B.J.U.

Thank you for taking a sarcastic stance though and making fun of me. Do they teach you that at BJU as well ??
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paul hadik:
one of the reasons that BJ doesn't "interact" on the athletic field is simply that it gets too expensive. The school has worked hard to keep tuition down; something getting harder to do.

ATTENTION: 'THIS LITTLE LIGHT' (emphasis on 'little') PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT TTHERS BJ'S SECRET PLOT TO SHAKE AND DESTROY THE FOUNDATION OF FUNDAMENTALISM. WE HAVE WORKED HARD TO KEEP THIS SECRET (another reason we don't interact)STARTING NEXT YEAR WE WILL BE PLACING RSVs IN HOTEL ROOMS ACROSS THE GLOBE!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

please, please tell me you are not serious in your charges. As to PCC and their allegations, charges etc. against BJU feel free to access the BJU site where I know at one time they had their reply letter accessible for all to read (although, it was in modern English not 1611 which may be detrimental to their case..what do you think?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

To Tom, as to the institutions you listed, I specifically addressed the question to fundamental colleges and universities, thereby ruling out Southern Baptist institutions and Dallas Theological Seminary (which incidentally does not turn out many Baptists; most are bible churches I believe). I am not saying that to degrade the SBC schools; only to say that I was referring my question to a different group of schools.

To the little light,

PCC has not turned out as many Baptist pastors. Most of PCC's teachers in the early years were graduates of BJU.

As for the videos, I watched them all and am amazed by the misinformation and in some points, straight out mistruths. The videos from day one were a marketing scheme, to try to distance themselves from other schools and create a little niche for themselves. I think it backfired on them. I also know that Dell Johnson has told others that he does not agree entirely with what he has said on the tape but he had proverbially "sold his soul to the company store."

You did not see BJU's response video because BJU didn't make one. The video to which you refer was made by a coalition of fundamental schools and exposed the false teachings of PCC on this issue. PCC's problem is not that they endorse or use another text type; the issue is that they make clear misrepresentations and at times outright false statements about the issue. Additionally, they are trying to run the other side out of fundamentalism when it is we who hold the historic position. However, your confession that you watched these tapes explains your mistaken view of textual criticism that you espoused in another forum. To imply that BJU does not believe in the inspiration and infallibility and preservation of God's word and to further imply that they don't teach it is just flat out wrong.

The position of BJU on the text and translations is the position of historic fundamentalism. BJU was teaching their position long before there ever was a KJVOnly position in vogue in "fundamental" circles.

Squire,

BJU also had a baseball program in Florida. One of the reasons it was abandoned was because of betting on the games. They have the records of it in the Archives.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Cost of an athletics program is a legitimate issue. On the other hand, the cost of a high-profile intramural program without intercollegiate sports is a lack of school unity which results in what some BJ grads have describes as a social "caste system."

BJ wouldn't have to join the NCAA (actually, they probably couldn't get in as an unaccredited school). The NCCAA is a decent option, and its home offices are acually in Greenville.

 

Bingo, Pastor Larry, I saw the videos too, and they are simply full of logical fallicies throughout--then they bring out Theodore Letis to speak, who in print DENIES INNERRANCY! If BJU brought in a guest speaker who denied innerrancy, This Little Light and others would really howl!

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
then they bring out Theodore Letis to speak, who in print DENIES INNERRANCY!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had forgotten that. Silly me. Letis is a Lutheran, baby baptizer ... so much for being Baptist eh???

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
Bingo, Pastor Larry, I saw the videos too, and they are simply full of logical fallicies throughout--then they bring out Theodore Letis to speak, who in print DENIES INNERRANCY! If BJU brought in a guest speaker who denied innerrancy, This Little Light and others would really howl!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chick, you have rightly pointed out the errors of the charges made my PCC, but then you fall into the same error. Ted Letis does not deny inerrancy. He takes exception to the word, which, he says, is of late origin, first being used by B.B Warfield, at Princeton, in the early years of the last century. (Warfield appearently borrowed the term from Astronomy where it is used to describe the orbits of the planets, and is synonomous with "unvarying.") Letis prefers the older term "infallible" as opposed to the term "innerrancy." It is not the concept, but the term he objects to.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The position of BJU on the text and translations is the position of historic fundamentalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I found an interesting statement in "The Fundamentals." In the article by Dr. A.C. Dixon, Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle Church, London, entitles "The Scriptures," Dr. Dixon opines, "A noted scholar has taken the pains to collate the texts in the New Testament where this Greek idiom occurs, and he declares that the King James version, and not the Revised, is the correct translation, and several eminent scholars on the Committee of Revision agreed with him."

