HOME | CHURCH JOB OPENINGS | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT US

image

-Raging Tongues at SBC Seminary

Orginally published on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 7:37 AM
by Todd Rhoades

FORT WORTH - Southwestern Seminary President Paige Patterson has issued an extraordinary rebuke to the Rev. Dwight McKissic, a seminary trustee and prominent Arlington pastor, for acknowledging during a chapel service that he sometimes speaks in tongues when he prays.

After Tuesday’s chapel service, Patterson issued a statement that the video of McKissic’s sermon will not be posted online nor saved in seminary archives, as are the sermons of all other chapel speakers. Patterson withheld McKissic’s chapel message from the school’s Web site, the statement said, “lest uninformed people believe that Pastor McKissic’s view on the gift of tongues and ‘ecstatic utterance’ is the view of the majority of the people at Southwestern.”

McKissic said he understands and respects Patterson’s view - and that the incident won’t affect their friendship - but refuses to back down on his support of private prayer language, or speaking in tongues.

In his sermon, McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church, also criticized the convention’s International Mission Board for adopting a policy excluding missionary candidates who admit to a private prayer language.

“I think it’s tragic in Baptist life when we take a valid, vital gift that the Bible talks about and come up with a policy that says people who pray in tongues in their private lives cannot work in certain positions,” he told the students. “That to me is contrary to what many of our foremost Baptist thinkers and leaders think.”

In an interview Wednesday, McKissic reiterated that criticism.

“The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t need to police the prayer life of its missionaries,” he said. “We want missionaries who are praying. Why regulate their prayers?”

The seminary said it supports McKissic’s rights to hold such views, according to the statement. But “we reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches,” the statement said.

McKissic is well-known in Tarrant County as an advocate for minority concerns in the Arlington school district. He led a group that called for more minority contractors for the Cowboys stadium project. He has been an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and gay marriage.

Younger Baptist leaders, including the Rev. Benjamin Cole, pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, said “censoring” McKissic’s chapel message is another example of attempts to silence dissent among Baptists.

“The president of Southwestern Seminary has clearly forgotten both his place and the purpose of the institution he serves,” Cole said. “His efforts to censor a sitting trustee and limit access to the recordings of a public chapel service are beyond the pale of acceptable conduct.”

The Rev. Bob Pearle, pastor of Birchman Baptist Church in Fort Worth and a former member of the International Mission Board, supported Patterson’s decision.

“I think as president of an entity, he has a responsibility to project what that entity is going to stand for as a whole,” Pearl said. “I don’t think speaking in tongues is normative among Southern Baptists.”

During his chapel message, McKissic said that he first privately prayed in tongues inside a dormitory at Southwestern when he was a student there in 1981.

“I didn’t even believe in speaking in tongues. I was just going through my regular prayer time. As I was praying some strange words began to come out of my mouth,” he said.

The Rev. Wade Burleson of Enid, Okla., a trustee of the International Mission Board who objected to the mission board’s rule banning missionary candidates with a private prayer language, said most Southern Baptists do not believe in speaking in tongues.

“Private prayer language is not the issue,” Burleson said. “The issue to me is that a man who holds a position that is well within the bounds of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement is being silenced and censored.

“We’ve got to create a climate within the Southern Baptist Convention where dissent is welcome, where dialogue is open and where disagreements can be accepted.”

Although McKissic’s message was not posted online, it is available for sale at the seminary.

This from the Star-Telegram

Any comments or thoughts on this one?


This post has been viewed 1917 times so far.



 TRACKBACKS: (0) There are 23 Comments:

  • Posted by kent
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 8:10 AM

    Nice, very nice. They will know we are Christians by our love.

  • Posted by Derek
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 8:26 AM

    I thougth the war between the charismatics and the evangelicals was over? I guess the SBC didn’t get the memo that we aren’t fighting over the issue of tongues anymore. I understand McKissic’s frustration and criticism with the IMB exclusion of missionaries who pray in tongues.

    What concerns me is the seminary’s statement: But “we reserve the right not to disseminate
    openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches.” First, what are they so afraid of? And second, do they belief that a theology and practice of the gift of tongues as a private prayer language of the Spirti is harmful? I can see the harmful nature of a strict Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence, but what is the harm in tongues as a part of a Christian’s prayer life?

