Theology - Inconsistencies
I was meditating on the issue of Holy Spirit Baptism yesterday, thinking about the debate of the signs of Holy Spirit Baptism. By definition, Holy Spirit Baptism is a given in Christianity. Any Christians worth his salt and who have studied the bible will know that as Christians, we are promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You can check out the verses in Bible Gateway by searching for the exact keywords. What is really in dispute is the question whether tongues is a compulsory sign of Holy Spirit baptism.
I am not here to answer the question, but I want to point out some inconsistencies in 'conservative Christians' in their biblical interpretation. Opponents of tongues have always quote Paul from 1 Corinthians when he asked 'Do all speak in tongues' while proponents will counter-argue that Paul is speaking from the perspective of tongues as a gift, not as a sign of the Holy Spirit Baptism. Sadly, I have read more scholarly and more thorough studies for the former case than for the latter case, mostly argued by charismatic writers who practice loose interpretation on bible verses to make their case.
Yet, one case scholars always make is that the fact that all the instances of Holy Spirit Baptism are always accompanied by signs of speaking in tongues does not mean that this happens to everyone. It's just like the argument that just because God spoke personally to some of the prophets through His Holy Spirit in the bible does not mean it is normative for the rest of the population. This sounds ok, but then I was like... 'wait a moment'... what about saying grace for food? I may have missed out but I have so far only found that the only person who gave thanks for food is Jesus... not normative... opps... and you will never see the people who argued against speaking in tongues on that basis argue the same thing for saying grace.
Of course this means something deeper but I dun want to go so far in. I just want to point out that we need to be consistent in our biblical interpretation, regardless of the issues. There are of course some rules to follow. The old rule applies, to allow the bible to speak for itself and not let our theology make the bible speak, which is a danger between the two camps I have mentioned.
Comments
Post a Comment