The 'Gift of Tongues' Did Not Start With the Renewal

For your reading pleasure

Charismatic Catholics claim that the ‘gift of tongues’ is evidence of the ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ I won’t go into that too much here, as I have done multiple videos on that topic so far, which can be found, here, here and here. Two of those videos are for paid subscribers, so if you want to see them in full, you can sign up by subscribing or upgrading your membership.

By the way, thank you to all the new comers who have signed up, I really appreciate it. If I am being honest, I much more prefer speaking to like-minded individuals in this forum than on YouTube. I hope one day that this SubStack is where I can focus most of my time.

At any rate, the Charismatics claim that the ‘gift of tongues’ came from the ‘Topeka Outpouring’ that took place under the watch of Charles Parham — a preacher with a history of sodomy, murder, financial fraud, and a self-professed mental disorder. The problem is that the whole ‘tongues’ thing had been going on for about 150 years in weird Protestant groups.

This is important, because if we understand the Charismatics correctly, then the historical precedent for their supposed renewal stems from the Pentecostal movement. It should be noted that they are adamant about this, and they see some correlation with Pope Leo XIII consecrating the 20th century to the Holy Ghost and the alleged outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Pentecostals shortly thereafter.

According to one Catholic Charismatic website: “On January 1, 1901, Pope Leo XIII prayed to the Holy Spirit. He sang the Veni Creator Spiritus by the Holy Spirit window in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. That same day, in Topeka, Kansas, at the Bethel College and Bible School, the Holy Spirit came upon a group of Protestants who had been praying to receive the Holy Spirit as the early Church did in Acts chapter two. Agnes Ozman prayed in tongues, and people began to welcome the Holy Spirit to work in them as in the early Church with healings, miracles, deliverance, and power to effectively evangelize and help people convert to Jesus Christ. This beginning of the charismatic renewal highlights its ecumenical nature that continues to be experienced over 100 years later.”

This is a common belief amongst the Renewal big-wigs. So, not only was the Holy Ghost supercharged in Topeka at a heretical Bible College, but it was the prayer of the Pope that made it happen. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Anyway, Charismatics of all stripes — Catholic and Protestant — are unanimous that the evidence of the so-called ‘Baptism in the Spirit’ is seen by gifts; usually tongues, prophecy and healing. So, if we can find evidence of ‘tongues’ in other heretical groups before Topeka, then we have a problem. If these other people were speaking in ‘tongues’ long before the Topeka event and Leo XIII, then doesn’t that mean the Charismatic Renewal started somewhere else? And, if that is true, then doesn’t that mean that the Renewal isn’t just based on heresy — which it is — but on historical fiction and ignorance?

The Shakers

One of the earliest instances of ‘tongues’ that I can find dates back to the 18th century with a woman named Ann Lee, who was an American missionary. She was initially from the UK but moved to and died in the US.

This video shares here story with lots of detail.

She started a movement that was called the ‘Shakers’ because of how they would shake and dance during their services. They received the ‘gift of tongues’ and did all sorts of strange things. They were non-trinitarians, thus they were heretics even from Protestant standards, and they dabbled in communication with the dead and other such things.

The Shaker movement was seen for what it was, strange, at that time, and no one really took it seriously.

The Mormons

Not to be outdone, the Mormons, another non-trinitarian group and gnostic sect, also allegedly received the gift of tongues. According to the official site of the Mormons: “Speaking in tongues was mentioned in revelations to Joseph Smith as one of the many gifts of the Spirit that follow those who have faith in Jesus Christ. Early Latter-day Saints experienced this gift in two ways. The first, speaking or singing in an unknown language, is sometimes called glossolalia.”

The Mormons site Joseph Smiths ‘revelations’ for proof of this.

