Dr. Paige Patterson met with professors in the theology school at SWBTS and implied the seminary would be letting go the Calvinist professors from the seminary, claiming that the lack of funds and the need to reduce faculty as the rationale for the impending releases. Odd, however, was the seemingly chosen method of reduction. It was not years of service, nor even the performance of the professors, but rather, administration sought to ascertain just who on the faculty were avowed "tulip" men, and those are the ones being let go. Some of the professors present at the meeting included men who specifically informed administration of their beliefs at the time of their hiring, and they were told at the time their beliefs were not a problem. But it seems Calvinism is a problem to the powers that be at SWBTS. At least one professor from the philosophy department, himself on the brink of release, was present. The professors faced a grilling as to their soteriological belief system. They were asked to declare how many points of Calvinism to which they ascribed, and an even more penetrating series of questions were posed to that unfortunate soul who had the temerity to say "four" or "five" points.
Historically, dismissals at SWBTS have taken the backdoor approach of "You have a year to find a job," but the rough economic environment might speed that process up just a tad for these tulip men. Here's hoping they can make it through the spring.
Of course, it is the perogative of the SWBTS President to release whomsoever he will, but the forced, imminent departure of Calvinists from SWBTS illustrates just how far we have come since ideologues, who can't handle dissent, have taken charge of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
245 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245Thy Peace
I know that it was an oversight but you left out my blog "Watching His Story"
Watching His Story
I think we should get back to this Matt guy's comment.
Wade,
Your propensity for red herrings is disheartening. You did not address Dr. Welty's statements and instead of defending your own and refuting his, you diverted the argument to the "dead horses" of Rankin and Klouda.
Moreover, in this post, as in many others, you provide no substantiation or evidence for your claims whatsoever. I assume you'll chalk that up to "protecting sources," but it still does nothing to change the fact that when it comes to your modus operandi, this post is merely "same song, different verse."
Unless you can prove your assertions (and it appears you are either unable or unwilling to do so), your blog is nothing more than a gossip rag, the likes of which sit on magazine racks at the supermarket counter, beckoning to gullible housewives.
Talk about a KO punch!
Anonymous asked:
Where is “Dr. WELTY?”
In my opinion, he is doing penance or thinking of reasons to explain to his ‘boss’ why in the world he was reading Wade’s blog. He has probably been told if he ever makes a comment here again, his head will roll.
Of course, now he may be told to do otherwise.
On another subject.
“Are you the Messiah…?” John wanted a YES, but what he got was “the blind see, the lame walk…”
We wanted ‘Mr._________ said…’ but what we got was Wade’s past actions.
Nuff said.
P.S. I can hear Rob from Geneva growling and howling without the internet.
Joe Bob Briggs,
I believe the Bible says more than Matt.
Thy Peace,
You do well.
Joe Bob Briggs,
I've been hit harder by 1st graders on the playground than the so called "KO" punch of Matt.
:)
What's ironic is my post stands, but those who alleged my post was "a lie," even one professor who works at SWBTS, have grown eerily silent.
It's not the punches you throw in the first round that count. The judges look at who is left standing.
I'm still standing.
And the powerful grow less so . . .
Thanks, Wade.
"“Are you the Messiah…?” John wanted a YES, but what he got was “the blind see, the lame walk…”
We wanted ‘Mr._________ said…’ but what we got was Wade’s past actions.
Nuff said.
I'm telling you, some of you folks just crack me up.
I think Wade seems like a good guy. For whatever disagreements I have with him I can respect someone who says "This is where I stand" and doesn't pussyfoot around about it. But to compare his response to questions on this blog to our Lord's response is plum silly. Come on, man...
I never said that what he alleged wasn't true, I just thought it was satire. If he chooses to not respond to those calling for him to corroborate his story, I reckon that's his choice. But comparing him to Christ because of the way he answered......boy that's a good one.
Wade,
To claim that you are correct because your opponents have not responded beyond their initial statements requires a leap in logic not unlike that made by 1st graders on the playground.
Perhaps your metaphor is more appropriate than you intended.
Wade,
Ifthis is true, should we be posting it before the professors themselves know?
Wade:
I have never thought you were gullible.
But I did think that you would enjoy a humorous analogy that would obviously and immediately be seen as untrue to any reader.
I am sorry to have offended you and the others on this site.
I will consider my audience and choice of analogies/attempted humor in the future.
Louis
Dwight:
Thank you for the rebuke. I have apologized to Wade and the other readers here, too. But you reminded me that I had not apologized to Ben, so I do so now.
I will say that it should be obvious to anyone that what I wrote is satire, and that I have no reason to believe that anyone would believe what my fictional blogger in the story said. But I see now that even the satire was beyond the pale.
I hope that we get to meet sometime.
Louis
Paul:
Thank you, too, for your kind rebuke.
I would not have used an analogy that would have ever been perceived as true in any way. But, as noted above, it was inappropriate.
Thank you for your other kind comments.
I enjoy your writing, too.
The wisdom of your years often comes through.
Louis
CB:
Thanks for your comments, also.
I look forward to meeting you some day.
Louis
I have a novel idea. Instead of the PC/CYA method of excusing your behavior, why not just say you are wrong and then apologize? That might actually work, and might even look like repentence.
oc.
Ron and Tom:
Apologies to you, also.
Ron, I looked into the Martin Bradley matter and wrote you on that, but it was a very late post.
I spoke with a former offcier of the convention and a member of the executive committee at the time. They confirmed what I had understood.
Since the issue was something that was left out of the SBC Annual, it is something that was left out, and cannot be retrieved.
If you have any information or documents to which you want to refer me, I would be glad to consider them, and an apology will be forthcoming with regards to Mr. Bradley.
Louis
Wade:
Tried finding Ben Cole in D.C. Could not. Also tried "Googling" him, but there is nothing new, and there are apparently a couple of other Ben Coles.
Do you know what group, organization or publication that he may be working with?
I thought I had read that he was going to finish a degree at Baylor. Did he?
Louis
WANDERING NEARLY FORTY-YEARS IN THE DESERT OF THE HOSTILE TAKEOVER . . .
"LORD, our God, heal us from our affliction
and raise up healing for our wounds."
"Blow on the great trumpet for our freedom,
raise the standard for our gathering.
--Blessed are you LORD, who gather the exiles of Israel!"
" Restore our judges as at first
and our counselors as in the beginning
and you yourself reign over us.
--Blessed are you LORD, who love justice! "
Comment: you have waited a long time hungering and thirsting for justice in the SBC.
It could not be found in the courts of man, as Dr. Klouda knows, but in the Courts of the Most High, a different standard applies. Pray for the strength to endure this trial. We will not go unaided.
"But comparing him to Christ because of the way he answered......boy that's a good one."
Someone around here better start getting it soon that Christ wanted to model a better way for people to treat each other.
Patterson didn't 'get it' and very likely, he can't get it.
Wade did 'get it' and it guides his principles and his treatment of others.
Wade,
I emailed Dr. Patterson and asked him to comment on your post. Thomas White, SWBTS VP for Student Services and Communications responded on his behalf.
He denied that professors were being dismissed because of their holding to the Doctrines of Grace and upheld Dr. Welty's "excellent refutation of it."
Perhaps you ought to recheck your source.
Regards,
Les
Louis,
Thank you. Forgiven.
Don't worry about Ben. He called me last night laughing. He wanted to remind me that he has said to me for a while now that Wade was a chip off the old block. :) [With all the comedians there are out of work and he tries to be funny.]
For what it's worth, Wade wasn't disturbed when he talked to me except where both of us were reminded of what I mentioned to you about some things said with bad intentions in the past. You had no way of knowing my history in seeing what happened then of course, so you had to bear the reaction from me that was perhaps somewhat beyond what you said. [Wade was much milder in his words than was I.]
You are gracious in your response so I consider the matter closed and will in no fashion hold it over your head as real forgiveness will not.
By the way, Ben is happy, busy, enjoying his work in the political venue, preaching/teaching fairly regularly on Wenesdays, and rubbing shoulders with several that are Kingdom people though not of the SBC flavor. He's always been, as are all the Burlesons also, a Kingdom kind of person.
Les Puryear wrote this about PP:
'He denied that professors were being dismissed because of their holding to the Doctrines of Grace'
Well, now.
What IS the reason these professors 'were being dismissed'.
At least PP didn't have the gall to say he WASN'T dismissing them.
msvoboda,
My, how you have changed your tune.
From, "It's not true!"
To, "If it's true, should we be posting before the professors know themselves?"
Msvoboda, I've learned a thing or two over the last three years. When ideologues are out to remove people from their jobs (Rankin, Klouda, Bullock, etc . . .) you get the information out to save the jobs of the people you care about.
Unfortunately, in this situation, at least one of the men on the chopping block may not realize his job was saved by administrators who pulled back to spite the person who informed the SBC of intentions.
Blessings,
Wade
I just got an e-mail from Dr. Tom Ascol from the Founders Ministries. I asked him if these reports were true? His response,
"Some. But I can't verify all. It appears that there was a plan to remove the Calvinist professors but that it has been, at least partly, thwarted. Time will tell."
Jerry Johnson, President
NiceneCouncil.com
The Apologetis Group, Inc.
Praise God.
Paul:
Thanks for the gracious response.
I am particularly glad to hear that Ben was laughing.
I think that Ben is one of the most talented writers in the SBC, but I understand completely his decision to move on to something different. I was worried about the tone of his last post on SBC Outpost because it seemed so sad, but the news you have provided is encouraging.
I hope to meet you someday. I am sure that you are proud of Wade.
Lots of preacher's kids don't turn out well. I don't always think that's the fault of preachers, as many seem to in a rush to judgment. But it sure is gratifying to see one who has followed in his father's calling. I am sure that you were a huge influence in that regard.
Take care.
Louis
"Some. But I can't verify all. It appears that there was a plan to remove the Calvinist professors but that it has been, at least partly, thwarted. Time will tell."
Thank you, Pastor Wade and your informer(s).
So now, will PP cut the seminary unneeded expenses, but save the staff from firings?
Also, Pastor Wade's post on SWBTS makes lot of sense now.
Trouble at Southwestern Theological Seminary
To Rod from Geneva…err…Joe Blackman,
You said, “But to compare his response to questions on this blog to our Lord’s response is plum silly. Come on, man…”
If it’s silly, why don’t you tell why? “Come on, man…” doesn’t explain anything.
You said, “But comparing him [Wade] to Christ because of the way he answered…boy that’s a good one.”
There’s an old strategy when unable to prove a statement false is to exaggerate the statement and then make fun of your own exaggeration.
Just had a strange thought:
suppose PP did purposefully spend ALL THAT MONEY on non-essentials for SWBTS and a lot on his own comfort:
JUST SO THEY WOULD HAVE A MONEY CRISIS AND HE HAD AN
'EXCUSE' TO FIRE PROFESSORS or at least make them so financial uncomfortable that they would seek employ elsewhere?
Then being as it were 'at his discretion' HE could eliminate the ones whose doctrines were not to HIS fancy.
Strange thought.
Just came to me out of the air.
Maybe that's why all the extravagance was advertised in that Christmas film.
PP would rather take a hit as 'over-extravagant' and unwilling to share in the 'cuts' he placed on others' salaries;
THAN a hit on someone using his 'discretionary powers' to wage a doctrinal war openly by eliminating Calvinist professors.
Makes sense.
'Create your persona and control its flaws': then do what you want behind that disguise.
Draconian.
But SOMEONE talked.
So PP won't sleep well anymore, after all this.
What goes 'round, comes 'round.
:)
I haven't commented here for some time, though I read Wade daily and would never question his character.
The reason I haven't commented is because in the last several months, it seems to be taken over by anonymous comments, and some (not all) hide behind their nameless comments to be extremely confrontational and mean.
Comments like these:
Anonymous said...
wade...your blog fans await your response...hello?
Anonymous said...
wade, how do you respond to dr. welty?
CB Scott: your arrogance is showing. Pitiful behavior tonight.
Bullies stink.
There are many people who frequent here that I seldom agree with, but they have the courage to sign their name.
I suggest you sign your name, otherwise I think there are many if not most who detest not simply the things you say, but more specifically the despicable way you hide.
I can just imagine Luther nailing an anonymous letter to the wall.
