THE IMB TONGUES POLICY:
“EMOTIONAL PREJUDICE” OR EXEGETICAL PRECISION
“The Voice of One Crying In the Wilderness”
While recently reading the Praisegod Barebones blog, hosted by the venerable Dr. Bart Barber, in the comment section of a post entitled “But Some of the Cooperative Program Money Is Ours!” I was awestruck by a comment written by David Rogers explaining why the tongues issue is such a “big deal” for many Southern Baptist and contextually the IMB Trustees. For the benefit of those of you who aren’t familiar with David Rogers, I think that you would appreciate his perspective more if you knew more about him.
David Rogers is a career IMB missionary currently stationed in Spain. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Southwestern Seminary. He is the son of the late great preeminent Southern Baptist pastor and celebrated preacher Dr. Adrian Rogers. If Paige Patterson was the architect of the conservative resurgence, Adrian Rogers was the General Contractor. David offers the only plausible explanation that I’ve ever read or heard that answers the question, why are many and perhaps the majority of Southern Baptist so adamantly opposed to tongues. You may read David’s entire comment [here]. However, I want to provide for you this quote:
“There are certain issues where our convictions are so important that we cannot compromise them on the altar of a supposed greater effectiveness. I personally believe inerrancy is one these issues. It is in the long run better to work under a more “narrow tent” than to compromise our convictions on the authority of the Word of God. We would be giving up too much to do otherwise.
Apparently, for some people, the PPL issue is of a similar nature. I do not understand why it is such a big deal for these people. My hunch is that it is due, in many cases, to a lot of misguided emotional prejudice. But I admit I could be wrong on this.” [Emphasis Mine]
With regard to “emotional prejudice” being the driving force behind the IMB tongues policy, Rogers says that he could be “wrong about this,” but I believe he is absolutely right. David Rogers has unveiled a mystery for me. The mystery is, how could a convention that is usually biblio-centric and exegetically accurate reject plain, clear, scriptural, authoritive, inerrant and infallible biblical truth regarding the Spirit’s gifting of some believers to pray in tongues in private according to the sovereign will of God (I Corinthians 12:7,10, 30; 14:2, 4, 5, 13-15)? Just as the SBC initially adopted unbiblical views on slavery, segregation and abortion, then later recanted, I believe the SBC will eventually adopt a biblical position on tongues or drop restrictions regarding private praying in tongues for staff as did Campus Crusade for Christ who once held similar strict cessationist, anti-tongues policies for staff and students.
The IMB made steps in the right direction by admitting that there were no abuses on the missions field that led to the adoption of the cessationist policies and to somewhat soften the cessationist policies that allows each case to be judged on the basis of its own merit. I’m thankful for these initial steps in the right direction, but I see this as a beginning toward the change that ultimately needs to take place and that is allowing the pre-existing policies regarding public tongues to remain in place and totally drop any attempt to govern the content of missionaries’ private prayers. Lest I sound too critical, I want to state loud and clear again that I’m thankful and I commend the IMB Board of Trustees for somewhat softening their cessationist policy and allowing some wiggle room for missionaries who pray in tongues in private to possibly be appointed. The policy revisions have given me a glimmer of hope and the resolve to continue to pray and believe that the day will come when the policies will line up completely with the Word of God. What is the newly revised IMB Tongues Policy?
Guideline on
Tongues and Prayer Language
5/11/2007
GLOSSOLALIA
1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered a legitimate language.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 and 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
PRAYER LANGUAGE
1. Any spiritual experience must be tested by Scriptures.
2. New Testament teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterance as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
APPLICATION
1. This guideline is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.
The IMB tongues policy or now guideline does not offer one Scripture to support their position because there isn’t one verse in the Bible that supports an anti-praying in tongues in private policy for believers so gifted by the Holy Spirit. The reason there was no exegetical precision or defense offered to support these guidelines is because there is none. The Word of God declares,
“For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.” (I Corinthians 14:2)
“He who speaks in tongues edifies himself…” (I Corinthians 14:4)
“I wish you all spoke with tongues….” (I Corinthians 14:5)
“For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.” (I Corinthians 14:14)
“……I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding….. (I Corinthians 14:15)
“If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to him self and God. (I Corinthians 14:39)
In order for the IMB to have adopted their cessationist – anti- praying in tongues in private policies they had to totally disregard or give a liberal interpretation and consequently application to the above Scriptures. For the IMB tongues policy to be biblical, they have to believe Paul did not mean the things he said regarding praying in tongues for himself and gifted believers. What Dr. Jimmy Draper’s current position on gifted believers praying in tongues in private is, I am uncertain. However, in his book THE CHURCH CHRIST APPROVES in a chapter on tongues published in 1974 by Broadman Press, he makes a powerful statement that in my opinion speaks to the current discussion and debate, “Only the sovereign Holy Spirit has a right to forbid or command in personal devotions!”
The IMB policy places the IMB trustees of serving in the role of the “sovereign Holy Spirit.”
The IMB Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language says:
1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered a legitimate language.
Some scholars consider praying in tongues a legitimate language, others do not. When I was a student at SWBTS (1981) in Dr. Jack Gray’s Spiritual Foundations class we were required to learn this definition of tongues that I still remember today: Tongues – ecstatic utterance, rapturous religious expression, unintelligible to the speaker or the hearer except through divine interpretation. It doesn’t really matter to a great degree whether scholars are in agreement whether or not tongues is a language understood or not understood because if the Holy Spirit gifts a believer to pray in tongues certainly God understands what is being said. Since Paul said, “he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God,” we know for sure it is prayer because Paul said you’re speaking to God (I Corinthians 14:2). Therefore, it is irrelevant whether or not man understands as long as God understands. The IMB insists that tongues is a “legitimate language” but Paul said when one speaks to God in tongues, “no one understands him; …in the spirit he speaks mysteries” (I Corinthians 14:2). Why would the IMB object to gifted believers praying in tongues in private as outlined by the Apostle Paul? If God’s Holy Spirit is responsible for 20% of Christians in America (according to a recent Pew poll) praying in tongues, the IMB policy is in direct opposition to the Word, Work and Spirit of God. This is no small matter. This is a very serious issue.
I applaud and appreciate item #2 of the IMB guideline – “The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.” This is a totally biblical statement (I Corinthians 14:27, 28) Our convention would be well served if all the IMB policies regarding tongues could be backed by Scripture. No Southern Baptist that I’m aware of is arguing for the missionaries to be able to practice public tongues speaking. I’m certainly not. Paul is clear that for those so gifted by the Holy Spirit tongues speaking is primarily for private devotion (I Corinthians 14:4, 17, 18) and not public display (I Corinthians 14:19). The IMB policy forbids speaking in tongues in private worship without any biblical basis, as a matter of fact the Bible speaks quite to the contrary (I Corinthians 14:39).
I totally concur with the statement “any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures. The burden of responsibility is upon the IMB to tell the missionaries and the SBC family which Scripture(s) does praying in tongues in private violate? GIVE US THE SCRIPTURE THAT’S VIOLATED – NOT AN ARGUMENT – NOT AN INTERPRETATION OR EXPLANATION – JUST SOLA SCRIPTURA – which Scripture is violated by praying in tongues in private? If you can give me just one, I will repent to God and acknowledge and apologize to anyone interested that I was wrong. Until then, my faith and practice will stand solidly on the Word of God.
The IMB statement declares, “New Testament teaches that prayer is to be made with understanding.” I certainly understand the intent of this statement, the problem is this statement directly contradicts the scripture. Paul said, “For if I pray in tongues, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful (I Corinthians 14:14) (emphasis mine). Paul makes it clear that the one praying in tongues does not understand what is being said, “no one understands him” (I Corinthians 14:2), not even the one praying, therefore Paul stated, “let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret” (I Corinthians 14:13). If New Testament prayer was always with understanding as the IMB alleges how would they explain Paul’s regarding praying in tongues as, “my understanding is unfruitful?” New Testament prayer was not always made with understanding. Even Jesus groaned (John 11:33, 38) and sighed (Mark 7:34).
My wife could listen to the groans, moans and sighs of our four children when they were babies and immediately know whether or not they were hungry, hurting, needed a diaper changed, or to be held etc. Certainly, if a mother could understand the groans, moans, and sighs of her children, how much more can the heavenly father understand the groans, moans and sighs of His children.