    I have no problems with the SBC’s theological critique of the prayer language of the Spirit. Too often their prohibition of tongue-speaking is not theological, but cultural. Too often they are allowing a modern, rationally-driven mode of thinking cause them to “fear” tongues because it is non-rational. From my experience, members of the SBC have put their theological heads in the sand and ignore the tongues, instead of dealing with the biblcial material concerning the proper use of tongues.

  • Posted by Andy McAdams
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 8:46 AM

    As long as I can remember the subject of tongues has seemed to create a division in the church and the only reason that it does is because we allow it too.  It seems as if those that believe that “you should speak” wants everyone too.  Those that believe that it’s not a gift for today “try to stop others from the gift.”

    I always thought that a gift was a gift.  You don’t seek it, it’s just given and it’s not given to everyone, as far as I understand from 1 Corinthians 14. 

    Why have we allowed this to be something that divides the body of Christ?  If you speak in tongues, then so be it.  If you don’t then that’s fine also, actually that’s one reason we have different churches with different persuasion on things.  Normally, Baptist are not tongues speakers, that’s for sure and McKissic knows that.

    My problem with Rev. McKissic is, if he speaks in a private prayer language, then why not “keep it private?” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that bringing the issue up in a Baptist seminary chapel would cause some uproar.  Its not an issue of speaking in tongues or not, it has to be an issue of “keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” as Paul tells us in Ephesians.  I would no more bring up the subject of tongues at a Baptist school then I would mention the ceasing of sign gifts at a Pentecostal seminary.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 10:51 AM

    Andy says, “My problem with Rev. McKissic is, if he speaks in a private prayer language, then why not “keep it private?” It would seem to me that it’s the Baptists who are making it public, when excluding those who do practice it privately.  Why should McKissic have to hide how the Lord has gifted him?  Of course, Andy does have a point; why continue in the Baptist tradition if they insist on retaining this unbiblical position?  Good question.  Why indeed?

  • Posted by Derek
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 10:53 AM

    Andy, I agree that McKissic could have used more discretion in discussing tongues in a Baptist seminary. However, due to the IMB stance on tongues it does seem that the SBC needs to have a forum to discuss it. The seminary chapel may not have been the best place, but doesn’t the SBC need to discuss it. It may be a “private” gift, but Paul was not private in his discussion about it in 1 Cor. 14.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 11:50 AM

    It would seem that the seminary has just guaranteed that the discussion will be had at least by the students.  Unfortunately the seminary leadership has removed themselves from the discussion.  Seems like when we try to handle disagreement/different points of view in this way in the church instead of talking it out (there will always be a new group of people who need to hear the rational for our position) we encourage the bounce into the opposite position, or we put people in a category of not being able to hear from God unless we are the ones to tell them. 
    Might it be a better tack to make an announcement that the position expressed by the speaker is not the historical position of the SBC and this seminary for the following Biblical reasons? 
    Oh well

  • Posted by kent
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 11:50 AM

    How does this stuff get out? If this was in the seminary community how did we get to hear about this? Who does the interviewing and why are they agreeing to be interviewed? Why can’t this left in house?

  • Posted by Andy McAdams
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 11:55 AM

    Nora said:  “Why should McKissic have to hide how the Lord has gifted him?”

    Because he had to know it would create a problem and that’s divisive. 

    Nora also said:  “why continue in the Baptist tradition if they insist on retaining this unbiblical position?”

    To many their position is not unbiblical and it certainly isn’t to them (SBC).

    Derek said:  “However, due to the IMB stance on tongues it does seem that the SBC needs to have a forum to discuss it. The seminary chapel may not have been the best place, but doesn’t the SBC need to discuss it. It may be a “private” gift, but Paul was not private in his discussion about it in 1 Cor. 14.”

    I agree, but knowing the SBC, they have discussed this issue for years and will probably not change.  Honestly, I don’t believe that anyone in the SBC cares if someone speaks in a prayer language themselves, just don’t allow it to become an issue of division.  What McKissic said does exactly that.

