Pastor’s letter challenges seminary’s proposed stance

It is far kinder than the reception I have received from your church members while walking down the street.

Well I've only been condemned one time while waiting in line for a movie (which was, FWIW, "Finding Nemo"), and a representative of your group was condemning all of us for going to watch pornography and violence.

On other occasions, we were walking from the main parking garage, past the theater and bookstore, to other downtown destinations. On another occasion, one of your male church members, took a long careful look at my wife's body (and eventually her face) and condemned us for our immorality. FWIW, she was wearing a loose fitting shirt with a full collar, and somewhat baggy jeans. She is very curvy, but that's the way she was made, and she doesn't wear clothes that draw attention to it. Apparently your fellow church member liked what he saw and declared us as non-believers as a response to his own lust.

You may not like the fact that most followers of Christ don't see anything wrong with women wearing pants and modest clothing or going to appropriate movies, but you don't have the right to declare us non-believers on that basis.

 

Wow! did they scream that in English or another tongue? :love2:

 

Praise the Lord, use every opportunity to share the Gospel! Why wouldn't our movie going brethren take this as a chance to let their light shine by standing up and telling those lost folks they were standing in line with the real truth about Jesus? Are they ashamed to proclaim the gospel in public? I don't really care about pleasing men, I'm sure most people on the BB would never see eye to eye with someone like me. But I know that the bible says that a companion of fools shall be destroyed. So I don't stand in line with them if I can help it. If you get hit by a street preacher, well you shouldn't be standing in the line of fire. Line of fire?

 

Always in English, brother!

 

Actually, I did. He seemed really receptive and relieved that not all followers of Jesus acted like Jesus hated them. (If you look at the gospels, Jesus only spoke sharply toward "religious" folks.)

Not at all. I do it as I have opportunity.

But you're not "walking with wise men." (see Proverbs 13:20)

You're not presenting the message of Jesus by condemning the lost. The Son of God was not sent into the world to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:16). If you are condemning the world, then you are not being like Christ.

The thing that bothers me about it is that what your church is doing is blatantly unChristian, yet you are doing it in the name of Christ.

 

My understanding is that speaking in tongues is Biblical, while glossalalia is not biblical.

Speaking in an unknown tongue a laguage unknown to you that another person understands because it is his native tongue.

Glossalalia nobody understands.

Do I understand this correctly?:BangHead:

 

Bill, Both are biblical in context, but are they relevant beyond the early church? My questions still stands. If we endorse the validity of either "languages" or "glossolalia" in the modern church, are we also endorsing extra-biblical revelation?

If so, where does that put biblical authority? One could claim "glossolalia" and pass on some really good doctrine missed in biblical times.

On the languages, in to-days world, we have access to every language in the world and it is simply a matter of presenting God's truth from the Bible we claim to be so inspired.



Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim,

I trust you saw my previous answer. But just in case... No. No Southern Baptist that has spoken against the restrictive PPL policies is advocating extra-biblical reveltaion.

It can be said no plainer.

 

gb

Again, it sounds like you are reading the last 100 years of pentecostalism into your world view and are trying to make all Baptists take the same hermeneutical suppositions that you take.

Again, I am against the tongues.

If Baptists are asked to make a vote: the historical Southern Baptists will vote against charismatic renewal. The Baptists (& especially SBC) have almost always interpreted the texts to indicate that (1) the Holy Spirit indwells a believer AT salvation and not later and (2) certain evidences of the Holy Spirit were for the purposes OF SPREADING THE GOSPEL. These 2 suppositions are BIBLICAL; and they have withstood the test of time; and they are what SBC has traditionally held for about 160 years . . . .

I did not want us to split over the tongues issue, but when the opposition raises it - I am against it.

IMHO.

Wayne

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

That is probably overstating the case, at least somewhat. It may well not have been a major focus, nor addressed in the confessions used, but over a 150 year period, and over a score of seminaries that are either directly or indirectly Southern Baptist worldwide, I suspect some somewhere have some person or persons who believed and taught this way.

