Baptist controversy has tongues tied(Don't ask\Don't tell?)

This time conservative Southern Baptists are in contention over a new rule approved by the International Mission Board that disqualifies future missionary candidates who admit to speaking in a charismatic "private prayer language."

Proponents say the new regulation is needed to emphasize Baptists' long-held position against charismatic practices such as praying and speaking in unknown tongues, or "glossalalia," a practice popular among Pentecostals and other groups.

The irony is that Jerry Rankin, the leader of the Richmond, Va.-based foreign mission board, has long used a charismatic prayer language in his private prayers. So, could the man who runs the worldwide organization of 5,000 missionaries be disqualified under the rule? Not at all. The new regulation is not retroactive.

The mission board already prohibits missionaries from publicly speaking in tongues, but in November added the regulation disqualifying new missionary candidates who, like Rankin, admit to having a private prayer language.

Future candidates who use a private prayer language also have a right to appeal to try to convince screening committees that their practice doesn't violate Baptist policy.

Rankin said in a press conference with Baptist editors that he's used a private prayer language for 30 years but doesn't encourage others to do it. Rankin strongly opposes publicly speaking in tongues.

One mission board trustee, the Rev. Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., has led the opposition to the new private prayer language rule and believes it may have been meant to discredit Rankin. Burleson criticized the new rule as narrow and restrictive.

"For the record, I do not have the gift of tongues," he said on his Web site. "I never have had it and I don't desire it, but I sure don't mind going to Africa and serving on a mission field with someone that prays in tongues in their prayer closet."

David Rogers, a Baptist missionary and son of the late Rev. Adrian Rogers, an icon among conservative Baptists, agreed. He said in a letter to Burleson that he doesn't use a private prayer language but works with many missionaries who do.

The Rev. Tom Hatley, chairman of the mission board, this week said trustees thought the rules were needed to address some problems with charismatic practices in Baptist missions in some parts of the world, particularly South America. He doesn't think the rules were meant to target Rankin.

"One of the reasons it hasn't come faster is that trustees knew Jerry Rankin had a private prayer language and the rule might be wrongfully perceived as trying to hurt him," said Hatley, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Rogers, Ark.

Hatley, a native of Fort Worth who grew up in Glen Rose, sent out an open letter this week to pastors urging them to study the proposals and offer their views by e-mail. He included position papers quoting the late Rev. W.A. Criswell, longtime pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, and Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, as critics of charismatic practices.

"Most pastors and theologians among Southern Baptists of recent decades and of today regard the charismatic movement as divisive, encouraging spiritual pride, and stressing minor gifts out of proportion to biblical evidence," the paper states.

Burleson has said he opposes the new rule on his widely read Web site, www.wadeburleson.com. The trustees adopted, then rescinded at Hatley's request, a motion that the Southern Baptist Convention remove Burleson as a trustee.

Central to the controversy are different interpretations of the New Testament. The Book of Acts tells of the Holy Spirit coming down on the Day of Pentecost "like a rushing mighty wind." It says cloven tongues like fire appeared over Jesus' followers and they began to speak in other tongues. Non-Christians from many nations heard the story of Christ in their own language and scores were converted to the new faith.

Southern Baptists generally have taught that the event in Acts was a one-time miracle related to building up of the early church and that the tongues mentioned were then-known languages.

But Pentecostals and many charismatic Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians and independent Christian groups say they experience their own New Testament-style Pentecost today. They believe the Holy Spirit comes over them, enabling them to speak a spiritual language and drawing them closer to God.

Where in the bible does it say that the gifts were only for that generation? It doesn't. My bible says that these signs shall follow them that believe. See: Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Boy, you guys sure love to pick and choose your verses now don't you.

Very about the next verse about picking up snakes and drinking poison?

How about laying hands on the sick and having them recover?

You got guys in your church that can do any of these things!

Those were sign gifts to prove the authority of those who were responsible for the New Testament church before the completion of the New Testament Canon.

Those gifts ended with the completion of that New Testament, with the ending of that first generation (90AD).

Where does it say that the signs were only to evangilize the Jews? It doesn't.

It says that the sign was for the Jew, since he required it. (1Cor.1:22).

Gentiles did not require a sign and responded to the words that were spoken to them (Acts.13, 28)

Where does it say that tongues were only a sign unto the Jews? It doesn't.

It says that the tongues were given for a sign and that is who requires it, the Jew.

Everytime tongues is spoken in Acts, Jews are present.

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.

And the verse before it is a quote of an OT prophecy related to the Jews (Isa.28:11).