The IMB may not be persuaded that ‘ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer,’ but the Apostle Paul was persuaded that when a person prayed in tongues in private they were offering thanksgiving to God (I Corinthians 14:16) and communicating with God (I Corinthians 14:2). Furthermore, Billy Graham, Jack Gray, Dr. McGorman and other Southern Baptist have affirmed tongues as indeterminate or unintelligible speech. But because the majority of the IMB Trustees without any scriptural referencing or rationale explained, have decided to exclude from mission service any missionary “if an ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a part of the candidate’s current practice.” I find this astonishing and amazing in light of clear biblical teaching and recognized Southern Baptist who affirm the gift of praying in tongues.
Clearly, the cessationist – anti praying in tongues in private policy of the IMB is driven by “a lot of misguided emotional prejudice” and what Dr. Jack Gray labeled as “charisphobia.” Why is there such strong “emotional prejudice” or “charisphobia” driving this policy? In conclusion, I offer three reasons: (1) Tongues historically has been associated with Pentecostals and charismatics. Certainly there has been a lot of abuse and misuse of the gift of tongues, by some in the Pentecostal movement. There was an abuse and misuse of tongues in the Corinthian church. Paul did not use the abuse of tongues as a rationale to disallow or rule out tongues, he simply regulated the use of the gift of tongues rather than forbid praying tongues.
Because of an “emotional prejudice” toward Pentecostals or charismatics, many Southern Baptist reject any practice or belief no matter how biblical that has any remote association with Pentecostals. Let’s throw out the bathwater of misuse and abuse but let’s keep the baby.
(2) Tongues have been historically associated with poor and uneducated people. This is true. However, I’m aware of highly educated and wealthy people, many who are Southern Baptist and other Bible believing Baptists who pray in tongues in private. The IMB tongues policy is driven by an “emotional prejudice” toward poor and uneducated people. The posture is certainly elitist and arrogant.
(3) Tongue speakers have often held viewpoints that they were spiritually superior to others without this gift or they have expressed a Pentecostal viewpoint of “the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues” as an absolute normative or universal experience and as an experience subsequent to salvation. Baptists recognize that these viewpoints do not have a biblical basis. Paul makes it clear that all believers do not have the gift of tongues (I Corinthians 12:30) and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs simultaneous with salvation (I Corinthians 12:13). Baptists recognize that all who are genuinely born again have been baptized by the Holy Spirit at salvation, but all do not speak in tongues (I Corinthians 12:30). But because many Pentecostals have taught an erroneous viewpoint of tongues and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit along with being elitist and arrogant at times, many Southern Baptist respond in kind with an “emotional prejudice,” “charisphobia” and an elitist and arrogant attitude as well.
I pray that God will forgive us as Southern Baptists for rejecting the truth about tongues as taught in the Bible and for rejecting missionaries who speak in tongues in private prayer. As a fellow Southern Baptist I confess our unbelief, “emotional prejudice,” “charisphobia” and arrogance and ask the Lord’s forgiveness. David Rogers would never articulate what I’ve stated as strong as I have. I take full responsibility for this post and am willing to suffer whatever consequences, if any at all for my position. God Help Me. Here I Stand.
In summary,
The IMB tongues policy is driven by emotional prejudice because of tongues speaking historic association with Pentecostal, poor and uneducated people. This policy is also driven by charisphobia. What’s missing? Exegetical Precision!
Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. 
May 25, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Dr. McKissic: Wow and Amen!
May 26, 2007 at 1:50 am
Dwight,
Thanks for maintaining your stand on this. I believe you are on target. I hope your optimism regarding the future of the SBC is correct as well. I was unaware of the history of Dallas Seminary and Campus Crusade on this issue. I hope the current reaction to PPL at the IMB, NAMB, SWBTS, etc. doesn’t become so entrenched that it becomes very difficult for people later to humble themselves and change their minds, like DTS and CCC have apparently done. It seems to me the path to this must be the Holy Spirit sweeping through and bringing brokenness and revival, rather than each one of us, including those like us who are “pro-PPL”, becoming “hard-liners” and “fight to the death” defenders of our particular position.
Just last week, I heard from some colleagues about the current spiritual situation in Wales. After tremendous revival at the beginning of the 20th century, Wales is currently very hard and dry spiritually. From what I understood, in response to some emotional excess during the revival, the “anti-excess brigade” eventually gained an upper-hand, and the free flow of the Spirit was quenched, along with the excesses. A hundred years later, Wales still has not recovered from the devastating spiritual consequences. I hope and pray the same thing does not happen to the SBC.