I don't know if this has been posted already, but today Ken at Apprising posted some info and an email from a student at:
http://apprising.org/2009/02/are-calvinists-to-be-let-go-at-southwestern-baptist-theological-seminary/
Whatever the job status of monergists at the seminary may be (and I'm not saying that their jobs nor accurate reporting are unimportant), what concerns me most in that email is:
"I as a student can truly say that there is tension on the campus between those who hold to the Doctrines of Grace and those who do not. I believe that much of the reason for this at least surfaced between the Building Bridges Conference and the John 3:16 Conference."
The many who are more familiar with the SBC seminaries than I am might say this is nothing new. But it still points to the basic issue of the SBC being divided in our soteriology, which I believe impacts our whole theology. Do we try to sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away, or what?
Grace alone.
Watchinghistory,
Borrow or purchase the documentary on DVD titled: "Sovereign Grace." In the documentary time and again this theme of it being no use to talk Gospel to a lost person is pounded: A preacher in a funeral home witnessing to a corpse; a preacher preaching his heart out, "Whosoever will my come..." and when the camera pans away to long distance the audience is literally a grave yard with only the preacher and the tombstones to be seen as far as the eye can see. The analogy is made that is no difference witnessing to lost men. They cannot hear until they are saved.
Of course the point is that a person has to be predestined, elected, chosen and regenerated to respond to the Gospel because the dead can respond to nothing. They are dead.
To me this borders on heresy; yet I believe in the "Five Points of Grace" which are:
1. Original Sin.
2. Effectual Calling.
3. Election.
4. Particular Redemption.
5. Perseverance of the Saints.
I go in at the same place that most Calvinists enter Calvinism. I just do not come out at the same place.
Phil in Norman not Dr. Phil.
Pastor Phil
Help me here, Who are some of these Sovereign Grace folks? Do they really exist?
A prior SWBTS professor use to take his students out to a cemetery to teach personal evangelism. It seemed effective to me.
I like the song "throw out the flesh hook, throw out the flesh hook, bodies are floating aaawaaaay" Seems scriptural to me ref Eph. 2:!-3
Actually your ref to the Phillipian jailer illustrates the Calvinist "evangelism" IMO Paul and Silas were in prison planning a booklet about their experience in prison as a witnessing tool, making preparation to rent a large tent (Paul had connections for this) and choosing committees for the crusade.
Actually they probally did not have evangelism on their mind at all just praying and singing praises to God. Everyone heard them and God sent an earthquake that shook all the bands loosse and the jailer had thoughts of suicide. Paul saved his life and he said, sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
If you are Calvinist you believe that the jailer said what he said because he was regenerated. Faith and belief came after the new birth.
If you are Wesleyan then you believe that the jailer received prevenient grace that enabled him to ask and the jailer was led to accept Christ and believe. Faith precedes the new birth.
Both views assume total depravity and that either a divine enablement or regeneration is necessary to being saved.
There is a third view of original sin in which the image of God in man has been marred but not so marred as to be redeemable. Man has original sin but not totally depraved. When he reaches an age of accountability he can make a choice as to accept or reject Christ. There is an island of righteousness in everyman by which he can hear the gospel and act on what he hears.
I reject this view along with Wesleyanism with all my heart and strength. I am a Calvinist: Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonment, irresistible grace and preservation/perseverance of the saints.
New BBC Open Forum said...
My opinion, if you'd really like to know, is you're (Charles Page, Collierville, Tennessee) a pervert with an unhealthy fascination with homosexual behavior and pedophilia and a personal vendetta against Dr. and Mrs. Rogers.
Sat Jan 31, 09:46:00 PM 2009
Wed Feb 04, 09:41:00 AM 2009
It's unfortunate I have to come here again to clear my name. I wrote the above-mentioned quote several days ago (less the part in parentheses), and I stand by it. It's only my opinion based upon Mr. Page's bizarre behavior and the things he's written. However, I did NOT post any comments here today or at any time since January 31st. For the record, my unique profile # ends in 55376 and will always be visible when I post. Whoever posted the comment today using my screen name did not have a visible profile because he couldn't!
This is a perfect example of why I require that people register and post with their profiles visible. Beware of trolls!
NASS/anonymous
Anonymous said...
