Burleson Resigns from IMB

You folks have really got to learn your history. Also taking positons on current issues in the SBC in no way compares to the situation you are speaking of.

 

Spiritual gifts that are used in self-serving ways are unbiblical, no matter what gift you're exercising. However, spiritual gifts can be used properly. Tongues can be used properly. A private prayer language can be used properly (for communion with and worship toward God).

Therefore your objection is misplaced.

You still did not answer my questions... What should be done? Who is "we"?

I want to know who "we" is because you are speaking as if there was a major movement that opposes tongues. I know that Paige Patterson has lobbied against the president of the IMB, allegedly because of his "private prayer language", and also censored a sermon at SWBTS where a local pastor testified that he experienced a "private prayer language." I wanted to know if you are like-minded with what Patterson professes to believe about that issue.

 

Actually it is not. Since such a prayer language does not exist nor is encouraged nor is there presidence listed in scripture it only serves self and not God.

We are those who oppose it...obviously. You have the right to ask what ever question you wish within the guidlines of the posting rules of this forum. I am under no obligation to entertain them when I see them as insignificant and useless.

You have a habit of trying to read into what others say and the assign motives based on your suspicion. I never spoke as if there was any kind of movement. However if it came to a vote in the convention tomorrow I would not be concerned for it prior to the vote. I respect Dr. Patterson and listen to his preaching regularly. But there is no need to tie me to his view on this. I can stand on my own quite nicely.

 

That will be news to a lot of people.

Those who believe the gift is legitimate believe there is precedence in scripture. Furthermore, Paul's listing of the spiritual gifts is rather informal (three lists, they vary in content, some gifts mentioned more than once, most gifts only once, etc.) and do not appear to be exhaustive or intended to be exhaustive. Paul also mentions various kinds of tongues.

If someone is communing with and worshipping God, it is serving God. If you are wrong in your opinion, you are speaking against a work of the Holy Spirit.

Okay, then there's a very small number of you that oppose it.

I didn't think your post was insignificant or useless, so I was trying to figure out your reasoning with the questions I asked. Apparently that's a problem for you.

I'm not sure where you get this idea. You may be confusing me with someone else. FYI, there is another person on Baptist Board who has rudely taken the name BaptistBeliever (no space) and posts abrasive things I don't agree with. I have asked him several times to change his name so that there is no confusion between us, but he has refused.

You used the word "we". I don't think you speak of yourself in the third-person, plural, so I decided to ask. Sorry if it is a problem to ask.

Actually, according to a recent Lifeway poll, around 50% of SBC pastors believe that the Holy Spirit might bestow a private prayer language on certain people.

So your view is that the Holy Spirit ABSOLUTELY does not bestow a private prayer language on anyone, and anyone who exercises a private prayer language is acting selfishly. Is that correct?

 

That is correct.

 

When you seek to purge through legalist means, which is what the resurgance was; it won't be too long before you're jamming your finger down your own throat.

 

It is quite obvious you do not know what the resurgence was.

 

Fair enough.

Are you a classic cessationist (believe that the "sign" gifts ended after the canon of scripture was established) or do you believe that certain "sign" gifts are given today?

 

I am not a cessationist. I do not find that scripture has declared sign gifts to be ended today. 1 Cor 13 is often misinterpreted. Where I differ is on the nature of tongues. It is as you have mentioned a sign gift for the forwarding of the gospel.

With regards to a private prayer language this is also misinterpreted. This interpretation ignores the events of 1 Cor 14. The church was made up of people from many nations much like we see in Acts 2. But the common language was greek. It is believed and I support this that the church in Corinth being made up of many nations would have some to stand and give testimony in their native language rather than use the common language. This is seen today with mexicans who will speak spanish in front of non spanish speaking people because they want to use their native language. Anyway Paul said to have an interpreter if you were going to do this. When the Holy Ghost overcomes us and speaks through us it does not need correction as Paul did in 1 Cor 14. I will add though while I think it is entirely possible that God would speak to someone today by use of the sign gift of tongues I have never heard of it being done in this scriptual way in our time. I will also add that it is unclear in Acts 2 if the disciples actually spoke another language or if those listening only heard it in their language.

*Note - I apparently mistook you for another and assigned posting tactics not common of you. I apologize.

 

No, I am extremely familiar with the so called resurgence. Saw what it did to close friends who where fired, have seen what it has done to state conventions that are now divided leaving churches more confused then helped and how it has managed to destroy historic Baptist belief and practice. All for what? SBC numbers continue to decline, younger generations have lost interest in anything close to denominational cooperation and now trustees are being "fired" or censured for not thinking like everyone else thinks they should. Let the purging continue!

 

Okay. We agree on that at least.

Yes. I have quite a bit of regard for that position. I have broadened my views regarding tongues somewhat in the last 20 years because of some rethinking/reanalysis of Paul's writings and some experiences I and others have had regarding tongues. (FYI, I do not consider myself to have the gift of tongues or interpretation of tongues... I have enough trouble with English.)

Hmm... Strange as it may seem, I have not heard this exact interpretation before. I want to take some time to think this through. I may have some questions for you in a couple of days.

Well I believe that the use of the gifts does not overcome the will of the person (they are not so overcome that they lose the ability to choose not to exercise the gift nor misuse the gift).

I actually have on a few occasions. I've also heard a "private prayer language" interpreted by a trusted friend (who was not previously aware that he might have the gift of interpretation) in a way that objectively confirmed to me that the tongue-speaker was in communion with God.

