the world—Semitic,
Slavic, Latin, etc. These are all related, in that they have a definite vocabulary and grammatical
construction. Paul could not have possibly combined known, foreign languages with unknown,
ecstatic utterances under the same classification. They simply are not related to each other. [18]

Thus, if there were two completely different tongue-types—known languages on the one hand, and
ecstatic, babbling, private-prayer language on the other hand, as many Charismatics assert—then the
Holy Spirit who cannot lie would not have used the word genos to describe tongues in 1 Corinthians
chapter twelve.

Another passage which disproves the Charismatic position is 1 Corinthians 14:21-22: “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. Therefore tongues [Greek: the tongues] are for a sign, not to those
who believe but to unbelievers....” Here, tongues are compared to a real, foreign language
(Assyrian [19]), showing that the Apostle Paul considered tongues to be actual languages.

This is further confirmed by the usage of the article of previous reference (hai) and the function of
the inferential conjunction “therefore” (hoste). If Paul considered speaking in tongues to be an
unknown utterance, he would not have used the same word twice in these two verses, especially
since the meaning of glossa was clearly established in the first usage. [20]

Our contention that tongues refer to real foreign languages is supported by the Greek word used by
Paul when he says that tongues must be interpreted (cf. 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:26, 28). When the
word hermeneuo is not used to describe the exposition of Scripture, it simply means “to translate
what has been spoken or written in a foreign language into the vernacular.” [21] When the word is
used of the exposition of Scripture (e.g., Lk. 24:27) it is translated expound. When the
word hermeneuo is used with regard to tongues it is translated to interpret. An interpreter is
someone who translates a foreign language into a language understandable to the present
audience.

The position is sometimes taken that the gift of interpretation is a kind of intuitive, empathetic
capacity by which the mindless utterance of one member of the congregation is given intelligible
meaning by another, a gift by which the preconceptual dimension in man voiced by one member is
given rational, conceptual shape by another. But such a view is not only foreign to the Biblical usage
of “interpret” elsewhere (hermeneuo and its compounds) but also presupposes the view of tongues
we have already discussed and rejected as unbiblical. The only reason tongues-speech is
unintelligible to the listeners is that they do not understand the language being spoken. [22]

But are there not passages which teach that there is a private prayer use for tongues—that tongues
are to be used for private prayer to God and for private edification? The three passages commonly
used to argue for two types of tongues are: Romans 8:26, 1 Corinthians 13:1; 14:2-4. The first
passage actually has nothing to do with tongues: “The Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered.” Unutterable or unuttered groanings obviously cannot refer to
tongues.

But what about 1 Corinthians 13:1? Doesn’t this passage teach that we can pray with the tongues of
angels? “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels” (1 Cor. 14:1). It is clear from the Greek
grammar (ean with the subjunctive) and the context that Paul is speaking hypothetically. “He raises
it hypothetically to the most magnificent realization of it possible” [23]—that is, to make a point. Paul
is not telling the church to pray in the tongues of angels. He is saying that no matter how great your
gift is, you need love. And even if it were possible to speak in the tongues of angels, it would still be a
real, translatable language, not a bunch of gibberish. Linguists have the ability to look at language
structure and determine noun phrases, verb phrases, adverbs, and so on. Thus, if people were really
speaking in the tongues of angels, it could be determined if a real (although heavenly) language were
being spoken.

The best proof text for private prayer tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:1-5.

Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 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. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.
He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all
spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he
who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
The first thing that needs to be noted regarding this passage is that, regardless of one’s
interpretation of “edifies himself” (v. 4); the tongues spoken of throughout chapter 14 are definite,
real foreign languages. There is nothing within the passage or within the broader context that
teaches that the tongues spoken of in verses two through four are peculiar (e.g., ecstatic gibberish),
unique, or different. The tongues spoken of in verse four are real, foreign languages, just as the
tongues in verse 21 and 22 are real, foreign languages. This fact is important; if one believes that 1
Corinthians 14:2-4 justifies the private use of tongues in devotions, then there is an objective test to
determine if the speaker is speaking gibberish (i.e., syllabic nonsense) or a real foreign language: the
private tongue-speaking could be tape-recorded and submitted to any competent linguist for
verification.

Does this passage teach the private use of tongues? No. Paul is discussing edification in the
assembly during public worship. He argues that he prefers prophecy over tongues because of its
superior capability for the edification of the church. [24] When he says, “He who speaks in a tongue
does not speak to men but God, for no one understands him,” he is not telling the Corinthians that
they should be praying in tongues to God in private; he is emphasizing that without an interpreter, no
one in the assembly understands except God. [25] Likewise, when Paul discusses praying and
singing with the Spirit, he makes it clear that it must be interpreted, since it takes place in public
worship: “Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uniformed
say ‘Amen’ at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?” (1 Cor. 14:16).
There is simply not a shred of biblical evidence for the idea of private devotional tongues.

But, then, what does Paul mean when he says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”? The
context indicates that Paul is describing someone who speaks in tongues in church without an
interpreter. Paul is not saying that Christians should pray in tongues in private to be edified.
Throughout this chapter, Paul argues again and again for the need to interpret tongues; otherwise,
the church is not edified: “Since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the
church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret”
(1 Cor. 14:12-13). Since the whole thrust of chapter 14 is the edification of the body, it is probable
that “edifies himself” is meant to be taken in a negative sense. To speak in tongues without an
interpreter merely calls attention to oneself and does not benefit the body. Speaking in tongues in
the assembly without an interpreter is a form of self-glorification.

Why is it significant that tongues-speaking refers to foreign languages and not gibberish (e.g.,

“Yabba-dabba-doo”)? It is significant because it gives us an objective method to determine if modern
tongues-speaking is genuine, or manmade nonsense. If the Charismatic movement is truly a work of
God, then anyone should be able to verify it simply by recording people speaking in tongues and
having it analyzed by linguists, to see what language was being spoken. If tongues were merely the
gibberish one encounters in Charismatic churches and not real languages, then tongues are not a
sign to unbelievers, as Paul clearly asserts. A sign is a publicly-verifiable miracle. “Speaking in
foreign languages which were not learned would certainly constitute a divine miracle; however,
speaking in gibberish or in unknown sounds could easily be done by either a Christian or an unsaved
person.” [26] Every instance in the twentieth century where Charismatic tongues-speaking was taped
and analyzed by linguists revealed that modern “tongues” were not real languages but gibberish.
Modern tongues-speaking doesn’t even resemble any language, structurally. “The conclusion of the
linguists indicates that modern glossolalia is composed of unknown sounds with no distinguishing
vocabulary and grammatical features, simulated foreign features, and total absence of language
characteristics. The essential character of this new movement is therefore at variance with the
biblical phenomenon of speaking in known languages.” [27] Thus we conclude that modern tongues-
speaking contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, as well as objective empirical findings. Here is
a challenge to any Pentecostal or Charismatic: tape your church service and have the “tongues” that
are spoken analyzed objectively.

There are a number of other indicators that reveal modern tongues to be a fraud. Charismatics
are taught how to speak with “tongues.” They are told things such as, “Now pray audibly but don’t
speak English.” Or, “Start to speak syllables—just let it flow.” Many Charismatics learn how to speak
in “tongues” (gibberish) by imitating others in their church or at a conference. Do we encounter
anyone in the New Testament being taught how to pray in tongues? No, the exact opposite is the
case. Those who speak in tongues in the book of Acts, for example, never ask what to do, and are
never told to do or say anything. In the biblical accounts people speak in tongues spontaneously. In
Acts 2:4, 10:46 and 19:6, those who spoke in tongues did so with no prompting or preparation. In
fact, in each case, those who spoke in tongues, prior to the moment they spoke in tongues, did not
know such a thing as tongues even existed! Thus, not only is modern tongues gibberatic nonsense
compared with the real foreign languages spoken in the New Testament, but also the way in which
Charismatics receive tongues is completely different than that in the biblical record. [28]

If modern “tongues” (i.e., gibberish) are completely different than tongues in Scripture (which were
real, foreign languages), what happened to real, biblical tongues? The Bible teaches that tongues
and the other supernatural sign gifts ceased.

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. When I was a child, I used to speak as a
child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For
now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just
as I also have been fully known (1 Cor. 13:8-12 NASB).

Paul contrasts the revelatory gifts of prophecy, special knowledge and tongues, which by nature are
piecemeal and incomplete, with the complete canon of Scripture (which was completed with the 27
books of the N.T.).

That which was to supersede the partial and do away with it was something designated “perfect.”
“But when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” It is difficult to miss the antithetic
parallel between the “partial” thing and the “perfect” (“complete, mature, full”) thing. Since the
“partial” speaks of prophecy and other modes of revelational insight (v. 8), then it would seem that
the “perfect,” which would supplant these, represents the perfect and final New Testament Scripture
(Jas. 1:21). This is due to the fact that modes of revelation are being purposely contrasted. Thus, it
makes the man of God adequately equipped to all the tasks before him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In other
words, there is a coming time when will occur the completion of the revelatory process of God. [29]

The primary objection used against this passage by Charismatics has to do with the phrase “face to
face.” They argue that this expression refers to seeing Christ “face to face” at the second coming;
thus, the supernatural gifts are to continue until the second coming. The problem with this
interpretation is twofold. First, “face to face” is an adverbial phrase; it does not have an
object. [30] Second, “face to face” is contrasted with a “dim mirror.” Since “face to face” is adverbial
without an object, the idea that it refers to Christ must be assumed or inferred. And since Paul has
been contrasting forms of revelation throughout verses 8-12, it makes much more sense to interpret
“face to face” in the sense of clearness (or perspicuity), in contrast to the dim mirror (the incomplete
or piecemeal).

There are other problems associated with the Charismatics’ practice of speaking in “tongues.”
Rather than desiring the best gifts (1 Cor. 12:31), they seek the gift ranked dead-last in the Apostle’s
enumeration (12:28). There is often speaking in “tongues” without proper interpretation (contrary to
14:28); unless this requirement is met, it does absolutely nothing to edify the church (14:4-5). The
biblical requirement of speaking in turn is frequently not observed (14:27, 30); rather, a number of
individuals speak at the same time (this lapse in proper church order is inexcusable, for “the spirits
of the prophets are subject to the prophets,” 14:32). Furthermore, the common practice in
Charismatic churches is to allow women to speak in the assembly (not a few Charismatic churches
are even pastored by women). Women are absolutely forbidden to speak or teach in church but are
commanded to keep silent (14:33-34).

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for
every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Since we have a completed canon, and since the Bible is all we
need for salvation, life and godliness, what purpose do modern tongues and prophecy serve?
Speaking in tongues was one of the signs of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12); once the apostles passed off
the scene, there was no more need for their distinguishing signs. The historical fact that real tongues
and prophecy ceased with the completion of Scripture, and the fact that modern tongues and
prophecy bear no resemblance to what occurred during the days of the apostles, proves that the
central distinctives of the Charismatic movement are unbiblical.

Prophecy

Is God still speaking to His church through direct revelation? Is the office of prophet still operational
in the body of Christ today? Charismatics teach that we are still receiving direct revelation from God.
Many Charismatics are uncomfortable regarding the idea that modern prophecy is equal with
Scripture. Therefore, they have developed the notion that New Testament prophecy is somehow a
lesser revelation. In order properly to answer these questions, we must answer the question, what is
prophecy?

In order to disprove the popular Charismatic conception of the New Testament prophet as giving
forth revelation that is something less than Scripture, we must examine the continuity between the
Old Testament prophet and the New Testament prophet. The passage which sets forth the divine
legislation which defined the office of prophet is Deuteronomy 18. Note that the true prophet speaks
the very words of God: whatever the Lord has commanded him to speak.

The prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak,
or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “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 happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken;
the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him (Deut. 18:20-22).

There are two methods for determining a true prophet. First, the prophet must speak in the name of
the true God—that is, the prophet must have correct theology. Second, whatever the prophet
prophecies must come to pass with 100% accuracy—anything less demanded death by stoning. If
someone claims to have the gift of prophecy yet never gives a specific prophecy by which that
prophet can be objectively tested, we have absolutely no reason to believe or fear that so called
“prophet.” What gave the Old Testament prophets unique authority and objective validation, even to
unbelievers, was the fact that what they said truly came to pass. Without the specific predictive
element, the prophets would have been no more than teachers of the law.

