The primary purpose for addressing this topic is to answer the question: Is there a biblical basis for a Kingdom citizen to pray in tongues in private?
The late Dr. Manuel L. Scott, Sr., said, “There is an orthodoxy within him that would not permit the sermonic broadcasting of an idea that the Bible would not back.” Not only do I share Dr. Scott’s orthodoxy regarding sermons, but I believe that this orthodoxy extends to worship practices—including tongues—publicly or privately. If the Bible does not back the practice of speaking in tongues, then no believer—period—should speak in tongues at any place or at any time.
It is not my purpose, desire, or place to attempt to persuade all Baptists or all believers to speak in tongues. I do not believe that it is God’s will based on His Word for all believers to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30). Although it is debated among those of us who speak in tongues, neither do I believe that every believer is capable of speaking in tongues—even if they desire to. God sovereignly determines which believer gets which gifts (1 Cor. 12:7-12).
There are those who would argue strongly against my viewpoint that all believers are not capable of speaking in tongues. Again, God sovereignly bestows and distributes spiritual gifts according to His will. And there is no one gift that is given to every believer. When Paul raised the rhetorical question, “Do all speak with tongues?” (1 Cor. 12:30), it is obvious that the answer is, No! The implication is that it is not the will or intent of God for all believers to speak in tongues.
A few years ago I read in Newsweek Magazine that 20% of all Christians worldwide speak in tongues. If my memory serves me correctly that was based on a Pew Poll. Furthermore, only 50% of the persons who are faithful attendees and members of Pentecostal/Charismatic churches speak in tongues. They all are open, desirous, and believe in speaking in tongues, yet only 50% or less have experienced speaking in tongues. Those figures are consistent to me with what the Bible teaches—all do not speak in tongues.
Please don’t misconstrue anything that I say here as meaning that I am on a campaign to get Southern Baptists to affirm, embrace, and practice—speaking in tongues. That is not my goal or intent. Nor is it my calling. If I am on a campaign it would be to simply, respectfully and humbly ask the IMB trustees to simply return to the pre-2005 policy on tongues; that would resolve this issue. Because the SBC in session has not addressed this issue, I believe that IMB, NAMB, and SWBTS have usurped the will of the convention. It is only because the aforementioned entities have established these anti-tongues policies, without one iota of SBC sanctioning, that I have also asked the SBC in session to weigh-in on these matters. I would be very pleased if the SBC policy was one of neutrality, which had served the SBC well prior to the adoption of the cessationist policies.
I want to address the question regarding the biblical basis for praying in tongues in private from a biblical and biographical perspective.
1. Jesus affirmed speaking in tongues. He told the eleven that they could expect as one of the signs that would be visible or audible among those who believe is that “they will speak with new tongues” (Mark 16:17). No matter how one etymologically and theologically parses this statement by Jesus, they would have to conclude that Jesus’ statement here is an affirmation of speaking in tongues. He did not elaborate, give details, qualify his statement, define tongues, or distinguish between public or private tongues here. He did not say if it would be a one-time occurrence among certain people groups or an ongoing experience among certain believers. But what He did say is this: Counted among those who name His name should be those who speak with “new tongues.”
I will leave it to those much smarter than I am to figure out exactly what Jesus meant by this statement. I simply take His Word at face value.
It is disheartening to me that so many otherwise wonderful and Spirit-filled SBC institutions and individuals would discount and devalue here the words of Jesus.
To categorically deny IMB missionaries the freedom to receive and experience what Jesus said here is to trample on the words of Jesus or to define and qualify Jesus’ words here in a way that He chose not to define and qualify His words. That is a bold, presumptive move, from my perspective, for the IMB to take.
Based on the context of Jesus’ statement, coupled with Paul’s statement on the subject (1 Cor. 12:30), Jesus clearly did not teach that all believers everywhere, would speak in tongues—but He certainly was saying some believers, somewhere would speak in tongues. How can the IMB disqualify, what Jesus qualified? And that is speaking in tongues. Neither did Jesus preclude or promote the notion that his reference to “new tongues” would be limited to public forums—to the exclusion of private worship and devotion. What is clear, again, is that our Savior, Lord and King of His Kingdom affirmed speaking in tongues.
2. The eleven disciples (Acts 1:13) and presumably the 120 (Acts 1:15) all spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 4). The content of their tongues speaking, or what was heard by the Jews assembled from every nation under heaven (Acts 2:5) was—“the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11).
If what the devout Jews from different language groups heard on the day of Pentecost, when the 120 spoke in tongues was “the wonderful works of God,” it does not seem unreasonable to me that in a time of private devotional prayer and praise one could also speak—“the wonderful works of God” to God, about God.
You may ask, why would God allow this? God requested, allowed and required many things in scripture from our perspective that does not compute to the modern rational mind—nevertheless, He’s done so. Neither did He ask our permission to do so, nor is He interested in our opinion about what He’s done. The point here is simply this: If the early believers could speak in tongues “the wonderful works of God,” it is not a stretch from my perspective they could also speak in prayer to God these same “wonderful works.” Why? The answer is: For God’s own sovereign purposes.
Having experienced tongues as they did on the day of Pentecost, I can assure you that their speaking in tongues was not limited to that occasion only. Those of us who speak in tongues often during times of intense worship, devotion, prayer, and praise spontaneously often speak in tongues as the Sprit gives utterance (Acts 2:4). It is my opinion, but, I don’t believe their tongues speaking was limited to Pentecost only. I believe it carried over to their private devotions.
It is not an insignificant factor here that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 involved exclusively Jews and Jewish proselytes (Acts 2:5, 10).
In Acts 8 we see where another people group was introduced to Christ and received the Holy Spirit—the Samaritans (Acts 8:4-8; 14-17). Some scholars have referred to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Samaritans as—the Samaritan Pentecost—although there is no mention of tongues specifically being heard at Samaria.
Likewise, scholars have referred to the conversion the Ethiopian Eunuch as the Ethiopian Pentecost (Acts 8:26-39). There is no mention of tongues in the Ethiopian Eunuch narrative, but clearly the Holy Spirit was at work in his conversion. God used a Greek-speaking man—Phillip—to share the gospel with an African man—who was reading from a Jewish Bible while riding in a Roman Province. Truly the Holy Spirit was at work.
There is no record of the Ethiopian Eunuch, Phillip, or the Samaritans speaking in tongues. In Acts 2:4, the 120 were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues. In Acts 4:31 the 3000 that were converted on the day of Pentecost were “all filled with the Holy Spirit and they spoke the Word of God with boldness.” There is no indication or record here of the 3000 speaking in tongues, although they were filled with the Holy Spirit.
