Are Bapticostal welcome here.

Dear Craigbythesea:

I misunderstood your use of faces. Sorry for my remark about your age. Out of line on my part.
Dave

 

Actually it makes the church Charismatic, which indeed, is un-Baptist. In spite of all your "Baptist" credentials that you have listed, I find it odd that you go to a Community church. Is that also Charismatic?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]My church follows a model of church stucture that is often refered to as the Community Church Model. It has nothing to do with being or not being charismatic. We are a Baptist congrgation and we support missions through the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. We also work to relieve suffering in Columbia by working with any and all Christian groups who will join us. We follow Jesus. We love and do not judge. We welcome all, and do not make people feel like idiots because they ask questions. We study the bible with an open mind because we believe it is all sufficient in matters of faith and practice, even though we do not believe it has to be inerrant or infallable for it to put us in touch with the same God and same Jesus of the early church.

And thank you for proving my point to Fat Eagle. You are denying historical reality. Lots of Baptist churches, even Southern Baptist ones, are charismatic. They have exercised their right as autonomous baptist churches to make these decisions for themselves under the leadership of the holy spirit. I am not charismatic in regard to tounge speaking or estatic utterances, but I have many friends who are. And I do not make my personal determination regarding the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives based upon how they interpret and put to use 1 Corinthians 14. I am more impressed with their love for each other, their generosity, their kindness and mercy, their refusal to stand in judgement, their lack of hypercritical spirit of those who disagree, and their willingness to work with all who will work with them to alleviate suffering in their communities. It is their fruit that impresses me, the things Jesus said really matter.

And my credential are solid. Your remarks only indicate to me that you are a well intentioned but ignorant man when it comes to Baptist history,polity, and diversity, as you are regarding current models of church structure.

Dave

 

Phillip says:
Dave [/qb][/QUOTE]First off, Dave, you give this long history of Southern Baptist life, then you turn around and reject it.

And I respond:
I do not reject Baptist life. The Southern Baptist Convention has officially departed from historical Baptist distinctives, such as autonomy of the local church, priesthood of the believer, souls competency, and the cooperative spirit that enabled us to work together in spite of our theological differences. My family helped build the Convention within the old cooperative spirit. That spirit has been replaced with a mean, judgemental, pharasaical mentality, and haughty self righteousness that goes contrary all that made us the most effective evangelical force of the 20th century. I stopped being Southern Baptist so I could still be Baptist.

Phillip asks:
What happened in the year 2002 that had anything to do with SBC leaving Baptist doctrine behind.

Answered already.

Phillip continues:
I thought you might have meant the conservative ressurgence, but that occurred before 2002, because obviously if you believe that the Holy Spirit is now giving a church the gift of tongues as practiced by the Pentecostals, you yourself sound quite liberal.

And I respond again:
What does this have to do with being liberal? You guys use that label to discredit all who challenge you. Pentecostals are not liberals. And by the way, I am not pentecostal or charismatic in the manner being discussed on this thread. I am simply defending true Baptist heritage. A Baptis church can be charismatic and still be Baptist. Only since the Fundamentalist Takeover (not conservative ressergence as you call it, for we were plenty conservative in 1979)have we been drawn into debates like this. Charismatic SBC churches supported the Cooperative Program and so did "Frozen In The Pew" SBC churches. Being cooperative for the sake of missions use to be something we believed in.

Phillip says:
I have YET to see anybody speak in a real foreign language, or someone using a foreign language to understand a person speaking in another language as "tongues" were used in Acts.
So, therefore, I conclude that the jibberish of pentecostals, is just that, jibberish. Since healing and true prophecy is not practiced today, you would think they would be the major gifts since Paul indicated that speaking in tongues was self-edifying compared to the other gifts. Only TV evangelists seem to preach that the Holy Spirit will heal people through them.

