Question

Craig Blaising has written some books on progressive dispensationalism. Two of the books are Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock and Dispensationalism, Israel and the Churchby Blaising. Dispensationalism started with J,N. Darby. Much later it has been revised and given the name progressive dispensationalism. Read about Darby and you will see who he was. Dispensationalism has gone through at least revisions. Baptists have not historically accepted dispensationalism. The only dispensationalists at SWBTS were in the evangelism department. None of the theology professors accepted dispensationalsim. In fact DTS has moved away from the posititon they once held on dispensationalism. SWBTS is embracing dispensationalism and DTS is moving away from it. Paige Blaising and Patterson are dispensationalists and have hired many new faculty who are dispensationalists.

Dispensationalism is a man made theology. It was started by J.N. Darby. It looks good and seems to answer many questions. But when I was taught it seldom was mentioned the historicity of each book of the Bible. Baptist historical theology is in direct oppositioon to dispensationjalism. Many in dispensationalism believe in a salvation for non-Jews and another for Jews; the idea being that God has a different plan for the Jew. Chafer mentions there are Jews, Gentiles and the Church. According to what Paul writes in Phil. there are those who believe and those who do not.

Phil. 3:2,3, “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

For the first 13 years of my Christian life I sat under the teachings of dispensationalism. I read the systematic theology by Chafer, books by Larkin and works by Scofield. The more I read the more confused I became. As I asked questions I also found out pastors and others had the same questions I did with no answers. I asked people who had gone to Bible school many years ago and they had to admit they didn’t understand it either.

Dispensationalism is an attempt to solve the issues in scripture. At best it is Christianity mixed in with German rationalism. It appeals to the intelligent person who wants rational answers. Explain god’s creation rationalistically. Explain the miracles rationalistically. There are many things in scripture that simply cannot be explained rationally or otherwise. We are human and God is God.

 

When I was a student at SWBTS I was told that I would find everything there that was in the world. I worked in maintenance and sure enough all of that was true.

There was pornography, men and women sleeping together. Men beating their wives. In fact the police came one night because a man beat his wife in seminary housing. The chairman of the trustees was shacking up with two women in his congregation.

Everything you see in the world is in the church. Just read the Bible and see what was in the churches then.

Juts because some are bad does not mean all are bad. I would be willing to bet that every church has people who have committed adultery and fornication. I would bet that every church has those who cheat on their taxes. I would bet that every church has some who have troubles with pornography. I would bet there are many churches who do not accurately report their church attendance. I would bet that there are Baptist churches who have deacons who are not believers. I would bet there are pastors who have wives whop are not Christians. I was in a church where a deacon who had been a deacon for a long time came forward to publically profess his faith in Jesus. I have a friend who baptized his wife in his first pastorate. His wife’s dad had been an evangelist. But she was not a believer. I would bet that in every church we have gossip.

I would be willing to bet that if you found a perfect church you had better not join it because you would ruin it.

I have asked former professors at SWBTS after they retired about the idea of there being liberals at SWBTS. Everyone of them have said, “No.” They have stated that there was never any trouble with liberalism at SWBTS.

There was the day when the faculty questioned and approved the new faculty members. But now it is the trustees who approve them.

Yes I have been told the same things as you about SEBTS and SBTS.
But I have also seen some of the conservatives lie right before my eyes too. I had one of the trustees of one of the seminaries lie to me personally. He regularly plagiarized other pastor’s sermons too. Another who wanted a state position had a very different story publically than what he told me along with a few others.

It doesn’t matter where you go people are sinners.
I have found that people who tell the truth seldom stray because they have a conscience.

 

gb93433,

Are you saying that dispensationalism is the center of the controversy between the seminaries. You quoted me asking that question, so I am just wondering.

Lon

 

gb93433,

Your argument is truly astounding. Essentially, your point is that you can find liars anywhere; therefore, you can find liars among the conservatives. Since there are liars among the conservatives, you refuse to believe any reports of people who were present prior to the conservative resurgence.

It's almost as though you've decided that everyone at the seminaries before 1990 is innocent of liberalism until proven guilty. However, all conservatives who talk about the state of the seminaries prior to 1990 are liars until proven innocent. Then since you assume conservatives are liars, there is no evidence to prove the liberals guilty.

Your sin is that you are adopting the tactic of the Pharisees. Instead of addressing the issues, you are attacking the messengers in an attempt to destroy their credibility. Obviously, there is still sin taking place in the lives of the seminarians today. That will never change. Whether it is more or less rampant is impossible to prove, but I am fairly certain that open and known sin is being dealt with more biblically today.

I am also very confident that the Bible is being taught as the inspired, inerrant Word of God today. This was not the case in decades past. You can stick your head in the sand and deny it, but that does not change reality.

You are blinding your own mind, and I call on you to repent.

 

BaptistBeliever, I was speaking about SBTS..not SWBTS.

I have never read anything firsthand by guys at SWBTS which supported heresy...but I trust some men who were there, one who was even a prof there...and they have no reason to lie.

But my post of specific errors was about SBTS, not SWBTS.

 

Read Crawford Toy or Ralph Elliot or pick up an old copy of the Davies' commentary.

Molly Marshall left her husband for a woman.

This obviously is not documented...but I have heard it from past students at SBTS. Conservative ones and liberal ones. Homosexuality was supported by the profs and students back in the 70s and 80s on campus...and I have talked to at least half a dozen alumni of Southern who are gay. Personally talked to them, and they said the campus environment supported their lifestyle. One man told me how he knew of several couples who swapped wives (of course, I can't get 'proof'...but I believe the guy, why would he lie?)

These same conversations told me of the strong influence of many other heretical teachings: denial of bodily resurrection, denial of literal hell, denial of any afterlife, denial of Christ's deity, denial of inerrancy (duh!), inclusivism, universalism, and several others.

I have no further "proof", it is mostly hearsay...but it is hard to document all the errors that were tauhgt because the seminary profs knew that their liberal positions were not held by the majority of the SBC. SBTS was a 'safe harbor' for what the felt was intellectual freedom...but they were far from the average church member of the SBC.

Just look at the alumni of SBTS from that time frame and you will see where they stand. Their churches are almost mainline protestant liberal churches. I have spoken with alumni who are now episcopal, unitarians, methodists, catholics, and dozens who have rejected the faith completely.

Make no mistake, Southern was much worse than most people know. I know that SWBTS was not as bad as Southern, but I would be surprised if there was not at least some less extreme forms of the same sort of things there as well.

 

And what’s wrong with that?

Shouldn’t we assume people who claim to be faithful to God and affirm the scripture are authoritative be believed unless there is evidence that they are dishonest or self-deceived?

If they don’t provide any evidence, then I can’t decide if they are telling the truth or telling a lie.

However, I have had enough experience with the so-called “conservative” leadership during and after the takeover of Southwestern to know that they lied frequently during and after the takeover. They lied about things that I witnessed myself, they lied about people I knew, and Ken Hemphill even admitted to me that the seminary didn’t always tell the truth about things because it could damage the public image of the seminary. I’ve seen the Baptist Press lie about Texas Baptists and the CBF on numerous occasions. I’ve seen the SBC leadership misrepresent the words of Anthony Sizemore at the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention and claim that Sizemore (and all the “moderates” and “liberals”) believe that the “Bible is just a book”.

With such a long and consistent track record of lies and distortions, why should I automatically trust the same folks to tell me about the way it was before 1990. Furthermore, I entered Southwestern Seminary in Spring 1990, long before Dilday was fired, and know from firsthand experience what it was like before the takeover.

I don’t “assume” anything, but the credibility of the conservative leadership has been greatly diminished by the lies that I have heard.

Since no evidence has been provided, why should I automatically assume bad things about those who you and others claim are “liberals”?

IF SOMEONE MAKING THESE CHARGES WOULD HAVE ENOUGH INTEGRITY TO ACTUALLY GIVE SOME OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, THEN WE COULD HAVE A DISCUSSION!

Instead all we are getting is a but of posturing and accusations…

IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF “LIBERALISM” AT SOUTHWESTERN, PLEASE POST IT OR GIVE US A REFERENCE… OTHERWISE, STOP MAKING NEBULOUS CHARGES THAT DEMEAN EVERYONE!

 

I believe that liberalism among some of the professors was the core issue. It was not dealt with and so later it turned into a power and control issue.

If you know anything about dispensationalism it is quite different from historical premillenial theology. Dispensationalism sprang from a time when German rationalism was paramount in Europe. The subtle snare of dispensationalism is that this archaic rationalism becomes the real authority, rather than scripture. The scripture is often read through this rationalistic filter. When the historical meaning of scripture contradicts this preconceived theological system of dispensationalism, then it is either ignored or rejected. The dispensationalist does not use the scripture to establish his belief system, but rather the “Bible when “properly” read through this filter system, which only serves to confirm his already established beliefs. Any view challenging or contradicting it is rejected, usually by labeling it as liberalism.

Scripture must always be interpreted in light of its historical context. Even some of the dispensational schools are now recognizing that. Many of them do not agree wit the old hard line dispensationalism. If a theology is always changing what does that say about that theology? Doesn’t that sound much like progressive revelations inherent in Mormonism. The modern-day dispensationalists just call it progressive dispensationalism. I am not suggesting that Mormonism and dispensationalism are the same. However both have changed according to the whims of the day. In contrast historical theology has never changed. Interpreting scripture in light of its historical context was one of A.T. Robertson’s themes.

Later I think dispensationalism will become a major issue in the SBC as it has done historically in other Baptist groups. It has caused groups to divide. Because SWBTS is curently hirijng professors who adhere to dispensational theology it will become a major battleground.

 

Siegfried:

As for a so called "conservative" like you who believes all that the SBC "conservatives" tell you just let me give you a glimpse of who those liberals really are. There were two things I had to personally deal with in which they gave me no help. Then perhaps you will see that the SBC is not as conservative but really more liberal than you might think.

Upon arriving at a church I pastored in 1998 I quickly learned that the deacons were in favor of the Mormon bishop preaching at a local Christian event sponsored by them. In fact most of the deacons had been attending this organization for several years. I told the deacons it was wrong ans they went against me. I contacted the state SBC they told me they could do nothing. I contacted the local association and again they told me they could do nothing all in the name of church autonomy. That was my real life glimpse of practical liberalism in the SBC. They claimed to believe the Bible but did nothing. They were not any better than those they were calling liberals. Later some of the local pastors met with a few of the officers of the BFA (Baptist Foundation of Arizona) and I saw something wrong before they talked with us. I had overheard some of their conversation because I had arrived early and they didn’t know me. Later I told the deacons I was not putting a dime in that organization. I told them that putting tithe money in an investment in the BFA which was wrong and that it was to be used for ministry. I told the deacons that we needed to pull the church's money from the BFA. They refuseed citing that I was against them and didn't trust Southern Baptists. The deacons were squandering the money for a rainy day. While the church was experiencing rapid growth. I didn't know it but the BFA was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commisssion. Six weeks later the Commission shut down the BFA due to an investigated Ponzi Scheme. The church lost all but three thousand dollars. Many Baptists lost their retirement and other monies that they had invested. What kind of practical liberalism is that? To this day nothing has been said to that church.

Both times I stood against those things with no help from anyone in the SBC except a local Pentecostal pastor. It cost me my job. But I would stand against that kind of liberalism couched in conservatism any day.

So are you a liberal or a conservative?

 

Then please clarify what allegations you are making against which institution and faculty so we can keep track of them...