1Cor.1:22 states that the Jews require a sign and that was who tongues was for the Jew.

It doesn't. My bible says that tongues were a sign unto them that believe not. Not one word about them being a sign unto Jews only. That's because they are a sign to them that believe not. That would be ANYONE who does not believe.

Well, you are not reading your Bible correctly (what a shock!).

Trying reading with some context, not splicing and dicing it to fit your own theology.

I have not misinterpreted the scriptures. Nor have I twisted them nor have I taken them out of context. I have posted the scriptures exactly as they appear in my authorized King James Version Bible. I have not added words nor have I taken any away.

No, you have misinterpreted the scriptures by ignoring the entire context of the verses stated.

The signs were for Jews, not Gentiles.

The fact is that tongues are a valid gift. And they are in use today. Don't believe it. That is your perogative. As for me, I believe that God's word is true.

No tongues are valid for today.

That is why people have to practice some gibberish, not the legimate languages that were spoken (Acts 2).

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

And so you still have your weekly animal sacrifice?

Do you avoid pork?

God essence stays the same, but His dealings with men do change.

Even Paul lost his gift of healing by 2Tim.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

And Tongues was the least of all the gifts, so why you so hung up on it?

You are making the same error as the Corinthians did, only in their case, they had the gift of tongues, you do not.

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Speaking of the covenants to Israel, not sign gifts that God removed once they were no longer necessary.

I am finished with this conversation. You have no idea what God has done for me in my life, or what He has done for my family. You have no idea the miracles that have taken place. To hear you say that what God has done is of satan , how He has healed me and those I care about, to hear you say that what God has done in my church that has brought many souls to Christ is of satan makes me very sad....for you. I know What God has done and I will give Him the praise for it.

Well, maybe despite being in a heresy, God has still blessed you because you did it in ignorance.

However, you have been shown the truth and I would urge you to search the scriptures instead of hardening your heart in the satanic deception of tongues.

Below is from David Cloud

The tongues of Acts are the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14. They were real languages that a believer could speak supernaturally. They were a sign to the nation Israel that God was going to send the gospel to every nation and create a new spiritual body composed of both Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor. 14:20-22, quoted Isaiah 28:11-13). Each time tongues were spoken in Acts (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19) Jews were present.

As the prophet Isaiah foretold, the Jews rejected the sign and were judged. Its purpose ceased even before the events recorded in the book of Acts were completed. The last mention of tongues is in Acts 19.

The sign, having been fulfilled, ceased. When John Chrysostom wrote in the 4th century about the sign gifts of 1 Corinthians 12-14, he said: "This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to, and BY THEIR CESSATION, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place" ("Homilies on 1 Corinthians," Vol. XII, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Hom. 29:2).

There is no "private prayer language" in the New Testament.

It is the recent invention of Pentecostals and Charismatics who, having realized that they cannot speak in real tongues that can be interpreted (one of the absolute biblical requirements), were forced either to renounce their experience or to create some sort of cockeyed defense for it.

There is not one example of a prayer in the Bible that is uttered in unintelligible mutterings that "bypass the intellect."

Jesus Christ did not pray that way and neither did the apostles. I have heard Charismatics speak in their "private prayer language" in churches and conferences in many parts of the world.

I know that it must be an alleged "private prayer language" even though it is spoken in public, because they don't obey the Bible's command that all public tongues be interpreted.

Larry Lea's "private prayer language" at Indianapolis '90 went something like this: "Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida glooooory hallelujah bubblyida." I wrote that down as he was saying it and later checked it against the tape.

Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic nun who was on the executive committee of St. Louis 2000, spoke in "tongues" that went like this: "Shananaa leea, shananaa higha, shananaa nanaa, shananaa leeaS" repeated over and over.

Friends, this is not any sort of biblical prayer; it is childish nonsense, but it is neither innocent nor lacking in spiritual danger. The Bible warns repeatedly and forcefully about the danger of spiritual deception, and those who empty their minds are in danger of the devil filling them

www.wayoflife.org

I have not taken "random" verses as you claim. I have not taken bits and pieces. I took verses that were pertinant to the conversation we were having and that applied directly to the topic. Just as you did. So if I am guilty of dicing and splicing then you are equally culpable.

You would be correct that tongues is the least of the gifts. If I implied so, then I am sorry. That said, I do not back down from my position that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is relevant and in use TODAY. The word "least" does not imply of no value only that the others gifts are more important.

