Tennessee Baptist Colleges in Trouble

Anleifr · Nov 18, 2004

The Baptist news outlets have been reporting that an investigation by the state convention of three Baptist colleges in Tennessee is looking into whether these schools are teaching unbiblical views.

It is interesting that the complaint of one student at one college can cause an entire state convention to investigate three colleges.

Seems like there is more to this than we are being told.

What does anyone think?

FBCPastorsWife · Nov 18, 2004

What schools does this involve? Just wondering...

gb93433 · Nov 18, 2004

Tennessee Baptists to investigate teaching at three colleges (updated)
Date: 11/12/2004
By Greg Warner

SEVIERVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) -- Tennessee Baptists turned back an attack on "anti-Christian" teaching in public schools but agreed to investigate the biblical views taught in their three affiliated Baptist colleges.

Messengers to the Tennessee Baptist Convention Nov. 9-10 in Sevierville asked the education committee of their Executive Board to investigate what is taught at Carson-Newman College in Jefferson City, Belmont University in Nashville and Union University in Jackson.

The action came in response to an allegation from Brady Tarr, a current Carson-Newman student, who told messengers some of the college's professors -- particularly in the religion and science departments -- teach that the Bible has errors and contradictions.

During an unusual hour-and-a-half discussion, messengers debated if Carson-Newman teaches that the Bible is inspired and authoritative and that the Christian message of salvation is unique and exclusive.

Carson-Newman President James Netherton was asked to respond to Tarr’s question. "Carson-Newman doesn’t teach the Bible has errors," the president said. "I believe every single member of the religion department is called by God and they all believe the Bible.

"If you treat the Bible with great honesty, a number of things must be read and placed in a proper perspective," he continued.

"The Bible is what we believe. It is at the center of our faith," he said.

Netherton was asked by a messenger if Carson-Newman professors would be willing to affirm the 2000 "Baptist Faith and Message" doctrinal statement. "We haven’t asked them that question," the president responded. "We Baptists have not made the 2000 'Baptist Faith and Message' a test. We have worked hard to be a non-creedal people."

A motion to investigate the teachings at Carson-Newman was expanded to include the other two convention-supported schools. Another amendment stipulated that the investigation should be done in conjunction with the schools' trustee boards.

Messengers later agreed to wait on a report of the education committee before acting on the allegations. The committee will report to the Executive Board, then to the convention next year.

Each of the Baptist colleges is governed by a trustee board. Some critics worried the investigation would usurp the role of trustees.

"It bothers me that there is a scenario, a cloud, an inference that the trustees are not reliable or are not doing their job," said Bill Sherman, pastor of First Baptist Church of Fairview, according to the Knoxville News Sentinel.

David Dockery, president of Union University, told Associated Baptist Press he is not concerned the committee's investigation will interfere with the work of school's trustees "since the motion was to do it in conjunction with the trustees. If they were to do it by themselves, that would be problematic."

Dockery said Union's trustees would appoint a committee to respond to the motion. "We recognize our accountability to the Tennessee Baptist Convention and we will be happy to participate," he said.

Union is considered the most conservative of the three schools.

"We clearly affirm the full truthfulness of the Bible and believe in God the father, maker of heaven and earth, without apology," Dockery told ABP. While Union faculty members hold a variety of views about creation, he said, that does not include evolution.

Administrators at Belmont and Carson-Newman did not respond to requests from Associated Baptist Press for comment Nov. 12.

In other college-related business, messengers were told Belmont University trustees have no desire to leave their affiliation with the Tennessee Baptist Convention, despite a move that would take away the convention’s current ability to elect the school’s trustees.

A report from the convention's Executive Board acknowledged Belmont's proposal was "a good faith response" to the board's request that each convention institution rewrite its program statement in the form of a covenant.

Leonard Markham, president of the Executive Board, said the board's education committee is "continuing discussion with Belmont University in the resolution of this matter." He said the board had agreed to take no action concerning Belmont before January.

Also during the Tennessee convention, a proposed resolution promoting Christian schools as an alternative to public education did not make it to the 1,700 messengers for debate. The resolutions committee declined to act on the proposal, which the committee chair said was "not wise."

The proposed resolution was not as strident as one rejected earlier this year by the Southern Baptist Convention -- part of a nationwide anti-schools campaign led by the group Exodus Mandate -- which urged Christians to remove their children from "anti-Christian" and "godless" public schools and put them in "thoroughly" Christian schools or educate them at home.

Supporters of the Exodus anti-schools resolution promised to seek its passage in at least 10 Baptist state conventions this fall.

The resolution introduced in Tennessee advocated Christian schools and home schooling but did not call for Christians to abandon pubic schools.

''I want to be positive in promoting Christian education,'' Larry Reagan of Dresden, who wrote the resolution, told the Associated Press. "I don't want the resolution to be portrayed as attacking public education."

Nonetheless, the resolutions committee decided not to introduce Reagan's softer version.

Messengers -- who numbered 1,804 -- elected Roger Freeman, pastor of First Baptist Church in Clarksville as their new president. He was the first TBC president elected without opposition since 1987.

A budget of $35.55 million was adopted for 2005, the same as the 2004 budget.

Messengers also approved a change to the convention bylaws that would allow the convention president to have a vote on all standing committees of the convention, including the committee on committees and committee on boards.

Markham, a former convention president, noted the president -- although elected by messengers -- does not have the same right as the Executive Board president in regard to voting on committees.

-- This article contains information from the Baptist & Reflector, newsjournal of the Tennessee Baptist Convention.

From www.abpnews.com

Anleifr · Nov 18, 2004

Student disagrees with C-N faculty

October 29, 2004, ©The Mountain Press 2004

Editor: My name is Brady Tarr. I am a senior Chemistry major at Carson-Newman College.

I want to share with you some thoughts and questions about my time in college.

Carson-Newman's mission statement states that it offers a liberal arts education. After spending nearly four years here I have seen by the stands of some professors and the guests that they invite to speak to the students that they are not presenting a balanced perspective where both sides of issues are given to the students equally. I do not think that the community nor those supporting the college know this. Sadly, in my opinion (which can be supported by the facts below), Carson-Newman is promoting liberal theology in several crucial subject areas.
Every teacher in the Biology department is a theistic evolutionist. They do not believe that God created the heavens, the earth, and every living thing the way the Bible says He did in Genesis. They believe that the first chapters of Genesis are figurative and are not literally how God created everything. The teachers say that God used evolution to create life, which is clearly not what the Bible says!

I believe it is very dangerous for those teachers to trust science over the word of God. I have asked them to also teach the evidence that supports the creation account found in Genesis in science classes to give a balanced perspective. They refuse to do so! Professors and administrators at C-N speak often about pluralism (teaching many views) yet fail to actually do so in the classes. To me that becomes indoctrination, especially when what is taught is contrary to scripture.

Every full-time teacher in the religion department, except for one, believes that the Bible contains errors and many say that it contradicts itself on numerous occasions. C-N could certainly hire enough professors who believe in the inerrancy of God's Word so that students would have an equal opportunity to be taught that the Bible is true by professors who believe that. I think most constituents of the college believe the Bible and agree that it would be a fair and balanced way to teach students at a Christian college.

The most disturbing thing happened on Sept. 14 when (a man) spoke in chapel. He told students why he thought Jesus Christ was not the only way to get to heaven! The Bible clearly says that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven in John 14:6, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:9-10, etc! Several of the religion professors advertised for, praised and defended this man, and the heretical ideas that he presented to our student body. What has happened to this "Christian" college? Are there others who care that the Bible is taught as truth and that students get a balanced Christian perspective?

Brady Tarr

Jefferson City

Dr. Bob · Nov 18, 2004

Love that - when asked if the faculty agreed with the BFM2000 (which is the confessional statement of doctrinal agreement for all missionaries, etc of the SBC) the President says, "We haven't done that. We don't want to be a credal people."

RED FLAG. Watch this guy for typical liberal double-talk. Whenever they espouse "we want the Bible to be our only rule" that means "we want what WE THINK ABOUT THE BIBLE to be our only rule". Pay us. Give us jobs. But don't make us say we actually believe "minor" doctrines like, say, inspiration.

I'd watch this develop with interest.

Anleifr · Nov 18, 2004

Carson-Newman President James Netherton was not asked whether the faculty agreed with the BFM2000 but whether they would be willing to sign it. He repsonded, "We haven’t asked them that question. We Baptists have not made the 2000 'Baptist Faith and Message' a test. We have worked hard to be a non-creedal people."

Tennessee Baptist College professors have not yet been made to sign the 2000 BFM.

He has said,"Carson-Newman doesn’t teach the Bible has errors," "I believe every single member of the religion department is called by God and they all believe the Bible," "The Bible is what we believe. It is at the center of our faith."

David Dockery, president of Union University, has said, "We clearly affirm the full truthfulness of the Bible and believe in God the father, maker of heaven and earth, without apology."

How is affirming the truthfulness and inerrancy of the Bible liberal double-talk?

RandR · Nov 18, 2004

He was talking about Netherton's comments. And while those exact comments don't seem like double-speak, I would expect you'll see some coming from CN over the next year. But I wouldn't expect any of the three schools--not even Union which is the most conservative--to have faculty members sign a statement of agreement with the BF&M.

The most striking thing to me were the statements made by the presidents of Belmont and Union in response to the motion to have the study committee. (Netherton had yet to comment publicly.)

From the BP article:
Fisher (of Belmont)stated: "I am quite surprised by the motion and the overwhelming vote in favor of the investigation. Each of the three institutions has a governing board that has been fully affirmed by the Tennessee Baptist Convention. According to the TBC bylaws, each board is responsible for the
oversight of their respective institution and is the final authority in
all matters, so I'm a little confused as to who does what around here."

Dockery stated: “Union University recognizes its responsibility and accountability to the churches of the Tennessee Baptist Convention. We will be glad to cooperate and participate in the study that was called for at this year’s convention. We believe our trustees will be happy to lead this process and as a result we should be a better institution with better relationships with the churches in days ahead.”

Which president do you think knows he'll have the most 'splaining to do come next Fall?

