Tennessee Baptist Colleges in Trouble

Anleifr · Nov 22, 2004

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.

So he didn’t say that Christ wasn’t the only way. I thought as much. This has been most informative. You appear to be misinterpreting his words.

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.

Wouldn’t you like to know. More importantly, I bet you would like to know what theology professors from which I learned.
Open theism is bunk as is soteriolgical inclusiveness. How many C-N profs believe in this? The other things mentioned are conservative. If conservative theology is about what the inerrant word of God sayd, then egalitarian ministry is in. Theistic evolution is in because it says God created the creation. Source composition must be in because the Bible claims to have sources. Even if it did not, it quotes other sources, and careful study of the Bible shows that the authors used sources.

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.

But clarification was not given. Please, point to the clarification. In fact, they removed the Word (Jesus) from the BFM.

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.

Because "God-breathed" can be interpreted to mean that God inspired the Apostle’s to write what they did but not everything they wrote was infallible. If we all believed that “God-breathed” meant “without mixture of error for its matter” then we would have left off at saying “God Inspired” but we had to add “without mixture of error for its matter.” Again, I think the SBC will one day add a “sufficiency” clause to the BFM.
Actually, Paul was speaking about the OT, but I know what you mean.

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.

You make my point. That is why more language was added.
Almost all Bible translations say “inspired.” Before Paul used the term it was used by Greek pagan religions for the words coming out of the oracle at Delphi.
The problem comes when we who believe in inerrancy take “God-breathed” and apply (rightly, I believe) corollary logical implications. “God-breathed”, therefore, inerrant. The Bible doesn’t say it is inerrant only that it is “God-breathed.” One can say that they believe what the Bible says and not believe in inerrancy because the Bible never claims itself to be as such. If we who believe in inerrancy want to convince other believers of our views on the Bible we need to come out with better logical reasons. Instead, we just want to make a statement and leave it at that.

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.

I disagree. One can hold to macro-evolution and Biblical inerrancy. In fact, in my view, careful exegesis will show that we cannot take the Genesis 1-3 to be “literal” as opposed to “figurative” or “apocalyptic.” If we do take these passages “literally”, only then the Bible has errors. Many errors.
Evolution as a concept had been tossed around by different scientists before Darwin. Other scientists were working along similar lines at the same time as Darwin. This is not one man’s theory. If there had been no Darwin, then some other scientist would have arrived at the same conclusion. Why? Because evolution is an observable phenomenon. When Copernicus and Galileo made discoveries about the earth’s place in creation many believers thought that they must be wrong because the Bible said otherwise. What happened? The biblical scholars went back to the Bible and found out that nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is the center of the cosmos and that the sun does revolve around the sun. What was the deal? Well, people had been bringing their own presuppositions to the Bible and reading into it what was never there. The Bible wasn’t erring but the people were. And God let it go on for thousands of years!

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).

See above. But I never said that the Bible argues for evolution anymore than the Bible argues for atoms and black holes and quantum mechanics. I am only saying that 1) the Bible does not exclude evolution because 2) the Bible is not a book of science. It’s matter is not science.
Again, “literal” is not the proper way to interpret Genesis 1-3. But “allegorizing” must be differentiated from other figurative forms. Bunyan’s Pilgrim Progress is an allegory. The Bible rarely uses this form. Only two or three times of which I am aware. Apocalyptic is probably a preferred method of interpretation for these passages in Genesis.

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.

I need to see more evidence that such inerrancy is going on. All I am hearing is that people hold to different interpretations. We need to be careful to distinguish inerrancy from interpretation.
Speaks volumes? Yes, but perhaps not in the way you mean?

quote:

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.

But since the Bible doesn’t speak about the Grand Canyon how can we hold others believers accountable to such science? We’re asking believers to hold to one science as opposed to another science. Such alternative science is not presented in classrooms because A) it is bunk and B) schools might not get accredited. Which brings up another point. How can a biology and geology department get accredited if they teach “creationism”? This is a problem we will have to face in the future.
Again, “creationism” is bunk. It cannot even hold up under observable tests. It doesn’t even try to prove “creationism”, it just tries to disprove other theories. In fact, “creationism” never even appeared until the rise of evolution.

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?

No, I am saying that the Biblical evidence you gave did not support your assertion. Unless you can give a better passage, then, in your words, what right do you have to make such a 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?

According to the Genesis story, Adam and Eve had to be prevented from eating from the tree of life in order to not live forever (3:22). Death came not as a immediate result from sinning but from being denied access to the tree of life. Therefore, man was created mortal. What would have happened if Adam and Eve had not sinned is anyone’s guess. The Bible is silent on the matter and so we need to be silent in our preaching and teaching. But speculation is fine. The story does not mention disease. Are only guide to what a perfect being would be is Jesus. The Bible is silent about whether or not Jesus caught colds and what have you. He was mortal despite never sinning. The result of His not sinning was that God resurrected Him.

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.

Volcanoes cause destruction. Did volcanoes only come after man’s fall? Are volcanoes, intrinsic though they be to keeping the earth from exploding under pressure, a result of the fall? Are supernovas destructive? Asteroids and meteorites? Are these results of the fall? If so, what chapter and verse says so?
When we say “death” do we mean physical or spiritual? Do we mean only man or animals as well? What about plants? Insects? Did Adam never step on a bug in the grass? What about cells? Did Adam shed skin? How are we to interpret “death” and to what extent?

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.

No one is arguing against accountability. What we are arguing against is the extent of accountability. If there is no accountability then the TBC could not investigate. Since they can investigate, then there is accountability.

Apostate doctrines? Please choose your words carefully. We are dealing with people’s livelihood; let us not exaggerate.

From my perspective, answers are being given but people don’t accept the answers: “Do professors believe in the Bible?” “Yes.” “Well, I don’t believe you. Why won’t you answer the question?” This cannot be what you mean. How have no answers been provided?

No one is providing me with answers. How does a C-N investigation automatically mean a Belmont and Union investigation? Who made allegations against them? Why did the TBC launch an investigation because only one student made an allegation? Is it because his grandfather has given a lot of money to the college? Why did the student write his allegations to newspapers before the convention? Why is inerrancy being confused with interpretation? Why are professors being hounded to sign the 2000 BFM for matters not included in the 2000 BFM? Why do some want all professors who disagree with them ousted but then claim to want balance on these issues?

I am afraid that the truth is being concealed from both of us.

Todd · Nov 23, 2004

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.

Well, at least now you are admitting that you made an assumption on his knowledge of the Bible (even if it was the lesser of two evils as you put it). Have you ever diagramed the word "assume?" It may prevent you from making further assumptions in the future.

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?

At this point, this convention's doctrinal boundaries are determined by its messangers, and they indicate their convictions through their vote at the annual meeting. They may not seem too fair, but that is not the fault of the messangers, but the fault of those in Brentwood who don't even want any accountability for themselves. Further, I don't favor the schools leaving the Convention - in fact, I would hate to seem them go. But what I would hate even more than their leaving is their staying and accepting Convention $$$ when they clearly don't want to teach those values and doctrines that are cherished by the TBC. That's what this whole investigation is about, and that's why it passed overwhelmingly by the messangers apart from any kind of "conservative strategy" going into the annual meeting.

How can one have balance if you’re only willing to higher those who believe exactly the way you do?

That's an easy question. Require that your teachers, who would be forced to affirm the BF&M 2000 (or some other doctrinal statement), teach both sides of the argument on ALL ISSUES. This is exactly the kind of education I got at SEBTS. In fact, I learned just as much about liberal theology at SEBTS then I ever did anywhere else. And it wasn't just a "straw man" picture of liberal theology - we had to read from the liberals themselves and then think critically to come up with a biblical rebuttal to their doctrines. This is exactly what ought to be happening at our three TBC schools, but as I have clearly demonstrated this is currently not happening. Hiring those who will affirm doctrinal accountability doesn't mean that you can't also have academic balance and an opportunity for open intellectual inquiry - I know, because I attended a school where I had the best of both.

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

As I have stated, I think that biblical creationism is clearly implied Article 2 of the BF&M. A better question would be, "Why is it not more explicit in the BF&M?" The reason why is because there are still many well-meaning conservatives out there who feel like they still need to defend the theory of evolution by espousing such things as theistic evolution, day-age theories, gap theories, etc. I would certainly be in favor of a more explicit statement on evolution in the BF&M, and I think we will finally get that statement sometime in the near future.

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?

You and I are not going to agree on this issue, so I don't even think is worth saying too much more about. I think the burden rests on you with this issue though. Consider this: Paul and Peter both plainly stated that women are to be in submission to their husbands in their respective letters to the church (cf. Eph. 5:22, 1 Pt. 3:1-6, among others). The submission they were speaking of was submission within the home (family). Because this is the case, Paul said that men have actually been charged with ruling in their households (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5). That means that husbands are to "exercise authority" over their wives and their children. Having said that, are you trying to tell me that God wants husbands to be the spiritual leaders of their households, but He is perfectly willing to let the women have that leadership within the local church? If women have not been called to be the spiritual leaders within their own homes, then why would God call them to be the spiritual leaders of the church? As I said, the burden of proof rests on you with this one.

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.

Statements just like yours are the reason that the Article on the Scriptures needed to be reworded to clearly demonstrate that one can't claim some super-allegiance to Christ without claiming that same allegiance to His Word. For what would we know of Christ apart from His Word? You know just as well as I do that people were using the statement "Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which Scripture must be interpreted" to try and give biblical validation to any number of issues ranging from egalitarian ministry, to pro-choice agendas, and even homosexuality. They would say things like "the words of Jesus and Paul clearly contradict one another on the issue of women and their role within the church. When they conflict, I will choose Christ because He is the sole criterion by which the Scriptures must be interpreted." That's hogwash, and I'm very thankful the language was changed so that such a separation of Christ from His Word can no longer be validated from the BF&M 2000. Jesus Christ is the Word, but He is not the only Word. Moderates/liberals despise this, and that's why they always want to affirm the BF&M 1963 rather than the 2000 edition.

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?

See above.

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.

Sorry, but God doesn't create processes that are contradictory to His Word. Again, why were all these wonderful macro-evolutionary theories of creation not around until the mid-19th century?

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!

You may not like what I said, but you dodged dealing with the part about being deceptive and dishonest. How honest is it for someone to accept CP $$$ if they clearly don't want to pursue a ministry that will seek to be faithful to the doctrinal convictions of Southern Baptists? I would equate that to a bossman hiring another young man to do a job. The bossman can plainly see that the young man is going to need much training in order to accomplish the tasks that he has prepared for him to do. Consequently, he puts up his own time and money to help train the young man. Yet, when the young man receives all the necessary training, he decides that he no longer wants to work for the bossman, but for his neighborhood competitor right down the street. Were someone to ask your opinion of that young man, surely you would say that he was dishonest and that he ought to recompense the bossman for the time and money that he contributed to his training. Why should the same standard not apply to our young seminarians?

I'm not against non-SBC folks coming and receiving an education in one of our seminaries. Yet, what I abhor is the fact that there are those who attend SBC seminaries (after having joined SBC churches) simply because they know they can receive a respected education for half the cost of what it would require to get that same education somewhere else. Yet, when they leave that SBC seminary, they then go and start some non-denominational or other work that runs contrary to SBC doctrine. That is dishonesty and sure deceptiveness.

But please think and pray about this issue.

I will "pray and think about" that issue, if dishonesty and deceptiveness are some things that I actually need to pray about before I wholeheartedly reject. Come on, where's your integrity?

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.

I have read and am familiar with the prologue, yet you are going to have to help me to see how the prologue could somehow be used as a "loophole" (which in and of itself is a term of deception) that would allow one to affirm the BF&M 2000 while at the same time affirming egalitarian ministry. Article 6 plainly says, "The office of Pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." Without twisting the words of that article and without being deceptive, please tell me how egalitarian ministry can be justified in view of Article 6.

I do not think that Dr. Kimball understood your question.

Give me a break - do you think that I'm that naive? He knew exactly what I was asking, and because he knows he's riding the fence on this issue (because he's a statesman for inter-faith relationships) he simply chose not to give me an answer that was grounded in his true convictions. You can argue semantics all you want, but I have already demonstrated that even relegating the questions to semantics simply will not do.

Therefore, even if a Muslim’s god is Yahweh,

Are you listening to yourself? A Muslim's god can't be Yawheh because their god is not the triune God of the Bible!!! The fact that we are still in need of discussing this is disheartening!!!

So he didn’t say that Christ wasn’t the only way. I thought as much. This has been most informative. You appear to be misinterpreting his words.

Like I said, Kimball plainly stated that one could believe that Jesus is the only Way while also believing that some sincere Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. will also be in heaven. I'm sorry, but that statement is self-referencially incoherent (contradictory). You simply can't have it both ways - either Christ is the only Way, or He is not. The fact that Kimball won't come right out and say that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are lost apart from Christ is proof positive that he doesn't believe that, and as such he is a religious inclusivist. I'm not putting words in his mouth - I'm just filling in the blanks that he was not willing to fill in by carrying his own statements out to their logical and biblical end

Todd · Nov 23, 2004

Open theism is bunk as is soteriolgical inclusiveness. How many C-N profs believe in this?

As for open theism, it is the only acceptable view of God's knowledge that is taught by both the Philosophy profs at C-N (and I know that for fact because I have discussed this with Dr. Austin). Also, the religion faculty are sympathetic with the tenants of open theism. As for soteriological inclusiveness, none of the religion profs would come right out and tell you that they believe Jesus Christ is not the only way, but let's "examine their fruit." Why not only invite, but also endorse Dr. Kimball's teaching onto campus if there were not some sympathy with his views? Were Dr. Kimball's coming to C-N only a matter of balance (which it certainly wasn't - speakers like him are the norm - last year Dr. Stanley Hauerwas was endorsed when he lectured on campus) then he wouldn't have received their endorsement would he?

Wouldn’t you like to know. More importantly, I bet you would like to know what theology professors from which I learned.

Are you ashamed of your school/former profs? If not, then why not share that info with me. I'd be more than happy to tell you about each of the men who taught me.

If conservative theology is about what the inerrant word of God sayd, then egalitarian ministry is in

You know good and well that no major evangelical theologian classifies "egalitarian ministry" as "conservative theology." Maybe in your mind such is the case, but that is not the reality.

Theistic evolution is in because it says God created the creation.

So, in other words, there's nothing wrong with placing God as some arbitrary bookend upon a theory of evolution that was rooted in 19th century, post-renaissance atheism? Theistic evolution is nothing more than an attempt by Christians to redeem a theory that was forged within an atheistic worldview.

Source composition must be in because the Bible claims to have sources. Even if it did not, it quotes other sources, and careful study of the Bible shows that the authors used sources.

So then, you have no problem admitting that Moses (or whoever you think wrote Genesis) had no problem borrowing a Babylonian account of the flood when he was "inspired" by God to write his own thoughts about world-wide cataclysm?

Because "God-breathed" can be interpreted to mean that God inspired the Apostle’s to write what they did but not everything they wrote was infallible.

Let's go through this one more time: the exact Greek term used by Paul is theopneustos . It only appears one time in the Bible - 2 Tim. 3:16. It is a word that is formed by two Greek terms: theo (God) and pneustos (breath or to breathe). Thus, when broken down etymologically, the word clearly means "God-breathed." That being said, I am fully aware of the fact that many translations choose the word "inspiration" to translate the word, but as I have plainly demonstrated such a translation simply will not do. When you change the meaning of the word from "God-breathed" to "inspired," then you are only attempting to accomidate such things as dynamic inspiration and an errant Bible. That is dishonest exegesis and it should be rejected at all costs. If the Bible is "God-breathed," then it must be inerrant. To deny that is to deny the logical obligation that theopneustos carries with it.

Actually, Paul was speaking about the OT, but I know what you mean.

Have you not read 2 Peter 3:16? If you have, then surely you know that Peter recognized Paul's words as Scripture. Paul also recognized the words of Christ as the Word of God (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18). Thus, your attempt at diverting the discussion at this point is an invalid one.

The Bible doesn’t say it is inerrant only that it is “God-breathed.” One can say that they believe what the Bible says and not believe in inerrancy because the Bible never claims itself to be as such.

So then, you're saying that it is acceptable to deny the logical obligations of the Word of God? Clearly, the Bible does claim inerrancy in 2 Tim. 3:16 though that exact term may not be used. Let's apply your logic elsewhere: The Bible never claims that God is Triune by using that exact term - does that mean that our Lord is not the Triune God of heaven and earth? We should have no problem "forcing" on others what the Bible plainly states to be true.

One can hold to macro-evolution and Biblical inerrancy. In fact, in my view, careful exegesis will show that we cannot take the Genesis 1-3 to be “literal” as opposed to “figurative” or “apocalyptic.” If we do take these passages “literally”, only then the Bible has errors. Many errors.

You can't claim that the Bible is inerrant and then turn right around in the next breath and deny its truthfulness by explaining away literal passages as allegorical or figurative. The only way that liberals have been getting around Gen. 1-11 for two centuries now is by claiming that they are allegorical. Again, church history knew nothing of this until post-renaissance, atheistic-centered thinking dominated the scene in the 19th century.

Tell me, what errors are there in the first 3 chapters of Genesis if they are taken literally? I'd like to know so I can blot those errors out of my Bible.

Because evolution is an observable phenomenon.

Wow, really? Please tell me where in the world I can go and "observe" this phenomenon then. To the contrary, that's why evolution is called "theory" - it can't be placed under the tests of the scientific method. Thus, it is just as much an issue of faith as biblical creationism. Yet, the world likes the theory of evolution because you don't need some cumbersome God in the picture if you've got evolution to fall upon (or so they think - they don't realize you have a little problem with infinite regress if you throw God out of the equation - I guess that's another reason someone came up with the brilliant idea of theistic evolution).

I am only saying that 1) the Bible does not exclude evolution because 2) the Bible is not a book of science. It’s matter is not science.

That's classic liberal spin. If we can't accept what the Bible says about creation (through sound exegesis), then why should we accept what it says about the historicity of ancient civilizations? Why should we accept what it says about supernatural occurences such as miracles? For that matter, why should we accept what it says about salvation? You create quite a slippery slope when you make a statement like that.

Where does the Bible say that its only "matter" is spiritual affairs? Inclusivists are now telling us that even spiritual affairs are not the real "matter" of Scripture, but rather tolerance and unconditional acceptance apart from any notion of conversion. Your statement creates many more problems than it solves.

Apocalyptic is probably a preferred method of interpretation for these passages in Genesis.

"Apocalyptic," "probably"...why not just do sound exegesis and let the Word speak for itself? If you did, you would find that the world and all that is must've been created in six 24 hour days because anytime the Hebrew word yom (day) appears in the OT with a numerical qualifier (as it does throughout Gen. 1), it is always in reference to a 24-hour period of time. How can you do honest exegesis by changing the rules for the creation account? The exegetical evidence against macro-evolutionary theories of creation is overwhelming, and that's why most liberals have simply relegated Gen. 1-11 to a status of "allegorical," "figurative," "apocalyptic," etc.

I need to see more evidence that such inerrancy is going on.

There is only one full-time religion faculty member who even claims to be an inerrantist. With all the other views of quasi-inerrancy that are floating around out there (eg. - inerrancy of purpose, etc.), one would think that all the members of the faculty could at least claim one of them. The fact that they don't speaks volumes. Aside from this, I have one student testimonial after another in my files that states that students have been consistently taught that the Bible contains errors. Just so you won't think that its only a few students, I have about 400 signatures of students on file who signed a petition indicating that such was the case - clearly errancy of God's Word is the only position being taught on a consistent basis.

Todd · Nov 23, 2004

Such alternative science is not presented in classrooms because A) it is bunk and B) schools might not get accredited. Which brings up another point. How can a biology and geology department get accredited if they teach “creationism”? This is a problem we will have to face in the future.

Gee, I don't know. I wonder how Liberty University managed to do it? I wonder how Cedarville College managed to do it? I wonder how our seminary undergrad programs have managed to do it? Several of those schools mentioned have the unwavering accredidation of SACS, and in the U.S. you can't do any better than that in academic circles. Accredidation is always a "straw man" that is thrown up by the liberals to scare trustees away from enfocing the teaching of biblical principles in the classroom.

Let me tell you a quick story about accredidation. When SEBTS was still teaching source hypotheses, errancy, theistic evolution, etc., that was when it LOST its accredidation. The school had been nearly run into the ground under liberal control. Yet, I'm proud to say that after 10 years of post-conservative resurrgence education, the school has regained the full accredidation of SACS and has even added a Ph.D. program (which by the way doesn't affirm theistic evolution). The whole accredidation thing is nothing more than a liberal straw man.

In fact, “creationism” never even appeared until the rise of evolution.

And you know why? Because for some 1850 years of church history, biblical creation (as derived from the sound exegesis of Scripture) was the only acceptable view of God's creative work. There was no need that volumes should be written on the subject. As I said, theistic evolution, day-age theories, gap theories and the like were the views of creation that were invented just after the time of Darwin. Prior to Darwin's time, it wasn't necessary to defend a doctrine that is so plainly derived from the honest exegesis of God's Word.

No, I am saying that the Biblical evidence you gave did not support your assertion. Unless you can give a better passage, then, in your words, what right do you have to make such a claim?

A better passage? The context of the Book of Romans as it pertains to the Fall from Romans 5-8 is that of a Fall into sin and death. I don't think a "better passage" is necessary when the one that I provided for you plainly makes the point. Just because you chose to try and argue around it in order to try and preserve some a priori convictions is not my fault. I think it is you who needs to find the biblical evidence that will substantiate your claims.

According to the Genesis story, Adam and Eve had to be prevented from eating from the tree of life in order to not live forever (3:22).

Yes, but what you failed to mention is that originally (in their pre-Fallen state) they were never forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life. The only tree they were forbidden to eat from was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17). For as God said, in the day that they ate from the fruit of that tree they would "surely die." There act of disobedience was sin in the sight of God. While I recognize that God created man and woman as human beings and not gods, the clear teaching of Scripture is that they would've never known death had they not sinned in the Garden.

Death came not as a immediate result from sinning but from being denied access to the tree of life. Therefore, man was created mortal. What would have happened if Adam and Eve had not sinned is anyone’s guess.

Just a couple of small problems with your understanding of sin and the Fall:

1. Rom. 5:12 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through SIN, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

2. Rom. 6:23 - "For the wages of SIN is death..."

Thus, when you say that "death came not as an immediate result of sinning," you are actually speaking contrary to what God's Word plainly says about the advent of death into God's creation. Not only did death, disease, and disorder come to mankind, but it also affected the entire order of creation (cf. Rom. 8:20-22). This can be seen also in the fact that briars, thorns, etc. were never a part of God's original plan for the Earth. According to Gen. 3:17-18, they were a result of Adam's sin and subsequent Fall in the Garden. Attempting to reach those passages otherwise is nothing more than a desparate attempt at making room in God's Word for macro-evolutionary theories of creation.

By the way, I don't think we are left with "best guesses" about what would've happened to Adam had he not sinned. Obviously, if he would've never sinned he would've never died because the Bible plainly says that "the wages of sin is death." Apart from sin, there would've been no death - no guessing required. That's Theology 101. Can you name one prominent theologian that would support your view of sin and the Fall? My apologies if I am wrong, but it pretty well sounds like something original to you.

How are we to interpret “death” and to what extent?

