Is the pendulum swinging in a different direction?

[John of Japan]

Yet he thanked God that he spoke in tongues. Hmmm....

1 Corinthians 14:4-5,18
[4]A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.
[5]I wish you could all speak in tongues, but even more I wish you could all prophesy. For prophecy is greater than speaking in tongues, unless someone interprets what you are saying so that the whole church will be strengthened.
[18]I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you.

There is no evidence at all that Paul meant anything other than languages--at a minimum he knew Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin. In the research I have done, I have never found a secular passage (certainly not a bible passage) where he Greek word glossa, used here, meant unarguably anything other than known languages.

I challenge you to find a secular Greek source or author where glossa means some kind of ecstatic prayer language--perhaps in the Greek mystery religions?

 

[John of Japan]

All I can show you is scholars with diplomas piled up as high as yours disagree with you.

Actually, the Charismatic movement produces very few genuine scholars (Grudem is the exception, and he's Vineyard--so no tongues), because when you view the tongues passages in Greek the way Tom has done, and the historic evidence, you have to realize that ecstatic tongues is a modern phenomenon not covered in the Bible, and not found in church history. I teach church history, and have yet to uncover unknown tongues even among the Montanists of the 2nd century.

 

[Reynolds]

Nope. As soon as someone abandons the baptist faith in favor of the charismatics and pentecostals he is no longer a baptist.

You then have a lot of non Baptists in the SBC.

Nope. As soon as someone abandons the baptist faith in favor of the charismatics and pentecostals he is no longer a baptist.

"While the majority of Southern Baptist leaders do not practice or accept charismatic practices, Baptists are split on the issue and SBC president Frank Page also recognized and let stand the varying interpretations within the denomination.

"because I do believe there are varying interpretations, I believe it is okay to believe one way or the other," said Page."

Fortunately Frank Page says you don't get to decide who is and who is not a Baptist, well a Southern Baptist anyway.

 

[Reynolds]

Actually, the Charismatic movement produces very few genuine scholars (Grudem is the exception, and he's Vineyard--so no tongues), because when you view the tongues passages in Greek the way Tom has done, and the historic evidence, you have to realize that ecstatic tongues is a modern phenomenon not covered in the Bible, and not found in church history. I teach church history, and have yet to uncover unknown tongues even among the Montanists of the 2nd century.

I don't think Charismatics wrote the notes in the Nelson NKJV study Bible, or the Holman KJV study Bible, and probably not the Life application study Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't think Charismatics wrote the notes in the Nelson NKJV study Bible, or the Holman KJV study Bible, and probably not the Life application study Bible.

The Charismatics are not usually the goto scholars in evangelicalism. As an academic I'm familiar with who is writing in the academic journals, etc. The leaders of evangelical scholarship, with the exception of Wayne Grudem, are not Charismatics. And Grudem, as noted above, is a Vineyard guy, and they do not emphasize tongues.

 

[Reynolds]

International Mission Board Drops Ban on Speaking in Tongues

 

[John of Japan]

A Greek scholar friend of mine just shot me a note about Chrysostom's (347-407) comments on 1 Cor. 12-14. He plainly stated that it was difficult to teach on tongues since that ended long ago.

So, in the 2-5th centuries there were no tongues speaking churches. Either the early Christians knew better than the modern Pentecostals and Charismatics, or somehow the Church has been messed up for 19 centuries, missing out on tongues.

If anyone doubts what I'm saying, here's a great article on it: A Critical Look at Tongues and Montanism. The author makes the great point that Eusebius does not use the term glossa, which is the term used in the Bible. So very obviously--to me--the babblings of the Montanists was not like modern tongues, but just speaking stupid things.

 

[John of Japan]

International Mission Board Drops Ban on Speaking in Tongues

That's a huge mistake. Tongues speakers are causing devastation among Baptist churches on the mission fields of the world, including Japan (where tongues speakers attacked my church 3 times) and Africa, where I've been.

 

[TCassidy]

So very obviously--to me--the babblings of the Montanists was not like modern tongues, but just speaking stupid things.

Their babblings were just saying stupid things? Should we invite them to the Baptist Board? They would have a lot of company!

 

[JonC]

The Charismatics are not usually the goto scholars in evangelicalism. As an academic I'm familiar with who is writing in the academic journals, etc. The leaders of evangelical scholarship, with the exception of Wayne Grudem, are not Charismatics. And Grudem, as noted above, is a Vineyard guy, and they do not emphasize tongues.

I see Gordon Fee mentioned every now and then. Where does he fit in (his scholarship and view on sign gifts)?

 

[TCassidy]

Africa, where I've been.

A friend of mine (who just passed away) was a long time missionary to Kenya in East Africa. In his decades there he planted over two dozen baptist churches and founded two bible institutes to train indigenous people for ministry.

Not only were they attacked by the tongues speakers, one of the pastor/teachers at one of the bible institutes was beaten so badly he will never fully recover and at least two of the church buildings were burned down.

We don't often see it in this country, but once a person opens their heart to such error, and starts to think "I have something they don't have" - which eventually morphs into "Because I have something they don't have I am superior to them" which then leads to "Because I am superior to them they are inferior to me and therefore must be blaspheming the Holy Spirit so I have the right to attack them." And the next thing we see is churches burned down, pastors beaten, and sooner or later, killed.

And they call themselves "Christians." Which means "Christ-like."

 

[John of Japan]

Their babblings were just saying stupid things? Should we invite them to the Baptist Board? They would have a lot of company!

You have hit the nail squarely on the head! Man, have we read some stupid things here.

 

[TCassidy]

I see Gordon Fee mentioned every now and then. Where does he fit in (his scholarship and view on sign gifts)?

Fee is an atypical Pentecostal. He disagrees with the AOG on the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" but he also claims that the manifestation of the sign gifts can be defended on exegetical grounds. (But I have never seen such a defense.)

His main problem is a lack of specificity. He talks about the Holy Spirit empowering the believer for life and service, but fails to specify what he means by "empowering." Empowering like the indwelling/leading of the HS, which we all believe, or does he mean the babbling and excesses we see in Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement.

 

[John of Japan]

A friend of mine (who just passed away) was a long time missionary to Kenya in East Africa. In his decades there he planted over two dozen baptist churches and founded two bible institutes to train indigenous people for ministry.

Not only were they attacked by the tongues speakers, one of the pastor/teachers at one of the bible institutes was beaten so badly he will never fully recover and at least two of the church buildings were burned down.

We don't often see it in this country, but once a person opens their heart to such error, and starts to think "I have something they don't have" - which eventually morphs into "Because I have something they don't have I am superior to them" which then leads to "Because I am superior to them they are inferior to me and therefore must be blaspheming the Holy Spirit so I have the right to attack them." And the next thing we see is churches burned down, pastors beaten, and sooner or later, killed.

And they call themselves "Christians." Which means "Christ-like."

Very sad. And this story has been repeated over and over in countless churches.

I have a little book, I Once Spoke in Tongues, by ex-Pentecostal preacher Wayne Robinson. He tells the story who was pastoring a church of 600 members. Only 150 spoke in tongues, so he split the church and started a new one with them. "When the group leader queried him about his responsibility to the rest of the church, he answered that he was sorry, but they were resisting the work of the Holy Spirit" (p. 71).

 

[John of Japan]

I see Gordon Fee mentioned every now and then. Where does he fit in (his scholarship and view on sign gifts)?

I refer you to Tom's excellent answer. I have to go meet my son at the airport now. Toodleoo.

 

[MennoSota]

On the contrary. The context couldn't be more clear. Paul is talking about "tongues," "prophecy." and "knowledge" as spiritual gifts. That is the context.

"Tongues" were a revelatory gift which revealed "the wonderful works of God" to the hearers (Acts 2:11).

"Prophecy" was a revelatory gift which revealed the future (hundreds of verses).

"Knowledge" was a revelatory gift which revealed knowledge which was learned but revealed directly from God. (Matthew 16:17.)

So, from the immediately preceding context we see that Paul is talking about revelation. Revelation in the form of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge.

As verse 10 does not have a subject, we have to proved the understood subject from the immediately preceding context, which is "revelation."

1 Corinthians 13:10 But when the complete has come, then the partial will be done away with.

"But when the complete (understood subject: revelation) has come, then the partial (understood predicate nominative: revelation) (in the form of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge) will be done away with."

"But when the complete (revelation) has come, then the partial (revelation) will be done away with."

What IS lacking from the context is your insistence that the subject is "Christ" and His return, which is never mentioned in the immediate preceding context, nor in the preceding context at all!

The perfect revelation is not the canon of scripture as Paul was not addressing textual revelation. The perfect revelation is Jesus himself.
The canon is a reach at best.

 

[MennoSota]

There is no evidence at all that Paul meant anything other than languages--at a minimum he knew Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin. In the research I have done, I have never found a secular passage (certainly not a bible passage) where he Greek word glossa, used here, meant unarguably anything other than known languages.

I challenge you to find a secular Greek source or author where glossa means some kind of ecstatic prayer language--perhaps in the Greek mystery religions?

I am not arguing in favor of an unknown language. I have always considered the gift of tongues to be the miraculous ability to communicate with an unreached people group for the function of glorifying God by revealing Jesus as Redeemer.

 

[TCassidy]

The perfect revelation is not the canon of scripture as Paul was not addressing textual revelation. The perfect revelation is Jesus himself.
The canon is a reach at best.

The context is revelation. Dance around all you want, but the context is revelation.

Jesus is nowhere to be found in the context. Nowhere. Never mentioned.

Remember the three rules for understanding the bible.

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

Oh, and did I mention "context?"

You can't just suck this stuff out of your thumb.

 

[MennoSota]

The context is revelation. Dance around all you want, but the context is revelation.

Jesus is nowhere to be found in the context. Nowhere. Never mentioned.

Remember the three rules for understanding the bible.

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

Oh, and did I mention "context?"

You can't just suck this stuff out of your thumb.

Indeed, context, context, context...and the canon was not even established or considered by Paul in this context. Therefore your theory must be wrong.

 

[TCassidy]

We have a way for missionaries to reach the unreached in their own language. It is called "Language School." Ask John about it.