SOURCE: “Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. “ –I Cor. 14:6-9

The subject of tongues is worth study because it is in the Bible, and we need to learn how it deals with this important subject for two great reasons.

First, the tongues, or charismatic movement, is experiencing rapid growth. Seeking for a deeper experience, well-meaning and sincere Christians have been led into the movement. Due to a false understanding, thousands of believers seek for the experience of speaking in tongues in stead of for the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit to win souls.

On the other hand, many more thousands of Christians are so repulsed by what seems to them fanaticism, that they turn entirely away from any study of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. They are so afraid they will get out on a limb that they never bother to climb the tree.

I want Christians everywhere to be filled with the blessed Holy Spirit of God. There can be no great soul-winning churches, no revival, without the power of the Holy Spirit. Zechariah 4:6 states, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Now there is a second great reason for studying the question of speaking in tongues. There is such widespread difference of opinion among sincere believers that the truth of the matter should be known. Every honest Christian should approach the study of tongues with an open mind and without prejudice. Surely God must be grieved when those who love Him and believe the Bible think so harshly of one another and differ so radically on such an important subject as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

In this study I will not talk about experience; we will only see what the Bible says. If one’s experience does not agree with the Bible, the experience is wrong, not the Bible. Experience is not the principle; the Bible is. And doctrine is not settled by one’s experience but by what the Bible has to say.

Several years ago a popular weekly television program featured a detective. If I recall correctly, his name was Sergeant Friday. In every story a situation developed in which Sergeant Friday said to a witness whom he questioned, “Just the facts, Mister. Just state the facts.” With God’s help, I shall do just that. We will see what the Bible says concerning the meaning of it, the motive behind it, the method for it, and the misunderstanding about it.


The word translated “tongues” in Acts 2:4 is the Greek word glossa. I have just counted 50 times in my Strong’s Concordance where the word appears in the New Testament. Sixteen times it refers to a literal, human tongue–the physical organ in the mouth; once, in Acts “cloven tongues like as of fire,” and 33 times the word means “language.” But not one time in all the Bible does “tongues” mean a heavenly language that only God understands. It never means something mysterious nor unknown to mankind. In Acts 2 it was not a jabber but normal, human languages known and spoken by people present on the day of Pentecost; and the nationalities of those in whose language they were allowed to speak are given:

“And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. “ — Acts 2:7-11.

Notice the language of Acts 2. Verse 4 states, “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues …. “ It does not say they spoke with the unknown tongue; they simply spoke with other languages Verses 7 and 8 say, “And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” Again the Bible does not say they spoke with some heavenly language and every man understood them because he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It simply says, “And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” Then verses 9 through 11 list the nationalities of people whose languages were being spoken.

There are only three places in the book of Acts whet people spoke in tongues. Namely, at Pentecost — Acts 2:1 11; in Caesarea — Acts 10:44-46; and in Ephesus — Act 19:1-6.

In Acts 10:46 we are told how Cornelius and hi household were heard to “speak with tongues, and magnify God.” And Peter responded by saying, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” These were ne converts, and Peter suggested baptism. The tongues spoken by Cornelius and his household were not miraculous tongues. It simply says that they spake with tongues and magnified God. Cornelius and his household were members of the Italian band from Rome, and their natural language was Latin. It is possible that in the centurion’s household were soldiers, slaves, servants and government officials from many of the nations of the Roman world. Could it have been that in their heavenly ecstasy they reverted each to his mother tongue in praising God?

It is a psychological truth that in moments of extreme delight or peril a foreigner will exclaim in his native tongue rather than in the language he has more recently acquired. But be that as it may, the tongues referred to in Acts 10:46 were known languages, not an ecstatic utterance.

The third historical record of people speaking in tongues in the book of Acts is found in chapter 19:1-6. When Paul met these twelve men in Ephesus, he asked, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” Their reply was that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Now how could followers of John the Baptist be ignorant of the Holy Spirit, when he preached the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11)? Evidently the true message of John the Baptist had been lost as it was passed from one disciple to another; then when these misled men heard a clear presentation of the Gospel, they were baptized (vs. 5). Verse 6 states, “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

Here again the Bible does not say they spoke with heavenly languages or in some ecstatic utterance, but that they spoke with tongues, or languages. Ephesus, a great cosmopolitan city, was made up of people from different parts of the Roman world. The Bible does not indicate what languages were spoken. But it clearly indicates that more than one language was used: “…they spake with tongues” (plural). And verse 7 states, “And all the men were about twelve.” It is possible that a dozen different languages were spoken, as these new Christians, filled with joy, prophesied.

Aside from these three instances in the book of Acts, tongues are mentioned in Paul’s discussion of the gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:1-14) and in I Corinthians 14. A study of I Corinthians 14 will reveal that the tongues mentioned are not so-called spiritual or heavenly languages. The languages used were normal, human languages. It was no jabber, no babble of sound unfamiliar to any human ear.

In that chapter it is referred to as “an unknown tongue”; but “unknown” is in italics, which means it is a supplied word, placed there by Bible translators for the sake of understanding. The languages mentioned here are simply foreign languages unknown to those present. Verses 23 and 24 make this especially clear:

“If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all.”

Now, visualize the scene. A church service is in progress and people are speaking in numerous foreign languages. Some uneducated or unlearned person, as the Scripture calls him, happens to walk into the service. He hears a number of people, all speaking with various languages; it is mass confusion, so he concludes all are mad! But if the church members would speak words easy to understand, instead of speaking in foreign languages that the unlearned do not know, then the unbeliever and the unlearned man would be convinced of all.

The use of the word “unlearned,” in verses 23 and 24, shows that the languages referred to were not supernatural. They could be learned by proper study. One can learn any foreign language if he studies it enough. If the languages used in I Corinthians 14 were a supernatural gift, then it would be available to the unlearned as well as the educated. If speaking in tongues means speaking in some mysterious language known only to God and not known to any group of men, no matter how much learning and education a man has, he will not understand the heavenly language. But foreign languages, known and spoken by men, can be learned. The fact that these languages were the kind that unlearned men did not understand indicates they were known, normal, human languages.

Remember, then, that tongues in the Bible simply mean languages and, in the case of I Corinthians 14, foreign languages, unknown by some who attended the church services.


I have already mentioned that there are only three places in the Bible where people spoke in tongues: Acts 2:1-11; 10:44-46; 19:1-6.

The central and most important Bible passage on the subject of tongues is found in Acts 2:1-11. First, it is important because it is the first time tongues are discussed in the New Testament. Second, it is important because speaking in tongues was on a larger scale in Acts 2 than in either of the other cases mentioned. Third, it is the most important passage because this is the only instance where we can be absolutely sure that speaking in tongues was a miraculous gift.

Continue reading

Charismatic Ecumenicalism & End Times Apostasy

By Pastor D. A. Waite Th.D, Ph.D

The overarching purpose of THE BIBLE FOR TODAY is to proclaim and to defend the principles of the Bible.
. . . Philippians 1:7 . . .

Pastor D. A. Waite Th.D, Ph.D

Introducing How2becomeAChristian

Hey check out this blogs sister site . It has a forum, various ways of following the blog, with TV channel and radio players.

The Failure of Charismatic Theology By: Ted Clore

This article is from Ted Clore
The Failure of Charismatic TheologyBy: Ted Clore

In his article, “Can a Charismatic Theology Be Biblical? Traditional Theology and Biblical Emphases”, Jon Ruthven1, Professor of Systematic Theology at Regent University School of Divinity, Virginia Beach, Virginia, attempts to build a case for Charismatic theology and put it forth as an acceptable, and more precisely, the proper theology for modern times. In doing this he will propose an abandonment of traditional method for a more modern method of determining theology, which I find detrimental to the theology he will propose.
He says in his opening statements, “These days, however, charismatic theology is no longer limited to a second-blessing, tongues-speaking appendix to the traditional Protestant ordo salutis, i.e., vocation, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification.” Ruthven, is stating his case for a new look and a restatement for his theology apart from the historic view of the church. In doing this he proposes the abandonment of “traditional” theology and the adoption of modern methods that would suit his theology and its presuppositions. He says, “Hence, this paper asks not, “what does the scripture say ” about these doctrines (a conflict does not lie significantly at this point), but rather, “what does it emphasize?”

In other words, he is going to propose that the proper method of context be abandoned of “traditional theology”, which he says he has no “significant conflict: with”, for a kinder and gentler method that is going to show a Charismatic theology in a better light.

He continues, “The thesis of the paper, then, is that when objective measures for determining emphasis, e.g., content analysis, are applied to the New Testament text, the orientation that emerges in these key doctrines is profoundly and emphatically charismatic.Emphasis mine.
What he is proposing at this point is that we abandon the reading of the text for it’s message, and it’s rational approach to language, grammatical concerns, linguistic practices, and social and historical consideration, to adopt his new method. That method is a statistical process in which words are counted, and themes are analyzed to determine content. This “weighted” analysis would then determine what the Bible “most talks about” and then the theologian would determine theology from that weighted chart or analysis. Which he claims will find a “profoundly and emphatically Charismatic” theology.

