I agree. I have over 20 books on the Holy Spirit (including Charismatic books), but the best one is that one by John R. Rice. I've read it through several times.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Theology of Separation
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Praise the Lord for your salvation. Sorry, I don't know what SCC is.
So, in your view, what is the purpose of tongues in the NT?
Praise the Lord for your salvation. Sorry, I don't know what SCC is.
So, in your view, what is the purpose of tongues in the NT?
meant to type in SBC!
My understanding of tongues is that during the period of Acts, in the "in between transistion" phase from old to the new covenant, the Lord fulfilled OT scriptures in Isaiah referencing that lips and voices of the heathen, those who did not know God, would be praising the Lord of isreal and causing isreal to be"emberrassed" back to their God! Forcing them to become jealous!
After the New Covenant firmly in place by God, still tongues as being a prayer "helper" to those whom God sees need the extra help, so nothing to boast about, as he would be giving that to the "weaker" brother , helping to assist in praise and prayer!
Here are the only places tongues occur in Acts:
2:4-11--miraculous languages used for evangelism
10:46--understandable (not unknown) tongues used to praise God
19:6--understandable tongues used to prophesy
So in every single place in Acts where tongues were used, it was to serve God.
Do you have Scripture for this?
Paul thanked God that he spoke in more tongues than any of them, should look into that from my side, as assumed that meant more than just"natural" learned languages that he knew!
This has always been something that I still have not come to a full understanding on...
Were the "public' Gift/use of Biblical tongues within the local church JUST of a revelatory nature, as the Bible canon not closed yet? IF that was ALL the time, would cease today, as we have the completed Word BUT IF the HS also was guiding/exhorting/encorage the people during their use, would not that still apply in some fashion to/for us today?
Good discussion!
As you know I'm sure, the term "unknown" was added in the KJV in italics, meaning it was not in the original language. There actually were non-Christian cults in the 1st century that spoke in unknown tongues like modern Charismatics. However, the normal meaning for the Greek word glossa was simply the human tongue or a language. This is proven by the fact that every single usage but one in Revelation means language (5:9, 7:9, 10:11, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15), and the one exception means the human tongue (16:10), just as the four usages in James meant human tongue.
Without a special context of one of those non-Christian cults, a first century Greek reader would assume "language" when he read Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 14:18. And concerning Corinth, it was a port city with many from other countries, so they all spoke several languages. It's hard for me to think of "unknown tongues" in Corinthians for that reason. I've preached in an international church with interpretation into Chinese, Thai and Japanese. It would have been chaos if the "tongues" or languages had not been regulated, just as Corinth was.
There is evidence that the Corinthian tongues were miraculous, but there is still no evidence that they were "unknown" tongues, since they could be interpreted. Therefore for a modern tongues-speaker to be Biblical, he or she should speak a real, existing language by a miracle, and evangelize or prophesy. This does not happen in the modern movement.
Historical side note: according to a history I have of the Pentecostal movement by a Pentecostal scholar, after the Azuza St. revival they sent missionaries out assuming they would be able to speak languages without language school, but that effort failed. I myself went to Japanese language with Pentecostals.
I appreciate your humility.
I still find no Scripture for a private prayer language. The tongues in Corinthians were clearly for the purpose of blessing others, not for blessing one's self. If you've won folks to Christ with your tongue, well....
I'm enjoying it.
Edited in: another proof that glossa normally means language is that dialektos, which always means language (and is the source of our English word dialect) occurs in Acts 2:6 & 8 as a synonym for glossa.
Last edited by a moderator:
Think that I would be classified as being similiar to someone like Dr Grudem, who holds to reformed theology, baptist version, but is open to modern giftsd still functioning...
key thing to me in all of that is that we need to realise that the way to avoid getting "seperated" apart by this doctrine is to understand that we can have a discussion on this without getting "kooky" on it... Duiscuss the biblical record, and try to help both sides see if there is common ground. I think there is IF one side is open to God still being able to do things IF he so choses, NOT a closed "just the Bible only" going on, while other side needs to drop second acts of grace. must speak in tongues, must be healthy and wealthy etc!
