McKissic asks SBC to add policy on tongues to statement of faith

When Scripture is subjected to 'personal experience' there are varied results

. . . The big 'baptist' experiment before bapticostals resulted in Smith's church becoming the mormon church . . .

I do believe that bapticostals are Christians . . . but, I am not comfortable with many theologies less than 1800 years old . . . especially when it is based on 'personal experience' instead of on Scripture.

Liberal is something that moves away from the original . . . in its purest definition. The term moves away from this somewhat in the realm of Politics and personal attacks.

 

Experience has no authority on doctrine. Private prayer language isnt hinted to and to base doctrine on a "hint" and experience is dangerous.

 

There is no support in Scripture.

There is no 'hint' that I have read.

I lived through the charismatic baptist Churches of the 70's and it was wrong then and it is wrong now, to make charismatic part of the baptist distinctive. If bapticostals want to be bapticostal and ask the rest of us to make our stance clear - then we need to be clear.

Scripture is clear, why would a bapticostal expect us to be different?

The result of cultural experiments with the Bible resulted in JW's, Mormons, & ironically that was a contributor to Mohammed's religion and even Catholicism.

If someone wants to experiment and ask us to clarify our support for them, then we should clarify that we (at least I and, historically, most baptists) do not support them.

 

"Liberal" is (in my mind) associated with "progressive" ideologies.

"Conservative" is (in my mind) associated with not moving from traditional norms.

 

Let me guess . . . you are going there with Joseph? You have an extra-biblical experience that you want elevated to Scripture?

I really don't think so. I really think you are using hyperbole to support your position.

 

Experience before the cannon and after the cannon are not comparable.

 

When I am asked to clarify my stance, my stance is clear. It is bapticostal . . . and we are not bapticostal.

McKissic asked . . . and that is my answer.

 

Sadly, you are probably correct. The political damage done to the denomination by surrendering to the influence of conservative Christians from other denominations out of fear that their problems would become ours is probably permanent.

We should have fought the problem that we were facing and not the problem that liberal denominations were fighting.

IMHO.

 

As requested:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. I Corinthians 12:7-11, NIV

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries within his spirit.I Corinthians 14:1-2, NIV

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. I Corinthians 14:26-28 NIV

Therefore my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. I Corinthians 14: 39-40, NIV

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. Romans 8:26-27 NIV

Now I'll repeat the words that you provided regarding the cessation of tongues and interpretation, and tongues as a prayer language. Scripture? Scripture? Scripture?

Here's a word to answer that in a tongue. Acune. That's French for, "there is none."

 

Jack, I think you missed one.
I Cor. 14:18&19 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."

Since Paul spoke in tongues more than them all, and little of it was in church, it had to be during his private prayers, i.e. Private Prayer Language.

The cassationists may claim that Paul was talking about his missionary trips where he could have spoken in the languages of the areas. However, there is not one hint of that in I Corinthians. The cassationist have used this explanation for so long and have heard it so many times ,that they sincerely don't see its inconsistency.

 

The SBC leadership has already told the people they will not hire a DOM if he claims to have ever spoken in tongues. That kind of practice and theology is not in writing but is a practice that is well known that they adhere to.

 

there is no mention of spiritual gifts ending at the close of the canon

 

SBC leadership does not hire Directors of Missions. In associations that are self-supporting, a search committee comprised of members chosen by either the associational executive board or the association at its annual meeting makes a recommendation to the executive board to hire the DOM. In smaller associations, it depends on whether the state convention provides the salary allowance, or NAMB. These days, I am not sure what the procedure is at NAMB for hiring DOM's, but the trustees shouldn't be involved in that.

 

If you do not believe there will be any more scripture written then do you believe there is new revelation?