Responding to Remnant Radio on Speaking in Tongues (Part 2 of 3)
The following is a transcript of a response I gave to Remnant Radio on the WWUTT podcast, Episode 2380, after they twisted my comments about speaking in tongues. This is part 2 of 3 which aired on April 4, 2025. You can listen to part 1 by clicking here.
I had been shown that Remnant Radio responded to comments that I made in the documentary Cessationist, where I refuted the idea that the Bible talks about having a private prayer language. Instead of just responding to that part though, I decided to take a longer look at their comments and what the Bible says about speaking in tongues.
In the last episode, Remnant Radio responded to comments made by Nathan Buzenitz, professor at Masters University, about the history of speaking in tongues within the charismatic movement as it began at the start of the twentieth century. Even the charismatics understood that speaking in tongues was a supernatural ability to speak another real human language they did not previously know.
But when the gift did not manifest itself that way as they wanted, the understanding of speaking in tongues changed to this idea of praying in random, nonsensical gibberish. That definition of speaking in tongues has become so ubiquitous, that whenever we talk about this topic, you're most likely thinking about that—strange, nonsensical mutterings in prayer, not speaking another known human language as seen at Pentecost in Acts 2.
When Michael Miller of Remnant Radio gave his explanation of this spiritual gift as the ability to pray in gibberish, he began with 1 Corinthians 14:2, which says, "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries of the Spirit."
However, you cannot begin there. You have to begin with the gift as it was first given in Acts 2. And there the disciples, in the Holy Spirit, spoke the testimony of God in the languages of the people there from all over the Roman Empire gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost. As Acts 2:10 says, "We hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."
As we pick up the discussion today, and this is from the Remnant Radio video entitled: "Responding to the Cessationist Documentary—Part 8." Oh, and by the way, they changed the name of the video! It was Part 9, and since last week they changed it to Part 8. I can prove that I didn't just get the number wrong becuase I took a screenshot of it. I wonder why they did that. That change had to have been made just this past week. Kind of odd.
Anyway, last week, we listened to Michael Miller make comments about speaking in tongues, and I started with those. This time, we get the other two guys involved. First up is Michael Rountree, who is a pastor of a charismatic church in the Oklahoma City area, and also Joshua Lewis, host of Remnant Radio and he's a pastor in Ada, OK.
All of their arguments now are from the position that speaking in tongues can be in just random human gibberish. (If you need an example of this, here it is once again.) Defending this practice as biblical, here's Michael Rountree.
"I think exegetically a case can be made for tongue speech not being human languages but being some kind of heavenly language. I mean, there is an exegetical case and I think that it's quite strong."
Then what is it? If you think there's a strong exegetical case for it, make it. This is the show, this is the episode to do it. Last episode, I very handily made an exegetical case, starting in Acts 2 at the day of Pentecost, for speaking in tongues being only other human languages, not blabbering gibberish. There's no passage in the Bible anywhere that ever describes speaking in tongues as anything other than that. So if Rountree thinks there is one, he needs to make it. Going on:
"I think we can also say, like, you know what, maybe they are Earthly languages or something like that. I think that we just need to have a theological humility about us and that's where, like, you know, where he's saying things like this is the clear teaching of the Bible. I would say, actually, no, it's not so crystal clear. They do appear to be human languages in Acts 2.
"And had I never heard of anyone speaking in tongues, and all I had was 1 Corinthians 14, I would think that I would come to the conclusion that this was speaking of some other kind of tongue, like maybe heavenly or angelic or something like that, because it says that this is a language only understood between God and man."
No, that's not what it says. It does not say, "This is a language only understood between God and man." Rountree is imposing that interpretation onto the text. That's not what it says. Does he know what exposition is? Open up the text and walk us through it. How do you get that?
ROUNTREE
And requiring someone with a spiritual gift of interpretation, not just somebody from a nationality who happens to speak that other language as we see in Acts chapter 2. So I think that a strong exegetical case can be made the other way from him and he lacks the theological humility to acknowledge that so that's what I think is the bothersome thing about his uh, tirade, if you will."Nathan Buzenitz went on a tirade? Well that's uncharitable. A tirade is a long, angry speech. That historical explanation that Buzenitz gave—which, you know, you'd have to go back to part one to hear, but that was not a tirade. It was a very professorly explanation. Where in the world did that come from?