The problem here is that so many of us have had our ministries hurt by tongues speakers that it is hard to trust Charismatics at all. However, the opposite is not true. I have never heard of a single instance where non-tongues speakers split a tongues speaking church. So it seems to me that tongues speakers need to humble themselves first of all and reassure us that you mean us no harm when you come to our churches or fellowship with us. (You have done this on this thread, but you are a rare Charismatic.) So the tongues doctrine in particular is a very divisive doctrine that does not lend itself to fellowship.
An American pastor friend this year preached through Acts. When he got to ch. 2 he made it plain that he did not believe in unknown tongues. With that about 30 Charismatics made a big fuss and then split the church. This story can be repeated over and over. In a Lutheran church in Japan, a Charismatic spread the tongues doctrine and stole every single member, all of who had been lead to Christ by the missionary pastor. He then started a new church, leaving the pastor with nothing but a broken heart.
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, the Westboro bunch does not practice fundamentalist-type personal separation.
glfredrick
New Member
I would argue that we take the doctrine of separation to places that our God would judge against us.
Christ was ever so concerned with our unity in Him, and He did not give us cause to separate, save for those who would walk away (not-elect?).
While I concede the issues of doctrinal purity, after 2000 years of the church we still cannot agree on what those issues are, so we separate instead of practicing grace and forgiveness as should sons of the King.
I believe that when we take separation to the point that so many of us take it, we are defacto judge and jury, usurping the sovereignty of God who reserves that role for Himself.
Proof-texts? Christ's high priestly prayer. Paul's argument, eating meet dedicated to idols. The scene in Revelation where every tongue, tribe, and people join in worship of the King (people that would have separable issues on earth). The 7 churches of Revelation, of which no two are the same, etc. The singular new covenant offered to all who are in Christ.
Of course, those who (like John) see the individual local congregation as an island that must needs be protected from outside influence (itself a non-biblical doctrine) must have some form of ecclesiastical separation in order to preserve that local body, but what happens in glory when all those walls are torn away?
Note that I am not promoting ecumenicism. We can do things differently (again, 7 churches of Revelation) and yet be not-separate in Christ.
Christ was ever so concerned with our unity in Him, and He did not give us cause to separate, save for those who would walk away (not-elect?).
While I concede the issues of doctrinal purity, after 2000 years of the church we still cannot agree on what those issues are, so we separate instead of practicing grace and forgiveness as should sons of the King.
I believe that when we take separation to the point that so many of us take it, we are defacto judge and jury, usurping the sovereignty of God who reserves that role for Himself.
Proof-texts? Christ's high priestly prayer. Paul's argument, eating meet dedicated to idols. The scene in Revelation where every tongue, tribe, and people join in worship of the King (people that would have separable issues on earth). The 7 churches of Revelation, of which no two are the same, etc. The singular new covenant offered to all who are in Christ.
Of course, those who (like John) see the individual local congregation as an island that must needs be protected from outside influence (itself a non-biblical doctrine) must have some form of ecclesiastical separation in order to preserve that local body, but what happens in glory when all those walls are torn away?
Note that I am not promoting ecumenicism. We can do things differently (again, 7 churches of Revelation) and yet be not-separate in Christ.
You have badly misrepresented my position. I don't protect my church from outside influence, but from bad outside influence. We fellowship with many churches on Hokkaido, and have summer camp with at least 6 other churches. Again, when in Japan I teach Greek to a Methodist man who wants to be a pastor. I once had him fill the pulpit when I preached elsewhere. Again, our pastors' fellowship has had a non-Baptist speak to us.
It is the individual immature sheep who must be protected. Many in the church don't need protection, but some do. And they must be protected from false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing. That is specifically mandated by Jesus Christ and Paul (Matt. 7:15-21, Acts 20:28-31). So, do you believe in the light of these passages that protecting the sheep is "itself a non-Biblical doctrine"?
I fail to see any distinction at all between what you are saying and ecumenicalism. Enlighten me. If you do not practice ecumenicalism then ergo, you practice separation. There is no middle ground. If there are churches you do not fellowship with, then that is separation. If you fellowship with all churches (Catholic, liberal, Charisimatic, etc.) then you are ecumenical.
Question:
What does the scripture below mean in light of "separation":
Not a trick question, but a sincere inquiry.
Does it even apply?
If so what 21st century circumstance(s) would apply?
1 Corinthians 9
What does the scripture below mean in light of "separation":
Not a trick question, but a sincere inquiry.
Does it even apply?
If so what 21st century circumstance(s) would apply?
1 Corinthians 9
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
HankD
We have NO need to encourage others to "speak in tongues" or any other Gift, as the HS grants them to us as He wills!
IF i am with a brother who disagrees with me in this area, we agree to just fellowship/discussion around the majority of things that we freely agree on!
I don't connect this with separation at all. I think this refers to giving the Gospel, and I believe we should do that to anyone, anywhere, any time.
What JoJ said. The Gospel goes out to all, Jew and Gentile, tax-collector and Pharisee. That has nothing to do with churches that don't preach the Gospel or individuals seeking to join the church who are trying to subvert it (Jude 4).
Steve
Thanks JoJ and Steve,
I agree that we need to separate both in fellowship and partnership from those who have wrested the scriptures
I was looking for something of a little different flavor.
A little more along the line of our practical walk before the Lord.
The O/P didn't specify which venue of separation in life but simply says/inquires as to "the theology of Separation".
I believe (for instance) Paul probably went into synagogues as a practicing Jew outwardly keeping whatever Torah they had at the time in order to approach them with the Gospel.
As to the Gentiles, he says "being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law". Almost everywhere in the helenistic culture food purchased in markets had first been blessed in the name of a Pagan god.
Paul must have had to eat with them.
JoJ, you for example have probably adopted whatever Japanese culture you can conscientiously before God in order to win the Japanese.
However there are also probably many areas of the Asian cultures which are "grey" (actually its probably black or white at the detail level).
Take the martial arts for instance, some of the disciplines involve forms of worship (of sorts).
As Christians we do the martial arts part but leave off (separate ourselves from) the worship prayer or ritual.
Though not in the venue of participating in the preaching of the gospel, here is a 21st century example for American Christians:
Should we go to a presentation of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? If so, should we applaud to show our approval?
Might someone think we are approving of their doctrine as well as their musical expertise?
Many years ago I did attend a performance and wondered about it afterwards, Personally today, I would think twice about even owning one of their CDs or playing their music in my home though if it happens to come on the radio in my car I don't turn it off.
I do let Mormon missionaries into my home and when they have had their say and ask me what I think, I honestly tell them and present them with the truth of the person of Christ and the true gospel.
There are myriads of examples. i.e. My Italian grandmother's funeral:
I went to her wake (Catholic) where the family had all congregated and mourned with them but, of course, abstained from saying the rosary.
Not to mention my Catholic family's weddings, "baptisms", etc...
Living in a "multi-faceted" culture it is sometimes difficult to sort everything out and no matter what you do there will always be those who will be critical.
Just wanted to show that practical "separation" is sometimes a quandary.
HankD
I agree that we need to separate both in fellowship and partnership from those who have wrested the scriptures
I was looking for something of a little different flavor.
A little more along the line of our practical walk before the Lord.
The O/P didn't specify which venue of separation in life but simply says/inquires as to "the theology of Separation".
I believe (for instance) Paul probably went into synagogues as a practicing Jew outwardly keeping whatever Torah they had at the time in order to approach them with the Gospel.
As to the Gentiles, he says "being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law". Almost everywhere in the helenistic culture food purchased in markets had first been blessed in the name of a Pagan god.
Paul must have had to eat with them.
JoJ, you for example have probably adopted whatever Japanese culture you can conscientiously before God in order to win the Japanese.
However there are also probably many areas of the Asian cultures which are "grey" (actually its probably black or white at the detail level).
Take the martial arts for instance, some of the disciplines involve forms of worship (of sorts).
As Christians we do the martial arts part but leave off (separate ourselves from) the worship prayer or ritual.
Though not in the venue of participating in the preaching of the gospel, here is a 21st century example for American Christians:
Should we go to a presentation of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? If so, should we applaud to show our approval?
Might someone think we are approving of their doctrine as well as their musical expertise?
Many years ago I did attend a performance and wondered about it afterwards, Personally today, I would think twice about even owning one of their CDs or playing their music in my home though if it happens to come on the radio in my car I don't turn it off.
I do let Mormon missionaries into my home and when they have had their say and ask me what I think, I honestly tell them and present them with the truth of the person of Christ and the true gospel.
There are myriads of examples. i.e. My Italian grandmother's funeral:
I went to her wake (Catholic) where the family had all congregated and mourned with them but, of course, abstained from saying the rosary.
Not to mention my Catholic family's weddings, "baptisms", etc...
Living in a "multi-faceted" culture it is sometimes difficult to sort everything out and no matter what you do there will always be those who will be critical.
Just wanted to show that practical "separation" is sometimes a quandary.
HankD
Last edited:
I can see you've been very thoughtful about this. I agree with you completely thus far.
We have to remember here that Paul said "Ask no questions for conscience sake" (1 Cor. 10:27). This tells me that Paul had a conscience against eating meat offered to idols, but for the sake of evangelism and relating to idolators would not make a point of it unless he was sure. I can relate to this.
I will say that I draw the line at being where pagan ceremonies are occuring, unless it is obvious that I am there for another reason such as evangelism (avoiding the appearance of evil). So I don't go to Shinto festivals unless I am there passing out tracts. And I train believers not to go to Buddhist funerals unless the family knows very clearly ahead of time that they will not worship the dead person. New believers I advise to stay away but help in some way such as setting up chairs.
The clear line I can draw is not to participate in direct idolatry or ceremonies connected with idolatry. So for example I would not participate in a tea ceremony, though it is not overtly idolatrous. And the "Bon Festival" is overtly idolatrous, though participants may not have thought that through.
Usually the heathen element in a martial art is easy to detect. For example, if the meditation is clearly Asian monism (this takes some study to understand) it is wrong. Or here in Japan, some traditional martial arts schools have a school idol they bow to at the beginning of class. If handled right, a Christian can participate with a simple communication to the teacher that they don't do idol worship and won't bow.
I could not attend such a performance because of the implied approval of the religion.
I can't do this because of 2 John 9-11.
What you have illustrated very well with your post is that knee jerk reactions (on either side) to the doctrine of separation are poor reactions. The doctrine of separation takes much thought to do it right and Biblically. It takes little thought to call it legalism or to reject it casually, just as it takes little thought to indiscriminately and thoughtlessly reject practices because of first impressions.
Thanks John,
I agree that Christians need to be a little more understanding of each others decisions about separation but (as you have done) simply state the reason that they disagree (inviting Mormons/JW into house).
That is unless they have clearly "crossed the line".
Issue: Where/What is the line (of course)? - rhetorical question.
HankD
Last edited:
seekingthetruth
New Member
I heard of a preacher once that went into beer joints to befriend the patrons there with the goal of sharing the gospel with them. He did actually lead several to the Lord and helped them return to a sober life. He didn't drink anything but soft drinks, until one day tragedy struck him personally. He went to the bar and ordered a beer, and then another. Within 6 months he was no longer pastoring his church, but he was at the bar every day drinking.
The pastor that told me this story gave me this example. He stood on a chair. He said that he represented the pastor trying to pull the lost souls out of the bar. And that I standing on the floor represented the lost souls. Then he said to take his hand and pull. When I did I pulled him off of the chair and down to the floor with me.
He told me that it is easier for evil to pull us down than for us to pull people up out of evil. He wasn't suggesting that we don't witness and share the gospel, he was just pointing out that we have to do it on our terms and not the terms of the world.
He said this is why we must stay seperate from evil. We should share the gospel with the world but not participate in the evil of the world.
Sometimes that is a tight rope to walk.
John
The pastor that told me this story gave me this example. He stood on a chair. He said that he represented the pastor trying to pull the lost souls out of the bar. And that I standing on the floor represented the lost souls. Then he said to take his hand and pull. When I did I pulled him off of the chair and down to the floor with me.
He told me that it is easier for evil to pull us down than for us to pull people up out of evil. He wasn't suggesting that we don't witness and share the gospel, he was just pointing out that we have to do it on our terms and not the terms of the world.
He said this is why we must stay seperate from evil. We should share the gospel with the world but not participate in the evil of the world.
Sometimes that is a tight rope to walk.
John
Sometimes the line is closer to me, and sometimes the line is closer to you. (rhetorical answer). :saint: