Liberty Theological Seminary?????

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Martin:
You said:
For example, Jerry boasted that LBU did not accept charismatic students but now they do. So, it is no wonder that Bro. Falwell is now openly courting non-Baptist student prospects. After all, being big and winning in the numbers racket is the only thing. Doctrine and other professed principles only count as long as they are useful.

==If this is what you believe about Liberty University you are way, way off. The teaching at this school is solid and Biblical. There is no compromise at Liberty. If a non-Baptist comes here they get the same type classes (etc) that Baptists get. Jerry Fawell does not teach classes at Liberty University or the Seminary. He, in many respects, promotes the school. Which is great. If non-Baptist wish to come I see nothing wrong with that, and if Liberty wants them to come I see nothing wrong with that. Either way there is no doctrinal compromise in class.
_______________________________________

You said:
When you are playing in the bush leagues with the hometown boys, you swear eternal loyalty and unending allegiance to the hometown team. You easily forget those professed loyalties in the major leagues with the adulteration of the fans and the appeal of mega-bucks. Human nature is the same in sports and religion.

==Since when did the church get divided into teams? Baptist vs. Pentecostals? Such a divide is unBiblical and highly dangerous. There are Christians in all of the major evangelical denominations (and even non-evangelical). We should not divide from them just because we hold to different forms of church government. If someone is in heresy, fine divide from them. However we should never divide from other Christians just because they are in a different denomination. I am glad my school reaches out to people who are not baptists. I am glad my church, though small, works together with the other Bible believing Churches in our community. One is Pentecostal holiness, one is United Methodist, one is AME Zion, one is Church of God, one is non-denominational, several are Baptist. What do we have in common? Worship styles? Certainly not. Church government styles? Certainly not. Do we agree on eternal security or election? Nope. However we are Bible believing, Bible teaching, Jesus believing churches. Therefore we have plenty of common ground. I would hate to think that we would restrict our schools and churches to Baptists only. Btw the SBC seminaries admit non-Baptists.

I once heard of a man who died and went to heaven. An angel gave him a tour of the heavenly city. As they came across one particular room the angel who was giving the tour told the man to be "extra quite as we pass this room". When the man asked why the angel answered, "In that room are all the Baptists who think they are the only ones here".

Sort of silly but it makes a good point. All born again believers will be in heaven regardless of their denomination.

Not a popular think to say on a "baptist" board?

I don't really care.

Martin.

So what? Completely immaterial and irrelevant. Your post had nothing to do with my argument. Jerry is simply an opportunist who goes with the flow. That was my point. He has changed his position according to the weather. His goals of power and bigness appear to be more important than his professed ideals at various times. Like Bill Clinton, you are arguing and answering questions that I didn’t raise.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
In my book,

And what book might that be?

Cheers, Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Come on, I'd like to know of the book so that perchance I might read it and become an englightened human being. What's your book's name? Where do you teach. Do you have more than 50 books published? If so, I know who you are, and so does my father.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

[Martin]

You said:
Like Bill Clinton, you are arguing and answering questions that I didn’t raise.

==I was responding to your statements.

Martin.

 

[preachinjesus]

I'd like to see a list of positions that Dr Falwell has changed on over the last five years. A detailed list would be nice, with the former positions held matched up with the new position.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by preachinjesus:
I'd like to see a list of positions that Dr Falwell has changed on over the last five years. A detailed list would be nice, with the former positions held matched up with the new position.

From the tenor of your post, I don’t think anything that I can say will make any difference. Your mind is made up and you will interpret all information to fit with your presuppositions. However, I will list a few positions, to show good faith and fairness, that Falwell changed in general areas, which you can research for yourself—that is, if you are genuinely interested and are not just trying to justify your own position or Falwell’s. BTW, these are position changed over thirty years, not five—his evolution is not that fast.
1. Changed position on accepting charismatics
2. Acceptance of a Roman Catholic as a top administrator
3. Changed position on music standards
4. Changed positions on ecclesiastical separation (IFB to SBC)

There are hundreds of other details, insignificant in themselves, that point to a definite trail of pragmatism in quest of bigness and success. Now, if you are really interested, go and do your homework for yourself. If you’re just trying to refute my opinions and protect your hero, please drop the matter since it has no utilitarian purpose for you or me.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Having been around for those thirty years, I concur with Paidagogos' observations. In my sector of the Baptist galaxy, Brother Falwell's seeming pragmatism presented some problems as far back as the late '70s.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
In my book,

And what book might that be?

Cheers, Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Come on, I'd like to know of the book so that perchance I might read it and become an englightened human being. What's your book's name? Where do you teach. Do you have more than 50 books published? If so, I know who you are, and so does my father.

