Featured Baptists Undertake Theological Dialogue with Pentecostals

Well...

Some seem to imply 'sinless perfection" group for baptists..

Why not have the ole "We know all things exactly' baptist group?

 

The 2004 vote to separate from the BWA was not a vote by the hierarchy. It was an overwhelming vote by the messengers. They did not operate in a vacuum, nor did they take the vote in ignorance.

Incidentally, what hierarchy?

 

What do you hope such dialog will accomplish?

Should the Baptists move toward the Pentecostals; should they move in our direction; or should they both move and meet somewhere in the middle?

Please expand on how you think engagement with Pentecostals betters the Kingdom?

 

I would say that it would benefit baptists to dialog with groups such as assemblies of God, who are legit to me, like cousins to say nazerenes/Westlyns, BUT no way should we dialog with WoF/prosperity/modern day Apostles/prophets aspect of modern pentacostalism!

 

The "Conservative Resurgence" (cough) hierarchy.

 

Quite a bit of good for God's Kingdom.

Why is it Baptists always seem to think that talking to someone involves one of us changing our position on something/anything.

I'm happy to be associating and partnering with my sensible Pentecostal friends to accomplish the work of the ministry in places where the Gospel in not known, churches don't exist, and people are dying with Jesus.

I have quite a few Pentecostal friends (and many Catholic ones too) and I see in them a passion and zeal for the Gospel that is, honestly, missing in a lot of my Baptist friends. They (Pentecostals here) care about spreading the Gospel, winning people to salvation, and starting new churches. While we might disagree about points of doctrine I really believe God is bigger than our doctrinal differences.

One of my Pentecostal friends works with the Assemblies of God in Africa. He and his family live in a place distant from western inculturation where they must fight vigorously the plagues of witchcraft, racism, and blind tribal hatred. The Gospel brings people together in all these circumstances. There isn't a Baptist missionary within 12 hours of their central work. I'm happy to partner with him and send them support for their missions. They have a sensible position on the miraculous gifts (they happily speak in tongues as appropriate in Scripture, seek healings which happen miraculously, and affirm that God is bigger than the Caucasian western converserative box I often put Him in.)

Because God didn't create His Church to be divided.
Because God's work is bigger than Baptist interpretation.
Because God's plan involves diversity.
Because God's hope is found in collaboration and not distance.
Because God's way is, ultimately greater than our petty disenfranchisements.
Because God's revelation tells me pointless sectarianism is carnal.
Because God's heart is for all nations, not just those who conform to a white classical dispensational premillennial eschatology of theological colonialism.

Finally, because every year there are less and less Christians going and more and more ministry that needs to be done.

 

Would say that we baptists can and should interact with our bethren in Assemblies of God, as see them as being arminian christians with certain distinctive doctrines that fall under "misunderstanding" the work of the holy spirit...

NO WAY interact with those groups such as Hagin.Copeland/price/Hinn/capp etc as those fall under the auspices of heretics teach demonic doctrines!

 

I am quite familiar with the Conservative Resurgence, and know several of those who were leaders of that moment.

I attended more than one meeting hosted by one of those leaders, and I can tell you that those who attended did not need to be convinced. There were there because they already agreed with the objectives

Obviously, any movement needs organizers and leaders. But the Conservative Resurgence, by definition, was a grass-roots movement. Had it not been, it would not have succeeded, regardless of whoever the leaders were.

 

preachinjesus, thank you for a reasoned and detailed response to my question as to the goals of such a dialog.

I don't agree with every point, but appreciate the time you took to give me your answer.

 

They clearly should.

Why are they so fearfull? Why are they so terrified about *fellowshipping* with OTHER CHRISTIANS who are a bit different than them?

It makes absolutly no sense at all.

 

PreacinJesus posted...

AMEN!!!

 

just be sure those talking with ARE part of his Church, as many in those circles are not!

 

Well, it sounds like you are talking about people.

If so, regarding individuals, its usually better to let God detirmine who is saved, and who is not.

 

“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position” (John Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, 1992, p. 7).

It is not "dialogue" we see in God's Word, but "preaching"!

Theological dialogue is built upon the unscriptural doctrine of "Christian unity".

True unity is always built on sound doctrine:

Ephesians 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

We are to "separate" from false teachers and false doctrines....not "join hands with them". We are to "mark them" and "avoid them".

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 

Freds wife...

Not so.

There is indeed preaching found in the scriptures, but not exclusively preaching. There is also discussion, there are parables, there are miracles, there is poetry, etc etc. And dailog

 

I reject this limited understanding of the differences between debate and dialogue.

Please handle the scenario in Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council.

Unity, Christian unity, is built around Jesus Christ and the Gospel.

I disagree with your application of false teachers to faithful and reasonable Pentecostals.

Obviously we disagree here. Maybe it would be helpful for you to articulate why they are "false teachers" in your view.

 

Think the main point of this discussion is that the Lord commands us to seperate out from/mark as being heretical teachings/teachers those within pentacostal movenment espousing as "revelation" from God doctrines such as Word of faith/prosperity/positive confession/wealth and health etc!

By all means lets dialog with Christian groups/churches that have real Gospel and real Christ, but NOT groups/churches like those listed above sprouting heretical ones!

 

Quite an excellent post! I almost didn't see it.

 

It was a political movement, too, because they figured out that if they could control the denomination's agencies, they could control the convention. The whole thing was about control -- something foreign to the Baptist spirit.

My best friend was supportive; he is a fine person, one of the finest I have known. I have no problem with someone standing up for his or her beliefs; I have a problem with forcing those beliefs on others, especially by using worldly methods.

I'm glad those of Alliance beliefs departed; if the hard right had withdrawn and the conservatives and moderates remained, that would have been best, in my opinion. I hate extremes, of the right or left. Now the CBF is leaning to the dark side; that leaves me really no place in Baptist life in the South.

 

Of course, it was a political movement. The resurgence utilized the same methods the moderates had used to control the convention up to that point. Conservatives flooded the convention with messengers, elected a president, who appointed conservatives to the Nominating Committee, who recommended conservatives to the boards of the various agencies, whom the convention messengers elected.

Those messengers then elected conservative agency heads (and seminary presidents), who hired conservative employees, staff (and faculty). Because of staggered terms, it took several years for the resurgence to be complete.

It was exactly the method (which you call worldly) used by liberals and moderates to control the convention machinery up to that point. The resurgence would never have happened without the groundswell from the grass roots, who elected that first conservative president.

Did the convention force its views on its agencies and seminaries? You bet. Did it force its views on any local church. No, nor could it.