Featured Do Baptists Allow for 'Speaking in Tongues?"

Tom,

Years ago, there were tongues speaking folks who tried to push tongues speaking on some Baptist churches that caused divisions. This was not a good approach; when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Also, tongues speaking Christians have matured and learned that speaking in tongues is not all that important.

However, today there are quite a few Private Prayer Languange Christians in Baptist churches who accept the fact that many good Baptists do not want tongues speaking in their churches; so they speak in tongues only in their private devotions to prevent divisions.

This helps explain the 2007 Lifeway survey results listed in a previous post here.

 

I'm hesitant to condemn private prayer language, but I do think those who claim to do it should keep it to themselves.

And I draw a distinction between PPL and the other tongues-speaking.

 

Not necessarily. I've been a member of two very different churches which had members who professed the gift of tongues. Neither the tongue speakers nor the non-speakers tried to control the other. Everyone exercised self-control and we got along just fine. Tongues were a non-issue.

Arrogance is caused by the sinful attitudes of the individual person, not spiritual gifts. Anyone can be arrogant with any spiritual gift, but that's not the fault of the gift or should be used as a basis to forbid the exercise of a certain gift. If I had to choose a spiritual gift where I've personally seen the most arrogance displayed, it would be the gift of pastor/teacher... as I certainly won't declare the gift of pastor/teacher to be invalid just because I have known an enormous number of arrogant pastors who thought they were spiritually elite and looked down on others.

I'd stick with Paul's admonition not to forbid speaking in tongues. Paul laid down guidelines which put the gifts in their place and directly attacked the very human issues of pride and arrogance that often accompany any "natural" or "spiritual" giftedness in humankind.

 

"Keep it to themselves" <-- what does that mean?

Not mention it at all?

I have known about 10 people who have revealed to me that they speak in a private prayer language. None of them have lorded it over others and have been very humble, even fairly secretive about it.

 

"Second, tongues-speaking can produce arrogance."

I have seen arrogance on both sides of this issue.

Some who speak in tongues can consider themselves superior to those who don't.

On the other hand, some who reject speaking in tongues show arrogance by projecting an attitude that they have everything that God has to offer; and since they do not speak in tongues, it cannot be of God.

BTW, I have been in a number of Pentecostal churches over the years. It may surprise some on here that those who give public tongues messages are not considered more spiritual than others in the church who don't, by most people in Pentecostal churches.

 

I didn't say tongues-speaking DOES produce arrogance. I said it CAN. I don't want to paint with a broad brush.

Baptist Believer, if tongues in your church are not divisive, I'm grateful for that. I'm sure your folks work hard at making sure it doesn't divide.

And yes, "keeping it to themselves" does mean don't talk about it. In your church it may not be problem, but I'd say its the exception to the rule.

I think another legitimate concern (on my part) is that things may not stop at tongues. Those who get involved in many cases don't stop there, and buy into the whole Charismatic gifts scene. I can't see how those things can be swept under the rug--or, as somebody put it, "kept to themselves.

Obviously, if I thought those gifts were operational today, I'd be finding a church which held to the same view. Since I believe they don't, then it would be wrong for me not to oppose them if they show up in my church.

 

Tongues speaking in any church divisive or not is unscriptural and an unholy act if it is not part of sharing the gospel to those who would not otherwise understand it. It makes a mockery of worship services, places them in a state of confusion, and allows people to act like idiots in the name of the Lord.

These folks need to grow up.

 

Who is we? The use of tongues in worship services is not an infilling of the Spirit of God. It is a mockery of childish proportions. It is a disgrace and an abomination. It is a fake act and everyone knows it. As is the "Private Prayer language.

 

For some Charismatics, tongues is a test -- if you have it, you have achieved many steps up on the ladder of spiritual maturity and knowledge, unlike those below who have not. Therefore, one must seek this "gift' above all others.

This is dangerous, a distortion, and counterfeit.

I know what I'm talking about -- I have seen this firsthand.

 

Yes, this is true. As a matter of fact, it's one of the basic beliefs at the AoG - "Baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by the speaking of tongues."

I will say this - I can't with 100% certainty of mind say that these gifts no longer are used. The Lord can do as He pleases, regardless of my opinion. But I will say that I have not observed in scripture that the use of tongues was confined to a period right after the preacher is done and during the invitation. I never have seen that it was used in NT times to "prove" an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I think if tongues were to be in operation today, it would not be "glossolalia" or babling - it would be an understandable language meant to spread the glory of God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

Its hard to pin down a particular doctrine or position for Charismatics as a group because most of their churches are at least as autonomous as Baptist churches and even more diverse in matters of doctrine. So I am sure that there are some that feel that way and probably most think you are missing a blessing if you don't speak in tongues. But all the ones I know understand that tongues is the least of the spritiual gifts.

Pentecostals are much more uniformed and they pretty much universally see speaking in tongues as the legitimate sign that the believer has recieved the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The United Pentecostals take a giant leap further and say this is necessary for salvation with Acts 2:38 being one of their proof text for that and baptism in Jesus name for the remission of sins.

 

I say we need to adhere to the Gainsborough principle on these nonessentials. It's a great principle.

I believe it has the spirit of Romans 14 and St. Paul behind it.

"Free and Faithful," I say.