I'm confident that is true.

Well, I don't know what possesses some folks to lie and other folks to believe the worst gossip about others and pass it on as truth... But it happens. I've also seen folks misunderstand their professors in class and launch into a frenzy because they think they've somehow uncovered a "liberal." I remember one morning in a biblical interpretation class where we were discussing the parables of Jesus. Dr. Keith Putt was talking about how Jesus captured the imagination of his listeners with "short stories full of meaning," that is, parables. A fellow student raised his hand and asked, “Do you think that every story that Jesus told was literally true?” Dr. Putt very carefully replied, “Jesus may have used fictional characters to explain spiritual truth.” The student shot back, “So you think Jesus was a liar?” Putt carefully and thoroughly explained that he did not think that Jesus was a liar, but that parables were a truth-telling and truth-revealing convention that helped Jesus explain spiritual truth to His listeners by using details of everyday life. Of course the student was not interested in that because as he was leaving the class he was muttering about “the ‘liberals’ who think that Jesus is a liar, and therefore not the Son of God.”

Another student, a co-worker of mine, was on a tear one day because one of his “liberal” professors had commented that “the parables of Jesus were pithy stories”. He told me that and declared that he finally had proof that his professor had “no respect for Jesus or the word of God.” I realized he didn’t know what the world “pithy” meant. (FYI, it means: “precisely meaningful; forceful and brief”) When I explained it to him, he got angry that the professor was trying to make a fool out of him because he (the student) “believed the Bible” and he wasn’t so sure about the professor.

I could tell you many more stories, but I’ve seen this too many times. Folks get on a witch hunt and they seize upon anything they can to try to prove their presuppositions. That’s why I want to get objective evidence before I’ll take these kind of allegations seriously.

By the way, what former professor told you these things?

 

Molly Marshall left her husband for a woman. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you provide me with a source? I’ve run a number of searches on the Internet and haven’t come up with anything and that’s a very serious charge to make if you don’t have any reliable evidence.

You should be surprised.

 

Then please clarify what allegations you are making against which institution and faculty so we can keep track of them... </font>[/QUOTE]I said it several times...I think you just read past it. I was always talking about Southern, I just mentioned SWBTS when I mentioned my uncle (a SW grad) and a few other grads. I also said several times I didn't have any evidence about anything at SWBTS, never claimed I did...just "hearsay" from those who have talked to me about things. I admitted this several posts ago.
Try and keep up.
I then asked you what you heard about SBTS...and you kept on pushing about SWBTS. My last few posts have been exclusively about Southern.

I'm confident that is true.</font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't mean heresy wasn't taught...just that I have no written proof. But, that is neither here nor there...I am more concerned with talking about Southern.

As to everything else you wrote...fine. I really don't want to beat a dead horse here. I just think it is incredibly naive to say that there was never any liberal profs at the school...just because I don't have their writings to prove it. Considering the liberal scholarship that was put out by Southern and Southeastern at the time...do you really think Southwestern was completely shut off from that influence?

As for who the prof is: I don't know if I want to share that info...I don't want him to get in trouble for sharing with me some things (you never know who reads this board) and I don't want him to get trashed on here (if you even know him). The info is pretty irrelevant since he didn't tape record his conversations with other profs...I just took his word when he shared stories of some inter-faculty discussions.

Anyways. I (again...for the fourth time) admit that I have no proof of these things at SWBTS, just what I have heard.

I would prefer to discuss Southern Seminary, since I believe there is overwhelming evidence of the things that went on there.
Do you disagree with that? What do you think of what happened at SBTS in the 70s and 80s?

 

I am going to investigate some specific evidences of liberalism in the seminaries....just give me some time. Now that school is out, I have much more free time to give.

But, I would like to hear if you believe that Southern Seminary was liberal before Mohler became President.