One of the errors of Pentecostalism—or at least among many of them—has been to insist that all who are filled with the Holy Spirit are to also speak in tongues. That was not true in the Book of Acts, neither is it true today. I am convinced though that the private devotional lives of the Samaritans who were filled with joy (Acts 8:5), Phillip and the Ethiopian were all invigorated by the filling of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus prophesied that tongues speaking would be an occurrence among His followers. Indeed His disciples spoke in tongues declaring the wonderful works of God.
3. Paul affirmed speaking in tongues as an act of private devotion.
We find the strongest support for praying in tongues in private in Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 14.
“Different kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10) are mentioned as being manifest by the Holy Spirit and “given to each one for the profit of all” 1 Cor. 12:7). Paul then lists several gifts (12:8-10) and includes “different kinds of tongues.”
In Chapter 14 Paul admonishes the church at Corinth to, “pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.” Although Paul does spend the remainder of the Chapter contrasting the gift of prophecy with the gift of tongues, Paul does not forbid speaking in tongues—publically or privately (1 Cor. 14:39). He does place guidelines around its use in public worship.
In 1 Cor. 14:2 I believe Paul addresses the primary way tongues was practiced by Christians at Corinth; this is also the primary practice of those who speak in tongues today.
In Acts 2, although they were speaking the “wonderful works of God,” men heard it and were pricked in their hearts. In 1 Corinthians 14:2, Paul is clear and specific in spite of scholars and commentators desperate attempts to explain this verse away.
“For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him, however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.”
No one would read that verse without the aid of any other explanation and conclude that speaking in tongues as practiced among believers at Corinth included—“not speaking to men but to God.” Speaking to God is the most basic, simple definition of prayer. Paul further explains while the believer’s speaking to God—not man—in prayer—“no one understands him.” The reason that no one understands him Paul explains is because, “In the spirit he speaks mysteries.”
The prayer that Paul described in 1 Cor. 14:2 had to be done privately because he later forbids this type of prayer without interpretation in a public assembly (1 Cor. 14:27-28).
Paul taught that one who speaks in tongues in the 1 Cor. 14:2 manner “edifies himself.” The fact that he “edifies himself” is another indication that the 1 Cor. 14:2 type of praying in tongues was private. Prophecy by its nature is public or at least directed to one other person. Prayer as in 1 Cor. 14:2 by its nature is private and is directed to God. The nature of private prayer is self-edification, that results in God’s glorification, and spirit-filled ministry to God’s people.
Jude taught that when believers “pray in the Spirit” that they build themselves up (Jude 20). No one views that verse as a negative. It amazes me that when Paul says that when one prays in a 1 Cor. 14:2 manner that they “edifies himself”—then it is viewed by some Southern Baptists as negative. That defies all logic, rationale and consistency.
When a believer builds himself up praying in a 1 Cor. 14:2 manner, or Jude 20 manner, they are then better equipped to “fight the good fight of faith” and “earnestly contend for the faith.” Built-up believers can then go, strengthen and encourage other believers to be a better witness to the world. Private prayer, be it I Cor. 14:2 or Jude 20, builds up the believer. And a built-up believer is better suited for Kingdom work. A built-up believer can build up the church.
“I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all:
Yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (I Cor. 14:18-19)
Here Paul makes it clear that he speaks in tongues more so than anyone reading his letter (1 Cor. 14:18). He follows his admission of being the #1 tongues speaker with a contrast statement: “yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19).
Question: If Paul preferred understood language in the church, where was he speaking the language not understood (1 Cor. 14:2)? The implication is that this was being done in private, where he was building himself up, but it was not being heard in the presence of those who didn’t understand. To those whom it might matter, Dr. Jimmy Draper also in his book, The Church Christ Approves, interpreted these verses as Paul expressing a preference for private devotion tongues speaking, and publicly spoken understood speech.
“But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God.” (1 Cor. 14:28)
Those of us who speak in tongues can certainly relate to this verse. It is not uncommon for unintelligible speech to flow to your mouth if you are in a time of praise, prayer or even preaching in a public worship service. Although it flows to your mouth, according to Paul, and I know from experience that you have control over it until it comes out of your mouth. If no interpreter is present, Paul said—don’t cease praising, praying or giving thanks—simply do it within—“speaking to himself and to God.” This is another indication that a believer so gifted by the Holy Spirit to pray, praise, and give thanks in tongues can also pray even in tongues under his breath, or in a manner where it is not publicly heard, but yet it is occurring. Surely if one can do that while at church, they certainly could do it while not in the presence of others. These verses affirm praying in tongues in private.
I begin by quoting the words of Jesus: “they shall speak with new tongues.” I want to close by looking at the example of Jesus.
In Hebrews 5:7 we get an unusual glimpse into the prayer room of Jesus. Jesus is often depicted by the gospel writers as going away to pray alone. Even in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus placed some distance between Himself and His disciples as He prayed. Commenting on the prayer life of Jesus, the Hebrew writer says,
“who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him, who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear.”
I am in no wise suggesting that Jesus prayed in tongues. I am suggesting that this verse probably describes His prayers in the Garden, perhaps at the cross and at other times when the disciples were not with Him. We learn at least three things about Jesus’ prayers in this verse:
- They were high volume [“vehement cries”].
- They were tear-filled.
- They were emotional.
My point is that private prayers often take on a different style and nature then public prayers. Jesus told us to go and pray in our secret closets. And in that closet, prayers are often prayed with words understood, words not understood and even without words.
“My point is that private prayers often take on a different style and nature then public prayers. Jesus told us to go and pray in our secret closets. And in that closet, prayers are often prayed with words understood, words not understood and even without words.” Dwight, one thing I find interesting is that I can agree with everything you state here and yet still not understand the “words not understood” to be the same thing as the biblical gift of tongues.
Robert, I appreciate your comment. Praying with words not understood could simply mean a sigh, moan, groan–or a sound of anguish, gratification, or contemplation–like mum. I have often heard prayers & praises throughout my life that included sounds that were not tongues–yet they were sounds that could not be translated to another language. This is very common in Black Baltist Churches. Point being “words not understood” are not necessarily the same as “speaking in tongues,” but it can include or mean tongues also. My question for you is this: Do you believe IMB missionaries ought to be asked about the… Read more »
In theory I can agree that “words not understood” could include tongues; that is, it could be a tongue or language not understood by the person praying. But this falls into the realm of things we cannot know, imo, in the sense that if the person praying does not know what he is saying he does not know what it is or whether it is tongues (languages) or not. The only one who could “know” would be the a priori cessationist. Assuming his position to be correct, he would know that it could not be the gift of tongues because… Read more »
I do not think you make up the moans, I think it is a person’s spirit tribulating through a personal event or a call of God. I am driven by my gift and by my personal life in Christ. I have been in a place where I could not express what was in my heart of hearts and simply said, “Oh, God!”, in a submissive and humble tone to allow Him to answer the request according to His will. We cannot express in words what the trek of God is, we can only submit and wait till He reveals it… Read more »
Bruce H.,
Absolutely! It is often during the type of scenarios & circumstances that you described here that one so gifted or open will experience tongues. And this is perfectly consistent with 1 Cor. 14: 2.
