Southeastern Baptist Theological

actually, all of the pastors i know that graduated from southwestern are very much 'unscholarly'... most of them are apathetic of any theology, and believe that any doctrinal studies are a waste of time...

 

Oh. It is true, with very few exceptions, we are not liberals (no matter what the SBC and Southern Baptists of Texas claim).

For many Texas Baptists the term “moderate” has little to do with theology, but everything to do with politics. Texas Baptists are very traditional and conservative in their theology, but they don’t generally tolerate fundamentalism very well. (Texas Baptists decided against fundamentalism about 75 years ago when J. Frank Norris was attacking the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the SBC. When fundamentalism re-emerged in the SBC in the late 1960s and 1970s, Texas Baptists already had some immunity to the movement.)

Yes. I think I can give a least a few reasons for that:

1.) In some ways, Texas Baptists at large did not recognize the implications of what was happening in the SBC until the Dilday firing at Southwestern in 1994. By then it was too late to do anything constructive.
2.) Texas Baptists come to the CBF with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude because the state convention has not really changed. Texas Baptists are not refugees in the same sense that most other CBFers are.
3.) Most Texas Baptists are fairly conservative in theology and considered “moderate” in SBC politics. When they interact with CBF, they are interacting theologically instead of the way they are forced to interact with the SBC.
4.) Many people who went to CBF from other states had theological opinions that were moderate or left of center. You are getting mainstream Mom and Pop Baptists from Texas.

Personally I don’t care that much for a lot of aspects of CBF. Too many times it seems that CBF is defining itself by what it isn’t instead of what it is. (Of course the SBC doesn’t help things by pinning all sorts of false labels on CBF.)

Ultimately, I don’t think the BGCT (Baptist General Convention of Texas) will ever merge with CBF (unless CBF decides to join the BGCT structure) no matter what the Southern Baptist propagandists write. There is just too much difference in philosophy/theology/polity between the two organizations. Instead, Texas Baptists will likely continue to welcome other likeminded churches and change its name to reflect its growing national and international character (for example, the “Baptists of the Americas” idea).

 

Absolutely, Tom. It's enough work just to learn what the Bible teaches. I can't imagine what it would have been like to have to learn all the heresy, too!</font>[/QUOTE]I have no problem with learning heresy, just so long as it's clear that it's heresy and not spoon fed to lemmings

 

This is a poor statement. I see no evidence of that. What I saw at SBTS and still see from my sources there is a passion for the Word and for people that grows since it was freed from the left.

As for Truett, they seem to vascilate too much. One minute they're taking their orders from the liberal left without question, the next they're making strides that are positive. Dr. Sloan's leadership is going to be interesting.

While wishing to respond to the CBF relationship to Texas, I remind myself and others that this is not the forum for such. Let's keep on topic

 

You and I don't hang around the same pastors. Of course, what you state above could be said of any of our six seminaries. There are some who are scholarly and some who aren't, some who are apathetic about theology and some who are passionate about it, etc.

Rev. G

 

David, I have heard that Beeson has a somewhat Calvinistic, Reformed influence. Wouldn't that be an issue to you? </font>[/QUOTE]Not if there are a variety of well reasoned opinions presented based on sound biblical scholarship. I've married into a family of Samford alumni (and current and former teachers). Although Samford does have a more conservative/reformed influence, its also more ecumenical (sp?) than it used to be. Formerly, Samford reflected a high degree of Baptist scholarship and the character of the "old" SBC seminaries. Now it is more conservative, but its also more diverse; more of the instructors come from outside of North American Baptist circles. There is a wider perspective. From what I hear, there aren't many (if any) "liberal" instructors, but most of them wouldn't be welcome at any SBC seminary, either.

 

I speak merely from inside experience. Having graded 500+ theology and NT papers in my 7+ years at SBTS, I can testify to both the strengths and weaknesses of SBTS. There is a definite passion for the Word while at the same time an overzealousness (among some of the newbies) regarding the doctrines of grace, and an innate danger of allowing such zeal to create either isolationism (no room for diverse opinions) or evangelistic apathy (so focused on learning more about the wrong JC {Calvin vs Christ} that fulfilling the Great Commission becomes secondary.

I love SBTS and support it. But at the same time I recognize the reality of what is transpiring (and have voiced this concern with the administration itself, many who would concur with the potential dangers).