In the context of the creation account, physical death is clearly in view (Gen. 3:19). Same goes for Paul's words in Rom. 6:22-23 (everlasting life vs. death). Again, to simply define death as "spiritual death" apart from the physical aspect is an attempt at making accomidation for macro-evolution.

Apostate doctrines? Please choose your words carefully. We are dealing with people’s livelihood; let us not exaggerate.

This is no exaggeration and I chose that word on purpose. When folks begin to teach there are errors in the Bible, that biblical creationism can't possibly be feasible, that open theism is valid, and that there may be other ways of salvation in other religions, then they have become apostate teachers. Jude wrote much about such apostacy (interestingly, I'm currently preaching through Jude on Sunday nights).

How have no answers been provided?

There has been a cloud of secracy over what's being taught at C-N for some time now. For instance, last year a member of the religion faculty (a woman) delivered a message during CLW time, but wouldn't even make the tape of her message available in the library so that it could be checked out and listened to (I know, because I tried to check it out). The only way she would allow you to watch it was in her office while she watched it with you. If that's not an attempt at keeping other from getting some answers, I don't know what is.

No one is providing me with answers. How does a C-N investigation automatically mean a Belmont and Union investigation? Who made allegations against them? Why did the TBC launch an investigation because only one student made an allegation?

1. No one wanted to be accused of impartiality towards one school over another. That would've simply created more problems.

2. Several messangers (and scores of students) have made numerous allegations against them.

3. It wasn't just one student. I hit the mic twice at the annual meeting, as did several others. (And we received strong support from the majority gathered in Sevierville)

Is it because his grandfather has given a lot of money to the college? Why did the student write his allegations to newspapers before the convention? Why is inerrancy being confused with interpretation? Why are professors being hounded to sign the 2000 BFM for matters not included in the 2000 BFM? Why do some want all professors who disagree with them ousted but then claim to want balance on these issues?

I am afraid that the truth is being concealed from both of us.

Have I not already told you to drop the conspiracy theories? Have I not already said that this whole thing has been grassroots? The TBC just wants the truth, and I believe that we will have it very soon.

gb93433 · Nov 23, 2004

Originally posted by Todd:

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.

I ran into a similar thing in another state. The state and local level did nothing to help me. It seems to me that in the SBC it is a good ol' boy club and everybody wants to save themselves for the future so they can get a high place of "service." My situation was with a church I was pastoring. I was lied to about the church in the hope I could turn it around. The former pastor told me it was a great church. Later I find out he wanted a DOM job in that same state. Then I read in the SBC papers about the new DOM. I read the article to his former pastor and we both agreed the guy lied to the SBC about himself.

I became convinced that their state and national press is so full of comparisons and gossip that I decided to leave. I did return for a short while but then left for good. I found all the infighting and gossip were not good for me. I do not find it edifying nor helpful for ministry.

Jesus had to deal with liberals. So I guess we are in good company. The nice thing about independent churches is that the liberals self destruct. Whereas in a denomination and convention they affect everyone else.

In my lifetime mostly on the west coast I have watched churches that don't do evangelism die and those that preach the gospel and do God's work flourish. I think in the next generation we will see that more than now. So I think it is just a matter of time many will clean themselves out due to becoming secular. When I was a student At SWBTS on the extension campus of HBU I noticed placards of pictures showing people who had given large sums of money to the university. Several of us noticed the horoscope in the students newspaper. When confronted with the issue the school responded that they have students who are not Christians working on the paper. I also found out to my dismay that they actually have students working on those things and invite non-believers to study at so many Baptist schools. Just think of the legal issues that could involve later should a former student want to teach there and was not a believer. Every Christian school I looked at attending will not accept students who cannot give a testimony of salvation.

A few years ago I witnessed to a lady whose husband had died and he had been a rabbi in the local area. In our discussion she told me she had gone to a well known SBC university. That university did not change her. She just knew more about what the Christians believed and believed they were wrong.

I became so disgusted after what I saw in the SBC universities and among their churches I left.

Anleifr · Nov 24, 2004

Well, at least now you are admitting that you made an assumption on his knowledge of the Bible (even if it was the lesser of two evils as you put it). Have you ever diagramed the word "assume?" It may prevent you from making further assumptions in the future.

Again, I did not make an assumption about his knowledge. And I did not admit that I made an assumption about his knowledge. I stated that I didn’t know. And I still don’t know for sure in all areas but I am getting a better idea. But I see that I am slowly whittling away at your assumptions.
Assume – “to take for granted.”

At this point, this convention's doctrinal boundaries are determined by its messangers, and they indicate their convictions through their vote at the annual meeting. They may not seem too fair, but that is not the fault of the messangers, but the fault of those in Brentwood who don't even want any accountability for themselves. Further, I don't favor the schools leaving the Convention - in fact, I would hate to seem them go. But what I would hate even more than their leaving is their staying and accepting Convention $$$ when they clearly don't want to teach those values and doctrines that are cherished by the TBC. That's what this whole investigation is about, and that's why it passed overwhelmingly by the messangers apart from any kind of "conservative strategy" going into the annual meeting.

Again, the “doctrines” being taught at TBC that I am admitting that are being taught are taught at seminaries. They can sign the 2000 BFM and still teach, so will others.

That's an easy question. Require that your teachers, who would be forced to affirm the BF&M 2000 (or some other doctrinal statement), teach both sides of the argument on ALL ISSUES. This is exactly the kind of education I got at SEBTS. In fact, I learned just as much about liberal theology at SEBTS then I ever did anywhere else. And it wasn't just a "straw man" picture of liberal theology - we had to read from the liberals themselves and then think critically to come up with a biblical rebuttal to their doctrines. This is exactly what ought to be happening at our three TBC schools, but as I have clearly demonstrated this is currently not happening. Hiring those who will affirm doctrinal accountability doesn't mean that you can't also have academic balance and an opportunity for open intellectual inquiry - I know, because I attended a school where I had the best of both.

So you want “conservatives” who will teach both conservatism and liberalism but you do not want “liberals” who will teach both conservatism and liberalism.
But would you have a problem with a “liberal” teaching at C-N who signed the 2000 BFM and agreed to be balanced?
I am afraid you haven’t clearly demonstrated it to me. But I do no think you would say I have clearly demonstrated my points to you.

As I have stated, I think that biblical creationism is clearly implied Article 2 of the BF&M. A better question would be, "Why is it not more explicit in the BF&M?" The reason why is because there are still many well-meaning conservatives out there who feel like they still need to defend the theory of evolution by espousing such things as theistic evolution, day-age theories, gap theories, etc. I would certainly be in favor of a more explicit statement on evolution in the BF&M, and I think we will finally get that statement sometime in the near future.

Those are the problems with implied doctrines. One, not every one sees it. Two, people can say any view point is there whether it is or not by saying it is implied.
But, if like you say, it has not been made explicit because of well-meaning conservatives, you can’t hold others to it.

You and I are not going to agree on this issue, so I don't even think is worth saying too much more about. I think the burden rests on you with this issue though. Consider this: Paul and Peter both plainly stated that women are to be in submission to their husbands in their respective letters to the church (cf. Eph. 5:22, 1 Pt. 3:1-6, among others). The submission they were speaking of was submission within the home (family). Because this is the case, Paul said that men have actually been charged with ruling in their households (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5). That means that husbands are to "exercise authority" over their wives and their children. Having said that, are you trying to tell me that God wants husbands to be the spiritual leaders of their households, but He is perfectly willing to let the women have that leadership within the local church? If women have not been called to be the spiritual leaders within their own homes, then why would God call them to be the spiritual leaders of the church? As I said, the burden of proof rests on you with this one.

Submission is supposed to be a part of all Christian’s life. We are to submit one to another. But I believe the burden is actually on you. You have to show where the Bible speaks of husbands or men or any believer “exercising authority.” My problem with many conservatives is that many of their minor “doctrines” are based on implied texts. They make assumptions about what the Apostles meant and begin applying it everywhere.
Again, your logic is flawed because you are making assumptions. First, where does the Bible say that husbands are the spiritual leader? Second, even if men are given leadership in the home, you are making an assumption that texts involving the family correlate with the church. You yourself said that Peter and Paul were talking about the household.

