Seminary gives association six months to vacate property

to me, it looks like it....
sometimes money changes things, even for "brethren"...

 

Yes, they are. And those who break the lease must do so according to its terms. If they do not, they can be held liable.

 

The original agreement for use of the property was in the form of a 99-year long-term lease. In 1997, the seminary deeded (i.e., gave) the property, including the building, to the Tarrant Baptist Association. Included in the deed was a reversionary clause that stipulated under what conditions that the property would revert back to its original owner (in this case, Southwestern Seminary).

If, as SWBTS alleges, that Tarrant has violated the terms of their affiliation agreement which would trigger reversion, then Southwest has the right to receive the property back. At issue is whether the facts of the case warrant reversion in a legal sense. The terms of the deed and agreements will be determined by an arbiter (if arbitration is part of the agreement) or a court of law.

Tarrant owns the property and can do whatever it wants to with the property. However, if they violate the terms of the agreement and the reversionary clause kicks in, then they could lose the property. However, I do not believe this is about theology or the issue of homosexuality, regardless of what has been alleged. Has Southwestern taken money from the churches of this association since June of 2009 (when the "pro-homosexual" church was removed from the SBC)? Are students, faculty, or staff currently members of churches in this association or on the payroll of any of these churches? If yes, I think this severely undercuts the theological argument being advanced by Southwestern. In any event, I do not believe that this has been handled well by the leadership at Southwestern. The height of irony would be to take back this property for a "Welcome Center." Would the churches of the TBA even be welcome back in the building? Thanks and God bless,

Howell

 

This could be finely debated as whether truth without mixture of error is the same as inerrancy, but Baptist is that the Bible is the final authority for all faith and practice, not inerrancy.

 

Well, certain is not inerrant. Truth without mixture of error is not inerrant...well at least it wasn't considered the same thing during the SBC resurgence years when these terms and ones like them weren't good enough to be used by those opposed to the resurgence crowd. Now all of a sudden these words mean the same thing, I'm confused!?!?! You can't have it both ways, if these words didn't count then, they can't count now.

You're cherry picking of quotes from history to stand up your point and then slapping inerrant on them doesn't make them mean what you want them to mean. No clear thinking conservative would sign on to the idea that the Bible is inerrant if it didn't qualify it first that it only applied to the originals, not a one. Read the 20 something qualifiers in the precious Chicago Statement.

Well guess what, we don't have the originals. Now what? Inerrancy was and is a theoretical man-made "doctrine" that once qualified and defined then redefined ends up meaning nothing and has the unintended consequence of elevating the written word to equal or higher status then the Living Word as evidence by the BF&M 2000 statement on scripture.

Inerrancy is not Baptist.

 

You crack me up like so many other liberals. You get clear evidence proving you wrong so you call it names like "cherry picking." Wow, thanks for revealing your wonderful academic and scholarly mind by showing that you can use words like "Cherry picking." Yet, intelligent people see you had no arguments and that just saying "Baptists aren't inerrentists" so many times means you will win. You have truly shown what I think this debate has always been about, people who just hate God's Word wanting to destroy it.

If I misquoted or misrepresented anyone, show me how I am wrong. I have studied this tremendously. Have you read the entirety of what Spurgeon wrote on the Downgrade? I have! Let me state in clear terms, Spurgeon was an inerrantist. Bunyan was so engrossed and in awe of the Bible that Spurgeon commented that if you cut him he would "bleed Bibline".

The qualifiers on the Chicago Statement is nothing that has not been acknowledged or respected even by secular scholars and was based upon Warfield's book.

I could go on, but it is funny that you don't agree but you have no rebuttal. Classic.

 

I do not know what you mean, "Could you explain." Yet, I will take a stab at it. I think you mean some of what they mean insofar as some of the types of uses in Scripture. I think the best explanation I have seen is in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. For instance, often we refer to the "sun rising." Now, the Chicago Statement agrees that this is not about the sun rising up and that it is not denying that we are actually rotating around the sun while spinning on our axis. You would not think think that if I said, "The sun is rising" that I was in error because I should have said, "the earth is rotating on it's access while orbiting the sun to that the sun is beginning to shine on our segment of the world." You would say,"Oh, the sun is rising, he is right."

Much of the Chicago Statement is dealing with these types of issues. Another famous illustration is if I said 100 people came to my party. Now, you and I may agree that this is an estimate. It could be 101 or 99, but you would not say that if you actually counted and found 101 people there that I was in error. You would recognize it as an approximation. Yet, if I said 100 people were at the party and only 10 arrived, we would consider this wrong.

There are many more of these.

