Reply to : For Zions Sake

Hi Zion,

Didaktikon...are you serious??? Very much so.

Do you mean that everytime everyone in the GRC prays in tongues while they open in prayer, take prayer requests, bless the word, take communion, exercise the gifts, pray in the prayer line, close in prayer, have a prayer time between meetings on Sunday, have a prayer time at the end of meetings on Wednesday and Saturday, dedicate a baby, pray all day, for several days at a fast.....and so on.....they are 'biblically, morally and ethically out of order'??????? According to Paul's very clear, very precise direction to the Corinthians, should a person pray publicly in 'tongues', then it must be interpreted. Paul nowhere provides any exceptions to this 'rule' (e.g.your: open in prayer, take prayer requests, bless the word, take communion, exercise the gifts, pray in the prayer line, close in prayer, have a prayer time between meetings on Sunday, have a prayer time at the end of meetings on Wednesday and Saturday, dedicate a baby, pray all day, for several days at a fast.....and so on.....). Public 'tongues' ALWAYS requires public 'interpretation'.

Blessings,

Ian

Hiya, Ralph.

An issue came to light again this morning when my RF friend mentioned he was going to spend half a day praying in the Spirit (speaking in tongues)... Why on earth would he want to do that?! 

Being well armed due to Please Consider and etc., I made the situation quite clear it is not what praying in the Spirit means. A bit of feedback through the essays confirmed I was correct in the discussion this morning, but I find a couple of answers still elusive to this question... Okay.

We know that Paul, in the church (publicly) spoke in tongues and made it clear, "no interpreter- no tongues - let speak to himself - etc", then can we come to a definite conclusion that one can use tongues in private prayer to any avail or is it wrong.? Actually, to begin with we know that Paul never spoke in "tongues" in the church (i.e. "publicly") at all! About this fact he was explicitly clear. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:6 Paul used a conditional modifier, that is one predicated by the word "if", to make his case. This identifies the "possibility" of him "speaking in tongues" in a meeting context, but that such was far from being a "certainty" (i.e. had he used "when", instead). Further, note the implication of verse 18, but qualified as it is by verse 19.  To Paul, prayer in "tongues" was better served as a private practice rather than as a public one.

Blessings,

Ian

Good evening, Ralph.

Ah, even with  my much studying on this issue, Why didn't I see that bit before? For the most simple of reasons: a preconditioned acceptance of a particular position, reinforced as it was by many years in Revivalism. The Scottish proverb rings true: "...many things in the Bible I see, most of them put there by you and by me."

Exegesis can only work, it can only be effective, if one approaches the biblical text with a certain degree of intentional distanciation. Question everything, assume nothing and search diligently for the truth

Blessings,

Ian

What Is Distanciation?

Piece from D.A. Carson’s classic work, Exegetical Fallacies.

“The fundamental danger with all critical study of the Bible lies in what hermeneutical experts call distanciation. Distanciation is a necessary component of critical work; but is difficult and sometimes costly” (23).

The fallacy that comes from the omission of distanciation has to do with an interpreter’s inability to distance himself from his presuppositions in the interpretive process and discerning the meaning of the text. We all have presuppositions which are simply beliefs or convictions we hold prior to handling the text (also called apriori convictions or control beliefs). Having presuppositions is not bad, of course, but what is detrimental and fallacious is when we use our presuppositions to influence our interpretation and alter the meaning of the text. Carson explains,

“If we sometimes read our own theology into the text, the solution is not to retreat to an attempted neutrality, to try to make one’s mind a tabula rasa so we may listen to the text without bias. It cannot be done, and it is a fallacy to think it can be. We must rather discern what our prejudices are and make allowances for them; and meanwhile we should learn all the historical theology we can” (129).

Essentially speaking, the consequences that comes from the omission of distinction is the dreaded practice of eisegesis—the subjective approach of the interpreter which forces the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief (presupposition) or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine (i.e. reading into the text one’s own ideas). While often times the eisegetical work seen today is due to a defensive pietism or uncritical anti-intellectualism, eisegesis also is practiced among intelligent and well-equipped ministers, who either intentionally do not distance themselves from their presuppositions or simply fail to see text due to a skewed lens (apriori commitments) which affect their ability to see the text as it was intended by the author.

The difficulty with distanciation comes when one does not realize one’s presuppositions or neglects their influence in eclipsing the truth of God’s Word with the overshadowing effect of his tightly held convictions. To practice distanciation in the process of interpretation, one must begin by acknowledging one’s prior convictions and then distance himself from them in order to allow the text to speak for itself. Carson explains that “we must first of all grasp the nature and degree of the differences that separate our understanding from the understanding of the text” (24). This process becomes quite disturbing and discomforting, but intellectual virtue and critical study demands that the interpreter be open, honest, and thorough in the work of exegesis. A closed-minded, biased interpreter will find their exegesis to be a reflection more on their personal theology than the text itself—a fallacy which can be found in every theological camp.

Another aspect of the difficulty and even danger in distanciation is how it affects you as a student of the Scripture. As you adapt a critical and careful study of the text, you can easily find yourself examining it merely for the acquisition of nuances and intellectual precision and fail to realize that the purpose of interpretation is to lead to a greater love and devotion to God. In other words, distanciation can, if not guarded, cause a student to treat the Bible as a textbook only and fall short of understanding that the purpose of sound exegesis should translate into heightened affection for and deepened devotion to Jesus Christ, the Living Word.

Epi,

Contextually, a quick browse in Luke Ch 11 shows us that Jesus is answering a request from a disciple to teach them how to pray, thus, the Lord’s Prayer. I fail to see how one can interpret the parable that follows, be taken as long sessions speaking in tongues to receive any thing from the Lord, after He has already explained in what manner to pray. Yes we must be “bold” in asking of the Father, knowing He will grant that which is asked for, and I am sure the Lord cannot be pleased with the “yabba” “yabba” that goes on all the time.

brolga