This is in reference to the difference between the KJV and the ERV in 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

Thomas,

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. When I speak of the position of BJU being the one of historic fundamentalism, I do not mean their choice of a text. I mean the position that inspiration proper can only be attributed to the originals. Translations partake of inspiration only inasmuch as the accurately reflect the original language texts. No translation and no text can have perfection or inspiration proper claimed by it.

The position of historic fundamentalism allows for a variety of textual preferences with disagreement being one of grace, not of heresy. It keeps the focus on the original langauge texts and does not ascribe perfection to any translation. It realizes that textual preferences are a matter of discernment and conclusion, not a matter of revelation from God. Therefore we can differ without being heretics.

Many KJVO's cannot stomach that position.

However, several questions are in order about this post. I have pulled my copy of The Fundamentals off the shelf to look up this quote and am confused.

1. What does the ERV say in 2 Tim 3:16? I do not have a copy here. I think it says "All God-breathed Scripture" but I am not sure. All of the major MVs read substantially the same as the KJV, with the NIV being the most literal translation. Incidentally, Dixon's rendering of 2 Tim 3:16 in the article you cite is identical to the NIV. Isn't that interesting? He claims the KJV has the right translation compared to the RV and renders the verse, not like the KJV, but rather like the NIV did some 50 years later. This seems to show the early fundamentalists were not slavishly tied to the wording of the KJV but actually appealed to the original language texts while feeling free to change the wording in the KJV.

2. What is the point of this in relation to this discussion? I think the position of BJU on this issue would be that the KJV is exactly right, as is the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, and probably several others ... at least on this verse.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Larry, you need a funny-bone transplant!

 

Or maybe a pompousectomy?

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

this little light:

you seem offended by my sarcasm and ask if I was taught that at BJ.
Sarcasm 101 is no longer required at BJ but since we are a fundamentalist school I did have to take 2 semesters on "religious in-fighting"

all due respect...if you are going to charge BJ with arrogance, pride, ignorance and allege that they are out to destroy fundamentalism don't get all wounded when alumni of the institution call you on it.
Play the man.

paul

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paul hadik:
Sarcasm 101 is no longer required at BJ but since we are a fundamentalist school I did have to take 2 semesters on "religious in-fighting"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is way too funny ... It clearly belongs in the funniest comments thread, IMO.

Thomas, What in the world?? Was there some humor that I missed somewhere? I was quite serious as to my questions.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paul hadik:
this little light:

you seem offended by my sarcasm and ask if I was taught that at BJ.
Sarcasm 101 is no longer required at BJ but since we are a fundamentalist school I did have to take 2 semesters on "religious in-fighting"

all due respect...if you are going to charge BJ with arrogance, pride, ignorance and allege that they are out to destroy fundamentalism don't get all wounded when alumni of the institution call you on it.
Play the man.

paul<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not quite sure what you called me on. That was Bob Jones III on the tape talking about the PCC videos. I assume his position is a reflection of the schools?

Believe me I am not wounded, the bible tells me what I should expect for my stand:

2Timothy 3:12-17 “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: This Little Light ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Little Light:


Believe me I am not wounded, the bible tells me what I should expect for my stand:

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: This Little Light ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quick….Stop the presses….We have a new Martyr to add to the latest revision of Foxes Book of Martyrs!

“In the Year 2002 T.L.L. suffered greatly and courageously for his/her stand against the evil supporters of BJU. While the flames of sarcasm licked at his/her feet he/she clung to their PCC videos and would not recant that he/she had made some strong comments with no substance.”

Hey isn’t there something in 1 Peter 4 about some things a Christian should not be suffering for. Don’t think 2 Tim. 3 gives blanket coverage to suffering that comes from saying some of the unsupported things about BJU that you did.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Or maybe a pompousectomy?

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the person you wrote this to probably didn't appreciate this, It cracked me up big time when I sounded it out. First time I've heard that one.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PackerBacker:
Don’t think 2 Tim. 3 gives blanket coverage to suffering that comes from saying some of the unsupported things about BJU that you did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No support?? My support comes from their own actions and words http://www.wholesomewords.org/fbfbjunasv.html

 

Little Light,

Thanks for posting that link. It has provided me with a valuable resource for identifying churches, individuals, and institutions that are not KJV only.

Such a concise reference guide will make it much easier for me to support and defend them against the false, libelous attacks that are all too common.

Paul Hadik,

I don't think Fundamentalist In-Fighting was actually a class. Don't they train everyone how to "in-fight" during Christian Living Forum? Also, doesn't Mr. Berg do a sarcasm seminar for a couple weeks in Orientation?

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Siegfried ]