He continues, “Content analysis would indicate via programmatic statements that not only was Jesus’ mission of the Kingdom centrally charismatic (summarized in Lk 4:18-21,43; Acts 2:22; 10:38), but the fact that he specifically repeats the emphases of his own mission in the commissions to his disciples (Mt. 10; Lk 9 and 10[31] and Mt. 28:19-20, cf. 24:14, “until the end of the age.”) This same charismatic emphasis grounds the whole Book of Acts where the Church’s commission (1:5-8) is to present the kingdom in the power of signs and wonders and the preaching of the word.[32] The repeated summary statements of Paul’s mission(Acts 15:12; Rom. 15:18-20; 1 Cor. 2:4; 2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Th. 1:5), show the continuation of this normative pattern of presenting and living out the gospel of the exalted Christ in “word and deed.“[33] Here the implications of believers inaugurated, but not yet fully realized, “vice-regency” with the exalted, gift-bestowing Christ could profitably be explored.[34]” (Emphasis mine.)

Here he applies his hermeneutic, and a statistical analysis of the content overrides any message of context. The theme that is derived determines the theology because the analysis is weighted toward the “charismatic emphasis”, so the derived theology must also do the same.

In justifying his method Ruthven says, “I submit this paper for your scrutiny to test its viability as both a theological method and as a radical (in its original sense of going back to the root) Evangelical reframing of traditional doctrines. This paper represents the first stages of an attempt to re-vision a charismatic Evangelical theology, hence, on an indispensable principle of religious authority, i.e., sola scriptura.[3] Because we take this religious authority seriously, and therefore seek to screen out our own biases and traditions, we rely on some principles of content analysisM, a method extensively employed and proven in social sciences and literature for objectifying the content and emphases of communication. This study appears only as an outline of largely unfinished research.” Emphasis mine.

He admits that his method is a “radical reframing” of the Evangelical traditional theological method. In fact, he appeals to the Reformation claim of scripture alone, by imposing a completely unbiblical and “radical” method that will “reframe the traditional doctrines”. In other words, because he knows that the Charismatic theology falls short in the established and orthodox method of theology (Biblical context and appeal to scripture alone), he needs to rewrite the approach that WoF theology presents itself to the believer with. In order to do this a method of interpretation has to be adopted that is weighted toward the theology and abandons the traditional approach and orthodox doctrines of the church. His method becomes neither traditional nor scriptural in its approach to determining doctrine, despite his assertion that it is in the tradition of Sola Scriptura and the traditional theological method.

Also, I must point out, that Sola Scriptura, is an appeal to the context of scripture. It was used by the Reformers to answer the “ecclesiastical authority” of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the RCC didn’t want the scripture in the hands of the “common man”, because they knew that context would destroy the Papal infallibility that they claimed, and the scriptures alone would undermine the civil and spiritual government of the Church. Ruthven, in his abandonment of traditional Evangelical method, is calling for the same horrific thing, overlook context for content, and then apply it to an agenda to establish theological authority. He is calling for the believer to put a matrix of determining content ahead of the traditional Protestant method of context, thereby allowing this “colored lens” to determine the theology.

Ruthven continues, “To prosecute its thesis, this paper first provides background by briefly describing content analysis in contrast to traditional Evangelical hermeneutics. This is followed by a description of emphasis patterns within selected doctrines, as laid out by: 1) traditional Evangelicalism, 2) contemporary biblical theology, and 3) some procedures of content analysis. The paper concludes with a summary and implications of these contrasts for contemporary Evangelical theology and praxis. This study examines specifically certain emphases within the doctrines of hermeneutics, the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God, soteriology, and faith.Emphasis mine.

Ruthven knows that Charismatic theology falls short of Biblical and contextual theology of the Protestant church, which he readily admitted, and proposes a brand new method of determining theology. This is through procedures in which he knows that “content analysis” will lend itself to his agenda. And that agenda is to find a way to read the scriptures to prove his theology. He is exchanging context for content, and thereby abandoning the traditional Evangelical hermeneutics of the past, and delivering a forced view read into the context based upon content analysis.

I find that Charismatic theology falls far short of the task of answering Biblical and contextual theology, and has to adapt to philosophies, methods and ideals that fit its agenda. In this case this eclectic type of theology adopts methods used in industry, scholastics, medical and engineering related fields, that look for patterns and content of data, and applies this to the Word of God. His trust in the contextual and grammatical method, preferred by God and the historical method of the church to communicate theology, is found lacking for his agenda and therefore adopts a “radical new method” to approach scriptures. Ruthven in this article is hunting for method, and in so doing is willing to scrap a tried and true method that is harmful to his hermeneutic, to adopt his “radical reframing of traditional doctrines.”

