Water
Nov 1st, 2006 | By art rogers | Category: Church, SBCNarrowing parameters. The issue itself is complex and frustrating. The issue of PPL has become systemic. Now Calvinism and worship style has made its way back to the top of the discussion with the Christian Index interview with Bill Harrell. You can find a good discussion of this article in several places, including the first place I found it: SBC Outpost. Tim Sweatman and Timmy Brister are also recommended reads if this article leads you to profuse comment. This post is not about that article.
This post is about water. Or the SBC Tent, or whatever anybody wants to call it. It is about the issue behind the issues. Parameters.
The truth is we need parameters. To illustrate this, a college professor once told us about what makes water unsafe to drink. He said there were two types of water that you never want to ingest. The first was sewage. This water had no filters. Anything and everything was allowed in. This made the water deadly. Bacteria and infestation poured into the place where anything was allowed. You don’t want sewage.
On the other hand, stagnant water was just as deadly. Water that stands still allows problems present to fester and the bacteria is nurtured there. This water is just as deadly to us as the sewage.
In the SBC today, and perhaps in so many other arenas of Christian life, we have become those who attempt to bottle water. We want to purify the thoughts we have, encase them in shiny clean containers and put them on the shelf. When a thirsty soul comes along, we wish to take the bottle off of the shelf and ask them to enjoy just what we have prepackaged for them.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. It’s great for actual water, but in the culture of thoughts, ideas and processes of life, there is no such thing as bottled Christ. An attempt to bottle up that thought process captures culture and misguided thoughts as well. You see, the “water” we bottle isn’t pure.
We need parameters. We need to define orthodoxy and we need a “common stream” in which we can live. We can’t let just anything come in. However, we can not presume to lift the stream from its context, and set it aside for everyone’s use at future times. In this analogy, that is a move toward stagnation.
Our walk with Christ and engagement of our culture is a tightrope. We balance and move and are fluid. Tightrope walkers never stand still. They always move and in their movement, they balance. We must swing gradually with the pendulum, correcting back and forth. We must stay afloat by balancing well our theology with our ever changing culture. We must also move along the stream of culture with that orthodoxy and be at different places at different times. Not that the Word of God changes, but that we move along with culture.
It is hard work.
I think people at the extremes in this analogy are lazy. If you let it all come in, everything is accepted, you are lazy. You don’t want to have to do the hard work of weeding out hurtful problems and wrestling with people with whom you disagree.
If you say you want it just the way you want it and nothing new is allowed to happen, then you are lazy. You don’t want to do the hard work of dealing with a culture that is lost and going to remain lost if we don’t intervene. If this is you, then you want them to do the hard work of becoming like you before you can reach out to them.
We must find a place where our theology is strong and our love for people is great.
It is VERY hard work.
We can, however, do nothing less than this.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Even more than an engagement with culture, we need a serious engagement with Christ. We are straining at gnats and swallowing camels and none of this is pleasing to God. I agree that we need strong parameters. A rushing river is more powerful when it rushes within it’s banks than it is when it overflows it’s banks and just spreads out in a broad flood. A rushing river moves things. A broad flood with no parameters just gets everything wet and moldy.
However, we need to make sure that our parameters are the ones that God gives us, not the ones we make up ourselves. It seems like the Bible has something to say about all of these issues, but, we either twist Scripture into an unrecognizable form, or we add to it, and thus, ignore it all together.
We need Jesus.
I wish more people understood what you are saying. Most of the people I associate with are like this. We do want parameters–THE BIBLE.
What more do we need?
Great post Art!
Very well stated! (original post)
My positions on issues like these (PPL, worship styles, Calvinism) have come only after a great deal of study and prayer. I could easily read an article or listen to a favorite pastor’s sermon and go with the “popular” opinion, on these issues, but that would be, as you said, lazy. And I might add, it would be irresponsible.
Hopefully the PPL issue will actually force us to go to the Bible and see what God actually says about these topics (What a novel idea, huh?). And we may actually learn a thing or two!
Grace and peace!
Art, my point exactly! I actually wrote a lengthy post today on this very topic. I think you said it better than I did.
I think we fear the tightrope because it’s hard. It’s easy to pigeon hole ourselves and tightly define who we are. It doesn’t cause questions, discomfort or grey areas. Unfortunately, it’s also not biblical. It’s hard to take the Bible at its word. It’s hard to recognize that the Bible gives us freedom to do more than historically the church has allowed, but it’s equally difficult to then be disciplined and impose responsibility on ourselves for the sake of others and the gospel. It’s easy to restrict because it takes away our personal responsibility to be disciplined.
Great thoughts!
I always say that if you’re going to steal…er…uh…borrow an analogy borrow from the best (John 4, anyone?).
Nicely said, Art.
Art,
Great analogy. To carry it a step further, we are not called to give thirsty people the water we have bottled. We are called to lead them to the stream and let them drink from it.
Alan makes a great point about the difference between water that flows within its banks and water that simply floods everything. God has established the banks, and there are places where they are rough and rocky. We come along and try to alter the banks so they are more comfortable for us, but all we end up doing is making a mess.
Christians are like drunks on horseback. We fall off one side of the horse only to get back on a fall off the other side. We sin to the right and left.
“You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you.” Deuteronomy 4:2
We have a difficult job indeed!
Thanks.
oops,
and fall off
Thanks, Matt, for saying we are all like drunks. I didn’t even raise the moderationist issue! ;)
Brother Art,
I want to throw in my hat.
Ummm.
My hat has not come back to me so I guess it is safe to enter;>)
Seriously, I agree with you that we need parameters. I will say that the latest coming from our Chair of the ExCom does concern me. I see his perspective seriously invading the autonomy of the local church with his directives.
However, I believe the issues you and I may disagree with on PPL are the parameters have been moved. IMO, I see the same arguments given by the Pentecostals as are being given now. It really is not cessassionist vs. continualist as much as it is Pentecostal Doctrine. Dr. Craig Keener has very succintly clarified in his book “Gift Giver”, Third Wave theology was an add on to the Charismatic movement which was an add on to the Pentecostal movement from the early 1900′s.
While I think we all agree about the need for parameters, my bigest concern is the parameters were already establised. PPL is just a new version of Pentecostalism. I do not see this as placing my water in a bottle and giving it out to only those that agree to drink my water. I see it as not shoring up the levy’s which will cause the levy to break when the storms of this life come, thus flooding the SBC valley.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Welcome back. Thanks for the thoughts.
I think you have correctly evaluated the differences between us.
As far as the water bottle goes, that was more directed toward the idea that we must be static in our traditions (worship style, etc.) and let the world come to us.
Tim,
I would respectfully disagree with your statements, “It really is not cessassionist vs. continualist as much as it is Pentecostal Doctrine” and, “PPL is just a new version of Pentecostalism.” Pentacostalism has to do with believing in a second blessing of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit AFTER conversion with speaking in tongues as the sign. You can have a rock solid baptist soteriology and still believe that speaking in tongues are a gift of the Holy Spirit and not be a Pentecostal. As a matter of fact, Pentecostals would and have tell me that I am wrong and they would not allow me to be involved in missions or lead in their churches. A Baptist Continualist is a different thing than a Pentecostal. I should know.
Many continualists who believe that speaking in tongues are for today would not consider themselves Pentecostals or be comfortable in a Pentecostal church or in that theology. A Baptist continualist is someone who believes that you receive ALL of the Holy Spirit at salvation, there are no tiers of Christians, God still gives gifts to His children, and tongues are just one of them, albeit a minor one. That is it. There is no hidden agenda or covert Pentecostal or Charismatic theology involved. If we can truly understand what position people hold, it might help us to dialogue and understand the issues better.
As always, Tim, I appreciate your spirit and your desire to honor God and seek truth. May God bless you.
Well said Alan Cross.
As usual.
Brother Alan,
I hear what you are saying and would agree with your assessment of continualist not always being Pentecostalist in their theology. What I am saying relies on Dr. Craig Keener’s assessment of the Pentecostal, Charismatic movement. I do not know his personal position and am only referring to his statement in his book that I referenced above. Dr. Keener considers himself part of the Third Wave movement, as far as I am able to discern. He points out that the Third Wave movement, where we have found the doctrine of PPL, is a by product of Pentecostalism.