The test of a true prophet also applies to New Testament prophets, for there is a definite continuity
between the Old Testament prophet and New Testament prophet. After the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit on the church, Peter quoted the prophet Joel: “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 daughters shall prophesy, your young
men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams.... I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And
they shall prophecy” (Ac. 2:17-18). Note that the New Testament prophet was involved in exactly the
same phenomena associated with the Old Testament prophet: dreams, visions, and prophecy (cf.
Num. 12:6). “Thus we have prophecy of the Old Testament type (familiar Old Testament prophetic
modes) entering into the New Testament era, and in fulfillment of a specific Old Testament prophet’s
word. And this is according to Peter’s divinely inspired interpretation of Joel.” [31] This continuation
of Old Testament prophecy into the New is confirmed by the New Testament prophet Agabus.
Agabus spoke the very words of the Holy Spirit. By speaking God’s words, Agabus, like the Old
Testament prophet, revealed the future.

A certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. When he had come to us, he took Paul’s
belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at
Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver [him] into the hands of the Gentiles’” (Ac.
21:10-11).

That the New Testament prophet actually speaks direct words form God, and is not merely a teacher
or preacher, is supported by Paul: “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
mysteries...” (1 Cor. 13:2). The word “mystery” in the New Testament does not mean the same thing
as our English word. Edwards writes,

In the NT the word occurs 27 or...28 [times]; chiefly in Paul.... It bears its ancient sense of a revealed
secret, not its modern sense of that which cannot be fathomed or comprehended.... (2) By far the
most common meaning in the NT is that which is so characteristic of Paul, viz., a Divine truth once
hidden, but now revealed in the gospel.... (a) It should be noted how closely “mystery” is associated
with “revelation”...as well as with words of similar import.... “Mystery” and “revelation” are in fact
correlative and almost synonymous terms.... [32]

The prophet reveals to the church a mystery or mysteries from God. He reveals something previously
unknown, something new revealed for the first time.
Paul specifically says in 1 Corinthians 14 that prophets receive “revelation”: “Let two or three
prophets speak, and let the other judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first
keep silent” (1 Cor. 14:30; cf. v. 26, “has a revelation”).

Revelation (apokalupsis), [is] a disclosure of something that was before unknown; and divine
revelation is the direct communication of truths before unknown from God to men. The disclosure
may be made by dreams, visions, oral communication or otherwise (Dan. 2:19; 1 Cor. 14:26; 2 Cor.
12:1; Gal. 1:12; Rev. 1:1). [33]

The fact that the New Testament prophetic office is revelatory like the Old Testament office is
clearly taught by Paul’s use of “mystery” and “revelation.” Note how he pulls both terms together in
Ephesians 3:3-5: “By revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words,
by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other
ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy
apostles and prophets.” [34]

Thus, the prophets of God in both the old and new covenants spoke under divine inspiration. They
could give fully authoritative pronouncements, such as when the Holy Spirit ordered the church to
send out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries. They could by inspiration tell the future (e.g., Agabus).
They could speak mysteries. The prophets could literally give the church new authoritative doctrine.
The apostles and prophets, by divine inspiration, explained to the church the meaning of Christ’s
death. The Holy Spirit revealed to the church that the ceremonial laws of the old covenant were put
away, and the middle wall of partition has been broken down; thus, God only has one people: those
who are in Christ. All the various implications of the cross needed revelational (spirit-inspired)
explanation. The reason it is important to define the nature of New Testament prophecy is because
most Charismatics, either explicitly or implicitly, regard prophecy as less revelational and
authoritative than Scripture. The fact that not all inspired prophetic statements were inscripturated
or placed in the canon (the 66 books) is not important to this discussion, because not all the
apostles’ inspired statements or writings made it into the canon either (e.g., the lost letter of Paul to
the Corinthians). When a Charismatic says that much of what a New Testament prophet does is not
predicting the future but giving exhortation, he may be correct. But prophetic exhortation is not just
sanctified advice; it is not just the exposition of Scripture. It is Spirit-inspired, revelational
exhortation. It has the same authority as Scripture; it is a “Thus-saith-the-Lord” exhortation.

The author attended Charismatic churches for over three years and heard hundreds of “prophecies.”
Yet never once did he hear new doctrine. In fact, when a “prophet” did speak forth new doctrine, the
pastor and elders would tell that “prophet” to shut up. In the many instances where “prophets”
ordered people to do things (e.g., “Mary, God told me that you should marry John”) people learned
real fast that such exhortations should be taken with a large grain of salt! Why? Because modern
Charismatic prophets simply cannot be trusted. They are about as dependable as throwing a pair of
dice. Thus, even most Charismatics don’t take their exhortations and prophecies seriously.

Why do Charismatics go out of their way to redefine prophecy as something less than it actually was
in the New Testament? [35] The primary reason is that most Charismatics realize that modern
Pentecostal prophecy is really not the same as Old Testament and New Testament prophecy. If
Charismatics did not redefine prophecy as basically nothing more than “vague” spiritual
exhortations, then their prophets would be subject to objective verification. Compare a typical
biblical prophecy with a typical modern Charismatic prophecy. Elijah the Tishbite came and
prophesied to evil King Ahab and his wicked wife, Jezebel. Note the specificity: Ahab’s family will be
cut off (i.e., murdered; 1 Kgs. 21:21). Ahab’s posterity will be cut off after Ahab is dead (v. 29).
Ahab’s wife will be eaten by dogs by the wall of Jezreel (v. 23). In the exact spot where the dogs
licked up the blood of Naboth (whom Ahab murdered) the dogs will lick up Ahab’s blood. These
prophecies were fulfilled perfectly (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:34-39; 2 Kgs. 9:32-37, 10:7-11). After the last of
these prophecies was fulfilled, God says: “Know now that nothing shall fall to the earth of the word
of the Lord which the Lord spoke concerning the house of Ahab; for the Lord has done what He
spoke by His servant Elijah” (2 Kgs. 10:10).

Now compare Elijah’s prophecy to the typical Charismatic “prophecy”: “Oh, come unto Me, my
people. If you return to Me, I will bless you. If you come close to Me, I will love you and bless you,”
etc. This kind of vague, nonspecific sort of “prophecy” can never be confirmed as real, because it
contains nothing specific regarding the future. Moreover, when Charismatics do go out on a limb and
get specific, what happens? They are consistently proven wrong, time after time.

With the literally thousands of Charismatic prophets throughout the United States, we should expect
to find at least a few that can meet the test of true prophet given in Deuteronomy 18. The truth is
that there are no real prophets today, because prophecy, like tongues, ceased when the New
Testament Scriptures were completed. Remember that God set up the sign gifts such as tongues,
prophecy, dramatic healings, etc., in such a way that they prove publicly the truth of God’s Word.
That is why the New Testament prophecies, tongues and healings were seen and known to be real
by both Christians and unbelievers. Christ’s enemies could not deny that Jesus was working
amazing public miracles; they were forced to attribute them to Satan (Mt. 12:24). Paul healed a
crippled boy publicly; the pagans who observed the miracle could not deny it; they attributed the
miracle to their false gods (Ac. 14:11).

