Trustee McKissic endorses prayer tongue during chapel sermon at Southwestern

1. His arguments for charasmania go against the Bible, which is the first and foremost statement of faith for the SBC.

2. If he had argued for Calvinism and been censored, I would have expected that since Patterson, Caner, and Yarnell are all a bunch of liberal Arminian heretics.

3. I agree with the new IMB guidelines.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Just out of curiosity I emailed my son at SW to find out the buzz on campus about this guy's sermon.

his response: "buzz about what?"

 

Joseph,

You have been invited on a safari hunt with Patterson . . . I don't think you should take the offer though . . . there is a new blank spot on his wall.

:saint:

liberal, arminian, and heretic - man you are trying to make someone angry.

:thumbs:

 

Brandon is a third year MDiv student (praise God on that one). He's just ready to get finished right now. He's working full time and going to school full time. He's probably not talking to anyone outside of class to be in-the-know.

I will say that when he first went to SWBTS, we had several long coversations about SBC politics. He was disillusioned as are the young so often. I think he's seen enough now that he's a bit jaded like his mom (but probably not as much so).

 

I bet he enjoys reading Borg.:laugh:

Joseph Botwinick

 

A "private prayer language" is way beyond personal preference. These folks are basing this rediculous ideology on (they believe or at least make the excuse) on scripture. That moves it to more than just a preference. They are saying this is what God wants and this is how God interacts with man.

The language used in "private prayer language" is not a known language to man but jibberish that is unintelligible, not real, and in no way glorifies or represents God.

Tongues as understood by charasmatics, slain in the spirit, holy laughter and the such all have their origins in the cults.

For the SBC to stand against these issues is to stand against cultic behavior, for a proper view of God, and for order in the church.

 

God has never called nor will He ever call a woman into the Gospel ministry of preaching or pastoring a church.

True, a woman can witness, enjoy church, teach children in a church or the younger women, etc. but a woman cannot be a pastor or preacher and be right with God.

All of these "women preachers" on TV just show by their continuance in this rebellion that they have never experienced the grace of God, but are just wondering around in religion.

 

What may be disseminated in the chapel that is owned by all Southern Baptists? May one personally testify about praying in tongues? May one actually pray in tongues? May one speak in tongues? May one call on someone who is crippled from the crowd to stand up in order to heal him? This is a matter of what is appropriate and what is not in an institution owned by all Southern Baptists.

 

Having women on staff does not mean they are preaching or pastoring. But they might be running a whole lot of things.

 

Mckissic was only talking about private pray during private devotions. He did not say anything about tongues during a service or having a healing service. He said nothing that conflicted with the BF&M.

All southern Baptist? It is apparent that All Southern Baptists are not opposed to speaking in tongues during private devotions. Should an institution owned by "All Southern Baptists" not allow beliefs of "Some Southern Baptists" to be said in the chapel?

 

Don’t be so certain...

At the beginning of the book of Acts, the disciples of Jesus (including the women – Acts 1:14) gathered in the upper room, devoting themselves to prayer and waiting on God. On the day of Pentecost, the tongue of fire rested on all of them (see Acts 2:3). And “they all” (Acts 2:4) began to speak with other tongues preaching of “the mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11).

Phillip the Evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (See Acts 21:9).

Paul gives instructions on women having their head covered when they pray or prophesy in church meetings (1 Corinthians 11:5).

Which is essentially the same thing as preaching, although those who opposed women speaking in church meetings usually regard witnessing as purely an evangelistic activity that takes place exclusively outside the church. I disagree with that view.

I have to disagree with you because of the passages I listed above.

Glad you can separate the wheat from the tares like that.

Where the women of the Upper Room women “wondering” (or perhaps wandering) around in religion? What about Phillip’s four daughters? What about the women in the Corinthian congregation that Paul apparently approved of praying and prophesying?

But this is not a thread about the roles of women in the church.

 

I say again... let the anti-tongues people make their stands and amend the BFM.

If they do so, which they have the right to do, I, as will many others, will take our CP dollars and go home.

If non-cessationists aren't good enough for ministry or speaking in chapel, then the cessationists should have the integrity not to take our money.

 

A few points,

(1) The women in the "upper room" went out and started pastoring churches or just starting testifying of what God has done?

Besides, the books of Acts is a bridge if you would, and that bridge led to the church age. I have never seen a house built on a bridge, and nor would I build my theological beliefs on Acts, otherwise you're going to be getting rather confused.

(2) If you stick with your interpretation of those passages in 1 Corinthians, then you should start speaking in tongues as soon as possible to make sure you're spiritual. The better thing to do would be to study the context of those verses given and see how they relate to the cult at Delphi during those days.

As for Acts 21:9, if these daughters "which did prophesy" were so God-honored and God-used then why did God send Agabus to send His message?

More later.

 

Actually, I think this is probably the point where Southern Baptists start acting like real Christians and come to an understanding that, as long as we are in this body of flesh, we're going to disagree over interpreting the scripture because the human element is involved. We can be spiritually perfected, but not become perfect. All this disagreement and arguing, fighting and bickering over nit-picking, unimportant little things is nothing more than petty jealousy and all it does is keep us from having the testimony we need to bear in front of a lost and dying world that is increasingly going to hell, not in a handbasket, but on a fast track.

It's a waste of time and good words to point fingers at someone who hasn't actually contradicted scripture and accuse them of being an infidel because they believe God's Holy Spirit has the power to encourage and lift up a follower through a miraculous sign. It's a waste of energy to accuse someone who may have had a tongues experience in their private prayer life of thinking they are better than you are, spiritually. And it is wrong for someone who may have had a tongues experience in their private prayer life to look down upon those who haven't. It's a sovereign God who makes that decision, and it has nothing to do with how right you've arranged all your doctrinal pieces so far. If that were the case, then none of us would ever be saved, because we can't ever be doctrinally correct enough to please God.

I've been involved with a new church plant for about five years, now, and I don't think we've won a single person to Christ by proving either our doctrinal purity, or how much better we are than the church down the street that doesn't have their doctrine set as correctly as ours is. We've had a pretty consistent stream of new members from churches whose pastors can't seem to stay on the subject of scripture, or off the subject of how bad other denominations are and how right they are. Keep 'em coming, folks. They are good members and they tithe.

 

WOW!

I thought that I was gonna read the latest on McKissic . . .

Oh well, has anyone heard anything lately? On McKissic . . .

 

JM,

Maybe you are right. I'm not optimistic. I've seen nothing in the big-wigs that indicates that they will moderate from their rigid positions.