Paige Patterson removed as President of SWBTS

[TCassidy]

You now resort to labeling good Baptist theologians "apostate."

I read his post 3 times. I can't find any accusation of apostasy. Could you quote it for me?

You, like a gig Calvinist, always throw out the insult of ignorance.

It is only an insult of it is not true. You say you don't agree with Particular Redemption (Calvinism). Could that disagreement be based on an incomplete understanding of the issues?

Just as the attacks on Dr. Patterson could be based on an incomplete understanding of what he believes, what he said, and why he said it?

(Did you see what I did there to get the discussion back on topic?)

 

[Reynolds]

Hey Reynolds...i understand your complaining type of person that I find in abundance in the south....what good baptist theologians do you think i am disparaging?
....what have they written?
who appeals to them?
Do you have some solid links Reynolds...or is this just another of your fabrications?
What good baptist theologians have i labelled anything?
You seem good at whining...care to back it up at all...links, scripture, quotes, articles...are all accepted....just you need to produce something other than belly aching



Who was labelled? Can you post it?....



Because people like you, RM, ITL,Jerome....complain but offer nothing comparable...no articles or links because you know they get chewed up....you want to find fault with the teaching but you cannot explain why...you and all the others cannot ever explain why.....do you realize that...

Are you now taking a page from RM? go through his posts...give me a dollar everytime he cannot answer..he attacks the Cal saying, rude , arrogant, etc...give me a dollar everytime you find that and i can get out of the truck .

Read the first sentence of your post 73. You labelled all non-Calvinists as apostate. Every post of yours dealing with the opposition of Calvinism makes the assumption that Calvinism is settled fact and anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant idiot. Calvinism is not settled doctrine. It is a minority doctrine that is not widely accepted by Baptists. Labeling all who disagree with you as apostate is a prime example of your piousness. Insulting me based on my geographic location is further demonstration of your insulting brand of arrogance. You and many other Calvinists get called rude because you are indeed rude and arrogant.

 

[Reynolds]

I read his post 3 times. I can't find any accusation of apostasy. Could you quote it for me?

It is only an insult of it is not true. You say you don't agree with Particular Redemption (Calvinism). Could that disagreement be based on an incomplete understanding of the issues?

Just as the attacks on Dr. Patterson could be based on an incomplete understanding of what he believes, what he said, and why he said it?

(Did you see what I did there to get the discussion back on topic?)

It could be based on an incomplete understand of the issue. It could also be based on a proper understanding of the issue. Despite the fact that you would like it to be, the issue of Calvinism is not a settled debate. You actually hold the minority position among Baptists.

The first sentence of post 73 accuses "traditionalists" of holding apostate doctrine.

 

[InTheLight]

Because people like you, RM, ITL,Jerome....complain but offer nothing comparable...no articles or links because you know they get chewed up....you want to find fault with the teaching but you cannot explain why...you and all the others cannot ever explain why.....do you realize that...

I've already answered this multiple times. When confronted with Biblical arguments that disputes Calvinist doctrine the responses are typically:

* The translation is in error. The underlying Greek does not actually mean what the English is saying.

* The writer of those verses is not writing to unbelievers, the audience is actually believers.(Or vice-versa)

* Those verses being used to discredit Calvinism are being taken out of context.

* According to the London Confession of 1689...

No point in debating someone who changes the plain meaning of words, denies whole swaths of audiences, says verses don't apply to the subject matter, and relies on human dogma.






Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

I've already answered this multiple times. When confronted with Biblical arguments that disputes Calvinist doctrine the responses are typically:

* The translation is in error. The underlying Greek does not actually mean what the English is saying.

* The writer of those verses is not writing to unbelievers, the audience is actually believers.(Or vice-versa)

* Those verses being used to discredit Calvinism are being taken out of context.

* According to the London Confession of 1689...

No point in debating someone who changes the plain meaning of words, denies whole swaths of audiences, says verses don't apply to the subject matter, and relies on human dogma.






Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Hello TIL,
I do give you credit in that you try and offer a response.....for that you will be awarded a BB participation trophy.
However your responses havebpnly a few more verses than Y 1.....so you are being asked to step it up a notch.
Unfortunately those things you keep listing are true. Let me ask you a question...
Take out a legal pad and see how often you notice it happening with others who interact...
Take the few names I listed....see how often those suspects do what we say they do....

Let me ask you.....is the all spoken of in romans5...18-21
Speaking of all men who ever lived, or is the identical word all....mean two different groups?

