Even while I was authoring my earlier post, I suspected that my next installment might not be able to come forth until after VBS was over. Indeed, things have unfolded to be even worse than that. I wrote my last post while I was visiting family in the Ozarks of Missouri, and I have not been able to return to this task until I have returned to the Missouri Ozarks. I therefore bring this post to you knowing that the elapsed interim is an eternity in blog years. For that, I beg your pardon.
I previously took for myself a narrow task—”The consideration of what the relevant non-narrative passages in the New Testament say to us about the essential nature of the gift of tongues,” concluding (a) that the true heart of the present dispute about this gift concerns its nature (that is, what the gift actually is) rather than theories of cessation or continuation, and (b) that the relevant non-narrative passages of the New Testament are inconclusive regarding the nature of the biblical gift of tongues. For this post I take an equally narrow and complementary task: The consideration of what the relevant narrative passages in the New Testament say to us about the essential nature of the gift of tongues. What about the narrative passages in the New Testament? What do those teach us?
The major narrative books of the New Testament are the four gospels and The Acts of the Apostles. Of course, to search for narrative or non-narrative passages in scripture, one has to recognize more granularity in the New Testament than a book-by-book approach would permit. Although the gospels are narrative at a bird’s-eye view, much of the material within them is didactic. Although Galatians is an epistle, it contains a lengthy (as a percentage of the epistle as a whole) narrative passage. Acts, likewise, is a narrative book containing important protreptic passages (Acts 1:8, anyone?). And so, even in books that we consider to be essentially narratives, we must be on the lookout for non-narrative passages.
With regard to Acts, we face further concerns that touch upon how we will interpret the book. These involve the attitude that we choose to take regarding “the early church.” How much of a Primitivist are you? Christian Primitivism, defined hermeneutically, is the idea that every narrative account of the early church is just as prescriptive as any didactic prescription in the New Testament. Primitivism is the notion that the modern churches’ main problems lie in its differences from the New Testament churches, and therefore the modern churches’ main objective must be to return to the descriptions given of the New Testament church.
To be a Protestant is to be a Primitivist to one degree or another, but the “one degree or another” qualification is significant. A more thoroughgoing Primitivism appears in denominations like the Primitive Baptists, who eschew the accretion of structures not explicitly depicted in the New Testament (missions-sending organizations outside the local church, for example). Such a hermeneutic would regard not only all of the words of the narrative passages to be prescriptive, but would also treat the silences of the narratives as prescriptive.
It is among the distinctive attributes of Southern Baptists that we are but moderate Primitivists. I’m comfortable with that position. I think it makes a lot of sense. On the one hand, we recognize that Holy Spirit was mightily at work in the early church and that Apostolic Age is the source of all prescriptive authority for Christians. On the other hand, we recognize that much of the apostolic work actually involved the correction of the early church, and that the vast bulk of the New Testament was written not because the early church was such a model to follow but rather because they had so many profound problems.
And yet, even after you consider all of the caveats and conditions, the role of the Book of Acts in this particular question cannot be overstated: Whether we ought to emulate all of their actions or not, the Book of Acts does reliably and inerrantly convey to us what actions the early Christian believers and churches performed. Since our primary quest is to uncover what the people in the New Testament were actually doing when they were speaking in tongues, any information that Acts gives to us will be helpful.
Methodology
So, how will we go about this? What in the text of the Book of Acts will help us to know whether these believers were speaking in extant human languages or were speaking in something other than that? I propose that we employ the following flowchart:
The first question in the flowchart (abbreviated “Did a human hear it?”) simply asks whether anyone other than the speaker was present to hear what happened on the occasion when this person spoke in tongues. I often pray silently. I suppose, presuming that someone could pray in an unknown tongue, that someone could possibly pray silently in an unknown tongue, in which case nobody would hear it, and we would have insufficient data to take the matter any further. This would be the ultimate example of the gift of tongues being used in private prayer.
But if someone did hear it, then suddenly the hearer becomes an important eye(ear?)witness to what has just taken place. We must pose several questions to the hearer. The first of those is simply, “Did you understand what you just heard?” That is, was the content of the statement communicated to the hearer?
Now, if no human being comprehended what was said, then what we have is the modern phenomenon as it transpires in the overwhelming preponderance of cases today. As Dwight and I concurred in our prior discussions up to this point, neither of us has ever witnessed any occasion in which a person has spoken miraculously in a human language not known to the speaker. Also, after online discussion of this question that has spanned seven years, I have to date known of the brethren who frequent this blog to assert precisely one occasion in which someone (Jerry Rankin) claims that a person spoke in tongues and another person delivered that message by means of the gift of interpretation so that a third human being or group of human beings was able to receive the transmitted message. If we should all, for the sake of discussion, grant without question the validity of every occasion that anyone in the comment thread should assert as an occasion when the gift of tongues effectively communicated a message to a human being, I think we’d still all, if we were honest, be forced to conclude that the overwhelming preponderance of modern cases of “speaking in tongues” are occasions in which somebody (if only the speaker) hears what is said, but nobody understands it.
By the way, when all of my posting on this topic has come to a conclusion, it will come down to this: Out of this entire flowchart, the only thing I’m really arguing against is this one position: Things uttered that nobody understands but that are alleged to be a work of the Holy Spirit.
But what if a human being actually DID comprehend what was being said? At that point we know that something has happened that is undeniably miraculous. Further questions will help us to understand the precise nature of the miracle as it transpired.
And so, our second question is this: “Can you identify which language that person was speaking?” After all, if the biblical text itself identifies that a particular language or particular languages were being spoken, then we have learned something significant. If the language was not identified, then multiple options are still open, and yet we’ve proceeded far enough down the flowchart that one option—the modern phenomenon—has been definitively ruled out. The data is insufficient for a precise categorization, but it is sufficient to exclude some options.
If a language is identified in the biblical text, then we know that we’re going to be able to recognize this utterance as pertaining to one of three categories. Either (a) an other-than-human language was uttered, and by the gift of interpretation of tongues a human being was able to tell the plain meaning of it, or (b) a human language known neither to the speaker nor the hearer was uttered, but the hearer was able to understand it by means of the gift of interpretation, or (c) a speaker miraculously spoke a language unknown to him but known to the hearer, who came to know that language by natural means.
Of these last three alternatives, we can note significantly at this point that everyone in the thread, I’m pretty sure, acknowledges that all three of them, if any of them ever occurred in the days of the Book of Acts, either have nearly ceased or have utterly ceased. We share in common a functional cessationism at this point, although this point of agreement may prove a difficult one on which to build unity, since so few continuationists will acknowledge its existence. It’s not that this point is often robustly disputed, but rather that it is too often ignored, presumably as something either unimportant or inconvenient.
So, let us apply this methodology to the relevant narratives.
Acts 2:1-13 (All quotations NASB unless otherwise noted)
On the Day of Pentecost came the inauguration of the gift of tongues and the commencement of the work of the Holy Spirit in the churches. What happened on that day does not happen today. These two facts are, among Christian believers, unassailable, even though the second sentence asserts the dreaded negative. After all, if sounds of mighty rushing winds accompanied by visible displays of fire on people’s heads resulting in miraculous tongues-speaking in a multitude of human languages were regularly occurring in our world, it could not possibly escape notice. Of course, the very point that day was to be sure not to escape notice. The Holy Spirit had something to say, and He made certain that people were paying attention when He said it.
And so, we’re all cessationists of one stripe or another with regard to the events of the Day of Pentecost.
But what do we learn about the essential nature of the gift of tongues in this passage? I note the following:
- The phenomenon goes by the same terminology here as it did in the non-narrative passages. What did the people in the Upper Room do on the Day of Pentecost? Among other things, they began “to speak” (lalein) “in tongues” (glossais, which is the noun glossa in the plural dative). 1 Corinthians 13:1 likewise uses the verb “to speak” (lalo is the first-person, singular, active, subjunctive of the infinitive lalein from Acts 2:4) and “in tongues”(glossais again).
No linguistic evidence exists to support the idea that Acts 2 is speaking about one thing while 1 Corinthians 12-14 are speaking with reference to another. They’re both named the same thing using exactly the same words. Attempts to differentiate between the two must arise from something other than the wording used.
This is true in spite of the presence of the adjective “different” (heteros) in Acts 2:4. The Greek language has two words that mean something akin to our English word “other.” Allos means “another of the same kind.” “Get me another one of those pulled-pork sandwiches.” In contrast to allos, the Greek word heteros means “another of a different kind.” “This North Carolina stuff is horrendous. Let’s go to another restaurant and try to find some Memphis barbecue.”
The presence of heterais (the feminine, dative, plural form of heteros, so to match the gender, case, and number of glossais) here is interesting. In 1 Corinthians 12:10, the presence of “hetero gene” (“various kinds”) sometimes plays a critical role in arguments claiming a biblical phenomenon of tongues-speaking in other-than-human languages. Here in Acts 2, the clearest example of miraculous, Spirit-induced speaking in unstudied human languages, Spirit-inspired scripture refers to the phenomenon by use of the same adjective that appears in 1 Corinthians 12:10. The word heteros links these two passages together.
- The activity of the Holy Spirit is always and only linked in this passage with the phenomenon of speaking rather than with the phenomenon of hearing. The text explicitly says that the Spirit was giving utterance to those who were speaking. Those hearing found the experience remarkable not because of what they were doing in listening, but because of the fact that Galileans were speaking in their respective native tongues. To suggest that the Holy Spirit was working a miracle in the hearing of the listeners is to bring to the text something that is not there.
