I have also been somewhat of an outspoken critic of the Christian music industry, believing that it for the most part is shallow and lacks true representation of three-dimensional humanity (which all music should have). However, Tim Kimberley has been winning me over to some real depth in Christian music. He shares the same concerns as me with mainstream Christian music, but slowly he continues to introduce me to artists who not only do things right, but are incredibly talented.

Josh Garrels is one of those artists. I doubt he would call his music “Christian music,” but I think he may say that he is a “Christian who makes music.” I like that.

The following song is incredible. It is called Ulysses. Creative, emotional, and completely addictive. It is the story of Ulysses’ encounter with the Sirens. It is a timeless story accounting Ulysses’ sea voyage home. The Sirens are half-birds, half-women (often mistakenly seens as Mermaids like in the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie) who seduce sailors with their beautiful voices, causing them to crash into the rocks and die. Ulysses desires to hear the Sirens but instructs his men to tie him to the mast of his ship and, no matter what he says, not let him out of his binds. His men were to plug their ears with wax so that they would be safe. It is a great illustration of temptation and determination to overcome. Listen to it with that in mind and enjoy. (The words are below the player.)

I’m holding on to the hope that one day this could be made right
I’ve been shipwrecked, and left for dead, and I have seen the darkest sights
Everyone I’ve loved seems like a stranger in the night
But oh my heart still burns, tells me to return, and search the fading light

I’m sailing home to you I won’t be long
By the light of moon I will press on
Until, I find, my love

Trouble has beset my ways, and wicked winds have blown
Sirens call my name, they say they’ll ease my pain, then break me on the stones
But true love is the burden that will carry me back home
Carry me with the, memories of the, beauty I have known

I’m sailing home to you I won’t be long
By the light of moon I will press on

So tie me to the mast of this old ship and point me home
Before I lose the one I love, before my chance is gone
I want to hold, her in, my armsSimilar Posts:

• The Day God Went Left and I Went Right
• Misled By Experience
• From a P&P Reader about Anti-Intellectualism
• The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is proud to announce the SMU Debate between two noted New Testament scholars, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace
• Help . . . My Back!

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Coffee with Scholars – Mike Licona, Part 2
• Latest Theology Unplugged: Paul Copan “Is God a Moral Monster?”
• Theology Unplugged: Closet Doctrines Part 2 with Sam Storms
• Theology Unplugged: Coffee with Dinesh D’Souza
• Theology Unplugged: Special Session – Does God Change?

• Latest Theology Unplugged: Paul Copan “Is God a Moral Monster?”
• Theology Unplugged: Coffee with Scholars – Mike Licona – Part 1
• Debate on the Resurrection: Licona and Erhman

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 10
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 15
• Theology Unplugged: Hell – Part 1
• Theology Unplugged: Hell – Part 2
• Theology Unplugged: Closet Doctrines Part 2 with Sam Storms

I have to admit something: Unintelligible thoughts or talk have never been necessarily appealing to me. I don’t even know how to categorize such. Don’t be too hard on me, Paul seems to lack an affinity for unintelligible speak as well (1 Cor. 14:19)—at least in public. We have talked so far about the gift of prophecy and gifts of healing. I get those. I can put my arms around them. I know what they are supposed to be and produce. Prophecy is God speaking through someone. Healing is recovering from a physical problem. I know how to evaluate both their legitimacy and effectiveness. But tongues . . . I don’t know.  Well, I take that back. So long as we say that the gift of tongues is the ability to speak in a known language that is unknown to the speaker, I’m good. Speaking in another language has a very definite and reasonable purpose. However, most charismatics I have discussed this with do not believe that speaking in a known language is what the gift of tongues is about.

Though I suspect we will get to this more later, the consensus of church history has identified tongues as the supernatural ability to speak in the language of another for the purpose of evangelism. I understand the reasoning behind this, but am not sure if I completely agree.

The gifts of tongues first appears in the pages of the Scripture in Acts 2 (Mark 16:17 does not qualify due to the probability that it is a late spurious addition). Here are the four definite places where the gift of tongues is mentioned: Acts 2:1-13; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7; and 1 Corinthians 12-14. I will talk about these in a moment. But first, a chart!