Cheers, Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Oh! You sound as if you are Jerry, Jr. It really doesn’t matter who I am and I don’t care who you are. We’re not playing personalities here. I have no need to stroke my ego and I really don’t care to massage your ego. Just read my posts and take them at face value. Don’t worry about my publications, degrees, position or notoriety. The issues are facts, opinions and arguments, not personality and self-image.

It’s hard to conceive that an intelligent and literate human being, assuming that you are, could mistake the idiomatic expression “in my book” as referring to a literal book. Thus, I am suspicious that you are not being serious but you are toying with me and playing games. Since I prefer not to be the butt of your little jokes, I will refuse to cooperate.

You are making a lot of assumptions. How do you know that I teach? What makes you think that I’ve written books? Is fifty published books the capstone of achievement and success? A lot of televangelists have many books, mostly ghosted, bearing their names without an ounce of intellectual weight. Fluff comes cheaply these days. I rather think quality is more important than quantity. What do you think?

Selah,
Paidagogos

 

[preachinjesus]

I think its different than you might suspect. Liberty has changed much of its views on certain things. Actually, during my time at LU I was on the Student Government and had a direct hand in changing several important matters (that's not important just a side note).

Falwell's personal views on these matters have not changed that much (he still believes that a suit is everyday apparel for men and that secular music is not good.) Yet he has gotten (thankfully) more relaxed on some of his views on issues that are non-essentials for life.

Couple of questions though:

1. Who is the Roman Catholic administrator you are speaking of? and what is their function?

2. Are there any charismatics teaching at LU that you know of? or on staff at TRBC?

just wondering about these. thanks for reading

 

[Martin]

 

[Martin]

Falwell:
1. Changed position on accepting charismatics

==I don't see this as a issue. Again I go back to my earlier reply on this. Since when did it become Baptists vs. charismatics? I did not know Christianity was a team sport.
____________________________________

Falwell:
2. Acceptance of a Roman Catholic as a top administrator

==Name of top administrator? Nameless claims are a bit difficult to accept/reject.

_____________________________________

Falwell:
3. Changed position on music standards

==Again, not a issue. This is mostly a matter of taste. I am glad I am not a public personality like Falwell as my taste in music styles changes on a regular basis. I am more concerned with the message of the song than the style of the music.
_____________________________________

Falwell:
4. Changed positions on ecclesiastical separation (IFB to SBC)

==Again, this is not an issue. I would challenge IFB's position as unBiblical. But that is for a different day.......
________________________________________


Martin.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As for point 4, I did write "in my sector of the Baptist Galaxy". My sector may be near yours but then it may not be.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Martin:
Falwell:
1. Changed position on accepting charismatics

==I don't see this as a issue. Again I go back to my earlier reply on this. Since when did it become Baptists vs. charismatics? I did not know Christianity was a team sport.
____________________________________

Falwell:
2. Acceptance of a Roman Catholic as a top administrator

==Name of top administrator? Nameless claims are a bit difficult to accept/reject.

_____________________________________

Falwell:
3. Changed position on music standards

==Again, not a issue. This is mostly a matter of taste. I am glad I am not a public personality like Falwell as my taste in music styles changes on a regular basis. I am more concerned with the message of the song than the style of the music.
_____________________________________

Falwell:
4. Changed positions on ecclesiastical separation (IFB to SBC)

==Again, this is not an issue. I would challenge IFB's position as unBiblical. But that is for a different day.......
________________________________________


Martin.

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. However, this is too good pass up—I succumb to temptation in replying. Again, you are arguing irrelevant, immaterial and peripheral issues to the ignoring of the major point. We’re not discussing whether one agrees with the positions or not. I’m really not interested.

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. 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.

Naturally, this raises the question of what he will change next to reach his goal of fifty thousand students. Remember the Virginia tuition assistance grant fiasco? Even the state officials were surprised how quickly he flip-flopped on that one. Is there anything that he will not compromise to reach his goal? How do we know he won’t? He has already done things that Fundamentalists thought he would never do! 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?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Why don't you write and ask him? Gossip is not a good thing.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

And now that I've read this whole thread some thoughts do come to mind.I'm in Spokane Washington so we don't get the OTGH out here.I do remember some of those old sermons some have talked about here though, they were good.
However some of the things that have cropped up in some of these hyper-fundamentalist IFB churches and groups make me want to separate from them myself. The KJVO thing makes me sick. The I'm so fundamental I'm way to good for you attitude is to much for me, and some of the super-legalism that exists in some of the IFB churches, no wonder some are heading back to the SBC.Seems like many IFB'ers are'nt happy unless they are picking on somebody. Maybe that's why he has changed some of his positions, those are wrong positions.
If we want to find out what his positions are and what he considers core positions the thing to do would be to write him a letter and ask.That would be the fair and honest thing to do.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Does Norm Geisler live in Charlotte, NC, or in South Carolina? Does anyone know the answer to this?

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

[preachinjesus]

I'll sit quitely and await the answers to my two questions.

Do keep in mind that the school changing its mind about some things is not the same as Dr. Falwell...

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
And now that I've read this whole thread some thoughts do come to mind.I'm in Spokane Washington so we don't get the OTGH out here.I do remember some of those old sermons some have talked about here though, they were good.
However some of the things that have cropped up in some of these hyper-fundamentalist IFB churches and groups make me want to separate from them myself. The KJVO thing makes me sick. The I'm so fundamental I'm way to good for you attitude is to much for me, and some of the super-legalism that exists in some of the IFB churches, no wonder some are heading back to the SBC.Seems like many IFB'ers are'nt happy unless they are picking on somebody. Maybe that's why he has changed some of his positions, those are wrong positions.
If we want to find out what his positions are and what he considers core positions the thing to do would be to write him a letter and ask.That would be the fair and honest thing to do.

Oh, come off it Bill! Your piety is dripping and syrupy. You’re flopping all over the place like a fish out of water. You’re judging others for judging others. What kind of day do we live in which we cannot offer an opinion based on observations without some pious person whining how judgmental we are. This is a specious charge for any argument that you cannot refute. I don’t suppose that you have offered an opinion on anyone such as President Bush, the Pope, Pete Ruckman, Gail Ripplinger, Bob Jones, etc. without first writing for their viewpoint. I don’t hold with your mush and you can’t practice it consistently either.

Please explain why it is okay for you to ridicule and vent your spleen against KJVO brethren, IFB’ers, super-legalistic Fundamentalists, et. al. but it is wrong to observe and analyze trends in Falwell’s ministry? We have been down this same road before. Recently, I listened to some of Billy Graham’s early sermons from the 1950’s. He was a powerful preacher but he is totally compromised today. One must believe and stand for something or he will fall for anything.

Somehow, I thought we had confronted and refuted the old liberal/modernist heresy that all religions and viewpoints are equal but actually we have assimilated it in watered down form into our own thinking. This is the basis of the non-judgmental spirit today. While decrying post-modernism on the one hand, we preach and practice tolerance of everything as if there is no truth. Of course, you will say there is a difference between essentials and non-essentials. How does one differentiate between essentials and non-essentials? Is believer’s baptism by immersion an important doctrine or is it merely a preference? Our spiritual forefathers gave their lives for this doctrine. Felix Mantz was drowned for his teaching and practice of believer’s baptism. Dare we say that any Scriptural teaching is non-essential? Obedience is not obedience if we can pick and choose what we obey.

BTW, it has always been interesting to me that many folks are willing to tolerate looser views but they are absolutely intolerant of stricter views. Does it have to do with pride and pious jealousy?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Why don't you write and ask him? Gossip is not a good thing.

This is not gossip. What do you think gossip is? If you cannot add rational thought to the discussion, why don't you keep out of it? Refute my facts and overthrow my argument but don't insinuate that I am gossiping. You cuss the super-legalistic Fundamentalism, who make you sick, for being judgmental and do the same yourself. Christ addressed this matter in Matthew but he was not talking about being judgmental or gossiping but it was hypocrisy.

 

[Charles Meadows]

BTW, it has always been interesting to me that many folks are willing to tolerate looser views but they are absolutely intolerant of stricter views. Does it have to do with pride and pious jealousy?

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".

 

[RandR]

preachinjesus,

Borek had a Catholic background before he came to Liberty.

(begin sarcasm) Let's add a few other important things to the list of flip-flops, shall we? Each is of eternal importance.

* In the 70s and early 80s, students weren't allowed to attend movies, now they are. (One of JLF's sons even developed a shopping center anchored by one of those evil movie theaters.)
* In the 70s and early 80s, male students were not allowed to have facial hair of any kind. Now they're allowed to have those heathen mustaches.
* There was time when neckties were required on campus even outside of the classroom, now they aren't and all kinds of debauchery takes place on campus.
* Shorts used to be anethema...now they aren't. Hence the rise in teen pregnancy in America.
* There was a time when students had to have permission to leave campus, now they don't. (Some of them are probably even going to that awful T.C. Trotter's place.)
* Liberty and LCA used to be KJVO, and now they aren't. How can the students be saved?

Oh...and get this. Jerry has always remained good friends with John Rawlings even thos Rawlings wife is...a Methodist!

Wow...makes one wonder if Jerry's even a Christian, doesn't it. (end sarcasm.)