Statements just like yours are the reason that the Article on the Scriptures needed to be reworded to clearly demonstrate that one can't claim some super-allegiance to Christ without claiming that same allegiance to His Word. For what would we know of Christ apart from His Word? You know just as well as I do that people were using the statement "Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which Scripture must be interpreted" to try and give biblical validation to any number of issues ranging from egalitarian ministry, to pro-choice agendas, and even homosexuality. They would say things like "the words of Jesus and Paul clearly contradict one another on the issue of women and their role within the church. When they conflict, I will choose Christ because He is the sole criterion by which the Scriptures must be interpreted." That's hogwash, and I'm very thankful the language was changed so that such a separation of Christ from His Word can no longer be validated from the BF&M 2000. Jesus Christ is the Word, but He is not the only Word. Moderates/liberals despise this, and that's why they always want to affirm the BF&M 1963 rather than the 2000 edition.

That Jesus isn’t the only Word? C’mon, you know that He is. There is no other Word. Read John 14:6.
"Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which Scripture must be interpreted"
Read the 1963 BFM: "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Where is “sole” in there?
But just because they took out the line doesn’t mean people cannot still hold to that belief. The 2000 BFM doesn’t tell people what to believe it tells people what not to believe.
See I think the problem is that you are not understanding what I am writing or the arguments of others. Please correct me if I am wrong. First, you appear to read my words and read “buzz words” and then make assumptions about what I am saying. Understandable. Second, you read me defending certain beliefs or asking for better evidence and you assume that I hold those beliefs. Less understandable.
Read “The Baptist Faith and Message,” by Herschel H. Hobbs, page 30. That might clear up your misunderstanding about what the 1963 BFM meant about Jesus and the Scriptures. Actually, they meant what it literally says. Scripture interprets Scripture. Word interprets word.

Sorry, but God doesn't create processes that are contradictory to His Word. Again, why were all these wonderful macro-evolutionary theories of creation not around until the mid-19th century?

You haven’t proven that such processes contradicts the Scriptures.
Why wasn’t relativity around until the twentieth? Why weren’t genes known about until recently? Atoms? Black holes? The earth revolving around the sun?
If the things weren’t discovered until recently then maybe they don’t exist?
How about dispensationalism and secret raptures? New ideas to Christendom.

You may not like what I said, but you dodged dealing with the part about being deceptive and dishonest. How honest is it for someone to accept CP $$$ if they clearly don't want to pursue a ministry that will seek to be faithful to the doctrinal convictions of Southern Baptists?

I didn’t dodge the issue. You haven’t proven that people are being deceptive and dishonest.

I'm not against non-SBC folks coming and receiving an education in one of our seminaries. Yet, what I abhor is the fact that there are those who attend SBC seminaries (after having joined SBC churches) simply because they know they can receive a respected education for half the cost of what it would require to get that same education somewhere else. Yet, when they leave that SBC seminary, they then go and start some non-denominational or other work that runs contrary to SBC doctrine. That is dishonesty and sure deceptiveness.

Yes, I agree. Pay the right amount or go to another seminary. But God will deal with them.

I will "pray and think about" that issue, if dishonesty and deceptiveness are some things that I actually need to pray about before I wholeheartedly reject. Come on, where's your integrity?

Where is the dishonesty and deception by not signing a document? You would be forcing students to accept a set of beliefs which they may not have understood yet. That is so Roman Catholic. You said this wasn’t creedalism? Have you changed your mind?
Let me ask my question a different way. Who associated with the SBC should not be required to sign the 2000 BFM?

I have read and am familiar with the prologue, yet you are going to have to help me to see how the prologue could somehow be used as a "loophole" (which in and of itself is a term of deception) that would allow one to affirm the BF&M 2000 while at the same time affirming egalitarian ministry. Article 6 plainly says, "The office of Pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." Without twisting the words of that article and without being deceptive, please tell me how egalitarian ministry can be justified in view of Article 6.

Not a deception. This is what the BFM says. Only in the last four years have others reinterpreted the document to say something different than it was originally intended. Read these sections from the Prologue.
“(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.
Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.”
There you are.

Give me a break - do you think that I'm that naive? He knew exactly what I was asking, and because he knows he's riding the fence on this issue (because he's a statesman for inter-faith relationships) he simply chose not to give me an answer that was grounded in his true convictions. You can argue semantics all you want, but I have already demonstrated that even relegating the questions to semantics simply will not do.

So … even though he did not state his true convictions on salvation in Christ you are going to assume what those convictions are? Well, you have been doing that with me? Is that was Tarr has been doing?
You’ve only demonstrated your assumptions.

Therefore, even if a Muslim’s god is Yahweh,

Are you listening to yourself? A Muslim's god can't be Yawheh because their god is not the triune God of the Bible!!! The fact that we are still in need of discussing this is disheartening!!!

I was making a second class conditional statement contrary to fact. You seem to not even want to delve into the logical conclusions of your own arguments.
I am trying to understand why one man’s beliefs (right or wrong) must reflect the beliefs of a whole faculty.

quote:

So he didn’t say that Christ wasn’t the only way. I thought as much. This has been most informative. You appear to be misinterpreting his words.

Like I said, Kimball plainly stated that one could believe that Jesus is the only Way while also believing that some sincere Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. will also be in heaven. I'm sorry, but that statement is self-referencially incoherent (contradictory). You simply can't have it both ways - either Christ is the only Way, or He is not. The fact that Kimball won't come right out and say that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are lost apart from Christ is proof positive that he doesn't believe that, and as such he is a religious inclusivist. I'm not putting words in his mouth - I'm just filling in the blanks that he was not willing to fill in by carrying his own statements out to their logical and biblical end

Again, you appear to be arguing from silence. “He hasn’t said A so I will assume he believes B.” You haven’t heard what you require to hear but you make assumptions nonetheless. “I'm not putting words in his mouth - I'm just filling in the blanks that he was not willing to fill in by carrying his own statements out to their logical and biblical end.” That is the problem. He hasn’t said anything that you disagree with he has just not said anything you agree with. Which is understandable because his lecture was not on salvation in Christ but “when religion becomes evil.”

Anleifr · Nov 24, 2004

As for open theism, it is the only acceptable view of God's knowledge that is taught by both the Philosophy profs at C-N (and I know that for fact because I have discussed this with Dr. Austin). Also, the religion faculty are sympathetic with the tenants of open theism. As for soteriological inclusiveness, none of the religion profs would come right out and tell you that they believe Jesus Christ is not the only way, but let's "examine their fruit." Why not only invite, but also endorse Dr. Kimball's teaching onto campus if there were not some sympathy with his views? Were Dr. Kimball's coming to C-N only a matter of balance (which it certainly wasn't - speakers like him are the norm - last year Dr. Stanley Hauerwas was endorsed when he lectured on campus) then he wouldn't have received their endorsement would he?

So the religion department doesn’t believe in open theism. They do not even believe in the tenants, but they are sympathetic to the tenants. Ah.
So you have no proof that the religion profs soteriological inclusiveness. You are simply assuming they do by their relation to another. You seem to have a problem with that.

Are you ashamed of your school/former profs? If not, then why not share that info with me. I'd be more than happy to tell you about each of the men who taught me.

Oh, they are not former profs. But I would rather not have another witch hunt at my seminary.

You know good and well that no major evangelical theologian classifies "egalitarian ministry" as "conservative theology." Maybe in your mind such is the case, but that is not the reality.

I just go with what the Bible says. I teach my views and let the Holy Spirit work. The odd part is that while egalitarian ministry is not recognized by the SBC it is recognized by the Holy Spirit. Most churches have women ministers, women deacons, women elders, and widows. That they are not recognized by the church is sad but they still fill their spiritual function. The reason that I never push the egalitarian issue is that I don’t need to. The women are already there. My only beef is that we prevent others from serving who have egalitarian beliefs.

