Speaking in Tongues

By Philip Mauro

     The gift of tongues, which was bestowed upon men for the first time on the day of Pentecost, was a miraculous endowment which enabled those who received it to speak in languages unfamiliar to themselves, languages they had never learned. Thereby they were empowered to declare the glad tidings to those with whom they would not have been able otherwise to communicate.

     The record found in Acts 2 gives a clear description of the nature of this gift. We read that there were at Jerusalem at that season devout men "out of every nation under heaven," and that when the multitude came together, they were confounded, "because that every man heard them speak in his own language" (Acts 2:5, 6). Thus the prominent and essential characteristic of the pentecostal gift of tongues was that it enabled the disciples to address those foreigners, "every man in his own language."

     Further, it is recorded for our enlightenment that "They were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these that speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born; Parthians and Medes and Elamites"—sixteen countries being named—"we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (vv. 7-11).

Thus, in this short description, it is stated three times that the pentecostal gift of tongues was a miraculous endowment whereby those who received it were able to speak to foreigners in their own language. When, therefore, we encounter now-a-days that which purports to be the apostolical and pentecostal gift of tongues, the first thing to be ascertained is whether its reputed possessor has the supernatural ability to speak to strangers in their own language. If the supposed gift does not pass that test, it may safely, and without further inquiry, be regarded as spurious.

The coming of the Holy Ghost was the beginning of that new and wonderful era which John the Baptist had announced (Matt. 3:11). The Lord had previously instructed His disciples that their special mission would be to preach repentance and remission of sins in His Name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem; but they were to wait in that city until they should be endued with power from on high (Luke 24:47-49); for the Gospel was to be preached, not with mere human power, but "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven" (I Pet. 1:12). It is, therefore, a very impressive fact that the manner in which the Holy Spirit manifested His presence was by the appearance of tongues as of fire, resting upon each of the disciples, and by the bestowal upon them of the power to preach to all men who were gathered in Jerusalem to observe the feast of Pentecost, each in his own language. This was a most significant miracle. It proclaimed in a striking way, first that the great work of this era for which the Holy Ghost had come, is the preaching of the risen Jesus of Nazareth as both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:32- 36); and second, that this glorious gospel was to be proclaimed to "every nation under heaven," so that all men should hear it in their native tongue.

It should be noted that in Acts 2, and wherever the word "tongue" is used in this connection in the Scriptures, it means simply a language, just as we commonly say "the English tongue," "the French tongue," etc. In I Corin-thians 14, where the expression "unknown tongue" occurs, it will be seen that the word "unknown" is printed in italics, showing that it does not occur in the original text. This supplied word has misled some. The expression means simply a foreign language.

This supernatural ability to address a foreigner in his own language served also the purpose (along with other miracles which abounded at that time) of attesting this new era and this new message (the Gospel), as being from God. Without such manifestations of the presence and power of God working in and with those obscure Galilaeans, it could not have been made evident to Jews and Gentiles that God was really introducing a new order of things. That the main purpose of miracles was to authenticate the preaching of the "great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord," is declared in many Scriptures, as in Hebrews 2:3, 4, where we read that God also bore witness (with His preachers) by means of "signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will."

That such extraordinary miracles were needed at the beginning of the new era is obvious. In this respect we have a parallel in the beginning of the era of the law, when God wrought wonderful signs and miracles in Egypt and in the wilderness. Those manifestations ceased when they had accomplished their purpose.

Tongues After Pentecost

The second time the miraculous speaking in tongues is mentioned is in connection with Peter’s preaching of the Gospel to a company of Gentiles in the home of Cornelius, the Roman Centurion, at Caesarea, which city was really a Roman city, though within the borders of Judea. Here again "was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" (Acts 10:45, 46). This was a convincing sign to Peter and the six Jewish converts who accompanied him, that God had indeed saved those Gentiles. Therefore, they (the Jews) did not dare "forbid water, that these should not be baptized," or refuse to receive them as brethren in Christ.

Moreover, when they of the circumcision, who were at Jerusalem, contended with Peter because of this, the apostle vindicated himself by appealing to the fact that (to quote his own words) "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15). Thus we have given us in the Bible a very clear and strong reason for the manifestation of the gift of tongues on this occasion; for otherwise converted Gentiles would not have been received.

