New Policy: Southern Baptist Missionary Candidates Can't Speak in Tongues

Beliefnet ^ | Nov. 23 2005Beliefnet | Adelle M. Banks

[tutstar]

The Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board has adopted a new policy that forbids missionary candidates from speaking in tongues.

The policy, adopted Nov. 15 during the board's trustee meeting in Huntsville, Ala., reflects ongoing Southern Baptist opposition to charismatic or Pentecostal practices.

[Zechariah11]

Well done on both posts. Thanks for going after that viscious smear on Darby, a great theologian.

[Eagle Eye]

You use a lot of men's writings to refute the Bible.

Why?

Biblical teachings work when believers believe them.

Believers don't spend time rebuting the scriptures with men's opinions.

[AmericaUnited]

So close, and yet still so far away...

[Eagle Eye]

I'll deny the gift outright and use Scripture to support it.

There is no such thing as the gift of tongues. The word gift in KJV is italicized, indicating that it was supplied by translators. The word 'spiritual' proceding gifts could and should be correctly translated 'matters of the spirit'. Tongues are not a gift; holy spirit is the gift. Speaking in tongues is one demostration of the gift.

Tongues were genuine languages, not ecstatic utterances.

1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Clearly the Bible teaches the possibility of languages of men and angles. But nothing says that the hearer will necessarily understand anything spoken because he that speaks in tongues doesn't speak to men but to God.

Tongues were a sign for UNBELIEVERS, not believers.

Yes. Speaking in tongues is also prayer in the spirit as God giving the utterance. Speaking in tongues is also praising and speaking the wonderful works of God, and it edifies the speaker. Kind of makes me wonder why you wouldn't want to do these things and work so dilligently to keep others from doing them as well.

If you deny any of the above points, you deny the clear, plain teaching of Scripture.

So why do you deny clear scripture that tells us to speak with tongues? There's no harm in it and many benefits.

What motivates one to talk people out of the clear teachings with clear blessings for those who choose to believe?

[AmericaUnited]

You use a lot of men's writings to refute the Bible.

It is funny how so many 'genius' Bible scholars wouldn't truth if it fell on top of them in the form of a 3000 pound elephant. 10,000 pages of witty babble, but zero understanding. Reminds me of this little story...

Elaine Pagels, the famous historian of early Christianity, once told a revealing story about the social world behind the scenes of high-powered biblical scholarship. As a young up-and-coming professor at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, she was invited to a closed-door, after-hours smoker. The men there (Pagels was the only woman) were all prominent Bible scholars. Many of them didn't even believe in God, and those who still called themselves Christian were anything but orthodox. The liquor flowed freely, and as these men got in their cups, they began to sing old gospel songs. To her astonishment, they knew all the tunes and words by heart. Then it dawned on her—these atheist and liberal Bible scholars must have grown up in evangelical churches.

[RightOnline]

If that's an attempt at sarcasm, stick to your day job, pal.

If you and yours are incapable of understanding the Gifts of the Spirit, don't take it out on me. Besides, as you've seen, I don't put up with it.

[Eagle Eye]

There are those of us who are encouraging people to read the scripture, believe the scripture, and act upon it to receive everything possible from God.


Then there are those who work hard to talk people from believing and acting on the scriptures.

You have to wonder what kind of person would try to keep people from doing something that God clearly says He wants them to do.

[RightOnline]

Oh...and by the way....don't ever attempt to equate me with '666' again. You wouldn't to my face, I promise you. Only a coward would attempt it as a keyboard cowboy.

[Eagle Eye]

Ever learning but unable to come to a knowledge of the truth...

[luckystarmom]

I've been attending a Vineyard church. I like it a lot. What is their assault on orthodox churches, and what's wrong with Promise Keepers?

I don't have a lot of info on the Vineyard. I've only gone to the one Vineyard church, and it seems pretty normal to me.

[chronic_loser]

Sorry, I will have to pass on this one, for the following reasons:

1) Ephraem of Syria spoke in writings we KNOW are his (this one is not one of those) and clearly taught a post-tribulation resurrection and translation of all Believers. See Gundry's "First the Antichrist" pages 167 and 168 for details.

2) Grant Jeffrey has by his own admission gone "looking" for evidence. The problem is, he announced before that he found clear and unambiguous evidence for a pre-trib rapture in the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Victorinus. If I have to, I can google this up, but it has been demonstrated clearly that Jeffrey has been....., lets just say hes is "creatively zealous" in his citations of these texts, to the point of deliberately pulling out selective quotes from these works in an attempt to make them say what they clearly do NOT say. We need an honest broker of info on this, and Grant Jeffrey is not someone I trust.

3) Pseudo-epahraem is just that, Pseudo. There is no evidence that Ephraem wrote it. Rather, what we have is the writing of some person (we have no idea who), probably a couple of hundred years after Ephraem's death, which survived with a mess of textual problems, written in Latin. The end. All the evidence we have is that it was NOT written by Ephraem, including textual, testimonial, and theological.

4) When you actually examine even the sermon itself, it clearly states that the coming of Christ lacked only ONE more sign, which was the coming of the evil one and the consequent great tribulation, thus erasing the possibility of a coming of Christ BEFORE a great tribulation. This is just more of Grant Jeffries monkey business with patristic writings, only this time he doesn't get a patristic writer, but a pseudo patristic. The sermon cannot be made to teach what it does not teach by lifting out one line from it.

5)In closing, we have this gem: "Finally, the Byzantine scholar Paul Alexander clearly believed that Pseudo-Ephraem was teaching what we call today a pre-trib rapture." One can only characterize as either appalling ignorance of Paul Alexander or deliberate misrepresentation. Here is a direct quote from Paul Alexander's teaching on the eschatology of pseudo-Ephraem.

1. Attack of nations of war 212.13-213.17
2. Surrender of the Empire 214.1
3. appearance of the deception of abomination 214.4
4. Blessings of Moses and Jacob on Dan 214.6
5. the "adolescence and maturation" of the person of evil 216.2,11
6. Sitting in the Jewish Temple 217.1
7. the great tribulation of three and a half years 217.14
8. Mission of Enoch and Elijah 219.10
9. Second Coming of Christ and punishment of the Antichrist 220.2"
[Alexander, Paul J., The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Univ. of California Press, 1985), pp. 218,219]

The most cursory look at this will show that Paul Alexander did NOT believe that pseudo-Ephraem taught a pre trib coming of Jesus. It is either dishonest or ignorant for Ice to claim otherwise.

I may be DEAD WRONG about the rapture, but the way to demonstrate support in the writings of the early church fathers for such a doctrine is not to engage in the kind of either surface reading or dishonesty (I like to give professing believers the benefit of the doubt before hurling around accusations like this, but it is hard to spin in in Jeffries favor on these) as Grant Jeffries, and consequently Thomas Ice offers us. Like I said, I have to pass on this one.

[chronic_loser]

see post 191. Darby was a sincere good hearted man with some horrid theology.

[luckystarmom]

Methodists churches can be very different.

Glide Memorial Methodist church in San Francisco is not very quiet. I don't like that church and I don't feel like it is very spirit filled.

In college about 20 years ago, I visited a Methodist church near Texas A&M, and it was very charismatic. I didn't like it. However, then I started attending A&M United Methodist and it was a great church. It was very traditional, and the minister was outstanding.

[Walkingfeather]

Well this issue is not from my tradition but I think we will see what happens to the so. baptist church in the next few years and see the fruit this decision produces....

[whispering out loud]

I cor 14:2 "For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God: for no man understands him; but instead he speaks in mysteries.

The bible clearly talks about many different tongues, but the prayer language which is the topic of debate here is a direct hotline with God. My friend to deny that is to deny clear plain teaching of scripture. "no man understands him" it doesn't say no one on the room, nor does it say none of our culture, but no man. But you know what, God understands him, you see God understands the very utterings of our soul. and If we deny that then we deny the supremacy, and omnipotence of our holy and loving God.

[WKB]

You started the name calling dude
not me.
Just because people don't agree with you
doesn't mean they are morons and idiots.
Anyone who reads your posts won't have
any problem figuring out who the
moronic idiot is.
Happy Thanksgiving.

[George W. Bush]

Methodist hymns seem to be in different keys (at least the ones they sing) and it takes a bit to follow the notes from time to time

Some of the Wesleyan hymns are a little more complex, perhaps a little more sophisticated than most of the hymns in the Baptist hymnals. They're probably 'better' songs when sung by great singers or talented congregations with good choir. The plainer fare in the Baptist hymnal is probably better suited to singers of more average musical ability. JMO.

[Ecliptic]

1. God gives Christians Spiritual Gifts when they are saved.

2. These gifts are to be used for the edification of the Church.

3. Everyone does not get all the gifts that are available.

4. Why would anyone thing ALL Christians would get the gift of tongues?

5. Does speaking in tongues in Church explain to the lost how to be saved?

6. Does speaking in tongues in Church help minister to those who are hurting or grieving?

7. Does speaking in tongues in Church help increase our knowledge in God's Word?

8. How do YOU really know that someone is speaking in tongues instead of just making it up?

9. How do you know the interpreter is really interpreting instead of just making it up.

10. It is being legalistic to say that unless one speaks in tongues s/he is not saved.

Why hasn't there been anyone on this thread speaking in tongues and then someone interpreting it???????? Because the speaker would not be in the public spotlight as they would be in front of other church members.

[George W. Bush]

I've only gone to the one Vineyard church, and it seems pretty normal to me.

Describing Vineyard and PK issues is well beyond the scope of this thread. I suggest you research it. My first impulse was to advise that you flee.

You might start with some reading on the Vineyard and other churches and evangelists here. Plenty of links and info you can google more info from. Look for the references provided and check them out. We live in a time much like the early church, many heretics promulgate their teachings and prey on their followers.

[xzins]

I believe you to be absolutely on target with your understanding of "love" being the correct explanation of "that which is perfect."

It ties in as well with "Let me show you the MOST EXCELLENT way." And I find intriguing your "when I was a child....when I became an adult..."

There is a "deepest" Christian walk, and it is the walk of love. All your scriptural references are on target.

Excellent post.