While I see your point, I again state my disagreement. While someone describes himself/herself as a continualist in their understanding of Scripture, PPL comes from Pentecostal doctrine. Also, PPL as Dr. Keener points out is the way some Pentecostal/Charismatics found acceptance in mainstream Evangelicism.
Blessings,
Tim
PS Brother Wade, according to Brother Ben’s report you Trustees ended your meeting by singing Kumbahya:>) Seriously I pray you had a great Trustee meeting in St. Louis.
Tim,
Because the Pentacostals participate in glossolalia, does not mean it “comes from them.”
The logical process you are employing would force us to say that Baptism by Immersion “comes from” Pentacostals since they hold that doctrine.
Art and All,
Alan Cross said it well and David Rogers has a Great Post on His Blog.
God didn’t Bless me with the Gift of PPL.
When I became Born Again, I started a new Journey in my Life, being led by the Holy Spirit and God’s Word (Bible). I read a lot of Books written by Godly Men. They are men and they have opinions just like the rest of us. It is God’s Word (Bibles) Various Versions and being led by the Holy Spirit that I Truly Trust. The Holy Spirit resides Within You and will guide and direct your thoughts and directions. We have some very Gifted Brothers and Sisters on these Blogs and we need to listen/read and be guided by the Holy Spirit and some times take thing with a PINCH of SALT. Paul tells us to test all things. What I’m really saying is I have had very few MENTORS in my life other than Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. I will never be perfect and I sin all the time, but I’m perfect thru Our Lord in God’s Eye’s.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Brother Art,
While I see your point, I disagree with the assessment. 1901 brought about the Pentecostal movement as the Christian world knows it. I am not merely saying that estatic utterances began in 1901, but I am saying before 1901 there is nothing in history relating to PPL. PPL was a result of the Third Wave movement. I am involved in a Bible Study of Dr. Robertson McQuilkin’s “Life in the Spirit”. He states that the Pentecostal broke out in the mainstream denominations and we know it as the charismatic movement. His point is that while some have emphasized the Holy Spirit to excess, others have shut it down completely. His argument is for us not to shut it out completely, but to embrace it with the understanding that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity. I agree completely. However, we find the excess of the Pentecostal movement (mainly, Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in Tongues–estatic utterances)has not been dealt with in a Biblical manner, but renamed as PPL. This is the doctrinal excess to which I refer.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Do we reject justification by faith because Luther also taught a sacramental view of baptism? Just because we reject the Pentecostal view of Spirit Baptism, does that mean that everything about them is wrong? Can we not discern truth from error and keep the meat but spit out the bones? If this is not possible, we would all be Lutherans, or worse yet, still Catholic, because our Baptist forefathers took the truth of Justification by Faith and refined what baptism and being part of a believer’s church meant. Can’t we do the same thing with tongues and the gifts of the Spirit?
Tim,
Of course, your argument is dependant on a very specific reading of Scripture – one that denies ecstatic utterance totally. I don’t share that presupposition as you pointed out in your first comment.
Also, I don’t think anyone can successfully argue that PPL is synonymous with “the second blessing” or a theology that calls for a “baptism of the HS” seperate from salvation.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rex,
I am really sorry, but I have a long standing rule about hijacking my comment thread with another topic. Minor diversions are sometimes tolerated, but what you wrote was worthy of its own post on your own blog. If you let me know you posted it, I will xome engage it.
Thanks,
art
Art,
Excellent post. I’ve often thought this way personally. My fellowship is as a kindred spirit with anyone who names Jesus as Lord.
My family banner [Baptist] is marked with the normal necessary truths to be thought of as historically baptist. Those include things like the Person/Work of Christ, nature of scripture, autonomy of local fellowships, priesthood of the believer, and baptism of believers only and by immersion only.
My final flag [SBC] has focused on Priesthood of the believer, local church autonomy, and a great mission program.
Then I’m on my own to investigate nuances of all these and other truths. It’s that investigative right/ responsibility that I’m afraid I see narrowing.
