Jerry Corbaley blogs at Think the Thoughts.
I tend to agree with Dave Miller’s post on the ‘extremes’ of the Continuationist/Cessationist discussion. I am not at either extreme. I am not a cessationist. I am a continuationist though I am skeptical at times. I would like to offer the following exposition of several key Biblical passages and offer an application. I would appreciate anyone who can help me see the issues in a clearer way. Thanks in advance.
“…do not forbid speaking in tongues.” 1 Corinthians 14:39b ESV
To me, that is a very clear statement. It totally prevents me from forbidding someone from speaking in tongues. Further, it is in the immediate context of…
“If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:37 ESV
To me, that makes an already clear statement extremely authoritative. It is such a strong emphasis that…
“If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” 1 Corinthians 14:38 ESV
“If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” 1 Corinthians 14:38 NIV
So, my urgent counsel to everyone is that you not forbid speaking in tongues. By my reading, if you do ignore this command of the Lord, the faithful have instruction to ignore you, to refuse to recognize you. I do not see that it would matter if the authority figure who forbids speaking in tongues was a teacher, a pastor, or a board of trustees.
Now, a private prayer language is often equated with the following passage…
“But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.” I Corinthians 14:28
I have no doubt that practitioners of private prayer language want to be faithful to God, to keep in step with the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:25), and to cooperate (and not resist) the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:7), as it says here…
“If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” Galatians 5:25 ESV
“To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” 1 Corinthians 12:7
Therefore (correct me if I’m wrong), practitioners of private prayer language should “keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God”, after they have spoken publicly in church to see if there is an interpreter present. It seems to me, that the manifestation of tongues must (at least occasionally) be uttered vocally in church so that those who have the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues will have an opportunity to contribute their faithfulness.
Further (I am still willing to be corrected), even if there is no interpreter present on a given Sunday, they should still express their gift vocally in church from time to time in case a new member has the gift of interpretation, or an existing member receives such gift.
It is difficult for me to understand why someone who has been given a gift for the good of the church would refuse to share that gift, with the result that someone who has been given the gift of interpretation is denied the opportunity to express their gifting.
If the previous exposition is accepted by a Christian, then they should obey God, and refuse to recognize (ignore) anyone who forbids them from speaking in tongues. I fully believe this. I have respect for anyone who puts their action where they say their faith is.
The consequences of the above proposal would cause a stir in the churches. But if that is how God has gifted you, then do what he says.
The options seem very limited. Advocate speaking in tongues. Forbid speaking in tongues. Or decide that the American expression of private prayer language is not Biblical glossolalia.
Jerry,
Great question. The command to not forbid tongues(1Cor. 14: 39), is not a command to speak in tongues in public or private worship. Therefore, your premise, or foundational basis for your question is faulty.
“It seems to me that the manifestation of tongues must(at least occasionally) be uttered vocally in church so that those who have the spiritual gift of tongues will have an opportunity to contribute their faithfulness.”
1Corinthians 12: 11is clear that these gifts function in the life of the body as the Spirit wills. Only if the Spirit wills is it necessary for tongues to be vocalized occasionally in the church. If the Spirit wills tongues and interpretation in worship, the person with the gift of interpretation will come forth. If they don’t there would be two biblical options. (1) The person would pray in tongues inwardly and “speak to himself and to God”(1 Corinthians 14: 28). (2) The person who is speaking in tongues may also have the gift of interpretation(1 Cor. 14: 13). If neither one of those matters transpire, the tongues speaker is to simply be quiet, and it is not necessary for an opportunity for the gift of interpretation to have a chance to practice, because evidently, the Spirit didn’t will.
The primary purpose for speaking in tongues is for private devotion and personal edification, not public display(1 Cor. 14:4,2). “Forbid not to speak in tongues,” would have to apply to churches and denominations adopting policies restricting private praying/praising in tongues as well.
Dwight
Dwight,
I hope you are doing well. I don’t think this particular aspect of ‘private prayer language’ has been explored in the blogs, and your participation is most welcome.
You say, “The command to not forbid tongues(1Cor. 14: 39), is not a command to speak in tongues in public or private worship. Therefore, your premise, or foundational basis for your question is faulty.”
I am missing your point, I think. The point I am making is that the Scripture says, “if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in the church”… Is not the Scripture indicating that the expression of glossolalia should (at least occasionally) be vocalized in the church? How can someone express their gift of glossolalia silently without occasionally attempting to see if an interpreter is present? How can someone with the gift of interpretation know an interpretation of glossolalia if they do not hear the glossolalia first?
Given that some of our SBC congregations are very large, certainly the expression of glossolalia in smaller groups might be sufficient. Though even that seems to violate the command to ‘forbid not speaking in tongues”.
I agree that glossolalia is expressed as you said, “as the Spirit wills”. It is the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself through the expression of glossolalia and its interpretation (12:7). Is it not fair to say that the Spirit wills (at least from time to time) that the one who speaks glossolalia silently should also seek to speak it vocally, in case someone with the gift of interpretation is present?
You say, “The primary purpose for speaking in tongues is for private devotion and personal edification, not public display(1 Cor. 14:4,2).” I am supposing you mean verses 4, and 12, since they both apply. Here I would disagree, I think. The Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 12:7 that the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.” Genuine glossolalia is a gift to individuals to build up the church, as all the spiritual gifts are given for the common good.
I would like to take back something I just said. I said, “Given that some of our SBC congregations are very large, certainly the expression of glossolalia in smaller groups might be sufficient. Though even that seems to violate the command to ‘forbid not speaking in tongues”.
Upon reflection, in 1 Corinthians 14:40 the Scripture says, “But all things should be done decently and in order”. I could see a church deciding to encourage their members to keep the public speaking in tongues in smaller groups. That no longer seems to violate the command to ‘forbid not speaking in tongues”.
Jerry,
My point is that, it is not necessary or biblically required that a believer speak in tongues occasionally in public worship, in order to give another believer the opportunity to exercise or discover the gift of interpretation of tongues. This is only done if the Spirit wills.
I see no biblical basis for believing that, “Is it not fair to to say that the Spirit wills (at least from time to time) that one who speaks glossolalia silently should also seek to speak it vocally, in case someone with the gift of interpretation is present?” The answer to your question is no; unless the Spirit wills. And if He wills, it shall come to pass, unless He’s quenched (1 Thessalonians 5: 19).
When a believer, gifted by the Holy Spirit, prays/praises in tongues in private, that person edifieth himself(1 Cor. 14: 4). When that person is edified they then build up the body for the common good(1 Cor. 12: 7). And this is an outgrowth or result of that person, gifted by the Holy Spirit to praise/pray in tongues having spent time “speaking…not unto men…but unto God”( 1 Cor 14:2a).
I trust my point was made clear this time. If not, I’ll try again later.
Dwight
I just can’t get past the Scripture that says, “if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent…” (1 Cor. 14:28).
I think this is a clear Biblical basis to assert that the silent expression of glossolalia follows (!) an occasional attempt at a public expression of glossolalia.
If those who keep silent and express their glossolalia to God because there is no interpreter present, are never expected by God to express their glossolalia publicly, then the Scripture seems to make no sense at all.
What I have difficulty seeing is the assertion (from 14:28) that the expression is somehow private.
Jerry,
I simply don’t see what you see in 1Cor.14: 28. But neither am I the brightest crayon in the box. Is there a commentary or any reference work that argues your point? Perhaps I’ll understand it better there.
The article in this comment thread–even though it was written by an ABP writer–provides background for Jerry’s blog:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4461
I should note additionally, if I recall correctly, Jerry was serving on the IMB Board of Trustees at the time that action was taken and it was initiated by the BOT.
Greg,
You recall correctly. Corbaley was an instigator of the new rules. He has argued in the past against continuationism and it is currently disingenious of him, to say the least, to say that he is a continuationist.
Jake,
I have never been a cessationist.
Beg to differ with you. If you insist on your story, I think CB Scott and or Wade Burleson could verify my assertion. I have called you a liar before and was being generous in stating that you were being disingenious now.
“I have never been a cessationist.”
Then what were you, Jerry Corbaley? And why did you do what you did at the IMB?
What exactly were you, Hadley, and Floyd doing if not calling for a cessationist position for IMB personnel? If you are not a cessationist, then whose water were you carrying? Why did you desire Wade kicked off the board?
Jerry Corbaley, you have officially urinated in your own post toasties!
“”””Why did you desire Wade kicked off the board?””””
How about because he was a “continuationist”–he continued to share confidential informatin and defy the accepted protocol and stated purpose of a trustee?
What’s Wade got to do with the discussion other than enflame it and lead it down a dark alley.
There was far more to it than that, Frank.
Jake,
One can be a continuationist and still have an opinion regarding real and less than real spiritual gifting. Perhaps that never occurred to you. That would explain your rude remark. Tongues is a language miracle. The Old and New Testament have many instances of language miracles.
CB,
Only the IMB Trustees serving at the time actually know what happened. They are the witnesses. The Trustees were accountable to each other. It was their job to address internal matters. They released many public statements. If these do no satisfy you, you will have to wait for the day of Christ.
Jerry Corbaley,
We both know that far more than the trustees know what really happened. I thought maybe you would have learned by now not to “continue” to trot that old dog out.
As for you, you have revealed the real problem with your tenure as a trustee and that of far too many others in the last several years, especially some who were on the IMB with you, when you made this statement:
” The Trustees were accountable to each other.”
Jerry, the IMB did not and does not belong to the trustees. You “all” were accountable to the SBC. You either forgot that, did not know that, or, frankly, you simply ignored that. You can say what you like to try to justify yourselves or make yourselves feel better. But, in the end, you guys were accountable to the SBC and you can try all you please to say otherwise, but that dog just won’t hunt.
Jerry,
You can have the last word on this one. I should never have entered this thread. To do so was truly an exercise in futility.
