Preface: (I will be including this at the beginning of each of my posts on this topic.) I am writing these thoughts as a product of my own study of the issue of “tongues” and “private prayer languages.” Since these are subjects that are in the forefront of current Southern Baptist discussion, I felt that it was important for me (as a SB pastor) to clarify and express the views that I have held for some time. My analysis is not intended as an indictment or as a purposeful degrading of anyone else’s views. My views do not affect my ability to work alongside my brothers and sisters in Christ who hold pentecostal or charismatic views. I simply do not agree with them on the issue of ecstatic, unintelligible tongues. I pray that no one will be offended by my beliefs. I am certainly not offended by theirs.
Now, to my post …
1 Corinthians 14 – Continued
I want to continue my thoughts with 1 Corinthians 14:5.
Verse 5 is interesting in that Paul states, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues.” This is often claimed as the proof verse by practitioners of glossolalia to support the idea that all believers should speak in “tongues” as a sign of a “second blessing” and “spiritual maturity.” Indeed, this verse is sometimes used to induce or even coerce Christians into seeking ecstatic utterances. But that is an errant interpretation and application. This statement is obviously a literary and speech device known as hyperbole. Another example in Paul’s writings is where stated in 1 Corinthians 7:7 that he wished all men could remain single, like he was. But that was not a literal statement, either. Surely that would not be very practical. It would make for a very unhappy (seriously) bunch of men and a non-reproducing (biologically) church! It, too, was hyperbole. The true message of verse 5 is found in its latter half, where Paul clarifies, “…but I would rather have you prophesy.”
Verses 6-12 continue Paul’s thought. Just look at what he says!
6Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. 12So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.
Clearly, verses 9 and 10 are key. If a Christian is not speaking intelligible words, he is just speaking “into the air.” Again, many commentators agree that this “into the air” phrase hints at the repetitive babbling within the pagan religions that were common to Corinth. But verse 10 provides an all-important indictment of unintelligible, ecstatic, meaningless utterances in the name of the Christian faith. Truly, there are all sorts of languages in the world, but none of them are without meaning. What is the unavoidable consequence of this statement in verse 10? A so-called “language” that is without meaning is not a language at all! There is no clearer statement in Scripture that invalidates the notion of an unintelligible “tongue” or “prayer language.”
Verse 12 repeats Paul’s recurring theme in this passage … clear communication is the key. We must seek to excel in gifts that build up the church, not call attention to the individual believer.
Yes, I believe that there were ecstatic utterances being practiced with regularity and great volume in the worship meetings at Corinth. But they constituted an unacceptable practice. Clearly, Paul intended to put a stop to it. He wanted clarity and communication. He wanted the Corinthian believers to understand that the gift of tongues (languages) was a gift for clarity of communication and for sharing the gospel message. It was not the babbling nonsense that they had seen before, and perhaps at one time practiced, in the pagan temples of their city. Indeed, there was no such thing as a language that is “without meaning.” Paul clearly wanted such practices in the church to cease.
I am convinced more than ever that 1 Corinthians 14, instead of affirming the validity of unintelligible, ecstatic utterances as the biblical practice of tongues, instead reinforces the fact that the true gift of “tongues” was a gift that involved actual, spoken, communicative languages. Sometimes this gift enabled a Christian to speak in a language that they could not otherwise or previously speak. In other instances, it involved the ability to interpret languages that one could not otherwise or previously understand. As in the events at Pentecost, this gift may also involve hearing the gospel message with clarity in one’s own language even though that language is not actually spoken by the communicator. But, there is no evidnce in Scripture that this gift has any application whatsoever in a person’s prayer life. Consider: What would be the necessity of a “secret,” “private” language to communicate with God, who undeniably knows all languages and tongues? What would be the communicative purpose?
And, as usual, I have communicated for far too long. I’ll finish my thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14 tomorrow. I promise.
December 18, 2006 at 12:39 am
Geoff,
I have several comments to make on your posts, and some questions for you to consider as well. Before I dig into these areas, I do want you to be aware I am a charismatic Christian, and so I do write with that bias.
First, one issue that I have is that you write with a presupposition, which is your definition of “tongues” or “prayer language” as “ecstatic utterance.” I disagree with this presupposition, and would like you to comment in a future post on an alternative definition. My alternative definition is as follows:
“Tongues” is a gift of God to His children which enables them to use an unlearned language, whether human or angelic (1 Cor. 13:1), for either private prayer or public use in a congregation. When used privately, it is talking to God (not to people), mysterious, yet personally edifying (14:2-4). When spoken or sung publicly (14:15), it addresses the church and should be interpreted, either by the speaker, or someone else present who has the ability to interpret so that the body may be built up and edified (14:4-6,13,16). An interpreted message of tongues is functionally equivalent to a word of prophecy. Once interpreted, it can be weighed by church leaders as a prophetic word and either affirmed or corrected based on Scripture, in the same way that all prophecies should be tested (1 Thes 5:19-22). Further, “tongues” is not “ecstatic utterance” because the speaker is in control of his mouth and can start or stop at any time.
Second, I read in a previous post that you interpret Paul in 1 Cor. 14:4 as issuing a correction that believers should not use the gift of tongues (or their prayer language) to edify themselves. How do you harmonize that verse with Jude 20, “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit…” Isn’t Jude exhorting us as believers there to edify ourselves???
Third and finally, what do you say about what Jesus said in Mark 16:17, “And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues…” Doesn’t this passage suggest that speaking in tongues is normative for all those who believe (all who are Christian believers) – ???
Thanks for your thoughts, and I will continue to follow and comment on your blog.
Jonathan K.
December 18, 2006 at 6:50 am
Jonathan K,
Thank you so much for stopping by and commenting! As you can see, and as I have communicated in my “disclaimers,” I also bring by own bias to this discussion table. That’s just the way we all are, I guess. But I do completely respect and honor your opinions. I have been writing these posts this past week to communicate my own views in response to the current “controversy” in Southern Baptist life.
I so wish that we could just sit down and talk. I would love to “pick your brain” and compare our backgrounds and theology. It’s so hard to do in a blog post or comment.
But I’ll try to communicate, briefly, my responses to your questions.
First, about your definition of “tongues.” This is definitely where our theological rubber meets the road. It is pretty much why we are almost having two different conversations about the same subject. Our very definitions of “tongues” is radically different. You expressed yours very clearly. However, I would not accept such a definition of “tongues.” I believe that it is a unique spiritual gift given for Gospel communication, as a “sign for unbelievers.” (1 Cor 14:22) I agree that in the circumstance I describe (previously unknown language being spoken or another person interpreting a language), a “tongue” functions as a word of prophecy. I think you really need to examine your very literal translation of 1 Corinthians 13:1. Paul was using a metaphorical illustration of “speaking in tongues of men and angels” to provide a contrast for what is really important … love.
Second, of course we are encouraged to “build up” ourselves in the faith (Jude 20). That is the nature of a growing faith. But Scripture seems clear (per my previous post … Paul’s earlier referenced in 1 Corinthians) that true spiritual gifts are given for the edification of the church, not for the individual believer. My discussion was within the context of spiritual gifts. We must be careful not “hijack” gifts given for service and ministry in order to “bless ourselves.”
Third … That’s an interesting use of Mark 16:17. But notice that He said “new tongues,” not “uknown tongues.” Jesus also said in Matthew 6:7, “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like the pagans…” I’m going to comment on that tomorrow. But you must not stop with Mark 16:17. What about verse 18? According to your rationale, handling poisonous snakes and drinking deadly poison must also be normative for all Christian believers! (Not to mention, the entire passage of Mark 16:9-20 may very well be a later addition. It is not found in the earliest manuscripts, and many conservative scholars believe the original ending of Matthew 16 is at the end of verse 8. But that’s another discussion altogether!)
Anyhow … thanks for commenting. I look forward to the dialogue and debate. But, I sincerely doubt that either of us will change one another’s minds.
I’m OK with that. Hope you are, too, my brother.
December 18, 2006 at 9:59 am
Geoff,
Thanks for your comments in my blog. I have some follow-up questions and comments for you here as well.
First, you believe that Paul was speaking metaphorically in 1 Cor. 13:1, and criticize my literal interpretation of that verse. I have been taught to interpret the Scriptures literally, except when there is clear metaphor there, and I don’t see it. Yes, Paul’s greater point IS love, but I do not believe he was using a metaphor about love at 13:1. The only metaphor that I see in 1 Cor. 13 is the “clanging symbol” stuff, which is clearly metaphor. I’ve been taught you should interpret the text literally, unless it is an express metaphore. My question for you is this: What makes you think “tongues of men and angels” is a metaphor? What made you decide that?
Jude 20 mentions “praying in the Holy Spirit,” which I believe means, based on Rom. 8:26, is exercising one’s prayer language, or praying in tongues. I’m glad we agree, though, that Jude 20 does teach we should edify ourselves.
Lastly, about Mark 16:17, I think it fits in just perfectly with Acts 1:8, where Jesus told His disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit. In regards to babbling like pagans, Jesus was referring to a pagan practice of saying the same prayer over and over again, which was at that time a standard pagan practice. Your implication is that speaking in tongues as I describe it IS babble, and that is not so. You also asked about verse 18, saying I would say it should be normative for believers as well. Well, first of all, I believe in wisdom here. I do not believe Christians should be engaging in snake-handling — “serpent” here might be metaphorical for a demon, but I believe the key issue in verse 18 is, “if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them.” This does not imply that believers should openly drink poison, but that if they accidentally do, then they can pray and seek deliverance from God.
I will close with this. Verse 18 concludes with another statement that I see as normative, “they will lay hands on the sick and see them recover.” This is also mentioned in James 5 – do you agree this should be normative, or do you take issue with that one as well???
December 18, 2006 at 10:48 am
For clarity, Jonathan has responded on this post to some comments that I made on his blog at http://worldoffaith.wordpress.com/ .
Jonathan,
I see the metaphor because Paul is speaking in 1 Cor 13:1 with an “if” statement … it is a literary device. Also, the metaphor that you acknowledge, that of a “resounding gong and clanging cymbal,” is within the same verse. Interpretively speaking, you have to shift from the literal to the metaphorical within the same sentence … the same thought. I think that’s a very big interpretive stretch.
Your interpretation of Jude 20 has its foundation in your theology and practice. Mine is simply different. I “pray in the Spirit” every day, but I do so in the only language I know … southern fried English!
Finally, I will comment in length on Matthew 6 tomorrow. But, with regard to Mark 16, I still think you’re conveniently choosing the “tongues” part while rationalizing away the “snakes and poison” part. Based upon your own arguments of literal translation, I would think that you would prefer a literal rendering of “pick up snakes with their hands.” Such a sudden shift to a metaphor. “If,” by the way, may also be rightly translated as “when.” I think the NIV translates it as such.
No, my brother, I absolutely do not have a problem with laying hands on the sick. I guess that many in my denomination would. But not me. Just this past year we laid lands upon a dear, sweet, godly woman in our church who was suffering from cancer. Per James 5, we anointed her with oil. We begged God for her healing. A few months later she passed on and went to be with the Lord. So, now we know for sure that she has been healed … no more sickness or pain where she is! Praise God!
December 18, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Geoff,
Again, I have a few follow-up questions and comments for you.
First, yes, Paul is using a hypothetical in 1 Cor. 13:1, however, Paul does acknowledge two different kinds of tongues: those of men and those of angels. To me, this makes sense given 1 Cor. 12:10 describes the gift as “various (or diverse in the NKJV) kinds of tongues.” I don’t think the angels are metaphorical. Surely they have language they communicate with each other with, and although this is speculative, perhaps it is similar to prayer language, we really do not know.
I’ll let Jude 20 be for now. However, Mark 16 is important. Mark 16:18 uses the word “if,” which presents a hypothetical. I do not think the word “when” is appropriate, because that infers time. As a side note, I don’t trust the NIV translation. I only trust NAS and NKJV, and for personal study (but not blogging) the Amplified Bible.
Lastly, you begged God for healing? Where was y’all’s faith? Sorry to hit on that, but begging seems to indicate a lack of faith to me.
December 18, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Jonathan,
My friend, I still maintain that 1 Cor 13:1 is a poetic, metaphorical framing for the real subject of the chapter … love. I find it difficult to base an entire theological stand upon, “If I speak in the tongues of mean and angels…” I sincerely do not think this is a sound interpretive theological platform for a doctrine of “angelic tongues.”
With regard to Mark 16, I still say that’s a great theological dodge to avoid the whole snakes and poison thing.
And, yes, we begged God for healing. We begged, we pleaded, and we cried. We did not “name it and claim it” because that was not our right. It was no lack of faith. We had total and complete faith that God would insure the outcome of His choosing … not necessarily the outcome that we desired. Our faith is not “currency” that we can use “barter” or to “blackmail” our desired outcomes from God. True faith communicates the desires of the heart, then leaves the results up to God … otherwise we try to do “His job” for Him. True faith hears and copes with those very frequent occurrences when God hears our prayers and requests and answers, “No.”
My friend, Mary, was healed. You can be assured of that. She had the ultimate healing in heaven, at the throne of God. But we each have an appointment with death. We are not guaranteed a life of health, wealth, and prosperity … no matter how much faith we claim to have.
Now, listen to me … I let you get me off subject!
December 18, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I meant … “listen to me rambling on…” I let you get me off subject. I should have completed my thought there.
I gotta get back to work!!!
Luv ya, brother!
December 18, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Geoff,
This will be my last response. I’m sorry I got you off subject. It is just when I see ideas that I disagree with, I feel compelled to speak out.
Someday I will go to seminary and learn hermeneutics. In the meantime, I am very wary of taking a poetic approach with the NT. So, I’ll just have to agree to disagree with you on that one, and also the Mark 16 deal as well. These are subjects that will be developed much further than my comments allow on your blog, but I hope you consider them as you continue to post your ideas.
About healing… in a few weeks, I will be bringing a post about this on my own blog, because healing (and the fact that it is available in the atonement along with salvation) is an important charismatic distinctive. I believe (and you are entitled to disagree) that it is wrong to beg and plead with God for healing, just like it would be wrong to beg and plead God for salvation. Begging and pleading shows a real lack of faith. You said that it isn’t your right to “name it and claim it,” but… it IS your right… healing is provided for in the atonement, just like salvation and deliverance from demonic oppression is likewise made available. All you have to do is ASK, believe and receive, and it is yours. When you say that you had total and complete faith that God would ensure the outcome of His choosing… that is no faith at all. When you have faith in God (and this will be developed also in my blog), you exercise your faith in His Word to do what the Word of God says… which includes healing. It is never God’s will for someone to NOT be healed, and to suggest otherwise is really double-mindedness. Sorry if that is harsh, but that is what I believe the Bible teaches.
Lastly, God never answers “NO” to prayer, but He might not hear prayers that are outside His will. 2 Cor. 1:18-20, “But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no. For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us, was not yes and no, but is YES in Him. For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.” According to this passage, God never says “No” to His children, when they pray in faith believing for the promises in the Word of God. There is nothing negative in heaven, and God does not provide or work negative things for His children.
I agree that Mary has received her ultimate healing in heaven. I also agree that the only thing that is guaranteed is salvation. But, health and healing is provided for in the atonement, and is available like salvation for the asking, to those who ask, believe, and receive in faith.
Sorry, now I am the one who rambled on. In a few weeks, I will develop these ideas further in my own blog, and you can come back with a strong Scriptural rebuttal for me to defend.
Thanks Bro.
December 18, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Yep, my friend, we’ll have to disagree. And that’s okay. I can live with that, and I think you can, too. I look forward to your posts and your study and examination of the Scriptures. I promise to drop in and give my thoughts.
But you said, “It is never God’s will for someone not to be healed.” According to this theology,no one should ever die, since it is the will of God that we are all healthy. According to this theology, we all die simply because we don’t have enough faith … not because it is appointed unto us once to die. To be completely theological, “It just doesn’t make a lick of sense.”