It should be particularly noted that, for another occurrence of that sort, Peter had to go back to the day of Pentecost. The inference is plain that, in all the years between, there had been no similar manifestation to which Peter could appeal. It is, therefore, very far from the truth to say, or to suppose, that all who were saved in apostolic times received the power to speak in tongues. It clearly appears, on the contrary, that the bestowal of the gift of tongues was reserved for occasions of unusual importance.

At Ephesus—The third and last time the manifestation of the gift of tongues is mentioned in Acts is in chapter 19. This was outside of Palestine altogether. Paul, on coming to Ephesus, met with certain disciples who had received only so much of the truth as was connected with John’s baptism. They had not received the Holy Spirit because they had not believed on the risen Jesus Christ. When, however, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and Paul had laid his hands upon them, then "the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied" (Acts 19:1-6). In this case, as in the two preceding, there was an evident need that the truth proclaimed by Paul should be specially authenticated by signs and miracles. Ephesus, moreover, was the place where the great temple of Diana was located, and where "curious arts" (e.g., necromancy, black art, etc.) were practiced (v. 19). Therefore, "God wrought special (i.e., unusual) miracles by the hands of Paul" in that place (vv. 11, 12).

In none of these cases was the gift of tongues sought, nor was the Holy Spirit sought after the manner of some in the present day. The Holy Spirit simply bestowed the gift when and as He deemed it needful so to do.

The Gift of Tongues in the Church

In I Corinthians, chapters 12 and 14, we read of the gift of tongues "in the church." It is mentioned among the things wrought by the Spirit, "dividing to every man severally as He will" (12:7-11). Thus the giving or not giving this (or other) gift is entirely a matter of the Divine will, which is exercised according to the Divine wisdom.

This gift is mentioned last in the list of gifts which "God hath set in the church" (12:28-29). And the apostle’s questions "Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues?" make it clear beyond all doubt that some only of the saints possessed those gifts. Indeed the questions are asked for the very purpose of enforcing the argument that, as in the human body there are many members, each with its own special function, to be exercised for the benefit of all, so in the church there are different gifts and duties as-signed to the several members; yet, inasmuch as all belong to one and the same body, the gifts ail pertain to that one body, regardless of what members have them. According to the inspired argument of that chapter it would be as absurd to expect every member of the church to have the gift of tongues as to expect that every member of the human body should be a tongue endowed with power to speak (v.17).

In chapter 14 Paul shows that the gift of prophecy is far more to be desired than that of tongues, because prophesying—i.e., ministering the Word of God—edifies the church; and this is the work of Love, because "Love edifieth" (8:1), whereas speaking in tongues may be but the vain display of a gift. Paul makes the contrast very strong, saying, "I speak with tongues more than ye all; yet 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" (14:18, 19). So the relative value is as five to ten thousand.

He then bids those Corinthians to "be not children in understanding," and explains to them that the gift of tongues was a fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11, 12, where God, in foretelling judgments upon Israel in connection with their rejection of His Word (which had always been spoken to them in Hebrew) said, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will I speak unto this people" (the Jews) . Therefore, at Pentecost God began to speak to the Jews in "another tongue." This was a "sign" to that unbelieving people. And this is precisely what Paul declares in the next verse, where he says: "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" (I Cor. 14:21). Thus the gift of prophecy is incomparably greater than that of speaking in tongues. It follows that to say the gift of tongues is a sign to believers that the one so gifted who has received the Holy Spirit, is simply to turn the Scripture upside down.

The Spirit Given to Them That Believe

The Lord Jesus declared that "they which believe on Him should receive" the Holy Spirit (John 7:39). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, said that all who would repent and be baptized should "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Again he said, speaking of the Holy Ghost, "Whom God hath given to them that obey Him" (Acts 5:32), that is, who obey the gospel by believing in Jesus Christ. In Galatians 3:1-3 Paul bases his entire argument on the fact that the Galatians had "received the Spirit by the hearing of faith."

Never is there such a thing as a believer in Christ who had not received the Holy Spirit, or one who had received Him otherwise than through believing the Gospel.

As regards the strange modern idea that speaking in tongues is to be sought as the "Bible-sign" of having received the Holy Spirit we would point out that faith does not seek after a sign, but rests upon the simple Word of God. Paul says, "For the Jews require a sign"; and it was natural for them to do so; but not for those who are "justified by faith."

The Lord Jesus said: "This is an evil generation, they seek a sign"; and again, "Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe" (John 4:48). The spirit of the Jews was manifested in the question, "What sign showest thou, that we may see and believe thee?" (John 6:30). These Scriptures surely do not encourage God’s saints to seek after a sign. Moreover, the Lord did not say concerning His people that "by their signs ye shall know them," but expressly "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20). And again, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). If those who have received the Holy Spirit are seen walking after the Spirit, manifesting the love of the Spirit, and bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit, there will be no need of any "signs" whereby they may be distinguished.

Signs Following

Appeal is frequently made to the words of Mark 16:17,18, as if they contained the promise that all that believe should be endowed with the gift of tongues. But the words will bear no such interpretation. They declare that certain signs, of which speaking with new tongues was one, should follow them that believe. The Lord no more promised that all believers should speak with tongues than He promised that all should cast out devils, take up serpents, and drink poison without receiving hurt. Speaking with tongues, therefore, is no more the "Bible sign" of having received the Holy Spirit than is the casting out of devils, or the taking up of serpents.

Moreover, we have only to read the 20th verse of the chapter to find the complete fulfillment of the promise of verses 17 and 18: "And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

This Scripture refutes "pentecostal" doctrine, for it speaks of "them that believe"; whereas, according to that doctrine, speaking in tongues is not a sign of believing, but of receiving the Spirit, which the "pentecostals" hold is a distinct thing.

A Dangerous Delusion

We believe that the modern error regarding tongues, as made prominent by those who call themselves "pentecostals," is one of the most dangerous of these last days. Many true, earnest, and zealous children of God have been deluded by it. The appeal it makes is very attractive to saints who groan and sigh for something different from the shams and dead formalities of religious Christendom. We have had it under observation from the start. Its phenomena—ecstasies, transports, prostrations, yielding to "the power," displaced personality, etc.—are the very same as we had already become familiar with in our previous investigations of hypnotism, spiritism, and other psychic and occult phenomena. We know by personal observation some of the terrible havoc—moral and spiritual—it has wrought. Most earnestly, therefore, do we warn the beloved people of God against it.

Date: 17 Nov 2005
Time: 13:04:16

Comments:

Paul said I speak in tongues more than you all, he didn't speak to people in tongues but prayed and sang in tongues for the edification of himself. I to speak and sing in tongues for the edification of my self that I might edify others. I cannot edify if I am not edified. Paul says that tongues are for personal edification and that prophecy is for the edification of others. There is a distinction between the tongues that occured at pentecost and the tongues that were used to speak and sing to God wherein the spirit was edified but the understanding was unfruitful.
Paul also says I wish all spoke in tongues but even more that they would prophesy that the church may be edified.

Date: 26 Dec 2005
Time: 14:09:22

Comments:

Since I find more error than truth in the above article, this rebuttal will take a while.

Mr. Mauro refers to Pentecost in Acts 2, and draws this conclusion. "Thus, in this short description, it is stated three times that the pentecostal gift of tongues was a miraculous endowment whereby those who received it where able to speak to foreigners in their own language.If the supposed gift does not pass that test, it may safely and without further inquiry, be regarded as spurious."

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with that,and most everthing else in this article, point by point, line upon line, and precept upon precept. I do, however, see why Mr. Mauro might discourage "further inquiry" in a critical examination of his doctrinal claims.

This miracle at pentecost seems to be just as much a miracle of hearing as of speaking. There are sixteen nations mentioned specifically and probably many more since they came from "every nation under heaven". Do we really believe that Peter repeated his sermon (that saved over 3000 converts) sixteen plus times in each foreign language? Perhaps. I'll give you that one, but the rest we must prove by the scriptures.

In paragraph six, Mr Mauro asserts; "It should be noted that in Acts 2 and wherever the word 'tongue' is used in this connection in the scriptures, it means simply a language, just as we commonly say 'the English tongue', 'the French tongue', etc. In 1 Cor 14, where the expression 'unknown tongue' occurrs, it will be seen that the word unknown is printed in italics, showing that it does not occur in the original text. This supplied word has misled some. The expression means simply a foreign language."

Let's take out the italicised word 'unknown' and see if Mr. Mauro is telling the truth. 1Cor 14:2 "For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." So you see, the very verse that Mr. Mauro uses to "prove" that the gift of tongues is always a foreign language known to men, says just the opposite. That ought to raise a red flag of concern. But wait, there's more.

In paragraph 8, Mr. Mauro says that miraculous signs and wonders were used to authenticate the old covenant as being from God just as they were used in the first century to confirm the new covenant. He then goes on to claim that those manifestations (miracles) ceased after they had accomplished their purpose. Is he implying that the new testament gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased?

This makes me wonder if Mr. Mauro ever even read the old testament. If he had, he would know that miracles never ceased. What about Jerico's walls, Josua's long day, Gideon's fleece, Elija's fire, Elisha's parting the river, raising the dead, filling the jars with oil, Daniel's lions, Meshech's firey furnace? Come on! There's more.

Moving on to section 2, "Tongues after Pentecost", Mr. Mauro makes a number of conclusions unsupported by the text.
--He refers to tongues again as foreign languages, which makes no sense in this case because they already understood and believed Peter's sermon at Corneleus' house. Why change languages?
--He concludes that Peter had to refer back to pentecost at the council at Jerusalem infering that no one had received the gift of tongues since then until Corneleus. The evidence, one could argue, suggests that this was so common that as soon as Peter referenced it, the discussion was over.
--Then Mr. Mauro refers to Acts 19 where Paul goes to Ephesus. He first concludes that special miracles means "unusual" miracles. I guess as opposed to the your every day, run of the mill miracle. Of even more concern, Mr. Mauro implies that receiving the gospel and being baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus through water baptism is what caused the receiving of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He also claims that in none of these cases was the baptism of the Holy Spirit sought. Well, you'll notice that the immediate text there in chapter 19 links the receiving of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit not to water baptism, but to the laying on hands.

The biblical truth that water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit are two distinctly different things is illustrated clearly in Acts 8:12-18. The people of Samaria, at the preaching of Philip, believed "in the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (vs 12). They had not yet received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but had only been water baptized, or, "baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." (vs 16) So Peter and John laid hands on them and baptized them in the Holy Spirit.

So here it clearly illustrated that water baptism into the name of Jesus, and baptism in the Holy Spirit are two distinctly different things.

It is interesting to note that speaking in tongues is not mentioned in this passage of scripture. It is in my view implied in that there is obviously some uniformly observable manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Even the new converts, Simon the sorcerer being one of them, "saw through the laying on of the apostle's hands the Holy Spirit was given.."

Just as at Cornelius' house, you can see it, and it is unmistakable. In my experience, its tongues. Let's move on. There's more.

In section 3,"The Gift of Tongues in the Church" Mr. Mauro is dead in the water from the beginning. He is expounding on his erroneous conclusion that "tongues" (1Cor 14) and "other tongues" (Acts 2) is the same thing, and always refers to a foreign language spoken to foreigners. Contrasting Acts 2 with 1Cor 14:2 we have seen that one gift edifies the listener, the other gift edifies the speaker, the listener being God. Edification is always a good thing, for God gives good gifts to His children.

Mr. Mauro points out that Paul says in 1Cor 24:21 that tongues are a sign to unbelievers and prophesy serves believers. Mr. Mauro, therefore concludes that "the gift of prophesy is incomparably greater than that of speaking in tongues." In saying that, Mr. Mauro is putting an incomparably higher value on believers edifying each other, as opposed to edifying unbelievers by fullfilling the great commission. There's more.

Let's look at Mr. Mauro's 4th section, "The Spirit Given to Them That Believe". In this section, Mr. Mauro makes a common mistake of not knowing the distinction between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He is correct(finally) in saying that if you believe in Jesus, you have the Holy Spirit. No one says, "Jesus is Lord.", except by the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who seals us for our salvation. So Paul says, "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you?" Amen! Does that mean you are baptized in the Holy Spirit? No. We just saw that in Acts 8.
We also see in John 20:21-22 that when the disciples saw Jesus in the upper room, He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Yet after He breathed the Holy Spirit into them, (indwelt) He told them not to go out and teach yet , but to "wait for the gift My Father promised" "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit....you will receive power from on high."(Acts 1: 3-8)

Finally, in Mr. Mauro's final section, "A Dangerous Delusion", he equates speaking in tongues and exercising the other gifts of the Holy Spirit with "spiritism, hypnotism, and other psychic and occult phenomena", and warns against it. The word of God commands us to eagerly desire spiritual gifts.(1Cor 14:1) Mr. Mauro himself acknowledges that the Holy Spirit divides them severally among the body of Christ so that we can function better together as a unit in ministering both to believers and unbelievers. Why would he then try and link these spiritual gifts with satanic spiritism.