If find that the issues must be placed in two categories: ontology and teleology (just to use some big word and sound like I know what I am talking about!). Ontology deals with the nature of tongues, asking What is the gift of tongues? Teleology deals with the purpose of tongues asking Why did God give it or What is its occation?

Here are a few options concerning the “what” of tongues:

1. Human Language

2. Unintelligible or Ecstatic Utterance

3. Angelic Language

Here are a few options concerning the “why” of tongues:

1. Evangelism

2. Evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

3. Private prayer language

4. Prophetic utterance

Now the chart that I will be working with:

I am going to use this chart to work through the option.

1. Human Language for Evangelism

This is the most accepted view among hard cessationists and soft cessationists. According to this view, every time the gift of tongues was exercised, it was a known human language being spoken for the purpose of evangelizing. This seems to gain support in the first occurence of the gift in Acts 2:6-7: ”Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?  And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?’” The case is strengthened when Paul tells the Corinthians (who seem to be using their gift of tongues, uninterpreted, during church service) that tongues is a “sign” for unbelievers and then links it to the evangelization in known “tongues” of “foreigners”: “In the Law it is written, ‘By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.’ Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers (1Co 14:21-22).

Due to the purpose (teleology) of the gift, many soft cessationists would say that this gift can (and probably is) still exercised on a limited basis on the mission field.

It is obvious that those in Acts 2 who heard the Apostles speaking in tongues did not need an interpreter. This suggests that when a native speaker of the language is present, they are their own interpreter as they receive the ultimate end or purpose of the gift as they hear God being praised in their own language

Problems:

While this view does hold some appeal and biblical support (not to mention that it helps me get my arms around it), I think it has some significant problems.

1. While it is definite that the Acts 2 occurence has an ontology of speaking in known languages, it does not seem to have an evangelistic purpose. After all, in Peter’s explanation of the phenomenon starting in Acts 2:14, he seems to return to his own native tongue (probably Aramaic or Hebrew) in order to evangelize. Therefore, he was no longer speaking in tongues when he shared with the Jews from every nation about Christ. I suppose that we could say that the gift of tongues served an evangelistic purpose in gathering the people together, bringing “awe” and “bewilderment”. This would be a sort of “pre-evangelism” purpose. But wouldn’t that just make the gift of tongues a sub-gift of miracles? I suppose that this could be.

2. The two other occurences of the gift in the book of Acts do not illustrate any evangelistic component (Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7). There were not even any unbelievers around. As to its ontology in these two cases, we just don’t know. Nothing is mentioned about speaking in any known tongue.

3. Paul seems to give a definite purpose (teleology) for the gift in 1 Cor. 14:2 and 1 Cor. 14:4 when he says that the one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself as he speaks not to men but to God.

2. Angelic Language

I am not going to match here as I think it is sufficient to deal with the “angelic language” option by itself.

Some people believe that the ontology of tongues is the gift to be able to speak in the language of angels. They get this from 1 Cor. 13:1 where Paul says “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not love, I am nothing but a noisy gong or clanging symbol”. It may seem reasonable to suppose this since it is sandwiched in the same section where Paul is talking about the issue of spiritual gifts.

Problem

I suppose that I don’t have much of a problem with this other than the fact that Paul very well could have been being quite rhetorical here. In other words, his purpose was not to define the ontology of tongues, but to show how much greater love is. The Corinthians were elevating their gift of tongues above the virtue of love. I think Paul was saying that not only is the ability to speak in your gift of tongues not greater than love, but even the ability to speak in the tongue of angels is not greater than love.

2. Evidence of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit

Again, I think it is important to deal with this teleological option by itself.

Classical Pentecostals have traditionally believed that speaking in tongues is the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if you speak in tongues, then the Holy Spirit has indwelled you. If you have not, then you do not have the Holy Spirit. This option, at first, seems reasonable as this is what happened on the day of Pentecost. Christ told the Apostles to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). In Acts 2, this baptism came and they were “filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues (Acts 2:4). As well, in Acts 10 when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit the primary evidence of it was them speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). Finally, in Acts 19:1-6, the Ephesians whom Paul laid his hands on evidenced the presence of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues.

