Status of SBC Today?

I don't think they would fire him for nothing, but we also have to figure in that denominational entities (not just SBC ones) have some history of sacrificing a person for what they believe is the good of the institution.

[I think this principle can be seen in W. H. Whitsitt's removal from Southern Seminary. His supporters at the school were successful three successive years in beating back attacks against Whitsitt (even from such notables as B. H. Carroll and T. T. Eaton). His supporters lost the will to continue to fight, thought it best for Whitsitt to go rather than the seminary to suffer because of him and his views, and then sacrificed him on the altar of the Southern Seminary. Perhaps 100 years from now Baptist historians will look back and assess the removal of Patterson from SWBTS this way.]

 

You are going to take the word of who you want to believe. I will take the word of who I want to believe. Not enough evidence has been made public to properly evaluate the situation. As for now, until enough evidence is released, I take this as a witch hunt by a few of the militant Calvinists.

 

That is complete nonsense and is unsupported.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Quite a bit of support. Look at who has been attacking lately.

 

Like Ed Stetzer? Nope...not a Calvinist.
Beth Moore? Non-cal
Is Lively a Calvinist?
Is the SWBTS board a bunch of Calvinists?
He had calls to resign from people who hold different sets of doctrines.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Icon.... and there is a word for this—hypocrisy.

 

Beth Moore?!? Good God...:Roflmao

 

So, what do you find hilarious about beastiality? What do you find hilarious about making a crude joke about 5 guys gang-raping a donkey? You're sick.

 

A similar thing happened with Reformed blogger Frank Turk, an associate of Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs, a year and a half ago. In trying to deflect criticism of his friend, disgraced Reformed Baptist personality Tom Chantry (child sexual abuse scandal), Turk tweeted about those who'd exposed Chantry's misdeeds suggesting they were necrophiliacs:

Rhetorical Questions: Frank Turk

Turk later sort-of apologized and announced he was retiring from social media. The whole thing is eerily similar to this situation: a rabid defender, in trying to make a point suggesting the charges against his friend are not true, fabricates a disgusting false story about those who are speaking out. It's more about blind loyalty and knee-jerk retaliation than anything. Vicious.

 

I find it hilarious that they were called on their blatant hypocrisy in a very attention getting manner. I find the sex act described as very disgusting; that is why the illustration has the shock value that makes it hilarious in its totality. You are sanctimonious.

 

Just know while it is very obvious your focus was on his attempt to show the hypocrisy they will try to make out your focus to be the crude way in which he did it. That is what they do. See you must now be destroyed like him.

 

I sure am glad that I am not a SBC Pastor ... 'one strike and you are OUT'.
What ever happened to Luke 17:3?

 

Calvinism wasn't around when Luke came out so apparently the standard changed with the onlsaught of calvinism.

 

You mean the "terrorists" who should "become Presbyterians"?
For those on the receiving end, what ever happened to Galatians 5:15?

 

And he should have been exposed and called out. I am not making this a Cal v. Arm thing, but an ethical thing.

 

Certainly it was. Jesus was teaching it

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

No one ever called the terrorists and the "become Presbyterians" is about their denying Baptist distinctives. Nothing wrong or inappropriate there.

 

Well my point is this...in all of our disagreements on here, none have ever made a remark like Patrick did. If it was the shoe on the other foot and it was a Calvinist who posted what he did, then I would still take the stance I am taking now. That was wrong, whether one is an Calvinist, or non-Calvinist.

He took things way too far, even if it was in jest.

 

I am not sanctimonious. I apologize for taking your post the wrong way. Again, my apology to you.

 

I don't disagree with that. I spoke to him personally and let him know. The issue is not whether it was wrong, but the level of response and the obvious desire to see him destroyed over it. Yep I said what I meant. Yall seem to want him destroyed. It should not have been posted over and over again (hence when it got posted here it was removed). The only purpose in posting it over and over again, calling for him to be removed from his church and kicked out of the SBC can not be anything but a desire of destruction. Frankly I find the response to his post worse than his post. Everyone should be a shamed.