When Scripture is subjected to 'personal experience' there are varied results
. . . The big 'baptist' experiment before bapticostals resulted in Smith's church becoming the mormon church . . .
I do believe that bapticostals are Christians . . . but, I am not comfortable with many theologies less than 1800 years old . . . especially when it is based on 'personal experience' instead of on Scripture.
Liberal is something that moves away from the original . . . in its purest definition. The term moves away from this somewhat in the realm of Politics and personal attacks.
McKissic asks SBC to add policy on tongues to statement of faith
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Baptist Believer, Sep 19, 2006.
Page 3 of 8
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
What makes your and Joseph's charge of liberalism especially incoherent is that liberals historically and theologically reject what is called "the supernatural." That's why classical liberalism rejects the resurrection of Jesus and all the miracles of scripture.
Both of the persons I know who speak in a private prayer language did not seek the gift, it came to them during private prayer. And one of those persons is an extremely conservative Calvinist theology professor. When they pray in private, they say that they pray with both English thoughts and words and also sometimes that unknown language.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Experience has no authority on doctrine. Private prayer language isnt hinted to and to base doctrine on a "hint" and experience is dangerous.
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And of course that definition uncritically makes the assumption that the "conservative" position is the true original starting point for theology. -
There is no support in Scripture.
There is no 'hint' that I have read.
I lived through the charismatic baptist Churches of the 70's and it was wrong then and it is wrong now, to make charismatic part of the baptist distinctive. If bapticostals want to be bapticostal and ask the rest of us to make our stance clear - then we need to be clear.
Scripture is clear, why would a bapticostal expect us to be different?
The result of cultural experiments with the Bible resulted in JW's, Mormons, & ironically that was a contributor to Mohammed's religion and even Catholicism.
If someone wants to experiment and ask us to clarify our support for them, then we should clarify that we (at least I and, historically, most baptists) do not support them. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"Liberal" is (in my mind) associated with "progressive" ideologies.
"Conservative" is (in my mind) associated with not moving from traditional norms. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1 Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,
2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;
4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do."
...
20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." -
Let me guess . . . you are going there with Joseph? You have an extra-biblical experience that you want elevated to Scripture?
I really don't think so. I really think you are using hyperbole to support your position. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I also remember the charismatic controversies that split churches. My own home church split in 1972 over the issue of tongue speaking as the sign of the Spirit. I strongly disagree with that type of charismatic theology and practice.
But I have not detected that sort of thing in anyone I know who supports a private prayer language. Their theology is completely different and based on very different assumptions. The only assumptions that they seem to share is that God is actively working in His people today and that the gifts of the Spirit have not ceased, although some gifts may not be widely given today.
I would also oppose the kind of off-balance charismania that predominated in Baptist circles back in the late 1960s through mid 1970s. But this is not the same thing. -
When I am asked to clarify my stance, my stance is clear. It is bapticostal . . . and we are not bapticostal.
McKissic asked . . . and that is my answer. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Sadly, you are probably correct. The political damage done to the denomination by surrendering to the influence of conservative Christians from other denominations out of fear that their problems would become ours is probably permanent.
We should have fought the problem that we were facing and not the problem that liberal denominations were fighting.
IMHO.
-
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. I Corinthians 12:7-11, NIV
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries within his spirit.I Corinthians 14:1-2, NIV
What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. I Corinthians 14:26-28 NIV
Therefore my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. I Corinthians 14: 39-40, NIV
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. Romans 8:26-27 NIV
Now I'll repeat the words that you provided regarding the cessation of tongues and interpretation, and tongues as a prayer language. Scripture? Scripture? Scripture?
Here's a word to answer that in a tongue. Acune. That's French for, "there is none." -
I Cor. 14:18&19 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."
Since Paul spoke in tongues more than them all, and little of it was in church, it had to be during his private prayers, i.e. Private Prayer Language.
The cassationists may claim that Paul was talking about his missionary trips where he could have spoken in the languages of the areas. However, there is not one hint of that in I Corinthians. The cassationist have used this explanation for so long and have heard it so many times ,that they sincerely don't see its inconsistency. -
-
-
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 3 of 8