The gift of the interpretation of tongues is what we see Peter doing in Acts 2. In that chapter, we see both the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Tongues are other human languages, and the interpretation means not only translating but telling the hearer what it means. Interpretation is not translation. That's what Rountree misunderstands. Interpretation is also making sense of what is being said in a foreign tongue.
Again, going back to Acts 2:11, these Jews from all these different lands and languages said, "We hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." And then the very next verse: "And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?' But others mocking said, 'They are filled with new wine.'" So they could understand the words. Anyone could have translated the words as they heard it in their own language. But they still didn't know what it means.
Then verse 14: "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: 'Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel." So first he's telling them why this is happening, as a fulfillment of prophecy, so that ultimately, verse 21: "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," from every tribe, tongue, and nation on earth.
And then beginning in verse 22, Peter explains what is being said to them: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised Him up, lossing the paings of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it." Peter gives them the gospel. He tells them what they are hearing, about 'The mighty works of God,' and then explains it to them.
Rountree claims, "If all I had was 1 Corinthians 14, then I would conclude that, okay, maybe speaking in tongues is speaking gibberish or some kind of heavenly language." First of all, that's subjective. But secondly, this is exactly why I said last time that you cannot start in 1 Corinthians 14. You have to start in Acts 2, and interpret every other mention of speaking in tongues from there. But all they've read up to this point is 1 Corinthians 14:2. That is the only verse of Scripture they've looked at and read aloud.
And like I said, when I was a charismatic, I committed the same error. I read my charismatic understanding of speaking in tongues into 1 Corinthians 14:2, and read out from there. That is not the definitive verse on speaking in tongues. That's the verse you go to when you want tongues to be speaking gibberish, and interpret every other verse on tongues according to that one. This is a horrible handling of the text.
What Rountree is doing is not exposition. He's hardly even quoting verses. He's making scant references and telling you what he thinks they mean, which all you'd have to do is open up the verse and read it and see that it doesn't say that.
Nehemiah 8:8 says of the Levites who were helping people understand the law, "They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." That's not what these guys are doing. This is not exegesis. This is eisegesis. He's giving you his view, not what the text actually says. Let's keep going. This is now Michael Miller jumping in:
"Let's just be honest they just don't like the gift the tongues at the end of the day that they just don't like it and so they're going to explain it away however they can because they're already starting off with the premise that tongues doesn't happen today, um, and that's it."
Well so much for theological humility. This is a subjective and uncharitable accusation. By this same standard of argumentation, I could say, "Let's just be honest, they just don't like that the miraculous sign gifts are not in regular use today. They don't like that God had a time and purpose and place for these gifts, and so they force it by ignoring both the text and the obvious, and explain it however they can—by speaking gibberish claiming this is the Holy Spirit causing them to speak in tongues, and that's it." Would it be fair for me to say that?
What I don't like is that a great, miraculous sign gift, such as speaking in tongues—and make no mistake: when the disciples spoke in tongues at Pentecost in Acts 2 or when the Gentiles spoke in tongues at the home of Cornelius in chapter 10, it was miraculous. The people knew they were witnessing a miracle. It was not a bunch of ecstatic worshippers uttering gibberish nonsense.
I don't like that this great gift is being diminished and abused as something less than what it really is, and then dividing the body of Christ over your own subjective interpretation of the text. Speaking gibberish nonsense is not speaking in tongues, as these guys claim. And they have yet to show otherwise from the text.
MILLER
"So it's not us changing the meaning of scripture it's them to begin with with cessationism which is a non-biblical doctrine."
I'm still waiting to hear how speaking gibberish nonsense is a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit is in the Bible somewhere. As I've said responding before to this controversy cessationism and continuism are both systematic doctrines. What does that mean? That means that we're coming to our conclusions looking at what all of Scripture says about this and organizing what the Bible teaches in a logical and coherent way. The cessationist does this as well as the continuist.