CB,
The Trustees are always accountable to God. The Trustees are accountable to the SBC “during” the annual convention. The Trustees care about the SBC and listen. Then they take responsibility for serving as Trustees. Some of the work, and some of the words, are confidential; as those who have served as Trustees know. SBC polity is what it is.
Now, CB,
Do you actually think this blog is an appropriate venue to have a “trial”, and “convict” or “justify” persons? The appropriate venue would be those who were actual witnesses, would it not?
CB….
FYI… it was Hatley, Thomas Hatley NOT Hadley….
><>”
May I suggest an excellent book written by the founding President of the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Del Tarr, *The Foolishness of God: A Linguist Looks at the Mystery of Tongues* 2010 (on Amazon.com) This book takes the discussion to a whole new level. See my forthcoming review in JETS, summarized in Amazon
BTW, I personally witnessed a young Korean woman opening an English language class with the most perfect diction and accent I have ever heard. My interpreter for my theology classes in Korea had invited me to a session of her English class. When I heard the young lady open in prayer, I was in consternation, because, I thought, this must be an extremely advanced English class. What could I possibly teach them? My interpreter nudged me and whispered, “she’s speaking in tongues.” At first I didn’t quite grasp what was happening. Turns out this young woman normally could hardly put two English words together; she had an extreme accent that was almost unintelligible. Granted, she was exposed to English, but there was no way she could have prayed like that without serious divine intervention. And no, the prayer was not for “evangelizing the pagans” but for edification of the church–especially me!
I appreciate Jerry’s thoughtful presentation.
I think it breaks down in the final paragraph by limiting the options to those listed.
Also, I agree with Dwight’s challenge. A “private” prayer language is just that, “private.” That is a separate issue of tongues–as there are a variety of tongues.
I can say that my goal of spending a tithe of my day in prayer would be utterly impossible without God’s gift of tongues. It allows me to spend extended time in fellowship with Him in the seclusion of my prayer closet.
By conflating private tongues with public tongues one can come to the conclusion Jerry does. However, the texts discussion a “variety of tongues” and probably indicates an almost limitless number of expressions.
Thank you, Frank, for ‘blaming’ me with being “thoughtful”. I genuinely appreciate that.
I could be wrong, but my experience is that those with a private prayer language use 1 Corinthians 14:28 as the Biblical example, their Biblical instruction, to verify their faithfulness to Scripture. I do think there is a difference between “private”, which is no one’s business, and “silent” (actually in the text) which indicates there is no interpreter present after (!) the expression of glossolalia has been spoken in the church. The manifestations of the Spirit are everyone’s business, aren’t they?
Jerry,
Actually, verse 14:2 is instructive of the kind of tongues that God gives as a private prayer language.
Paul also says, “I speak in tongues more than you all.” Since not one time in Scripture do we have anyone interpreting Paul’s tongues: 1) He is speaking of more than one human language, but that does not fit the other references to a supernatural language and would be inconsistent; 2) Paul was misusing the gift of prophetic tongues–according to your proposition; 3) Paul was talking about a “private time” between God and Himself (verse 2, 14)
Also, verse 2 describes prayer as “speaking to God” and in verse 14 Paul specifically uses the word for “prayer” as a form of speaking in tongues.”
In other words, one variety of tongues is a “prayer language.” Case solved–except at the IMB.
Frank,
1 Corinthians 14:2 says, “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God” (God doesn’t need an interpreter); “for no one understands him” (The speech has not yet been interpreted), “but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (until the mystery is revealed by interpretation).
I think all speech toward God is prayer. I would say prayer is speaking to God.
Jerry,
OK. If prayer is speaking to God and it doesn’t matter what language one uses (earthly or heavenly) then why not use the one that God gives to assist one in prayer?
I’m glad that you have come around to agree there is a “prayer language” taught in Scripture between a person and God.
I knew I could convince you.
PS–Go Lancers!
So David,
You may have already addressed this but do you believe that the private prayer language was a heavenly language? How about the public gift of tongues?
That’s quite an argument from silence, Frank. No one’s tongues are explicitly interpreted anywhere in the New Testament (I guess it’s possible any of the sermons in Acts were spoken in a foreign tongue to the speaker but Luke just provided the Greek interpretation).
On the whole, it seems Paul is very dismissive of non-interpreted tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. (1) He hypothetically mentions tongue-prayer in verse 14 but then the next several verses Paul elaborates that this is not preferred and he himself prays “with his mind also”, i.e., in his own tongue and understanding. (2) In verse 4 he does say that tongues-speaker “builds himself up” but I am very hesitant to take Paul at face value. I believe this would be a unique instance in Scripture where the believer is told to actually build himself up – other times members of the church are told to build each other up (1 Thess 5:11) and we know that God does build us up in Christ (1 Pet 2:5, Eph 2:20), but believers are consistently told to look to others’ edification before our own (Phil 2:3, Rom 12, etc.). The phrasing used here in 1 Cor 14 is different but nevertheless I am reminded of 1 Cor 8 where Paul says of those using theological insight to do as they please instead of looking out for the good of their brothers, that “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.”
Your last line seems awfully boastful
Jude 1:20. “But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit.”
Your exegesis of 1 Cor. 14 hinges on attributing hypothetical language to Paul in v. 14, and assuming he is not to be taken at face value in v. 4, without any reason for doing so, unless you start with the premise that there is no such thing as a “private prayer language.” Also, I would say in 1 Cor. 14 Paul is very dismissive of non-interpreted tongues in the assembly, not of non-interpreted tongues in general.
1 Cor. 14:28. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” In other words, “Be silent in the church. Wait until you are alone, in private, and then pray in tongues to God.”
David,
You say, “1 Cor. 14:28. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” In other words, “Be silent in the church. Wait until you are alone, in private, and then pray in tongues to God.”
How do you get this from 14:28? The immediate context is undeniably the church setting itself, see 14:26, 27. In that undeniable public context, “IF” there is no interpreter “PRESENT” indicates that the utterance is to be PUBLICLY uttered if there is an interpreter present.
If there is no interpreter present, THEN the Christian is to be silent publicly. It is not to be private unless there is no interpreter present. If an interpreter is present, then the utterance is to be shared.
The following commentaries, all written before the Azusa Street Revival and the modern Pentecostal movement, and thus without any “dog in the fight” with regard to the current PPL debate, have these comments on 1 Cor. 14:28:
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But if there be no interpreter,…. None that has the gift of interpretation of divers tongues, and he that speaks with them has not that, which was sometimes the case:
let him keep silence in the church; let him not make use of his gift publicly before the whole congregation, since without an interpreter it will be entirely useless:
and let him speak to himself, and to God; he may make use of his gift to his own edification, and to the glory of God, by speaking with a low voice, or in his heart, which he himself may be conscious of, and God the searcher of hearts, and that knows all languages, fully understands; and so may be edified himself, and God may be glorified by him; whereas, if he was to use it openly and publicly, it would not only be unprofitable, but an hinderance to others: or he might retire to his own house, and there exercise it by himself, and in the presence of God, when it might be of some use and advantage to himself, but would be highly improper to bring it into the church, or public congregation; for instead of assisting, it would but dampen their devotion, and therefore it was very reasonable he should be silent there.
Wesley’s Notes
14:28 Let him speak – That tongue, if he find it profitable to himself in his private devotions.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. let him-the speaker in unknown tongues.
speak to himself, and to God-(compare 1Co 14:2, 4)-privately and not in the hearing of others.
Jerry,
If I understand correctly what you are asking, my answer is the following. Our modern-day way of doing church is very different from the NT house church setting. In the NT house church (as well as in many present-day house churches), everyone pretty much knew everyone else. It was also not a one-way communication type setting, but an interactive communication, in which dialogue, and interrupting, etc. was encouraged and expected. Thus, if you had a message in tongues you felt led to share, it would have been simple and natural just to ask first, if you did not already know, “Is there anyone here who has the gift of interpretation?” Normally, in a house church setting, though, you would know whether or not someone in the group had the gift of interpretation.
Hi David,
I think I agree with you. Unless you are implying that the instructions for “then” are not relevant “now”.
Perhaps the best place for the expression of glossalalia would be in the small groups of today’s SBC churches? The people know each other in such a setting, and it is less formal. This would provide those who usually “remain silent and speak to themselves and to God” to speak their gifting publicly; or at least ask if they could do so.
Is this what you are recommending?
Jerry,
I’m sure you are aware that the only context for spiritual manifestations that is biblical is a small gathering, which constituted the “church” in the first century.
The institutionalizing of church also institutionalized the operation of the gifts, in affect, smothering them. Paul calls it “quenching the Spirit.”
Everywhere you look in denominational life you will see problems with institutionalizing the church. Any perceived benefit in “cooperative missions” is eclipsed by a “quenching of the Spirit.”
Personally, I’d love to have the Spirit and do away with the IMB, rather than have the IMB and do away with the Spirit. Unfortunately, prior to the last crusade of the IMB, one like myself was not faced with such a choice.
The “anti-charismatic crusade” of the IMB did not help mission work.
Frank,
I regret that you feel trampled on by the decisions of the IMB. I was there, and the inflammatory rhetoric about what they did and why they did it, is way, way overblown. I was also trampled on.
Now, brother, I did not miss the “Go Lancers” quip! There are many “Franks”, but you are CBU, right? Do we know each other?
Jerry,
Perhaps “trampled on” is not how I see it.
I think it was a “good, institutional decison.” I can understand why they did it.
I just think we need to pull back from the “institutionalization and corporate identity” that has become the SBC. We need to get back to the local Church–and the local church needs to get back to Sunday School.
Our future is in thinking smaller, not larger; giving more latitude for local churches to interpret SB life for themselves.
I think a healthy attitude and understanding of the Holy Spirit–which I believe you have even if we disagree slightly–is the way to go.
I’m excited about the possiblities for the future when I see a discussion like this.
