We continue to have server overload on our Line of Fire site, but you can listen to the whole interview on our YouTube channel.
In the first hour, Dr. Brown speaks with Pastor Phil Johnson, the longtime editor and colleague of Pastor John MacArthur, and one of the principle leaders involved in the Strange Fire conference; in the second hour, he’ll speak with Pastor Adrian Warnock and Pastor Sam Storms, both of whom are Reformed Charismatics. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Let us ground our faith in the Word with our eyes fixed on Jesus, embracing the Spirit, and embracing one another.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This Week, Dr. Brown is Offering His Constructive Critique of the Charismatic Movement Through His Two in One Volume Book: Whatever Happened to the Power of God and It’s Time to Rock the Boat, Plus the Line of Fire Radio Broadcast Addressing the Strange Fire Conference with Guests Phil Johnson (From Pastor MacArthur’s Ministry), Sam Storms, and Adrian Warnock. Get These Resources Today for Your Gift of $25 or More, Postage Paid! (US Only)
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
Other Resources:
So thankful for todays show…. Show hasnt aired or happened yet…. but I talked to Dr. Brown through twitter and I already have faith that this discussion will bea catylst to produce fruits from the Strange fire confernce.
God bless you all
I am _not_ a “cessationist” but I do have a nagging question.
Isn’t it a little too convenient that all modern Pentecostals speak in the “tongues of angels” rather than the “tongues of men” as they did in Acts 2?
I’ve long wondered if the “tongues” of modern Pentacostalism bears any resemblance to the tongues of the New Testament.
ok.. maybe i was wrong. I wish Phil was giving time to address key questions rather than being talked over time and time again….
But I still hope that good comes from this podcast and the Strange fire confernce
This was a helpful show.
It’s very perplexing that Phil Johnson can’t seem to see how he and Macarthur’s evidence does not justify their conclusions. They point to spiritually abusive people and conclude charismatic gifts are therefore ungodly. All the while, they could *agree* with orthodox charismatics that spritually abusive people are wrong (issue 1) – and then discuss in a congenial way the validity of and proper use of the gifts (issue 2). I get the impression that they didn’t even *look* for evidence that might challenge their sweeping conclusions. How sad, irresponsible, and (ironically) driven by emotion.
2. I’ve found Sam Storms’ books Beginners Guide to Spiritual Gifts and Convergence both very good on these topics. The chart in the middle of Convergence that contrasts the respective emphases in cessationist churches and charismatic churches is especially insightful.
I applaud Dr. Brown for his patience. I find Mr. Johnson as dogmatic as Mr. MacArthur. Though he seems to be using a more gentle approach, I would have appreciated him more had he called out his “own” on his broad statements and misinformation just as he is asking Dr. Brown to nullify anyone within the charismatic realm. He cannot, but doesn’t understand why Dr.Brown doesn’t. He wants what he refuses to give. There will be no middle ground. It’s all about Jesus, but the bottom line is that their camp does not believe you have Jesus if you are from Pentecost or are charismatic. He denies, denies and denies again that is their message, while the audio from Dr. MacArthur states it emphatically. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I agree Mr. Johnson’s answers only address a segment of the church we all abhor. He refuses to see that. Does he really not see abuses in the cessationist movement?
I’m just wondering if there is such a thing as a Strange Fire Awareness Movement hospital, or food service for the hungry.
I really notice that Michael Brown is using his tactic as a debater to trap Phil Johnson. He is always talking over Phil and not giving Phil the chance to answer the questions. It seems like he is not interested to listen to what Phil has to say at all. I get the feeling that he invited Phil to his show to attack him and make him look bad. While I agree with Michael Brown that not all people from the charismatic are fakes, I believe John Macarthur is right in confronting the deceivers in that movement.
The term “false prophet” came up more than once.
It seems to me that there is such a thing as a prophet being wrong at times, and at such a time he can be considered to be a “wrong prophet” (at that time) and I suppose if he continues to be wrong, then for a longer period of time he could be considered a wrong prophet.
If a prophet is being deceitful and not telling the truth about something that is a concern to you personaly and affects your life, he can be considered to be a false prophet at that time.
Though he be considered a false prophet to one man, he may be a true prophet to another man.
