Liberty Theological Seminary?????

Who is John Borek? (I know Borek is gone now but he was accepted without an initial clear break from Catholicism—that’s the point.)
FALWELL DENIES LU PRESIDENT A CATHOLIC - FBF president Dr. Rod Bell writes in the Nov.- Dec. Frontline: "Recently, it came to my attention that the new president of Liberty University, Dr. John Borek Jr., was a Roman Catholic.... It has now been verified that John Borek was and may still be identified with Rome, and when given an opportunity to testify of a clear-cut conversion he did not do so...." We first heard this last June and later e-mailed Dr. Falwell directly and received this response from him: "Jerry, to my knowledge, President John Borek has never had a Roman Catholic association." Falwell claimed two decades ago to be a Fundamentalist, when all the while his actions belied the claim, causing him be considered somewhat the father of pseudo-Fundamentalism. We have long since found him and LU Dean Dr. Elmer Towns to be a bit less than forthright at times. Dr. Bell adds: "Last year, Falwell said that he was not joining the Southern Baptist Convention. This year he joined!...True Fundamentalists don't join the SBC; they separate from it." He terms Falwell's actions "deception and betrayal." http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/1999/1-1-1999.html
Who is Bruce W. Green? Does Anglo-Catholic count? People are questioning what this portends and it is not from the Fundamentalist crowd either—it’s the Catholics and unbelievers.

Don’t know. Of course, I never said there were. However, I do remember Falwell defending his position on charismatics when Doug Oldham was singing for him. He said that Doug was not charismatic but he was a member of the Church of God, Anderson, IN. He further stated that Liberty did not accept charismatic students because they were Baptist. He made a big deal out of it to authenticate his Fundamentalist, non-charismatic credentials and standing. Now that’s all changed because he no longer is courting the hard-core Fundamentalists.

So, now you know. Why don’t you do your own homework? I don’t have the time to spoon-feed.

BTW, I fail to see the point of your post. You stated that things have changed but they have not changed. What I think you are saying is that there are changes but you agree with and accept these changes. Do you think being an alumnus of Liberty biases your opinion? So, we may say that whether the changes are good or bad depends entirely on your POV and theology. Obviously, Falwell doesn’t think these changes are bad.I’m sure that no Roman Catholics would be offended by Falwell praising or paying homage to the Pope but a lot of IFB’s would be.

Now, my question is: “Where is the absolute demarcation for holding the line?” IMHO, once you begin this slippery road past the warning signs there are no barriers to hold you back until you fall into the river at the washed out bridge. Whom will Falwell accept next to achieve his fifty thousand goal? Will he appeal more strongly to charismatics for their money and clout? Roman Catholics? The Word of Faith crowd who have large numbers of fervent followers? Will he link to TBN, Benny Hinn and Paul Crouch? Do you balk at the Jesus Only crowd (non-trinitarian)? Conservative, moral and family-oriented Mormons? Politically and religiously conservative Jews? Moonies? Since all is relative, where is the line? You tell me.

Thanks.

 

How many posters on this thread are LU alumni? Do you care to identify yourself?

[ July 13, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

It may have something to do with the fact that meekness and gentleness are fruits of the Spirit and are genuine Christian qualities. Judgmentalism on the other hand is NOT. Jesus was harsh on the Pharisees and would be harsh with some of today's "fundamentalists". </font>[/QUOTE]How do you know? Perhaps he would be harsher with the pious hypocrites who judge the Fundamentalists. Jesus clearly blasted the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not for making judgments. Good exegesis will keep you from falling into the common error of reading "judgmentalism" into the text. You get this meaning only when you read the text with modern presuppositions.

Contra to your conclusion, people do take pious pride in being non-judgmental. They wear it as a badge of their own spirituality. Also, some folks jealously resent anyone holding stricter standards than their own. Perhaps they are convicted of their conscience. To deny this exists is an absurdity--one must live with his head in the sand.

Furthermore, the fruit of the Spirit is also "goodness and righteousness and truth (Ephesians 5:9)." Wonder why we don't hear truth and righteousness debated among the non-judgmental crowd?

Finally, discernment, many times wrongly called judgmental, is a Christian virtue produced by the Holy Spirit.

 

He's not rich enough to live at Lake Wylie.

 

I'm still in pretty close communication with Dr. Borek who is at Luther Rice Seminary (another Protestant school in my area) and have yet know him as a Catholic...but I can ask him if you want

Dr. Borek was a faithful attender of TRBC while at LU and is a member in good standing of a church down in the Atlanta area (where I am at right now) though he speaks at Baptist churches throughout the US almost every week.