I feel that I have conclusively rebutted most of Mr. Mauro's erroneous conclusions that he has put forth in this paper. And not with my opinion, but with chapter and verse from the word. I've shown you that there is very little in Mr Mauro's paper that doesn't directly contradict the word of God.

Barry Wuthrich
barrywuthrich@yahoo.com
 

Date: 10 Feb 2006
Time: 05:51:16

Comments:

The whole thesis of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 is that no one should be speaking in the presence of other fellow human beings without being understood. This is an expression of common courtesy. It is not a matter of whether the tongue is a foreign dialect or an ecstatic utterance, that is important, but whether or not one is understood!

No, the gifts haven't ceased, but do all have the same gift? Do all speak in tongues? Dr. Mauro is correct on this point. The answer is a resounding NO! Not all are apostles or prophets and neither are all to speak in tongues. In Paul's list, speaking in tongues was at the bottom, totally different that what we're hearing from some circles today. Those who do not speak in tongues are considered "suspect" in this matter of being baptized by the Spirit. That is not only offensive but wrong. What is offensive is to go to a pentecostal meeting and hear emotional utterances spoken all at the same time and almost never interpreted. But now no interpretation is needed because it's a prayer language that no one can understand except God. Oh really?

Delphi was the center of pagan oracles and just across the bay from Corinth. The Dephi priestesses always spoke in ecstatic utterances and often left the seeker in confusion. Notice how 1 Corinthians 14 not only deals with 'tongues' but also with women speaking out of turn in church resulting in disturbances and confusion, no doubt in imitation of the Delphi oracles. No where else is there a problem with ecstatic utterances than in the church in Corinth! This is why Dr. Mauro is correct to mention a connection of ecstatic utterances to spiritualism since that seems to be its source in the Corinth church.

In this regard I would highly recommend Dr. John Stott's little book, "Baptism and Fullness" for an excellent Scriptural examination of this topic. I have found no where else his excellent study on how the baptism of the Spirit is received the same time as the forgiveness of sins. The new covenant in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel promises BOTH forgiveness of sins AND the gift of the Spirit. The moment Christ is received there is a removal of sins and then a bestowal of the Spirit. These cannot be disconnected. Dr. Stott shows how the exceptions to this covenant promise in the Book of Acts were instances when God wanted to establish the authority of the Apostles in the eyes of the Gentiles. To teach today that those who do not speak in a tongue are not baptized in the Spirit is Scripturally and theologically in error

Date: 15 Feb 2006
Time: 22:39:45

Comments:

I disagree with the interpretation that the gift of tongues in the church of Corinth was an imitation of pagan Delphi priestesses. Paul certainly doesn't characterize it that way. In verse 17 he tells them that when they speak in tongues they "give thanks well". Are we to believe that Paul would characterize the mimicking of pagan Delphi priestesses in God's temple as 'giving thanks well'?

I tend to think that Paul would forbid it, or , at least not speak well of it. But Paul does allow it in Vs. 27, limiting it to 2 or 3 with an interpretation. In verse 39 Paul instructs them, "do not forbid to speak in tongues."

He is thankful that he speaks in tongues more than all of them,(vs 18) even though it is, as he says, for his own edification.(vs.4) And yes it is generally a mystery that only God understands. (vs.2,15)

I don't deny that tongues is over-emphasized in some churches, but the articles I've read on this site concerning tongues, spiritual gifts, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit seem to be attacking all three. These are scriptural. They are something God's word commands us to eagerly desire.

So what if the gift of tongues is at the bottom of the list? God gives good gifts to His children. I'll not turn down any gift from God, be it from the top of the list, the bottom, or anywhere in between.

I pray in tongues often, and I'm not mimicking any Delphi priestess. I didn't get baptized in the Spirit at my salvation. I got it later at the laying on of hands in prayer.

I am not familiar with Dr. John Stott's little book, but a claim that the separation of salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as depicted in Acts) as a sign of Apostolic power seems weak to me. These new converts had already witnessed miracles by Spirit-filled believers such as Phillip, who wasn't an apostle. That's part of why they converted. Jesus had said the kingdom of heaven does not consist of words, but of power. Apostle's and others were healing the sick, casting out demons and raising the dead. They were healed when Peter's shadow touched them, or they touched a prayer cloth. If that didn't establish the authority of the Apostles, I doubt if the Baptism of the Holy Spirit would make much difference.

Date: 27 May 2006
Time: 05:03:14

Comments:

For everyone who defends speaking in tongues so zealously (and I am not speaking for or against it) I have always wondered why we only find Paul discussing it at length in his first epistle to Corinth and in no other epistle. Is is because it was such a problem in a church where fleshly activities were so evident?