The fact that an objective, empirical analysis of modern Charismatic prophecy proves that what is
called prophecy today is not the same as New Testament prophecy does not necessarily mean that
prophecy has ceased; it just means that the Charismatic claims regarding it being a continuation of
what occurred in the days of the apostles are false. To prove that prophecy ceased after the death of
the apostles and the close of the canon (the New Testament), one must go to Scripture. One
passage which teaches that tongues and prophecy have ceased is 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. That
passage was discussed in our consideration of tongues (p. 18). There is another passage which
proves that the office of prophet was foundational and temporary; that passage is Ephesians 2:19-
22.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and
members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together,
grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place
of God in the Spirit.

Before discussing the foundational nature of the New Testament offices of apostle and prophet, we
must dispense with the notion that Paul is speaking of Old Testament prophets in verse 20. There
are several reasons why “prophets” definitely refers to New Testament prophets. First, note that Paul
mentions apostles first and prophets second. When discussing the gifts of the Spirit in the New
Testament church, Paul follows a consistent pattern. New Testament apostles are always listed
first before New Testament prophets. “And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles,
second prophets.... Are all apostles? Are all prophets?” (1 Cor. 12:28-29). If Paul had been
discussing Old Testament prophets, he would logically have placed them before the apostles and
not after. Second, the context within the book of Ephesians shows that Paul is speaking of New
Testament prophets. “The mystery of Christ...has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy
apostles and prophets” (Eph. 3:4-5). Although Ephesians 3:5 is seven verses after Ephesians 2:20, it
is the very next sentence in the Greek. Also, the Greek word nun (“now”) cannot refer to Old
Testament prophets, because the word refers to a present reality (i.e., when Paul wrote the epistle).
Third, in Ephesians 4 Paul says very specifically what he means when he says apostles and
prophets. He says that after Christ ascended to the Father, He gave gifts to His church (vv. 7-8). In
verse 12 he says that these gifts are “for the edifying of the body of Christ” (i.e., the New Testament
church). In verse 11 Paul identifies what these New Testament gifts are: “He gave some to be
apostles, some prophets.” “Since the prophets are gifts given, along with the apostles, as
a consequence of Christ’s victorious ascension, they must be New Testament prophets.” [36] Paul
mentions apostles and prophets three times in this short epistle, and each time he obviously means
the same thing: New Testament apostles and prophets.

Paul says that the New Testament offices of apostle and prophet are foundational to the Christian
church.

A foundation, by the very nature of the case, is laid but once, while the superstructure may be
erected over a long period of time. In fact, Paul here clearly implies that the foundation is already
laid. He says: “having been built upon the foundation” (epoikodomethentes). But he goes on to speak
of the building presently “growing” (auxei) and “being built together” (sunoikodomeisthe) on that
foundation. [37]

The picture that Paul sets before us is that of a completed foundation upon which the church of
Jesus Christ rests. But the church, unlike the foundation, continues to grow. The verb “to grow” in
verse 21 is in the present tense and shows that Christ’s church continues to grow even now.

The offices of apostle and prophet were unique to the situation of the church before the completion
of the canon. Revelation was needed to produce the New Testament. And before the New
Testament was completed, direct revelation was necessary to explain the work of Christ and to meet
contemporary needs. Just imagine what it would be like trying to explain the significance of what
Christ did without the New Testament! After the New Testament canon was completed and the last
prophet and apostle died, the revelatory gifts ceased. This is not only the teaching of 1 Corinthians
13:8-13 and Ephesians 2:20; it is also a historical fact.

From the time of the apostles until the present, the true church has believed the Bible is complete,
efficient, sufficient, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. Any attempts to add to the Bible, to claim
further revelation from God, have always resulted in cults, heresy, or the weakening of the body of
Christ. Although Charismatics will deny that they are trying to add to Scripture, their views on
prophetic utterance, gifts of prophecy, and revelation really do just that. As they add—however
unwittingly—to God’s final revelation, they undermine the uniqueness and authority of the Bible. New
revelation, dreams, and visions come to be as binding on the believer’s conscience as the Book of
Romans or the Gospel of John. [38]

Thus far we have seen that most Charismatics have redefined prophecy as something less
revelational and authoritative than what occurred in the days of the apostles. This unbiblical
redefining of prophecy allows Charismatics to do two things. First, they avoid the objective
verification that the biblical prophets were subject to by giving vague exhortations or nonspecific
prophecies (which could easily be made up on the spot by any Christian; their nonspecific
prophecies cannot be proven either true or false). Second, by claiming that prophecy is less
revelational and authoritative than Scripture, they can claim that they are not adding to Scripture. We
have noted that the office of New Testament prophet is a continuation of the Old Testament office.
The exhortations and prophecies of the New Testament prophet are Spirit-inspired and equal in
authority to Scripture. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that prophecy serves a distinct foundational
function in the church because of unique historical circumstances (i.e., an open canon). When the
New Testament canon was completed, prophecy ceased, because it was no longer needed.

The description given thus far of the beliefs of Charismatics regarding prophecy does not convey the
full truth regarding how bad things are within the Charismatic movement. It would be one thing if
Charismatics had a few “prophets” in each church blurting out vague exhortations and nonspecific
prophecies. But in actuality, most Charismatics believe that God speaks to each Spirit-filled Christian
directly; that He leads people to do things apart from the Holy Scriptures. Phrases common in
Charismatic circles are “God told me to do this,” “The Spirit led me to do that,” “Jesus spoke to me
and told me such and such.” Such thinking leads to subjectivism and mysticism; it clearly
contradicts God’s Word. In the days of the apostles, when all the supernatural gifts were being
practiced, direct revelation came only by the apostles and prophets (tongues and their interpretation
are a form of revelation also). The Apostle Paul specifically says that not all had the gift of tongues
and that only some were prophets (cf. 1 Cor. 12:30; Eph. 4:11). The idea, common in our day, that
God leads people directly or communicates with people directly is unbiblical and dangerous. While
the majority of Charismatics believe in biblical inerrancy and claim to love the Bible, many are being
led about by subjective feelings, impressions and experiences rather than the clear teaching of God’s
Word.

