Seminary gives association six months to vacate property

In general, there are no essentials in which Southern Baptists (or those who used to be SBC) disagree. Virgin birth, resurrection...etc.

There are exceptions, of course, to this, but the vast majority wouldn't even question it. The fact that a few rogue places have decided otherwise is not a threat, especially with the Baptist model of autonomy.

As far as inerrancy goes, it's a brittle, broken word that has been used, in many cases pejoratively, to further elevate the Bible. In fact, it wasn't really a common term for that description until the 70s, if I remember correctly.

Unity doesn't mean we agree on everything, especially for Baptists. Unity means that we respect differences of other believers and walk together in our Kingdom work.

 

I was one who had to sacrifice. I left a career that made me a decent wage, sold my home and most of my possessions (we carried what would fit in one u-haul truck) left our home state and arrived in a strange city where all we knew for sure was that we had an apartment somewhere in our name.

I cashed in my retirement, and for 12 years, as a family, never made more than 27K income, while raising up a pair of teen-aged sons, keeping a home together, and paying for my schooling as I went (no student loans) to the total of 60K plus books, computers, etc., needed to do the course work and papers. During those 12 years, we lived in 7 different places. I never slept more than 4 hours in any given day, with the exception of the time between semesters when I could bump my sleep to about 5-6 hours a day without getting too far behind. Oh, and I entered school at age 39. I celebrated my 40th and 50th birthdays while enrolled in class.

During that time, as an undergrad student, I was the lead planter of a church in Wisconsin. Long commute from Louisville, KY, but I did it. I was largely separated from my wife and kids for over 6 months, except the once every 2 weeks when I would drive home for a weekend. I then took a local pastorate where the only pay was the parsonage. I became the associational moderator and helped to start one additional church and added a church by accepting an independent into our ranks.

I've paid my own share of "dues" and well understand the costs involved in ministry. Had God not directly intervened, we would not be here today!

I'll recall one story from when we first arrived in Louisville. We had been in town about 30 days and our financial reserves were exhausted. We had no food (I mean nothing) and no money. Neither of us had managed to find a job. Bills were due and if we didn't pay rent we would be homeless. We didn't know a soul in Louisville and had not yet united with a local church.

Faced with a crying wife, two very hungry teen boys, and an empty fridge, I went outside to have a "talk" with God. Very simply, I laid my life in His hands and said, "You called us out to be here." If I am doing something wrong, show me and I will RUN to fix it. But if I am not doing anything apart from Your will, then please take care of us!" A very bold prayer, shared in tears. I expected to be struck by lightning... But instead, I checked the mail. There in a hand-written envelope was a check for $1000.00 from someone (we still don't know who!) in Louisville. Just a simple note. "God said you needed help." Oh, praise Him, who knows our need even before we ask!

I've since seen similar things happen over and again that confirm that my calling is true and that we are where we are supposed to be. And I finished my course of study and graduated twice.

 

I define innerancy similar to the way the Chicago Statement does. If there is a confusion as to what it means, it is because of ignorant confusion as the Chicago Statement and BB Warfield have clearly defined the term.

Saying that innerancy was not really used until 1970's is false. The greatest book written on innerancy was written by B.B. Warfied. Thus, the definition of innerancy was rooted in Warfield's defense in his book Revelation and Inspiration (most consider it one of the greatest early works on the subject). As well, statements like the London Baptist Confession 1689 has one of the strongest statements on the Bible (of course the Westminster Confession as well). The Reformers' call of "Sola Scriptura" as a doctrinal divide demands a belief in innerancy as well. Martin Luther said, "I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture innerant" (Luther, Martin, What Luther Says: An Anthology). Luther was making a commentary on a text from Augustine and few will doubt that his call for Sola Scriptura included, but not limited to, innerrancy. Thus, there is a line of believing in Innerancy from Augstine, to Luther (and I should add Calvin), to Warfield to today. Of course, most credit Warfield for his tremendous influence on the writers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy, including the principle author. Spurgeon even noted that the deteriating view of the Scriptures was one of the first steps in the Downgrade (into liberalism). He noted that liberalism did not occur once someone embraced socinianism or universalism (or, in our day, denied the resurrection or virgin birth). He noted throughout history, the first step is a subtle attack on the Scripture.

In other words, to say that this word was a 1970's invention, is flatly wrong. Actually, it was rediscovered in the 1970's after years of neglect in Baptist circles (though, some of our Presbyterian friends have been holding firm on the Scriptures. Thus, the divide from old/new Princeton, the founding of Westminster, the founding of the OPC, etc). While the word is not always used throughout history, if you read the major doctrinal statements, they embrace the concept.

This was the issue that arose with the publication of the Genesis commentary in the 1960's. He was denying the Bible was true. That is the issue today.

Calvin was tremendously concerned about people making less of the majesty of God's Word. He says:

Calvin referred to this as the Majesty... a major theological statement. He later uplifted the Scripture in such a way

This statement drips with II Timothy 3:16, that God's Word is Breathed out by Him and thus significantly Holy and should be revered as such. The people who wish to downgrade the Bible as merely a book that should be given less reverence to God... then innerancy is an issue and should be addressed... Such people are attacking the Word of God that has no mixture of man... but is purely from God. That is significant. Even if no other doctrine was denied, I would deem such on the downgrade, as did Spurgeon, and would disassociate with such a person if I could not help correct their path.

Another note, I know of people in the state convention where I live who deny the virgin birth. This caused an uproar that it helped form the SBCV. In fact, I think the SBCV produced a video about 6-7 years ago interviewing one Pastor who had to fight against his own association over that very issue. However, the isuse is the Bible... the Majestic Word of God.

 

I meant to respond to this before I posted. I agree, unity does not mean we agree on everything. Yet, we agree on the majors, of that includes the Word of God. I work with Episcopals (one of my favorite authors is the late JC Ryle), Presbyterians, non-denominational, and a few charismatic types. Yet, the base of what is vital includes a high view of the Scriptures. It also includes many moral issues that are clear. I would not unite with someone who believed adultery was okay, fornication was appropriate, or homosexuality is okay. I would separate from there.

Yet, before they get to homosexuality, they get to the Bible. Spurgeon once noted that in most Baptists circles, the only thing they have in common is "believers baptism." He believed that this was not enough to come together. It requires a proper view of soteriology, ecclesiology, bibliology, theology proper, Christology, pneumatology, and others. To that, the liberals in the SBC often fail at most of these.

 

Seminary gives association six months to vacate property ///

there goes "love for brethren"....all aboot business....

 

Biblical Recorder

 

I appreciate Tom's link to my article at www.fromlaw2grace.com. This issue has become muddied because of the concern over support or endorsement of homosexuality of at least one church in the Tarrant Baptist Association. I do not think this is really what is driving Southwestern Seminary to try to take back the property that they gave this association. What is driving it is money and expansion of their own facilities. I could be wrong, but let's ask some difficult questions related to money and the relationship that SWBTS has with the Tarrant Baptist Association and the 400 churches of that association.

First, Southwestern's concern over homosexuality is a valid one. I am certainly not disputing that. But, if it is such a major concern that one church out of 400 puts the entire Tarrant Baptist Association out of "theological harmony" with the seminary, then why has the seminary not moved to sever all ties with this association of theologically suspect churches? Furthermore, has the seminary -- at least since Broadway's removal from the SBC in 2009 -- accepted money from churches or members of churches affiliated with the Tarrant Baptist Association? Are any staff, faculty or students currently members of or serving in churches that are affilitated with the TBA? If the answer to any of those questions is yes -- and I strongly suspect that it is -- then Southwestern's motive for taking back the property may not be as pure as one would expect from a Christian seminary.

Aside from the legal issues, Southwestern should have approached this situation in a far more "above reproach" manner. Only time will tell how much this further damages the reputations of SWBTS and the SBC. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

 

If I'm Patterson (thank the Lord I am not or would have to wake up every morning and punch myself) I do what I have always done; bully intimidate and push until you I get MY way.

Normally you would think the association would respond by fighting for the land and use. How about this from the association...

We as an association have decided that you can have the building for your unwelcome welcome center we will move on. All we ask is that for every dollar you spend on building this unwelcome welcome center you spend double on planting a church in a much needed area of Tarrant County. To God be the Glory.

 

Inerrancy is not Baptist, never has been never will be. It's not even in the beloved, Jesus removing BF&M 2000.

 

You are still assuming that seminary cannot be what Jesus taught. But, what is seminary? Some "building" or "entity" doing the teaching? No. It is faithful men who teach those called to ministry, just like the Bible says. That it happens at a location set aside for just such training does not negate the experience. In virtually every case (at my own seminary, Southern) the professors are pastors or missionaries. Most lead churches every Sunday. Some do not, but there is not a man among the staff who is not ACTIVELY involved in a local church ministry. These are godly men who impart godly wisdom and training into the lives of those God sends their way.

I do note in the Scriptures that Jesus took His disciples to school. Just because He held a traveling Rabbinical School model instead of a fixed location doesn't change the fact that Jesus took crude, un-learned men and developed them into powerful speakers, writers, and leaders -- the same task of seminaries. Of note, the Jewish leaders after Pentecost made note of the fact that the Galilean men were advanced in their training "because they had been with Jesus." While I wish that we could all walk with Jesus about the land, that isn't always possible now that He has left this earth for the throne of His Father. So, we find other ways to do what it is that He said. Those other ways are myriad, from hands-on training at a local church level to hands-on training at seminary and on the mission field.

As far as my own study habits, time spent with God in prayer and Bible reading, etc., why on earth would you even suggest that I am deficient? Just because I don't agree with YOUR position? Sheesh... You know nothing at all about me except what I write here on this board. You can't possibly know the number of men I've mentored (or discipled if that is the term you prefer), nor how I've been mentored in the same manner.

While I admire what you are doing (really) I also take you to task for suggesting that it is the only way to do it.

 

If the Association is just using campus facilities, what gives them the right to continue to perpetuity?

 

Nothing, but the lease gives them the right to continue for the terms of the lease.

 

The concept is there, though. "Truth without any mixture of error" is equivalent. Of course, this is not original to the BFM2K.

 

Leases are broken all the time for many many reasons on both sides of the lease.

 

It is Baptist... The Baptists in 1689 were clear on their view of Scripture. They chose to use the same word as the Westminster devines in the London Baptist Confession, calling it the only "certain." That word signified that the Bible could be completely trusted to be without error, and is what we would call innerant. As well, how can you read Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan and not see his high view of Scripture, he honors it as completely trustworthy and authoritative which is supported in his other writings. Spurgeon was extremely adamant on the Scriptures... he is a Baptist... and he probably had the strongest words about Scripture on the 1800's with the Downgrade controversy. In fact, he used the doctrine of Scripture as a basis for allowing people to preach in his pulpit and associations to form. He called those with a lesser view a part of the "Downgrade." He traced throughout history what happens when Christians make less of the Bible.

Thus, for you to say "never has been" is ignorant of history. To be quite frank, it wasn't until the late 1700's did anyone major pop up in opposition to this doctrine. The Enlightenment produced several others in the 1800's, and by the late 1800's many more. The 20th Century saw the major rise of the liberal... those who deny the Bible.

see my most previous article for another summary of Christianity. Yet, the liberals who focus on innerancy never being Baptistic, truly focus on the Enlightenment and not on real history. No one would deny Spurgeon, the London Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, and the Charleston Baptist Confession putting forth statements that were strong statements on the Bible. They condemned mystics and the Enlightenment for their downgrading of the Bible and saying it was anything but innerant.

BTW, the word inerrant is not in the BF&M, but the definition is. As the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but the concept is everywhere.