I’m presently investigating the gifts of the Spirit [including PPL] and whether they are continuing/ceased and if continuing, how they relate to Body life, but that doesn’t make me Pentecostal. I’m looking at women in ministry in the text of scripture, but that doesn’t make me liberal. I’m looking at the Premillennial position I’ve held to in the past but am now questioning as I look at only the text of scripture, but that doesn’t make me a heretic.
I think those all just prove I’m a Baptist/Southern Baptist that takes study seriously. It’s worked for me and I really don’t want to live in fear that if I associate with someone with a different view than mine that somehow I’ll get infected. I’d rather live enjoying the differences, winning people to Jesus and seeing them grow up. But that’s just me. :)
Paul B.
Brother Alan,
Your point is taken, but please understand my point. That happened in 1517. The Pentecostal Movement began in 1901, PPL is a doctrine less than 50 years old. My point is this doctrine has not been discussed by our church fathers. While I am not one that holds tradition over Scripture, I still view scripture with a history book. Of all of the early church fathers that are much more intelligent than I, it seems to me someone would have come across this doctrine before 1970.
Brother Art,
Help me understand how you arrive at my argument being specific to one that denies estatic utterances. I have pointed to two people that would be considered Theologians in their own right. One is a retired Seminary President, the other is currently a Seminary Prof. whose PhD. came from Duke Divinity School. I have used their arguments for estatic utterances to prove PPL is another form of that doctrine.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You have a very small, and relatively dismissive view on the continualist position, especially in relation to PPL, in my opinion. Historically, you cannot isolate PPL to 1970. And, even if you did, how many Baptists were still segregationists and supported that view with Scripture in 1970? They changed. It is possible to learn and come to new understandings. A Pre-Trib view of the Rapture was not widely held until the 1830′s when a little girl in England had a dream/vision. She was part of the Irvingites and that view ended up getting spread through the Plymouth Bretheren and Dispensationalism was born. Dispensationalism is historically, a relatively new position. Perhaps we should eliminate all the Dispensationalists. Or do you draw the line at 1900? Dispensationalism has a MUCH greater effect on someone’s Christian life and ministry than Baptists who believe in the continuation of the Gifts of the Spirit (including PPL). Again, where do you draw the line?
I don’t want to get in a position where I am advocating Tongues or trying to convince anyone. I really don’t care if you believe in it or not, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I don’t care if my church embraces it, or any other church for that matter. The advocacy of tongues IS NOT a hill on which I would die. I honestly don’t even care to have the conversation with most.
However, to eliminate people who do believe in it based on guilt by association (PPL = Pentecostalism), tradition (our Baptist fathers did not advocate it), fear (give and inch and we’ll all become charismatic) is wrong, in my opinion. Those who believe in PPL have a STRONG biblical position in my opinion. It surely enters the realm of the Calvinism/Arminianism or the Pre/Post/A – Millenial discussion that we, as Baptists, seem to have room for.
My point is that the essential Biblical parameters of cooperation that Art is talking about, should be there, but we should make sure that we don’t just keep creating our own parameters based on particular interpretations on non-essentials. We will end up pre-packaging our version of Jesus into small bottles instead of leading people to a mighty rushing river of life.
Tim,
I was referencing the statement, “I am not merely saying that estatic utterances began in 1901, but I am saying before 1901 there is nothing in history relating to PPL. PPL was a result of the Third Wave movement.”
That statement said to me that PPL is not Biblical or in any way included in the New Testament, since it started in 1901 and is a result of the Third Wave movement, rather than the advent of the Holy Spirit at Penetcost.
I thought that you were saying that PPL is not contained in the Bible at all with that statement. Is that incorrect?
***By the way, I noticed that I misspelled PentEcostal [PentAcostal] in my previous comment. I hate misspelling. My apologies.
Brother Art,
You say we need to define orthodoxy. That is a tall order. Many rely upon the ancient creeds for orthodoxy, but none of them speak to any extent on the person and work of Christ, the nature of original sin, or the holiness of God. Most of the historical confessions of faith go in the other direction and define orthodoxy very narrowly. There are times when the BFM2K frustrates me because it tends to be a bit sloppy in places, but I have come to realize that it is pretty much what is needed.