It is not theological humility, which these guys are calling for, to say, "Well our doctrine is in the Bible, but yours is not." Nonsense. They keep saying there's an exegetical case for this. I'm still waiting to hear it. Now Rountree jumps back in here, but he doesn't make any further argument exegetically. Let me skip ahead to Joshua Lewis making some summary points:
LEWIS
"Yeah, there's there's a a lot here and let's walk through some of those just as a recap for people who are just now tuning in. Tongues is not always known human languages. A couple of arguments for that; there's no interpreter with Cornelius, right? So we don't know what language that they're speaking in, only they're speaking in another language."
In Acts 10, the Apostle Peter is led by Christ to go to the home of a Roman centurian named Cornelius to share the gospel. Peter preaches the gospel with them, and then the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and the Jews who are with Peter know this because, as said in verse 46, "They were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God."
Lewis is making the argument that because Acts 10 doesn't tell us what language they were speaking unlike Acts 2, and there was no interpreter, then maybe this is evidence that they weren't really speaking a real human language—they were speaking gibberish nonsense.
Friends, I don't know how much I can emphasize this—speaking gibberish is not a miracle. I can do it right now: Baska la hamma na peshy yo fuata, del tickamosh seeney von mockafish hu. Okay. I just made that up. And if I were to have done that in the throes of passionate prayer, a charismatic would say that was speaking in tongues. Nonsense. That's what it was. There's nothing miraculous about that, and there are people from all kinds of religions all over the world who do it. A common comparison is the Hindus in their practice of Kundalini.
These people in Cornelius's house were not speaking nonense. They were speaking something the Jews who came with Peter understood. The Remnanat Radio guys are assuming that everyone in that room at Cornelius's home knew only one language. Because there was not an interpreter of this unknown language, maybe it was gibberish. Then the Jews would not have been impressed. They would not have been amazed and conviced the Holy Spirit just fell on these people. They would have said, "Oh good grief, they're acting like pagans!" Because speaking in ecstatic nonsense utterances was a practice among the pagans.
You don't start in 1 Corinthians 14:2 and read out your understanding of speaking in tongues from there, which is what Remnant Radio is doing. They admitted that's exactly what they're doing. You start in Acts 2, and then every occasion that you see of speaking in tongues, you understand it from the way the text has clearly and plainly explained to us what this miraculous gift is. Continuing on:
"We have 1 Corinthians 14:2, you're speaking to God, not to man."
Which, when you read that verse in context, you understand that's not a good thing. Paul is rebuking this church for their abuse of spiritual gifts. The purpose of the gifts is to edify the church. If what you're saying is only understood by God, you're not doing it right.
Look at the very next verse: "On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation." That's the point. If your spiritual gift is not edifying the church, you're not doing it right. I gave an exposition of 1 Corinthians 14:2 last time, even looking at it in light of Acts 2. So I'll digress from going any further.
LEWIS
"You have the accounts in 1 Corinthians 12 and in 14 that give you both a description of the gift of interpretation and the need for an interpreter, um, uh, and Paul who says I speak in tongues more than you all, but I would still rather speak to you in a known human language that you can understand that would edify you, build you up, and encourage you."
Again, this is not exposition. Nor is it good teaching. The guys at Remnant Radio are not teaching you. They are just reacting to arguments they say they don't like and telling you their opinion. That's all they've really been doing here. Now this next argument here is wild. Listen to this:
"All of those seem to point to the the fact that this could be an unknown human language or maybe a human language that's not known at that time, or to that immediate audience. Um, I still think it's open for interpretation to say that, you know, maybe every form of tongues is a known human language but a known human language that isn't present at that time.
"Part of the argument from the cessationist is well you know the Babylonians were going to come and conquer Israel, and that would be an unknown tongue so it would have been gibberish and a sign of judgment unto them. We're just saying, 'Yeah. So maybe all tongues is a known human language, but a known human language that's not known maybe within our time. Like maybe it's an old human language, or maybe, uh, it's it's a language that's maybe not present within, uh, that current congregation like maybe it is Portuguese but there's no Portuguese speaker present. It would merely sound like gibberish. So I think the argumentation stands on its own. I think it's biblical."
Wow. So that's it. Our argument just "stands on it's own. I think it's biblical." How much text have they actuall read? Have they opened their Bibles and walked through the text with you and shown you how Lewis or the rest of the guys came to any of these conclusions? It's like they have this attitude of, "I don't need to do any of that work. Our argument just stands on it's own." Unbelievable!
Now about that argument Lewis just made—maybe we are speaking in actual known human languages, but they're just languages that are so old they don't exist anymore, or they're from another part of the world, and you can't tell me that's not a known human language. Guys, come on. You cannot be serious.
As I said, I spent over a decade in charismatic churches, and what those people were saying when they spoke gibberish was not another known human language. You know that, and this just sounds like reaching. First of all, what would be the point of that? Why would God do that? Why would He give you some dead language to pray in that neither you nor anyone else would understand? What would be the point? And again, where is this in the bible?
Lewis said, "Part of the argument from the cessationist is well you know the Babylonians were going to come and conquer Israel, and that would be an unknown tongue so it would have been gibberish and a sign of judgment unto them." Where is he getting that? How is that a cessationist argument? They don't represent the text well and they don't represent cessationists well at all.
Listen to 1 Corinthians 14, beginning in verse 20: "Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. In the Law it is written, 'By people of strange tongues and the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.'" What is Paul referencing there?
If you have a Bible with reference notes, you follow your references and see that it's pointing you to Isaiah 28:11-12. Let's read that: "For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue, the Lord will speak to this people, to whom He has said, 'This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose,' yet they would not hear." What does this mean? What's going on here?
The people of Israel had rejected God's clear message of rest—rest in God promised to them who knew and kept the Law and the Prophets. So since the people did not listen to God's clear message, now He will speak to them by the foreign tongue of those who will come and conquer them. The Assyrians will conquer Israel, and the Chaldeans or Babylonians will conquer Judah.
And when this foreign enemy comes in, the people will not understand them. It will be terrible and frightening. They will be judged by God through a foreign people whom they will not understand. And it's through this that some will learn their lesson and repent—the hard way instead of the easy way, though many would come into judgment.
And again, the Assyrian and Babyonlian languages were known human language. Lewis is saying, well, maybe that's what we're saying when we pray in these unknown tongues. Maybe we're speaking some dead language like Assyrian and Babylonian—which is absurd. There's no point to that. What is the point? How does this apply to what Paul says about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14?
Going on to the next verse, verse 22: "Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers." Pardon me for saying so, but this instantly kills the notion that the point of speaking in tongues is to have a private prayer language. Tongues are a sign. In other words, they are a miraculous sign gift. And it's a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers—that God's judgment is upon unbelievers.
It is not a positive sign through which a person is led to faith—it cannot be that, because no one understands it, back to 1 Corinthians 14:2: "no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit." This was also Acts 2:12, "And all were amazed and perplexed," when they saw the disciples speaking in other languages, "saying to one another, 'What does this mean?'" It was not the speaking in tongues that converted these Jews to Christianity, but when Peter explained to them and clearly presented the gospel.
Let me go on to the next verse in 1 Corinthians 14:23 now: "If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues," which, by the way, that would not be a good thing. That is not edifying—that is the point Paul has been making through this chapter. Speaking in tongues is not a gift that edifies the church. He says here it's a sign for unbelievers. And being a sign does not mean it is salvific.
"If the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?" What was the reaction of the Jews in Acts 2:13? So we read, "And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?'" Next verse: "But others mocking said, 'They are filled with new wine.'" They were saying, "You're all out of your minds!" And what were the apostles speaking at Pentecost in Acts 2? They were speaking in other real human languages—not gibberish nonsense.
Going on to 1 Corinthians 14 verse 24: "But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you."
So what's the point? Speak words that make sense. Speaking in a foreign tongue does not edify anyone, nor does it bring them to a knowledge of their sin and need for a Savior, pointing them to Christ who is that Savior.
Next, we'll wrap this up with Part 3.
Comments
Post a Comment