I respond:
I do not disagree with you here regarding tounges, but again, let that be a matter for the churches that allow it and hope that they are paying close attention to 1Corinthians 14. I do believe God still heals where modern medicine cannot and have seen it, and not by some TV charalatan. And prophecy is still very much in demand, but so few are courageous enough to be prophetic.

Phillip asks:
Where does the New Testament give US permission to speak in tongues. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that Paul was talking to a church in Corinth in the first century? I believe that Paul was correcting that church for false doctrines, including the mis-use of tongues? Am I missing some scripture?

And I answer:
1Corinthians 14:39 Just read it.
But I bet you quote alot of Paul's 1st Century letters if it means keeping women out of the pulpit. Just bet you do. This is the mark of true Fundamentalist. They and they alone reserve the right to tell you which scripture is applicable to our times and the ones that are not.

Phillip changes the subject:
So, do you too believe salvation is not forever? Do you too believe that baptism by the Holy Spirit occurs sometime after salvation as shown "usually" by the speaking of tongues or some other emotional outburst?

And I get us back on track:
I did not know we were debating "Once Saved Always Saved." And I thought we were talking about Charismatic Baptists, not Pentecostal Holiness or the Clevleland, TN based Church of God. How 'bout sticking to the subject. And since you are playing the role of inquisitor, I'll keep answering. It is obvious that many a Christian goes through experiences with God as they grow. I committed my life to Christ at eight years old. At sixteen I had to give him the second half of my life and with it a desire he take what was left. It was a very emotional experience. I did not shout for joy, but I wanted to. I cried alot as I was more aware of what God had done for me in Christ. Were my tears just an emotional outburst? Of course the Holy Spririt is fully present at the initial salvation experience. But God always has more to give us. And all that he gives us is the work of the Holy Spirit, no matter when.

Phillip concludes:
Yes, Baptist churches are autonymous; this doesn't mean that they can vote to worship Satan and still call themselves Baptist. Because if they do, they CAN call themselves Baptist, but they are not truly Baptist. Duh! [/QB][/QUOTE]

And I do too:
This last statement of yours is so ridiculous it doesn't merit a response. It only reveals your inability to tolerate those whose understanding and experiences are different from your own.

 

Too ridiculous to answer.

Quite the contrary, I suspect. My guess is most of the people here are Biblicists, who observe mainstream Charismania, with its soulish (mind, emotions, will) manifestations and spiritually discern, correctly, that it isn't Biblical. [There's another side to the equation which I'll have to follow up on later.]

That was quite a tongue lashing. Is that a Gift?

 

You don't understand what the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. Neither do I believe that you understand much about the validity of spiritual gifts for being for today. I will just give one example to prove my point. The Apostles had the gift of healing. The could heal, when it was God's will for them to do so, all that came to them. Please give evidence of anyone waliking this earth today that has the gift of healing. Who do you know that can walk up and down the corridors of any modern hospital, and heal all tha are there. Who has this marvellous gift of healing? Why don't the fake faith-healers never "heal" outside of their own environments? Why don't they ever take the challenge of other doctors and allow the scrutiny of other doctors to examine what they have done. Benny Hinn has already been found out to be a fraud through a documentary aired by CBC. No one that Benny Hinn has claimed to have healed was ever healed. If the gift of healing is in operation today, where is it? It isn't in operation. And neither are the other gifts. They have ceased.

 

Craig posted:

KJVonlyism, while having its drawbacks and perceived heresies is nothing more than a sentemental attachment to one version over another. It does not reflect on a person's adeherence to orthodoxy in other doctrinal areas of the Bible. With most of us it is a simple matter of soul liberty, something that Baptists can agree to disagree on. At least that is how I have found it.

