This message is offered as a response to Bart Barber’s request that I offer my “…understanding of the narrative passages in Acts, to refute points that I have tried to make…” Barber made this statement in the comment stream under his post, “The Nature of the Biblical Gift of Tongues: Consideration of Relevant Narrative New Testament Passages“ This is also the message that I preached in Chapel at SWBTS in August 2006 that, in many ways, defined or redefined my relationship with Southern Baptists. I hope this message answers Bart’s questions about my view of the Acts narrative passages as they relate to I Corinthians 12-14. In the comment stream I will be glad to further elaborate if Bart’s question is not sufficiently answered. Succinctly stated I believe we are to learn history from Acts and Doctrine from Corinthians. I believe that Acts is descriptive and I Corinthians 12-14 is prescriptive. I believe Acts is primarily prophesy fulfilled and I Corinthians is pneumatology revealed and functioning in the life of the church. I believe speaking in tongues in Acts is the exception to the rule today—though it occasionally occurs under the sovereignty of God. I believe speaking in tongues in I Corinthians is the standard rule for today. The primary difference in the tongues speaking in Acts is that people spoke in tongues to men the wonderful works of God; in I Corinthians 14:2, 14, 16, 27, and 28, tongues speaking was directed to God. When the Bible speaks of the diversity of tongues in I Corinthians 12:10, this encompasses the tongues of Acts and I Corinthians. In the book of Acts we read about what God did. In I Corinthians we read about what God is doing.
I. WHAT IS THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?
There are seven passages in the New Testament which speak specifically of the baptism with the Spirit. Five of these passages refer to the baptism with the Spirit as a future event; four were spoken by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, and John 1:33) and one was spoken by Jesus after His resurrection (Acts 1:4, 5). In Acts 1:5 the expression, “you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” means that this action was to take place at one particular time. The King James Version tells us that this event was to take place, “Not many days hence.” John the Baptist and Jesus referred to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a future historical event. The sixth time we see the term “Baptized with the Holy Spirit” is in Acts 11:16 referring to the baptism in the Spirit as a fulfilled promise. In Acts 11:16 Peter uses the term in reference to Cornelius and his household who had also received the Holy Spirit. Peter viewed the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit comparable with the Jews receiving the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost thus fulfilling the promises spoken by John the Baptist and Jesus. The seventh and last time we see the term “baptized by one Spirit” specifically mentioned is in I Corinthians 12:13. This passage speaks about the wider experience of all believers.
We can conclude from these passages of Scripture that the baptism with the Holy Spirit was first of all a prophetic event fulfilled (Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:1-41), a promised gift received (Acts 1:4, 2:38; Ephesians 1:13) and a purposeful experience (I Corinthians 12:13). THE BAPTIST OF THE SPIRIT MAY BE PROPERLY DEFINED AS THAT ACTIVITY OF GOD WHEREBY THROUGH HIS SPIRIT HE BRINGS THE BELIEVER AT SALVATION INTO A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST AND SIMULTANEOUSLY INTO A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE CHURCH (I Corinthians 12:13).
II. DOES THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUS WITH SALVATION OR SUBSEQUENT TO SALVATION?
In the book of Acts we find four occasions, for sure, and possibly five where the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred. No one occasion is identical to the other, although there were some commonalities.
(1) In Acts 2:1-4 the 120 believers experienced the Baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit simultaneously accompanied with tongues speaking at Pentecost. Also at Pentecost there were three thousand who received the gift of the Holy Spirit and salvation under the preaching of Peter, no mention is made of them speaking in tongues. The 120 were saved and received the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation. The fact that the experience of the 120 was in two distinct stages was due simply to historical circumstances. They could not have received the Pentecostal gift before Pentecost.
(2) In Acts 8:12-17, we see where the Holy Spirit was received by the converts in Samaria after their water baptism. Phillip “preached the good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women” (Acts 8:12). When Phillip preached in Samaria, it was the first time the gospel had been proclaimed outside Jerusalem, evidently because Samaritans and Jews had always been bitter enemies. Acts 8:16 explains although they were believers and had been baptized, “the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon them.” I believe in this instance God sovereignly withheld the Holy Spirit from them until Peter and John arrived so they might see for themselves that God received even despised Samaritans who believed in Christ. There could be no question of it. Also in Acts 8:26-40, we see the Holy Spirit directing Phillip to go to Gaza to witness to an Ethiopian man. This Ethiopian man like the 3000 on the day of Pentecost received the Word of God and was baptized, but there is no mention of tongues, a second baptism or the laying on of hands.
Acts 2 is often referred to as the Jewish Pentecost. Acts 8:12-17 is often referred to as the Samaritan Pentecost. If in Acts 8:26-40 this Ethiopian man received the “gift” or “baptism” of the Spirit, as I believe he did, in the same manner that the 3000 did on the day of Pentecost this could be referred to as the Ethiopian Pentecost.
(3) In Acts 10:44-48 while Peter was preaching to Cornelius the Italian (Gentiles) and his family and friends the baptism and gift of the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentile Pentecost. Unlike at Samaria when the Holy Spirit was given after water baptism, these Gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit while Peter was yet preaching.
(4) In Acts 19:1-7 we find an encounter of Paul with the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus. Paul asked them in verse 3, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Behind the question is the assumption that this was when it usually happened. They pled ignorance of the Holy Spirit, stating they had been baptized into John’s baptism. Paul related John’s baptism to the ministry of Jesus, and they were baptized in water a second time and received the gift of baptism of the Holy Spirit.
To summarize, it is my belief that you cannot look to Acts for a fixed formula or definite pattern as to how one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. No one has the Spirit of God in a box. It is my belief that Pentecost instituted the Church. Then all that remained was for Samaritans, Gentiles, Ethiopians and Jews who were unaware of the gospel to be brought into the Church representatively. This occurred in Acts 8 for Samaritans and Ethiopians, Acts 10 for Gentiles (according to Acts 11:15) and Acts 19 for belated believers from John’s baptism. Once this representative baptism with the Spirit had occurred, the normal pattern applied – baptism with the Spirit at the time each person (of whatever background) believed on Jesus Christ. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the initial experience of every believer at conversion (John 3:5-6; Acts 2:38; Romans 8:9 and I Corinthians 12:13).
III. IS SPEAKING IN TONGUES THE EVIDENCE OF BEING BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT?
The answer is no. I speak in tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance; so I have no prejudice or bias against tongues. However, I must stand on biblical truth and not popular opinion. I do believe that all the spiritual gifts listed in Scripture are operative today, and by the grace of God some Christians will experience the gift of tongues when filled with the Holy Spirit. Although the teaching that all Christians should experience speaking in tongues as evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost is unscriptural, the Scripture does not preclude speaking in tongues for some when they are filled with the Holy Spirit. As the Spirit rushes in the corners of their lives, awakening new desires for prayer and praise, speaking in tongues will naturally flow forward in some. Paul makes it clear in I Corinthians 12:13 that all believers are baptized by the Spirit, but all do not speak with tongues (I Corinthians 12:30). Since all Christians do not speak with tongues, it cannot be proof of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. There is only one baptism in the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:5). Being baptized is equated with being a child of God (Galatians 3:26-27). Believers are never commanded in Scripture to be baptized but to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18-21). There is the ongoing “filling” ministry of the Spirit for power. There is only one baptism in the Holy Ghost, but many fillings. All born again believers are baptized in the Holy Ghost (I Corinthians 12:13; John 3:5; Romans 8:9, Ephesians1:3).
The purpose of the baptism of the Holy Ghost is to place believers in the body of Christ. Even carnal Christians are seen as having been baptized by the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13, I Corinthians 3:1-3).
The filling of the Holy Spirit means the full control of the Spirit—the enthronement of Jesus as Lord. When a person receives salvation, baptism with the Spirit or the gift of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is resident. When a person is filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit becomes “president” in the believer’s life. The filling with the Holy Spirit makes one experience Jesus as complete Lord. It is God-intoxication: “…not drunk with wine…but…filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). Paul wrote of bringing every thought captive of Jesus Christ to acknowledge His authority (II Corinthians 10:5). The fullness of the Spirit is for specific service. The promise in Acts 1:8 was power and the service was witnessing. The report in Acts 2:4 and 11 was that they “were filled” and unbelievers heard “them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” In Acts 4:31 believers were filled with the Holy Spirit and “spoke the word of God boldly.” Ephesians 5:18-21 states the result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 7:20; Galatians 5:22, 23). In conclusion, where does the Bible teach that all Christians are to speak in tongues as the evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? I also believe that non Pentecostal evangelicals must recognize that the gift of tongues is a legitimate spiritual gift that has been and always will be a part of the church until Jesus returns (I Corinthians 13:8). Some believers will experience the gift of tongues and some will not. Pentecostals need to recognize that tongues is not a sign of spiritual power, although it does edify the one who is speaking (I Corinthians 14:4). Baptists and other evangelicals need to recognize the Spirit-filled life and the fact that the Holy Spirit desires to have intimate fellowship with us daily for empowerment, fellowship, service, comfort and guidance (Acts 1; II Corinthians 13:14; John 14:26, 16:13; Romans 8:16). What most Pentecostals refer to as the “Baptism of the Holy Ghost,” I refer to as the filling of the Holy Spirit. However, regardless to what terminology we use, we both agree that we need the fullness of the Holy Spirit to render effective service for Christ, our families and even on our jobs (Ephesians 5:18-33, 6:1-9).