Our responsibility as believers is not to follow our feelings or impressions but to study the Word of
God and apply it to our lives. Everything we need in life for all our decisions can be learned from
scriptural principles. Christians must stop believing in mystical impressions and start learning how
to deduce truths from Scripture and apply them to ourselves, our families, jobs, schools, civil
government, and so on. The Charismatic movement and its implicit subjectivism have caused untold
harm to thousands of Christians. The author personally knows of horror stories where immature
believers were “led” to do unbiblical and stupid things (e.g., “God led me to quit my job and live in a
tent,” “God led me to leave my wife,” “God told me to marry Mary,” “God told me to invest in such and
such,” etc.). If someone says to you that God spoke to them, say, “Show me in the Bible.” When a
Christian tells you that God led him to do something, tell him to prove it from the Word of God. Our
freedom from dictatorial pastors, oppressive governments and subjective nonsense is the objective,
infallible, sufficient Word of God, the Bible.
Signs and miracles

Charismatics believe that the miraculous sign gifts, including “faith healing,” are normative for today.
Therefore, they believe that dramatic miracles are still occurring in the church. Historic
Protestantism teaches that the sign gifts served a distinct purpose in the apostolic church—that of
authenticating the apostles’ teachings. Once the Spirit-inspired teachings concerning the person and
work of Christ were inscripturated, the sign gifts ceased, because they were no longer needed. To
determine if the sign gifts are still normative, we must answer three questions: What is the purpose
of the sign gifts? Did these gifts cease after the completion of the New Testament canon? Are the
miracles that are supposedly occurring today the same as those that occurred in the days of Christ
and the apostles?

The Bible teaches that signs are public, visible, miraculous events. Their purpose was not to give
believers exciting worship services [39] or a wonderful experience but to authenticate a divine
message or messenger, to prove publicly that the person performing miracles was sent from God.
“In Exodus 4:5 God told Moses to perform miracles in order ‘That they may believe that the Lord, the
God of their fathers...has appeared to you.’ Thus the miracles attested Moses’ divine mission.”  [40]

Elijah was sent to reside with a widow in Zarephath (1 Kgs. 17). After the widow’s son died, Elijah
prayed to God, and God revived her son. What was the widow’s response? “Now by this [miracle] I
know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is the truth” (v. 24).
When Jesus was asked at the Feast of Dedication if He was the Christ, He said, “I told you, and you
did not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me” (Jn. 10:25).
Nicodemus told Christ, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do
these signs that you do unless God is with him” (Jn. 3:2). The man born blind chided the Pharisees
for not knowing that Jesus was sent from God: “You do not know where he is from, and yet he has
opened my eyes!... If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (Jn. 9:30, 33; cf. Mt 9:6;
14:33; Ac. 2:22). The signs that Jesus did authenticated both Him and His message. His greatest
sign, of course, was His resurrection from the dead (Mt. 12:38-40).

The Apostle Paul tells the Corinthians that the miracles he performed proved his apostolic authority.
“Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and
wonders and mighty deeds” (2 Cor. 12:12). If miraculous signs were common in Paul’s day, such a
statement would have proved nothing. Miracles were never an end in themselves but authenticated
the apostolic message in the first century church. When Paul and Barnabas preached, the Lord,
“was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their
hands” (Ac. 14:3; Barnabas is called an apostle in v. 14).

The author of Hebrews asks, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the
first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also
bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit,
according to His own will?” (Heb. 2:3-4). The passage refers to those who heard Christ—the
apostles. A prerequisite of being an apostle was to have seen the resurrected Christ (Ac. 1:21-22; cf.
1 Cor. 9:1). Paul says that he was the last living person to see the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:7-8). If the
purpose of the sign gifts was to authenticate the apostles as true messengers God, and the apostles
are all dead, then the sign gifts are no longer needed; they have served their purpose. If a modern
faith healer claims to have seen the resurrected Christ, he is a liar. [41]

B. B. Warfield did an intensive historical study of miracles and concluded that miracles did, in fact,
cease after the death of the apostles. [42] He noted that as heresy and superstition increased in the
papal church, so did the accounts of “miracles.” These “miracles” were obviously fraudulent,
because they were associated with gross heresy, idolatry and superstition (e.g., being sprinkled with
Mary’s breast milk, or touching a piece of the cross, or placing the eucharist on a person’s forehead).
The Reformation, with its solid biblical theology, discarded all such nonsense and pointed people
back to the pure, infallible, sufficient Word of God. Sadly, the Charismatic movement is turning from
the purity of Reformation doctrine back toward the subjectivism, mysticism and superstition of
Rome.

The fact that...glossolalia were virtually absent during eighteen hundred years and the fact that the
gifts of healing which the apostles possessed were no longer in evidence after the apostles had died
should certainly give us pause. The testimony of church history would seem to be that the Spirit has
not continued to bestow these gifts on God’s people, even though he has continued to guide the
[true] church into all the truth. If these miraculous gifts were intended to remain in the church, why
did they disappear? If these gifts are essential to the life of the church, why did God withhold them
from His people? The conclusion seems inescapable: these gifts were never intended to remain in
the church. [43]

If real, dramatic sign miracles are still occurring today, they should be easy to verify objectively. A
brief comparison between the New Testament gift of healing and that practiced by Charismatics will
prove that Charismatic faith healers are fraudulent. Jesus and the apostles healed many people with
a word or touch (e.g., Mt. 8:6-7; Ac. 9:32-35). They healed instantaneously (Mt. 8:13; Mk. 5:29; Ac.
3:2-8). They healed totally not partially (Jn. 9:7; Ac. 9:34). They were able to heal everyone who
believed (Lk. 4:40; Ac. 5:12-16; 28:9). They were able to heal serious organic disease, crippled bodies
and birth defects (Lk. 6:6, 17; Jn. 9:7; Ac. 3:6-8; 5:16; 8:7). They cast out demons (Lk. 13:32; 10:17;
Ac. 10:38) and raised the dead (Lk. 7:11-16; Mk. 5:22-24, 35-43; Jn. 11:43-44; Ac. 9:26-42; 20:9-12).

