New Policy: Southern Baptist Missionary Candidates Can't Speak in Tongues

Beliefnet ^ | Nov. 23 2005Beliefnet | Adelle M. Banks

[tutstar]

The Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board has adopted a new policy that forbids missionary candidates from speaking in tongues.

The policy, adopted Nov. 15 during the board's trustee meeting in Huntsville, Ala., reflects ongoing Southern Baptist opposition to charismatic or Pentecostal practices.

[Always Right]

Tongues were genuine languages, not ecstatic utterances. Tongues were a sign for UNBELIEVERS, not believers. If you deny any of the above points, you deny the clear, plain teaching of Scripture.

There is truth to that, but how do you reconcile:

1Cr 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The clear plain teachings doesn't seem as simple as you imply.

[Always Right]

Those practices have no place in SBC churches. The SBC should be under no obligation to support missionaries to teach or practice them. No Baptist church should receive charismatics as members or consider them as brethren.

To me, your attitude sounds like you are more concerned with being a Baptist than being a Christian. Condemning other sects of Christians because they don't agree with your Churches teaching is just wrong. Being a Christian is about believing in God and seeking him. Confessing your sins and being grateful for what you have. Accepting Christ as your savior and being baptized. On the scheme of things, speaking in tongues is in the noise. Whether someone overemphasizes portions of scripture does not make them a heathen or their beliefs a cult. If that is your standard to judge others by, you better be prepared to be judged likewise.

[Coldwater Creek]

I think that you left the So. Baptist domination because you had an overdose of being a PK.

[RaceBannon]

Since the obvious nature of tongues being genuine languages, then the verse you just cited must be reasoned with that in mind.

There is no clear teaching in that verse hat the language spoken by that man is a foreign never to be understood language, only a language that no one was there to translate, and that would therefore only be understood by God.

Since Angels are spiritual beings, whatever they speak might be called a spiritual language, but we are not spiritual beings are we? We are fleshly beings, and we would therefore speak fleshly languages. "That which is of the Spirit is Spirit, and that which is of the Flesh is Flesh" (John 3)

My point in the quote you cited, though, was that tongues are NOT a sign for believers, and the modern Charismatic movement claims it is a SIGN FOR BELIEVERS to prove they have received the Spirit.

The Bible says it is a sign for UNVBELIEVERS.

To claim something is for Believers when the Bible says it is for UNBELIEVERS, that is totally unbiblical.

[RaceBannon]

that's the first intelligent response I have seen regarding pseudo Ephraim! Thanks!

I will read your post more closely, but some of the sources you cited I never heard of and will have to search for

[RaceBannon]

Go back and read again, please, there was plenty of Scripture to back up what was explained.

[Diva]

Hi Pinz,

Interesting read. One of the few things us old fashioned Catholics and the more Conservative Baptists agree on is that glossolalia can be problematic, especially for some indiviuals who seek these consolations of the Spirit. If I remember correctly St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila warned against this sort of thing as the mere "seeking" could lead to deception or feelings of spiritual superiority.

[RaceBannon]

It is like I tried to say, in the Bible, there IS NO PRAYER LANGUAGE except your own spoken tongue, or in the case of the 1st Century Church, Genuine spoken languages which were miraculous tongues, but they were still genuine languages.

Since the obvious nature of tongues being genuine languages, then the verse you just cited must be reasoned with that in mind.

There is no clear teaching in that verse that the language spoken by that man in this verse is a foreign never to be understood language, only a language that no one was there to translate, and that would therefore only be understood by God.

Since Angels are spiritual beings, whatever they speak might be called a spiritual language, but we are not spiritual beings are we? We are fleshly beings, and we would therefore speak fleshly languages. "That which is of the Spirit is Spirit, and that which is of the Flesh is Flesh" (John 3)

My point is that tongues are NOT a sign for believers, and the modern Charismatic movement claims it is a SIGN FOR BELIEVERS to prove they have received the Spirit.

The Bible says it is a sign for UNVBELIEVERS.

To claim something is for Believers when the Bible says it is for UNBELIEVERS, that is totally unbiblical.

[Always Right]

To claim something is for Believers when the Bible says it is for UNBELIEVERS, that is totally unbiblical.

Your interpretation is probably correct, but I would not condemn them for that as many do. If someone is truely seeking God, good for them. All Christians will make mistakes along the way. Accepting Jesus, seeking God and loving one another are the most important concepts, IMHO.

[RaceBannon]

4) When you actually examine even the sermon itself, it clearly states that the coming of Christ lacked only ONE more sign, which was the coming of the evil one and the consequent great tribulation, thus erasing the possibility of a coming of Christ BEFORE a great tribulation. This is just more of Grant Jeffries monkey business with patristic writings, only this time he doesn't get a patristic writer, but a pseudo patristic. The sermon cannot be made to teach what it does not teach by lifting out one line from it.

I wont deny that there is apoint in all that, that the main sign believers were to be awaiting was the return of the LORD, (The coming apostasy, the revelation of the evil one, then the return of Christ) but you miss what Paul didn't say:

STORE UP FOOD and weapons to defend yourself during the 7 year tribulation which is to come before the return of Jesus Christ!

Without going through a reposting of many things, I'll just leave a link:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=rapture&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.middletownbiblechurch.org%3B+%09%09%09%09%09AWFID%3Aceb9f7372ed76876%3B&domains=middletownbiblechurch.org&sitesearch=middletownbiblechurch.org

And ask you to provide me with Scriptural evidence Paul instructed believers to prepare for the worst time on the Earth to come, the 7 year tribulation.

