<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tony Campolo on Private Prayer Language</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language</link>
	<description>News &#38; Commentary About All Things Baptist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:32:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: www.DavidBHester.com &#187; Statement of Faith &#124; The Judgement Seat</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html#comment-71192</link>
		<dc:creator>www.DavidBHester.com &#187; Statement of Faith &#124; The Judgement Seat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=144#comment-71192</guid>
		<description>[...] http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html#comment-543</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=144#comment-543</guid>
		<description>I think we are about to see just how many Southern Baptists there are who either 1) accept the validity of a private prayer language in tongues even though they may not have been gifted with it themselves and 2) how many Southern Baptists actually have a private prayer language in tongues. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I agree with Campolo.  The Bible clearly does not teach the doctrine of cessation of tongues.  It is a sovereign gift of the Holy Spirit given to some Christians for reasons that only God knows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we are about to see just how many Southern Baptists there are who either 1) accept the validity of a private prayer language in tongues even though they may not have been gifted with it themselves and 2) how many Southern Baptists actually have a private prayer language in tongues. </p>
<p>I agree with Campolo.  The Bible clearly does not teach the doctrine of cessation of tongues.  It is a sovereign gift of the Holy Spirit given to some Christians for reasons that only God knows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: foxofbama</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html#comment-542</link>
		<dc:creator>foxofbama</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=144#comment-542</guid>
		<description>BDiddy:&lt;br/&gt;  I truly did find your links to Schaeffer and the book on Baylor at BL.com fascinating.&lt;br/&gt;  Hoping you can alert Ben Cole and Essick and we can cross blog about it exhaustively in the New Year.&lt;br/&gt;   Till Then with the exception of a few extraneous chats&lt;br/&gt;   Merry Christmas&lt;br/&gt;   fox</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BDiddy:<br />  I truly did find your links to Schaeffer and the book on Baylor at BL.com fascinating.<br />  Hoping you can alert Ben Cole and Essick and we can cross blog about it exhaustively in the New Year.<br />   Till Then with the exception of a few extraneous chats<br />   Merry Christmas<br />   fox</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D.R.</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html#comment-529</link>
		<dc:creator>D.R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=144#comment-529</guid>
		<description>Regarding Campolo&#039;s framing of Southern Baptists, I tend to disagree.  He paints with far too broad of a brush.  He might be right in describing &lt;i&gt;many&lt;/i&gt; in the SBC leadership, but I think he is far from accurate when describing the views regarding private prayer language when speaking of the SBC in general.  Second, Campolo seems to confuse the arguments for private prayer language with the arguments for cessation in tongues.  I reject (as do many charismatics actually) the idea of a private prayer language, yet I also reject the use of 1 Corinthians 13 as a means of argument.  I don&#039;t think tongues have ceased as a means of original intent, i.e., I don&#039;t think God has ceased using tongues in the manner originally intended, which would be for prophecy for a group and, more importantly for today&#039;s time, for evangelism.  Modern charismatic-leaning scholars like Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, and Gordon Fee (and you could even throw in guys like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney into that mix) point out the correct use of tongues and those uses that are minority positions that lack Biblical support, like private prayer language.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The problem in dealing with tongues in the current context is that because the Pentecostal movement has tended to lump all tongues together, so do Evangelicals and so do critics like Campolo.  However, discernment must be exercised and criticism must be tempered in order to actually deal with the issues at hand.  I particularly don&#039;t like Campolo&#039;s rhetoric, throwing around terms like &quot;Fundamentalist&quot; and &quot;Anti-Pentecostal&quot; when those terms must be qualified and re-qualified in order not to simply be used as ad hominems against his opponents, which seems to come through, especially in this short passage.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As for his story regarding the monk, I am glad to see Campolo is struggling with this issue rather than actually going the way of most moderates and liberals in this day and age.  What Campolo doesn&#039;t point out here (though I recognize you probably didn&#039;t cite the entirety of his argument) is that inclusivism has the same problem as advocation of homosexuality - it runs contrary to the universal witness of Church History.  In fact, any time when inclusivism was introduced in the history of the Church, it was soundly defeated by means of Biblical argumentation (as was the case with Trinitarianism), not simply shouted down or suppressed, as some would have you believe.  Inclusivism has a hard time dealing with many texts, but what I find most damning to it is the central doctrines of the faith, such as Christ&#039;s Atonement, the Role of Christ in the Trinity, and the Role of the Holy Spirit in salvation, which I wrote a short treatise about entitled, &quot;&lt;a HREF=&quot;http://danielrandle.blogspot.com/2005/05/holy-spirit-and-exclusivity-of-gospel.html&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Holy Spirit and the Exclusivity of the Gospel&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;  I think it clearly outlines the fact that the job of the Holy Spirit in salvation is to bring glory to Jesus Christ by revealing Him to the hearer in His full glory and then guiding the new convert in an ever-growing knowledge of Christ, so that Jesus is glorified more and more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding Campolo&#8217;s framing of Southern Baptists, I tend to disagree.  He paints with far too broad of a brush.  He might be right in describing <i>many</i> in the SBC leadership, but I think he is far from accurate when describing the views regarding private prayer language when speaking of the SBC in general.  Second, Campolo seems to confuse the arguments for private prayer language with the arguments for cessation in tongues.  I reject (as do many charismatics actually) the idea of a private prayer language, yet I also reject the use of 1 Corinthians 13 as a means of argument.  I don&#8217;t think tongues have ceased as a means of original intent, i.e., I don&#8217;t think God has ceased using tongues in the manner originally intended, which would be for prophecy for a group and, more importantly for today&#8217;s time, for evangelism.  Modern charismatic-leaning scholars like Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, and Gordon Fee (and you could even throw in guys like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney into that mix) point out the correct use of tongues and those uses that are minority positions that lack Biblical support, like private prayer language.</p>
<p>The problem in dealing with tongues in the current context is that because the Pentecostal movement has tended to lump all tongues together, so do Evangelicals and so do critics like Campolo.  However, discernment must be exercised and criticism must be tempered in order to actually deal with the issues at hand.  I particularly don&#8217;t like Campolo&#8217;s rhetoric, throwing around terms like &#8220;Fundamentalist&#8221; and &#8220;Anti-Pentecostal&#8221; when those terms must be qualified and re-qualified in order not to simply be used as ad hominems against his opponents, which seems to come through, especially in this short passage.</p>
<p>As for his story regarding the monk, I am glad to see Campolo is struggling with this issue rather than actually going the way of most moderates and liberals in this day and age.  What Campolo doesn&#8217;t point out here (though I recognize you probably didn&#8217;t cite the entirety of his argument) is that inclusivism has the same problem as advocation of homosexuality &#8211; it runs contrary to the universal witness of Church History.  In fact, any time when inclusivism was introduced in the history of the Church, it was soundly defeated by means of Biblical argumentation (as was the case with Trinitarianism), not simply shouted down or suppressed, as some would have you believe.  Inclusivism has a hard time dealing with many texts, but what I find most damning to it is the central doctrines of the faith, such as Christ&#8217;s Atonement, the Role of Christ in the Trinity, and the Role of the Holy Spirit in salvation, which I wrote a short treatise about entitled, &#8220;<a HREF="http://danielrandle.blogspot.com/2005/05/holy-spirit-and-exclusivity-of-gospel.html" REL="nofollow">The Holy Spirit and the Exclusivity of the Gospel</a>.&#8221;  I think it clearly outlines the fact that the job of the Holy Spirit in salvation is to bring glory to Jesus Christ by revealing Him to the hearer in His full glory and then guiding the new convert in an ever-growing knowledge of Christ, so that Jesus is glorified more and more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Danny Chisholm</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2006/12/tony-campolo-on-private-prayer-language.html#comment-528</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Danny Chisholm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=144#comment-528</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s really amazing that we were thinking about the same issue today. Glad to see you writing again.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The IMB condemned the private prayer language practice even though president Rankin admitted to doing it. This set up an embarrassing situation for them. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;This is shaping up to be the next battleground.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s really amazing that we were thinking about the same issue today. Glad to see you writing again.</p>
<p>The IMB condemned the private prayer language practice even though president Rankin admitted to doing it. This set up an embarrassing situation for them. </p>
<p>This is shaping up to be the next battleground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

