ReBaptism and Private Prayer Language

If I remember correctly, the baptism requirement was that the future missionary had to be baptised in a church that preached eternal salvation (didn't matter if it was SBC or not). Am I right?

Since baptism isn't proof or the act of salvation, I don't see where it matters. I feel this issue is definiteley political.

As far as prayer tongues, I came out of a pentecostal church recently, and one of the issues I had was "praying in tongues". I find very little scriptural ground for that. (I do, however, believe that tongues with translation is completely biblical). This is an issue that's a little murky, but from what I've read, I think that in this instance, it was also political.

 

Not being Southern Baptist, perhaps I shouldn't have an opinion on this. But in reading Thompson's blog, this caught my eye:

"My objection to these policy decisions has three grounds:

1. Theological- I believe it is bad theology. I have spoken with many pastors I respect and trust and have not found one yet who has disagreed with me on this..."

While I suspect that the majority of SB's agree with Thompson on this, I suggest that if he has not found "one yet who has disagreed with me", he hasn't taken a wide enough sampling.

 

non-Baptists' posts will be deleted from Baptists only forums. Please follow BB rules.
DHK

[ December 29, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

What many are seeing among the leadership in the SBC is a revealing of who they really are.

We just need to remember that an empty bag makes the most noise.

 

I am Southern Baptist, and have been appointed thru one of the mission sending organizations (NAMB). They were very thorough as to a candidate's activities in this area. I think they should be, too. Can you imagine the division that could potentially occur on the field regarding this topic?

 

Did they ever ask for references of those whom you have personally discipled?

 

You know, they did not, that I recall. They asked for references of those who had discpiled me, but not the other. That was 10 years ago, too.

But they did give ear to circumstances surrounding any type of tongues activity. It looked like (on paper anyway) that one wouldnt be disqualified just for having had an experience. But I know that it was deeply explored.

 

Once the Bible has been established as the infallible standard of truth, then the battle begins as to what the Bible actually teaches.

For several decades the Southern Baptist struggle was over the theoretic issue of the infalliblity of the Bible. The inerrantists having won that war, now the battle begins over the application of the Scriptures to theology and practice.

The so called "re-baptism" issue is reflective of the fact that issues of Landmarkism are not quite so dead among Southern Baptists as some, from without or within, might have thought.

Some of us on the outside have long prayed for revival of the truth among Southern Baptists. God speed to those who are seeking to restore the old landmarks among the Convetion Baptists.

Who knows, maybe the Convention Baptists will finally wake up and realize what men such as J.R. Graves, T.P Crawford, and Ben Bogard tried to tell them long ago - that Conventionism itself is contrary to the principles of Baptist polity as grounded in the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And maybe those on the outside, many of whom lust with wanton eyes after the spoils of Conventionism and thus would sell their Landmark heritage for a bowl of Conventionist pottage, will open their eyes and strengthen what remains.

Mark Osgatharp

 

It is? This is the first I've heard of it, and I'm SBC. Generally, the SBC recognizes alien baptism. That is, baptisms outside the local fellowship. So long as the said baptism meets the standard set forth in the Disctinctive, then alien baptism is permitted, and rebaptism is cannot be required. However, the SBC also permits each congregation the final decision of whether an alien baptism satisfies the Distinctive requisite.

As for private prayer language, that appears to me to be a completely private matter between the individual and their Lord. If I want to use English, Dutch, or Klingon in my private prayer, I fail tosee how my use of language can be legislated by any religious body.

 

Johnv your sentiments on the matter match mine. It seems like the only conversation I'm seeing on the matter is by those who are (for lack of a better term) "opposed" to anything SBC. There is absolutely no one I know of talking about this - except people on this bulletin board (who I suspect spend far to much time on the 'net).

 

I am SBC too and have heard nothing either, except here. lol.

Anyone read "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind"? (Mark Noll)
Its all part of the scandal.

 

As I've said several times since first joining this board, in just a few years there will be no difference between the SBC and Pentecostalism. Just watch.

 

I joined the board about a year after you, and the SBC doesn't appear to be any closer to pentacostalism than it was when I joined.

As I noted, the only person in this thred who even heard of the info of the OP appears to be the poster of the OP, claiming that it's "currently rocking the SBC". The rest of us SBC'ers are asking ourselves how such a thing can be rocking the SBC, when no one we know has even heard of it until the OP.

 

Inflammatory as always, I see...

Aaron, is five + years "a few years?" If you've been saying that since you've joined the board, I wonder why it hasn't happened yet. I can certainly still tell the difference between SBC and pentacostalism. Perhaps you're not as accurate as you think you are!

In order for the SBC to change (even in a few more years time) to pentacostalism, I - along with several hundred thousand others - would have to change to pentacostalism - or simply allow it to happen. It's not going to happen.

Okay...I'll take your challenge. I'll watch a little longer, as you say. It seems as though your words are intentionally inflammatory and argumentative. Five years should have been enough to prove you right "since first joining this board." How much longer until your predictions come true? For, if you had been correct in the beginning, surely it would have happened by now.

 

It is? This is the first I've heard of it, and I'm SBC. Generally, the SBC recognizes alien baptism. That is, baptisms outside the local fellowship. So long as the said baptism meets the standard set forth in the Disctinctive, then alien baptism is permitted, and rebaptism is cannot be required. However, the SBC also permits each congregation the final decision of whether an alien baptism satisfies the Distinctive requisite.

As for private prayer language, that appears to me to be a completely private matter between the individual and their Lord. If I want to use English, Dutch, or Klingon in my private prayer, I fail tosee how my use of language can be legislated by any religious body. </font>[/QUOTE]Agree 100%. What I am getting a little tired of is the non-SBCs who wish to make a subtle (or not-so-subtle) attack on SBC. Some were former SBCs, but the bottom line is, if you don't like it, leave it and keep your mouth shut--especially if all you can say is negative. How would they like it if we talked about the empty bag of IFBism? Just my humble thoughts.

 

Private prayer?
Does these Scriptures apply?

1 Samuel 1:13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

HankD

 

I'd hardly call a handful of private bloggers as the SBC. The OP says this is "rocking the SBC". meanwhile, all the SBC people I know are looking at each other asking us where the rocking is.