And to ask whether Philip Mauro ever read the Old Testament (?!) is somewhat supercilious (Barry Wuthrich). If there is something Philip Mauro did it was reading and studying the whole Bible, the Old and the New. It is indeed pitiful to attack the person of any believer just because his interpretation of certain sections of the Bible differs from your own pet subject

Date: 07 Jun 2006
Time: 18:00:47

Comments:

If all of the apostolic gifts are still in effect why isn't anyone raising people from the dead lke Peter and Paul both did in Acts?

Date: 08 Aug 2006
Time: 19:19:27

Comments:

Pentecostalism had a very shaky beginning and although there are some good Pentecostal Christians, there seems to be a lot of heresies also. When a Pentecostal goes astray it seem they really go astray. But the biggest failure I think concerning Pentecostalism is that it has spawned the likes of, Copeland, DuPlantis, Roberts(2),and Price just to name a bery few.

Date: 08 Aug 2006
Time: 19:35:17

Comments:

I've heard a lots of tongue talking through the years. Not once did I think it was a gift that I heard. A UPC preacher and I agreed that if it had to be learned it was a phony and yet when they speak (the UPC) it is the same jabber that you hear in the Assemblies and also on TV. And of course the intrepretations are always the same thing and most of the time in King James Englixh.

Date: 19 Dec 2006
Time: 19:02:36

Comments:

My statement about Mr Mauro is not a personal attack on his character. It's tongue in cheek. The fact that Mr Mauro seems to suggest that miracles in the Old Testament ceased after the covenant with Abraham was established, I find incredible. That's all I'm saying.

I wonder if you were equally as upset with Mr. Mauro for characterizing my beliefs as a dangerous delusion akin to spiritism, hypnotism, and other psychic and occult phenomena.

I didn't mean it personally and I don't believe Mr. Mauro did either. He was merely speaking his mind as am I.

I want my beliefs based on truth, and many statements in the article above seem to directly contradict scripture. I have attempted to point those out by citing scripture.

Barry Wuthrich

Date: 16 May 2007
Time: 08:16:24

Comments:

this is a great article and i agree 100%.
tony

Date: 22 Jul 2007
Time: 01:11:12

Comments:

I appreciate all the comments and opinions shared here. Some have posted some very interesting comments indeed. There are some deep thinkers here. I believe God is just as able today as he ever was to fulfill all the works of the Spirit in the Christian who has yielded to God and has been converted in the inner man. However, I also believe that many false workers of signs and gifts have discouraged other Christians and unbelievers from desiring those gifts that God has reserved for the believer. Just as there are True and false prophets and Apostles there are those who upon examination of their Gift of tongues it may be found that it is more a learned action then one delivered by God. Be not disheartened nor waiver in the faith of Jesus Christ because of the error of pretenders. We are admonished throughout scripture that if it were possible the very elect might be deceived by a false Gospel or even a false Christ. We must compare everything brought into question to the Word of God and the Spirit of Jesus Christ and his Righteousness. Many have done a great harm to the Kingdom of God because they error in Word and deed. When many people being unrestrained by the Spirit of Jesus Christ continue trying to wield his Word by faith rather then by Spiritual understanding and application it is like sending many untrained civilians into the battle field in place of trained soldiers with unproved weapons they have neither checked, maintained nor mastered the use of. It may be quite possible that their good intentions may endanger even those who they have come along side to defend. We must all pray that we ourselves do not become the one who endangers our brother or the one Jesus Christ may be calling. J.W. Mills JWMills@Onlybyfaith.org

Date: 26 Oct 2007
Time: 03:22:40

Comments:

Thus the prominent and essential characteristic of the pentecostal gift of tongues was that it enabled the disciples to address those foreigners, "every man in his own language."

This is simply not accurate. Tongues were not used to address the foreigners. Tongues were used to magnify and declare the wonderful works of God. Tongues are not used to address men, but to magnify and praise God. The direction of tongues is upward not man-ward. It was Peter's preaching in his own language that brought people to faith in Christ. Prophecy is not as Mr Mauro suggests - preaching the word. If that wass so Paul wouldn't have told the Thessalonians to not despise prophesying. There is a clear distinction between preaching and prophesying. According to 1 Cor 1V7, all the gifts of the Spirit including tongues are to continue until the coming of the Lord.