So, in other words, there's nothing wrong with placing God as some arbitrary bookend upon a theory of evolution that was rooted in 19th century, post-renaissance atheism? Theistic evolution is nothing more than an attempt by Christians to redeem a theory that was forged within an atheistic worldview.

Again, you are making the assumption that evolution automatically denies a creator. Atheists believe that. Why do you want to agree with there false conclusions? One of the problems is that you hear of a scientific fact, an atheist misinterprets the fact, you rightly disagree with the atheistic misinterpretation, but instead of correctly interpreting the fact, you reject the fact all together and trust the word of the atheist that no other interpretation of that fact is possible.

So then, you have no problem admitting that Moses (or whoever you think wrote Genesis) had no problem borrowing a Babylonian account of the flood when he was "inspired" by God to write his own thoughts about world-wide cataclysm?

Nope, no problem. If the Holy Spirit ‘God-breathed’ into Moses then the sources he chose are what the Holy Spirit chose and the Holy Spirit ‘God-breathed’ the inerrant truth through Moses.

quote:

Because "God-breathed" can be interpreted to mean that God inspired the Apostle’s to write what they did but not everything they wrote was infallible.

Let's go through this one more time: the exact Greek term used by Paul is theopneustos . It only appears one time in the Bible - 2 Tim. 3:16. It is a word that is formed by two Greek terms: theo (God) and pneustos (breath or to breathe). Thus, when broken down etymologically, the word clearly means "God-breathed." That being said, I am fully aware of the fact that many translations choose the word "inspiration" to translate the word, but as I have plainly demonstrated such a translation simply will not do. When you change the meaning of the word from "God-breathed" to "inspired," then you are only attempting to accomidate such things as dynamic inspiration and an errant Bible. That is dishonest exegesis and it should be rejected at all costs. If the Bible is "God-breathed," then it must be inerrant. To deny that is to deny the logical obligation that theopneustos carries with it.

If theopneustos is supposed to be translated as ‘God-breathed’ and not ‘inspiration’ then why is it only recently that it has been done so? Just kidding.
What I am arguing is that the word does not automatically imply “inerrancy.” If it did then we would not have had to add any additional words to the 2000 BFM. If it did, then we would have stated “God-breathed” and that would have been the end of it. But we didn’t so, you must admit, that our SBC leader did not think that the word was sufficient. Whether or not theopneustos implies inerrancy (and I believe it does) is beside the point for a confession. The BFM interprets the Bible; if it only quoted Scripture then SBC would still be undivided. Our leaders believe that the Bible is not sufficient; it needs another document.

Have you not read 2 Peter 3:16? If you have, then surely you know that Peter recognized Paul's words as Scripture. Paul also recognized the words of Christ as the Word of God (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18). Thus, your attempt at diverting the discussion at this point is an invalid one.

I am not diverting the discussion. I am simply stating what Paul states.

So then, you're saying that it is acceptable to deny the logical obligations of the Word of God? Clearly, the Bible does claim inerrancy in 2 Tim. 3:16 though that exact term may not be used. Let's apply your logic elsewhere: The Bible never claims that God is Triune by using that exact term - does that mean that our Lord is not the Triune God of heaven and earth? We should have no problem "forcing" on others what the Bible plainly states to be true.

Human logic was affected by the fall. We need to rely on the Bible. If we believe the Bible to be sufficient than we do not need to use the term “Triune.” God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus is equal with the Father because His is God incarnate. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. There is only one God. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He has always been Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and will always be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
You yourself stated that the Bible doesn’t mention the word Trinity. Then how can we say that it plainly states the Trinity? We can say that the Bible teaches the doctrines that the Trinitarian doctrine is there to protect, but we cannot preach the Trinitarian formulations because the Bible does not teach them. How can we do expository preaching on a theological formulation not found in the Scriptures? Instead, let us preach God. He is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Let us preach Jesus as the God-Man, the Son equal with the Father, the Incarnate Word of God. That is what the Bible teaches and that should be sufficient.

You can't claim that the Bible is inerrant and then turn right around in the next breath and deny its truthfulness by explaining away literal passages as allegorical or figurative. The only way that liberals have been getting around Gen. 1-11 for two centuries now is by claiming that they are allegorical. Again, church history knew nothing of this until post-renaissance, atheistic-centered thinking dominated the scene in the 19th century.

Tell me, what errors are there in the first 3 chapters of Genesis if they are taken literally? I'd like to know so I can blot those errors out of my Bible.

Again, you assume that non-literalness implies inerrancy. Do you believe Revelation is in error?
Actually, allegory has been used on Genesis 1-11 since the apostolic fathers. But I do not believe 1-11 is allegorical. I believe it to be apocalyptic.

Wow, really? Please tell me where in the world I can go and "observe" this phenomenon then. To the contrary, that's why evolution is called "theory" - it can't be placed under the tests of the scientific method. Thus, it is just as much an issue of faith as biblical creationism. Yet, the world likes the theory of evolution because you don't need some cumbersome God in the picture if you've got evolution to fall upon (or so they think - they don't realize you have a little problem with infinite regress if you throw God out of the equation - I guess that's another reason someone came up with the brilliant idea of theistic evolution).

So you admit that ‘creationism’ is a matter of faith and cannot be placed under the scientific method? Then why do you complain when others hold another form of creation method that cannot be proved by the scientific method?
There are remains of man going back more than 6,000, or 10,000 or even 100,000 years. You can see the gradual change in certain fossils over millions of years.

That's classic liberal spin. If we can't accept what the Bible says about creation (through sound exegesis), then why should we accept what it says about the historicity of ancient civilizations? Why should we accept what it says about supernatural occurences such as miracles? For that matter, why should we accept what it says about salvation? You create quite a slippery slope when you make a statement like that.

Where does the Bible say that its only "matter" is spiritual affairs? Inclusivists are now telling us that even spiritual affairs are not the real "matter" of Scripture, but rather tolerance and unconditional acceptance apart from any notion of conversion. Your statement creates many more problems than it solves.

You never address my points. You just classify it as spin and ignore it. Is the Bible as science book? It is a book of salvation. I never said what the Bible includes, I just stated what it doesn’t include. It doesn’t include the Big Bang, but it does say that God created the universe. Is the Big Bang true? Who knows? But it doesn’t contradict the Bible. In fact, the Big Bang points to a beginning to the universe. This theory supports the Bible even though the Bible doesn’t need supporting.
The Genesis story speaks about God’s creating, man’s condition, man’s relations, man’s sin, and God’s redemption.

"Apocalyptic," "probably"...why not just do sound exegesis and let the Word speak for itself? If you did, you would find that the world and all that is must've been created in six 24 hour days because anytime the Hebrew word yom (day) appears in the OT with a numerical qualifier (as it does throughout Gen. 1), it is always in reference to a 24-hour period of time. How can you do honest exegesis by changing the rules for the creation account? The exegetical evidence against macro-evolutionary theories of creation is overwhelming, and that's why most liberals have simply relegated Gen. 1-11 to a status of "allegorical," "figurative," "apocalyptic," etc.

There are many problems with taking the Genesis 1-3 story as “literal.” The fact that chapters one and two give two separate creation accounts in tow different chronological orders means that at least one cannot be taken as literal. Apocalyptic flows much more naturally, just like parts of Revelation, Zechariah, Ezekiel and Daniel. 7-headed beast means 7-headed beast. Is the anti-Christ literally a seven-headed beast?
We are not quibbling over the truth of the Scriptures. We are quibbling over the method by which these truths are conveyed.

There is only one full-time religion faculty member who even claims to be an inerrantist. With all the other views of quasi-inerrancy that are floating around out there (eg. - inerrancy of purpose, etc.), one would think that all the members of the faculty could at least claim one of them. The fact that they don't speaks volumes. Aside from this, I have one student testimonial after another in my files that states that students have been consistently taught that the Bible contains errors. Just so you won't think that its only a few students, I have about 400 signatures of students on file who signed a petition indicating that such was the case - clearly errancy of God's Word is the only position being taught on a consistent basis.