I don’t have the text of the document that the BoT of the IMB developed regarding tongues back in the 2007 / 2008 timeframe. My memory could be wrong, but as I recall, the document discussed “tongues” but I don’t think it said anything, one way or another, regarding “private prayer language”.
I have done more research regarding the action of the board of trustees of the IMB about “candidate qualifications”. I have found in my library some references to the BoT’s action regarding “PPL” but I have not been able to locate the text of the actual document that the BoT approved. In any case, the BoT evidently promulgated this document in 2005, not 2007 or 2008. The bottom line, I may have to eat the words of my previous post because — even though I don’t have the actual text — I do have access to secondary sources that suggest… Read more »
The longer ending of Mark 16 contains the “signs” commissioning of the Apostles: “Go into all the world…and these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents in their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” The final verse in Mark confirms the miracles: “And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.” I… Read more »
Stephen, The passage you quoted places Jesus on record affirming and expecting speaking in tongues to occur among His followers. That to me is powerful and pertinent to the discussion at hand. You have qualified and described what Jesus meant in Mark 16: 17 more-so than He did. You limit Jesus’ statement to not include praying in tongues in private, but He didn’t. My only point in referencing Jesus’ statement was to point out the fact that Jesus affirmed and expected those among His followers to speak in tongues. His statement is a confirmation or endorsement to me to the… Read more »
Thanks for the reply! Obviously we disagree but I appreciate your taking the time to put down your thoughts. You say that I limit Jesus’ statements but from my perspective you stretch them beyond their intended use.
I think this is an articulate ‘baptistic’ view of speaking in tongues. Whether its public or private. I am still a reformed, cessationist baptist, but I agree with Brother Dwight that this is not something to be condemned, disallowed, and people who practice it segregated and removed from our mission boards etc. Jesus said it would happen in some way and some where. And Paul said, 1Co 14:39 “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.” I have to be honest, I am not convinced it is a real thing at all. I’ve spoken in tongues.… Read more »
Clark,
I think we have been pelted with many false Arminian approaches to biblical tongues and such. A better understanding is to seek God on this issue and ask Him to work His Spirit through us individually. Then see what happens. It seems to me that tongues was not something we personally produced. It has to be something different than what we have faced in the past 200 years.
Dwight, you write here to address the question, “Is there a biblical basis for a Kingdom citizen to pray in tongues in private?” I think most of your actual argument in point 2 is a personal, experiential one, not biblical. Can you describe for me how you have “experienced tongues as they did on the day of Pentecost”? Did your tongues experience include “at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6)? Otherwise, I do not believe you can claim such and so I would… Read more »
Pentecost is just one expression of tongues. There are many “kinds” as Paul points out. Nowhere in the Word do we have a detailed prescription of how tongues of all kinds are manifested. I’ve experienced two kinds of tongues in my life both compatible with what the Scriptures teach. I’ve also experienced a Word of Knowledge and other manifestations of the Holy Spirit–each time, each experience was compatible with the Scriptures. Analyzing Spiritual activity with empiricism (the primary epistemology used to challenge tongues–or miracles in general) is like examining a snowflake. The mere act of the examination changes what one… Read more »
Stephen,
The description of the tongues in Acts 2: 11 is basically praise. This is consistent with what Paul said was being spoken at Corinth “praise, thanksgiving, prayers.” To experience the tongues at Pentecost and not take them to your private prayer closet would be inconceivable to me. I admit this is my opinion though. I am asking no one else to embrace my opinion.
Didn’t D.A. Carson, arguably the best exegete alive today put this argument to rest in his book on the Holy Spirit. I can’t wade through all that, but can someone shine some light on it?
Seldom does one man’s exegetical argument put an issue completely at rest. If it were so, we’d not have any blogs, would we?
True, but if I could wade through Carson’s technical works, I’d probably settle where he is. Have you read Carson’s book? Has Wm Dwight McKissic? I’d be more interested to see a blogger interact with a notable scholar on a topic rather than outlining views that are typical of a movement (Charismatics and Pentecostals).
Matt. to which book do you refer? I have read Carson’s Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14. It’s been awhile, but I might be able to recall some of it. What argument are you saying he put to rest in his book? (If it’s a different book on the Holy Spirit more broadly, I haven’t read it.)
Yeah, that book you mentioned. I have not read it, but I head a pastor talk about it. The biblical arguments that tongues means known languages and the arguments from scientists (linguists, I suppose) who have documented that tongues-speakers aren’t making any known dialect. But the pastor also told us that Carson explains how that fact doesn’t mean they are speaking a “heavenly” language. Perhaps you can look through it and interact with the arguments the blog makes. I sure wish Carson would publish a popular book on that without the technical arguments. I’m sure there’s a MP3 or audio… Read more »
Matt, one thing that I remembered about Carson’s book was his argument of the possibility that some cases of tongues could be (at least theoretically), neither known languages nor gibberish. This was unexpected and surprised me when I read it. He also invoked the words of Vern Poythress to support his case. To better articulate it, I have pulled out the book and will quote. Carson noted that of all the tongues experiences recorded and studied by linguistics, none were known languages. But he nevertheless concludes as “logically possible” that “tongues may bear cognitive information though they are not known… Read more »
My response to: A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN PRIVATE BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR. “The primary purpose for addressing this topic is to answer the question: Is there a biblical basis for a Kingdom citizen to pray in tongues in private?” My point is a tad more specific: Is it the Gift of Tongues when done in private? Of which I am saying that according to the Bible, it is not. Dwight seems to be saying that if it is not Biblical to do so in private, it shouldn’t be done there, although he not say that… Read more »
Parson Mike, Again, thanks for asking the question; and thanks for your response. We obviously read the same Bible yet reach different conclusions regarding these matters. My question to you is the one I’ve asked others: Should the IMB invade the private prayer lives of the missionaries? And if this is going to be the policy that governs the identity and policies of the SBC entities, shouldn’t the SBC ought to take a position on this matter? The SBC today is where they were 30 years ago when I joined the SBC. They have no official position on this issue.… Read more »
Dwight, Your questions and comments answered in reverse order. If the Gift of Tongues is only a Spirit gift when done in public, then what you and the others are doing is something unBiblical. If it remained in your prayer closet as between you and God, what business is it if mine to say you should pray there this way or that? But you and others do not want it to remain something you do with God alone for you broadcast it to the world. So I ask, for what purpose do you publicize your personal style of communications with… Read more »
Well, Mike, you’ve got enough material there for a couple of sermons. Your preconceived interpretation is that there is no such thing as the gift of tongues manifest in a private prayer language (speaking to oneself and to God as Paul clearly and succinctly states in I Corinthians). That’s the context you overlay on top of your argument. Obviously, you put a lot of work into this, but your presupposition negates your points, one by one, because it is the only conclusion you intend to draw. I can’t tell you how many times I heard the term “let the scripture… Read more »
Parsonsmike, Once again, you state here, “There is nothing in the Bible that speaks to a PPL.” I don’t know whether you saw it or not, but I already addressed this point of yours you keep making over and over again here: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564 It seems to me you want to discount much of what Dwight is saying here, because you believe his interpretation of Scripture is overly influenced by his personal experience. Yet I come from a different perspective than Dwight does with regard to personal experience. I have not personally spoken in tongues. I do not have the gift.… Read more »
David, I missed your comment, which is on another thread. I apologize and will be glad to address it. Point 1: If one is surmising, one could also surmise that Paul is explaining the ONLY valid use of tongues in 1st Cor. 14 which would be in public and be as he outlines. There is no evidence before or after this chapter which supports a PPL. Point 2: “Various verses in 1 Cor. 14 link tongues to prayer, praise, and communicating with God. These include: – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564” Yep. But all of those verses given either individually or… Read more »
That very last line [“Now consider…] should have been deleted. SRY.