IV. HOW TO BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.
1. Some things to remember when you seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit:
- The Holy Spirit lives in you now (Acts 2:38; John 1:12; Romans 8:9, 5:5; I Corinthians 6:19; Galatians 4:6-7).
- He will never leave you (John 14:16-18, 23; Ephesians 1:13-14; Hebrews 13:5). Get down on your knees before God and thank Him that He lives in your heart now. Rejoice in Him and in this fact.
- There is no complex formula given in the Bible or certain order as to what you do first, second, and third in order to be filled with the Holy Spirit. “Ask and ye shall receive” is God’s simple word to His children.
- There is nothing to fear in being filled with the Spirit. God blesses, not blasts; helps, not hurts. To be filled with the Spirit is good and will result in your good and God’s glory (Ephesians 5:18-20).
2. It is as simple as this: Ask the Spirit to fill you, believe in Him to do it, obey His counsel.
- To be filled with the Spirit:
- Request Him to fill you
- Repent of your sins as He directs
- Believe Him to fill you
- Receive His filling
- DO THIS DAILY
- Here are several ways Jesus instructs us to be filled with God and His Spirit:
- Hungry? Eat. Be filled. “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst….filled” (Matthew 5:6).
- Thirsty? Drink. Be satisfied (never thirst) (Matthew 5:6; John 7:37-38).
- Heavy laden? Come to me. Give you rest (Matthew 11:28-30).
Dwight,
Thank you for this helpful article. I hope all in our current discussion will take the time to read and understand what you are saying here. Because much of the contemporary emphasis on speaking in tongues has been associated with the traditional Pentecostal teaching of the baptism of the Spirit, which, in turn, has led to much spiritual elitism and pride, it is easy to see why many would be suspicious of speaking in tongues. But indeed that is not what those of us who interpret Scripture as we do on this point are saying. Tongues is merely one gift of the Spirit, nothing more, nothing less, and He distributes the gifts sovereignly, as He sees fit.
David,
Unfortunately, it is difficult to discuss this matter in Baptist Life without someone thinking that one who holds my view is arguing for classic Pentecostalism. I appreciate you recognizing the distinction(s). If everyone would recognize and accept the distinctions it would probably move us way down the road toward consensus and unity concerning these issues. One of the reasons that I hope & believe that those of us who expend the time & energy to engage in this discussion have in common is this: we truly would love to see the SBC family reach a place of common ground, as opposed to battle ground on these issues. The genius of the pre-2005 IMB policy is that they actually had accomplished that goal in my judgement. I don’t believe any of us(including Bart, you, Chris. Greg Harvey, Alan Cross, Parson Mike, Frank L., or anyone else) have engaged in this discussion solely for the sake of arguement or to win a fight. Deep down we want unity, consensus, and peace. We want the SBC to return to her former glory for the Kingdom’s sake. Somehow, someway, I hope these discussions contribute toward that end.
Dwight,
Excellent post.
I like how you backed up each point with different passages of Scripture.
Parson Mike,
Thanks for engaging in this dialogue. Although we represent two different viewpoints currently present in Baptist life…I believe it is vitally important that both viewpoints are allowed to be taught and represented in SBC seminaries and the IMB mission field. Voices is demonstrating that our Baptist Tent is large enough to accommodate both viewpoints. I also appreciate you recognizing the biblical basis for my conclusions, even though you and I have reached different conclusions.
Roger Simpson commended the “civil” tone of these discussions. I must admit, the temptation is there for all of us to go ballistic in this conversation at times. We are so convictional and passionate about our beliefs. I confess that some of your comments have brought me to the brink of communicating in less than a civil tone with you. For that, I ask your forgiveness.
Dwight,
Sin is when temptation overcomes so that the mouth speaks or the pen writes or the fingers hit the send button.
So any forgiveness need is granted and that includes the future.
I write not about what the SBC should or shouldn’t do except that it should be true to the Scriptures, as we all should.
That is why this post is a good one, you have stayed true to the Word.
My personal hope is that Southern Baptists will put the majority of our seeking of understanding of Dwight’s article on the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the institution (act of instituting rather than the ongoing, visible organization) and how that impacts our effectiveness in “dwelling” or “inhabiting” the good works prepared in advance for us.