 

Frankly, I don't have a dog in the SBC fight, which makes it hard to identify with your labels. Compared to the circles I grew up in, I'm a flaming liberal. Compared to you, I suppose I'm a conservative, but I have no allegiance to the SBC brand of conservatism other than the fact that some of them are friends. I've been pretty clearly critical in other threads of the denominational structure of the SBC.

The only reason I jumped into all this is because any defense of what was going on in the SBC seminaries prior to 1990ish is asinine for anyone who claims to believe that the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word. Seeing it on this board makes me ill.

I have no doubts that there are some lying snakes among SBC leadership. I also find some of the political tactics personally distasteful. Perhaps that just goes with the territory of denominationalism. Nevertheless, your tactic is to question the veracity of everyone who talks about the low view of God and His Word that was typical pre-1990. To me, at least, that is reprehensible. Again, I call on you to repent.

The people I know who were there back then were not the political power players. I find them credible--much more so than you. That statement is opinion--nothing more. You are certainly entitled to yours. Perhaps the facts will be more clear to both of us in the future.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that the truth revealed about God in His inspired, inerrant Word is taught MORE or LESS faithfully in the seminaries today than it was twenty years ago?

 

gb93433,

Darby, Larkin, Chafer and Scofield are hardly representative of the dispensationalism that is taught today. Blaising is certainly representative of much of it. Perhaps you could point out where Blaising has gone wrong rather than attacking the straw man of Darby, Chafer, et al.

And by the way, I'm sure you are aware of the increasing numbers of Covenant Theologians who are revising their perspectives and falling more consistently in line with the Progressive Dispensationalists. I believe these people call this New Covenant Theology.

 

Siegfried

I cannot speak of any other seminaries other than Southwestern, so I will not. I heard some things regarding Molly Marshall, although nothing of her sexuality, and what I heard made me very uncomfortable. In my opinion, she did not belong in a Southern Baptist seminary.

But in regards to Southwestern, I have been involved since the early 80s, and have never heard even one instance of liberalism by a professor - no wife swapping, no encouragement or endorsement of homosexuality, no denial of the actual birth, death and resurrection of Christ.

The purging of professors at Southwestern has been done on a purely political basis. The latest round of Bullock and Krutchley proves this out. Both are theologically conservative, but not liked by those in power, as a result they are gone. As I recall, Patterson said when he came that he did not plan on firing any professors, he parses the truth quite well. He did not fire Bullock, simply refused her tenure and then did not renew her contract. Krutchley, he refused to offer a contract to for the coming year. Is that being fired, or let go - you tell me what the truth is.

 

Then please clarify what allegations you are making against which institution and faculty so we can keep track of them... </font>[/QUOTE]I said it several times...I think you just read past it. I was always talking about Southern, I just mentioned SWBTS when I mentioned my uncle (a SW grad) and a few other grads. I also said several times I didn't have any evidence about anything at SWBTS, never claimed I did...just "hearsay" from those who have talked to me about things. I admitted this several posts ago. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you admitted it, but you also keep alleging that “neo-orthodoxy” (whatever you mean by that) and “liberalism” (whatever you mean by that) must have certainly infected Southwestern to some degree. Since I know that situation first-hand, I know your allegations are false.

I have kept up. I just want to make it clear to everyone reading this thread that you have no objective evidence and the hearsay evidence you have is contradictory to my (and many other folks) first-hand experience. When faced with the choice of believing what I have experienced and the people I have known for many years (some of whom were victims of public and private attacks at SWBTS) or believing your secondhand hearsay evidence from those who are likely allied with those who have promoted a campaign of lies at Southwestern, I am going to trust what I know to be true.

I don’t know nearly as much about Southern, but I can certainly do research. But the main reason I keep going back to Southwestern is that you keep using your allegations about Southern as evidence that Southwestern must also have been corrupted. Not only is that flawed reasoning, but it is false.

Have there been bad apples at Southern? It is likely. Have there been bad apples at Southwestern? Yes, but they were removed once the facts were discovered.

The presence of bad apples did not justify the takeover movement and the campaign of lies and smear tactics that went along with it.

I'm confident that is true.</font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't mean heresy wasn't taught...just that I have no written proof. </font>[/QUOTE]But you are still going to assume guilt…

If there WAS heresy taught at Southwestern, don’t you think Baptist Press and the SBC leadership would have been all over it? If they could have demonstrated one shred of evidence, it would have made it much easier for them to win over the hearts and minds of Texas Baptists. But obviously, Texas Baptists know what is true and the majority of them condemned the SBC’s “conservative” (sic) takeover of the seminary.

I’m willing to discuss it if you know of any, but I’ve never been able to find a liberal at Southwestern… and believe me, I’ve asked quite a few people. Since no one, even those who have wanted to prove that there was “liberalism” at Southwestern have never been able to find one, I suspect that they never existed at Southwestern. And when Ken Hemphill first came to Southwestern, long before the faculty started leaving, he stated that the trustees had not led him to believe that there was liberals at Southwestern. Don’t you think the trustees who fired Dilday would know who the suspected “liberals” were?

Naïve? Nope.

Nope. It’s because NNE has any evidence.

You seem to assume that people can’t think for themselves… I’ve been exposed to many viewpoints in my theological education: fundamentalist, moderate, true liberalism, heresy, and cultic stuff, but I’ve always been able to think for myself. (Strange that the SBC takeover leadership allegedly received their education in “liberal” schools but they somehow didn’t let it affect them.)

Yup. Of course these unsubstantiated allegations only serve to demean and vilify innocent people.

I don’t know. I’ll need to look at objective evidence. I suspect that there were a few problems at Southern, but hardly the level that is alleged. (I’m still waiting for you to document the claim that Molly Marshall left her husband and is a lesbian – I can’t find a thing about it on the Internet, and I’d think that would be something that would attract attention in the SBC ranks. If you can’t document that one, I have little reason to believe anything else you say.)

 

There are, unfortunately, quite a few. And Baptist Press does their bidding.

More than just distasteful… profoundly sinful.

Unfortunately, some moderates have given in to responding in kind instead of taking the high road.

If folks will provide solid objective evidence, then no one will question their veracity. But those of us who have seen the extraordinary demonic attack of lies and distortions thrown against those who are innocent but politically undesirable or political obstacles, know how allegations get told, repeated, exaggerated and then passed on as fact.

Is it too much to ask that we want objective evidence of someone’s guilt before we condemn them?

To “repent” of wanting the truth to be told?

One day everything will be laid bare and the lies will be exposed. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of some folks on that day.

Honestly, I would say that, overall, the truth of the scriptures was taught more faithfully twenty years ago than today. The heretical 2000 BF&M that puts scripture in the place of Christ is the primary reason I believe that to be true. (I realize that not everyone has the same opinion of the latest BF&M, but the viewpoint of the writers of the BF&M was made fairly clear during the debate at the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention – I have a recording of it that I have listened to many times, so I feel very comfortable saying that. Of course, the framers of the BF&M could have been theologically ignorant and unknowingly made the error, but it was pointed out to them on multiple occasions and they defended their position.)

 

"The heretical 2000 BF&M that puts scripture in the place of Christ is the primary reason I believe that to be true."

This is wrong, the first part anyway. The 2000 Faith and Message does not put Scripture in the place of Christ. Here is what the section on the Scriptures says:
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."

Yes, the 2000 took out the sentence which says, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ," but taking out that sentence and replacing it with "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation" in no way elevates Scripture to the place of Christ. In fact, it strengthens our confession of Scripture's testimony to Christ. Scripture testifies about Christ; how, then, does that make Scripture greater than Him? Christ is the focus of divine revelation; how does that make Him lesser than Scripture? The 1963 sentence is at best unclear. The 2000 clarifies and strengthens it.

Lon