Also I shall again note that LU's changed policy does not necessarily reflect Dr. Falwell's changed beliefs. Keep in mind that Falwell signed off from being intimately involved in every detail of LU back in the early 90s as a condition of a SACS inquiries. Just a note though

also you're not a very happy person I've noticed. Anyone that questions you or some of your information is immediately assailed as being ignorant, indolent, or simply angry. My posts have been good natured...I shall pray for you

 

Well someday I may be a pure and as holy as you are paidagogos.
I try to maintain a fundamentalist attitude more in line with the historic lessons taught in "The Fundamentals" edited by R.A. Torrey.The is a difference between that type of fundamentalism and what passes for fundamentalism today.
The first church I belonged to was hyper-fundamentalist KJVO.I voted for Bush twice.I never give Ripliger and her crowd any serious thought.As for Bob Jones and the Pope no I have never offered an opinion but I have done some reading.
I am truly sorry if it offends you that I don't spend much time trying to persecute fellow Christians, I will try to do better in the future.

 

How do you know? Perhaps he would be harsher with the pious hypocrites who judge the Fundamentalists. Jesus clearly blasted the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not for making judgments. Good exegesis will keep you from falling into the common error of reading "judgmentalism" into the text. You get this meaning only when you read the text with modern presuppositions.



The Pharisees were both hypocritical and judgmental. What do you think the parable of the debtors means? Christ has dealt kindly with us when He could have (justifiably) done otherwise. We should do the same for all people.

I've got news for you Paidagogos - the difference between you and the biggest sinner in town is that you have Jesus - it has nothing to do with the fact that you have more "personal holiness". It's human nature to find fault with those who are different than we are. We must NOT use the Bible to justify our own selfish behavior.

Contra to your conclusion, people do take pious pride in being non-judgmental. They wear it as a badge of their own spirituality. Also, some folks jealously resent anyone holding stricter standards than their own. Perhaps they are convicted of their conscience. To deny this exists is an absurdity--one must live with his head in the sand.

What do you think Jesus meant when He said, "Judge not..."?

We are commanded to love others and to live like Christians. God will do the judging.

Furthermore, the fruit of the Spirit is also "goodness and righteousness and truth (Ephesians 5:9)." Wonder why we don't hear truth and righteousness debated among the non-judgmental crowd?

We are to live righteous lives. Funnt how it's a lot easier to tell someone he/she is not living righteouly than to actually live righteously ourselves... Human nature rears its head again.

Finally, discernment, many times wrongly called judgmental, is a Christian virtue produced by the Holy Spirit.

Discernment is knowing the difference. The verse says nothing about justification to belittle others.

Let's face it - the witness of "evangelical Christians" in America has been pretty cheap sometimes. Ask the average lost person for two words describing "Christians" - they will likely say "judgmental" and "hypocrite". That makes me sad and mad at the same time.

Jesus died for you and for me and His blood will buy redemption for anyone who will believe. If you actually want people to believe then you should show them Christ and not a "discerning, righteous Christian."

 

Well said Charles.

 

paidagogos

You said:
Since your purpose seems to be justifying Falwell rather than discussing his flip-flopping on stated positions, I had resolved to ignore your decidedly partisan defense.

==My purpose is not to defend Falwell since I assume he is able to defend himself. My purpose is truth and fairness. I don't mind someone being critical of Falwell, I am critical of him alot, but one must be fair and realistic. I ask you, what issues have you changed your stance on in the past 5 to 30 years?

_______________________________________

You said:
My major point was that Falwell had changed from his originally proclaimed positions. You seem to concur but say it’s no big deal because you accept these changes. That’s not the point.

==My point is that I would only be concerned if the changes were important. The changes you are mentioning are, at best, side issues. I want some evidence of real, important, changes.

_________________________________

You said:
The point is that Falwell did make a big deal of these issues when he was in the Fundamentalists’ band but now that he is playing with a different drummer he has changed his tune. This is precisely the point. Thank you for helping me make it.

==Falwell is not "playing with a different drummer" since he is still on the Christian view point. Your "siding up" thing really concerns me. Do you view Christianity as divided into teams? I hope not. Anyway I think Falwell, for whatever reason, realized you can't build a good school with nothing but Baptist Fundamentalists and that there is nothing unBiblical about admiting non-Baptists.

______________________________________

You said:
Naturally, this raises the question of what he will change next to reach his goal of fifty thousand students.

==A growing conservative Christian University and you are concerned that they are letting in people outside of the Baptist denomination? I don't care if Falwell is in it just for the money, and I am not saying he is, I still like what I see when I look at Liberty. We need more schools like it. Falwell's motives are not an issue.

_____________________________________

You said:
Why is it that professedly important things suddenly become unimportant when it is in your interest to change them? Surely you have figured this out! It’s not exactly rocket science, you know. What does the man believe irrevocably?

==The Bible.

You have given no evidence of Falwell changing his mind on important matters. Your main "beef" with Falwell seems to be his leaving the Fundamentalist camp.

You did not answer the question about your claim that Falwell hired a Catholic.

Martin

 

could be interesting point here...I played drums for TRBC for 4 years while at LU...that is certainly a bit of a change there

 

paidagogos

You said:
FALWELL DENIES LU PRESIDENT A CATHOLIC - FBF president Dr. Rod Bell writes in the Nov.- Dec. Frontline: "Recently, it came to my attention that the new president of Liberty University, Dr. John Borek Jr., was a Roman Catholic.... It has now been verified that John Borek was and may still be identified with Rome, and when given an opportunity to testify of a clear-cut conversion he did not do so...."

==This is weak, seriously weak. Because this author, whoever he maybe, cannot find a "clear-cut conversion" from Rome by Borek he assumes that Borek was (at that time) still identified with Rome? That kind of reasoning will not stand any test. To know if Borek was still Catholic when he took over at Liberty we must look at his beliefs. Was he Catholic or Baptist in his beliefs?

______________________________________

You said:
We first heard this last June and later e-mailed Dr. Falwell directly and received this response from him: "Jerry, to my knowledge, President John Borek has never had a Roman Catholic association." Falwell claimed two decades ago to be a Fundamentalist, when all the while his actions belied the claim, causing him be considered somewhat the father of pseudo-Fundamentalism.

==I love this "pseudo-fundamentalism" talk, but that is for another thread...

________________________________

You said:
We have long since found him and LU Dean Dr. Elmer Towns to be a bit less than forthright at times. Dr. Bell adds: "Last year, Falwell said that he was not joining the Southern Baptist Convention. This year he joined!

==Ok, let's see the proof that there was not a change over the course of the year. Before accusing Falwell of lying, which is the charge though the term "lie" is not used, we must see that joining the SBC was not on the plate when he told them he was not joining.

_______________________________________

You said:
True Fundamentalists don't join the SBC; they separate from it." He terms Falwell's actions "deception and betrayal."

==What is sad is that this man really believes this. There are many conservative, Bible believing Christians, and fundamentalists within the SBC. This guys opinion, and that is all it is, is without factual support.

__________________________________________

You said:
Are there any charismatics teaching at LU that you know of? or on staff at TRBC? Don’t know. Of course, I never said there were.

==There are some teachers at Liberty who have graduated or taught at Regent. That does not make them charismatic (since many non-charismatics attend Regent) but it does show that Liberty is open to them. And why not?

That is the question that HAS NOT been answered....btw.
____________________________

You said:
However, I do remember Falwell defending his position on charismatics when Doug Oldham was singing for him. He said that Doug was not charismatic but he was a member of the Church of God, Anderson, IN. He further stated that Liberty did not accept charismatic students because they were Baptist. He made a big deal out of it to authenticate his Fundamentalist, non-charismatic credentials and standing. Now that’s all changed because he no longer is courting the hard-core Fundamentalists.

==I am glad Fawell had a change of mind on this. His former position is unBiblical and, from an educational point of view, harmful. There is no reason for Liberty to reject Christian students just because they are not Baptists (or because they are charismatics).

______________________________________


You said:
Do you think being an alumnus of Liberty biases your opinion?

==I have a MA from Liberty (graduate in Sept) but that does not bias my opinion on Falwell. I am freely critical of his political involvement, his co-belligerence with active Roman Catholics, several of his public statements, his spending preaching time talking politics, and I could go on and on. However I will only be critical of Falwell, or anyone else, when there is a real reason to be critical. Becoming Southern Baptist is not a good reason. The Southern Baptists range from very conservative (like myself) to popular and watery. Labeling the SBC as something negative is misleading. Its like saying all Methodists are liberals. It just is not so.
_____________________________________

You said:
I’m sure that no Roman Catholics would be offended by Falwell praising or paying homage to the Pope but a lot of IFB’s would be.

==I am Southern Baptist and I don't like Falwell, Graham's, Robertson's, Mohler's, or anyone elses glowing statements about the Pope. That is a point on which I will be very critical of Falwell. However I will not be critical of him because he opened Liberty up to Christians who were not Baptists.

____________________________________________


The question I want you to answer is this: Why should Falwell limit Liberty's enrollment to Baptists only? You should answer this question with Biblical support. Why? Because you are really claiming that the Church is divided into camps. I can't find any New Testament support for this claim, none. Unless a person is in heresy, and thus is not a Christian, I cannot see why Liberty should not enroll them as students.

Martin.

 

One change I wish Falwell WOULD make is a change from dispensationalism to post-trib historic premillennialism!

Falwell is an oportunist! But I think that is a good thing if it moves him away from unbiblical positions of separation.

Historic Fundamentalism, as characterized by The Fundamentals is exactly where Falwell stands today. Praise the Lord he moved away from schism and secondary separation.

Can anyone really blame Falwell for moving away from the little band of fundamentalists who separated from everyone over everything?

 

I went to LU for 3 years. Dr. Fallwell and Elmer Towns both had a great heart for God. It amazes me that every good man of God who is also successful is subject to personal attacks on their faith. They are attacked personally and accussed of all sorts of things. There are Profs. from regent that teach there. I had one and he had more of an impact on my life than any other single person. He was an incredible person, regardless of his differing from a fundamentalist background. I am a fairly traditional Baptist and never found a reason to criticize falwells teachings. Of course he changed his point of view on things, he's been in ministry for years. This is only natural because we do change. This is human nature and a positive side of it to say the least.

 

Dear PAIDAGOGOS,
I apologize for my harsh tone.I am truly sorry.Please forgive me.I just let you get under my skin and I should have been more thoughtful and chosen my words more carefully and toned it dowm. Once again, I am truly sorry.

 

By all means, ask him! Ask him to relate his testimony of salvation. I would be interested to hear it. Praise God if he has a geniune conversion, and I have no reason to doubt it, from Roman Catholicism. However, the point still remains that Falwell hired him without really knowing or was unwilling to clear the air on the matter. Jerry could have cleared the air in the beginning by a clear-cut statement. One must judge an action in its context of time and circumstance, not in retrospect.

You are very presumptuous to analyze my mental state of happiness through several brief postings. James asked: “Who art thou that judgest another (James 4:12)?” What do you think you are? A psychoanalyst? In an earlier post, I have argued against bringing personalities into debate. My personality or your perception of my personality is immaterial and irrelevant regarding the veracity of issues under discussion. However, folks do tend to impugn the person when they cannot deal with his arguments.

Now you are offering asinine observations about things that you have no inkling. Yes, I am forceful in my argument. Whoever has debated that didn’t put his strongest and most forceful argument forward? Is this taboo for Christians. (Unfortunately, the perception is that Christians must be namby-pamby, milk toast type folks. Perhaps this comes from not reading Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. Also, I remember some pretty forceful things from Paul, Peter, et. al. Did Paul say something about being “cut off”?)

There is more arrogance in your presumptions than my posts. Whereas I appreciate anyone sincerely praying for me, I don’t appreciate your patronizing, pious jab that you will pray for me. This comes across as spiritual one-upmanship. You are vilifying me and proclaiming what a wonderful, humble, kind, sweet person you are. I would not use a serious item such as prayer to gain ascendancy over my opponent in debate. Methinks this is hitting below the belt. Your underhanded use of innuendo by questioning my various mental states and attitudes meanwhile puffing your own piety and good-naturedness is pure self-preening. I disagree with your posts being good-natured—I would call them, especially in light of the last post, as dripping pious and self-serving.

In closing, I anticipate that you will whine that I have attacked you. I have not attacked your person (i.e. mental state, character, motives, etc.) but I have bashed your actions and statements. There is a difference. I can observe your speech and behavior but I cannot observe your mental processes or relationship with God. Therefore, when you make a statement and post it on this board, you are hanging it out there as fair game to be shot down. Don’t whine when someone uses a 12-guage with 000 buckshot to blast your clay pigeon. It’s okay and fair as long as I don’t shoot toward you. Seems that your gun was turned toward the wrong target. Shoot down my posts but please don't take shots at me.

 

Thank you Bill. Apology accepted with all sincerity. You are a gentleman and a man of character. I have only good feelings of respect and admiration for you even when we may disagree.

 

Paid,

The claim from you that Borek is a Roman Catholic is just absurd. And then, when accused of hiring a Roman Catholic, by whom, I don't know, Falwell is criticized for not responding.

Since you put it out there that Borek was/is a Roman Catholic, why don't you present your evidence.

Show me that Borek was a Roman Catholic when hired by Falwell.

For the record: It doesn't matter to me if Borek was a Roman Catholic when he worked for LU.

 

I don't know if it is true or not, but I do see that others have made the claim.

This is off a website called "Calvary Contender"

FALWELL DENIES LU PRESIDENT A CATHOLIC - FBF president Dr. Rod Bell writes in the Nov.- Dec. Frontline: "Recently, it came to my attention that the new president of Liberty University, Dr. John Borek Jr., was a Roman Catholic.... It has now been verified that John Borek was and may still be identified with Rome, and when given an opportunity to testify of a clear-cut conversion he did not do so...." We first heard this last June and later e-mailed Dr. Falwell directly and received this response from him: "Jerry, to my knowledge, President John Borek has never had a Roman Catholic association." Falwell claimed two decades ago to be a Fundamentalist, when all the while his actions belied the claim, causing him be considered somewhat the father of pseudo-Fundamentalism. We have long since found him and LU Dean Dr. Elmer Towns to be a bit less than forthright at times. Dr. Bell adds: "Last year, Falwell said that he was not joining the Southern Baptist Convention. This year he joined!...True Fundamentalists don't join the SBC; they separate from it." He terms Falwell's actions "deception and betrayal."

 

Paul, do your homework. Borek may have converted. Also, it is possible that the original information was wrong but a simple denial and refutation by Borek or Falwell would have been sufficient. With Falwell beating around the bush, the whole business had the marks of a cover up. Read the link and you will have your questions answered. Also, see Frontline(FBF publication) magazine.

I did Read my post! Did you follow the web link that I listed? It was from two men whom you should know—Rod Bell and Jerry Huffman. Give either one a call and ask about the info if you think it is wrong. BTW, Rod is living in G’ville, SC just now. Jerry said that he e-mailed Falwell to verify the allegation. Check with Falwell. If you don’t have a pipeline there, then others on this thread imply that they do. Check it out. I’ve seen other sources but I did not pursue it to absolute verification since the sources were overall credible and I had no special interest in the matter. I have made no error in fairness or veracity. I accepted information from a reputedly credible source. I named my source. Beyond that, there are no other reasonable expectations of me unless I was publishing this and I would probably personally verify with more research of primary materials. Yet, my behavior has been above board, honest, fair, acceptable and ethical. No one, I mean no one, checks and verifies everything from primary sources when engaged in conversation or informal argument.

In riposte, I am disappointed in your attempt to make hay out of wheat straw. This is a knee jerk reaction to challenge an opponent’s sources when one has nothing to offer. Where is your source? Is it your fantasy? Why don’t you present proof that I have bad data and I will publicly retract my assertion upon persuasive evidence? I was persuaded of better things from you.

I presented you with the sources. If you’re interested, do your homework and show me to be wrong. I can take it if I accepted unreliable information. But, I am not going to do your work for you. Do I need to outline a research plan for you? Do your own homework.

For laughing out loud, what does this have to do with anything? You’re doing a partisan argument to justify Falwell. Obviously, it didn’t bother many people that BG had Roman Catholics on his platform and send his converts back to RC churches. So, we disagree on Biblical separation but that is another topic.

Paul, I thought you were a bright boy. Now, I am beginning to question my impression. You’re not separating the chafe from the wheat. Did it not occur to you that the question under discussion is not whether hiring a Roman Catholic is a bad thing but whether Falwell has changed his position on various issues. You see, Falwell can’t claim to be within historic Fundamentalism, which he claimed at one time, and cooperate with Roman Catholics. You really need to delimit your topic. You will learn that when you get around to doing your dissertation. I surprised that they didn’t teach you that at BJU but I suppose you came along too late to have Miss Potts.

 

This is not a criticism, just an observation. Change the name Falwell to Hyles or Jones and you could find the same comments from a loyal supporter at Hyles-Anderson or BJU respectively. It is a truism that great men do have their critics. No one moves without producing friction. However, it is legitimate to question their actions. Great men do make gaffes. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone and even not supporting that person. Whereas we ought not be critical to a fault, we ought not unquestioningly accept everything one does without scrutiny. We find Paul commending the Bereans for not accepting everything he taught without comparing it to Scripture. I’m sure that someone would have castigated them for being hypercritical.