-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
SBC to ban speaking in tongues?
- Thread starter ChurchBoy
- Start date
Again we see a case of what Southern Baptists are against. We know they are not for evangelism like they once were. They simply are not doing evangelism like they once were.
In my discussion with many leaders in the SBC they simply do not know how to interpret 1 Cor 14. Paul was not making tongues an issue but rather the proper use and control of it. The real issue is not whether someone believes in speaking in tongues. That is an issue for which nobody has a perfect answer for. The real issue is being under the control of the Holy Spirit in every area of their life. I have heard some who speak against tongues also lie out of the other side of their mouth. I once heard a pastor of a large SBC church preach about being honest and then when I asked him a person question on some details he wrote it off as unimportant and the IRS was not interested in such details.
I wrote a very well known leader in the SBC and criticized him for his weak stance on an interpretation of the Bible. He wrote back and mentioned that at least it was a stance on the Bible. Yet he is one of the leaders in the conservative movement.
We have pastors drawing a huge salary and lots of staff to help them while others pastors are struggling to make ends meet. When was the last time one of those fat preachers sent part of their salary to a struggling church or pastor?
I found the SBC loaded with leaders who are politicians and others who know it who just want to do a great job of preaching and leading their congregations. If the politicians are so busy studying, praying and making disciples where do they find the time to play the political football. They claim to be Calvinists but act like Arminians.
In my discussion with many leaders in the SBC they simply do not know how to interpret 1 Cor 14. Paul was not making tongues an issue but rather the proper use and control of it. The real issue is not whether someone believes in speaking in tongues. That is an issue for which nobody has a perfect answer for. The real issue is being under the control of the Holy Spirit in every area of their life. I have heard some who speak against tongues also lie out of the other side of their mouth. I once heard a pastor of a large SBC church preach about being honest and then when I asked him a person question on some details he wrote it off as unimportant and the IRS was not interested in such details.
I wrote a very well known leader in the SBC and criticized him for his weak stance on an interpretation of the Bible. He wrote back and mentioned that at least it was a stance on the Bible. Yet he is one of the leaders in the conservative movement.
We have pastors drawing a huge salary and lots of staff to help them while others pastors are struggling to make ends meet. When was the last time one of those fat preachers sent part of their salary to a struggling church or pastor?
I found the SBC loaded with leaders who are politicians and others who know it who just want to do a great job of preaching and leading their congregations. If the politicians are so busy studying, praying and making disciples where do they find the time to play the political football. They claim to be Calvinists but act like Arminians.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
They can ban the practice among missionaries whom they fund.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
This is the danger of those un-biblical institutions called "denominations." they can not only control a church's ministries, but also their buildings, pastors, and everything else.
Joseph Botwinick
insuranceman
New Member
We are Baptists. We do not try to change the doctrinal beliefs of Pentacostals or charismatics. Why do those of this persussion try to infuse this doctrine into the SBC? It is utterly amazing to me. As a Baptist, I do not speak in tongues nor have I ever desired to do so. The great Baptist preachers of the past, men who were filled with the Spirit, like R G Lee, Adrien Rogers, Homer Lindsey Sr., Homer Lindsey Jr. have never spoken in tongues and have never preached that a Christian should ever seek the experience. Jerry Vines even wrote a book critical of the charismatic tongues doctrine.
The bottom line is this, if a SBC missionary wants to believe the tongues doctrine then they should contact the mission board of the Church of God and transfer their membership to a church that believes like they do.
The bottom line is this, if a SBC missionary wants to believe the tongues doctrine then they should contact the mission board of the Church of God and transfer their membership to a church that believes like they do.
mcdirector
Active Member
Insuranceman! I love that line. We are Baptists . . .
I have typed a response to this thread at least six times and deleted them all. I do not understand the conversation. We are Baptists. Baptists . . . like . . . don't speak in tongues. I know that's an overgeneralization (and obviously somewhat eroneous from what I've read lately) and I do believe in the autonomy of the local church, but if you want to speak in tongues or do speak in tongues, then why be a Baptist?
And Joseph is right. SBC missionaries are hired and paid through SBC organizations. There are other requirements too -- profession of faith, inerrancy, seminary degree by one spouse, among many other requirements. SBC missionaries should represent what we as Southern Baptists believe.
I have typed a response to this thread at least six times and deleted them all. I do not understand the conversation. We are Baptists. Baptists . . . like . . . don't speak in tongues. I know that's an overgeneralization (and obviously somewhat eroneous from what I've read lately) and I do believe in the autonomy of the local church, but if you want to speak in tongues or do speak in tongues, then why be a Baptist?
And Joseph is right. SBC missionaries are hired and paid through SBC organizations. There are other requirements too -- profession of faith, inerrancy, seminary degree by one spouse, among many other requirements. SBC missionaries should represent what we as Southern Baptists believe.
1 Cor 14:22
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe
If our missionaries are enpowered by God to speak another language for the purpose of sharing the gospel, then by all means let it be so. But to jabber on like an infant with no clear thought in mind is to emmulate ungodly pagan worship, as has been practiced for thousands of years, abd even before pentecost.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, F54 how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe
If our missionaries are enpowered by God to speak another language for the purpose of sharing the gospel, then by all means let it be so. But to jabber on like an infant with no clear thought in mind is to emmulate ungodly pagan worship, as has been practiced for thousands of years, abd even before pentecost.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, F54 how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Just a short story on tongues
I had a friend that visited a church that practiced speaking in tongues. He sat and listened to the preaching and as people were moved by the preaching some stood up and began to speak in tongues. This was followed by someone else that would interrupt what was uttered in tongues. After about the 3rd time this happen, my friend stood up and spoke in tongues too. What my friend had just uttered was then interrupted by the pastor of the Church. Following the pastor, my friend once again stood up and told the whole church that what the pastor said was wrong. My friend had simply quoted the 23 Psalm in the Hebrew language.
I had a friend that visited a church that practiced speaking in tongues. He sat and listened to the preaching and as people were moved by the preaching some stood up and began to speak in tongues. This was followed by someone else that would interrupt what was uttered in tongues. After about the 3rd time this happen, my friend stood up and spoke in tongues too. What my friend had just uttered was then interrupted by the pastor of the Church. Following the pastor, my friend once again stood up and told the whole church that what the pastor said was wrong. My friend had simply quoted the 23 Psalm in the Hebrew language.
eloidalmanutha
New Member
quite amusing
as a former tonguer - I find much humor in today's useage as if one really thinks they are relaying something to God He doesn't already know. do you realize there are no prayers written in the NT in tongues and no interpretation? maybe that is a huge clue
on a serious note, I read a story once of a man who attended a tongue speaking church - he was African - and during a "Word from the Lord" in tongues and the ensuing "interpretation", the African got up afterwards, and said it was his native tongue and the speaker had just cursed God. Interesting, if you don't know the history of tongues in this country - it was not a surprise to me
Baptists have used the Pentecostal gifts for many years now!
http://www.pfwb.org/
http://www.fullgospelbaptist.org/
And even in SBC afflilated Ministries!
http://www.ronphillips.org/
http://www.pfwb.org/
http://www.fullgospelbaptist.org/
And even in SBC afflilated Ministries!
http://www.ronphillips.org/
Jarthur001
Active Member
It just goes to show you, that Baptist in church name does not mean you hold to traditional Baptist creeds and ways. Faith has very little to do with the sign on your church, but more with who you worship. Not to jump all over these few churches..but the point is, if your looking for a Baptist Church, do not go by the sign on the church only.
In Christ...James
Insuranceman,
Saved.
Born again.
Born of the Spirit.
Child of God.
Christian, etc
Anything beyond that is man made and in the grand scheme of things irrelavent.
If your group like the name "Baptist" thats fine. I'm not against it, I'm just putting it in its proper place.
I personally almost never refer to myself as anything other than scriptural terms, such as the ones I listed. I've attended Baptist Churches in the past, as my home fellowship, but deliberatly almost never refered to myself as anything other than biblical terms.
My "home" fellowship now is a Pentecostal type church but I almost never refer to myself as a "pentecostal". I am what I am...a christian. A child of God.
When you say "we are Baptists", it sounds like you are "drawing a line in the sand" in regard to those who are in truth your brothers and sisters.. As if it were US, against THEM.
Why is that?
It sounds to me, in this case, like people already in your group...in other words, one of "us"...are being gifted with tongues from the inside.
God likes to do those kinds of things from time to time, and I praise God for it!
Grace and peace,
Mike
No you arent. Everyone who is born of the Spirit is referred to in many ways in the scriptures.
Saved.
Born again.
Born of the Spirit.
Child of God.
Christian, etc
Anything beyond that is man made and in the grand scheme of things irrelavent.
If your group like the name "Baptist" thats fine. I'm not against it, I'm just putting it in its proper place.
I personally almost never refer to myself as anything other than scriptural terms, such as the ones I listed. I've attended Baptist Churches in the past, as my home fellowship, but deliberatly almost never refered to myself as anything other than biblical terms.
My "home" fellowship now is a Pentecostal type church but I almost never refer to myself as a "pentecostal". I am what I am...a christian. A child of God.
When you say "we are Baptists", it sounds like you are "drawing a line in the sand" in regard to those who are in truth your brothers and sisters.. As if it were US, against THEM.
Why is that?
I've never known anyone sympathetic to Gods gift of tongues try to "force" anything on anyone. There probably have been some over zealous ones who go too far, but they are certainly in the minority.
It sounds to me, in this case, like people already in your group...in other words, one of "us"...are being gifted with tongues from the inside.
Fine. Probably lots of these "Baptists" were just like you, but then...much to their surprise...all of a sudden *TONGUES* simply *happened* to them one day in prayer.
God likes to do those kinds of things from time to time, and I praise God for it!
Grace and peace,
Mike
Are you counted among those who act like a lame duck and do nothing and say nothing? Are you counted among an old pastor I once knew who plagiarized sermons for years who was also a trustee at Baylor and SWBTS and also a part of the conservative resurgence? He was a part of the SBT.
Are you counted among those Baptists who have embezzled money in their churches?
All of those are staunch Baptists.
eloidalmanutha
New Member
I am curious as to where in the Bible tongues just "happens to people in prayer"?Mike
Probably lots of these "Baptists" were just like you, but then...much to their surprise...all of a sudden *TONGUES* simply *happened* to them one day in prayer.
God likes to do those kinds of things from time to time, and I praise God for it!
Grace and peace,
Mike
btw - tongues are a sign for unbelievers
eloidalmanutha,
Thats why there is still the gift of tongues in the world.
And being a sign to unbelievers is not the only reason for tongues.
It is also given as a prayer language for the believer.(1 Cor 13:2) Some are greatly edified by that and so God grants it for those ones. Tongues are also...when interpreted...a way for someone, or a body of believers, to recieve a message of revelation from God.(1 Cor 13:6, and 13:13)
Both are legitimate. (1 Cor 13:15)
Grace and peace to you,
Mike
Acts 10:44-48.
Are their still unbelievers in the world?
Thats why there is still the gift of tongues in the world.
And being a sign to unbelievers is not the only reason for tongues.
It is also given as a prayer language for the believer.(1 Cor 13:2) Some are greatly edified by that and so God grants it for those ones. Tongues are also...when interpreted...a way for someone, or a body of believers, to recieve a message of revelation from God.(1 Cor 13:6, and 13:13)
Both are legitimate. (1 Cor 13:15)
Grace and peace to you,
Mike
insuranceman
New Member
I am saved firstly. Been that way since 1971. I am well aware that being a member of a denomination saves no one. By saying that I am a Baptist, I am expressing my doctrinal position, as well as my position on church polity. If you tell me you attend the Church of God, it tells me that while we agree on the sufficency of the blood of Christ, we will differ on the manifestation of spiritual gifts.
gb93443, you asked if I am among some Baptists who have a poor testimony. I love the Lord and have been faithfully preaching and living the Word for over 30 years but neither am I perfect or sinless. I do not believe all pentecostals or charismatics are all bad because of what Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker did. My church has participated in the recent past in two joint worship services with two different Church of Gods. My heart breaks when others(Christians) bring reproach on the cause of Christ. There many Baptist preachers who you nor I have never met but who have faithfully and without compromise served the Lord Jesus.
I still stand by my original post. I would not join a pentacostal church and try to change their belief concerning speaking with tongues. No where in the Baptist Faith and Message does it mention that Southern Baptists believe in tongues, prayer language, etc. If there are missionaries who believe such they ought to find a mission board which is more in line with what they believe.
gb93443, you asked if I am among some Baptists who have a poor testimony. I love the Lord and have been faithfully preaching and living the Word for over 30 years but neither am I perfect or sinless. I do not believe all pentecostals or charismatics are all bad because of what Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker did. My church has participated in the recent past in two joint worship services with two different Church of Gods. My heart breaks when others(Christians) bring reproach on the cause of Christ. There many Baptist preachers who you nor I have never met but who have faithfully and without compromise served the Lord Jesus.
I still stand by my original post. I would not join a pentacostal church and try to change their belief concerning speaking with tongues. No where in the Baptist Faith and Message does it mention that Southern Baptists believe in tongues, prayer language, etc. If there are missionaries who believe such they ought to find a mission board which is more in line with what they believe.
eloidalmanutha
New Member
Acts 10:44-48.
Are their still unbelievers in the world?
Thats why there is still the gift of tongues in the world.
And being a sign to unbelievers is not the only reason for tongues.
It is also given as a prayer language for the believer.(1 Cor 13:2) Some are greatly edified by that and so God grants it for those ones. Tongues are also...when interpreted...a way for someone, or a body of believers, to recieve a message of revelation from God.(1 Cor 13:6, and 13:13)
Both are legitimate. (1 Cor 13:15)
Grace and peace to you,
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Peter was not praying, he was preaching the gospel message when the Holy Spirit showed up and gave them tongues
the "sign" for unbelievers today is the Word of God. Certainly, if God would choose to give a language to someone speaking to one of another nationality that the speaker did not know the language - cool. But these are very isolated cases today. God's Word is now translated into most languages, so there is little need for tongues to spread the gospel [that is why tongues or languages was given - per Acts 1:8]
1 Cor 14:2 is a corrective statement, Paul was scolding them. If they were speaking in a tongue then only God could understand it, no one else, unless it was interpreted - which they were not doing. So in essence, Paul is saying, you are wasting your breath. There are no instances of a prayer language being spoken and interpreted in the NT.
the reason that tongues was given in prophecy was for those who did not understand the language spoken in the congregation. There are no examples of tongues given with interpretation from one person to others that knew the same language.
for instance - when Paul was warned that he would be bound in a prophecy, it was in a language that all could understand that were standing there.
we must keep in mind that 1 Cor is not referring to today's useage of tongues, but one that was done in gross error and therefore, those who are using this passage to support tongues today are also in error.
let me ask you - have you ever done any research into how tongues got introduced to this country? do you realize that tongues in america did not show up until about 1900?
eloidalmanutha,
You indicated that you were oblivious to someone being gifted with tongues spontaneously in the scriptures, so I showed you where it happened.
In your previous post you said this...
They are primarily for...
A personal prayer language for those God gives that gift to.(1 Cor 13:2)
A revelation from God, with the interpretation, for a person or a gathered assembly..(1 Cor 13:6, and 13:13)
Both are legitimate.(1 Cor 13:6, and 13:13)
People who say the entire message is a rebuke are reading it with that bias so as to condemn Gods gift of the Spirit (tongues) in this day and age.
How can this be a rebuke?...
"For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him. However, in the Spirit he speaks mysteries"
If God is supposedly rebuking them for speaking in mysteries, why would He endorse speaking in mysteries, as he is doing here?
"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding."
If God is supposedly rebuking singing and praying in the spirit, why does he twice condone and endorse singing in the spirit, and praying in the spirit?
"You indeed give thats well, but the other is not edified."
If God is rebuking them, then why does he say that they are "giving thanks well", when they do the very thing He is supposedly rebuking them for?
"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.
And...
You indeed give thats well, but the other is not edified.
"Let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he might interpret"
And...
"If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two and at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret"
Since God instructed them to interpret, its pretty unlikely that it never happened in the 1st century church.
1) A personal prayer language, for the edification of the believer.
2) A message to a gathered assembly, after the interpretation.
They do this by teaching that scriptures dont mean what they actually teach, but rather what they want them to teach.
There have been tongues in the body of Christ for 2000 years now. This has been documented. What has happened is that at times gifts such as tongues diminished and became less prominant. But they have never dies out. A good book on this topic id "2000 years of Charismatic Christianity".
God bless,
Mike
I wasnt talking about Peter. I was talking about Cornelius. He initiated nothing. He was simply listening to the gospel, and he miraculously began to speak in tongues.
You indicated that you were oblivious to someone being gifted with tongues spontaneously in the scriptures, so I showed you where it happened.
Now wait a minute.
In your previous post you said this...
Now you are saying...
Which is your true belief?
He does that sometimes. He also sometimes gives people a heavenly prayer language. This is sometimes referred to as the "tongues of angels"
Tongues are not usually for "spreading the gospel"
They are primarily for...
A personal prayer language for those God gives that gift to.(1 Cor 13:2)
A revelation from God, with the interpretation, for a person or a gathered assembly..(1 Cor 13:6, and 13:13)
Both are legitimate.(1 Cor 13:6, and 13:13)
That was part of the message. A great part of the message is to define the proper use of tongues in the body.
People who say the entire message is a rebuke are reading it with that bias so as to condemn Gods gift of the Spirit (tongues) in this day and age.
How can this be a rebuke?...
"For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him. However, in the Spirit he speaks mysteries"
If God is supposedly rebuking them for speaking in mysteries, why would He endorse speaking in mysteries, as he is doing here?
"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding."
If God is supposedly rebuking singing and praying in the spirit, why does he twice condone and endorse singing in the spirit, and praying in the spirit?
"You indeed give thats well, but the other is not edified."
If God is rebuking them, then why does he say that they are "giving thanks well", when they do the very thing He is supposedly rebuking them for?
Thats why God is telling them that in a gathered assembly if someone gives a message to the assembly in tongues, then at those times they should have an interpretation. I'm not argueing against that.
You actually believe God is telling them they are wasting their breath, as he says to them...
"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.
And...
You indeed give thats well, but the other is not edified.
Doesnt matter. God still endorses it...
"Let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he might interpret"
And...
"If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two and at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret"
Since God instructed them to interpret, its pretty unlikely that it never happened in the 1st century church.
Thats one reason, but there are other reasons.
1) A personal prayer language, for the edification of the believer.
2) A message to a gathered assembly, after the interpretation.
Of course. That was not an example of tongues.
No there arent. People gifted in this way are engaging in a spiritual gift that bothers some people, so those people who are bothered by it go on a crusade to try and discredit this gift of the Spirit.
They do this by teaching that scriptures dont mean what they actually teach, but rather what they want them to teach.
That is mythology.
There have been tongues in the body of Christ for 2000 years now. This has been documented. What has happened is that at times gifts such as tongues diminished and became less prominant. But they have never dies out. A good book on this topic id "2000 years of Charismatic Christianity".
God bless,
Mike
This is the danger of those un-biblical institutions called "denominations." they can not only control a church's ministries, but also their buildings, pastors, and everything else.
Other denoms I can not answer for.