If we perceive the Holy Spirit as only a “nice to have” feature of our relationship with Jesus Christ–a benefit or perquisite as it were–we might not adequately incorporate into our daily faith walk a true desire to be filled with the WHOLELY Spirit that seems to be required for fully enjoying God while participating in those good works. After all “God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth”.
If we successfully wrestle with Dwight’s points, the primary result will be falling before the Almighty and seeking the Holy Spirit to once again preside over our convention and fully empower our Kingdom work including the primary work of enjoying and worshipping God. Then a secondary result could be that we see a broader and clearer evidence of direct spiritual gifting. Imagine, for instance, that the endorsement firm for Seminary asked for the church to affirm clear evidence if spiritual gifting?
We might not be comfortable doing that now, but with a clear outpouring of gifting that could result not from seeking gifting but from seeking the Holy Spirit’s clear involvement and empowering, it is difficult for me to imagine that the biblical patterns would not be more evident as a result.
Which is to say: maybe our focus should be less on restricting tongues especially in the prayer closet and more on bringing the role of the Holy Spirit out of the closet and back as a centerpiece of altar worship along with our visible reverence for the Father and the Son by emphasizing the Holy Spirit’s roles in “instituting” and “presiding” over the active body of Christ?
The issue of how to understand various passages regarding “speaking in tongues” or “spiritual gifts” is way over my head.
The discussion that is going on here demonstrates that there are some differences in interpretation of text in Romans and Corinthians. The tone of this discussion illustrates that it is possible for people to have a civil discussion on various understandings of the topic.
The problem with the IMB trustee board back in 2006 was that the board was so polarized over the private-prayer-language issue that is was becoming a driver for significant dissention and rancor. I attended the Jacksonville meeting of the Bot to see what was going on. Fortunately, by the time I attended that meeting, new leadership was in place, and the Bot was on a positive trajectory.
In retrospect, it is apparent that the problem with the leadership at the IMB was mainly due to personality clashes — not due to any substantive Biblical issue. The problem evaporated once the most strident members of the board (holding positions on opposite sides of PPL issue) left the board, were kicked out and/or resigned.
Serving on the trustee board is an honor that should not be abused by those seeking to advance a narrow personal agenda.
The main reason for the existence of the SBC is so that churches have a vehicle by which to operate cooperative ventures for missions and education. Our funding method is the COOPERATIVE program. Cooperation means people must subordinate their own viewpoints on secondary or tertiary issues for the greater good.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City
Roger,
Thanks for your comment and for addressing a sub-current and catalyst to some degree for these discussions.
I find your very last sentence here fascinating. I won’t repeat it in quotation marks here, but my response is simply this: How can people subordinate there views on secondary and tertiary issues “for the greater good” if those secondary & tertiary issues–of which I agree that they the gift of tongues is a secondary issue, even so argued by Paul–when the larger issue is the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer? If the Bible teaches tongues as a vital, valid gift of the Holy Spirit–that God sovereignly bestows on some believers for His own purposes to aid there prayers(1Cor. 12: 7-12; 14: 2,4,5, 14, 27,28), then how can we justify expecting a IMB trustee to be silent on such a vital issue? The pre-2005 policy honored everyone’s views of this matter. The trustees admit that new policy was not being driven by abuses on the field. Therefore, I am having a very difficult time understanding your last sentence; the expectation of trustees to not be vocal about what I consider to be an attack on biblical inerrancy.
Brother Dwight,
Thank you for clarifying your view of the biblical passages. I have a few additional questions, but will have to send those later this afternoon. Great discussion to have…. IMHO. “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. (1 Corinthians, ESV)
Blessings,
Chris
Dwight, you said:
“The filling of the Holy Spirit means the full control of the Spirit—the enthronement of Jesus as Lord. When a person receives salvation, baptism with the Spirit or the gift of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is resident. When a person is filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit becomes ‘president’ in the believer’s life. The filling with the Holy Spirit makes one experience Jesus as complete Lord.”
Are you saying that a non-Christian can become a Christian without receiving Jesus as complete Lord? I may be misunderstanding you here.
Mike,
I assume you are a Christian.
I assume you proclaim Jesus as Lord.
I assume you desire to submit wholly to His Lordship.
I assume you still sin.
I still do and that is why I need filled with the Holy Spirit.
So i follow the advice Dwight has procured from the Bible and ending on point 5:
“5. DO THIS DAILY”
or I should.
mike
Parsonmike, some people believe that a non-Christian can become a Christian without receiving Jesus as complete Lord. I am trying to determine what Dwight believes. It’s a point of clarification in regard to his post above.
