-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Judge Paul Pressler
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Yes, I have met him and I have a signed copy of his book A Hill On Which to Die. I have heard him preach in a Chapel service here at SEBTS a few years ago. As far as I know he has no formal training or education as a theologian or pastor. However, I surely wish that all the "laymen" of my church could/would be as well versed in the Bible as he. Everything that you could ever want to know about him is published in the book that I mentioned above.
Daniel David
New Member
When he was just a lawyer, Paul went to the various seminaries and asked them if he could underwrite certain students that would affirm the inspiration and infallibility of the Scripture.
5 of the 6 basically told him to get lost. Only New Orleans would even listen to him. While he was there, he met up with a young upstart who knew theology by the name of Paige Patterson.
Judge might not be the best name for him. Perhaps - The Exterminator - as the rats didn't want any of what he had.
disclaimer - this is not to imply that the SBC was full of lost people. This does implay that the SBC had many people who rejected biblical truth. If you believe one can reject truth and still be saved, so be it.
5 of the 6 basically told him to get lost. Only New Orleans would even listen to him. While he was there, he met up with a young upstart who knew theology by the name of Paige Patterson.
Judge might not be the best name for him. Perhaps - The Exterminator - as the rats didn't want any of what he had.
disclaimer - this is not to imply that the SBC was full of lost people. This does implay that the SBC had many people who rejected biblical truth. If you believe one can reject truth and still be saved, so be it.
R. Charles Blair
New Member
The fact that Judge Pressler is an imperfect human being does not alter the other fact: there were people in key spots in SBC leadership who did not believe the Bible to be the final written form of God's message. (Clearly, Christ Himself is the very last Word from God, but He endorsed the written revelation, even promising that the Spirit would guide the writers, John 14:25-26, 15:26-27, and 16:13-15.) In someways it has been a "messy" process, but over my lifetime I have watched the convention move from a strong commitment to biblical inerrancy, to a weak and divided one, and back toward historic roots. Judge Pressler understood legal issues, and was able to guide those who wished to see trustee bodies and legal issues changed. He and my old friend Bill Powell, along with Paige Patterson, deserve a great deal of credit for that. The danger, of course, is that of over-steering. When a car drops off the pavement onto a shoulder, we are told not to correct too quickly, so that we won't wind up causing a crash in the other lane. Anything as large as the SBC is even more dangerous to try to change. My concern, as an SBC "landmarker," is that we will concentrate too much power in the Executive Committee, etc.
But when you have seminary professors and other key leaders denying historic biblical truth out loud in public, as was true in the '60's and '70's, something had to be done, and at least the Judge had the ability to help in that effort.
To those on the left, he will always be anathema; to some on the right, he will seem power-hungry; maybe it isn't too bad when you are shot at from both sides! - R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28
But when you have seminary professors and other key leaders denying historic biblical truth out loud in public, as was true in the '60's and '70's, something had to be done, and at least the Judge had the ability to help in that effort.
To those on the left, he will always be anathema; to some on the right, he will seem power-hungry; maybe it isn't too bad when you are shot at from both sides! - R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28
My only negative feeling about Judge Pressler stems from the fact that he has never known and experienced firsthand the reality of poverty among rank and file Southern Baptists.
His exposure to SBC Life for the most part has always been from the affluent side looking down and I think he misunderstood many Southern Baptists' natural mistrust of the wealthy crusader as a rejection of his ideas and goals rather than a cautiousness that he simply didn't relate to.
His exposure to SBC Life for the most part has always been from the affluent side looking down and I think he misunderstood many Southern Baptists' natural mistrust of the wealthy crusader as a rejection of his ideas and goals rather than a cautiousness that he simply didn't relate to.
DavidFWhite3
New Member
He is the most destructive indiidual in the life of the SBC. He is responsible for more slander, libel, and outright lies about some of the greatest Christians Southern Baptists have ever produced. He is a good man, but a misguided man, who thinks his way is the only way, and that his understanding of what the Bible is, is the only acceptable understanding. His contribution to SBC history is the idea that truth is determined by who has the majority of votes at a convention. In the end, he will be revealed for what he really is, a well intentioned, but horribly misguided man, who helped lead the SBC away from its historic roots, and into the clutches of Fundamentalism. the greatest heresy of our time.
Recently I have heard some of the modern conservatives deride some of the scholars around the turn of the century that were profesors in the SBC. Those men are more scholarly than these modern ocnservatives could even think of being. Perhaps you might know that some of the conservatives many years ago derided A.T. Robertson as well. Of course they had Whitsitt resign. The modern conservatives are teaching the same things that Whitsitt taught in Baptist history today.
If people truly studied they might actually find out what scripture teaches. If they got past what the preacher said on Sunday and dug a little deeper they might get some interesting nuggets. I have known many preachers after serious study who have had real struggles with the denoimination or chruch they are in.
History truly does repeat itself.
Take your pick.amen_corner
New Member
Taken in context, DavidFWhite's comments are consistent with his liberal, CBF position. Judge Pressler has contributed more positive than negative to the SBC, and just like Patterson, he has been labeled and demonized unfairly by the left. He is not infallible, nor has he always acted perhaps as Jesus would have acted, but the same can be said of those in the moderate camp who spend alot of their time tearing down the character of others on the right.
skanwmatos
New Member
Which of the fundamentals do you consider heretical?
The inerrancy of the Scriptures?
The Deity of Christ?
The second coming?
The virgin birth?
The resurrection?
The substitutionary atonement?
The depravity of man?
skanwmatos
New Member
Does the fact that DavidRWhite has not responded indicate he has retracted his statement?
Which of the fundamentals do you consider heretical?
The inerrancy of the Scriptures?
The Deity of Christ?
The second coming?
The virgin birth?
The resurrection?
The substitutionary atonement?
The depravity of man? </font>[/QUOTE]You may have heard the saying, "You can be a fundamentalist but you don't have to act like one."
Certain fundamentalists have given fundamentalism a bad name. They have stood for the truth by their words but not by their life.
skanwmatos
New Member
The same can be said of any group. Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, etc. But the point was that fundamentalism was called "heresy." I was just trying to discover which of the 7 fundamentals the poster considered to be heresy. So far I have not received any response.
Skanwmatos,
Don't forget this is a message board, not a chat room, it sometimes takes people awhile to get back, be patient.
Now concerning the questions you had...
What you have listed are the general "catagories" of theological belief, where fundamentalism takes over and runs amuck is the insistense that you believe a certian way (interpertation) about one of those catagories. For exampele, the second coming; in most fundy circles you have to be pre-mil/pre-trib or you can't "play" as it where. Now we could argue night and day about pre-mil against say a-mill, but in the end neither of us would be "unsaved". But in many fundy circles you would be liberal of the worst kind. So in this case, Why am I liberal for believing in an a-mil interpertaion, because YOU said so, not because JESUS said so .... see the difference? 1 John tells us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, Galatians warns about placing anything other the freedom that comes to us through Christ, especially the interpretation of mankind about what they think Jesus said or didn't say. That is where fundamentalism runs into heresy, man over Jesus.
Fundamentalism should be qualified in this discussion verses those that are conservative
Don't forget this is a message board, not a chat room, it sometimes takes people awhile to get back, be patient.
Now concerning the questions you had...
What you have listed are the general "catagories" of theological belief, where fundamentalism takes over and runs amuck is the insistense that you believe a certian way (interpertation) about one of those catagories. For exampele, the second coming; in most fundy circles you have to be pre-mil/pre-trib or you can't "play" as it where. Now we could argue night and day about pre-mil against say a-mill, but in the end neither of us would be "unsaved". But in many fundy circles you would be liberal of the worst kind. So in this case, Why am I liberal for believing in an a-mil interpertaion, because YOU said so, not because JESUS said so .... see the difference? 1 John tells us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, Galatians warns about placing anything other the freedom that comes to us through Christ, especially the interpretation of mankind about what they think Jesus said or didn't say. That is where fundamentalism runs into heresy, man over Jesus.
Fundamentalism should be qualified in this discussion verses those that are conservative
skanwmatos
New Member
I think you may be laboring under a misconception. The seven things I listed ARE the fundamentals of the faith. Believing those seven things MAKES one a fundamentalist. If, as you claim, a specific interpretation of one or more of those fundamentals is required somebody must have forgotten to inform the original authors of "The Fundamentals."