Trustee McKissic endorses prayer tongue during chapel sermon at Southwestern

1. I agree that we should not accept your money.

2. God doesn't need your money so go ahead and take it and go home as far as I am concerned.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Amen to that one, brother!

 

You obviously missed my question. What is acceptable and what is not. How many Southern Baptists here would approve of a healing service or public speaking in tongues in the chapels of our seminaries? Those aren't in the BF&M, so why not? And there lies the absurdity of your current argument.

 

cessationism is a poorly supported thought by a few people and not the majority opinion of the convention. I would suggest that more people in our fine convention hold to an "open but cautious" view of the gifts.

while I do not practice a private prayer language, who am I to say that it is wrong if a devout brother or sister in Christ (whom I know has a good standing with Christ and vibrant walk) feel called to practice one in a private setting. glossalia is a biblical principle and is a gift for those who feel called to practice it.

 

Isn't this what Jesus did? Jesus was a Jew yet he spoke contrary to the teachings of the Pharisees on many occasions. He did not teach contrary to make a political point, he tought contrary because it was right. Preaching cannot be preaching if it is limited to the beliefs of an institution. Preaching is preaching as long as it is biblical even if it is contrary to popular or institutional beliefs. Or even the SBC statement of faith for that matter...

Here is what he said;
"But I think it’s tragic in Baptist life when we take a valid, vital gift that the Bible talks about and come up with a policy that says people who pray in tongues in their private prayer lives cannot work in certain positions. That to me is contrary to what many of our foremost Baptist thinkers and leaders think."

Joseph and Revmitchell, speaking in tounges is a gift according to the bible. I personally do not practise it and believe if it were spoken in public worship then there should be one to interpret or it is our of line. If the institution left it out of their beliefs, then it is their beliefs that is wrong.

He did not describe or give a sample of his secret prayer life so, ""private prayer language" is not a known language to man but jibberish that is unintelligible" is a very unfair statement. You really have no idea what he meant. I think we should be slower with calling people heritics and focus more on rightly dividing the word of truth. I would hate to put all my eggs in the Calvin or Arminian basket and find they were both right and wrong when we get home.

 

Well there is quite a difference in a pastor/preacher/trustee mentioning those types of services as positive and actually having one.

I am concerned that the powers that be think so little of our seminary students (or us or that matter) that they have to censor his printed message. Can we not hear varying opinions and stand firm in what we believe is scriptural? Hearing something and then seeking Scriptural support or the lack thereof is what makes us intellegent as well as faithful.

It's not the divergent opinions that bother me, it's acting like they aren't out there and not letting me make my own decision that is troublesome.

 

Since the SBC doesn't have a doctrinal statement against the scriptural teaching of either private prayer language or tongues, then perhaps it should be those who don't believe the Bible, like you, who should take their money and leave!:smilewinkgrin:

Now see how silly that is? Why should anybody have to leave or be shown the door over a doctrinal issue like this, where neither side has a corner on the truth. Those who believe in a private prayer language should pipe down and not be so arrogant or triumphal, as if they have something special that others don't because it isn't about you, it's about what God decides to do. Those who don't have a private prayer language shouldn't sweat it, since God in his infinite wisdom made the decision that you didn't need it. And stop being so jealous of those who do have it, because they are in line with what the scripture teaches.

There will not be any way for any of you to know how right or wrong you are on this issue until you reach heaven. If you let it be a divisive thing, you falling right into the trap that Satan wants you to fall into.

 

But that's the whole justification for the takeover (the alleged "conservative resurgence")!

Specifically, Patterson and Pressler asserted that "liberal" seminary professors were presenting "liberal" viewpoints in the seminaries. The implication was that seminary students don't have a living faith, can't think for themselves, and don't hear other viewpoints. Patterson, Pressler and company led a takeover of the convention and its agencies so it could clear the seminaries of professors who taught views contrary to those of the mainstream of Southern Baptists (as defined by Patterson).

Persons who hold the view you expressed we/are known as "moderate/liberals" or "liberal sympathizers" by the takeover people.

 

1. I wouldn't see anything wrong with a healing service in chapel at Seminary. It would not go against the scripture, and it might actually prompt the Holy Spirit to come into a place where I'm not sure his presence has been felt for a long time.

2. Considering that there are Biblical guidelines for the exercise of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues and the gift of interpretation of tongues, if it were practiced in a seminary chapel or church service according to those guidelines, then I would have to think that Paul's admonition not to forbid it would be followed. If it turned into the emotional free for all and confused babbling that takes place in some Pentecostal churches, which is not how the scripture says it will be practiced, then I would expect a responsible seminary leader to put a stop to it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefalcon
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.

drfuss writes:
"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?"


bluefalcon writes:
"You obviously missed my question. What is acceptable and what is not. How many Southern Baptists here would approve of a healing service or public speaking in tongues in the chapels of our seminaries? Those aren't in the BF&M, so why not? And there lies the absurdity of your current argument."


You obviously missed my answer. Again, Mckissic said nothing about a healing service or public speaking in tongues in the chapels of our seminiaries. He only talked about a private prayer language during private devotions. Concerning being in the BF&M, some christians only pray in the King James version language, i.e. Thou, Thine, art, etc. Since that is not mentioned in the BF&M, should we outlaw KJV language during private prayers or maybe only allow KJV language during private prayers?

 

I endorse the BFM as written. I see no need at present for me to leave. I can live with those who have differing opinions.

Examples:

I can cooperate with Calvinists in the convention--I cannot cooperate with a Calvinist convention.

I can cooperate with cessationists in the convention--I cannot cooperate with a cessationist convention.

I can cooperate with teetotallers in the convention. I cannot cooperate with a teetotaller convention (i.e. specifically in the BFM, not just in non-binding resolutions). (BTW, I don't drink or plan to do so).

If you don't want people who disagree with you in the convention, make it so they cannot stay. I'm not going to leave unless it is made clear by the BFM that my positions are out of bounds for the SBC. If that is the case, I'll gladly leave. I'm not going to pretend to be SBC when I disagree with the BFM, but as it stands now, I endorse the BFM. Therefore, I'm going to stay.

 

He may have missed the question, but you are missing the point.

If this is such an important issue, why not put it in the BFM?

 

Interesting thought! How strongly do they disagree with the Bible?

 

not disagreeing at all...I agree with your post. One of things about being a BAPTIST is that each church is autonomous. The only thing that makes my church or your church a part of the SBC is the Cooperative Program. I don't have to affirm the BFM 2000 (which I have strong reservations about, but can still affirm) to be SBC. You don't even have to affirm the BFM 1963, you can affirm the BFM 1925 and be SBC.

The distinctive is that the denom can't tell me as a pastor or any of my parishioners what to believe. If I practice a private prayer language (which I don't) that means nothing to the SBC.

As Baptist we historically developed this belief because we didn't need some ivory tower pontificators trying to force creedalism into our churches where it doesn't belong.

 

That's utterly amazing! I've been called lots of things in my life but never a liberal or a liberal sympathizer. If that's what happens though because I say I want our pastors, students, and church members to think for themselves, then I guess I may have to get used to it.

 

Each church is indeed autonomous. Denominational entities which are supported by these churches, however, are not. This is the big issue. The BFM is supposed to be the confessional guideline for these structures.

The battle is not over the churches--it's over control of the denominational structures. IMO, the entities do not have the authority to go beyond the BFM.

If the issue is so important for these entities, it needs to be in the BFM. If I can no longer affirm the BFM, then I will willingly leave.

 

Keep in mind the problem is the IMB secretly added a general qualification reqirement for new missionaries not included in the BF&M. It only became known when an IMB member exposed it; who was critized by the IMB for exposing them.

Churches give to the Cooperative Program based on the BF&M beliefs. Why do you think the IMB wanted to keep it secret? So the money would keep coming from churches that object to the secret requirements?

The IMB action was very unethical. I think the IMB owes the SBC an apology for their attempted deception. It certainly has lowered the credibility of the SBC.

 

Doesn't it make you wonder . . .