 

You say you have studied, but you continue to confuse what inerrancy is with what you think it means. It is a very technical term as evidenced by the Chicago Statement. Inerrancy cannot be proven. Why, because it only applies to the original manuscripts, which we don't have. It is a theoretical man-made "doctrine" created in the 19th century in response to the flood of higher criticism.

The SBC has made this a hobby horse of conformity, yet didn't use it when the changed the BF&M, why if it's such an important, vital doctrine?

Historic Baptists say the Bible is the God-breathed word of God and is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. Good solid Bible expressions, found in the Bible and without need of qualification or "clarification".

Warfield was a Presbyterian, not Baptist. Spurgeon, a Baptist also fought the flood of higher criticism but never resorted to creating doctrines or terms to defend the belief of an inspired Bible. In fact he fought to keep people from redefining what inspired (an biblical word) actually meant. I, nor you don't know if he would have signed on to the term inerrant, but considering his defense of the word inspired, I'm not so sure it is the open and shut case you portray it be.

Inerrancy is not Baptist.

If you want to continue, we should probably start another topic, since this was about originally about SW.

 

The accepted definition on inerancy is defined by Wayne Grudem, "all the words are claimed to be completely true and without error in any part (Numbers 23:19, Psalm 12:6, 119:89, 96; Proverbs 30:5; Matthew 24:35). That is the definition. The Bible testifies of this definition saying this is true. So, can you begin to show me where the Bible is in error? How do you know what is error and what is not error? If the Bible teaches it is in error, and you disagree with the Bible, can you rightly call yourself a Christian? Why or why not? I believe that if the Bible is God's Word and we reject God's Word, we are rejecting God himself. As noted in a previous post, we are to revere the Bible because it is from God not mixed with man.

It is a theological word, and I am not trying to prove it externally from the Bible (as a presuppositionalist, that would be foolish), yet I do believe it must be presupposed or else you cannot have the Christian faith. In fact, there is more evidence for inerrancy than for the Trinity, another sacred and important doctrine of the Bible (which would also be a heresy to deny). If the Bible is errant, there is no rational reason to hold to any portion of the Bible.

We know that Jesus rebuked his disciples for not believing the Old Testament (Luke 24:25). Jesus admonished us to keep the Words of God. There was a punishment for not obeying Paul's command to include excommunication, deep spiritual ramifications, and punishment from God (II Thess. 3:14, I Co 14:38, 2 Cor 13:2-3).

Since the Bible is seen as God's Word and all Scripture are intimately God' Breathed and we know that God cannot lie or speak falsely (II Timothy 3:16; Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18) and God's words are true (2 Sam 7:28), then if the Bible is God's Word, it must be true and not a lie nor false. That is, essentially, inerrancy.

Liberals get around this by saying that the Bible "contains" God's Word, but not all of this is God's Word. Even the Jesus Seminar sought to discover which parts of Jesus' sayings were actually spoken by Jesus and which parts were not. As a part of their draconian methods, they said that the only part of the Lord's/Model Prayer they could for sure say Jesus spoke was "Our Father." You can thank some fellow "Baptists" for that and in my book, this is heresy and anti-Christian. This kind of scholarship is what you get when you say the Bible is not inerrant. You have people deciding "they kingdom come, they will be done" is not God's Word and so we must ignore it.

To continue, Jesus calls God's Word truth (John 17:17).

I disagree on several accounts. First, I would dispute whether something that is not inerrant can be a final authority. Yet, on the other segment, the people at the London Baptist Confession believed it was more than a final judge, they believed it was the whole of Christian faith that needed to be relied upon. The London Baptist divines, actually had people who were willing to die believing both Baptist Doctrine and that the Bible is not merely a final authority, but every word was without error. The Bible is not errant. Bunyan is a prime example of this time of steadfastness. Early Baptists even disputed that if the Bible is truly God's Word and completely trustworthy, why should we sing anything other than the Psalter? I think the Bible answers that question, but the point was traditionally what reformers called "Sola Scriptura."

As well, you noted "God breathed". The problem with this phrase for you is the premiere work of BB Warfield in Revelation and Inspiriation. This phrase indicates the most pure of all works. If this is God's very breathe, BB Warfield noted, then it is the most pure and perfect demonstration of God himself. To my knowledge, no one has been able to dispute his Greek scholarship on this issue.

Yes, Warfield was a Presbyterian. I agree. The point is his scholarship, not that he is a Baptist. I am not sure what point you are making about Spurgeon. He did not just combat higher criticism, in fact if you read the Downgrade papers, he noted that before it gets to that point there are serious problems. He said the beginning was disputing the Word of God. He said that greater care should have been made. He was adamant as shown in the following quotation:

Later years, Spurgeon will say of the Downgrade. Spurgeon uses "inspiration" and not inerancy, but if you take the context, he is simply saying people who do not believe the Bible is without error (similar to what he says above).

Spurgeon called those who do not believe in the Bible being completely true as thieves.

and again

The plenary inspiration means, theological, the very words and every one of them (usually inerantists are called Verbal plenary inspirationalists). Spurgeon here is condemning the practice of condemning the Words of God.

Spurgeon also makes this a part of unity and remaining in a convention together:

History has shown that the head of the Baptist Union disputed with Spurgeon publicly saying that there was no such evidence of the charges Spurgeon made. Yet, Spurgeon had evidence and presented them to the head of the Baptist Union, the head of the Union denied he was given them (though records after their death reveal Spurgeon had a letter from the President acknowledging SPurgeon's charges). Spurgeon left the Baptist Union... it was over doctrine and one of the major issues was the Verbal Plenary inspiration of Scripture.

It is Baptist, and I stand with Spurgeon. Yet, like Spurgeon, if you Baptists deny the Bible, I would call Baptists heretis and cease to be one.

 

Actually, this is simply not true. The earliest Baptist confessions, LONG before the 19th century, included the concept that the Bible is inerrant. Just look at the 2nd London Baptist confession, chapter 1, articles 1 and 9. They might not say the actual word "inerrant" (because that was not a word used widely in the 17th century), but they definitely contain the doctrine of innerrancy!

The doctrine of innerrancy is vital. If the Word of God was breathed out by Him, the scriptures MUST be innerant. If they contain errors, they were not breathed out by God.

 

Are you kidding? He is talking about Southern Seminary! They are famous for the very thing you have stated.

The "model" given in the Bible, is to train younger men using culturally normal means. Unless you are willing to walk, eat, and sleep with your young aspiring pastors, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you cannot match the rigor that Jesus put into training the apostles in modern times.

Actually, this is very wrong. Paul was one of the most well studied, scholarly people in the Bible, and yet still went away for several years of study and prayer before beginning his ministry work. The Pharisees and scribes were amazed at the theological knowledge of Peter and the others, since they were so-called "unlearned" men, having not been trained in the Rabbinical schools; yet they had spent three years eating, sleeping, and learning from the mouth of Christ.

Training goats to act like sheep....

Without the so-called "head knowledge," (which is really just a Biblically illiterate and lazy person's way of downplaying study), it is impossible to train people Biblically. Just because something "appears" to work, does not mean it is right. Men grow spiritually by hearing and learning the word of God, and then the Holy Spirit changing them, and growing them. Not by by forced change of external behavior. That is Pharisee-ism.

Pragmatism produces just as much arrogance as study. The difference is that pragmatism and downplay of study has DESTROYED the church in America, and is why you have insanities like so called "Christians" speaking of their "Christian brother" Glenn Beck.

Pragmatism destroys churches. Prayer filled study, whether in Seminary or in church, ALWAYS builds it up, and accomplishes the purpose for which God has sent it.

 

To this, I will add that the persons on the committee for the 2000 BF&M were inerrantists. Dr. Mohler lead that charge and he is very seriously inerrantist.

 

First, I do not know what point you are making with I Sam 16: 13 and 14. If you are implying a pure logical formulation of the Word apart from the Spirit, we too do not advocate this type of rigidity. I think what we are seeing is that you have no idea what we normally believe, thus you think verses like this is a contradiction to our belief. Here is a quote from one of our scholars, Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin concerning Baptist theologian Benjamin Keach, a hero to many of us in the faith:

You also are mentioning things that no one anywhere in history would say it has anything to do with inerrancy. Of course the Bible does not stand on four pillars, physically. You obviously have not read both past and present descriptions on the reliability of Scripture and it being without error. I know of no major theologian in the past who would consider the literal/physical explanation on this text to be a test of inerrency. THe problem with the liberals, they set up straw men arguments, like this, to "prove their point." Take something we actually believe.

Now, that does not mean we reject the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet, it is placed into the Word of God. Tyndale, for instance, was convinced that knowledge of Scriptures was essential to Christian spirituality. Yet, it doesn't mean we are unSpiritual. Tom Godwin said "Our speaking to God by prayers, and his speaking to us by answers thereunto, is one great party of our wakling with God." Yet, no one doubts Godwin's stand on the Scripture.

You missed my point. Warfield and Spurgeon says that God breathed must include inerrancy, or else it is not true and God breathed. The Bible is active, but it does not change, contradict, and it is all sufficient for all good works. Thus, you need not add anything to it. That demands it is without error.

This is a major issue I have with the Southern Baptists in general, it is all about numbers. Jesus preached a tough sermon in John 6 and everyone left him. Jeremiah preached for 40 year and yet not one recorded convert. Paul tells TImothy that preaching will go out of "style" and to preach God's Word "in season and out of season" even saying that some people will not continue to withstand solid words. Numbers is not the issue, it is faithfulness to God's Word.

Yet, on that, let me say that you are seeing a decline but my churches are seeing a radical increase. Our churches are growing, we are planting new churches. I heard several people who spoke at a couple of conferences say, "I was amazed at the number of young, under 35, pastors who are present. They said that this age group outnumbered all other groups combined. This was confirmed by two of my friends at one of these conferences. They told me that when asked how many Pastors were under 35, the vast majority stood. This was a solidly reformed conference, teaching solid scripture, with little fluff.

In essence, while I think people are leaving, we are seeing a radical surge. Yet, even if we are not, that is not the goal. The goal if faithfulness not numbers.

There is not an either/or.. but a both/and. This assumes that theology is not practical, which I believe it is extremely so.

No, but it is about saying, "this is what God actually said." It is about "Preaching the word."

I agree we should live out the Word. That is not in dispute, what is dispute is how do you know what we should obey, what is in error and what is not?

It was given not to debate whether it has error, but to believed completely... knowing that it is trustworthy. We do not argue whether something is in error, we just believe it.

 

You cannot know that unless you claim omniscience. Do you know, personally, all the professors who teach at the various seminaries? Do you know, personally, all the students who sit under them? I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd lay down a paycheck or two on the fact that you don't know many professors at all...

Virtually all of them... But the people often do not respond to those efforts.

You first... You are making the claim that seminary professors cannot do what Jesus said in the Scriptures.

I'll buy that. Not half as many good leaders out there as they think there are... Followers will only rise to the level of the leaders above them.

We have 43,000 churches with multiple millions of people. How large is your denomination? Someone was effective in growing the single largest Protestant denomination on the face of the earth, which is still the single largest sender of missionaries in the history of the earth.

Are you sure you want to argue this track? You would have to eliminate the Apostle Paul from contention as a discipler, because he was trained by the Jewish rabbinical system that you castigate.

You have a good model. No one is taking YOU to task for what you are doing. The argument is that yours is the ONLY way, and that no person can be trained by seminary professors. In that you are seriously incorrect.

I've known pastors who were awesome disciplers. I've known pastors who were awesome evangelists. I've known pastors who were awesome administrators (and administrate has the word "minister" within it). I've known pastors who were awesome worship leaders. It is the rare pastor who has all of those giftings in one person. You may be an awesome discipler, but lacking in some other gifting that God says is necessary for the life of a church. I don't know, because I don't know you personally. Just like you don't know about all the ones you are denigrating because you don't know them personally.

One man... Again, the SBC is more than one man, or one seminary. With 43,000 churches, there are bound to be some that struggle with leadership, while others do not. The fact that you've had to enter (is it 3?) churches in your own denomination that struggled with leadership, that you essentially had to re-start, indicates that the issue is more widespread than you think, even among your own.

Again, my argument is not with your model. It is with your deciding that your model is the only one that works.

For instance, I am the graduate of both the undergrad and graduate programs at Southern. I am part of a new church start that has just celebrated its 10th anniversary. We are currently running over 1000 members on 3 (soon to be 4) campus locations, with an average Sunday attendance around 2300 (yes, over 1300 visitors on any given Sunday). Our own program is VERY rigorous, and we REQUIRE all members to be covenant members. It can take up to a year to become a member in our church because we take it very seriously. As a covenant member, each member is also required to be a part of a community group that meets in someone's home during the week. There, we have shepherds (pastors) over small flocks of 10-20. They track multiple dimensions of the group's active church life, such as worship attendance, participation in communion, giving, community service, and ministry/evangelism efforts. Each person is held accountable. We can and we do institute church discipline for those who do not meet the requirements of the convenant they signed when becoming a member.

Strange thing is that our leaders are, for the most part, seminary-trained persons who work with other seminary professors on a daily basis. We have multiple seminary professors as members, some in pastoral roles, some who change diapers in the nursery (including me). According to you, we should not know how to do any of these things because we all learned from a seminary. But, you are obviously incorrect about all that.

 

I do think the issue is, do we believe the Bible is in error and thus should not all be believed and lived out, or is all of it to be believed and all of it lived out? That is the question. One side wishes to debate whether we should believe a certain text... and the other side says we should believe it and then see how we can apply it.