Pastor’s letter challenges seminary’s proposed stance

By arguing against excluding those who advocate tongues, one is opening the door for allowing tongues. McKissic may not have directly advocated tongues, but the whole firestorm in the wake of what he said seems to include those who do not like the fact that Baptist doctrine does not openly allow for it. So those who practice it or have no problem with it, by speaking out against any policy for exclusion of it, are opening a door for a discussion to allow it. Maybe I'm interpreting all this wrongly, but that's the picture I am getting.

 

Seminary is not a cafeteria where one chooses which beliefs they will study and/or accept. It is a place to be taught according to the statement of faith of that institution and the beliefs of the institution should be adhered to by all instructors and students there!

Years ago at Princeton the liberalism was making great inroads and destroying the sound doctrines it came down to Machen leaving there, being fired, and starting Westminster rather than succumb to the ways of the liberals. To stay in truth takes great effort as a little leaven affects the whole lump!!

 

I did attach a word you did not use, by implication. I apologize here. I do not attempt to twist anyone's words, figuring I see enough of that from some others, and not particularly wanting to join that 'crummy club'. That word was "never"; you (El_Guero) actually used "not", saying that

It was gb93433 who actually said "never".

The above two quotes have my emphases, solely to differentiate.

And I definitely object to the implication that I cited Dr. Criswell wrongly, to prove my point. ( as I try not to become ) I cannot speak for anyone else in that, nor will I attempt to. "He (or she) is of age! Ask him!", as the parents of the healed man said. Here is a short quote from the text of a sermon preached by Dr. Criswell titled "THE BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" (The text was Heb. 9: 7-15)

Dr. Criswell has these words to say in his book Ephesians An Exposition

And again in a message titled "Israel's Unbelief" (Romans 11:1-32) dated 11-28-54, this

I could cite more, but the purpose of these three is merely to show that Dr. W. A. Criswell was in fact, a 'dispensationalist', and not picked to add 'substance' to any argument I happen to be attempting.



And I admit, I questioned the 'absolute' statement you made of

Had you said "most" or "few", I would have in no way questioned this. But I suggest that such an absolute statement is "dumb", to say the least. What years is this supposed to entail. How many, exactly? When did this supposed 'unwritten' ban get lifted? And are you saying that you are familiar with every SBC church around since 1922? (BTW, I thought even a 'Southern' Baptist church was independent by definition, and made her own choice(s) of pastors!) For that is the claim you would have to support to make such a statement? Being as I'm the gentle soul I am, ("Shut up, Language Cop! I don't want to hear it!" - Ed ) I'll help out with some dates. Ae you claiming this (even though you cannot realistically) to have been true before 1990? How about 1980, at the start of the so-called Conservative takeover of the SBC? Would you make that claim? You tell me. When or until what year(s) are you referring to, since I can't figure it out.

The controversy over Dr. William Whitsett, at Southern? I am somewhat familiar with it, but do not consider (nor have I ever before heard) that dispensationalism was a part of this. Opposing 'Landmarkism'? Yep! Arguing against a Baptist succesion from the days of the apostles? Yep! Claiming that Baptists, as we know them, are an 'outgrowth' from English Separatists? Yep! Dispensationalism? Might be a third cousin twice removed I guess, but nothing of which I'm aware, or have been able to find will support this. Got any evidence of this??

Ed

 

But $ee how it doe$ "rai$e the dough!" :thumbsup: :tongue3:

Ed

 

"Can you spell 'h-e-a-r-s-a-y' and/or 'i-n-n-u-e-n-d-o'? How about 'p-e-j-o-r-a-t-i-v-e'?" - Language Cop

"I need to send Language Cop out on patrol!" - Ed

Ed

 

Something just came to me.
It took a long time to get through, I guess, since I'm merely a dumb farmer. :BangHead:

Uh- if a "Prayer Language" is really private, how come so many know about it?

Ed

 

Maybe cos someone had to brag about his secret prayers...Hmmm

Cheers,

Jim

PS. If you are a dumb farmer I am a dumb old man

 

Ed,

For many years a man with a DTS degree could not get hired by an SBC church in Texas . . . If you know of one or two anecdotaly . . . so be it. But, you won't find a hundred much less 200. Out of 4000+ churches . . . 200 would have been a drop in the bucket.

I got in trouble in the past for stating what used to be the standard Baptist (not just SBC) line here in Texas about DTX . . . Oh well . . . I am kinder than I used to be.

The 'brand' of dispensation that Chriswell was quoting does not sound like 'dispensationalism'. But, not being a dispensationalist, I wouldn't know what they really sound like - just what they sound like when they argue.

Dispensationalism is very new in Texas . . . it may be old where you are from, but it cain't be much more than 110 years old . . .

:saint:

 

Now it has been a day or two since I was taught what dispensationalism was in school . . .

But, what WA called a dispensation was not what I got taught in school . . .

WA was saying that Moses, Abraham and Peter had the same religion. And that AIN'T what I got taught. I got taught that under dispensationalism - Christ did not die for David . . .

I might be confused . . . but, that is also what I found on line.

You are gonna have to find an english definition that does not used words defined in 5 different ways.

 

That's a shame! Most dispensational preachers and teachers I listen to use the OT all the time. The OT is full of prophecy; foreshadows what is to come in the NT; and yes, is our history and much more. We have to know whence we came to know where we're going.

 

He is truly missing wonderful things!
Christ was present at creation! John 1:1 and is present in every book of the bible! ALL scripture is given for our use as Timothy states in 2 Tim 3:16 and we are so shortchanged if we miss seeing all the appearances of Christ in the OT as they are the preview of the NT.

 

I have heard this several times.

I still believe in the whole Word of God.

 

It is about time that the SBC clarifiy their stand on this issue.
If the SBC thinks that this is not of God then let the SBC take a Stand against it.
If they cannot take that stand then they should learn what "
forbid Not " means.

 

I could be wrong I have been wrong a few times in my life but
I don't think the SBC will deal with this issue in 2007.
With 20 % of Southern Baptist having Charismatic leanings I don't think the SBC would want to offend these people since in most cases they happen to be the most faithful members in SBC Churches. I have met many of these. Look around in SBC Churches and find the hard working faithful with great attitudes and talk to them privately about this issue and you will find that they would have a hard time being told that the SBC would dictate how they pray in their prayer closet. This would be worse than watergate.

 

Are ya' trying to get your self black listed?

:saint: