Patterson makes new appointments at SWBTS

Bicker, bicker, bicker! So many "Baptist discussions" sound like spoiled children fighting over the same toy. I used to think that the "toy" was Bibllical Inerrancy, Missions, CP, seminaries, or the BFM2000. I think the conflict is just plain old PRIDE and Ego!

Can you imagine what good could be done if the energies spent fighting among Baptists could be turned againt the Evil One?

Most of the world doesn't even know or care who Paige Patterson is.

Originally posted by KPBAP:
Bicker, bicker, bicker! So many "Baptist discussions" sound like spoiled children fighting over the same toy. I used to think that the "toy" was Bibllical Inerrancy, Missions, CP, seminaries, or the BFM2000. I think the conflict is just plain old PRIDE and Ego!

Can you imagine what good could be done if the energies spent fighting among Baptists could be turned againt the Evil One?

Most of the world doesn't even know or care who Paige Patterson is.

Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely right. It is an issue of power and control rather than kingdom work.

I think you're both absolutely wrong. It's actually the price of unbiblical denominationalism in which a bunch of churches that don't believe the same doctrine "cooperate." It's the price of pragmatism and compromise.

Originally posted by Siegfried:
I think you're both absolutely wrong. It's actually the price of unbiblical denominationalism in which a bunch of churches that don't believe the same doctrine "cooperate." It's the price of pragmatism and compromise.

Click to expand...

I am not sure who or what you are referring to.

Show me two people that agree on evrything and I will show you two people who don't exist. Ever see a husband and wife agree on everything? Show me in scripture where a chruch existed where everybody agreed on everything. It seems to me that Paul didn't always agree with Mark too.

Do you always even agree with yourself. As I progess in my walk with God IU find that so often I don't even agree with myself.

Originally posted by Siegfried:
I think you're both absolutely wrong. It's actually the price of unbiblical denominationalism in which a bunch of churches that don't believe the same doctrine "cooperate." It's the price of pragmatism and compromise.

Click to expand...

I think that this comment is the closest to reality that I've seen in this thread. I've been SBC (and strongly conservative SBC, I might add) since childhood. I've attended multiple annual meetings at each level over the past 3 decades and have known a number of "names".

What I've seen is that each generation of SBC leadership desires to put the best face on its own era with respect to previous eras....and all attempt to claim the mantle of the founding spirit of the SBC.

I appreciate what Dr. Patterson has done for our denomination. A change was needed in our seminaries (the original reason for the resurrgence, btw). However, I am concerned that he is a bit too enthralled with himself (listen to him speak and look at his "trophy collection" in his offices). The SBC desperately needs humility in its leadership if we are going to continue reaching the world for Christ.

What does a "trophy collection" have to do with a man's theological position or character?

I have so much respect for Patterson. I disagree with him in terms of Sovereign grace, but Seigfried is right. If it weren't for the years of cooperation between the apostates and the conservatives, alot of the "hurt" feelings never would have happened. As it is though, blood had to be drawn, and I am glad the ones left holding their swords were the conservatives and not the apostates.

Imagine it like this:

the conservatives lived with a deadly cancer for decades without doing anything. They waited until it looked like they were about to keel over to do anything. The treatment has been painful, the effort tireless, but the cancer is in severe recession.

Originally posted by Daniel David:
I have so much respect for Patterson. I disagree with him in terms of Sovereign grace, but Seigfried is right. If it weren't for the years of cooperation between the apostates and the conservatives, alot of the "hurt" feelings never would have happened. As it is though, blood had to be drawn, and I am glad the ones left holding their swords were the conservatives and not the apostates.

Imagine it like this:

the conservatives lived with a deadly cancer for decades without doing anything. They waited until it looked like they were about to keel over to do anything. The treatment has been painful, the effort tireless, but the cancer is in severe recession.

Click to expand...

I have also watched several chameleons go from one side of the fence to the other as the tide changed. Some of those are still in leadership in the SBC trying to save theitr job. Some of those are DOM's and pastors in the SBC. They are those wanting to get a position in the convention rather than serve God. They waver with the tide. How's that for integrity?

Just read the Baptist Press (SBC)news sometime and see when they appoint someone to a position and just notice their pedigree. Just imagine someone without that great pedigree! Two SBC seminary presidents are related by marriage. Would you call that signs of nepotism?

What you're describing, IMHO, is one of the major problems. Independents have their own set of problems, to be sure, but at least they are not forced to pick sides and fight for the souls of the seminaries, missions agencies, etc.

Are there leaders within the movement that are too big for their britches? Sure, but if an IFB church wants to ignore them, they can. Not so in the SBC. The same is true of doctrinal error and those who cause divisions.

Originally posted by Siegfried:
What you're describing, IMHO, is one of the major problems. Independents have their own set of problems, to be sure, but at least they are not forced to pick sides and fight for the souls of the seminaries, missions agencies, etc.

Are there leaders within the movement that are too big for their britches? Sure, but if an IFB church wants to ignore them, they can. Not so in the SBC. The same is true of doctrinal error and those who cause divisions.

Click to expand...

I believe a lot of it ias about the control of money. If there were not money involved much would be taken care of all by itself. Of course I think in the end God will deal His hand anyway.

Are there leaders within the movement that are too big for their britches? Sure, but if an IFB church wants to ignore them, they can. Not so in the SBC. The same is true of doctrinal error and those who cause divisions.

Click to expand...

You are under the misunderstanding that SBC churches are ont autonomous. Any SBC church can do whatever they want, that is why so many are divided in the SBC, it is viewed as an attempt to remove much of the autonomy that the churches have. What makes an SBC church an SBC church is giving to missions through the SBC. Some however have fallen in love with the intials SBC and forget this fact.

Originally posted by go2church:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Are there leaders within the movement that are too big for their britches? Sure, but if an IFB church wants to ignore them, they can. Not so in the SBC. The same is true of doctrinal error and those who cause divisions.

Click to expand...

You are under the misunderstanding that SBC churches are ont autonomous. Any SBC church can do whatever they want, that is why so many are divided in the SBC, it is viewed as an attempt to remove much of the autonomy that the churches have. What makes an SBC church an SBC church is giving to missions through the SBC. Some however have fallen in love with the intials SBC and forget this fact. </font>[/QUOTE]You just think SBC churches are autonomous. Ever listen to conference speakers and read the I know for a fact that there have been pastors who have been undermined by others who want a particular person in the pulpit. Don't kid yourself some of those higher ups recommend pastors to churches. When I was in seminary there was a church that had several pastoral candidates and one of them who was in line for that pastorate was undermined by someone else. Things were said that were not true. Don't ever think that all churches are autonomous. That is an excuse to not get involved by those who don't want to. I know that personally. They won't get involved with a troublesome church but they will take its money. They will let it keep on doing the same thing in violation of scripture. What would you think if I told you that an SBC church I pastored once invited the Mormon bishop to preach claiming he was a Christian? I spoke out against that practice and got the ax. But the state folks did nothing except to tell me to leave. The SBC did nothing to discipline the church. So I wrote to one of the past SBC presidents and his advice was to get over it and move on. Where is the accountability?

It's like a friend of mine said, "We have a bishop that we know but you have a pope but you don't know who he is."

Go2,

I never said SBC churches are not autonomous, so please don't put those words in my mouth.

What I said, essentially, is that cooperation in the SBC leads to compromise. The churches autonomously choose to engage in that compromise. Although I agree with gb... about some of the influences from SBC leaders, that happens among independent churches too, and it's just as wrong for them. I do agree that for the most part it comes down to pooling money.

OK, I think we are saying basically the same thing, just in different ways. Although SBC churches are independent, many don't act like it. Concerning the whole Morman thing, they acted as a local autonomus group, wrongly as that may have been. The state conventions have no control over the churches, or at least they shouldn't and want nothing to do with local church infighting. Concerning accountability... well, if they are inviting a Morman bishop to speak that boat done sailed already! Funny thing is that the Mormans wouldn't allow you to come and speak at their church.
BTW, denominational accountabiity isn't all it is cracked up to be, case in point the Episcopal church here in America!