Problems:

While it is true that in the three instances listed above an evidence that the Holy Spirit had indwelled believers was their ability to speak in tongues, there are five major problems I see with this belief:

1) These are the only three places where tongues is mentioned in connection with people becoming believers. All the others do not mention of tongues being present (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4; Acts 7:12, 17, 39; Acts 8:18; Acts 13:12; Acts 16:30-34, et al). Therefore, this does not seem to be normative.

2) Personal and historic experience militates against this. Let’s face it, I have a dog in this hunt. If tongues is the evidence that the Holy Spirit is present within a believer, I am in trouble as I have never spoke in tongues. As well, this gift is hard to find in history. Virtually every saint of the past has not experienced it.

3) If speaking in tongues was the way a person could know that the Holy Spirit was in them (i.e. they are saved), then it goes without saying that it would be mentioned more explicitly elsewhere. John does not even mention this in 1 John where one of his primary purposes is to inform people as to how they may know that they are children of God (1 John 5:13). If speaking in tongues is the evidence, then that is all he would have to say, right?

4) It may surprise people to know that other religions often have an expression of “worship” that is best described as tongues: Paganism, many shamans, Voodoo, and some forms of Hindu just to name a few. Even Joseph Smith believed in the gift. In other words, it does not seem to be a uniquely Christian claim. Since tongues is a supernatural expression of God through us, it would seem that all expressions of the gifts outside of Christianity are either from a different supernatural source or are simply self-produced. Either way, they are illegitimate expressions. The point is that while the gift might have uniquely evidenced the presence of the Holy Spirit in the early church due to its novelty, now that it has been adopted by so many other faiths, it fails to qualify to fulfill this purpose today.

5) Most importantly, Paul clearly says that not all (Christians) speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30).

3. Unintelligible Utterances Which are Prophetic

Many believe that the gift of tongues is (ontologically) unintelligible speech which (teleologically) are prophetic. In this case, tongues would be a subset of the gift of prophecy. The primary defense here, to me, would be the necessity of the gift of interpretation. Paul says that spiritual gifts are for the building up of the body. Therefore, according to this view, tongues is worth very little without communal understanding.

Listen to this:

1 Cor. 14:12-17
So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. 13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.

Therefore, if you speak in a tongue, you need to have an interpreter. Otherwise, it is unfruitful. Paul’s rhetoric adds to the idea that tongues are prophetic in purpose:

1 Cor. 14:6
Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

In other words, the only way tongues has communal benefit is if there is “revelation” “knowledge” or “teaching”. Therefore, there must be an interpreter. If tongues was anything other than revelation, knowledge, or teaching (i.e. simple praise), then Paul’s admonishment here makes little sense.

Finally, in Acts 2:17, Peter, in defense of the occurence of the gift of tongues to the people, says that what they were seeing (i.e. all the Apostles speaking in tongues) fulfilled Joel’s prophecy. However, the passage quoted in Joel does not speak about tongues, but, primarily, prophecy. Therefore, Peter seemed to be telling them that what they were seeing was the liberal distribution of the gift of prophecy taking the form of tongues:

Act 2:16-18
“But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it will be,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all people, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”

Problems:

While I can see where those who believe this are coming from with regard to 1 Corinthians 12-14 and in the quotation of Joel, I see some more explicit statement conflicting with this. In the three occurences in Acts, there is never an interpreter mentioned (unless you see the natives as their own interpreters in Acts 2). As well, it does not seem to qualify as “prophecy” in each of the Acts passages, but praise. In Acts 2:11 it is said that the Apostles were speaking of the “mighty works of God”. In Acts 10:39, Cornelius and this household were speaking in tongues “praising God”. In Acts 19:6 is says that “they began to speak in tongues and prophesy”. The implication of this verse (though not necessary) is that speaking in tongues is distinct from prophesy.

In addition to this, if tongues is nothing more than the gift of prophecy, what is up with Paul’s distinction between the gift of tongues and prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:28-29? And why do we suddenly need a tag-team to hear God speak?

Finally, in 1 Cor. 14:16-17, Paul specifically links tongues with praise.

(Of course, it could be that praise and prophesy are not mutually exclusive which would modify my criticism here quite a it.)

4. Unintelligible Utterance which is a Private Prayer Language (i.e. self-edification)

Finally, there are those that believe that tongues is (ontologically) unintelligible utterance which is primarily (teleologically) purposed on personal edification through private prayer. The support for this view comes from Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 14. There are three specific things he says that make the case for this view strong:

1 Cor. 14:2
“For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit.”

1 Cor. 14:4
“The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.”

1 Cor 14:28
“But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God.”

In each one of these, we see that tongues seems to be primarily for the purpose of self-edification and between the speaker and God. Of course, there can be times when tongues is spoken in church, but this is not ideal (unless there is an interpreter).

Problems

While on the surface, these passages of Scripture seem compelling, I do have four problems with this view as well.

1. This does not seem to be the way the gift was used in the book of Acts. Again, Acts 1 has the clear use of other known languages. In all three occurences in Acts, this is not a private event and it is not interpreted. However, it is praise (prayer) to God and I suppose it would be presumptuous to say that there was not personal edification happening.

2. Most importantly, Paul says that the charismata are given by the Holy Spirit “for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7). That is what the “body” illustration is about, is it not? We all need each other. The eye cannot say to the hand, I don’t need you. Neither can the foot say to the nose, you are no help. I don’t see how a gift given primarily (if not exclusively) for private prayer can be said to be for the “common good”, contributing to the whole. The passages listed above may not be meant to define what the gift of tongues is supposed to be, but to define how it could be misused for self-edification. “Let him speak to himself and to God” could be a bad thing since Paul has just said that his mind is “unfruitful” when he speaks in a tongue without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:14). The solution for this “unfruitful” prayer is to “pray with the spirit and the mind” (i.e. not in a tongue).

1 Cor. 14:15
“What should I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind.”

Translation: I will not pray in tongues. In other words, Paul could be saying that if there is not an interpreter, there is no point to tongues. But if you must speak in a tongue without one (and be unfruitful), don’t do it in the church (1 Cor. 14:28).

Some may say that private edification will ultimately produce communal edification. I have a hard time seeing this as one could say that about anything. For example, I may have the gift of giving, but I practice this alone. I just give to myself. After all, if I am happy, then this benefits everyone as I will be more kind to them. I don’t think we can go in this direction as it would seem to nullify everything that Paul is arguing.

I need to focus a bit more in the gift of interpretation in relation to this private prayer language idea. If the gift of tongues is meant to be, primarily, a private prayer language that is between the speaker and God, then why do we need to “gift of interpretation” (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:26). Is this a “just in case” gift. Just in case someone exercises their private prayer language in a public setting (a general no, no), God has provided those with the gift of interpretation. Not only would this be a superfluous gift but I am afraid that whoever possess this gift in the body of Christ will find their body part dead due to a lack of oxygen (so long as tongues is exercised properly). However, if the gift was meant to be more than a private prayer language such as speaking in another known language or, better, prophecy, then the gift of interpretation makes more sense.

3. How could it be that an unintelligible private prayer language can be said to be a “sign for unbelievers”? (1 Cor. 14:22). However, 1 Corinthians 14:23-24 does seem to say just the opposite as unbelievers will think you are “mad” for speaking in tongues. I don’t really know where to go there.

4. How does one legitimize the gift if it is an unintelligible private prayer language? Epistemic verification is very important to me. It answers the “how do you know?” question. When I hear people speak in tongues, I don’t automatically believe that it is legitimate. In fact, I don’t know if I have ever heard a legitimate expression of the gift. Why? Because if the gift of tongues is not a known language or prophecy, every time it is expressed it is not falsifiable. I would not even know how to evaluate its legitimacy were it to come from myself. Did I just get tongue-tied? Am I having a stroke? Am I speaking out of my head? Is it a cave to emotional pressure?