David, I missed your comment, which is on another thread. I apologize and will be glad to address it. Point 1: If one is surmising, one could also surmise that Paul is explaining the ONLY valid use of tongues in 1st Cor. 14 which would be in public and be as he outlines. There is no evidence before or after this chapter which supports a PPL. Point 2: “Various verses in 1 Cor. 14 link tongues to prayer, praise, and communicating with God. ” Yep. But all of those verses given either individually or together are viable in fellowship. There… Read more »
Parsonsmike, We have probably beat this dog just about enough. My line of reasoning makes sense to me, and apparently to others, but it doesn’t to you, nor does it, apparently, to still others. The only observation I cannot resist adding to what you say here is that you insinuate that I “MAKE UP a possible answer and then declare the Bible to be backing us up.” You yourself then say, with regard to Paul and 1 Cor. 14:18 that “the Bible SHOWS us and DEMONSTRATES to us how tongues is used by evangelists and missionaries” and that “Paul was… Read more »
Oops! My Greek words appeared as question marks. I will repost the comment and remove the Greek letters.
Yes–the WordPress Theme we’re on doesn’t like any non-English characters.
One may blog in Greek, but one will surely have question marks when it happens.
I’m going to remove the duplicate, since you reposted the comment without the Greek characters.
For clarity’s sake, I removed two comments from Mike Morris that were identical, and that were the same as his comment below (July 9, 2013 @ 1403) except having the dreaded ?????? in place of foreign characters.
All the replies are attached to the comment that remains.
Dwight, I appreciate your passion and work ethic in regard to this topic. I apologize in advance for the length of this response. You said, “Jesus affirmed speaking in tongues.” I believe that the New Testament gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak in foreign languages that had not been studied, and I believe that this gift has ceased. Some people refer to this gift as xenoglossia. Certainly, Jesus was happy to see this gift used effectively. I do not, however, believe that the babbling (glossolalia) that is common today is the New Testament gift of tongues. From… Read more »
Mike,
You’re correct. The “vain repetitions” Jesus spoke of in Matt. 6 are same phenomenon which is going on today. Empty meaningless phrases. There’s nothing supernatural about hearing one babble, but there is in hearing their native tongue “wherein we were born.”
Don, you are simply wrong. There is nothing “empty or meaningless” about my prayer life. If I have a fault in that regard it is that I don’t pray long enough. It is one thing to hold a cessationist view on principle, it is quite another to suggest the practice of millions of people around the world is “empty and meaningless” based upon what . . . your opinion. There certainly is no biblical evidence that tongues has ceased. There certainly is not an ironclad exegesis that absolutely quells any possibility of a miraculous gift of prayer. Certainly, there are… Read more »
Frank,
Are you infering that because the pagans had a PPL long before Pentecost, God wanted some Christians to be able to have one as well?
Don,
Your question is phrased in a way that conflates two different ideas. I imagine it is phrased that way to belittle my point of view and not to seek more information.
God doesn’t wait to see what pagans are doing to establish His plan. That’s sort of insulting to God’s sovereign nature.
Frank,
I agree. God didn’t give Christians the ability to speak in “vain repetitions.” That would not be a “sign.” However, being able to speak in one of languages of the world ( 1 Cor. 14:10) without having first learned it, is a “sign.” If you can speak in one or more of the languages of the world without having been taught it, I would say you have the gift of tongues. Paul said all the languages of world have signification. Which ones can you speak? I’m limited to English.
Don, Please don’t caricature my view and then disingenuously agree. We do not agree. Your view of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit and mine are not the same. There are several instances of the gift of tongues that give no indication it was an earthly language previously unlearned. You are stuck on the same channel that many cessationists have been stuck on for decades–maybe centuries, but I’ve only experienced these views going back four decades. You take one expression of the gift, one kind, and use it as the measure of all the different possibilities. Your view would be… Read more »
Frank,
Is it safe to assume your PPL is not one of the languages of the world of which Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 14:10?
Don,
My prayer language is one of the ones mentioned in 1Cor. 13:1.
Frank,
When you use your PPL do you understand the words you are speaking? For instance in your PPL how is “God” or “Lord” or “Father” pronounced?
Don,
It is obvious you want to belittle my views, and seek to be trifling with your questions.
In honor of my Scripture memory verse this week, I’ll respectfully bow out of this discussion.
Frank,
Good call. I admire your patience.
Frank,
No. I asked if you knew how to pronounce certain words (God, Lord, Father) in your PPL. I chose those because they are common words used in prayer. I assumed you use one or more of those when you commonly pray. If in fact you do know the meaning and how to pronounce the words of your PPL, I would conclude you may well indeed have a real PPL. As all tongue speaker knows exactly what they are saying 1 Cor. 14.
Mike,
Are you intending to argue that the specific point Jesus was addressing in Matt. 6:7-8 was a practice among certain people in his audience that was the equivalent to modern-day glossolalia?
