As time goes by I continue to wonder if Southern Baptists are actually blind or simply blindfolded. Our Convention is being transformed before our very eyes and I wonder if it is even being seen for what it is. Over three years ago, in a blog post entitled Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conversatives: The Battle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention I wrote these words:When are people in the Southern Baptist Convention going to stand up and say enough is enough? The Southern Baptist Convention is now moving toward a time when everyone must look the same, talk the same, act the same, believe the same on the non-essentials of the faith, or else you will be removed as "not one of us." Today it is private prayer language vs. cessationists and the proper administrator of baptism vs. biblical baptism. Tomorrow it might be Calvinism vs Arminianism or dispensationalism vs. preterism. Where will it end?
The nature of independent, fundamentalist Baptists - Baptists who claim their true Landmark heritage through the ana-baptists of Europe and not the particular Baptists of England - is to separate from everyone who is not the "pure" bride of Christ. These separatists desire no cooperation, demand conformity, and are cock sure that every word they breathe is the mind of God. After a ten year personal slumber, I woke up three years ago and saw that this separatist, Landmark spirit is controlling our Convention and agency boards. I knew that if somebody didn't speak out against the narrowing of the definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist, then those who "control" the SBC would wind up excluding, removing, and disfellowshipping anyone who didn't look like them. I spoke out for those who believe in the continuation of the gifts, but were removed from our mission field. I have spoken out on behalf of women who taught at our seminaries and were fired for being women. I have spoken out against the extraordinary efforts to turn the SBC into one giant Fundamentalist Baptist church.
This week I pointed out that the architect of the Southern Baptist Convention is now going after Calvinists. Dr. Paige Patterson has expressed his intentions to administrators and professors at SWBTS to not have anyone on faculty at Southwestern who holds to five-point Calvinism. This is not conjecture; it is fact. It is also consistent with his actions of removing anyone who doesn't believe like he. People like Sheri Klouda, who saw nothing wrong with a woman teaching a man Hebrew. People like trustee Dwight McKissic, who believe his gift of a private prayer language is from the Holy Spirit. People like certain professors who believed in the continuation of the gifts. Now Dr. Patterson has turned his eye of disunion to five-point Calvinists.
Ironically, the defenders of this purge in the Southern Baptist Convention, those who are closed-communion, Landmark, separatist Baptists, like Patterson himself, defend Dr. Patterson to the nth degree. Their ideologies line up with his. Unfortunately, the Calvinists are waking up at the time they are the ones in the cross hairs. At some point, the Calvinists who didn't believe me will come back and say, "You were right." I, however, am uninterested in being proved right. I am only interested in people removing their blindfolds and seeing what is happening in our beloved Convention.
I have no problem with Landmark, independent, closed-communion, separatist, fundamentalist Baptists participating in the Southern Baptist Convention. Their anti-women, anti-charismatic, anti-Calvinist, anti-cooperation, and "anti-everthing they are not," does sometimes give me a head ache. But, I do not want them gone.
I want them to stop removing Southern Baptists from ministry and service who aren't like them.
Patterson's Intentions Clear and Consistent
In a taped conversation with Paige Patterson last night, a young pastor who idolizes Dr. Patterson and holds to the same ideology to that of his mentor, asked Dr. Patterson about the "rumors" that he desired to remove the Calvinists from the faculty at Southwestern. The questions and answers, courtesy of the transcript provided by New BBC Forum, are as follows . . .
Interviewer: "I've been asked recently about a rumor that these economic challenges have been used as an excuse uh... to weed out certain professors at Southwestern who hold to a soteriological viewpoint with which you disagree. Is there any truth to that rumor?"
Paige Patterson: "Ummm... eh you... you know... eh uh... I certainly hope not. Uhhh... eh uh... eh... I've lived my entire life... of life in a goldfish bowl... and... as boldly as I know how to do it. Uhhh... we're not certain at all that we're going to have to eliminate any professor. We have been working very, very hard to... ummm... to cut everything else in the world so we don't have to cut professors and... uh... we don't know yet what we're gonna have to do, but we... we're hopeful that we don't have to cut any professors. If we do... ummm... I will not use a... uhhh... screen... uh... to do that with. Ummm... if if if... every decision that I make regarding faculty would be made with a view to assisting the school to be the best school it possibly can be. Ummm... we have every conceivable soteriological view on the campus... uhhh... in terms of five points of Calvinism. We have one-pointers, two-pointers, three-pointers, four-pointers, and five-pointers. Uhhh... I will say this. Uhhh... Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." If there is a problem there, then I believe there's a problem that Southern Baptists would not want to fund.
Interviewer: "True."
Paige Patterson: "And so uhhh... uhhh... that would be the case, but I wouldn't be hidin' behind a screen of economic matters... if I had to deal with that".
Interviewer: "Sure."
Paige Patterson: "And uhhh... uh... God willing... ummm... if He's gracious to us... God's people continue to give... maybe we won't have to lay off anybody else."
Interviewer: "That's what we're prayin' for. Yes."
The Confirmation that Calvinists are Targeted Is in the Tape
Other than the interesting fact the interviewer expresses agreement on three separate occasions in his little "interview," it strikes me that Dr. Patterson doesn't deny his agenda, but rather confirms it.
Listen to his words: Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins."
Uh, Dr. Patterson, that is precisely what a five-point Calvinist will not do. A Calvinist will not tell just "anybody" that "Christ died for your sins." He will, however, look anybody in the eye and say, "Christ died for sinners. Do you know yourself to be a sinner and in need of a Savior? If so, Christ died for you."
Again, a five point Calvinist will never look just "anybody" in the eye and say "Christ died for you." He will not say that to the man who loves his adultery and scoffs at repentance. He will not say that to a woman who loves herself and will not bow to the Lordship of Christ. He will not say that to Adolph Hitler as Hitler takes Jews to the gas galleys. He will not say that to the sinner who has no sense of his sin. He will not say "Christ died for you" because he doesn't know if Christ did or not.
That's five point Calvinism.
The Calvinist believes that those for whom Christ died evidence Christ's death for them by their faith in the Son and their repentance of sins. God delivers, completely and eternally, only the sinners for whom He gave His Son. This is what Calvinism teaches. As Charles Spurgeon, the great Calvinist preacher of over 150 years ago, so eloquently declared about the elect and the reason God passes over them in judgment:
God will, God must, pass over us, because He spared not our glorious Substitute
The Calvinist is not a universalist. He believes that some sinners will be judged and condemned for their sins. These are those sinners for whom Christ did not die. It is the essence of five-point Calvinism, and these are the people Patterson wishes to purge from Southwestern. If Southern Baptists cannot see that the purging in the Southern Baptist Convention continues, and that anyone who doesn't agree with a particular ecclesiological, soteriological, pneumatological and eschatological ideology of those currently in charge and their vocal sychophants, then we are in a very dangerous place as a cooperating convention of autonomous churches.
There are a few Southern Baptists who do get it. Their blindfolds have been removed. Hopefully, more will follow.
In His Grace,
Wade
612 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 612 of 612BT,
Nice Response. You are a crafty debater. Btw, I love Dr. Mohler and Southern Seminary, but that does not mean that I adhere to every professor at Southern totally. Additionally, I find the NAC to be a fine commentary set and am presently about 1/4 the way through collecting the entire set. But---this series, while containing many wonderful nuggets is also a fallible collection of human works. That said, I disagree with Dr. Polhill's assessment of Acts 6:5. Of course I always reserve the right to revise and extend...
Btw,
From where did you cut and paste that long Greek Grammar lesson? Sharp's rule has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Secondly, I do not need a vocabulary lesson on the Greek word for "elder." Lastly, no one is denying that 15:22 speaks of the church (even ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ). But it is reading too much into the text (imo) to say that the final authority for the decision rested with the congregants of FBC Jerusalem.
Sorry, sir. You came to the operating room with gardening tools----and you used them anyway. I only started learning Greek 2 years ago, but I fell off the turnip wagon over 20 years ago. Lobbing out lots of seemingly complex data only impresses the [Ctrl] and [V] keys. But not this simple boy from "mid-Missouri."
:)
RevKev
Kevin, you said,
“From where did you cut and paste that long Greek Grammar lesson? Sharp's rule has nothing to do with what we are talking about.”
My impression was that you did not equate “elder” with “pastor” and “overseer/bishop” when you made the comment about the Jerusalem church having elders. Sorry if I misunderstood you. The Granville Sharp rule has relevance for Ephesians 4:11 as to whether the final category is “pastor-teacher” or “pastors as a subset of teachers.” The rule indicates that when the copulative connects two nouns of the same case that reflect personal qualities and when the first noun is preceded by the definite article while the second noun is not, then the second noun refers to the same category as the first noun. The rule always applies in regard to singular nouns, and it sometimes applies in regard to plural nouns. The nouns are plural in Ephesians 4:11, and that is the point of contention. My sources are the following:
Wuest, Kenneth. Ephesians and Colossians in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957.
Martin, Ralph. Ephesians. Vol. 11, The Broadman Bible Commentary. Clifton J. Allen, ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1971.
Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. Vol. 2, Calvin’s Commentaries. T. H. L. Parker, trans. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965.
Robertson, A.T. The Epistles of Paul. Vol. IV, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1931.
Meyer, H. A. W. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Ephesians. G. H. Venables, trans. Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1980.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. Vol. 8, Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.
BT,
I was being sarcastic with the "Elders in Jerusalem" comment. You took me serious and explained the heck out of it!
Anyway, I happen to agree with you on Sharps--at least in terms of how it was explained to me in this formula Article + singular substantive + kai + singular substantive. Of course plurals work too in some cases. Context and HS common sense. :)
I respect your view of congregational polity. But I have experienced 33 years of congregational rule. I no longer have faith in it. I will always as a Southern Baptist pastor submit to the authority of the church insofaras they do not demand of me something which violates Scripture, my conscience, or a combination of the two. I will, when placed in a church, always seek to teach and direct the congregation to move to a board of administrative and spiritual male elders, perpetuated from within and approved by the church body. So, in effect, the ultimate power rests in the body. But, since I believe the body to be ineffective in governing itself as far as spiritual matters and day to day operations, then it MUST delegate this responsibility to biblically defined offices. How can a church remove it corrupt leaders?
Move to vacate the Presbytery/Pulpit/Board...or a portion thereof.
Truth be told, I would prefer to minister under the control of a Session and Presbytery. I believe that accountability is crucial in ministry. The SBC suffers from too many "roque" preachers. But such is the nature of the SBC, such was the desires of her founders. I will always seek accountability from other ministers and leaders. My leadership demands trustworthiness and transparency. Anything which clouds either will diminish my ability to lead and minister.
RevKev
"The elders will do what they have been called to do."
This is where most miss it.
I agree with BT when he wrote this because I have personally seen too much of it and for other biblical reasons...mainly that WE have redefined what an elder is based on our love of hierarchy within the Body and the fact that most elder ruled churches the members become spectators:
"If the elders rule, how does the congregation remove corrupt elders from office? The congregation can delegate certain decisions to particular members, but the congregation has the biblical right to remove such delegated authority to particular members."
Amen.
Another interesting thing is to look at the Greek word for 'appoint' in that passage in Acts.
" The SBC suffers from too many "roque" preachers. But such is the nature of the SBC, such was the desires of her founders. I will always seek accountability from other ministers and leaders. My leadership demands trustworthiness and transparency. Anything which clouds either will diminish my ability to lead and minister."
I can understand why a pastor would want ruling elders as is usually found in what Kevin describes. One reason is because elders protect pastors. Trust me Kevin, there are plenty of hirlings protected by a handful of men with the title 'elder' out there.
Since the congregation is rarely involved in decisions when there are a few elders running the 'show' with the pastor, it usually takes years to find out there are serious problems. As we have seen in the SBC, serious problems are hidden for a long time when one surrounds themselves with like minded 'elders' or 'trustees'.
We can recognize true biblical elders by reading Matt 5. Problem is, it is not what most expect. Instead it is usually the successful men in the community.
On Southern Baptist Blog Wars, Liberals & Fundamentalists
Still goin'...
‘Will the real ‘John 3:16’ stand up?’
Believing Dr. Phil’s humor, I set out to prove that ‘John 3:16’ was Wes Kidney by reading all the 109 comments of SBC Today post of February 5.
The fourteen comments about ‘John 3:16” or by ‘John 3:16 were by David Rogers, Tim Rogers, and Benji Ramsaur.
David Rogers asked ‘John 3:16’: “Who are you?”
Tim Rogers replied: “‘John 3:16’ is my friend.”
‘John 3:16’ said: “I am a voice crying in the wilderness…close friend of Tim Rogers.” And another comment was: “Didn’t my bud Tim say this to you?”
‘John 3:16’ last comment is below:
John 3:16
February 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Benji,
The history books say that the seminaries were not following the church’s confession. That is what the conservative reformation was about, at least that is what the history books say. Why should the people in the churches leave when the seminaries needed to change back to what they should have been teaching?
Sorry, Tim, this is getting boring. I might check in later.
All this time, I’m thinking ‘John 3:16’ is Wes Kidney, but the reply by Benji Ramsaur threw my thinking out the window:
Benji Ramsaur
February 6th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
John 3:16,
Aw man [if you are a male--I'm really not sure], don’t leave the party.
Sorry we are boring to you. I better spice things up before you come back and give that “shut down the comment stream” speech to ole Wes.
So it looks like:
1. Benji called Wes to “shut down the comment stream”.
2. Wes asked him to write an email requesting to shut it down.
3. Wes posted the email and signed ‘John 3:16’ to ‘protect’ Benji.
4. After replying “Granted” less than a minute later, he realized people would think he was ‘John 3:16’.
5. If Wes had not panicked, he would have deleted “Granted’ and posted it later.
6. But he went the route he did, and proved the old saying, “What a tangle web we weave when we set out to deceive” or something like that.
7. I believe Wes was trying to convey truth by telling untruth. If he was as old as me, he’d relate to Digger Odell, the friendly undertaker, saying: “What a revolting development that turned out to be!”
Wes, I hope all is well with your wife. Several years ago, back surgery helped my wife of 52 years, but she walks with a cane
Another exciting episode of SBC Today.com:
The next comment after my comment above was put on SBC Today was:
Benji Ramsaur Reply:
Aw Rex, ya had to drag me into this. Or did you? Take Care.
Wally said...
Rex Ray said: ‘Will the real ‘John 3:16’ stand up?’
Rex
I believe you are wrong, if it isn’t Wes Kenney then it has to be one of those giving direction from SWBTS Dr Paige, Dr White or Dr Malcolm.
Rex, for you fussiness you might want to consult with the Good Dr Phil.
Tim Rogers Reply:
Wally,
You are wrong on your guesses. SWBTS nor any other entity controls this blog. SBC Today is committed to restoring unity by calling us back to Baptist Identity. You and those that are calling us away from our Baptist Identity are the ones destroying unity within the convention.
Wally said...
Tim,
Please forgive me, as I am new to this blogging. I have been all over these blogs and reading what has happened within the SBC in the past and it sure is revealing what has been going on. This Rex fellow seems to have a good handle on all of this.
volfan007 Reply:
Wally,
Rex has a good handle on this? Are you serious? You really need to talk to CB a little more.
As these comments come to a close:
All men are falling into hell.
They grasp at everything.
But they’re falling also.
Only Jesus is anchored.
If they cry, “Jesus, save me.”
He will lift them as Peter
Was lifted from waves of death.
Wade, thank you so very much for your integrity, honesty, and courage to stand up the many of the SBC leaders who are blinded by their enormous egos and lust for power. I have seen the "end justifies the means" attitude of the SBC while a student at SWBTS and have NO respect whatsoever for men like Paige Patterson. I am grateful for your courage to stand up to men like him. Too many are afraid of Patterson because of his long history of destroying ANYONE who stands up to him.
Paige Patterson is an embarassment to the SBC and to all current and former Southwestern students. I am a Southwestern grad and I am ashamed he is our president. In addition to his immoral actions regarding the firing of the women profs, enabling Darryl Gillyard, closing the counseling licensing department, closing the childcare center, etc. . . .he has wrecked the student enrollment numbers. I went through the ATS numbers from over the years. In 2000-01 (year I graduated) Full Time Enrollment (FTE) was 2548 with an overall enrollment of 3094. Now after 8 years of Patterson's wreckless "leadership," numbers are now 1442 FTE and an overall enrollment of 2490. Why should he still be in office??
Post a Comment