Friday, December 29, 2006

"Heads Up" on a Good Discussion on PPL

On various different occasions on this blog, I have made reference to the question of so-called “Private Prayer Languages.” However, I have never yet taken the time to present a systematic biblical argument for the view I hold on this matter. Recently, I was made aware of a series of posts by Geoff Baggett on the subject of PPL. I do not know Geoff personally, but through my interaction with him on various blog-posts, he seems to be a nice enough guy. Also, the fact that he grew up in the Memphis area is a point in his favor in my book. :^)

On this particular question of PPL, Geoff takes a different view than I do. Geoff’s comments, however, have provided a good platform for me, in my comments to his posts, to explain in a fair amount of detail the rationale behind the view I take in my biblical understanding of this topic. Especially relevant in this discussion is our different interpretation of several key verses in 1 Corinthians 14.

I believe the comment string on a blog-post can be an effective way of discussing theological questions such as this one. Although it does not have the formal precision of some other channels of communication, the “give and take” of the discussion provides a means to clarify doubts regarding what the other participants are saying, as well as to challenge points on which one believes other participants may not be presenting a totally viable argument. It also gives you the opportunity to hold your own point of view up against the critique of other participants, in order to see where you yourself may have some possible “blind spots” in need of reevaluation and possible revision.

Through the comment string on Geoff’s series of posts, I believe I have found a good means to present the biblical argument for the view I hold and defend it against possible objections. I invite any of you who may be interested in this topic to check out the following posts, and especially the comment string of each one, where I add in my contribution to the discussion.

"Private Prayer Languages" - Part I
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part II
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part III
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part IV
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part V
"Private Prayer Languages" - Part VI
"Private Prayer Languages" - The Final Chapter

And I’m sure Geoff wouldn’t mind me saying… Feel free to add in your own comments, wherever you think you have something interesting to contribute to the discussion.

9 comments:

Geoff Baggett said...

David,
Thanks for the referral and the "heads up." My visits have increased tremendously overnight. Lots of readers, but no writers. I think that the length of our posts may have scared them away!
Geoff

JohnJaxtheBaptist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wade Burleson said...

David,

I asked Geoff on his blog the same question, and am waiting for his reply, but in one of the last comments Geoff makes he says,

"I certainly hope that a rejection of missionaries on the basis of continualist theology is on the way.”

I about fell out of my chair when I read that quote, but maybe I am missing something. Am I misreading it? Is it a typo?

Or is Geoff advocating that a 'continualist' in terms of theology, whether he has the gift or not, should be barred from Southern Baptist missionary service?

Just asking,

wade

Wade Burleson said...

If he is, where will you serve David?

:)

David Rogers said...

Wade,

Just to clarify, in case anyone reading here doesn't make it over to Geoff's blog to read the same thing, he has now commented that his original statement was indeed a typo.

What he meant to write was:

"I certainly hope that a rejection of missionaries on the basis of continualist theology is NOT on the way.”

Wade Burleson said...

David,

I am sure glad to hear it was a typo.

I have heard from a couple of individuals via email who said the same thing Geoff said --- but they meant it.

Thankfully, Geoff does not.

Geoff Baggett said...

It's amazing how one little word can change an entire thought, huh? :)

Alan Knox said...

David,

I am hoping to read all of the posts and comments soon. I wanted to comment here to encourage you based on a question from Wade: If you are "rejected" as a missionary by the IMB, where will you serve? (Yes, I realize that the question was based on a typo, but the question is still valid.)

If God has called you to Spain, will you stay without IMB funding? Should missionaries only go if they are funded? Should they leave when the funding dries up? Should a missionary agency tell someone where God is sending them?

Honestly, David, I do not want you to answer these questions. I only wanted to voice them, and hopefully to get people thinking about some of our SBC procedures.

-Alan

Anonymous said...

Thanks, David, for linking to Geoff's articles, and for posting your interpretations and understandings. They have been a big help to me as I study for myself and sort through my own beliefs and interpretations of this controversial subject. Great stuff and definitely a "MUST READ."
J in South Asia