new BDP position paper

RamboPreacher · Postby **RamboPreacher** » August 11th, 2009, 2:17 pm

http://cogop.org/page.aspx?id=426568

I can see the need for something like this, and personally agree with it. well, mostly. the mostly part, or rather the small part I don't particularly see eye to eye with is the one paragraph that encourages speaking in tongues in a public arena. I guess, I see that as something against which Paul taught otherwise.

The scripture references they used, were all (except perhaps acts 2), not "public", but more in private situations - least that's how I see it (currently

)

Postby **Pastor Gary** » August 11th, 2009, 3:09 pm

I read this document earlier today, and remarked "I need to reread this in depth later, but my first impression was that there were a few areas that needed tweaking."

rev rick · Postby **rev rick** » August 11th, 2009, 3:47 pm

Pastor Gary wrote:I read this document earlier today, and remarked "I need to reread this in depth later, but my first impression was that there were a few areas that needed tweaking."

Biblical Doctrine and Polity Committee
Statement for Affirmation to the 96th International Assembly
THE PRESENCE AND MANIFESTATIONS
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
(for Affirmation, Not for Decision)
no tweaking i think

scooter · Postby **scooter** » August 11th, 2009, 3:55 pm

Hey fellas I would never use the word quench in an effort to relay something positive about the Holy Ghost. :shock:

paul · Postby **paul** » August 11th, 2009, 4:02 pm

I applaud the committe for their efforts. Not that it matters at all, but I could support this resolution competely. I also echo its concerns.

I don't think the last paragraph was necessary. But none the less, on target.

dolfan · Postby **dolfan** » August 11th, 2009, 4:58 pm

What I find is that the BDP guys call people who don't believe that manifestations of the sort that are defended are actually normal for the church today "liberal". :lol:

That's funny to me. I know so many Wesleyan holiness people who are as staunch about personal holiness as any Pentecostal could hope to be, but who do not believe in speaking in tongues as an evidence of being Spirit-filled. I guess those folks are "liberal" to the BDP guys. That is just funny. :roll:

Pastor Bill · Postby **Pastor Bill** » August 11th, 2009, 5:26 pm

I think the term "liberal" was more within the pentecostal umbrella, those that hold to the beliefs, but push back the manifestations or seek only the newest fads over a real move of God.

I wish they would have also touched on the fact that it isn't about the old fads either, but honest openness to the spirit.

dawgs10 · Postby **dawgs10** » August 12th, 2009, 1:05 am

its about time. i agree 100% i hope folks dont try to out think the Holy Ghost on this one. it seems that there are many in COGOP that does this every 4 years. either we are who we are or not. i think thats what is at stake with affirming this as is.

dawgs10 · Postby **dawgs10** » August 12th, 2009, 1:13 am

RamboPreacher wrote:http://cogop.org/page.aspx?id=426568

I can see the need for something like this, and personally agree with it. well, mostly. the mostly part, or rather the small part I don't particularly see eye to eye with is the one paragraph that encourages speaking in tongues in a public arena. I guess, I see that as something against which Paul taught otherwise.

The scripture references they used, were all (except perhaps acts 2), not "public", but more in private situations - least that's how I see it (currently )

we need to understand that no where in the Bible does it say to not speak in tonges in public arenas. it does incourage us to pray for a interpreter, if no one does keep silent. but most people seem to forget that the end of the chapter in 1 corinthians ends with Werefore brethren covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. thats very clear and missing in many COGOPs in this country. thats why its important to embrace this document as is.

rspastor · Postby **rspastor** » August 12th, 2009, 1:48 am

I am so thankful for this admonition from the comittee. Seemingly, modern movements are trying to remove the beautiful expressions of the Spirit to maintain a type of control over the congregation. This control may have the intention of keeping fleshly reactions to a minimum, but the loss to what the gifts of the Spirit offer is too high a price to pay.

I had the opportunity to speak to a lady who attends a large charismatic church. Though she said she had heard of speaking in tongues and other spiritual manifestations, she had never seen them. Her church is full of vibrant worship, but seems to fall short when it comes to Spirit expression and submission to the workings of the Holy Ghost.

I think the key to COGOPs future growth lies in remaining Pentecostal in nature and encouraging teaching, accountability, and practice of the gifts. Our worship, fellowship, ministry is only enriched, not diminished, by the working of the Spirit and the operation of His gifts to the church.

RamboPreacher · Postby **RamboPreacher** » August 12th, 2009, 1:53 am

Dawgs10,
I disagree (but only when it comes to that particular paragraph/point). With the exception of Peter's message in Acts 2, I believe that all other instances were within the auspices of a "private" group/fellowship. And further the Acts 2 account is of a different kind of "tongues", apparently (the miracle is no less, in that people heard their own language, whether that was from the speaker, or whether the hearers were all blessed as instantaneous interpretations in the hearing).

Either way, the hearing of tongues, in that place was heard not as the same as the babbling, as the pagans did during that time, but it was heard plainly in their own language.

Further, I believe that Paul taught this in his first epistle to the Corinthians; that tongues manifestation can and should be used, but not when non-believers are around (intimating a public venue). and especially when it is used as a "sign of being spiritual", and not for personal edification, or when it its a "message" (requiring an interpretation).

I do agree that we should otherwise embrace the doc, as you mentioned. And further, I am not one against speaking in tongues. not at all, just not as a "sign of spirituality", which it ha sbecome in many places, and not in public arena's (outside of the "church-setting", which may be in public) without interpretation.

EagerBeaver · Postby **EagerBeaver** » August 12th, 2009, 8:46 am

I think we've left 1 Corinthians 12:30 out of the discussion somehow.

rjjunior · Postby **rjjunior** » August 12th, 2009, 9:12 am

for Affirmation, Not for Decision

What exactly does this mean? The Assembly will be asked to 'affirm' it, but cannot 'decide' not to? Just confused by the language.

paul · Postby **paul** » August 12th, 2009, 10:07 am

The local church I attend runs between 350-425 on any given sunday. We have dynamic praise and worship. During the praise and worship and during corporate prayer you can hear many speaking in their heavenly language. Seldom is it so overbearing that it causes intrepution.

We have a continual number of new families coming and going from the church. I have yet to hear that anyone leaving because of "Tongues"

For Apostle Paul the Spirit was present in his people, for Paul his giftings were as normal as breathing and were intended for the building of the people in the present as they awaited the consumation of their faith. ( The return of the Lord).

There is no question that for the early church ( NT) that they lived i the presence of the experience of the Holy Spirit. For Paul the Holy Spirit meant the return of the presence of God in and among his people.

Following the history of the NT church, the general marginalizing of the Spirit by scholship and the frequesnt institutionalzing the Spirit by denominations, the influences of Greek thought which influences our theologizing, we have been led ever so slowly away from the genuine experience.

Postby **Pastor Gary** » August 12th, 2009, 10:47 am

That's not my issue, Paul. I have no problem with tongues, particularly during times of worship and corporate prayer. I do have an issue with the area of the document that suggests than an objective reading of the Book of Acts would find support for emphasis upon tongues in public worship as normative. It is simply not there.

Tongues are mentioned in Acts four times: one of the mentions is a public use of tongues, but not in the "church" during worship. The other mentions are not in public, corporate worship settings. In the rest of the New Testament there is little or no mention of tongues as normative in worship, except in 1st Corinthians, and that section is obviously written as a cautionary, corrective passage dealing with the abuse of tongues in public worship/

I long for the genuine, life-changing flow of the Spirit in our services, but disagree with the emphasis being placed on tongues as the end-all of pentecostalism. Read acts with a highlighter in hand and mark every instance of the evidence/manifestation of God's Spirit at work. Many verses, few instances of tongues. It is a lesser gift, receiving emphasis not given in scripture.

Jude 2