Because, if Paul's actions and teachings didnt prepare believers to live faithfully until the Rapture (The Return of the Lord), then what return of Christ did he tell them to prepare for?

There is not a smidgeon of evidence Paul instructed believers to prepare for global war and famine and pestilence which preced Christ's return.

Regarding Jeffrey's credentials, I know a lot of people didnt like when he tried to claim Christ's return would come on a certain feast day, but that does not mean his research of an actual document is wrong. Consider Ice's statement:

What is most significant for present-day readers is the fact that the sermon was popular enough to be translated into several languages fairly soon after its composition. The significance of the sermon for us today is that it represents a prophetic view of a pre-trib rapture within the orthodox circles of its day.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Quit with the mindless cut and paste, already. Both times you said "UNVBELIEVERS."

Yes, it is too much to expect tongues as proof of salvation. But it is also too much to expect they cannot be used without being a sign at all. The passage only means that WHEN they are a sign, THEN they are such to unbelievers (not unvbelievers).

[RaceBannon]

No, they are NOT a sign for believers at all, that is the problem.

You are directly calling the Bible false.

vget it? :)

[RaceBannon]

I will agree that they are most likely sincere, but they are also sincerely wrong and teaching a false doctrine as truth.

THAT is the problem of the ages, WHAT DID GOD SAY?

Eve twisted it, Adam ignored it, Noah listened to it, Abraham doubted it...and so on.

The most consistent doctrine taught in the Bible is to do what God said, and to not add to it or subtract from it.

Telling people that tongues are a valid gift for today and that tongues are a sign for BELIEVERS TODAY is a direct contradiction with what the Bible teaches, and therefore, sin.

[esopman]

Blessings on You and Your House

Please reconsider "I'll deny the gift outright..."

I was an atheist for many years, university trained as an engineer and a linguist - and now a sinner saved by grace. I teach adult Sunday school in a rural Methodist church - showing the inerrancy of the Word and the love of Jesus whenever I can.

I do not defend the silliness and apostasy in many denominations (Methodist included), charismatic and otherwise. The Lord will deal with that in His time. I am here only as a witness, and that temporarily.

After three score years+, I am so profoundly grateful to Jesus to be alive and know Him that all else seems minor and unimportant. Even this debate about tongues. And, Yes, I do speak in tongues. Yes, they are of God. Yes, I have seen deliverance of those in bondage to Satan because of this gift.

I am less than sanguine about even a professional, educated linguist making headway with some anti-tongues folks, but feel free to Freepmail me. Be very careful when criticizing the brethren. Very careful.

[chronic_loser]

that's the first intelligent response I have seen regarding pseudo Ephraim! Thanks!

It's a family argument. I find it sad that people rupture relationships over theological minutae. I have some things I believe VERY firmly, some things i believe "open handedly" and some things I just think "this is probably true."

If these things do not touch on the kerygma of the gospel itself, then you are my brother and God says He will judge me on how I speak and interact with you. That doesn't say I cannot get severe in my speech, it just says I need to remember that at the end of the day, you are my brother and I should treat you as such.

Have a happy Thanksgiving holiday. Maybe we can talk more on this.

[George W. Bush]

To me, your attitude sounds like you are more concerned with being a Baptist than being a Christian.

This thread is about Baptist missionsaries practicing and/or teaching charismatic practices overseas that they conceal from the churches that support them. So the thread is about Baptists and allowing sneaky charismatic practices.

The we have the usual charismatic suspects march in here, demanding that Baptists allow them to come into Baptist churches doing anything they want: babbling, being false prophets, swoonging, etc. And of course the Holy Laughter and other awful practices would follow within one generation as it has in so many of their own churches.

There is also a history of charismatics invading Baptist churches under false pretenses, gaining a voting majority and, bam, suddenly there's a new charismatic church there, stolen from its own members' work and labor.

Why don't you invite the charismaniacs into your church and leave the Baptists out of it?

[TomSmedley]

I am a student of the scriptures and am currently serving in a southern baptist church. My problem with this is that personal practices "barring sin" should be solely left to the discretion of ministers, if we limit the way that these ministers worship God, then we tie their hands as to the effectiveness of their ministry.

Meanwhile, much of the missionary effort in our generation is coming out of "2/3 world" pentecostal communities. It would appear that anti-pentecostalism is a North American WASP issue that puts those who hold it seriously out of step with what God is doing around the world. (Give thought to joining my denomination, Every Nation. We are charismatic, reformed, and passionate about missions here and abroad.)

[nina0113]

3- Thou shalt not make mom fix dinner on the day of rest (so go to a restaurant and make the waitress violate the Sabbath)

In my Southern Baptist childhood, we ate TV dinners on Sundays for exactly that reason.

[George W. Bush]

If I remember correctly St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila warned against this sort of thing as the mere "seeking" could lead to deception or feelings of spiritual superiority.

The great Puritan preacher, Jonathan Edwards (of Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God fame, surely the classic American hellfire sermon) wrote an entire book on the subject.

On Relgious Affections (web version and many free downloadable versions).

A very comprehensive exposition on the subject and the problems it causes. Suggested for Protestants and Baptists, not sure if it's on Rome's list but I doubt it, being a Puritan book. I don't recall it speaking about Rome either way or containing anything an RC bishop would object to. It is about the markings of true and false spirituality and the signs that accompany each. Very sound reading for all, I think.

Dr. E, I pinged since I mentioned one of the great Puritan books.

[Matchett-PI]

"That's a steaming pile! ... Paul ..."

That is the sort of knee-jerk response that can be expected of the sorts of mentalities who were being addressed in 1 Cor.3:1-4.

My post went right over your head.