Yay! Platt Ends Tongues Ban at IMB

[McCree79]

Huh?

Lifeway poll of Southern Baptist pastors:

http://www.bpnews.net/28922

Pastors don't decide that in the SBC church . Not in any I have seen or heard of. They don't accept or deny membership. The church body does.

Regardless, Baptist Statement of Faith is applied to candidates. If they hold to a baptism of salvation, they are disqualified.

 

[Jerome]

Sigh.

If you read, the pastors are reporting what their church body does.

 

[McCree79]

Sigh.

If you read, the pastors are reporting what their church body does.

Still doesn't change anything. IMB missionaries must hold to SBC view of baptism.

 

[Zaac]

"He hopes that more missionaries will be self-funded in the future." [Platt]

Well that is interesting, if they are self-funded, then they are not IMB funded, so they are independent. I'm confused...

Is Platt saying that he wants more independent missionaries and fewer IMB missionaries?
Or is he saying he wants missionaries willing to raised their own support, yet still be bound by IMB rules and constraints?

I've always had an issue with the IMB model anyway. The IMB is not a local church assembly, they are a para-church organization that is financed by local churches, donors, and investments. They determine where they believe missionaries should be sent, instead of missionaries going where they are called by God.

That's one of the reasons( plus the rest of the bureaucracy) that I don't do missions work through the IMB.

Not to mention that nobody could ever explain to me why it cost us about 80,000 a year to send a missionary.

 

[JonC]

I am not trying to pick a fight and I won't argue about it, but the SBC has been taken over by those who are Calvinists, are not Baptists (as seen in the new definition of what kind of baptism they will allow for missionaries) and allow for charismatic manifestations.

I agree with the "not baptist" or at least not traditionally southern baptists. I disagree with the Calvinists part (as traditionally Calvinistic Baptists have been opposed to charismatic manifestations....and at the onset SBC presidents such as RBC Howell were very much Calvinists). I think it is a neo movement....neo what I don't know.

 

[Br. Dan]

I agree with the "not baptist" or at least not traditionally southern baptists. I disagree with the Calvinists part (as traditionally Calvinistic Baptists have been opposed to charismatic manifestations....and at the onset SBC presidents such as RBC Howell were very much Calvinists). I think it is a neo movement....neo what I don't know.

How about neo-ecumenicalism, another step moving toward the one world religion of the anti-christ and his new world order?

Similar to FBC Dayton and their resident wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Rodney Kennedy, baptizing an infant and calling himself a Catholic-baptist.
http://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/30022-baptist-pastor-in-ohio-baptizes-infant

I don't intend to de-rail the thread, I'm just citing this as a reference to demonstrate more neo-ecumenicalism moving traditional Baptists toward a unified religion. David Platt at the helm of the IMB is merely small part of the bigger movement.

 

[Zaac]

How about neo-ecumenicalism, another step moving toward the one world religion of the anti-christ and his new world order?

Similar to FBC Dayton and their resident wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Rodney Kennedy, baptizing an infant and calling himself a Catholic-baptist.
http://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/30022-baptist-pastor-in-ohio-baptizes-infant

I don't intend to de-rail the thread, I'm just citing this as a reference to demonstrate more neo-ecumenicalism moving traditional Baptists toward a unified religion. David Platt at the helm of the IMB is merely small part of the bigger movement.

YUCK!!! This article disgusts me.

 

[blackbird]

I haven't said it is mentioned. But if it's not mentioned, then it obviously can't speak against it.

So again, if it's private, between the person and God, why do we care how someone is communicating with God?

English is my public and private prayer language------God understands English quiet well!!:thumbs::thumbs::saint:

Relaxing the so called "Private prayer language" rules will not advance the SBC one fraction of an inch!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

I question the judgment of anyone who holds to a private prayer language and says they practice it. Since no such thing is mentioned in scripture and no such thing exists one must wonder what in the world they are actually doing in their private prayer closet. I certainly do not want to have them involved in missions sanctioned by the SBC.

