McKissic asks SBC to add policy on tongues to statement of faith

I've pointed out the scriptures that clearly teach the existence of a private prayer language associated with the gift of tongues which is a sovereign gift of God. If you choose to ignore that on the grounds that you are being loyal to Baptist beliefs, go ahead. Being a conservative, traditional, historic Baptist is about soul freedom, not doctrinal conformity. The scriptures I quoted to you clearly and succinctly show the Apostle Paul teaching about private prayer language associated with the gift of tongues. He mentions it in two separate letters.

You've gone somewhere, but not with the Bible, or with historic, traditional, conservative Baptists. Your whining sounds like you might be jealous of a dynamic, spirit-filled, Bible-believing Assembly of God church down the road from you that is growing and winning the lost, to which your church might have lost some of its members.

 

Actually I have pointed out that paul describes what tongues are for. 1 cor 14:22 makes it very clear. No room for anything else.

 

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries within his spirit.I Corinthians 14:1-2, NIV

If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. I Corinthians 14:26-28 NIV

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. Romans 8:26-27 NIV

That's not prayer? Speaking to God isn't prayer? All you've done is take one verse out of context and you think that allows you to ignore the other statements. The statement of purpose that you cite is not exclusive, but inclusive. If tongues didn't also serve a purpose in a private prayer, then why would Paul mention it three times as such, but then claim a different purpose for it?

Private prayer language is clearly scriptural.

 

Jack

My family was church planting for Baptists (southern and I think the northern branch was as well) before the civil war . . .

Historically, as you are most certainly aware, your wave of Holy Spirit excitement began after the Welsh revivals which in turn sparked the Azusa Street revival around 1905 that lead to the development of the Pentecostals and then the charismatics of the 1970's . . .

I would love to agree with you historically and Scripturally . . . but, I really do not see it . . . And the Holy Spirit confirmed upon me that my historic position was in agreement with Him upon my life. Now where He really wants you to go . . . .I do not know . . . just make certain that it is biblical . . . don't destroy any baptist churches to do it either . . . that definitely is not Scriptural . . .

If you want that new-fangled religion go for it. But, I want that old-fashioned one . . .

 

Personally, I doubt very seriously that McKissi will get "his way" on the issue.

The charismatics who have ever given me reason for "private" languages have all interpreted 1Corinthians 14 rather loosely---IMPO

Since Jesus said that what is said in secret shall be shouted from the housetops----I have yet to have anyone come forward with a sentence by sentence reverberation---verbatum---of the conversations that took place in that particular prayer session---noone.

And why the privacy---and what is the advantage of private prayer language say---over the use of English?? Does not God know English???

 

Isn't this just another tempest in the old Baptist teapot? This is getting a lot of attention and people are still dying and going to hell wondering what we are fussin' about. Pray in tongues (or a private language). I don't care, althought I too think scripture has been rather loosely interpreted. IMHO, if speaking in tongues is an issue for you, go to a church that wholeheartedly supports it. BUT whether you pray in tongues or English or Spanish or Russian -- let's not turn others off from the gospel bickering over it.

 

1 cor 14 1,2 26-28 has a clear context of speaking in tongues in public not in private. Paul is correcting there use of tongues. If this was a moving of the Holy Ghost Paul would not need to correct it as the Holy Ghost makes no mistakes.

The only reason Paul would need to correct them is if it was people acting in a way that is not conducive to a decent and orderly service. This is not how the Holy Ghost works.

 

I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. None of the scriptures given do support prayer language -- those who believe in a private prayer language read something into those passages that is just not there. Not only that, they seem to use testimonials as their main reason for advocating a private prayer language. Well, that just doesn't cut it without clear support from scripture.

Also, I don't see this as an unimportant issue. Opening the door to this then opens the door to belief in the sign gifts, and then you have a whole other thing happening. If that is what people believe in and want, I say fine, but go to an AOG or other charismatic/pentecostal church in that case. Just because some Baptists may believe in tongues does not mean other Baptists must accept it, especially when as far as I know, this has not been part of the Baptist beliefs and practices.

We are to be careful of our doctrine - it doesn't do any good to focus solely on evangelism if doctrine is not clear.

 

What you have given is an interpretation.

A problem with this that Southern Baptists who support private prayer language do not generally agree with pentecostals on the baptism of the Holy Spirit or on soteriology. They are not pentecostals, no matter how much the other side wants to paint them as such.

 

There is no way to read the texts given and clearly see it refers to a private prayer language. It is only after one believes in a private prayer language (usually from having an experience, it seems) that one then looks at these texts and reads that into them.

And if there are Baptists who believe in this and don't want to go to the pentecostal churches, then fine, but they shouldn't ask for other Bapitst to endorse or accept this teaching.