I think after this, I am going to steer clear of all things John MacArthur… In one breath Phil Johnson called Michael Brown a brother in Christ (at the beginning) and in another he clearly condemned all he stood for. How can that be? It’s either or. Either you are a heretic or not as far as they are concerned, so how can one be both? Each time I hear something from this group, I am grieved. I feel sad, and hurt. I feel attacked. If we are to discern the spirits as the word says, this is all I need hear or know. They are deceptive, divisive and hurtful to the body of Christ.
I thought it was a great discussion. Of course they’ll need more time to deeply discuss this issue. My opinion, cessasionism nor continuanism. I believe God is all powerful and does according to the counsel of his will. I always go back to Philippians 1:12-18. Now, I think Dr.Macarthur, and I love his writings, took it out of proportions. My thing with Dr Macarthur is, how can he be a reformer in theology, be a dispensacionalist and believe in a secret pre- trip rapture of the church. that really gets me confused. Blessings.
The wheat and tares paraable is perfect to preach now
Amazing he knows so little about the church he condemns……
Is everybody going to ignore my post?
Isn’t it a little odd that modern day tongues don’t resemble the 2nd Chapter of Acts at all?
How do you know that the “tongues” you speak is anything like what the early church did?
Greg Allen – I’ve heard countless reports of people speaking in unknown tongues of men. Countless. Often for the purpose of evangelism. I one time heard a Christian radio personality pose the same question you posed to his audience, and there was no end of people calling in with stories of supernaturally speaking in tongues they didn’t know in the presence people who did know them. Sometimes it was accompanied by the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues, and the person who knew the language naturally confirmed the accuracy of the person who interpreted by a gift of the Spirit.
Thank you Dr. Brown for so graciously hosting Phil Johnson today. I was astonished at his refusal to even admit that his statements might be a little broad-brushed when you would give him incontrovertible evidence to show that they were outright falsehoods. Very enlightening program today. I listened to the entire broadcast and can’t figure out what Ty is talking about — you gave him ample room to speak, as evidenced by all that dead air while you waited for him. You were a patient host in spite of his constant deflecting and maddening refusal to respond to the undeniable falsehood of his and MacArthur’s statements at the conference and in the book.
Greg,
Acts 2 only occurred once in the NT; there’s no other recorded account that tells us specifically that other earthly languages were being spoken.
That being said, I have friends of mine — even one non-charismatic — who have experienced understanding or speaking a foreign language for evangelism (or, it happened with their translator), with many other attested accounts today or through history. So, it still does happen, but what Paul describes as the norm for our practice in 1 Cor 14 is prayer from our spirit to God that our mind doesn’t understand when we pray in tongues. (When I pray in tongues, my mind is engaged in with the Lord in many ways, so it’s not being mindless but rather being in spiritual communion with the Lord through tongues and then mental communion with the Lord as He leads and directs.)
Greg, I encourage you to read some historical books in the early Pentecostal outpouring. Many of which give testimonies of young missionaries or pioneers in homelands, who upon their mission, would see and hear many remarkable instances of tongues being understood, and glorifying God!
Phil certainly exercised a great deal of patience during this interview.
I enjoyed the dialogue between Dr. Brown and Phil Johnson immensely. It was quite passionate at times and I was deeply grieved by some of the things MacArthur stated and Phil agreeing with those outlandish positions. I must admit though, I as more concerned about what I think is the real issue and I hope will come to a debate which Dr. Brown did mention and that is for qualified scholarly apologists to sit with each other and discuss cessationism and continuationism. That is the real and pertinent issue before us.
Dr. Brown I hope a meeting transpires soon but I am also extremely concerned about such a meeting because of the potential for blaspheming The Holy Spirit. But then again my fear should subside because you will state that their(the cessationists)blasphemy is a result of ignorance. Well then let the games begin…:)…God bless
It seemed an introduction to the issues of both sides, this program. I agreed with Phil Johnson’s assessment of some of the ministries of manipulative self administration which he mentioned, but found his characterizations of the general movement’s accused lack of charity or clarity of association with the Gospel of Jesus Christ unfounded from evidence encountered personally over years. When in need personally, at points of personal history, I’ve known charismatic believers to reach into their own wallets and share personal resources without request or qualification. When in need of personal admonition or moral or emotional support, only those operating in voice and deed with the presence of the Holy Spirit have come along side and touched where need for touching lives to heal or be helped was responded.