 

[TCassidy]

Despite the fact that you would like it to be, the issue of Calvinism is not a settled debate.

I haven't suggested it is, at least not in Evangelicalism taken as a whole, or even Baptist Evangelicalism. However, it is firmly settled in my own mind. "Salvation is of the Lord." (Jonah 2:9) "None of me. All of God."

You actually hold the minority position among Baptists.

I am not certain that is true when the issue is looked at in its historical context. Particular Baptists dominated the Baptist faith in Europe from the early 17th century onward, and even in the SBC dominated in the early years from 1845 until fairly recently (when viewed historically). But if you mean only Baptists alive today, you may be right although I am not aware of any data having been collected and collated indicating how Baptist churches and Baptist individuals stand on the issue.

The first sentence of post 73 accuses "traditionalists" of holding apostate doctrine.

Thank you. I missed that. I stand corrected. And I disagree with the charge. I don't believe those who self-describe themselves as "Traditionalists" are apostate. Con fused? (the idiot software keeps putting the moji where I don't want it) Yes. Wrong? Yes. Apostate? No. Their faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation. Therefore they have not departed from "the faith once delivered."

This issue is not about whether Founders and Traditionalists (to use the terms common in the SBC) are in Christ. It is about how we got there.

And our being in Christ is the much more important issue, not how we got there.

 

[TCassidy]

* The translation is in error. The underlying Greek does not actually mean what the English is saying.

That is quite often the case. Which explains why there are 200 English translations of the New Testament, all different. Especially in view of the fact Greek is a reflexive language and English is an inflexive (analytical) language.

* The writer of those verses is not writing to unbelievers, the audience is actually believers.(Or vice-versa)

Again, true. Context is important when trying to understand scripture.

* Those verses being used to discredit Calvinism are being taken out of context.

Same answer as above. When it comes to understanding the bible, context is your friend.

* According to the London Confession of 1689...

I couldn't care less about any creed, confession, or doctrinal statement of men. I get my understanding of the bible from the bible.

No point in debating someone who changes the plain meaning of words,

Baseless accusation. Most words have a fairly broad syntactical meaning via both etymology and philology.

denies whole swaths of audiences,

Another false accusation. Context is your friend.

says verses don't apply to the subject matter

Again, "proof texts" are often taken out of context. (Psalm 127:5) Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them (children), and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. (2Kings 10:7)

relies on human dogma.

No, actually I get my soteriology from the bible.

 

[Jerome]

Oh no!
Baptist Press is reporting that Karen Swallow Prior, ERLC research fellow and drafter of the petition urging the trustees to take action on Patterson, has been hit by a bus in Nashville.

SBC Digest

"Noted author and speaker Karen Swallow Prior was hospitalized in surgery this morning (May 24) after being hit by a bus while walking in downtown Nashville yesterday."

"a research fellow for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, [Ms. Swallow Prior] was in Nashville for work unrelated to the commission. Many details of the accident were not available, but according to tweets by friends and family, she suffered multiple fractures and a collapsed lung."

"ERLC President Russell Moore requested prayers for Prior...'We are grateful to God that Karen was not killed. Please keep praying for her!'"

 

[Reynolds]

I haven't suggested it is, at least not in Evangelicalism taken as a whole, or even Baptist Evangelicalism. However, it is firmly settled in my own mind. "Salvation is of the Lord." (Jonah 2:9) "None of me. All of God."

I am not certain that is true when the issue is looked at in its historical context. Particular Baptists dominated the Baptist faith in Europe from the early 17th century onward, and even in the SBC dominated in the early years from 1845 until fairly recently (when viewed historically). But if you mean only Baptists alive today, you may be right although I am not aware of any data having been collected and collated indicating how Baptist churches and Baptist individuals stand on the issue.

Thank you. I missed that. I stand corrected. And I disagree with the charge. I don't believe those who self-describe themselves as "Traditionalists" are apostate. Con fused? (the idiot software keeps putting the moji where I don't want it) Yes. Wrong? Yes. Apostate? No. Their faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation. Therefore they have not departed from "the faith once delivered."

This issue is not about whether Founders and Traditionalists (to use the terms common in the SBC) are in Christ. It is about how we got there.

And our being in Christ is the much more important issue, not how we got there.

Agreed, except for the part about I am wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

I haven't suggested it is, at least not in Evangelicalism taken as a whole, or even Baptist Evangelicalism. However, it is firmly settled in my own mind. "Salvation is of the Lord." (Jonah 2:9) "None of me. All of God."

