On my way to the BGCO this morning, I got a tip that the SBTexan had an article written by Tammi Reed Ledbetter with a couple of interesting quotes concerning the PPL issue.
Ken Hemphill, past president of Southwestern Seminary (and the man whose name is on my diploma), has said that PPL is a legitimate interpretation of 1 Cor 14.
Leo Garrett, longtime Professor of Theology at SWBTS, has said that Baptists disagree on the issue and, therefore, should not address it in our confessional statement. I agree completely.
Read it all for yourself:
Profs, former president respond on tongues
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Bob Cleveland
on Nov 14th, 2006
@ 10:01 am:
Excellent article: thanks for the heads-up.
One thing I’ve noticed is that those to whom God has given the gift never seem to try to disprove it. Only those who don’t have it.
And I also cannot imagine that however many people profess that gift are all 100% wrong. That is unfathomable, and among them I personally know many who were not seeking it when it was first manifested in them. I’m in that list, myself.
Why they call it a PPL I do not know. Paul said it was OK publicly, if there were 2 or 3 and interpretations were given. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE seems to ignore THAT!
Further, he thanked God for his gift of tongues .. actually he thanked God that He SPOKE in tongues … not just for “having the gift” … and unless he was a hypocrite, he used it in a manner consistent with his teachings.
Guess the SBC “powers” don’t want any Pauls around today.
Alan Cross
on Nov 14th, 2006
@ 8:33 pm:
Interesting that Schatzmann and Garrett seem to sidestep the issue. I wonder if they are intimidated by the present climate and cannot even discuss what they feel the Bible actually says. I really respect Hemphill for coming out and saying what he thinks the Bible says.
It’s a sad day in the SBC when we are too afraid to speak to our Biblical convictions on an issue because we are afraid of repercusions. Now THAT attitude is not a Baptist distinctive, is it?