- In Acts 2, tongues-speaking is connected with speaking on God’s behalf, not with speaking to God on one’s own behalf. By way of explanation of the tongues-speaking phenomenon to the people who were listening, Peter connected it with Joel’s prophecy in the Old Testament that the sons and daughters of Israel would prophesy (Acts 2:17-18). Prophecy occurs when a human being delivers to other human beings a message originating from God. Prophecy is the complement—the opposite, or sorts—of prayer.
- Human beings heard what was being said. The first decision point in our flowchart can be answered with a resounding “Yes.”
- Human beings comprehended what was being said. The hearers heard the Christians on that day as they were “speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” The hearers heard and comprehended content.
And with that observation alone, the modern phenomenon that passes as speaking in tongues these days is dismissed as something other than what happened in Acts 2.
- The languages spoken were identified. The text identifies five people-groups present and notes ten regions from which people were attending. How many languages were represented? We cannot know a precise number from this data alone, but we can safely estimate that the 120 speakers in the Upper Room constituted enough people for each of the necessary languages to have been represented by multiple speakers.
So, thankfully, we’re given plenty of data in this narrative to identify with precision what took place that day.
- The languages spoken were human. Those observing the events as they transpired said that they were speaking in “our” tongues.
- The hearers spoke the languages that they heard. There isn’t the slightest indication otherwise.
And so, in Acts 2 the essential nature of “speaking in tongues” was clearly and specifically identified as “Human languages naturally understood.”
This is significant because this narrative in Acts is the most detailed account of tongues-speaking in all of the New Testament. We have already seen in the previous post that the non-narrative passages are utterly inconclusive as to the essential nature of the gift of tongues. This narrative passage, in contrast, is inescapably conclusive. Furthermore, it is the ONLY conclusive passage in all of the New Testament on the question of the essential nature of the gift of tongues.
Acts 10:46
In Acts 10:44-46, Cornelius and the other Gentile believers in Jesus Christ spoke in tongues in the presence of Peter and his compatriots. Of this narrative we can observe the following:
- Again, the name of the phenomenon is simply “speaking” (lalein) “in tongues” (glossais). This is the same phenomenon as in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14.
- Speaking in tongues served as evidence that the Gentile believers had received the Holy Spirit. This is the primary role of the phenomenon in the passage
- Having received the Holy Spirit served as evidence of conversion and as just cause for baptism.
- Human beings heard the speaking in tongues.
- Human beings comprehended what was said in tongues. I believe that the “exalting God” heard by Peter et al was delivered within the vehicle of the “speaking in tongues.” I realize that some will likely retort that these could have been two different things that they heard. Perhaps some were speaking in tongues and saying things that no one comprehended, while others were exalting God in Greek. Or, perhaps the new Gentile believers were alternating between speaking inscrutably in tongues on the one hand and exalting God on the other, and that the bystanders just happened to hear both. The sentence in 10:46, taken by itself, could certainly be construed to signify this (although it would in no way rule out the interpretation that I have advanced).
And yet, I believe that Peter’s reaction in 10:47 provides perfect clarity. Peter said, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” (emphasis mine) The events in Acts 10 truly are the “Gentile Pentecost,” and Peter identified the phenomenon with Cornelius and his fellow converts as being the same thing that happened when the apostles and their friends had received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. On that day, as we have already seen, there is no question that the hearers comprehended the tongues-speaking, and the content of it was precisely what Acts 10:46 names again: praises to God.
Yet again, the modern phenomenon in which someone speaks in tongues that are not comprehended by anyone has been excluded as a sound interpretation of the passage.
- The language was NOT identified. And so, our flowchart methodology ends here. Did Peter understand what they were saying due to the gift of interpretation? Were Cornelius and his friends speaking in the vaunted “tongues of angels”? There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest it and nothing to refute it. Perhaps Greek-speaking Cornelius and his friends began to speak in fluent Aramaic or Hebrew. We do not know.
The implication is simply that Acts 10 provides a less clear, less detailed description of tongues-speaking than does Acts 2. The narrative does, however, helpfully direct us back to Acts 2 as the predecessor event to the things that transpired in Caesarea that day. Do you want to know more about what happened in Acts 10? Acts 2 is the only other source available.
And so, once again we encounter people who, at the moment of receiving the Holy Spirit, being to communicate truths about the majesty and glory of God in languages that they do not know, but in such a way that bystanders are able to comprehend their prophetic exaltations of God.
Acts 19:6
We could chase a dozen rabbits in considering this narrative, all of them important and interesting in their own right, but the relevant verse for us is verse 6:
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
This final tongues-speaking narrative in the Book of Acts is the least detailed. Regarding it, we observe
- Again, the name of the phenomenon is simply “speaking” (lalein) “in tongues” (glossais). This is the same phenomenon as in Acts 2, Acts 10, and 1 Corinthians 12-14.
- Again, speaking in tongues is offered as evidence that the believers have received the Holy Spirit. This time, interestingly enough, the tongues-speaking occurred after baptism rather than before it. But that’s a topic for another day.
- Human beings heard the speaking in tongues.
- Again, humans comprehended what was being said. Now, I freely admit that this is less clear in this passage than in any of the others, but I would direct you to the connection between speaking in tongues and prophesying in this verse. Particularly in light of the way that Peter commingled tongues-speaking and prophecy in Acts 2 and the identifying of the content of the tongues-speaking in Acts 10:46 as being declarations of the worshipful truths about God to men, I do not believe that the connection between speaking in tongues and prophecy in Acts 19:6 is additive. Rather, I believe that it is elaborative. This falls well within the scope of the Greek word here (kai), which often is translated with the English word “even.”
This understanding of the relationship between “prophesying” and “speaking with tongues,” corresponds with the undeniably explicit connection made in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and accords well with what we’ve seen in Acts 10. Nothing in this text compels us to regard the incident differently.
I might also add that, if these believers publicly spoke in tongues in ways that were not understood by those around them, then the Holy Spirit in this instance violated the principles set forth in 1 Corinthians 12-14 forbidding the use of uninterpreted tongues, even as my continuationist brethren understand those chapters, since there is no dispute that these men spoke publicly.
- Again, we have no information identifying the language used. Oh, how I’d love to have access to that bit of inside information, but we’ll have just have to be content to ask these gentlemen about it when we see them in Heaven.
Conclusion
Considering the relevant narrative passages in the New Testament, we conclude the following:
- None of them was private.
- None of them was identified as being in the form of prayer.
- None of them was identified as having employed other-than-human languages.
- None of them involved the expression of personal burdens or matters difficult to articulate in human language.
- None of them states that the tongues-speaking was not understood by those who heard it.
- Some of them plainly state that the tongues involved were human languages theretofore unknown to the speaker.
- Most of them connect tongues-speaking with prophecy.
- Most of them connect tongues-speaking with the exaltation of God.
- All of them tie tongues-speaking with the initial reception of the Holy Spirit.
- All of them regard tongues-speaking as a miraculous action of the Holy Spirit.
- All of them consider tongues-speaking to be ipso facto evidence of conversion. That is, all of them plainly regard tongues-speaking as something that no unbeliever could possibly accomplish.
Having considered these passages, we have exhausted the biblical material concerning the gift of tongues. Where does that leave us? There is incontrovertible evidence that New Testament tongues-speaking at least sometimes involved the communication of theological truth to other human beings by means of the Holy-Spirit-bestowed miraculous ability of a human being to speak in human languages that he had never studied. There is no incontrovertible evidence that it ever consisted of anything other than that.
What we can say with some certitude at this point is that the modern phenomenon—a person offering an utterance in an ostensibly angelic language, perhaps as a mode of prayer, which remains uninterpreted and unintelligible to any human being on the planet—is a phenomenon entirely absent from (nay, contary to!) every narrative description of biblical tongues-speaking and entirely unnecessary for understanding the non-narrative passages. Only relatively recent Christian history and the vicissitudes of personal experience can explain the origins of this practice.
Whatever questions may remain open at this point, and there are some, they cannot be resolved by appeal to the biblical text. Two sources remain for our secondary consideration: The cultural environment in which the New Testament was written and the history that has transpired between the New Testament era and the present day. The consideration of these factors must be secondary, because scripture trumps all other sources. Nevertheless, for those matters left open after scripture has had its say, these secondary factors are worthy of our time. I will turn to them in my subsequent posts.
Bart,
I appreciate the work you’re putting in.
Thanks, Mike!
Brother Bart,
Excellent work my friend. I absolutely love to discuss this topic, because it so clearly illustrates the work that is done by our friend the Holy Spirit. His intent comes through loud and clear in the New Testament narrative relative to the demonstration of communicating the gospel to all nations. He is pin point accurate every time! It is only when men begin to waver from His conversation that we see the correction ensue, and for good reason. He is jealous.
I could not get over to the other article …keep getting an error msg. Maybe the link is not accurate??
Anyway…good stuff!
Blessings,
Chris
Thanks, Chris. Certainly the passion of the Triune God is in the spread of the gospel!
Thank you Bart. I learn something almost every time I read what you have written.
I will be considering the points that you have made. My first impression is that you are spot-on; but then, your post supports what I already believe. I am a skeptical continuationist. I still think the cessationist position has weaknesses. But I do not believe that because God “could do something” (Biblical glossolalia) that He “must do something”) Biblical glossolalia. The Holy Spirit manifests Himself when He wants to, not at our expectation (1 Corinthians 12:7).
One high quality area remains for investigation that you have not addressed. The actions of God in the Old Testament present a foundation upon the actions of God in the New Testament. Much can be learned about God’s point of view on prophecy, teaching, miracles, healings and language miracles from the Old Testament. Language miracles are more frequent that many realize.
I won’t go into detail about the Old Testament instances of language miracles, but any Bible student will be familiar enough with the texts to search them for themself. Adam and Eve, the serpent in the garden, Babel, Balaam’s donkey, Isaiah in God’s throneroom. More may be found.
Thanks again, Bart.
Thanks so much, Jerry. I think that you have made a good point when you have suggested a place for an Old Testament study. Looks like a job for Jerry Corbaley! 🙂
Bart,
A wise man once wrote, “Within 14 days people will be writing posts on this topic that will be written as though this tome of mine had never appeared.” I agree.
At this time in my life, with no official SBC responsibilities, I have a different take on the whole subject. I realize my experiences (many) with tongues speakers are very different than the vast majority of Voices readers. My experiences lead me to be extremely unwilling to accept spiritiual experiences without a sound Biblical basis. Not that it will make much difference to many, but the BF&M has urged that all human conduct and religious opinions should be tried by the Scriptures since 1925.
Here is what I think today. Christians are free to exercise their faith. There may be consequences they don’t expect, but they should have the integrity to put what they believe into practice. If someone believes that there is a prayer language, let them teach it. Let them teach it in context of 1 Corinthians 14, including that some effort should be made to find an interpreter so the message may become public. Let them teach that no one is to forbid this spiritual gift.
Let them have some experiences that will compel them to seek an interpretation that is not mere talk.
I don’t know whether we hit the 14 day mark, but certainly some of the interaction on this post seems to have taken little notice of the previous one! But it is understandable that people coming to it afresh might not have clicked on the link, particularly since it was broken!!!
Haven’t read this post yet (it’s a full rack of ribs, not fast food), but I did glance through it and want to commend Bart for a good article.
Plus, in all my years of blogging, having published several hundred posts myself and read thousands of others, this is the very first mention I have ever seen of “moderate primitivists” – and I consider my knowledge improved for that!
Thanks to our gracious host!
Bart,
As usual, your work is thorough, biblically based, and scholarly. And as usual, on this subject my study of Scriptures lead to a different conclusion.
I have two responses to your post. One is simply a Scripture quote that I believe largely runs counter grain to your basic argument. The other is a question. (1) “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him, however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries”(1Corinthians 14:2). That settles the question for me. To adopt your position, one has to eliminate this verse from the Bible, or not take it at face value. And, of course, John MacArthur & other cessationist, of whatever stripe have chosen to do that, (2) it remains a mystery why the SBC want adopt an official position on this issue. Why do you believe that a convention whose distinguishing mark is biblical orthodoxy, inerrancy, and sound doctrine, will not communicate to her constituency a “certain sound” on this question? I’ve had certain pastors interested in joining the SBC to explain to them the SBC’s official position on tongues, and I’m at a lost. Broadman has published 4-5 books affirming the gift of tongues as a prayer gift. The IMB leader was known as one who prayed in tongues in private. The SWBTS trustees decided against removing me as a trustee because of my beliefs and practices. NAMB seemingly has relaxed her policy on church planters and tongues. Yet, the IMB and SWBTS still have policies against tongues. I’m confused!!! The SBC seems to be confused on this question. As a historian, help me to understand why won’ t the SBC take a definitive position on this issue. We can debate this issue ’til the cows come home. We need an official position. Even if that position is that the SBC affirms diversity of thought and practice on this issue. I guess you would call that a big-tent policy. The BGCT who cooperates with the SBC don’t restrict church planters or missionaries from service who believes in and practice speaking in tongues. Therefore, I’m confused. Why won’t the SBC bring clarity to the convention churches concerning this issue?
Of course I am not a cessationist…. Doesn’t everyone believe that Tongues exist? ? Honestly, I do not believe there is any scriptural evidence for the cessation of tongues. Although it is clear that speaking in a tongue was never normative, even when it was being practiced in the few instances we see in the scriptures. So, to say that it is ceased, would be like saying something has ceased from not being normative. Johnny Mac is simply wrong with his commentary at that point. But, to your point Dwight, I think the context must be taken into consideration when understanding this one verse. “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him, however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries”(1Corinthians 14:2) What has Paul conveyed to the Corinthians with this statement in the full context of the passage? He is simply saying that if you speak in a tongue, God understands when men can’t in this situation. In other words, the language that is spoken is a language, but, when spoken in a place where no one is able to understand, it is worthless. So, in order not be worthless, an interpretation must be present. That is Paul’s classic teaching from Chapter 13 through 14 surrounding the lack of control within Corinthian church at that time. So to illuminate, Paul knew what tongues were, and as we all know from the text, he spoke in tongues “more than all of you”. The statement that he makes at 14:2, is an echo of many previous analogies and metaphors. Nothing new to Paul. In fact, his correction to the Corinthians speaking in a tongue (in this way where only mysteries were in the air) without clarity… was to stop! So, speaking in a tongue is also controllable, which doesn’t get much discussion, but should. It is important to understand how the gifted tongue speaker can control the gift. Very important! Additionally, I did not hear Bart asking for cessation,…maybe he is leaning that direction cautiously?? The SBC would be wise not to set out anything subjectively with respect to Tongues, since it is such a simple teaching. Now, in another category from Tongues altogether, the subject of Prayer Language should be discussed, since the practice itself is not found in the scriptures, but it has been found in personal practice among… Read more »
Chris,
What did Paul mean when he said that when he speaks in tongues, he is speaking to God? Wouldn’t speaking in tongues to God be an act of prayer?
Brother Dwight, I am assuming you are referring to the passage, contextually beginning back in Chapter 13 “11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all aspoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. (NASB95) Now,..unless we are able to disconnect the context from the broader passage, then one must comport that the Corinthians were in the process of learning an elemental lesson from Paul. Something that a child could begin to understand, not some mysterious meaning that would take theologians some time to sort through. And it appears that the meaning that is intrinsic within the act of speaking in a tongue is obvious for the benefit of the church, since the letter is to the church, and in this section specific to the love that is expressed among the members. So, why does tongue speaking edify? What does this mean? The importance of speaking in a tongue is to deliver the message and meaning of the gospel to the church. When self is actually edified (not always intended selfishly), it can only mean in this overall context that the gospel is being portrayed in a tongue that the speaker has control to speak, but no understanding of the meaning (unless of course, he has the gift of interpretation that is given by the Spirit as well…to Paul’s ultimate point later on…). When the church… Read more »
Chris,
No. I am referring to 1Cor. 14:2, “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.” Why wouldn’t the reference here to speaking in a tongue is “not speaking to men but to God” be a reference to prayer? Is prayer not speaking to God?
Brother Dwight,
yes… I did include that in the context of what Paul has explained to us…
At 14:2 He does not impose another type of meaning into his own teaching at this point. Paul does use an analogy of prayer later on in this same passage as an illustration, not an application.
I am always curious to why one would include “prayer language” as synonymous with “Tongues” from this passage. The Apostle is not unclear in what he is teaching the church at this point.
The Spiritual gift of Tongue speaking is an instrument used by the corporate church for the purpose of presenting the message of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit. The context of gifting is for the edification of the body, and its growth.
A “prayer language” appears to be foreign to the primary concept of Spiritual Gifts, but again, I do not discount that utterances are happening in someones prayer life, only that those utterances are not in the same context as we see the use, or even the abuse of tongue speaking represented in scripture. A spiritual gift is the God-given capacity of every Christian to carry out his function in the body of Christ….emphasis on the body as Paul comports in the Corinthian passage.
Blessings,
Chris
Bro. Bart,
Thanks for the insightful post. Scritprue always trumps pesonal experience.
I too have witnessed events where an individual spoke in an unitelligible muttering and a team member translated or interpreted what was said into the language of the people present, but unlike Jerry Rankin I didn’t accept it on face value as the gift of tongues and interpretation. After spending several days with the team I witnessed the events on three other occasions. Close to the end of our time toether on themission trip I discovered that the the ‘interpreter’ was fluent in the host language but had not displayed hs ability until our hired interpreter was absent and an emergency came up.
Looking forwad to your next post but the link you gave for the original post produced an error message.
Thanks, Richard, for reading. Thanks also for sharing your experience. We are, after all, enjoined to TEST the spirits. It is not unhealthy skepticism to desire to know that the Holy Spirit is behind something before affirming it.
I edited the link to the prior post. It works now.
I love Christians, who speak in tongues.
Let us love one another.
David
VolFan,
😉
Bart,
I will have some more comments when I have some more free time. But for now, could you clear up something for me? Are you suggesting that purported interpretation of tongues is practically non-existent today? If so, that seems like an odd claim to me. Whether the interpretation is authentic or not may well be a valid question; but if you are claiming there is hardly any purported interpretation around today, I am wondering where you are gathering your data from. If you are saying something else, and I am misunderstanding you, it would be helpful if you could explain a little more so that I might get a better grasp of what you are saying.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are supernatural, and not of our own doing.
” Our Lord sometimes causes in the soul a certain jubilation and a strange and mysterious kind of prayer.”