This is another nail in the coffin that this aberrant theology needs to be placed in, in my opinion

1: Jon Ruthven; Ph.D., Marquette University; M.A., Central Bible College; B.A., Central Bible College; B.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Further study, Institute of Holy Land Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Ex-Faith Healer Mark Haville proves the gullibility of Charismatics

Vodpod videos no longer available.  

more about “An Ex-Faith Healer Explains The Trick…“, posted with vodpod


From Faith in Faith
to Faith in Christ

By: Peter Glover

Mark Haville’s is an extraordinary story. Converted into the Pentecostal/Charismatic church he quickly came under the spell of the Word-Faith teaching of men like Kenneth Copeland. But things did not stay that way for Mark…

Still in his mid-20’s, Mark became an itinerant minister travelling the country earning large sums of money through his ability to perform ‘signs and wonders’. Remarkably, he has renounced his former life, his beliefs, and his practices as a Word-Faith minister and is now speaking out boldly against the beliefs and practices of the current Signs and Wonders movement.

(Note: In the text ‘EN’ refers to Evangelicals Now, and ‘MH’ refers to Mark Haville. ‘PG’ is Peter Glover)

EN: “How did you first get involved with Word Faith teaching?”

MH: I was given lots of tapes and books by Kenneth Copeland which everyone was into at my church in North London. I believed that my Christian experience could validate my faith. It convinced me that what I was in was real. I was impressed by the numbers involved, their interest in the media, publications, the money and the general trappings of success – it bred the belief in me that biggest must be best.

EN: “What was the most appealing aspect of Word Faith teaching for you?”

MH: The Word Faith movement offered me power, what I believed to be a convincing testimony to the reality of God. It gave me support because I could show ‘things’ by preaching and performing. I was given numerous videos, audios and literature. All that I was given appeared glossy and successful.

EN: “How did you use what you saw in this material?”

MH: Basically, I copied it. I learned gradually to do what all these speakers like Copeland, Cerullo, Benny Hinn and others do. They manipulate audiences and individuals simply by the power of suggestion. They call the result ‘signs and wonders’. They are deluded. Gradually, I too had learned the process of controlling meetings and inducing hypnotic techniques through suggestion in churches. I did many of the so-called signs and wonders.

(PG: I was shown a video of a meeting held at a Pentecostal fellowship in Leeds being run by Mark. He explained the staged process of audience manipulation as things progressed. After a long period of singing what Mark described as ‘relaxing’ Spirit-focused songs, he appeared to be able to blow individuals over at will. They then remained on the ground for long periods – what is commonly termed ‘slaying in the spirit’).


EN: “You maintain then that you were able to induce an atmosphere that was conducive to hypnotic suggestion?”

MH: Absolutely. The techniques are no different to those used by any practising hypnotist. First, the people in these meetings are already coming with high expectancy – they want it to be God. Second, you need to create the right atmosphere – hence the long periods of singing certain types of songs to make people feel relaxed and warm.

EN: “What kind of praise and worship?”

MH: It is very important to use songs and words that are focused on the Holy Spirit. This creates a far more mystical atmosphere. Songs full of Christian or Biblical doctrine work against people suspending their critical faculties. The effect is to create a mindlessness that will open your audience up to suggestion. Most people have no idea just how powerful suggestion can be. Let me add that all this is not necessarily done wilfully by leaders. This is something many of them have stumbled upon. It works, so they do it and call it “the Holy Spirit”.

EN: “Will it affect everyone at the meeting?”

MH: No, not at all. If you do not believe that it is God that is doing these things in the meeting, there is no way you will fall down. But remember, I am the one running the show. Just like any good hypnotist, I will be ‘working’ the audience. I can tell which ones are the more suggestive by asking certain questions. I can then bring people forward, having gotten them into a very relaxed and accepting state. You have to remember, people who come really want to believe that God is at work. By telling them to stand in a particular place I am strongly influencing their belief that by standing where I have told them – on that exact spot – something is going to happen. By telling them someone will stand behind them, because we wouldn’t want them to get hurt if they fall, it is all heightening the sense of anticipation and suggestiveness. The rest is easy.

EN: “You seemed to find it difficult to watch yourself on screen.”

MH: Yes, I find it very hard knowing how I unconsciously deceived good people into believing that the Holy Spirit was at work when it was common or garden hypnosis. But at the time I suppose I did believe, however incorrectly, that these things were the activity of God. But the reality is, I learned these techniques by watching others, and anybody can do them given enough training. They are psychological techniques – nothing else.

