Featured Lousiana College and Calvinism

Nice...any wonder I refuse to have anything to do with sbc

 

I don't know about a donor, but I know this guy has been on a purging crusade that, until now, Dr. A. hasn't participated in.

 

:laugh: I myself would never debase folks with mental development challenges by using their personal clinical condition to describe these miserable excuses for human beings.....I prefer "Miscreants" or "Nimrods" as descriptives ..... here is prime example of Them spewing nonsense.......

"For a number of years there has been a plan to raise up an “army” of Calvinists in an effort to capture the SBC for the Reformed position. People will deny this and use all kinds of “doubles-speak” to talk around it but anyone who has been involved even in a casual manner knows this is true. And, at the present time, we are experiencing problems which stem directly from this effort." – Bill Harrell, March, 2012

...Hankins further states that he believes a conspiracy is underway within the convention and being led by Calvinists

Hello Nimrods! Where are your aluminum foil helmets?

PS: The Calvies are coming to take you away (Ha, Ha, Ho, Ho, He,He)

 

First of all Dr. Quarles (at least during my time there) taught theology without ever attempting to advance the tenants of Calvinism. The same can't be said for some of the more recent hires at the school. I truly believe the issue would not have come to a head if it were not for some of the new young guns being more outspoken proponents of reformed theology. I would certainly agree with you that they have not violated their contracts, but Dr. Aguillard has not done anything in error by not renewing their contracts. They do not have tenure and he has every right to take the course of action he has.

The justification in my mind is very simple. Louisiana College is an entity of the Louisiana Baptist Convention and as such should be a reflection of the LBC. Much like when the conservative resurgence occured in the LBC many professors at LC were removed. Those liberals cried about unfair treatment and even filed a lawsuit (which LC won). Now we are seeing the same things again as the college shifts towards being a reflection of the convention. The vast majority of the LBC is non-Calvinist and the college should be a reflection of that. Dr. Aguillard may be a little late in taking this action, but I support it still. Of course the Calvies are going to be up in arms about it, but the reactions (including my own) would be different if the shoe was on the other foot.

However, as long as the college remains an entity of the LBC it should be aligned with the majority positions of the convention.

 

Yea really....all probity out the window & a Baptist college to boot.

Thank you for that touch of reality reinforcement. I will remember that.

 

Regarding the cries of 'well they adhere to the BF&M, that's enough!'.

Flashback:

2007 Southern Baptist Convention; SBTS head Albert Mohler declares he will not have his hands tied by a motion passed by the messengers:

 

You sound pretty vitriolic. Must be a Calvinist?

 

I know this is sorta chasing a rabbit, but some clarification is called for here.

Dr. Mohler, and presidents of other SBC Seminaries are directly responsible to the seminary trustees, not to the SBC. None of the presidents owes his job to the SBC. If the SBC does not like the way Dr. Mohler is running Southern Seminary, the Conservative Resurgence provides the only mechanism of getting rid of him.

The SBC must elect members of the Committee on Nominations, who must nominate trustees for about ten years, until enough are elected by the SBC to effect any change. The same for any SBC agency, board or commission.

It goes even deeper. The local churches must elect messengers who will elect an SBC President who will appoint members of the Committee on Committees, who nominate members of the Committee on Nominations, who must win election by the SBC. Trustees serve four-year terms, and those terms are staggered.

It can get even more complicated, but I don't want to derail the thread.

 

Is there evidence for this charge?

In a "letter of the law" sense, you are, of course, correct. My question is whether or not he has treated these men with Christian charity and dealt with them justly.

I can't even begin to tell you how flawed I think the comparison between Godly men who hold a high view of Scripture, uphold the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ, AND teach within the bounds of the BFM 2000 and between humanistic deconstructionists who, not only don't teach within the bounds of the BFM 2000, but don't even hold the text of Scripture as sacred. A very bad comparison in deed.

Does anyone here know what the professors are required to sign before they accept the position? I'm just wondering.

 

Pitiful, just pitiful:tear:

 

Are you kidding me? What a fussy blog post! When he talks about dissent, why not discuss the dissenting opinions of all those students who were distressed at the teaching of the professors (or more likely the way in which they taught)? The school has a right not to resign certain professors, and they can take students' evaluations into consideration, which, by the way, is the whole point of student-evaluations being a requirement to receive accreditation by any reputable accrediting body.

If I were teaching the priority of the Nestle text at a school that preferred the KJV, I shouldn't be surprised if I raised the ire of those in authority. In fact, I shouldn't have gone to teach at the school in the first place.

We really don't know all the details of this case, and listening only to the voice of the few dissenters is like saying Dorner was a hero based on all the public demonstrations in support of him. How absurd! For all we know, maybe the professors verbally agreed not to push Calvinism in the hiring process, but after becoming complacent in the comfort of their positions let their deep feelings on the issue go to far.

That is All!

 

Thanks for the updates.

 

Makes me glad Im not Southern Baptist.

 

Only the testimony of Dr. Aguillard and students on campus. Which is sufficient for me, but probably not for you.

So is everyone who is hired at LC just supposed to be given a lifetime contract because removing someone is un-Christian? And spare me the "they are teaching within the bounds of the BF&M" argument. We know that other institutions such as Southern Seminary use criteria outside the boundaries of the BF&M. Furthermore Louisiana College is not funded by the SBC.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The two may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, but they were both handled in the same way and for the same reasons. Neither group of professors reflected the majority positions of the Louisiana Baptist Convention. As such their removals (past and present) positions LC to once again reflect the values of the LBC which controls it.

 

How worldly and how utterly shameful.