Ceassasionist believers, though apparent lovers of hearing the written word expounded, seemed to have insulated hearts from actualizing what is prompted with a similar responsiveness known of those actively pursuing hearing the voice of a living Christ. The difference in sensibilities shown in interactions of this program seem to be about Mr. Johnson’s skepticism vs. Dr. Brown’s activism. As for the issues coming up for both, base lines of comparison need to be established to then make references to commonly understood concepts, behaviors, norms, and terms.
Where Bible based hearers of the word (alt. spirit), even if sincerely grounded in the word (alt. spirit), have been known to generally have personal boundaries on offering personal time and resources to help come along side others and assist them with life challenges, something is missing as to being pots formed by the potter. As doers of the word, discernment and dedication to discovery of here and now application of its encouragement and illumination of direction shown are championed among Evangelicals of both persuasions. Forming connections apart from those operating with the named gifts and identified tendencies of the Holy Spirit taught by Paul and the Lord can be tedious where only parts of the written word given the 1st Century churches is regarded. Though not the foundational Gospel Paul identified, its additions, like the gifts, are given to us for reasons the Father chose before Jesus was sent into this world.
De. Brown came across and teachable and humble to come together and meet the challenges discussed, Mr. Johnson came across as prejudiced and limited in offering a personal route to change this fact.
Reasoning for drawing absolute and generally negative heretical labeling conclusions, as mistakenly made by Phil J., should not just be inductively applied to a whole movement from named example. Reasoning should be empirically applied to giving strengths and weaknesses assessments reagarding deductive evidence on attention made, fruit, behavior, and general assembly preoccupations of the faithful in discerning who is and is not a perswhich his gross misstatement on Charismatic benevolence. As they say, do the math, i.e. as Mike Brown challenged Phil, go and see what the Lord has done and is doing (in India, for example, as was offered).
In 1972-73 I worked with Pat Robertson, then noted his medical and other benevolence missions through “Operation Blessing” as maturing from that initial season of association with the infatuation of charismatically based ministry applications. This was new broadcasting ‘territory’ at the time in the USA. I was privileged to help start a radio station covering three states in that timeframe: totally dedicated to Christian programming. It was a time of ground swell cooperation between the Spirit of God in Christ and people responding with personal commitments and actions of related faith.
As Mike Brown pointed out, he has addressed excess and error in his writings and books, simply put. As he rightly resisted, the Holy Spirit has a voice and a purpose, which Phil Johnson only qualified in part (as both stated, to bring people to Jesus and a faithful testimony of Him).
Note, editor, please remove this line and the partially edited posting just made above, leaving what is below.
This program seemed an introduction to the issues of both sides. I agreed with Phil Johnson’s assessment of some of the ministries of manipulative self administration which he mentioned, but found his characterizations of the general movement’s accused lack of charity or clarity of association with the Gospel of Jesus Christ unfounded from evidence encountered personally over years. When in need personally, at points of personal history, I’ve known charismatic believers to reach into their own wallets and share personal resources without request or qualification. When in need of personal admonition or moral or emotional support, only those operating in voice and deed with the presence of the Holy Spirit have come along side and touched where need for touching lives to heal or be helped was responded. Hearers of the word only have not alike responded.
Cessationist believers, though apparent lovers of hearing the written word expounded, seemed to have insulated hearts from actualizing what is prompted in human interchange with a similar responsiveness known of those actively pursuing hearing the voice of a living Christ. The difference in sensibilities shown in interactions of this program seem to be about Mr. Johnson’s skepticism vs. Dr. Brown’s activism. As for the issues coming up for both, base lines of comparison need to be established to then make references to commonly understood concepts, behaviors, norms, and terms.
Where Bible based hearers of the word (alt., spirit), even if sincerely grounded in the word (alt., spirit), have been known to generally have personal boundaries on offering personal time and resources to help come along side others and assist them with life challenges, something is missing as to being pots formed by the potter. As doers of the word, discernment and dedication to discovery of here and now application of its encouragement and illumination of direction shown are championed among Evangelicals of both persuasions. Forming connections apart from those operating with the named gifts and identified tendencies of the Holy Spirit taught by Paul and the Lord can be tedious where only parts of the written word given the 1st Century churches is regarded. Though not the foundational Gospel Paul identified, its active additions, like the gifts, are given to us for reasons the Father chose before Jesus was sent into this world.
