We're going to read about the day of Pentecost. Our subject this morning is going to be on tongues. What are tongues? Are tongues for today? How do we define tongues? What are they? Are they for today? Is the charismatic movement of God, is it legitimate? And so forth. We'll be examining so many things today. Starting in verse 1. When the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all but one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues as a fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were glowing in Jerusalem Jews that outbid from every nation under heaven. When the sound occurred, the multitude came together and were confused because everyone heard them speak in his own language. But they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Look, are these not all who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear each in his own language in which we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus in Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya, adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs, we hear them speaking their own tongues, the wonderful works of God. So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, what could this mean? Others, mocking, said, they are full of new wine. To Willem, though reading there at verse 13, The disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts chapter 2 verse 4. Now what we want to do here is we want to consider this phenomenon of tongues. And we want to first define what are tongues? Number one, what are tongues? Okay, this is actually very important. Are tongues ecstatic gibberish? Yabba-Dabba-Doo, Shanto, Shante-Kai, or are they real languages? Let's answer this question first. The term Pongs, in the Greek language Glossa, the plural, Glosses, when used of human speech, always refers to the actual speaking of human languages. This point is very important to establish, because if this is true, If this point is true, that means that the modern phenomenon of tongues that we see in charismatic churches is bogus. It's phony. It's false. It means that we can have objective verification of modern tongues and see if they are speaking real languages. And we'll get to that in a moment. In the Book of Acts, when we're introduced to the supernatural phenomenon of tongues speaking, Luke emphasizes here that they're speaking real languages. Men from every nation under heaven. Once again, we're saying, how is it that we hear each in our own language in which we were born? They were speaking real human languages. That is emphasized. And the miracle was not in the hearing, the miracle was in the speaking. Hey, consider this. The tongues were immediately understood by the hearers from several different Roman provinces and lands without any need for interpretation. And this fact can only mean one thing, that the apostles here were speaking real, human, foreign languages. Remember, the miracle or the sign was in the speaking, not in the hearing. It wasn't that they were up there just going... making gibberish and people miraculously made that into real languages. No. The miracle was in the speaking of tongues. And keep in mind that the hearers at this point were not even believers yet. Verse 6, everyone heard them speaking in his own language. Language being used synonymously here with the tongues. They were speaking real languages. And then verse 11, we hear them telling with their own tongue the great things of God. The disciples were speaking foreign languages that were not known to them. And the very languages of the natives of the foreign lands were presently addressed before them. And then, as if to emphasize here, that the disciples were speaking real languages and not gibberish, ecstatic gibberish, Luke even lists the peoples which heard their native tongues. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and so on. That's verses 9-11. So thus far, in the original accounting here of tongues, Luke makes it crystal clear that tongues were real, foreign languages. The disciples were not just up there going yabba dabba doo. And then B, in Acts chapter 2, glosses is used by Luke interchangeably with dialectos, which the eminent lexicographer J. H. Thayer defines as, quote, the tongue or language peculiar to any people. He's using tongues and the word languages interchangeably in a parallel, synonymous manner. Therefore, ergo, tongues cannot refer to gibberish. And of course, the languages are listed in verses 9 to 11. When we encounter tongues speaking again in Acts chapter 10, we are told that the Gentiles had the same experience as the Jewish believers in chapter 2. Let's turn to chapter 10. That's chapter 10 reading from verse 44 onward. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word, and those in the circumcision who believed were astonished. As many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. And Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water? that they should not be baptized, but just received the Holy Spirit, just as we have, that is, in the same way we did, and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and he asked them to stay a few days. They received the Holy Spirit, just as the apostles did, and they spoke in tongues, just as the apostles did, that is, they spoke real human languages. Thus there is not a shred of evidence Within the Book of Acts, that tongue speaking is anything but real foreign languages. Now the fact that tongues here in the Book of Acts is considered to be real, is always considered to be real foreign languages, this is not accepted by all professing Christians, it's not even considered important by all professing Christians. Those Charismatics, if you learn anything about the Charismatic Movement, and I used to be Pentecostal, I used to be Charismatic, I know all about this, teach that there are three types of tongues. There are the tongues that occur as the initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. There are the special tongues for edification in public worship. Okay? And then, as well as heavenly tongues, are tongues used for private prayer. This is very common teaching. I don't care as many as hold of this, but they generally hold that there are three types of tongues. The initial baptism of the Holy Spirit tongues, there is tongues used in public worship for edification, and then, of course, there's prayer tongues, private prayer tongues. They argue that, of course, while tongues can be a real foreign language, at other times tongues might be a heavenly, ecstatic language, a language of angels. So what they argue then is that while tongues does not necessarily have to be real human foreign languages. Well, we need to answer the question, what are the tongues used for edification and public worship? And the question is going to be answered as we examine 1 Corinthians, let's look at 1 Corinthians chapter 14 by starting at verse 1. Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For the point of this chapter is the superiority of prophecy. 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. That's their justification for a private prayer language. that he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men, that he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, that he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more, that you prophesy, for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues. And then you jump down, verses 13. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit Christ, my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I'll pray with the spirit and I'll pray with the understanding. I'll sing with the spirit and I'll sing with the understanding. And then jump over to verses 23 to verse 23. Paul says, Therefore, if a church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever and an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all, and so forth. In 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses the use of tongues in public worship. Because in the church, this gift had been abused by the Corinthians. It's very clear. Paul is correcting an abuse. They were speaking in tongues at the same time, verse 23. They were speaking in tongues without having the tongues interpreted, verses 13-17. And Paul, when he discusses the need for tongues to be interpreted, he uses a Greek word. that refers to the translation of a foreign language. The tongues that are spoken in public worship must be translated into the language of the people, the vernacular, so they can understand what is being spoken. Keep in mind, the tongues here are a form of divine revelation given by God. They're a type of prophecy, but they need to be interpreted for people to receive edification. This word, hermeneuto, is used to describe the exposition of scripture. While it can mean this, it means to translate what has been spoken or written in a foreign language into the vernacular. That's the Greek-English lexicon. When the word is used for the exposition of scripture, which it can be used, it means to expound. When it is used with regard to tongues, it is translated to interpret, which means to translate into the vernacular. An interpreter in Acts chapter, excuse me, in 1 Corinthians 14 refers to somebody who tastes the tongues and has the gift of translating it into the vernacular. That Paul is referring to real human languages and not some sort of ecstatic babbling is also proved by the context. They note here that the apostle has an analogy between tongues and real human languages. This is from verse 10, 1 Corinthians 14, 10. There are maybe so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. It's crystal clear that Paul is using an analogy comparing tongues to real human languages. The term there, foreigner, in the New King James, or barbarian, it settles the point here regarding the use of foreign language. The only reason that tongues must be interpreted or translated is so that the people in public worship can understand what is being spoken and thus be edified by it, you see. Tongues, without translation, Paul says, in public worship are useless. They're useless. That tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 are real human languages are also supported by the apostles teaching in verses 21 to 22. Listen to this. 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 are for a sign not to those who believe but to unbelievers. Now, what does Paul do here? Why does this point to the fact that tongues have to be a religion and a language? Well, Paul compares tongues to a real foreign language. He quotes a section, Isaiah 28-11, which refers to the coming of the Assyrians against Judah. We can compare 2 Kings chapter 17 and 18. The strange tongues, that is the foreign language of the Assyrians, were a sign to the Bastillean Israelites of impending judgment. Grammatically, the tongues, that is a real form like verse 21, must be the same kind of the tongues mentioned in verse 22. And this raises the question. If Paul considered speaking in tongues to be an unknown utterance, that is, ecstatic babbling or gibberish, he would have not used the same word twice in these two verses, especially since the meaning of glossa was clearly established in the first usage. Paul, clearly here, is comparing tongues to a real foreign language. Therefore, tongues have to be a foreign language. They cannot just be anybody babbling like an idiot. One thing is mistakenly clear. I'm mistakenly clear. These verses conclusively show that tongues are not gibberish. Tongues are real foreign languages. Now, what about private prayer tongues? Now, isn't there biblical proof that tongues, believers could speak in an unknown tongue to God for private edification? No, there's no proof of that whatsoever. The common charismatic viewpoint of a private prayer language to God, the tongues and gibberish, is read in the scripture, it's not derived from scripture. There's three passages that charismatics use, let's examine them briefly, that are commonly used for proof texts. One passage uses a proof that actually has nothing to do with tongues whatsoever. Romans 8.26 says this. The Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Did you hear that? Groanings that cannot be uttered. In other words, they're not spoken. They cannot be spoken. It's not referring to tongues at all. Unuttered groanings obviously cannot refer to tongues. The Spirit's intercession here cannot be articulated, that is spoken or uttered. The groanings must take place in the heart of the believers as they ascend to the throne of grace. This does not refer to spoken tongues at all. Let's look at another proof text, 1 Corinthians 13 verse 1. If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, Paul says, what Charismatics do with this You see that Paul here is identifying two separate forms of tongues. There is angelic tongues, which they define as ecstatic gibberish. And then there's the tongue, tongues of men, which have to be real languages. For example, here's a Pentecostal scholar named Robert E. Torville, who wrote a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. He writes this quote. In 1 Corinthians 13.1, Paul states the possibility of speaking in tongues of men, foreign languages, and of angels. End of quote. Okay, actually, that's not true whatsoever. Paul, the context of the Greek grammar, make it very clear that the apostle is not instructing Christians about the importance of two separate kinds of tongues. Okay? The Greek grammar indicates that Paul is speaking hypothetically. He's saying, look, even if you could speak with the tongues of angels, he's not saying that there is a tongue, a special tongues that men speak that is a tongue of angels. He's speaking hypothetically to make a point. He's not instructing the church to pray with the tongues of angels. Brother Paul is saying that no matter how great your spiritual gift is, that even if you could speak the tongues of angels, you need love. You need love. This has nothing to do with instructions about a private prayer language or instructions to pray with the tongues of angels. And even if we could pray in the tongues of angels, it would have structure in the human language. Every linguistic analysis done in the 20th century, where they analyzed modern charismatic tongue speaking, did not discern any structure of language. In other words, if you look at modern linguistics, modern linguists can go down to South America to some tribe in the middle of the jungle, and they can figure out, here's a noun phrase, here's a verb phrase, here's an adjective. They can figure out the structure of language, no matter what language it is. And that would also be true of angels. But modern tongue speaking does not resemble any modern language whatsoever, because it's just irrational gibberish. See, the Corinthians were obsessed with special spiritual gifts. They were obsessed with these things. And we're exercising these gifts in a selfish, self-centered, non-loving manner. And Paul wants to correct this by contrasting love The superlative, yet that is a gift even beyond what the Apostle is capable of. It's exaggeration here to make a point. Even if I could pray with the tongues of angels, and it doesn't mean he does, but even if he could, love is better. That's his point. Here's what the commentator Lenski writes, quote, the unreality of false opposition lies in the general assumption as such. Paul did not have this gift to a high degree, 1418, but he could speak