http://www.cocomment.com/comments/loveeachstone Copyright 2007 coComment.com 2009-11-22T07:43:50.280+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=1486939&comment_id=28804193 David Rogers Timothy, Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that you don't believe in the so-called "age of accountability"? Do you believe children who die (no matter what age) without making a "profession of faith" go to hell? 2008-07-19T06:39:33.707+02:00 2008-07-19T06:39:33.707+02:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=1486939&comment_id=28561089 David Rogers Debbie, Yes, a 6, 7 or 8-year-old can make some "moral" choices, and can also make some "independent" choices. What I am talking about, though, are specifically "independent, moral choices." Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about cognitive development theory. And, I am very hesitant about letting secular scientific theories determine positions on theological issues. But, in this case, it does seem to me to be a relevant question. The way I am thinking, the amount of "knowledge" per se, is less relevant. It is the capability of volitionally trusting your entire life into the hands of Jesus, not being able to explain all the theology behind it. 2008-07-10T18:48:08.760+02:00 2008-07-10T18:48:08.760+02:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=1486939&comment_id=28557799 David Rogers Rob, Thanks for your input. I think that if we have never lived and worked outside of our native culture, it is difficult sometimes to see just how much our culture and traditions influence the way we see and do things. Debbie (and others), I understand and appreciate the desire to not invalidate the spiritual sensitivity and decisions of the children in our lives. I made a profession of faith and was baptized as a child myself. And, we have had to deal with the same dynamics with our own children. However, as I have already alluded to several times here, I think it is important that we not confuse the ability to intellectually understand and accurately articulate the gospel with the ability to make independent moral decisions. As I understand it, a child prodigy may well be able to write a theological treatise on biblical soteriology, and yet not be able to make truly INDEPENDENT moral decisions. Does this mean we should not encourage them to believe in Jesus, repent of their sins, love and follow him with their whole heart? By no means!! But, I think the decisions a 6, 7, or 8-year-old makes will be of a qualitatively different nature than those a 13 or 14-year-old makes. 2008-07-10T17:19:35.834+02:00 2008-07-10T17:19:35.834+02:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=1486939&comment_id=28527322 David Rogers Joe, Okay, granted, we are talking about the baptizing of believers. I guess, at the bottom line, I am more hesitant to define the moment of crossing the line from unbelief to faith in the life of a child as the moment they "pray the sinner's prayer." I see children as in a process of growth in both faith and repentance, from infancy up, if they are properly instructed in a Christian home, and respond appropriately. I do think it is important for them, and for anyone, at one time or another, to eventually make a public profession and embracing of Jesus' lordship over their life, though. I guess this is where William's question becomes more relevant. If age 12 is too old, is there any minimum age limit at all? And, why or why not? Personally, I see a profession of faith of someone who is at least 12 as more indicative of an informed, mature, "morally independent," life-long choice to follow Jesus than that of a younger child. I believe we should be affirming and encouraging of any steps taken toward this point on the part of younger children. But, at the same time, I think we should be hesitant about declaring them "saved" and "eternally secure" until they have the chance to confirm their decision later on from a more mature perspective. 2008-07-09T21:49:23.761+02:00 2008-07-09T21:49:23.761+02:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=1486939&comment_id=28525158 David Rogers Joe, I would counter that the arguments in favor of baptizing children are based just as much on "extra-biblical" reasoning as those against it. Also, since the Bible is not clear on this, I would not make it an issue for dividing with other true disciples. What I am concerned about is the implications for long-term discipleship. You and Geoff point out the danger of allowing a child to become set in his/her ways before being obedient to the Lord's command to be baptized. My read (though I admit I cannot presently confirm this with hard evidence) is that it generally is helpful for individuals to have a clear moment of public commitment to Christ sometime after the onset of adolescence. As I mentioned before, I do not strictly agree with paedo-baptist interpretation regarding "confirmation." But, I do think they have a point. It is important, as a child enters into adolescence, to re-visit his/her decisions of childhood, and re-confirm them, with a view to the new stage of life's journey upon which they are getting ready to embark. It seems to me that it may be more helpful in one's lifelong discipleship to couple this with baptism, than it would be to make baptism a separate, previous experience. 