“This book will make or break me,” I remembered thinking to myself. Perhaps I was a bit too dramatic, but the reality was that if this book was correct, it would alter my world. The book was Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur. I was a very young 21-year-old Christian who had been sitting under the preaching of a local Assemblies of God church since I became a believer. I did not know much theology at the time but was in the process of devouring books by MacArthur and Sproul. While many of those books should have challenged what I was learning on Sundays, the fact was that I was oblivious to the differences between what I was reading and what I was hearing on a typical Sunday from the pulpit. But a book arguing against “tongue-speaking” was a direct challenge I was aware of since I had heard of the phenomena quite often. It literally felt like a watershed moment. I grabbed the book and dove in. Needless to say, it did not end with me nailing a thesis nailed to a door or anything of the kind, but it did begin a shift in my thinking as a young Christian interested in theology. While I still know many beloved Christians in the denomination, that book began my exit out of the Assemblies of God church—as short as the time was.
What I have learned since then it that there is a plethora of books written on this subject. I have also learned that it is not only those in the Pentecostal tradition that hold that the gift of tongues is still operative today. Continuationists—those that believes the charismatic gifts still continue—come in all denominational shapes and sizes. While there is much to be said regarding the charismatic gifts, the gift of tongues is often a discussion that comes up. What is the gift? Is there more than one kind of gift of tongues? It was these kinds of questions that I sought to wrestle with early on in my Christian walk, and particularly what I would like to address in this article. The book of Acts and 1 Corinthians are two key places where tongues are mentioned,[1] and 1 Corinthians specifically prompts questions about the nature of this gift. Are the tongues of Acts the same as the tongues of 1 Corinthians? Does 1 Corinthians postulate two different kinds of tongue-speaking? Is there a gift of tongues that is particularly private in nature and one that allows the individual to communicate with God for personal edification? Many would suggest that 1 Corinthians 14:2 argues for the latter. For example, continuationist Sam Storms writes:
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:2 is crucial for understanding tongues…first, tongues-speech is directed or addressed to God, not to men. Tongues, whether spoken or sung, are fundamentally worship and intercession![2]
According to Storms, one manifestation of the gift of tongues presented in Scripture is a private communion with God that is particularly for worship and intercession. The idea behind this is that there are actually two different manifestations of tongues presented in the Bible. The general understanding is that there is one manifestation of tongue language that was given on the Day of Pentecost that were actual human languages, while there are others that are of heavenly origin[3] and are for private use. The questions that we want to ask in this article are: (1) Is the gift of tongues in the book of Acts the same as the one in 1 Corinthians? (2) Does Paul suggest that there is a private form of tongues that can be edifying to the one speaking them? (3) Finally, how do we understand the gift of tongues in the context of 1 Corinthians 14?
Are the Tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians the Same?
Some commentators argue that the tongues in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians are not necessarily the same. In fact, Storms goes as far as to say that “only in Acts 2 are tongues explicitly said to be human languages not previously learned by the speaker.”[4] There is no question that the tongues spoken of in Acts 2 were human languages. This is not only derived from the context (Acts 2:5-11), but also from the use of the word διαλέκτῳ in verses 6 and 8. Our word “dialect” derives from this term and it is clear that this can refer to nothing other than human language.[5]
But even if Acts 2 was clearly the only case where the tongues were human language, the burden of proof would rest upon those who would attempt to argue that other occasions in Acts are anything but human language. This is not only refuted from implicit evidence in Acts itself,[6] but the majority of commentators, continuationists included, would argue that tongues in Acts were actual human language.[7] But what about the tongues in 1 Corinthians? While the book of Acts could consistently refer to human languages, is it not possible that Paul could be referring to another kind? It does not seem likely. Again, the burden of proof is on those suggesting there is a difference. Where are the passages of Scripture that demonstrate Paul had a fundamental different kind of theology of tongues in mind?
Furthermore, the case can be made that 1 Corinthians, like Acts, associates the gift of tongues with human language. In Acts, it is clear that these specific tongues were languages (Acts 2:5-11). Similarly in 1 Corinthians, Paul alludes to Isaiah 28:11 in 14:21, which is a clear description of a foreign human language.[8] If Paul was talking about something other than known human language, his citation of the prophet would have been unintelligible. Paul also uses the term φωνή (language) in 1 Corinthians 14:10-11 that leaves no doubt Paul is connecting the gift of tongues to human language. These kinds of reasons render the idea that Paul has any other kind of tongues in mind improbable.
Tongues of Angels?