only in some foreign languages and not by any means in all of them, and not at all in the language of angels. What he here supposes is the ability to use any and every language, including that of heaven. He extends the gift to its utmost height, beyond what it even was or could be. Yet if I am not love, even the supreme gift would be all in vain as far as God's purpose in the bestowal is concerned." You see Paul's point here. He is not teaching us to pray in the language of angels. He's making a point that we need love. Further, what if we could speak in the language of angels? Would it resemble a real human language? Yes, it would. As I just mentioned, it would have structure. You could take it. You could take it to any university and you could play it for linguists and they would be able to discern what is a noun, what is a verb, what is an adjective, what is an adverb, and so on. And they would eventually be able to translate the language into a modern English. That cannot be done with modern tongues because it does not resemble language structure whatsoever because it's just nonsensical babbling. Now, the best proof text for private prayer talks is from 1 Corinthians 14, 1-5, which says this, 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 to comfort the 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." Note, of course, that Paul is exalting prophecy over tongues. He's not giving her a dissertation on the necessity of private prayer tongues. Now, the first thing that we need to know regarding this passage, regardless of whatever your interpretation is, is the meaning of edifies himself in verse 4. Whenever you think of that term edifies himself in verse 4, the tongues spoken of throughout chapter 14 are definite real foreign languages. Paul compares tongues to the Assyrian language. Paul uses a Greek word which means to translate the tongues. Paul is referring to real human languages. That point was of course established by the word hermeneutical for interpret, which means to translate a foreign language into the vernacular. The analogy between tongues in real foreign languages also comes from the comparison to the Assyrian language in verses 21 to 22. Now, if Paul was switching here from a heavenly private tongues in verses 4 or 5 to real foreign languages, public tongues in verses 6 and following, we would expect some sort of transition indicating a change. But there is no such transition whatsoever. There's nothing in chapter 24 which indicates that the Apostle believed in two separate kinds of tongues. Private prayer tongues, which are gibberish, and real tongues, which are real languages. Keep in mind, 13 verse 1 was purely hypothetical, the language of angels. And even the language of angels would be a real language. But this fact is important because A, it proves that all tongues in the New Testament are the same as the tongues in Acts, real foreign languages. And B, if one believes or teaches that 1 Corinthians 14, 2-4 justifies the private use of tongues in devotions, then there is an objective test to determine if a professing Christian is speaking gibberish, that is, syllabic unstructured nonsense, or a real foreign language. You could take that private prayer language here, and you could take And you can take it to any linguist, as I said, and they can determine, is it a real foreign language? Or is it Yabba-Dabba-Doo? Okay? Anybody can go Shumashate Kai. Anybody can go Yabba-Dabba-Doo. Okay? But only somebody who has a special gift of the Holy Spirit can speak in real foreign languages of which he is unaware. That's why modern tongues are not a sign of any kind. Because anybody, even a pagan, can go Yabba-Dabba-Doo. Does this passage then teach the private use of tongues? No, not at all. Paul is discussing edification in public worship. He argues that prophecy is superior to tongues because it's superior capacity for the edification of the church. When you prophesy, it's in your own language, everybody immediately understands what you're saying. When he says, he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him. He's not instructing the Corinthians that he wants them to pray in a private prayer language. He's just emphasizing, look, without an interpreter, only God understands what you're saying, you see. That's why people are not edified. In other words, he's not saying, this is a wonderful thing, I want you to pray in this private prayer language. He's saying, look, when you speak in tongues, and people don't understand what you're saying, only God understands. It's a negative thing. The purpose of public worship is that the whole church would be edified. It is very clear that the Greek there, which translated, no one hears, does not mean that the tongues were inaudible. It does not mean that no one listened to the tongues, but that no one found them intelligible. One might as well have heard nothing, you see. If you're in public worship and somebody's up there speaking in a foreign language, whether it's Latin or Greek or Hebrew or whatever, and you don't understand that, it doesn't do you any good. Likewise, when Paul discusses praying and singing with the Spirit, both of which are primarily directed to God, he makes it clear that it must be interpreted since it takes place in public worship. Public worship is for what? It's for public edification. Otherwise, if you blessed the Spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the unenforcing? And then, you're giving a thanks, since he does not understand what you say. Public prayer, public worship, which involves public prayer, it involves public singing, Okay? Needs intelligibility. It needs interpretation. It needs translation, if there is to be edification. It's simply bad exegesis to take a passage where Paul is correcting an abuse in public worship and turn it into an excursus on private devotional prayer. Okay? Paul is not even concerned here at all with the subject of private devotional prayers. He's not even discussing private prayer at all in his passage. Such a thought is not at all in Paul's mind whatsoever. Well, what does Paul mean then by this expression, he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself? That's a great question. Because people say, well, look, you speak in a tongue, you edify yourself. Therefore, we need to pray privately in a tongue to receive private edification. That's the thinking of charismatics, of many charismatics today. Can we at least deduce from this statement that private prayer tongues are useful for private edification in a prayer closet or whatever? No. But we cannot. And there are a number of reasons why such a view must be rejected. First, the whole thrust of this chapter is to condemn uninterpreted tongues as useless. That's Paul's thrust in this chapter. The context indicates that the apostle is describing someone who speaks in tongues in church. That is public worship without an interpreter. Throughout this chapter, Paul argues again and again, look, you need to interpret tongues. Tongues without interpretation are useless. People are not edified by tongues without a translation. It says here, since you are zealous for the spiritual gifts, let it be for edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore, let him who speaks in tongues pray that you may interpret. 1st Corinthians 14, 12-13. Now, since the whole stress of the chapter 14 is the edification of the body, it is probable that edifies himself is meant to be taken in a negative pejorative sense. Look, when you pray in a language that nobody in the church understands, OK, you're calling attention to yourself. People can see that you have this wonderful gift that people are looking at you. However, the church is not edified because nobody knows what you're saying. OK. Edifies himself is that you're pointing to yourself. You're calling attention to yourself, but you're not edifying the church. Paul is not using edified himself in the sense of, hey, this is a great thing. I want you to all pray in the language that nobody understands. Paul's not making that point. You see, people who speak in tongues without an interpreter, what are they doing? Since it doesn't edify the church, what are they doing? They're showing off. And many of us who come from a charismatic background understand this. You go see Kenneth Hagin or somebody speak in church, and some lady stands up in the balcony, Yabba Dabba Zooba Dabba Ding Dong! And everybody looks at her and goes, Wow, Gladys sure has a wonderful gift, doesn't she? Now, is anybody edified by that? No. She simply called attention to herself and looked like a fool, but people, charismatics who are ignorant of doctrine, look at that and go, wow, that's great, isn't Gladys wonderful? But nobody received any application. People just learned that Gladys knows how to say yabba dabba doo. She showed off. Second, if one takes the common charismatic interpretation and violates the overall broad context of scripture, See, the Pentecostal view is that believers can be edified by speech that is not understood. When a Charismatic prays in an ecstatic language that he doesn't understand, gabba dabba ding dong doodles, give me a Honda, give me a Honda, give me a Cadillac Anonda, when he says that, he doesn't understand what's going on either. The Charismatic, who prays in a so-called private prayer language, has no idea what he's saying. So the Pentecostal view is that believers can be edified by speech that is not understood. That a believer can be sanctified by a non-cognitive mystical experience. That's what they have to believe to believe that. The problem with this view is that Paul explicitly says that understanding is necessary if Christians are to be edified. And that's the teaching of Scripture. Sanctify them. Jesus said this, John 17, 17. Sanctify them by thy truth. Thy word is truth. The Holy Spirit uses the truth of Scripture to sanctify us, to edify us. We are sanctified as we learn and understand divine revelation. That's how the Holy Spirit works in us, to sanctify us, to edify us. We are not sanctified mystically by having some kind of experience. If an individual could be edified without understanding, then so could a group of believers. Do you understand what I'm saying here? If an individual could be sanctified by going yabba-dabba-ding-dong-doodles, then everybody in the church could be sanctified without translation. You see? And then we have a contradiction in the chapter here. So the Charismatic interpretation basically says this, ask and admit this, look Paul says to the people, look tongues are useless, tongues are useless unless they're interpreted into a language people can understand. However, the Charismatic has to assert simultaneously, oh by the way, that a private Christian, tongues which are not understood, which are just gibberish, which are nonsensical, do edify. You see the contradiction here. If tongues cannot edify unless they're interpreted or translated for a group, then they cannot edify for a single person. You see the absurdity of this private prayer language argument. Obviously, the Apostle is not going to contradict himself in the same chapter. Further, there is nothing in Scripture which indicates that God's people can be edified mystically, apart from understanding divine revelation. The doctrine of sanctification, progressive sanctification, is that the Holy Spirit uses means. The means of grace, the word of God, the sacraments, everything boils down to understanding divine revelation if you're going to be sanctified and edified by God. One should never adopt an interpretation of scripture which contradicts the broader teaching of scripture. The charismatic view, we have a private prayer language being taught here, contradicts the chapter explicitly, and it contradicts the overall teaching of Scripture. You need to understand the Bible, you need to understand what God is saying in Divine Revelation, if you are to be sanctified progressively. Now, one could argue that the person who spoke in tongues was edified because God gave him the understanding. In other words, the Spirit enabled the speaker to translate his own language. Now, the problem with this is twofold. First, if God gave the individual tongue speaker the understanding of tongues message, then why would that person not share that crucial information with a congregation? You remember, tongues is divine revelation. It's not just people making up stuff. It's supposed to be divine revelation. If you get this private revelation here, and you're in public worship, why would you not share it with a church? If you didn't share it with a church, God would rebuke you. Paul would forgive you. And second, if the tongue speaker has the supernatural ability to translate his own tongues, then why doesn't Paul simply instruct tongue speakers to tell the congregation a translation, instead of giving a dissertation on the superiority of prophecy? See what I'm saying here? Look, if people who have the gift of tongues also have the simultaneous gift of translation, then Paul would not be arguing here for the necessity of translation and the superiority of prophecy. Paul would simply say, look, what are you guys doing? You're getting this gift of tongues, but you're not talking to people in translation. But Paul doesn't do that. Paul argues for the superiority of prophecy. Paul argues for the necessity of translation for people to be edified. So the idea that we have private prayer language here, which is occurring in public worship, is just absurd. Paul says in verse 5 that if the tongue speaker did not interpret the foreign language, prophecy would not be superior. You see, the gift of tongues and the translation of tongues are two separate gifts. There is not one example in scripture of people speaking in tongues and then turning right around and translating their own message for the benefit of the congregation. So one thing is very, very clear. Paul is not teaching that Christians should use unintelligible tongues in public or in private worship to the Oedipod. Did you understand that? Paul is not teaching the private use of prayer tongues. It's a charismatic invention. It's a human tradition. It has nothing to do with scripture. And as I noted earlier, private prayer tongues is just yabba-dabba-doo gibberish. It's nonsensical baloney. Anybody can go, I can do that anytime I want. A pagan, I can teach a pagan to do it. And I remember when I was a charismatic and I was taught to speak in tongues. They bring you up to the front of the church, they lay their hands on you, they tell you that you're receiving the spiritual gift of being filled with the Holy Spirit, and then they tell you, now I want you to pray, I want you to speak, but don't speak English. Well, what are people going to do? Well, if they don't know Spanish or Russian or something, what are they going to do? They're going to babble. They're going to babble nonsense. Tongues is a learned phenomenon. It is not a spiritual gift. Modern tongues, I'm saying. Modern tongues is a learned phenomenon taught by charismatics. It's a human tradition. It has nothing to do with scripture. Once again, why is it important to establish from scripture that tongue speaking always refers to real foreign languages and not gibberish? And not yabba dabba doo? It is significant because it gives us an objective method to determine if modern tongue speaking is genuine or man-made nonsense. If the charismatic movement is truly a work of God, then we could prove it easily. Let's go down to the big charismatic church in town here, the Assemblies of God, let's get on our paper quarters, let's take the tongue speaking, let's go down to the University of Michigan, or Michigan State University, and take it to the linguistics department and have them analyze it. Is it a real language? If it is, they will be able to tell. If it is a foreign language, a real human language, they'll be able to translate it and tell you what it says. But every time this has been done, the linguistics experts say this, we don't have anything that even resembles a language. All we have is people babbling like a bunch of drunken idiots. Yabba, dabba, doo. You see, a sign, according to scripture, is a publicly verifiable miracle. A sign is a publicly verifiable miracle. That's what makes it a sign. Is it a sign for somebody to go, yabba, doo, yabba, doo, yabba, yabba? That's not a sign. I can do it. I can teach you to do it. I can teach anybody to do it. And nobody knows whether it's real or not, because that's a bunch of gibberish. But if I came up here and I've never spoken Russian before and I speak perfect Russian, you'd go, that's a miracle. There's something going on here. But see, if I go yabba dabba doo, that's not a miracle. That's not a sign. It means nothing. You see, speaking in a foreign language which is not learned would certainly constitute a divine miracle. However, speaking in gibberish or unknown sounds could be imitated by anyone. by either a Christian or an essay person. And every example, every instance in the 20th century where tone speaking was analyzed by linguistics departments, and these are unbelievers, they have no axe to grind one way or the other. Okay? It was shown to be a fraud. Modern tones are not real languages, they're gibberish. Okay? They're gibberish. Give me a Honda, give me a Honda, give me a Honda, Cadillac and Honda. Okay? It's gibberish. And there are a number of other problems associated with the charismatic practice of speaking in tongues. First, virtually all charismatics, or at least most charismatics, teach that everyone who is baptized with the Holy Spirit should speak in tongues. I believe that's the official position of the Assemblies of God. Thus, you go to these churches, and let's say you're not a charismatic, and they teach you that you need to come up and come to the altar and receive this special gift of the Holy Spirit, you're going to speak in tongues. And they teach people, they've got great ways to teach people how to speak with tongues. Some of you, however, clearly contradicts the Bible, because Paul says this, 1 Corinthians 12.30, Do all speak with tongues? It's a rhetorical question in the Greek. It demands a no answer. No. Not all Christians speak with tongues. Some have the gift of tongues, some do not have the gift of tongues. As Apollo is saying. When the Apostle lists the spiritual gifts in the same chapter, he makes it clear that not all believers have the same spiritual gift. Saying, to another, different kinds of tongues, verse 10. In other words, some have the gift of prophecy, some have the gift of tongues, some have the gift of interpretation, and so on. There are different gifts in the church, not everyone has the same gift. Paul assumes that only some believers have the gift of tongues. Further, he says this in 1 Corinthians 14, he says, look, I wish that all spoke with tongues. The statement alone proves that everyone in the Corinthian church should not speak with tongues. The Apostle had the common charismatic teaching that everyone who gets the baptism in the Holy Ghost is to speak with tongues. Paul could never say that. You see, Paul assumes that tongues are only for some people. It's a gift only for some people. This common charismatic teaching on tongues as a universal initiation sign of spirit baptism is clearly unspiritual. It was not held by the Apostle Paul, or any of the Apostles. It is not taught in the New Testament. And it cannot be proved from Scripture. It is a charismatic tradition of human origin, not Scripture. And then B, or second. Paul tells the Corinthian church that no one is to speak in tongues without proper interpretation. Why? Well, because without proper interpretation, no one's going to understand what's going on, and no one's going to be edified. Paul makes that crystal clear. Yet, in many charismatic churches, if not most charismatic churches, and I was a charismatic for years, and I saw this all the time, it is very common for many people to speak with tongues and nobody interprets. In fact, rarely is there an interpretation. It's rare. So the Charismatics are clearly violating, even if it were real tongues, which it's not, it's yabba-dabba-ding-dong googles, they're clearly violating the teaching of the Apostle Paul. And then third, the Apostle instructs the Church to allow only two or three people at the most to speak in tongues. And these people are to take turns. And then they must take turns in order to preserve Church order. That's in 14, 27, and 30. Yet, most charismatic churches, if you go to them, way more than two or three people are speaking in tongues. They're not taking turns. They're not waiting for it to be translated. They're speaking in tongues all at the same time. So you've got 25 people going, and it's never being interpreted. It's just a bunch of baloney. Paul says, two or three at the most, it must be translated. You must take turns. And if it's not translated, keep your mouth shut. But that is not practice in charismatic churches today. And believe me, I've been in many different charismatic churches. And that's four. The charismatic obsession with tongues is unwarranted, given the fact that the gift of tongues is dead last in the apostles' enumeration. Okay? The charismatic movement is obsessed with tongues. Times is the most common and popular gift and the reason for that is quite simple because it's the easiest to manipulate as fraud It's the easiest for anyone to do without public verification. Anybody can stand up and go yabba-dabba-doo Anybody can get up there and Anybody can do that but when you get there you prophesy and Okay, of course they prophesy also, but it's always very non-specific. I'm going to name my people and I will bless you. I will bless you with blessings. Okay, anybody can do that, but very few people can get up there and say, well, next week you're going to get in a car wreck and your legs are going to get chopped off. The charismatic movement, tongues are very popular, because there's something that anybody can do. Anybody can go yabba dabba doo. Why not seek and desire the best gifts Paul says? Could it be not that the speaking nonsensical gibberish, scooby-dooby-chickadee-ding-dong is very easy, while making accurate detailed predictions about the future or healing compound fractures is very hard? That's the truth of the matter. That's the truth of the matter and that's why the charismatic movement is a big fraud and is not of God. Could it be that the charismatic movement is fueled by self-deception? and counterfeit phony miracles, foot lengthenings? Further, what if Christians could speak in the tongues of angels? Would it resemble the gibberish practiced in the charismatic churches? No. Once again, all languages have a discernible pattern. Noun phrases, verb phrases, adjectives, adverbs. This brings us to a little digression here. which I call the Excursus on the Charismatic Movement. Now we've seen that modern tongues are abroad. Modern tongues have nothing to do with the tongues in the Bible. Modern tongues are just people making gibberish. They're not true biblical tongues. So, this brings us to a brief discussion of the Charismatic Movement. I want