The readers should know that Mormonism is basically a strange science-fiction heresy that speaks of other planets where we become gods, and Christ being Satan’s brother, among other things. What is interesting is that they too are non-trinitarians, and view the Holy Ghost as some sort of ‘divine power’ of God on Earth. Joseph Smith had his supposed revelations in in the first have of the 19th century, almost 80 years before the supposed Topeka outpouring.

Again, this throws the claims of some special gift of the Holy Spirit out the window for the Charismatics as far as Topeka is concerned, and makes their statements even more absurd.

It is interesting that both the Shakers and Mormons were non-trinitarians, because the Pentecostals are effectively non-trinitarians, as are Charismatics.

Supposed Baptism of the Holy Spirit leads to Christological Heresy

The following is an excerpt from my manuscript for my Modernism book, still in the works, which speaks about this issue. For context, I refer to a book by Dorothy and Kevin Ranaghan — progenitors of the Renewal in the Catholic Church — thus they are mentioned.

Aside from strange anecdotes there is one “doctrine” of the Charismatics, both Catholic and Protestant, that is consistent and defended; this is the so-called “Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” In their chapter on the matter, the Ranaghans began their treatise on the topic with a condemned proposition about the compilation of the New Testament, they wrote: “The New Testament was composed in, by and for the community of believers. Gather together by a common experience of new life in Christ… With this deeper understanding they began to set down in writing the faith-story of the “Christ event.” The reader should clearly see how this is Modernist in tone, as if the New Testament was transcribed as the fruit of experience. This mentality leads to a subjectivism of history as the basis for the historicity of the Bible. Furthermore, the notion that it is a “faith-story” suggests that it is not a historical story. If this is true, then what is in the Gospel is nothing more than a collection of experiences of believers, who undoubtedly received from God the truth of religion in a way that was immanent and unique to them. The reader may recall the statement from  the Vatican II document Dei Verbum that was cited in the last chapter wherein the mechanism of so-called Living Tradition is defined as: “…the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience.”

At face value, this misunderstanding of the authorship of the Bible is in contravention of the established authorship of the New Testament explained during the reign of Pius X. The Pontifical Biblical Commission stated that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by — wait for it — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They were not written by a “community of believers.” Furthermore, the Gospels are historically accurate and are not a collection of subjective experiences mixed with historical events. 

About the supposed Baptism of the Holy Spirit specifically, the Ranaghans argued that the Gospel of Luke corroborates their claim that Jesus Himself was Baptized in the Holy Spirit. They cite Luke 3: 21-22 where it is stated: “Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” The argument is that since Jesus was baptized and since the Holy Ghost descended and was seen “upon him,” this is evidence that Christ received the fullness of the power of the Holy Ghost when He was baptized. Another major figure in the Renewal, Dr. Ralph Martin — a long-time seminary professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit — said in an interview with the Protestant 700 Club, that “being baptized in the Holy Spirit is one of the central things that Jesus does.” However, this is heretical. 

The Baptism of Jesus by Saint John was not an unleashing of the Holy Ghost in Jesus, it was a prefigurement of the Sacrament of Baptism. Scripture is clear about the nature of John’s Baptism: “John was in the desert baptizing, and preaching the baptism of penance, unto remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4) Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark also quotes John the Baptist as saying, “I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” (Mark 1:8) So, to say that Jesus received the so-called “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” is objectively contrary to Scripture. Furthermore, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost referred to by John the Baptist does not refer to some faith experience, but the Baptism that all Christians will go through when they are baptized in the name of the Trinity. 

In addition, it has never been a sound interpretation that Christ somehow “received” the Holy Ghost when He was baptized. First of all, John the Baptist was explicitly not baptizing with the Holy Ghost. Second, there is an insinuation that Christ needed to receive the Holy Ghost as if He did not have access to the full power of the Holy Ghost until baptism. This is the heresy of Adoptionism, wherein it is believed that Christ was made divine through divine adoption manifested through his baptism, resurrection and ascension. It is a nontrinitarian notion rejected by the Nicene Creed which states that the Holy Ghost “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” To suggest that Christ received the Holy Ghost at Baptism is against the clear statements of Scripture, and is also a misunderstanding of what the descent of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove means. The biblical commentary of Father George Haydock, accepted for centuries as orthodox by the Church, states about the appearance of the Dove of the Holy Ghost: “Christ himself saw the shape of the dove, which was also seen by the Baptist, as we find, [John 1:33]. And it was perhaps seen by all that were present. — As a dove, or like a dove in a bodily shape. The dove was an emblem of Christ's meekness and innocence.” 