The passage you quoted from 2 Corinthians is Paul’s response to the accusation that he was double-minded because he did not visit the church like he had promised. He wanted them to understand that his “yes” meant “yes” and his “no” meant “no.” V. 20 confirms that, no matter how Paul (as a man) might let them down, Christ is the fulfillment of all of God’s promises. The salvation offered in Jesus is God’s ultimate and eternal “Yes!”
You said, “There is nothing negative in heaven, and God does not provide or work negative things for His children.”
Perhaps so. But he does allow negative things to happen to his children. He does allow His children to suffer, sometimes for reasons that only He knows and understands.
Your theology seems to ignore the entire biblical account of a blameless and upright man named Job. After all of his health, wealth, property, and family were gone, he was still able to say, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb,and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” (Job 1:21) The Lord gave, but He also took away. The Word of God said so. And did not all of the disciples of our Lord (except John) suffer and die for the Gospel? And has not every follower of Christ over the past 2,000 years or so become sick and died?
This idea that Christians can be incessantly healthy and wealthy “if they will just have enough faith” is theology based upon our spoiled, selfish, Western mindset. I have friends, Christians, whom I served alongside in Kenya who live in huts made of branches and cattle dung. The live from meal to meal. They watch their children and their elderly die of diseases year-in and year-out. Yet they are the happiest, most faith-filled, faithful, powerful believers that I have ever seen. The health and prosperity message is, untimaltely, very selfish on the part of the believer. Christ called us to selfless ministry and service to others, not a constant obsession for having “the good life” for ourselves.
I’m sorry, but I do not see the “name-it-and-claim-it” theology as an elevation of faith, but actually a cheapening of it. Real faith is like the faith of Job. It can look disaster, death, and pain in the face and still say, “Praise the Lord!” That’s the kind of faith we demonstrated when we prayed over my sick friend. It was the same faith that we showed when we prayed over her casket.
Praise the Lord!
December 19, 2006 at 1:36 am
Geoff,
I am going to respond, briefly as I can, to some of your arguments here, because I believe what one believes about faith is important.
First, you said according to my theology that no one should ever die. That’s not true. The Scripture teaches us that “It is appointed for man once to die, and then the judgment,” or something to that effect. God has ordained an ending to every human’s life, but one can die prematurely, by giving up. Here is an example. When I lived in St. Louis, there was a middle-aged guy who went to my church, and he had ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). We were a church that had strong belief in healing, and so we prayed fervently in faith for God to heal this man. One day, he had his wife call my former pastor. He said he could no longer fight the disease, and wanted to give up the fight. While my pastor encouraged him to keep on, the disease was taking a great toll on his physical body, and he was becoming dehabilitated enough to not fight. So, he gave up, and shortly thereafter, he passed away, before his time came. But God let that happen. I do not believe God sovereignly allows illness. Illness is something that Jesus came to deliver us from, sickness is a work of the devil.
But we do not die because we lack faith. We die, if we do so when it is time, because God has released us to do so. There comes a time when God’s faithful servant knows it is time to move on to eternity. This is the appointed time, and they are ready to pass on. This is not lacking faith, but believing God to bring you through a great transition into eternity.
I believe there are other covenant promises found in the Scriptures, besides salvation, and the answer to those promises is always “Yes.” It is when we pray something outside of God’s will that God really does not hear our prayers, and therefore they go unanswered. However, healing is always God’s will.
Yes, sometimes God does allow suffering (or He chooses to let His children allow suffering), for reasons He knows. This IS what happened in the Book of Job, but we are under a better covenant. While the Book of Job is there for our example, how we should deal with suffering, I believe certain items, such as sickness or oppression, are not “suffering,” but rather come from Satan.
Yes, all the disciples except John died as a result of suffering for the sake of the Gospel. This is a different kind of suffering, and is really persecution for righteousness, which is discussed in the Bible. God ordains some to go through this… but it isn’t the same as sickness and disease. You cannot compare the two.
Lastly, you seem to assume that I am a follower, or proponent, of the “health and wealth” message, or “name-it-and-claim it” theology, and I have not stated so. I did say I am a charismatic, but you just seem to imply I am also these other two things (health/wealth/name it, claim it), etc. I don’t understand how you can assume that about me, since I have not openly confessed that myself. Can you explain why you think I agree with these segments of Christianity???
