LifeWay private prayer language research disappointing

[JerryL]

The Apostle Paul would not have distinguished between "tongues of men" and "tongues of angels" if they were not different languages. That angels spoke the languages of men does not change that. Because the scriptures allow for the PPL. They certainly should do what their conscience calls on them to do. I hope they study the Word of God and base their decisions on what God has revealed to us in His Word.
peace to youraying:

Well........I'll amen this sentence. You canadyjd, are just one of reasons this junk creeps in.

 

[canadyjd]

He is using a metaphor of eloquent speach, even if he speaks with all eloquence and knowledge, if he doesn't have love, it is useless. He isn't talking about angel language, the angels that appeared in the bible always talked in the language of the hearer....

The context of chapters 12-14 is the use of tongues (estatic utterances) in the church services. That alone makes the idea that "tongues of angels" to be a reference to "eloquence of speach" unlikely.

Paul further talks of a "spirit language", which must be a similar reference to the estatic utterances. Again, further support that "tongues of angels" is referring to the overall context of "estatic utterances".

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Well........I'll amen this sentence. You canadyjd, are just one of reasons this junk creeps in.

I do my best to base everything I believe on what scripture says, in the context it was written, whether or not the traditions of the church support it.

I can do no less and be faithful to my Lord.

peace to youraying:

 

[JerryL]

I have a question and/or a suggestion. If there are people in Baptist churches that believe in this jibberish talk, why don't they just go where they are welcome(pentecostal churches) and keep it out of churches that have been historically against it? I'm positive that the pentecostals will welcome you with open arms, they basically believe the same as us, except for this issue and a couple of other minor issues. Why do they have to force this on us?

PS. This wasn't even an issue until about a hundred years ago.

 

[JerryL]

I do my best to base everything I believe on what scripture says, in the context it was written, whether or not the traditions of the church support it.

I can do no less and be faithful to my Lord.

peace to youraying:

I refer you to post # 24 then.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Private Prayer Language?

So as to not run this rabbit any further on this thread, come and join me on a new topic I started to debate "the tongue of angels".

Especially you folks who believe in (estatic utterances).

Bartimaeus

 

[canadyjd]

I have a question and/or a suggestion. If there are people in Baptist churches that believe in this jibberish talk, why don't they just go where they are welcome(pentecostal churches) and keep it out of churches that have been historically against it? I'm positive that the pentecostals will welcome you with open arms, they basically believe the same as us, except for this issue and a couple of other minor issues. Why do they have to force this on us?

Perhaps this kind of attitude is why so many of our churches are dying. Even though scripture clearly supports the validity of a PPL, those who disagree are somehow "threatened" by those follow scripture.

It is the "people who don't think like me are not welcome" attitude that is unbiblical. Such an attitude does not allow for Christian liberty and Christian conscience to be exercised in such non-essential matters.

BTW, the Pentecostals don't think like I do. Paul gives clear instructions concerning the use of the gift. It doesn't edify others, therefore if it isn't interpreted, if it isn't done (interpreted) in order (2 and at most 3) then it shouldn't be done in church.

BTW#2, I do not use a PPL, and never have. That doesn't keep me from seeing the truth of God's Word applied to this issue.

The SBC is trying to hold Christians to a higher standard than scripture allows. That is wrong.

peace to youraying:

 

[ajg1959]

The SBC churches have a very small jump from Sis. Mable Lee and her PPL to Bro. Benny comin' in to preach and teach and jump and HEAL, and after he jumps he jingles with all, I mean ALL their money.

1) Why do those people who speak about the glorious gift of tongues today, still send their missionaries off to language school?
2) Why do those people who say they speak in tongues today liken it to the "tongues of angels" (I Cor 13) and yet every single time, absolutely, as consistently as my mammie wore a bun on her head.....every angel in the holy Word of God spoke in the common venacular of the day, the very same language of the person the angel was speaking to?
3) How can a person who says they have a PPL, not agree with all the other junk that comes down the pike from the charismatic position?

There are quite a few good, sound folks on the board who are in good SBC churches who may end up coming out of the SBC if the majority maintains this course of activity. My prayers are with them.
Bartimaeus

I left SBC years ago because of the liberal slant they had taken, and even that was conservative compared to the charismatic leanings of today. I am IFB now and never hear any of this nonsense preached or practiced.

AJ

 

[JerryL]

I left SBC years ago because of the liberal slant they had taken, and even that was conservative compared to the charismatic leanings of today. I am IFB now and never hear any of this nonsense preached or practiced.

AJ

I too, will leave as soon as it is allowed in my church(It never will be) or put in SBC paperwork. I am not married to this SBC thing, I would have no qualms about leaving.

 

[ajg1959]

The context of chapters 12-14 is the use of tongues (estatic utterances) in the church services. That alone makes the idea that "tongues of angels" to be a reference to "eloquence of speach" unlikely.

Paul further talks of a "spirit language", which must be a similar reference to the estatic utterances. Again, further support that "tongues of angels" is referring to the overall context of "estatic utterances".

peace to youraying:

Some of you pastors help me out here.

Wasnt the books of Corinthians written to one particular church, and about their particular problems? I think Romans was written to ALL churches, but Corinthians were written to only one. And, werent the sign gifts given to the apostles and only 4 others? And didnt actual apostles have to lay hands on the other four to annoint them so that they could produce signs to aid in the establishment of the church?

Also, if prophesy were still needed today, wouldnt that mean that the Bible is NOT the complete word of God?

I think that the instructions that were written for the church at Corinth for problems they were having were given to us for our instruction but not for our duplication.

If I needed to speak or to pray in tongues then God would have me do it without someone having to teach me. I have happily been a christian for many years, and the Lord hasnt had me do it yet. When He does I will let you know.

AJ

 

[JerryL]

Perhaps this kind of attitude is why so many of our churches are dying. Even though scripture clearly supports the validity of a PPL, those who disagree are somehow "threatened" by those follow scripture.

Our churches are dying because of people wanting theirs tickled by this new TV, WOF type junk that includes this topic we are discussing. Our churches are dying because of this "get rich" gospel that is being touted today.

 

[nodak]

No charimatic here, and I abhore word of faith theology.

Tongues speaking? The church has every right to order church services.

Private prayer language? I would never dare even ask another person HOW they pray. It is private. To me, it is like asking for intimate marriage details. IT IS PRIVATE.

So that said, I certainly understand why many pastors and potential missionaries refuse to sign a document stating they do not pray in a private prayer language. Doesn't mean they DO pray that way. Just means they think it is NONE OF THE QUESTIONERS BUSINESS.

 

[StefanM]

No charimatic here, and I abhore word of faith theology.

Tongues speaking? The church has every right to order church services.

Private prayer language? I would never dare even ask another person HOW they pray. It is private. To me, it is like asking for intimate marriage details. IT IS PRIVATE.

So that said, I certainly understand why many pastors and potential missionaries refuse to sign a document stating they do not pray in a private prayer language. Doesn't mean they DO pray that way. Just means they think it is NONE OF THE QUESTIONERS BUSINESS.

If I'm not mistaken, I think the IMB requires applicants to divulge some "intimate" details.

 

[ajg1959]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the IMB requires applicants to divulge some "intimate" details.

It makes sense to me, I sure wouldnt want to support a missionary financially that is teaching or practicing apostate doctrine.

AJ

 

[canadyjd]

Wasnt the books of Corinthians written to one particular church, and about their particular problems? I think Romans was written to ALL churches, but Corinthians were written to only one.

I Cor. 1:2 "to the church of God which is at Corinth,..." and Romans 1:7 "to all the beloved of God in Rome, called as saints;" I don't know why it makes a difference whether the church at Corinth was composed of several churches or just one?

And, werent the sign gifts given to the apostles and only 4 others? And didnt actual apostles have to lay hands on the other four to annoint them so that they could produce signs to aid in the establishment of the church?

Seems to me, Jesus sent out "70" that could heal and cast out demons.

Also, if prophesy were still needed today, wouldnt that mean that the Bible is NOT the complete word of God?

To "prophesy" meant to proclaim the Gospel, not tell the future (unless you were speaking of the return of Christ).

I think that the instructions that were written for the church at Corinth for problems they were having were given to us for our instruction but not for our duplication.

You seem to be making a distinction where there is no difference. If it is for our instruction (what should we do with those folks who want to use "estatic utterances" in worship?) then we must follow those instructions given by God in His Word, not deny that God has given such instructions or make such a person feel unwelcome or prohibit such a person from serving. To do any of those things is to hold Christians to a higher standard than scripture allows.

If I needed to speak or to pray in tongues then God would have me do it without someone having to teach me. I have happily been a christian for many years, and the Lord hasnt had me do it yet. When He does I will let you know.

This is an area for Christian liberty and conscience to be practiced. Your experience may not be the same as someone else's. We can only follow what God has revealed in His Word.

If someone claims to speak in a PPL, then we should encourage them to follow the instructions God has given for such things.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Our churches are dying because of people wanting theirs tickled by this new TV, WOF type junk that includes this topic we are discussing. Our churches are dying because of this "get rich" gospel that is being touted today.

"Word of faith" is a different issue and not supported by scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

[JerryL]

"Word of faith" is a different issue and not supported by scripture.

peace to youraying:

Why do you insist on incorperating this into churches that have historically been against it. Can't you just go to a church that allows it?

 

[canadyjd]

It makes sense to me, I sure wouldnt want to support a missionary financially that is teaching or practicing apostate doctrine.

Apostate doctrine? PPL is clearly supported by scripture. Either scripture is wrong or the SBC is wrong.

I'll follow the Word of God over the traditions of men every chance I get.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Why do you insist on incorperating this into churches that have historically been against it. Can't you just go to a church that allows it?

The only thing I insist on is that we make decisions based on scripture.

Why can't you see that God's Word allows for Christian liberty and conscience on this issue? Churches have been "historically" wrong before.

Why do you have the attitude that if people don't think like you do, they are not welcome?

peace to youraying:

 

[JerryL]

I read somewhere once that 80% of the jibberish talkers were women, could that be why Paul told them to be quiet at Corinth?