John Leland Center in Virginia

CBF all the way, I believe. Key phrase in their doctrinal statement, "Jesus Christ is the interpretative principle for scripture..." tells where they are coming from, since, of course, that phrase can mean anything you want it to mean. The Lord Jesus is not "the interpretative principle," He is the Son of God and God the Son, and He inspired the Bible to be read, studied, and obeyed.

 

I'd say you made a dead on assesment there Major B!

 

Um, no it doesn't.

Jesus, as revealed in the gospels in word and deed, is considered the guiding interpreter of the scripture for the Old Testament (written to prepare the way and reveal Christ) and the New Testament epistles and Revelation (which address and inform the living faith of the New Testament church established by Christ).

Furthermore, a similar statement was in the Baptist Faith and Message from 1963-2000. The presence of that statement doesn't make a group "CBF". For instance, the Baptist General Convention of Texas embraces the 1963 BF&M.

That's the point. He is the Lord of the scripture and the guide to interpreting them properly.

 

Okay, I'm not for the CBF here, but I suppose they mean that scripture is to be interpreted in the light of Jesus Christ, who is indeed the Son of God. I'm not sure there's a major point of contention here, unless you're looking for one.

Here is the entire principle given by the school:

Pick it apart if you will. Any statement generated by humans can be criticized. (As we have almost daily proof from those critical of the SBC's current BF&M)

As for it being CBF thru and thru, I confess I don't know enough to comment. As for the CBF, there are plenty of more obvious issues to squabble about.

[ July 24, 2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: USN2Pulpit ]

 

The president of the school is Randall Everett, he was my pastor once upon a time. Dr Everett is as conservative theologically as they come, and has a great burden for missions and evangelism. I have personally been door to door with him as he witnessed to people in the neighborhood of the church. I can assure you that Dr. Everett believes, preaches and teaches that the only way to heaven is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

One thing I loved about Dr Everett as pastor, in addition to his great sense of humor, was that every sunday he did the scripture reading completely from memory - and not just one or two verses, but entire passages!

IN any other world but the one that Southern Baptists currently operate in, the Leland Center would be considered as conservative as Dallas Theological Seminary. Unfortunately, Southern Baptist life has gone from being conservative to being leaglistic, with each "leader" attempting to out do his predecessor. Satan could not have planned it any better.

 

I have been a seminary student at SEBTS under Patterson for just over a year and have yet to see this "legalism" that you are talking about. If you mean being obedient to God's Word, yes, the SBC is getting far better at that. But it is a far cry from legalism. Do you know what legalism is? You use the term rather freely if you do.

All Praise to Our Gracious Heavenly Father,
Neal

 

It is very interesting that I bring up leagalism and you bring up Paige Patterson! I did not mention Paige Patterson, but was mainly responding to the uncalled for slam on the Leland institute as a CBF school as if the professors and students there are any less Christian or conservative than those of SEBTS or any other conservative seminary.

As to legalism, I think that the current "leaders" of the SBC have elevated the BFM to a state that is perhaps one notch lower than scripture. Professors are terminated based on their sex, I see that as legalism, not something biblically based. If I am wrong, show me in scripture that a woman cannot teach a man - especially in a non church (ie seminary classroom) environment. You as a seminary student know that a seminary classroom is an academic setting, albeit one that starts in prayer, with professors that have a real personal interest in their students and seeing them suceed in ministry.

Verses of scripture that show women in positions of authority are glossed over or ignored, while those that deal with women submitting to men are elevated - that is a very leagalist interpretation.

We have gone from scripture being inspired in its orginal autographs to developing a bible that we can control, leagalistic? if not getting very close.

And dont even think about voting democrat, you cant possibly be a Christian if you do that.

The non Christian world sees the conflicts we have and are driven away, how different is that than the Judaizers that Paul faced down on a daily basis in his ministry. Is this confilct based in love or legalism?

 

According to information on the history page, the Leland school is in partnership with the Baptist General Association of Virginia.

For those who have explained what they believe about Jesus Christ being the interpretative principle for scripture, could you agree with this statement: "The revelation of Jesus Christ as found in the four Gospels is the interpretative principle for scripture"? Why or why not?

 

No connection that you are trying to make. I was just pointing out that I go to a seminary where probably in your estimation the Devil's sidekick is president. And there is no legalism as you have alleged. I do not see any signs of it in the SBC leadership. So from an insider, I am assuring you that it is not there.

I honestly don't know anything about this new school. I was responding to the accused legalism. However, IF the school is CBF, there is probably a good chance it is not as conservative as SEBTS.

I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was form first, then Eve. I Timothy 2:12-13, ESV

I know, you will probably dismiss this as cultural or whatever. But hey, even if you want it out of the Bible you still have to deal with it because it is there and God breathed it out. Would it really make sense if a woman was allowed to teach future pastors (who are to be men)? I don't think so. It seems fairly clear-cut from Scripture. I don't think that someone should be fired because of sex, but at least if they were exercising authority over men they should be moved to a place to teach women. They really should have never been hired in the first place to teach men. I know, I am an insensitive male pig. But hey, this is God's design, not mine. Take all complaints to Him.

Huh? You have completely butchered the true meaning behind the statement. It is good to be able to guard against the neutering of Scripture and changing of God's Word. Also, it would be legalistic if people were required to use it. So far, I have not seen this. I know I won't be using it and I would venture to say that many of my professors will not use it. So no, that is not legalistic. You need to revamp your definition of legalism.

Don't worry, I won't. Seriously, I am not exactly pleased with either side. One is about as crooked as the other.

When people blatantly compromise God's Word conflict is needed. I have not seen anywhere near the amount of harsh rhetoric from the SBC side as I have from the CBF side. If they have that much of a problem they can form their own denomination and leave the SBC alone. No one is stopping them. Also, love does not equal no conflict. Only a distorted sense of love means patting someone on the back when they are wrong and telling them they are okay. True love is not like that.

In the Glorious Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

The bit in the school's statement that says, "Jesus Christ is the interpretative principle for Scripture..." is a nearly direct quote from the long standing CBF mantra on the same subject. Additionally, as rlvaughn pointed out above, the school is affiliated with the BGAV. I would venture to argue that the BGAV has both feet firmly planted in the CBF camp (speaking as a Virginian now living in NC for seminary).

Anyway, this type of topic comes up every so often here on BB. When it does I always ask for someone who espouses a statement such as, "Jesus Christ is the interpretative principle for Scripture..." to please provide a cogent explanation as to how they know the Jesus Christ that they wish to use as the interpretative principle for Scripture, apart from the Scriptures? To date no one has provided a cogent answer.

Hang in there Neal!

 

Neal
One of Paul's best friends was Priscilla, the scripture records that she taught Apollos.

Deborah was a Judge, she exercised a little bit of Authority over men.

There are other examples as well.

If you look at the historical context of the New Testament, women were treated as property until Jesus came. Jesus treated womnen as equals, even samaritan women. I think that the situation that Paul was adressing in 1 Timothy was a church out of control where women, and perhaps one woman were a bit over the top with their new found freedom.

I see no proibition in the bible that would prevent a woman from teaching a man - especially in a classroom setting. What I see is men that are afraid that they might actually learn something from a woman and it scares them.

Denying a woman a faculty position in our seminaries solely due to their sex is legalism.

 

I Timothy 2:12-13. Until you realistically handle that one, there is really no discussion. Are there exceptions to this? At times. But it is still not preferable or acceptable. Probably happens because the men would not step up and take leadership like they are supposed to.

And no, what you are trying to get at is not legalism. It is sexism. (If someone was fired based on sex.) However, the woman should not have been teaching future pastors anyway. So again, this is God's plan, not mine. Take it up with Him.

In the Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

I Timothy 2:12-13. Until you realistically handle that one, there is really no discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]Since you’re in a seminary environment and have access to a theological library, go check out a copy of E. Earle Ellis’ book, “Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society” and read the chapter entitled “Paul and the Eschatological Woman” and then get back to me.

Ellis does a very comprehensive treatment of the subject that would be extremely difficult to present in this discussion environment.

In my opinion – based on my study of the scripture – the general restriction regarding women teaching men is a product of our culture, not the revealed will of God or His design for our lives.

Paul certainly didn’t seem to be opposed to it.

 

If I ever get some extra time, maybe I will. I didn't know that this Ellis guy became our authority all of a sudden.

I am glad that you have your opinion. I have a lot of them too! (Some wrong of course!)

However, I find it very amusing that you say, "Paul certainly didn’t seem to be opposed to it" while you are reading I Timothy 2:12-13!

I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. I Timothy 2:12-13, ESV

You take Paul's plain statement and totally turn it around! I am sorry, it doesn't get much clearer. Of course, if it is only cultural, who knows what will be dismissed as merely cultural next!

God Bless You,
Neal

 

If I ever get some extra time, maybe I will. I didn't know that this Ellis guy became our authority all of a sudden. </font>[/QUOTE]He’s not, the scripture is.

If you’re not going to make time to investigate the issue, it might be better not to dismiss an scriptural presentation you’ve never studied.

I am glad that you have your opinion. I have a lot of them too! (Some wrong of course!)

However, I find it very amusing that you say, "Paul certainly didn’t seem to be opposed to it" while you are reading I Timothy 2:12-13!

I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. I Timothy 2:12-13, ESV

You take Paul's plain statement and totally turn it around! </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Go read Ellis and you will understand my position.

We tend to read our own opinions into the text…

You misunderstand… I’m not saying that the restrictions are cultural for Paul’s day, I’m saying the restrictions are cultural for Western tradition since the rise of the Roman Catholic church.

Again, do you homework before you dismiss an argument.

 

Do you know how many "issues" I am asked to study and look at? It may be years before I could read this guy's work!

It is not a major "issue" for me because it is pretty much a non-issue. Paul said that he did not permit women to teach or exercise authority over men. With such a clear-cut statement this "issue" is not very high on my priority list.

I will do my homework. But my homework will yield to the God-breathed Scriptures.

God Bless You, BB.
Neal

 

Neal,

You are saying that a woman should not teach a man anytime anywhere based solely on 1 Timothy. Or that a woman should not teach a future pastor anytime anywhere based on 1 timothy? And you are willing to throw out the scriptures that show women with 'authority" over men? Is that an inerrant view of scripture or a pick and choose view that moderates are accused of having?

Seems to me that you are strectching 1 Timothy a bit further than Paul intended.

If you are studying to be a pastor, and are not ready to learn from and be taught by the women in your church (and God forbid that you wind up in a small church that is dominated by a single family), I think that you will have a short lived ministry. Better get your real estate lisence while you are at it.

One of the things I like about Paige Patterson was a quote he made about boring professors, essentially he does not like them. The women professors at SWBTS teach some of the best classes, and are some of the most interesting professors at the seminary. Karen Bullock formost, her classes are always the first to fill up, she has the gift of making history come alive!

So once again neal, I would like to see from scripture that a woman cannot teach a man (future pastor) History, languages, education, music, psychology or childrens ministry. I Timothy just does not address an academic setting.

 

No, actually there are plenty of other passages discussing the roles of men and women. You just wanted a clear statement from Scripture. I give you one and you dismiss it.

Please show me all of those passages and show me where it is said that it is okay for a woman to teach a man (especially future pastors).

Seems to me that you don't take Paul's clear-cut statement serious.

That is why I am glad ministry is not mine or yours. It's God's. I am not saying anything about learning from friends or not talking to women. I am talking of a position of teaching authority. Don't mix the two. I am not.

Okay. And? Benny Hinn is pretty entertaining as well and makes his message come alive. Is that our test for truth now? (I have no idea about Bullock or her situation. However, you seem to imply that something has to be interesting to be right or truthful. I have never seen that in Scripture before, and some of the best professors and pastors I have seen are not really the most entertaining.)

I can't help if you don't like Paul's statement. Maybe you could ask him to revise it when we get to heaven one day. And notice, you are starting to qualify your statement. At first it was just to teach. Now you are listing specific areas. However, if it is future pastors it should be men (preferably who have been pastors). And so it makes absolutely no sense for pastors to be taught things related to pastoral ministry by someone who's role is not to be a pastor. Plain and simple. If you are comfortable with learning pastoral related subjects from women, then by all means, go right ahead. But I am not, so I will not. That's easy enough, now isn't it? There are plenty of other schools and I am not going to force you to listen to me. So I am not being legalistic. However, I will not pat you on the back and encourage you in something that I see as plainly wrong. That would not be right and would actually be sin for me.

All Praise, Honor, and Glory to the Almighty God!
Neal