    Once again, it’s not the issue to speak or not to speak, its allowing anything to divide the body of Christ and by all appearance this may have done that to some degree.  One more thing, I know a number of SBC pastors who speak in and believe in a prayer language and yet do not allow it to be an issue in their churches.  I think that’s wise.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 12:27 PM

    Andy says, “Honestly, I don’t believe that anyone in the SBC cares if someone speaks in a prayer language themselves, just don’t allow it to become an issue of division” Obviously they very much do care if they censor someone who even speaks of it.  I agree that it should not be an issue, but it’s the ones without the gifts who are making it so in this case.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 1:12 PM

    I thought seminary was a place of higher learning. That those who speak and share views to challenge, encourage, and inspire our relationship with Christ. When I was in seminary and a professor shared an opinion contrary to mine. It is just his spiritual opinion and experience. I thought we had freedom to see and think differently than me. I could see if he spoke of something about salvation or inerrency of scripture. If this prayer language helps McKessic in his spiritual life then so be it. We do more damage trying to keep our ears and eyes “theologically pure” than hearing a different opinion that may stir passion into someones life. God does still speak and encourage others in diverse ways. We need stop deputizing ourselves as spiritual sheriffs for the good of our community. God is bigger than all our weak thoughts. Especially my own.

  • Posted by
    Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 10:25 AM

    I am a Southern Baptist, and we are afraid; we are afraid to worship like David, to clap and lift our hands, shout and dance before the Lord, because we are afraid of “extremes” and we would have to biblically support our reluctance to participate in such activities. We use words like “reverence” and “if it moves our foot before it moves our heart”. That’s why most baptist churches are 10 - 20 years behind in reaching this generation with the gospel, (I know there are some great baptist churches out there that are doing it right) because we are not real or relevant. But in the positive I believe that many new churches are being started that begin with the “whatever it takes” attitude.

  • Posted by
    Saturday, September 09, 2006 at 11:56 AM

    What is missing is what other actions were taken.  I don’t know if the Patterson and McKissic had a private meeting to reconcile or not.  I do believe the mission of a seminary is to train pastors according to its profession of faith [and applicable creeds/theology].  A seminary is not a university or a college.  A seminary president is expected to enforce some standards.  I expect different standards for seminaries from other educational institutes because we are training persons to “rightly divide the Word” and to minister.

    Baptist do, by and large, believe that “tongues” as practiced by certain groups has ceased.  I don’t have a problem with a Christian who becomes gifted by God to speak another human language that can be interpreted.  That is the correct interpretation of tongues.  Paul was multi-lingual [Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin] and thus could truthfully state that he spoke in tongues (other languages) more than others.  Paul makes it clear that people who speak another language are to have an interpreter present or they are to remain silent.  The issue of a :"prayer language” has no biblical support.  Even Paul says that when he prayed in the spirit he also prayed with understanding (1 Cor. 14:13-15).  Paul’s reference to speaking in the tongues of angels was both rhetorical and sarcastic.  The problem with Corinth was mostly pride.  It is a problem today with a lot of folks who have the “gift of tongues” today - pride.  I know personally as some have looked down their noses at me as some poor almost Christian who does not have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit [thus questioning my salvation] and do not have the blessings of speaking in tongues.  It is this attitude that divides churches. 

    Finally, Patterson would have pulled the video if the speaker said that Christ did not rise personally from the grave or any other deviation from Baptist faith and belief.

  • Posted by Derek
    Saturday, September 09, 2006 at 2:36 PM

    Dan—I would humbly submit that the cession of tongues has less biblical support than an understanding of tongues as the prayer language of the Spirit. You are correct to say that Paul prayed both in the Spirit and in his understanding, but this indicates that he did pray in the Spirit, which he defined as praying in an unknown language (1 Cor 14:2).  This is the biblical support for the position of tongues as a prayer language. It is also this theological position that lead Eugene Peterson (a Presbyterian, not a Pentecostal) to paraphrase 1 Cor. 14:2: “If you praise him in the private language of tongues, God understands you but no one else does, for you are sharing intimacies just between you and him” in the Message Bible.

    Furthermore, isn’t the purpose of seminary education to give students the exegetical and historical tools to do the work of theology, instead of “spoon-feeding” them dogma? I found in my own seminary experience that there was great value in allowing my theological point of view to be stretched by different (and even apposing) theological viewpoints.

  • Posted by
    Saturday, September 09, 2006 at 6:07 PM

    Derek - You missed the my whole point.  Tongues has been misunderstood and I state that from correct exegesis from scripture.  Also Paul did not pray in tongues - period.  I disagree with your take on 1 Cor. 14:2.  In light of context, he was teaching people to stop fussing over a selfish misuse of languages and moved the people to seek the gift of prophecy - speaking from the Word - in a clear manner.  I also submit that I disagree with Peterson’s take on this passage.  There is no “intimacies” but rather a mystery...when someone is speaking a language I do not understand and they don’t explain it to me as I listen, then love is missing and it remains a mystery what was said.  Look at 1 Cor. 14:1 through 4.  Paul’s emphasis on this matter was not the speaking in a language but in understanding. 

    As far as your “spoon feeding dogma” remark - I don’t see any of that in my comments.  I was discussing standards and that a seminary does have a narrower scope than a typical university.  That does not preclude a seminary from challenging the students to examine various schools of thoughts on a theological subject.

  • Posted by Derek
    Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 2:44 PM

    Dan—Apologies for missing your main point. I do agree that Paul is attempting to correct the misuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian Church. I also agree that the Corinthians had become prideful and thus needed correction. My response was to your original post where you write, “The issue of a “prayer language” has no biblical support.”

    I respect your take on Paul’s experience of the gift of tongues. I do, however, disagree with the statement that Paul did not pray in tongues. (I think this is the kind of healthy dialogue that should take place in the Body of Christ.) Here is my thinking: I Corinthians 14:2 indicates that tongue-speaking is directed towards God. Can we call speaking to God prayer? He then goes on to explain that the use of this gift only edifies the speaker and is thus less desirable than prophecy which edifies the church. He elaborates this in verses 6-12.

    Then in verse 14 he says, “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays…” If this does not refer to prayer as an expression of tongue-speaking, then what does he mean? It is also a conditional and there we are not clear if Paul is speaking of himself or not. He does go on to say that I will pray in the Spirit (v.15) and in emphasizing the importance of prophecy (intelligent words) he does say that he is thankful for the ability to speak in tongues (v.18). He does not mention tongues as prayer here, but can it be inferred from the above context?

    Finally, he ends with: “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (v.39). There is no discussion of the cessation of tongues here.

    My heart here is to promote dialogue. I continue to have great respect for those of a different theological persuasion.

  • Posted by Tally
    Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 10:47 PM

    “Although McKissic’s message was not posted online, it is available for sale at the seminary.”

    Hahahaa!  Step 1:  Create fire storm.  Step 2:  Ban the information from public access.  Step 3: Draw media attention to said firestorm.  Step 4:  SELL THE ONLY COPY IN THE SCHOOL STORE.  Our CP dollars at work!

  • Posted by
    Monday, September 11, 2006 at 9:27 AM

    Derek - you and I will agree to disagree on the point of prayer language.  Using the statement “in the spirit” does not necessarily mean that one is praying in tongues.  It could mean that one is praying silently or drawing close to the throne of grace.  The Apostle John was in the spirit on the Isle of Patmos.  He was having fellowship and there is no mention of how John prayed [tongues or not] but we have the understanding, the record we call Revelation.  I did not come to this position lightly.  I have family members who attend AG and Pentecostal churches.  I have studied this for about ten years [and will continue to study it, and, by the way, I do appreciate your comments, Derek.  You have a good spirit and and right heart ... and I am listening and re-reading - thank you].  I do agree that tongues - not the gibberish practiced by some to show off - but the gifting of languages [I have missionary friends who flunked high school Spanish go on to learn other languages so fast that they say it is of God]. 

    The reality of the gifts is this...they cannot cease because the Holy Spirit would have to cease His work.  These gifts are mere manifestations of the Holy Spirit and God’s nature is orderly not chaotic.  For me, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of “ecstatic tongues” in prayer and not able to understand what is going on.  There is no edification in that as edification requires understanding. 

    For Tally - I think you might have hit this whole issue on the head:  The dollar!  I wish I had discerned that!  If they are going to sell it in the book store, then why ban it in the first place?  It would be more palatable to give out free samples so those who want can buy some.  It is less controversial.

  • Posted by Derek
    Monday, September 11, 2006 at 10:08 AM

    Dan—I have enjoyed this brief dialogue, you have caused me to think and rethink my own take on the prayer language of the Spirit. The primary thing that has caused me to think is this: Can a spiritual experience be edifying without being understood rationally? Does edification require understanding? This a good thoughts… I feel that Pentecostal/charismatics tend to be less reflective about their experience. They have no problem proof-texting the scripture to find a Bible verse to “slap” onto their experience, but they tend to be less reflective. (Shame on us!)