To mix the heresy of the Charismatic movement with Baptist doctrine is wrong. It is not just another stream of "Christian theology." It is like a cult in itself. There is no history of the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave movements prior to the twentieth century. This is all a modern day phenomena. Was the world totally without the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts for 1800 years? Did they just suddenly appear on the scene in 1901 in Kansas? Did all those great men of God, like William Carey who translated the Bible into 26 different languages, miss out on the Holy Spirit completely?
DHK

 

The reason I asked is that most "community" churches in this part of the country are quite ecumenical, and tolerate tongues. They are not Baptist in doctrine. An ecumenical chuch cannot be Baptist in doctrine, by definition of its ecumenism.

By working with any and all groups who will join in, does that mean that you would join hands with the Roman Catholic Church, or the SDA's? How far do you stretch the word "Christian?" A Musim defines the word "Christian" as pretty much anything that is not Islamic.

If it does not have to be infallibe to put you in touch with the same Jesus, then will the Koran do? Jesus is one of their most holy prophets, and therefore they believe in him too. What is your standard if you do not believe you have an inerrant and infallible Bible (and no I am not a KJVonlyist). Are you sure that you believe in the same Jesus described in the inerrant infallible Word of God? How would you know if your Bible is not inerrant and infallible. Maybe the Jesus you beieve in, is the Jesus described in the Koran instead??

The Holy Spirit does not lead against His Word, not does He lead one into error or heresy. So your point has not been proved at all. If Southern Baptist churches have embraced the Charismatic movement then they are wrong, and in error--that is plain and simple. The can exercise their right to be wrong. That is up to them. Just don't say that the Holy Spirit led them into error. He doesn't. Study history for yourself. The modern day tongue phenomena was unknown before the 20th century. So for 1800 years ago were all the believers deprived of God's blessing and possibly even of the Holy Spirit itself??

I am often impressed by the good works of many groups of people: SDA's, Roman Catholics (ex. Mother Theressa), Hindus (ex. Mahatma Ghandi), etc. Does that mean that all these people are on their way to Heaven because of their good works. Do good works save? Do you have a solid understanding of 1Cor.14. it is impossible to have a proper understand of 1Cor.14 and still believe that tongues are for today.

You hardly know me. I have 8 years of post secondary education, and have been teaching in Bible College courses since 1978. I have a fairly good grasp of not only what the Bible says, but what history says about the Bible, and early believers.
Again I say to you that tongues ceased at the end of the Apostolic Age (the first century), and there has been no hard evidence that they have continued since that time. This phenomena that we see today is completely different than the genuine gift of tongues described for us in the Bible. It is an imitation of the real thing--Satan's imitation, which has deceived many. It is not of God. God does not contradict Himself, nor his Word.
DHK

 

I believe that none of us have the right to suggest who can and who cannot be a "Baptist".

If a person wishes to wear the label of being a "Baptist" that is fair enough. It certainley is possible for a Bapticostal church or various other different types of Baptist Churches to have there identity and to affirm the Baptist Distinctives.

http://www.garbc.org/baptdist.php#whatare

 

I love you folks, but I am distraught by your inability to see how blind you are to the movement of God in the lives and fellowships of Christians who are very loving, and deeply committed to doing God's will as it has been revealed to us in Jesus. DHK is obsessed with finding what is wrong with everyone else and can't even respond to my posts without going into a tirade about things I haven't even touched on. I write about the fruits of the spirit I see in the lives of fellow Christians and he launches into a tirade against Catholics, Hindus and Mormons. I wonder if he wears a uniform and carries a badge with God's Doctrinal Police Force stamped on it. He acts like it.

Well DHK, please write us a piece on what it is to be secure in doctrine, so you don't have to worry about love, and all that love requires. I'll seek the highest gift and pray God grants me an abundance of it. And I will work with anyone who claims Jesus as their Lord and desires to stand confident on the day of judgement, not because they are so confident in their doctrine, but because they have been given the opportunity to receive God's mercy and make that mercy real in the way they respond and relate to their fellow human beings. I don't speak in tounges. Don't need to. Don't really understand why some think its so important. But I'd rather be in the company of someone who does,is also loving and gentle, than to be within miles of the doctrine police who can find nothing better to do than correct everyone for not accepting their Fundamentalist Dispensationalism.