EN: “What caused you to look again at what you were doing and believed?”

MH: In a nutshell – the Scriptures themselves. I decided that I wanted to learn the Scriptures in the original Greek and I began to realise that what I believed didn’t match up with what the Scriptures actually taught.


EN: “For instance?”

MH: In 1 Corinthians it didn’t say we would be given spiritual gifts on demand, but as God wills. I had always been taught that, with enough faith, if you were ‘anointed’ and prayed enough, you would manifest the relevant gifts. I could see that God really didn’t work that way.

I could see that my fellow Bible students didn’t change for all their ‘anointing’. I witnessed the lack of basic integrity in fellow students and in my church. The church was in great debt and yet money was spent on unnecessary things like an electronic song board. We owed £200,000! And there were factions in the church. None of it added up. It didn’t fit at all with the health and wealth gospel we had been taught and which we preached. So I left.

EN: “And then?”

MH: Somebody gave me some videos teaching the Jewish exegetical method of learning. These methods would have been employed by the apostles. It really started to give me a much more critical mind. It caused me to ask more questions highlighting more and more areas that were very wrong. My faith started to re-focus again on Jesus and not the ‘outworkings’ such as praying in tongues or signs and wonders.

EN: “At this stage did you think of looking for an appropriate church?”

MH: Just before leaving I had already started the National Prayer Network evangelistic enterprise, producing teaching tapes and evangelistic videos. My energies went into that. Out of that came a group of people who started meeting together as a small church.


EN: “What is your view about what is happening on the British church scene today?”

MH: We’re seeing an increase of Word Faith/health and wealth preaching and teaching. It is weakening the witness of the body of Christ by compromising to a world view. It gauges spirituality by success. The most dangerous thing is they are undermining true Christian faith which is based on God’s word alone. As Luther said, “My heart is captive to the word of God.”

EN: “What do you see as the hallmarks of this kind of ‘Christian’ belief?”

MH: Revelry, riotous behaviour, sensual Christianity.

EN: “And the more practical effects?”

MH: It re-directs funds away from legitimate gospel evangelism and real social needs, the orphans and widows and such. Its leaders earn exorbitant amounts of money – where the Bible teaches leaders shouldn’t reap dividends. If you can perform signs and wonders you can earn vast amounts of money. It was not unknown for me to be ‘gifted’ £400 – £500 on occasions. This is nothing to the five-figure sums charged by some modern prophets. Basic Christian truth is being superseded by pseudo-Christianity. We need to return to a Christ-centred gospel which produces a selfless and non-materialistic lifestyle.

EN: “What about the numbers the Faith and signs and wonders movement claim are saved?”

MH: This is self-deluding exaggeration based on faulty theology of conversion. They teach commitment to a message rather than conviction by the gospel. They need figures to validate their ministry for the continued solicitation of funds.


EN: “What would you say then to those caught in the current signs and wonders movement?”

MH: Jesus did more signs and wonders than anybody else and at the end of His ministry He only had about 500 followers. Anyone caught up in the current trend towards belief in a great end-time restoration of the Church must first realise that this kind of revival is the opposite of what scripture promises. What Jesus did promise is the falling away of professing Christians, and an influx of false ‘anointed’ ones.

If we are truly living at the imminent return of Christ, where are those things that God promised must take place?

I would say to my brothers and sisters in these movements that you may well not be conscious that what you believe is other people’s opinion on Scripture, as I did. You would do well to heed the words of Martin Luther – ‘Sola Scriptura’.


Word-Faith preaches a gospel of personal wealth which can be obtained through the ‘force of faith’. Spiritual power is thus generated through ‘faith’. God’s sovereign will is effectively overridden by this ‘force of faith’, effecting eternal spiritual laws to which God Himself is subject. PG.

Research carried out in 1994 amongst a number of Christians from many different backgrounds revealed that almost 100% believed the ‘Word-Faith’ message is merely the gospel plus healing and prosperity on demand. None of those surveyed had any idea of the depth of heresy and extent of error in this movement. (Extract from ‘The Faith Movement May Be Prospering But Is It Healthy?’, by Stuart St. John: 95 pence booklet available from Reachout Trust, 24 Ormond Road, Richmond, England).

The above article was first published by Evangelicals Now, March 1996, and is reprinted by kind permission.


Mark Haville is also the host and a producer of this must see video!!!

Signs And Wonders Movement Exposed: THE VIDEO SERIES THAT EVERY CHRISTIAN MUST SEE!!!!!!!

Satans Generals of The Full Gospel

 The leaders of a false faith and strange fire


GOD’S GENERALS: The Legacy (includes Todd Bentley, Jim Goll, Benny Hinn, Roberts Liardon, and more)

GOD’S GENERALS: The Legacy (includes Todd Bentley, Jim Goll, Benny Hinn, Roberts Liardon, and more)


Pentecostalism and Freemasonry

Charles Fox Parham and Freemasonry

Parham was probably a member of the Freemasons at some time in his life.[14] The 1930 biography on Parham (page 32) says “Mr. Parham belonged to a lodge and carried an insurance on his life. He felt now that he should give this up also.”[5] The question is one of timing, the extent of his involvement, and how much of their teachings became merged with his theology. From his wife’s comments, it appears he was originally involved because of the good deeds they did in looking after their fellow man (something he did not feel the churches did a good job of doing), not because of their beliefs. Because many in the Pentecostal movement oppose the Freemasons so bitterly, some have said that he left the organization when he started his “Full Gospel” ministry. This would fit with the comment in the biography. What is clear is that, at the peak of his ministry (between 1900 and mid-1907) he had little time for involvement in any organizations. His bible school and his preaching were an all consuming task. Even his active later ministry left little free time for activities like lodges. Some feel there is evidence that Parham was still a member of the Freemasons in 1928 (they feel he “appeared to still have Masonic tendencies”), but source documents for this are not quoted. They may be drawing an inference from a letter that Parham wrote back home from his Palestine trip where he said “I am going to bring a gavel home with me … I am going to present it to the Masonic lodge in Baxter Springs with my respects.”(p373)[5] Yet if he had been a member then, it is likely that his wife’s earlier comment in the same book, where it tells of Parham’s decision to leave the lodge, would have been different. She said “I had been taught in the Friend’s church not to believe in secret organizations, and was very glad for his decision” [i.e. to leave the lodge].(p32)[5] It is just as likely that the gavel was simply a present for friends he had known since his original involvement. If Parham was involved in Freemasonry, the ultimate question is what the level of his involvement was, when he was involved, and if there are any indications of these beliefs in his ministry, especially during the period of his highest influence in the early pentecostal movement (from 1900 to 1907). Lower level involvement in smaller communities can be more of a social involvement than a belief in or an understanding of their principles (as it appears was the situation with Parham’s early involvement with the lodge).


Here is Eric’s post entitled  why I have a problem with cessationism which I will be scrutinizing in a blogpost after I give my prefacing blogpost.

Here is the preceding post between Eric and Coramdeo in chronological order. CD=CoramDeo, E=Eric, *** = the post I commented on in the comments section, ### = my comment that is my most important.

The Cessationism Debate Has Begun E, Have the Spiritual Gifts Ceased? E***###, Response to “Have the Spiritual Gifts Ceased” CD, The Ceasing of Spiritual Gifts: A Debate (Response #2) E***, Spiritual Gifts Conclusion CD, Why I Have a Problem with Cessationism E***


After I give this “up to this point” summary (from my perspective) blogpost of the debate thus far, I will examine Eric’s “why I have a problem with Cessationism” post.

Why the preface blogpost? Well you’ll have to wade through all the comments on Erics last post to determine the truth of that for yourself. But I am doing it because I feel that Eric is being deceptive and precisely sinister in his attempts to muddy the waters of the debate so he can say,,, “the Bible is unclear and undogmatic on the issue. Why are you?”

Not only has he tried to muddy the waters of the debate. But so have others. I believe they intentionally collaborated and “tag teamed” intentional obfuscations ( 1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand) to then say exactly what Eric has been saying,,,,,,,,, “the Bible is unclear and undogmatic on the issue. Why are you?”

IN OTHER WORDS for Eric to say,,, MY PP (paraphrase),,,,, ”the bible is not clear on any position so we should just drop this and all get along in love,,, and if you don’t agree to that,,, your being divisive, unloving and unchristian like”.

If you will examine his post,,, he set it up that way from the get go by appealing to the “love chapter”.


HERE IS MY FIRST COMMENT,, SINCE THIS DEBATE STARTED. I will post it and tell why I think it is important to re-read first before I go to examining Eric’s blogpost. (sidebar note: I only commented on Eric’s blog because for a long time I was not able to post on CD’s,,, until he made some changes on his blog)

Damon Whitsell Says: April 25, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Nice debate ya’ll. Eric,,,, Thanks for being so different than most who hold to the continuationist position. I did note your statement that your not firmly entrenched in any belief as of yet.
I am considering joining in at some point if time permits. I hate to come along and just mess ya’lls world up. I know it is a big claim to make. But I think I have a Monkey Wrench/Achilles Heal for the continuationist position which I will state later. But I hardly think anyone will solidify their beliefs by debating what “that which is perfect” is. I have flipped flopped a couple of times on the exposition, interpretation and application of that verse. I now hold that it is indeed a cessationsit text. But I would never waste my time trying to prove this because I think it is quite unnecessary.
A really brilliant pastor I know said something that disturbed me. He said he was a continuationist and not a cessationist . He said that it was based on the fact that he thinks gifts are still in operation in the church today. I agree,,,,, because he is talking about gifts like preaching, teaching, encouragement, helps ETC ETC. He does not believe in tounges, modern apostles, prophecy, or revelation (rhema) knowledge. So there was an issue of semantics and defining terms. Then he said that he never debates the issue because it centers around 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and “that which is perfect”. I had to tell him that despite the fact that he knows so much more about the deep things of theology than me,,, he had obviously never studied and struggled with this issue. I have a bibliography with a 17 page list of books that have been written on the cessation/continuation debate. It is way bigger than what my pastor friend thinks and I think there are about 15-20 things in the bible that make debating 1 Corinthians 13 not essential.
Some points I think are essential but not the absolute core of the issue.
The irrelevance over the semantics of “perfect:” is exemplified in other issues. I think the important place to start it to ask WHY? WHY did we have tounges, prophets, apostles and miraculous signs in the first place? What purpose did they serve?
But I would like to ask,, is it even necessary to debate this? I think not.

I think it is a historical fact that tounges, prophecy/revelation knowledge, apostles, and gifts of healings and gifts of miracles have ceased. Yeh,,, I know Pentecostal/Charismatics have their list of so called proofs of the gifts in question being practiced in history. But they are like the Mormons taking select passages from a Pre-Nicaean church father to make it appear that Eastern Orthodox practices theosis in the same way that the Mormons do. The Mormons will take a select quote out of a paragraph, when the same paragraph later flat out denies their assertion and Mormons reject outright the rest of the church fathers teaching which contradict Mormonism. 

I have studied this aspect of the historicity of the gifts and it is a very deep subject. It can take a very long time to disprove the allegation of historical occurrences. BUT I think this is where ya’lls debate should be focusing. Did the gifts stop,, in history? I think so. I think it is an open and shut case.  

I submit to ya’ll two articles and a video for ya’ll to review. I hope ya’ll will look at these and see if the information contained within warrants a a redirection of ya’lls debate.

An article more thorough than the video from the same ministry,,”History of the Pentecostal Movement – Proves the cessation of the Spiritual gifts by examining the history of the Pentecostal movement. Their history reveals that their leaders not only began teaching the gifts as a new doctrine in the church, but that they acknowledged that the gifts had ceased and had not been part of the church since Acts chapter 2.” 

Pentecostal History Proves Cessation of Spiritual Gifts VIDEO
The ministries counter response to their articles critics. Answering Questions Regarding Pentecostal History – Responding to objections about our History of the Pentecostal Movement video and article which emphasizes not only the accuracy of our current work, but the contradictions such objections raise.
I ask ya’ll to look at these. Remember the Pentecostal movement was started as the Pentecostal “RESTORATION” movement. BUT now continuist want to say that there have been accounts of the gifts in post apostolic church history. But when you get to looking at it. The Pentecostal movement is also termed neo/Montanianism. That is because the gifts where considered by church fathers to have ceased,, the Montanians where the first so called group that claimed to practice these gifts as a movement. Origen got into the movement but it still was short lived because it was broadly condemned as heresy. You should look into Montanianism. Wikipedia has a good article on them but BB Warfeild has a whole chapter in his classic cessationist text,, Counterfeit Miracles. Get a hold of it if you can.

So I ask ya’ll to look at the video and article I posted and see if ya’ll should be trying to seek the truth about alleged historical accounts of the gifts being practiced. Do the list the continuist give actually prove that the gifts have been practiced in church history? I have looked and I say NO.

The reason I think ya’ll should take this approach is that I have been in a couple of debates about the issue and they never got anywhere. Instead it detoured into semantics, different hermeneutic approaches and clashes of theological systems such as Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

Pentecostals and charismatic fall under covenant theology. And most tend to be amillennial. Which from my dispensational eschatological position raises a big concern. If we Pre-mills are correct and there is indeed a man of sin/son of perdition/ Anti-Christ actually coming,,,, then Pentecostals/Charismatics will be easy targets and will be duped by the “Strong Delusion” that God is going to send into the world according to the dispensational position.