Todd · Nov 18, 2004

OK folks, I have been involved first hand with this one so I think I can speak with some credability. I know Brady Tarr (the college student being referenced here) personally. He is a bright young man (3.9 Chemistry major due to graduate in December) and a young man of integrity. He attends Carson-Newman College and he is committed to his local church here in Morristown. The first time I met Brady was about a year and a half ago when one of my college students brought him to our church to introduce him to me. All Brady wanted was the chance to share with a local Pastor his concerns over what he had been taught about the Bible, creation, and the foreknowledge of God during his time at C-N. I listened to what Brady was saying, and I decided that if things were really as bad as he said they were, then I needed to go on campus and find out what was happening.

For the past year and a half, that is exactly what I have done. The first on-campus experience I had was during a CLW time (what used to be called chapel) where the Church Relations Director, a political science prof, and a philosophy prof were asked to speak on the subject of "When Faith Meets the Academy." In that meeting, the professors all agreed that "using creeds or doctrinal statements as a means of doctrinal accountability is an act of cowardice, and should be avoided." In other words, they plainly said that professors (even those of a Baptist institution of higher learning) should never be asked to teach within detailed doctrinal boundaries. I was disheartened to say the least.

My next experience came during a CLW lecture on "Women and the Christian liberal arts school." It was taught by a tenured religion faculty member who basically championed egalitarian (feminist) causes throughout her lecture. She plainly stated that each woman is free to determine the call that she believes God has placed upon her life, and that such a call could certainly be one into pastoral ministry. That seemed to be an odd statement coming from a professor who teaches in an institution that is affiliated with the TBC where there are currently almost NO women filling TBC pulpits.

My last on-campus experience was the clincher for me. Dr. Charles Kimball, head of religion at Wake Forest University, was invited on campus to "preach" during CLW time (I use the term "preach" very loosely - I don't know that anyone has preached there during CLW time in years). FYI, Dr. Kimball recently penned a book entitled "When Religion Becomes Evil" in which he cites five sure indicators that one's religion has "become evil." The first of those five indicators is that one has placed there faith in absolute truth claims (eg. - John 14:6) and has sought to proclaim those truths to others. Thus, it's bad enough he was invited to speak, but when he got there he preached a message out of Acts 10 and talked about the conversion of Cornelius. The biggest problem with his message was that he read most of ch.10, up until v.36, then he stopped reading. Then he proceeded to preach a message on the usefulness of inter-faith relationships and the merits of inclusivism. What's amazing about that is if you will read the rest of the text that Dr. Kimball conveniently left out, you will see that vv.36-48 plainly show that salvation is only through Jesus Christ! It doesn't get much more deceptive than that. What's worse, Dr. Kimball had the endorsement of C-N's religion department, campus ministries, and department for church relations when he spoke on campus!

Now, aside from my own personal experiences, your question is does C-N have some religion faculty who teach that the Bible contains errors? They certainly do! And how do I know? Because I spoke with one of the religion faculty and he told me that there are only two self-professed inerrantists in the entire religion dept (one full-time faculty member and one part-time). What's more, there definitions of inerrancy are more along the lines of "inerrancy of purpose" rather than inerrancy of the original autographs. That means that the other approximetly 12 folks who teach within that department are not even inerrantists. Let me tell you, that doesn't sit too well with the vast majority of the TBC churches.

Further, biblical creationism is no longer being taught in the Biology classrooms of the college. In fact, there's not even one faculty member in that department who believes in a literal six-day creation of the Earth. All of them espouse theistic evolution. How do I know? I had that confirmed to me by the head of the Biology Dept. He told me that biblical creationism is not a valid scientific understanding of creation, and that's why it wasn't presented in the classroom any longer. NOT EVEN TAUGHT ANYMORE!

As for where the religion faculty stand on exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, I think their invitation of Dr. Kimball onto campus says it all. If all the religion faculty do believe this, then why endorse and invite a man onto campus to teach contrary to that? This was the very question I raised from the floor of the TBC annual meeting last week. My concern was "forwarded" to the appropriate committee who will be doing their own investigation.

Quoted from Anleifr:
He (President Netherton) has said,"Carson-Newman doesn’t teach the Bible has errors," "I believe every single member of the religion department is called by God and they all believe the Bible," "The Bible is what we believe. It is at the center of our faith."

My friend, I know this is what Netherton said, but he is dead wrong. He did one of two things when he made this statement: He either demonstrated that he has no idea what's going on in the religion dept., or he chose to misrepresent what's actually being taught within the religion department. By the way, when I asked my question on Day 1 of the TBC annual meeting about whether biblical creationism is being taught in the Biology classrooms anymore, he simply answered by saying that all the faculty believes that God created everything (ie.- theistic evolution) and that biblical creationism was briefly mentioned in one upper-level Biology class (Bio 317) that is not even a required course for Biology majors.

The bottom line is that it is WAY past time for an investigation like this. My prediction is that as the TBC attempts to "tighten the screws" down upon its three schools, Belmont will be the first to leave (probably in 2005) and C-N will not be too far behind them. Union will be our only remaining school, and personally I will be glad because we obviously have no way of regaining any kind of doctrinal accountability at Belmont or C-N. You may be interested to know that the TBC currently gives each of its three schools 2.3 million a year (almost 7 million altogether), and for the last two years the TBC has finished the year significantly under-budget. In other words, we could use some of the money that is currently being handed to those who don't want doctrinal accountability to fund more missions and evangelism within our own state. Who knows - we could possibly even use some of that money to start a new TBC school that will agree to teach within biblical boundaries throughtout their existence.

Sorry this was so long, but I felt like I needed to provide many details that most of you would probably have no idea about. I have been watching this thing unfold for almost the last two years now and I can unequivocally tell you that the TBC has done the right thing by beginning an investigation of its schools.

Todd · Nov 18, 2004

RandR, what you don't know is that though Dr. Netherton didn't respond to the Baptist Press, he did issue his statement to the faculty. As I understand it (and this was confirmed by a C-N faculty member who wished to remain anonymous), Dr. Netherton addressed the faculty on 11/18/04 and told them that he would not allow C-N's professors to be investigated by the TBC as long as he was President of the school. That didn't make the Baptist Press, but as I said, it was confirmed to a close friend of mine by a C-N faculty member. So, how interested do you think C-N and Belmont are in remaining affiliated with the TBC?

Anleifr · Nov 19, 2004

I know Brady Tarr (the college student being referenced here) personally. He is a bright young man (3.9 Chemistry major due to graduate in December) and a young man of integrity. He attends Carson-Newman College and he is committed to his local church here in Morristown.

I knew you knew Tarr. Both of you are from Morristown and have said exactly the same thing. I do not doubt Tarr’s integrity. I do doubt his knowledge of the Bible and his thinking on this matter. On the one hand he appears to want only balance at the school for both sides. On the other hand he complains when just on individual or a small minority have a viewpoint different from his.

For the past year and a half, that is exactly what I have done. The first on-campus experience I had was during a CLW time (what used to be called chapel) where the Church Relations Director, a political science prof, and a philosophy prof were asked to speak on the subject of "When Faith Meets the Academy." In that meeting, the professors all agreed that "using creeds or doctrinal statements as a means of doctrinal accountability is an act of cowardice, and should be avoided." In other words, they plainly said that professors (even those of a Baptist institution of higher learning) should never be asked to teach within detailed doctrinal boundaries. I was disheartened to say the least.

Having a positive or negative view of creedalism should not disqualify one from the post of teacher. Where does the Bible promote creeds? Anywhere? It is an extra-biblical concept. Now being extra-biblical does not make it wrong anymore than it makes it right. Regardless, creeds are of not of divine origin and are subject to sin. They can be faulty. They certainly can be used in a faulty manner.

My next experience came during a CLW lecture on "Women and the Christian liberal arts school." It was taught by a tenured religion faculty member who basically championed egalitarian (feminist) causes throughout her lecture. She plainly stated that each woman is free to determine the call that she believes God has placed upon her life, and that such a call could certainly be one into pastoral ministry. That seemed to be an odd statement coming from a professor who teaches in an institution that is affiliated with the TBC where there are currently almost NO women filling TBC pulpits.

She has not signed the 2000 BFM and is perfectly willing to believe and teach that doctrine. This should only be a problem if the professor had signed the 2000 BFM. Regardless, the Bible puts no restrictions on women as pastors, it says just the opposite. This is why the 2000 BFM is faulty.

My last on-campus experience was the clincher for me. Dr. Charles Kimball, head of religion at Wake Forest University, was invited on campus to "preach" during CLW time.

Did he say that salvation comes from ways other than Christ? All I have yet heard is interpretations of what he has said. I have heard that he thought the question of whether Hindus, Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex. It is! Even if Muslims worship the same God as Christians that doesn’t mean they are “going to heaven.” Jews and Christians worship the same God. Are Jews who do not have a personal relationship with God “going to heaven”? Maybe Jews and Christians worship the different gods.

But let us assume that everything awful about Dr. Kimball is true. Tarr’s complaint is that there is not a balance at C-N. He has not said that Kimball’s views are predominant. Far from it. He cites him as one example of a speaker with which he disagrees.

And what is wrong with hearing a speaker with which one disagrees? Are we to only listen to people with which we agree? Should be take out all books from the library that have in them things we dislike? Most seminary libraries have books that teach heresies. Should we discard them?

Now, aside from my own personal experiences, your question is does C-N have some religion faculty who teach that the Bible contains errors? They certainly do! And how do I know? Because I spoke with one of the religion faculty and he told me that there are only two self-professed inerrantists in the entire religion dept (one full-time faculty member and one part-time).
What's more, there definitions of inerrancy are more along the lines of "inerrancy of purpose" rather than inerrancy of the original autographs. That means that the other approximetly 12 folks who teach within that department are not even inerrantists. Let me tell you, that doesn't sit too well with the vast majority of the TBC churches.

Well, we will have to find out what they mean by inerrancy and non-inerrancy. Those terms are so ambiguous and so differently interpreted that anyone can be called and inerrantist and errantist. Small wonder that the 2000 BFM did not address the issue. Interesting, all the Bible Battles, we were told, were about inerrancy, but the SBC leaders decided not to address the issue in the 2000 BFM. Which means that true inerrantists can sign the 2000 BFM without a problem.

Regardless, your not even concerned that they believe the Bible to be true, inspired, infallible, and God’s word, “without any mixture of error for its matter.” Whether or not they believe what the Bible says is not the issue to you. What is the issue is whether they believe the Bible is of a certain nature, a nature that the Bible doesn’t even claim for itself. We’re asking people to not believe the Bible but believe what others believe the Bible to be, a belief that has not been codified by the 2000 BFM and other Southern Baptists.

Further, biblical creationism is no longer being taught in the Biology classrooms of the college. In fact, there's not even one faculty member in that department who believes in a literal six-day creation of the Earth. All of them espouse theistic evolution.

As for where the religion faculty stand on exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, I think their invitation of Dr. Kimball onto campus says it all.

That’s like saying that someone is a Marxist because he has a copy of the Communist Manifesto in his library. Quite a dirty slur.

Netherton simply answered by saying that all the faculty believes that God created everything (ie.- theistic evolution) and that biblical creationism was briefly mentioned in one upper-level Biology class (Bio 317) that is not even a required course for Biology majors.

Hey, I have no doubt that evolution is taught. I hope it is. Again, where does the 2000 BFM reject evolution? If this is such an important issue then why do we as Southern Baptist not outlaw it? If I was a Biology major, I would hate to be required to take a creationism class. Notice how we want to require students to take a voluntary class. “You must take this class!” Biology students know creationism is bunk. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be biology students.

The bottom line is that it is WAY past time for an investigation like this.

Still, why does the complaint of one student at one college call for the investigation of three colleges? I noticed two buildings at C-N have the name Tarr on them. I noticed the people supporting Tarr at the TBC meeting and the ones making motions are high up in the TBC AND the SBC. Former SBC committee chairman and the like. Yes, all this smelled rotten from the get-go. I hadn’t thought of the colleges would leave the TBC. Better that than have people fired for not believing in creationism or the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and other such trivial matters not included in the 2000 BFM.

BTW. I noticed that Tarr publicly made his allegations in the press BEFORE the TBC held its meeting. Tut, tut.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1211&dept_id=169695&newsid=13243665&PAG=461&rfi=9

This was the method that the SBC used when they were witch-hunting at the seminaries. Tut, tut.

Is he related to Lonas Tarr, by chance?

gb93433 · Nov 19, 2004

Todd:

What bothers me greatly is that you have not stated that you have done anything about what you have observed.

What are you doing about it?

Todd · Nov 20, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Brady Tarr (the college student being referenced here) personally. He is a bright young man (3.9 Chemistry major due to graduate in December) and a young man of integrity. He attends Carson-Newman College and he is committed to his local church here in Morristown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew you knew Tarr. Both of you are from Morristown and have said exactly the same thing. I do not doubt Tarr’s integrity. I do doubt his knowledge of the Bible and his thinking on this matter. On the one hand he appears to want only balance at the school for both sides. On the other hand he complains when just on individual or a small minority have a viewpoint different from his.

An, I'm sorry to admit that your comments are not that well informed. I'm sure you think you have the scoop on Brady, C-N, and TBC life from your computer in Ft. Worth, but could it be possible that there are a few things I might know about those aforementioned things that you don't since I have first-hand knowledge of this whole situation? You say you doubt Brady's knowledge of the Bible, but on what grounds? Have you discussed this with Brady? Do you know his view of biblical inspiration? Do you know where he stands on inerrancy? One thing you don't know about Brady is that he invited a prof onto campus from SBTS last week who came and lectured on the issue of inerrancy. That said, Brady knows a lot more about the issue than you seem to give him credit for. Of course, I'm sure you just assumed that since he wasn't a religion major that he didn't have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter - dumb assumption. By the way, Brady has no problem with the fact that liberal views of the Bible are taught at C-N. After all, C-N's mission statement says that they are a "Christian liberal arts" school. One would expect both sides to be taught. What bothers him (and me) is that there are only two inerrantists in the entire religion department. What's more, how can C-N ethically hire folks to teach within the religion department who believe that the Bible contains errors when they have a historic affiliation with a state convention in which biblical inerrancy has been a hallmark of TBC life? Doesn't seem that C-N is very interested in representing the doctrinal values of the state convention with whom it is affiliated. This is sad because were it not for the Bible-believing inerrantists who started the school (which was originally called the "Mossy Creek Baptist Seminary") there would be no C-N. Very sad indeed. That's why C-N (and Belmont) are often viewed as wayward children. They had a wonderful birth and were raised well, but then rebelled and have now turned aside to every wind of doctrine.

Having a positive or negative view of creedalism should not disqualify one from the post of teacher. Where does the Bible promote creeds? Anywhere? It is an extra-biblical concept. Now being extra-biblical does not make it wrong anymore than it makes it right. Regardless, creeds are of not of divine origin and are subject to sin. They can be faulty. They certainly can be used in a faulty manner.

First, to say that the Bible doesn't affirm the necessity of agreement on crucial issues of the faith is wrong. How did Jude say it: "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Liberals have branded the defending of our Christian faith as "creedalism" because that carries a certain stigma. Yet, the Christian church has always sought to defend the faith "once for all delivered" by committing to preach and teach within the doctrinal boundaries of that faith.

Second, I will agree that a teacher at some secular university should not be disqualified from teaching for their unwillingness to teach within doctrinal boundaries. But you miss the point: C-N is not a public institution. It is a private institution that has given itself the distinction of offering a Christian education to its students. Further, it is affiliated with the TBC, and has been for many years now. How ethical is it for C-N to accept 2.3 million $$$ from the TBC if it is not even willing to honor the Convention by what is taught in the Religion and Biology Departments (among several other departments)? Do we not bear some moral obligation towards those who support us? Certainly we do, and so does C-N. If they don't want to teach within biblical boundaries, then they can refuse TBC money and life would be much easier - same applies to Belmont and Union for that matter. Accepting TBC money with an unwillingness to also accept their doctrinal accountability is irresponsible and unbiblical!

She has not signed the 2000 BFM and is perfectly willing to believe and teach that doctrine. This should only be a problem if the professor had signed the 2000 BFM. Regardless, the Bible puts no restrictions on women as pastors, it says just the opposite. This is why the 2000 BFM is faulty.

First, she is not free to believe and teach that doctrine if it doesn't represent the doctrinal values of the TBC - not in good conscience she can't. And by the way, where does the Bible "say just the opposite." I wasn't aware that there was a passage of Scripture that opened up the pastorate to women. What I have found though is 1 Tim. 2:11-15, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 1 Cor. 14:34, and several other passages that seem to give you no ground upon which you can stand to prove your point. May I ask if you are affiliated with the CBF?

Did he say that salvation comes from ways other than Christ? All I have yet heard is interpretations of what he has said. I have heard that he thought the question of whether Hindus, Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex. It is! Even if Muslims worship the same God as Christians that doesn’t mean they are “going to heaven.” Jews and Christians worship the same God. Are Jews who do not have a personal relationship with God “going to heaven”? Maybe Jews and Christians worship the different gods.

But let us assume that everything awful about Dr. Kimball is true. Tarr’s complaint is that there is not a balance at C-N. He has not said that Kimball’s views are predominant. Far from it. He cites him as one example of a speaker with which he disagrees.

And what is wrong with hearing a speaker with which one disagrees? Are we to only listen to people with which we agree? Should be take out all books from the library that have in them things we dislike? Most seminary libraries have books that teach heresies. Should we discard them?

An, your understanding of things is even worse than I thought. Do you actually believe that Muslims and Christians can possibly worship the same God? One little problem: We espouse faith in Jehovah who is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Muslims have no concept of a triune God. Furthermore, Jews are in the same boat. How can you possibly think that we are all worshiping the same God? This is disturbing and quite honestly it causes me to wonder if you have entered into a relationship with the God of the Bible.

By the way, I'm the person who sat in the Q/A session and asked Dr. Kimball the question (of whether all groups worship the same God). His response to me was as follows: "Young man, that's a very difficult question, and one I don't think I can answer with a yes or a no." I felt like saying, "Excuse me, but aren't you supposed to be the head of religion at Wake Forest? You can't even tell me if we're all worshiping the same God or not? How can you possibly speak to the merit of inter-faith relationships if you're not even sure if we're all trusting in the same God or not?" This is ludicrous.

You speak of balance, but what you don't know is that there has been a liberal indoctrination on the C-N campus for a number of years. Besides, a man coming in and advocating the merits of inclusivism has nothing to do with balance. Rather, it has everything to do with an ungodly worldview that will send our young college students to hell if they place their faith in it. What's sad is that this man was not just invited by the Religion faculty, but he had their blessing as well. What message do you think that sends to an impressionable 19-year old who is not sure what to think about the whole thing? I think Jesus said it would be better for a millstone to be cast around one's neck than for that person to mislead a little child (cf. Mt. 18). These students may not be children, but they are still very impressionable, and I can tell you that Tennessee Baptists don't want impressionable minds believing that all good Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will be in heaven!

Well, we will have to find out what they mean by inerrancy and non-inerrancy. Those terms are so ambiguous and so differently interpreted that anyone can be called and inerrantist and errantist. Small wonder that the 2000 BFM did not address the issue. Interesting, all the Bible Battles, we were told, were about inerrancy, but the SBC leaders decided not to address the issue in the 2000 BFM. Which means that true inerrantists can sign the 2000 BFM without a problem.

Regardless, your not even concerned that they believe the Bible to be true, inspired, infallible, and God’s word, “without any mixture of error for its matter.” Whether or not they believe what the Bible says is not the issue to you. What is the issue is whether they believe the Bible is of a certain nature, a nature that the Bible doesn’t even claim for itself. We’re asking people to not believe the Bible but believe what others believe the Bible to be, a belief that has not been codified by the 2000 BFM and other Southern Baptists.

Wow, you say that the BF&M 2000 doesn't affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, but then you quote the very line that affirms said inerrancy - "truth without any mixture of error for its matter." I'm sorry, but source hypotheses will not make that cut. Dynamic views of Bible inspiration will not make that cut. The dismissing of historical Bible truths as allegorical will not make that cut. All of those things are currently taught as fact within the religion department of C-N at this point.

Further, you say that the Bible doesn't make the inerrancy claim of itself. How did Paul say it: "All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)" (2 Tim. 3:16). That means that if every word of the Scripture is the very Word of God, then it must be inerrant for God is its Author and God can not err. Complete biblical inerrancy is the logical obligation of verbal plenary inspiration (but I'm sure you don't believe in verbal plenary inspiration even though it is plainly affirmed in the aforementioned verse).

Besides, what does it mean when someone says that they believe the Bible when they don't believe it is the very Word of God? Don't they actually mean that they believe part of the Bible? If that is the case, then who gives that person the right to ajudicate which parts are inspired and which parts are not? I've always wondered about that - seems like we're trying to make ourselves smarter than God when we say such silly things.

That’s like saying that someone is a Marxist because he has a copy of the Communist Manifesto in his library. Quite a dirty slur.

That is ridiculous and you know it. I wouldn't dare blame one of the religion faculty for having a copy of Kimball's book in their study - in fact, I've even toyed with the issue of purchasing a copy for myself. It's one thing to familiarize yourself with an individual's work, but it's an entirely different matter altogether to endorse someone's work. That is exactly what the Religion faculty of C-N did and I have the e-mail that was sent to all faculty, administrators, and students that can prove it.

Hey, I have no doubt that evolution is taught. I hope it is. Again, where does the 2000 BFM reject evolution? If this is such an important issue then why do we as Southern Baptist not outlaw it? If I was a Biology major, I would hate to be required to take a creationism class. Notice how we want to require students to take a voluntary class. “You must take this class!” Biology students know creationism is bunk. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be biology students.

Wow, so now we are not only worshiping the same God as everyone else, but creationism is "bunk." These are some startling revelations. I was under the impression that trustworthy exegesis and hermeneutics actually mandated that biblical creationism is the only acceptable view of creation - silly me! Of course, you would probably reply that biblical creation is not a matter to be taken up in a science classroom, but I would reply by stating that there are volumes of good science written by very capable scientists that would challenge such an assertion. Liberals usually fire back to that by alleging that such science is not "good science." If that is the case, then why not present it in the Biology classroom and let it be exposed for the "bunk" that you say it is? What are the profs afraid of - that some unsuspecting college student might actually believe in the biblical view of creation? Oh my, that would certainly be a travesty on a Christian campus of higher learning that is affiliated with the TBC.

Theistic evolution (the view that all C-N Biology professors espouse) can't possibly be valid because it teaches that dinosaurs became extinct long before humans existed. The only problem with that: Death didn't enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden (cf. Rm. 5). If there was no death, then how did dinosaurs become extinct (and before you answer, remember that Paul said that all creation was subjected to the results of the Fall - Rm. 8:20-22). Those who teach theistic evolution don't have a conflict with some state convention, they have a problem with God's Word, as I suspect you do if you think biblical creationism is "bunk."

Still, why does the complaint of one student at one college call for the investigation of three colleges? I noticed two buildings at C-N have the name Tarr on them. I noticed the people supporting Tarr at the TBC meeting and the ones making motions are high up in the TBC AND the SBC. Former SBC committee chairman and the like. Yes, all this smelled rotten from the get-go. I hadn’t thought of the colleges would leave the TBC. Better that than have people fired for not believing in creationism or the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and other such trivial matters not included in the 2000 BFM.

BTW. I noticed that Tarr publicly made his allegations in the press BEFORE the TBC held its meeting. Tut, tut.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1211&dept_id=169695&newsid=13243665&PAG=461&rfi=9

This was the method that the SBC used when they were witch-hunting at the seminaries. Tut, tut.

Is he related to Lonas Tarr, by chance?

Here we go with the conspiracy theories. You are speaking of that which you have no idea about. Before you insinuate that Lonas Tarr's influence had anything to do with this, you ought to at least be sure that there is some relation there. Yes, Brady is Lonas' grandson, but Lonas has not said a word of support for Brady during all this - he has remained silent (in the public sphere), and I suspect he will continue to do so. Because I was one of the people who spoke in support of Brady from the mic (on two occasions) at the annual meeting, I know you're not speaking of me when you mention some "high ranking TBC and SBC folks." I am a young Pastor of a small East TN congregation that has virtually no influence in convention matters. I assume you're actually speaking of Hollie Miller (former TBC Pres and Pastor of Sevier Heights Baptist Church). He is a personal friend of mine and I spoke with him about all this yesterday morning over the phone. He had nothing to do with Brady's comments or the motion for an investigation. In fact, that has been the simplistic beauty of this whole thing - it had no formal pre-convention organization, yet God used the comments of one young man to rally the messengers of the TBC to finally do that which was right. Thus, you can drop your whole conspiracy theory - this is just a group of Bible-believing Pastors and churches seeking to do that which is right in the sight of God without showing partiality from one school to the next.

Todd · Nov 20, 2004

GB, I have spoken to the Head of Church Relations. I have spoken to the Campus minister. I have spoken to several faculty members. I have attended several CLW sessions. I have spoken to a couple of school trustees about these matters. I spoke to these matters from the floor of our TBC annual meeting, twice.

GB, are you suggesting that I go and try to shut down C-N or something. I am just one Tennessee Baptist trying to make a difference. The only people that have the power to make any decisions at this point are the school's trustees and the messangers to the 2005 TBC annual meeting. The fate of our colleges rests in their hands.

If you would like to suggest that I follow some other course of action, I'm all ears. Will you covenant to pray for me as I seek to honor God in this endeavor?

gb93433 · Nov 20, 2004

Originally posted by Todd:

If you would like to suggest that I follow some other course of action, I'm all ears. Will you covenant to pray for me as I seek to honor God in this endeavor?

What you are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg I saw in a situation I was involved in.

Don't you pastor a church? Isn't your church a part of an association of churches? Get the people in your church together and stand as a church. Get the other churches in the local association to stand with you. Get your DOM to participate. You need to stir up the people to do what is right. But you must take the lead. expect those in leadership to try and sweep it under the rug. But you have a higher obligation to not let them escape and stand tall. Write some letters and having meetings with other pastors and lay people who collectively will do something. Start scheduling some meetings to plan a course of action.

I have been there before, so I know it works. They may ignore you but they cannot ignore a large group of people who will not be ignored. The situtation I was in not one SBC church would help us. A number of pastors told me they don't get involved in things outside of their church. As a pastor I got some of the church people together and we planned a course of action. Eventually the right thing was done. Initially they wanted to sweep things under the rug but we would not let them. We exposed them and they were embarassed. At that time we got immediate action.

I prayed for you tonight. Keep us posted.

Todd · Nov 20, 2004

GB, I certainly thank you for the prayers.

I didn't mean to imply that I was just trying to take this thing on by myself. Not only is Brady involved, but we have mobilized several men from our local association to take action. Also, I am part of a group called Concerned Tennessee Baptists that will be taking some action on this. I have also been in contact with the Chairman of the Education Committee who will oversee the work of the coming investigations. Your point is well taken though - this type of effort can't be done alone.

What complicates the issue for us is that the majority of the folks in Brentwood (including the Executive Director) are not willing to listen when we voice our concerns. It is a pretty well-known fact that the Executive Board, Committee on Boards, and Committee on Committees are pretty well-stocked with moderate/liberal minded folks who would just have us to turn our heads from walks going on in our schools. Therefore, what we are doing will have to come from the bottom up - a genuine grassroots effort.

Wilander · Nov 20, 2004

I grew up in the TBC, and there were signs 20 years ago that Belmont was abandoning its historic Baptist identity and Carson-Newman wasn't far behind. In fact, I actually thought Belmont no longer was a Baptist institution at all.

Anleifr · Nov 21, 2004

An, I'm sorry to admit that your comments are not that well informed. I'm sure you think you have the scoop on Brady, C-N, and TBC life from your computer in Ft. Worth, but could it be possible that there are a few things I might know about those aforementioned things that you don't since I have first-hand knowledge of this whole situation?

Yes, there are things you know that I do not. That’ s why I was glad you joined the discussion. I was hoping you could shed light on this situation. You have.

You say you doubt Brady's knowledge of the Bible, but on what grounds? Have you discussed this with Brady? Do you know his view of biblical inspiration? Do you know where he stands on inerrancy? One thing you don't know about Brady is that he invited a prof onto campus from SBTS last week who came and lectured on the issue of inerrancy. That said, Brady knows a lot more about the issue than you seem to give him credit for. Of course, I'm sure you just assumed that since he wasn't a religion major that he didn't have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter - dumb assumption.

To say that I doubt his Biblical knowledge is not to say that I know his knowledge or was making an assumption that he did not know his Bible. If I was to say that he did know his Bible I would then be making an assumption.
Whether or not someone majors in religion has no ultimate bearing upon real Biblical knowledge. Look at liberal Biblical scholars. Don’t assume that I am assuming. That is a dumb assumption.
Do I know his views on Biblical inspiration and inerrancy? No, he hasn’t said. That’s why I haven’t assumed. I also can’t assume he knows other people’s definitions of inerrancy.
I am basing my info on what he has written and what has been printed in the press. My info is limited and that is why I am glad you joined in.
But here are some things he has written that make me doubt his knowledge:
1) He writes that the Bible teaches a particular method of creation different from that of evolution. The Bible does no such thing. The Bible is silent on how God created different things. To say that those who believe that God created through evolution trust science over the Bible implies that he doesn’t have a good grasp of the Bible.
2) He writes “Every full-time teacher in the religion department, except for one, believes that the Bible contains errors and many say that it contradicts itself on numerous occasions.” He does not offer any real evidence of this. He only states that they believe in evolution and that is against the Biblical teaching. Are these professors saying their inerrantists or is that what he assumes? If they say there inerrantists, what kind. The term today is so broad that anyone can claim to be an inerrantist and everyone can be accused of being an errantist. If they are errantists, what do they mean by it? Original autographs or subsequent copies? Because Tarr did not explain what he meant by “errors” and “contradictions” I could not assume that he knew what he was speaking about. Again, since the only evidence he gave was evolution and the faculty inviting a speaker he may have misunderstood as a speaking heresy then you can understand why I might doubt his knowledge of the Bible, but not his integrity.
3) He claims that Dr. Kimball spoke on why Christ wasn’t the only way. He offers no evdidence and neither have you. In fact, the evidence you have given suggests just the opposite.
4) He writes that the professors do not believe the Bible is Truth. What is his evidence? Because they do not interpret it the way he does. I believe the Bible is very clear that there will be no secret rapture, but I do not tell those who do believe in such nonsense that they don’t think the Bible is the truth or that they believe that the Bible is erring.
But, regardless of his knowledge of the Bible, he appears to be at odds with himself. On the one hand he claims to want only a balance of views taught. On the other hand, he is upset when only one speaker disgrees with him on an issue. Do all speakers disagree with him?
But regardless of his knowledge and his own contradictory wishes, I am merely asking why is it that the complaint of one student at one college can cause an investigation into three colleges. It would be like me complaining that professors at Southeastern are teaching open theism and the SBC decides to investigate all five seminaries. Odd. What is the reason?
And, if someone is going to make allegations, I want to know the details. How are C-N professors inerrantists? The word inerrancy can mean almost anything these days as you yourself have attested. How was Dr. Kimball saying that Christ wasn’t the only way of salvation? If he thought that the issue of whether or not Hindus and Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex then why does he believe that Christ isn’t the only way? Those who believe that Christ isn’t the way automatically believe that all gods are God. It isn’t a complex issue at all to them. The fact that he said the issue is complex makes me believe he doesn’t believe that Christ is not the only way.
Furthermore, I do not believe that evolution is a wrong subject for Christians to teach or learn if they so choose. Both TBC and SBC members would appear to agree because neither has ever codified any mention of the subject in their creeds.

By the way, Brady has no problem with the fact that liberal views of the Bible are taught at C-N. After all, C-N's mission statement says that they are a "Christian liberal arts" school. One would expect both sides to be taught. What bothers him (and me) is that there are only two inerrantists in the entire religion department.

See above. Do you want balance of teaching or balance of teachers? This is Tarr’s statement: “Every full-time teacher in the religion department, except for one, believes that the Bible contains errors and many say that it contradicts itself on numerous occasions.” Let’s assume this statement to be true. If only “many” say this than “most” do not. If most do not then most do not say that the Bible has errors, therefore, most professors are not teaching that the Bible has errors. Therefore, to have balance as he claims to want, then more professors need to teach that the Bible has errors. But does he want more professors to teach certain things or more professors to teach believe certain things regardless of what they teach. Look at the biology department. He is upset that most professors believe and teach that God creates through evolution. There appears to be only one class that teaches creationism and it is not required. Is he upset that there is an imablance of what professors believe or an imabalance of what they teach? If all the profs believe in evolution but balanced their teachings with equal amounts of creationism, would that be satisfactory. If so, which brand of creationism?

What's more, how can C-N ethically hire folks to teach within the religion department who believe that the Bible contains errors when they have a historic affiliation with a state convention in which biblical inerrancy has been a hallmark of TBC life? Doesn't seem that C-N is very interested in representing the doctrinal values of the state convention with whom it is affiliated. This is sad because were it not for the Bible-believing inerrantists who started the school (which was originally called the "Mossy Creek Baptist Seminary") there would be no C-N. Very sad indeed. That's why C-N (and Belmont) are often viewed as wayward children. They had a wonderful birth and were raised well, but then rebelled and have now turned aside to every wind of doctrine.

See above. Do you want all professors to believe the same or do you want balance? Which is it?

First, to say that the Bible doesn't affirm the necessity of agreement on crucial issues of the faith is wrong. How did Jude say it: "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Liberals have branded the defending of our Christian faith as "creedalism" because that carries a certain stigma. Yet, the Christian church has always sought to defend the faith "once for all delivered" by committing to preach and teach within the doctrinal boundaries of that faith.

Evolution, inerrancy and women in ministry are crucial issues? The divinity of Jesus is a crucial issue. Salvation by grace through faith is a crucial issue. The existence of God is a crucial issue.
Defending the faith is not creedalism. Making others believe in a particular interpretation of Scripture, especially one that is widely disagreed and not crucial is creedalism.
Where does Jude 3 speak of creeds? I could use your logic to say that the Bible teaches that we should kill those who don’t except Christ from Jude 3. Not good.

Second, I will agree that a teacher at some secular university should not be disqualified from teaching for their unwillingness to teach within doctrinal boundaries. But you miss the point: C-N is not a public institution. It is a private institution that has given itself the distinction of offering a Christian education to its students. Further, it is affiliated with the TBC, and has been for many years now. How ethical is it for C-N to accept 2.3 million $$$ from the TBC if it is not even willing to honor the Convention by what is taught in the Religion and Biology Departments (among several other departments)? Do we not bear some moral obligation towards those who support us? Certainly we do, and so does C-N. If they don't want to teach within biblical boundaries, then they can refuse TBC money and life would be much easier - same applies to Belmont and Union for that matter. Accepting TBC money with an unwillingness to also accept their doctrinal accountability is irresponsible and unbiblical!

I think the C-N should be obligated to the TBC. Of course. I think all three colleges should teach within the Biblical boundaries. The issue is what is Biblical and what is not.

C-N has not required professors to sign the 2000 BFM. You can’t be upset that they are not abiding by the 2000 BFM when the TBC hasn’t yet required it. Yet.

And even if they do require the adherence of the 2000 BFM, they can still teach evolution and inerrancy b/c the 2000 BFM does not address the issue.

Should seminary students who receive TBC or SBC money be willing to accept the conventions doctrinal accountability? Shouldn’t we only give money to those pastors of the future who accept SBC doctrines? I currently receive SBC money and I believe in egalitarian ministry, evolution, preterism, amillennialism (I’m older than I am, I guess), and other things that make many skin’s crawl. I am an inerrantist and I can sign the 2000 BFM.

First, she is not free to believe and teach that doctrine if it doesn't represent the doctrinal values of the TBC - not in good conscience she can't. And by the way, where does the Bible "say just the opposite." I wasn't aware that there was a passage of Scripture that opened up the pastorate to women. What I have found though is 1 Tim. 2:11-15, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 1 Cor. 14:34, and several other passages that seem to give you no ground upon which you can stand to prove your point. May I ask if you are affiliated with the CBF?

Exactly where does it say that a TBC professor cannot teach that a woman can be a pastor? Most Southern Baptists are pre-tribulational, secret-rapture, two-Christ-returns, pre-millennialists. Must all TBC or SBC professors teach this?
Titus 2:3 – Women can be “presbutidas”- elders/pastors/overseer.
Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8,9; 1 Cor 11:4 – a woman can be a prophet. Do prophets have authority?
1 Tim 2:11-15 – No mention of pastor here. In fact, nowhere does the Bible say a woman cannot be pastor. This is just a principle that people apply. The principle is that a woman should not “teach or exercise authority over a man.” Very true. But do prophetesses teach and exercise authority? Was Priscilla sinning when she expounded/explained the way of God to Apollos? (Acts 18:26) The principle is that NO believer, either male nor female, should exercise authority over another believer. Jesus forbade it (Luke 22:25-26). Look throughout the NT; nowhere does Paul say that one believer has authority over another believer. Wives and husbands have authority over the other’s body. Governments have authority over believers. Believers have authority over the demons/angels. Only the Apostles have authority over other believers and even they are tempered. Can a woman teach or exercise authority over a man? No. Can a man teach and exercise authority over a woman. No. We are each to submit one to another (Ephesians 5:21).
Romans 16:1-2 – A woman can be a deacon. This woman can make the Romans do whatever she have need of them? Does that mean she has authority?
Romans 16:7 – A woman can be an apostle. An apostle does teach and have authority, right?
1 Cor 14:34 – Again, the word “pastor” does not appear in this verse. The verse teaches that women are to keep silent and not to speak. But just in 1 Cor 11:5 Paul has told women that they can pray and prophesy. What is going on here? One could say that this passage is talking about ecstatic utterances and Paul is telling women not to speak as such. Doubtful. He uses “silence” (sigao) also in 2 Thess 3:12 to speak about working in a quiet fashion. Does this mean, that they should not speak? Or does it mean that they should work in a peaceful manner? People take this vers to apply to women not being pastor. But if these people actually applied these verses the way they claim it should be applied then women should not speak at all. Nowhere. Do women speak in your church?

Nope, SBC. Inerrantist, as well.

Anleifr · Nov 21, 2004

An, your understanding of things is even worse than I thought. Do you actually believe that Muslims and Christians can possibly worship the same God? One little problem: We espouse faith in Jehovah who is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Muslims have no concept of a triune God. Furthermore, Jews are in the same boat. How can you possibly think that we are all worshiping the same God? This is disturbing and quite honestly it causes me to wonder if you have entered into a relationship with the God of the Bible.

I never said that all religions worship the same God. Please read all that I wrote. You’ve taught me much here. The fact that you can read (not hear) what I wrote and say that I think that we are all worshipping the same God suggests that you may have not heard (not read) what Dr. Kimball said. I suspected that this might be the case. This usually is the case in Baptist circles. Now I am wondering who at C-N has been misunderstood.
Ah, the Jews do not worship Yahweh (Jehovah), eh? Did they in the OT? Did they know He was triune? Was he then triune? So one can worship God and not know He is triune (at least at one point in history). What god do Jews worship then?
You seem to be under the view that worship equals salvation? If that is so then are all Roman Catholics going to be saved? No, just because someone worships a god does not mean that that god will save them.
One could say, “Well, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. worship the same God, but some of these have the wrong idea about that God that prevents them from being saved i.e., they do not know about the trinity or His grace.”
Or what does “worship” mean? Do we differentiate between true worship and false worship?
All this makes things complex. A yes or no answer may not be sufficient.

By the way, I'm the person who sat in the Q/A session and asked Dr. Kimball the question (of whether all groups worship the same God). His response to me was as follows: "Young man, that's a very difficult question, and one I don't think I can answer with a yes or a no." I felt like saying, "Excuse me, but aren't you supposed to be the head of religion at Wake Forest? You can't even tell me if we're all worshiping the same God or not? How can you possibly speak to the merit of inter-faith relationships if you're not even sure if we're all trusting in the same God or not?" This is ludicrous.

Yes, I know it was you. Again, if he believed that Christ was not the only way for salvation, he would have automatically said that all gods were God. The fact that he didn’t answer “yes” shows that he doesn’t believe Christ is not the only way.

You speak of balance, but what you don't know is that there has been a liberal indoctrination on the C-N campus for a number of years. Besides, a man coming in and advocating the merits of inclusivism has nothing to do with balance. Rather, it has everything to do with an ungodly worldview that will send our young college students to hell if they place their faith in it. What's sad is that this man was not just invited by the Religion faculty, but he had their blessing as well. What message do you think that sends to an impressionable 19-year old who is not sure what to think about the whole thing? I think Jesus said it would be better for a millstone to be cast around one's neck than for that person to mislead a little child (cf. Mt. 18). These students may not be children, but they are still very impressionable, and I can tell you that Tennessee Baptists don't want impressionable minds believing that all good Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will be in heaven!

I didn’t bring up balance; Tarr did. Does he want balance or not? Do you want balance or not? If you do then it should not be a problem to have one speaker who doesn’t believe in what you believe.
Liberal indoctrination? Liberals? One problem is that we conservatives do not know what a liberal Christian is. At worst, these profs are moderates, but I have not been given any evidence that even suggests that. Quite the contrary, they appear to be all very conservative. Not as conservative as some but conservative none the less.
Again, did this man say that Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists are going to heaven? Did he say that Christ isn’t the only way? No one has yet said he said any of this? Or perhaps, perhaps, he said things that make you think that is what he believes. Or do you think that what he said, if taken to its extremes, could lead to a heretical belief?

Wow, you say that the BF&M 2000 doesn't affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, but then you quote the very line that affirms said inerrancy - "truth without any mixture of error for its matter." I'm sorry, but source hypotheses will not make that cut. Dynamic views of Bible inspiration will not make that cut. The dismissing of historical Bible truths as allegorical will not make that cut. All of those things are currently taught as fact within the religion department of C-N at this point.

All the BFMs have had that line including the “dreaded” 1963 BFM. No one believed in meant inerrancy then. That is what the Bible Battles were about. The 2000 BFM committee had no problem with this Mullins-Hobbs “moderate” phrasing.
Look at the phrase “for its matter”. That can include a whole range of errancy and inerrancy views. Errantists just say, for example, Paul is wrong on women but its okay because it’s not the Scriptures “matter”. The Scriptures aren’t erring for its matter, they say, but Paul is for his matter. I think this is bogus but the 2000 BFM or any of the other BFMs deal with this matter even though those who said that we needed another BFM said that this was matter they wanted to deal with. They just took Jesus out.
Really, different passages and books of the Bible contain different types of literature and different types of literary devices, thus different hermeneutical methods are involved. If we take Revelation “literally” then the anti-Christ is a seven-headed beast. He should be easy to spot.

Further, you say that the Bible doesn't make the inerrancy claim of itself. How did Paul say it: "All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)" (2 Tim. 3:16). That means that if every word of the Scripture is the very Word of God, then it must be inerrant for God is its Author and God can not err. Complete biblical inerrancy is the logical obligation of verbal plenary inspiration (but I'm sure you don't believe in verbal plenary inspiration even though it is plainly affirmed in the aforementioned verse).

God-breathed does not say inerrancy. There are those who believe that the Bible is God-inspired but still fallible. That is why we say that it is inspired AND infallible AND inerrant. Believe me, one day we will probably need to add another word to the list. Sufficiency, anyone?
I do believe in plenary verbal inspiration. I am an inerrantist all the way. Why are you so sure the reverse is true? This is a reason why I am not so sure these professors believe in errancy. You are making assumptions about people’s beliefs without asking them. Even when you know these beliefs, like evolution, you believe, it appears, that you cannot be an evolutionist and believe in inerrancy. If this last statement is incorrect please say so.

Besides, what does it mean when someone says that they believe the Bible when they don't believe it is the very Word of God? Don't they actually mean that they believe part of the Bible? If that is the case, then who gives that person the right to ajudicate which parts are inspired and which parts are not? I've always wondered about that - seems like we're trying to make ourselves smarter than God when we say such silly things.

It appears that you believe that the majority of Southern Baptists should have the right decide what is a proper interpretation of the inerrant Bible? Where is the Scriptural reference for that?
You mean original autographs right? If such-and-such verse is in the NASB or NKJV but does not appear in any manuscript until the fifth century, is it right to believe that it isn’t God’s word?
But I know what you mean. Those who believe that some parts are inspired and others are human. I think that all the Bible in its original autographs are Scriptural and inerrant. But is the problem at C-N that most professors believe that parts of the original autographs are errant? Or is it the problem that there is not a balance of professors who believe in errancy and inerrancy. I am hearing both.

That is ridiculous and you know it. I wouldn't dare blame one of the religion faculty for having a copy of Kimball's book in their study - in fact, I've even toyed with the issue of purchasing a copy for myself. It's one thing to familiarize yourself with an individual's work, but it's an entirely different matter altogether to endorse someone's work. That is exactly what the Religion faculty of C-N did and I have the e-mail that was sent to all faculty, administrators, and students that can prove it.

See above. I have not been given any evidence that suggests this man believes that Christ is not the only way of salvation.

Wow, so now we are not only worshiping the same God as everyone else, but creationism is "bunk." These are some startling revelations. I was under the impression that trustworthy exegesis and hermeneutics actually mandated that biblical creationism is the only acceptable view of creation - silly me! Of course, you would probably reply that biblical creation is not a matter to be taken up in a science classroom, but I would reply by stating that there are volumes of good science written by very capable scientists that would challenge such an assertion. Liberals usually fire back to that by alleging that such science is not "good science." If that is the case, then why not present it in the Biology classroom and let it be exposed for the "bunk" that you say it is? What are the profs afraid of - that some unsuspecting college student might actually believe in the biblical view of creation? Oh my, that would certainly be a travesty on a Christian campus of higher learning that is affiliated with the TBC.

I believe you wrong on your impressions. The Bible does not speak about evolution either pro or con. It certainly doesn’t speak about “creationism.” (By this term I mean the alternative study to evolution about how God created His creation – the one thing we can both be happy about is that these profs are teaching that God did create the creation. We are only arguing on His methodology).
Look at Isaiah 44:2 for an example: God says that he “formed” Jacob from the womb. He makes various versions of this statement throughout the OT. Does He mean that Israel instantaneous appeared or that He created the process by which Jacob went from sperm and egg into embryo into multi-celled organism into fetus into a baby ready to pop out after a nine-month period? But before you answer, remember that the Holy Spirit uses the same word in for the “formation” of man in Genesis 2:7 and for the animals in 2:19.
Trustworthy exegesis and hermeneutics mandates that we take the Genesis 1-3 story as not “literally” true but true just the same. It is truth and God’s inerrant and inspired revelation to man. Whether one interprets at “literal” or “apocalyptically” the true principles still come out the same: God creates, man sins, God saves man from his sins.
In biology classes, “creationism” is exposed for the bunk that it is. Evolution proves that its bunk. No, I am sure that geology class doesn’t go into detail about how it is impossible for a flood to create the Grand Canyon in a few months. I do believe that the geologists would rather spend time going into detail of how the Grand Canyon was created by millions of years of erosion. By doing so they have taught what they want to teach and properly debunked other versions. Evolutionists do the same thing. Here is a religious example: we debunk the notion that Jesus was only human by teaching why He is both human and divine. The views that contradict this truth
Anyway, you said yourself that a “creationism” class is offered. If the biology profs didn’t want anyone to know creationism then why do they offer the class?

Theistic evolution (the view that all C-N Biology professors espouse) can't possibly be valid because it teaches that dinosaurs became extinct long before humans existed. The only problem with that: Death didn't enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden (cf. Rm. 5). If there was no death, then how did dinosaurs become extinct (and before you answer, remember that Paul said that all creation was subjected to the results of the Fall - Rm. 8:20-22). Those who teach theistic evolution don't have a conflict with some state convention, they have a problem with God's Word, as I suspect you do if you think biblical creationism is "bunk."

So plants did not die until Adam sinned? Interesting. You assume Paul is speaking about all death and not just human death. You assume that he means physical death and not spiritual death. The Lord God said to Adam, “In the day that you eat from it [tree of knowledge of good and evil) you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:17) Adam ate, but lived 900 more years. Was God wrong? Was that an idle threat? Or do we take either the day to be figurative or the death to be spiritual?
Paul uses “death” in both physical and figurative ways. Context tells us which.
Read Romans 8:20-22 literally and in context. What was the creation subjected to by the results of the fall? Futility, slavery, the groans and sufferings of the pains of childbirth. Death is not mentioned here, either physical or spiritual. Were you thinking of another verse? Really, who has a problem with the Bible?
Now, just because I believe you have misinterpreted a verse I am not going to say that you are liberal or heretical or unfaithful. One can be wrong and conservative and orthodox and faithful. Regardless, why can’t Christians disagree on the timeframe of the death of the dinosaurs?

Here we go with the conspiracy theories. You are speaking of that which you have no idea about. Before you insinuate that Lonas Tarr's influence had anything to do with this, you ought to at least be sure that there is some relation there. Yes, Brady is Lonas' grandson, but Lonas has not said a word of support for Brady during all this - he has remained silent (in the public sphere), and I suspect he will continue to do so. Because I was one of the people who spoke in support of Brady from the mic (on two occasions) at the annual meeting, I know you're not speaking of me when you mention some "high ranking TBC and SBC folks." I am a young Pastor of a small East TN congregation that has virtually no influence in convention matters. I assume you're actually speaking of Hollie Miller (former TBC Pres and Pastor of Sevier Heights Baptist Church). He is a personal friend of mine and I spoke with him about all this yesterday morning over the phone. He had nothing to do with Brady's comments or the motion for an investigation. In fact, that has been the simplistic beauty of this whole thing - it had no formal pre-convention organization, yet God used the comments of one young man to rally the messengers of the TBC to finally do that which was right. Thus, you can drop your whole conspiracy theory - this is just a group of Bible-believing Pastors and churches seeking to do that which is right in the sight of God without showing partiality from one school to the next.

So there is relation here? Well, I haven’t mentioned anything about a conspiracy. Again, my curiosity on this matter is why a single college student’s complaint at one college can be reason for investigating three colleges? Is it because his family has given a lot of money to the college? Maybe. Are his allegations valid? So far no evidence has been presented to suggest so. Regardless, if his allegations are true then it does not matter whether or not he is well connected. I’m sure that Tarr’s letter to the editor a week before the convention helped rally messengers. I do know that Rev. Miller (a leading inerrantist advocate – which is fine) has been critical of C-N for some time (again, fine). I know his church has withdrawn some support from C-N over the years (again, fine). I just want to know what the truth is. I just want to be sure that no one is being maligned. I do not doubt the honorable intentions of any who are making allegations or supporting those making the allegations. I do not doubt that Tarr’s reasons are good and he is honestly concerned about C-N. I am concerned that others in the TBC are using these good reasons and honest concerns to tighten control over all the TBC colleges. I hope that is not the case.

Todd · Nov 21, 2004

An, these posts are getting much too lengthy and so I don't want to respond to everything you posted, but I simply won't pass up the opportunity to speak to several important matters:

To say that I doubt his Biblical knowledge is not to say that I know his knowledge or was making an assumption that he did not know his Bible.

That sounds like double talk to me. You plainly said you doubted his knowledge of the Bible. Because you neither know Brady nor have you ever asked him about his knowledge of God's Word, you made an assumption on his understanding of the Bible. And that was a dumb assumption.

See above. Do you want balance of teaching or balance of teachers?

What the conservative Christians of the TBC want are teachers in our TBC schools who are committed to the Word of God and who will covenant to teach within biblical boundaries. Of course, the issue then becomes "who sets those biblical boundaries?" That's a good question, and that is why I am in full favor of making each of the teachers at our three schools sign-off on the BF&M 2000. That's not creedalism - that's good stewardship. How can we in good conscience continue to lend our good name and our resources to some state institutions of higher learning who are not willing to be doctrinally accountable? Say what you will, but if there are no clearly defined doctrinal boundaries, then education pretty much accepts an "anything goes" attitude and that is exactly what we currently see going on with C-N and Belmont. Both of those institutions know that they are not honoring the doctrinal convictions of the TBC, and that is why they should simply refuse the annual 2.3 million and part ways with the TBC. That would resolve this whole matter, but alas it will not be that easy.

So that answer your question, Brady, myself, and scores of others here in the TBC aren't only looking for balance in the classroom (which we certainly do want), but we also want the institutions to hire only those who would be willing to affirm some doctrinal statement that reflects the convictions of those within the TBC (which would most likely be the BF&M 2000). If such an affirmation were required of the faculties of C-N and Belmont, the vast majority of those schools religion, Biology, and philosophy departments (among many others) would all be asked to leave. This is what all the tension, and now investigation, is about.

Evolution, inerrancy and women in ministry are crucial issues? The divinity of Jesus is a crucial issue. Salvation by grace through faith is a crucial issue. The existence of God is a crucial issue.

An, you may classify yourself as a conservative, but your posts "runneth over" with classic liberal spin. Evolution is indeed a crucial issue, because if that is how we have been created then we are simply products of pure chance and the god of deism is now the god to which we must give an account. Women in the ministry is indeed a watershed issue, but only if we are concerned about obeying God's Word and submitting ourselves to its authority. (Parenthetically, you say that 1 Tim. 2:11-15 has nothing to do with women being prohibited from the pastorate, but what does that passage of Scripture precede? The qualifications for Pastor! Let's practice sound hermeneutics here!) Inerrancy is indeed a crucial issue, because how can we know anything sure of "the divinity of Jesus, salvation, and the existence of God" if God has not granted us a sure revelation of those things in His Word? Your comments sound kind of like the person who says, "We ought to just forget about all this doctrinal stuff and focus on Jesus." There were some guys who tried to separate the person of Christ from the words of Christ towards the end of John 6. They weren't to successful in their attempts, and neither we will be if we attempt to do the same. These are crucial issues, and if we don't think so, then we're not much better than those quasi-followers of John 6 who wouldn't accept what Christ said about eating His body and drinking His blood.

And even if they do require the adherence of the 2000 BFM, they can still teach evolution and inerrancy b/c the 2000 BFM does not address the issue.

Either you haven't read the BF&M 2000 or you are just choosing to explain away what it says by arguing for hermeneutical license. "Truth without any mixture of error" means that God's Word is an inerrant Word. As for evolution, the BF&M says that God is the Creator of all that is - not simply the organizer or first cause of creation.

Should seminary students who receive TBC or SBC money be willing to accept the convention's doctrinal accountability?

Absolutely, and if they aren't willing to receive such accountability, then they are being dishonest and deceptive.

Shouldn’t we only give money to those pastors of the future who accept SBC doctrines? I currently receive SBC money and I believe in egalitarian ministry, evolution, preterism, amillennialism (I’m older than I am, I guess), and other things that make many skin’s crawl. I am an inerrantist and I can sign the 2000 BFM.

I believe so, for why should we give CP $$$ to those who have demonstrated that they're not willing to reflect SBC values throughout their respective ministries? That makes no sense, and it is certainly not good stewardship. Further, if you advocate egalitarian ministry then you can't in good conscience affirm the BF&M 2000 because it expressly denounces said ministry (see Article VI of the BF&M 2000).

You seem to be under the view that worship equals salvation? If that is so then are all Roman Catholics going to be saved? No, just because someone worships a god does not mean that that god will save them.

What I'm saying is that someone can't begin to worship God "in Spirt and in truth" (John 4:23-24) until they have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and such indwelling only comes by professing faith in the triune God of the Bible. Someone can attempt to worship Jehovah (as do the Catholics), but they will never be able to do so until they trust the God of the Bible ALONE for their salvation.

All this makes things complex. A yes or no answer may not be sufficient.

If you don't feel you can give a simply "no" answer to the question "Do all Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc. worship the same God?," then I'm afraid these conversations are pretty pointless. Aside from the other considerations you voiced, the answer to the question is quite simple - WE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WORSHIPING THE SAME GOD. And as I have stated, even if someone (say a Jew or a Catholic) were attempting to worship the God of the Bible, they couldn't possibly do so apart from saving faith in Him. This question is not complex - it is really quite simple.

Yes, I know it was you. Again, if he believed that Christ was not the only way for salvation, he would have automatically said that all gods were God. The fact that he didn’t answer “yes” shows that he doesn’t believe Christ is not the only way.

What Dr. Kimball actually said (and keep in mind I was there) was that he didn't think that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and the salvation of others within different faiths (Islam, Hinduism, etc.) were contradictory to one another. That's riding the fence if I've ever seen it. Either Christ is the only Way, or others within different faiths can be saved apart from Christ, BUT YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If it is possible, I'd love for you to explain how.

At worst, these profs are moderates, but I have not been given any evidence that even suggests that. Quite the contrary, they appear to be all very conservative.

If you think that egalitarian ministry, open theism, theistic evolution, soteriological inclusivness, and source theories of the composition of Scripture are "very conservative," then I'm wondering what school of theology you attended. Those are doctrines that even the father of the liberals (Fredrich Schliermacher) could agree with. You'll have to explain that one.

I think this is bogus but the 2000 BFM or any of the other BFMs deal with this matter even though those who said that we needed another BFM said that this was matter they wanted to deal with. They just took Jesus out.

Yes, because liberals were routinely seeking to separate the Living Word from the Written Word. More clarification was needed to say that such a practice is ungodly and unacceptable for those who are seeking to honor God.

God-breathed does not say inerrancy.

I'll assume you're a logical person (not a hard assumption because you seem to be quite intelligent). Tell me how "God-breathed" can't possibly obligate one to accept comeplete biblical inerrancy. If every word of the Bible is the very Word of God (as Paul plainly testified), then the Bible must be inerrant because God (the Author of Scripture) can'e err - if He can then He ceases to be God. Liberals and moderates despise this plain logic, and so rather than lash out against it, they have simply chosen to try and define which parts of the Bible are "God-breathed" and which parts are not.

There are those who believe that the Bible is God-inspired but still fallible.

You make my point. They change the meaning of theopnuestos to "inspired" so that they can say that the Bible is an inspired/inspiring book. I would agree with the liberals: If the Bible is only partially inspired or just inspiring, then the Bible plainly contains errors. Yet, that's not what Paul said, is it? No, he said it was "God-breathed," and thus it must be inerrant.

Even when you know these beliefs, like evolution, you believe, it appears, that you cannot be an evolutionist and believe in inerrancy. If this last statement is incorrect please say so.

There is absolutely no way that someone can say they are an inerrantist if they believe in macro-evolutionary theories of creation. Such theories of creation not only deny the plain exegesis and exposition of Scripture, but they are rooted in humanist attempts at biblical hermenutics that didn't even exist until the time of Charles Darwin. If those theories of evolution can be argued from God's Word, then why didn't they exist before Darwin's time? I think we all know the answer to that question. Either we believe that God's Word is inerrant when it speaks of creation or we must attempt to allegorize the first 2 chapters of the Bible (which is the current practice of those within the religion and biology departments of C-N).

But is the problem at C-N that most professors believe that parts of the original autographs are errant? Or is it the problem that there is not a balance of professors who believe in errancy and inerrancy. I am hearing both.

Both are problems right now - that is why messengers to the TBC voted overwhelmingly to launch an investigation of all three schools. It was interesting to see that Dockery welcomed the investigation, while Fisher and Netherton have both scoffed at it. That says volumes.

No, I am sure that geology class doesn’t go into detail about how it is impossible for a flood to create the Grand Canyon in a few months. I do believe that the geologists would rather spend time going into detail of how the Grand Canyon was created by millions of years of erosion.

Conversely, there is a lot of good science out there that suggests that the Grand Canyon couldn't have possibly been etched out over millions of years - why is it not presented in the Biology/Geology classrooms? By the way, there is not "Biblical Creationism" class at C-N. What I said is that there is only one course (Bio 317) that even mentions biblical creationism (in passing) and that that particular Biology course is not even required for Biology majors. Thus, someone could very conceivable go through the Biology Department at C-N, receive their degree in Biology, and never even hear of the scientific evidence that supports biblical creationism. This is ludicrous, seeing as how C-N (and Belmont and Union) are affiliated with the TBC.

Read Romans 8:20-22 literally and in context. What was the creation subjected to by the results of the fall? Futility, slavery, the groans and sufferings of the pains of childbirth. Death is not mentioned here, either physical or spiritual. Were you thinking of another verse? Really, who has a problem with the Bible?

So you're implying that creation only suffered some of the effects of the Fall without suffering them all? Who gives you the right to make that claim? Besides, if death and disease had entered the world before the time of Adam and Eve, then wouldn't those same maladies have effected Adam and Eve even if they had never sinned? Further, how can we say that Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world if death and destruction had already touched it prior to the Fall of man? Here again, it seems that your hermeneutic is one that is not only forced upon the Scripture because of a priori convictions, but it creates many more problems than it solves. Don't you agree? If not, then I'd love to see how you answer the aforementioned questions.

I just want to know what the truth is.

My friend, the truth is that all our institutions of higher learning should be accountable to the TBC. At this point, there is no accountability, and when questions are raised (like the questions being asked by Brady) nobody seems to want to provide any answers. That's why this investigation is long overdue. If it is determined that these institutions are teaching apostate doctrines, then a choice will have to be made by those institutions. If they want to honor their affiliation with our convention, then they can covenant to teach in accord with the convictions of our convention. If they don't want to do that, then they can cut the ties and do their own thing. Either way, a decision must be made. For all who are interested, that is the truth.

Anleifr · Nov 22, 2004

That sounds like double talk to me. You plainly said you doubted his knowledge of the Bible. Because you neither know Brady nor have you ever asked him about his knowledge of God's Word, you made an assumption on his understanding of the Bible. And that was a dumb assumption.

And I restated that I doubt his knowledge. I still do. I doubt his knowledge because he has not shown that he has that knowledge. Again, to assume that he does have knowledge is worse than to assume that he doesn’t.

What the conservative Christians of the TBC want are teachers in our TBC schools who are committed to the Word of God and who will covenant to teach within biblical boundaries. Of course, the issue then becomes "who sets those biblical boundaries?" That's a good question, and that is why I am in full favor of making each of the teachers at our three schools sign-off on the BF&M 2000. That's not creedalism - that's good stewardship. How can we in good conscience continue to lend our good name and our resources to some state institutions of higher learning who are not willing to be doctrinally accountable? Say what you will, but if there are no clearly defined doctrinal boundaries, then education pretty much accepts an "anything goes" attitude and that is exactly what we currently see going on with C-N and Belmont. Both of those institutions know that they are not honoring the doctrinal convictions of the TBC, and that is why they should simply refuse the annual 2.3 million and part ways with the TBC. That would resolve this whole matter, but alas it will not be that easy.

I certainly believe in doctrinal boundaries. The question is what those doctrinal boundaries ought to be.
That the schools parts ways appears to be your favored solution. If so, why is that?

So that answer your question, Brady, myself, and scores of others here in the TBC aren't only looking for balance in the classroom (which we certainly do want), but we also want the institutions to hire only those who would be willing to affirm some doctrinal statement that reflects the convictions of those within the TBC (which would most likely be the BF&M 2000). If such an affirmation were required of the faculties of C-N and Belmont, the vast majority of those schools religion, Biology, and philosophy departments (among many others) would all be asked to leave. This is what all the tension, and now investigation, is about.

How can one have balance if you’re only willing to higher those who believe exactly the way you do?
Again, evolution and inerrancy aren’t mentioned in the 2000 BFM. I could assume one side only wants 2000 BFM guidelines and balance on other issues not mentioned in the 2000 BFM, but if that side hears any view that they don’t agree with they claim that the others side does not believe the Bible and believe in errancy and, therefore, is not abiding by the guidelines of the 2000 BFM.
It’s like if someone believes in amillennialism. One person could say, “That view is wrong. The Bible says ‘premillenialism’ so this person doesn’t believe what the Bible says, therefore, he is not abiding by the 2000 BFM and must be fired.”
At worst this investigation appears to be about whether or not theses schools are following the guidelines of the 2000 BFM despite the fact that they haven’t signed it.

An, you may classify yourself as a conservative, but your posts "runneth over" with classic liberal spin. Evolution is indeed a crucial issue, because if that is how we have been created then we are simply products of pure chance and the god of deism is now the god to which we must give an account.

If it was crucial then why doesn’t ANY BFM mention it?

Women in the ministry is indeed a watershed issue, but only if we are concerned about obeying God's Word and submitting ourselves to its authority. (Parenthetically, you say that 1 Tim. 2:11-15 has nothing to do with women being prohibited from the pastorate, but what does that passage of Scripture precede? The qualifications for Pastor! Let's practice sound hermeneutics here!)

This passage doesn’t prevent women from being pastors. What I said was that the passage doesn’t mention “pastor.” And it doesn’t. Even the current president of SWBTS said so. What he said was that we have a principle here which can be applied to prohibit women from the “office” of pastorate. Where else this principle can be applied he didn’t say. I agree with him that we only have a principle that needs to be applied but I disagree with him on the extent of the application. I believe that Paul and Jesus do not want believers having authority over other believers. That Paul says that women cannot teach or have authority over other men is correct. But he does not say that a man should do so. In fact, both Paul and the Lord forbid believers from exercising authority over other believers. Where do they say othwerwise?
It’s like in Ephesians 5. Verse 21 tells believers to submit one to another. We should all submit to each other. He tells wives to submit and tells husbands to love. Verse 21 is telling husbands to submit to wives. And they should. The fact that Paul tells women to submit does not exclude husbands from submitting to wives anymore then telling husbands to love wives excludes wives from loving their husbands.
Look again at the letter to Timothy. The passage follows Paul’s teaching on entreaties and prayers and how to pray and what women should wear.
Chapter five concerns the “office” of widow. It follows a passage on good ministerial discipline and precedes a passage on elders. Why do we not honor the “office” of widow?

Inerrancy is indeed a crucial issue, because how can we know anything sure of "the divinity of Jesus, salvation, and the existence of God" if God has not granted us a sure revelation of those things in His Word? Your comments sound kind of like the person who says, "We ought to just forget about all this doctrinal stuff and focus on Jesus." There were some guys who tried to separate the person of Christ from the words of Christ towards the end of John 6. They weren't to successful in their attempts, and neither we will be if we attempt to do the same. These are crucial issues, and if we don't think so, then we're not much better than those quasi-followers of John 6 who wouldn't accept what Christ said about eating His body and drinking His blood.

Jesus Is the Word. The only people that I know of who tried to separate doctrine from Jesus are those who took Jesus out of the Scriptural doctrines of BFM.

Either you haven't read the BF&M 2000 or you are just choosing to explain away what it says by arguing for hermeneutical license. "Truth without any mixture of error" means that God's Word is an inerrant Word. As for evolution, the BF&M says that God is the Creator of all that is - not simply the organizer or first cause of creation.

If “‘truth without any mixture of error’ for its matter” means “inerrancy” then the 1963 BFM was fine. The Bible Battles over inerrancy were futile and all we did was take Jesus out of the scenario. But then why did all our SBC leaders insist that we needed a new BFM to make inerrancy doctrinal?
Did God create us? Did we start as a sperm and egg or did we spring up from the ground as a fully formed man? If we did begin as a few cells then did God not create us? Or was God the first cause that brought our parents together? Even if God is the first cause then what says that a cause will have an outcome unless a logical process has been created in which something reaches its goal? God being a first cause does not exclude that He is governing the process along the way? How can he do so? Because He created the process.

Should seminary students who receive TBC or SBC money be willing to accept the convention's doctrinal accountability?

Absolutely, and if they aren't willing to receive such accountability, then they are being dishonest and deceptive.

Yes, I know this is coming. First SBC employees, then seminary professors, then missionaries, now college professors and state conventions and local associations and churches.
Soon it will be students, pastors, and church members. Then we will be the Roman Catholic Church. Sad.
But at least I now know that some people agree that student’s should be forced to sign the 2000 BFM. My friends who support the methods of the Conservative Resurgence think that making student’s sign the 2000 BFM will never happen. Oh, they do not know the desires of others!

Shouldn’t we only give money to those pastors of the future who accept SBC doctrines? I currently receive SBC money and I believe in egalitarian ministry, evolution, preterism, amillennialism (I’m older than I am, I guess), and other things that make many skin’s crawl. I am an inerrantist and I can sign the 2000 BFM.

I believe so, for why should we give CP $$$ to those who have demonstrated that they're not willing to reflect SBC values throughout their respective ministries? That makes no sense, and it is certainly not good stewardship. Further, if you advocate egalitarian ministry then you can't in good conscience affirm the BF&M 2000 because it expressly denounces said ministry (see Article VI of the BF&M 2000).

See above. But please think and pray about this issue.
With regards to egalitarianism in the 2000 BFM.
There are two ways in which one can believe in egalitarianism and sign the 2000 BFM. I will only mention one method because it is the only way that is currently known.
Notice the prologue of the BFM. It is a holdover from 1963. While the SBC has not removed the prologue they are certainly down-playing it. One can interpret the 2000 BFM in light of the prologue and sign the document and still believe in egalitarianism. Two things. First, do not think that there aren’t a whole lot of SBC employees, seminary professors, and missionaries who do not know of the prologue. Second, do not think that the SBC leaders don’t know of the prologue. The SBC leaders do know of this “loophole” and are always looking out for those who interpret the 2000 BFM in light of the prologue. Oh, yes, missionaries can be fired for holding to the BFM. And the SBC is quickly becoming aware of this problem. I expect a movement in the future to remove the prologue. It won’t do any good. Like, I said there is another method.

You seem to be under the view that worship equals salvation? If that is so then are all Roman Catholics going to be saved? No, just because someone worships a god does not mean that that god will save them.

What I'm saying is that someone can't begin to worship God "in Spirt and in truth" (John 4:23-24) until they have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and such indwelling only comes by professing faith in the triune God of the Bible. Someone can attempt to worship Jehovah (as do the Catholics), but they will never be able to do so until they trust the God of the Bible ALONE for their salvation.

Yes, I thought so. You interpreted Dr. Kimball’s words in light of a specific interpretation of “worship.” I think a difference of terminology has been one of the problems.

If you don't feel you can give a simply "no" answer to the question "Do all Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc. worship the same God?," then I'm afraid these conversations are pretty pointless. Aside from the other considerations you voiced, the answer to the question is quite simple - WE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WORSHIPING THE SAME GOD. And as I have stated, even if someone (say a Jew or a Catholic) were attempting to worship the God of the Bible, they couldn't possibly do so apart from saving faith in Him. This question is not complex - it is really quite simple.

See above. You have a particular idea of worship that may differ from others. That makes things more complex. I see where you were confused. I do not think that Dr. Kimball understood your question. I didn’t. I see why he thought your question was complex. The problem came when you added the word “same.” By your definition of “worship” no one can worship unless the Holy Spirit allows them. Therefore, even if a Muslim’s god is Yahweh, they are not believers through Christ and, therefore, not truly worshipping. Quite complex.

Tennessee Baptist Colleges in Trouble

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Administrator

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member