I promised to start dealing with the issue of tongues and so I thought a good start would be to post one of the “white papers” which was given to the Trustees at SWBTS. Dr. Emir Caner is the scholar who wrote this paper. For length consideration I have not included the footnotes. To see all the footnotes please read the paper at: http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/SBCTonguesHistoricalPolicy.pdf
The situation seems all too familiar now. Trustees of a mission board, empowered to enact policies they believe best represent Southern Baptist doctrine and practice, pass a new policy which stipulates that any missionary candidate who speaks in a private prayer language has disqualified himself from consideration. This stricter set of regulations is first birthed via general guidelines which the trustees believed needed to be codified with stronger language. Subsequently, one trustee speaks out against the new directive questioning the definition of glossolalia (Gr., “speaking in tongues”). Moreover, the president of the agency, elected because he was considered a conservative, incredibly speaks out against the new policy, although he subsequently promises to follow its guidelines. Finally, accusations are then leveled at some of the trustees, alleging a dispensational view of Scripture is behind these actions. One noted critic wrote, “If a fundamentalist understanding of scripture was to be the guiding principle, then glossolalia could not be allowed.”
Yet, the situation is not exactly what one may think. The above situation is not about new directives given to the International Mission Board in November 2005; rather, it involves the Home Mission Board (now North American Mission Board), and the year this new policy was adopted was 1987. At the time, the battle for the soul of the Southern Baptist Convention was raging and in many ways reaching its peak. The Dallas convention of 1985, which registered more than 45,000 messengers, proved to be a watershed year for the conservative cause with Charles Stanley being elected President. By 1988, the year following the enactment of these new policies regarding tongues, Southern Baptists met in San Antonio, Texas, where more than 32,000 messengers were registered.
Considering the present outcry from a few Southern Baptists over the new IMB policy, one would think a similar chorus of disapproval would have arisen during the 1988 San Antonio convention. Yet, when the report of the Home Mission Board was given, there were no objections and no questions whatsoever. In fact, the session was rather poorly attended—with less than one thousand people in the audience. Therefore, what possible reasons could there be for this lack of protest? Consider the following facts:
1) The president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Adrian Rogers, voiced no disapproval of the new policies.
2) Jim Strickland was the sole opposition to the new policy, in spite of a good number of “loyal opposition” moderates and “swing votes” on the board.4
3) The trustee board was obviously far more unified regarding the new tongues policy than they were regarding the new divorce policy adopted at the same meeting. The vote for a more restrictive policy on divorce passed 48-20; the vote strengthening the policy on tongues passed with near unanimity.
For nearly twenty years now the North American Mission Board (NAMB) has maintained its course with regard to its restrictive policy on tongues, while experiencing substantial growth in its missionary force and its new church plants. Today, the board employs more than 5,300 missionaries, an increase of more than 1,500 since 1987. Additionally, NAMB is now reaching out to more ethnicities than ever before. The narrowing of parameters did not prove to be a detriment in any evidentiary way. Indeed, pristine doctrine proved to be a boon to growth. Once again, Adrian Rogers may have proven to be a prophet, when he reminded conventioneers during his sermon in San Antonio, “The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power and the wider its usefulness. The modern cry, less creed and more liberty, is a degeneration from the ‘vertebrae to the jelly fish.’”
The Issue at Hand: Glossolalia and Policy
The issue at hand is not merely the interpretation of glossolalia, but whether the Board of Trustees has the right to make restrictive policies. Does this duly-elected body of governors have the right to go beyond the bounds of the accepted confession of faith? The obvious answer concerning their right to do so is an unequivocal “yes.” Trustees are charged by Southern Baptist churches through appointments during the annual Southern Baptist Convention to represent Southern Baptists in carrying out the task of sending biblically-qualified missionaries to the field. Frank Page, newly elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006, reiterated this notion: “There are a multitude of issues that have to be dealt with within the trustee framework that go way beyond the Baptist Faith and Message…. There are many things that the Baptist Faith and Message just simply doesn’t deal with….”
Furthermore, not all—or perhaps any—decisions will be met with unanimous agreement. For example, although the Baptist Faith and Message does not address the matter of divorce, the International Mission Board has from its inception in 1845 argued that divorced men and women may not be considered for appointment. This was reaffirmed by the preceding Foreign Mission Board in 1987.8 Here is another decision that carries many similarities with the present-day controversy. It is certainly clear that the biblical parameters of divorce are hotly contested in some Southern Baptist circles, and even more so in the broader evangelical world. Godly scholars often disagree with each other’s interpretation on this issue. Yet, although many interpretations from Scripture have been offered, Southern Baptists have consistently come down on the side of caution. In the end, it is our responsibility as Southern Baptists to speak for Southern Baptists, not to appease a broader and often poorly-defined Evangelicalism.
Autonomy is another issue that must be addressed. Not only is each church autonomous, but every association, every state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention are autonomous as well. Thus, in spite of claims otherwise, there is no violation of local church autonomy when trustees address the issue of glossolalia. Just as every church has the right to affirm or deny the modern practice which goes under the name of “speaking in tongues,” so does the Southern Baptist Convention.
In fact, historical precedent demonstrates that many local associations and state conventions have dealt with this very issue. Note a few representative instances:
1) In 1975, six churches were “barred from fellowship by four associations of Southern Baptist churches in three states.” A news article acknowledged the divisiveness of tongues upon congregations, and Robert Baker, then professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, articulated that he would rather see these churches withdraw.
2) In 1996, the Florida Baptist Convention’s mission board voted to disfellowship two churches for neo-Pentecostalism.
3) In 1999, the Webster County Baptist Association (Missouri) voted to withdraw fellowship from Calvary Baptist Church, Marshfield, over the issue of charismatic worship. As one article noted, the issue involved “practices such as speaking in tongues.” The vote was 102-2.
It is evident that Southern Baptists have historically taken a cautious tone towards the Charismatic movement in general and glossolalia in particular. They have recognized the lesson of church history that these enthusiastic movements can be greatly divisive to the local churches and to the larger body of Christ. One need look no further than the second-century Montantist movement—the first true dissenting movement within early Christianity which was largely based on prophecy and ecstatic utterances—to understand the controversial nature of these practices. A mature Christian clearly knows that this problem is not simply an argument over Paul’s command to “not forbid the speaking of tongues.”
Moreover, the International Mission Board itself has, to a certain extent, previously dealt with the issue of speaking in tongues. Indeed, the Mission Personnel Committee handled the subject of tongues and issued a statement on June 23, 1992. It maintained:
The Foreign Mission Board has not voted a policy statement with regard to glossolalia and it is not mentioned among the criteria for mission service. However, the Foreign Mission Board represents all Southern Baptists and it is important that our missionaries be people who are comfortable with worship as it is normally expressed within the Southern Baptist family of churches. As we talk with candidates we discuss their beliefs, patterns of worship and devotional life, and a host of other issues related to their life as Christians and Baptists. In the course of such discussions we find that it is appropriate and natural to talk about worship and prayer, including glossolalia if that is a part of the individual’s experience. Our intention in those discussions is neither to interrogate nor to instruct, but to come to a point of mutual understanding. In terms of worship practices, the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossolalia in their public services. Therefore, if a person feels that glossolalia is a vital, significant and public part of his or her conviction and practice, we believe that person has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the majority of Southern Baptists [emphasis mine]. At the same time, we do not try to enter into the prayer closet of an individual to monitor or evaluate that person’s prayer language or life.
This quote illustrates the importance that IMB trustees and staff have always placed upon relating to “worship as it is normally expressed within the Southern Baptist family of churches.” It is critical to understand that guidelines or policies must acknowledge the need for Southern Baptist missionaries to represent faithfully those who support them financially and pray for them continually. This faithfulness to the churches extends to the public practice of speaking of tongues—and, with the new policy, it extends to “private prayer languages,” too. The guideline argues that a person who “feels that glossolalia is a vital, significant, and public part of his or her conviction and practice…has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the majority of Southern Baptists” [emphasis mine].” Jerry Rankin, who was elected after this guideline was passed, affirms the position held and fully supports its justification.
