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

The people were not chinese.

They did not have recording devices.

What would that different structure look like in the eyes of a linguist?

 

Actually, unbelievers do speak in tongues in other cultures. It's a phenomenom known as glossalalia (sp?). I think that is one reason Paul was being so strict about the tongues spoken in the Corinthian church -- it's not just gibberish, but a known language. It's a sign to unbelievers who hear it, because they hear the gospel spoken to them in their own language.

In another post, you said the only requirement for fellowship should be salvation. I agree with that as far as fellowship goes, but there are distinctives in Baptist belief (just as there are in any other denomination, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.). For example, I would be upset of Baptist churches started baptizing babies, or said that the bread was really the body of Jesus. Yet those are things practiced by Christians. They may be saved, but I draw a line at those practices and do not endorse them.

 

Paul doesn't tell us what was happening in the Corinthian church to cause his need to correct them related to spiritual gifts, so any speculation about that would be extra-biblical. What he does point out is that tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. If it is utilized in worship, which is obviously permitted by Paul, then there must be an interpreter. If there is no interpreter present, the speaker is not silenced, but directed to speak to God. The word prayer isn't there, but I think we can conclude, without being either extra biblical or twisting a hermeneutical principle out of context, that "speaking to God" and "prayer" are at least similar concepts.

The gift of tongues, as it is described in I Corinthians, is a gift of the Holy Spirit to believers. Paul makes a clear distinction between the Spiritual gift, and (I don't know the spelling either) glossolalia, which is babbling, or gibberish. The test that is applied here is the same one John instructs believers to use in his epistle, acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord.

Regardless of all the disagreement over prayer language, one thing is clear in this passage of scripture. The gift of tongues is a spiritual gift, and the teaching of cessation of this gift is contradictory to the scripture. Prayer in tongues is not contradictory.

 

Verses 13 & 14 seem to say that praying in a tongue without an interpreter is unfruitful for the understanding.

He's arguing for interpretation in order for tongues to be beneficial, and goes on to say it's a sign for unbelievers. There is nothing here promoting a private prayer language, imo.

When he says that if there is no interpreter in v. 28, he's just saying the person should not say anything out loud but speak "to himself and to God." However, the verses above seem to be saying such speaking to God is not edifying for the church or for the person doing it, because the person can't understand. The Bible says the gifts are given for the church, not for individuals. If anything, these passages point away from teaching a private prayer language.

 

Actually the reason for Pauls clarification is very clear and is not extra biblical.

vs. 21-25 makes my point with clarity.

14:21
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.


"with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people"

In other words language known to man.

14:22
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe

A sign to unbelievers and not to them that believe.

14:23
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

This verse clears up the question of context of this passage as a whole. Nothing extra biblical needed hear. Again the context is unbeliever in the worship service.

14:24
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all

14:25
And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

And so in the use of tongues the scripture is fulfilled as the unbeliever witnesses the work God and falls to his knees and understands because of the extra ordinary use of tongues that God is in the speaker.

"and report that God is in you of a truth."

 

The people who studied this, did have recording devices. It was done just a few years ago.

I am not a linguist. All I can do is report what was told in the report I listened to.

 

They recorded Paul? Or the Corinthians?

Those would be the only two recordings that would have linguistic merit to the discussion.

As a natural linguist (not only do I think in two languages, I have functioned in two others) . . . I see, have heard, understand, have read - absolutely no information that would indicate that the 'tongues' Paul was writing about were 'unknown tongues' or 'private prayer language'.

The context in Acts was speaking not hearing. Paul in Corinthians made clear that the Corinthian church was unique (or have I missed a letter or Gospel speaking of tongues?) Paul indicated that it was for a 'sign' - which would be seen by people and know that God was behind it . . . that would not be an unknown tongue - possessed people then and now have that.

Yes there are those that take a more difficult reading (interpretation) and make the text support speaking in unknown tongues. They are very recent, and IMHO not Baptists.

 

Actually, it seems that there are several different purposes for the gift of tongues.