Our church does follow the bible for the direction and use of the gifts in the church.We don't put on "shows" by purposly drinking poisens nor do we test God by foolishly handling deadly snakes. The Apostles did not do these things and neither should we. They did however preach the word in boldness, full of the Holy Ghost, they did lay hands on people and they were healed. They did cast out demons in the name of Jesus. The Holy Ghost and all the gifts are operational in our church. The word of God is preached with boldness.People are saved, healed and delievered by the laying on of hands and the prayer of faith.

You keep mocking those who speak in tongues and yet the bible teaches that this is real. Just because YOU can't understand what is being spoken does not mean it is not a language. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." We call this a prayer language. "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God....in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." The key word being UNKNOWN tongue.

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit "in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

1 Cor. 14:13-14 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. [14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, "my spirit prayeth", but my understanding is unfruitful.

1 Cor. 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men "and of angels", and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

1 Cor. 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Though the passages in 1 Corinthians speak to us on the order and operation of the gifts it does not forbid the speaking of tongues in the church. It shows how they are to be used. If you are speaking in tongues do it between you and God. If you do speak in tongues pray that it may be interpreted. Tongues and Prophecy have a purpose and work together for that purpose. The word also says to forbid not to speak in tongues.

1 Cor. 14:12-19 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. [13] Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. [14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. [15] What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. [16] Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? [17] For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. [18] I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: [19] Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

I understand quite well what this passage says. You accuse me of making too much of speaking in tongues. And you make to little of them. The above passage does not forbid speaking in tongues in the church. It does tell us how it is supposed to be done. These are instructions for the use of tongues and prophecy in the church. They work together. Someone speaks in tongues and it is to be interpreted for the edifying of the church. The tongues are a sign to the unbeliever and the interpretation (or prophecy) is for the edificaton of the entire church.

Paul himself says he speaks in tongues more than any of those in the church. He is not making light of the gift but helping the church to see its right use IN the church.

You keep saying that tongues were only for Isreal and only to be spoken when a person of Jewish decent was present. The prophecy was given to Isreal in the old testament but that passage in Joel shows that all classes of people would receive this outpouring. Men, women, children, elderly, even servants and/or slaves(which by the way are not necessarily going to be Jewish) followed by the statement that God will pour out His spirit upon ALL flesh. The promise is for all that God chooses to give it.

Acts 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

These people who received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost were not Jews, they were Gentiles.

Acts 11:15-18 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on "them", "as on us at the beginning". [16] Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. [17] "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ"; "what was I, that I could withstand God?" [18] "When they heard these things, they held their peace", "and glorified God", saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

So you see, the gift of the Holy Ghost and all that goes with it is for ALL believers, not just to Isreal.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I believe you claimed that the Holy Ghost was only for that generation and yet the above verse clearly states that it "is unto you, and to your children, and those that are afar off."

That would be 2 generations plus all those who are afar off and as many as the LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL.

As for healing by the laying on of hands. You claim that the apostles lost this gift and you cited a single verse as proof of this.

2 Tim. 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.

The ONLY thing that that verse says is that he left Trophimus at Meletum sick. It doesn't say nor imply that the gift of healing had been removed. In fact it gives us no other information so nothing else can or should be read into it.

Acts 11:17 "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ"; "what was I, that I could withstand God?"

The issue is if you are going to use Mk.16:17-18 as a proof text, then you have to show that this generation can indeed do the things that are listed for the Apostles and the generation converted under them.

That was what I meant by being selective in your texts.

If your church cannot prove to have the same 'signs' listed in Mk.16:17-18, then you cannot use that verse to prove that you speak in 'new tongues'

You keep mocking those who speak in tongues and yet the bible teaches that this is real. Just because YOU can't understand what is being spoken does not mean it is not a language. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." We call this a prayer language. "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God....in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." The key word being UNKNOWN tongue.

An Unknown tongue is a tongue not understood by those hearing, but it is a legitimate language as those were in Acts 2.

All Paul is saying is that if no one in the church understands that particular language to interpret then the one who is moved to speak the tongue ought to be quiet.

Paul never said that tongues was made up gibberish.

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit "in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

The tongues that the individual would be speaking in would be a legitimate language that no one in the church understood.

If someone stood up in the church and began speaking Chinese, what good would it do to the hearers if no one understood Chinese?

1 Cor. 14:13-14 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. [14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, "my spirit prayeth", but my understanding is unfruitful. 1 Cor. 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men "and of angels", and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

First, Paul doesn't say that he spoke in the language of Angels, it is a hypothetical statement, if he spoke in those languages without charity it would be as sounding brass....Paul is not saying he spoke in the language of Angels.

It is no different then in vs.3 where he states about giving all his goods to feed the poor or giving his body to be burned.

He is making the point that even if these things were true, (not that they are), without charity they would be useless.

1 Cor. 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Though the passages in 1 Corinthians speak to us on the order and operation of the gifts it does not forbid the speaking of tongues in the church. It shows how they are to be used. If you are speaking in tongues do it between you and God. If you do speak in tongues pray that it may be interpreted. Tongues and Prophecy have a purpose and work together for that purpose. The word also says to forbid not to speak in tongues.

When Corinthians was in operation, tongues were still legitimate, they aren't today, because the purpose of them (conversion of the Jew) has ceased.

They were a sign gift to the Jews.

1 Cor. 14:12-19 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. [13] Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. [14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. [15] What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. [16] Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? [17] For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. [18] I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: [19] Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. I understand quite well what this passage says. You accuse me of making too much of speaking in tongues. And you make to little of them. The above passage does not forbid speaking in tongues in the church. It does tell us how it is supposed to be done. These are instructions for the use of tongues and prophecy in the church. They work together. Someone speaks in tongues and it is to be interpreted for the edifying of the church. The tongues are a sign to the unbeliever and the interpretation (or prophecy) is for the edificaton of the entire church.

And is that how tongues is being used in the Charismatic Churches?

Tongues was not given for the edifying of the church, it was for the evangelism of the Jew.

Paul himself says he speaks in tongues more than any of those in the church. He is not making light of the gift but helping the church to see its right use IN the church.

He says that 5 words for edification were better then 10,000 words that no one understands.(vs.19)

You keep saying that tongues were only for Isreal and only to be spoken when a person of Jewish decent was present. The prophecy was given to Isreal in the old testament but that passage in Joel shows that all classes of people would receive this outpouring. Men, women, children, elderly, even servants and/or slaves(which by the way are not necessarily going to be Jewish) followed by the statement that God will pour out His spirit upon ALL flesh. The promise is for all that God chooses to give it.

First, nothing is said in Joel about tongues.

Second, Joel is prophesying for the Nation of Israel.

Peter is speaking to the nation of Israel (Acts.2:22).

These are promises made to the Jewish nations dealing with the New Covenant (Jer.31:31, Heb.8:8).

Acts 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? These people who received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost were not Jews, they were Gentiles.

Yes, because it was not the 'last days' and the Jew was going to be evangelized by Gentiles as prophesied in Isa.28.

Acts 11:15-18 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on "them", "as on us at the beginning". [16] Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. [17] "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ"; "what was I, that I could withstand God?" [18] "When they heard these things, they held their peace", "and glorified God", saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. So you see, the gift of the Holy Ghost and all that goes with it is for ALL believers, not just to Isreal.

now the gift of the Holy Spirit is for both Jew and Gentile since both are one Body and cease to be either Jew and Gentile but become members of the church (Gal.3).

That was a mystery revealed only to Paul (Eph.3).

Now, every believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit into union with Christ (1Cor.12:13) becoming one with Him (Eph.5:30)

Each believer receives a spiritual gift to use for the glory of God (Eph.4).

The sign gifts of healing, tongues and prophecy (foretelling) are no longer among those gifts.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. I believe you claimed that the Holy Ghost was only for that generation and yet the above verse clearly states that it "is unto you, and to your children, and those that are afar off."

Peter is speaking to the Jews not the Gentiles.

God has to show Peter that the Gentiles are included in the offer of salvation, much to the shock of Peter (Acts 10)

That would be 2 generations plus all those who are afar off and as many as the LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL.

What Peter is discussing in Acts 2 is the second chance offered to Israel, which had the Jews responded to, would have resulted in the Lord returning and completing all of the Old Testament prophecies, including Joel.

As for healing by the laying on of hands. You claim that the apostles lost this gift and you cited a single verse as proof of this. 2 Tim. 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. The ONLY thing that that verse says is that he left Trophimus at Meletum sick. It doesn't say nor imply that the gift of healing had been removed. In fact it gives us no other information so nothing else can or should be read into it.

Well, I think alot can be inferred from it, since Paul did not heal him.

That was not the only case where Paul did not heal, Epaphroditus was also sick, almost dying, but he was not healed by Paul, but God.(Phil.2:25-27)

No one can do what the Apostles did in regards to healing, where even their shadows had healing power (Acts.5:15).

Now, either all of those gifts still exist (based on Mk.16:17-18) or they do not.

Acts 11:17 "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ"; "what was I, that I could withstand God?"

Yes, the Gentiles received the gift of tongues to show to the Jews that they were indeed equal with them being now part of the same body.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.