Also, are you intending to argue that the practice that Paul was correcting in 1 Cor. 14:23 was something basically equivalent to the babbling and frenzied state that occurred at Delphi?
In regard to 1 Corinthians 14:23, I believe that Paul did not want the true gift of tongues to be misconstrued as the pagan practice of babbling. “Mainesthe,” a form of “mainomai” is used in the verse. As I said earlier, “mainomai” is the verb form of “mania.” I agree with Chester’s statement above: “Yet there remains Plato’s description of the Pythia’s state when prophesying as madness, the same vocabulary as in 1 Cor. 14.23. . . . We have reviewed the evidence for divine madness in Graeco-Roman religion and have found significant parallels to speaking in tongues. . .… Read more »
So, if I am understanding you correctly, the problem Paul was correctly was the misuse of the legitimate gift of tongues (known human languages), practicing it out loud in church meetings, but he was afraid it could be misconstrued not as real tongues, but rather as mere babbling?
On a side note, do you think there may be any possible connection between 1 Cor. 14:23 and Acts 2:13?
should read “the problem Paul was correcting…”
Matthew 6:7-8 is giving specific instructions for private prayer. Jesus is saying that we should not pray as the “ethnikoi” do. The ethnikoi were doing the “battalogesete,” and Jesus is saying that we should not do it. Looking at the historical context (the pagan “inspired” speech that is described in the historical materials), and looking at the onomatopoetic word “battalogesete” for babbling, my conclusion is that Jesus was saying that prayer to the Father should not be anything like the pagan pattern of babbling. If you share your analysis of the historical context and the words “ethnikoi” and “battalogesete,” I… Read more »
Mike, I will have to look into this further. Frankly, this is the first time I have heard such an idea. It seems like a rather novel interpretation to me. I guess my question would be, Was that the normal meaning of “battalogesete” at that time–not just its etymology? Also, is there any historical evidence that 1st-century Jews in Palestine actually engaged in this practice? It is a stretch for me to think of Jesus’ 1st-century Jewish audience engaging in literal babbling (and not just metaphorically babbling, i.e. “heaping up empty phrases” as many translations have it) to such an… Read more »
The Greek verb “battalogeo,” in the aorist form in which it is found in Matthew 6:7 (“battalogesete”), only occurs once in Scripture (Matt 6:7). Thus, we cannot compare this occurrence with other occurrences in Scripture, because there aren’t any. In regard to the Jews in Palestine, the Hellenized Jews certainly were familiar with Delphi and the Pythia. Delphi was the most famous pagan religious site in the Graeco-Roman world. The Testament of Job provides a Jewish parallel to babbling. It is dated by some scholars sometime between 100 BC and 100 AD. Here is the relevant part as cited by… Read more »
Very interesting, Mike. I was not familiar with The Testament of Job. I googled it and found the following interesting tidbit on the Wikipedia article: “It has consequently been suggested that the work originates amongst an Egyptian sect of Judaism known as the Therapeutae, that took an ascetic outlook and had a theology heavily involving mysticism. “A tendency to mysticism in the text can be more clearly seen in a passage concerning multicoloured cords for women to put around their breasts to enable them to sing in the language of the angels. Some say this is an early example of… Read more »
Also I’m wondering if Bart’s “gar” argument comes into play here and gives us an exegetical clue to the intended meaning of “battalogeo”: “for they think that they will be heard for their many words.” In other words, it seems to me it is more likely that “battalogeo,” in Jesus’ mind, had the connotation of going on and on without adding meaningful content to your prayers, rather than ecstatic speech that no one understood.
David, Forbes addressed the Montanist interpolation theory: “There are two weaknesses in this suggestion. The first is the suggestion that what Job’s three daughters are doing would be seen as prophecy by a Montanist. None of our records suggest that Montanist prophesy was understood as hymnic: those samples which remain are remarkably prosaic. Likewise, as I have argued above, there is no evidence that glossolalia was practised among the Montanists, or that they understood their prophesy to include angelic languages. On the same line, Montanism seems to know of no parallels for the ‘sashes’ or ‘strings’ worn by the daughters,… Read more »
David, in relation to battalogeo in Matthew 6:7, you said:
“In other words, it seems to me it is more likely that ‘battalogeo,’ in Jesus’ mind, had the connotation of going on and on without adding meaningful content to your prayers, rather than ecstatic speech that no one understood.”
I think that if a person is babbling during private prayer, then there is no meaningful content. If a person is speaking in intelligible language, however, then there would be meaningful content. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane prayed a long time and repeated Himself (Matt 26:40-44).
Mike
Regarding Forbes, Montanists, etc.: Fair enough. I’m sure he knows far more about this than I ever will.
Did he mention whether he thinks the Therapeutae were the source of the Testament of Job? Also, if so, it would be interesting to know what record there is of Theapeutae presence/influence in 1st-century Palestine.
Mike,
Personally, it makes more sense to me that Jesus’ use of “battalogeo” has more to do with what he said in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 about those who “for a pretense make long prayers.”
David, interestingly, Forbes referred to the Therapeutae in a footnote:
“Spittler admits that an origin among the Therapeutae seems more plausible for the major part of the document, but feels surer of a Montanist origin at least for Chapters 48-50. He also admits that several features of these chapters, such as the semi-magical ‘sashes’ and the interest in angeology, are a little hard to parallel closely in either setting.”
Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,1995), 185.
