Answers to Chuck Smith on the gift of Tongues

[PastorJoey]

Answers for Chuck Smith on the gift of tongues​

By: Joey Hamlin​

​

9. Speaking in Tongues

Chuck Smith: One of the areas of sharpest controversy within the body of Christ today involves speaking with other tongues, "glossalalia." At one extreme are people who label any exercise of tongues as satanic. At the other extreme are people who declare that you are not filled or baptized with the Holy Spirit unless you speak with other tongues. They declare that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In I Corinthians 13:1 Paul declares that tongues in themselves are not a valid evidence of the Holy Spirit within the life of a believer, for, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love [agape], I am become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal." In other words, the tongues are only meaningless sounds and have no validity if there is not that accompanying agape love.

Chuck Smith claims that those who teach that speaking in tongue is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit also teach that you cannot be baptized unless you speak in tongues. This is not true in regards to Word of Faith teachings. Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth E. Hagin (the two most predominant names in the movement) didn’t teach this. They taught the exact opposite.
While “tongues” are clearly the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism, they taught that tongues were not the Holy Spirit baptism itself; but the “evidence” of the Baptism. Because speaking in tongues are an act of our own will and not forced upon us, one could receive the baptism without showing evidence of it. Hagin referred to tongues clearly as the “initial bible evidence” of the Holy Spirit baptism. This simply means that the examples of the Holy Spirit baptism given to us in the bible resulted with the recipients speaking in tongues.

Chuck Smith:
Tongues Versus No Tongues

In the book of Acts, speaking in tongues often accompanied the epi relationship to the Holy Spirit. Such is the case in Acts chapters 2, 10, and 19. However, in the eighth chapter of Acts, when the Samaritan believers received the Holy Spirit, there is no mention that they spoke in tongues. However, it is obvious that there must have been some kind of phenomena that accompanied their receiving the Holy Spirit, for Simon the sorcerer was seeking to buy the power that Peter and John possessed; he desired that he might also be able to lay hands upon people that they might receive the Holy Spirit. It is evident that some kind of phenomena accompanied their receiving the Spirit because Simon wanted to buy the power so he could duplicate the feat. Later, in Acts 9:17, when Ananias laid his hands upon Saul (Paul) that he might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, there is no mention of Paul speaking in tongues. However, we do know that subsequently, as Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than all of the Corinthians. When Paul first experienced the gift of tongues is not divulged.

Chuck Smith recognizes that in the book of Acts most instances of the Holy Spirit baptism resulted in speaking in tongues and that with the Samaritans some kind of phenomena resulted but doesn't specifically state that they spoke in tongues. It should be no wonder what this “phenomena” was, seeing that in every other instance the phenomena was clearly tongues. The rules of bible interpretation call for it. There is no other logical conclusion. We should come to the same conclusion concerning Paul as well. There is no reason to believe any differently.

Chuck Smith: We must point out that a person who speaks in tongues and lacks agape love has less valid evidence of the indwelling or the filling of the Spirit in his life than a person who has never spoken in tongues and yet manifests love and other dynamic qualities of God's Spirit. I cannot deny the validity of the Spirit-filled lives of many of those dynamic leaders and laymen in the church today who have never enjoyed the experience of speaking in tongues, and I prefer their fellowship over many who promote the speaking in tongues as the only true evidence of the Spirit-filled life, but whose personal lives are marred by strife or pride and often even heresy.

When Paul wrote to the Galatians he declared, "The fruit of the Spirit is love." The real proof of God's Spirit filling a person's life is love. Love is the most valid evidence that a man is truly filled with the Spirit, and tongues without love are just meaningless sounds.

First Smith rightly interprets the WOF stance of tongues being the “initial evidence”. Even more accurately, it is “the initial bible evidence”. But in this paragraph he claims that it is taught that tongues are the “only true evidence of the Spirit filled life”.
Also, Chuck Smith doesn't seem to make any distinction between the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. All who are born again have the Holy Spirit in them, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit is when He comes upon you and fills you to overflowing. There are Christians who live and die who never experience this that lived upright and holy lives and full of love. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, as Hagin put it, is “subsequent to salvation”. Salvation and the Holy Spirit baptism are two different experiences. They can be experienced back to back or years apart.
Specifically, love is not an evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. Walking in love is evidence of salvation. We know who is His by their love for the brethren. If someone doesn't exhibit the love of the father, I don't question their Holy Spirit baptism, if I questioned anything it would be their salvation. Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits”.

 

[CindyisHis]

Amen, Pastor J. I'd much rather hear what you have to say on this than Chuck Smith. However, Chuck Smith has some good things to say too. He is not WoF, so obviously we differ on a few topics, but I heard him once in person (yes, I have a very dear friend who is not WoF and very Calvary Chapel ). Anyway, my friend took me to hear him, and I have to say, what he taught on that particular night (Gen. 22) was very good. At other times, I have had to wince at some of the things so contrary to scripture.

Thanks for pointing the truth out in your post. You're right on.

 

[KingZzub]

Good stuff!

 

[Crosslight]

Very good..

I wish we could all understand the value of speaking in tongues, hang on to this understanding, and never get 'sloppy' about it.

Often, I have to refresh my faith in the issue, just because my silly mind wants to battle a logic war with my spirit.

Lord, please keep Your revelation fresh within us, and help us to be hungry for more. \o/

stace