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 content of their private prayers, and do you think that if they pray with “words not understood” in private, should that disqualify them from serving as a IMB missionary? That to me us the key question/issue here.
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 the gift is no longer given. On the other hand, the a posteriori cessationist and the continuationist would accept that it could be tongues, while having no way to prove it was or wasn’t. Given their presuppositions, the a posteriori cessationist might tend to think it is not while the continuationist would tend to think it is.
Concerning whether missionaries ought to be asked about the content of their private prayers, that seems to me an unusual place to “dig”. If private prayer language had never been mentioned it seems it might have never been asked about. But at this point this is a “horse is already out of the barn situation” and there is no going back to not knowing. I understand that you see the IMB missionary situations to be the key question/issue. But underlying that is how one views these scriptures about, which will guide folks in how they approach the matter. I find it interesting that a priori cessationism — a view that the gifts such as tongues, knowledge, interpretation, etc. is no longer operable after the close of inspiration — is not supposed to be that prevalent in the SBC. Am I wrong? The question about and opposition private prayer language arises mostly from that viewpoint, I would think. But maybe it is a pragmatic question for other reasons in the minds of some?
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 to us.
“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Romans 8:26
Could this be an occasion for the tongues you are talking about?
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 that the BoT did, in fact, rule out candidates who have a “private prayer language”.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK
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 don’t see how this passage supports speaking in tongues in private, anymore than it supports casting out demons or healing the sick in private. Tongues is clearly one of the signs that will confirm the Holy Spirit’s power in the disciples’ evangelistic efforts, a very public, outward sign.
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 tongues spoken at Pentecost and at Corinth( 1 Corinthians 14: 2).
I certainly respect your right to a different interpretation and consequently application of this verse.
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. I don’t anymore. I can turn it on and pretend to right now if I want to but I don’t believe it accomplishes anything. In fact, I am fairly convinced it is emotional babble. Sorry, that’s what I think.
But there have been many wonderful, faithful, effective servants of God who practice this. Most likely some teaching in our seminaries, who fall under a sort of DADT scenario.
There are charismatics who I would definitely allow to preach from my pulpit, though many I would not. Hey, there are a few Baptist ministers who wouldn’t be welcome at my pulpit either.
But there are many good, Bible-believing, soteriologically sound, believers who believe in PPL and in public usage of tongues, and while I may think they’re off this is not a point of disqualification.
Now, if they ever suggest that Tongues and Interpretation (or modern day prophecy) is inspired like the Bible we will have a First order level of disagreement.
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 want more evidence as to why it is “not unreasonable” that the tongues sign at Pentecost extended into personal prayer times.
I agree that the converted Samaritans, Philip, the eunuch, etc. were all filled with the Holy Spirit and received joy. I do not see how that relates to speaking in tongues in private.
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 is looking at.
We often confuse our conclusions with the “whole truth and nothing but the truth.” I’ve found that in regard to the miraculous–this simply is not a possible conclusion.
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 out there, but I haven’t looked.
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 human languages–just as a computer program is a ‘language’ that conveys a great deal of information, even though it is not a ‘language’ that anyone actually speaks. You have to know the code to be able to understand it. Such a pattern of verbalization could not be legitimately dismissed as gibberish.” (p. 86)
Carson does not take this to mean “that all modern tongues phenomena are therefore biblically authentic” but he does understand it to provide room for some of it to be, even if it is not human language.
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 directly. Instead he started with a narrow point, speaking in tongues in private, as his topic, and applied a more general statement to it: “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.”
Maybe that is so, but I am not addressing whether tongues has ceased altogether, been suspended, or is still a true and viable gift of the Spirit in this time.
The rest of his introductory remarks are not relevant to the question at hand as least as far as it deals with my challenge.
He finishes his intro:
“I want to address the question regarding the biblical basis for praying in tongues in private from a biblical and biographical perspective.”
I.] In Dwight;s first point, labeled: Jesus affirmed speaking in tongues, I ask is there any Biblical evidence given that the Gift of Tongues is a private prayer language [PPL]? None at all.
He does show us that Jesus foretold that “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)”
And I agree with him: “that Jesus’ statement here is an affirmation of speaking in tongues.”
Most of the rest of this section deals with your [Dwight’s] problem with the IMB which is not what I am addressing here. But his second to last sentence touches on it:
“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.”
There is no direct evidence of the above I agree. But even as Dwight called tongues speaking a sign [“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” ] , and a private venue of tongues speaking does not qualify as a sign. Thus his own take on the passage mitigates against his position, even if not directly.
But again, the point is proving it is Biblical not simply showing that the private use of tongues is a possibility.
II. “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). [And may I add that many of these were devout Jews”
But Dwight moves from the historical to assumption for he continues:
“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.”
This is but an assertion of what he wants to prove.
What we are looking for is Biblical proof. What Dwight is giving us is what seems reasonable to him. Or not unreasonable. Is it wrong to ask if perhaps he is biased? Is it wrong to think that there is a possibility that his own personal experiences that others who read the same Scriptures will not by his own admission be able to experience, might lead him to not be as objective as he should be? But what he deems as reasonable or not unreasonable is not the point, rather it is what the Bible says…
The actual event was NOT private but quite public. Can not Dwight and the rest of us praise God and His wonderful works in our native tongues, connecting what we know and have experienced of God in our prayer closets? Is God less praised when we use our own minds to glorify Him? Rather we should note that when we praise Him with our minds and spirits it is better [1st Cor. 14: 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.]
But then why unknown tongues in Acts? Because it was a sign that the Gospel was of God. Can it still be that way today? That is not the topic, nor my argument. To praise God in a tongue you know not of so that others might also praise Him is what happens in Acts.
Dwight’s assumption is NOT Biblical proof and isn’t any ground to build on.
But as to this paragraph:
“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.”
Here is the key words: “It is my opinion,”.
Assumptions and opinions are not Biblical basis for constructing doctrine.
In the rest of this point [II.] there is ZERO evidence presented that there is even a PPL.
III. ” 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.”
I will take each point as he addresses it.
““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.””
As we look over Acts we see different kinds, for example in Acts 2 we read:
5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”
Nothing in the Bible indicates the different tongues does not mean different languages.
Dwight continued:
“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.:”
Here again we see NOTHING in the Scripture that points us to private tongues. Why should Paul be specific if there was no Spirit given Gift of Tongues done in private?
“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.”:
Again the word “primary” assumes more than one legitimate way. Not a valid point of argument since what Dwight seeks to prove is that the Bible gives us a basis for a PPL. His argument continues:
“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, as Dwight calls it, primary way to speak in tongues is a prayer language. But as we read through the history of the early church in Acts, the only tongues we read about are not a PPL but public usage as a sign, even as Dwight declared Jesus foretold it. So is the public speaking of tongues speaking to God? Dwight said the “disciples spoke in tongues declaring the wonderful works of God.” My point is that public tongues is man speaking to God declaring His wonderful works.
But Dwight says that “[n]o one would read that verse without the aid of any other explanation and conclude…” But I ask, is that the way we are to study the Word of God, to not look at context and to not use other verses to aid us in understanding?
Okay, so no one understands so it is not public? That is his reasoning for he says:
“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).”
Why is there the Gift of Interpretation? Because no one understands! Simply to assume that vs. 2 MUST mean private prayer is not Biblical proof. Is God not all the more praised when our minds are involved in speaking His glories? YES! Thus He requires interpretation. It brings Him greater praise. He wants our minds involved in our praise and worship of Him. What then is the purpose of a PPL? A lesser purpose than praising God with our own mind?
Bottom line, there is nothing in vs. 2 that speaks to a PPL. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks to a PPL. There is no need for a PPL.
Dwight continues his argument:
“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.”
Here again is another assumption. Just because praying in tongues, which is the same as speaking in tongues, edifies one’s self does not mean it is a PPL. When one allows God to use themselves in any of the gifts of the Spirit, one is edified. A teacher studying for his Sunday School class and teaching iut, a preacher preparing for his sermon and delivering it, a helper in her aid of another, and so on, are all edified in their obedience and submission to the Spirit. But as they use their gift they also edify others. To repeat: as they use their gift they edify others! But with tongues it is different. The tongues speaker is edified because he too has obeyed and submitted to the Spirit, BUT until someone interprets, no one else in edified.
Dwight said:
“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.”
We agree here. But his paragraph does not give Biblical proof of a PPL.
“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.”
Again, I agree. But again these things have nothing to do with a PPL. Rather, if anything, they mitigate against it. Speaking in Tongues in obedience to the Spirit and thus with an interpreter in the midst of the congregation, large or small, edifies the speaker. He is being obedient and he is further edified when it is interpreted because his mind is then built up. So both 1st C0r. 14:2 and Jude 20 do aid the one who prays to be a better brother. But in both cases, it is because he is built up in knowledge and understanding. Let us look at the passage in Jude:
7 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.
Jude is contrasting the people of God from the people of the world. And that some of these of-the-world people are in the church with God’s people. And Jude is instructing us on how we are to act: depending on our faith, praying in the Spirit, and loving the brethren, as we wait for the mercy of God to appear. It isn’t just the praying in the Spirit that builds us up. But rather it is by building ourselves up in the faith and praying in the Spirit sothat we keep ourselves in the love of God.
Dwight continues…
““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).”
and he asks…
“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.”
Here again Dwight simply assumes what he is trying to prove: “The implication is that this was being done in private,”
Paul was a missionary. Paul went from place to place bringing the good news of the Gospel to lands that had never heard it before, and the languages of the people were different [See Acts 2] in many places. So of course he spoke more in tongues than the people who never left their hometowns.
Again, what Dwight is doing is FIRST assuming that there is such a thing as a PPL, and then trying to fit the Scriptures in to somehow ‘prove’ there is basis for believing it.
Dwight said:
““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.”
Tongues, even according to Dwight, or more especially because Dwight is seeking to tell us that a PPL is a prayer to God, is thus not something we speak to ourselves. Yet Paul tells these who desire to speak to be silent and speak to themselves unintelligible words?
Let us break it down as Dwight has told us: They are in church.
They are in church.
Stop right there. If Dwight would stop right there, right there where the Bible #might# be saying the only possible place where tongues speaking to oneself could possibly be Biblical, then maybe he might have a case.
They are in church.
Here is where we need to focus on what is the Gift of Tongues. WHAT does the Bible tell us it is? What does the Bible show us it is? What does the Bible tells us its use is?
The Bible tells us it is a gift from the Spirit.
That it is a sign.
That it needs interpretation.
That like all the gifts it is to edify others , that it is for the common good.
That we are to use it in the service of others.
That in EVERY place it is mentioned it is done with other believers hearing it.
And that NO WHERE is it ever done in private, when alone.
And not in 1st Cor. 14:28.
Let us look at the context:
26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
When you assemble!
Look at the context.
When should you keep silent and speak to yourself and God?
When you are assembled and there is no interpreter.
Yet look at the logic Dwight uses to seek to make a Biblical case for a PPL:
“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.”
The Woird says because when in an ASSEMBLY and there is no interpreter, one should speak quietly [not necessarily in tongues, that is not clear], yet Dwight says, “surely” they can do it when alone.
And that is proof that ‘doing it when alone’ means that it is Biblically confirmed or affirmed?
Nothing in the account ever even hints at doing it when alone.
Every point of proof given is an assumption not a proof. The doctrine given ignores the purpose of the gift, the place of this gift, and the reason for the gift.
God gives gifts so that we can edify others.
God links tongues with interpretation because it is a sign and yet it needs to bring edification to the body.
God is better praised by our minds and spirits so there is no reason for a PPL.
There os NO evidence that Paul or Peter even thought that one might speak in tongues in private UNLESS we read 1st Cor, 14 as an admonishment to the private practice and a corrective teaching the ONLY proper way to pray in tongues. Otherwise, no evidence at all in the Bible.
Dwight, may God draw you to Himself more every day as you seek to serve Him with your all.
your servant,
-mike
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. Therefore, churches like mine will join under the assumption that “no official position” means that one is not disqualified to serve as a missionary, church planter , or to publicly share a teaching and testimony as I have shared here; if the SBC official position is neutrality. It was after I joined the SBC in ’83 that these policies at NAMB, IMB, and SWBTS, were adopted.
As far as I am concerned, this is an integrity issue that the SBC must deal with. How do you receive offerings from continuationist churches and them tell them that there people can’t serve as missionaries? Why not tell a church planter such as myself at the outset that the SBC holds to cessationist theology therefore we don’t allow churches who hold to continualism to be a part of our convention?
Parson Mike, although your viewpoint on this matter is different from at least 3-4 books published by Broadman that is more in line with my viewpoint; do you think that it is fair for your viewpoint to be the ruling viewpoint without a SBC vote?
Finally, for the millions of believers worldwide that pray in tongues in private, what do you attribute that to: (1) The Devil (2) The natural mind (3) A psychological problem (4) or some other reason. I would love to hear you explain your understanding of what is taking place when Jim Cymbala, Jack Taylor, John Haggee, and Jack Hayford pray in tongues in private? I really wish you and Bart would answer this question?
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 God? The Bible is quiet on the private prayer language and tells us not to make our private prayer life a spectacle to others.
If I compare myself to other men, in some places I fall short. But in other places I stand out as good and righteous. But it is against the holiness of God that I should compare myself and there I always fall short. In one order of things I am but an assistant Sunday School teacher, but in another order of things, I am a prince in the everlasting kingdom of the Creator.
I asked you to bring any Biblical argument to the table because it is not the ‘greatness’ of well known preachers that make a doctrine right or wrong but its fidelity to the Word of God. So what are these men to me, I have only heard of them. They, as you and I do, will stand before the Lord and answer to Him.
They don’t make the practice legitimate because they are popular.
How do you know that there are millions of believers worldwide who pray in private in tongues? Do they too broadcast their private prayer times for all to see? If millions do it, does that make it right? or godly?
Here then is a problem that I see. What is proclaimed as private is proclaimed. It seems that there is a need by the PPL users to seek public acceptance of their practice in a much greater degree than they find acceptance or mention of it in the Word. They seek man’s opinion more than God’s. And from what I can see of the tongues movement [in general] that is the modus operandi as they trumpet their spirituality as they rely on the Spirit [they claim] and not so much on the Word. That, if true, would be of your [1], [2], and [3] as mentioned above.
As to the ruling viewpoint in the SBC, I confess that I do not know how such things are brought about. If it is by vote, should we separate if one side is unhappy with the outcome? Maybe those unhappy will leave. But if there is a problem and voting is the proper way to resolve it, then introduce a motion and seek a vote.
You ask:
“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?”
I am a man of the Word, and what you are asking is what kind of policy a human organization should have. I honestly do not know the proper procedure to resolve your issue. But if the churches who give are upset that their people can not serve as missionaries because the IMB asks about the personal prayer life of each individual, and since they are independent, why not vote with their wallet?
Is the SBC the only viable godly denomination? If so, than abide by their rules or seek to change them.
If not, go where the congregation is better served.
It is God who we answer to, and it is God who sustains us individually and in every corporate way, so we put our trust in God and seek to obey Him not man.
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 be your guide to interpreting scripture, not your own presupposition.” There are several references in scripture to both the public speaking in tongues in worship, and to the private practice of such, designed for personal uplifting, as the scripture directly references. I believe God intends for all spiritual gifts, given to each believer according to his will, to be active in his church, and one of the reasons so many Southern Baptist churches are experiencing aging and decline is that they have cut off the avenue for gifts such as tongues and healing to be active points of entry for the Holy Spirit to be invited into worship. I’m not advocating for tongue speaking as it is done in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, because that’s a flip of the importance that Paul places on the gift in scripture, but I think your view comes pretty close to what Paul warned about when he said not to forbid speaking in tongues.
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. I have come to my position as a result of careful study of Scripture, not as a result of looking to back up any personal experience (not inferring that is what Dwight has done, but it is even more difficult to make that accusation stick in my case).
I still have not heard anything from you that refutes the argument I make in my comment I link to above that the Bible does indeed speak to PPL. If you have information that refutes what I write in that comment, I would be glad to hear it and to dialogue with regard to that information. Otherwise, it appears to me you are just choosing to ignore the evidence I present.
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 together are viable in fellowship. There is no reason in any one of them to assume there is a PPL.
v2. Public tongue speaking is to God not men.
v14. Praying in tongues, which is the same as speaking since it is to God, does not ‘fruiten’ the mind, but only edifies the spirit. That is why Paul says to be quiet unless there is an interpreter.
v15. The corrective: It is better to pray and sing with the mind and spirit.
v16. Now why would an outsider be with you in your prayer closet?
v17. Your words may be giving thanks [to God] but you are failing at the purpose of the gifts which are to be employed to bring edification to the body.
v28. When is one who wishes to speak in tongues keep silent but in the church. One has to ASSUME that their is a PPL to add that one doesn’t need to keep silent when alone. When one is alone there is no purpose for the Gift to be used. [a] There is no one to hear it and [b] it does not edify the body. For despite the attempts to say one is a better Christian and can edify the body for it we read DIRECTLY from the Word: 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
The context of the chapter is in a fellowship setting. There is no mention or addressing a PPL. Nothing in this chapter speaks to a PPL. And nothing outside this chapter does either.
“Point #3. This leaves the so-called “private” aspect of praying in tongues to be demonstrated”. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
To demonstrate something is to do more than talk about it. Think of selling knives in the aisle at Walmart. There is someone there, not just talking about hiow good these knives are, but slicing thru pineapples- demonstrating it.
You say:”I believe Paul infers he used the gift of tongues in private in vv. 18-19: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
“I believe Paul infers he used the gift of tongues in private in vv. 18-19: “
That David is what you are seeking to demonstrate as true. Simply repeating what you want others to believe is not proof or demonstration but a reassertion.
“He is clearly contrasting speaking “in church” with “out of church.” If his speaking “out of church” were in front of a group of people, the same reasons for demanding interpretation in church would apply. Thus, his speaking in tongues “out of church” must be referring to doing so “in private.” – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
Except that we have evidence that when not in a church setting that evangelists and missionaries, of which Paul was, spoke in tongues, in public. See Acts 2, 10,19.
You ASSUME it “must be in private”. Again, that is not proof or a demonstration but an assumption based on what you desire the outcome to be. But against your desire and your assumption, the Bible SHOWS us and DEMONSTRATES to us how tongues is used by evangelists and missionaries. This is how we let the Word of God teach us, by looking and searching it out.
Is it proper to study the Bible and when we come across a place in it where we are not sure or where there are seemingly some holes left unfilled, to simply decide that as a matter of doctrine to MAKE UP a possible answer and then declare the Bible to be backing us up?
But even if we do that, should we not yield when we find in another place in the Bible, an answer that explains the hole we filled on our own? Yes, we should yield to the Word.
Paul was a missionary and an evangelist that proclaimed the Gospel to many different tongued people. It should come as no surprise when he speaks it more than those who are less geographically mobile.
“v. 28 implies the same contrast between what is permissible “in church” and “out of church.”” – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
Look here what you are doing: You are taking an assumption you make in one place and applying it like its Scriptural fact in interpreting in another place! V. 28 is clearly about what happens in fellowship and here, without any positive evidence, you are having the Bible allude to a doctrine as true which it isn’t even addressing.
vv. 34 & 35, though I don’t believe they refer specifically to speaking in tongues, raise the issue of the “in church”–”out of church” dichotomy once again. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
‘Yes, in church and out of church. But nothing about a PPL. Nowhere is Paul in 1st Cor. 14 speaking about a PPL but rather throughout the chapter he is addressing the proper use of the gift of tongues. He started on this topic in chapter 12 where he tells us that the gifts are given for the common good. That their use without love, in chap 13, renders them pointless, and don’t you think that love in a church is doing those things that result in edification of the common good, the people? Or as Peter says: that the special gifts are to be employed in the serving of one another. When you are in your prayer closet speaking mysteries that edify yourself, at that moment you are not using your gift to serve any other brother or sister.
Point #4. An additional evidence in 1 Cor. 14 is the reference in v. 4 to “the one who speaks in a tongue [building] up himself,” and the cross-reference in Jude 20 to “building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit.” – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
What has Jude have to do with tongues? We are to walk in the Spirit and that would include when we pray. In order to admit this passage as evidence you woulds have to first show that there is really such a thing as the Gift of Tongues PPL and also show that all prayer in the Spirit is in tongues. Otherwise it is just another assumption.
Thank you for your honest and open defense of PPL, but unless you interact with my rebuttals of your ‘evidence’, I will continue to say that there is no Biblical basis for a PPL.
Now consider that there were pagans speaking in unknown tongues a
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 is no reason in any one of them to assume there is a PPL.
v2. Public tongue speaking is to God not men.
v14. Praying in tongues, which is the same as speaking since it is to God, does not ‘fruiten’ the mind, but only edifies the spirit. That is why Paul says to be quiet unless there is an interpreter.
v15. The corrective: It is better to pray and sing with the mind and spirit.
v16. Now why would an outsider be with you in your prayer closet?
v17. Your words may be giving thanks [to God] but you are failing at the purpose of the gifts which are to be employed to bring edification to the body.
v28. When is one who wishes to speak in tongues keep silent but in the church. One has to ASSUME that their is a PPL to add that one doesn’t need to keep silent when alone. When one is alone there is no purpose for the Gift to be used. [a] There is no one to hear it and [b] it does not edify the body. For despite the attempts to say one is a better Christian and can edify the body for it we read DIRECTLY from the Word: 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
The context of the chapter is in a fellowship setting. There is no mention or addressing a PPL. Nothing in this chapter speaks to a PPL. And nothing outside this chapter does either.
“Point #3. This leaves the so-called “private” aspect of praying in tongues to be demonstrated”. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
To demonstrate something is to do more than talk about it. Think of selling knives in the aisle at Walmart. There is someone there, not just talking about how good these knives are, but slicing thru pineapples- demonstrating it.
You say:”I believe Paul infers he used the gift of tongues in private in vv. 18-19: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.”
“I believe Paul infers he used the gift of tongues in private in vv. 18-19: “
That David is what you are seeking to demonstrate as true. Simply repeating what you want others to believe is not proof or demonstration but a reassertion.
“He is clearly contrasting speaking “in church” with “out of church.” If his speaking “out of church” were in front of a group of people, the same reasons for demanding interpretation in church would apply. Thus, his speaking in tongues “out of church” must be referring to doing so “in private.”
Except that we have evidence that when not in a church setting that evangelists and missionaries, of which Paul was, spoke in tongues, in public. See Acts 2, 10,19.
You ASSUME it “must be in private”. Again, that is not proof or a demonstration but an assumption based on what you desire the outcome to be. But against your desire and your assumption, the Bible SHOWS us and DEMONSTRATES to us how tongues is used by evangelists and missionaries. This is how we let the Word of God teach us, by looking and searching it out.
Is it proper to study the Bible and when we come across a place in it where we are not sure or where there are seemingly some holes left unfilled, to simply decide that as a matter of doctrine to MAKE UP a possible answer and then declare the Bible to be backing us up?
But even if we do that, should we not yield when we find in another place in the Bible, an answer that explains the hole we filled on our own? Yes, we should yield to the Word.
Paul was a missionary and an evangelist that proclaimed the Gospel to many different tongued people. It should come as no surprise when he speaks it more than those who are less geographically mobile.
“v. 28 implies the same contrast between what is permissible “in church” and “out of church.”” – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/the-nature-of-the-biblical-gift-of-tongues-consideration-of-relevant-non-narrative-new-testament-passages/#comment-196564
Look here what you are doing: You are taking an assumption you make in one place and applying it like its Scriptural fact in interpreting in another place! V. 28 is clearly about what happens in fellowship and here, without any positive evidence, you are having the Bible allude to a doctrine as true which it isn’t even addressing.
vv. 34 & 35, though I don’t believe they refer specifically to speaking in tongues, raise the issue of the “in church”–”out of church” dichotomy once again.
‘Yes, in church and out of church. But nothing about a PPL. Nowhere is Paul in 1st Cor. 14 speaking about a PPL but rather throughout the chapter he is addressing the proper use of the gift of tongues. He started on this topic in chapter 12 where he tells us that the gifts are given for the common good. That their use without love, in chap 13, renders them pointless, and don’t you think that love in a church is doing those things that result in edification of the common good, the people? Or as Peter says: that the special gifts are to be employed in the serving of one another. When you are in your prayer closet speaking mysteries that edify yourself, at that moment you are not using your gift to serve any other brother or sister.
Point #4. An additional evidence in 1 Cor. 14 is the reference in v. 4 to “the one who speaks in a tongue [building] up himself,” and the cross-reference in Jude 20 to “building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit.”
What has Jude have to do with tongues? We are to walk in the Spirit and that would include when we pray. In order to admit this passage as evidence you woulds have to first show that there is really such a thing as the Gift of Tongues PPL and also show that all prayer in the Spirit is in tongues. Otherwise it is just another assumption.
Thank you for your honest and open defense of PPL, but unless you interact with my rebuttals of your ‘evidence’, I will continue to say that there is no Biblical basis for a PPL.
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 a missionary and an evangelist that proclaimed the Gospel to many different tongued people. It should come as no surprise when he speaks it more than those who are less geographically mobile.” It seems to me that you are doing here the exact same thing that you accuse me of doing. The ONLY possible reference to evangelists and missionaries using the gift of tongues is in Acts 2, even though when the time comes to preach and clearly explain the gospel, Peter does so in a language practically everyone in the crowd understood (most likely, Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic). And there is NO reference at all to Paul ever using tongues as a means to communicate to people of another language than those he himself had studied. Though we do have a reference of the people of Lystra speaking in Lycaonian, there is no indication that Paul and/or Barnabas either understood what they were saying (it appears it had to be explained to them, Acts 14:14), or that they were able to reply back or preach the gospel to them in Lycaonian. In Acts 19, it is not Paul who speaks in tongues, but rather the new believers.
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 what you’ve said in the past, I assume that you believe that Jesus affirms today’s babbling (glossolalia). I respectfully disagree, and I’ll explain why.
Jesus explained how not to pray privately in Matthew 6:7-8: “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles [ethnikoi] do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him” (NASB). The Holman Christian Standard Bible translates verse 7 with slightly different words: “When you pray, don’t babble like the idolaters, since they imagine they’ll be heard for their many words.” Likewise, the New International Version states, “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”
Determining the correct interpretation of verses 7 and 8 is difficult. We can rule out some incorrect interpretations.
First, when readers see “meaningless repetition” (NASB) or “vain repetitions” (KJV), they might conclude that they should not repeat words and phrases in their prayers. Jesus, however, repeated Himself at times when He prayed: “And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more” (Matt 26:44). Thus, the verse is not referring to repetition of intelligible words and phrases in our prayers.
Second, another possible conclusion is that verse 8 is simply condemning long prayers (“many words”). The implication of this conclusion seems to be that we do not need to pray for a long time because God already knows what we need without our long explanations. Jesus, however, prayed for at least an hour in the Garden of Gethsemane before His arrest (Matt 26:40), and He prayed for many hours on one particular night (Matt 14:23-25).
One key word in Matthew 6:7 is the Greek verb “battalogesete,” which is a compound word connecting “batta” and “logesete” (speak). Some interpreters view “batta” as an onomatopoetic word, meaning that the word imitates a sound. For example, the onomatopoetic words “swish,” “buzz,” “babble,” and “hiss” imitate particular sounds. This Greek verb could literally mean to “speak batta.” The Greek term “batta” would then refer to meaningless sounds, and the verse would refer to meaningless sounds put together to form a type of speaking that cannot be understood.
Grant Osborne commented on “battalogesete”: “There are three possibilities: (1) the Aramaic batel, meaning ‘thoughtless, ineffectual’ speech or babbling; (2) from batos plus logein, meaning futile exertion; (3) from battrizo, meaning ‘stutter, stammer,’ thus onomatopoeia for ‘babble.’”
Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 226.
Walter Bauer (BAGD Greek lexicon) defined “battalogeo” as “babble, speak without thinking.”
Craig Blomberg said, “The term may also refer to the uttering of nonsense syllables common to magical incantations in the pagan religions of Jesus’ day.”
Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 118.
In 2011, I asked Dr. Blomberg about this statement, and he referred me to Hans Dieter Betz’s The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, which were written between the second century BC and the fifth century AD. Interestingly, babbling appears in some of these prayers. Some people argue that these prayers were to be read and thus were not spontaneous as babbling is today. The babbling, however, may have been spontaneous when first recorded. From Janet H. Johnson’s introduction:
“The common source of the Greek and Egyptian language texts is also indicated by their frequent use of identical strings of invocation names, including, in addition to Egyptian and Greek divinities, western Asiatic divinities, ‘abracadabra’ names, and what appear to the modern reader as gibberish.”
Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), lvii.
Delphi, the most important pagan religious site in the Graeco-Roman world at the time, is referenced in the Papyri in the “Eighth Book of Moses” (PGM XIII, 100-110): “And have also the Apollo who will help you . . . with tripod standing beside him and Pythian serpent. Carve around Apollo the great name, in Egyptian form.”
Ibid., 175.
John MacArthur Jr. commented on Matthew 6:7: “Is there biblical evidence for a private prayer language? It was never God’s intention to be addressed in a language that is incomprehensible to the speaker. I believe the Bible supports this.”
John F. MacArthur Jr., “The Truth about Tongues: Part 1 of 4,” On Doctrine: Discerning Truth from Error, accessed 14 July 2011; available from http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0054.htm; Internet.
Magic books were sometimes burned by Christians or other people (Acts 19:19): “And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of everyone; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.” Not many such books are still in existence.
Another key word in the Matthew 6:7 is the Greek noun “ethnikoi.” This word is translated in the versions above as “Gentiles,” “idolaters,” and “pagans.” The Graeco-Roman influence was strong in Palestine at the time among the Hellenistic Jews. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia discussed this influence in the article on Hellenism:
“Word used to express the assimilation, especially by the Jews, of Greek speech, manners, and culture, from the fourth century B.C. through the first centuries of the common era. . . . Except in Egypt, Hellenic influence was nowhere stronger than on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Greek cities arose there in continuation, or in place, of the older Semitic foundations, and gradually changed the aspect of the country. Such cities were Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, Jabneh, Jaffa, Cæsarea, Dor, and Ptolemais. It was especially in eastern Palestine that Hellenism took a firm hold, and the cities of the Decapolis (which seems also to have included Damascus) were the centers of Greek influence. This influence extended in later times over the whole of the district east of the Jordan and of the Sea of Gennesaret. . . . Though Judaism was hardly menaced by the introduction of direct idolatry, the connection of this culture with sublimated Greek polytheism became a real danger to the Jewish religion.”
Dr. Yarnell mentioned Delphi in his white paper on tongues: “Pagans believed their idols could express themselves in speech through an oracle, but their speech was unintelligible and a religious poet was required to translate. Examples of ecstatic, untranslatable speech may be found in the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi as well as the cults of Dionysius and Cybele.”
Malcolm Yarnell, “Speaking of ‘Tongues,’ What Does the Bible Teach?” Baptisttheology.org.
The famous oracles at Delphi in Greece were prominent pagan priestesses (each called “Pythia” or “Pythoness”) who functioned during New Testament times and who at times babbled incoherently and at other times spoke coherently. Acts 16:16 speaks of the “spirit of the Python” (pneuma puthona) in reference to a demon-possessed woman in Philippi who was probably a traveling priestess who functioned similarly to those at Delphi. (The word “oracle” could refer to the priestess or to the place where the women functioned.) Delphi was supposedly where Apollo killed the serpent Python, and later Apollo could supposedly speak through the Pythia there. People would go there to ask questions through the Pythia. Mestrius Plutarchus (Plutarch), born in 46 A.D., served as a priest to the female oracles (the Pythian priestesses) and said that people who gathered at the temple to consult the oracle sometimes perceived a “delightful fragrance coming on a current of air which bears it towards the worshippers, as if its source were in the holy of holies; and it is like the odour which the most exquisite and costly perfumes send forth.”
Plutarch, “The Obsolescence of Oracles,” 437c in vol. 5 in Moralia, Loeb Classical Library’s edition, accessed 21 July 2011, first published in 1936.
An interdisciplinary team of scientists made some interesting discoveries at Delphi, which were published in Scientific American magazine:
“Analysis of the water from the Kerna spring in the sanctuary itself revealed the presence of methane, ethane and ethylene. Because ethylene has a sweet odor, the presence of this gas seemed to lend support to Plutarch’s description of a gas that smelled like expensive perfume. To help interpret the possible effects of such gases on human subjects in a confined space, one like the adyton, Spiller, a toxicologist, became a member of the project. His work with “huffers”— teenage drug users who get high on the fumes from substances such as glue and paint thinner, most of which contain light hydrocarbon gases—had shown a number of parallels with the behavior reported for the trance state of the Pythia.”
John R. Hale, Jelle Zeilinga De Boer, Jeffrey P. Chanton, and Henry A. Spiller, “Questioning the Delphic Oracle,” Scientific American, August, 2003, 67-73.
There is a connection here with 1 Corinthians 14:23. The word for frenzy in Greek is “mania.” The verb form is “mainomai,” which is in verse 23. The person who exhibited frenzied, “inspired” speech in the pagan world was a “mantis.” Notice what the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome says about the priestesses at Delphi: “At Delphi the Pythia, who was often called a prophet, may more precisely be called a mantis. . . . Mantis derives from a Greek verb meaning ‘to be mad’” (40).
Stephen Chester of Glasgow, in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament (27.4, 2005), commented on significance of Delphi for 1 Corinthians 14:23:
“Also in Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates state that ‘the greatest of blessings come to us through madness, when it is sent as a gift of the gods. For the prophetess at Delphi and the priestesses at Dodona when they have been mad (maneisai) have conferred many splendid benefits upon Greece both in private and public affairs, but few or none when they have been in their right minds.’ This reference to divine madness as characteristic of the delivery of oracles appears all the more impressive as an analogy to speaking in tongues when it is placed alongside the traditional picture of the activities of the Pythia (prophetess) at Delphi. She is often pictured as prophesying in a frenzied ecstatic state, muttering incomprehensible sounds that would then be interpreted into Greek and placed into verse by attendant officials. . . . 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. . . . The exclamation mainesthe (14.23) is therefore best translated, ‘You are inspired.’” (422-445)
I believe that neither Paul nor Jesus wanted Christian activities to be confused with non-Christian practices of “inspired” speech. This is still a danger today. A missionary made the following comment on a website:
“I have shared the gospel personally with 5 different people in the last few weeks whose initial contact with Christianity was attending a tongues speaking church. One was a young man who was not a believer and who for two years I have been witnessing to. He went and he came back and asked me about it—so I asked him what he thought. His response ‘Uncle it was really frightening. I looked at the faces of the people and it was like in my religions when I used to follow my grandmother to the Buddhist/Taoist temple and there would be people there repeating things over and over and speaking in weird languages. I never expected that sort of thing in a church and I was quite frightened by it.’ A Hindu convert in my country went to a charismatic church and left when they began the charismatic practices. He had been heavily involved in Hinduism and when he saw this he later commented—‘If tongues and slaying the Spirit is what I wanted I would have just stayed a Hindu—all that I saw was exactly what I saw in Hinduism.’ In fact if you do a search on Kundalini Hinduism and the Christian Holy Spirit you will find many Hindu websites where they are rejoicing because charismatic Christians have adopted Hindu practices such as tongues speaking and slaying in the Spirit.”
I received several e-mails from this missionary, and he is legit. Babbling is indeed an issue on the mission fields of today.
In the non-Christian Graeco-Roman world, prophecy and “ecstatic speech” were sometimes seen as the same thing. I believe that Paul went to great lengths to distinguish between the Christian gifts of prophecy and tongues (the miraculous ability to speak in an unlearned foreign language). He did not want them to be confused with non-Christian practices. Corinth was a city located on a narrow isthmus between the mainland and the Peloponnesus. Many foreign traders passed through the city, and many languages were spoken. Just as at Jerusalem at Pentecost, the miraculous gift of being able to speak unlearned foreign languages helped spread the Gospel in the early stages of missionary work.
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 counterfeits. That simply proves there must be an original or there can be no counterfeit.
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
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 a sound one, if not for the other texts in the Bible that refute it.
In regard to the one kind of tongue you have mentioned, I have experienced that also. I shared the gospel with someone in Guatemala and she and her whole, Spanish only speaking family were saved. I don’t speak Spanish and did not use a translator.
I’ve also experienced a private prayer language. I experienced a Word of Knowledge, and I’ve also experienced a messages in tongues that were interpreted.
I’m open to all the Holy Spirit’s manifestations. There is not one–count them–not one verse that supports a cessationist point of view, and your view of tongues only looks at one kind, or operation.
I think it is noteworthy in 1Cor. 12:1-4, that Paul uses the word diaireisis several times. He doesn’t say there are 21, 22, 26 or 29 gifts, which he could have easily said if that is what the Holy Spirit meant, but he talks about varieties.
I don’t believe the gift lists in Romans or 1Corinthians are exhaustive but suggestive. Therein is where we differ greatly in our views.
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. . . . The exclamation mainesthe (14.23) is therefore best translated, ‘You are inspired.’”
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 invite you to do so.
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 extent that He felt the need to address it. But, then again, as I said, I have not yet looked into it. I could be wrong.
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 Christopher Forbes using the translation of Spittler:
“Thus, when the one called Hemera arose, she wrapped her own string just as her father said. And she took on another heart—one no longer minded toward earthly things—but she spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed ‘The Spirit’ to be inscribed on her garment. Then Kasia bound hers on and had her heart changed so that she no longer regarded worldly things. And her mouth took on the dialect of the archons and she praised God for the creation of the heights. . . . Then the other one also, named Amaltheia’s Horn, bound on her cord. And her mouth spoke ecstatically in the dialect of those on high, since her heart also was changed, keeping aloof from worldly things. For she spoke in the dialect of the cherubim, glorifying the Master of virtues by exhibiting their splendor. And finally whoever wishes to grasp a trace of ‘The Paternal Splendour’ will find it written down in ‘The Prayers of Amaltheia’s Horn.’”
Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,1995), 183.
In regard to 1 Corinthians 14:23, I think Paul was concerned that unbelievers would not hear interpretation or would not know the languages being spoken, and the unbelievers would see the excitement and confusion, and they would think that the Corinthians were inspired (mainomai) in the same sense that the pagans were. In Acts 2:13, the foreign languages spoken with the miraculous language gift were apparently not recognized by some of the hearers, and thus their reaction was to mock.
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 speaking in tongues, though it is not prevalent amongst the Therapeutae. The assertion has been made that the ecstatic speech of the Montanists (a later Christian sect), was another example of tongues. This has led several scholars to suggest that the Montanists may have edited parts of the Testament of Job, adding sections such as these.”
Either way, I am not saying it necessarily settles anything in the current discussion. But if these sections were an interpolation of the Montanists, then it doesn’t really provide evidence of this sort of thing among Jesus’ audience. And, if not, then it provides an interesting historical backdrop to Paul’s reference to both “tongues of angels” and “singing in the spirit” in 1 Corinthians, don’t you think?
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, neither does the Testament mention the Spirit/Paraclete, so characteristic of Montanist prophetic understanding. The suggestion of Montanist style ecstasy is not borne out by the language of the writer. Montanist writers do not use the term apophtheggomai to denote ecstasy, and neither does anyone else. In other words, nothing in the passage suggests Montanism. Secondly, there is no suggestion that the girls’ mutual explanation (if that is what it is, huposemeioumenes) of their songs to one another is in any sense a parallel to the interpretation of tongues. . . . There is therefore no clear evidence to suggest a Montanist redaction of the Testament.”
Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,1995), 184-185.
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 to me why the SBC does not take a definitive stand on this matter. This question has plagued the SBC since the ’70’s, and will probably continue to do so, ’til they take a stand.
Do you support the IMB policy restricting the missionaries private prayer lives? Do you believe that the SBC should emphatically state in writing to churches who are interested in joining the SBC what our position is on this issue? Had the SBC revealed to me there hostile view of this matter when I joined in 1983, I would not have joined. I feel deceived. Shouldn’t we remove the deception and ambiguity on this subject matter as it relates to our convention? Finally, 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?
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 gather close around him and to touch each other. Then he prompted them in the process. He told them that they would feel sounds coming to their mouths and that they should just let it loose. It was an emotionally-charged atmosphere. When babbling is taught in such an atmosphere, often the teacher models the behavior to vulnerable subjects. Sometimes powerful psychological factors are at work. This, however, is not the only explanation for the phenomenon. Felicitas Goodman, a linguist and former assistant professor of anthropology at Denison University, believed that various factors can drive people into a trance state (hyperarousal) in which glossolalia can occur: cultural expectations, teaching, facilitation, drugs, and fasting.
Felicitas D. Goodman, Where the Spirits Ride the Wind: Trance Journeys and Other Ecstatic Experiences (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990), 71-77.
I don’t believe that babbling always occurs in such a hyperaroused trance state. Some people babble rather calmly, and they can turn it on or off at will. Other people need to be in an emotional state, and they seem to lose control. The calm type of babbling can be a bit like baby talk. As to its function, I can only speculate. It perhaps helps the person escape from the stress of everyday life into a calmer, simpler state of being.
You said, “It is baffling to me why the SBC does not take a definitive stand on this matter.”
I don’t think the SBC has ever passed a resolution on this subject. In the past, the local association was the doctrinal watchdog, and the messengers at the SBC annual meetings perhaps thought that the local associations would deal with doctrinal problems such as babbling. I think that many associations still handle such doctrinal issues, but some do not.
You asked, “Do you support the IMB policy restricting the missionaries private prayer lives?”
Yes, I do support this policy. On some mission fields, there is little to no privacy. People living in your village may know just about everything about what you do in private. If a missionary babbles as some non-Christian groups do, it can cause real confusion and lead to syncretism.
You asked, “Do you believe that the SBC should emphatically state in writing to churches who are interested in joining the SBC what our position is on this issue?”
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 trustees of my institution, however, can set doctrinal parameters for me, and I accept that situation wholeheartedly. They have every right to set those parameters; our institution is a confessional institution.
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 and doctrine. The last book I read usually had a great impact on my thinking. The problem was I was reading books on both sides of the fence so my thinking on this subject matter was like a moving target.
In Professor Jack Gray’s Spiritual Foundation for Missions class he required us to read Peter Lord”s 2959 Prayer Guide. My daily devotional time at that time was noon. I met with God for private prayer and worship every day for at least thirty minutes during that time. Keep in mind I had never spoken in tongues and was vascillating(sp) as I had done for at least 5-7 years by that time between believing in the legitimacy of speaking in tongues–public or private–or not believing in speaking in the validity of speaking in tongues. We were also required to read a booklet that Dr. Gray had written entitled “Studies Of The Holy Spirit”. In that booklet and in class he clearly taught that praying/praising in tongues was a gift of the Holy Spirit. I had no idea that what he was teaching was rejected by so many Southern Baptists. Nevertheless, during a time of daily devotions while in my dormitory room all alone, and not seeking tongues, but rather seeking God’s face–it happened. All of a sudden while on my knees praying–simply giving God thanks and interceding for others–and of all places at SWBTS FW Hall–boom–God chose to visit my prayer closet with the gift of tongues. Nobody taught me how to do it. Nobody was there coaching me. I had not fully settled in my mind whether or not I fully believed in the legitimacy of speaking in tongues–but there He was–the Holy Spirit–enabling and equipping me to pray in tongues.
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? Most Baptists that I know who have experienced tongues-their initial experience was similar to mine; God just showed up in their prayer closets. And Jack Deer is right: One would never form the opinion solely from reading the Scripture that tongues no longer exist. For someone to adopt that posture they had to have been influenced by others. Therefore, I have never questioned the legitimacy of the experience that I just described. Why not? I’d read the Bible and my experience was consistent with what I’d read. Even today, if I read something in the Bible that made it clear that my experience was not valid, I would renounce my experience and align my life with God’s Word. Mike, please biblically explain to me what makes my experience invalid? What made your former boss, Dr. Rankin’s experience invalid? Please explain? The Jimmy Swaggart answer does not fit our scenario.
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 babbling.” I have not seen you do it, so I don’t know exactly what type (calm or emotional or both) that you do. I would need much more information before I could even speculate about what happened to you in 1981, and I think my speculation would serve no good purpose here.
You said, “Mike, please biblically explain to me what makes my experience invalid.”
I think I have already done that to some extent in my long post above. If you would like for me to go into a discussion of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, I would be willing to discuss that passage.
You asked, “What made your former boss, Dr. Rankin’s experience invalid?” Same answer as above.
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 one sense that your anser was official SBC policy. It would remove all deception and ambiguity as to how this issue pragmatically works itself out in the life of our convention. I pray to God that the SBC would be as definitive and as clear as you are on this issue. Although, we are on different pages, obviously; You are my kind of man. You give a straight answer to a straight question. That is rare in the SBC on this question. May your tribe increase. I would hate for another young pastor in the SBC to go through what I’ve gone through. And that is being a part of a convention where there is no clarity or definite position on this issue. Your forthright answer and honesty has made my day. Thanks.
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 you use it for others by being a better Christian. But also you use it to edify yourself. Thus what about the gift use makes you a better Christian that prayer in your native language would not do even better?
Are you more spiritual? I mean in comparison to when you pray naturally? And in that vein I ask…
Are you wiser? more knowledgeable of God? closer to Him?
What makes PPL a better way to pray that makes the speaker a better brother to edify the body than regular prayer?
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. Therefore, everything that I experience every believer can experience by praying in their natural language under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Why God gifts some to pray in a 1 Cor. 14: 2 way? I don’t know. But He does and I am so grateful that this is one of the gifts that he sovereignly bestowed upon me. Finally, I can’t say that I am more spiritual when I pray in tongues versus English, but I can say that I feel a greater sense of intimacy. Perhaps God gives this to those of us who need it most. Some argue that tongues are for the immature. If that is true, I am grateful because I believe that my life would have been radically different and with a different outcome that would not have been good, if I had not been graced with this gift. I will elaborate more later if my answers are not satisfactory.
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 separate the two with policy, and such experiences are so varied that it was considered best to let the policy cover both. It is considered best to state the rule and then to provide possible flexibility through an exception statement. ”
It seems that if one understands that a PPL is not the Gift of Tongues they may receive an exception from IMB.
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 of those alienated by these issues. (2) I tried to listen to your sermon preached in chapel & couldn’t pull it up on my IPhone. Is the problem my IPhone connection is not capable or was your sermon removed from the archives at SWBTS?
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 rather than a direct experience of grace, an encounter with the living Christ which is truly individual in nature. There is nothing more entertaining (or disturbing) than listening to a bunch of Baptists trying to figure out what they’ve never experienced. Lord, we believe but help our unbelief.
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 with an empty gas tank.
This a common attack on the practice of charisma–it’s trying to trump Scripture with experience. That may be true in some cases as there are always misuses and abuses, but certainly that is not true in all cases.
I practice and experience informed by Scripture. I don’t find experience and exegesis to be mutually exclusive.
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 the world.
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 cessationism is celebrated, highlighted, heralded, and “canonized”. The vast majority of the world as Phillip Jenkins has reported, embraces the gifts of the Spirit including tongues. The rejection of tongues is more of a cultural rejection by Western minds than it is an exegetical rejection. Bart Barber is right in saying that classical cessationism just can’t be defended by Scripture. Although I obviously disagree with his brand of cessationism, I deeply appreciate his honesty in dealing with the text on that question.
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 work together with good exegesis of Scripture to help us understand truth, but experience can work together with faulty exegesis of Scripture to lead us into error.
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 the experience was real and conforms to the teachings of His Word.
The fact that you disagree with my interpretation does not mean it is incorrect. I’ve been on both sides of this issue, and I am resolute to remain exactly where I am. No argument that I’ve heard (and I’ve heard a lot of them over the last 40 years) have been convincing.
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 offer that the tradition being conveyed in the sermon isn’t one that is respectful of those with a private prayer language.
I’d also note that my experience in the field is that it is fairly rare that a missionary serves in conditions where everyone can listen in while they pray. I suspect that of the nations where we have had missionaries that South Korea is more like one of those where that wouldn’t happen than like one where it would. I’m not sure an appeal to anecdote is useful unless there is a factual basis for the anecdote.
The rest of your argumentation essentially repeats–but in more detail–the restrictionist view and doesn’t answer the mail on how we find unity and fulfill the calling of the Great Commission together. 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?
Because restricting access to service at the entity level isn’t just a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter of one group essentially denying a path to service to another group.
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 (I served on that committee one year). The committee on committees nominates persons for the committee on nominations. The committee on nominations nominates trustees, and the trustees decide on doctrinal parameters for their entities. The messengers ultimately make decisions on SBC doctrinal parameters, and it is not my place to tell them what to do.
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 it comes to doctrinal decisions taken by trustees when the BFM doesn’t address a particular doctrinal point.
I made a motion at the SBC several years ago regarding this specific issue, because I think the SBC needs to have this in the BFM one way or another, and there needs to be some direction given to trustees to avoid arbitrary decisions and hence, the disruption of work on the mission field as a result. This is something that messengers should be deciding and approving. It is equal to the Calvinism issue, and given the number of Southern Baptists who accept the practice as a legitimate, scriptural expression of an active gift, perhaps even more important for it to be addressed. The position should be clear, one way or the other, so that those who are interested in appointment to a mission post, or want to teach in a seminary can go elsewhere if their view isn’t going to be accepted.
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 and tighter is that the tent eventually becomes a noose.
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 the entities.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City
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 leprosy–then–No!!!! I could not cooperate with the SBC to do missions under that scenario.
To put it another way: I could support cessationist missionaries with an irenic spirit who demonstrated and showed proper respect for the continuationist view and practice. The reality though is that it would be difficult for the cessationist and continuationist to sucessfully long term dwell together under the same tent. This may be why the SBC has never declared a position on this issue.
The real question is not whether or not I can support a cessationist, but can a cessationist support or cooperate with me? It is not a question whether or not the IMB will hire you; the issue is that the IMB has determined that they won’t hire me. Mike, do you think the IMB ought to hire a person like me?
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 a live-and let live posture, as they recently did with the Calvinist-Traditionalist divide? Thanks for your answer. BTW, Look forward to listening to the message you preached in chapel at my first opportunity. One more BTW: headed right now to hear John MacArthur preach in Dallas. So, I guess I will cooperate with cessationist-:).
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 a live-and let live posture, as they recently did with the Calvinist-Traditionalist divide?”
Sorry, but I cannot misuse my position as an SBC entity employee. I’ll repeat what I said above: “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.”
Enjoy your time listening to Dr. MacArthur. Maybe he will set you straight. -:)
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 energy debating jots and tittles. God didn’t cease … we did.
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 of the SBC”.
I think it is unlikely that this policy will be re-visited. Things seem to be on an even keel at the IMB since 2006. My concern, back in 2006, was that I thought that this 4th order squabble was fueling the fire of too much dissention between members of the BoT of the IMB. Fortunately, all this stuff is behind us.
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 have not attempted to ask these questions directly of IMB, so the honest answer is this:
I don’t know what the actual policy in effect is.
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.
B caused A.
A and B were both caused by one or more outside factors such as C and D.
Also, as Doug says there is a question regarding the extent that the “anti PPL” stance at the IMB has been consistently implemented since 2005. This would make it even more difficult to draw any conclusion supporting the idea that what ever the IMB did regarding PPL has been a major driver as to the number of missionaries on the field.
I don’t know a thing about PPL so I’m not arguing pro or con regarding IMB policy.
My point that the IMB is “on an even keel” was addressing the vastly improved comity in the IMB administration/BoT in recent years compared to the rocky 2005-2006 timeframe.
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. What they see is that the IMB is our central effort to spread the Gospel, and they want to support that.
These issues are nearer to many of us here and clearer to those who have been in the midst of it.
My point is not the the IMB’s decision should not be revisited–but that the average church member in the SBC is going on the assumption that the IMB is doing the right thing.
Overall, that the general disinterest in having this discussion in the SBC is one of ignorance, not one of willful hostility toward continuationsim or PPL folks. That does not mean there are not some hostile folks–there’s hostile folks about everything these days.
Just that the typical SBC churchgoer does not find funding the IMB as making a statement about anything but the need to spread the Gospel.
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 that perception, but look at it through normal eyes rather than hyper-informed eyes. It looks different. Until you know a person rejected from IMB service, you may not know this policy even exists. Unless you wade through years of blogs, you many not know there was ever a discussion. If you go to a church that is publicly cessationist, you assume that’s normal and do not know any other view even qualifies as Baptist.
Those of us who go to seminaries, have extended discussions on blogs, get involved in the machinations are more aware–and often compare our awareness levels to each other, rather than, shall we say, normal folks. We then assume everyone knows, when most everyone doesn’t.
So, a lot of the people that support the IMB do so because of what they know–and they don’t know much about this issue.
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 are not cessationists.
I certainly hope it does not become a point of contention.
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 things people think are problems that are not.
This issue itself is a great illustration: when this went down, the explanation I heard from other pastors at a local level was the IMB had adopted a policy to require those baptized as infants to be baptized as believers and to stop people from teaching a second-blessing-style view of the Holy Spirit (the view that all who are saved will later receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues).
What Baptist has a problem with the SBC expecting these? I doubt anyone here does–we hold to Believer’s Baptism and that the Holy Spirit comes at salvation–and even the continuationist view is that not all speak in tongues, which is unarguably Scriptural.
Now, the real policy is apparently different than that, and more exclusionary. It also is apparently much more troublesome to the everyday practice of some SBC churches.
Given that more than half the pastors I try to connect with for SBC/state convention stuff do not even think *email* is useful, most them are not connected to these things. (These are the ones who, while they have email addresses, check them on a semi-annual basis.)
So the ignorance is real, and needs to be fixed.
The disconnect is very real.
I would simply defend many of our church goers who have been taught for years that “the trustees handle it and do a good job.” It’s a new thought to many of them that this is in doubt–around here, the view is the CR put the right people in place and now we don’t have to worry about it.
So the process is a slow one of educating how it works, why it works that way, and why we should take a more active interest in it.
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 in thousands of hours of prayer meetings and I’m not sure that those praying for miracles really expect to see any.
As I’ve said above in the battle over tongues, I don’t see many manifestations of the gifts that others supposedly believe wholeheartedly in. It is one thing to argue that a PPL is not on any official list, but what about the other gifts on the lists that are non-existent in most churches?
I think PPL is a convenient red herring that hides a larger problem.
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 that accords with a Divine purpose.