(St. Theresa of Avila)
One of the most beautiful revelations in sacred Scripture is this teaching:
” Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. ” (Romans 8)
My first exposure to primitive Baptists–you’ll love this one but the FIRST Baptist Church in the town of Lawn which had a population of 369 when I lived there in the 60s when my dad pastored Lawn Baptist was a primitive Baptist church–convinced me the majority of them simply didn’t believe in missions either led by the church or by an external group. It seems one of the more famous primitive Baptist congregations (self-described, not via affiliation)–Westboro–believes similarly. I affirm and commend David Worley’s comment. I appreciate the studiousness of Bart article and I want to affirm that the FIRST THING I am CERTAIN I’ve completely understood of any of Bart’s posts is his flowchart. That’s what 30 years of working in information technology and computer programming does for you!! The framework Bart presents unfortunately focuses in narrowly and reductively on trying to exclude the practice of private prayer language as accepted by the Bible. That effort to exclude “practitioners” of it seems as unnecessary as the IMB’s restrictions put in place while the sitting president of the IMB was a known “practitioner”. I realize this entire effort is essentially seeking to avoid an incursion of charismatic practice into Southern Baptist churches. But given that in 1 Cor 14 Paul describes someone who speaks in another language “speaking to God” (HCSB: “2 For the person who speaks in another language is not speaking to men but to God, since no one understands him; however, he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.”), it seems a little strained to try and exclude that practice. But if you look further down in the passage, you get a sense why: ” 14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with my understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you praise with the spirit,[e] how will the uninformed person say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may very well be giving thanks, but the other person is not being built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in other languages more than all of you; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, in… Read more »
Greg, just a couple comments re Primitive Baptists. The church in Lawn is representative of the numerical majority of Primitive Baptists. Any missionary work in the sense that Southern Baptists would understand it would be found in the calling of a minister to that specific place of ministering. There are numerous variations of Primitive Baptists, a small minority who believe in gospel regeneration and a few who have developed some mission sending entities. Westboro, on the other hand, is not representative of anyone but themselves. They are neither historically, theologically nor connectionally Primitive Baptists, despite what they call themselves.
Thanks. I wasn’t specifically trying to compare Westboro to anyone. They’re just a familiar “sect” that claims to be “Primitive” though is notably not affiliated with anyone as I pointed out. They have a “hardcore” Calvinistic doctrine that is worse than “hardboiled”. My apologies for making the connection, it just was something that popped in my mind based on previous research I had done.
David,
What I have asserted is that the overwhelming preponderance of occasions in which someone claims to be utilizing the gift of tongues are occasions in which no one is utilizing the gift of interpretation. I’d be surprised if the percentage were below 90%.
Are you including private/personal use of tongues here, or just public use of tongues?
I had in mind both.
Okay, so basically you’re just saying there is a whole lot more private/personal practice of tongues nowadays than there is public practice (whether authentic or spurious)? No argument there. I’m sure that is indeed the case.
What is private/personal use of tongues? Not following that concept. Or would that be what some describe as a “personal prayer language”.
Chris,
Yes, that is what I meant.
Dwight,
I dealt extensively with the non-narrative passages in the prior post. I did not ignore the verse that you have quoted. I did not fail to treat it with exegetical rigor.
As to your second question, that you and I discuss this issue does not mean that the SBC has to codify a position in the BF&M, in my opinion.
Bart,
By not codifying a position in the BF&M or even by way of resolution, it leaves the SBC without an official position on this issue. Therefore, it is impossible to explain to a pastor and church who may be interested in joining the SBC where does the SBC stand on this issue. Apparently, the SBC as a whole–or at least the decision makers are comfortable without adopting an official position on this issue.
My heart goes out to the young church planter like I was 30 yrs. ago, who may misread where the convention really stand on this issue, because of the diversity of conflicting views SBC personalities have published on this subject. This question deserves an honest an definitive answer from the convention.
How would you answer a fellow Baptist pastor or a prospective church planter who embrace the BF&M on the question; where does the SBC stand on the question of the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12-14) being inclusive of prayer in tongues(1 Corinthians 14: 2) ? This question is for Bart or anyone else who cares to answer.
Hey Brother Dwight,
You know how the BFM takes a very broad view of things that pertain to end time events? What would you think if the BFM adopted a resolution that essentially did the same thing on the issue of tongues or private prayer language? Like maybe something that says that the SBC recognizes that there is a broad range of views on this subject in the convention and neither side can claim to be the exclusively orthodox view?
John, If the SBC were to do that several things would happen: (1) Cooperative Program giving would perhaps dramatically increase (2) Churches and pastors who are confused-and for very good reasons-where the SBC stand on this issue would receive clarity. As a result more Baptists churches who embrace the BF&M, yet accept 1Corinthians 12-14 as is,without explaining it away as some Baptists do, would then be willing to join the SBC. Our convention would experience growth as new churches come on board. (3) Seminary students who now refuse to attend SBC seminaries in part because of their ambiguity, or perceived stand opposing tongues, would then enroll in SBC seminaries. Our seminary student enrollment would increase. (4) If missionaries are allowed to pray in tongues in private as they were before the 2005 policy change, then we would have more persons applying and qualifying to serve as missionaries. Because CP giving will increase we could then afford the missionaries. I recently met with a prospective seminary student who is hesitant to enroll in an SBC seminary because of the anti-tongues posture that some of them espouse. (5) Churches that are no longer a part of the SBC, or who have a very aloof relationship with the SBC may return and draw closer if a broad policy similar to what you mentioned became official. Somehow the SBC has managed to accomodate Calvinism, and just a small minority embrace Calvinism in the SBC. According to the Lifeway Poll a few years ago 51% of the SBC embraces tongues a a gift to be used as in private prayer, and if memory serves me correct, 6% of the persons polled confessed that they have or practice praying in tongues in private. If the SBC can accomadate Calvinists, surely they ought to be able to embrace what their poll financed by the SBC says that the majority believes. (6) The vast majority of World Evangelicalism embraces tongues as a spiritual gift, that is often used in private prayer. The SBC is out of touch with the text and the times on this issue. The SBC will be more in line with Scripture and contemporary evangelicalism, by embracing a broad neutral, or big tent policy. (7) This is perhaps the most important of all. I believe that God would be pleased if this were to happen. When a man’s ways pleases God, God blesses the man.… Read more »
As always Brother Dwight thank you so much for you thoughtful answer.
Now I have one more question, why doesn’t someone present such a resolution? If you started the PR work now I would bet such a resolution could be presented and even pass by the next convention meeting. My church is not in an official affiliation with the SBC nationally, although we are in the process locally, so I can’t present such a resolution. But I would do whatever I could to help you.
Although I do still consider myself a practical cessationist, I do recognize that there are valid arguments on both sides. Your statement about the accommodation of Calvinists in the Convention is very compelling. You need to keep putting that argument forward in my opinion.
So when do we start brother? I’m set on go.
John,
I would sure hope that you are correct. The problem has been when such a resolution has been presented in the past the resolutions committee refused to allowed it to come to the convention floor, thus effectively killing the resolution. For some unknown reason, the SBC simply would rather not deal with this issue on the convention floor.
I have offered such resolutions in the past that the resolutions committee refused to let out of committee. My concern is not for me, but for the next generation. For many of us, it really does not matter what the SBC adopts or think about this issue. But for church planters, and churches who might otherwise consider the SBC, this could be a serious issue for them. That’s why I believe that the SBC ought to clarify their beliefs on this matter. I don’t know if I have the stomach, time, or will to attempt to spearhead such an effort. More importantly, I don’t know if the Lord would want me to engage in this battle at that level. But, it is a significant issue. And if God laid it upon someone’s heart to offer such a resolution, I certainly would support it. The question then would be, since resolutions are not binding on SBC entities, would they simply ignore it, or acknowledge it, and fairly process and recognize it, and respect it, as the SBC is beginning to do with Calvinism?
I guess my answer would be this: the SBC has no official position. If your view is based in Scripture, then officially we allow for it.
Of course, one could readily look at the policies of any individual entity to see what the trustees have set as the stand of that group. And we have issues in general where entities have policies that are more restrictive than some churches.
The convention, at least officially, doesn’t stand anywhere on tongues except for that any practice should be guided by Scripture. I don’t know what else one could say that would be definitive. Certainly there are some, yourself included, who have seen the impact of unofficial stands, but those tend to be fluid–who knows when it might change?
Any resolution would have to basically say that the SBC has a diversity of views and that each church is autonomous to do as they please, each entity is autonomous to do as it pleases, and the Bible is our final authority. Not a whole lot different than what’s going on now.
Greg,
You need not guess about my motivation. I tried to explain it as I embarked upon this series of posts: https://sbcvoices.com/a-cessationist-of-sorts-to-fellow-cessationists/
My comments are a response “in situ” to this article. Kind of my sense of how it comes across. I’m–as I’ve described before–a pragmatic cessationist in the sense of the pre-2005 FMB/IMB administration of the gift of tongues. Which is to say I recognize the discomfort that active practice of visible and quantifiable spiritual gifts like tongues can cause in a majority cessationist congregation.
For me, pragmatic cessationism also includes the sense of God’s presence but no personal sense of a clear boundary between expressions of natural talent and presumed spiritual giftedness. Which means I don’t generally really know when God or the Holy Spirit might have been directly involved in helping me choose words or teach lessons but I trust it is all the time.
But I am one of the Southern Baptists that has clear memories dating back to the 1970s of the discussion of Jerry Rankin’s private prayer language among the Indonesian Mission and while I do not generally feel that other believers should actively seek such a thing, I also don’t for a moment doubt that Jerry’s is authentic. So the argumentation you present fails to convince me and it has the extra problem of not directly addressing the fact that Southern Baptists exist that claim to have private prayer languages and your efforts to resist those claims regrettably creates the impression that you view them as inauthentic as believers.
