Featured Do Baptists Allow for 'Speaking in Tongues?"

That's funny right there.

I always assumed you could trace modern tongue talking to Azusa Street and some of the snake handling revivalist movements in Appalachia at the turn of the 20th century. But it apparently pops up off and on.

While reading The Puritan Hope, I discovered that it appeared in the meetings conducted by Edward Irving who gets at least some credit for giving Premillennial Dispensationalism a jump-start in the 1830's in the Scotland, England and Ireland. I don't know if his successors, the Plymouth Brethren, were ever known to practice it, but Edward Irving defended the sign gifts as early as the 1830s.

http://www.revival-library.org/pensketches/e_pentecostals/irvingreport.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDonald_(visionary)

 

Whether or not anyone speaks in tongues today in a church, they have to remember one thing; it's laid out clearly in scripture that it is only done during a church service if there is an interpret. Otherwise they are to remain silent.

The "tongues' used at Pentecost were NOT unknown tongues. They were the known languages of that day, given to the disciples by God for the purpose of everyone being able to hear the gospel in their own language.

Read it for yourself how people commented on the fact that they could hear and understand the words being spoken IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. Several different known languages were spoken by the disciples at Pentecost, and everyone heard and understood the gospel being spoken in their own language. It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with anyone speaking gibberish that no one but God could understand.

I was at a Pentecostal church with a friend and regretted going with her when everyone started speaking gibberish with NO one interpreting--totally against what scripture says about having an interpreter. There were also people climbing over pews ans lying on the floor.

One woman, not wanting to be the only one (except for me) not "speaking in tongues", kept repeating something that sounded like "ah ditty" over and over.

I kept looking at the door and wanted to make my escape, and I would have if I hadn't ridden there with my friend.

 

I don't recall reading that Tertullian practiced tongues. They did claim that prophesy was a valid gift of the spirit particularly through Montanus (the founder of Montanism) and two women Prisca and Maximilla. And it appears that others in the movement may have "prophesied" too. You may know of sources that say they spoke in tongues but I have never seen it. What I have read seems to imply that the main thrust of the Montanism prophesies was the cetainty of the immenenat 2nd coming complete with the location of the New Jerusalem.

Tertullian is a very interesting figure in Christian history. Even if he was sucked in by what was declared a heretical movement, he was a staunch defender of the faith against other recognized heresies, especially the Gnostics. He is given credit as the first Christian latin writer to use the term Trinity in reference to the Godhead, and tradition says he left Montanism later in life and was reconciled to the Church. Since the RCC begrudgingly tips their hat to Tertullian the bit about him being reconciled to the Roman Church may be suspect, since there was a Tertullianist church still in existance in Augustine's time. Yet he was read and appreciate by subsequent early church fathers so perhaps he was.

Regardless, I have enjoyed reading his works in the past and still pick them up and turn a few pages on occasion.

 

This policy was developed by the IMB Trustees and forced on the IMB organization. However, at that time, Jerry Rankin was the IMB president (since retired). He indicated that he had a Private Prayer Language when he prayed in pirvate. Jerry Rankin was a well respected Baptist.

 

This post and question has nothing really to respond to since tongues is not defined. It is weak to act as if everyone knows or even agrees to what biblical tongues are or how that is expressed.

 

Apparently he has run out of inane questions with no attempt at spelling or grammar that are only intended to stir up controversy.

 

How many times do you feel you need to start a thread on this?

 

How many times do you feel you need to start a thread on this?

 

I don't know about any Profs, but there probably were some. However, I remember that a Trustee at SWTS spoke in chapel about his tongues experience which created quite a stir at SWTS.

 

I'm guessing you're referring to the incident at SWBTS (Southwestern), not STBS (Southern):

http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23882

http://www.swbts.edu/swnews/archives/swnwi2007_65_2/news/trustees.cfm

 

That was at Southwestern Seminary. The Seminary issued a policy statement that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."

However before, during and after this statement, Southwestern employed E. Earle Ellis as Research Professor of Theology (who served at the pleasure of President Paige Patterson), who spoke in a private prayer language. It was common knowledge at Southwestern, especially among his New Testament students since it was relevant to the coursework, and was documented in the biographical sketch in the festschrift, entitled "History and Exegesis: New Testament essays in honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for his 80th Birthday" (which was written by another SWBTS professor) a couple of years before he passed away.

Of course the information about Ellis is not widely known outside the Seminary community because people assume that the public statements of the seminary actually match the practices of the seminary.

 

Yes, Southwestern.

 

I speak English.

 

Tongues are divisive. Any church, Baptist or otherwise, which allows even a flicker of that practice is asking for big trouble.

Here's why. First, unless everybody in the church buys into tongues, then people are going to take sides. You stand to lose a significant portion of your members, depending on who's in the minority. If the tongue folks can't make a lot of headway, then they'll leave and find a church which will have them. Same for the non-tongues folks. If they can't stamp out the practice, they'll leave. Either way, you risk gutting your church. Co-existence is highly improbable.

Second, tongues-speaking can produce arrogance. If I speak in tongues and you don't, guess who I think is more spiritual? I am, of course, and there's something spiritually deficient about you. Spiritual elitism is not good for any church. Humility is quite difficult for people who think they're more spiritual because they exercise the "gifts."

My advice: if it rears its head in your church, move quickly to deal with it.

 

Half of SBC pastors polled by Lifeway Research in 2007 agreed that "the Holy Spirit gives some people the gift of a special language to pray to God privately".

http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=25765