1. Pentecost--translation of the message so that those gathered could understand.

2. As a spiritual gift to testify to unbelievers, as shown here in I Corinthians 14.

3. As a means of prayer between a believer and God prompted by the Holy Spirit as shown in I Corinthians 14 and in Romans 8.

It is pretty clear that we are not going to agree on how to interpret these passages of scripture. One thing is pretty clear from these scriptures, though. I'm just wondering how all of you who keep insisting that this is a Pentecostal infiltration can deny the clear teaching of scripture that tongues is a valid spiritual gift, and there is no Biblical evidence that it ever ceased?

 

You might want to argue your point with quite a number of lexicons. One of which is used rather extensively across the world in so many seminary incuding SWBTS (BAGD). You might want to also argue with the TDNT.

You might want to also take up your argument with some of the Greek professors in the SBC namely Dr. Lorin Cranford.

A huge dose of MacArthur reasoning might get you to where you are but I do not know of one Greek-English Lexicon which would agree with that premise.

What I was refering to was a report done I think it was about 1998-2000 something like that.

At the turn of the century and most of the way through the 1900s the SBC had the top Greek professors and grammars in the country. I have not read any which would agree with you.

I do not come close in my language skills to people like A.T. Robertson, Lorin Cranford, Dana & Mantey, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker, those who contributed to the TDNT, Louw & Nida, and the scholars at GRAMCORD. So I must trust their work. When all of them agree I sort of take notice especially considering the fact that many of them never knew each other. I do find that from the things I have read that they have written thgat everyone of them agree about the issue of tongues being an unknown language such as gibberish. Even those who have recorded the sounds have indicated the same thing.

When I lok at the references Paul makes to the tongues of men and of angels I have a hard time believing that both of thsoe tongues are known languages. I cannot see how the tongues of angels would be an understandable language which is known. Would it be not tru that the domain of angels is in the spirit world such as heaven or hell. Paul mentions about being in the third heaven. He could not explain that to anyone.

That being said. Generally, I see no use for tongues in a worship service. It does not edify the body unless there is an interpretation. I have a hunch that someday we are going to see some strange things of God and of Satan. I believe we are already seeing that even in churches today. I have personally seen evidence of Satan's presence in a worship service where I was the pastor. It got real intense after the service was over.

 

I believe that the Corinthians had no problem understanding those instructions Paul gave. It seems to me that often our minds get clouded by lack of study and listening to a logical progression of thought based a lot on experience.

Many of my friends have been missionaries in other countries. I have had some rather interesting discussions with them. One who is very much a fundamentalist told me that he cannot come to the states and tell people about some of his experiences in Africa because the people here would likely misunderstand him. Too often in America we treat the spiritual domain as an intellectual idea to be discussed and tossed around. I have seen quite a number of things that clearly indicate a spiritual darkness in churches and outside of churches. There is a steady deafening to the obedience of God's word and it has been replaced with a common sense approach instead of following the commands and principle and practices given in scripture. Many of those things all sound wise because they play into the hands of a logical thinker who is deceived and does not know what scripture actually teaches.

 

gb93433

If you need tongues in order to believe in God, then that is between you and God.

You are getting desperate . . . . But, A T Robertson would not have supported your thesis . . .

And neither do I.

 

I lead a woman in Orlando Fl to the Lord who at the time was a JW. It took several visits with her because her son was a pentacostal. Took her to church with him one sunday and she said after what she saw she would not be apart of anything Christian.

This woman being hispanic came out of "Santa Maria". I believe I got the name correct. Anyway it is a hispanic voodoo as she put it. Her testimony is that she escaped it and barely kept her life.

The day she went to church with her son they were speaking in "tongues" dancing barefoot up and down the isle, falling into trances, passing out, and a few other things I cant remember.

It is her view that all of that including their use of "tongues" is exactly what goes on in "Santa Maria". It scared her and she decided she wasnt going to be apart of something that wasnt any different than that voodoo she came out of.

I took her through scripture on several occasions to reassure her that that wasnt godly behavior.

 

My disagreement with this use of tongues has nothing to do with cessation of gifts. Clearly it never existed.

 

Isn't it interesting that Fundamentalists seem to be more interested in winning arguments than in unity?

 

A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures...

1Co 14:16 -
Else if thou bless with the spirit (epei ean eulogēis en pneumati). Third class condition. He means that, if one is praying and praising God (1Co_10:16) in an ecstatic prayer, the one who does not understand the ecstasy will be at a loss when to say “amen” at the close of the prayer. In the synagogues the Jews used responsive amens at the close of prayers (Neh_5:13; Neh_8:6; 1Ch_16:36; Psa_106:48).


--------------
1Co 14:19 -
Howbeit in church (alla en ekklēsiāi). Private ecstasy is one thing (cf. 2Co_12:1-9) but not in church worship.

------------

He may allow for more wiggle room than you suppose.

 

Well good luck with that!:thumbs:

 

Where did you get the judgment that I was desperate to speak in tongues to verify my faith?

I do not need to speak in tongues to verify my faith in Christ. The disciples I have made have done a lot of that. I have never spoken in tongues and have no desire to. It is not a matter of desperation but of not having all knowledge to be able to solve the problem well and wanting to know the truth. So I must rely on those who have more knowledge than myself about particular areas of study. I made reference to those books because they are the accepted standards of references in Greek studies. I am unable to find any deviation about what tongues is in 1 Cor. If they differed then I would ask some more questions. But none of them differ in their discussion of what tongues is in 1 Cor, ecstatic speech. Now if you could provide some other scholarly references then I would be glad to take a look at them.

Is there a chance you could be wrong? What if the God you think you know isn’t the God who is? Shouldn’t that question by itself demand that we take a look at the issue accompanied by some serious study.

If you consider someone doing their homework and taking a look at references as being desperate then call me desperate. Isn’t that better than accepting the ignorance which is so prevalent among Christians today who are willing to follow someone like a puppy dog. That is what happened in the SBC with the BFA. Before it came down a number of pastors were told they were wrong in bringing up the practice and were shunned. I guess the SBC leadership does not like those who will try and bring about change through truth. It appeared they wanted absolute allegiance rather than thankful there were some whose allegiance was to Christ.

I think you need to read Robertson again.
From Robertson's WPNT commentary on 1 Cor. 14:19, "Howbeit in church (alla en ekklêsiâi). Private ecstasy is one thing (cf.) #2Co 12:1-9 but not in church worship.”

On 1 Cor. 14:16, "
Else if thou bless with the spirit (epei ean eulogêis en pneumati). Third class condition. He means that, if one is praying and praising God (1 Cor. 10:16) in an ecstatic prayer, the one who does not understand the ecstasy will be at a loss when to
say "amen" at the close of the prayer. In the synagogues the Jews used responsive amens at the close of prayers.


Seems like he is making the same exact point I made earlier.

Could you show me or give a reference where Robertson wrote otherwise or where he mentioned tongues has ceased? Maybe I missed it but I am unable to find it.

Like I mentioned earlier most are trying to prove whether it has ceased or not when Paul did not deal with such an issue. He was trying to control its practice in the assembly. From what I have seen when that happens the tongues issue ceases to be a problem.

Wish that sometimes we would practice 1 Cor. 14:29-32, "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." If we did we might not have so many pastor who think they are the boss and own the pulpit and use it to club people with their own ideas. When was the last time in a church you saw that practiced in a church which maintains that it holds to the truth of scripture? If not, why not? Has that practice ceased too?

How would you interpret the following passage in 1 Cor. 14:26, 28, "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. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.”

 

I would not be so quick to call those kind "Fundamentalists" in the truest sense. Those who seek to cause division are nothing more than what scripture refers to as false teachers.

Your comment reminds me of what I heard a preacher say one time, "You can be a fundamentalist but you don't have to act like one."

 

Yet, the Bible says it did.

So I guess you don't believe the Bible.

Well, I'll have to separate myself from you to prevent my salvation from being contaminated, then! :smilewinkgrin:

I'll duck now.