One may object to our reasoning by suggesting that Paul does have other kinds of tongues in mind, particularly when he uses the phrase “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1). Was this a kind of special tongue that a believer could speak in? Both Sam Storms and New Testament scholar Gordon Fee maintain that this is a special kind of dialect that believers are given by the Spirit.[9] In response, it should be noted that Paul does not define these tongues of angels, nor does he specifically connect these to the gift of tongues. Therefore, without a specific definition, the context ought to help navigate how to interpret this passage. Paul is emphasizing things to the extreme in this verse to make a point. He describes himself in a hypothetical case as knowing all of the languages of men and even going beyond this and conceiving of the ability to speak in the celestial language of angels.[10] He then continues his hypothetical to conceive of knowing all of the mysteries of God, having the highest of faith and being burned as a martyr.
In a hyperbolic fashion, Paul is describing someone who is an impeccable Christian, yet one that has no love. The point of the hyperbole is that, even if someone was an amazing Christian with unsurpassable wisdom and knowledge, all of it would be meaningless without the most important Christian virtue, that of love. Paul’s hyperbolic example was one that transcended even Paul himself and would certainly not have been something that was a part of the common Christian experience. It is also important to note what else this passage is not saying. Paul is not saying he possessed this language of angels any more than he possessed all faith, or knowledge, or mysteries (13:2). Furthermore, it is important to point out that we have no basis to say that the tongues of angels were anything other than a real language. As Busenitz points out:
If one insists on taking the phrase “tongues…of angels” as a reference to the language of heaven, it is important to note that whenever angels spoke in the Bible, they spoke in a real language that people could understand (Gen. 19; Exod. 33; Joshua 5; Judges 13).[11]
Thus we would argue that even if one connects the “tongues of angels” with a heavenly language, the only thing we can infer from Scripture is that they were real genuine languages. However, we believe ultimately that there is no basis to connect the phrase “tongues of angels” with a heavenly language, let alone a language that was a part of the gift of tongues given to believers.
Paul and Private Tongues?
Another argument to consider is that Paul himself used tongues as a form of private prayer.[12] This argument is extracted from 1 Corinthians 14:18-19 where Paul writes:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind.
Read More

Wellum speaks candidly: “Scripture already gives us a specific theology and worldview, and our ‘making sense’ of it, that is, the constructive task of theology, must be true to the Bible’s own biblical-theological framework” (394). What is refreshing about this assertion is that Wellum doesn’t deny the existence of pre-existing frameworks. Rather, he contends that the Bible itself has a theological framework that we must discern and then utilize in our doctrinal development. What is the biblical-theological framework that the scriptures themselves give us? Wellum claims it is first rooted in the four plot movements of the Bible: Creation; Fall; Redemption; New Creation.

Calvin, Aquinas, Turretin. Berkhof, Hodge, Bavinck. Frame, Grudem, Horton. Gratefully, modern pastors have a large swath of insightful systematic theologies to peruse. Some are voices from distant history; other influential works have been written in recent years. We owe a significant debt to these theologians, who ask and answer the kinds of questions that the church in every generation wrestles with for its own edification and the spread of the gospel.
This all begs the question: if we have so much systematic theological material, delivered over many centuries, why do we need yet another one in 2024? Why give time and energy to read Dr. Stephen Wellum’s new systematic theology? Does his work offer something unique? My resounding answer is: “Yes!”
Let me give you three reasons why every thoughtful Christian in 2024 should read Wellum’s magisterial new work.
1. It Is a Theology Considered in Light of Our Present Cultural Moment and Thus Functions as a New Christian Apologetic
Dr. Wellum righty says that “systematic theology is never done in a vacuum” (32).[1] He explains that the “theological task is not only to formulate doctrine correctly but also to defend the truth in light of our specific challenges” (32). In the 13th century, Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologica in the context of a scholasticism that demanded the Church defend the reasonableness of the Christian faith to nonbelievers. Three centuries later, Calvin wrote his Institutes of the Christian Religion to defend the Protestant church as it was being falsely accused and persecuted by its Catholic opponents.
Likewise, Wellum seeks to do theology to “help the church fight the battle of our day, which is the battle over whether objective truth is possible and over its epistemological warrant” (34). This battle is over entire worldviews, or social imaginaries. As a result of our current Zeitgeist, historic theology is now viewed with skepticism. In brief, Wellum cogently argues that the Enlightenment sowed seeds of skepticism that cultivated modernity and postmodernity. These seeds resulted in the rejection of sola Scriptura, which in turn led to a rejection of a “theology from above” (36). Today, then, the church must reject doing theology “from below” and instead retrieve again a theology “from above.” Wellum claims that “the church must learn to articulate, defend, and proclaim the truth from a revelational ground, and not a modern or postmodern one” (78).
