SBC to ban speaking in tongues?

We don't remobe them. We take them in the context in which they were written.
You are mistakenly applying Scriptures written to the Corinthians to our society today.
I know another culture that does the same thing with another passage of Scripture. The Lord told Abraham, before he approached the burning bush, to take of his shoes for the ground that he was standing on was holy ground. The application of that is that everytime we enter into the church building we are to take off our shoes, for the church building is holy ground. They all take off their shoes. No, these aren't Muslims, they are Christians. It is the same principle. They are taking a passage out of its historical context and applying it to today's setting. You do the same thing. Why not be consistent? Why not take off you shoes as well. Why not apply all those cultural things that have now passed to today's setting. Taking off one's shoes in our culture, when the temperatures drop down below minus 20 in the winter time could be a bit difficult. They always leave their shoes outside the church building.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Careful! You're sounding like you're into higher criticism Next you'll be saying that Paul forbidding women to teach was just a cultural thing!

 

It isn't a cultural thing? Well, cor blimey!

Frankly, I am glad to read the Southern Baptist Convention had the gumption to make such a declaration on such a non-baptistic practice.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I was slightly taking the rip in my last post, Jim.

 

I was having you on, Matt. It's the English in me. It was the cultural "Abrahamic" covenant of removing one's shoes on holy ground. I got the view of East Londoners going to church with their shoes flung over their shoulder. One never leaves anything outdoors in West Ham. It would be nicked in no time.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

 

Ditto for pentecostals! They act like just because they speak in tounges and roll on the ground and flail and buck and snort and yell and run around, that they are more spiritual than other denominaations! I've heard that with my own ears! Then they act like they're the black sheep of Christianity! Behind the RCC Pentecostals/Charismatics (UPC, AOG, etc.) are the biggest group. I've heard "We're not ashamed to be apostolics!" Good, great, I don't want you to be, but don't tell me I'm wrong just because I'm not. I'm not trying to remove things from God's Word either, SMM. Paul also wrote that not everyone speaks in tounges. I'm one of those people! If the Lord grants me that gift for His glory, then praise be to God. I'm just a humble servent. I'm NOT trying to lump all tounge speaking denominations together, so no offense I'm just stating what I've seen with my own eyes.

 

Cheers, Jim!

No-one's actually explained to me why this issue determines whether one is Baptist(ic) or not, given it is not a Baptist distinctive.

Any takers?

 

Ditto for pentecostals! They act like just because they speak in tounges and roll on the ground and flail and buck and snort and yell and run around, that they are more spiritual than other denominaations! I've heard that with my own ears! Then they act like they're the black sheep of Christianity! Behind the RCC Pentecostals/Charismatics (UPC, AOG, etc.) are the biggest group. I've heard "We're not ashamed to be apostolics!" Good, great, I don't want you to be, but don't tell me I'm wrong just because I'm not. I'm not trying to remove things from God's Word either, SMM. Paul also wrote that not everyone speaks in tounges. I'm one of those people! If the Lord grants me that gift for His glory, then praise be to God. I'm just a humble servent. I'm NOT trying to lump all tounge speaking denominations together, so no offense I'm just stating what I've seen with my own eyes. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe a person who is truely saved and trusting Jesus has everything they need that being Jesus living in them!. I have been doing alot of reading latly and one book that has began to ground me is a book by John Bevere. When it comes to Spiritual gifts if you are not walking and operating in love you might as well forget it. If a person is using the gifts of the Spirit to be seen of men then that person will be as one of those that Jesus speaks of that says Lord, Lord have we not... (Matt. 7:27)
These people put the gift before the 2 commandments theat Jesus said that we could hang all the law and of the prophets.
Matt 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

When Paul gave his "love" speech in 1 Cor.13. It now makes perfect since. We should put Love 1st. God is Love.
1John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Ok now I'll get off my soap box.

 

Those that disagree with this decision can and should withdraw their offerings that go to SBC Missionaries.

 

Ron pHILLIPS WROTE A BOOK ENTITLED:
"AWAKENED BY THE SPIRIT" BY THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHERS.
A MUST READ FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO STUDY THIS ISSUE!
MANY CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES HAVE IT.
LIFEWAY DOES NOT KEEP IT IN STOCK BUT COULD PROBABLY ORDER IT.

 

As a Baptist minister I spoke in tongues: both French and English, but the congregations were bilinguial and could translate the message.

Otherwise, true Baptists do not entertain pentecostalism in any form, and never have. People within who choose to practice these things should do the honest thing and leave.

Cheers,

Jim

 

In the SBC the Baptist Faith and Message sets the standard. What part of the BF&M addresses this subject.
imho to dictate the belief on this subject would violate the doctrine of Priesthood of the Believer.


I DID NOT write this.

 

Jim,
I'm not sure what happened. I was trying to respond using your quote. Sorry for the confusion.

 

This whole question of "tongues" must be handled in a steel fisted way. I suggest we bar all the front and back doors (basement doors too) and then maybe we can keep this plainly spoken of gift in the Bible from being given to good Christian people! There is of course one problem with this plan the absolute sovereignty of God permits him to give this gift to whom he will.-------- oh well so much for the door idea.

 

Couldn't bar the doors...makes it harder to throw them out and takes longer if anyone does go off, and also too expensive to just throw them straight through the barred doors...

If too many get in I just run out the doors myself, barred or not...(The way things are going at BB I would not recommend anyone standing between me and door here, just in case )

 

Tongues have ceased, and are not for today. Those who think they are have not looked at the Scripture closely enough:

1. Tongues were a sign to the Jews of the first century. The sign has passed.
2. Tongues were a sign for the Apostles of the first century. The sign has passed.
3. Tongues was given for revelation before the New Testament canon was complete. The New Testament is now complete.

There is no need for tongues. Their purpose has been fulfilled. Tongues is a sign, a sign that passed at the end of the first century when it was no longer needed.
DHK

 

Scripture please that tongues was for the "First Century" Jew.

Scripture please that tongues was for the "First Century" Apostles. And why can't the apostles today can't have them.

Scripture please... Yes the NT is complete but if tongues were for the writing of the NT then why would Pauls writtngs about the gifts of the Spirit where tongues are mentioned even included if they were suppost to cease and why wasn't this plainly stated in the bible that tongues would no longer be in use once the NT was written?

Tongues have their place in the body of Christ.
1Cor 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

 

Certainly you must know that there are other books which we know which are referenced in the NT. What do you think they would do if those other books showed up which Paul makes reference to. It is generally thought that there are other books which were written by Paul. Or is it possible you are making Paul out to be a liar by your view?

 

On what date at the end of the first century did this happen?
If a person was speaking in tongues the minute that this supposedly happened did their mouth cease to move?
When was the Bible canonized?
Was it at the end of the frist century?
When Peter said in Acts 2:39 that this promise
( which started the discussion that led to Peters sermon as men ask what meaneth this and others mocked)Is for you and to your children and to all who are afar off.
Shouldn't he have said this promise is for a few years until the apostles die and the bible is canonized?
Peter must have messed up in not telling us this?