Paige Patterson

What bothers me most about Paige Patterson is that he and Paul Pressler are still trying to influence what goes on in every facet of SBC life--including deciding who can run as the sole candidate for President of the Convention every other year. Will there ever be another convention like 1994's where two equally conservative candidates ran?

 

Unashamed Youth,

Paige Patterson would be the first to direct you away from himself to Jesus as He is revealed in the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:12, 'Yes, and all who will live Godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

Speaking of slander and persecution: who is doing it here?

Some of the guests who read these posts may be desperately seeking Salvation and instead are reading your insults and slander.

Which Southern Baptists started slandering Bible Believers back in the 1960's, calling us "Bible Worshippers" and "Bibliolitars"?Treating us as uneducated and ignorant because we believe God created a man named Adam and his wife Eve.

We also believed Lot's wife was encapsulated in the spewing salts from the Dead Sea as the fire of God fell on Sodom.

We do not believe Abraham got his idea to sacrifice Isaac from the heathen practices roundabout.

We do believe a great fish swallowed Jonah.

And our youth were not sent to Southwestern to study all the German 'Higher Critics' that made them doubt the Word of God that they had loved since childhood.

We didn't send our youth to Baylor to be taught that the Founding Fathers were all deists who taught that God takes no active part in the affairs of men.

Nor to sit in a religion class taught by a a Mormon professor, who must have 'academic freedom' in a school paid for by Baptist's who expected that their young people would receive a Bible Based education.

Dr. Patterson should be jumping for joy right now because that's what Jesus told us to do when we are presecuted for righteousness' sake.

Judge Pressler, too!

By the way, neither of them were on the committee that researched the Scriptures and came up with the wording of the Baptist Faith and Message, which led the Baptist General Convention of Texas to defund our Seminaries who use it as a benchmark.

Those of you who are not Southern Baptists can read it and print it at:

http://www.sbc.net

Click on the left 'Statement of Faith'.

There is a long list of Scriptures following each topic, to show where it came from in the Bible.

Our church studied it on Wednesday nights alongside the 1963 Version, and heartily approved of the new one which gives more clarity to some points and adds the Scriptural definition of a family, which was not an issue back in 1963.

The 1999 session of SBC asked Dr. Patterson to appoint a committee to do the work of the updated statement of faith and explained why it was needed.

He felt an obligation to the Lord to appoint those who believe His word from around the SBC to submit the updated to the convention.

I did not see Judge Pressler's name on the committee.

Shalom

Alli

 

You just asked me one so I guess it's possible.

Ah, the code words... I'm not going to use your code words because they may have a different meaning to you than me. Let me say this:

1.) As for "inspired" -> Scripture (the Old and New Testament -- no Apochrypha) is God-breathed (inspired if you *really* want to use the term) and is the written standard for Christian doctrine, faith and practice. Jesus is the living standard for faith and practice. The Jesus and the Bible are not in conflict.

2.) As for "Word of God" -> Jesus is the Word of God (see the first chapter of the Gospel of John) and the Bible is the record of the Word and words of God. The Bible is written revelation, but is not the only revelation. The Holy Spirit works today revealing the truth of God to humankind and usually uses the scriptures in the process. I am convinced from the scriptures themselves that salvation is not dependant upon the Bible.

3.) As for "inerrant" -> I do not think that God ever errs in His revelation. The Bible is a fully reliable guide to faith and practice, although people often misinterpret the Bible.

4.) As for "infallible" -> God's revelation does not fail.

My views have changed a fair amount during the last 18 years. I used to be very much against women in vocational ministry because I honestly thought the Bible taught that view. It was reinforced when I a woman came to my college to preach on why women should be preachers. She was so incredibly hostile to men and the apostle Paul that I *knew* I was right. (For the record, some of the faculty supported women in ministry and they were aghast at her "performance".)

About 10 years ago I started studying the issue again because a female friend of mine sensed the calling to vocational ministry and she was theologically opposed to women in vocational ministry! I began studying too and came to the conclusion that there was no theological obstacle to women entering vocational ministry. She is now involved in chaplaincy.

My views on the subject are skillfully explored in the chapter, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman" from the book, "Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society" by E. Earle Ellis.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761806121/qid=1031431851/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-8575649-2825511?v=glance&s=books&n=2

Unfortunately the book is out of print and the paperbacks like I have are in great demand. As a further note, Dr. Ellis recently retired after teaching at Southwestern Seminary. (I'm not sure if he could have signed the latest BF&M statement.) He is widely respected as a Pauline scholar worldwide and Ken Hemphill and the trustees at Southwestern did not see any need to get rid of him. He is also a member of our church.

To answer your question directly -- If God calls a woman to pastor a church, there are no scriptural reasons why she cannot. I believe God calls women to pastor and I don't think Paul believed they were not eligible. But I don't think a man or a woman is eligible to pastor unless God calls that person to the position.

My doctrine does not easily compress into nut-sized portions, but I have a great appreciation for the statement made by Will Campbell about his beliefs:

"We are all [illegitimate children], but God loves us anyway."

NOTE: The statement was edited for the more gentle readers of Baptist Board. Campbell originally used the harsher word for illegitimate son to make the point.

Well I am not on staff at the church and I can make no claims for the theology of the church. We believe along the lines of the 1963 BF&M and have some liberal members and some more fundamental members. We get along as a family of God in unity with great diversity. Probably the most divisive thing we do that bothers some of the more "conservative" local churches is that women can serve as deacons in our church. (NOTE: Deacons at our church are servants, not a board of elders.) Since we have a New Testament example of Phoebe as a deacon, why should we not ask women to participate in the serving ministry of the church?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking specifics for... It is widely known (never a secret) that Patterson campaigned in the churches. I think Judge Pressler's book "A Hill on Which to Die" might detail some of it.

As for people being used as fodder for the "conservative resurgence" many of the cases have been widely reported. I will not discuss anything I know that has not been publicly reported, but there is no shortage of examples. I know of most of the events surrounding Southwestern Seminary and faculty (an eyewitness to some of them) so I can talk in detail about some of those incidents. For instance, you can research the firing of Russell Dilday and the carnival of lies surrounding that event.

I will be happy to discuss that one with you.

 

Send them my way... I have a good friend of Dr. Patterson's as my pastor... he can find out the truth real quick....</font>[/QUOTE]Um, okay. Let's deal with something really basic that doesn't even concern a person but a situation:

Why did they change the locks on Dr. Dilday's door while he was in the meeting where the trustees fired him?

I want to warn you, some of the decisionmakers have already spoken of it publicly and I heard yet another explanation from Ken Hemphill in a private meeting in his office where i discussed the incident. Unfortunately it is hard to believe any "official" explanation I have heard. What is your friend's story?

 

ALliswell, very well said.

Baptistbeliever, well, from your outlook of the Bible, interpretation and doctrine you should be able to tell why you are seen as liberal in your theology. Some of the things you said I can't say they are completely inaccurate, but I wouldn't say I fully agree either.

I do not worship the Bible, yet I use it as a tool. It was provided by God. If what we do is the opposite of what Scripture says, then we are going a different path than God commands. I have to disagree that Paul does not allow for Women pastors. I read in Scripture his statements are right out there bold. You would have to do alot of revisions to change it. I would also chance to say most liberals will agree that what Paul says is pretty straight forward, that is why they don't like him and try to discredit his writibgs.

Thank you for being upfront and sharing your thoughts and beliefs. I hope we have chance to discuss like this more often. I find discussions are always easier when people eliminate the insults. I believe in honesty, and will be frank sometimes, but I try not to be a mud thrower.

God bless

 

[ September 08, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

I think the reason some people see me as liberal in theology is that they pin a label of "liberal" on anyone who believes differently than they do so they won't have to pay attention to what the other person says. I don't use the code words (purposely) and I try to be biblical about women in ministry and people don't like it.

What do you think I am not "completely inaccurate" about?

I agree. That's an excellent position.

True. I agree.

Have you actually read Earle Ellis's writing on Paul and women or a you just assuming you know what it means or that it is wrong? His writing has been criticized by those of a more liberal persuasion because it deals only with what the scripture actually says instead of taking into account the contemporary situation. As I pointed out before, Earle Ellis was theologically correct enough to teach at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary until just about two years ago (he retired) and the book I mentioned was published in 1989 -- five years before Southwestern Seminary was place under hard-line "conservative resurgence" control. He stayed on with the "conservative resurgence" crowd and Ken Hemphill without a problem. Why is it when I say that he represents my view on the issue that I am suddenly a "liberal"?

Certainly men and women of goodwill with a similar committment to the scriptures will understand the issue of women in ministry differently, but this is hardly the dividing point between what is allegedly "liberal" and what is "conservative".

 

My guess is that he would be generally supportive of firing Dilday. I have no idea if he would approve of the way it was done or would condone the lies surrounding the event. (Of course he may not realize that lies were told, so we all need to be careful about judging that aspect.)

I don't know what to make of this statement. Does he think it is funny that someone is opposed to what is called the "conservative resurgence" or something else?

I appreciate your fair and honest attitude.

 

I just came across this thread. I am probably the only contributing former Southern Baptist who likes Paige Patterson (as I have joined the GARBC, a more Fundamentalist denomination). I have never had the pleasure of meeting him or hearing him preach, but I have read a few articles by him, and based on that and what else I have heard of him, I think he is right on.

To get a better idea of what is going on at the "Baptist" seminary in Richmond and what was very likely going on at Southeastern, follow these links to Baptist Press articles:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=10938
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=10937
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=10935

Southeastern was not the only seminary plagued by such problems. The former pastor of the Southern Baptist church I used to be a member of could tell you quite a few blood-curdling stories about the New Orleans seminary during the days that it was being held in the liberal death-grip. It has now, like Southeastern, been cleaned up, and the aforementioned pastor is now one of its trustees. Like BibleBoyII mentioned about his professor source, I do not have permission to reveal the name of my trustee source.

[ September 08, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: A Fiery Fundamentalist ]

 

If it weren't for folks like Brother Patterson and company--doing what they started out to do in the mid-80's--I'm convinced that it wouldn't have been long to where the preachers showed up to preach with paper bags over their heads--preaching to people with paper bags over their heads every Sunday--just like the loyal fans of the New Orleans Saints do!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

Actually, it was the 1970s.

 

Baptist Press is not a reliable source of information for any group the leaders of the SBC oppose.