Why I Left The Tongues Movement - By Alfred H. Pohl

social_media_nav_bar

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS and FOLLOW

REASON # 2

AN UNSOUND BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THEIR DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Tongues people build their doctrine of the Holy Spirit largely on the Book of Acts and 1 Corinthians, chapters 12-14. The emphasis falls upon Acts and I recall my own ministry from this book, in which I would formulate doctrine without recognizing that it was a historical book, a record of the Church's beginning and not primarily a book of doctrine as the Epistles are.

My first point, then under this heading is:

FORMULATING DOCTRINE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS

In studying the book of Acts the careful student must recognize several important characteristics of the book. Unless he does, he can come up with strange, peculiar, and erroneous doctrines, which in fact, many have done.

Consider with me the following four characteristics of Acts which I have called, "Keys to a Proper Understanding of the Book of Acts":

1. That it is, primarily, a historical book, not a doctrinal book as the Epistles are.

2. That it is a book recording the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament, from the Age of Law to the Age of Grace—the Church Age.

3. That it is a book recording the beginnings of the Church.

4. That it is a book that primarily centers around Christ's apostles—it is indeed "The Acts of the Apostles."

My comments on each of these four keys must of necessity be brief here.

However, those desiring an expanded study may write for a set of tapes entitled, "The Four Group Receptions of the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts."

KEY 1: ACTS IS, PRIMARILY, A HISTORICAL BOOK, NOT A DOCTRINAL BOOK.

On the other hand, the Epistles were written primarily to reveal and teach church doctrine. It is dangerous, then, to begin to formulate our doctrines on the historical happenings in Acts because a) there is a very real possibility that we will misinterpret the recorded happenings. Obviously, just that is being done, for we do have so many different interpretations, all from the same book of Acts. b) Because Acts is a book of transition and church beginnings, the full revelation of church truth is not yet there recorded or revealed. That is given to us in the Epistles.

In the Epistles we have the "full bloom" of New Testament revelation or church truth. That that is so, may I remind you of Paul's oft-repeated statement, "Behold, I show you a mystery." What did he mean by "mystery"?

Obviously, it was a New Testament truth not formerly revealed even in Acts but was being revealed in the Epistles. See 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; Ephesians 3:1-6, etc. We must be very careful, then, to look at events in the book of Acts in and with the full light of the Epistles to guide us in formulating our doctrines.

KEY 2: ACTS IS A RECORD OF THE TRANSITION FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, FROM THE AGE OF LAW TO THE AGE OF GRACE, THE CHURCH AGE.

Unless this fact is recognized we invite the possibility of wrong interpretation. When I teach the book of Acts, I usually suggest seven reasons why it must be considered a book of transition. May I just point out two of these reasons here briefly by asking these questions:

First, should a believer in the Church age be baptized before or after receiving the Holy Spirit? In Acts 8:12-17 and in Acts 19:5-6 we read that they were baptized before they received the Holy Spirit. But in Acts 10:44- 48 they were baptized after. Both practices are recorded in Acts. Which is right?

Secondly, should a believer be baptized in water more than once ? In Acts 19:3-5 we read that the twelve men at Ephesus who had already been baptized were rebaptized under Paul's ministry. Why? Is this to be the normal practice throughout the Church age? Or must we here recognize a transition—of Old Testament believers coming into the Church age, into the Church? As we read Acts 19:1-7 carefully, we discover that these twelve men were disciples of John the Baptist coming in transition into the church.

Paul recognized the transition, or else, why did he baptize them again? Was it not because he recognized that their first baptism in water was not a valid baptism for believers in the Church age, for "Christians"?

KEY 3: ACTS IS A RECORD OF THE CHURCH'S BEGINNINGS.

Consider this: First, God was introducing a new plan and program, and forming a new body, the Church, which did not exist in the Old Testament but had its beginnings in Acts.

What happened at Pentecost (Acts 2), Samaria (Acts 8), Caesarea (Acts 10), and Ephesus (Acts 19), is not an advance in the old body, that is, the body of Old Testament believers, but, rather, is the beginning of the new Body, the Church.

Secondly, inaugural events usually are unique, one-time events not necessarily repeated thereafter. Just as at the beginning of the Age of Law at Mount Sinai (Exo. 9:16-18), there were certain unusual events which were not repeated again, so we can expect that certain unique and unusual events which occurred at the beginning of the Church age, were not meant for duplication throughout the entire Church age.

Thirdly, events that occurred at the inauguration of the Church do not necessarily have to be adopted as the permanent pattern for the Holy Spirit's ministry throughout the entire Church age.

KEY 4: ACTS IS A BOOK THAT PRIMARILY CENTERS AROUND CHRIST'S APOSTLES.

Note the title, "The Acts of the Apostles." In it the Holy Spirit describes the prominence, the importance, and the authority of these men who were specially chosen by the Lord to personally represent Him in the completion of the laying of the foundation of the church. This is clearly expressed in Ephesians 2:20: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone."

The Lord Jesus had begun the foundation of the Church, but left the completion of that task to these chosen men to whom He gave, not only great responsibility, but also great authority and power.

To the apostles, and to those whom they authorized, were given credentials, attesting signs, the very attesting signs that Christ Himself had, to enable them to complete the Church's foundation, which, of course, relates to its beginning. That is what Paul is speaking about in 2 Corinthians 12:12: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." See also Hebrews 2:3-4.

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"

QUESTION: If every Christian could perform "signs, wonders, mighty deeds," then where or what are the "signs of an apostle" that Paul is speaking about? Therefore consider: Special sign credentials were given to the apostles for the laying of the church's foundation. These "signs, wonders, mighty deeds" were meant for the church's beginnings or inauguration and not meant to be the normal pattern throughout the entire church age. Yet many are endeavoring to duplicate these things today, the things that belonged to the apostles and the church's beginnings.

In concluding this section, may I repeat that we must be careful about formulating our doctrines in Acts because it is a historical book and not primarily a book of doctrine. We must recognize it's transitional character and also that it is the record of the church's beginnings as God used His specially chosen and empowered apostles to finish the foundation of the church. We should, therefore, understand the events recorded in Acts in the light of the "full-bloom" of divine revelation as given to us in the doctrinal epistles.

For a consideration of 1 Corinthians 12-14, I will make comment under REASON # 12 later in these studies.

TWO-STAGE EXPERIENCE TEACHING

Another doctrinal error, as I now see it, that is generally believed by Tongues people, and this is also largely based on the book of Acts, is that of a two-stage experience. That is, that at point "A" in time you were saved, and then at point "B," sooner or later, if at all, you experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues-speaking as the evidence. This view disregards the following:

1. In the Old Testament, believers did not receive the Holy Spirit and were not indwelt by Him as we Christians now are in the church age (1 Cor. 6:19- 20). Old Testament believers coming into the church in Acts were not experiencing a "second blessing" but actually a "first" as far as the Church or the Body of Christ was concerned. They were not making an advance in the old Body but were entering the new Body, the Church.

2. The normal Church age experience of salvation involves receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of believing on Christ, and that until a person has received the Holy Spirit he or she does not belong to Christ and to His Body (Rom. 8:9).

3. The four group receptions of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts (chapters 2, 8, 10, and 19) involve the first Church age experience of receiving the Holy Spirit to indwell the Church and the individual believer and not a second, for before Pentecost the Holy Spirit was not yet given (See Jn. 7:37-39).

We [in the pentecostal church] endeavored to support this two-stage experience teaching from the Book of Acts. However, a thorough study of Acts will show that this view is in error. Again, time does not allow me here to go into detail, but I will refer to one key Scripture that they use very often, and that I myself used to prove this two-staged-experience teaching. It is Acts 19:1-7. Please take time here to read this portion before you go on.

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve."

QUESTION: Had these men been "saved" in the normal New Testament sense of the word before Paul met them, and were they now, under Paul's ministry, experiencing a "second blessing," a baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit?

Or was this a first encounter with the promised Comforter, the Holy Spirit?

Please consider:

1. These men were disciples of John the Baptist (verses 3-4) and were coming out of the Old Testament into the Church age.

Remember that Old Testament believers did not receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. So these men, though believers as far as John the Baptist's ministry was concerned, had not yet received the promised Comforter (Jn. 14:16-18), and they indicated this in verse two when they said, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." That certainly is not the language of any New Testament Christian! They obviously were uninformed of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, etc.

2. Notice Paul's assessment of their spiritual status.

He apparently sensed some lack in these "disciples"; hence his question:

"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed [or, having believed]?" The Greek here does not indicate a time-lapse between believing and receiving. But with this question, Paul was probing whether they were New Testament believers already who had received the Holy Spirit or if they still were uninformed Old Testament saints. That is why Paul answered them as he did in verse 4:

"John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

You see, they were still on the other side of the cross and of Pentecost in their experience. And further, Paul recognized this fact by allowing them to now be baptized as Christians in the Church age.

To say then, that these men were "saved" before this meeting with Paul and then received the Holy Spirit here as a "second blessing" is far from the truth. I have a tract published by the Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri, U.S.A., which makes this statement: "The twelve men at Ephesus were saved men--`disciples'—but had not received the Holy Ghost." What an erroneous conclusion! And yet I have to admit that I myself at one time preached that way.

A final QUESTION: If these men were saved Christians before they met Paul, and had not yet received the Holy Spirit. In the light of Epistle teaching as we find it in Romans 8:9: "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His," where then were these men spiritually?

Obviously then, this nineteenth chapter of Acts cannot be used honestly as proof for the teaching of a "second-blessing" experience to be normal for the church age.

THE TEACHING THAT THE BAPTISM AND THE FILLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE SYNONYMOUS

Another teaching in which most Tongues people err is that the baptism and the filling or fullness of the Holy Spirit are one and the same. But these are two different and separate ministries of the Holy Spirit. The following is from a Pentecostal church promotional brochure I saw in British Columbia (Canada) in 1978: "The baptism in the Holy Spirit is also called by other suggestive phrases—'Filled with the Holy Spirit,' `The Gift of the Spirit was poured out,' `The Promise of the Father,' `The Holy Spirit came on them,' `Enduement from on high'." This failure to distinguish between baptism and fullness, as well as between other ministries and activities of the Holy Spirit has resulted in much confusion.

Spirit baptism is referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as placing us into the Body of Christ—the Church. There we read: "For by one Spirit are [or were] we all baptized into one body." This was a once-and-for-all event not to be repeated and takes place at conversion. But the filling with the Holy Spirit is not a once-for-all event but can be repeated over and over. See Acts 4:8 where Peter is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit though he was filled at Pentecost in Acts 2. In Acts 4:31 we see the whole church group filled again.

This fullness of the Holy Spirit is spoken of in Ephesians 5:18, where we are told: "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit." Greek scholars inform us that the phrase "be filled with the Spirit" actually means "be constantly under the control of the Spirit." The filling or fullness, then, is not just a once-for-all experience, but a constant, daily life yielded to the control of the Holy Spirit, so that the words, filled or fullness take on the meaning of "full control by the Holy Spirit."

On the other hand, the baptism is a once-for-all placing into the Body of Christ, not to be repeated. We cannot say that these two ministries of the Holy Spirit are identical. A person may be baptized with the Spirit but not filled; but he cannot be filled without being baptized with the Spirit.

Some Tongues-people also teach that there are two Spirit baptisms, one into Christ at conversion, and a second into the Holy Spirit as a subsequent experience. But this teaching is in direct contradiction of Paul's clear declaration that there is only one Spirit baptism—Ephesians 4:5.

Also consider the following:

1. Nowhere in the New Testament do we read of any Christian experiencing Spirit baptism more than once, but regarding the fullness—yes! In other words, the baptism is not repeatable but the fullness is.

2. There is no command anywhere in the Epistles that Christians should seek the baptism, but there is for the fullness (Eph. 5:18).

3. If baptism is an experience subsequent to conversion and is as important as Tongues-people insist that it is, then is it not strange that there is no reference anywhere in the Epistles to seek the baptism?

Another unsound teaching of Tongues-people should be mentioned here before we leave this section, and that is that Tongues- speaking is the INITIAL EVIDENCE of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Note the phrase, the "initial evidence." They teach that all Christians should experience the second blessing of the baptism or filling with the accompanying evidence of speaking with tongues. But this does not square with Paul's question, "Do all speak with tongues?" in 1 Corinthians 12:30, where obviously the answer is "No." To get around this they have had to invent the "initial evidence" teaching, which again is based on a questionable interpretation of events in the Book of Acts and is entirely without support from the Epistles.

There is not one clear reference in Scripture upon which they can build this particular teaching. And yet it is so basic to their whole system of belief and practice.

Reason #3--An over-emphasis of one gift of the Holy Spirit