    On the flip side, is it possible that evangelicals have allowed a modern worldview to constrict their experience in God to allow that which can be understood? I would say that from my experience many have. This goes to the heart of the mystic vs. intellectual discussion that has taken place in the church since the beginning. I think that to allow reason to constrict experience is both pitfall both in theology and praxis. Much of the Christian life lies outside of a place where we can wrap our minds around it…e.g. the holiness of God, the incarnation, the mystery of God, the Trinity, God’s justice and, of course, the spiritual gifts.

    I am reminded on Kempis who opens The Imitation of Christ with this thought: “What good does it do you to be able to give a learned discourse on the Trinity, while you are without humility and, thus are displeasing to the Trinity? Esoteric words neither make us holy nor righteous; only a virtuous life makes us beloved of God. I would rather experience repentance in my soul than know how to define” (Imitation 1.1.3).

    My humble challenge is that we continue to wrestle with I Corinthians 14 within the context of Paul, before looking at other texts. (I think I hear Gordon Fee in the back of my head.) As I have honestly wrestled with this chapter, I come to no other conclusion than that Paul is discussing two manifestations of the gift of tongues – one public with interpretation and one private as a prayer language.

  • Posted by
    Monday, September 11, 2006 at 11:03 AM

    How small! 

    If God was sarcastic:  Oh, thank you, thank you Paige,for protecting my Kingdom in the earth from such horrible ravages of truth. 

    Give me a break.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 9:48 AM

    When we get to heaven…

    GOD: If you speak in tongues, go over there (Points to His right).
    If you do NOT speak in tongues, please go over there (Points to His left).
    If you happen to be a Southern Baptist, please stand this over there (points some random direction). If you are a Penticostal, please stand over this way (points somewhere different).

    JUST KIDDING!

    When will wen realize what matters is leading people to Jesus Christ! Baptists need to get over it! Theology is great until is becomes your god, and you care more about that than Jesus!

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 10:29 AM

    Derek-
    I wanted to thank you very much for being a loving Christian. You know what you are talking about and you discussed it openly out of love and humbleness. You are a Charismatic who understands and get’s it. Thanks for being a blessing!

  • Posted by Derek
    Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 3:04 PM

    Andrew--Thanks for the kind words and the humor in your earlier post. We do need to keep the main thing the main thing. It is all about Jesus right? You are right to say that we can worship our theology and make it a god, but we must continue to stive towards the truth. We cannot escape theology. We are all theolgians—the question is whether or not we are going to be a good theologian or not. I believe that if we are going to be good theologians that we need to be open to other traditions. I need all of my Baptist brothers to challenge me!

  • Posted by
    Monday, January 14, 2008 at 7:39 PM

    I think I have previously posted some of these similar comments on Derek’s site................ 
    It seems that the issue of tongues is so misunderstood.  It is so simple that it takes theologian to make it complicated.  The cart and the horse are all turned around in every direction in the blogs and writings I have seen on the subject.  Speaking in tongues seems to catch all the attention when actually is subsequent to something else that doesn’t even seem to get discussed. 

    I was in the Southern Baptist Church for about 40 years of my life and still am at heart at 65. I am glad they were there for me from the time I was kept in a nursery and far into my adulthood. They imparted into me much of what I still have today. The Baptist domination is dear to my heart and will continue to hold it there. It grieves me to see a schism in the SBC about anything. If indeed much of it is over Spiritual Gifts it is evident from the blogs and all I have read elsewhere that there is a gross Biblical ignorance about Spiritual Gifts, speaking in tongues, etc. I know, because I was ignorant about it myself at one time and am still learning. When taught under an anointed teacher it is so simple that it really does take a theologian to come in and make it complicated.  Now, I am also amazed why anyone would not want ALL that God has to offer that was paid for and is freely given by Christ.  Why would anyone take out their spiritual eraser and use it on God’s Word except for them being sorely confused..

    I see all the labels of Calvinist and so on being used in the SBC discussion and wonder where the Bibleist are in all this. Why will some people just not embrace all of the New Testament as God’s Word and Covenant for us today?  Then they wonder why they are having problems trying to explain away and or to try to understand a further step in the Christian life clearly laid out in the New Testament and prophesied in the Old Testament. That being the Baptism in the Holy Spirit that is subsequent to salvation to empower us to better walk the Christian walk and witness. I am still wondering how Romans 8:26, that is often used, is a base for any argument by itself. How anyone could think that God is not still the same yesterday, today and tomorrow as He had said He is. How or why did anything God has for us go away with the Apostles or anything else?

