ReBaptism and Private Prayer Language

No, I'm accurate. You just don't know what to look for. My parents and grandparents, and all their extended families are Pentacostal. All my wife's family are Pentecostal. I have been immersed in Pentacostalism and Charismania most of my life. I "spoke in tongues" at a youth camp, and I wasn't faking it.

Where the SBC has already made the transition is in the worship styles, and the authority of the Scriptures. "Contemporary" styles are used to create an ambiguous spiritual feelings, and folks—youth mostly for now—"worship" with hands raised and heads back and eyes rolled back. Don't forget the swaying. Do you really think it will be that long before you allow your congregation to "dance in the spirit."? The youth are already dancing and calling it worship. Heck-fire, M-Fuge is incorporating pagan styles of meditation. And it's all about getting some kind of spiritual feeling.

That brings me to the next symptom, and that's the demotion of the Scriptures. In the hullabaloo raised over the M-Fuge deal, the leadership defended themselves by saying God uses things other than the Scriptures to lead His people. By that they were elevating their feelings to an equal level.

I'm certain you practice a form of this. Haven't you declared the Scriptures silent on certain issues, and issued a sort of emancipation proclamation about personal preferences?

"God hasn't spoken, so whatever the Spirit leads you to do is the right thing to do."

"Let the Spirit be your guide."

"Hey, it's not forbidden, so it's just fine." (Which, BTW, is the justification the M-Fuge leaders used to sanctify their paganism.)

In other words, don't look to the Scriptures, look to your feelings.

Aaron, is five + years "a few years?"

You must be young. Five years is a drop in the bucket, my dear boy. Soon you'll be able to look back ten and twenty years and wonder where the time went and marvel at the speed at which it traveled. Twenty years is just a few years, but I don't think it will take that long. The foundation is already laid.

In order for the SBC to change (even in a few more years time) to pentacostalism, I - along with several hundred thousand others - would have to change to pentacostalism - or simply allow it to happen. It's not going to happen.

It already has happened. Thousands of youth will be the leaders of the SBC in just a few years, and they will be "rocking God's house," dancing in the spirit, using "contemplative prayer," claiming special revelation, and any variation of ecstatic "manifestations" of the Spirit.

Tongues? That will be the least of your worries, and you'll surrender to that, because that'll be a hill you don't want to die on.

Five years should have been enough to prove you right "since first joining this board."

You are young. But just look at the things you're doing that you believe are orthodox, and you'll see that you are unwittingly assisting in the transition.

 

Consider the books of the prophets. </font>[/QUOTE]Surely you are not going to put the writings of a person on the BB on the same level with the inspired writings of a prophet guided by the Lord?

 

I really wish that I were half as smart as some on this board think they are...

 

I wish you were that smart too!

 

I did respond to Aaron's post, but I thought it best to remove my comments. Not because I'm in agreement with him or because I'm unable to effectively oppose his points, but because I feel it's a tremendous waste of time.

I would, however, ask Aaron for a clarification of comments and charges that appear to be directed at me personally.

[ December 23, 2005, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: USN2Pulpit ]

 

I must have hit the nail on the head.

 

arrogance

 

I'm a "young" baptist, having only been attending an SBC for about 6 months. My question is this, if the leadership of the SBC is voted on by the delegates sent by the member churches, shouldn't the leadership reflect the general theological/political stance of the member churches? It seems to me that the complaint is that the SBC in itself is becoming more moderate, but the leadership is still stuck in the dark ages (figuratively speaking)

 

Yep. Aaron is continually one of the most arrogant voices on the board.

 

I do not think that is even close.

 

I agree with much of what you said BUT does not God lead people using things other than Scripture? (Of course it should not contradict Scripture).

EXAMPLES

1. A Pastor is asked by another Church to be their pastor. That Church has prayed about this man and believe they are led by God he to call him there. The Pastor after much praying believes it is the will of God also because of various reasons. Neither however can go to the Bible and read "Pastor "So and So" is to Pastor this Church." They of course may have (and should have) read the Bible for guidance but there will be no direct command on this decision.

2. A person has been on several Job interviews and 2 companies are asking him or her to come work for them. That person should pray for God's guidance as well as seek God's will in Scripture but you cannot go to the Bible and read "Take the Job at So and So company".

I don't think anyone is making their emotions equal with Scripture by seeking the will of God in prayer.

 

I'd have to have more information to answer your examples, so I'll give you an example. The Scriptures command us to honor our fathers and our mothers. A girl and boy believe they are called of God to marry, but one or both sets of parents do not fully approve.

Now neither the girl's nor the boy's name is in the Scripture, so what is God's leadership in this case? God's direction is that they should honor their parents and not marry.

God's leadership is manifest when one is in obedience to the Scriptures. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.

What Charismania does is reverse this. God's direction is based on feelings and vague references to the leadership of the Spirit, and then the Scriptures are searched for a justification.

 

SBC and Pulpit,

If you can "effectively oppose my points," then do it. Personal attacks are usually a sign that one has lost the argument. It doesn't matter how "arrogant" I am, if I'm right.

 

Aaron, you are the one the one that restorted to personal attacks. USN, has asked you to clarify what you wrote about him and you have not done that. So do not turn this around onto us in your arrogance. Either answer his claims or be quiet.

 

I was a Youth pastor for several years in the southern baptist before becoming a pastor.
One of my charismatic friends did go with us to some sbc youth rallys and said you guys are getting charasmatic on us, I think because of the music, etc... They are having a Evangelism conference in ohio at Cedarville with Tony Evans as speaker who I think is charasmatic?
There is a trend of praying in tongues in private.
I had one sunday school teacher from a southern baptist church tell me they speak in tongues in private and there was a pastor who did but didn't tell anybody.

 

Comments like this - and others reckless comments you have made to me,and many others in the past - make it very easy for me at this point to resist entering into a very taxing and worthless debate with you. Scriptures warn against it.

I'm forty, by the way. Young to some - ancient to others. I make no apologies for my age or experience. As for attempts to patronize, I simply refer to Paul's encouragments to Timothy about so-called "religious people" giving him trouble because of his age.

 

What more information do you need? Perhaps Kiffen or someone else can give more information.

 

I am a member of a Baptist Church (SBC)and have been for the past thirty (30) years, and have been priviledged to sit under some great pastors and teachers. I was not raised in the baptist church and have had little or no knowledge of tongues but with the help of the mentioned teachers and my own study of the scriptures I have come to understand that;
1.There is a definite differance between the tongues mentioned in Acts and the tongues mentioned in I Cor. One being an intelligible language and the other an estatic utterance which we today commonly refer to as glossolalia.
2.Glossolalia was only to be used when in small groups 2-3 and then only then when it could be interpreted. Otherwise be still.
3.When you refer to a "private prayer language" I understand you to mean one on one with GOD, not laying in bed alone babbling as I heard one testify to. and this is not scriptural as well as I can ascertain.
4.When Paul referred to that which he knew in part I understand that to be the sign gift and the perfect as The Scripture.

All this is done for edifying of the Church and the Glory of GOD not in a pious pompous manner.

 

SBC and Pulpit,

As I said, if you can "effectively oppose" my points, then do it. No one is fooled by your feigned spiritual high roads.

[ December 24, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]