Was this petition signed before or after the TBC convention?

What do they mean by errancy? I need specifics. Again, inerrancy is a new concept and means different things to different people. If one classifies that inerrancy means taking every verse as literal then I can understand why some do not believe in inerrancy.

Anleifr · Nov 24, 2004

Gee, I don't know. I wonder how Liberty University managed to do it? I wonder how Cedarville College managed to do it? I wonder how our seminary undergrad programs have managed to do it? Several of those schools mentioned have the unwavering accredidation of SACS, and in the U.S. you can't do any better than that in academic circles. Accredidation is always a "straw man" that is thrown up by the liberals to scare trustees away from enfocing the teaching of biblical principles in the classroom.

Well, I am glad that schools can be accredited and not teach evolution. I do mean accredited in biology and geology? Liberty and Cedarville are accredited in biology and geology and do not teach evolution, right?

Let me tell you a quick story about accredidation. When SEBTS was still teaching source hypotheses, errancy, theistic evolution, etc., that was when it LOST its accredidation. The school had been nearly run into the ground under liberal control. Yet, I'm proud to say that after 10 years of post-conservative resurrgence education, the school has regained the full accredidation of SACS and has even added a Ph.D. program (which by the way doesn't affirm theistic evolution). The whole accredidation thing is nothing more than a liberal straw man.

Why did SEBTS lose its accredidation?

And you know why? Because for some 1850 years of church history, biblical creation (as derived from the sound exegesis of Scripture) was the only acceptable view of God's creative work. There was no need that volumes should be written on the subject. As I said, theistic evolution, day-age theories, gap theories and the like were the views of creation that were invented just after the time of Darwin. Prior to Darwin's time, it wasn't necessary to defend a doctrine that is so plainly derived from the honest exegesis of God's Word.

Yes, theistic evolution, day-age theories, gap theories, were created after Darwin. They had to be created to defend the faith from misinterpretation. I think most of these faith-science theories are unnecessary. The Bible doesn’t address the subject so we shouldn’t preach the subject.
And don’t think that before the time of the apostolic fathers and since that there hasn’t been speculation on the literalness of Genesis 1-3. There has been much scholarly work on the subject by the church. Evolution may have forced the issue into the mainstream but the discussion among church theologians was there.

A better passage? The context of the Book of Romans as it pertains to the Fall from Romans 5-8 is that of a Fall into sin and death. I don't think a "better passage" is necessary when the one that I provided for you plainly makes the point. Just because you chose to try and argue around it in order to try and preserve some a priori convictions is not my fault. I think it is you who needs to find the biblical evidence that will substantiate your claims.

So you don’t have a better passage. I knew you didn’t but I wanted to give you the chance. Explain how that passage states that dinosaurs could not have died before Adam and Eve.

Yes, but what you failed to mention is that originally (in their pre-Fallen state) they were never forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life. The only tree they were forbidden to eat from was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17). For as God said, in the day that they ate from the fruit of that tree they would "surely die." There act of disobedience was sin in the sight of God. While I recognize that God created man and woman as human beings and not gods, the clear teaching of Scripture is that they would've never known death had they not sinned in the Garden.

Exactly, they were never forbidden from eating from the tree of life. That is why they lived. They had to continue eating from it to live. The sinned and God prevented them from ever eating from the tree again, therefore, they eventually died. They were born mortal and had to rely on God for life. They disobeyed and tasted death. But notice that God said, “in the day that they ate from the fruit of that tree they would surely die.” I noticed that they did not die that day but lived many more years. Was that not a literal 24-hour day? Or was that a spiritual death as opposed to a physical death. You must either interpret the death as spiritual or interpret the days in chapter 1-3 as non-literal.

Just a couple of small problems with your understanding of sin and the Fall:

1. Rom. 5:12 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through SIN, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

2. Rom. 6:23 - "For the wages of SIN is death..."

What type of death? Revelation speaks of two deaths. Paul can speak of either spiritual or physical death. He can also use death as a metaphor.

Thus, when you say that "death came not as an immediate result of sinning," you are actually speaking contrary to what God's Word plainly says about the advent of death into God's creation. Not only did death, disease, and disorder come to mankind, but it also affected the entire order of creation (cf. Rom. 8:20-22). This can be seen also in the fact that briars, thorns, etc. were never a part of God's original plan for the Earth. According to Gen. 3:17-18, they were a result of Adam's sin and subsequent Fall in the Garden. Attempting to reach those passages otherwise is nothing more than a desparate attempt at making room in God's Word for macro-evolutionary theories of creation.

No one is doubting that creation was effected by the fall. The question is how it was effected. Does the creation in its entirety literally “groan”? Do rocks groan?

By the way, I don't think we are left with "best guesses" about what would've happened to Adam had he not sinned. Obviously, if he would've never sinned he would've never died because the Bible plainly says that "the wages of sin is death." Apart from sin, there would've been no death - no guessing required. That's Theology 101. Can you name one prominent theologian that would support your view of sin and the Fall? My apologies if I am wrong, but it pretty well sounds like something original to you.

I only think that we should preach what the Bible teaches. I believe that the Scriptures are sufficient and we should not preach other matters.
Regardless, I think you are slightly misinterpreting and misapplying the Scriptures. Nevertheless, you understand the principles involved and that is the important thing.
Niebuhr, Moody, Stagg, to name three off the top of my head.

How are we to interpret “death” and to what extent?

In the context of the creation account, physical death is clearly in view (Gen. 3:19). Same goes for Paul's words in Rom. 6:22-23 (everlasting life vs. death). Again, to simply define death as "spiritual death" apart from the physical aspect is an attempt at making accomidation for macro-evolution.

See above.

Apostate doctrines? Please choose your words carefully. We are dealing with people’s livelihood; let us not exaggerate.

This is no exaggeration and I chose that word on purpose. When folks begin to teach there are errors in the Bible, that biblical creationism can't possibly be feasible, that open theism is valid, and that there may be other ways of salvation in other religions, then they have become apostate teachers. Jude wrote much about such apostacy (interestingly, I'm currently preaching through Jude on Sunday nights).

You cannot prove that professors believe in errancy. You cannot prove that the science of “creationism” is the Biblical model. You cannot prove that religion professors hold to either open theism or soteriological inclusivism.
The problem in the letter of Jude is 1) immorality, 2) denial of Christ Jesus, 3) grumblers and fault-finders.
Please read more carefully. Don’t put things into the Scripture that aren’t there. You can apply Jude’s principles but do not say that Jude was writing about such things.

quote:

How have no answers been provided?

There has been a cloud of secracy over what's being taught at C-N for some time now. For instance, last year a member of the religion faculty (a woman) delivered a message during CLW time, but wouldn't even make the tape of her message available in the library so that it could be checked out and listened to (I know, because I tried to check it out). The only way she would allow you to watch it was in her office while she watched it with you. If that's not an attempt at keeping other from getting some answers, I don't know what is.

So you could watch the tape. Did you?

quote:

No one is providing me with answers. How does a C-N investigation automatically mean a Belmont and Union investigation? Who made allegations against them? Why did the TBC launch an investigation because only one student made an allegation?

1. No one wanted to be accused of impartiality towards one school over another. That would've simply created more problems.

2. Several messangers (and scores of students) have made numerous allegations against them.

3. It wasn't just one student. I hit the mic twice at the annual meeting, as did several others. (And we received strong support from the majority gathered in Sevierville)

1. Rrrrright.
2. By petition?
3. Ah, but nothing organized, right?

quote:

Is it because his grandfather has given a lot of money to the college? Why did the student write his allegations to newspapers before the convention? Why is inerrancy being confused with interpretation? Why are professors being hounded to sign the 2000 BFM for matters not included in the 2000 BFM? Why do some want all professors who disagree with them ousted but then claim to want balance on these issues?

I am afraid that the truth is being concealed from both of us.