 

Sorry mate, if Benny Hinn suddenly decided to put a "Baptist" sign up at his shows I wouldn't believe a word of it ...Although thinking about it he could do it in Oz...We do call blokes with red hair "BLUE"

hmmmm...I think maybe you better re-read DHK's post mate, seems like you missed something there...

 

This is probably the most inaccurate claim that has ever been posted in the history of this message board. The fact is that we find this phenomenon spoken of throughout the history of the Church.

Irenaeus wrote,

"In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of language and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostles term spiritual "

Tertullian wrote,

"Let him exhibit prophets such as have spoken, not by human sense but with the Spirit of God, such as have predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision a prayer, only let it be by the Spirit in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him "

Saint Augustine wrote:

"We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them by the laying on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues.”

Later in church history we find this phenomenon reported among the following:

Saint Hildengard in the twelfth century

The mendicant friars of the thirteenth century, the most notable of which was Saint Vincent Ferrer

In the first half of the sixteenth century we find it reported about the two Catholic saints, Saint Francis Xavier and Saint Louis Bertrand. In the bull by which Bertrand was canonized for his success in missionary work we read, "to facilitate the work of converting the natives, the apostle was miraculously endowed with the
gift of tongues."

In Sourer’s History of the Christian Church we read, “It is stated that, Dr. Martin Luther was a prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues, and interpreter, in one person, endowed with all the gifts of the Holy Spirit."

The Jansenists in the early 1700’s

The Cevennes of the same period

In the Encyclopedia Britannica we read of tongues "among the converts of Wesley and
Whitefield," and that John Wesley wrote a protest against a Dr. Middleton who wrote "after the Apostolic time, there is not, in all history, one instance...of any person who had even exercised that gift (tongues)." Wesley replied, "Sir, your memory fails you again, it has been heard more than once no further off than the valleys of Dauphiny."(14)

The Society of Friends or Quakers in the seventeenth century,

"While waiting upon the Lord in silence, as often we did for many hours together, we received often the pouring down of the Spirit upon us, and our hearts were glad and our tongues loosed and our mouth opened, and we spake with new tongues as the Lord gave us utterance, and as His Spirit led us, which was poured down upon us, on sons and daughters, and the glory of the Father was revealed. And then began we to sing praise to the Lord God Almighty and to the Lamb forever "(16)

The Shakers in the eighteenth century,

“Some who attended confessed their sins aloud, crying for mercy; some went into a trance-like state in which they saw visions and received prophecies of Christ's imminent second coming. Others shouted and danced for joy because they believed that the day was at hand for wars to cease and God's kingdom on earth to begin."

The Irvingites in the early nineteenth century among whom speaking in tongues during church services was the norm.

In 1830 Mary Campbell was reported to have spoken in tongues and prophesized.

Among those to whom Dwight L. Moody ministered,

Dr. R. Boyd wrote in 1873:

“When I got to the rooms of the Young Men's Christian Association in Victoria Hall, London, I found the meeting on fire: The young men were speaking in tongues, prophesying. What on earth did it mean? Only that Moody had been addressing them that afternoon”

In 1875 R.B. Swan wrote that he and others spoke in tongues.

In 1879 we read of W.J. Walthall receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.

In 1880 in Kara Kara, Armenia a Pentecostal movement broke out with speaking in tongues.

Also in 1880 speaking in tongues was reported in Switzerland.

 

I have differed with DHK in the past, but find his latest post dead-on the mark. Thanks DHK.

 

It appears to me that some persons on this board have forgotten the exact reading of the #1 Baptist distinctive:

Biblical Authority
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority.
2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21
(the emphases in bold type are mine)

The Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal body in the world, holds to this very same affirmation! And there is NOTHING about Bapticostal beliefs that is in conflict with this Baptist Distinctive, or any of the others!