I ask ya’ll to look into the historicity of the gifts.

Another thing that I think is important. Why do highly intellectual charismatic men like Gordon Fee, Wayne Grudem and J. Lee Grady essentially concede the cesscationist position by admitting that ,,,(MY PARAPHRASE),,,”yeh the gifts are still in effect,,, but not in the same exact way as in the NT?

Thanks, I look forward to watching ya’lls debate and perhaps getting involved. Damon Whitsell 

Now why do I include my first comment here?

Because as I stated in it,,,,,,

“The reason I think ya’ll should take this approach is that I have been in a couple of debates about the issue and they never got anywhere. Instead it detoured into semantics, different hermeneutic approaches and clashes of theological systems such as Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.”

I did not also mention that Charismatics/Pentecostals resort to all sorts of dirty tactics and maneuverings,,, thereby muddying the waters and obfuscating the issue,,, just like any cult member do defending their cultic pet false doctrines.


TO BRING SOME PERSPECTIVE on why I suggested what I did in the comment,, I submit parts of my emails from CormDeo about my comment,,,,,,,,,,,

In one email CD said “I read your sources, great stuff.” Then CD stated his “Tactics” and asked me for my opinion of his “Tactics”

I another CD stated,, THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT,, “Oh also I did watch the video and read the articles, I found them helpful, however, I do not know how easy it is to prove that no gifts have been used throughout history, but I do think it is important to prove that the people teaching it thought it had and started up again.” 

Pentecostal history and the people who started the Pentecostal Movement knew good and well that the gifts had ceased in history. That is why they claimed their “restoration” movement was,,, “The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements goes on to say: The Apostolic Faith Movement, according to Parham, had a twofold purpose: *******the restoration of “the faith once delivered to the saints”*******, and the promotion of Christian unity.”

The problem is that if the gifts had ceased and had to be “restored” then the faith was not once delivered. They have no verse that says the “faith once delivered” would be twice delivered. 

AND CD’s ASTUTE OBSERVATION OF MY COMMENT,,,, CD SAID,,,,,, What I really like about your post is you make the point I was trying to make, that is that there is much more to this debate than just some verses it truly stems from your Christian world view which can pollute your interpratations. Great stuff thanks for posting it.”




Not only do the fathers of the “Pentecostal ‘restoration’ movement” testify that it is a historical fact that the gifts have ceased in history. BUT so does history itself.

If you want to know for yourself if the gifts ceased,,, look at the charismatic’s list of so called “historical accounts of the gifts happening”.

You will see three things.

1. They take groups or individuals that are outside the pale of orthodoxy and try to say they are orthodox. This is exemplified in Origin And Tertullian who where both inspired by montanianism and followers of Montanius. Both come from the heretical platonic school of theology in Alexandria. IN OTHER WORDS they did not believe the bible was literal and they got their teachings from their “Spritism” Gurus,,, (ie, prophecy or as they say today “words of knowledge”, or revelation knowledge) ,,,,,,,,, not the bible.

2. They will take orthodox church fathers and quote them out of context. Martin Luther is a great example of this. They try to say he was a continuationist when he clearly states that the gifts had ceased. He goes as far as to say that the small “spiritist” or “spirit filled” group of people in his day where followers of a familiar Spirit. AND HE RIGHTFULLY SMAKED THAT SPIRIT ON THE SNOUT!!!

3. They will tell stories about this miracle happening or that miracle happening. BUT it is all hearsay. In history both sides have examined history. That is why there are many books showing that “Miracles by the hand of a healer or miracle worker”,,, are ALL faked. The best one to read is BB Warfeilds “Counterfeit Miracles”. BUT people like James Randi have investigated and written whole books on the trickery and illusion of men trying to claim “the gift of healing”. Many groups have challenged today’s so called “gifted healers” and they have all been proven to be frauds and tricksters. Off the top of my head,,,, I can think of four. Binny Hinn, Morris Cerullo, Peter Popoff, and Todd Bentley.

HERE IS WHAT IS SAD,,,, Charismatic Christians are merely doing what the Corinthians Christian where doing,,,, APING PAGAN PRACTICES.

That is why I posted this video for ya’ll to see.

Signs And Wonders Movement Exposed: THE VIDEO SERIES THAT EVERY CHRISTIAN MUST SEE!!!!!!! 

I will have my examination of Eric’s “why I have a problem with Cessationism” post available in two or three days. I am sure most of you know good and well what Eric and Crew have been doing,,,,, but I will dissect Eric’s post (plural) for those whoever might not see exactly what he has to “obscure” in his post.
Thanks for your time, Damon Whitsell