There are a number of serious discrepancies between the healing miracles in the Bible and what is
supposedly occurring today. Most healings performed by Christ and the apostles occurred in public
places, in front of unbelievers. They did not hold healing services; they healed people right out in the
open, even in front of their enemies (e.g., Lk. 5:22-26; Ac. 3:4-10). Have you ever seen a modern faith
healer go into a major hospital and heal the sick? Have you ever seen one heal someone on the
steps of city hall, in a shopping mall, or at a public park? If these faith healers have the same ability
as the apostles, why do they do their “healings” in church buildings, in front of people who already
believe? Signs are given for unbelievers; Christians do not need to be convinced that Jesus is the
Christ—they already believe.

Christ and the apostles healed people who were generally known to be suffering from illness. Peter
healed a man “lame from his mother’s womb” who begged daily at the temple. Afterward, the people
“knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled
with wonder and amazement at what happened to him” (Ac. 3:10). Christ healed a man who couldn’t
walk for thirty eight years, who lay daily by the pool of Bethesda (Jn. 5:2-15). If you go to the typical
faith healing crusade what do you see? A room full of total strangers. Virtually anyone could throw
away a pair of crutches, and no one would really know if a healing had taken place or not. Why don’t
modern faith healers do what Christ and the apostles did and perform a public healing on someone
that everyone knows is crippled? The answer is simple: they can’t.

The people who claim to have the gift of healing never seem to get out of their tents, their
tabernacles, or their TV studios. They always seem to have to exercise their gift in a controlled
environment, staged their way, run according to their schedule. Why don’t we hear more of the gift of
healing being used right in the hospital hallways? Why aren’t healers using their gift in places like
India and Bangladesh? Why aren’t they right out in the street where masses of people are racked by
disease? It isn’t happening. Why? Because those who claim the gift of healing don’t really have it.
[44]

If miraculous healings were still occurring today, it would be very easy to prove. Anyone could take a
camcorder to the healing crusade and film the miracle for all to see. But why is this not happening?
Because the supposed healings taking place today prove nothing. The typical Charismatic healing
deals with back pain, hemorrhoids, leg lengthening (not by two feet but half an inch), headaches etc.
Christ restored a man’s hand that was lifeless and withered; the “hand was restored as whole as the
other” right in front of Christ’s enemies (Lk. 6:10). They could not deny the miracle. On another
occasion, Jesus restored a man’s ear that had been cut off, right in front of His enemies (Lk. 22:51-
52). Are modern faith healers restoring amputated limbs? Of course not. Can you go to a healing
crusade and observe a withered hand restored right in front of your eyes? No, it’s not happening. If
Charismatics were healing crippled legs, withered hands, cut-off ears, blind eyes, deaf ears, palsy,
hemorrhages, etc., like Christ and the apostles, they would be on the nightly news, 60
Minutes and 20/20. Sadly, the only Charismatic faith healers who make the news are there because
of fraud, adultery, theft, prostitution, and the like.

Christ and the apostles raised the dead. Jesus raised the widow’s son who was dead and already in
a casket; afterward, the account of what Christ did “went throughout all Judea and all the
surrounding region” (Lk. 7:11-17). He brought to life a synagogue ruler’s daughter (Mk. 5:35-43).
Lazarus had been dead for four days and was starting to rot. When Jesus “cried with a loud voice,
‘Lazarus come forth!’” Lazarus rose from the dead in front of many Jews (Jn. 11:43-45). Paul raised
the young man Eutychus who had fallen out of a window and died (Ac. 20:9-12). He probably had a
cracked skull, broken bones and serious internal injuries, yet he was completely healed in an instant!
The Apostle Peter raised the godly widow Dorcas from the dead (Ac. 9:36-42).

Are modern faith healers raising the dead to life? Have they ever stopped at the scene of a fatal car
accident and restored shattered bodies to life, as Paul did with Eutychus? Have they ever walked up
to a coffin at a funeral and simply spoken the word of life to the dead? “It is interesting to note that
those claiming the gift of healing today do not spend much time in funeral parlors, with funeral
processions, or in cemeteries. The reason is obvious” (MacArthur, p. 145). While there are stories on
Christian television shows of those who supposedly died and then came back to life, these stories
cannot be verified. If Charismatic healers could raise the dead, like Christ and the apostles, then they
could prove it by doing it in front of a large group of witnesses.

Conclusion
The Bible teaches that miraculous sign gifts served a distinct purpose; once that purpose was
accomplished, they ceased. Modern tongues, prophecy and faith healing do not even remotely
resemble what took place during the days of Christ and the apostles. The objective testimony of
history is that these miraculous gifts ceased after the completion of the New Testament canon.
Christ and the apostles did their miracles openly, even in front of their enemies. We challenge our
Charismatic brothers to do likewise and prove to the world and non-Charismatic Christians that
these gifts are real. Until there is biblical and empirical evidence to support Charismatic claims, we
must regard the distinctives of the Charismatic movement to be bogus and fraudulent (2 Cor. 13:1).
While we believe that modern faith healers are living in self-deception and (knowingly or
unknowingly) committing fraud, we also believe that God heals His people with prayer. If you are
presently attending a Charismatic church, you are exhorted to leave and attend a church that
focuses on the truth as revealed in Scripture. God is not impressed by large numbers, silly
entertainment and the phony miracles of modern Charismatic preachers. He wants you to attend a
church that teaches the truth and worships Him as He has appointed in His Word
he Doctrinal Dangers of the Charismatic Movement
by Pastor Shane Montgomery
JANUARY 31, 2017
IN ALL BIBLE STUDIES, FALSE DOCTRINE AND CULTS
NO COMMENTS
674
 I felt it important to mention the dangerous teachings of the charismatic movement,
since this movement has become so prevalent today.  Each section will only
summarise the doctrinal problems of this dangerous movement.  You will have to
study each one in more detail if necessary.

 Authority
We must begin at the beginning – “what is truth”?  If we don’t know where the final
authority is, then truth is what each of us decides it to be.  A Bible-believing Christian
must settle the fact that the final authority for God’s creation is what God Himself
says in His Word.  (see Mathew 4:4; Luke 16:29-31; John 12:48 and John 17:17).

 The charismatic movement is characterised by a floating authority.  Emotions,

experiences, and dreams are very important in this movement and are often quoted as
justification for certain non-Biblical actions or beliefs.  God says in His Word that
truth is not open to “private interpretation” (II Peter 1:20).  However, charismatics are
continually giving the Holy Ghost credit for their feelings or ideas, even if they
disagree with the plain teaching of the Bible.  Emotions are not always right.  What
we feel is not always true.  The heart cannot be trusted (see Jeremiah 17:9).  Always
beware of statements like:  “God told me”; “God spoke to me”; etc.

 Charismatics believe that Christians still possess the gift of prophecy.  If this were
true, then the Bible would not be finished.  If this were true, what is spoken should be
written down and added to the Bible, contrary to the very clear warning not to do so in
Revelation 22:18-19.  When prophets of old spoke, God spoke through them what He
wanted to say and it was recorded as His Word.  In the charismatic movement,
prophecies are frequently given which contradict God’s Word or don’t come true.
God made it very clear that any prophecy which did not come true 100% was false
(see Deuteronomy 18:20-22) and had been spoken by a false prophet.  Again, beware!
 The ultimate deception of the last days and the tribulation will occur through “signs
and wonders”, according to God as spoken in His Word (see Matt 24:24; Mk 13:22; II
Th 2:9; Rev 13:1-15).  Wonderful works to not prove that one is of God (see
Deuteronomy 13:1-3 and Matthew 7:21-23).  Satan can appear as an “angel of light”
(II Corinthians 11:14-15).  Again, beware:  don’t allow him to lead you astray from
God’s “only” authority, the written Word of God.

 In a future section, we will be looking at “speaking in tongues”, and showing that
even if this gift were for today it would follow the Biblical guidelines clearly defined
in Scripture (I Corinthians 14).  However, again the authority of the charismatic
movement in this area is experience rather than the Word of God.

 Salvation
Though charismatics believe in the necessity of the new birth (John 3:3), they are
confused about the Saviour’s power to keep those that He saves, and they are
confused about the need for one to “trust” only the Saviour for Biblical salvation.

 Charismatics teach that Christians can lose their salvation because of sin.  They find
it hard to define which sins or how much sin causes one to lose his salvation, but they
believe that Christians fall in and out of salvation based upon their behaviour.  The
problem is:  if one’s sin causes one to lose his salvation, which is attained solely
because of the grace of God through faith (Romans 3:24; Galatians 3:26), how does
one get his salvation back?  What this basically teaches is that one’s behaviour must
be changed or improved to get salvation back once it is lost, and this is salvation by
“works”, which is very dangerous teaching and contrary to Scripture (Ephesians 2:8-
9).  The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are secure in their salvation in Jesus
Christ, not because of their behaviour but because of the person of Jesus (see the
pamphlet on eternal security for more information).  Ultimately they believe in a
different Jesus  One who cannot keep them (I Peter 1:5), preserve them (Jude 1:1),
protect them (John 10:28-29), or seal them “until the day of redemption” (Ephesians
4:30).

 This dangerous teaching on salvation is often used as a control tool to try and keep
Christians “in line”.  However, this teaching eventually has the opposite effect
because Christians realize that they cannot keep their salvation (which we can’t, only
He can!), and they often give up.  Whether or not we feel saved does not define
whether or not we are saved.  Salvation is based upon the Word of God, not our
feelings.
 Another confusion is the nature of man’s part in salvation.  Man must not only repent
(Luke 24:47), but he must “trust” Jesus Christ as his only hope for heaven (see
Ephesians 1:12-14).  Many charismatics believe that they are saved because they got
caught up in the emotion of a church service or a plea for salvation and they had an
emotional experience or spoke in tongues.  They therefore assume that they must have
been saved because of the emotion or experience.  Emotions and experiences do not
save.  Prayer does not save.  Only Jesus saves!  Many went forward at a meeting and
were “prayed over” by the speaker who then told them that they were saved.  Being
“prayed over” is not salvation – a speaker cannot save another person.  One must
clearly understand the gospel (sin and it’s penalty, who Jesus is and what He did) and
personally place his trust and faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

 Speaking in Tongues
One of the earmarks of this movement is “speaking in tongues”.  The word
“Pentecostal” is derived from “Pentecost”, the name of the day when the first
incidence of “speaking in tongues” occurred.  The word “Charismatic” is derived
from the Greek word for gifts, which is “charisma”.  As implied by these names, the
miraculous gifts are important to this movement.  The gift of “speaking in tongues” is
considered the most important by this movement, and people in the movement are
taught that each Christian is to exercise this gift.

 The word “tongue” in the Bible always refers to “a language”.  The Greek word for
tongue is always the same, “glossa”.  Some good examples are found in Acts 2:11 and
Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15.  In Revelation 9:11, the phrases
“Hebrew tongue” and “Greek tongue” make it clear what the word means.

 God worked a miracle in the lives of the early disciples and gave them the ability to
preach the gospel in a language that they had not learned.  In Acts chapter two, many
Jews from sixteen other areas of the world heard the gospel in their own language and
were saved.  This was the beginning of the great church in Jerusalem.  This
miraculous gift was given for two very important reasons:  1) to break language
barriers so many could be saved in the early days of the church and, 2) as a temporary
sign to the Jews (see I Corinthians 1:22; 14:21-22) that the message of these disciples
was from God, since the New Testament was not written yet (see Hebrews 2:2-4 and
Mark 16:20, especially the phrase “was confirmed” in Hebrews 2:3).  “Speaking in
tongues” was another of the “signs of an apostle” (see II Corinthians 12:12), which
are not mentioned from II Corinthians to Revelation.
 Remember, this was a “gift” from God.  It did not have to be taught or learned, even
though many churches today “teach” people how to speak in tongues.  Another
important consideration is this:  If the Biblical “gift” of tongues is present today, why
do fervent, spiritual missionaries (even Pentecostal/charismatic ones) have to spend
years learning new languages so they can preach the gospel?

 It is taught by this movement that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the filling of
the Holy Ghost.  However, Jesus prophesied of the filling of the Holy Ghost and did
not mention speaking in tongues (Luke 24:49).  Acts 1:8 makes it clear that the filling
was for the preaching of the gospel.  Many times in the book of Acts, people were
filled but they did not speak in tongues (see Acts 4:8, 31; 9:17-18; 13:9, 52).  Of the
seventeen times in Acts where people were saved, in only three of them was tongues
involved.  I Corinthians 12:28-31 makes it clear that not every Christian would be
given this gift, which is listed as the “least” of the gifts.