Dr. Brown came across and teachable and humble to come together and meet the challenges discussed, Mr. Johnson came across as prejudiced and limited in offering personal routes to change this fact.
Reasoning for drawing absolute and generally negative heretical labeling conclusions, where mistakenly made by Phil J., should not just be inductively applied to a whole movement from his named examples. Reasoning should be empirically applied to giving strengths and weaknesses assessments regarding deductive evidence on identified believers attention made, fruit, behavior, and general assembly preoccupations of the faithful: in discerning who is and is not a person of faith. Injury was accomplished by that which gave credence to his gross misstatement on Charismatic benevolence. As they say, do the math, i.e. as Mike Brown challenged Phil, go and see what the Lord has done and is doing (in India, for example, as was offered).
In 1972-73 I worked with Pat Robertson, then later noted his medical and other benevolence missions and ministry evolution through “Operation Blessing”–as maturing from that initial season of association with the infatuation of charismatically based ministry applications. This was new broadcasting ‘territory’ at the time in the USA. I was privileged to help start a radio station covering three states in that timeframe: totally dedicated to Christian programming. It was a time of ground swell cooperation between the Spirit of God in Christ and people responding with personal commitments and actions of related faith. Being part of that ‘movement’, stemming from the ‘Jesus Movement’ of those of my youth and the Holy Spirit in that decade, we had little time ot training for self assessment. We did what inspiration activated.
As Mike Brown pointed out, he has addressed charismatic excess and error in his writings and books, simply put. As he rightly resisted, the Holy Spirit has a voice and a purpose, which Phil Johnson only qualified by a very limited outlook (as both stated, to bring people to Jesus and a faithful testimony of Him). What lingers is whether sufficent contact was achieved to test the concerns of both responders to this program’s subject.
#9, Dr. B., a good rebuttal, with excellent observations on the limited understanding presented of spiritual gifts by Mr. J. Paul goes into sufficient detail on what does and does not happen when speaking, praying, or praising in tongues. He also advocates for active spiritual gifts practices among the assemblies of God in Christ. Do you know of churches today in the USA which practice prophetic utterance and also judge it as it occurs? In other words, with order set up for prophecy to be actively judged by in assembly leadership and elder-recognized PROCESSES?
Phil would not concede that MacArthur painted with too broad a brush. Wow.
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for answering my question. I think it was being ignored because it is an uncomfortable one for Pentacostals.
If you are “sola scriptura” about tongues — then I don’t think you can know that modern-day “tongues” is anything like what the New Testament church preached.
Unless, of course, it conforms to the bible’s sole description of tongues in Acts 2.
As I am sure you are aware, “language” is an equally, if not more, valid way to translate γλῶσσα. “Tongues” just sounds so much more mysterious!
As for “turning ones brain off” while praying — I do this all the time! 😉
Seriously, this is where I only bless you in it. Words are way over-rated in prayers and especially worship. I, myself, prefer meditative silence rather than tongues but it is he same thing, in my mind. (And equally spirit-filled)
Andrew,
I have read fairly extensively about early Pentecostalism.
I have also heard those stories of miraculous gifts of language — but, unfortunately, they have the quality of urban myth. It’s always a “friend” who has seen it.
I have spent many years as a missionary, often among tongues-speaking people, and never saw it.
But I dearly welcomed it! There were times when that gift would have really helped the gospel. But I never saw it.
Greg,
Actually, I could say the same thing to you about “salvation”! If you are sola scriptura, how can you be sure you’re experiencing the same salvation that people in the NT experienced!
And again, you are 100% misinterpreting the purpose of tongues in Acts 2, since Peter didn’t preach to the people in tongues but in Aramaic (or Greek).
Should it surprise us that Dr. MacArthur thinks charismatics are not saved?
In a 2010 video on the subject–”Is Speaking In Tongues Demonic?”–Dr. MacArthur calls speaking in tongues a “Satanic counterfeit,” near the end of this video (14:37).
http://www.victorybaptistpocono.com/youtube/john-macarthur-is-speaking-in-tongues-demonic-part-3
Acts 2
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?…
11 … we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
The devout men understood the tongues in their native language. It does not say that the believers spoke in those languages. It would seem that YHWH gave the devout men the interpretation of the tongues.
Acts 2
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
The mockers evidently did not understand what the believers were saying. They thought that they were speaking nonsense to the point of thinking that they were in drunken stupors. Paul explains this:
1 Corinthians 14
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
Unbelievers will think that we are mad or maybe in a drunken stupor if they see what happened on the day of Pentecost. Mockers are unbelievers by choice, and proud of it. Tongues are a sign to them, according to Paul. Is this sign a good thing? Let’s look at the passage Paul quotes from:
Isaiah 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Learning line upon line and precept upon precept is not a good thing. It is for those that resist knowledge, truth and doctrine from YHWH. It is for those that refuse to grow up. It is so these “scornful men”/mockers will “go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” They have made lies their refuge and think that they are immune to YHWH’s judgment. These are the people that tongues is a sign to. They do not understand the speech. They are left in confusion and do not see any use in listening intently and learning YHWH’s ways. They want to just barely inch along in accepting truth instead of fully embracing it. Ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 3:5-7) This is the sign that tongues is to those that have chosen to believe not.
1 Corinthians 14
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
So in an assembly of believers there is not a lot of use for speaking in tongues…it is not a sign for believers. Prophesy is for the sincere believer. Tongues along with the interpretation is basically the same as prophesy at least as far as edifying the body. The message would be different since tongues is declaring YHWH’s greatness/worshiping Him and prophesy is edification, exhortation and comfort to the body.
Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Acts 2
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Now tongues as communication with YHWH edifies the one speaking, even though it would leave the hearer unedified. Tongues serves as a sign that YHWH is doing, or has done something, in the life of the person speaking…but to the derision of the unbeliever, scornful and mocker.
1 Corinthians 14
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret…
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Many or all people can pray and sing in tongues while in a public meeting while the purpose is to communicate with and worship YHWH. If they speak in tongues for the purpose of ministry to the congregation, it must be accompanied by the interpretation of tongues or be discontinued.
It is of deep concern when someone accuses those that speak in tongues of being crazy, drunk, or influenced by the devil. Tongues has become a sign to them…and we know to whom YHWH intended tongues to be a sign…
I would not want to be in the shoes of a scoffer or scornful man that leads the people.
Shalom
lofradio,
Is there a reason that my comments are suddenly being moderated?
Shalom
Greetings Bo,
As far as we can see none of your posts have been removed. Have you noticed some of your comments not being posted or removed? As long as your comments stay within the “Commenting Guidlines” none of your comments should have been removed. Thank you for your patience!
Blessings,
Line of Fire Radio
lofradio,
Until recently, my comments were immediately posted. Now they say that they are in moderation and sometimes do not post for quite awhile.
Just wondered if I said something that flagged me for going through moderation for each of my posts.
Shalom
lofradio,
It appears that it isn’t happening now. Hmmm?
I commented above, but after some thought, here’s the discussion I think would peacefully and clearly define the issues:
1) What is the biblical truth of the gospel that we can agree on?
2) Are all the gifts valid today? Discuss. Maybe consult the “Four Views” book on the miraculous gifts, edited by Grudem.
3) If “YES the gifts are valid,” then how do we practice them biblically?
-What constitutes abuse, but not blasphemy?
-What constitutes blasphemy?
-When people incorporate “miracles” into other spiritual abuse, how can we distinguish true gifts from other heresies? And what’s the best way to respond?
4) If “NO the gifts are not valid today,” can we disagree amicably with Christians who say “Yes” without considering them unregenerate heretics?
4a) If “NO, this belief makes them all unregenerate heretics,” then we have an unnecessary division in the body and have excluded men like Grudem, Carson, Storms, Piper, Brown, etc. from the kingdom of God. (Even MacArthur won’t cross this line, although he flirts with it.)
4b) If “YES, we can disagree about this as a secondary issue,” what can be tolerated graciously and what crosses the line into blasphemy?
-How can we respond *together* to the blasphemers and heretics?
-How and when does God still speak today (whether we call it a “gift” or not)?
4b is where most Cessationist-Charismatic dialogues rightly live, but there’s so much commotion around Strange Fire because MacArthur has backed himself into 4a with many extreme statements (apparently without considering the implications?).