to make some comments about the Charismatic Movement. And I want to make some comments because, you see, you read many modern Christian histories of the Church, And they generally speak of the charismatic movement as a revival. They think of this as some kind of a modern revival, as a breath of fresh air upon a dying, formalistic Protestantism and so forth. And there's no question that the spread of Pentecostal experience in doctrine throughout Protestant denominations and the papal church. But there's been a huge spread of charismatic doctrine and teaching since the 1960s. And this is due to a number of factors. First of all, of course, the modern eschatology of pre-millennial dispensationalism has just become hugely popular, there's no question. It's heretical, it's nonsense, but it's very popular. The Tim LaHaye books about the coming of the Antichrist and all this sort of stuff, they're very, very popular and they're even read by the Eden. Very, very popular. The rise of modern styles of worship with rock and roll bands and puppet shows and Bobo the Clown and all these sorts of church growth techniques. Yes, there's been great growth. There's been a great growth of the charismatic movement. And yes, it's popular because it's very experiential. It's a form of Christian existentialism, you see. We live in a culture where people don't read. Most people do not read. Most people watch television. Most people are hedonistic and they want to have an experience. They want to have some sort of mystical experience. And the charismatic movement fulfills this desire for an experience. Because it is very non-doctrinal. It is basically experience-oriented. So there's been a huge growth in popularity of this movement. There's no question. Even among Romanists. So, of course, we want to ask the question, is this a genuine revival? Is this truly a work of God? Or is it not? And there's many ways that we can answer this question. Now, if we examine the Charismatic Doctrine, and we examine the life, or the ethics produced by the Charismatic Movement, we'll see that it is not of God. Jesus said, you shall know them by their fruits. Are they true prophets or are they false? And you know by fruits Jesus means examine their doctrine, examine their life. Are they leading the Christian life? Are they heeding to the true biblical doctrine? And on both fronts, the charismatic movement is not. We will see that. So let's look. Let's examine this and we will demonstrate that the Charismatic Movement is not of God under a number of different topics. First, you can tell a lot about a movement by examining its origins. For example, the great Protestant Reformation and its roots in a rediscovery of the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone. The sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus Christ, the vicarious atonement. discovered by Luther and Zwingli, and the rediscovery of Biblical principles of worship primarily by John Calvin and people like John Knox, rooted in a rediscovery of Biblical truth. You see, the Reformation was a great revival, founded upon the bedrock of Scripture. The Holy Spirit used God's Word to awaken Europe, then America and beyond. But what about the origins of modern Pentecostalism? Is it rooted in a rediscovery of great biblical truths that were lost for almost 2,000 years? No. On the contrary, the doctrine of spirit baptism as a second work of grace grew directly from the heretical soil of second blessing holiness movement of the 19th century. It grew out of heresy. It sprung from the soil of heresy. not from the rediscovery of Biblical truth. See, many holiness teachers of the 18th century rejected the Orthodox doctrine of sanctification as a lifelong process of spiritual growth in which sin is never completely eradicated in the believer, in which we have to study scripture and pray and work for progressive sanctification. They rejected that. You see, Methodistic holiness teachers taught that Christians could receive a, quote, second blessing which gave the Christian in one moment entire sanctification. In other words, he'd get zapped. And you still see this reflected in modern Pentecostal churches where at the end of the sermon they'll have, you know, come to the front of the church and rededicate your life to Christ and get zapped. Have an experience. See, these second holiness preachers, they thought that the sinful nature could be completely eradicated in the believer. unless the believer could be perfect and entirely sinless. This comes from Wesley. The second blessing doctrine of entire sanctification of sinless perfection is condemned in scripture as false, as heretical. Listen to what the Apostle John says. This is from 1 John 1.8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Now this second blessing doctrine, the Pentecostals took this doctrine one step further. And they thought that the baptism of the Spirit was the third blessing. Now what happened is, as more and more Baptists became involved in the movement, they rejected the idea of entire sanctification. And then the Fathers of Modern, they made the Baptism of the Holy Spirit the second blessing. You see, they skipped the second step as it became more influenced by Baptist theology and the Assemblies of God grew mostly out of Baptists. Nevertheless, the Fathers of Modern Pentecostalism were heretical. They were heretics. They were false prophets, false teachers. In 1901, Charles F. Parham During the prevalent Pentecostal insistence on the baptism of the Holy Spirit to the conclusion that tongues should still be the sign of Pentecostal experience. You see, he's the father of modern Pentecostalism. In part, his student, W.J. Seymour, popularized this new Pentecostalism beginning in 1906 at the famous Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles. that the original Pentecostal teachers, Parham and Seymour, taught a Methodistic holiness via the second blessing of entire sanctification in which sin is completely eradicated in the believer. They taught that. And it's heretical. This, they said, was followed by a third blessing, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by tongues. Within 20 years of the founding of modern Pentecostalism by Charles Parham, Many people became Pentecostal or Baptist rather than Methodist holiness backgrounds. And, of course, the third blessing became the second blessing, as I just noted. But the point here is this. Pentecostalism, the modern Charismatic movement, did not grow out of careful exegesis of God's Word. It is not a revival rooted in Biblical truth, but rather is grew out of a heretical holiness revivalism. You see? Its foundation at bottom is heretical, not scriptural. You see? It is based on a human tradition. It is based on man-made doctrine. And therefore, it cannot sanctify. Therefore, it is heretical. Therefore, it is not a work of God. And then second, note this. The second and most compelling evidence that the charismatic movement is not of God is the rejection of the biblical doctrine of the gospel by the vast majority of Pentecostal and Charismatic preachers, teachers, authors, and adherents. What does the Bible say? The Bible says, John 16, 13, that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. The Holy Spirit came to exalt Christ, not man, in John 15, 13-14. Yet, what do you encounter when you look at the teaching and preaching of the Pentecostal movement? In charismatic churches, 99.9% of the time, there are rare exceptions, one finds the false gospel of Arminianism, or semi-Pelagianism, you see. They're preaching a false gospel. Now I tell you this, I ask you this question, if somebody has a special fullness of the Holy Spirit, if somebody has this second