SBTS is still the superior school in terms of theological education.

 

I share some of your concerns. Certainly Calvinism taken to the extreme can result in problems. IMO, however, minimizing doctrines of grace and theology in general results in greater problems. The ever-present challenge will be for rising generations of Baptist in both SBC and independent circles to maintain the theological and evangelistic balance of men like Spurgeon, Edwards, Carey, Judson, etc.

Oh yeah, Paul too.

 

I share some of your concerns. Certainly Calvinism taken to the extreme can result in problems. IMO, however, minimizing doctrines of grace and theology in general results in greater problems. The ever-present challenge will be for rising generations of Baptist in both SBC and independent circles to maintain the theological and evangelistic balance of men like Spurgeon, Edwards, Carey, Judson, etc.

I believe a seminary education should include viewpoints from the larger evangelical circle. If we promote Calvinism alone, the potential danger rests in the subsequent generation (as already evidenced by some of the wanna-be Mohlerites at SBTS right now).

The doctrines of grace nor theological studies should be minimized, but neither should a student who is not a "5-pointer" (however that is defined) feel out of place or be made to feel "less spiritual." Nor should aggressive evangelistic methods be minimized in the name of God's sovereignty.

Balance is definitely the key. To help with this dilemma, seminary students need to be involved in a local church ministry so that they do not lose sight of reality while living in the ivory tower.

 

Those who fail to be concerned for missions / evangelism have not truly studied Calvin or Geneva. It was a missions center during his tenure, so much so, that modern church planting statistics pale by comparison. Those who read the Institutes would do well to read the preface to that work, as well as reading Calvin's commentaries.

Of course, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield, Judson, Carey and the like have already been mentioned. To be a "Calvinist" without being evangelistic-minded is to be an intellectual "pseudo-Calvinist".

Rev. G

 

As we have now entered a fourth page and are still not really on topic, I'll issue the 24 hour warning per moderator guidelines. Let's wrap up this end of the discussion about SEBTS

 

No arguments here, but I believe that a non-5 pointer is more likely to feel welcome by the leadership of Southern than a 5 pointer at Southeastern.

 

You could be right (although it is probably according to which school you spend most of your time -- Billy Graham or The School of Theology). At the same time, I know SEBTS has a few profs who are at a minimum 5-point sympathizers.

 

Of course you are right in theory, but I am not sure you are correct in practice.

 

No arguments here, but I believe that a non-5 pointer is more likely to feel welcome by the leadership of Southern than a 5 pointer at Southeastern. </font>[/QUOTE]I tend to agree.

 

My two-cents worth...I started at SEBTS in January, 1991 during the Drummond years. Most of my profs were moderates. Some were outright liberals. My classes were a joke, the lectures were stale, and I wasn't academically or spiritually challenged. Then came Patterson. Everything changed. No more skipping out of class. No more contract grades. No more 3-page book reviews. It got very tough. And the thing I appreciated the most, is that while my "new" profs were ultra conservative, they taught all sides of the issue. It wasn't the "fundamentalist takeover" that I was warned about. So, in a nutshell, I received 1/2 of a great seminary education, although I'll admit I wasn't a big fan of what was happening there. But I am now.

 

You could be right (although it is probably according to which school you spend most of your time -- Billy Graham or The School of Theology). At the same time, I know SEBTS has a few profs who are at a minimum 5-point sympathizers. </font>[/QUOTE]The perspectives of the professors on this issue are diverse, and that's not a problem to me.

However, the president of SEBTS has made rather strident statements in opposition to 5 point Calvinism. My sense is that the president of SBTS has been more charitable to opposing viewpoints. (And I am aware that both say they have a strong friendship.)

 

amen_corner,

Sweet name. Can't wait for your time of year to roll around.

 

Knowing both of them personally, I can say:

a) they both hold to their viewpoints very strongly

b) they do have a strong friendship

c) they will not allow the seminaries to be divided over the issue

 

In my view Mohlar has had the history of an "opportunist", seeming to always be at just the right place at just the right time and Patterson was due some serious pay-back. That said they seem to be able to run a school fine, even though they are miles apart theologically speaking.
It cracks me up that they can somehow can agree to disagree on some interpretation of scripture and get along just fine but they won't allow others that same privilege.