Granted, when push comes to shove, if it is merely a private prayer language, I suppose it is not my job to know whether it is a legitimate expression. It is between the person and God. However, from a pastoral standpoint, it would be nice to have an answer to someone who asks how they are supposed to know whether they are speaking in tongues or not (and this is often asked and the ”you just know” answer does not help much).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the gift of tongues is quite possibly the most bizarre gift of all those we are discussing. And when I say “bizarre” I mean it in its technically precise way: “odd, out of the ordinary, sensational.” I don’t really know what to do with it. I want to lean in the direction that it is the ability to speak in a known language unknown to the speaker only because that seems to make more sense out of it, gives it a communal purpose, and is falsifiable. However, I am not sure I can go there due to the difficulties. I find all the options have benefits and deficiencies. At this point, it is a matter of choosing the option that has the least difficulties. If you ask me where I stand today, I would say that the unintelligible speak private prayer language (that can occasionally be understood as other languages), option, in spite of all its problems, seems best.

I know that what I have said here does not speak directly to the issue of whether the gift of tongues continued or ceased, but it does help us define what we are saying continued or ceased. If tongues is merely a private prayer language with no prophetic element to it at all, I am going to have little reason to argue that it ceased. As bizarre as it still may be, that is no reason to reject it. If such were the case, to me it would become more like an unarticulate expression of spiritual emotion, not unlike laughter or crying. Maybe it is something you cannot help (although, if that is the case, it would seem that everyone should get the gift).

In sum, I sympathize more and more with John Chrysostom, the fourth-century commentator, who, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 12, essentially says “I don’t know what any of this means. Its too obscure” (Chrystostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, xxix, 1).Similar Posts:

• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: The Gift of Tongues Response – Sam Storms
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: The Gift of Tongues Response – C Michael Patton
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: The Gift of Tongues – Sam Storms
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: My Story Response – Sam Storms

First, three disadvantages:

1. Challenge. When one leaves comments open, they have to be ready to have their propositions challenged. Really, this only applies to those who opt for a content blog rather than a news blog or a personal diary type blog. Challenges come much less often in live environments. In live settings, people will normally keep to themselves, biting their tongue. But the internet has changed things. People are now accustomed to the world of virtual anonymity. Why this can be a disadvantage is that there is a degree of tension (and sometimes discouragement) that arises when someone challenges your otherwise inspired thoughts. That is why book authors often have a hard time transitioning into this new venue of “publishing”. They are not used to the type of acute challenge that blogs bring.

2. Response. Dovetailing the first is the fact that if the comments are open, you are normally expected to respond to the challenges. Take it from me, the responses can often be much more involved than the original post. This is especially the case when people misunderstand what you are saying or want to discuss some ancillary issue. If you are known for responding in your own comments, your silence can be interpreted as a concession due to your inability to respond. If your blog is large and your commentors active, a blog can eat your lunch. There have been days in the past where I did nothing but respond to comments (although I limit myself quite a bit today).

3. Belligerence exposed. Let’s face it: we are not sanctified yet. People have strong and often unbalanced opinions. On the internet, more often than not, we are willing to sacrifice the virtues of grace and thoughtfulness for anger and belligerence. Blogs (and any internet venue) can expose the worst of people’s sin nature. Attitudes suppressed in more visible live settings are unleashed when we can hid behind a computer. Pastorally, this is very disadvantageous due to the fact that we don’t want to provide settings that are laced in red kryptonite (i.e. the kind that causes Superman to lose all inhibition). In this sense, open comment blogs are not unlike bars where alcohol saturated minds are asked to discuss controversial subjects.

Two Advantages

With all of these disadvantages in mind, you might ask “What are the advantages?” There are two primary ones that I can think of. So important are these advantages that I, as you may know, have kept the comments of Parchment and Pen open.