 

Marcia writes:
"And if there are Baptists who believe in this and don't want to go to the pentecostal churches, then fine, but they shouldn't ask for other Bapitst to endorse or accept this teaching."

IMHO, You brought up an important point in the SBC issue. I don't think anyone asked 'other Baptist to endorse or accept this teaching'. The issue came up when the SBC IMB excluded missionaries from the field who accepts this teaching. The 'other Baptist' are requiring those who accept a Private Prayer Language to reject their belief. If the SBC IMB had left it alone, it would not be an issue today..

 

Maybe they don't want the missionaries teaching this as doctrine? I'm sure some of the missionaries are church planters, and so this becomes an important issue from that standpoint.

 

I have not heard any reports of any missionary or Baptist minister trying to change the Baptist services into pentecostal type services. What may have happened in the 70's was under different circumstances. The IMB is now imposing their belief about PRIVATE prayers on others.

Back to your statement on who is pushing the issue:
"And if there are Baptists who believe in this and don't want to go to the pentecostal churches, then fine, but they shouldn't ask for other Bapitst to endorse or accept this teaching."

It is those who are opposed to other christians private devotions that have made this an issue. McKissic was responding to the issue caused by the IMB decision. I don't think it is anyone else's business how a christian prays to or praises his Lord in private. This could cause a bigger split in the SBC than most cassationists realize.

 

If a Chinese person spoke Chinese in a congregation would there be an interpreter if nobody spoke Chinese? There have been many times where I was unable to understand what someone else said. I just do not see the tongues issue in 1 Cor. as a known language. If it were that easy a recordxing would take care of that. The fact is that someone has recorded a tongues speaker and it was not a known language. Linguists have to the conclusion that it does not have the same structure as a known language.

 

Actually, what you've pointed out is how tongues are perceived, not specifically what they are for. The passage you quote says tongues are a sign for unbelievers. But an unbeliever cannot speak in tongues themselves, correct? There is no way an unbeliever can be filled with or gifted by the spirit until they become a believer. So how can tongues be a sign to an unbeliever? They must observe either a scriptural practice of it, by hearing an interpretation delivered from a tongues message, or observe a Christian praying in tongues. It is obvious from what Paul says that he himself has prayed in tongues, and that some Christians do too.

I think some of you here are getting way off track of what McKissic is speaking about. I am not suggesting some wild, Charismatic-Pentecostal scenario in which believers are filled with the Spirit and start speaking in tongues. That is not what this is about. There are two things that clearly distinguish what McKissic, and some of us here, are saying, as opposed to the teachings of the Pentecostals and Charismatics.

1. Pentecostal/Charismatics teach that speaking in tongues is a sign that accompanies the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a separate and distinct event from salvation. They teach that in order to receive the fullness of the gospel, you must be baptized in the Holy Spirit, that all Christians must eventually be baptized by the Spirit, and that when this occurs, the sign will be speaking in tongues.

This is not what I am advocating, and I am on fairly safe ground, after hearing Dr. McKissic's message, that he is not advocating this either. I believe that the filling of the Holy Spirit occurs at salvation, or one is not saved. Tongues is not a sign that accompanies this. That event took place at Pentecost, clearly in fulfillment of a prophecy from Joel, an event that was repeated only once when the gentile believers also received the Holy Spirit. I am saying, as is Dr. McKissic, that some Christians, perhaps only a few, and in rare instances, are gifted with tongues during prayer, whether it is as a result of the Holy Spirit's sensing the individuals desire to pray and need for help, or for some other sovereign reason. It is clear from the scripture, however, that this is a gift that God determines, and is not something that all, or most, Christians will ever experience. This would not be accepted by most Pentecostals and some Charismatics.

2. Pentecostals and Charismatics tend to believe that those who do not speak in tongues are spiritually inferior to those who do. I don't see that anyone here is suggesting that at all. Nor are we suggesting that every believer has to do this. At least, from my own personal perspective, I think that, since the scriptures are clear that it happens as God wills, we need to be open to the fact that it might occur among our Baptist brethren who testify to it happening. At any rate, I do not see why it has become a test of fellowship. Making it such isn't scriptural. Paul clearly says not to forbid the speaking in tongues, and he also says that it is something not every believer will experience. I don't think the best way to decide correct doctrine is by majority vote of the SBC.

I do think that the attempt to exclude people who differ on these fine points of doctrine is childish and immature, inconsistent with scripture, and not pleasing to God. God is so much bigger than the little boxes we love to put him in. We live under grace, not under law, and turning the teachings of Christ and the New Testament into a gentile Torah is obviously not what Jesus did, or intended for us to do.

 

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries within his spirit.I Corinthians 14:1-2, NIV

If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. I Corinthians 14:26-28 NIV

--------------------------
Jack Matthews posted these scriptures.

These show the possibility of praying in tongues. Sure, interpretations differ on the issue, but I think that it is not an argument coming only from experience.

Now, cessationism is a much harder idea to prove. Cessationists argue as much from lack of experience as charismatics do from experience. Unfortunately for cessationists, you don't have much beyond 1 Cor. 13, but that is a difficult passage to use.
------------
For consistency, though, I think the SBC needs to make a clear statement. Those who believe in praying in tongues need to have a clear yes or no about whether they can be a part of the convention. If the SBC doesn't want people teaching that doctrine, they should clarify that in the BFM. If the convention is willing to cooperate, then it should revoke the ban for missionaries.

This is like the SBC's version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--a policy that doesn't work.

 

Baptist churches, whether they belong to the SBC, ABC-USA, CBF, GARBC or are independent fundamental or independent non-fundamental, are autonomous and independent, especially regarding matters of faith and practice. No other Baptist has to endorse or accept this teaching, likewise, no other Baptist has to accept the other view either. I am certainly not even close to advocating the practice of speaking in tongues as the Charismatics and Pentecostals do it, and I'm a bit frustrated with the inability of some people to understand that this isn't that. Dr. McKissic isn't suggesting that the SBC open the doors to missionaries to teach that speaking in tongues is a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He is simply suggesting that the belief in something that some people see as being clearly scriptural, a tongues experience that occurs for a few Christians as God determines, should not be a test of fellowship. In fact, the only thing I can see in the New Testament that should be a test of fellowship is salvation. I don't see any other Biblical instructions to exclude people who have a difference of opinion on interpretations of passages of scripture.

 

What I pointed out is what scripture says. Then you ask "How can tongues be for unbelievers?".

The premise of your statement is incorrect. Looking back to the day of Pentacost how do you think all those lost folks heard the gospel?

Because the Apostles were able to speak other languages known to them. The miracle was that the Apostles were unlearned men and were never taught to speak these languages. And the result was that they were added to the church about 3000 of them.

However Paul being a well educated man knew several languages. Hence the phrase "I speak tongues more than you all".

In the church in Corinth there were people from all different backgounds. The common language was greek, but most spoke their language of origin on a daily basis. If one were to stand up in the service and speak what was on his heart and or give a testimony and he spoke in his native tongue those in the service who didnt know that tongue would not understand what was said. Because of this Paul said there must be an interpreter or they were to not say anything as it did not benefit the whole body, only those who understood that tongue. Paul says in v.22 that tongues are for unbelievers much in the same on the day of pentacost.

The idea that there is a private prayer language lacks solid foundation for several reasons:

1. The context of 1 Cor 14 is not about prayer languages or prayer at all.

2. The actual context of 1 Cor 14 is the errors in the worship service which need to be corrected.

3. Exegetically and hermenutically you cannot pull doctrine from a passage that has no context bearing that supposed doctrine. (this is the reason we need expository preaching)

4. When you pull doctrine from a passage that has a context that does not reflect that doctrine this is called eisogesis.

5. Pauls words in 1 Cor 14:1,2 are actually sarcastic. He is saying if you speak in a language no one in the room understands then only God will be able to understand you. Since the context of this passage is the worship service, any idea of a private prayer language does not add to what he is saying. In Hermenutics it is important to remember that context of the passage as a whole determines the doctrines in the individual passages.


Note*

You should take a course in hermenutics it would really open your eyes to alot of things. This false doctrine of a private prayer language couldnt be farther from the context of this passage.

 

So Paul didn't really mean it when he told the believers in Corinth to speak to God in tongues if there was no interpreter present? And when he said, one who speaks in a tongue speaks to God, he really didn't mean that either? And of course, you completely ignore the fact that I also used another passage from Romans which isn't affected by the context of the verse that you take out of context in I Corinthians 14.

I pretty well guessed, from observation in other posts on this board, that someone would come along and say, the scripture doesn't really say what it is really saying, because this verse trumps that verse that trumps this other verse and so what I say is really what the scripture says.

So much for hermeneutics.

 

Paul never said this.

Paul was showing how pointless it is to stand up in a church service and speak in a tongue others do not know. Only God can understand them even though they are speaking to the congregation.

Again the context of this passage is appropriate order in the worship service. It isnt about this verse trumping that verse it is about the context of the whole passage. To interpret a verse outside of the context of the whole passage meaning the chapter and book as a whole, is poor hermenutics. Context determines doctrine. You cannot correctly understand any verse outside of the context of the passage. This is basic hermenutics 101.