I am not certain that is true when the issue is looked at in its historical context. Particular Baptists dominated the Baptist faith in Europe from the early 17th century onward, and even in the SBC dominated in the early years from 1845 until fairly recently (when viewed historically). But if you mean only Baptists alive today, you may be right although I am not aware of any data having been collected and collated indicating how Baptist churches and Baptist individuals stand on the issue.

Thank you. I missed that. I stand corrected. And I disagree with the charge. I don't believe those who self-describe themselves as "Traditionalists" are apostate. Con fused? (the idiot software keeps putting the moji where I don't want it) Yes. Wrong? Yes. Apostate? No. Their faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation. Therefore they have not departed from "the faith once delivered."

This issue is not about whether Founders and Traditionalists (to use the terms common in the SBC) are in Christ. It is about how we got there.

And our being in Christ is the much more important issue, not how we got there.

The time around the Civil War seems to be when the more "free will" Baptist churches seem to be coming around, as before that time, Calvinism seemed to be the primary position.
I agree with the 1689 due to its Sotierlogy being derived from the scriptures.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reynolds,
Well....bless your heart Reynolds...we do not see eye to eye

Read the first sentence of your post 73. You labelled all non-Calvinists as apostate.

Let's read it together...

FROM POST 73- Iconoclast posted this;
The root of doctrinal apostasy by the falsely named traditionalists is causing confusion and judgment to fall on these persons.

To which Reynolds responds this way;

The first sentence of post 73 accuses "traditionalists" of holding apostate doctrine.

then Reynolds said this;

Read the first sentence of your post 73. You labelled all non-Calvinists as apostate

I did no such thing....

Reynolds...can you explain the difference between;
1] the root of doctrinal apostasy....and holding apostate doctrine?
2] the root of doctrinal apostasy....and outright heresy?

Do not worry... I will start a thread on that later on tonight, but i want to face your objections here.

Every post of yours dealing with the opposition of Calvinism makes the assumption that Calvinism is settled fact

Calvinism is settled fact...it is not up for grabs. Not everyone agrees with it, or understands it...but that does not mean it is not settled fact.

and anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant idiot

.

Not "anyone" Reynolds.....but it does seem like there are quite a few confused persons sometime. If they are wilfully ignorant or not, that is for God to judge.

Calvinism is not settled doctrine

.

Sure it is...that is why it has been taught for hundreds of years...

It is a minority doctrine that is not widely accepted by Baptists.

Here you reveal some bias against it don't you? Now notice...I do not say you are rude or arrogant because you reveal your bias Reynolds...did i.
No this is debate site and I do not like any form of censorship so I do not attack you personally saying you are rude or ignorant...despite some of what you have posted that might drift in that direction....
Are you okay Reynolds? do you need a safe space or a timeout?

Labeling all who disagree with you as apostate

Where did this happen??? I think I have traded barbs with about everyone on here....so can you show where I say such a thing as you accuse me of?

What might be going on is you seeing the non cals put to flight very often so it has a cumulative effect on you to a point where you make some exaggerated claims, that you cannot support.

is a prime example of your piousness

I think I get the idea of what you are trying to say....
.

Insulting me based on my geographic location

Who insulted you? I made a factual statement based on first hand experience with church leaders in the south....Should i have said...in an undisclosed location? A pastor of a local church said that if he went just slightly below surface level doctrinally...he would lose most of the people...I did not say it, He did. the same with one of the main teachers in the church.

I travel all over the country for 30 years now...I know what I see,and i know what i am talking about....I know tenn. fairly well also....and there are differences from one side of it to the other...

is further demonstration of your insulting brand of arrogance.

From where i sit it looks to me like your smug, folksy, pot shot, brand of self righteousness is more in line with arrogance than someone who speaks very plainly.

You and many other Calvinists get called rude because you are indeed rude and arrogant

.

Yeah well...I had just posted that yesterday how that is the go to escape clause...call names and run for the hills.....Sounds a bit creepy to me...sort of cheesy....because truth is truth...not arrogance.

If a JW says....the trinity is not a settled doctrine, and you say ...oh..it is settled...are you then being arrogant or rude?

 

[Speedpass]

I lost all interest in SWBTS in 1994, when Dilday was fired as President

 

[Revmitchell]

I lost all interest in SWBTS in 1994, when Dilday was fired as President

Aaah, reveals quite a bit.

 

[rlvaughn]

I was glad to see that Nathan Montgomery has apparently been cleared. I wonder if he will get his job and scholarship back.

According to someone who was supposed to be "in the know" (a friend of Montgomery) in another venue I read, at this point Montgomery does not want his job back, only that there be no negative information in his employee file.

 

[rlvaughn]

A lot of hay has been made over Patterson's "Golden Parachute," especially comparing it to Russell Dilday's being locked out of his office, etc. A link posted by Patterson opponent Ben Cole on his blog reminds us of a forgotten fact about Dilday's firing -- he was also offered a "Golden Parachute."

...Dilday...refused a $400,000 "golden parachute" offer to retire...Dilday confirmed that he had been offered a "golden parachute"...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...48f932f/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5109727cb5a

 

[Baptist Believer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...48f932f/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5109727cb5a

As an indicator of the dire situation that Southwestern currently faces, the above article from March 26, 1994, accurately stated that the trustee statement justifying Dr. Dilday's firing, noting "that the seminary's enrollment had declined from 5,070 [FTE] students during the 1985-86 academic year to 4,022 [FTE] during 1992-93." During the period where Ken Hemphill was President, the enrollment dropped from 4,022 FTE to 2,072 FTE, a drop of nearly 50%. Dr. Hemphill famously blamed Roe v. Wade providing access to abortion for the declining numbers. During Paige Patterson's presidency, the enrollment dropped from 2,072 FTE 2004-2005 to 1,393 FTE in 2017-2018, a drop of 33%.

A graduate school has to have a certain number of students in order to remain financially and academically viable. SWBTS has been struggling financially since the Dilday firing. The expensive (and unneeded) chapel that Paige Patterson had built (complete with stained glass depictions of living persons) has undermined financial fundraising for the endowment and long-term stability of the school. They are already withdrawing funds from their endowment simply to make payroll and take care of pressing maintenance needs.

Unless there was a change in leadership, that trend would have likely continued until the school completely shut down.

 

[Yeshua1]

I read his post 3 times. I can't find any accusation of apostasy. Could you quote it for me?

It is only an insult of it is not true. You say you don't agree with Particular Redemption (Calvinism). Could that disagreement be based on an incomplete understanding of the issues?

Just as the attacks on Dr. Patterson could be based on an incomplete understanding of what he believes, what he said, and why he said it?

(Did you see what I did there to get the discussion back on topic?)

Here is latest news
Southern Baptist leader Paige Patterson removed over complaints of 'dangerous' advice to abuse victims

Seems to be a combo package of paige not being the most tactful person, making some wrong decisions, and the overall climate getting him now!

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is latest news
Southern Baptist leader Paige Patterson removed over complaints of 'dangerous' advice to abuse victims

Seems to be a combo package of paige not being the most tactful person, making some wrong decisions, and the overall climate getting him now!

Unfortunately the story in your link is in error. It is correct that those are the allegations. Its just that the allegations are not true. What calvies have done to go after him is godless.

 

[Reynolds]

As an indicator of the dire situation that Southwestern currently faces, the above article from March 26, 1994, accurately stated that the trustee statement justifying Dr. Dilday's firing, noting "that the seminary's enrollment had declined from 5,070 [FTE] students during the 1985-86 academic year to 4,022 [FTE] during 1992-93." During the period where Ken Hemphill was President, the enrollment dropped from 4,022 FTE to 2,072 FTE, a drop of nearly 50%. Dr. Hemphill famously blamed Roe v. Wade providing access to abortion for the declining numbers. During Paige Patterson's presidency, the enrollment dropped from 2,072 FTE 2004-2005 to 1,393 FTE in 2017-2018, a drop of 33%.

A graduate school has to have a certain number of students in order to remain financially and academically viable. SWBTS has been struggling financially since the Dilday firing. The expensive (and unneeded) chapel that Paige Patterson had built (complete with stained glass depictions of living persons) has undermined financial fundraising for the endowment and long-term stability of the school. They are already withdrawing funds from their endowment simply to make payroll and take care of pressing maintenance needs.

Unless there was a change in leadership, that trend would have likely continued until the school completely shut down.

SBC voices lists the 2017 enrollment at 2294, not 1393.

 

[Rob_BW]

SBC voices lists the 2017 enrollment at 2294, not 1393.

You got a link? I only see data for SBC Voices for 2015-16, which has SWBTS at 1249 FTE.