blessing, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and is supposed to be super-Christian, and more godly, and more attained unto righteousness than other Christians, would they be preaching a false gospel? I ask you this, would they? The Holy Spirit is the purest truth. If they had more of the Holy Spirit than other Christians, would they not be teaching a pure gospel? You see, our unionism, or semi-plegianism, teaches that salvation is a cooperative process between God and man. That's called synergism. God does his part, And that man has to contribute his part in order to be saved. And, for Arminianism, the decisive thing in salvation is not the work of Christ. It is not Christ's atoning death, but it is the will of man, you see. They teach that Christ died for everybody. Christ shed His blood and He forgave the sins of all men, without exception. However, you cannot appropriate that unless you exercise your free will. And people who do not exercise their free will and choose Christ go to hell. Therefore, for the Arminian, the decisive factor in salvation is man's choice. Faith in the Arminian system is not a gift of grace. It is not a work of God in the heart of man through regeneration, the gift of the Holy Spirit. But, rather, faith is self-generated and man receives glory because his faith saves him. He is saved because of faith, not through faith as an instrument, an instrumental means of salvation, you see. They've replaced the gospel with the expression, accept Jesus as your personal savior. Unbiblically defied. You see, anyone who preaches a false gospel, anyone who preaches a false gospel, Paul curses them. And they are not a genuine revival. We know this by their fruits. By their fruits you shall know them. Beware of false prophets. The charismatic movement is composed of false prophets who preach a false gospel. Separate yourselves from this false heretical movement. Repent. And then third, there is a general tendency, and believe me I speak from experience, I was a charismatic for years, My wife was a charismatic also. Within the charismatic we went to having an experience over belief in orthodox doctrine. Me and another pastor, an orthodox Christian church pastor on a television show, we would go on the air and we would discuss doctrine, we'd discuss healing or whatever. We'd get these phone calls from charismatics and they'd say, It doesn't matter what your exegesis of scripture is, I don't use the word exegesis, but it doesn't matter what the Bible says, I had an experience. You see, this dangerous tendency is totally contrary to the work of the Holy Spirit, which is to do what? It is to lead believers into the truth, into a belief of the truth and obedience to the truth. And the teaching of the apostles who were obsessed with advocating and defending Orthodox doctrine. Anybody who claims to be of the Holy Spirit, if he was not a fanatic about Biblical truth, about Biblical doctrine, about theology, is a liar, and a false prophet, and a theological pervert. You see, when debating various charismatics regarding tongues, prophecy, and these subjects, The argument almost always is, well, I had an experience. My friend had an experience, rather than solid, biblical exegesis of Scripture. The historical, grammatical, theological method of interpreting Scripture. I had an experience. What is the problem with that? Why is that not the foundation of truth? Why is that not how we are sanctified, by simply having an experience? Because heretics have experiences. Hindus talk about divine healing and having experiences. Satanists talk about having experiences. Secular humanists and atheists talk about having an experience. Experiences are not the way to find truth or determine truth. The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible is the way that we determine truth. Not having an experience. And the most troubling thing about the charismatic implicit existentialism is their extension of the right-handed fellowship to blatant, damnable heretics on the basis of these infidels receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You see, in the charismatic movement today, an extension of the right-handed fellowship to Romanists and Papists, who are damnable heretics. Because they speak in tongues too. Because they've had a wonderful experience too, you see. They're embracing anti-Christ. They're embracing a false, damnable, idolatrous religion because, yes, we've had a wonderful experience, just like you. Well, the fact that they deny the gospel, the fact that they worship idols, the fact that they're a butchered rank, blasphemous heretics, well, that doesn't matter. We both have had the same experience, you see. You see the dangers of following an experience instead of following Scripture? See, many Romanists have supposedly received spirit baptism in the gift of tongues. But these same Romanists go to Mass, which is blasphemous. They worship Mary, they worship the saints, they worship statues, they worship relics. You see, the spirit is the spirit of truth, the spirit of holiness. He does not lead people into damnable heresies. He does not lead people into idolatry. And the fact that the Charismatics are embracing Romanists is great evidence that the Charismatic movement is not of God at all, but is of Satan. It is a false movement. Roman Catholic author Edward D. O'Connor writes this, Some people have been brought to a frequent use of the sacrament of penance. to the experience of baptism in the Spirit. Others have discovered a place for devotion to Mary in their lives, whereas previously they had been indifferent or even antipathetic toward her. One of the most striking effects of the Holy Spirit's action has been to stir up devotion to the real presence in the Eucharist." In other words, the Pentecostal experience, he argues, has made papists to be faithful Judaizers and idolaters. Beloved, that is not the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not lead people to Rome. The Holy Spirit does not lead people to idolatry and to legalism, but to the opposite. You see, to the solace of the Reformation. Therefore, ergo, it's very clear, it's very evident that the Charismatic Movement is not a work of God. And then number four. The cherished man of woman is revealed as not of God by its disregard of God's law word. You see, true revival brings holiness, that is, obedience to God's law. And there are many examples of a blatant disregard of God's law of the cherished man of woman. First, of course, there's the adoption, the widespread adoption of dispensational pre-millennialism in the charismatic movement, where God's holy law is said to be over with. That clearly is not a work of the Holy Spirit to say that, that we can disregard the whole Old Testament law, including the Ten Commandments. There's a widespread disregard of the Christian Sabbath in the charismatic movement. Does the Holy Spirit teach people to break the Fourth Commandment? Does the Holy Spirit teach people to violate one of God's most important commandments? No. This movement is not of God, then. The Holy Spirit teaches us to obey God's law. Then, of course, the charismatic movement. They permit women, very often, to preach and teach in the public Christian assemblies. You see, women teaching in public assemblies is a sign of apostasy. Women being in leadership roles, we learn from the Old Testament prophets, is a sign of apostasy and a curse from God. Yet they embrace women preachers. Women preaching in the church is a sign of apostasy. It's great rebellion against God. Can this be of the Holy Spirit too? No, it is not. Therefore, the charismatic movement is not a revival from God, but a false movement. The apostle says, if anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write in you are the commandments of the Lord. And when did the apostle Paul say this? He says this immediately after this. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for women to speak in church. In the same Greek word they're used to describe homosexuality earlier in the book of Romans. If anyone thinks themselves to be a prophet or a spiritual man, let him acknowledge that the things that are right to you are the commandments of the Lord. Let him obey, in other words. Now, almost a decade later, the apostle says this in 1 Timothy 2, 11-12. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man to be in silence. portion of the scripture of Paul appeals to the pre-creation, pre-fall creation ordinance of covenant headship. When you see women teaching in churches, when you see women elders, when you see women prophets, speaking in church, when you see women teaching and preaching, women having authority over men, it is a sign of apostasy. It is a sign of false prophets. It is a sign of great apostasy and rebellion against God. And this is characteristic of the charismatic movement today. And then, next, most charismatic churches have adopted the carnal Christian heresy. This teaching asserts that one can accept Jesus as Savior, and then at a later time, when you decide you want to repent, well, at a later time, then you can believe you can accept Jesus as your Lord, and then you start to obey God, and stop fornicating and smoking pot and all these sorts of things. If one desires to get serious about Christianity, they can repent later on and submit to Christ as Lord. But you can live in sin all you want and accept Christ into your heart and be a Christian. According to this demonic doctrine, people who accept Jesus as their personal Savior, yet who continually, who habitually lie, fornicate, steal, commit adultery, love the world and act like heathen, they're just merely carnal Christians. They're saved, they're carnal Christians, they just need to repent later on when they want to get serious about Christ. The Bible is crystal clear that people who do not repent are not saved. The Bible is crystal clear that Jesus saves both from the guilt and the reigning enslaved power of sin. Read Romans 6 or Galatians 2 or 2 Corinthians 5, 15-17 or Ephesians 2.10 or Colossians 3.1-5 and 7, 1 John 3.9. The Bible is crystal clear that people who do not repent but rather habitually commit sin are not saved. Read Hebrews 12.14, 1 John 1.6, 1 John 2.3-4 or Matthew 3.7-10. In 7.21, Galatians 6.7-8, Luke 13.5 and so on. The Bible is crystal clear that Jesus must be believed in both as Lord and Savior to be a Christian. We don't accept part of Christ. We don't believe in part of Christ. We believe in the whole Christ. Therefore, the charismatic movement is not of God. It is antinominant. And also note this. Charismatic churches have probably done more in the 20th century. to corrupt the worship of God than anyone else. They have turned the reverent worship of a holy God, a thrice holy God, into a stage show with comedian pastors and gimmicks and rock groups and drama groups. They have perverted the worship of God. Does the Holy Spirit pervert the worship of God? No, of course not. And then the special things that Charismatics have, the special sign gifts, such as the sign of healing, prophecy, and tongues, has been exegetically, theologically, and even empirically proved to be a lie. It is obvious to any unbiased interpreter that what is occurring in Charismatic Churches today, babbling gibberish, yabba-dabba-doo, making unspecific, unprovable prophecies. Oh, bless me, my people. If you come to me, I will bless you. Foot lengthenings, phony healings, like pastors driving limos and living in mansions. Okay? It is not a work of God. It has nothing to do It has nothing in common with what occurred in the Apostolic Church, where you could see people rise from the dead, where you could see compound fractures healed, where you could see real foreign languages being translated, where you could see real miracles that were obvious to all, even the enemies of the Church. There's nothing in common between what occurred in the Bible and what occurs today with the Charismatic Movement. You see, if you look at the Book of Acts, if you look at the Gospels, the Pharisees, the enemies of the Church did not deny that Christ was doing real miracles. They could not deny it. They could not deny that the apostles had done a great work of God, that they had done many miracles. They could not deny this. They had to admit it. But nobody today believes in the miracles of the Charismatics except Charismatics themselves that are deluded. And then finally, Charismatics are notorious for sloppy, shallow, and even unbiblical theology. One of the most popular Charismatic speakers today, Benny Hinn, actually taught that there were nine persons in the Godhead. He actually taught that, which is totally heretical. And then after he was confronted about this obvious heresy, of course he was not asked to step down as pastor, he was not asked to quit teaching, he was confronted, he recanted, but months later he began teaching the nine person view again, you see. Can a man who is a heretic be a true prophet? Can a man who's a heretic be a real healer of God? Of course not. They've got Kenneth Hagin and his disciples, Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, Charles Capps, and so on. They teach a cultic view of faith and a heretical doctrine of the atonement, yet they are wildly popular and have been embraced by many charismatic leaders. And of course, there's a couple of excellent books out that just show that Kenneth Hagin completely stole all his views from another heretic who was earlier. It is not an accident that all the great theological works written since the beginning of the Reformation, including works in the Holy Spirit, were written by non-charismatics. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, John Maas, Mooser, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Charles Hodge, John Murray, and so on. Also, it is telling that throughout church history, those in favor of the advancement of speaking in tongues, that is nonsensical gibberish, They've always been heretics. The Montanists, the Jansenists, the Quakers, the Irvingites, the Shakers, the Mormons, Charles F. Parham, W.J. Seymour, and so on. They've always been heretics. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. Jesus said in John 10, 3-5, My sheep hear my voice. If charismatic theologians have a greater spirit blessing than other theologians, then why are their works inferior and unbiblical? Why are they teaching heresy regarding the most important doctrine of salvation? Why are they perverting the worship of God? Why are they letting women speak in their churches? Why are they teaching an unbiblical form of ethics? Why are they notorious for immorality? Because, beloved, this is not a work of God. It is a false. movement, beware of false prophets. When the charismatic movement is analyzed doctrinally, ethically, and historically, and their supernatural gifts are examined under the light of scripture and examined empirically, the charismatic movement is revealed as a gigantic fraud and a great force for declension and apostasy and evangelical Protestantism. It is not a force for truth. It is not a force for revival. It is a force for apostasy in leading people who profess to be Protestants back into the embrace of Rome. You see, back away from Scripture. The Charismatic Movement is not a genuine revival. It is rather a man-centered, man-invented, man-generated movement. Beware of false prophets. Beware of the Charismatic Movement. It is heretical. It is dangerous. It is false. It is a fraud.