 One church in the Bible (Corinthians) was overly magnifying this gift and abusing it.
This church was very carnal, so the book of I Corinthians was written as a rebuke (see
II Corinthians 7:8-9) to correct them.  In chapter fourteen, God gave some Biblical
guidelines for speaking in tongues.  These guidelines were given to make sure that
everything was done decently and in order.  For those who believe that the gift of
speaking in tongues is still available to Christians today, these guidelines would be
followed by the Holy Ghost, since He wrote them.  Any church that encourages the
speaking in tongues should ensure that these guidelines are being followed.
Otherwise, maybe the Holy Ghost isn’t the One motivating the tongues (see
Deuteronomy 13:1-5; II Thessalonians 2:9-10; Matthew 24:24 which show that Satan
can also work through the miraculous).  These guidelines are as follows:

1.  I Cor 14:21-23, a sign for Jewish unbelievers’ benefit only (see I Cor 1:22)
2. I Cor 14:12, 26, for edification of others
3. I Cor 14:27, only two or three in a given church service
4. I Cor 14:27 (also vs. 23, “all”), must take turns
5. I Cor 14:28, must always have an interpreter present or keep silent
6. I Cor 14:33, 40, no confusion; decently and in order
7. I Cor 14:34-35, women not to participate in speaking in tongues in the
churches
If you were to check, you would find that churches which have “speaking in tongues”
today do not follow most of these Biblical guidelines.  There must be a serious
problem.  If the current practice breaks these guidelines, then it cannot be from God,
for He never violates His own Word.  If the gift of “speaking in tongues” is available
today, so must the gift of “interpretation of tongues” be available.  What occurs,
however, is multiple interpretations of the same unknown phrase, which would be
impossible with God involved.

The Bible even warns against the common practice of “praying in tongues” because
the understanding is not there (see I Corinthians 14:14-15).  We must agree with Paul
when he said, “in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding,
that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown
tongue”, I Corinthians 14:19.  This “speaking in tongues” movement is being used by
Satan to unite non-Biblical churches, even churches that do not preach the gospel.
Beware!

Healing and Miracles

We serve a miracle-working God (see Matthew 19:26)!  He answers prayer and heals
when it is His will (see James 5:16).  However, the charismatic movement teaches that
Christians today still posses the “gifts of healing” and the “working of miracles”, as
listed in I Corinthians 12:9-28.  As explained in “Speaking in Tongues”, God gave
temporary sign gifts to prove to the Jews (see I Corinthians 1:22; 14:21-22) that the
message of the disciples was from God, since the New Testament was not written yet
(see Hebrews 2:2-4 and Mark 16:20, especially the phrase “was confirmed” in
Hebrews 2:3).  These gifts were part of the “signs of an apostle” (see II Corinthians
12:12).

This understanding can be tested by looking at the New Testament occurrences of

these gifts.  When these gifts were exercised, they were unmistakable, and “faith” in
the one being healed was not a factor (see Acts 3:1-8; 5:12-16; 9:40; 19:11-12; 20:9-
12; and see “every one” and “all” in Matt 4:23-24; 8:16; 9:35; 12:15; 15:30; 19:2; Lk
4:40; 6:17-19; and Acts 5:16).  Every one was healed completely, even those lame
from birth.  People were raised from the dead (see Acts 9:40 and Acts 20:9-12).  Some
were healed simply by touching a handkerchief which had been touched by Paul (see
Acts 19:11-12).  The supposed gifts of healing and miracles performed today do not
even compare to the ones performed by the men in the New Testament with those
gifts.  In addition, the apostles did not accept payment in any form (see Acts 3:6).

If one researches it, they will find that John the Baptist “did no miracles” (see John
10:41), and that the only ones in the New Testament who exercised these miraculous
gifts were Jesus, the twelve disciples, and four others:  Stephen, Philip, Paul,
Barnabas. Each of these other four had hands laid on them by the apostles in Acts 6:6
and Acts 13:3.  Again, that is because these gifts were passed on by Jesus for a
temporary sign to the Jews.  As a matter of fact, these apostolic gifts began to fade
even before Paul died (see I Tim 5:23; II Tim 4:20).

Another wrong teaching stemming from these errors is that it is God’s will for
everyone to be healthy.  However, sometimes it is God’s will for His children to
suffer (see Job 2:1-7; Rom 5:3; II Cor 11:30; 12:7-10; I Pe 1:6-7; 4:12-13; 5:10).

Remember, God still heals and works miracles in answer to the prayers of God’s
people and when it is His will.  However, no Christian today possesses these apostolic
gifts.  If they did, they would empty the hospitals!

Prosperity Theology
A prominent teaching of the charismatic movement is that Christians close to God are
always physically blessed of God.  I say “physically” because God always blesses His
faithful servants with peace, joy, contentment, gratitude, etc.  However, the
charismatic movement teaches that one’s spirituality can be measured by his outward,
physical circumstances.  In other words, if one is healthy and/or physically
prosperous, God is with him and vice versa.

Job’s friends also believed this wrong teaching.  They were convinced that Job was
suffering because of sin and that God would not bless him again until he repented of
that sin.  However, they were wrong.  Job was right with God and still he suffered
physically – probably more than any person in history other than Jesus Christ.  At the
end of the book of Job, God rebuked Job’s friends for their wrong theology,
“prosperity theology”.

People can still fall into this same trap today!  If they are not careful, they will
determine their closeness to God based upon their circumstances.  Of course God
often will use suffering as a form of chastisement (see II Samuel 12:14; Psalms
119:67, 71; I Corinthians 11:30-32; Hebrews 12:6-11).  He also teaches us that we
“reap what we sow”, Proverbs 1:31; Galatians 6:7-8.  For example, if you smoke, you
might get lung cancer, etc.

However, not all suffering is God’s chastisement.  Some suffering is just the result of
the curse.  Things like arthritis, brittle bones, memory loss are just part of getting
older (see Romans 8:22-23).  The Bible also teaches that Christians who live “godly”
are going to suffer persecution (see I Peter 4:12-16; II Timothy 3:12).  The Christians
of Hebrews 11:32-29 who were tortured, scourged, imprisoned, stoned, and sawn
asunder are listed as people of great faith, not people who suffered because of sin.
“Foxes Book of Martyrs” lists hundreds of faithful Christians of the past who suffered
pain and death for doing “right”.

Beyond these things, God often uses suffering for our good.  He knows that testing
strengthens our faith and refines us (see I Peter 1:6-7).  II Corinthians 4:16-17 says
that “affliction” is good for us.  I Peter 5:10 says that suffering will “perfect, stablish,
strengthen, settle” us.  Romans 5:3 says that tribulation works patience.

One’s closeness to God is often independent of the pleasantness of his external

circumstances.  Be careful not to be fooled by this wrong system of belief called
“prosperity theology”.