Have I not already told you to drop the conspiracy theories? Have I not already said that this whole thing has been grassroots? The TBC just wants the truth, and I believe that we will have it very soon.

I never mention conspiracy theories but the questions that I ask automatically appear conspiratorial to you. Which ones?

Well-connected individuals. Pre-convention press coverage. Petitions. It appears you have been doing some fact-finding. You are organizing your members. Fine.

You have already made up your mind. Fine. But I still need to see some evidence. Any evidence, that apostasy is going on at all of these colleges, that they are denying that Jesus is Lord.

But really, do they want truth, balance, or 2000 BFM signers? Or all three? I bet they only get one of these.

Regardless, we can both agree that God is in charge and His Will will be done. Correct? Neither of us should worry then.

Todd · Nov 24, 2004

Oh, I'm not worried about what will be done at C-N or at out other two schools for that matter. Yet, the fact that God is sovereign doesn't give me the right to stand by and do nothing either. That's like the five-point Calvinist who says that God will save them so I don't need to bother going. Yet, if the Great Commission is still a part of God's Word (which I'm not sure about now - it could be apocolyptic for all we know) then he has an obligation to go regardless of the fact that God has promised to save His elect.

It is clear that no amount of examples, biblical exegesis, student testimony, etc. that I provide for you is going to be sufficient to get you to think that there is a problem at C-N that must be dealt with. Clearly, you will defend C-N and other institutions like it because they affirm some of the a priori conclusions that you have about Scripture. I'm glad that you won't be the one making the determination about what will be done with C-N and the other schools. Were we to use your "methods of investigation" we would ultimately be led to an anything goes attitude towards Christian liberal-arts education. That may be fine with you, but I can promise that such an attitude won't "cut it" with the rank-and-file Tennessee Baptist who wants to see the faith of our students strengthened and not torn down.

You may not think that students are having their faith torn down at any of our schools, but a good Pastor friend of mine (who ironically now preaches about 3 miles away from C-N's campus now) has told me on several occasions that he considered walking away from his Christian faith on account of what he was taught by the religion faculty at C-N. Is this the kind of student "edification" that our CP $$$ should be going to fund? I think not, and I feel sure that the messengers to the 2005 annual meeting will agree with me.

RandR · Dec 1, 2004

Anleifr and Todd,

Your dialogue is sometimes interesting and sometimes tiresome. But why do I think you probably won't reach a mutually agreeable conclusion?

Anyway, two things:
Anleifr,
I don't think SACS accredits individual programs. A schools is either accredited across the board or it isn't. There may be some groups out there that put their blessings on individual programs, but the six regional accrediting bodies don't usually accredit "Biology" or "Geology" or math or english or anything else. They accredit the universisty as a whole based upon numerous criteria. And it is highly unlikely that a "Christian" college would have accreditation problems because it teaches creation, or intelligent design, or if its biology profs teach evolution only as a humanistic theory.

Todd,
That being said, I can't speak for Cedarville, but I can promise you that Liberty has never enjoyed "unwavering" accreditation. It has often had more to do with financial and governance issues than academic issues, but Liberty has found itself on probation with SACS numerous times. Borek was brought in several years ago precisely because of his ties to SACS and his ability to guide the school back to full standing. Recent events and Borek's resignation have raised SACS eyebrows again. Liberty has never "lost" accreditation, but it has come dangerously close. But again...that has nothing to do with teaching creation or teaching evolution strictly as "theory."

Ok guys, carry on...

Todd · Dec 3, 2004

RandR, the assertion that a school can't teach biblical creationism in the biology and geology departments and still have the full accredidation of an agency such as SACS is ridiculous, and I don't think that An needs to be convinced of that. Liberals have been using the accrediation issue as a straw man against teaching conservative, biblical Christianity for years - why should things be any different now?

Anleifr · Dec 4, 2004

Oh, I'm not worried about what will be done at C-N or at out other two schools for that matter. Yet, the fact that God is sovereign doesn't give me the right to stand by and do nothing either.

I am not saying that you or anyone else should not do anything. I am just saying that God is in control.

It is clear that no amount of examples, biblical exegesis, student testimony, etc. that I provide for you is going to be sufficient to get you to think that there is a problem at C-N that must be dealt with.

Again, you haven’t provided any credible examples, just personal opinions and guilt by association.

Clearly, you will defend C-N and other institutions like it because they affirm some of the a priori conclusions that you have about Scripture.

You assume way too much. You assume that anyone who “defends” another or at least questions the “accusers” accusations therefore must agree with those he “defends.” I am used to that. When I “defend” accusations made about “conservative” SBC leaders, those who have an axe to grind with those leaders assume I am in agreement with the conservative resurgence.

I'm glad that you won't be the one making the determination about what will be done with C-N and the other schools.

Yeah, me too.

Were we to use your "methods of investigation" we would ultimately be led to an anything goes attitude towards Christian liberal-arts education.

By my “methods of investigation” you mean giving people the benefit of the doubt, not assuming that the allegations are true, and asking in-depth questions of the “accusers”. Well, it would not lead to an anything goes attitude but it would lead to people not making unsubstantiated allegations in the future.

That may be fine with you, but I can promise that such an attitude won't "cut it" with the rank-and-file Tennessee Baptist who wants to see the faith of our students strengthened and not torn down. You may not think that students are having their faith torn down at any of our schools, but a good Pastor friend of mine (who ironically now preaches about 3 miles away from C-N's campus now) has told me on several occasions that he considered walking away from his Christian faith on account of what he was taught by the religion faculty at C-N. Is this the kind of student "edification" that our CP $$$ should be going to fund? I think not, and I feel sure that the messengers to the 2005 annual meeting will agree with me.

You are giving anecdotal evidence. I know people who have had their faith strengthened by questioning the traditional conservative Southern American Baptist interpretations of the Bible. I certainly know of many, many believers who have their faith greatly strengthened by recognizing that Christians can have different opinions on certain matters and still work together for the glory of the Lord.

Anleifr · Dec 4, 2004

I don't think SACS accredits individual programs. A schools is either accredited across the board or it isn't. There may be some groups out there that put their blessings on individual programs, but the six regional accrediting bodies don't usually accredit "Biology" or "Geology" or math or english or anything else. They accredit the universisty as a whole based upon numerous criteria. And it is highly unlikely that a "Christian" college would have accreditation problems because it teaches creation, or intelligent design, or if its biology profs teach evolution only as a humanistic theory.

RandR,

Thanks for the info. Yes, that sounds right. Most schools that I know of that have had accreditation problems like SWBTS, SEBTS, Louisiana College and Liberty are due to issues of academic freedom, faculty dismissal procedures, and not having a diverse faculty. I did learn recently of Liberty’s past accreditation problems. I know some SBC schools had and have problems after trustees “mishandle” dismissal procedures. I do wonder how a biology student at a school that teaches ONLY “creationism” can proceed in their careers.

Timothy · Dec 14, 2004

Here at Union, our trustees have adopted a process for responding to the TBC investigation. Here's the story, if you're interested:

http://www.uu.edu/news/newsreleases/release.cfm?ID=785

preachinjesus · Dec 14, 2004

wow lots to read here...don't really know what to say

accreditation issues are always bring about tenuous relations. To simply say that liberals use such and such as a straw doesn't advance the convo all that much.

Also Liberty's accreditation issues really have never had anything to do with academic freedom or faculty dismissal (one of the benefits of offering no one tenure) but more the end of money and huge amounts of debt. SWBTS probationary period came out of the firing of Dilday, a tenured professor/president, which is against accreditation standards.

welll more reading to do here obviously

Tennessee Baptist Colleges in Trouble

Anleifr

New Member

Todd

New Member

Todd

New Member

Todd

New Member

gb93433

Active Member

Anleifr

New Member

Anleifr

New Member

Anleifr

New Member

Todd

New Member

RandR

New Member

Todd

New Member

Anleifr

New Member

Anleifr

New Member

Timothy

New Member

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member