Exegetical Fallacy: Can Public Tongues Be Divorced from Private Tongues?
The controversy, then, does not pit Cessationists (those theologians who believe that the spectacular gifts ceased to be necessary once the New Testament was written) versus Continualists (those who assume that the New Testament gifts are still in evidence among Christians, today). For example, Jerry Rankin, who prohibits the public speaking of tongues, may be considered a semi-Cessationist, because he forbids speaking in tongues in public worship but not in private worship. Instead, the disagreement concerns whether one can exegetically argue that a private prayer language is allowed while a public prayer language is prohibited.
There are two principle passages which must be considered regarding a private prayer language: Romans 8:26 and 1 Corinthians 14. Paul writes in Romans 8:26: Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Though it may (and should) seem logically incoherent to non-Charismatic readers, many Charismatics argue that “the groanings which cannot be uttered” can be better rendered “with groanings that words cannot express.” Thus, the argument goes, when a believer can no longer use his own language, the Spirit intercedes in His language.
But it takes hermeneutical gymnastics to get to the point where that which is unutterable—“words cannot express”—means “articulated through the Holy Spirit and His language.” First, the context of Romans 8 concerning the Spirit’s decided role in salvation, has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. Second, any word study immediately identifies the “groanings” as speechless or lacking speech. A.T. Robertson, the greatest Greek scholar ever produced by Southern Baptists, exclaimed, “It is the picturesque word of rescue by one who ‘happens on’ (entugchanei) one who is in trouble and ‘in his behalf’ (huper) pleads ‘with unuttered groanings’ (instrumental case) or with ‘sighs that baffle words’ (Denny). This is the work of our Helper, the Spirit himself.” Confirming this interpretation, the Revised Standard Version translates the phrase, “with sighs too deep for words.” Third, it may be worth noting that the Spirit intercedes “on our behalf” or “for” us, not “through” us. Fourth, any insistence upon the Holy Spirit speaking for us is, as two scholars have noted, “to admit that God cannot know the mind of the Holy Spirit or the mind of the believer unless prayer is verbally expressed, or else He has an inclination toward hearing spiritual mutterings that are non-sensical to the masses. No Christian would wish to argue that way.” In the end, one should be wary of building doctrine on one verse of Scripture, especially according to such an unusual interpretation of that verse. Thus, if an unusual interpretation of Romans 8:26 is the sole basis for one’s practice of a private prayer language, that believer should excise this experience from his walk with the Lord.
But most of those who defend a private prayer language use 1 Corinthians 14 as the justification for the practice. In particular, verses 14 through 17 play an integral role in such an interpretation. Paul writes in these verses: For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.
The issue of prayer, of course, is center stage in the discussion. With that reminder, A.T. Robertson asserts, “Paul is distinctly in favour of the use of the intellect in prayer. Prayer is an intelligent exercise of the mind…. There was ecstatic singing like the rhapsody of some prayers without intelligent words. But Paul prefers singing that reaches the intellect as well as stirs the emotions.”
Using the same line of reasoning, John MacArthur contends this passage discourages any prayer language, because “[t]he type of tongues the Corinthians practiced had no edifying value at all.” His argument is based on certain principles in the text, including:
1) Prayer is always intelligible. “I believe a better translation, however, is ‘to a god’…. The translation here of ‘a god’ is supported by the fact that the Bible records no instance of believers speaking to God in anything but normal, intelligible language…. His reference included the repetitious and unintelligible gibberish of pagan tongues-speaking, in which certain meaningless sounds were repeated over and over again.”
2) Without interpretation, private prayer language is useless. “Because even true tongues must be interpreted in order to be understood, they cannot possibly edify anyone, including the person speaking, without such interpretation. They cannot, therefore, be intended by God for private devotional use, as many Pentecostals and charismatics claim.”
3) Spiritual gifts are for the edification of the body. “The purpose of gifts, Paul was saying, is to minister for God but not to God….’ To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good’ (12:7)”
In early church history, most of the church fathers would agree with MacArthur’s conclusions. Ambrosiaster, a proconsul in Africa in the mid-fourth century, whose commentary was used by Augustine, remarked on verse fourteen by asking the rhetorical question: “What can a person achieve if he does not know what he is saying?” John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), the Eastern bishop nicknamed “Golden Mouth” for his homiletical prowess, affirmed Ambrosiaster’s sentiment, exclaiming, “Paul does not forbid speaking in tongues, however much he may belittle the gift, but he insists that it be kept under control and used for the edification of the whole church.”
In the end, one must recognize that Paul was engaging practices within the local congregation at Corinth. He was not issuing statements on any private consideration, but was referring to the need for balance found in the fact that all spiritual gifts are for the common good, not for self-edification (1 Corinthians 12:7). Indeed, this passage, which has been used by some to justify a private prayer language, actually argues against such practice. First, Paul affirms that he will pray both in the Spirit and in understanding. But a prayer language cannot accomplish the latter. One would have to claim that Paul was discussing two different types of prayer in the passage, an argument from silence at best, and an argument which has no confirmation in any other New Testament passage. Second, the prayer in the context of the passage was given for the benefit and affirmation of the congregation. That is why they say “Amen.” Yet, a private prayer language cannot grant this blessing. Finally, tongues in the form of a private prayer language would be singled out as the only spiritual gift listed that has a personal use outside the body of Christ. Can anyone imagine prophesying privately? Or, teaching privately? Or, giving privately? Or, leading privately? Or, helping privately? Or, evangelizing privately?
Evangelical Ecumenism, Southern Baptists, and the Need for Prevention
The contemporary phenomenon of speaking in tongues, along with other Charismatic practices has infiltrated every major denomination in America, including Southern Baptist life. With historical origins of the Charismatic movement beginning in the 1960s, many believers, regardless of church affiliation, “started seeking all the spiritual gifts mentioned in the New Testament.” One need look no further than at examples such as Abba’s House in Hixon, Tennessee, a church led by Southern Baptist pastor Ron Phillips that holds charismatic conferences annually praying that many Southern Baptists will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Charismatic influence has also arisen in academic circles through scholarly books, such as Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994). In that text, Grudem, a Reformed Charismatic, grants a sympathetic hearing for a Charismatic interpretation of spiritual gifts. In fact, it is quite telling that less than a generation ago, most Southern Baptist seminarians were using more traditional Baptist texts like Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology (Baker, 1983). Unfortunately, that is not the case today.
Noting the paradigm shift, one cannot overlook the momentum the Charismatic movement is having on Evangelical life. Yet, Southern Baptists remain very uncomfortable with Charismatic practices, especially when they note the weak epistemology of experientialism latent within the movement. For the most part, Southern Baptists have reacted negatively to inroads Charismatics have forced into the local Baptist churches. This response is largely due to the novel interpretation of how such gifts should be used and the excesses generated. The Southern Baptist response toward the Charismatic movement has always been extremely cautious.
Yet, the question must be asked, “Should Southern Baptists acquiesce in their policies due to the claims of a few who practice some or all of these Charismatic gifts? From the perspective of a pastor, one should answer “no.” A pastor leads his flock by preaching the Word of God as faithfully as he can. When the pastor comes across certain issues in the Scripture which are highly controversial, he must teach his congregation to uphold theological parameters that he deems most faithful to the biblical texts. Though some godly Christians in his congregation may reasonably disagree, his position should remain unchanged unless he is convinced otherwise from Scripture.
