Posted on 10/30/2006 8:56:41 AM PST by Rightly Biased
Southwestern Seminary’s theology dean, David Allen, doesn’t expect any surprises from faculty when he sends them a memo soon about a new trustee statement regarding the neo-charismatic practice of private prayer language.
Prospective faculty members have been quizzed on the subject for years, Allen said.
If a current faculty member practices “a private prayer language” as one trustee alleges five of them do, then the pertinent question becomes whether that view is advocated in the classroom.
“I would not bring that professor in and say, ‘You cannot say that outside of class.’ I’m not going to restrict anyone in that way.”
“The statement said we will not knowingly endorse private prayer language,” Allen explained, taking that to mean advocating that practice.
The newly passed statement reads: “As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of Southwestern Seminary. Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including ‘private prayer language.’ Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.”
Allen draws a distinction between the statement by which a seminary operates and the freedom of an individual pastor.
“A pastor at a local church is not an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. They are by definition autonomous, as is their pastor. However, a seminary is a different animal,” he said, because of the responsibility it has to its churches through elected trustees.
Prior to his election to the faculty and administration, Allen served as a trustee throughout the previous seminary president’s administration and takes issue with McKissic’s characterization that the newly passed statement represents a theological and philosophical shift that will exclude many practitioners of tongues.
“During the entire Hemphill time, as a board member, if a person articulated to me that they had charismatic leanings and inclusive of that was a private prayer language, it would be very unlikely I would have been supportive of faculty status.”
But a faculty member who privately discloses a sympathetic view toward the practice of a private prayer language won’t be hauled into the dean’s office.
“I would not bring that professor in and say you cannot say that outside of class. It’s not going to restrict in that way. If we have people who do that here we’re certainly not going to try to move for their dismissal,” Allen said.
Nor should the statement pose a problem for any of the students, he added.
“We have lots of students who aren’t Southern Baptists and some are charismatic. We do not expect our students to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Under no conditions would any such student be unwelcome here,” Allen stated.
“On the other side of the coin, we can be careful in whom we do hire. We will not hire anyone knowingly who affirms that which the vast majority of Southern Baptists disavow.”
“As long as it remains private, it’s not problematic to me because I don’t know,” agreed Southwestern Seminary President Paige Patterson. “If it does become known to some people, but is not a matter that is advocated or advertised and the reputation of the school is not harmed thereby, then it’s not a problem.”
While the focus of the statement was placed on the hiring process, Patterson said he questions whether there’s even one professor who advocates the practice of a private prayer language.
Patterson disputes McKissic’s claim the school has abandoned its commitment to the inerrant Word of God by banning a practice the apostle Paul said should not be forbidden. He called their difference a disagreement with McKissic’s interpretation, not a denial of God’s Word.
“We don’t forbid tongues. We said what we are going to do in the seminary as a direction. He is confusing our disagreement with him as a disagreement with inerrancy.”
Patterson said a variety of interpretations are held by Southwestern professors, including cessationists like Vice President Craig Blaising and those who would view some legitimacy to what was happening at Corinth while regarding it as “implicitly dangerous.”
“I have never been a cessationist. I don’t believe the sign gifts ceased with the coming of the New Testament. I do not think that the scriptural grounds for arguing that are persuasive, but I do believe that if it is an actual case of the gift of tongues, that it will be the experience of Acts 2 where people speak languages they have never formally studied in order to present the gospel.”
Preaching from 1 Corinthians 14 in a chapel sermon last April, Patterson stated that “Acts 2 portrays the legitimate gifts of tongues” for gospel proclamation and that the Corinthian believers were merely imitating the Acts 2 manifestation in a manner similar to pagan prophets of the time.
Nevertheless, “It would be a mistake for evangelicals to forbid others to speak in tongues ... That doesn’t mean that a person who is building a major part of his faith on something that is so ... downplayed by Paul should be called to be your pastor,” Patterson said.
He said 1 Corinthians 14 seems to give evidence of a private prayer language, but notes that Paul says such prayer leaves the mind out of prayer so that praying with the mind is preferred. Furthermore, Patterson said, it is not synonymous with the groanings mentioned in Romans 8:26—a statement that contradicts one of McKissic’s examples of private prayer language.
While Patterson said he does not believe there is “a lot of necessity” for that type of situation anymore, nevertheless, “God is God and it could happen, but if it happens, I believe it will be [an Acts 2 manifestation],” he said, referring to speaking known languages previously unknown to the speaker and made available to preach the gospel.
Which Apostle laid their hands on you? Considering they all died by the end of the 1st century or very early 2nd century, I don't see how it could have been any of them.
God bless you Quix you have a gentle spirit
RB><>
Which Apostle laid their hands on you? Considering they all died by the end of the 1st century or very early 2nd century, I don't see how it could have been any of them.
= = = =
Holy Spirit seems to disagree with the criteria demanded. He was DEFINITELY INVOLVED and has been countless times since then.
Perhaps taking the complaint up with Him would be educational.
I'm certainly skeptical of my meeting the criteria demanded. But then I never have fit in any tidy little tiny theological boxes.
Much appreciate your kind words.
I suspect you'd get a number of dissenters hereon regarding your assessment, however.
Please give an example of someone receiving miraculous gifts in the New Testament that was not preceded by laying on of hands by the Apostles.
There's also the case of folks whom Holy Spirit fell upon without ANYONE laying hands on them. I think it was Peter who wisely affirmed their being Holy Spirit blessed.
Perhaps these words are troublesome in some mysterious way:
HOLY SPIRIT CONFIRMED THINGS INITIALLY, in my life, WITH ME.
HOLY SPIRIT HAS CONFIRMED HIS WORK IN MY LIFE REPEATEDLY SINCE THEN.
If anyone has problems with that, they are welcome to take the issue up with HOLY SPIRIT.
HOLY SPIRIT HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER FIT IN ANYONE'S TIDY LITTLE BOX.
HOLY SPIRIT has been appearing upon and amidst countless groups and individuals even in my life awareness and network . . . around the world.
It's my exceedingly strong bias that Holy Spirit knows a LOT more about what HE'S doing than ANYone else does.
Paul was an Apostle, picked specifically by Christ. His gifts came directly from the Lord.
As for your second point, I assume you are talking about Cornelius. Peter clearly states that the Holy Spirit came upon them as it did the Apostles at Pentecost. The instance with Cornelius, and the instance at Pentecost, are the only two times that the Holy Spirit descended on someone in such a manner.
Miraculous gifts served a purpose in the 1st century, but no longer serve that purpose. We have the full revelation of God in His Word.
HOLY SPIRIT CLEARLY disagrees with that perspective wholesale. Emphatically so. And, the naysaying perspective doesn't seem to slow Him down much when He decides to override it in an area. Unbelief can be a factor in some regions for a time. But if He decides to override it, He does.
People are essentially still the same. They still need miracles.
People are essentially still the same. Miracles still confirm God's word with signs following.
People are essentially still the same. God loves to pour His glory into their lives and through willing vessels.
People are essentially still the same. When they read God's Word, BELIEVE IT and apply it as His Word teaches and in faith, GOD LOVES CONFIRMING IT WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING.
People are essentially still the same. GOD SAID. THESE SIGNS *SHALL* FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE . . . " And they DO.
People are essentially still the same. If folks claim to believe but have NEVER experienced God's miraculous Holy Spirit doing HIS MIRACULOUS THING in their lives to any even tiny degree . . . then perhaps they need to check the health of their beliefs out. That's a basic Scriptural application of pain Scripture.
Have you ever performed a miracle? If so, please document what happened.
Have you ever received revelation from God and given it to others, either through prophecy or speaking in tongues? If so, please document what happened.
I don't have time at the moment to dredge up the memories on the miracles God has worked through me.
One of the latter requests was displayed right out in plain sight on an open FR thread. I won't give you the details as the individuals involved deserve their privacy--even though it happened on an open thread.
My life has been saved more than 3 times because of Holy Spirit's word directly to me.
Folks have been healed as they reported later to me after my praying for them. I didn't and don't consider it that huge a deal as it is merely Holy Spirit doing what He said He'd do in the lives of believers. So I don't keep such things long in active memory in any detail.
I think the first time I recall is as a Jr High kid, the pastor's 2 year old boy fell off the altar rail where he should not have been playing during altar service and banged his head real hard. I immediately prayed for him and IIRC, his mother was watching and noticed the quickly forming knot disappear.
There have been probably more than a half a dozen situations where very destructive folks were firmly and very long term entrenched in a situation--whether work or church . . . and I've prayed and they've been removed in various ways.
MarySecretary and many other believers on FR have had such miracles in and through their lives.
I encourage anyone overgiven to stern, haughty, etc. sorts of judgment and skepticism to be very cautious. Holy Spirit can be longsuffering. But at some point, He can also get real hard nosed. Then things get interestin
BTW,
NO. I've never performed a mircle.
God is the one doing the miracles. He sometimes chooses flawed vessels to do them through, however.
I have often seen miracles come about through prayer.
I have often seen miracles come about through prayer.
= = =
INDEED! Obedience in doing what God says God's ways tend to result in miracles.
Pretty simple.
Though unbelief can be a big stumbling block in many situations.
Actually, virtually every sincere Christian I know has had a mini-miracle . . .
where some intense super big burden they'd been concerned about, praying for an answer about . . .
was suddenly and out of the blue spoken to by Holy Spirit by a specific phrase or sentence or verse of Scripture jumping off the page as though in neon lights when they were reading it.
But folks get muddleheaded about such and rapidly explain them away irrationally because such things don't jive with their tidy boxed theologies to construe them plainly as they happened. So they have to distort the reality even to themselves to dismiss the miracle aspect as never happening or not really being a true miracle or some such nonsense.
I think it becomes a problem when someone "speaking in tongues" tries to add to scripture. Personal or church interactions with God are private issues and certainly biblical.
I can't quickly recall anyone in my 59 years ever attempting to add to Scripture.
Certainly no need and off the wall to do so, imho.
Well claiming new revelation is, and claiming "the Lord said", and dream prophecy and the like. All revelation given by the HS points to Jesus and Jesus is the end of revelation. This is biblical.
There, fixed it.
My mistake. Thanks.
Not in the sense you are seeming to mean the words.
There's PLENTY of examples in the NT of Holy Spirit giving input which was NOT ENSCRIPTURATED, is the term.
Assuming that all Holy Spirit's inputs are equal to Scripture flies in the face of the Scripture about the world not being able to contain books about all the works of Christ--or however that verse goes.
The LORD SAYS lots of things not intended to be in Scripture.
Telling a young man which woman to seek for marriage is not needed as an enscripturated Holy Spirit input.
Telling a family to sell their house and move from an area before a big quake or forest fire is not an enscripturated bit of Holy Spirit provided input.
To construe things as stated in the post I'm responding to would negate Holy Spirit leading each believer into all truth FOR THAT BELIEVER'S LIFE--tailor made to that believer in all the details of that believer's life.
I really have a very hard time with this meat-axe, tidy little boxed theology mentality regarding Holy Spirit and His operations in The Church Age. Most of the time, it's utter nonsense. Holy Spirit was involved in all creation. He will NOT fit any man construed tidy little boxes. What's so hard about that? It's not rocket science!
I Cor 12-14 makes abundantly clear the guidelines and something of the scope of Holy Spirit's operations in The Church Age. What's so difficult about reading such Scripture, believing it and practicing it as one is supposed to do with the rest of the New Testament?
Oh, right . . . biases . . . flawed, traditions and doctrines of man biases. That I can understand, sadly.
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.