For the sake of the body of Christ, I pray a peaceful, humble, gracious dialogue can continue.
Dr. Brown,
>>Actually, I could say the same thing to you about “salvation”! If you are sola scriptura, how can you be sure you’re experiencing the same salvation that people in the NT experienced!
We have a lot more examples of salvation in the New Testament than we do of tongues. With tongues we are working off a very small set of verses.
The fact that you answered my question with a question is answer enough for me.
Don’t get me wrong — I don’t think there is anything wrong with modern “tongues.” I just don’t see how it can possibly be defended them with “sola scriptura.”
It’s fine to say that Acts 2 doesn’t apply to you — but then you have _no_ scriptural description of how tongues was practiced.
What happened in Acts 2 was that the language that was the tongue (Unknown language to the one doing the speaking)was understood by people present, and this happened more than a few times on that day.
I believe that was a witness God wanted to give that says so much, first that tongues is not gibberish, second that it honored God, magnified his work, was worship, and there is more.
It has happened that someone who has been in a foreign country has heard the tongue and the interpretation and understood the tongue because it was the language he was familiar with back in the foreign country where he had been at, and the interpretation given in English was right on, according to the man who knew the tongue because it was the same language as the one he had known because he had lived in a particular foreign nation.
This no doubt was a sign to the man.
Unknown language to the one doing the speaking, but was known to one of the people present doing the listening because he happened to know that particular language.
Tongues are either a language of men or of angels.
When this was “noised abroad”, seems to suggest that people present who witnessed what had happened on that Pentecost day, began to hear what people said about what just happened, and no doubt people’s testimonies were similar, about how men who did not know such languages began to speak worhipful words of the Spirit in a language they themelves cound not have known, but some of the people present knew, because it was the language from where they were from.
I think about the two “denominations” or “movements” in Jesus’ day, that of John the Baptist’s and his. They didn’t cut each other down did they? John was for Jesus and Jesus was in favor of John.
Greg and Ray,
Did you guys read post 28? Acts 2 does not say that they spoke in the native languages of the devout men that understood. It says that the devout men HEARD EVEY man in his native language. It was the gift of interpretation of tongues that allowed this.
There were at least 12 languages by the list and certainly many more since there were men out of “every nation under heaven.” By the time you count dialects, it is impossible for 120 people to have spoken enough different native tongues for the vast number of people present in Jerusalem. Both the speaking and the hearing were gifts of the Spirit.
Acts 2
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Nowhere in scripture does it say that the gift of tongues is a known human language. The only place that we have any idea of what tongues might be is in Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 14. Here is what Paul says about tongues:
1 Corinthians 14
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him…
NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM! The gift of tongues requires the gift of interpretation when it is used in public for the edification of the body.
1 Corinthians 12
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1 Corinthians 14
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret…
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
In Acts 10 and 19 there is no indication that anyone there understood the tongues being spoken, but it was recognized that that is what was happening. There is no precedent that the tongues is a human language in scripture, but quite the opposite. It is miraculous and needs a miracle to understand.
Greg you have no foundation to stand on in your assertion to Dr. Brown.
Ray, it is likely that Paul learned many of the common languages of his day.(Tongues of men.) He may be referring to speaking in tongues when he says he speaks in tongues of angels.
There is just no place that says that speaking in tongues is human languages in the Bible.
Shalom
Greg,
You wrote:
“We have a lot more examples of salvation in the New Testament than we do of tongues.”
Which examples do you speak of?
This is a test…Checking the moderation thing again.
lofradio,
Is it now the norm for all comments posted to say, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” after posting? It is certainly happening with me and it didn’t use to be this way.
Shalom
lofradio,
Is it just after normal business hours that this happens?
I love how this whole tread is about are gifts for today.
My question is “Do you guys think the extreme segment (Dr. Brown says its the minorty, Phil says its the majority.. either way its a good portion)…Word of Faith & teahers teaching a false gospel should be addressed on a grand scale?
Yes Dr. Brown address it… to the tune of lets say a few thousand… but in context the mega pastors that are exporting this false gospel are spreading it to millions upon millions. Shouldnt a response at least be attempted to get the attention of significant size audience?
OR… are “we to busy saving souls” than protect the Gospel? This is the classic answer I have heard… “if we spent our time hunt down false teahers, we wouldnt be able to share the gospel”
These topic was actaully the dominat them of the Strange Fire conference. Yes there was some cessantionism propganda, but teh divise talk was directed mostly at the goupd they felt were the extremes.. like Bentley, Hinn, & Bethel Church.
So… address these issue, similiar to how Martin Luther did with 95 theis, John Calvin did, John Wesley did at things they saw as error.
OR
Just comment on small scale “your own congrgation” and ignore a mass scale respnse.
This conversation was great, but I kept thinking of Luke 9:49-50.
Good conversation between Dr. Brown and Phil Johnson. I have been around the broad movement since the early 70s, both in the US and all over Latin America. There is one error that is common to all, and it is an offense to the Holy Spirit. It is taught consistently that speaking in tongues is the sign gift of a person’s baptism in the Holy Spirit. If a person has the experience of the baptism of the HS, then they WILL speak in tongues as proof of that experience.
I have been in meetings where the speaker has pressured the whole congregation to speak in tongues. This is not uncommon, even in more mainline Pentecostal denominations.
That teachings is offensive to the Holy Spirit, since the Word of God clearly says that He gives the gifts according to His will. Not everyone speaks in tongues.
Now, I don’t care if people speak in tongues. It is a human tradition. For the sake of argument, I would say that at times, it may even be by the Holy Spirit. However, it is a grave error – and all groups are riddled with this error – to say that everyone baptized in the spirit will speak in tongues. It is also an abuse of the flock of God, since those who do not speak in tongues believe themselves to be second class Christians. In fact, there are still some who say that if a person does not speak in tongues they are not even saved.
That is one glaring error that is offensive to the Holy Spirit who says that opposite in His Word.
I applaud Phil Johnson for coming on this show knowing that the one with the mike has the power over the other speaker. This power was used as expected. I find it pitiful for Dr.Brown to try to speak about “how much would be done with Pastor MacArthur salary in third world country”. That was so below the belt. Wonder what could you do with all your income Dr.Brown and why do you suppose Pastor MacArthur does not do it? That was just so low as were evasions by Dr.Brown as to his support or pretending of ignorance as to what many Charismatic like Cindy Jacobs tell people. Over all it is good that the conversation happen but it would be much better if Dr.Brown would actually be consistent and not evade and manipulate.
Michael, your interview with Phil Johnson was so frustrating! You talk over him, you run with statements that misinterpret what Phil says. You do too much self-promotion. This was not a balanced and fair interview. Very disappointed.
Judging from the mocking laughter of the audience at the strange fire conference I believe that even though the gospel was most likely proclaimed with much zeal and concern for the truth it had very little spiritual value. Even though the gospel must be preached with facts, reason, logic and passion – pride is able to conceal and nurture itself within these things and even because of these things. Thus even though the message may have many valid points it will not bear good fruit. It is because of pride that we often fail to realize that we can stand firmly on God’s side doctrinaly yet stand on Satan’s side spiritualy. The prosperity gospel is a vicious and deceitful work of Satan but the Pharisee who prayed thus in the temple and commended himself will spew fourth the same poison when given a pulpit. May the Lord give us grace that we may truly walk in the light
Dr. Brown invited a debate regarding cessationism. I hope this comes about. You could tell there were hard feelings from the entire tone of the debate. I agree that clips played of John McArthur’s statements in this segment were over the top. This makes dialogue very difficult. But it was probably better than this particular guest appeared because John McArthur quite frankly is overly arrogant in his presentation. For Dr. Brown the issue was the unfair accusations of John McArthur. For his guest it was the excess of Charismatics. As a result they were talking past one another. Dr. Brown made a general assertion that the frauds in Charismatic circle were no worse than the frauds in non-Charismatic circles. But this should not be the standard even though it may be that we have wheat in tares in both churches until Christ comes. John McArthur’s approach actually makes it harder to address the problems in the Charismatic movement. As long as the only issue is whether Cessationism is wrong we will not be able to address the issues of frauds and false prophets in Charismatic movement. There remains an open sore in the Charismatic camp from John McArthur’s words. I am concerned that the result of such an attack is that the frauds in the Charismatic movement get a pass because the focus is no on John McArthur’s over the top words rather than the problems in the Charismatic movement.
If tongues are not human languages but instead are some other form of communication with God, how do you differentiate the true from the false?