This is an interesting string of comments - I'm thankful that my church doesn't have to do everything the SBC tells us to. Don't get me wrong, I'm Southern Baptist born and bred, and when I die I'll be Southern Baptist dead, but that doesn't mean that the SBC is the local church. That's where Catholics and so many other Protestant denominations have got themselves in trouble - someone who does not even participate in the worship of the local church is telling the local church what to do and believe - that is godless.

While the SBC and state conventions can act to dismiss a local church from fellowship, still that is a decision made by the other autonomous local churches acting in agreement with one another, and not being dictated to them by some uppity-ups. The SBC and its state conventions are some of the only Protestant organizations that are still rightly emphasizing the sole autonomy of the local church - and for that I am grateful.

Hello, I'm a student at SWBTS right now. I was lurking on the boards, which I have done for some time now, and saw this thread and decided to post up on it.

I can understand the concern expressed by some in regards to the current perceived situation here on the Hill. With the arrival of Drs. Patterson on campus in August we all expected some faculty shifting as happens many times when administrations will change. Yet the situation is not as grim as some would paint it to be. We still have a well staffed faculty with distinguished scholars and caring professors who aid us in our preparations for ministry. While some of our professors have left for other ministry and academic opportunities there is an air of expectancy here SWBTS for the wonderful faculty ready to be brought in for service.

I have had several of faculty who have left for some of my studies and I can say beyond a doubt that they are all fine Christian men who simply saw another door of opportunity open and felt the hand of God leading them to take up a new venture for the Kingdom. I am thrilled to see the exciting changes and growth (both numerically and spiritually) that will take place under Dr. Patterson's tenure here at SWBTS. Though at the end of my time here on the Hill I can say the vitality of the campus is fresh and anew with fellowship amongst the students.

I'm sure there are still naysayers out there who will challenge the statements I've made above, and I hope to dialogue with you about them. These exciting time here at SWBTS and I look forward to seeing the Kingdom grown further because of those we are sending out.

Thanks for hearing me.

Is Patterson who you wanted to be the president of Southwestern or did you want or expect someone else to be elected president? There is no doubt that Southwestern has lost, for whatever reason, some very fine men and women, hope they are able to replace them. Also what are your thoughts about Patterson not allowing women to teach theology classes? Not looking to pick a fight just curious.

Originally posted by go2church:
Is Patterson who you wanted to be the president of Southwestern or did you want or expect someone else to be elected president? There is no doubt that Southwestern has lost, for whatever reason, some very fine men and women, hope they are able to replace them. Also what are your thoughts about Patterson not allowing women to teach theology classes? Not looking to pick a fight just curious.

Click to expand...

Personally I have no problem with women teaching theology classes. Women write books all the time. I believe there is a huge difference between teaching and pastoring. Teaching is one of the gifts along with several others. But pastoring is out to women. While I was a student at SWBTS one of the finest teachers I had who well prepared and very knowledgeable was D., Karen Bullock. Her classes were always full. I never saw her as a woman who I looked to, on how to pastor but on the issues of church history. She was enthusiastic and always came to class. Personally if any man in that class had a problem with women I don't see how he could have had any problem with her. She was an excellent example of humility and Christian character. I know her husband personally and he was a man who walked with God as well.

If we are to have leadership in the church we must have men leading them. But the classes in seminary outside of leadership were not about pastoral leadership but about equipping is with knowledge and expertise.

As I talk with professors I know they saw her as one of the finest teachers the seminary had to offer.

I was there when the changes happened. I saw an immediate difference when things changed, Without a doubt I am convinced that the students are not nearly as well prepared today as they once were at SWBTS theologically or otherwise. Most of the Ph.D. students had one professor for Greek, He is probably the best Greek professor the SBC has had in many years. A friend of mine who was a Ph.D. student at DTS would tell me about their programs. With the SBC Greek professor I had we studied as much in Greek in two years as those in many other schools study in three.

I only have an M.Div. and all the time other pastors think I have a Ph.D. I think it's in part due to the fact that the NT professor I had for 16 hours was the same professor that taught a large number of the PhD. classes.

What I saw after the changes did not compare to the changes before.

Sometime just ask why the former registrar was removed from that position. He didn't quit he was removed and moved to a teaching position.

Don't kid ourself It's political and image and so much about integrity and truth.

SBC is not historically dispensationalist Read the following and see what you think.

How does that article compare to Phil. 3:2,3, "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,"?

Baptist Leader: Jews Remain 'God's Chosen People'

By Jim Brown
August 2, 2002

(AgapePress) - A Southern Baptist leader says Christians need to strongly oppose the false doctrine that the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people.

Former SBC President Paige Patterson says "replacement theology" contradicts scripture and undermines God's character -- and that Christians must confront in love those who teach "replacement theology," which has fueled shameful historical events such as the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazi Holocaust.

Patterson says throughout the entire Bible, Israel refers to the Jewish people -- and he says those who believe otherwise have a distorted interpretation of scripture.

"We do have to point out that what they're doing is to take huge portions of the Scripture and simply say, 'That doesn't fit my thinking, and therefore every time I see "Israel" I'm going to read "the Church".' That's isogesis, it isn't exegesis," Patterson says. "I think we have to hold their feet to the fire. What on earth was [the Apostle] Paul talking about in Romans 9:10-11, where he says that God has not cast away his ancient people whom He foreknew?"

Patterson says Christ came, as He said, to bring the Kingdom to Israel -- and that the Apostle Paul makes it clear that God did not break His covenant with the Jews.

"Paul says, 'I, too, am a Jew. My heart's desire and prayer to God [is] that Israel might be saved'," Patterson explains. "And then in the eleventh chapter, he finally says that the blindness has happened in part unto Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles come in. And then when that has happened, then all Israel shall be saved."

According to Patterson, Paul either meant what he obviously said, or else one has to totally misinterpret and read into Paul whatever one wants to read into him.

© 2002 AgapePress all rights reserved

Is Patterson who you wanted to be the president of Southwestern or did you want or expect someone else to be elected president? There is no doubt that Southwestern has lost, for whatever reason, some very fine men and women, hope they are able to replace them. Also what are your thoughts about Patterson not allowing women to teach theology classes? Not looking to pick a fight just curious.

No worries, and thanks for asking. Actually the weekend before Dr. Hemphill resigned to go lead the Empowering Kingdom Growth initiative for the SBC several of us figured that Dr. Patterson would be the next president, because he is probably the most qualified person in the SBC to lead a flagship seminary like SWBTS. Nobody on campus was really surprised when he was elected and we were able to welcome him and his wonderful wife with much joy and expectation.

As for the women teaching theology classes. This is a touchy issue. Yet I don't see a problem with them teaching our theology classes. In reviewing Paul's prohibitions on teaching and such throughout the NT it appears to me that Paul only applies restrictions to the office of pastor. Thus I have no problem with women teaching our seminaries. Some of the best teachers we have at SWBTS are women. The aforementioned Dr. Karen Bullock is one of the finest instructors I have sat under in a class. Also Dr. Sheri Klouda is one of our finest Hebrew profs we have on faculty. Both these have offered outstanding contributions to the overall education of we called out ones.

If Dr. Patterson believes that it is in our best interests to cease the practice of employing women in teaching roles than he has a right to make that decision since he is the president of the seminary. Certainly this matter will be discussed in close consultation with the trustees, but I trust his insights and leadership in these matters.

Thanks for asking.

Preach In Jesus

I am thrilled that you had the opportunity to sit under Dr. Bullock - unfortunately after this year no SWBTS student will have that opportunity. Perhaps you could send Dr. Patterson a note to express your experiences with Dr Bullock