Is it getting too hot for you? All this Fire and Brimstone talk and you being the closet homo. One picture is worth a thousand words. Right? You would be surprised at how many people have hidden cameras. Have you been some place you shouldn't have been? I know the truth. Your friends don't
February 2, 2009 8:55 PM
NASS, It is my strong opinion that this is one of your sheep and that you know who this is. Your sheep believe that your opinions are truth.
My blog does not deal in baseless opinions but truth, including who I am. Your blog has used opinions to attempt to derail Dr Gaines. You have been vicious toward the Gaines family. You are demonstrating this same viciousness toward me. It is wrong for you and I to be using Wade's forum to argue our differences but this is your fault.
I will continue to use Wade's forum to ask you to apologize since I can't ask you on your "open forum."
Kindly ask your sheep to stop threatening me with her/his baseless accusations.
every action comes out of some ideology.
southwestern was established by landmark southern baptists; carroll, norris and scarborough.
jesse c. fletcher in his book the southern baptist convention: a sesquicentennial history says:
"As this scenario was unfolding, B.H. Carroll kept a wary eye on Southern Seminary, where he was still a trustee. In a letter to E. Y. Mullins he requested that Southern Seminary fundraisers stay out of Texas. At the end of one such letter he even reminded Mullins that he differed from the Southern faculty on the definition of a church and on alien immersion. Carroll also led the new seminary to adopt the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which was more supportive of evangelism and of a Landmark view of the church than was Southern Seminary's Abstract of Principles. It is possible that the old warrior sought a Landmark edge for the new institution. One thing is certain: a competitive tradition was in place from the beginning."
landmark ideology is deeply ingrained into the sbc especially, in texas, oklahoma and missouri, arkansas and mississippi.
as late as 1991, "a Foreign Mission Board executive, sensitive to this residue of Landmark feelings wrote, "There is no Bible reference to any kind of foreign mission agency other than the churches. Therefore, the means by which we have ministered to the world has been the creation of a mission board whose trustees are elected by the churches, whose missionaries are members of the churches, whose support comes from the churches, and whose responsibility is to report back to the churches" (fletcher 115).
even this executive did not understand baptist polity. he said, that the churches elect trustees when in actuality messengers (not churches) elect trustees.
seems as though we are just caught up in the same argument that has existed since the formation of the sbc. every generation is just dealing with different forms and outcomes of the two competing ideologies; landmark vs. anti-landmark
True. Southern Seminary will not even hire an Arminian, you must be a Calvinist. Despite the theological differences SWTS and SBTS share a common philosphical conception of education. Diversity is not tolerated...
It's funny that so many people who are allegedly "in the know" conveniently have no sources to support that about which they write. I have a suspicion that you weren't in on any meetings between Patterson and the faculty here. If you know so much about what happened, please reveal your sources.
Either back up what you say, or don't say anything at all. Anything else is hear-say, which amounts to gossip and brings harm to the body of Christ. If the future of the SBC is with the "blogging pastors," then our convention has a future where Christian virtue will be non-existent.
Suppose the real aim of all of this is to rip th SBC to pieces. What happens to 10,000+ missionaries? Who will benefit (and I don't mean a few individuals)? I mean who will fill the power vacuum left by the demise of the mightiest force in modern protestantism? We do have to deal with the issues and, regrettably, personalities sometime. Even so, care must be used. I suggest we had better pray. Satan must be getting fearful as the Third Great Awakening approaches, the tsunami of a Heavenly Visitation that takes the whole earth in one generation and even for a thousand generations and that by the most peaceable means possible and even unbelieveable. Just look at the First and Second Great Awakenings.
I can't believe that Calvinists were ever hired in the first place. Calvinism is a perversion and dis-grace of the gospel of the grace of Christ. (Gal 1:6,7) What are they doing in our churches! We wouldn't allow Mormons or JW's there! That they were ever allowed to bend the minds of our Christian youth is unconscionable.
You can't believe everything you believe especially on this blog!
This whole discussion is a waste of time and I wish each of you would get back to God's Word and His ministry and stop wasting your time worring about all this he said she said junk. Just do the job called you to and realize this is not it.
It is interesting that none of the professors who supposedly had this grilling interview with Dr. Patterson have come out with their reports of the encounter!
Wade, enough pot stirring.
Post a Comment