Posted on 11/24/2005 6:32:38 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at beliefnet.com ...
You seem to be advertising that you have much to learn. Does that mean you just as eager to learn?
But on the positive side they now have baskets of loaner fondlesnakes in case you forget to bring your own.
Bunch of goofs.
A close friend of mine worked for many years as a missionary. He is a fine person but was very liberal when he started, although thankfully he seems to have turned more conservative in his older days.
Another was a really sweet and pretty girl whose heart was in the right place but suffered from mental problems. She had many moral indescretions and didn't seem to be able to control herself. I couldn't believe anyone would send her half way around the world as a missionary but they did. Predictably she didn't last long.
In other words ......
No, please don't put words in my mouth....In other words he was a humble dedicated servant of Christ who won more Irish Catholics to Christ than any one since St Patrick. Scores of Irish were being converted under his ministry and Roman Catholic prelates called two meetings to discuss what to do about the waves of people who were leaving the Catholic Church. They should not have worried. The evangelical church killed his ministry for him. He returned to England to raise some money for the ministry and on the day he returned to Dublin, London newspapers ran a big ad, sponsored by Church of England leaders urging people to contribute to his ministry "if you want to see Ireland brought back into subjection to the crown." That, and the COE pretty much put the kabash on the lay ministry discipling he was doing in Ireland -- this had allowed men who were still Catholics to remain active in the local churches and preach the gospel. They eventually left, but the key was the GOSPEL, and not the ecclesiastical structure. In other words, you became a Christian first and a Protestant second, instead of demanding the other way around, or simultaneously. The state church pretty much put what was already the main objection to Darby's work in the foreground, and they just amplified it better than the Catholics ever could. The ministry pretty much dissolved, and Darby returned home a bitter and bitterly disappointed man. He was so convinced of the evil that had been done (who wouldn't be?) by a symbiosis of church and state, that he took his personal wounds and disappointments and allowed them to grow into a really bad theological system. Plus, the movement developed a "if you aren't one of us, you are really second class"......, but that is not particular to brethrenism/dispensationalism. That is just plain hateful pride, and I find it in reformed, charismatic, dispensationalsists, and just about every other camp of the church that allows "purity" of doctrine to trump personal repentance and humility. "We" are every bit as ugly as "you," on that stuff.
When you hear me criticize Darby and the brethren, it is not from scorn and hate. I just found it amusing (as alot of stuff is amusing in the wacky study of God's wacky people) that a group that is one of the most virulently anti charismatic units of the church had a big element of its birth with the Irvingites.
Would it make you feel better if I gave you some equally goofy stuff from the reformed side of things?
I was just making a joke, but should have known better on this thread.
Sorry if it offended you.
Do you think that you score points posting by volume?
Or do you think that you can persuade me by posting the writings of a man that obviously doesn't believe?
It seems to tell me that you don't have enough personal knowledge of the subject to use your own words and to elaborate yourself on the scripture.
If you are saved and you want to believe, you will be able to speak in tongues, etc etc etc. no matter what your commentaries say.
But if you choose to believe the words of man over the word of God then you will stay where you are; denying the Bible.
It seems that you are basing the bulk of your argument on the 'purpose' of tongues as a sign to unbelievers. In doing so, you have rejected both the immediate context (in the church) and the remote context of manifesting the power of God, in various forms, for the ultimate edification of the Body of Christ.
1 Cor 14 talks about behavior IN THE CHURCH...the 'church' is not a building but the assembly of the saved.
Since 'in the church' means among the saved and Paul then talks about unbelievers, he obviously cannot mean the unsaved but those who do not believe further. If a person hasn't heard about something, how can he believe it? He cannot.
Act 19:1-6 tells how Paul followed Apollos through Ephesis and met saved people who did not know about the baptism of holy spirit. Apollos himself didn't know, therefore he could only teach what he knew. Equally obvious, those saved souls could not believe regarding speaking in tongues because they didn't know about it.
Paul taught them; they believed; they spoke in tongues.
IN THE CHURCH there are still those who do not believe because of lack of teaching or improper teaching.
Those that are properly taught and have the will to believe will be saved and will speak in tongues.
Paul says I would that you all spoke in tongues. All. Everyone.
But in the church it is best to prophesy. In the church.
No, I present detailed responses that provide Scriptural evidence to back up my claims, and I do the cut and pasting because all I would really be doing is re-typing what you already see.
You should try refuting what is presented instead of confronting the poster. :)
I have the gift of interpretation.
The Holy Spirit is saying that babbling incoherently is not biblical.
And by the way, Speaking in tongues is the LEAST of all gifts, and Paul CLEARLY said that we should seek to Prophesy, so, why should I follow a Church that tells me to seek the least of all things?
Did ALL speak in tongues?
You know the answer is no if you know your Bible at all, so, you need to take a step back here.
1Cr 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Easily. I go over to Japan to a small village that only speaks Japanese, and I go to the worship and during testimony time I tell how God has saved me. ANd, the only response I get is, "No speaka Ingrish."
LOL...where to start?
First off, it is not written that speaking in tongues is the least of the gifts. But so what if it was? Are you too good for the least of God's gifts? I'd think that the least of God's gifts are excellent!
But speaking of leasts...
Paul was the least of the Apostles...Jesus said that the least would be the greatest...Paul said that the least in the body was the most important...
1Cr 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Speaking in tongues is something that is CLEARLY good, CLEARLY encouraged, and CLEARLY something that believers can do.
Forbidding to speak in tongues is CLEARLY anti-Biblical teachings.
Why would you want to follow a church that practices anti-Biblical doctine?
If you can't be faithful in the least of things how can you be expected to be faithful in the greater?
Luk 12:26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?
Luk 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
I would rather follow what the Bible teaches than be "faithful" to an assembly that teaches me to err.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.
And that doesn't mean that they were pre-teens!!
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
The clear indication is that when there is correct teaching and willing hearts speaking in tongues is part of the result.
So...generally speaking in today's church, where you have those that teach speaking in tongues is good and of God you'll have believers speaking in tongues. Where you have those teaching against speaking in tongue you don't have it. Speaking in tongues is only part of the package and shouldn't be the end of the journey, it is only the beginning!
What edifies?
Not tongues!!
1Cr 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker not others. That is why IN THE CHURCH it is preferred that there be prophesy instead of tongues, unless those tongues are interpreted.
You are getting stuck on one phrase in one verse and those blinders are preventing you from understanding the topic.
If you bring them, please keep them in the boxes.
Wood with heavy mesh, hinged lids and safety hasps is preferred
You cannot interpret nonsense sounds that are not legitimate languages, therefore, tongues you see today are not a genuine Biblical gift.
And I will not be faithful to an assembly that teaches me error.
I am not stuck on anything, I am just holding to what God says, and tongues today are not genuine languages.
that means they are nonsense, and no one is getting edified by the repitition of meaningless sounds and swaying back and forth and phony miracles and chanting and phony gold dust and phony laughing revival and the false idea that the US is in revival of some kind.
Sorry to roll that all into one heap, but all those things are errors that the modern Charismatic movement is involved in, not just the false spiritual gifts thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.