2008-07-09T19:20:02.627+02:00 2008-07-09T19:20:02.627+02:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=1486939&comment_id=28525063 David Rogers Patrick, Yes, your take on paedo-baptist interpretation is correct here, at least as I understand it. However, as I state in my post, I am not convinced, generally, of paedo-baptist interpretation. I would say that baptism corresponds to circumcision, in the sense that circumcision marks and symbolizes one's entrance into the physical Israel, whereas baptism marks and symbolizes one's entrance into the spiritual Israel, not at the time of physical birth, but, rather, at the time of spiritual birth. Mike (BT), and Geoff, I think the key issue here, if we agree on the basic concept of the "age of accountability," is until what age this continues. Here, I think the findings of Piaget and Kohlberg are significant. I also think it is important that we are not just talking about "understanding/affirmation of a certain set of facts," as Geoff alludes to. It is the capability to make independent moral decisions. This is why I am interested to hear something more about this from Bowden, or anyone else who has studied this from the perspective of psychology. I have heard many parents give as a justification for their child's baptism the fact that they are able to articulate perfectly well the essentials of the gospel. But, as I understand it, that is missing the point. It is not a question of intellecutal, rational understanding. It is a question of independent decision-making. By the way, I hope neither of you, or no one else feels criticized by what I say here. As parents, we each are trying to do the best we know how before the Lord. I affirm all of us who are sincerely giving our best effort at being faithful in this regard. Neither do I believe that child baptisms are necessarily invalid, and should thus be repeated later on. I just think that, overall, it is preferrable to postpone baptism to adolescence than do it beforehand. 2008-07-09T19:02:55.851+02:00 2008-07-09T19:02:55.851+02:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=1486939&comment_id=28524734 David Rogers Lew, It seems your main point of discrepancy is with the "age of accountability." As Mohler and Akin (and you) admit, the Scripture is not totally clear one way or another on this. However, I am still convinced that the composite of evidence favors the view taken by Mohler and Akin. In the meantime, as far as I am able to ascertain, the practice of "infant baptism" has been linked historically to the belief in "baptismal regeneration." If we (as Baptists), on the basis of our study of Scripture, do not accept "baptismal regeneration," then I do not see a justification for either "infant baptism" or "semi-infant baptism." Also, even though one might not accept the argument in favor of the "age of accountability," if he/she does not believe in "baptismal regeneration," the fact that a child dies before being baptized is of little relevance. Bob, Yes, I agree it would be interesting to see those statistics. Yeakley's findings seem to point to a high percentage of those who do "fall away" having been baptized as children. Even more important, in my opinion, would be to know how many have been led to a false assurance of salvation and eternal security based upon a childhood "decision" and baptism. That is the real issue, and one for which I believe God will hold us ultimately accountable. Eric, I agree. The bottom line, statistically, is the number of authentic disciples made. But, that is very hard to objectively measure. Joe White, I also made a profession of faith as a child, as have each of my sons. However, I think it is best, as I said in my post, to let the Holy Spirit convict each of us of assurance, as we continue forward as disciples. I can say that I, and many others (according to their testimony) have had an experience of a fuller understanding of repentance, after going through a time of adolescent rebellion. As a child, I repented to the degree I was able to understand it. But, later on, my repentance took on a deeper significance, as I understood better the implications of making a clear choice between two different paths for my life. Also, I am curious to know what specific harm you think may be done by delaying baptism a couple of years in the life of a child. Bowden, Thanks for your input. I would be curious if your studies in psychology provide any additional insight regarding point #3 on the studies of Piaget and Kohlberg. Are you aware, for example, of any additional current scientific consensus on these issues? Do you see any difference between "abstract reasoning" and "independent moral decision-making capability"? Mike (Baptist Theologue), Yes, you present, as I understand it, the best arguments from the alternative point of view. However, when all the arguments are laid out, I still lean toward the option of postponing baptism for children. I am especially concerned about the tendency to lead people to false assurance. I will agree that, unfortunately, the Bible is not totally conclusive on this matter. 2008-07-09T18:23:45.764+02:00 2008-07-09T18:23:45.764+02:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=362142&comment_id=5104935 David Rogers Geoff, It seems clear to me that, in the same context as vv. 14-15, Paul talks about the spirit praying (really praying, not babbling, as far as I can tell) while the mind remains "unfruitful" (v. 14), "praising God with your spirit" (really praising, not just senseless babbling), while others do not understand (v. 16), and "giving thanks well enough" (really giving thanks), while "the other man is not edified." What is the problem? The practice of tongues in public when there is no interpreter. The only inconsistency that Paul points out, and that he seem to "harp on" is the lack of understanding on the part of third parties: "how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say Amen to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?" (v. 16), "the other man is not edified" (v. 17). If Paul had intended on communicating that Corinthian tongues was useless and to be avoided altogether, he sure missed a good opportunity here to come out clearly and say what he really meant. Notice also the contrast in v. 18 & 19. "I thank God I speak in tongues more than all of you (evidently in private). But in the church (i.e. publicly), I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." The clear implication was that when Paul spoke in tongues, as he claimed to do more than all of the Corinthian believers, he was not speaking "intelligible words." Why in the world would he speak in tongues in other public settings without an interpreter, if he refused to do the same in a church? The tongues Paul practiced more than all the Corinthian believers were evidently not in public settings at all, but rather a private prayer language. 2006-12-29T23:53:42.643+01:00 2006-12-29T23:53:42.643+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=362142&comment_id=5097577 David Rogers Geoff, As I understand "praying in the spirit," tongues is just one manifestation of it. I'm not sure if I would choose the term "mindless" with its concomitant pejorative connotation to to describe PPL, either. Although it is very similar term, on the surface, to praying with the spirit, and not with the mind, I believe it conveys something a bit different to the average reader. Regarding 1 Cor. 14.33-35, I understand this to refer to the weighing of prophecies mentioned in v. 29. Wayne Grudem, in his book "The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today," gives a good rationale for this view. Understood this way, I do consider it to be normative teaching for today's church. I might should add that I do not necessarily consider 1 Corinthians 14 in its entirety to be simple to interpret, or immediately "clear" to the average reader. It is, admittedly, a complex passage. However, I do think that a "normal" careful reading of the text would more easily render the interpretation I favor than the one I have understood you to take in these posts. 2006-12-29T20:05:13.571+01:00 2006-12-29T20:05:13.571+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=362142&comment_id=5063423 David Rogers Geoff, I believe the word "glossa" means "language" and not "unintellible utterance." It seems like it is you, rather, who are indiscriminately assigning the meaning of "unintelligible utterance" to the term "glossa" in some instances, and "language" in others. I think it always means "language." However, I think that, just as Paul states in v. 10 "there are many KINDS of languages in the world" (note he does not say "many different languages" but rather "many KINDS of languages," actually not "glossa" but rather "phonon" in this instance). This seems to fit right in with what he already said in 12.10 about "different kinds of tongues" and in 13.1 about "tongues of men" and "tongues of angels." You ask, how could Paul express what was going on at Corinth (assuming it was "ecstatic utterances" without resorting to the word "glossolalia." I think the word you have referenced before, "battologeo," would have served well, if indeed that is what he was trying to communicate. You say: "The people in Corinth were instructed, by Paul, to speak in languages (i.e. “tongues”) that COULD be interpreted by others." Thatis simply not the case. The people in Corinth were instructed, when they spoke in tongues, to "pray that they might interpret what was said." The gift of interpretation was also a supernatural spiritual gift. The interpretation of known languages is not necessarily supernatural. It comes usually by way of diligent study, not by way of prayer. If there is no interpreter, the "tongues speaker" is instructed to "keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God" (i.e. PPL). I see nowhere in the text where Paul says that "speakers of ecstatic utterances" should rather speak in foreign languages that can be interpreted (without the need for someone with the gift of interpretation) by others. Also, as I have mentioned on another comment, the "communication" that is going on during "PPL" is communication "in the spirit." It seems perfectly plausible to me that there are different levels of communication, one "with the mind" and another "with the spirit." Yes, Jesus taught his disciples, in the Lord's prayer, to pray "with the mind." Paul, in 1 Cor. 14, gives credence to praying "with the mind" as well. But he also gives credence to praying "with the spirit" (in direct counter-distinction to praying "with the mind.") Both are viable forms of prayer, and do not conflict with one another. 2006-12-29T00:27:43.187+01:00 2006-12-29T00:27:43.187+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=loveeachstone&conv=362142&comment_id=5024354 David Rogers Geoff, In this post, I believe you jump to several unwarranted conclusions. You say: "These “tongues” may have been ecstatic utterances, very similar to those utilized in the pagan worship rituals practiced in the various temples and worship centers in Corinth. But they also may have been other languages. The Greek word glossa can rightly be translated either way. I submit that what was going on might have been a combination of the two. Indeed, Paul may have used the same word for “known languages” and “unknown tongues” interchangeably throughout this chapter. We simply cannot tell." I agree with you that "we simply cannot tell." However, to me, it seems unlikely that Paul would jump back and forth between two different understandings of the same term, without a definite hermeneutical guideline for when he intended which meaning. As we have it now, this theory is mere conjecture. However, I see many people, including yourself, apparently, basing your entire interpretation of the gift of tongues in 1 Cor. 14 on this "conjecture." On another post, (if my memory doesn't fail me) I once asked Brad Reynolds to go one by one through each use of the term "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12-14, and tell me each time what is the meaning intended, and the reason for choosing this meaning over another meaning. I don't remember getting any clear answer. I realize this would be complicated to do. But I also believe the burden of proof regarding supposed alternating and conflicting understandings of the term "tongues" (or the concept) falls on those who claim this to be the case. The more natural reading is to assume that when Paul uses the word "glossa" or "glossalalia," he is always referring to basically the same thing (whether practiced publicly or privately, or whether "tongues of men" or "tongues of angels"), the legitimate (though sometimes abused) Spirit-endowed gift of tongues. You say: "But, whatever was going on, it was not good … and Paul did not like it...He did not in any way affirm anything that they were already practicing." Once again, I maintain, Paul was correcting abuses. But to say the whole thing of "speaking in tongues," as practiced in Corinth, was bad in and of itself is making a jump I honestly do not see warranted in the text. I believe Paul "affirms" the use of tongues on several occasions (v. 1, v. 5, v. 18, v. 39). I know you have different interpretations of each of these verses (which you mention in subsequent posts), but I maintain that your interpretation of each of these verseshinges upon the "conjecture" that Paul is alternating in between two different meanings of the term "tongues." In regard to v. 2, Spiros Zodhiates gives the following definitions for the term "musterion" ("mystery"): (1) Denotes in general something hidden or not fully manifest; (2) Some sacred thing hidden or secret which is naturally unknown to human reason and is only known by the revelation of God; (3) in the writing of Paul the word 'musterion' is sometimes applied in a peculiar sense to the calling of the Gentiles; and (4) it denotes a spiritual truth couched under an external representation or similitude, and concealed or hidden thereby unless some explanation be given. I do not see here any hint of speaking "utter nonsense." It is true that "no one understands." Not even the one speaking ("for if I pray in a tongue, my mind is unfruitful" v. 14). But, nonetheless, in the "spirit" the one praying in a tongue is still speaking "musterion." That, to me, is the "common-sense" reading of this verse. I am glad, by the way, that you do not agree with MacArthur here (though, in general, I think MacArthur tends to be a fairly capable exegete). I agree that it was not "a good thing" that the Corinthians were "speaking in tongues" that no one understood, without an interpreter, in public worship. That is the abuse that Paul was correcting. But doing the same thing privately in prayer to God does not seem to be a problem, according to Paul. That, at least, is how I read it. 2006-12-27T23:31:16.249+01:00 2006-12-27T23:31:16.249+01:00