Four Profs Leaving SWBTS

I’m sure there will be more. Many professors at Southwestern do not want to work under Patterson.

Yep. Not a “liberal” among them. I know three of these professors personally and two of them are members of our church.

Yep. Like a certain seminary that’s scheduled to open next year in the Fort Worth/Dallas area.

 

BB, perhaps you could ask them why they left.

Also, does your church have a problem with Open Theism?

 

I plan to do it but I'm not sure if I will have the liberty to share it with BaptistBoard.

As far as I know it has never come up. I can't fairly express the church's views on that matter.

If you're trying to suggest that those who left are sympathetic to Open Theism, you're completely off the mark. As far as I know, none of them are Open Theists. I am the only member of my church I know with "Open Theist" sympathies.

 

What is an open theist?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Open theism is heretical doctrine, one which (depending on how far down the road people are) teaches that salvation is possible outside of Christ, and (with some open theists) that God is voluntarily not omniscient and does not know the future.

 

double posted by mistake

 

This sounds like a mixture of universalism and arminianism. Am I correct?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I'd say it exceeds even those doctrines in error.

 

This is not a thread on Open Theism.

Who asserts this? If someone promotes that idea it is not an essential part of Open Theism.

Open Theists generally believe that God is omniscient, but since the future does not yet exist, that God does not have knowledge of something that is nonexistent. Yet God knows all things including the thoughts and intentions of all creatures and the condition and changing status of all creation, and what He intends to do.

The Open Theist viewpoint rejects the modernistic paradigm and usually considers "time" to be a description of the sequence of events in history. ("Time" is the way we describe our memories of the part and structure our expectations of the future.)

When I say I have Open Theist "sympathies", I am saying that I find many aspects of the Open Theism paradigm attractive because of its emphasis on God's continuing interaction with his creatures and creation, the affirmation of free will, and the affirmation of God's sovereignty over his creatures and creation.

But this is not a thread on Open Theism, so I don't care to discuss the subject here.

 

Some would even contend that God does not voluntarily give up omniscience. That is, God is not capable of knowing the future, according to some. This is a subject that is going to be at the forefront of the upcoming meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta later on this month.

 

This thread - Open Theism... - would be a good place to continue the discussion on open theism. BB, if you do choose to post there, I would be interested in the harmonization of "...since the future does not yet exist...God does not have knowledge of something that is nonexistent. Yet God knows all things including the thoughts and intentions of all creatures and the condition and changing status of all creation, and what He intends to do." The continued discussion of the subject here will continue to give an impression that this is somehow related to why the four professors left. I will be interested to hear the "why" if someone discovers it.

 

I don't have time to get involved in a lengthy discussion because of my current work and church schedule.

If you want to understand Open Theism, I suggest reading one of Pinnock's books on the subject.

Agreed! The only reason I discussed it at all was that there were unsubstantiated allegations made against Open Theism and I didn't want to let them stand as if I agreed with the assessment.

The professors are going to the new B.H. Carroll seminary. I fully expect a few more Southwestern professors to go there by the end of the Spring semester.

 

Does the Carroll institute have a statement of faith?

 

I can't point you to a reference but, if I remember correctly, it is the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message.

 

If that is true, then good ridance. The SBC doesn't need closet liberals.

 

If that is true, then good ridance. The SBC doesn't need closet liberals. </font>[/QUOTE]That's an profoundly foolish assertion.

The 1963 BF&M is not an indicator of "liberalism".

Furthermore, I suspect I have made an assumption instead of reporting fact. I cannot locate any sort of doctrinal statement for them so I need to back off of my statement that I thought it would be the 1963 BF&M. I think I assumed that would be the case because I mistakenly believed the school would be sponsored by the BGCT (the BGCT affirms the 1963 statement).

The school is independent.

 

Here's more information:

Four leave to join new seminary
By Jim Jones
Special to the Star-Telegram

Four veteran professors at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary have resigned or retired and will lead a new Dallas-Fort Worth area theological school that some see as a rival to the Fort Worth seminary.

Complete text is located at:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/7187757.htm