December 19, 2006 at 7:34 am
Jonathan,
You are up late, my friend! You must be one of those young “whipper-snappers.” We old twerps have to go to bed before the news is off!
I appreciate your personal illustration. ALS is a horrible, debilitating disease.
I know that your understanding and theology makes perfect sense to you. But, looking at it all from the “outside,” I simply see some glaring inconsistencies. It is more than a bit confusing.
You say that sickness and suffering is from Satan. In some ways, I agree. But, if you look back to Genesis, you will see that, ultimately, all sin, sickness, and suffering are the fault of man. Satan tempted, but Adam and Eve sinned. It was their sin that brought the fall and the curse upon the world. I think it’s a bit of a “cop-out” to blame everything since then on the devil. It is a bit of a tactic to avoid our own spiritual responsibilities.
It seems that you believe that God does not want us to suffer from sickness and disease. If we cannot be healed, then it is because we don’t have enough faith. So, according to this claim, the time of our death will actually be our own choosing, bades upon our “faith factor.” As long as we have “enough” faith, we will be disease and pain-free. I guess one would have to get hit by a truck or have some sort of other accident in order to meet his appointment with death. It just doesn’t compute.
At what point does the sovereignty of God actually “kick in” in your understanding and theology? What you dscribe sounds like we hold God captive with our faith, but as soon as that faith lets up … or we give up … then we die. Then you say, “Well, it was God’s will.”
That entire faith experience sounds like something of an arm-wrestling match with God, and death means that we finally lose.
I personally do not see anywhere in Scripture where God has made promises of a healthy, disease-free state for true, faithful believers. It just isn’t there. I think itis a selfish, unhealthy focus upon the physical realm, when God has called us to be spiritual healers … messengers of the Gospel. The perfect will come when Christ returns, when we each receiver a perfected resurrection body. Sickness ends when we walk with Crrist in God’s eternal kingdom.
Meanwhile, we live in a fallen world. Sickness and death are part of it. Jesus’ great commission instructed us to “Go and make disciples of all nations,” not “Go and make everyone healthy and empty the hospitals.”
You’re right about your rebuke of my assumptions of you with regard to the whole “name-it-and-claim-it” thing. I’m sorry about that. It has simply been my experience with my local charismatic brethren that this is a natural outcome of the “faith-health, disease free” nexus that you have described and argued for. Plus, the plethora of so-called “evangelists” spewing this theology on TV doesn’t help. But I genuinely apologize for making that unqualified assumption of you. Please forgive me.
Peace
December 19, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Geoff,
I hope this is my final post for this installment. I hope that you sincerely agree with some of the comments that I make this time.
First, in man’s understanding, we might see God as inconsistent. After all, Isa. 55:8-9 says, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Clearly, God does not always do things the way that man does, and so we as humans lack understanding. Nevertheless, the NT exhorts us that we can have the mind of Christ as believers. Praise the Lord!
Sickness and disease is a result of Satan’s work in this world. Acts 10:38, “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and power, and how He went about doing good and HEALING all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” You are correct to say that sin was the fault of man. However, when Adam & Eve first sinned, this opened the door for Satan to come in and create the fallen world in which we all live, which includes the presence of sickness and disease. But the Bible in several places, when describing sickness and disease, presents them as a work of the devil, and not the sin of man.
Yes, God does not want us to “suffer” from sickness and disease. 3 John 2, “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.” Yes, a lot of this does depend to some extent on our faith. But so does our salvation, i.e. people are not saved because they lack faith for it. Its the same reason. But then you mention accidents and people getting hit by the truck. That’s not God’s best, either. I believe that believers can have God’s divine protection from accidents like this as well. See Psalm 91.
As regards to the sovereignty of God, I’m not a Calvinist. I believe we need to trust in God and His sovereignty no matter what happens. I believe that God foreknows everything, and foreordains everything, based on how He knows man will respond. For example, I believe, in regards to salvation, that God predestines on the basis of simply foreknowing who will respond to the Gospel. So, I’m fairly Arminian in these respects.
