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

gb

You are being ridiculous.

The term that you are trying to say is in the Bible is glossolalia - and I already knew that it was not in the GNT - and never has been in the GNT.

Glossolalia is a modern concept that is read into the Bible and into the culture of the Corinthians.

I still do not find any evidence that is what Paul was actually discussing . . . and since we do not know the questions that led to his answers, it is speculation whether he was talking about unknown tongues . . . or gibberish.

In order for your interpretation to be in the Bible glossolalia needs to be found in the Bible.

And it is NOT IN Robertson's WP . . . ecstatic utterances is not the same as a private prayer language - teenagers practices ecstatic utterances and most people can understand them. Baby talk (gibberish) on the other hand is not ecstatic - it is just gibberish.

 

If I took your word for what you just wrote then try and prove to anyone that World War II existed. On the basis of what you wrote you could not prove anything. You could not prove the creation story. You could not prove anything that is historical.

It is quite clear that you did not read all I sugggested you read. It is quite clear that you did not read everything except to argue and read into what you think I believe.

Why don't you just get honest and tell me you did not read the material I suggested instead of trying to come back with such nonsense.

If I considered what you wrote I could easily say that the communities never had a waste disposal system because it is not in the Bible.

Ever interpret scripture in light of its historical context? A.T. Robertson was a big advocate of that. Well where do you get the history. The Bible was not written in a vacuum without any historical context.

Have you ever read a survey of either the OT or NT. Just look at what it teaches--history.

 

gb

To call a Texan's integrity is one of the most inflammatory things that you have done, recently. That you now deny WW2 is beyond understanding.

I have read before (on 2 occasions since I could understand the Greek arguments) the verses and conservative commentary on those verses. And I again read much of what you suggested - even though you did not give proper citations. I had even figured out your method of referencing.

I have already stated my stance. But, again, if a charismatic wants me and those like me (conservative SBC) to define private prayer language, we are going to define it out of the SBC BFM . . .

Scripturally, what Paul was referring to was most likely unknown languages (with an expectation that they were human languages and possibly angelic language(s)). To tell me that that supports 'private prayer language' is a stretch that I would allow you in your denomination's theology, but not in my denomination's theology.

Instead of attacking my theology and my integrity (you do notice that I allow for other Christians to have their own interpretation) and the theology of those like me, you should be discipling those like you to believe like you. IMHO.

Do you really want me to challenge your integrity? Is that were you want to go with this? I really pray that is not the case and that you wrote in a hurry.

 

Here is what I wrote about WWII. “If I took your word for what you just wrote then try and prove to anyone that World War II existed. On the basis of what you wrote you could not prove anything. You could not prove the creation story. You could not prove anything that is historical.”

The first word is “if”. Paul used that word a lot in scripture in his arguments. I was saying that by your reasoning about glossolalia, you would make it impossible to say WWII ever existed because you were simply stating that you cannot interpret glossolalia if the word is not in the Bible. Try taking a look at the historical documents and the events that surrounded Pauls’s writing in 1Cor. WWII could only be interpreted through the eyes of history. Much of scripture is best interpreted through the eyes of history. All of scripture lies within a historical context. So it must be interpreted in light of that historical context.

Earlier I asked you some questions for a second time. You did not answer them. Why?

Isn’t that such a petty issue. I did not know you expected some preferred style of documentation.
Would you have like it in APA, MLA, Turabian, Chicago, a hybrid style or simply a more casual approach?

I mostly agree, but what would you call an unknown language?

Why would you be afraid to have your theology challenged? Are you afraid of it falling apart. At the SWBTS library are many historical debates. There was a time when leaders invited debate and challenges. In the Bible we read that Jesus debated. If your theology falls apart easily you do not have much. Certainly never pastor, because they will challenge you from all sides. Just look at Proverbs 27:17.

Certainly you are allowed to have your own personal (accurate or erroneous) interpretation if you would like. I would like to think you would like challenges, so it strengthens your faith. I challenged you earlier with some questions twice and you did not respond to all the questions but only what you liked. Is that challenging your integrity? Only if it applies. I cannot read your heart or mind. Certainly, it is challenging your refusal to deal with the issue.

Go ahead. My Bible states that better is open rebuke than love that is concealed.

 

Your defense of your position was to state that I had not read what I had read.

That was after stating you didn't have time to respond with the citations. Had you left it at that, I would have waited.

But, to remove the pressure that you are feeling because you did not cite your work by attacking my response to what you have posted with, "Why don't you just get honest" was a disgraceful attack on character that you (having lived in Texas) should no does not work well on Texans. It only brings out our backbone . . .

Again, I reject the theology that charismatics want to force upon Bible-believing Southern Baptists.

I was asked, and I have responded. And even in the face of allegations that I should not have endured, I have been mostly at peace . . . There was a moment of incredulity that you could have even written such words. And then I felt again, God and His peace on the subject. If you need to speak in a language to reach people for Jesus, He can give you their language. If the language doesn't grow the Kingdom, it is not of much use during this age.

And if, charismatics want to make their own denomination - go for it.

I guess it is ok for charismatics to lie . . . but it has never been ok for me.

 

I'm sure this is sarcasm at work, but it's still inappropriate.

 

I mostly agree with you.

I am not a charismatic but I am embarrassed to be named among those who give blanket statements and have not studied who have few if any reasons for their faith. If my reasons for my faith do not hold up under scrutiny then I must study more or change my theology. I am not satisfied with being challenged and having inadequate answers. Personally, I am challenged to always be ready to give an answer.

I disagree with you in that I do not see charismatics in the SBC as trying to force their way through. However, I am sure there are some. But rather I see the current dispensationalist leaders as trying to make historical changes to a theology that never existed in the SBC. Historically, if a student went to DTS it would have been highly unlikely that they would not have been able to get a job in the SBC. Why don’t those men just go teach at DTS or be leaders among the dispensationalists instead of causing trouble in the SBC.

There are liars on both sides of the fence. There are unethical leaders on both sides. That sort of behavior is not only on one side.

When I was in seminary all those who lived around me got an invitation in the mail from John MacArthur to attend a conference he was speaking at. Why was my name given to him. There was only one way he got my name and address. My name and address as a student was not to be given out to someone outside of the denomination. Later when I started pastoring one of the deacons of the church asked me one day about having non-Baptists on SBC boards. Some of the leaders in the SBC claim to follow dispensationalism. Paige Patterson has hired some dispensationalists as professors. SBC professors have not historically had anything to do with dispensationalism. Most dispensationalists are also cessationists. Some will admit their position does not come from the grammar used in the Greek text. I believe a number of the current leaders are attempting to destroy the historical theology of the SBC. As far back as I can remember there have ben excellent God fearing people on both sides of the tongues issue. I was told by someone who was at SWBTS that there has been a deliberate attempt to put down some of the former leaders of the SBC who were also professors in the SBC some years ago. What good does putting down former leaders and professors in front of current students serve. Some of those men were well respected leaders who carried much more respect than many of the current leaders today. When Dr. Dilday was fired the liars (who were some of the trustees) came out of the woodwork and made themselves known publically which the local new reported. One of them at that time was shacking up with two ladies in the church he was pastoring.

My personal opinion is that I see no use for tongues in a worship service. What a person does in their private devotion to God should not affect a worship service. All that is done in a worship service should edify the body. Corporate worship is not a time to force my opinion or gifts on someone else. Just because my passion is discipling, preaching and teaching does not mean I have any right to exclude everyone else from the worship service because they are not gifted in the same areas that I am. My ability to worship with others should never be contingent upon where we differ but rather we where we seek to be unified in Christ.

Every gift should be used under the control of the Holy Spirit. I have seen preachers who have abused their privilege when they have spoken. Every gift God gives can be abused and be used out of control.

 

gb

I mostly agree with you.

But, I get very Texan when someone challenges my integrity. I can count the number of times I have lied in 30 years. 1 of those occured when I was backslidden and running from God . . . It is not in my character to lie, Texans were hung for stealing horsed, cutting fences, and telling a lie . . . The last time (4th) a business partner was lying about a business deal . . . and when he point blank asked a question about my knowledge of his dealings - I lied.

And you challenge my integrity on studying God's Word? I am a sinner, but that is not where I sin. I am honestly not even tempted by lying. I might tell a tall tale . . . but, to go bold facedly and tell a lie about what I have studied in God's Holy Word? I have never done that.

I am not proud of those that make doctrinal statements without examining Scripture - but, I have studied the Scripture serveral times. I do not see any room for the modern Charismatic movement in Scripture.

And as a Southern Baptist I make the same stand that I have made repeatedly: if we are asked to raise this matter to the level of the BFM, then we should prohibit it within SBC circles.



Then be embarrassed enough about being named among my kind to move away from our kind. We weren't Charismatics 150 years ago (the movement only started in the 60's or 70's), and I do not think that we need to become such now. Yes, we (SBC) have problems. But, I do not think that we need to add Charismatic to the list of problems.

 

I felt that it was hyperbole mixed with sarcasm.

I apologize . . . I should not have lowered myself down to that level.

Thank you brother.

 

I am challenging you methodology and that it appears that you have not taken a look at the historical context surrounding 1 Cor. I suggested, “Sometime do a www.google.com search on Eleusinian Mysteries and you will find some more parallels with what Paul was dealing with at the time.” It appears to me that you did not do that?

I agree. If you read the writings of the early Baptists I believe you would find that they held a different standard of leadership than what we have among some today. I believe they were men and women of the utmost of integrity. When I hear reports that at SWBTS some of those leaders are put down in front of the students that does not make me wonder what is up.

When SWBTS has a provost and some the professors have graduated from DTS and some taught at there it doesn’t make me wonder? 150 years ago the SBC did not have any dispensationalists teaching in their seminaries. Why have some from DTS been hired recently at SWBTS?