And that’s what this discussion comes down to: are we with imperfect knowledge–again referencing 1 Cor 13–willing to divide in an act that is perhaps emphasizing the less great for something that is both understandable and controllable? I again emphasize Paul’s discussion of speaking a language that is not understood “talking to God”.
I’d add that treating this passage as non-narrative when it has didactic, aspirational (of a mysterious kind), and arguably narrative elements strikes me as an unnecessary compartmentalization (if not a category fallacy designed to support your conclusion before you made your argument.)
What narrative elements are present in 1 Corinthians 14?
I was speaking more generally to 13-15. If you accept Bart’s reasoning, then Paul’s statement “For the person who speaks in another language is not speaking to men but to God, since no one understands him; however, he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.” is clearly hypothetical and therefore essentially illustrative and essentially narrative rather than didactic. Otherwise he’d acknowledge Dwight’s assertion is that it allows private prayer languages.
And if you aren’t convinced by verse 2, then you ought to be convinced by 14 an onward which includes in English “if” based on the Greek “ean” (“if” or “in the case of”):
” 14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with my understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you praise with the spirit,[e] how will the uninformed person[f] say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? ”
Now this is actually a much stronger caution against the concept of an [unknown] tongue (which is how the KJV presents the use of “tongue”/”glosse”) in the sense that Paul is using a hypothetical to plead that understanding is better than doing something in a non-understandable way. But hypotheticals make for poor reasoning by extension–they’re usually not extendible or applicable at all–and are similarly a poor justification for inclusion in hermeneutical reasoning or to support doctrinal synthesis in my opinion.
Thank you Greg for answering my question. I will have to go back and research this some more.
I’d like to reply to each one of you, but we’re on the road at present, and my time is elapsed.
Bart, your internet silence has been almost unbearable, and your own blog looks a little like an abandoned house. We want (and like) to hear more from you! Glad to see you have now taken up the narrative testimony of the topic of tongues. I have read your post and will hope to comment in more detail when I have time. For now I will say that you have led us into the belly of the whale and shown us all the sights. Your presentation leaves no doubt where we are going, whether or not one agrees with you. (I agree with you.) Thanks so much for taking on this task.
On Tuesday Barry Creamer asked me why I don’t blog more. I said…
“Well, I’m on the board at SWBTS, so I can’t blog about anything at SWBTS, really. I’m on the board at the SBTC, so I can’t blog about much of anything in the way of state convention items. And now I’m an officer of the SBC, so I have to be very careful what I write about anything related to the Southern Baptist Convention. That pretty much covers 99% of all I ever wrote on a blog!”
Dr. Creamer replied: “It always happens that way. The revolutionary gets sucked up into the system and the revolution dies!” 😉
I don’t know that I was ever much of a revolutionary. I always saw myself as more of a counter-insurgent. But I thought you might find Dr. Creamer’s analysis to be humorous.
Viva la revolucion!!!
If the revolution is dead, perhaps you can opine on college sports and great recipes.
Would anyone here who reads this blog be willing to sponsor a resolution that would express the broadness of beliefs on this issue in the convention so that we can at least have some sort of unity on this issue?
John,
My main misgiving about such a resolution is that the minority who would oppose it may be large enough, convictional enough, and vocal enough to turn it into a discussion that didn’t end up being very edifying. I would love to be wrong about this, though.
If we could just allow a little latitude on this issue it would serve the Convention greatly.
I like your writing and agree in part but it seems you start you letter from one view point and try hard to prove your point but leave out all of Paul’s writing in 1Corinthians 14. Vs 2- for if you have the ability to speak tongues, you will only be talking to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit, it will be mysterious. Vs 4 talks about being strength personally, yes it would be better to strengthen whole church through prophecy- but there is a time to be strengthen personally. Vs 5-I wish you could all speak in tongues.
In Vs 14 it is clear that he is speaking about Praying in tongues. “For if I pray in tongues , my spirit is praying, but I don’t understand what I am saying. Vs15 he asks a question “Well then , what shall I do? I will also pray in words I understand. Vs 18 he concludes praying in tongues rather interesting by stating what you seems to say is false. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you”. He is talking about praying between him and God, not for others, not used to show others how spiritual he is.
I do agree that In most cases praying or speaking in tongues in a church or meeting usually does follow the order God calls out. It usually is used to promote the one speaking, in most churches the same person try’s to interpret which is not what God calls in scripture. Though I have heard of something while in Sudan doing a mission trip that is truely similar to the new. Through dream 2 seperate Sudanese men dreamed of Christ, they preached of God and Christ and revelations was given through tongues. God brought these 2 men together and they have started small home churches through out Sudan. God has also done some beautiful things during one of our mission trip tp Brasil that i truely do not understand. But is his to use, I do not know why I or we have not seen America.
Thank you and God bless
Bart, A few more comments on your post: 1. I am in general agreement with the “moderate primitivism” approach to narrative passages. I think this is indeed a good starting point for the discussion. The problem is agreeing on which passages (and which details of those passages) should be taken as more prescriptive, and which ones as more descriptive. 2. More as a curious sidebar than anything else, although neither Bart nor Dwight may have witnessed someone speaking miraculously in a human language not known previously known to them, I did witness this once, about 28 years ago, in Naples, Italy. The details surrounding it were so bizarre, though, I would really be remiss to call it the biblical gift of tongues. A 16-year-old girl, member of a local Pentecostal church, suddenly developed the ability to speak intermittently in a number of different languages (including Greek, Hebrew, and a few modern languages, and some unidentified dead languages, with known linguistic patterns, if my memory serves me correctly), but only one sentence, or short phrase at a time. What came out of her mouth was a mixed up hodgepodge of elements of these identifiable human languages. At the same time she was speaking this “hodgepodge,” she was unable to converse in Italian. Her brother purportedly had the ability to interpret and communicate with others for her. I saw a report on this phenomenon on the local secular television news, in which they filmed and recorded her while she was engaged in this phenomenon. I later had occasion to visit the church where this girl was a member. It was a very conservative church, with men and women seated on different sides of the congregation. The girl was seated with the youth group, rather non-descriptly, and no one during the time I was there tried to sensationalize what was going on, so to speak. Frankly, I have no category in my mind to explain what I observed. So, it is kind of beside the point of this discussion, as far as I am concerned. But interesting, nonetheless. 3. Though, if I understand you correctly, you are positing that none of us in the discussion believes tongues with viable interpretation regularly occurs today (correct me if I am reading you wrong here), I, for one, am not so sure this is the case. There are thousands of episodes around the world weekly, if… Read more »
David, My apologies for taking so long to reply. We’re all busy folks, and for that reason among others, I am thankful for the time that you have taken to comment here. In my reply I’ll try to be as brief as I can in respect for our time. 1. Thanks for beginning with a point of agreement. More perhaps than anything in this post, I am delighted to read of those who learned something about Primitivism and came to think more deeply about the proper perspective from which to approach the narratives in Acts. 2. Out of respect for the Yahweh, the Almighty, the King of the Universe, I have no interest in attempting to declare what He is not doing at all (except for those things which He has revealed that He will not do), nor would I dare to declare anything that He cannot do. I am merely observing that, even as isolated instances like the one you have mentioned may have occurred at one place or another, the gift of miraculously speaking in unlearned human languages is not among the spiritual gifts regularly distributed among the believers today. 3. My “overwhelming preponderance” language was deliberately and carefully chosen. Even if several thousand instances of attempted interpretation are successfully undertaken each day, given the size and scope of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement (Alan, I’m trying to use those words accurately here), the percentage that those instances represent among the sum total of purported glossolalia events in any given day warrants, I believe, the use of the phrase “overwhelming preponderance.” 4. Thanks for the concession. I appreciate it. 5. I myself concede that the language of Acts 2 does not exclude the possibility that some miracle of hearing occurred alongside the miracle of speaking that is plainly declared in the text. I am merely saying that the text neither indicates nor implies any such thing. He who posits a miracle of hearing must bring to the text this idea that is neither contained in the text at all nor ruled out by it. 6. Here is the line of reasoning that makes me absolutely convinced that the prophecy reference is connected with tongues in Acts 2 a. The believers spoke in tongues. b. The bystanders accused them of being drunk. c. Peter denied that they were drunk. d. Peter explained their behavior by quoting Joel. And so,… Read more »
Bart,
Thank you very much for your even-handed and well-reasoned reply. When it comes down to it, we are both looking at the same evidence; and what appears to me to support one explanation appears to you to support another. I can only hope, in my own conscience, to be as objective as possible, and remain open to further guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe and trust you are doing the same. What I hope to demonstrate in what I write (admitting that a 100% infallible interpretation is beyond my ability) is that, based on biblical exegesis alone of the compendium of relevant texts, a defense of a personal prayer language is not implausible. From my perspective, informed by my study of Scripture, it is even probable.
On top of this, though there is admittedly plenty of valid evidence that points to fraudulent claims for the modern-day practice of NT tongues, my experience with brothers and sisters in Christ who claim to have experienced something very similar to what I understand Scripture to teach with regard to this only serves to further confirm my interpretation. On the bottom line, experience is not my primary criterion, though. It is my understanding of Scripture.
I would also hope that what I write here may serve in some way or another to convince Southern Baptists who may be “on the fence” with regard to this matter that it is an area in which it is best to “agree to disagree” and to leave churches, church members, and denominational employees free to follow their own convictions and practice.
“…even-handed and well-reasoned…”
David, with talk like that, you’re going to ruin my reputation.
David, Bart,
Re number 5, that the language of Acts 2 does not exclude the possibility that some miracle of hearing occurring on Pentecost, I would like to understand further what is the point. Unless they are hard of hearing, as I am becoming, why would any miracle of hearing be needed to hear/understand in your own language?
Thanks.
Robert,
The point has been made by some commentators that the text does not literally say that the disciples were actually speaking in the languages of the hearers, but rather that they said they heard them in their own languages. At the same time, others mocked, saying they were full of new wine ( I suppose this means drunk, but that is another question). This has led some to posit that the reason for the different responses was that what was actually coming out of their mouths was some “angelic” or other type of non-human language, which some hearers (i.e. those who supposed them to be “full of new wine”) heard as gibberish, and others, due to a “miracle of hearing” heard as the speaking their own language.
Though I don’t personally think this scenario is likely, I don’t think the text rules it out, either. Whatever actually happened, I do think there was some “miracle of hearing” or another involved, as among the hubbub of 120 (+?) people speaking different languages (be they human, angelic, or otherwise), the individual hearers were able to make out someone speaking in their own language. Or, even perhaps, hear all the disciples collectively and simultaneously speaking their particular language.
One thing that a personal prayer language sidesteps–and therefore it is surprisingly not mentioned at all–is the theory that Paul is addressing tongues as a disorder in worship issue primarily. Without that concern, there is an additional sense that this has–sense 2005 especially–been a ginned up issue designed to exert control which is why Wade went public with it.
So I’m not sure that we can, even if we truly wanted to, dismiss it exegetically. In fact, the effort to frame the situation as being resolvable by an appeal to the Bible might be a new kind of rhetorical fallacy having to do with not fully acknowledging the seriousness of the 2005 repudiation (and climate surrounding that repudiation) of the leadership of a sitting president of the IMB THROUGH the changes to policy that the then BOT body voted on.
We need the Trustees to get out of the doctrine business and stick to the active BFM with respect to policy setting. And the Convention floor is a place to issue a sense-if-the-body-of-messengers guidance to this effect. It won’t happen for the same reason Johnnt Manziel got a taunting penalty and got benched Saturday. The resolution system is non-transparent and results in mainly religious shows because the people running it are trying to manage a lot of immaturity. And don’t argue that isn’t the case. Seen us pass too many well-worded resolutions that were meaningless.
Autocorrect for the lose: please consider the appropriate homophone for “sense” in its first occurrence…
For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
Does this verse promote or testify to a private prayer language?
Nope.
Here is why…
It says that no one understands. It doesn’t say, no one hears.
If no one hears, how can they NOT not understand?
Now in context:
For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.
Again, if Paul is speaking of a private prayer language, why compare speaking/praying in tongues to prophesying? Obviously if one is speaking to himself privately so that no one else can hear, no one else is edified. How can they be? They are not even aware of the prayer!
But Paul does compare it to prophesy throughout the chapter. Thus it makes no sense whatsoever to imagine that Paul is thinking of a private prayer language [speaking in tongues to oneself so no one else can hear].
The argument for a PPL from 1st Cor. 14 has no merit.
But he is praying to God, someone might interject.
Okay, tongues speaking is praying to God.
Its purpose in a church community setting is as a witness to unbelievers [vs, 21-22].
Which means it is to be done vocally [out loud].
But believers are not edified by the strange language, so therefore an interpreter is needed.
This is the result: God is glorified by what has been prayed to Him, not only because what has been spoken is true and magnifies Him but also in that unbelievers receive a sign, and the church is edified through the interpretation and thus can also join in the praises that have been spoken.
And so yes, speaking in tongues is praying to God. Its purpose is to bring Him public praise among other things.
Brother Dwight, I realize that the is off topic somewhat from how Bart is approaching the subject here, but we have had this discussion before, and I respect what you have to say. When Paul gets to the end of his teaching on the purpose for speaking in languages (tongues), he puts this forward: 26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of [m]peace, as in all the churches of the saints. As Paul ends his instruction, he does take into account that the one gifted to speak in tongues is able to control the speaking of the language, regardless of understanding. So, if we take Paul to mean that a person would and could exercise the speaking in an unknown language to himself while praying, would you agree that it is controlled in the same way as Paul is describing to the church. In other words, can one that is gifted with speaking in tongues, control the speaking of the language? The reason I ask this,….is when I speak to individuals that profess to have the gift of “prayer language” in the same context as “speaking in tongues”, they tend to describe the event as something that “suddenly comes over them”, as they pray. In your experience, or others that you know pray in a tongue, is it controlled in the manner that Paul describes to the church at Corinth; where much in the same way… if no interpreter is present, the speaker is silent in the church gathering, yet speaks to himself and to… Read more »
Chris,
Absolutely. Anybody who tell you that speaking in tongues cannot be controlled by the one speaking is directly contradicting the Bible. I also know from experience that the one speaking can control it. It happens that way often while praying in a public setting, the ability to pray in tongues will come upon one so gifted, but the biblical admonition kicks in, and you quietly pray under your breath, or within, rather than outloud. This is what Paul taught as well, and apparently what he practiced in public worship. If Parsons Mike’s, Bart’s @ your analysis was correct there would be no need to pray within if there was no legitimate praying in tongues in private(1Cor. 14: 27,28). I hope that I answered your question.
but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
Setting: in the community of believers.
If there is an interpreter, he should use the gift.
But if there is no interpreter, he should keep silent [not use the gift] and speak to himself and God. When we speak to God it is called >prayer<. When we do it with understanding [we speak to our-self as well], it is not speaking in an unknown tongue!
Why not?
Vs. 14: For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
Vs, 11: If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.
If he knows what he is saying than he should speak aloud:
vs. 13: Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
Therefore there is no place for a PPL in 1st Cor. 14.
if there is a PPL it is not the Gift of Tongues.
if you have a PPL and your conscience is clear before God in using it, use it, but it is not the Gift of Tongues/
Parsonsmike, That is Paul’s instruction to those in Corinth, no doubt. Of course the confusion centers on the definition of a tongue (this should be fairly straightforward, although some try to include other things). How the tongue speaking is carried out, personally (as I believe some here advocate) or publicly (in the church gathered setting) is the more tenuous. 1. If the definition remains consistent, then the gift of tongue (language) speaking has no reason to cease, and is used by the Holy Spirit through the one that He gifts with the ability to share the message of the gospel, when interpreted benefits the church in a public setting. The church easily judges this… that is Paul’s point of order and how it is conducted. 2. A more difficult question to discuss though… is the testimony of individual in the church that expresses they have the gift of tongue (language) speaking, publicly or privately. If this is true, according to Paul who speaks tongues (languages) more than any of the Corinthians, then he (Paul) expects the church to judge this rightly and in order. Because the outcome of such a judgement will result in love. 3. When the believer that has the gift of tongue speaking is silent,…this does not diminish the ability or control of that individual to speak to himself and to God. It also does not abrogate control, but in contrast shows how the use of tongue speaking is controlled. This is why that Paul is confident that those that have the gift are able to control it for the benefit of the church. 4. The issue in our contemporary culture is that the definition and use of what some think is “tongue speaking” does not fit the definition that Paul describes at Corinth. Therein lies the rub. Some believers just want there to be recognition of “prayer language” as tongues. That again is easy to judge, and the speaker/one that prays should have no reluctance whatsoever to express the message of the gospel. 5. A confusing issue is one that you have brought forward. What is the purpose of “private tongue” speaking? Is there any biblical foundation to encourage this type of prayer? What is the benefit? Those are good questions. 6. I would also add, that if one has the gift of tongue speaking yet only uses it for private prayer…. that would be reverse… Read more »
Chris,
Thanks for your response.
I have no opinion on whether this Gift has ceased pemanently or temporarily. The Word tells us not to forbid to speak in tongues
But neither in Acts or Corinthians is there any mention of a private prayer language. Thus Scripturally there is no mandate to describe a PPL as theach Gift of Tongues.
Much less is there grounds to declare a PPL the primary manifestation of that gift.
Brother Mike, I wanted to circle back and finish a response to your comment: If I am hearing him correctly, I believe that Dwight has differentiated the (1) false performance of what some might consider as tongues, with (2) the gift of speaking in tongues as given by the Holy Spirit for the building up of the church. And I believe Dwight brings up a good question relative to how the SBC handles this discussion. 1. False Tongues – Satanic and/or selfish in nature, counterfeit are: those that babble without any linguistic meaning, or conjure up emotions that erupt in some close connection to the Spirit…resulting in groanings or meaningless phrases. Unfortunately, there are churches that teach classes on how to do this, ending up with the “should have bought a Honda”, or “umbrella” phrase as their substance. They even say this is what happens in their private prayer language, and of course, that they should not be judged. The “should not be judged” statement is a big tip-off,… because we judge all things. And Paul is calling for a good dose of that. 2. Gifted Tongues – Holy Spirit in origin, Real Language given to God’s children for the edification of the church. Paul is clear to express that some have the gift, and it will exist until “completeness” has come. In other words, Christ coming back for his bride. Obvious that this appears publically (this is where Dwight and I disagree). Publically is the obvious primary reason and context for tongues, especially in the context of the Corinthian church. Lot’s of reasons why it is primary. 3. Can Gifted Tongues exist privately….sure, because the gift is under the control of the gifted and they can choose to be silent in order to edify the church,… or choose to be in order to edify the church,…or choose to be out of order and cause confusion for the believers, and appear to be a loon in front of the unbeliever that has no idea what is going on. Paul is careful to tell the church and its multiple elders how to progress through a worship gathering for the edification of all, in love. 4. Now here is the rub,…. There are those that prefer to major on “remaining silent” in the church with the gift. They certainly should if it causes confusion, which is actually very obvious…even to a ten… Read more »
Chris,
How do you reconcile your #6 with Paul saying that speaking to God in tongues(1Cor.14:2) builds up the believe who is doing so(1Cor.14:5)?
Since the vast majority of world evangelicalism interprets and applies these verses in a manner consistent with the plain reading of Scripture, why do you think certain SBC personalities fund it necessary to engage in extreme exegetical gymnastics to try & disqualify praying to God in tongues by way of a gift of the Holy Spirit, as plainly taught in the Scripture?
Do you believe that the SBC should be definitive on this question?
I heard an interesting presentation on KCBI on this question a couple of days ago. The presenter was clearly not on favor of tongues speaking, but he raised three interesting issues: (1) he acknowledged that those who oppose tongues were in the minority in the evangelical community from a global perspective. (2) he acknowledged that when many evangelicals including Baptists come to America from other countries they view speaking in tongues as practical and a normal daily habit such as driving a car. They were surprised to discover that Baptist Evangelicals in America didn’t believe in or practice tongues(3)this presenter wondered out loud was American Southern Baptist rejection of tongues a result of Americans being driven by rationalism. I believe that this presenter nailed it. Tongues is simply uncomfortable to and does not fit the American rational mindset. Therefore, the rejection, and dubious false arguments against it.
Brother Dwight,
That is helpful, …thank you for responding to the question. It appears to me that our understanding of speaking in a tongue (language) is fairly similar. I have yet to understand though the benefit of praying/speaking in a tongue privately, since the use of tongue speaking is presented in at least the vast majority, if not all applications and appearances to edify the church (whether as a sign, or as a gift). Paul’s comment that he speaks in languages more than all the rest doesn’t seem to fit in the application of private praying, but we don’t have time to go into that here… maybe later ?.
I like the idea of judging the application of the gift within the body, as you have attested, speaking (praying) in a tongue (language) is under full control of the gifted. That seems to be an important part of the correction that Paul was making to the Corinthian church…. their lack of control for edification and ultimately the love the body. Paul does go on to give us statistics as well… when he instructed to church to be more normative in their proclamation of the gospel message through non-tongue speaking application….some 200,000% to be precise. I think he was using a big number to make a point ?…as well as be aware of your audience.
Dwight, … I think most believers would ultimately admit that the gift of speaking in a tongue (language) is primarily used for the benefit of the increasing church, as Paul has written previously, in a public way to bring edification. How do you make the decision to keep it private or bring it public?
Blessings,
Chris
Just saw your last post as well….I’ll weigh in on that shortly.
The rationale of my #6 comment stems from the word “only”. Again, we can’t lose sight of the reason for the gift of tongue (language) speaking. 1. As a sign… Pentecost account / Prophetic in nature 2. As a gift… To be used for the edification of the church to advance the message of the gospel Paul, within the context of the previous two chapters, and following chapters of the first Corinthian letter… is involved with correction. He never at all begins to establish a practical doctrine for praying in a tongue (which really is the basic question in my opinion)…Paul is only saying to pray (be silent) because the church was out of order….that is the context. For a tongue to be judged as from God (proclaiming the clear message of the gospel), it must be spoken in public in order for edification to occur in the body. If this is done out of order, and/or for no purpose (everyone in the room speaks English for example), then Paul is clear how to remedy the situation. A great lesson for the church, since speaking in tongues unknown, to some of the people in the congregation, was not a normative event. The Holy Spirit’s gift was and is used to further the gospel, when the gifted realizes the need to clearly present the gospel. That’s why Paul spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthians…Paul was witnessing throughout the trade centers in many regions, therefore many language opportunities to speak the gospel. KCBI….. Well, I would not necessarily agree with the KCBI presenter, because he assumes that the gift of tongue speaking is normative. It never is,..never has been, and never will be, and will cease when Christ returns. It is normative only in respect to the gifted tongue speaker using the gift to spread the gospel to those of differing language groups. That was the context in Acts, during the ministry of Paul, and in our day as well. Yet 1900 years later, there is quite a bit more opportunities for counterfeit and calls for tongue speaking to be more normative. Making tongue speaking normative should not be the goal… speaking in a tongue (unknown to the speaker as a gift of the Holy Spirit) to share the message of the gospel is of great benefit. Yet, as it was then and is now…less than normative. So, the… Read more »
Chris,
I believe that tongues are primarily for private devotions, not public display. I believe it is 1Cor. 12:10 that refers to diversities of tongues. There is a public tongue that when it is interpreted becomes prophecy. But the 1Cor. 14:2 tongue is used in private devotions. The person who prays in tongues according to Scripture edifies himself. Once edified that person then edifies the church. I have never had to make a decision about public tongues, because in 1Cor. 14 as I read it, the primary use of tongues was for private devotion. That’s what Paul meant when he said that in church he’d rather speak words understood; implying that he spoke in private words not understood. I hope this answered you question.
Thank you Dwight,
Again, I appreciate the response. We disagree on the context of the passage, but none-the-less… I understand how you get to where you get relative to private tongue speaking.
Blessings,
Chris
Dwight,
I appreciate the thoughtful work that you’ve put toward an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 12-14 from your theological vantage-point. If you would like to offer your understanding of the narrative passages in Acts, to refute the points that I have tried to make, then I would be interested in reading that, whether it should come by comment here or by separate post.
It seems to me that the most difficult work to be done is to coordinate Corinthians and Acts. I will freely confess that, when I come to 1 Corinthians, I do so with Acts in the back of my mind, and vice-versa. I think it amounts to a responsible way of reading the Bible to have, at least to some degree, a full canonical context in mind as we approach difficult passages. Acts and 1 Corinthians do not contradict one another—I take that not only as a cardinal doctrine of the faith but also as a personal observation that not all understandings of these passages lead to conflict. And yet the two passages do exhibit noteworthy differences.
Perhaps some of our differences arise out of those differences in the canon, taking them further than we ought? Certainly it might be more charitable to think so than to conclude that some spirit-less rationalism lies at the root.
Bart,
I am sending Dave a response to your request here, concerning my take on the narrative passages in Acts, that I hope that he will post when his scheduling permits. My assistant should have my response to your question posted at my blog sometime this evening. Thanks for your question.
Dwight,
I am glad that as co-workers of the glorious Gospel and brothers in Christ that unity remains even as we disagree over some things. Thank you for your service for our Lord and King, Jesus.
You said:
“If Parsons Mike’s, Bart’s @ your analysis was correct there would be no need to pray within if there was no legitimate praying in tongues in private(1Cor. 14: 27,28). ”
You are assuming here that the praying within is in tongues.
But if you do not know what you are praying [since if you are correct you are praying in an unknown to you language] then how is it that yiou are speaking to yourself? Verses 27-28:
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 you do not know what you are praying, how is it speaking to yourself and God? Certainly you are speaking to God, but how is it to yourself? It is not therefore tongues but a prayer in your own language you are to speak.
Second. This is the only possible place where a PPL >might< be shown to be Biblical. But there is ONLY ONE place where the Bible [if it is speaking of tongues that one prays to himself and God] tells the one with the gift to speak silent and ONLY ONE reason to keep silent: in a church setting and for proper order in that setting because either no interpreter is available or because two or three have already spoken.
There is no mandate, Biblically speaking, to speak in tongues outside of the church [where two or more believers are gathered].
if we decide that the Bible is where we derive our 'rules for life' as we live out our Christianity in this world, private prayer, say at home, or alone in the car, or alone anywhere is not Biblical.
Blessings to you.
mike
Mike,
You are speaking to yourself because you are speaking–not loud enough for others to hear–only yourself is aware of the fact that you are praying in tongues as a matter of personal prayer–as opposed to a public prayer in the hearing of others. That is quite simple to understand. A person who is predisposed not to believe in praying in tongues in private could rationalize reasons all day why this text is not referencing to praying in tongues within so that one is not doing it in public. 1 Cor. 14: 14 records Paul saying,”For if I pray in a tongue my spirit prays…”. If Paul could “pray in a tongue” publicly, why couldn’t he do it privately? The obvious point of 1 Cor. 14: 27, 28 is that if no interpreter is present one must pray in tongues by keeping “quiet in the church” and “speak to himself and God”. This is not difficult to comprehend unless a person simply does not want to.
Dwight,
You said,
“That’s what Paul meant when he said that in church he’d rather speak words understood; implying that he spoke in private words not understood.”
How can one not understand what one never hears? Your conclusion is off.
Can I understand your sermon if I never hear it?
Even if it is in English?
The passage in context:
Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Paul is writing about tongue usage in the church setting, quite obviously. And he continues in the rest of the passage to speak of tongues in a church setting. he is instructing the church on how to properly use the gift in that setting. he is not saying anything about a PPL.
Dwight, You said, “Since the vast majority of world evangelicalism interprets and applies these verses in a manner consistent with the plain reading of Scripture, why do you think certain SBC personalities fund it necessary to engage in extreme exegetical gymnastics to try & disqualify praying to God in tongues by way of a gift of the Holy Spirit, as plainly taught in the Scripture? ” That seems a strange thing to say. Since i have never been overseas or even to most of the USA, i can not know how the vast majority applies these verses to their practices. But what I have seen and heard, and i admit it is only but a small sample, the people are misusing and abusing the Gift if even that is what it is. They are certainly not following Paul’s guidelines which he tells us are the Lord’s commands. Second. Did you not say that the main usage for the Gift of Tongues is a PPL? So what then is happening, the vast majority of Evangelicals are using tongues in their prayer closets and telling others about it? Yet Paul tells us in 1 Cor 14: Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. Third. The common use in the rest of the world of the >least< of the gifts? Normal as driving a car? A normal daily habit? yet we read from chapter 12: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. and again: Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God… Read more »
Parsonsmike, Since I keep seeing this same argument pop up from time to time, even though I am not Dwight, I want to respond: You said: “So what then is happening, the vast majority of Evangelicals are using tongues in their prayer closets and telling others about it?” 1. The term “private prayer language” is not a biblical term. Neither is, strictly speaking, the term “personal prayer language,” though I think it better describes the practice. The “private” aspect of it has to do, as I understand it, with IMB policy (and perhaps that of some other organizations) which, at one time allowed for personal devotional use of tongues as a prayer language, provided it was kept private and was not a distraction to others on the field who did not see it as biblical, valid, or profitable. Biblically, though, there is nothing to insinuate that the person who prays in tongues must, or ought to, keep it a secret from others. 2. In addition to that, it’s not like all these practicers of tongues as a personal prayer language are going around telling everyone about it. The statistics are gathered not primarily as a result of everyone of their own initiative deciding to tell everyone about their personal practice, but rather from responses to surveys in which people are asked point-blank if they have ever spoken in tongues, or if they do so as part of their personal prayer life. What do you think they should do? lie about it? or just say, “I’m sorry, that’s private; I can’t answer that question”? 3. If someone has the gift of tongues and they practice it in their personal prayer life, they may well not have occasion to tell others about it. But just like when someone says, “Hey, let me share with you something the Lord taught me in my quiet time the other day,” there may be occasions when those with the gift of tongues feel they ought to share something of the blessing of that experience as a testimony to others. I am not saying they ought to do this. As a matter of fact, I can see how it could easily turn into a motive for boasting, and thus be unprofitable. But, at the same time, I don’t think telling others about an experience of speaking in tongues in one’s personal prayer life is necessarily a bad… Read more »
Brother David,
Very well stated IMHO. Your point number 3 also allows for the gifted individual the ability to continue to pray for understanding (interpretation), or even seek someone with the gift of interpretation, so that he is able to edify the church as well…. then boasting is eliminated.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
In Matthew 6, Jesus says:
“When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”
From a Christianity Today article
[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/octoberweb-only/140-53.0.html ]
>START<
Speaking in tongues, long a hallmark of Pentecostalism, is not practiced by a significant number of charismatic and Pentecostal Christians, a new 10-country survey shows.
The survey, released Thursday by the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, found that experiences of divine healing of physical ailments were far more prominent for those who affiliate with the vibrant and growing segment of Christianity.
Researchers found that many Pentecostals and charismatics attend worship services where speaking in tongues and other signs of the Holy Spirit are evident. But in six of the 10 countries surveyed, at least 40 percent of Pentecostals said they never pray or speak in tongues.
"I think that the classic Pentecostal belief that speaking in tongues was the real evidence of the second baptism of the Holy Spirit is, at least in practice, not widely accepted around the world," said John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum and a longtime observer of religion and politics.
<END<
Note that the survey is done in 10 countries.
As to your question:
"What do you think they should do? lie about it? or just say, “I’m sorry, that’s private; I can’t answer that question”?"
Of course they shouldn't lie. Of course they should say that what happens in their private prayer life is well… private.
As far as your point 3, if there is an occasion to share ministerially, one should follow the lead of the Holy Spirit. But such a sharing does not lead to wide spread knowledge that it is as common as driving a car in the USA, which is at a much higher rate than 40%.
I think this might be another example of a category fault, parsonsmike. Do all preachers have the spiritual gift of teaching? Possibly not. But I would argue that the majority of effective preachers either have a strong dose of teaching or of prophecy or of at least administration (which is arguably my dad’s strongest gift: he can get volunteers excited and working together like no one I know.)
All of us have some gifting (I won’t argue if we have only one or not: my experience is that with time it becomes difficult to detect which is the primary, original spiritual gift and which are expressed fruits from the Holy Spirit conforming the believer to the image of Christ Jesus…which in turn begs the question of whether it matters?) Clearly Paul was addressing the church at Corinth regarding an overemphasis on tongues. Dwight is addressing Southern Baptists on an intentional underemphasis on tongues as a potential sign of a rejection of the freedom of the Holy Spirit to gift as he pleases (which Paul also covers.)
Both thoughts are expressed in 1 Cor 12-14. Perhaps the intention is what Paul presented and to offer a balance rather than extremes. If so, then you can’t really blame Dwight for standing on an extreme in order to attempt to leverage the other side of the teeter totter off the ground.
Greg,
First, i am not thinking Dwight is standing on an extreme. i wouldn’t put it all like that. Maybe you are right, but I am not coming at this subject thinking in terms of the political life of the SBC. I am just talking Bible. if at the end of the day, Dwight remains unconvinced of my position Biblically speaking, he still has to deal with whatever political blockages exist that prompted him to begin his endeavor. Likewise, i am not against the Gift of Tongues. I am not arguing against it but arguing to properly define it Biblically. Bart in his post is not arguing the political fight but the Biblical points of contact we have with the events in Acts. It is in that vein i oppose Dwight’s definition of the Gift of Tongues.
It is then possible a true thing that Southern Baptists are rejecting the freedom of the Holy Spirit to gift as He pleases by under emphasizing the Gift of Tongues. But if we are to ‘get’ it right, it has to be Biblical, and the Bible says nothing about speaking tongues as a private or personal prayer language. Nada. Not a thing. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
Mike,
If you do research on the acceptance and practice of speaking in tongues in World Evangelicalism, you will discover that the vast majority of Evangelicals worldwide believe that the gift of tongues is still operating today, and manifest itself in the believers prayer life as the Holy Spirit wills. Phillip Rivers, Harvey Cox, and a Pew poll have addressed this matter. I recently heard a KCBI presenter admit that the majority of the worlds Christians believe in speaking in tongues. Any missions student/expert will tell you that. As a matter of fact, it was the wide spread acceptance of tongues on the foreign mission that triggered and prompted the controversial anti-tongues policies adopted by the IMB Trustees. It is only in the Western World, and particularly among Europeans and Euro-Americans that tongues is by and large rejected. However, as you probably know, fifty-one percent of the SBC pastors polled expressed a belief in the legitimacy of the gift of tongues as an act of personal/private prayer. It is a very common regular practice among those who are so gifted and inclined to pray in this manner. All of the Scriptures that you quoted above under-gird and support what is happening in global evangelical Christianity on this subject.
Dwight, Majority makes right? The point of my objection Dwight is that it is NOT in the Bible. Thus it cannot be promoted as Biblical. It can not be taught as Biblical. It should not be preached from the pulpit. It should not be taught in our Bible classes. You replied: “You are speaking to yourself because you are speaking–not loud enough for others to hear–only yourself is aware of the fact that you are praying in tongues as a matter of personal prayer–as opposed to a public prayer in the hearing of others. That is quite simple to understand.” Yes it is. And if praying in tongues not in a public way is a valid way of exercising the Gift of Tongues, then your explanation makes perfect sense. But that assumes that praying privately in Tongues [whether alone or to one’s self] is a valid exercising of the Gift. It assumes that, so it doesn’t prove that such private usage is valid. Thus it is not biblical to use those verses [1st Cor. 14:28-29] as a way to prove the validity of your position. You continued: “A person who is predisposed not to believe in praying in tongues in private could rationalize reasons all day why this text is not referencing to praying in tongues within so that one is not doing it in public.” Predisposed? That you used this word should clue you in on the problem. We should be predisposed to adhere to the Scriptures. The passage could be referencing praying in tongues in private IF such a practice is established by God’s Word. Since it is not, and the very context that this passage is found in tells us the purpose of the Gift of Tongues is as a sign to unbelievers, there is no BIBLICAL reason for one with that gift to speak it silently, so to speak, or to speak it themselves privately. BUT even if it were to be granted that the Lord is allowing one to ‘get it out’ privately so as not to cause disorder in the body, the only possible Biblical mandate then to speak in tongues privately would be not to cause disorder in the body [either because there is no interpreter or because 2 or 3 have already spoken.] There is no passage in the Bible that we can reference to teach that one can or should do… Read more »
Points well taken, and it seems to me that the “private prayer language” position misses the forest in 1 Corinthians 12-14 for the trees. Diving into one verse and finding there conclusions that run contrary to the point of the passage is not helpful. The point of the passage is to curb abuses of a public gift. Public usage is not identified as abuse. To the contrary, there is the assumption that public use is good and normative so long as there is interpretation. Public use is the norm; refraining from public use is the exception necessitated by the absence of an interpreter.
The “private prayer language” approach turns the passage on its head, in my opinion, by making public use the exceedingly rare exception, and by using a single verse taken out of context to suggest that the very purpose of the gift of tongues is not to speak to men at all, but as a vehicle of private prayer to God.
But in saying so even I have violated the intention that I myself put into these posts—that we would discuss Corinthians in the Corinthians post and discuss Acts in this post.
David,
Thanks immensely for the Sam Storms link on “tongues and language.” Great read. I am filing it away for future reference. I’d sure wish to read a rebuttal to his post. He provides compelling arguments from my vantage point. Thanks again.
http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/when-one-speaks-in-tongues–must-it-always-be-in-a-human-language
One more:
http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/were-tongues-evangelistic-or-a-sign-to-unbelieving-jews?