No, death does not mean we lose an arm-wrestling match with God. Recently, I was listening to a sermon from a pastor in the Dallas area. He was preaching on having faith to die. That sounds like a weird topic, but he offered this as an anecdote, concerning his own grandparents. Anyways, this pastor was speaking of his own relatives, and how after living to ripe old age of 80-something years old, they confessed to him that they felt released to move onto eternity. God had placed this in their hearts. Their appointment with death had come near. At this point, they needed to exercise their faith in God to deliver them from this life, into eternity. And so that way, they were ready to go and move on. They had lived a fulfilled life, having accomplished the task God had set before them, and were ready to move onto eternity. They could say with the Apostle Paul, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race.” What I suggest here is this attitude should be normative of everyone concerning death, and anything less is not God’s best for us.
There are lots of places where God promises health to believers. I’ve mentioned a few such Scriptures above. But even in Psalm 103:2-5, “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget none of His benefits; Who pardons all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases; Who redeems your life from the pit, Who crowns you with lovingkindness and compassion; Who satisfies your years with good things, so that your youth is renewed like the eagle.” Does this passage NOT promise healing?
Does not Acts 10:38? Does not 3 John 2?
You mentioned that sickness ends when we walk with Christ in God’s eternal kingdom. However, Heb. 12:22 tells us, “you have come to Mt. Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” We already are in God’s Kingdom, and can walk with Christ… as much as we do so by faith, we can healed and whole in Jesus name. Praise the Lord!
Lastly, I agree that Jesus instructed us to go and make disciples, that we should preach the Gospel. However, physical healing is part of the Gospel. Mark 16:18b tells us that those who believe in Jesus will “lay hands on the sick and see them recover.” Is this not part of preaching the Gospel and making disciples?
You’re forgiven concerning your assumptions. My pastor is not a TV evangelist, at least not yet, LOL.
December 19, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Jon-Boy,
Well, Acts 10:38 is a reference to the historical facts of what Jesus did during his ministry on earth. I don’t quite follow the connection with a promise for our healing today. 3 John 2 is a greeting to John’s letter, written to Gaius, not to me and you. So, no, I do not see any promises of health here.
Anyhow, I’m tired. I must be getting old. Let’s just call it a draw.
Geoff
December 19, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Geoff,
I guess this will be my last word. I think that Acts 10:38, as a reference to Jesus’ earthly ministry, is a promise for us today, because Jesus has not changed… he is still in the business of providing for physical healing.
3 John 2 was a greeting to Gaius, but the whole Bible is for everyone. I am surprised that you just dismiss 3 John 2 as a mere greeting, and not a source of instruction for everyone else. 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us that all of the Bible is written for every believer, and not to just discount certain verses like that.
Other than that, we’ll call this a draw, like you asked.
December 20, 2006 at 7:07 am
Yes, Jonathan, I believe the Bible is for everyone. Absolutely. But you cannot just “lift” verses out of the context in which they were written and make any application that you wish. It’s called bad hermeneutics.
For instance, in Acts 21 Paul was arrested. According to your hermeneutic, it should be normative for all of us to be arrested. After all, it’s in the Bible. Do you see where I’m coming from?
Cease fire! Cease fire!
December 20, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Geoff,
I will cease fire, but you asked me a question. I sort of see where you are coming from, and I sort of do not. I am not a theologian, and have never been to a seminary… I’ve never even taken courses in heremeutics from Rhema Bible College in Tulsa! LOL
Anyways, yes, Paul was arrested in Acts 21… that does not make it normative. However, the way Paul responded to the arrest is what we should take away from that, and the attitude that Paul had — that is what should be normative. Agreed?
Lastly, in regards to the greeting of 3 John 2, I believe the “context” issue is an excuse for not attempting to learn doctrine from that verse. Its a cop-out. It would have been one thing if John simply wrote, “Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ.” But he didn’t. John wrote, “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.” That is more than a mere greeting. We all should have the attitude to pray for people that they prosper and are in good health in every aspect of their lives. That is a demonstration of Christian love. It is also a promise (one of many) of what God wants for us… nothing less than God’s best.
Alright, I’ll stop now. Will you?
December 27, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Geoff,
I do not wish to get into the whole discussion about healing and faith you have been having with Jonathan here.