Today the central debate is whether truth is possible. The plausibility structures have changed with “people no longer thinking that objective truth is possible to attain” (80). Our battle today is over entire worldviews, which demands that theology “must start from the Bible’s own view of reality, knowledge, and moral norms.” (82). Furthermore, we must present the Bible’s view of reality as an integrated, comprehensive “package” because this is the only way for theology to be viewed as plausible in our present cultural moment.
Wellum’s aim in his theological project is not to merely catalogue theological doctrines, but to develop and present an entire counter-cultural worldview—to offer a “theology from above.” This “package” begins with the Triune God and His word-revelation and then showcases a full-orbed picture of God, this world, and the church. For pastors, this sort of approach will prove fruitful for not only teaching Christians how to think theologically, but equipping them to think well as they present this compelling “package” to those outside the church.
2. It Is a Theology That Presents Doctrine in a Way That Respects the Bible’s Own Theological Framework
This may be viewed as an unfair assertion, as every systematic theologian would claim this goal! However, not every systematic theologian reaches this goal. The reality is that we all bring particular theological frameworks to our doctrinal studies. We may have a dispensational or covenant theology framework. We may lean Calvinist or lean Arminian in our reading of the scriptures. Thus, we may be tempted to overlay the biblical text with our personal frameworks, looking at the text through our pet lenses to confirm from the text already-held beliefs. This can be dangerous.
Read More
Related Posts:

Samson’s story is Israel’s story. But it is also our story, and his tragedy may be ours too if we resist God’s call as he did. We too are holy people, or “saints” in the proper Biblical sense of that term (1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:1, 2; 14:33; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2). In the words of the Apostle Peter we are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Incredible though it may sound, it’s God’s intention to take the fight to the enemy through us, reveal his glory to the world through us, and expose its gods for the hollow shams they are. 

You all know the story of Samson. He was the reluctant deliverer that God used, despite his many glaring faults. As such, it provides yet another reason why the Bible is more than a bunch of made-up stories. If it were a mere human book, folks would not have included such stories of defeat and sin and rebellion. But the Bible gives us reality, warts and all.
So we have this story of Samson, for good or ill, in the book of Judges (chapters 13-16). Four whole chapters – out of twenty-one – devoted to him and his family, highlighting this very flawed character. Gideon and his family also have four chapters devoted to him, but he is a very different figure. Here I want to look at Samson’s life, but mainly in the light of just one verse.
Judges 16:20 tragically says this about Samson: “But he did not know that the LORD had left him.” It is certainly one of the saddest verses in the Old Testament. Without wanting to see more theological warfare erupt here, I just want to offer some general reflections on this. Those who are chomping at the bits to debate whether a true believer can lose his salvation are advised to hold off. That particular discussion is not my main concern here.
We know that in the end the Lord still used Samson to achieve his purposes. Talk about amazing grace. Many Christians would ask how God could use such a selfish, carnal, rebellious, and immoral guy like this. Well, as I want to show here, the real question to ask is this: ‘How can God use any one of us?’ We are all like Samson in so many ways.
We all disappoint God repeatedly. It is a wonder that he does not just write us off, once and for all. Yet he seems to keep extending grace and mercy. Do we deserve it? No. That is why it is grace – it is fully undeserved. I don’t know about you, but when I read stories of such severely flawed and sinful characters like Samson, or so many others found in Scripture, it gives me hope. If God can use these guys, he can even use me!
Let me mention a few things about the Samson story, and then bring in some commentators. Throughout these four chapters we see that God uses even a selfish and fleshly Samson to achieve his greater purposes. For example, in Judges 14 we read about Samson’s marriage to a Philistine – something his parents rightly pointed out was wrong. Yet verse 4 says this: “His father and mother did not know that it was from the Lord, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines ruled over Israel.”
Throughout this narrative we see Yahweh using the bad choices of Samson to achieve his various purposes. And bad choices seemed to fully characterise Samson. Says Mary Evans, “Samson treats the Philistines as an enemy only when his own personal aims are thwarted; otherwise, he seems happy to live with them in reasonably comfortable coexistence.” And as Kenneth Way comments:
All of Samson’s vices seem to come together in this account. He is lustful (16:1, 4), apathetic (16:17), and foolish (16:20), and right up to the very end he is selfish (16:28) and vengeful (16:28). Amazingly, God uses all these flaws to accomplish his own purposes. However, God’s employment of Samson does not count as an endorsement of his lifestyle, nor does it absolve Samson from the terrible consequences of his poor choices (see 16:20–21, 30).
Read More
Related Posts: