Paige Patterson

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. This is one of the most human-centered, pastor-worship statements that I have ever heard. Hey, here is a thought, how about following Jesus instead of someone more interested in power and control

 

baptistbeliever said:

"1.) "Liberals" did not have control of the seminaries. There were moderates and conservatives in control of the seminaries, with a broad spectrum of Baptist viewpoints working together."

Is that true? Moderates? A moderate is simply another name for a liberal that wants to make you think he is not a liberal. Let me rephrase that. There may be some real moderates; however, their ranks are also filled with liberals who are seeking to mask their true identity.

I can tell you a few things about the evidence that the "moderates" (meaning liberals) left behind at Southeastern. I worked for the Physical Plant at one time here at Southeastern. When we remodled some of the campus buildings we gutted the interiors to redesign the floor plans. What do you think we found? I'll tell you, we found Pornographic material hidden inside walls, we found beer cans stuffed inside holes in the walls.

When we remodled Johnston Dorm (Single Men's Dorm) we found a stash of Porno films in the attic area that had been used as a "party place."

One of our current Southeasten Professors attended Southeastern during its liberal haydays. He says that there were regularly scheduled keg (beer) parties on campus, sponsored and organized by the faculty and staff. He also says that Johnston Dorm was known for the following:

1st floor dorms were for the relatively serious students who studied all the time.

2nd floor dorms were for guys that had their sleep over girlfriends in town (remember Johnston was the single men's dorm).

3rd floor was for the guys that had their sleep over boyfriends in town.

Another example of your so-called "moderate" style of instruction at Southeastern was for the faculty to regularly invite openly homosexual guest teachers to come and instruct the students that homosexuality was/is acceptable in God's sight. In those days Southeastern was a liberal hell hole on earth. Don't try and tell me it was run by a mixed group of conservatives and moderates. The left over evidence of the liberal influence that once controlled Southeastern speaks for itself.

 

Fear not,
I have more close friends and relatives who graduated from Southeastern than I can count. IT WAS NEVER LIBERAL, IT WAS NEVER A HELLHOLE...at least before the takeover it wasn't. It was a place to get a world-class theological education by committed Christian professors. My friends and family who attended loved the place, are still in Christian ministry, don't have controversial views, and to the person grieve over what has become of their alma matter.

 

I must make a correction about the post above that discusses the various things that were found at Southeastern when we remodled. First, Fearnot did not make that post. I did; however, I used the same computer station that he had just previously used. I did not realize that he had not logged out and that I was posting under his user ID. Sorry for that.

You can make all of the claims to deny the liberal teaching that occurred here at Southeastern prior to the coming of Dr. Patterson that you want. Likewise, I can draw up that same kind of material based upon what alumni that I know have to say that would directly contradict your statements. For example, in 1998 I approached my pastor and told him that I felt called into full-time ministry and asked for advise regarding advanced education. He pointed me to his almamater Southeastern. However, he also informed me that he felt that all six of the SBC Seminaries were now top quality. Then he followed those statements up referring to Southeastern with, "I would not have given a plugged nickle for the whole place [Southeastern] when I went there. However, the leadership has changed, Dr. Patternson is now President, and there is a real spirit of revival on the campus." I remembered how many times that he had told us in his sermons that his seminary professors had tried to explain away the O.T. and N.T. miracles, how they tried to teach him to reject the Deity of Christ, etc. Now, I believe in absolute truth and that we can know it. As such, both my statements and those of my "witnesses," and your statments and "witnesses" cannot possibly both be ture at the same time. They contradict one another. Your friends may have attended Southeastern before it reached its lowest point that I have discribed above. I don't know. However, our statements and views clearly contradict one another. One of us is correct and the other is not if we are both talking about the same time period at Southeastern.

You claim that Southeastern was never liberal. The test for that claim would be to examine the doctrines that are being taught at the new "Baptist" seminary in Richmond, VA, which is where the majority of former Southeastern Professors went following the arrival of Dr. Patterson as President. By the way, they all left of their own accord. No former Southeastern Professor was fired by Dr. Patterson. Anyway, what are the students in Richmond being taught about the innerrantcy of Scriputre, the Deity of Christ, the miracles of the Bible, the sin of homosexuality, etc.? Also, how would you explain the unholy activities and false teachings that were once openly tolerated at Southeastern, which I outlined above, and the amonut of sinful material that was found hidden in some of the campus buildings. Please don't respond with a "Conservative Conspiracy Theory."

[ September 04, 2002, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Bibleboy,
The folks I know who went to Southeastern went in the early and mid 1960's, the 1970's, and the 1980's. The professors they talk about did not deny the diety of Christ. I'm not sure about their stand on each and every miracle account in the various books in the bible, but my friends and family generally have traditional interpretations of scripture. But that's all in the past. Paige Patterson won (even if it was by selling enough folks on half-truths and gossip as BaptistBeliever correctly points out). Dr. Patterson gets to write the history. He was rewarded for his efforts with the Southeastern presidency. His side has the power now. And like-minded folks like yourself can enjoy the fruits of his efforts. Those of us who see things differently (even those who help build and serve these institutions where we are no longer welcome) will HAVE TO go somewhere else. That is the way things are.

 

Sorry David,

I have to disagree with you regarding your statement that you and your friends are not welcome at Southeastern (or any other SBC Seminary). Granted your views regarding the inerrantcy of Scritpure (etc.) would be challenged. However, you should always be ready to defend your doctrine no matter where you are. Likewise, if someone can prove to you (or me) from the Bible that you (or I) may be holding a flawed intrepretation or view we should be willing to be corrected by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Southeastern is not some mean hateful place. We love and respect the Word of God and give it the highest authority. I see it this way, if my personal feelings and beliefs are contradicted by the Word of God then it is I who must change to get in line with God's Word. It can never be the other way around. I can never place myself, my thoughts, or my beliefs as an authority above the Word.

I really believe that we can see eye to eye, as brothers in Christ, on these issues. We just have to talk through them and be willing to let the Word of God and the Holy Spirit correct us if we are holding to false teachings/beliefs.

Sorry, I had to edit this post after I re-read your post above because I see that you did discuss when your friends attended Southeastern and some of what they say their professors taught. Those are roughly the same time periods that I am talking about (the 1970s through the late 80s). Like I said, all I know is what my former pastor and other alumni have told me about the things they were taught here prior to Dr. Patterson's arrival (as well as the stuff that was found hidden in the buildings when we remodled). Likewise, I would like hear from someone who attends or has attended the new Seminary in Richmond, VA. What are the doctrines that they are teaching there?

[ September 04, 2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Bible Boy,
I did not address your questions because I do not think I can answer them to your satisfaction. I'm not going to contest whether someone found dirty books or beer cans. I've never heard about sleep-overs at the dorms, either (and based on what my friends and relatives told me, I'd be shocked about same-sex sleepovers). I can only state that my friends and family never engaged in such or indicated those sort of thing were prevalent. As for what's going on at Richmond, lots of Christian folk like the place.
I assure you that my friends and family are not welcome to serve. Only inerrantists need apply. I am not an inerrantist. I will never have a voice. My friends and family are not inerrantists. Those who wanted to work at Southeastern were either fired, not hired, or were told they have no chance and should not even bother BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WELCOME. We may be brothers in Christ, but you would not want me on the board of trustees because I am not an inerrantist, and I do question some of the OT miracle accounts and the historical accuracy of many pre-Abraham events (Although I do hold that the Gospels are partially contradictory, I do take the basic gospel story as historical fact, including the miracle stories). Because of my views, I will never serve on the board. And my friends and family with similar views or who may believe there are honest questions about those subjects will never never be on an SBC faculty (one has been told such during his interviews).

[ September 04, 2002, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

Hello again David,

My only question for you regarding your most recent post is:

Why are you not willing to accept and trust that the Word of God is completely true, trustworthy, and in fact inerrant. Do you not believe that God is perfectly capable of giving us and preserving his Word exactly the way he intends for us to receive it? If we cannot fully trust his revealed Word then we cannot fully trust him to even save us from our sins because we cannot know him apart from his revealed Word.

 

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
Hello again David,

My only question for you regarding your most recent post is:

Why are you not willing to accept and trust that the Word of God is completely true, trustworthy, and in fact inerrant.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Because a large portion of it is a compilation and edited version of oral tradition<s> recording events that are sometimes hundreds of years old that is sometimes contradictory and was sometimes written for its original audiance as a non-historical parable. Even the gospels, which to me are the most reliable and authoritative parts of the bible, are sometimes contradictory in the telling of the same event.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Do you not believe that God is perfectly capable of giving us and preserving his Word exactly the way he intends for us to receive it?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes I believe God can do that. But the most important way he chose to reveal his word to us was the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which are events that some folks recorded in the gospels. If God decided to write a book, it would be perfect. What we call the bible is not.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If we cannot fully trust his revealed Word then we cannot fully trust him to even save us from our sins because we cannot know him apart from his revealed Word.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
But we can trust in Jesus. Ultimately, the wonderful but not inerrant collection of books known as the bible points to salvation in Jesus Christ, the foundation of our faith, and our rock and redeemer. We are saved by Jesus, the Word that was truly produced by God's hands, not the bible, produced by man's hands. Folks were saved by Jesus without ever holding a bible or having a theological position on inerrancy. There are no "varient" readings of Jesus. Jesus does not get lost in translation. Jesus is the same in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, English, Russian, and Swahili. Jesus doesn't need a book. Yes, the bible helps us to understand him, and its contents testify to him. But a flashlight that helps you see a treasure is not the treasure. Its just a tool, and unworthy of the worship that so many would heep upon it.

[ September 04, 2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

I consider a moderate (on the SBC spectrum) to be a non-inerrantist who is neither pro-choice nor pro-gay (the two major "liberal" issues). Are you suggesting that all non-inerrantists who claim to be moderates are "liberals", and therefore secretly pro-choice and pro-gay?

Hmmmm. Where is the connection with moderates? Was there a beer-stained sign on the wall that said, "Elect Daniel Vestal SBC Prez, 1991"? How do you know that this isn't actually evidence of communism infiltrating our seminaries? How do you know that they weren't put there by conservatives? (How do you know that there is not similar activity going on as we speak under "God's" regime?)

There is an underlying assumption that theological moderates are licentious fornicators in disguise, and that moral character requires a verbal plenary view of inspiration. Throwing around these kinds of "Coincidence? You decide" rumors just makes yourself look bad, I'm afraid.

Oh good, you've provided a concrete means for verification of your words. Can you cite any kind of written source, online or otherwise, that supports these kind of "gay days" in the syllabus? Surely, there are scores of former seminarians who took notes on that day with the entry: "April 17th: Test Friday on Colossians 2, complete assignment on third missionary journey, homosexuality is acceptable in God's sight, study group at 7:30 for Isaiah unit"....

 

Paige Patterson is a man of God who has been used to help spark a revival in a denomination that was headed in the downward spiral of many modern mainline denominations. What happened in the SBC is truly a present day miracle. Naturally those who were caught in the rift will be angry and bitter. They will attempt to paint a picture of Patterson as a mean, insensitive, politically driven demagogue who lied his way to the top. But those of us who have been given the privilege of seeing up close and personal the heart of Paige Patterson know that he is a man who is driven by a desire to know God and to proclaim the truth of His word. His passion for the lost and his sacrifice for a cause he felt was worthy of his life shames me. Paige Patterson, a man you either love or hate, is a true man of God.

 

Hyah Silver! (whap! whap! whap!) Git up, Silver, hyah!! (whap! whap! whap!) Oh...it looks like this horse is dead.

Playing along anyway, why are you not willing to accept and trust that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Christ?

Is God not perfectly capable of preserving the Shroud exactly the way he intends for us to receive it, so that we may pray to it and have it heal us of our afflictions?

If we cannot fully trust the testimony of the universal church with regard to the authenticity of the shroud, then we cannot fully trust the apostolic tradition by which we know Jesus as our Savior, correct? How can we be saved if we cannot know him apart from this unreliable line of tradition?

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................

(sound of someone falling into that "downward spiral")

Swishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

(sound that the "downward spiral" makes when you touch it with a broom while it spins)

Whether he is mean and insensitive is irrelevant, and his politically-driven demagogery is not something that needs to be painted. His misrepresentation of his opponents as "liberals" who "don't believe the Bible" is a matter of factual record.

Actually, God's Word gets to take a back seat to his own understanding of the Bible.

When that cause consists of unjustly dividing the body of Christ, how can he be considered a true man of God?

 

He has taught you well. You are making massive blanket judgements of people you don't know in order to bolster your point. You've presented no evidence -- only patently false charges. You are proving my point.

How do you know the material you found was left behind by moderates and liberals? Did they have their names on it? Did only moderates and liberals attend Southeastern?

Let me also point out that the evidence of sin that you found was *hidden*. Doesn't that indicate that it was *not* approved by the leadership of the campus? For that matter, a self-proclaimed fundamentalist I went to seminary with and also worked with was always beating me up about not supporting the "conservative resurgence". He even sabotaged me sometimes at work when I would successfully refute one of his arguments. I kept trying to keep SBC politics out of the workplace so that we could be professionals and do the jobs we were paid to do but he would have none of that. After about a year it became clear that some things he was doing at work were not very honest. My supervisor asked me to start an investigation (I was this person's supervisor) and so I started reviewing videotape. We found rampant evidence of dishonesty on his behalf that he would not admit when we confronted him with it until we played the videotape for him. We also found out that he was beating his wife, committing adultery and stealing items from the worksite. Now I ask you, should I judge your side of the SBC controversy by this one person? The answer is no. How about a person in leadership? There was a trustee at Southwestern Seminary a few years back who gave a friend of mine on staff a terrible time. He persecuted the guy, spread false rumors and confronted him in a meeting calling him "an unrepentant sinner" for his failure to agree with everything that the SBC leadership has done. About a year after that incident, it came out that the trustee had been engaging in sexual relations with at least four women in his church. Should I judge all seminary trustees and SBC agency heads by the actions of this man? The answer is no. If you judge the theology of the leaders by the sins of the followers, then Moses should not be trusted and we should rip the first five books of the Bible (and anything that references them) out of the Bible.

If we are going to make judgments on people's theology, we need to judge what the same people say and do. We need to be careful and get the whole story instead of just sticking a label on someone and dismissing them.

Do you have any independent verification of this other than the word of someone who is obviously tight with the "conservative resurgence" side? What is the name of the professor who made this claim?

This reminds me of the things I used to hear in college (all the male band geeks are gay, the entire women's volleyball team is composed of lesbians, all of the athletes are godless sexual perverts, all of the theology students are self-righteous preacherboys who are sexually-obsessed hypocrites). While there was probably at least one example of each kind of person in each group, the broad brush statements were patently untrue. It sound like the same sort of campus legends to me. As far as the third item, when I was in high school some people assumed I was gay since I didn't have sex with girls and didn't date that much. Their assumptions were faulty because they assumed that I would do what they would do if I had the opportunity. When I was in seminary, I had male friends come into town to visit from Chicago, Austin and California, but they had their own place to sleep. There was never any sex going on (hetero or homo).

I did not attend Southeastern. My SBC seminary experience is limited to Southwestern, so I can't say if what you are telling me is the truth, but it doesn't sound that credible to me.

Since Southeastern was a place of learning where students were supposed to hear issues from all sides, I don't see a problem. If I remember correctly, the first time I heard many fundamentalist leaders preach was in a Texas Baptist college and at Southwestern under the presidency of Russell Dilday. I used to hear all sorts of sides. I don't believe everything I hear and you shouldn't either.

Too late.

Since the left-over "evidence" actually demonstrates that those activities were not approved, I'll let the evidence stand for the truth.

[edited for sloppy HTML formatting]

[ September 04, 2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Sounds like you have experienced the decline first hand.

You are correct -- he did have opponents who "don't believe the Bible."

Let me get this straight ... God's Word takes a back seat to his own understanding of the Bible ... you probably maintain that the first 11 chapters are mythological in nature ... what's wrong with this picture?

If the authority and integrity of God's Word & the beliefs of the majority of pew people in the SBC are unjust causes, you are absolutely right.

[ September 04, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: SBCbyGRACE ]

 

Bill,

I'll try and address your comments below. I don't quite know how to do that block quote thing like you did. So I'll just squeeze my responses in between your questions/comments.

I consider a moderate (on the SBC spectrum) to be a non-inerrantist who is neither pro-choice nor pro-gay (the two major "liberal" issues). Are you suggesting that all non-inerrantists who claim to be moderates are "liberals", and therefore secretly pro-choice and pro-gay?

My Response:
First, I already clearly explained that FearNot did not make the original post and that I unintentionally posted under his User ID because we both used the same computer station. There is no trickery going on here as you seem to be implying. To answer your question: No, not at all. I said that I wanted to rephrase that statement and I did, but you chose not to quote that portion of my statement. However, there are plenty of ultra liberals (those that hold the views that you have indicated) who refer to themselves as moderates. I do believe that to hold a non-inerrantist view of the Bible is the leading edge of liberalism. Like you said it is a spectrum where one "ism" or "ist" bleeds into another. I am sure that there are moderates who lean to the conservative side of the spectrum as well.

Hmmmm. Where is the connection with moderates? Was there a beer-stained sign on the wall that said, "Elect Daniel Vestal SBC Prez, 1991"?

My Response:
The connection comes in from the fact that liberals had control of Southeastern for many years. Many of those same liberals who allowed such things to take place now ask us to refer to them as moderates.

How do you know that this isn't actually evidence of communism infiltrating our seminaries?

My Response:
Please be serious. You are talking nonsense with that statement.

How do you know that they weren't put there by conservatives?

Because conservatives did not have control of the school until Dr. Patterson came. All it took was the use of a little God given common sense to determine that these things had been stashed away for some time by the amount dust build up and age of the materials that we had to throw away.

(How do you know that there is not similar activity going on as we speak under "God's" regime?)

My Response:
First, you are correct in stating that the Seminary is God's school. However, it is not under any "regime." Second, I cannot state with 100% certainty that it is not. However, as a former employee of the Physical Plant, and a current employee of the Department of Campus Security I had/have access to all the little "secret" areas of the campus facilities. There is currently no evidence of such goings on. Likewise, most of those "secret" areas are now locked and not accessable by the general student body.

There is an underlying assumption that theological moderates are licentious fornicators in disguise, and that moral character requires a verbal plenary view of inspiration. Throwing around these kinds of "Coincidence? You decide" rumors just makes yourself look bad, I'm afraid.

My Response:
I am not making any such assertions. I am simply stating the facts of what happen here in the past under liberal leadership. Again, some of these same liberals now ask us to refer to them as moderates. Nor am I throwing around rumors. If I were repeating something that someone told to someone else who in turn told it to me that would be a rumor. However, I am telling you what the Physical Plant employees found and what a current Southeastern Professor (who was a young MDiv. student under the last liberal administration) has told me. He was an eye witnesses. Therefore, no rumors.

Oh good, you've provided a concrete means for verification of your words. Can you cite any kind of written source, online or otherwise, that supports these kind of "gay days" in the syllabus? Surely, there are scores of former seminarians who took notes on that day with the entry: "April 17th: Test Friday on Colossians 2, complete assignment on third missionary journey, homosexuality is acceptable in God's sight, study group at 7:30 for Isaiah unit"....</font>[/QUOTE]My Response:
Again, please be serious. Your entire suggested note taking example above is simply foolish. Besides, I do not need a written source when I have a current Southeastern Professor, who was a young MDiv. student at that time, who has told me such things happened. I have a trusted primary source, a person who witnessed this stuff. I do not have his permission to give out his name on the Internet. Plus, I have not asked for such permission. Now that I have answered your questions, I do not wish to continue to debate whether or not such things happened at Southeastern. If you do not believe me than nothing I can say will change your mind. However, I would like to continue my discussion with David regarding the Scriptures. So please, let's just agree to disagree regarding Southeastern's past.

[I edited this to change my statement regarding "witnesses" to make it singular, because I only know of one Professor who has told me such things. When I re-read my post I realized that I had made a statement in haste that I could not honestly defend. Sorry.]

[ September 04, 2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Hello David,

I would love to continue this discussion. However, the semester has already started and I have a paper due in two weeks time and an exam next week in another class. Anyway, I'll have to do a bit of research so that I can respond to you regarding the Scriptures and I am very busy right now. So, if you will kindly give me a bit of time I would love to continue our discussion.

Yours in Christ,

Bibleboy (my real name is Bobby)

[ September 05, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

First let me say that I am sorry I didn't log out causeing the identification problem where Bibleboy replyed under my name, sorry for the confusion.

Concerning the shroud, I don't know if it is real, and have no way of checking its validity, but I do know is that the Scriptures says we are not to pray to anything but God. Not a shroud, not mary, not the Bible, not a image of any kind, God and God alone!

I think it is odd that one can be a Christian, have no faith in the Bible because they say it was "written by man" since man is fallible, the Bible must be. God is infallible, He can make sure it is preserved. Using the arguement that man is fallible, maybe the people who are claiming the Bible is fallible or errant are the ones that are wrong.
Please pray and concider this.

Any ways, I am sorry that some of you have such opposition to Dr. Patterson. I find him a very nice open man who loves God more than anything. Did he participate in the resurgance, yes he did. If I was of an age and knew about it (I was always in a Bible believing church) I too would have faught for the SBC to return to how it was orriginally started, by men and women who believed the Word of God was true through and through and had no doubts of God's power.

Have a blessed day

 

No problem here!

No. He did not participate in it… He was one of the two or three primary architects and instigators. He traveled the country speaking to churches during the 1970s making charges that the seminaries were packed with liberals using very questionable material for support of his charges (when he provided support). He was not a participant – he was the primary leader.

I have always been in a Bible-believing church although Southwestern seminary trustees and other seminary officials (including President Ken Hemphill) are constantly claiming that my church is “liberal.” They spread lies among the students warning them to avoid our “liberal” church (I have been told this by people who do not attend our church and who have avoided it because of the warnings – I have no reason to disbelieve them since we have been blasted in public from these same people).

I (and everyone I know in my church) believes the Bible and trusts in God’s power. So why did Dr. Patterson and company begin their campaign?

 

Baptist Believer,
can I ask you a few questions?
Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, innerant and infallible?
Do you find that Scripturally a women can hold the role as Pastor?
What is your personal doctrine (in a nut shell)?

I don't know you personally or your church so without the information about you or your beliefs I am unable to say why you might be seen as a liberal or moderate. Lets see if we can figure this out.
God bless