For most Southern Baptists, there is little or no compelling evidence that tongues as practiced by the Charismatic movement has any basis in Scripture. Since we are a people of the Book, whose authority must be guided by what the Scripture says, we have a weighty obligation to uphold the principles in the Word of God in every one of our policies. The first generation of the Conservative Resurgence focused upon the inerrancy of the Bible, a battle which has been victorious for more than 25 years. But the second generation of the Resurgence must spotlight the sufficiency of Scripture in our lives and in our policies. Ultimately, Southern Baptists must remember that truth is eternally vigilant and hence, as soldiers of the Lord, we must always be ready to stand for truth.
Truth is immortal.
Dr. Emir Caner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
Brad,
Thanks for posting Dr. Caner’s excellent white paper for all to read. Although I was too young to attend the SBC in 1987, it appears that the tactics employed by the moderates, liberals, and charismatics have changed little over the past two decades. Interestingly, it is the response of theological conservatives that appears to have changed. Then again, perhaps it is only the response of some who claim to be theological “conservatives” that has actually changed. Many of those who have complained about the IMB policy and SWBTS recent statement are the usual suspects – a small group, affectionately known as the Burleson-Blogger coalition, of bloggers led by a disgruntled IMB Trustee from Oklahoma: Wade Burleson.
1. Burleson has admitted signed the BF&M “with a couple of written caveats.” By the way, a “caveat” is a modifying detail – a stipulation or a provision which clearly denotes that one’s affirmation is conditional and therefore not in complete agreement with as written. Interestingly, the Latin “cavere” means “warning” or more literally “let him beware.” This would seemingly be an appropriate word of caution for conservative Southern Baptists which have historically believed in, and practiced, doctrinal accountability.
2. Burleson has also stated that he considers some individuals as “conservatives” even though they do not affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. By the way, there are no fundamentals of the faith IF the Bible contains errors. Thus, those who cannot affirm the inerrancy of the Bible are not theological conservatives at all.
3. Burleson has also stated that there were only “about four or five people in leadership positions at our seminaries that needed to be dealt with” leading up to, and during the early stages of, the Conservative Resurgence. Perhaps the vast majority of seminary faculty and administrators were some of those “conservatives” that do NOT affirm the inerrancy of the Bible :0) or :0( - whichever is more appropriate.
Why was there no uproar among conservatives when NAMB adopted a similar policy in 1987?
1. Theological Conservatives in the SBC do not have a problem with honestly and wholeheartedly affirming a) the inerrancy of the Bible, and b) the BF&M.
2. Theological Conservatives in the SBC have never endorsed or advocated the Neo-Charismatic/Pentecostal belief, and practice, misfortunately referenced as “speaking in tongues” – a.k.a. gibberish.
I submit that theological conservatives in the SBC have neither changed their stance nor abandoned the inerrant and sufficient Word of God. Rather, we are only continuing to stand where we have always stood! Other “conservatives” such as Burleson, and no doubt others in the Burleson-Blogger coalition, could more accurately be described as theological moderates.
Thanks again and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Brad,
Thanks for publishing this paper. This expresses my view completely.
Regards,
Les
Brad,
First, I love Dr. Caner, I love his ministry, and I am happy to call him a brother. May God bless his ministry.
Regarding this paper, I have a couple of observations.
1. As Baptists, we must never lose sight that we have a long history of being “people of the book.” We have cast aside tradition to fully reform, unlike our other reformation brothers. This being said, any argument based on tradition and the way we’ve always done it, rings hollow in my ears. We are a body that was formed by people who in part wanted to protect the right of slave owners to be missionaries. SB's in the South have a long history of racism and segregation. Tradition and the way we’ve done it has no authority. All the talk of the way SB's have been in the past has no authority in and of its own. Sola Scriptura.
2. I think it was very unscholarly for Dr Caner to say,
“A mature Christian clearly knows that this problem is not simply an argument over Paul’s command to “not forbid the speaking of tongues.”
This Is a faulty argument and very disingenuous to those who hold to a different view then him. There is a name for this kind of faulty argument, and in blog-land when one tries to employ this kind of tactic, they are quickly called for it (I have and have become, hopefully, more graceful in my dialogues because of it)
In light of the fact that most people who disagree with some of the recent decisions of BOT’s policies concerning tongues, do so precisely because they think this applies, to simply call them "immature" is disingenuous andunscholarly. Let me use this argument: “A Spiritual Christian clearly knows that it is wrong to forbid missionaries from practicing a private prayer language.” It wouldn’t fly for me, and it does not fly for Dr. Caner.
I think that we all know everything that Dr. Caner had to say about our history and this point of view of the text. The real issue is, Paul knew they were wrong. Paul severly restricted them, yet Paul stopped short of forbidding them the practice. Call me immature are what ever other name you want, but I still am uncomfortable in going farther then Paul did concerning this issue.
Blessings
Timothy
Thanks for the post, Brad, although I must admit I really just skimmed over it. One part did catch my eye:
Autonomy is another issue that must be addressed. Not only is each church autonomous, but every association, every state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention are autonomous as well.
I don't know if I understand this. Please give me a little more insight into the autonomy of the associations and conventions. It is my understanding (which has been upgraded and corrected often) that the associations and conventions are servants of the churches. The decisions made at these associations and conventions are made by the local churches who choose to participate. Again, I was always led to believe that the associations, conventions, and, for that matter, seminaries, mission boards, etc. were all arms of and subservient(sp?) to the local churches, who fund all of their efforts through the CP.
If this autonomy of associations and conventions is correct, I am troubled by the potential lack of accountability to the churches who fund them.
JLG
Good insights. I think one will be hard pressed to find a scholar before the Azusa Street pentecostal movement who spoke of a PPL in Scripture.
BR
Rob
I would never ever try to answer for Dr. Caner for numerous reasons not the least of which, his intellectual prowess is something I will admire but never attain.
Having said that, let me state my take on it. Churches are autonomous from someone telling them what to do...but the members of the church make its desicions. Associations are autonomous from having a heirarchical board telling them what to do but they are ruled by the churches (members) in them. The SBC is autonomous from having a ruling board or pope over it but it is ruled by the churches (members) in it.
Hope this helps
BR
Timothy
Point made and recieved, however, I am curious (I really don't know I am no historian) do you know of any NT scholar before the Azusa Street Revival who held to a PPL?
If not, or if there are very very few before the revival but vast numbers after then it sounds to me like the authority for PPL is more pragmatic than Scriptural.
BR
Great posts. Funny how people will totally try to rewrite history via stories and broad exagerations. Dr. Caner has put this issue clearly on the table hostorically and I also think he has turned the light on concerning true SBC Conservative Stances of the past thus showing that there is no narrowing of the SBC taking place. Excellent post and paper!!!
Excellent!
Hi Brad,
I did not read Dr. Caner’s statement regarding “do not forbid speaking in tongues” and “immaturity” in such a way as to conclude that he was unimpressed with the clear authority of the 1 Cor. 14 passage. Rather, I think the issue is broader than the referenced passage “alone”. One cannot honestly apply the passage to the practice until one can verify that the practice is, indeed, glossolalia. The new IMB policy addresses this in part by stating that “private prayer language” is not biblical glossolalia.
Regarding autonomy and accountability; the larger entities are accountable to the messengers of the churches when the messengers are gathered in the proper forum at the proper time. No church, association, convention, or other entity is accountable to the individual alone. Neither are the larger entities accountable to the individual church. A proper majority of the messengers (simple majority, 2/3 majority, etc.) must officially express their desire before the larger entity must comply.
Individual inquiries and recommendations directed toward churches, associations, conventions and etc. are individually considered out of Christian virtue. Individuals demanding personal accountability are just “demanding”.
great post! dr. caner hits the nail squarely on the head.
volfan007
Brother Brad,
Doesn't the opening paragraph give proof to the saying, "those that forget history doom themselves to repeat it?"
Also, if you want to see some interesting arguments, research the arguments given then by BP, Western Recorder, Biblical Recorder and others. You will note the same alarms sounded then as you hear now.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
If "yesterday" an M candidate was allowed to practice a PPL, and now a candidate is not allowed that same practice, then Yes this is an exclusion, narrowing, or whatever other synonym you want to call it.
I do not fault Wade for speaking out about this. It flys in the face of the practice of the sitting President of the IMB.
Is it out of line of what has been the "majority" thought and practice of SB's? No.
But in this case, (IMB) there was a change of course, and it will affect some in the SBC. And to use Dr. Caner's logic, I say, "A mature christian clearly knows that this is the case:)"
Brad,
You can google the history of "tongues" and find all kinds of information. Certainly, there is no indication that this practice has ever been normative in the life of the church, in my opinion, even from Acts up until the 19th century. There have been various sects and unusual descriptions of people practicing or experiencing an emotional phenomenom that is ecstatic in nature, at different times throughout the history of the church. There have been those who it is documented or said that they were miraculously able to speak or write in a known language previously unknown to them. I thinnk if this truly occurred we would all say this is the "real" tongues of Acts 2. Also it has been noted that at times there were those who were "heard" in the audiences own language, although the speaker did not know the language. Again we would say praise the Lord to this.
The history of "ecstatic utterances" is even less seen but has been present at various times in history. It has been seen by many as anything ranging from, Spiritual to Emotional to even Demonic.
We all must admit that now at the year 2006, the Charismatic persuasion, in the last 100 years, has literally filled the world with their teaching. It is not going away.
I feel that same way about this issue that Dr. Patterson previously has expressed in his commentary:
"The Troubled Triumphant Church: An Exposition of First Corinthians,”
1. He recognizes that the Corinthians were using ecstatic utterances, pg 246, pg 252.
2. On page 268-269, dealing with 1 Corinthians 14:39: (word for word from Dr. P)
"14:39 Paul then arrived at the conclusion of the whole matter. The church was to covet the gift of prophecy and was not to forbid speaking with tongues. “Forbid” (Koluo) means to “hinder,” “restrain,” or “prevent.” The statement once again emphasizes the relative unimportance of tongues in comparison with prophecy. However, the Corinthians were not to prevent speaking with tongues. Precisely what Paul meant by this must be understood in light of the total emphasis of chapter 14. The Corinthian effort at tongues had been reduced in every conceivable way to a position of relative unimportance."
"In addition to this, six principles governing the use of tongues in the Corinthian congregation have already been given, and a seventh will follow in the last verse. These principles effectively circumscribe the use of tongues altogether in the assembly of believers. Nevertheless, for two reasons Paul said that tongues are not to be forbidden. First, he had already allowed that if one engaged in ecstatic utterance in privacy, while there was no real significance, edification, or meaning to be found in it, it was not thereby evil or wrong. That private experience might be permitted to the person. In the second place, Paul knew that the Acts phenomenon of speaking the wonderful works of God in a language in which the speaker was untutored had really happened. Furthermore, Paul knew that under the right circumstances it might happen again. The necessity for the revival of these sign gifts such as tongues seems to be unlikely, but Paul did allow the possibility"
In conclusion, Dr. P, said, it is a copy of what happenend on Pentecost, it is not harmful, and according to Paul, it should not be forbidden, but severly restricted.
I wish the IMB would follow Dr.P's reasoning on this:)
Timothy
Jim
Dr. Mohler, Dr. Akin, Dr. Patterson, see no problems between the BFM2K and the Abstract otherwise they would not have signed them. Furthermore, if one must hold to one and it contradicts the other then every professor at SE and Southern has lied about affirming them both (quite an accusation). Finally, even if they were contradictory (which theologians have shown they are not) whose to say one shouldn’t affirm the BFM2K over the Abstract, after all the BFM2K is the ruling document over ALL SB agencies and seminaries are SB agencies. It is this lack of theological understanding which further questions the entire blog you referenced. While Wade sees a problem I will tend to side with these known theological scholars rather than him.
Further, while we are on the subject, I did not even know he had posted this. I am through reading his blog. The inconsistencies of claiming he holds to all points of the bfm2k and then denies one after another creates no small problem for me and I am washing my hands of it. I will deal with issues here, but I have no time for such duplicity.
Thus, Bear thanks for your concerns, but let’s let Wade stay on Wade’s blog…we will deal with issues not personalities here.
BR
Timothy
I asked about the history of PPL not ecstatic utterances. Ecstatic utterances can be traced to some of the early cults in the church, but I am not familiar with PPL being a part of biblical discussion before the 20th century (although I could be wrong). Further, the practice of someone (no matter who they are) should have nothing to do with setting doctrinal policy.
You are right concerning Dr. Patterson, in fact, these individuals who are claiming he is a full cessationists reveal their ignorance of his position. But he certainly sees the abuses of it and even recognizes those abuse in Corinth. Dr. Yarnell’s paper will help us here
Thanks for your continued kind spirit as we disagree.
BR
Tim
Great insights and thanks for the historical heads up.
BR
Jeffro
Just because Dr. MacArthur is right on alcohol and tongues doesn't make him right on every issue:)
As great of a man of God as he is...and He is! He is not inerrant...nor are any of us...which is why we are hopefully using this atmosphere to learn.
BR
Jerry
Thank you so much. You make some EXCELLENT points in your comment which I agree with.
BR
Bear
CB is a good man who is an inerrantist and conservative. I think he has been hood-winked by some. But I also think he has seen some of their tendencies coming out. In fact, he has addressed them. I think they will court him and try to keep them in their camp but I know CB and I feel certain he will see through what is going on. He is a rock-solid conservative who loves Jesus.
By the way, CB, we need to start thinking about the upcoming election and getting the vote out. I encourage all to vote PRO-LIFE
BR
CB
One more note...You have a great post on Alcohol. well done my brother.
BR
Jim
Not necessarily. I don’t assume that original sin at birth nullifies age of accountability (Millard Erickson has an excellent comment on this in his systematic theology). In fact, the whole point of age of accountability has to do with the sin nature of all.
Moreover, some would argue that they become capable of moral action at birth (hence original sin at birth in the BFM). And Furthermore, the sentence before the one you speak of states that man inherits sin nature (I think it is clear we inherit that even before birth (when we are formed in the womb – the same time we inherit other characteristics from our parents)
I do have a problem with a professor or Trustee who cannot affirm all of the BFM, if you can’t then don’t sign it saying you can (that is what the liberals did). Further, I have a problem with a prof at SE or Southern signing the Abstract if they can’t affirm it all.
If you can’t sign them in good conscience don’t sign them!!! It is hypocritical to sign them and a year later say “I really don’t affirm them and I think they have some errors!
I think you and I will kindly but firmly disagree here.
BR
Jim
I like your humor:)
I also like Dr. Grudem's theology book. I am currently reading through it again, but I do like erickson's better (personal preference).
Thank God for both of these men.
BR
Brad,
For many years of pastoring,long before and during the resurgence, I always led our congregation to affirm two things in the opening of our constitution and bylaws. One was a...commitment to the holding of the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, and inerrant in the original manuscripts, Word of God. [This being important because a confidence in the inerrancy of those original documents gave cause to seriously translate from the earliest manuscripts we have to get the best translations.]
A second was a...commitment to the BF@M INSOFAR as and as LONG as it was and remained true to the text of the scripture. This permitted us to differ with a minor point or two without being arumentative or being unbaptistic about it. This also allowed our folks to see the difference in the authority and nature of the BF@M in relation to the Scriptures themselves.
We believed this gave guidance to the people to practice their study of the Word with real conviction as to it's integrity and to appreciate our Baptist doctrinal heritage without elevating it to a level of sacredness reserved for Scripture alone.
I think personally that that is a good way to hold both in proper appreciation.
Paul B.
G'day Brad
I think you are right about "Wade's Way". He changes the focus of the dialogue when it suits him. One would have to ask, what is his agenda?
Wade commented:
"People are realizing what is happening, including you.
People better realize, right now, that a doctrinal interpretation that is historically Fundamenatlist (with a capital F), is being imposed on the SBC.
I would disagree with any such move you describe, but it is happening, and it will happen, unless people like you and other Southern Baptists put a stop to it."
Its the "us and them" conspiracy theory again.
Again Wade comments:
"Just wait. This is just the beginning."
ColinM asks at the appropriate juncture:
"p.s. you have alluded many times to 2 issues you say are "next." If tongues isn't the issue, but a prelude, what do you forsee this leading to? "
so that Wade can reply:
"The two issues coming down the pike next are ecclesiology and soteriology --- 'your church must look like our church (government, closed communion, etc . . .) and your pastor must not teach the doctrines of grace' or your church is not a 'true' Southern Baptist Church. "
Is Wade's agenda to split the SBC along reformed / non reformed lines?
Is he positioning himself as the next pope of reformed thought (even though he is not as academically qualified as he should be to fill this role)?
This sure look like set pieces and set plays.
its , 'guys ask me the right questions now so I can put out the spin that I am a thorough-going conservative to garner the vote.'
Theological dialogue has been replaced by the Pied Piper spinning things Wade's Way.
Wade may accuse me of being harsh here or unloving. As an outsider to the SBC, but one who has a great affection for what you have acheived during the conservative resurgence,
and as one who, while on a month's break has enjoyed the theological discussions, I am concerned because it appears to me that Wade is making a play right now.
I am concerned that, because I am reformed, I see Wade cooking for a split in the SBC.
Steve
Paul
You and I agree:)
My only caveat...is that if you sign something and affirm you must agree to it in its totality. To not do so opens the dorr for liberals again to sign something they can't affirm.
BR
Steve
Good thoughts.
These guys who claim we are narrowing the tent and its going to get worst. They never give any evidence. And then the idiocy of saying we will move to ecclesiology and soteriology (ie – Calvinism) is almost unbelievable. Now while I think there are some in the convention who want us to be a Calvinists Convention, most Calvinists aren’t extreme like that and I know of NO LEADER who desires us to move the direction Wade is claiming.
Sometimes I feel these conspiracy theorists have watched to many X-files. They just claim something is happening as fact and present NO evidence and then expect people to believe them…sadly there are some conspiracy theorists who are believing them but most SB see through this political scare tactic, which the democrats have oft used.
PS – I have asked for evidence for accusations like this dating back to May. Interesting he has given NONE. I think the bloggers who state “don’t accuse people without evidence” and then they turn around and do so reveal their duplicity so loudly that they are losing credibility.
BR
Wade
Welcome back.
You have a good point about his measuring your motives. However, I think he couched it in “his perspective” because he said time and again “it looks like” and “I see.”
But let me encourage everyone to be more kind concerning “personalities.” Let’s try and stick to issues, here.
While I have cleaned up this blog by modifying comments, I have allowed some to slide because of the content contained (good content tainted by some personal attacks). I have found that very very few are able to address issues without personalities and I must confess I struggle also and must constantly be vigilant. Thus it becomes very subjective, but by in large the bloggers here have been very kind to each other for the past week.
Having said that, I ask you, do you have any evidence that the leaders of the SBC have a plan to narrow the tent from tongues to ecclesiology and finally to soteriology, especially 5 point Calvinism? If not then are you not making accusations against a structure, which are not true?
Also, now that you are here, let me ask you about the way you characterized a professor from SE seminary on your blog today when you called him inconsistent. Were you speaking of me? And if so, would you not also be speaking to everyone who signed both documents, including the Presidents of the seminary. I ask you to correct your post. Dr. Mohler sees no contradiction in the two documents, nor do the majority of professors who signed them both and too imply that they are inconsistent is wrong and in my opinion unChristlike. I assure you the integrity of my colleagues would keep them from signing something they could not wholly affirm (BFM and Abstract). Thank you for your attention to this on your blog my brother.
BR
Wade
I also wanted you to know if you were speaking of me I have no hard feelings for your accusation of inconsistency. As the Lord is my witness, you are truly forgiven before you even ask. While we disagree strongly on some issues I consider you my brother and thus when it comes to being a part of God's family we are together.
Win the world and anonymous,
Please rephrase your comments and I will be glad to post them. I just finished reminding everyone to try and stick to issues without personal attacks...let me also say we need to be more Christlike.
Thank You
BR
sbc pastor
Your lasts two posts have been very good reads, as has Les Puryears latest post.
BR
Billy Bear,
Even though I believe you to be a great faker I am fasinated with your boldness to keep it up.
I would like to meet you. We are both in AL. Let me know where you live and I will visit you. You have my email address.
Don't worry I have not smuggled wild game animals since I got saved many years ago. Your friend 'Coon Transporter made reference of that in my past once on Brad's blog.
I will have no traps, or bear lures, darts or honey bees:-)
As far as chittlins? I have eaten the guts of many things other than hogs in my days so I will be glad to dine with you on my dime. Throw in a little beef tripe and chicken gizzards and we will make it a feast.
Feel free to bring body guards so you will feel comfortable. I would like to meet where there is a tree line so if I do backslide and bring a shooter and a spotter they will have a way of escape:-) Just joking.
I could not resist. Although my bulldogs would love to have a big bear hide to lay on.
Seriously, I would like to meet you so email me and we can set up the hunt...I mean the visit:-)
cb
Brad,
Thanks for your encouragement and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Jim Champion,
In regard to your question and comment:
JC: “JLG, Wade articulates one of his caveats with the BFM 2000 in his post today. He subscribes to the definition of Man in the Abstract that Brad had to sign to teach at SEBTS that is in conflict with the definition of man in the BFM 2000. I would be interested to know which Brad is most in agreement with, and did he have to sign with a caveat in order to sign both? If Brad (or any other Southern or SEBTS proff) had to sign with a caveat will you drop the broken record?”
I, personally, do not believe that the two statements contradict one another. As Brad has already noted, Drs. Mohler, Akin, and Patterson obviously do not believe them to be at odds either. My concern is that one of our trustees, Wade Burleson, has “affirmed” the BF&M in spite of his numerous written and unwritten caveats and has stated that it is “in error.” Thus, it appears that he has compromised his integrity by signing and “affirming” it. Furthermore, his action – if allowed to stand – will serve as a serious wound to doctrinal accountability in the SBC. This is a very serious matter and I truly hope and pray that Burleson will do the honorable thing and resign. If he does not, then the SBC will be forced to handle the matter at next year’s convention.
In regard to your comment to Brad:
“I personally stay away from JLG's blog because he does not allow comments and seems to regurgitate only what other people say.”
Your subscription is now cancelled :o). Please do not return to sbcpastor.blogspot.com – ‘the home of theological conservativism in the blogosphere.’
God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Bear
I love you my friend...but you pushed the limits...at first I published your comment, but I am not sure it had the spirit of Christ in it, so I removed it. You make some good points but please try to do it without the rhetoric. I am saving you from hearing all kinds of ugly things.
God Bless
BR
You know Brad--and don't fall out or anything here--I agreed with a lot of what you said in that post. I even agreed with some of the comments posted here. (until I got down to that part about "agreeing" and "signing" again. ;-) Anyway...) I am disappointed to see that tongues have any traction in the SBC considering how many churches the practice has split through the years.
I would also like to thank you for allowing comments and discussion on the things you post--which generally seem to be controversial. That takes courage and I appreciate it.
Josh
There is no difference in the substance of the BF&M 63 or 2000 and the Abstract relating to anthropology.
The verbage is different. The substance is the same. Great theologians have questioned this and concluded there is no substantial difference to warrant a revision of either.
cb
Sirs, good discussion.
I demonstrated elsewhere that he two statements about man, one from the Abstract and the other from the BF&M, say the same thing. However, this is the same thing they say: All men are condemned at birth because of Adam's sin, regardless of when they become "transgressors". It seems to me that one could not hold to the position of an infant being innocent and sign both documents. Some say there is room for both interpretations, but that calls into question the integrity of the signer and veracity of the documents.
Is this an accurate assessment? If so, are there in fact men that have signed both documents that differ on this interpretation?
Bear
I published your comment this time but I want everyone to know I don't agree with you entirely here. And don't be surprised if some get upset with you. I warned you that you are asking for trouble. Finally, I think I told you earlier I really don't want this to be a bashing blog. I will not show the same grace in the future and I may still end up removing it again...I've read over it 4 times and think you could have been much kinder to those who disagree with you although you didn't attack anyone by name.
BR
Billy Bear,
You truly are a hoot!! Your comment about San Antonio is classic.
If it is Ok with you I will take a "stab" at "skinning" your questions to Wade since he, by your sentiment, seems to be my Pope. I beg Wade to correct me if I speak in error of him in my humble "shot" at hitting the "target" in his place.
1 Wade takes all pastors seriously as he does "preditors" within the animal kingdom.
2a Wade does not believe two or more interpretations are always valid. Consider "windage and elevation", for example. That must be without variance for a "one-shot-one-kill" effort.
2b Wade most certainly does not condone homosexuality as proper before God or mankind. I think it is as odd to him as a "talking animal"
3 Wade will have to "field dress" this one for himself since that would vary from person to person as to how they "cut up the important parts"
Billy Bear, your comment about San Antonio is classic.
It also brings to "BEAR" the fact that you really are a faker. Only a very knowledgeable guy with an "accurate scope" of things in the SBC sub culture could have made that kind of "shot" with such confidence that the "target" would be hit. Don't tell me Lenny did it.
It sounds more like you had lunch with the famous "safari guide",,,,BENJAMIN S. COLE of Texas fame as the greatest "big game hunter" alive in the SBC today.
I still want to meet you. Email me your ideas of a good place and time. I promise not to bring gunmen along. I will bring one bulldog.
My little girls ride him in the back yard because he is as big as a small pony. I bet your little girl would love to ride him. He is great with children, but he is rather rough on wild beast if they get out of hand:-)
cb
Josh
All comments are welcome here and you are right sometimes that can get sticky. As you know, you and I have not always agreed:), but I honestly try to answer all questions straight-forwardly. Truth should never run and if you or I think we know the truth on an issue we should never hide (and we don’t:)
However, apparently some blogs don’t post all the comments submitted even though they are kind. I think CB can even speak to that.
Anyway, thanks for your views they are needed and helpful.
BR
Colinm
Great insights…and I would have to agree if one believes that one is born without a sin nature and only receives it at an age of accountability then that would certainly create problems with the Abstract.
BR
Bear and all
I am fine with you commenting I just think we can disagree with kind spirits. A beautiful illustration of such is Dr. Ted Traylor. He preached an excellent message in chapel today at SEBTS (available online) wherein he warned against extreme charismatics, extreme calvinists, extreme conventionists (those who believe one must give 10% in order to be a good Southern Baptists. I think those were some of your concerns, perhaps you could listen to Dr. Traylor’s message and gain wisdom on ow to express your concerns in a more kind manner. Your concerns a valid though.
BR
Bear
One comment kept me from posting your reply...please rework any implication concerning acceptance of homosexuality. I know you are responding to CB's defense of Wade but I really don't like that rabbit being chased here...other than that I will be glad to publish your comment
BR
All,
Wes Kenney has posted well on his blog concerning the "TENT"
weskenney.net
Called Acording
Bear
I haven't read Wade's blog and I have no concerns about what he is saying...so there is no desire to resign and I love NC and especially SE. Dr. Caner is a ood friend of mine and I miss him but we will spend eternity together, until then he has work to do in Texas and I in NC
BR
CB
You are right about Wes's blog...an excellent post. I will reserve my comments. However, I think I am seeing you taking Wade to task on some things. I know you well enough to know if you see theological error you will address it even if it is with a good friend. Thanks for your stand for truth.
TO ALL
Having said all of that, folks let's let Wade be Wade...this is the second time on this post that I am asking us to stick to the PPL issue without involving personalities.
Thanks
BR
Bear
I went and read the blog...a couple of things to note. First I will let far greater men than I address the first two issues (the just for fun ones), however I have a feeling they won't waste their time. In regard to his interpretation of the third point the Abstract says "foreseen merit" not "foreseen anything." Great theologians have debated whether faith is a meritous work. I believe it is not. Now while I am not saying where I stand on the issue (although I feel I would be more Calvinistic than some of my colleagues), I am saying he has some obvious oversights in his understanding and application.
The big problem is, to rephrase Dr. Criswell, "Who is inspired to spot the non-essentials." Herein, lies my problem, will we have a vote on the floor of the convention over what is and is not non-essential (popular opinion) or do we trust the leadership to tell us or do we just let indivdual professors decide what they think is essential and non-essential...this tent will become so big that liberals are teaching again in our seminaries because they feel the "virgin birth" is a non-essential. Herein, lies the lack of integrity and problems of anyone who signs the Abstract or BFM with caveats.
I hope this helps you understand better...but please don't assume their will be mass-exoduses. Great Theologians like Dr. Mohler and my president have signed these documents with no caveats and have seen no problems and have even made clear a 3 point Calvinists can sign the Abstract without caveats. These men are THEOLOGIANS.
BR
Billy Bear,
If Brad will allow me I will try to answer you from my heart as well as the vile thing called a heart within me will permit.
If Brad feels this is too much I certainly understand.
I know Wade would never have a lax position relating the sin of homosexuality. I stand up for him and others falsely accused of such due to having had a falsehood directed at me once about such a filthy thing.
Years ago I got very sick. I was close to cashing in for a while. During that time I lost much muscle mass.( I once had a 52 inch chest and a 36 inch waist) I looked like I had been pulled through a key hole.
A very liberal pastor in the area that I had done much battle with back in the day got a rumor started that I had Aids due to how I looked.
My wife did not tell me about it because she knew that even though I was on my sick bed I would have gotten up and stomped a mudhole in that boy hip and thigh if it was my last living act.
This pastor must have spoken this trash around his sons. One of his boys went to school with one of mine.
What happened was not truly fair, but it happened anyway. All my children have been taught to fight with skills far beyond what most school boys are taught at that age.
The liberal pastor's boy told my boy I had Aids and called me a...
...well.. lets say a gay guy. My boy beat him without mercy and did some serious damage to him. Now, I hate that he was hurt so bad but I have to say my children have been taught to stand for their family against any and all and get the job done fast, hard, and over.
Well when I heard about all of this it did hurt me even though it was not true and no one that knew me would believe such of me. I was a tough man, but it still hurt me that my son got in trouble on my account.
So I have been very sensitive of others being labled as Sodomites or condoning such behavior since that time.
That is why I am so quick to take up Wade's part. I know he is pure in that area of his life and his family should not be made subject to such trashy slander against their husband and father.
Wade has refused to publish a few of my comments as have others. I must say that most are very gracious with me due to the fact that most of my comments are very pointed and have a certain degree of rawness that most comments do not have. You know exactly what I mean by that.
You will have to ask Wade why he does not publish yours. I have no idea and it is none of my business.
I do not think the boys at SEBTS have anything to worry about. Dr. Akin does not take his marching orders from Blog Town and he does not make decisions based on Wade's interpretation of the Abstract.
I do hope you reconsider lunch with me. I do respect you and am fascinated with your ability to down play that which is obviously such a brilliant mind.
Well, there you have my heart on these matters, Billy Bear. I hope you give it some thought.
cb
CB
Thanks for your words.
BR
hey, if we are tallking about going to eat...count me in too. if it aint too far from tn.
and, if the restaurant is worth it.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
Bear and ALL
One last thing, some bloggers claim that one cannot sign the Abstract unless they hold to at least 4 points of Calvinism.
This has created some to excuse their caveats by claiming professors have caveats also. Let me be clear. I have NO CAVEATS and believe that anyone who signs the Abstract or BFM2K and then says I don't agree with all of it, has integrity issues!!! I simply could not do that...I affirm all parts of both documents and will gladly defend my colleagues and say I am confident if they didn't agree with all of it, they would not have signed it...they are men and women of integrity!
As. Dr. Akin made clear in a message at Southern Seminary, (I believe the title was, "when one loves a theological system more than the saviour") he and Dr. Mohler agree the Abstract can be signed without any "caveats" by a 3 point Calvinists. Furthermore, Dr. Patterson, another great theologian affirms this.
I have made this clear on numerous occassions but some refuse to hear it or believe it because of their caveats or whatever blindspot they have.
Now were I the only one who claimed this, perhaps one might have an argument, but when the greatest theologians in our convention state this...well, I tend to trust these men more than some self-proclaimed blogger theologians.
BR
I'm game for some food:)
On a lighter side, bear, I wouldn't call watching my Cowboys lose on Sunday entertaining
BR
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Red Wine Cuts Risk of Colon Cancer
2. Fertility Problems Linked to Autism
3. CT Scans Can Catch Lung Cancer Early
4. ‘Sexsomniacs’ Puzzle Medical Researchers
5. The Supplements You Must Have to Stay Alive
1. Red Wine Cuts Risk of Colon Cancer
Enjoying a few glasses of red wine each week reduces your risk of developing colon cancer by more than two-thirds. A new study found that drinking more than three glasses of red wine each week drastically cuts the chances of developing abnormal growths and cancers of the intestinal tract. Drinking white wine did not have the same protective result.
Dr. Joseph C. Anderson, an assistant professor of medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook found that the incidence of cancers and polyps that have the potential for becoming cancerous, were 9.9 percent in teetotalers, 8.8 percent in those who drank three or more glasses of white wine each week, and 3.4 percent in those who drank three or more glasses of red wine each week — a 68 percent reduction.
Other studies have found that red wine is protective against various forms of cancer including leukemia, breast, and prostate. Anderson believes the protective agent is resveratrol, a phytochemical found under the skin of grapes that is removed early in the production of white wine but stays on long enough during the production of red wine for the resveratrol to become a part of the wine.
Brad,
Check out my latest post on PPL and tell me what you think.
www.pastormikehgbc.blogspot.com.
Serving Him,
Mike
Bro Robin
BINGO!
Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler are close friends. ANd I know Dr. Patterson was ecstatic when Dr. Mohler was named president of Southern. Dr. Patterson was my professor and Presdient for 7 years (4 at Criswell, 3 at SE). He taught us clearly the two streams of thought Charleston, Sandy Creek which flow into the river of SB.
It is simply a scare tactic that some are using to try and garner support for their agenda (whatever that is).
BR
Bro Mike
Excellent Post. As more and more voices like yours are heard, more and more truth will come out on this subject. I enjoyed the part anout 5 vs 1000 words.
BR
Anonymous,
Thank you for your information. As I read it grape juice would do the same as wine since the benefit is in the skin. Anyway, since you brought up statistics I am sure the Alcohol industry has plenty of funded studies to show the benefits but let’s look at some studies not funded by the alcohol industry or by those who partake. I think these will help convince open-minded individuals that there are other ways to gain the nutritional benefits that wine may give without the negative health affects it does give.
40% of all vehicle fatalities are alcohol related (MADD).
In Texas alone Alcohol-related accidents cost the taxpayers 10.3 BILLION dollars in 1999. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
The speed in which one drinks increases ones BAC. If just 10 ounces of wine is consumed over an extended period of an HOUR it will increase the average (200 lb) man’s BAC from .00 to .02. If it is 15 ounces it becomes .04. 20 ounces an hour = .06 (Michigan State University).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s study on impairment effects revealed that even at a BAC of .02 “the majority of participants were SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED…on important measures.” (National Highway Safety Administration). IN OTHER WORDS, JUST 10 OUNCES OF WINE CONSUMED IN AN HOUR WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR ONE’S DRIVING!
Study: Even one drink can be dangerous
SEATTLE, June 30 (UPI) -- A University of Washington study warns that even a single strong drink can make a person "blind drunk" and impair the drinker's driving abilities.
The study, appearing in Friday's issue of the Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, found that those who were mildly intoxicated -- which is half the legal intoxication limit -- were heavily compromised in their ability to notice an unexpected visual object while being focused on another simple task.
It has been known that the so-called "inattentional blindness" phenomenon causes salient objects appearing in the visual field to go undetected. But the current study seeks to show these visual errors become even more likely under the influence of alcohol.
The research did not directly test driving aptitude but noted implications for driving could be serious.
"We rely on our ability to perceive a multitude of information when we drive (speed limit, road signs, other cars)," said Seema Clifasefi, the study's lead author. "If even a mild dose of alcohol compromises our ability to take in some of this information ... then it seems likely that our driving ability may also be compromised."
UPI - United Press International” (available: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060630-105043-1132r)
“In Australia Dr. L. A. Cala and associates have for many years studied the effects of alcohol and the brain and its ability to function. To determine the point at which alcohol consumption begins brain damage, Cala examined heavy drinkers, using CAT scans, and found brain shrinkage already in progress. Using the same CAT scan procedure, she then examined a group of individuals considered to be moderate to light drinkers. Of thirty-nine drinkers tested, thirty were found to have some brain shrinkage, with frontal lobes bearing the first signs.
The reference to the frontal lobes is significant for it has been proved that decision making and moral value centers of the human character reside in the frontal lobes of the brain.
This confirms what Proverbs 31:4-5 had already told Bible believers, that alcoholic drinks (and as nothing is said of great quantities we may understand small amounts of alcohol) cause forgetfulness of the law and perverse judgments.” (Available: http://www.alcoholandthebible.org/biblical_approach.htm)
“Galen C. Bosley, D.H.Sc., has studied numerous medical reports published in journals in different countries showing that even moderate drinking of alcohol actually destroys brain cells which are never replaced. It is hard to see how anyone can contemplate the destruction of a part of his body with equanimity. When the part of the body first to be destroyed are cells in the brain controlling moral discernment the complacency of mankind about this wholesale destruction of human capacity is astounding.” (Reynolds, S - Available at http://www.alcoholandthebible.org/biblical_approach.htm)
Ethyl alcohol or ethanol, known commonly as alcohol, is the same whether the beverage is wine, beer, or hard liquor. Beverage alcohol is a drug that depresses the central nervous system, like barbiturates, sedatives, and anesthetics….Alcohol has no nutritional value….The brain, liver, heart, pancreas, lungs, kidneys, and every other organ and tissue system are infiltrated by alcohol within minutes after it passes into the blood stream…. Drugs such as marijuana and cocaine which are used, like alcohol, for "recreational" purposes have different, but similarly harmful, physical effects.” (Dunlap, 2001) available at http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/ETOHBIOFx.htm
Alcohol is classified as a depressant drug, because it will depress the body and the mind…unlike foods, alcohol does not have to be slowly digested. It is immediately absorbed into the blood…(which) rapidly carries it to the brain….Alcohol affects all parts of the brain which also affects the heart rate, coordination, speech, and destruction of brain cells.” (National Education Foundation of America, available at http://www.cnoa.org/N-02.pdf)
Hope this helps
BR
PS
For those who would deny these studies. Denial is the first sign of a problem:)
BR
Brad,
Another thing is that many young men after drinking hard the night before real combat had poor judgement in battle the next day and came home the next week to their mommas in body bags.
cb
Brother Brad,
In your reply to Anonymous (I do not know where his/her headlines came from, but I wonder why it puzzles researchers that sexmaniacs have insomnia) the research you give presents compelling evidence that alcohol is not something we should entertain.
Before I got saved I never went to the AA meetings. Therefore, I did not consider myself an alcoholic. (I was a drunk, but not an alcoholic) I would drink in moderation and slip into an over indulgent state every once in a while. Most of the over indulgent states would come on the weekends. After a while it turned into all weekend and then eventually people did not know I drank until they saw me sober and realized I was different from the last time they saw me. After salvation someone tried to get me to go to an AA meeting. I went to one and walked away confused. I am not putting down AA I am merely stating what I saw. At the meeting they encouraged us to look inside of ourselves and find what causes us to do these destructive behaviors. Once we found them we needed to find that higher power and depend on him/her/it whatever you called it. I left that meeting and God spoke to me that I did not need to seek a higher power. He delivered me from alcohol. Therefore, I do not consider myself a recovering alcoholic because the only disease I had was a sin disease.
I say all of this to remind everyone, I started drinking in moderation. I would have been accepted in some churches. As a matter of fact I sat on a bar stool with a Deacon as he and I shared a beer together and he explained to me how I needed to turn my life over to Jesus Christ. I remember saying to myself, this is the biggest hypocrite I have ever been around. And to make my case to myself I encouraged the girl I was with to make a pass at him. She did and he accepted because the 4th beer had lowered his defenses. I am not proud of this and God has forgiven me, but my point is you cannot find one good thing in alcohol as a social beverage. Even when the Dr.'s prescribe it for heart conditions, they fail to tell you that you can use grape juice to acheive the same medicinal effect.
Blessings,
Tim
ps Isn't if funny that a post on glossolalia turns to alcohol? If you have ever had someone with too much to drink try to explain something to you, you will appreciate the humor.
Bear
Once again you have a keen mind for truth and insights and your concerns a are valid. But I just can't post your last comment...please reword it keeping in mind my earlier recommendations
Bear half-truths are not truths. I saw what you are talking about and while this blogger claims Dr. Mohler claims the Abstract teaches 5 points of Calvinism he doesn't tell the whole story as he attaches ad hominem statements to his comment(which is becomming all too familar, but people are seeing through it). Dr. Mohler believes it teaches anywhere from 3 to 5 points, according to a message delivered by Dr. Akin in Southern's Chapel. I think Dr. Akin probably knows better than this blogger...but feel free to ask Dr. Mohler.
BR
back in my drinking, dope smoking days...i probably spoke in some tongues too. it was probably not godly tongues though.
brad,
i thought the same thing about wine and grape juice. you could drink grape juice, or eat a bunch of grapes and get the same medical benefits.
well, granpappy decided to not fire up the still, and he quit going to the pentecostal church after this discussion. now, he's gonna go southern baptist all the way.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
Bear
I published this last one, but you sure like walking on the line.
BR
bear,
thank you for your very candid, truthful way of saying things. you really lay it out there as it is.
overly friendly..lol...that's a good one.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
TN. Vol,
Your statement about juice from grapes to compliment what Brad said is true. You can throw in about eight ounces of grapefruit juice everyday and even do a better job. The effects are even better than the wine drinking and no where near as dangerous.
Billy Bear,
You told me your name was William Bear. Billy Bear is just short for your name and sounds very athletic.
You can call me anything you want except I would thank you not to call me cb the radio.:-)
When I worked with Brad I called him and the rest of the fellows HONEY, but I stopped because it made them nervous when when we ate lunch together:-)
I am glad you did the research so we can now all lay that to rest.
I think I did say Wade had refused to publish a few of my post, but so have other people. I do understand because most of my comments are very pointed and sometimes very "raw" as you have experienced.
A person can block what they wish on their blog. I do not allow anonymous comments on my blog and neither does my friend Villa Rica. That is our prerogative.
I can not answer for Wade for it is none of my business. It is his blog.
I support Wade as a trustee because our convention elected him and I feel that no independent group should be able to remove him or any other trustee. That is the work of the convention as a whole.
I have served as a trustee and I know how tough it would be if a small group that was mad at you could just throw you off. Most people would be afraid to carry out their trusteeship because they would be afraid of the embarrassment of being put off of an SBC board. Thinkl about how that would possibly affect the rest of your ministry and life.
You brought up Dan Vestal so I wll touch that just a little and hope you do not press me publicly about what I say. I will speak tp you privately over lunch all want:-)
Dan Vestal is not a classic liberal as we defined them back in the day. I think my memory serves me well in saying I only crossed swords with him twice.
Dan Vestal is what we used to call a loyalist. You may or may not know that his dad was a great evangelist of a past generation. He was no liberal in any definition. His son fell otward the loyalist position so I, personally would not call him a liberal. I have learned to be careful with that word and when I use it I mean it.
Reconsider lunch and I will tell you my real name.
cb
Brad,
I see my name being mentioned here and all the innuendoes being said. I have given you my word and I would Pray you would keep your word on these comments. CB is a True Blue Brother and You personally know CB. I believe some people that comment on this Blog only misrepresent Who and What they are about. Claiming to be Men of God and when push comes to shove, they don’t want to meet Face to Face. I trust that you will address these issues, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Wayne
I agree. Billy bear is pushing the envelope I have refused about 4 comments of his. I think he means well with his content he is just having a tough time leaving personalities out...but then again there are a lot of blogs who seem to be into attacking others.
BR
Brad,
I don't think you read my comment? Are you good for your word?
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Wayne
I have bent over backwards to appease you numerous times. I have kept bear from posting comments. Perhaps you can express your same concerns about people being Unchristlike in their comments on other blogs you participate in. I have kept my word...but I will not make everyone happy. I know Bear is not happy with all my decisions and I know you are not. I apologize and am doing the best I can and trying to remain fair...you are the only one who continues to pursue me, and my friend I appreciate your concern for me but please know I am trying to please Christ and maintain an open dialogue on my blogs...but I am not as concerned about pleasing man. I hope you understand.
God Bless You
BR
Brad,
In my way of thinking that is a Cop Out. I gave my word and shut down a Blog and you were going to review all of the comments. AGREE
I have not posted any comments, other than to Thank you and Thank A true Blue Brother that e-mailed me, CB Scott. You did not post that comment and I said nothing About it, other than wondering why you didn't want anyone to see it. Now my name appears again on your Blog with reference to the same Group that Lied and Slandered Brothers in Christ. And you allow that comment to stand.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Wayne
I am not sure who brought up the converation you reference CB or Bear. But I know they have been discussing it back and forth for a while. I have posted all of CB's comments with the exception of 1, but I have refused to post about 4 of bears comments. I just don't know how fair it is to let one who you agree with talk about those issues but because you disagree with the other he can't talk about them.
Believe me I can remove both his and CB's comments...but to remove the one without the other when they both are speaking of the same subject is unfair.
Hope this helps, my brother...please be assured that no one on this strand believes any of the rude comments said of you weeks ago...and if they do, they are idiots!
God bless my friend.
BR
Wayne
My brother you have been on my blog since this summer, if you do not know be my now...then I can't help you.
I do not like ad hominem statements, I do not like unchristlike statements and I wish we could debate and be kind.
I certainly do not rejoice when others are attacked. I will be glad to post your comment if you reword it.
I think bear has made clear his intent with his last comment and I hate you have been hurt.
BR
Brad you said it,
...and if they do, they are idiots!
God bless my friend.
BR
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Beth Moore says
Can you think of a reason why those who aren't very deceitful themselves might be easy to deceive? God doesn't want us to know we're being conned because we're master con artists ourselves. He doesn't want us to recognize deception because we know how to twist the truth. God deeply desires to develop godly integrity in each of us. He wants us to recognize the counterfeit because we're so familiar with the true article. He wants us to be smart without being suspicious - innocent without being naive. The challenge is mammoth, so take it seriously. We, too, are sheep among wolves. I've been eaten alive a few times, and I have some "scars" to prove it. What I'd give to save you some! It's dangerous out there. My best advice, dear sheep, is to stick to your Shepherd.When a man of God is called to be a Pastor, I don’t think they would make a mockery of the Title Pastor would you?
Some food for thought by a Godly Woman.
Brad I did not put any names in the comment you rejected. I ask a bunch of Questions only.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Post a Comment