I understand that Jonathan is a self-confessed “charismatic.” Though I respect his point of view, and am in agreement with some of the things he says, I am not a “charismatic” (if I am understanding Jonathan correctly) in the same sense as him.
I do, however, very much agree with and like the defintion he gives to “tongues” in comment #1 here. I believe I am completely in agreement with this definition.
I (along with Jonathan) do not agree that the term “ecstatic utterances” describes what was happening at Corinth. 1 Cor. 14.11 says “If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.” The “clear” implication, to me, is that what is being spoken indeed has a “meaning.” It is just not “grasped” by the hearers, nor even, in the case of the tongues referenced in 1 Cor. 14, by the speaker. Thus the effect is, when spoken publicly, what is said is spoken “into the air” (v. 9).
I differ, however, with Jonathan, on the “normativeness” of tongues for all believers. I understand Paul to be saying in v. 5 that “tongues” in and of itself is a good thing, just as any other spiritual gift is a good thing. It would be great to have all of the spiritual gifts. But it doesn’t depend on me. It is God who “gives them to each one, just as he determines” (1 Cor. 12.11). The same applies to the gift of celibacy. In and of itself, it is a good thing. But God, in his sovereignty, does not choose to give this gift to everyone.
As believers, I believe we must be open to whatever gift God chooses to give to us, but also submissive to God’s choice, when he chooses not to give us certain gifts. Paul asks rhetorically (though quite clearly, in my opinion) in 1 Cor. 12.10: “Do all speak in tongues?” I believe the answer implied is “no,” because God does not choose to give all believers the gift of speaking in tongues.
As to the purpose of a “PPL,” I would say that it is generally “self-edification” in the positive sense of the word. No, God does not require me to speak another language in order for him to understand me. But, for some reason, he appears to use this gift as a means to strengthen those who have it in their walk with him, and to express in their spirit “musterion” that, apparently, those without the gift of tongues are unable to express the same way.
December 27, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Well, David, I think you have hit on the stark root problem of this entire issue in Southern Baptist life. It is the issue of “definition.” We all continue to have a conversation about “tongues,” but we simply do not define the term in the same way.
I do not, at all, agree with your interpretation of verse 11. You said, “The “clear” implication, to me, is that what is being spoken indeed has a “meaning.” It is just not “grasped” by the hearers, nor even, in the case of the tongues referenced in 1 Cor. 14, by the speaker.”
I think you are assuming too much to say that what was being spoken had “meaning.” Remember, Paul is not there. He is writing from a distance to address problems about which he has been informed. This entire argument being made by Paul is in the form of a hypothetical. He was simply following up on verse 10 (where he says that there are all sorts of languages in the world, but none of them is without meaning). His hypothetical was that, “If I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.” What is the implication of that passage … of that hypothetical situation (which very accurately described the atmosphere at the church in Corinth, and should have quickly gotten the attention of the readers)? There is no communication going on! And communication of the Gospel message was of the utmost importance in the heart and mind of Paul. That’s why he followed in v. 12 with, “Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.” There is the argument that I made earlier … that spiritual gifts are, ultimately, for building up (edification of) the church.
Clearly, he saw that the people of this church were “headed down a wrong path,” and he wanted to help right them.
But, I do not see any true resolution of this issue any time soon in Southern Baptist life because of this problem of definition. I think that you and I would probably see “eye to eye” on most things, yet we stand in stark disagreement with regard to the definition of “tongues.” So, I wonder where this leaves us in Southern Baptist life.
December 28, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Geoff,
I agree that if we are both adamant the definition each of us gives to “tongues” is the only admissible one, resolution on this issue will be difficult.
I believe I have already made a good argument elsewhere to support my (and Jonathan’s) defintion, so I will not add anything new here at this time.
December 29, 2006 at 3:57 am
I forgot to add: While I do not agree with your definition of tongues, I don’t see it is as a barrier to cooperation with you in SBC Cooperative Program-sponsored ministry, just as long as you, correspondingly, don’t hold your particular definition up as a litmus test for my cooperation.
December 29, 2006 at 7:01 am
Agreed, my brother.