Yeah. That’s rather accurate, I think.
As to ritual . . . I suppose one could say brushing one’s teeth is a ritual.
I don’t think we’d say that breathing is a ritual.
I don’t think we’d say communicating with our spouses, friends and kids is a ritual—hopefully.
Praying in tongues is more like the latter two, for me. I’d feel exceedingly bereft of a robust way to communicate deep inner stuff and even routine stuff in a satisfyingly thorough way, without tongues.
I certainly agree about the pharisee aspect. And so have all the better pastors I’ve known.
Paul said
“I THANK GOD I SPEAK IN TONGUES MORE THAN YOU ALL”
for at lease a reason or two.
It was NOT a BAD reason.
He said “Forbid not to speak in tonuges” for a reason.
Naysayers tend to behave and talk as though those verses were not in the Bible for the New Testament Church age/era/dispensation.
Paul said
“I THANK GOD I SPEAK IN TONGUES MORE THAN YOU ALL”
***He said “Forbid not to speak in tonuges” for a reason.
Naysayers tend to behave and talk as though those verses were not in the Bible for the New Testament Church age/era/dispensation.***
St Paul could speak Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, possibly Latin and Sythian. This is what he meant by tongues. He could preach to a Greek audience with Hebrews present and speak to both. No miraculous “tongues” needed. He insisted that TRANSLATORS be present in the congregation so all could understand the preaching in the vernacular.
What the Translators to the Reader 1611 KJV had to say about TONGUES.
TRANSLATION NECESSARY
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, “Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me.” [1 Cor 14]
The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them.
The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; [Clem. Alex. 1 Strom.] so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) [S. Jerome. Damaso.] so the Emperor of Constantinople [Michael, Theophili fil.] calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: [2::Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab]
So the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: [Cicero 5::de finibus.] so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness.
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10].
Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” [Isa 29:11]
Again, it was not gibberish, as Matthew Henry called it. It was real languages.
I believe one of the huge errors in the charismatic movement is the insistence that a spirit-filled Christian should "pray in the Spirit" (which according to the charismatic is speaking in tongues) and that to not do so is to miss out on all that God wants for us. What is overlooked here is that we are all to pray in the Spirit but according to Scripture not all Christians received the gift of speaking in tongues. We are told that the Spirit prays for us "in groanings that CANNOT be uttered" (unspoken). Tongues was also called a "lessor gift" and we were to earnestly seek the gifts that edified the church (all believers in Christ).
I also do not accept that somehow the unknown "languages" used are a "heavenly" language or the languages of angels. The reason is angels always spoke in a language that was understood by the person to whom the message was intended. They heard it in their own language. As far as the language we will all speak one day in Heaven, we do not know, but why would God only allow some to have it now and not others? Besides, the gift was not intended to edify the believer, it was for the unbeliever (we are told) so that they could hear the Gospel.
I do not deny that God certainly still works miracles today because I have personally experienced them in my life and if God wanted me to tell the Gospel to someone who did not speak English, he could certainly give me the power to speak their language or to allow them to hear the gospel by my English. Charismatic evangelists I have known told me they had to have translators at their revivals in a foreign country. Why if they have the gift of tongues would that be needed? What is being done under the name of the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the same that was given to the disciples and believers in the early church. They were sign gifts used to demonstrate authority from God. But we have a more sure word of prophecy today - the completed Bible. That is the authority and source of truth for today not a fabricated, worked up, flashy, showy, self-invented demonstration where the true Gospel is often not even preached.
Finally, I do not agree with everything Dr. MacArthur teaches but I believe he is correct in his observations and thoughts about what is being passed off today as from God. It was not posted to scorch anybody's feelings but to bring into the conversation another view that should be considered.