1. Personal challenge. Closed comments shield the blogger from personal challenge. Yes, it is easier to keep from being challenged, but, frankly, it can evidence arrogance. Since the nature of blogs allows for the author to be challenged with a simple click of the “allow comments” button, to keep from allowing comments can communicate the I-am-above-correction attitude. When you do allow comments (and actually read some of them!), you express an openness to be challenged and change accordingly. This is the reformation principle of “always reforming”. It presents a grassroots approach to personal engagement in theological issues. And isn’t this what the Reformation was all about? Don’t Protestants reject the ultimate voice of self or magisterial authorities? When the comments are closed this may communicate to others that you believe you are above personal challenge (and, therefore, even communicate an insecurity in your own articulated positions).

2. Community involvement. Pastorally, don’t we want people to learn? Isn’t part of the risk of putting a Bible in everyone’s hands the fact that they might get it wrong or act in a way that is dishonoring to the Gospel they claim to represent? Is the risk still worth it? The old saying applies well here: “Tell me and I forget. Show me and I remember. Involve me and I understand.” Many people say to themselves, “If I involve you, you will screw it up!” That is a pre-Reformation attitude. It is fine for one to say that so long as they understand the implications. When both the author and the commentors are involved in the blog post, then understanding is more possible for each (though not guaranteed). Yes, there are crazy people. Yes, there is belligerence. Yes, when people hide behind a computer, they can say disrespectful things. But there is also learning that takes place when you allow people to enter the discussion. Didactically, when you respond to belligerence in love, grace, and patience can be the most encouraging thing there is.

Let’s face it: blogs and open internet forums present the most frustrating and problem laden environments in the history of the world. I don’t really blame people for keeping comments closed. Sometimes I feel like shutting them off myself. But I am convinced that open comment blogs, when done right, present one of the most unique discipleship opportunities that we have ever seen. As well, I am not saying that just because the comments are open that the advantages spoken of in this post are automatically facilitated. Many blogs have been around so long and/or are so belligerent themselves that they have created an audience that only affirms each other’s (and the blogger’s) prejudice. There is no real advantage there.

In short, we must count the costs on both sides, but act in ways that facilitate the betterment of the bride of Christ.Similar Posts:

• Blog Problems
• Why I Believe the Canon of Scripture is Theoretically Open . . . And Am Fine With It!
• Michael Spencer – The Internet Monk (1956-2010)
• What Happened to this Blog?
• New to Parchment and Pen: Michael’s Hapax Legomenon

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is proud to announce the SMU Debate between two noted New Testament scholars, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. The debate will be held on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at 7 PM in the McFarlin Memorial Auditorium at Southern Methodist University. This debate will feature a dialogue on the reliability of the text of the New Testament. Though Ehrman and Wallace have held public debates in the past, this one will focus on providing a general audience with insider information regarding one of the most significant pieces of literature ever written. Dr. Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, is a New York Times bestselling author who has published over 20 books. His book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, questioned the reliability of the New Testament text, arguing that Christian scribes have corrupted it beyond repair. Dr. Wallace, director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and New Testament Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, has spent his life studying and digitizing ancient copies of the New Testament. He has authored and edited numerous books; most recently he has edited and contributed to Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. He asserts that we have good reason to believe that the New Testament text is reliable. If you are interested in the New Testament and its reliability, this is sure to be an event you will not want to miss. For more information on the debate and to purchase tickets, please visit www.smudebate.com.

Similar Posts:

• News Release: Update on the New Testament Manuscript Find
• CSNTM, Text Criticism, and Patmos
• New Testament Manuscripts: The Beat Goes On
• New Testament Manuscripts Discovered in Albania
• Scholars Find Treasure Trove of Early New Testament Manuscripts

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Reasons not to be a Christian – “So I won’t go to Hell”
• Theology Unplugged: Hell – Part 1
• Theology Unplugged: Hell – Part 2
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 7
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 8

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Reasons Not to Be a Christian – Series Wrap Up
• Theology Unplugged: Hell – Part 1
• Theology Unplugged: Hell – Part 2
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 7
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 8

Other ways to get TUP:

Theology Unplugged Page
RSS
iTunesSimilar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 10
• Latest Theology Unplugged: Paul Copan “Is God a Moral Monster?”
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 15
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 7
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 8