Mike,
Romans 10: 9 makes it clear that one cannot become a Christian without confessing Jesus as Lord. What I was referring to was the on-going filling ministry of the Holy Spirit…whose goal is to glorify Jesus, and to bring each believer into complete subjection & obedience to Him. I hope that I clearly answered your question. If not, ask again and I’ll take another crack at it. Headed to a funeral now, so it may take awhile for me to respond.
Dwight, thanks for clarifying that point.
Dwight,
Thank you for reprinting your sermon—one in which we could find and discuss many points of commonality between us.
The focus of my series has been upon discovering the nature of “speaking in tongues” in the New Testament. Is the gift of speaking in tongues in the New Testament a gift generally designed for the hearing of men or for private use and self-edification? Is it a gift generally associated more with a function more like prayer or a function more like prophecy? Is it a gift generally associated with an outcome in human language or an outcome in other-than-human language.
This sermon—interesting as it is (and it is interesting), historically significant as it is (and you have pointed out the historical significance of it), and important as it is (certainly the subject of the reception of the Holy Spirit is of paramount importance)—seems to focus on subject matters other than the questions that I have been exploring in my posts. I appreciate your work on this subject matter and your passion for it, but I do not walk away from this post with a sense that I understand entirely the reasons why you have concluded that the Corinthian material, saying as little as it says about the nature of glossolalia, completely overturns the much fuller descriptions of the gift of tongues in the Book of Acts.
Bart,
I am headed to a funeral now. Tomorrow morning, I board a plane to Arkansas to preach my Uncle’s funeral, and to be by my brother’s bedside Monday as he undergoes kidney cancer surgery in Little Rock. I was hoping that you would let me off the easy way. I had hoped that this post sufficiently addressed your question. However, I realize now that it didn’t. It will be late next week before I will have the time to respond with the level of specificity & direct answers that I believe your question deserves, and what you are asking for in this comment. So, if you will be patient with me, I will try & answer you when my schedule grants me the time. Later today, I will be able to interact some. And if those brief answers satisfy, then that will satisfy me as well.
As I said to Parson Mike, the temptation is to communicate in less than a civil tone on this subject at times. So if by ‘”rationalism” comment crossed the line, please forgive me. I honestly believe that the rationalism approach sometimes drives the debate/discussion, but I have to question my motives for interjecting that notion into this conversation. Therefore, I ask your forgiveness.
Dwight,
A man who took three months to publish the second installment of his series lives in a glass house, so far as it regards taking a little time to sort out your thoughts before replying. May the Lord reveal His comforting power to you and to your family during this difficult time.
Bart and Mike,
Thanks for your prayers and words of encouragement and comfort for my family. It reminded me at the end of these discussions, we are still brothers in Christ.
I’ve just returned from a funeral in Dallas today of the father of one of our part-time staff members.
Chris , I will periodically check for questions or comments less challenging than Bart’s question throughout the evening. I will be glad to respond to whatever further inquiries or clarifications that you indicated that you might raise later today.
Dwight,
My prayers for your family. May God bring blessings and peace to you and to them in this time of loss and of suffering.
Dwight:
I am not a Bible scholar and I am not in any position to enunciate a position regarding PPL.
For me personally, I have never spoken in tongues and I have never used any Private Prayer Language. If a person uses PPL it is fine with me.
As it regards the IMB: I agree that prior to the anti-PPL manifesto issued by the IMB things were fine. There were no reported abuses of PPL on the mission field and the document was unnecessary. So I wouldn’t have any problem rescinding the document.
However, if rescinding the document causes a replay of the divisiveness that was going on in the 2005 / 2006 timeframe then it is not worth it.
Most people reading this forum, are pastors and have formal theological training. They come with a significant payload of education, training, and experience which shapes their understanding. The landscape is as it is — namely people consider that their view is correct — if it was not they would have already changed it. So there is really not too much likelihood that either side is going to change. So discussion is not likely to result is anyone changing their minds.
In forums like this such discussion is appropriate. However, it is not appropriate at the trustee meetings of the International Mission Board because it takes the air out of the room causing the real purpose of the IMB to be on the back burner. The real purpose of the IMB is proclaiming the Gospel to men and women who would otherwise be lost for eternity.
My point is that if a person has a strong feeling regarding (A) gifts of the spirit, or (b) PPL, or (c) the gifts of tongues then of course that person is rightfully empowered to advance that understanding in the province of his own teaching and ministry. He/she can write a book. He/she can find an appropriate mentor at a seminary and do advanced study.
However, this is NOT EXTENSIBLE to the management of the SBC agencies because serving as a leader of an agency requires cooperative efforts with those who hold strong opposing positions. The BoTs of our agencies are not debating societies to advance an agenda which is narrow in scope, of secondary or tertiary importance, and has nothing to do with the real-world operation of the agency.
Also, the issue at hand does not impinge on inerrancy. It is not proper argumentation to conflate an argument regarding inerrancy with a disagreement over some “minor issue” such as spiritual gifts.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Roger,
Points well made & received, with one exception. I do not believe cessationism and inerrancy are compatible. I can see why you consider that conflating the two issues, but if praying/praising/and giving thanks in tongues as Paul taught in I Corinthians 12-14 is no longer valid then we have an error in the Bible. Dr. Ken Hemphill, former President at SWBTS has made a similar observation.
You make another interesting observation about this discussion going over your head. I really don’t believe that it was ever intended by Jesus, Luke, and Paul, who all three commented on “tongues” for this to be a matter over people’s head. Peter did state though in his second epistle that Paul wrote some things difficult to understand. Perhaps that was a reference to tongues. You may be right. I believe Jack Deere spoke the best word on this subject. He said essentially, no one would read the Bible on their own and draw the conclusion that tongues is not for today, unless they were influenced by someone writings/teaching outside of the Bible. It is the extra-biblical commentary-mine included-that causes this to go over your head. Not the biblical text themselves. Taken at face value, they are quite easily and simply understood. Your confession that this topic goes over your head is in part why I believe that rationalism has dominated this subject more so than the actual reading of the text. The actual reading of the text would not lead to ambiguity or confusion. It’s the accompanying arguments-again, mine included-that leads to the ambiguity.
I would agree about the idea that a simple reading of the New Testament, with no additional information, would lead one to believe just what Dwight has said. From reading the Bible alone, one would absolutely conclude that each time the gospel went to a new people group it would be accompanied by miraculous signs and usually by people speaking in human languages that they had never studied. Dwight’s own analysis of Acts has demonstrated pretty clearly that with each new frontier that the gospel broke there were such accompanying miraculous signs. I do not know of any such boundary-crossing event in the New Testament not accompanied by them.
The problem that we face is an entirely extra-biblical one—the fact that that isn’t happening. As I see it, we face a limited number of choices:
1. We can conclude that the gospel has been lost, the Spirit has fled, and the church has been conquered. That would, of course, put us in a position of finding Jesus’ own promises not to have been true.
2. We can conclude something along the lines of cessationism—that although we DO still have the gospel, DO still have the Spirit, DO still have the church, God has for some reason chosen not to be bound always and forever to follow the pattern demonstrated in the New Testament.
3. We can invent something to take the place of these genuinely miraculous New Testament phenomena and claim that nothing has changed.
4. We can ignore the question.
Bart,
Jack Deere was a professor at DTS who had been a cessationist, prior to certain encounters with the Holy Spirit. He later wrote a book entitled “Surprised by the Power of the Holy Spirit”. It was in that book that he traces his journey from cessationism to continuationism, and where he also made the statement that I so agree with and cannot shake, which is, no one reading the Scripture devotionally would draw the conclusion that tongues is not for today. I read his book probably 12-15 years ago. But if memory serves me correctly, his reference to, belief in, and practice of speaking in tongues included praying in tongues in private. That is what I believe he was referring to when he said no one reading the Scripture alone would conclude that tongues speaking no longer is valid for today. Again, I obviously agree with him. It is impossible to read 1 Cor. 14 with an objective open mind, and draw any other conclusion my vantage point. Jack Gray quotes Jack MacGorman as sharing a similar viewpoint. According to Gray, neither of them(Gray and MacGorman) viewed the tongues of Acts and the tongues of Corinth as analogous.
As you can tell, I have started my preparation to answer you.
Before he passed Dr. Gray gave me permission to reprint his Holy Spirit Studies booklet and to give to whomever I wish. I will have my assistant to mail you a copy just for FTI. The basis if what I believe on this subject is contained in that booklet. Dr. Gray was a missions professor at SWBTS. I am confused now, because it appears that his views and booklet would not be very well received at SWBTS today.But your reading his booklet would help you understand my mindset. He addresses the difference between the nature of tongues in Acts, versus the nature of tongues in Corinth.
“FTI” should have been FYI.
1. Whether tongues are valid for today or not is not what I am arguing. Rather, the central point that I have been addressing in my writing is whether biblical tongues were speaking in human languages. I have also touched upon whether those tongues were primarily employed in prayer or in proclamation. Those two topics are probably related at least to some degree, but they are not identical.
2. I also believe that the tongues in Acts and the tongues in Corinthians were analogous. I think that both are referring to the act of miraculously speaking in human languages that one has not studied. What would make them non-analagous would be to conclude that Corinthians has primarily in mind the use of other-than-human languages in ways designed not for proclaiming anything to any human listener. The Corinthians passage never indicates that “speaking in tongues” must be “uttering in private prayer things that no human being anywhere could possibly understand.” The Acts 2 passage inescapably indicates that “speaking in tongues” = “miraculously speaking in a human language that you should not, by any natural means, be able to speak.” And so, anyone simply reading the New Testament and believing it would clearly conclude that “speaking in tongues” means what I’m saying it means.
3. John Wimber and Jack Deere embody an anti-thinking emphasis that I find unhealthy. Spirit-less rationalism would be a problem, but can’t we agree that irrationalism is problematic, too? I must concur with Hank Hanegraaff that “When are we going to see a generation who doesn’t try to understand this book [the Bible], but just believes it?” really amounts to “When are we going to see a generation that believes my interpretation of this book without question?”
This may not be the relevant place to add it. Perhaps it ought to go into a post of its own, but I do think that there is, for each side of this discussion, a temptation to be avoided…
1. For myself and for others who see the issue as I do, there is the temptation to believe that people who hold the opinion of Dwight and David Rogers would accept as valid any personal experience that anyone would bring forward claiming it to be the work of the Holy Spirit gifting them to speak in angelic tongues. In other words, we might easily assign them a stereotype in which they are unwilling to apply discernment at all to claimed manifestations of the Spirit. And yet, as this sermon reveals and as David’s comments further indicate, these men are willing to draw lines and speak against the abusive practices among those believers who alter significantly the relationship of the Holy Spirit with Christian believers.
2. For those on Dwight’s and David’s side of things, I think there is a temptation to believe that a person like myself would never accept any tongues-speaking phenomenon as valid, as though we are anti-miraculous or would want to keep the Holy Spirit “in his place.” One might conclude that I would not acknowledge it as valid if I were to hear a commotion in our worship services and look over to discover my wife praising God in German this coming Sunday. Granted, having endured German for as long as I did, I’m not sure that I would want to spend my life with anyone who habitually spoke in that awful language, but I believe and I hope (God knows my heart) that I would only rejoice at the power of God were that to happen.
What separates us is simply that you see something in scripture that I do not see there, and that not seeing it there, I simply do not believe you when you assert that the Holy Spirit is behind it all. Now, I would gladly take your word for 1,000 things of lesser importance. But when it comes to the Lord and what He is doing among His people, we owe it to Him to be careful what we ascribe to His name.
Bart,
I do think this is an important observation, and I appreciate you voicing it.
What you say here, in normal circumstances, would cause me to avoid this whole discussion as unprofitable and potentially divisive, as it involves nitpicking over matters that in the grand scheme of things are tertiary—though, I must admit, from a viewpoint of academic and hermeneutic curiosity, I find it fascinating and might be drawn into it for that reason alone, anyway.
What really causes me to take the time to engage this conversation the way I do, though, is what I understand the IMB BoT policy on “PPL” to have done to undermine some basic principles on which we as Southern Baptists purport to operate, and, correspondingly, to undermine our effectiveness in our endeavors to obey the Great Commission.
IOW, the bottom-line issue for me is divergent views on the meaning of Christian unity, cooperation, and the application of theological triage when deciding between second- and third-level issues. I believe one’s beliefs and practice regarding “PPL” goes beyond the scope of bona fide Baptist distinctives (i.e. second-level issues) and, due to both the absence of this issue in the BF&M, as well as the hermeneutical inconsistencies of those who claim the NT clearly excludes the legitimacy of a modern-day practice of “PPL,” believe it should be treated as a third-level issue (i.e. we should return to the pre-2005 policy).
For reasons I don’t completely understand, I’ve had a host of formatting issues on this post. Dwight, I’m trying to correct things as I see them, but I am sorry for the little technical snafus.
In general, though, I never understand technical issues.
Which begs the question – why on earth would anyone put me in charge of a blog?
I’ll offer two thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke (a well-known science fiction writer who is specifically known in popular culture for the story that Clockwork Orange director Stanley Kubrick and Clarke co-wrote–based on Clarke’s short story The Sentinel–turned into 2001 A Space Odyssey)
“Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
–Profiles of the Future (revised edition, 1973)
and this wonderful snippet which actually speaks loudly to the value of blogging:
“The Information Age offers much to mankind, and I would like to think that we will rise to the challenges it presents. But it is vital to remember that information — in the sense of raw data — is not knowledge, that knowledge is not wisdom, and that wisdom is not foresight. But information is the first essential step to all of these.”–from “Humanity will survive information deluge” by Sir Arthur C. Clarke in OneWorld South Asia (5 December 2003)
(I will note that revealed foresight–i.e. revelation–is a more reliable source of wisdom…but I digress.)
(for extra credit, I offer his other “laws”:
Clarke’s First Law: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. ”
–“Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination” in Profiles of the Future (1962)
Clarke’s Second Law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
–“Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination” in Profiles of the Future (1962)
Clarke’s Law of Revolutionary Ideas: Every revolutionary idea — in science, politics, art, or whatever — seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases:
(1) “It’s completely impossible — don’t waste my time”;
(2) “It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing”;
(3) “I said it was a good idea all along.”
–The Promise of Space (1968);
The Law of Revolutionary Ideas is possibly derived from a statement by Arthur Schopenhauer:
“All truth passes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is violently opposed.
And third it is accepted as self-evident.”
–As quoted in Seeds of Peace : A Catalogue of Quotations (1986) by Jeanne Larson, Madge Micheels-Cyrus, p. 244
Brother Dwight,
This is an outstanding article brother. Tremendous scholarship and progression of thought. So many fail to properly identify what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is, but you hit the nail on the head.
John,
Thanks. I was convicted when Dave called for accountability at the beginning of September. I’d actually gained weight. When I asked you ’bout whether or not you were going to join the fitness group, your response was “Better not to make a vow than to make one and don’t keep it. But I did make the vow. So I am on the 4th day of a restricted eating plan. I have lost 9 1/2 lbs. over the past 3 days. I envy you brother. You had more wisdom than I. Nevertheless, I need to do this for health purposes, and it is a matter of spiritual conviction and an obvious area of defeat in my life. I must confess that when I covet a meal with no restraints, my mine focus on that big juicy ribeye bar-b-que steak you introduced me to in Davis, Oklahoma. I can’t get it out of my mind. I need prayer for deliverance.???? Once I have lost what I consider is a significant amount of weight, and can report at the beginning of October a decent amount of weight loss, then I will have to give myself permission to have a cheat-day, and come & fellowship with you & try that ribeye one more time. Love you bro. Thanks for reading and commenting on this post.
I’m getting into hot water here but I would like to clarify why I think inerrancy and hermeneutics are separate.
Inerrancy means that a person holds that the text — at least in the original manuscripts — is without error. This is the crux of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy that profs in many of our SBC seminaries have to sign off on to have a job. Inerrancy does not require that a person either does or does not have a particular view regarding continualism vs. cessationism. A result of inerrancy, coupled with textual criticism, is that the Greek and Hebrew texts we have today can be taken as reliable — notwithstanding many trivial differences in texts (such as are listed as variant readings in the HCSB).
If the Bible wasn’t inerrant I’d probably not waste my time reading it or listening to sermons where people preach from it. Also I wouldn’t waste time here reading the arguments pro and con for various understandings of the Biblical text.
Dwight, you hold to a continualist position. Your position may be 100% correct. I don’t know and I don’t claim to know much about “spiritual gifts”. Don’t infer that just because I don’t know much about the debate that I’m necessarily holding to a position that is “hostile” to continualism.
We have not formally stated this but I’d say that all parties to the debate would stipulate that the latest edition [27th] of the Nestle – Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is the definitive Greek NT text. If this is the case, whatever understanding we have or don’t have regarding spiritual gifts is not a function of our view on inerrancy. I don’t think it is appropriate to say that, “if your hermeneutics are different than mine then you don’t hold to inerrancy”.
Dwight, as to the hermeneutic question at hand, I am willing to learn. I will attempt to get the book by Jack Deere. You don’t have to convert me to continualism from cessationism because right now I’m neither. Don’t confuse my agnosticism with apostasy!
Bart: Thanks for pointing me in the direction of Toon’s book on Calvinism. Now I have at least a small clue as to what Calvinism, High Calvinism, and Hyper-Calvinism is all about. My knowledge in the area of Calvinism was 1 on a scale of ten. Now it is a two on a scale of ten so I’ve doubled my knowledge.
Dwight, Bart, David et. al: It is cool that you guys keep bantering back and forth on this topic because I can check out some of the sources you are using to make your case and learn something.
====
I think the threading is mixed up on this topic so comments may not be in logical order.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City