I've considered that question, but Acts 2 seems to clearly indicate that the men and women who emerged from the Upper Room spoke with other tongues as God gave them utterance. I can think of no compelling reason to reinterpret that statement to mean that the miracle of Pentecost was primarily a miracle of hearing.

No problem. One easy way to tell us apart is that I don't use an avatar/image.

 

Really! name a few that you know have been fired. The men that I know have been fired did not believe all of scripture was true. And your characterization of censured trustees is incorrect and blatantly false. Wade was censured not for disagreeing but for taking board business and maligning board decisions openly on his blog after being told not to. He admitted that he intentionally went against the board policy. That is what he was censured for. Dissent is an entirely differnt thing than how he handled it. The church as a whole is in decline and is not related to this subject. And by the way liberal SBC papers were in a major decline long before the resurgence took effect.

 

Here's my take on the issue:

I don't think the IMB should have gone beyond the BF & M in establishing criteria for its missionaries. We run the risk of having differing policies for different agencies, and another for the SBC at large.

That said, the IMB's position on the issues of prayer language and baptism is the correct one. I think any SBC missionary should have been baptized by a Baptist church or one of like faith and order. Immersion, of course, but not immersion by a Pentecostal church, or any other non-Baptist church.

For that reason, the SBC should take up this question and speak clearly on it.

I agree that the IMB should not have "narrowed the parameters." The SBC should do it.

The fact is, not every organization calling itself a New Testament church is one. Baptists churches claim to be. If they are, then many others cannot be. Maybe we can debate this issue in another thread, but it's directly related to this discussion.

 

Well it was pretty important to the writers of the NT. Seems to permeate lots of their writings and their ministry philosophy.

Well first of all my position on private prayer langauge isn't "heresy." One thing to address at the outset is we agree on far more than we disagree on. Neither of us are near being heretics and we shouldn't throw that label around. Heresy is serious business, but it involves foundational issues of Christian belief (atonement, Trinity, divinity of Christ, etc.) Private prayer language isn't one of those positions.

the "Church" or any church? What gives our denomination the right to say my friend who was baptized in a Bible believing, soul winning, evangelical church that happened to be Evangelical Free then made the move to an SBC church, faithfully served there for 10 years, has to be "re-baptized" in order to fulfill God's call to missions?

Also I'd suggest that one Scripture passage would be Ephesians 4:1-6:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you to • walk worthy of the calling you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, 3 diligently keeping the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds us. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope at your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

I respectfully disagree. 1 Corinthians 14 is speaking about a private prayer language. I agree that speaking in tongues in public is not something that is personally condonable (save specific instances that line up with Scriptural teaching of interpretation.) If this is a doctrine which I do not teach publicly about, but will privately practice...who is the SBC to say I am disqualified to lead.

I don't see this debate in the SBC (corporately) until recently, which the ingress of fundamentalists and landmarkists has prepuated more rigid extra-biblical requirements for fellowship. The SBC has been, historically, about local autonomy and soul liberty. Why is this suddenly becoming more about creealism than confessionalism?

Well how about the rest of the points I've raised. Private prayer language is one issue that is difficult right now, this is a good conversation to have denominationally. Additionally I am very interested in the other issues I've raised.

The narrowing issue still remains...I want more people in our convention, not less. The Baptist belief in unity through diversity (so long as we line up on foundational beliefs and doctrine) must not be maligned due to random peripherial issues. For too long we have lost our voice with the lost because we constantly bicker internally (which is clearly unbiblical) and we must renew our credibility to share the Gospel. Frankly, when it comes to spreading the Gospel I'll work with anyone who agrees on the majors, and agree to see liberty on the minors.

 

And yet it was not a primary focus. Correct doctrinal stances bore enough weight that those who held incorrect doctrine were to be dismissed from fellowship.

Incorret. The word heresy speaks to false doctrine period.

The church or any Christian organization has the "right" to observe and correct as well as question the testimony of anyone. And the church has the "right" to disqualify any baptism that appears to be administered under questionable circumstances.

Great!

The nature of tongues as a endowment from God is for the sharing of the gospel alone. 1 Cor 14:22

The other tongues spoken of was languages commonly known to different nations.

Your use of the term landmarkists is inappropriate. I suggest you do some study on sBC history.

10 years ago it was a different debate 100 years ago it was a different debate. In 20 years it will be a different debate. The specific issues you raised are just yet another debate in the SBC. You are making a poor attempt to bring out specifics in a recent debate and suggest the perameters are narrowing. In the end it is just another debate.

I find it rather suspicious that one who holds a doctrine such as private prayer language would not teach it. If you are not comfortable teaching it then you shouldnt do it.

And we really need to quite claiming a loss of credibility with the lost over doctrinal debates if we are going to support the actions of Burleson. It appears this argument which mainly comes from libs is nothing more than a tool to shut down opposition. And it is hypocritical.

 

Do you think I'm a liberal heretic in need of Jesus Christ?

 

I'm not totally familiar with the Free Church, but I have heard that it is fairly close to Baptist in doctrine. Maybe somebody can fill in the blanks for us.

I would accept the baptism of a church of like faith and order, even it it does not carry the name Baptist. The problem is, there aren't many of them out there.

A bigger problem for us Baptists is the rather low view of baptism held by too many. We must never forget that Baptists were persecuted and killed for their views on Baptism. They thought the correct view was worth suffering and dying for.

 

We either seem to forget or never were taught. It is very important. I have always believed sound doctrine was very important, why are we taught doctrine in the Scriptures if we aren't to go by it?

 

When it comes to Missions, perhaps I'm willing to give a little more room for differences than some on the IMB.