May 26, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Dwight:
I believe you are onto something when you speak of the elitism run amok in Southern Baptist theology. There are those who believe the seminaries in general, and the seminary presidents in particular (or at least a plural caucus thereof), are best equipped to steer the course of Southern Baptist faith and practice.
Tongues is commonly associated with the poor, and evidence of charismatic advances in the Third World is regularly cited as a cause for the kind of prohibitive policies aggressively implemented and vigorously defended by our more elite cessationist kinsmen. They won’t say it, but here’s what they mean:
Tongues will drive the Southern Baptist Convention away from her “solid roots” in Anglo-American culture to become like those wild tribal peoples who don’t know any better than to mutter gibberish to idols.
In fact, you will see this shade of prejudice in the resolutions adopted by the SBTS last year, and submitted by Robin Foster this year. Tongues speaking is associated with Corinth. Corinth was associated with idolatry and immorality. Idolatry and immorality is associated with paganism. Paganism exists most widely among ignorant sub-Saharan voodoo witch-doctors. Southern Baptists, therefore, must oppose tongues if we would bulwark our faith against the ecstatic worship of savages.
Again, fear more than faith is the motivating factor behind policies like those recently reduced to guidelines at the IMB. And the argument that “charismatic theology” always causes division is both empty and self-fulfilling.
It’s like a man saying that adultery always causes divorce, just before he runs off with his secretary.
BSC
May 26, 2007 at 3:27 pm
And I should have said SBTC, not SBTS.
May 26, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Baptistblog,
You said that part of their argument is “Tongues speaking is associated with Corinth. Corinth was associated with idolatry and immorality. Idolatry and immorality is associated with paganism. Paganism exists most widely among ignorant sub-Saharan voodoo witch-doctors.”
There is, at the least, one big problem with this logic. If the practice of tongues by the Corinthian Christians was pagan, then Paul allowed a “pagan” practice [which would have flowed from pagan thought] to be continued by them.
But it was the Apostle Paul who included himself as one who was “bringing into captivity EVERY THOUGHT to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5)
May 27, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Brother Dwight,
I love you and I praise God for our relationship. However, I must be truthful and say that if this comes to the floor of the convention, I cannot raise my ballot in support.
Blessings,
Tim
May 28, 2007 at 8:57 am
Your point is well taken.
It seems that the basic problem here is the emotion that comes as a result of wrapping up our spiritual and doctrinal identity in our own study of the scripture. The response of “arrogant elitism” is the natural result of having something you have concluded is absolute truth challenged by someone who doesn’t quite see it that way.
This is a problem for Southern Baptists because those who hold the cessationist view want to make it a doctrinal guideline for cooperation in order to restrict those who hold a different view from participation in missions efforts, or from teaching at the seminaries. In spite of the best hermeneutical techniques and exegetical examination, human error is a factor. Taking a vote on it isn’t Biblical. The traditional Baptist approach to doctrinal issues like this (even though the SBC hasn’t always taken a Baptist approach) is to cooperate beyond the difference of opinion. No non-negotiables are affected by allowing both cessationists and continualists to hold their view and participate fully in the denomination’s cooperative missions and ministry efforts.
May 29, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Dwight,
I agree with your position here. Fear has been the driving factor in the opposition to tongues – that, and really bad hermeneutics. But, I am okay with interpretations that are different from mine on tertiary issues. Let’s just not push all who hold to a continuationist position out of the SBC. That is where we are headed, it seems.
I do differ with you, and Dr. Jack Gray on one point. I do not believe that speaking in tongues is an ecstatic utterance. I don’t believe that there is anything ecstatic about it. I believe that the speaker is in control as he prays with his spirit. I have seen that term used a lot and I really think that speaking in tongues IS a language, albeit a heavenly language that God gives for prayer, praise, and prophecy (with interpretation).
Just my two cents. Otherwise, I think that you are dead on. You do not stand alone.
May 29, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Debbie: Thanks so much and again it was a pleasure meeting you and your husband at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit. Hope to see you both in San Antonio. Dwight M.
David Rogers: I used your “emotional prejudice” quote with trepidation wondering if you would approve. How thankful and relieved I was when you commented affirmatively on my blog. DTS has released a correction of a recent USA Today news article that suggested they had changed their policies on tongues. Therefore, I am removing the reference that was based upon the USA Today news article. I’ve learned from several persons affiliated with CCC that the reference to them having changed their policies to accept staff who pray in tongues is correct.
