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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… 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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… 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,… Read more »
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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… 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… 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… Read more »
“…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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… 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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… 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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.”… 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… Read more »
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?