I thought it was interesting that you noted laziness on both sides of people’s responses. Getting out there and balancing on the tight rope is indeed hard work. As I was reading your post I expected to see the Stetzer illustration of holding orthodoxy (Jude 3) in one hand while holding contextualization (Paul’s different treatments of the gospel in Acts) in the other. Talking about swinging with the pendulum; the tendency of most of us is to swing it through one side of the grandfather clock because the other joe just knocked a hole in the opposite side.
Great post and thoughtful comments. This one of the few posts where I enjoyed reading all of the comments nearly as much as the actual post.
Brother Art,
I forgot to include the one thought that prompted me to comment in the first place. I think the biggest problem with this whole PPL issue is fear. Many fear that PPL is just the beginning of charis-mania in the SBC. Many think “Don’t let the camel get his nose under the tent.” I don’t think that will ever be an issue. It all goes back to the very thing Wade and others have been saying all along about the Baptist Faith and Message adequately dealing with the issue. Many talk about the BFM2K in general terms, but few ever cite it. I wonder how many have ever read it. Look at article 2C on the doctrine of God the Holy Spirit. About three sentences down it reads “At the moment of regeneration [the Holy Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.” There is more in this article dealing with the issue of second blessing and and tongues, but this one sentence silences that notion sufficiently. Any one who does have private prayer language and can in good conscience agree to article 2C would logically not hold to second blessing or tongues. I may be a bit naive but that is the way it should work, if the reader understands English and is being honest. So the BFM2K does the job nicely. Although I do not see, agree with, or practice PPL, I do not see it falling outside the bounds of being distinctively Baptist. PPL and tongues/second blessing may come out of the same recent tradition, but that does not make PPL unbiblical just because the other is. Just because cheese doesn’t work well to fry an egg in, doesn’t mean you reject butter also, simply because they both come from a cow. I know I am lumping tongues with second blessing, but that is usually how it is presented in the neo-penticostal movement. You always receive the one because of the other.
Parameters, you say? We have a pretty good one in the BFM2K. Now we just need to read it, study it, and apply it.
Brother Art,
First, sorry it took so long to get back with you. I had to check on our old house and am also officiating a wedding ceremony this evening so I had to do the rehearsal, thus the length of time in responding. Also, if you hate mis-spelling I am sure my comments drive you crazy sometimes.:>) That is a notorious error of mine.
First, I would say I cannot see Biblical proof for PPL. I am not saying that others do not look at the Scriptures, (Romans 8, & 1 Corinthians 14) and derive from them a PPL. What I am saying, and basing it on the thinking of Craig Keener, PPL is another way of saying the Gift of Tongues of the Pentecostal movement from 1901. My assessment comes from looking into early Church Fathers writings (not that I am an avid reader of the early Church Fathers, again I am relying on others far more intelligent than I) and throughout the rest of Christendome. PPL cannot be found in historical theological debate. Estatic utterances can be found but not PPL. If we believe in a closed canon, we cannot believe in new Biblical doctrine that has not been discussed within the past 2000 years regardless of the advances of technology, or how much more intelligent we may become. For example, if they were to find the third and even fourth letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church in one of their digs, it could not be added to our Bibles as Scripture. I do not care if you convinced me 100% it was Paul’s writing, it would not be Scripture. Thus, the PPL I do not see as Biblical. Estatic Utterances, Yes, I believe in a Biblical Gift given by the Holy Spirit which is known as tongues. What I have seen as estatic utterances today is not what the Bible terms the Gift of Tongues.
Blessings,
Tim
Wayne,
Salient and insightful comments – thanks.
Tim,
I understand what you are saying. The lack of recorded history of this theology does raise the question of church tradition.
A few thoughts about that:
1) Are you counting a Biblical reading inclusive of PPL/ecstatic utterance as part of your historical evaluation? To what degree are the Scriptures themselves used to inform the history of their own interpretation?
2) That there has been no controversy debated within the early church fathers means that it was not controversial. It doesn’t meant it didn’t exist. Ecstatic utterance (either privately or with an interpreter) may have been routinely practiced, but not recorded. Absence of evidence regarding the early church fathers and ecstatic utterance is not the same as evidence of absence. I am not arguing that Clement and Origen spoke in tongues, but that we can not know one way or the other and their silence on the subject is merely that. It is, therefore, an ill fit as foundation for exclusion.
3. The canon most certainly is closed. I am afraid that the argument for a closed canon can be used both ways. It is just as easily used by continualists to say that an appeal to church tradition is pursuit for authority beyond the Scripture and indicts your argument.
4. What about the Josiah principle? If the Word of God, long ignored, now read carefully opens our eyes to that which is long past forgotten, what then?
Now this is an argument for PPL to be made. I, myself, argue it on principle, as I do not participate in glossolalia.
5. What of reports of all manner of ecstatic behaviors during the 1700′s, 1800′s and so on during the camp meetings of the great awakenings?
I bring this up just as a side note to your comment, but just having lived a few miles away from the Red River Meeting House for about a decade. This was the birthplace of the Second Great Awakening and home to many “charismatic” experiences in its day. It is a very interesting place, I must say.
Again, this is just a side thought and is in response to your dating citations, not the heart of my thoughts. I just remembered some of the history of that place and thought I would throw it in.
This is long, but it might answer some questions:
Art,
“If the Word of God, long ignored, now read carefully opens our eyes to that which is long past forgotten, what then?”
Great prose! Sounds like something from Lord of the Rings!
Tim,
I can’t believe that a Baptist is making arguments on the meaning of Scripture from the assumed silence of church history! What has the world come to? ;) Seriously, I appreciate your heart and always enjoy our dialogue. You’re my favorite cessationist to debate because you are always respectful!
I’ve seen this list before, but Tim Cook reproduced it on Wade’s blog a while back. Actually, the list of known references to Tongues, a heavenly language, prayer language, or whatever you want to call it is quite a bit longer. Here it is:
150 AD – Justin Martyr refers to tongues-speaking as practiced in his day in his Dialogue with Trypho, “If you want proof that the Spirit of God who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.”
before 200 AD – Iranaeus in his treatise “Against Heresies” speaks of those “who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages.”[1]
circa 200 AD – Tertullian referred to the “interpretation of tongues” as a “sign”, examples of which could be produced in his day “without any difficulty”.[2]
circa 350 AD – Ambrose, in his work “Of the Holy Spirit,” mentions the “gift of tongues” as being given in his day by “the Father”.[3]
circa 390 AD – Augustine of Hippo, in an exposition on Psalm 32, discusses a phenomenon contemporary to his time of those who “sing in jubilation”, singing the praises of God not in their own language, but in a manner that “may not be confined by the limits of syllables” [4].
1100s – Hildegard of Bingen spoke and sang in tongues. Her spiritual songs were referred to by contemporaries as “concerts in the Spirit.”
1300s – The Moravians are referred to by detractors as having spoken in tongues. John Roche, a contemporary critic, claimed that the Moravians “commonly broke into some disconnected Jargon, which they often passed upon the vulgar, ‘as the exuberant and resistless Evacuations of the Spirit’” [5].
1500s – The French Prophets: The Camisards also spoke sometimes in languages that were unknown: “Several persons of both Sexes,” James Du Bois of Montpellier recalled, “I have heard in their Extasies pronounce certain words, which seem’d to the Standers-by, to be some Foreign Language.” These utterances were sometimes accompanied by the gift of interpretation exercised, in Du Bois’ experience, by the same person who had spoken in tongues. [6]
1600s – Early Quakers, such as Edward Burrough, make mention of tongues speaking in their meetings: “We spoke with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance, and His Spirit led us” [7].
1800s – Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church. Edward Irving, a minister in the Church of Scotland, writes of a woman who would “speak at great length, and with superhuman strength, in an unknown tongue, to the great astonishment of all who heard, and to her own great edification and enjoyment in God” [8]. Irving further stated that “tongues are a great instrument for personal edification, however mysterious it may seem to us.”
Early Pentecostalism – Earliest Pentecostals believed that their speaking in tongues really was
xenoglossia[9].
But, I really don’t put my faith in that. I put my faith in God’s Word. The clear reading of the text, along with an understanding of the context leads me to believe that God gifted the Corinthians and others in the early church with an ability to pray with or in the Spirit, which 1 Cor. 14 clearly denotes as a prayer language (1 Cor. 14:14-15; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20).