Ed

 

First of all lets get context clear and stop this regergitating ofexperience.

SHOW ME:
Where scripture does it say it is a PRIVATE prayer language.

Paul is speaking in relation to how it is used in the church AND that anyone who SPEAKS in tongues it is TO BE UNDERSTOOD by those speaking in it.

Not that yes it should be though it is almost never (understood) - BUT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, as in knowing what you are saying so you will grow and or repent.

It is about the understanding NOT the praying.

Secondly there is NO contexual scriptual evidence that tongues is anthing but earthly language. All uses seen in scripture convey these instances were human languages. Even Angels spoke in Human laguages and it NEVER states they have some seperate secret language

This whole movement has TOTALLY misconstued the truth of what tongues are for and how they are to be appropreitly used.

It has relenguished the beleiver from his responsibility of earnestly seeking His face to the ridiculous notion of allowing the Holy Spirit to pray through them in a way that has no benifit toward spiritual growth other than feeling good. So that even after their prayer laguage they still not know what their need is, sin is, or what Gods will is for them. They just have this good feeling like they talked with God and now He knows so I can now get on with my life.

And guess what - I DO BELEIVE in tongues - just not the garbage strewn out today

 

Any others you would see in this crowd?

How about Paul and Peter and the 'food fight' mentioned in Galatians, or Paul and Barnabas 'falling out' over Mark, for a couple of Biblical examples? AND all the above were apostles, no less!

How about ol' Peter 'Watszisname' in Pensacola? Isn't he, or at least wasn't he a 'nominal' Southern Baptist, at least at one time?

For that matter, few So. Baptists in the last half of the century have drawn much more fire that Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, the late Harold Lindsell, (a member of the largest So. Baptist Church in the world, at that time, BTW), or Cecil Sherman or Daniel Vestal "on the other side" of the controversy. :tonofbricks:

And beyond the SBC, I haven't even started on Fred Phe...! :BangHead:

Ed

 

Historically as well it was used by the follwers of Montanus who was and still is known as a HERETIC.

Later I will post what the early church fathers said of those who practiced this. (which you will see what they were wanting then is exactly what we have today)

Some early church fathers:
Eusebius, Hippolytus, Tertilliun, Augustine ect..

Even the Cousil of Constantinople decreed them tant amount to Paganism

 

ONe last thing though - I am not saying those who use tongues are pagan, or ungodly - I am talking about THE MOVEMENT that has no boundry but that of experience and even that is open to ANYTHING NEW.

 

Let my own position be perfectly clear. As to the spiritual gifts of knowledge, tongues, and prophecy, I believe they were all temporary, hence throwing a monkey wrench into the oft repeated, but seldom validated, idea that the gift of prophecy is primarily concerned with "forthtelling" viv-a-vis`"foretelling". I would therefore also see little reason for a gift of interpretation, to be given, if there were nothing to interpret, in the sense of a "spiritual gift", vbut am willing to be silent on this. , no pun intended.

That said, I do not discount prophecy in the "forthtelling" sense, only in the sense of a "foretelling" spiritual gift.

I said all that to set this up. Yes, I would probably be classified as a "cessationist". But that is me!

However, I am opposed to 'adding a yoke to the neck' of any and all SBC entities, beyond the BFM and the Abstract, in the cases of SBTS and SEBTS, and I believe the 'New Hampshire Confession' is, or at least used to be, part and parcel of SWBTS as well.

Should the SBC make some changes in the BFM to address these questions, in their annual meetings, fine. They 'own' the entities in question. But let's not have it done sub-silento by 'board, trustee, or administration "fiat"', contrary to a 'published stance', and/or unequal treatment under the BFM, by 'additions' and/or regulations "printed to fit". That's 'dirty pool'.

Ed