 

[robustheologian]

So if a person doesn't know about something it doesn't exist? Sounds like a fallacy of personal incredulity.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree with the "not baptist" or at least not traditionally southern baptists. I disagree with the Calvinists part (as traditionally Calvinistic Baptists have been opposed to charismatic manifestations....and at the onset SBC presidents such as RBC Howell were very much Calvinists). I think it is a neo movement....neo what I don't know.

In recent years the "New Calvinist" has taken on such manifestations. It is very common among them.

 

[Zaac]

English is my public and private prayer language------God understands English quiet well!!:thumbs::thumbs::saint:

Relaxing the so called "Private prayer language" rules will not advance the SBC one fraction of an inch!!!

Will it hurt the SBC? And shouldn't we be looking to advance The Kingdom? If this is something that someone does in private and it is not unBiblical, I just don't see an issue.

 

[Zaac]

I question the judgment of anyone who holds to a private prayer language and says they practice it. Since no such thing is mentioned in scripture and no such thing exists one must wonder what in the world they are actually doing in their private prayer closet. I certainly do not want to have them involved in missions sanctioned by the SBC.

Now you know they are talking about praying in tongues. Scripture clearly speaks of speaking in tongues but does not say anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so in private.

 

[JonC]

We probably need to also keep in mind that we are speaking of the IMB and not the SBC as a whole (e.g., a Calvinist can pastor a SBC church, serve in many areas within the convention, but not lead the IMB....at lest not without "tweaking" his Calvinism).

The only impact I see this having within the SBC is that some churches may reevaluate their support. When it comes to conventions, this is always a good thing (reevaluation).

 

[Judith]

The SBC moves in and out of sin regularly. The fact that they banned tongues was sin 1Cor 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

And the fact that they have now opened the door with no qualifiers is also sin. The true gift was understood by the one speaking and did not require an interpreter for himself. The false gift was not understood by the one speaking or the people listening.
1Cor 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Also the tongues has to be for edifying the church, not some so called prayer language. So again the SBC went into sin by refusing tongues and now have went deeper into sin with their compromise and not setting proper biblical standards.

 

[Revmitchell]

The SBC moves in and out of sin regularly. The fact that they banned tongues was sin 1Cor 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

The tongues they were forbidding was unbiblical tongues therefore no sin.

And the fact that they have now opened the door with no qualifiers is also sin.

You need to research just what has been done in the SBC. This isn't even in the ballpark

Also the tongues has to be for edifying the church, not some so called prayer language.

vs. 22 says it is not for edifying the church but for unbelievers

 

[Judith]

The tongues they were forbidding was unbiblical tongues therefore no sin.



You need to research just what has been done in the SBC. This isn't even in the ballpark





vs. 22 says it is not for edifying the church but for unbelievers

No, they forbid all tongues as they claimed tongues passed away. What I said is exactly correct. Being a member of an SBC church I understand clearly what they have and are doing. I am just not afraid to say it.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, they forbid all tongues as they claimed tongues passed away. What I said is exactly correct. Being a member of an SBC church I understand clearly what they have and are doing. I am just not afraid to say it.

Apparently you don't. The issue was over the Private Prayer Language. Missionaries will still not be allowed to promote unbiblical tongues out in the field. What they will not prevent are those who want to be missionaries and hold to a private prayer language.

Second, no missionary can make to the IMB unless their home church will give the ok. The primary vetting is now as it has always been through the home church.

Third, the policy change at the IMB simply lines up with the BF&M.

 

[Jerome]

In recent years the "New Calvinist" has taken on such manifestations. It is very common among them.

The Great Commission Resurgence (B&H Publishing, 2010) p.71:

there is anecdotal evidence that the ministries of "Third Wave" Calvinist theologians and pastors like Wayne Grudem, C. J. Mahaney, and Sam Storms have also influenced some within the SBC to be at least open to the possibility that miraculous gifts continue to the present.

 

[righteousdude2]

I always knew the pendulum would day swing back in the direction of tongues, which is why I have held unto my SBC Ordination and my affiliation with the denomination.

Thank you Jesus I'm no longer weird or an outcast :smilewinkgrin: