Baptists and tongues

mc, I don't have the time to write a polemic on tongues (have to get to work). I am a cessationist by nature but I also will not put God in a box and say that He can't do something. Still, rules surrounding tongues are specific. There must be an interpreter. No more than two or three people. Everything decently and in order. If these rules were followed the frequency of what passes for modern day tongues will (I dare say) virtually cease.

 

I have had an evolution if you like of Denominations!

I grew up in a Salvation Army Church, as a young adult I joined an AOG type church for 6 years, then I left that for the Seventh Day Baptist Church where I remain still.

My experience was that I felt that alot of the tounge speaking was false and more often than not, no interpretation was given. Gibberish is a word used that is too often true. I found that people were so keen to have proof of God if you like that they would often look for any experiential thing that was going around to make their faith seem real. I ended my association with the Pentecostal church when I became convinced that they had sold out to the Prosperity Gospel Movement

Having said that though I do not hold to Cessationism either on my reasoning of Scripture. Because some groups have abused Tounges does not mean all are false, God is Soverign and if He wishes people to pray in Tounges, then they ought too.

I feel that sometimes some Baptists can take Cessationism as a default position based on their dislike of Pentecostals rather than their theological understanding. Conversley somtimes some Pentecostals look to their experience rather than the word for their theological understanding.

 

You're correct. That can happen. I was raised Catholic and then came to faith in Christ in 1979. I began attending a Pentecostal church in New Jersey. I saw the inconsistency of tongues. I tried to "get into it" but never could. My aversion to tongues comes from biblical teaching and first-hand experience.

Okay...off to work.

 

Let me point out, that not all aversion to touges comes from dislike rather than theological understanding, yet that has been my experience in some cases!

 

This begs the question: What would a modern day Biblical usage of tongues look like?

I was listening to an archived episode of the Albert Mohler Radio show last night on the web, and Dr. Mohler made the point that tongues were for a sign of revelation of God during the apostolic age...but that now that we have Scripture, we no longer have any use for tongues...and that this is important to the doctrine of sola scriptura. He made the case from a cessationist POV. Is this what all cessationists believe, and what do you think about this?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Here is a link to Dr. Mohler's radio program that I mentioned above.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't have any problem at all with speaking in tounges. God moves as He moves and noone can argue with that. If God wants some SBC missionarys to speak in tounges, then glory be to God. I have a problem with the Pentecostal error in teaching that you have to speak in tounges as evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit. That's saying that if you don't speak in tounges you are not saved!

 

Dustin,

What did you think about Dr. Mohler's cessationist argument mentioned above?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I didn't listen to it all. But I think the cessationist view is correct.

 

W3 c0mput3r g33kz 5p3ak 1n t0ngu35, ju5t n0t ht3 k1nd ht3 B1bl3 talkz ab0ut.

 

Consider this verse

1 Cor. 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."

if this is true why is it supposably done only around christians? John Macarthur did a great study on this and says it is NOT for today.

 

Some of you may be familiar with James Robison, the former evangelist with HQ in Texas. After many years of preaching and going nowhere, he claims to have been delivered of a demon and really experienced the "born-again" experience. Although SBC, he began identifying with any of the various faith groups. He said that although he has never been able to speak in tongues, his wife received the gift, being enabled to speak in perfect Castilian Spanish. James long ago gave up the evangelism route for feeding the poor in Africa, and a daytime "talk" TV program.

 

I believe the issue in the SBC is not speaking in tongues in a church service, but missionaries having a private prayer language in tongues. Your "Speaking in Tongues" article does not address the SBC issue. Not surprisingly, the article does not address the scriptures that directly apply to the issue.

I Cor. 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all.

I Cor. 14:14&15 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

Note that Paul said in verse 18 that he prays in his "private pray language" more than all others.

Although verses 14&15 are addressing praying in a church service, it describes the person's spiritual benefit of praying in tongues, i.e. when he prays in tongues, his spirit prays.

Paul prays in tongues and also in understanding.

Poor Paul, he would not qualify to be a SBC missionary.

 

I believe the issue in the SBC is not speaking in tongues in a church service, but missionaries having a private prayer language in tongues. Your "Speaking in Tongues" article does not address the SBC issue. Not surprisingly, the article does not address the scriptures that directly apply to the issue.

I Cor. 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all.

I Cor. 14:14&15 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

Note that Paul said in verse 18 that he prays in his "private pray language" more than all others.

Although verses 14&15 are addressing praying in a church service, it describes the person's spiritual benefit of praying in tongues, i.e. when he prays in tongues, his spirit prays.

Paul prays in tongues and also in understanding.

Poor Paul, he would not qualify to be a SBC missionary.

 

The passage says nothing about a "private prayer language." Verse 12 says that all spiritual gifts are to be for the edifying of the church. He then describes speaking, praying, and singing. He talks about interpreting (translating) the language used. He then talks about someone giving an "amen," or approving of what has been said. None of this is private, but in the context of the assembly.

Paul prayed in tongues before the completion of the canon of Scripture, so I assume the reasoning of teh SBC would not apply to him.

 

Calvibaptist writes:
"The passage says nothing about a "private prayer language."

It does speak about Paul's private prayer language. Read verses 18&19 together. Verse 18 says Paul speaks in tongues more than you all. And then verse 19 says "BUT IN A CHURCH SERVICE, Paul would rather speak five intelligible words...."

If he doesn't speak in tongues in a church service, then where does he "speak in tongues more than you all"?

Obviously, Paul speaks in tongues in his private prayers, i.e. "Private Prayer Language".

 

No such thing as a "private Prayer language"

all gifts were given for the EDIFICATION of the church. no such thing as a private gift!
no where can you find anyone having a private prayer language. not even Paul