I am neither Pentecostal nor Bapticostal, and have no interest in being either one of them, but I do have an interest in telling the truth, and I believe that all Baptists should share that interest.

If the administrators of this message board choose to deny Bapticostals the privilege of posting on this message board, they have every right to do so, but I do not believe that they have the right to distort the Baptist Distinctives to make them support their theological bias and personal preferences.

 

http://www.baptistfire.com/books/index.shtml

 

Mr. DavidFWhite3 is guilty of his own accusations. If he "loves" as much as he says he does he wouldn't attack in such a vehement manner. . . those who disagree with "him".

Mr. White, if you would go back and read the posts, you would find that I have often made the statement that if a person starts down the "pentecostal path" and believes in babbling tongues the way modern pentecostals do, they will start accepting the OTHER "pentecostal" doctrines such as: lack of eternal security and Baptism of the Holy Spirit at some time after salvation (often accompanied, or at least demonstrated by, the pentecostal style of speaking in tongues.)

You are acting like a liberal, sir, because you are saying it is "okay" to believe anything and still call yourself a Baptist, but then you do the opposite of what you say and disassociate yourself from the SBC because you say they have gone away from Baptist doctrine.

You yourself are doing the same thing you are blaming us of doing.

If your family allowed the scholars in the SBC seminaries to teach that the Bible was just figurative and should not be taken literally, then sorry, I must disagree with you, because THAT is the main reason for the conservative resurrgence to get rid of apostacy in the schools receiving money and being funded through the SBC. No organization is perfect and yes, in any big organization "egos" are involved. I never said it was perfect, but there was certainly nothing wrong with the SBC pulling the plug on scholars teaching that Jesus was not a diety.

I belong to a Southern Baptist church and YES we do vote and we ARE autonomymous, but if we began to believe something else we would seperate ourselves from the convention the way Second Baptist of Oklahoma City did. It was sad to see them make the change, but commendable that they didn't try to change the Baptist doctrine.

Besides, you did not tell me what changed at the SBC in 2002, besides just a statement regarding the loss of some doctrines which I have seen no evidence of, nor have I seen a change in the Baptist Faith and Message as updated in 2000.

As for your remark of 1 Corinthians 14:31. I have no problem with that, as long as the tongues are presented in the fashion they were in the first century. Speaking to a foreigner where he can be heard in his own language. It would be ignorant, at best, to believe that Paul was referring to modern day babbling as presented by the modern pentecostalism movement.

Now, I'll stop telling you what you have done wrong, and now that we have both had our chance to do that, maybe we can get back to the subject at hand.

The subject is: Are "Bapticostals" welcome, not "Baptists that speak with tongues."

I would ask the question: Since they call themselves "Bapticostals" are they "Baptist"? If indeed a group splinters out of the Baptists and starts calling itself "Bapticostals" then they are no longer Baptist. Besides, even if they do come out of a Baptist Church, they were influenced by the modern pentecostal movement.

 

It appears to me that some persons on this board have forgotten the exact reading of the #1 Baptist distinctive:

Biblical Authority
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority.
2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21
(the emphases in bold type are mine)

The Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal body in the world, holds to this very same affirmation! And there is NOTHING about Bapticostal beliefs that is in conflict with this Baptist Distinctive, or any of the others!

I am neither Pentecostal nor Bapticostal, and have no interest in being either one of them, but I do have an interest in telling the truth, and I believe that all Baptists should share that interest.

If the administrators of this message board choose to deny Bapticostals the privilege of posting on this message board, they have every right to do so, but I do not believe that they have the right to distort the Baptist Distinctives to make them support their theological bias and personal preferences.

</font>[/QUOTE]Craig, You must understand that it does not matter what the Assemblies of God creed is, if they PRACTICE hearing new revelations from God whether it comes from a "burning bush" or "speaking in tongues".

Why don't we let the Baptimormons on to speak the revelations of the Angel Macaroni?