Saint Augustine commented on the Baptism of Christ, saying: “Therefore, that an example of humility might be given us by the Lord, that the salvation of baptism might be obtained by us, Christ accepted what for Him was not necessary, but on our account was necessary… For to Him was no baptism necessary; but in order to exhort us to receive His baptism, He received the baptism of His servant.” Augustine also stated: “… the full power of the Lord Jesus Christ was shown by the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas dealt with the Baptism of John the Baptist thoroughly. Citing Augustine he writes: “It is most absurd to say that Christ received the Holy Ghost, when He was already thirty years old: for when He came to be baptized, since He was without sin, therefore was He not without the Holy Ghost.”

The Council of Trent anathematized the notion that the Baptism of John capable of conferring celestial power, stating: “If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism, Canon I) In other words, the Baptism of John was for the remission of sin, nothing else.

In truth, the similarity between the heresy of Adoptionism and the Renewal is not the only heresy related to Charismatic theology. The essence of the notion that Christ needed something — like the Holy Ghost — raises several heretical notions that correspond to a long list of Christological heresies. 

Along with Adoptionism, the theology of the Renewal reminds us of Arianism; the heresy that claimed Christ was not God. If Christ needed to be baptized for the conference of a celestial gift — the Holy Spirit — then Christ was not perfect, because to be perfect means to be lacking in no perfection or to be incomplete. Therefore, He could not be God if he needed to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

We might also call to mind the heresy of Apolonarianism, which was the belief that the Logos took the place of a rational soul in Christ; He was a man but did not have a human mind; therefore the two natures, Divine and Human, could not be reconciled and the result was a lessening of the human nature of Christ. The Apolonarian could argue that Christ needed to be baptized because there was something lacking in his human nature that his Divine Mind already had.

The Ebionites, and early Christian group, had their own heresy similar to Adoptionism. They believed that Jesus did not exist before his birth and that God adopted him at baptism. This is clearly consistent with the Charismatic theology on the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist.

Another heresy is the heresy of Kenosis, which stated that Christ “gave up” his Divinity while on Earth, which would in turn justify the notion that Christ needed to be baptized to receive Divine Power from the Holy Ghost.

The Reformation Era heresy of Socianism comes to mind as well, which was in many ways a rehashing of ancient heresies that denied the Divinity of Christ and viewed the Holy Ghost as merely some sort of celestial power that justified man. Again, if Christ needed to be baptized then He was not fully God, as the Socians would say.

The ancient heresy of Nestorianism could be applicable as well, given that the Nestorians denied that Mary was the Mother of God, and was only the Mother of Christ. Surely Mary is the Mother of Christ, but Christ is fully God and fully Man, therefore she is the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity Who is God. The result of the Nestorian heresy is that Christ was two persons, not one Divine Person with two natures. This heresy could be reconciled with Charismatic theology as again, that Christ would need anything would presuppose that the Human Christ was not fully God. 

Conclusion

There is much more to say on the Renewal, and truth be told, I will probably write a full book on it one day, but won’t be able to for a while; but the shenanigans surrounding the ‘tongues’ and the Christological heresy should be enough for people to stay away from the movement. Sadly, many are locked in and can’t get out.

If any readers want to share their experiences with me about the Renewal, please feel free to email me through SubStack or request to chat with me through the site or app. I would love to hear your experience and how you got out, and your testimony can be anonymous if you like.

Cheers

Kennedy