Yes, CBC ’82. And the name “Frank L.” came from BDW. I used to go by subman608. I had an internet stalker that worked in Silicon Valley and knew how to really mess with my life. So, I don’t use my real name.
We not only know each other, we consider each other a friend.
Yes, Jerry, that is it. I haven’t really had personal experience with it this way, though. When I have been in settings where someone wanted to speak in tongues, it was in a larger group, and your question does become very relevant then. Also, it seems to me that in a small group setting the motivation to speak in tongues in order to draw attention to yourself is somewhat (though perhaps not totally) diminished.
And, by the way, I have never spoken in tongues, nor interpreted tongues, myself.
Jerry,
Reading your other comments, I don’t quite follow your public/private dichotomy. I don’t see how the text demands it be one or the other. Can it not be both? Why or why not?
David,
I remain an advocate for my third option. Yet I do not want to be insensitive to Southern Baptist’s opinions on glossolalia, whether expressed publicly or silently. I don’t see the meaning “private” in the text.
What I have seen often is the airing of opinions about what the SBC has done, and might do, regarding glossolalia. What I have not seen is any noticeable appreciation of becoming an advocate of glossolalia in an SBC church or association. Nor have I seen any noticeable appreciation of the inevitability of glossolalia becoming very public. One who has the gift has the command of God to disregard/ignore those who forbid them to express it. Chapter 14 is filled with encouragements to strengthen the church by the faithful expression of the gifts.
As I see it, it is one thing to become “an advocate” for glossolalia, and another thing to not be in favor of forbidding glossolalia, whether practiced publicly or privately. I think many, perhaps the majority, of those who would not consider themselves “advocates” for glossolalia would not at the same time be in favor of the IMB’s PPL policy.
I can understand that in the context of something like the IMB the public practice of glossolalia can be controversial and disruptive, and thus, in the interest of not making waves, and not creating undue controversy, it may be wise and prudent to ask those with this gift to refrain from using it publicly. Ideally, I don’t think that should be necessary. But I can understand the motivation behind it. What I cannot understand is the need to squelch the private practice of glossolalia, as it need not be controversial or disruptive. In fact, as I understand it, it is the policy at the IMB that proved controversial and disruptive, not the practice of PPL on the part of missionaries or missionary candidates, as no one had reason to even know about them, or in any way deal with them, until they were brought out in the open by the policy.
If someone feels God is leading them to express their gift of tongues publicly, and also feels called to be missionary, then there are other avenues of service than through the IMB. I suppose the same could be said for someone with a PPL. But they weren’t really creating any problem or disruption anyway.
Hi David,
You say, “I think many, perhaps the majority, of those who would not consider themselves “advocates” for glossolalia would not at the same time be in favor of the IMB’s PPL policy”.
Now I am assuming at the start that we are talking about the IMB Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language of May 11, 2007. If there has been a change in IMB policy regarding these topics since then, I am not aware of them.
Brother, many reacted to the adoption of that guideline with the understanding of a love-in at a third world embassy. Most of what is believed about the guideline is incorrect. Few will actually read the guideline and compare it to what the Bible actually says.
The Guideline is not cessationist. In the IMB’s opinion, if someone actually expresses genuine glossolalia, they are very welcome indeed. Crossing language barriers with the gospel would be supernaturally enhanced. Rather handy.
The IMB went through years of effort, inviting responses from IMB Richmond Staff, Regional Leaders and leading SBC scholars, prayerfully and sincerely seeking the Lord’s will. The Board itself has more experience and graduate degrees that the vast majority of seminaries. The Board came to an agreement about the nature of glossolalia. They made a guideline based on their honest assessment on the Biblical nature of glossolalia. And I assert that there has been no group since the Apostles who have more right, responsibility, skill, knowledge and experience to address the question of “what is glossolalia”.
The IMB has a Biblical understanding of glossolalia.
The IMB wants to cross language barriers. You know how difficult this can be, and how much time it takes in a missionary’s early years.
Okay. Maybe I’m not really picking up on the intent behind your post. I thought it was related to the IMB guideline (yes, the same one). Sorry if I misread you.
Jerry. Thank you for pointing out the IMB has “a” Biblical interpretation and not “the” Biblical interpretation.
It does not forbid me from stopping the unbiblical and made up jibber jabber that is falsely presented as tongues in our churches. The tongues that is not a known language and is not for the purpose of sharing the gospel is a perversion of the worship of God and an abomination.
Mark. That is an unfortunate, and prideful way to state your opinion.
And it is just your opinion.
I consider my self to be many terrible things, but an abomination is not one of them.
There is no way of reading the IMB’s policy that it does not smack of cessationist teaching… This should be a local church issue, where the matter of tongues may be left up to Biblical interpretation and in light of the Baptist Faith and Message. If there were abuses on the field, then deal with those abuses Biblically. Sadly, what’s been created is just a blanket policy.
If the IMB trustees that crafted and voted for this policy are correct, no problem. If they are wrong, then in my opinion, not only have they said “no” to a many gifted and qualified candidate, the policy is also an offense to the Father and needs to be re-written
Wade,
I totally agree with your second paragraph.
By the way, in SBC blogs your first-name-only alias will get you some prejudiced reactions. Some positive, some negative. For the record, I would consider it deceitful of you to engage me anonymously if you and I served on the IMB together. No offense intended, truly.
Regarding your first paragraph, are you referring to the IMB Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language of May 11, 2007?
Wade,
I believe this is the current guideline.
The IMB Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language
(Regarding Tongues)
1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered a legitimate language.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 and 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
Here is the very clear non-cessationist application that contradicts your first paragraph, above. Focus on this part: “the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 and 2 above”. If the candidates current practice DOES fall within the definitions of Parts 1 and 2 above; then they are not “eliminated”.
In my opinion, they would be celebrated.
The cessationist position, as I understand it, is that glossolalia and the interpretation of glossolalia cannot happen because the canon of Scripture has ‘arrived’.
Jerry,
Does the guideline you are referring to also contain the following part? Because this is the part I have been referring to:
PRAYER LANGUAGE
1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia.
2. Paul’s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.
4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as “private prayer language.” 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.
http://www.imb.org/main/news/details.asp?LanguageID=1709&StoryID=3834
Mornin’ David,
The prayer language guideline you link to is dated March 6, 2006. I am assuming that the guideline dated May 11, 2007 replaces it. I regret I lack the skill to embed a link.
Here is what I have:
(Prayer Language)
1. Any spiritual experience must be tested by Scripture.
2. New Testament teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3.The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterance as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
Thanks for checking. Even with all my effort, I am not certain that the guideline has not been adjusted over the last 5 years. Kind of sad that many brothers and sisters might be debating guidelines that no longer apply. Even sadder that we might debate guideline language that never existed. Thanks again for your willingness to be precise.
It should be noted that the IMB Trustees sought to pass an administative guideline, not a theological treatise. It is not the purpose of the Trustees to establish SBC doctrine or convince SBC churches or individuals. The purpose of the statement is to guide the candidate consultants as they interview candidates.
In the May 5, 2007 guideline, number 3, it says:
3.The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
If one or more candidates could persuade the board that their gifting was real, they would undoubtedly be accepted.
Practitioners of ecstatic utterance might want to consider how to convince the board that their language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching.
Jerry,
Very interesting. Either my memory fails me on this, or I never was aware there were so many different iterations of the guideline or policy (the website linked above says “policy”) on PPL. It would indeed be helpful to know what the current guideline or policy is. I recognize that you are no longer a part of that process, so I am not necessarily expecting you to know.
In any case, with regard to the 2007 wording that you reference, the term “ecstatic utterance” is problematic for me. Though some interpreters have traditionally used this term, personally I believe it confuses the issue, as it implies some sort of emotional frenzy, or lack of control over one’s reflexes, when practicing a PPL. From what I understand (remember, I have no personal experience with PPL) those who practice a PPL generally say they are in full control of their reflexes and are not in some sort of “ecstatic” state when they do so.
David,
I agree. I prefer not to use “ecstatic utterance” unless I must refer to the actual policy. It is problematic.
Someone needs to come down here and straighten this whole mess out once and for all.
Personally if I wanted to fulfill a call to missions that required convincing a group of the power and majesty of God-I’d find another group
Besides. How does one convince a group wearing buttons that say, ”
“don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up?”
PS. It is this type of narrowing of theological borders that is nudging me toward a more independent Baptist approach to church
Frank L,
Are you really equating the possession of a private prayer language to “the power and majesty of God”?
Perhaps one can convince a group by careful Bible exposition.
Perhaps one can try. A regret the option that since ‘they’ won’t take your word for it, then they can’t be convinced.
I hope that is not what you are saying.
Jerry,
NO.
While I recognize the possibility of tongues in some respects and know of only one or possible two instances where they actually occurred, my experience with tongue talkers had been one long 60+ years of disappointment with the same. I don’t put much truck with private prayer language as one does not know what one is saying, and one could be saying words of evil to God and that at the instigation and with the feel good policies of Satan. It is bad enough to think I must give an account for every word I speak; it would be worse to think I had said things I did not even know and would give an account for them. While there are good people in the tongue talking churches, the idea that speaking in tongues makes one special, closer to God, etc., than others is absurd. God’s children are all equals, being born again, adopted, joint-heirs, having access to the Father by Christ, blood-bought, possessed by the Holy Spirit, called brothers and sisters (and believe me in Grandpa’s family, a sister was an equal whom one had better not hit and who could also bite and get a spanking, too), and more.
To all on a related question.
What about those who have the Spiritual gift of the interpretation of tongues? Where are they? How do you get to know them? Are they welcome to practice their gift?
I am truly curious. I am not being sarcastic, not sardonic, not trying to belittle anyone or anything. But those who doubt the current gifting of glossolalia and the assertion of the validity of private prayer language would like to understand, I think. Not everyone who has doubts is an intolerant bigot.
Has the gift of interpretation of tongues ceased, but not the gift of tongues? Would that be semi-cessationism or semi-continuationist?
Would it be right to forbid the interpretation of glossolalia, yet allow the private expression of glossolalia?
It would seem reasonable for SBC members who do not personally have a private prayer language to address these questions before they publicly affirm the reality of private prayer language. It would seem reasonable for these same SBC members to address these questions before they decry and oppose those who disagree with them. It seems to me.
Jerry,
Please point out the verse that says any gift of the Spirit has ceased.
One verse would be a shaky foundation to base cessastionism on, but it would be a start.
“””””before they decry and oppose those who disagree with them. It seems to me.”””””
That’s my point. I don’t “decry” those that oppose the Spirit’s moving among His people. I avoid them.
I wonder how the church would look if the Holy Spirit ever showed up in great power. Perhaps like the church in Guatemala that I visited in the slums. Packed wall to wall with people praising God and giving testimony of His visitation to them. It was a block building with dirt floors, 100 degree heat, and monsoon rains.
Sewage flowed in the streets but the power of God flowed in their lives.
My point is: while we debate “tongues” have we discouraged the moving of God among us because of our “lack of faith.”
I just think God is bigger than we imagine. I also lament at times as to whether becoming a Southern Baptist has been a curse or a blessing.
I confess I do not yet have an answer to that last question. But, my hurt longs to see God move in a way I dreamed He would move in my ministry when I started out 37 years ago.
This discussion is not about theology for me–it’s about survival.
Frank L,
I have heard cessationists explain from Scripture why they believe the sign gifts have ceased. I don’t agree with their exposition, but I understand them. I have zero desire to comment of these verses because I am not a cessationist.
I am sorry that you thought I was talking about you. I have never heard you “decry” the IMB, or those who interpret the Scripture about glossolalia differently than you. But those who read this comment stream can see that it does sometimes happen.
Everything else in the above comment I agree with.
A lot of folks who read SBCVoices are persuaded to a point of view without ever engaging the opposite point of view. That happens at many blogs, and even at seminaries. But you already know this. I am preaching to the preacher.
Jerry. I’ve never seen anybody persuaded to any point of view on voices–except the one they already hold.
Voices does help me clarify and refine my views
Voices also allows me to frustrate a few young whipper-snappers trying to persuade me to change my views.
As I know I am not easily swayed. It is not however beyond the realm of possibility.
Jerry. I also agree this is a difficult issue as your thoughtful questions point out.
In the end I have to deal with what I know from experience as informed by what I know from the Bible.
Admittedly I come up a bit short.
Frank L.
And on your last comment we totally agree. We have always been in the same boat. The only discussion is who sits where.
Let me remind you of the Nehemiah-stand-in-the-gap illustration. There are too many gaps, and too few who can find them. No one man can guard the city except Jesus and he has not returned to the city. I have seen you stand in a gap from the time we met. I have seen you rally others to a noble cause. While there are too many gaps for one man, you will remain faithful in the gap where the Lord places you. That is enough. By grace, you do more than stand. This whole conversation may pass by the readers of this comment stream, but you know what I mean.
Jerry,
Absolutely. This is why I am not abandoning ship–at least not yet.
I’m independently minded but I understand too acutely what you mean by the Nehemiah illustration. The driving force in my life is to see a nation-wide revival that sweeps thousands of souls into the Kingdom of God.
If Stubborn Baptists are going to be a part of this event, then we have to come to a working agreement on such matters as how the Holy Spirit expresses Himself in the lives of believers today.
Any other issue pales in relative importance to this one–in my humble opinion.
God will take me home in His time, but my prayer is I will see a great revival in my city and nation before that happens.
Now, I’m going to get to work. God bless you my friend and fellow Alumnus.
I have not been around too many settings where glossolalia is publicly practiced, but I have heard perhaps 5 or 6 messages in tongues given in a church service where someone else then gave an interpretation. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the interpretations. You would probably need to ask someone with more experience in settings where public glossolalia is more common.
David,
I grew up Am. Baptist. Was saved there. Joined a Penecostal church in the Navy. Was called to ministry there. Rented from a Southern Baptist lady when I got out of the Navy who invited (insisted) I go to her church. I was sent to an SB college from there. Etc. Etc.
I do not fully know the answers to everyone’s questions about the “exact mode of practicing tongues” (or any other gift). I’m certain there are as many abuses in Pentecostal churches practicing tongues as there are doctrinal maladies in SB churches that don’t.
I do know this: one is not likely to ever discover the genuine manifestation of the Spirit with a heart predisposed against the Spirit’s manifestation. I just don’t see the Spirit knocking you down and forcing Himself upon you–unless you are at a Benny Hinn meeting.
Fortunately, I was not a very good Baptist and even worse at being a Pentecostal so I did not know enough to be predisposed against the Spirit’s continuing manifestations. I do know, that when I was in the Pentecostal church, there were definitely times that the tongues and interpretations bore witness with my spirit. There were times–well, it didn’t.
The whole context of 1Corinthians was Paul’s guidance of the practice of tongues (et. al.) not an argument against them. I think this gets missed.
My two cents to end the evening.
There is an interesting text in Acts 19 in regard to the Holy Spirit that I think bears upon this discussion in a serious way.
When confronted by Paul with the question, “Have you received the Holy Spirit,” the answer from the disciples who were apparently bewildered by the question was, “no, we haven’t even heard there was a Holy Spirit.”
I grew up attending a Baptist church. I don’t remember one lesson on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We called it the Holy Ghost, and frankly I was afraid of ghosts anyway. So, not hearing about Him never raised my eyebrow.
Could it be that the lack of supernatural manifestations of God’s “kingdom come in power” (Mk 9:1) could be that we have taught our people that such things have ceased?
Again, I don’t have all the answers to all the questions skeptics could ask but one thing is abundantly clear to this simple-minded hillbilly–the church I pastor bears almost no resemblance in operation or effect to the Church in Acts.
I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this situation. That concerns me greatly.
Frank,
I’ve never met you. But your comments on this thread has caused me to view you from a whole different perspective. Our hearts long for the manifest presence of God in our midst. Paige Patterson published a piece on the manifest presence of God in Baptist Press a few weeks ago that I thought was outstanding. The problems that we are facing in our nation, families, SBC, and world, will only be made different and resolved to the glory of God, if we experience the manifest presence of God. “Lord let thy Kingdom come. Let thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Amen.”
Dwight
P. S.
All of the theological and political discussions and debates we have, will be somewhat inconsequential when we experience corporately and individually, the manifest presence of God. Whoever said that it will be “revival or ruin” for America was right, no matter who wins the upcoming election.
Dwight
Dwight,
Your words resonate with my heart. Though, I would perhaps back off a bit on calling our interchange “inconsequential.”
I doubt I have changed your mind regarding your “not vote” in November–and I think it is clear you’ve not changed mine.
However, that does not mean I have not learned and become a better person from this exchange. I have. I’ve learned a lot. I’ve been forced to justify my position before God.
I’m actually preaching on the “Kingdom of God coming in power” (Mk. 9:1, 9:9-32). The focus is on power: physical power (health, wealth, etc.) and political power. I am surprised what God showed me about “political” power and how some of the most “politically” free live in countries like China (a.K.a, Tank Man, Tiananmen Square).
Brother, we may be on different sides on many things, but without you part of the Kingdom of God would fail to come in great power. I’m just one tiny drop in a great big sea of humanity. I can make a difference in some lives, but certainly cannot make a difference in all lives.
I also would not consider it any kind of personal victory to hear you changed your mind and voted for Romney. I would consider it a personal victory if our exchange forced you to think deeply about a very important matter.
My prayer for both of us is that tomorrow, should God grant us life, we will stand in our respective pulpits and proclaim “the Kingdom of God has come (pf. tense) in power!”
Frank(my new friend :-),
Please email me a manuscript and or a cd (prefer manuscript) of your message. Sounds like a great one. Please forward the cost you charge your people for a cd or manuscript. I certainly want to pay for the cost of the material. I study everything that I can get my hands on concerning the Kingdom of God. Thanks.
Dwight
Attempts at clarification:
One commenter asserted that I must be a “cessationist”, because of my reluctance to accept private prayer language. Perhaps others are also of that opinion. In my opinion, one may honestly reject cessationism and believe that the “sign” gifts are still available without accepting all “manifestations” of the sign gifts as inherently of the Holy Spirit. I doubt that many current practitioners of glossolalia would assert that all that is done as glossolalia is, indeed, of the Spirit. I would be mildly surprised if some assert on this blog that all contemporary American healings, words of knowledge, laughter in the Spirit, and miraculous signs are all inherently of the Holy Spirit. One may honestly be a skeptical continuationist, I think.
In the Baptist Faith and Message, Article 1, is the following partial statement: (The Scripture is) “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried”. The assertions that ‘private prayer language’ is acceptable Christian practice, in my opinion, requires a Biblical basis. Given the teaching in 1 Corinthians 14, I do not see any basis that allows the practice of ‘silent glossolalia’ without an accompanying effort, at least occasionally, to find an interpreter. Perhaps the one who utters glossolalia can interpret their own speech. With the discovery of an interpreter, or even the assertion by one uttering glossolalia that they can interpret, the Christian is expected to make the silent expression public. With that, any intent or assertion of ‘prayer language’ being “private” becomes moot. The practice spreads. It doesn’t stay private.
Let me emphasize the following: I believe that everything God says is true and right. Even so, He makes it clear that not everything is equally important. Three brief examples might suffice for now. First, coming to a regenerate faith in Jesus Christ is more important than tithing your herbs. Second, taking the beam out of my own eye is more important than immediately taking a speck out of your eye. Third, Christians manifesting the spiritual gift of teaching (in the flesh) do a whole lot more damage that anyone who practices glossolalia in the flesh. I have many very good friends and colleagues (of several denominations) who practice private prayer language. I accept their regeneration, and their counsel on many things. I appreciate their faithfulness to Christ. Many aspects of their life are an inspiration to me. I hope they see me the same way. If not, they hide it very well.
Yet my willingness to accept testimony about private prayer language relies on the practice being within the teaching of Scripture. There are a lot of your fellow Southern Baptists who believe as I do.
Perhaps you have been in the presence of expressions of glossolalia many, many times. I have. While I want to believe the testimony such as that of Jon (above), I am not a witness to genuine expressions of glossolalia. I am a witness to many false expressions. Maybe that is just my bad ‘luck’.
To my friends, and those who I would like as friends, please hear that I love you. You are not my business. Live your life as you see fit. But please do not expect your fellow Christians, who believe differently than you about glossolalia, to change their opinions of what they see in Scripture because you disagree. I hope you will have many opportunities to change those who disagree with you to your own point of view through Bible exposition.
Perhaps SBCVoices could host a forum on the Biblical basis for private prayer language, how it relates to public glossolalia, and the gifting of the interpretation of glossolalia.
Please, please, somebody host a forum of the Biblical basis for these things. Please at least try.
“”””I do not see any basis””””
I do. That makes it a theological tie, does it not?
I do appreciate your humility in expressing this as your “opinion” as informed by your undestanding of the Word of God.
Bouyed by humility, disagreements can help us all rise to a level that not only increases our undestanding, but promotes our fellowship as brothers and sisters.
Jerry and I have been having these kinds of “discussions” for over thirty years. Pray for Jerry, he has not yet fully surrendered to my theological superiority . . . sorry, I meant “humility.”
May I point you guys to Marks Gospel Chapt. 16:17,18, These signs shall follow them that believe, Speaking in tongues is one of the signs.
Let’s not forget the other signs, casting out devils, taking up serpents, drinking any deadly thing, and laying hands on the sick and they shall recover.
Now if you want a manifestation that will revive the church, bring a box full of rattlesnakes to church with you, that is if you want a revival to break out.
You know what is funny, You folks picking a gift that can be faked.
I’m telling you to bring someone to church or go to someone’s home that has fourth stage cancer and pray for them so they will recover.
You can always drink a glass full of battery acid in fromt of the church, and say it didn’t hurt me a bit.
Show the church your faith, kiss a rattler right in the mouth. But don’t come up with talking in tongues to show your faith. Get real!
M.O.E.
Another thing that can be faked is identity. Who are you? Are you a Christian? Where do you worship, what church and denomination?
Your rhetoric is inflammatory and insulting. You are following a course that will alienate brothers and sisters in Christ, and do nothing to help them understand one another and to teach and encourage one another.
I apologize to anyone who feels personally insulted by M.O.E.’s style of communication. I am not allied with him in any way I can recognize.
Brothers and Sisters,
I want to say that I ate lunch Sunday with a man who was in latter fourth stage cancer, sent home to die and was healed by God. That was over thirty years ago.
It is sad that someone can be so miserable and hateful as to make some of the comments that have been made in this thread. My suggestion is to stay out of his sandbox.
He delights in throwing sand like a typical toddler playing in a sandbox.
There is a “mo(l)e” among us.
One more thing, if I followed you guys around, I could gather a whole bucket full of stupid…
MOE,
if you ‘follow these guys around’ for a time, all differences aside,
you WILL find many who have a deep faith that is humble before the Lord . . .
I don’t generally block anonymous commenters. But anonymous commenters are held to a higher standard since they do not reveal their identity. If you are going to continue commenting here, do a better job. Be less of a jerk. Be more Christlike.
It’s that simple, “MOE”.
Dave Miller and All,
I am sorry for that last remark, The first remark should have been worded differently, That was stupidity on my part. Again I’m sorry, I can’t add any more to it or take away from it. If I ever come back I promise you I will choose my words carefully.
Thank you.
I think it’s wise to make a distinction between speaking in tongues and having a private prayer language. It seems that two different things are spoken of in the scriptures. If Pentecost is an example of speaking in tongues, then the tongues that are being spoken are miraculously understandable to people who speak different languages (tongues). I’ve seen this a couple times on the mission field. Our missionary in Venezuela learned English miraculously and she translates flawlessly whenever we go.
But to what extent do we say that tongues as a gift of the Spirit are always apparently miraculous? How many of us have ever seen someone teach miraculously? Yet the gift of teaching is a gift of the Spirit. Likewise, some are gifted with being able to speak in many different languages. However, I have seen people who speak in languages their hearers don’t know just so as to impress them. This is foolish and unhelpful. Perhaps you visit a church that commonly uses a language you don’t understand. You wouldn’t get up and try to address the congregation without someone who can interpret. So interpretation is likewise a gift of the Spirit.
Now, what about people who just get up in the middle of a service and start spouting gobbledygook? Another commenter already quoted I Cor 14:40. You don’t have to show up to church on Sunday morning looking for an interpreter. Look for one beforehand and talk to whoever is organizing the worship about the possibility of speaking so the corporate worship will be orderly.
Prayer languages? Sometimes I play the piano. I improvise. It’s a whole style all of its own. I don’t play that way for other people, but in my playing I often communicate to God in the music the words I have trouble forming. It’s between me and God. I need no interpreter for Him. No one would be edified hearing what I’m playing. People have come up and heard me play. They are amazed at the sound of it, but they are not particularly edified by it: “That’s beautiful! What are you playing?” I can’t answer such a question and they wouldn’t be able to understand it. That’s my private prayer language. It’s not normal music.
Jim,
In my opinion, the language miracle in Acts on the day of Pentecost was as much a miraculous ‘interpretation of tongues’ on the part of the listeners as a vocal expression on the part of the disciples.
Local churches can do what they decide to do. It is certainly a possibility that someone could ask around about the presence of one who has the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues. Why not?
It seems that someone with the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues could also ask around to see if there is someone with the gift of tongues.
No problem. The churches can do what they want to do.
Are you aware of any congregations that practice this?
Jerry Corbaley wrote: “In the IMB’s opinion, if someone actually expresses genuine glossolalia, they are very welcome indeed.”
I officially feel myself entering the Twilight Zone.
Wade. I’d almost rather have a root canal then agree with you
But. That would occur only in the Twilight Zone.
I do believe this policy has a slight chance of changing but I am not holding my breath.
I assume he means the demonstrable ability to speak a known language they have not studied before.
David,
You are correct.
Wade,
The IMB Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language (May 11, 2007) leaves room for exceptions. I believe a supernatural ability to cross language barriers would certainly apply. I quote the relevant sentence: “Any exceptions to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Mission Personnel Committee”.
There is an acknowledgement of “exceptions”. If none would be tolerated, the language would not be included.
Frank L.
If your teeth are rotten, a root canal is a great thing. Don’t fight it. 🙂
OK. Just put me to sleep first
Gentlemen
I will try my best to be eloquent in my speech, although I am seasoned like an old oak board, what I have written was not in a mean spirit, God knows. What I am writing now is not in a mean spirit. I did apologize for the stupid remark and I meant it.
I sincerely hope that I can disagree with what you are saying about tongues. If I am not allowed to disagree go ahead and block me.
I have been affiliated with approximately twenty churches across this great state of Kentucky. I want to point out I am not speaking for the churches I have been involved with in one form or another. I am speaking for myself. I do think speaking in tongues have a place in the Baptist Church, or in the Southern Baptist Convention.
When I go to the Lord in prayer I know what I am going to say sometimes,
other times I don’t. I do pray in the spirit even though it is in Mountain English, not a private prayer language.
C.B. Scott, How did you know I was from Southeastern Ky. I have coal mined in Knox, Whitley, Bell, and Harlan counties. I am a mountain man and proud of it. Thanks for noticing.
I suppose I am a cessationist, When it comes to certain spiritual gifts.
You just don’t know how many times I have prayed for people with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, only to see them pass on. Now sometimes I have seen them get better. I have learned by being broken hearted many times that it is up to God whether we live or die. I don’t believe a Benny Hinn has a place in the SBC.
Who am I? Probably the most insignificant person that you will ever meet.
I am legally blind because of a brain tumor. I have cancer, I’ve had multiple surgeries and I am still Pastoring a Church. God will not let me quit yet.
I am sorry, I do get upset when someone brings up tongues in a Baptist Church for a spiritual gift and not lay claim on the other gifts as if they don’t matter.
I do have very rough edges, I suppose they were earned. I lost my oldest daughter in a plane crash when she was twenty one years old. I lost my youngest daughter in a car wreck when she was sixteen years old. I want you to know it turned my world upside down I still hurt, I am still taking care of the Lords business.
If you all don’t mind I will agree when you are right but I will disagree when you are wrong. God has never let me quit. I praise him for that.
“””If you all don’t mind I will agree when you are right but I will disagree when you are wrong.””””
That sort of narrows the roadway for a good conversation. You know without any equivocation what is “right” and what is “wrong.”
So, there’s no middle ground. There’s no place for you to expand your understanding. I’ll take your statement as a warning.
“”””I am sorry, I do get upset when someone brings up tongues in a Baptist Church for a spiritual gift and not lay claim on the other gifts as if they don’t matter.””””
I don’t know anybody that has made this statement (besides you of course). Certainly I personally believe that all of the Holy Spirit’s gifts are as available today to Spirit-controlled believers as they ever were.
We all experience tragedy, but for myself, I hope that the difficulties in my life have been used by God to smooth a few of my rough edges so I can better fit his Kingdom work (1Peter).
I, too, am a Mountain Man. Born and raised. Brother is a retired coal miner, Dad worked in a chemical plant on the Ohio. Currently, I live in purgatory. That’s the state of California.
There is nothing wrong with forceful disagreement, if it is respectful.
And yours was fine!
My goodness, I meant to say have “no” place in the Baptist church.
David Rogers wrote: “I assume he means the demonstrable ability to speak a known language they have not studied before.”
Well, of course, David.
Jerry believes God gifts His people with “a demonstrable ability to speak a known language” that they have never studied before, in order to speak to a group of people who already know another known language of their own, and then makes those listening to the unknown “known” language being spoken by the gifted person to wait for another person who understands the known “language” being spoken so that he can interpret to those who don’t know the language what the person gifted by God with glossolalia is actually saying.
Wow.
Indeed it does appear that is the case.. It would be interesting to see if he has any reply to this.
I believe a disciple speaking Hebrew to a Greek could be understood if the Greek disciple has the gift of interpretation of tongues. I believe an Egyptian disciple could speak the language of angels (one option) if they had the gift of tongues and a Scythian disciple could interpret it if they had the gift of interpretation of tongues.
Undoubtedly, there are many languages in the world, but none of them are without meaning. Interpreting one language into another is not rare. The ability to do so without learning both languages would be the work of the Spirit.
Jerry,
You wrote above, “I believe an Egyptian disciple could speak the language of angels (one option) if they had the gift of tongues…” The language of angels is not a “known language” on this earth. If it exists, then to either speak it or understand it requires a gift from the Holy Spirit.
This definition of glossolalia (“the language of angels”) is precisely the definition that you other trustees mocked, in direct violation of “do not forbid the speaking of tongues.” But, of course, you would then say, “tongues is a known language, so if someone speaks a known language without study, he is speaking in tongues and is ‘welcome at the IMB.'”
Interesting to see you now have changed your mind on the definition of tongues after all these years. You over, and over, and over bloviated that tongues was “the demonstrably ability to speak a known language without prior study.” Dwight McKissic, Jerry Rankin and others argued that glossolalia was a language from heaven. I heard with my own ears, in the English language we both understand, you and other IMB trustees emphatically deny this definition and bar anyone from service who disagrees with your definition–which now seems to be a waffling one.
Interesting comment, Mr. Corbaley.
That is three comments in a row, Wade. You always make it personal.
Rather than belittling me you could concentrate on explaining the point of view that you prefer.
Jerry,
I am striking at the heart of what I believe to be the issue. IMB trustees, including you, issued a dogmatic statement of truth that went way beyond the BFM 2000 and made it policy, forcing from missionary service those otherwise qualified Southern Baptists who disagreed with your dogmatic assertions on this issue of tongues (i.e. the questionnairre for prospective IMB missionaries moved the question of a “private prayer language” to the TOP, and if you admitted to having or practicing the gift of tongues, you were excluded from IMB consideration immediately), and then sought to remove from the board the one person who called you out on the basis of principle.I regret you feel it is personal. I don’t. I appreciate your expressions of humility in this comment stream, writing such things as “Please, please, somebody host a forum of the Biblical basis for these things.”
Good thought.
Would have been a great thing to do before implementing a policy, don’t you think? 🙂 Humility of one’s lack of knowledge of a subject is much more needed when one is in a position of authority. Now it rings hollow.
“”””Humility”””””
As in, “like me?”
I think the actions taken in opposition to this matter represented anything but “humility.”
Personally, I do greatly respect Jerry and think that anytime is a good time to discuss this matter. Having a personal axe to grind is not likely going to be helpful.
I’m always amazed at how persons make a personal attack and defend it with, “I’m sorry you took it personal.”
Whether I agree with the IMB’s policy or not, I absolutely agree they had the right to make the policy. We (SBC Convention) have a right to change it. I’d like to see it it changed, or at least discussed. Others, apparently would rather see “punishment” rather than progress. I’m not one of them.
Thank you, Jerry, for bringing up this discussion. We can see where this may lead but I do hope that the venomous attitudes that persisted at the time the policy was enacted would not poison the discussion, now.
Frank,
I discovered a long time ago that when people struggle with their arguments they turn to calling their opponents venomous. Doesn’t work with me.
Wade,
Just a note for context. I had no illusion that anything would “work” on you. You are who you are. You say what you say. That’s your right.
When you start making personal attacks, that’s not helpful in my opinion. It is clear as I said that you have an ax to grind with Jerry and others who you were unable to bully.
Jerry has raised an issue in a thoughtful, humble manner. Whether or not you accept his humility really says more about you than it does about him.
I’ve known Jerry a lot longer than you have and I appreciate his willingness to march into the fray in regard to this potentially contentious issue.
If personal vendettas are put aside, I think Southern Baptists can benefit from a discussion on the Holy Spirit.
You consider my argument “weak” in this regard and again, that is your right. It does not surprise me.
Jerry and I do not see eye-to-eye on all the details of this issue, but we can discuss it and perhaps make progress. I don’t consider that a “weak” argument.
Frank,
I, like you, can’t stand bullies. 🙂 I think, though, we can agree that when Jesus took a whip to the Pharisees, He was not a bully — well, maybe to the Pharisees he was, but you and I can agree He wasn’t, right? So, just because someone is called a bully doesn’t necessarily make him one. Blessings Frank, and know that I always appreciate an American Baptist with so much interest in Southern Baptist missiology.
Wade. It’s always tough debating someone who compares himself with Jesus.
I am not sure about your American Baptist quip but I sure you meant it in the Spirit of Jesus.
I’m in my 35th year of SBC ministry.
Wade Burleson,
You disparage my name and my words, Wade. You continue to do so, for over six years, on an international scale. My conscience will not allow me to treat you the way you treat me. I have only one Christian course available; to appeal to the judgment of the Trustees of the International Mission Board, the actual witnesses, to whom we were both accountable.
At least 3 times you were publicly censured during your time as a trustee on the International Mission Board. You resigned under censure for disparaging fellow trustees publicly. Dating from the beginning of 2006, you were the only trustee denied participation on any trustee subcommittee. You violated trustee guidelines on confidentiality. All of this is public knowledge.
Because of this, I do not trust you with my name or my words. What then, is the hope of reconciliation? As I have communicated to you in the past, privately, I now say publicly: “Until someone we both respect intercedes with me on your behalf, I don’t want anything to do with you (Titus 3:10), and I won’t even eat with you (1 Corinthians 5:11 ‘reviler’)”. Since you disparage my name and my words, I see no alternative in this world. You ignore the IMB censures.
It is my hope that the past can wait for the Day of Christ for clarification of these matters. Let us not seek one another out for a personal confrontation, as you are doing here.
It’s always tough debating someone who compares himself with Jesus.
The funny part of that is, he actually believes it.
CB coined a good nick name for him that is pretty accurate–Don Quixote–after he “saved” Calvinist professors at SWBTS from getting fired. Well, “saved” in his own mind anyway.
Hey Wade, my sources tell me that Saturday someone is going to roll your yard. With cheap toilet paper. The kind that gets all sticky when it gets wet with dew and is hard to clean up. Now if it happens, you heard it here first and I’m a hero for telling you. If it doesn’t happen, it’s because I exposed the plot and I’m a hero.
Cue the WDF (Wade Defense Force) in 4, 3, 2…..
Frank and Jerry,
For two people who protest against personal attacks, you both seem to make things very personal with Wade Burleson. Reminds me of Shakespeare, “The lady dost protest too much, methinks.”
Stephen,
You can defend Wade’s behavior if you choose. We were having a very spirited and congenial discussion until he chose to introduce his personal vendetta into the argument.
I’m suspecting one of two things: either you know who Wade is or you do not know who Wade is; either you know the attacks he made in the past against those he disagreed with, or you do not know. The former would indicate you have and ulterior motive, the latter would indicate you simply do not have a full context for the sound bytes in the thread.
I’m sorry if you think “me protests” too much. I don’t think accusations and attacks are going to lead us to a fruitful resolution of an on-going issue.
I can’t do anything about the “past.” I’d prefer to move toward a congenial, workable solution for the future. This issue simply will not lie quietly about. I good discussion is in order, “me thinks,” but without dredging up personal issues of the past.
Okay, guys, I think this line of discussion has gone as far as it needs to here.
If we want to discuss the topic, fine. But reopening old war wounds is going to get us nowhere.
To all,
I’ve been sick and a little disengaged, so I haven’t really been paying attention to this. It got a little personal a while back. I’m not going to delete comments or try to declare winners or losers.
I am shutting down the personal back and forth. All sides have had their say and there seems no more need to hammer this anymore.
I’m going to be pretty firm on this one. Any more comments in this vein will be deleted.
Wade,
What do you think happened at Penetcost? Was it not the first scriptural account of speaking in tongues? Didn’t Peter characterize what happened in Cornelius’s house when they spoke in tongues as being the same as what happened at Pentecost?
Paul’s use of the phrase “tongues of angels” is not only hypothetical it’s hyperbolic, we know that by his repeated use of the word “all” and the fact that Paul never gave himself to be burned. 1 Corinthians 13 being used as a proof that tongues were heavenly language is simply not tenable.
California would be purgatory for me too. I still want to go back to Mark’s Gospel. These signs shall follow them that believe, I did make the statement. Tongues are mentioned in Marks Gospel, so is taking up serpents, also laying hands on the sick and they shall recover, what about casting out devils. See my point, Why pick out talking in tongues when there are the other gifts. We don’t have the right to choose the one that suits us. If there is not a cessation of certain spiritual gifts then why pick the one that can be faked.
Don’t misunderstand me, I believe If God sends me to the Congo and tells me to preach a message there, somebody will understand it.
How come when our missionaries go to the Congo they have to have an interpreter someone who knows English to transulate for the people if there is not a cessation of certain spiritual gifts.
Frank, I sincerely hope that what ever comes your way will always smooth the edges. I’ll admit tragedy has made mine rough. I hope you will never have to grieve over the loss of a child and after a week of grieving a church member calls you crying, and tells you they are so hurt they don’t know what to do because someone said something about them.
Moe. The first funeral I performed as a preacher was my own daughter.
I also buried my little brother.
That is something I am sadly familiar with
Frank L.
God bless you brother. I have revealed too much about myself already.
Let’s just remember one another in prayer. I’m ready to get back to the war of words.
I suppose if God wanted me to speak a foreign language I would have been born in Tennessee. Do you know the Tennessee word for Basketball?
Ans.—LOOSER!!!
In 1Cor. chapter 14 tells us most of what we need to know about speaking in tongues. Even if one has a private prayer language he himself must interpret, 14:28.
Also speaking in tongues is the least of the spirital gifts.
Chapter 14 of 1Cor. also tells us if something makes an uncertain sound we just don’t know how to react. verses 7, 8,.
The Apostle Paul is showing us the contrast between tongues and Propesy.
Therefore it is far better to Prophesy.
I know in the 39th verse to forbid not to speak in tongues, but we are to desire to prophesy.
So unless there is someone in the church from Tennessee or Arkansas there is no reason to speak in tongues.
Dave,
Don’t get riled up, these are basketball jokes among long time rivals.
If we cannot agree on definitions we will never agree on applications.
It seems clear to me: 1) tongues as with all the gifts of the Spirit are undeniably the work of the Spirit; 2) not one single verse can be offered to support cessationism; 3) therefore, in the absence of such a clear verse cessationists must control (redefine) the definition of “tongues of men and of angels” to restrict a meaning to only languages of “men.”
I fail to see the biblical foundation or acceptable logic in such an approach.
One thing is for sure: any person that has ever experienced God moving through the gifts of the Spirit will not likely be easily swayed by the scriptural gymnastics of someone who has not.
Frank L.
Amen, Frank, Amen!!!
Dwight
The spiritual gymnastics occurs when you take an isolated and determine that the gift of tongues involved a heavenly language. Paul was using hypothetical and hyperbolic language. Do you believe that Paul actually gave his body to be burned?
Frank L.
You say, “3) therefore, in the absence of such a clear verse cessationists must control (redefine) the definition of “tongues of men and of angels” to restrict a meaning to only languages of “men.”
I don’t speak for cessationists, I am a skeptical continuationist. I am reluctant to identify “control” with “redefine”. Others may see it that way, I don’t. I certainly believe angels speak a language.
I do agree totally with your statement, “If we cannot agree on definitions we will never agree on applications”.
I think it would be an awesome step in the right direction if those with ‘private prayer language’ would try and define the ‘language’ part of ppl. I certainly can’t do it for you.
In a common vein, I would add: If we cannot agree on definitions, we cannot agree on discernment.
Jerry. I’ve defined it at least twice. You argue a prior against my definition. Clearly, unequivocally, the Bible speaks of language prior to and apart from human ones.
That is not my conclusion but Paul’s.
Accepting that basic definition is foundation.
Without it any discussion leads to vanity. I personally do not need to validate my experience according to anyone else’s opinion. Paul speaks of a “prayer language” and I have experienced it.
I’ve also experienced evangelistic tongues as well as several other gifts.
By two or three witnesses a thing is established. I have experience along with biblical discernment. Therefore my definition is valid
Frank L.
You say, “I personally do not need to validate my experience according to anyone else’s opinion.” I totally agree.
You say, “I have experience along with biblical discernment. Therefore my definition is valid”. I understand, and in your place would conclude the same thing.
But my experiences (15+) with assertions of glossolalia were not positive. Different experiences, different conclusions. How can one have confidence in an positive experience one has not shared?
It is my hope that those who want the SBC to affirm ppl will consider defining the experience in a way that those who doubt it may understand, to the end that understanding may be increased.
I am certainly not the one to design or lead such an effort, I know that. Only those who have shared the experience have a chance to explain their experience. All others just theorize.
“””How can one have confidence in an positive experience one has not shared? “”””
You can’t. But, how can you be so sure (I believe you voted against a private prayer language as acceptable) about something you have not experienced?
In my opinion the problem is not with those who have personal experience AND biblical foundation, but those who have only biblical foundations.
My suspicion is (and I’ve mentioned this already), one who has already determined not to “look” for something is not likely to stumble over it by accident.
“”””It is my hope that those who want the SBC to affirm ppl will consider defining the experience in a way that those who doubt it may understand”””””
This is impossible for the reason stated above. It’s like saying “I’ll dive in the ocean as long as you can guarantee I can remain dry.”
Your same logic is the very type of questions skeptics ask about God’s existence. Prove it, and I’ll believe it. The problem is that the “prove” must be limited to the boundaries of the skeptics epistemological presuppositions. In other words, given the restrictions you have on what counts as proof, or an acceptable definition, it is impossible to give you such a definition.
You’ve drawn the epistemological boundaries too narrow.
I’ve given you a definition–using Paul’s words–and you discount it a priori according to your assumptions. Then, you ask again as if I have agreed my definition is inadequate. I do not think this problem is my definition but your epistemological presuppositions.
There is a reason why the church leaders did not see what Galileo saw in his telescope: they refused to look.
Frank L,
You say, “In my opinion the problem is not with those who have personal experience AND biblical foundation, but those who have only biblical foundations”. Are Biblical foundations, when led by the Spirit, inadequate? Or are you implying that the Spirit would always lead a sincere person with Biblical foundation to your point of view? How are non-ppl Christians to apply that to themselves?
In response to my words, “It is my hope that those who want the SBC to affirm ppl will consider defining the experience in a way that those who doubt it may understand”, you reply, “This is impossible…” (only a partial accuracy of context on my part). Is this essentially equal to one stating: It is impossible to understand the experience apart from participating in the experience first? Experience first, then Biblical basis? If so, and I hope it is not so, then it throws a rather chilling effect on any hope that non-ppl Christians are capable of understanding ppl. Do you wish to assert that?
“”””Do you wish to assert that?””””
Yes, that is “somewhat” what I am proposing.
You have gone on record officially stating your position that a ppl as I and others commonly define it “cannot” be valid. That is an a priori presupposition immortalized in denominational documents.
There is, as I have said several times, no way for me to demonstrate to you that your view of the Spirit, while it may be accurate as far as it goes, does not go far enough.
The “chilling” part is not the lack of Biblical support for a ppl, but the chilling part is a “quenching of the Spirit” that decides ahead of time (a priori) what the answer to one’s question must be.
One can, as you do, have very good, sound Biblical theology and not have an absolutely complete understanding of all matters that the Bible touches on. This can be true of myself, and is, as well.
The difference is that I received a fuller understanding of how the Spirit may or may not work by removing the presuppositions that I had held for a long time.
As long as those presuppositions were entrenched in my theology, all of what I saw about the Spirit was biblical, but it was not complete. A fact can be biblical sound, but not biblically complete.
When we press our theology so heavily that we see it as “complete,” then we limit what further truth we can experience. Remember, the Word clearly says that It is “a Living Word.”
You and I fully believe that God exists in three persons including the Holy Spirit Who acts in, with, and through believers. At least I’m pretty sure you believe that.
So, what we agree on can be said to be “Biblical.” I would say, that your position is less complete than mine. The only other conclusion I could make is that my experience is extra-biblical and false.
No one has given me a solid, Scriptural reason to believe that what I have experienced is not a gift from God. Believe me–I’ve examined it quite critically given my rationalistic, skeptical nature.
I greatly respect you, Jerry. I know you love the Word of God and serve the Lord intensely. I’m only suggesting that my position does not violate any reading of Scripture that I am aware of.
Why God has not given you the same experience as I, I cannot even hazard a guess. Perhaps, it is because I am weaker and require a stronger Presence. I certainly do not hold my experience as one of a position of superiority.
Quite the opposite.
The word “unknown”, is nowhere to be found in the original Greek, In every place our Bible should read, “tongue”. This makes tongues a known language. At the time of Pentecost many people spoke different languages. The Gift of tongues was a necessary Gift that God gave to the Church to expand the Gospel. Tongues was a known language to the foreigners, not an unknown language. This is why Paul said Prophesy is far better and he encourages people to use Prophesy.
Now for the private prayer language, we are not to do that either unless the one praying in a private prayer language can inturrept it.
First Cor. chapter 14 verse 13.
M.O.E.,
If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
If there is no interpreter, he is to speak privately to himself.
parsonsmike,
You are one hundred percent correct.
In 1Cor. 14:13-14, I was referring to a private prayer language,
if one prays in a private prayer language, the one praying has
to understand what he is praying.
This is water gone under the bridge a long time ago, but looking back on old discussions on this, Alan Cross had some good points here as to why NT tongues was likely not known human languages:
http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2006/11/so_what_about_s.html
If there is a desire to pick up this conversation again, these would be important points to respond to.
That’s a very good article.
He makes some interesting points, chief among them I think that apparently those who had not yet accepted the gospel were given the ‘gift’ of interpretation at Pentecost.
Alan’s view that Pentecost was a miracle of hearing is a common misconception. The text is clear that they spoke in those various dialects. Also, he cited the incident at Cornelius’s house which basically modeled Penetcost. The gift of tongues was the ability to speak in a human language that one had never been taught. It was not only for missionary evangelism but it was also a sign of judgment to the Jewish nation.
John,
Perhaps you could give some more direct evidence as to why you feel “the text is clear that they spoke in those various dialects.” I, personally, do not rule out that possibility, but I don’t see how the text itself demands it. Even it this were the case in Acts 2, though, I believe that 1 Cor. 13:1 opens the door to the possibility of two primary categories of tongues. Also, I don’t find any example in the NT where tongues were specifically used as a vehicle for communicating the gospel. If you know of any, perhaps you could point me to them.
David,
Well as Alan pointed out at Christ’s ascension he said that the apostles would speak with new tongues. It would seem that just 10 days later on Pentecost that’s exactly what they did. In Acts 2:3, 4 it says that they “began to SPEAK in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” That was the preface to the response of the listeners who it was said in vs. 6 “each one was hearing them SPEAK in his own language.” Alan put the emphasis in his article on the words “hearing” and “heard” while neglecting the words “speak” and “speaking”. Particularly in light of verse 4 it seems to me to be very clear that the apostles were “speaking with new tongues” which Jesus just 10 days previously had said that they would.
For the life of me, how anyone could deny that Pentecost was the first NT example of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues is beyond me.
BTW I used capitals letters to emphasize the words and not to yell, because I don’t know how to make things bold in my comments. Please forgive me if it looked like I was angry or yelling.
In answer to your second question, the day of Penetecost was them using tongues to preach the Gospel. What did they say to the crowd? Acts 2:11 “both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”
And in vs. 14-40 they preached the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and called on people to repent.
John,
Yes, I agree that your reading is a possible, and even likely, reading of what happened in Acts 2, especially if considered independently of all the other biblical evidence. But I still don’t see it as a necessary reading. If “speaking in tongues” can be interpreted to mean speaking in “angelic languages” or something of the sort, whether you call it “angelic” or not, then Alan’s explanation still remains valid with regard to the fact they actually were SPEAKING in tongues. In such a scenario, it was a miracle of both speaking and hearing simultaneously. As I understand the grammar, it is possible that “hearing someone speak one’s own language” does not necessarily imply they were actually speaking that language.
Also, I do not necessarily equate “telling the mighty works of God” with evangelistic proclamation. Indeed, in all the other NT references to tongues it appears that the message being communicated was one of praise and prayer more so than evangelistic explanation. Even in Acts 2, when it came time for evangelistic explanation, Peter addressed everyone together in one common language (most likely, according to the historical context, Koine Greek). It would appear that the purpose of the phenomenon of tongues was not in order to make the evangelistic message understood so much as it was to authenticate the message proclaimed by means of miraculous attestation (see Heb. 2:2-4). Thus, as I understand it, while the practice of tongues on the day of Pentecost did not have a strictly evangelistic content, it did serve a pre-evangelistic function. Actually, according to the text (Acts 2:1-4), when the believers first began to speak in tongues, it was in a semi-private setting (i.e. inside the house in which they were gathered), and it was only as those in vicinity began to catch wind of what was going on that a crowd of unbelievers gathered to hear (and miraculously understand) what was being said.
Stephen,
If you call hearing the apostles speak in your own language the gift of interpretation.
I am pretty sure you agree with me, but for everyone’s sake, here’s the quote from the article:
“Is it possible that the early church was speaking in a heavenly language, an otherworldly language, and the miracle was in an interpretation being given to each individual person?”
David,
I am so glad you came back to post this link. This is very helpful to me. I received the gift of tongues (at age 55) this past January. What is an SBC lady to do when this happens? Really.
I told my pastor about it a few months later and then was able to speak with a female pastor from a FourSquare church. She is a friend that I have come to trust. Even still, it was very hard to speak with her as they have a whole vocabulary that must be learned. It sounded like she thought I was receiving the Holy Spirit for the first time! Still, it was better than no guidance, much better.
I have to keep going back to 1 Corinthians 14. There is already so much teaching there about this gift; if anything falls outside of this instruction, I really feel I need to reject it.
I am thankful, too, for the links to Dr. Ruthven. I have downloaded many of his documents.
Blessings! You can’t talk about this too much for me!
Anyone,
I will try to say this in a most respectful way, are we just choosing tongues as the Spiritual Gift, or are we to include the other Spiritual Gifts also?
I cannot see how tongues can be chosen, while the other Spiritual Gifts do not apply for today, at least this seems to be what you are saying.
Where is the healing, casting out devils, taking up serpents, or drinking any deadly thing.
Unless there is a cessation of certain Spiritual Gifts, why are these others not included, and why include just the tongues?
Dr. J. Vernon M McGee, on his radio program, told his audience, by the way it is in his comentary also, “quote” If anyone can prove to me that you have been healed by someone praying for you, I will give you one hundred dollars. Dr. McGee went through his entire Ministry without having to give anyone the money.
I personally believe God works miracles, “but”, when, where, and how is in Gods hands, and not ours. Sometimes God may choose not to act.
I know some of you may be choking right about now, but if anyone has a gift of healing, I have cancer I would like to get rid of before I have to start taking chemo.
My point is why just choose the tongues?
Jess,
1. I do not generally rely on Mark 16:9-20 as solid scriptural evidence upon which to build my argument, as it is not regarded as canonical by the leading textual critics.
2. In any case, all distribution of spiritual gifts and signs and wonders is subject to the sovereign decision of God anyway. Those using the gifts, although there is an element of the human will involved, do not do so strictly at their own discretion. It is always God who heals, whether he does so through response to prayers, laying on of hands and prophetic proclamation, or medicine. By Dr. McGee’s criteria, as I understand it, it would be impossible to prove medicine cured someone as well. We never know 100% the root cause of any healing.
3. With regard to Mark 16, are you saying that casting out demons is not operative today? Because it would seem, by the same argument, if you throw out tongues for today, you must logically also throw out casting out demons.
4. With regard to taking up serpents and drinking poison, I don’t think the author of Mark 16:18 (whether he was divinely inspired or not) meant to imply that Christians (whether in the 1st century or 20th century) were to go around picking up serpents and drinking poison intentionally, thus putting God to the test. It is rather a way of graphically saying that God would at times miraculous and sovereignly rescue Christ’s followers out of perilous situations in which they found themselves. I believe this still happens today. Of course, a miracle, by definition, if it comes to be commonplace, is no longer regarded as a miracle. So we cannot expect that this will always be the outcome in every perilous circumstance.
David Rogers,
How can we not rely on the Gospel according to Mark as part of the Spiritual Gifts?
I am being open minded as possible, and this is a mouth full comming from me. It just seems to me out of all the Spiritual Gifts, Why is tongues being examined to be used in the SBC churches?
Of all the churches I have been aquainted with, if I were to mention that speaking in tongues was a Gift that they should exercise, the morning paper would read “Pastor hung by the neck”.
Jess,
Since I don’t know you, I am not sure what I can assume about your knowledge. You are aware about the textual criticism issues surrounding Mark 16:9-20, aren’t you? I am not calling the whole Gospel of Mark into question, far from it. And I am not even throwing out Mark 16:9-20. I’m just saying the textual evidence for including it in the canon is dubious.
Regarding the second part of your comment, neither I, nor any of us defending the present-day validity of tongues, specifically brought up the question of tongues. I am merely responding to a question brought up by Jerry Corbaley. If you are not familiar with Jerry’s background on the IMB Board of Trustees and the issues involved, it will be hard for you to understand a lot of the background of this conversation.
In any case, I agree that, if it weren’t for missionary candidates being excluded for consideration from missionary service because of a professed “PPL,” there would be little reason to engage in such a conversation as this on an SBC-oriented blog. I am not intending to “push” the use of tongues, just examine from an exegetical perspective what I understand the Scripture to actually teach.
David Rogers
Thank you, I really wasn’t thinking, I see your point.
When it comes to handling snakes, I remember that there is one instance in the NT where Paul was bitten and shook the serpent off and was unharmed. Other than that I know of nothing else, certainly of no services to that effect,. I have read of a Southern Baptist missionary in Africa who was bitten (I think it was in Kenya out in the bush or some other such nation and he spent hours trying to get to a hospital…somehow or other, he survived the deadly bite. To me handling serpents would be tempting God. Neither am I going to try and practice la-la-laing in order to speak in tongues, I do believe God can and does make known His presence in conviction and conversion, but His revelation of Himself does not promote differences and pride in experience.
dr. James Willingham
I agree completely. Thank you.
Do not forbid speaking in tongues. This is one clear statement out of a whole chapter of clear statements.
I regret the unloving words that people on various sides of this issue have hurled at one another. I am not really referring to this post, the controversy resides in many, many churches all around the world.
I am confident that cessationists will not conduct an open forum discussing the experience of speaking in tongues, whether as a private prayer language or as a public manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
It remains clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that if one is speaking in glossolalia silently, then they ought to attempt to find an interpreter of glossolalia so that they can express the manifestation of the Holy Spirit publicly. The public proclamation of glossolalia appears to be the main emphasis of the chapter. There is nothing in the text discouraging the one who speaks in glossolalia from just uttering their language publicly, without discretely seeking (publicly) an interpreter of glossolalia. None of the other Spiritual gifts appear to require seeking permission from human authority. Further, the text at the end of the chapter indicates that such a one can be faithful while ignoring anyone who tells them not to speak their gift.
If the brothers and sisters in Christ who utter glossolalia silently (private prayer language) want their practice to be accepted by those who are skeptical continuationists, and especially cessationists, then they should be aware that they have formidable task ahead of them. Skeptical continuationists and cessationists are not going to embrace the theology of private prayer language when, it appears, the practitioners themselves are reluctant to minister publicly by uttering their glossolalia in their own congregations. Further, while affirming the silent speaking of glossolalia, they do not urge their congregations to embrace the public utterance of glossolalia so that the church may be strengthened.
I love my brothers and sisters in Christ who have confidence in private prayer language. But I do not think your affirmation of its reality is sufficient to overcome my concerns about the implications of the whole text in 1 Corinthians 14. At least not until they are addressed in a straight forward way.
I respect you. I have confidence in your Christianity. I have confidence in your salvation. But one without the experience cannot embrace an assertion of the reality of your experience without a compelling Biblical basis.
I am willing to believe that one who has the experience of glossolalia is best able to understand it. But I hope that my lack of experience does not consign me to a “less-spiritual” category in your minds. Many denominations do just that.
“”Further, while affirming the silent speaking of glossolalia, they do not urge their congregations to embrace the public utterance of glossolalia so that the church may be strengthened.””
Herein lies the one great regret I have in becoming a Southern Baptist, who are for the most part practicing cessationists.
I would take a different denominational approach (and may yet) had I known then what I know now — and I was a charismatic before I started out in formal ministry training.
I was just not strong enough in my understanding of God’s Word to defend and expand my understanding of Who God is.
While this post is up again, I thought this was an interesting post on this topic:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/what-is-the-gift-of-tongues/
I appreciate Patton’s effort to be objective.
David,
You are absolutely right! The comment stream is also interesting.
Thank you very much for the ‘heads-up’!