Mike Morris, You also have done extensive work on this subject. I appreciated reading your comments. I am pulling them down for further review. I’m sure that you are aware that I could name men such as Gordon Fee, D. A. Carson, Jack McGorman and others who would totally disagree with Yarnell, MacArthur, and all the other persons you quoted. We will never settle this issue by calling on expert witnesses. They all contradict each other, sort of like we do hear on the blog. Therefore the question becomes, where will the SBC stand on this issue? It is baffling… Read more »
Dwight, you asked, “To what do you attribute the speaking in tongues in private to by 2o% of evangelical Christians? Are we all crazy? demonically influenced? or what? How do you explain it?” I think there are several causes for babbling. If you type “glossolalia” in the search engine at YouTube, in one of the clips you will see an older woman teaching young children how to speak in tongues. Before Jimmy Swaggert’s scandal, during his time of great popularity, I remember seeing him on TV teaching a crowd of people how to speak in tongues. He told them to… Read more »
Mike, What you described regarding Jimmy Swaggart teaching people how to speak in tongues is the exception rather than the rule. To disqualify tongues speaking based on your example would be like disqualifying offerings or invitations to discipleship because we have all seen manipulations and abuses with the offerings and invitations. Brief testimony: In the summer of 1981 I was a first time seminary student at SWBTS. I had studied the Bible as best I could on this subject. I’d read many-many books pro and con on this subject seeking understanding. I was tossed to and fro by every wind… Read more »
Dwight, I lived in Fort Worth Hall in the same period of time that you did, 1980-1981. I got married in 1982 and lived in Williams Student Village across the street until graduation in 1983. We probably crossed paths several times. I lived on the second floor of Fort Worth Hall in a 3-person room right above the office. You asked, “So I ask you again, what do you attribute this to? This was not a Swaggart scenario as you described. How do you explain this?” I said in a short post above, “I think there are several causes for… Read more »
Mike, Great response. It sounds as if you are a classical cessationist. But again, we are back to where we started. If this is the position that the SBC is going to take, that position needs to be sanctioned by the convention. How can you have Dr. Gray a missions professor teaching what he was teaching at an SBC seeminary, and then have a policy adopted as the IMB tongues policy. That is confusion of the highest order. I am only asking for clarity and congruency by the convention on these matters. I really like your answer and wish in… Read more »
Dwight, Thank you for your testimony. No matter what men write, the Bible is our lead and guide. If you believe that your experience[s] are of God, then as long as you so believe, your private prayer life is the business of God and you. No one else. But if fails to meet the criteria as a Gift of the Holy Spirit. The Gifts are given to this end, as Peter tells us: “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” Your testimony is that… Read more »
Parson Mike, Great questions but brief answers. I have an upcoming appointment soon. Praying in tongues is an intimate experience with God that I value and treasure. I certainly have intimate encounters with God that do not include tongues, but inasmuch as you asked, I am very-very grateful that God chose to grace me with the gift of tongues. I believe that I receive insight in prayer, power for my walk with God, and annointing and direction in my preaching directly related to praying in tongues. I believe in Jude 20 prayer as well, that does not necessarily include tongues.… Read more »
Dwight, Thanks again for a personal testimony. You said: “I believe that I receive insight in prayer, power for my walk with God, and anointing and direction in my preaching directly related to praying in tongues.” But how do these things come to you, the insight, the power, the direction? Not through your mind since you are not using your mind. Do you not receive these things in your natural prayer life? Several IMB trustees wrote that: “Though some would hold that a private prayer language is a different spiritual gift from tongues, there seems to be no way to… Read more »
Mike, Two things: (1) You mentioned the Association historically being the doctrinal watchdog in SBC life….that is true. The Tarrant Baptist Assiciatoon of Churches voted to support me & my position as Trustee at SWBTS, in light of my stated position on tongues almost unanimously. My point is there is simply no Baptist consensus on this issue. We are losing most young SBC oriented pastors to ARC, Catalyst, & other affinity groups to numerous to name because of the SBC’s ambiguity or perched hostility , or dysfunction related to this issue. Our funding issues at the IMB reflects the loss… Read more »
Dwight, the link still works on my computer.
Dwight and I both tried to pull it from mobile sources, and the video didn’t work.
But it’s working from the desktop at my office–not sure about his.
So I think the issue was technical.
“Finally, to what do you attribute the speaking in tongues in private to by 20% of evangelical Christians? Are we all crazy? demonically influenced? or what? How do you explain it?” Brother McKissic – There appears to me to be a growing mistrust in SBC ranks regarding personal Christian experience. We sure never judge the experience of another by the parameters of our own. As you note “God sovereignly bestows and distributes spiritual gifts according to His will.” I think we need to be careful when we attempt to reduce the essence of Christianity to a set of doctrinal propositions… Read more »
Max, I hope you do not mean that you believe that we should elevate experience over the doctrinal propositions of Scripture. Please clarify what you mean here. Hopefully, you agree with me that Scripture always trumps experience.
Mike, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe the Bible from cover to cover and believe the cover when it says “Holy.” I don’t think the statement “Scripture always trumps experience” should be taken at face value. If you mean that a “Spirit-quickened understanding of the Scripture always trumps experience,” then I’m 100% on board. But, I don’t think a “Dead Orthodoxy” trumps a “Living Orthopraxy.” I know many people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and can quote doctrine all day long, but they are as useless to the Kingdom of God as a Corvette… Read more »
Mike – There are some experiences that are Scriptural. Brother McKissic makes that point. Lord knows that much of Christendom’s doctrinal propositions are based on teachings and traditions of men rather than the commandments of God … and Jesus told us not to do that! Experience does not trump Scripture; it often confirms it. Certainly, this is not always the case, but it would be best to pray for discernment to test and try the spirits, rather than reducing what we don’t understand to babble.
Mike, Your question to Max is a valid question, but the problem here is whose view of Scripture are we going with: MacArthur’s cessationist view or MacGorman’s continuationist view? Experience should never trump Scripture. But some of us clearly see Scripture for praying in tongues in private, and some don’t. A person with Scripture and a experience is never at a disadvantage in a theological discussion/dispute with a person who is armed with an argument only. The cessationist is armed with an argument only. Some continuationists are armed with an argument and Scripture. And that makes all the difference in… Read more »
Dwight,
You said, “The cessationist is armed with an argument only. Some continuationists are armed with an argument and Scripture.”
Are you saying that cessationists like me are not armed with Scripture? I assume that you define cessationists as those who believe that the gift of tongues (the miraculous ability for a person to speak a foreign language that he has not studied) has ceased but that other gifts, such as teaching, are still with us.
Mike, Yes. From my reading of Scripture there is not one iota of evidence to support cessationism. Not one. Therefore, Yes!!! I am saying that the cessationist is not armed with Scripture. As a matter of fact Augustine made some early cessationist remarks, but later in his ministry he embraced what we now call continuationism. It was really not until ’bout 1918, when B B Warfield a Princeton Theologian wrote a book on cessationism, it appears in response to the Azusa Revival that the doctrine of cessationism really gained traction in evangelicalism. It is primarily among Western Anglo Evangelicals that… Read more »
Dwight, can you cooperate with Southern Baptists who are not armed with Scripture to do missions work? Can you support cessationist missionaries who are not armed with Scripture?
Frank, hopefully all of us who comment here are Christians who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the sword of the Spirit, and the Spirit certainly uses the Bible (His sword) to teach us the doctrinal truths that we need to know. I hope that all of us who comment here also use the grammatico-historical approach to interpreting the Scripture where we utilize the original language (in this case, Greek) and the historical context to interpret what the inspired authors really meant. I have attempted to use the grammatico-historical approach in my long post above. Experience can… Read more »
Mike, That’s exactly what I do with my position, as does Dwight and millions around the world. The argument isn’t about “who believes Scripture, or who has the right interpretation of Scripture.” The problem arises when elitism trumps exegesis–that is, we confuse “our” interpretation with “the” interpretation.” On some matters–though fewer than denominationalism would suggest–there is a legitimate difference of opinion in regard to what exactly is the right interpretation. You are right, this is a discussion between “believers.” As I’ve said above, I did not seek the experience God has given me. God bore witness with my spirit that… Read more »
Frank, I’m glad that we could disagree agreeably, as brothers in Christ should do.
I don’t mean that brothers should disagree, but when we do disagree, we should do so with civility.
Mike,
I’ve been where you are and believed in my position strongly.
I greatly appreciate that you hold your beliefs because you feel they align with Scripture. I greatly respect that and have to admit to a bit of sadness that we cannot be in 100% agreement.
But, if you needed a sandwich, I’d be happy to buy you one.
God bless.
http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm/resources/?action=public:library.details&ID=181#.UdxvZ238GZE
I certainly enjoyed preaching that day!
I found it and put it in a comment while watching. I enjoyed it very much. (One of my greatest sources of enjoyment at SWBTS was chapel and convocations, though I thoroughly enjoyed my classes, too!) I’ve since finished and I just want to say I find the sermon–and assuming I have the right “Mike Morris”–his background especially as he relates in the sermon to be fascinating. There are a couple of comments in the sermon that were playing to the crowd at SWBTS that seemed to me to be, shall we say, emphasizing emotion over reason. And I will… Read more »
Greg, you said, “That leads me to wonder if you are essentially in agreement that everyone with a private prayer language should hide it under a bushel (like it isn’t already) and preferably leave the SBC?” I said in a post above the following: “As an employee of an SBC institution, I don’t think it is my place to tell messengers to an SBC annual meeting what doctrinal parameters they should set.” The messengers at the annual meetings of the SBC ultimately decide who will be president and what resolutions will be passed. The president appoints the committee on committees… Read more »
I actually appreciate your studied distance from the disdain in your public sermon for someone babbling in a closet. I guess in one forum it’s okay to say what you think but in another forum it’s more inconvenient? Or to phrase it with an emotional, not biblical appeal that “That is not who we are!”
Greg, I love you as a brother in Christ. Blessings on your ministry!
The doctrinal parameters that trustees of SBC institutions must adhere to are stated in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Part of the problem with enforcing a doctrinal position on the gift of tongues is that there is no doctrinal parameter related to this particular spiritual gift or its acceptable practice as far as Southern Baptists are concerned. So there has been conflict, and interference with the work of Southern Baptists on the mission field because an arbitrary decision was made by trustees of a mission board. There is a legitimate question as to what the bylaws actually say when… Read more »
Lee, I want to agree with you, but I’m afraid of the consequences of bringing up an issue that would split the Convention almost down the middle. I would not do this in my church, without a very clear mandate from God to do so. I don’t feel there is such a mandate in regard to the gifts of the Spirit. If the Convention in any way restricted the full expression of God’s Holy Spirit, I’d leave before the ballots were thrown away. I think many would do the same thing. The problem with continually drawing the tent cords tighter… Read more »
Mike: From your background you can probably answer this question definitively. The question is this: “Is the ‘anti-PPL’ language adopted by the IMB BoT still operative at the IMB.”? I have attempted to research this and I just can’t seem to find: (a) the document which contains the “anti – PPL” ground rules [ca 2005] adopted the IMB; and (b) if these rules have ever been modified since its adoption. Personally, this whole argument is way over my head. But I think that the first step in discussing the way forward is to clarity what the current situation is regarding… Read more »
The only thing I can find on the IMB’s website is this:
http://www.imb.org/main/news/details.asp?LanguageID=1709&StoryID=3839
there is nothing in the initial descriptions of qualifications for or disqualifications from service about tongues.
Also, pair that with this:
http://www.imb.org/main/news/details.asp?LanguageID=1709&StoryID=3834
Which is what I can find in terms of the official announcement of the policy.
Of note, to me, are the application points: not retroactive and exceptions possible, but rare.
I assume that the “no public or private babbling” policies are still in effect at the IMB and at the NAMB.
Mike Morris, “Can you cooperate with Southern Baptists who are not armed with Scripture to do mission work? Can you support cessationist missionaries who are not armed with Scripture?” Great questions, though tough and tricky. The answer to your question(s) is a conditional– Yes!!! Provided that the cessationist missionaries also recognize and teach continuationism as being within the boundaries of orthodox evangelism. Sort of like the Calvinist-Traditionalist Accord that the SBC has recently adopted. If the only position that is taught is cessationism, and continuationism, and those who actually pray in tongues in private are treated as if they have… Read more »
Dwight, you asked, “Mike, do you think the IMB ought to hire a person like me?” As I said above, I agree with the IMB’s present “no babbling” policy. My impression from what you have said is that you babble. Thus, I do not think the IMB should hire you because you would be in violation of the IMB policy on babbling. You also asked, “I am not asking you this question as a Southern Baptist Employee, but as a Southern Baptist congregant: Do you beleive that the SBC ought to take a definitive position on this question, or adopt… Read more »
That should have been a smiley diagram. 🙂
Dwight,
I don’t think the IMB should send missionaries out who speak in tongues private or public.
This was a gift the early believers had which we do not have today. I think
whoever speaks in tongues today lacks a good understanding of scripture, and is possessed by a strong desire of self satisfaction.
Neither can we raise the dead or heal the sick. Sorry, I think the truth
will stand.
“Neither can we raise the dead or heal the sick.” What a sad commentary on today’s church vs. the power resident in the early church. Peter proclaimed “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” Today’s church can boast of silver and gold, but can’t say rise up and walk! Somewhere along the line we stopped believing the words in red and praying for power. As a result, we don’t have enough power to blow the dust off a peanut … wasting all our… Read more »
Doug: Thanks for providing the link to IMB’s website where the “Policy on Tongues and Prayer Language” is spelled out. I did a number of searches but couldn’t find the subject info. You are a real super-sleuth!! I have not heard any discussion regarding PPL vis. a vis. the IMB since 2006. So I didn’t know what the current status was. I think the operative sentence in the policy is: “Therefore, if ‘private prayer language’ is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB… Read more »
Roger,
“Things seem to be on an even keel at IMB since 2006.”
You consider laying off 600 missionaries & the inability to fund missionaries hundreds of other missionaries who have already been qualified by the IMB but again, no funding available; you call that “an even keel”?
Roger– Those webpages are accessible to an outside search engine, but even using terms from their titles in the search box for news on the IMB page does not show them. I am curious if the “exceptions may be approved to the policy committee” aspect has gotten larger than the initial “we expect such exceptions to be rare” to the point that the policy remains technically in effect but practically is not applied. Or if the effect of the turmoil then (and regrowing now) has been to keep anyone with an experience that comes near tongue-speaking from even applying. I… Read more »
Dwight,
Also the SBC churches will be devastated is the IMB sends out missionaries who speak in tongues. You talking about losing support,
it will happen. The leaders of the SBC will have to go on a pork and bean diet.
Jess,
The IMB for years sent out missionaries who spoke in tongues. Their President for years spoke in tongues. Their current policies says that they won’t retroactively remove missionaries who speak in tongues. Therefore, I am not understanding your statement that SBC executives will have to go on a pork & bean diet it the IMB missionaries were under the pre 2005 tongues policy, that did not place restrictions on their private prayers. Please explain? What am I missing?
Dwight,
The average church members are ignorant of these policies. If they find out about the IMB sending out missionaries or has sent out missionaries who speak in tongues, upset will not be the word for it.
I’m saying most Baptist churches will think about withdrawing from the SBC.
Jess,
As long as they keep it to themselves and are not pushing it on anyone else, I think you are wrong about this. It may be that way in your neck of the woods, or in the circles you run in, but I don’t think this is the case of the SBC at large.
Jess,
If what you are saying is true, wouldn’t those churches have withdrawn or thought about withdrawing when Jerry Rankin was hired?
Dwight,
There is only so much gets to the public.
I wonder how many Southern Baptists know that the IMB has a policy in place which violates scripture and forbids speaking in tongues among its missionaries?
Frank, when you say, “If the Convention in any way restricted the full expression of God’s Holy Spirit, I’d leave before the ballots were thrown away. I think many would do the same thing,” are you aware that the IMB and NAMB have policies in place which do this exact thing?
The cords are already drawn by trustee boards that, according to SBC bylaws, don’t have the authority to make this kind of policy without referring them to the convention for a vote. That has never been done, to my knowledge.
Dwight: As you say there are more missionaries available to be sent than funds to send them. The question is: “to what extent is the reduction in funds for Lottie and the CP attributable to PPL (or anti PPL) policies at the IMB as opposed to other factors such as the horrible economic conditions that took place between 2008 and 2010”? I don’t know the answer to this question. Just because two changes happen together does not demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship. If A and B happen at the same time then some of the possible explanations are: A caused B.… Read more »
I wonder if the issue is the policy or the strife connected to it. Sometimes the normal church members who set budgets and give to LMCO are pushed back by argument in itself.
They want to support the spread of the Gospel but are hesitant to fund controversy. So, when you have visible evidence of controversy like this, people back up.
Doug,
The IMB policy has made it impossible to support the IMB without supporting cessationism. Therin lies the problem. Can the problem be fixed? Will the problem be fixed? It may take the next generation to fix it, but the S B C must fix this. Or else we continue down the path of decli e.
I would suggest that many church members don’t know supporting cessation from continuation. Most, I think, expect that the IMB was solving a problem rather than restricting the Spirit.
Our support for the IMB is based on spreading the Gospel, not on IMB being one or the other. That’s where I think more folks are then those actively intending to support a view of tongues.
Doug,
I basically agree, but also see a problem with the IMB issue.
It could be argued that it does, in fact, restrict the Spirit. I think that is the main point of this thread.
What problem exactly was the IMB solving when the head of the IMB said there was no problem? If the impetus for the policy was not solving a problem, then what was the impetus?
My answer would be: something else. Was that something else a restriction of the Spirit? I guess that is the 64 thousand dollar question.
I am not saying that it is not a problem nor that it is not restricting the Spirit. My point is this: For the typical church member that I know, and for many disconnected from blog discussion preachers, this is what they have heard: The IMB had a problem with Pentecostalism, and so they solved it by barring that behavior. Further, the IMB wouldn’t restrict missionaries that are good Baptists and certainly wouldn’t restrict the Holy Spirit. I don’t think many folks who give to LMCO would see themselves “supporting cessationism” or anything else. Those issues aren’t on their radar.… Read more »
Frank, that turned into a ramble. Been a busy morning with other stuff. Resummarized: we are discussing whether or not the IMB restricted the Spirit in this action. Most typical churchgoers are starting with the assumption that the IMB would *never* do such a thing. So their support of IMB is not based on supporting a policy. It is based on an *assumption* that they are supporting the IMB in what should be IMB’s only task: spreading the Gospel. Typically, one does not expect that the IMB is setting doctrinal policy for the SBC. Being involved in the debate changes… Read more »
Doug, I see your point. Many of our people are ignorant of what really goes on in the SBC. But, isn’t that in itself a problem? If they were to find out, would they still be so ambivalent? That’s an important point to ponder I think also. I do agree that blogs are not exactly equivalent to life in the local church. I get what you are saying. I just have a feeling this IMB policy is not going to go “quietly into the night.” I fear that it is going to become an increasingly bothersome point for persons who… Read more »
Here is where we need to be: We need to find a way to better connect, bottom-up, the SBC. And I think that includes a better effort to strengthen the overall understandings of theology and doctrine in our churches. If you dropped the words “cessationist” and “continuationist” in the typical church, what would you get? If you dropped “Calvinist” and “Traditionalist”? Any of the others? We are woefully detached–sometimes due to willful ignorance at the local level, sometimes for other reasons. Whatever the cause, I would posit that right now, we have problems that no one knows are problems–and other… Read more »
Doug,
Great thoughts. Agree wholeheartedly. Well articulated.
There is definitely a disconnect, I’m sure for various reasons.
We need a “reconnect.”
My concern isn’t really so much about the tongues issue, as it is the general attitude of Baptists in regard to the Holy Spirit in toto. We as Baptist are really good at getting the “jots and tittles” correct but we are not as good, it seems to me, at dealing with the great mysteries of faith. We’ve turned Christianity into a giant head with a very small heart. I’d say well over 80 percent of the members in my church have a solid, orthodox theology and could pass a basic theology exam, but they are “dead right.” I’ve been… Read more »
Frank,
Great words that we all should take heed. Thank you for spelling it out so plainly. You must have remembered to take your medication today. 🙂
Jess,
I’m always faithful to take my medication: 14 pills every morning and 7 in the evening.
Keeps me fit as a fiddle–though often still out of tune.
The thing about the unknown languages is that I have enough to answer for in my native language. How could I be sure that what I uttered in an unknown language was a praise of God or a blasphemy of His holy name. Paul heard things in his heavenly experience which were not to be spoken of in this world. The disappointments I have experienced with those who speak in tongues does not give me much incentive to explore their practices and views. I can accept, when someone speaks in another language which leads to conversion or to some action… Read more »