    First and foremost, without the Baptism in the Holy Spirit there is no one who is going to receive a personal prayer language. It is not the only evidence, but it is an evidence of the “In-filling” of the Holy Spirit.  That comes after the “Indwelling” that is received at salvation.  John the Baptist made this plain in Matthew 3:11 - I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. Then later the Apostle Paul ran into some Baptist boys (disciples of John the Baptist) and ask them a question in Acts 19:1-6… While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.  The same Spirit Jesus said he would send in John 14:16 (AMP) “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter (Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate, Strengthener, and Standby), that He may remain with you forever--”

    If it was needed then......how much more do we need it now!!! Especially in these times. God said He was going to pour out His Spirit on all flesh at the end of this age and He is going to do it. Yes, and it is going to cause problems between those who receive the in-filling, that comes with the Baptism in the Holy Spirit that happened for the first time in the Upper Room at Pentecost as Jesus said it would when He sent the Holy Spirit, and those who don’t believe it is for us today or just for some people and not others for some weird reasons I cannot find in scripture. They try to base that, I think, on 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 that is listed with other Spiritual Gifts and is talking about the special Spiritual Gift of Tongues which is when God speaks to a congregation through a person and must be interpreted by someone with the Gift of Interpretation of Tongues.  It says that not all will not have that Gift and they won’t, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the way they are trying to use it to prove something.  Taking it out of context.  This “Gift of Tongues” is not given to every believer who is Baptized with the Holy Spirit.  It can operate in them if the Holy Spirit wants it to at some time, but is not always a permanent Gift.  THIS IS NOT the personal prayer language that is given to anyone Baptized in the Holy Spirit. Anyone can have that baptism who is “born again” and wants it. They will get a “personal prayer language” at that time, but not necessarily the special Gift of Tongues I have already explained.

    It is easy to understand why there is so much confusion. It happens when you are not where it is not believed, taught or preached by all. Or taught by people who are not anointed to teach in those areas and the result is confusion and discord.  The Holy Spirit cannot function in an atmosphere of discord. That is why when I was Baptized with the Holy Spirit I had to find a place that could explain what had happened to me and help me to grow in the grace God had given me during one of my “head prayer” times and really did not know how to pray or what to pray for. I have not and will not look back since that day.  My Christian walk exploded to a new level on that day.  The Bible seemed to become a new book after that.  I saw things now just jump of the pages at me that after many years of previous in-depth Bible study that I had not seen before.

    I often wonder why Christians who are interested in these matters will go to a minister or anyone else who not been Baptized in the Holy Spirit and ask them what they think.  What of value could they possibly tell them about something they have never experienced?  Can we explain the spiritual results of salvation to someone who has never experienced it?  Can we reduce a spiritual experience to carnal understanding?  Poorly at best. That is the reason the Holy Spirit has to speak to the person we are speaking to about what we are telling them about God or there is no result. The Holy Spirit must draw them. It is the same thing with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the resulting speaking in tongues as a personal prayer language, the Gift of Speaking in Tongues and all the other Spiritual Gifts that the Holy Spirit gives as He wills to each.  I can also tell you that anyone who is Baptized in the Holy Spirit will never grow in it and will eventually dry up if they do not find a place where it is practiced and has an anointed teacher to help them.  You cannot keep it active when you are in a place that the Holy Spirit is not always in charge.  I have personally seen this happen time and again.

    You shouldn’t care what I think.  I don’t even care what I think or what anybody else thinks, but we all should care what God thinks.  It is amazing that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was prevalent in denominational churches, including Baptist Churches, up until early in the last century. Where did it go?  No church or person has it “just right” anywhere today.  We are all a work in progress.  God is pouring His Spirit out on all flesh at the end of the age just like He said He would on anyone that would receive it and walk in it.  He is going to have His way in the end. Pick and choose Cafeteria Bible Christians with spiritual erasers at work in God’s Word are going to remain weak and confused. That is exactly what “the adversary” wants. He loves a good fuss in the churches anywhere.

    Here is an article I think you will find interesting. Especially the comment a Chinese gentleman made about the American churches he visited in Kevin Turner’s article “Why Isn’t The American Church Growing” I hope you will read every word of it as I did. Sobering to say the least.

    http://www.swi.org/KevinsEyes.aspx?Page=3&ID=5

    I wish you all to be blessed In Him and that The Truth in all things that are of Christ will prevail in all of us.

    In His Love,
    Wayne

    • Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: