Seminary gives association six months to vacate property

PART II

I think the number of retirees are about half that, so the costs are probably not that high. Plus, if it’s the right thing to do, God will provide. They should have stopped raising money for the chapel and building projects and instead raised money for the endowment.

And they are having financial troubles because many “Conservative Resurgence” leaders don’t believe in leading their church to give sacrificially to the Cooperative Program. When I was growing up, my home church gave nearly 22% of undesignated receipts to the CP. Today, many “Conservative Resurgence” leaders are building mega-churches, funding media ministries and spending extravagantly on buildings, but they don’t/won’t support the CP with anything but a token amount to maintain the number of messenger seats for the Convention every year. That’s a very different attitude than back in the late 1960s and 1970s. There were significant problems in the SBC then, but people actually believed in the Convention. After all the years of politics, playing games, and downright meanness, not many people believe in the Convention enough to sacrificially support it -- even those who led the fight and fought in the trenches.

That’s where the SBC’s real problem is.

 

You summarily just attacked the beliefs Spurgeon, Edwards, Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, the apostles, and prophets. They saw that there was an importance of clearly defining and standing for the Word of God. When they "fought" for the Word of God, they did not attack people physically, but often they were attacked and there was a price on their head... men like Huss were murdered. In the Bible we see men who were also murdered for their belief. Prophets who heard God and said "Thus saith the Lord" would not recant but stood on these words. God said that this world was not worthy of such men. Today, we have people who ask, "Is that really God's Word?" Forgive me if I stand with Luther and others who say that it is the very Word of God that should be trusted.

You may think martyrdom for your views is useless. You may think standing on God's Word is rather radical. Yet, I agree with God that this world was not worthy of such men... Men like Luther, Huss, the Apostles, the Waldensians, and the prophets of Old. When God talks, I think we should stand. I wish Adam said to Eve, "Thus saith the Lord, and we should trust in God rather than a serpent." He should have stood on God's Word. He should have fought for the proper understanding of God's Word. He should have stood up and said, "Thus saith the Lord."

 

I could play devil's advocate and ask you to explain yourself, but I won't. But if you mean things like memorizing entire chapters of the Bible, handing in daily evangelistic encounters, reading at least 3 books per class, per semester, writing 15-25 page papers in each class, being tested for retention of knowledge, and a host of other issues, then yes, students ARE required to demonstrate some proficiency.

Not sure what you actually think happens at seminary, but you should at least visit one before jumping to conclusions. Ever diagram a sermon in Greek to prove that you are exegeting Scripture? How about one a day for an entire semester?

Every grad of Southern (or Boyce, our undergrad program) is also required in their core curriculum to take several practicum classes, where they work with local pastors in local church settings. This is on top of the VERY rigorous education that they participate in. I dare say that a typical grad of SBTS will have the ability, at least, of diagnosing and dealing with a wide range of theological issues.

But that being said, and as one who was a pastor BEFORE I went to attend seminary, as well as after, there is no amount of training that can prepare a man for a ministry that God has not called him to do. It takes work, prayer, ministry, long (LONG) hours, and dedication that I don't see in most church members to stay the course of seminary and a pastorate.

 

I might suggest that it was the "moderates" in the Convention that actually killed people's attitudes toward it. It was rather self-serving back in the years you say it was doing very well -- but those years were also the beginning of the end of the Convention as it previously existed. Once the run-of-the-mill church member got wind of the fact that the Convention was hiring people at seminaries who did not even believe the Bible was true, they quit giving in that direction, and who can blame them?

 

There has never been an era where seminary students have not had to suffer and make due.

 

I think I have been clear, Patterson is a man with weakness and walks with feet of clay. I believe it does more to argue against his viewpoint than against Paige. Only then can you convince people he is wrong. One of the rules and laws of logic is the fallacy of ad hominem. No one on this list has argued or even tried to argue that Patterson can do no wrong.

Three points on this line of thought. First, I never said let's forget everything, what I am saying and continue to say is that let's debate this specific issue on its own merit. I do not wish to engage in ad hominem attacks merely because it is a fallacy of logic.

The second point is one I addressed several times now and am beginning to believe it is being used as an attack. I said that other issues I knew very little about. This issue, according to what has been stated, I have said that in reviewing that information I stand with patterson. I never said that this situation I knew nothing about.

Finally, show me where I am bashing people. I take issues with their issues, but I do not think I am bashing anyone. I have not questioned anyone's motives. I have not attacked people. I have attacked issues.

Okay, you can argue with over 3,000 years of studies and writing in logic, I probably will not convince you otherwise.

The modern church movement has centered it's focus on man. You see it in worship and in the ministries we conduct. Our culture has Saddleback Sam and others to focus on "people". I believe that is entirely anti-Christian. Rather, what it says about man in the BIble is not all that flattering to us. Our churches should be first and foremost people of God's Word. If a Church, being pro-people, violates God's Word, they are not pro-God. How can a church look at very clear texts of God's word and not clearly say it is wrong? Such a church is not pro-person but not reading their Bible. Being pro-God while looking out for people means preaching faithfully the entire counsel of God's Word, and living it. I would invite you to read a book entitled "Ashamed of the Gospel" by John MacArthur. A very good book.

That is true, and that is why we should stand on God's Word and the Church should be God focused, not person focused. The greatest need of people in the Pew is faithful exposition of God's Word... not being "pro-people" or "seeker sensitive" or tip-toeing around areas we don't like.

Working what out among the members? I am sorry, Are they teaching it is wrong and you need to repent but there are still people in the church who will not? I am unsure how they can "work this out" among the members. BTW, they have been working for quite some time on this mess. In fact, the Pastor stated about the homosexual issue when they left the state convention in the fall:

He does not sound like he is "working on it." In fact, I went everywhere to try to find where they were rethinking membership to homosexuals. No where! In fact, this statement of just a few months ago seems to indicate that they are welcoming everyone into our church" (emphasis mine). This is not welcoming people to your church, but into your church. And, this has been their practice for several years, nothing seems to be changing. Thus, can you show me where they are "working on this"? Rather, it seems it is a done deal. This answer to their stand on homosexuality, is not the Bible's stand and does not sound like they are working on anything.

Yeah, another reason I am not a Southern Baptist, but I won't go into that tangent. The quote I provided from the current Pastor (who happened to Pastor one of the more liberal churches in the Memphis area prior to his arrival at Broadway) seems to indicate that this is a done deal and not something they are working on.

Yes, I know of Al Meredith. Again, my purpose was not to attack people on either side or dispute motives, but to argue the point. I am sure Meredith would argue well and probably offer much light to his conversation. To be honest, I would not doubt if Broadway left the association over this issue... but I could be wrong.

According to the Associated Baptist Press (a more liberal publication that has been very critical of conservatives:

In other words, there was much discord.

That is not true, according to the Christian Century (a very liberal publication) it says:

The Christian Century is more in alignment with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which is the convention Broadway is a member, than the SBC.

I don't doubt you know more than I do about the situation. But you have offered me nothing to change my view. The "working on it" argument is rather ludicrous and one that I find very unconvincing. I know what it means to work on reformation in a church, and I have a hard time seeing how what has been said and quoted signifies "working on it."

 

Can you tell me what point you are trying to make? I would post a response but I fail to see how this addresses the issues I brought up. I am not giving an intellectual answer, I am giving a very practical answer... and plus, I could offer you a seminary and churches who actually see fruit in people before they put them on staff. Yet, your statement seems so out there, I fail to see where it applies.

 

A couple of things. First, I am not a Southern Baptist so I am not a "die hard" Cooperative Program person. I see some serious flaws in that system, and I see some very good points about it as well. I know in my state, the BGAV (the liberal convention) has decreased the money sent to the CP while the conservative convention (SBCV) gives one of the highest percentages of any state convention (it used to be #1, I believe it still remains that way.) As well, they spend more money by percentage on church planting than any other convention. The Executive Committee on the SBC said of your more liberal state convention:

Thus, you can be critical of bigger churches, but it is the state conventions that are the big culprit. There has always been CP givers and non-givers. The changes are the state conventions.

Something similar happened in the BGAV in Virginia which resulted in split in conventions and the forming of the SBCV.

The SBTC in Texas gives more than it keeps to the CP, I believe they are one of the few, if not the only one besides the SBCV.

I am not a fan of the SBC. Rather, I am proud of my church who gives a very high percentage of our money to missions, close to 30%. We give directly to the missionaries, we keep these missionaries accountable, and we love them because we know them. We don't have to deal with the politics of the SBC, we don't have to go to meetings and here the political maneuvering that I once heard as a Pastor. We are a church who loves God, gives a lot to missions, and preaches the Bible expositionally. Personally, I think more churches would be better off without the convention than with the convention... but that is from a guy who served as an SBC pastor... and am glad I am not there anymore.

 

Good for you...

I LOVE your presumptions on everyone else.

 

You used the term "at it finest" not I.

I see conservative churches growing and liberal churches in decline. I do not see "perfect Christians" in either.

 

Yea us, Baptists get a public black over a piece of property and more importantly the prayer of Jesus for unity, that we be one, is completely ignored. Way to go everyone I hope the rust and moths are comforting. Surely with all these smart people floating around this campus, someone could come up with a better idea then this! I guess not.

It just kills me that SW is evicting another Baptist group in order to build a hello, WELCOME center! Jesus must be so proud.

 

Unity is important, but God's Word is more important. How can we walk together unless we agree? How can two people have extremely divergent doctrinal beliefs and continue together? Should I compromise a doctrinal belief that is listed in the Bible as an essential doctrine so I can call for "unity?"

In fact, there are times when someone must say, we cannot agree.

They may call themselves Baptists, but historically Baptists have held to the Innerancy, Sufficiency, Perspecuity, and Authority of Scripture. Unless someone would hold to these doctrines of the Bible, I do not think I can, will, nor should pretend there is unity. Pretending there is unity would be a lie, and that is a worse sin than merely saying, "We disagree, and we can respectfully go our separate way"

 

I doubt that God's Word is telling you to presume on the studies of others, the means they use to pay for those studies, etc., especially in light of the fact that you must necessarily generalize, for you are not familiar with a case-by-case basis of all the people you talk about.

In essence, you've decided that it is your way or the highway. Sorry about that. The Christian world is a great big world and God uses all sorts of people in all types of scenarios to do His work, both in and out of seminary.