I don’t know why this is so difficult for people to accept, unless it is because of an anti-supernatural bias that has been passed on from The Enlightenment, Modernism, and Scottish Common Sense Realism. The idea that Tongues cannot be real because I’ve never seen it is a dangerous view to have. God’s Word must me our guide, not our experience. We’re doing what we accuse the Charismatics of.
For those who say that the modern experience of tongues is not what they see in the Bible, I must take issue. How do you know? We could just as easily say that the modern experience of faith is not what we see in the Bible unless we sell all we have and give it to the poor, or unless we gouge out our eye if it causes us to sin. We must have a consistent hermenuetic.
Let me ask just one question: Do you use the same hermenuetic with tongues that you use with women in ministry? I agree with the SBC hermenuetic on women in ministry because it employs a clear reading of the text and it ascribes to the Biblical context. I do the same thing with the tongues passages and I am considered out of the mainstream. Honestly, it is hard for me to think that our cessationists friends are not picking and choosing the doctrines that they enjoy and the ones that they want to scuttle based on preconceived ideas.
Just some thoughts.
Brother Alan,
I always like debating with you because you are so compassionate in your arguments as well as being passionate about your beliefs. Your history lesson is very insightful and I will say that I missed it on Brother Wade’s blog. Thanks for the insight.
Having said that allow me to address a couple of items that I believe points to assumptions that I feel is being overlooked in my argument. First, your statement; “Actually, the list of known references to Tongues, a heavenly language, prayer language, or whatever you want to call it is quite a bit longer.” This is the area that I say you cannot place PPL together with estatic utterances. The references you point to in history does not at any place speak about PPL. This is my point. PPL is an added doctrine to be used synomously with estatic utterances by Third Wave doctrine. This is my whole point. PPL is a later doctrine that came to us within the past 50 years. It is not a separate doctrine, it is just renamed in order to make the Pentecostal doctrine of tongues more palatable for mainstream Evangelicism.
Second, you refer to me as your favorite cessationist. I really am glad to know that I am someone’s favorite something.:>) I do not consider myself a cessationist. A cessationist is one that says God cannot do it again because the certain gifts have no further use. I am one that says God can do it again, but what has been pointed to as these gifts is not what the Scripture refers to. Therefore, I am one of those things that Brother Bart Barber spoke about in a previous post. I know that by this statement I now fall into the area that you described where you take issue. But, that is where I am.
I do try to have a consistent hermenuetic, thus I must use Scripture to filter everything. I also have other disciplines that I use in order to maintain balance. Scholarship, History, Science, all of these disciplines must be used as we study Scripture, but Scripture is the final filter.
Also, the passages of Scripture you refer me to deals with public worship. The Corinthian passage, as you know, was Paul’s response to the Corinthians abuses in worship. Also the other passages you reference, to me, does not expressly mean that praying in the Holy Spirit is necessarily a PPL.
Brother Art,
I must say your Josiah principle has given me some thought. However, I must say Josiah brought back the Word of God. Before him the Word of God was not even mentioned. It was a revival of God’s Word, not a new principle. That is just how I see it. Also your references to the camp meetings of the great awakenings were phenominal. I believe you are referring to the “slaying of the Spirit” when people would fall while the preachers were preaching. That does cause concern in the debate, however, I believe it will take me more research to be able to properly respond.
I must go now, but will respond. I have a wedding to do at 6pm and it is no2 4:52. My wife is in the next room yelling GET READY!.
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks for dealing with my arguments, Tim. The Bible describes what we now call “PPL” as,
1. praying in/with the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:14,15 – PRIVATE; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20)
2. speaking in different kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10,28)
3. speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30)
4. speaking in the tongues of men and of angels (1 Cor. 13:1)
5. speaking in a tongue not to men, but to God (1 Cor. 14:2)
6. uttering mysteries with your spirit (1 Cor. 14:2)
7. praying in a tongue (1 Cor. 14:14)
8. singing with your spirit (1 Cor. 14:15 – a possibility here is that the singing in tongues would be unintelligible – this might be related to the “spiritual songs” in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, although this seems unlikely to me)
9. praising God with your spirit (1 Cor. 13:16-17 – this is such that no one else can understand what you are saying).
Private Prayer Language (PPL) is not mentioned in Scripture as a name of the phenomenom. That is actually something that I think Baptists made up, because Pentecostals call the experience praying in tongues or praying in the Spirit. So, if the problem is with the term, o.k. What do you think the Bible is talking about when it gives 9 descriptions of tongues/prayer language?
Also, the Bible never says “Rapture,” or “Trinity,” but we believe in those doctrines. I appreciate your heart and your desire to be convinced by the Scripture, Tim, but it seems that you have your perspective and you will not be moved. That is fine. I afford you that and respect you greatly.
But, would you still say that there is not room in SBC leadership or missions for someone who holds my perspective? That is the issue and there lies the danger.
Art,
Took your advice and put my comment on my blog.
Thanks,
Rex Ray
Brother Alan,
First, sorry for the lateness of getting back to you. I had a wedding at 6pm and came home out of energy completely. Sunday was a busy day as we went over to a church member’s house for lunch. When we got home I only had an hour to rest before I had to be at a meeting.
I believe we will have to agree to disagree where Scripture concerns PPL. As for your last question I would like to answer it with a caveat. My answer in no way is a personal slam on anyone because of a disagreement. I am merely stating my heart.
No. I could not in good conscious cast a ballot for anyone that holds your perspective to be in SBC leadership or missions. The reason is this is not what I understand the SBC as a whole believes. Allow me to define your perspective. One with your perspective not only believes the Bible allows for this doctrine, but one would also practice these doctrines and teach them. If one holds to this perspective but does not practice it or advocate the teaching of these doctrines, I could cast my ballot for such a one. However, I would be very cautious of doing this. The reason would be that if one holds to this perspective but agrees not to practice it or teach it, that would seem to me a disunity of conscience. I certainly could never agree to not advocate something I believed Scripture taught just to have a position in the SBC.
I love you Brother, but that is who I am.
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks, Tim. I came back to check and see if you had responded. I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness. While you might eliminate me from service because of my perspective, I consider you a brother and I appreciate your heart for the Lord and for truth. I am not an advocate of speaking in tongues or any charismatic practices. Our church does not emphasize these things, although our leadership is unanimous in having a continualist perspective. We believe the Scriptures teach this and we affirm it in faith, but we leave the practice up to the Lord. In other words, we do not elevate this doctrine beyond anything else. From our faith and practice, you would not see any difference from other Southern Baptist churches.
It seems as though presuppositions are dominating this debate. Either you have convulted arguments like the one that Dr. Yarnell wrote that was posted on Brad Reynolds’ blog, or you have dismissal of Scripture and allusions to fear of charismatic takeover. While we cannot do theology in a vaccum, we need to make sure that we do not engage in reactionary theology because of the abuses of others.
I’ve known where you stand and I am not surprised by your position. I guess that the coming months and next couple of years in the SBC will mark out where our convention stands. This is not a battle I am interested in fighting, but it is something that I believe Scripture teaches. It is the cessationists that are pushing an exclusionary position, which is sad to me.
Again, thanks for the dialogue.
Tim,
I really appreciate your sensitivity toward a divided mind. That is something that must be considered in a great many areas of our leadership.
I don’t think there is an issue beyond the first tier where our Convention believes in one thing “as a whole.” Even on the major issues, we are nuanced greatly and each believe according to our own understanding. Priesthood of the believer, you know?
If you mean to say that the majority does or does not believe something about a “non-essential,” and that majority belief is the governing status on who gets sent or who serves, then we are on a slippery slope that will end in a place where the pop theology of the day will rule the doctrines of the Southern Baptist Convention. As much as we like to think of ourselves as the standard bearers for the evangelical world, we are not as influential as we are influenced.
Brother Art & Alan,
I have posted the same comment three different times. I have not give up this debate, but I must admit my brain is spent trying to remember the GREAT and WONDERFUL points I made. Each time I logged in it locked up, and then lost the entire comment.
Sorry,I am not giving in, but I am spent trying to remember the arguments. Lets just end it with I love you both as the Brothers in Christ that you are.
Blessings,
Tim