Ben Cole: I can’t help but wonder if tongues were more associated with Europe and Euro Americans than Africa, Asia and South America, poor and uneducated people, would there be this level of opposition.
Benji Ramsaur: Thank you for your insightful comment. I totally agree.
Tim Rogers: Dear Bro. Tim-I was deeply moved and touched by your recent post on your blog. It gave me insights into your life history and worldview that I would not have known otherwise.
Robin Foster probably has as much formal education as Ben Cole. I really believe he was simply engaging in lighthearted fun that is often communicated between friends. I consider Bro. Robin a dear friend. The moment he indicates that he is the least bit slighted or offended by Ben Cole’s parody, I will encourage Bro. Ben to sincerely apologize. Even if I feel like I have a relationship with a brother that I can engage in lighthearted fun if they don’t receive it that way, it becomes my responsibility in the name of peace and unity to acknowledge having crossed over the line in our relationship and ask for forgiveness. I cannot apologize for Ben Cole, but I can apologize for me if in any way Ben’s remarks have hurt Bro. Robin.
Obviously I don’t agree with the tone, tenor and theology of Bro. Robin’s resolution but if it makes it to the floor and passes it will at least make it very clear to all the churches that the SBC is now a cessationist – anti tongues convention. Many of us can live with clarity but struggle with living with ambiguity.
Lee Sanders: What a joy meeting you at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit. I really enjoy reading your blog as well. Perhaps the best answer to the current controversy would be for the IMB, NAMB and SWBTS to simply drop their cessationist policies and guidelines and the convention is back to normal and the controversy immediately ceases without anyone having to vote on any resolution regarding tongues.
May 29, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Perhaps we would be better off just sticking with the language of Scripture. A person praying in tongues is speaking mysteries to God (I Corinthians 14:2). I don’t disagree with your heavenly language position. Thanks for visiting my blog.
May 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Dwight,
Absolutely. This whole discussion has been so good for me, in that I have been able to study this issue more deeply and refine my beliefs in a way that would never have happened before. I just accepted the PPL position and figured that most people, even if they disagreed, at least respected my presence in the SBC. Being proved wrong on my acceptance has caused me to dive deeper into the Word on this issue than ever before, and it has also brought me into relationship with brothers like you who share my convictions on this issue. For that, I am thankful, and some good has come out of all of this, at least.
Wouldn’t it be good if we had a time of prayer in San Antonio for the Convention so that peace would reign and God’s will on all these matters be done? Maybe some of us can get together for that purpose.
May 30, 2007 at 10:48 am
If there is such a prayer meeting before the annual meeting, I would like to be a part of that.
Todd
May 31, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Dr. McKissic,
Dear brother, if you desire to submit your resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention then please do so. I am confident that the Resolutions Committee will give it careful consideration. Part of that careful consideration will be an evaluation of the factual accuracy of each resolution submitted.
In your resolution, you repeatedly refer to the IMB Guideline on glossolalia as “cessationist”. Your interpretation of the guideline is off the mark. I would encourage you to read the guideline again. The guideline actually defines glossolalia and does not prohibit the public or private expression of glossolalia as long as the expression of glossolalia meets the adopted definition.
There is no prohibition in the guideline prohibiting the expression of glossolalia in private.
The IMBoT is not dominated by cessationist influence; neither am I a cessationist. The adopted guideline is, in part, an expression of tolerance on the part of our cessationist brothers and sisters who have cooperated with others in adopting a guideline that is not cessationist. It would be worthwhile to consider that some of the votes against the guideline may have come from brothers and sisters who were opposed to the guideline because it is not cessationist.
Regarding your commentary on your blog I would like to make two observations.
First, the IMB Guideline on glossolalia is for internal application only. The trustees adopt guidelines and/or policies to determine the qualifications of missionary candidates. The guideline is not intended to be a treatise on Bible interpretation, it is a guideline statement. Your disappointment regarding the lack of Biblical exposition is off the mark. If the IMBoT were to compose a treatise on glossolalia, and release it together with the guideline, they would be accused of attempting to mold the beliefs of the local churches. It is unlikely that the IMBoT will ever compose a Biblical treatise on any subject unless required to do so by the SBC. Should the SBC require the IMBoT to submit such a treatise, you would find them quite capable and cooperative.
Secondly, the rhetoric of your commentary is offensive. The IMBoT is not “in direct opposition to the Word, Work and Spirit of God”. The trustees are not “driven by a lot of misguided emotional prejudice”. The trustees are not “driven by an emotional prejudice toward the poor and uneducated people”. The trustees are not elitist and arrogant. The trustees are not “charisphobic”.
Thank you brother, for considering my comments.
May 31, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Brother McKissic,
Upon review, my comment (just posted) refers to your blog article, not your resolution.
My apologies.
May 31, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Brother Dwight,
I will be calling you. I plan on arriving in San Anton in the middle afternoon on Saturday. Did not know if we could get together some time on Sunday. I wonder if you will probably be in your services on Sunday and coming down in the afternoon.
Thank you for your kind words. I do wish you could have met Daddy. This is a hard year for me. It has been 6 years since his death but, this year for some reason is making it seem as if it were yesterday. It is like I am grieving all over again.
I guess because of our age differences you seem like a Daddy to me. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
June 7, 2007 at 7:31 am
Brother David Rogers,
In your comment above you say,”Thanks for maintaining your stand on this. I believe you are on target”.
In my comment, above, I say to Brother McKissic, “Secondly, the rhetoric of your commentary is offensive. The IMBoT is not “in direct opposition to the Word, Work and Spirit of God”. The trustees are not “driven by a lot of misguided emotional prejudice”. The trustees are not “driven by an emotional prejudice toward the poor and uneducated people”. The trustees are not elitist and arrogant. The trustees are not “charisphobic”.
Dear Brother, as an employee of the International Mission Board, are you agreeing with Dr. McKissic’s assessment of the integrity and motivation of the IMB?
June 7, 2007 at 10:05 am
Jerry,
After re-reading this post, I must say that the specific language which you reference in your comment to me here does go beyond what I would personally choose to say.
I am sorry for giving the idea that I was in agreement with those particular ideas as well.
June 7, 2007 at 11:55 am
Brother David,
Thankyou for your reply.
While you state clearly that you would not choose to state these things, and, that you did not want to “give the idea” that you agree with those things; Is that the same as saying you do not believe those things?
June 9, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I just posted a lengthy response. I welcome lively but loving debate. I am confident that we are all seeking the truth, but obviously we aren’t both getting it right. Someone is right and someone is wrong. Let’s pursue finding the mind of God on the matter and pray that God is honored in our efforts.
June 25, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I applaud a deeper look at Scripture about a number of erroneous doctrines that have been repeated over and over as Scripturally sound when in fact they have been distorted according to what is acceptable to the denomination. This has rendered too many “Christians” in name only not only in America but around the world without producing fruit after God’s character of justice that the world may know our God for who He truly is. Nothing short of an in depth reformation is acceptable.
June 25, 2007 at 1:25 pm
In addition to my previous comment some facts about myself: I attend First Baptist Church Naples, Florida where Dr. Hayes Wicker is senior pastor. I am actively involved in ministry there.
June 25, 2007 at 6:31 pm
My most read post on my blog has been one in which I diagnose the Baptists’ problem with speaking in tongues. Their position is such a tragedy because they are one of the few groups other than pentecostals who still believe in the Bible. It would be so helpful to the body of Christ if they could get ahold of all of the Bible.
The following is the link to my article
http://donclarks.blogspot.com/2007/06/originally-i-was-ordained-baptist.html
July 7, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Pastor Dwight,
You have a “fan” in Manila, Philippines.
Blessings to you
Kevin
http://kevin.ph
February 12, 2008 at 9:02 pm
[…] (Who can blame him?) He has his own blog on how the SBC decision on tongues is actually prejudicial here. Wade Burleson, a fellow trustee, who also recently resigned (see a trend?) has written extensively […]
July 22, 2014 at 4:44 am
These factors mold and manipulate the shape and cross-section’the structure’of the jet stream.
You will need to mix a cup of it in a gallon of water and then scrub the affected area two or three times until all the traces of mold have been removed.
To do this, use all three of these natural green methods.
October 11, 2014 at 8:10 am
This website really has all of the information and facts I needed about this
subject and didn’t know who to ask.