Featured Yay! Platt Ends Tongues Ban at IMB

Pastors don't decide that in the SBC church . Not in any I have seen or heard of. They don't accept or deny membership. The church body does.

Regardless, Baptist Statement of Faith is applied to candidates. If they hold to a baptism of salvation, they are disqualified.

 

Still doesn't change anything. IMB missionaries must hold to SBC view of baptism.

 

That's one of the reasons( plus the rest of the bureaucracy) that I don't do missions work through the IMB.

Not to mention that nobody could ever explain to me why it cost us about 80,000 a year to send a missionary.

 

How about neo-ecumenicalism, another step moving toward the one world religion of the anti-christ and his new world order?

Similar to FBC Dayton and their resident wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Rodney Kennedy, baptizing an infant and calling himself a Catholic-baptist.
http://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/30022-baptist-pastor-in-ohio-baptizes-infant

I don't intend to de-rail the thread, I'm just citing this as a reference to demonstrate more neo-ecumenicalism moving traditional Baptists toward a unified religion. David Platt at the helm of the IMB is merely small part of the bigger movement.

 

YUCK!!! This article disgusts me.

 

English is my public and private prayer language------God understands English quiet well!!:thumbs::thumbs::saint:

Relaxing the so called "Private prayer language" rules will not advance the SBC one fraction of an inch!!!

 

I question the judgment of anyone who holds to a private prayer language and says they practice it. Since no such thing is mentioned in scripture and no such thing exists one must wonder what in the world they are actually doing in their private prayer closet. I certainly do not want to have them involved in missions sanctioned by the SBC.

 

So if a person doesn't know about something it doesn't exist? Sounds like a fallacy of personal incredulity.

 

In recent years the "New Calvinist" has taken on such manifestations. It is very common among them.

 

Will it hurt the SBC? And shouldn't we be looking to advance The Kingdom? If this is something that someone does in private and it is not unBiblical, I just don't see an issue.

 

Now you know they are talking about praying in tongues. Scripture clearly speaks of speaking in tongues but does not say anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so in private.

 

The SBC moves in and out of sin regularly. The fact that they banned tongues was sin 1Cor 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

And the fact that they have now opened the door with no qualifiers is also sin. The true gift was understood by the one speaking and did not require an interpreter for himself. The false gift was not understood by the one speaking or the people listening.
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.

Also the tongues has to be for edifying the church, not some so called prayer language. So again the SBC went into sin by refusing tongues and now have went deeper into sin with their compromise and not setting proper biblical standards.

 

The tongues they were forbidding was unbiblical tongues therefore no sin.

You need to research just what has been done in the SBC. This isn't even in the ballpark

vs. 22 says it is not for edifying the church but for unbelievers

 

No, they forbid all tongues as they claimed tongues passed away. What I said is exactly correct. Being a member of an SBC church I understand clearly what they have and are doing. I am just not afraid to say it.

 

Apparently you don't. The issue was over the Private Prayer Language. Missionaries will still not be allowed to promote unbiblical tongues out in the field. What they will not prevent are those who want to be missionaries and hold to a private prayer language.

Second, no missionary can make to the IMB unless their home church will give the ok. The primary vetting is now as it has always been through the home church.

Third, the policy change at the IMB simply lines up with the BF&M.

 

I always knew the pendulum would day swing back in the direction of tongues, which is why I have held unto my SBC Ordination and my affiliation with the denomination.

Thank you Jesus I'm no longer weird or an outcast :smilewinkgrin: