Featured Yay! Platt Ends Tongues Ban at IMB

What was the SBC's issue with a private prayer language? If it's private, what do they care???

 

And another reason I am thinking about leaving the SBC.

 

Where in Scripture is a private prayer language mentioned?

 

The "speaking in tongues" thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as the allowing in of candidates "who had been baptized in churches that disagreed with the convention’s view of baptism."

Of course, I'm not SBC, so I really have no dog in the fight...

 

I am not trying to pick a fight and I won't argue about it, but the SBC has been taken over by those who are Calvinists, are not Baptists (as seen in the new definition of what kind of baptism they will allow for missionaries) and allow for charismatic manifestations.

The SBC can move in that direction because the leadership, primarily those from Southern and Southeastern Seminaries, are moving the convention in that way. But it's not the direction I will travel in.

I am Southern Baptist but it is not a battle I will fight. I am sure my Cooperative Program dollars will be welcomed by some independent Baptist missionaries.

 

Platt explains what the new rules mean and don't mean. Field missionaries still will have "rules" on speaking in tongues.

"For example, replacing the policy that addresses tongues and private prayer language does not mean that the issue of tongues is unimportant to IMB work around the world. We will continue to train and work as missionaries in ways that faithfully represent Southern Baptist churches and conviction, and we will continue to have as part of our "Manual for Field Personnel" allowance for termination of employment for any missionary who places "persistent emphasis on any specific gift of the Spirit as normative for all or to the extent such emphasis becomes disruptive" to Southern Baptist missions work."

http://www.bpnews.net/44755/imb-and-churches-limitless-missionary-teams

 

I haven't said it is mentioned. But if it's not mentioned, then it obviously can't speak against it.

So again, if it's private, between the person and God, why do we care how someone is communicating with God?

 

What concerns me is the baptism issue.

 

The baptism of previous church would still have to be approved by the per SBC church standards. One can join if baptized in a church that does not believe in "eternal security ", but baptism by immersion in a UPCI church is not recognized. Basically if the church you are baptized in believes baptism is necessary for salvation, you are eligible for service. Since, you will not be able to attain SBC membership with that baptism. The new rule is no uniform with SBC. If your baptism is good enough for the SBC, it is good enough for IMB. Platt didn't change any SBC rules, he just made IBM rules more like SBC.

 

Basically if the church you are baptized in believes baptism is necessary for salvation, you are eligible for service.

Did you mean to type INeligible? IMO, making baptism necessary for salvation adds works to the finished work of Christ, and thus would fit my definition of heresy.

I'm pretty sure that in most charismatic and Pentecostal churches, speaking in tongues is done aloud in the presence of the congregation, which fails my understanding of the word "private." I'll admit to having only attended one such service, at an Assembly of God church, at which the guest speaker and several others spoke in an unintelligible (to me) language, and with no one offering interpretation.

 

Yes I did.....I really need to proof read before posting

 

If you are baptized in a "church of Christ" or UPCI church, just to name a few, you will not get church membership in a SBC church, without being baptized again.

 

It would take a quality leader like David Platt to get rid of such nonsensical restrictions.

 

Nonsensical is right. I just don't see what bearing a private prayer language could have on anyone's ability to effectively do international missions or missions period.

 

"He hopes that more missionaries will be self-funded in the future." [Platt]

Well that is interesting, if they are self-funded, then they are not IMB funded, so they are independent. I'm confused...

Is Platt saying that he wants more independent missionaries and fewer IMB missionaries?
Or is he saying he wants missionaries willing to raised their own support, yet still be bound by IMB rules and constraints?

I've always had an issue with the IMB model anyway. The IMB is not a local church assembly, they are a para-church organization that is financed by local churches, donors, and investments. They determine where they believe missionaries should be sent, instead of missionaries going where they are called by God.

Allowing their missionaries to espouse and practise non-Baptistic doctrines is just one more nail in the coffin of an organization that operates outside the bounds of scripture. No tears will be shed here.