Tennessee Baptist Colleges in Trouble

Well, at least now you are admitting that you made an assumption on his knowledge of the Bible (even if it was the lesser of two evils as you put it). Have you ever diagramed the word "assume?" It may prevent you from making further assumptions in the future.

At this point, this convention's doctrinal boundaries are determined by its messangers, and they indicate their convictions through their vote at the annual meeting. They may not seem too fair, but that is not the fault of the messangers, but the fault of those in Brentwood who don't even want any accountability for themselves. Further, I don't favor the schools leaving the Convention - in fact, I would hate to seem them go. But what I would hate even more than their leaving is their staying and accepting Convention $$$ when they clearly don't want to teach those values and doctrines that are cherished by the TBC. That's what this whole investigation is about, and that's why it passed overwhelmingly by the messangers apart from any kind of "conservative strategy" going into the annual meeting.

That's an easy question. Require that your teachers, who would be forced to affirm the BF&M 2000 (or some other doctrinal statement), teach both sides of the argument on ALL ISSUES. This is exactly the kind of education I got at SEBTS. In fact, I learned just as much about liberal theology at SEBTS then I ever did anywhere else. And it wasn't just a "straw man" picture of liberal theology - we had to read from the liberals themselves and then think critically to come up with a biblical rebuttal to their doctrines. This is exactly what ought to be happening at our three TBC schools, but as I have clearly demonstrated this is currently not happening. Hiring those who will affirm doctrinal accountability doesn't mean that you can't also have academic balance and an opportunity for open intellectual inquiry - I know, because I attended a school where I had the best of both.

As I have stated, I think that biblical creationism is clearly implied Article 2 of the BF&M. A better question would be, "Why is it not more explicit in the BF&M?" The reason why is because there are still many well-meaning conservatives out there who feel like they still need to defend the theory of evolution by espousing such things as theistic evolution, day-age theories, gap theories, etc. I would certainly be in favor of a more explicit statement on evolution in the BF&M, and I think we will finally get that statement sometime in the near future.

You and I are not going to agree on this issue, so I don't even think is worth saying too much more about. I think the burden rests on you with this issue though. Consider this: Paul and Peter both plainly stated that women are to be in submission to their husbands in their respective letters to the church (cf. Eph. 5:22, 1 Pt. 3:1-6, among others). The submission they were speaking of was submission within the home (family). Because this is the case, Paul said that men have actually been charged with ruling in their households (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5). That means that husbands are to "exercise authority" over their wives and their children. Having said that, are you trying to tell me that God wants husbands to be the spiritual leaders of their households, but He is perfectly willing to let the women have that leadership within the local church? If women have not been called to be the spiritual leaders within their own homes, then why would God call them to be the spiritual leaders of the church? As I said, the burden of proof rests on you with this one.

Statements just like yours are the reason that the Article on the Scriptures needed to be reworded to clearly demonstrate that one can't claim some super-allegiance to Christ without claiming that same allegiance to His Word. For what would we know of Christ apart from His Word? You know just as well as I do that people were using the statement "Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which Scripture must be interpreted" to try and give biblical validation to any number of issues ranging from egalitarian ministry, to pro-choice agendas, and even homosexuality. They would say things like "the words of Jesus and Paul clearly contradict one another on the issue of women and their role within the church. When they conflict, I will choose Christ because He is the sole criterion by which the Scriptures must be interpreted." That's hogwash, and I'm very thankful the language was changed so that such a separation of Christ from His Word can no longer be validated from the BF&M 2000. Jesus Christ is the Word, but He is not the only Word. Moderates/liberals despise this, and that's why they always want to affirm the BF&M 1963 rather than the 2000 edition.

See above.

Sorry, but God doesn't create processes that are contradictory to His Word. Again, why were all these wonderful macro-evolutionary theories of creation not around until the mid-19th century?

You may not like what I said, but you dodged dealing with the part about being deceptive and dishonest. How honest is it for someone to accept CP $$$ if they clearly don't want to pursue a ministry that will seek to be faithful to the doctrinal convictions of Southern Baptists? I would equate that to a bossman hiring another young man to do a job. The bossman can plainly see that the young man is going to need much training in order to accomplish the tasks that he has prepared for him to do. Consequently, he puts up his own time and money to help train the young man. Yet, when the young man receives all the necessary training, he decides that he no longer wants to work for the bossman, but for his neighborhood competitor right down the street. Were someone to ask your opinion of that young man, surely you would say that he was dishonest and that he ought to recompense the bossman for the time and money that he contributed to his training. Why should the same standard not apply to our young seminarians?

I'm not against non-SBC folks coming and receiving an education in one of our seminaries. Yet, what I abhor is the fact that there are those who attend SBC seminaries (after having joined SBC churches) simply because they know they can receive a respected education for half the cost of what it would require to get that same education somewhere else. Yet, when they leave that SBC seminary, they then go and start some non-denominational or other work that runs contrary to SBC doctrine. That is dishonesty and sure deceptiveness.

I will "pray and think about" that issue, if dishonesty and deceptiveness are some things that I actually need to pray about before I wholeheartedly reject. Come on, where's your integrity?

I have read and am familiar with the prologue, yet you are going to have to help me to see how the prologue could somehow be used as a "loophole" (which in and of itself is a term of deception) that would allow one to affirm the BF&M 2000 while at the same time affirming egalitarian ministry. Article 6 plainly says, "The office of Pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." Without twisting the words of that article and without being deceptive, please tell me how egalitarian ministry can be justified in view of Article 6.

Give me a break - do you think that I'm that naive? He knew exactly what I was asking, and because he knows he's riding the fence on this issue (because he's a statesman for inter-faith relationships) he simply chose not to give me an answer that was grounded in his true convictions. You can argue semantics all you want, but I have already demonstrated that even relegating the questions to semantics simply will not do.

Are you listening to yourself? A Muslim's god can't be Yawheh because their god is not the triune God of the Bible!!! The fact that we are still in need of discussing this is disheartening!!!

Like I said, Kimball plainly stated that one could believe that Jesus is the only Way while also believing that some sincere Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. will also be in heaven. I'm sorry, but that statement is self-referencially incoherent (contradictory). You simply can't have it both ways - either Christ is the only Way, or He is not. The fact that Kimball won't come right out and say that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are lost apart from Christ is proof positive that he doesn't believe that, and as such he is a religious inclusivist. I'm not putting words in his mouth - I'm just filling in the blanks that he was not willing to fill in by carrying his own statements out to their logical and biblical end

 

As for open theism, it is the only acceptable view of God's knowledge that is taught by both the Philosophy profs at C-N (and I know that for fact because I have discussed this with Dr. Austin). Also, the religion faculty are sympathetic with the tenants of open theism. As for soteriological inclusiveness, none of the religion profs would come right out and tell you that they believe Jesus Christ is not the only way, but let's "examine their fruit." Why not only invite, but also endorse Dr. Kimball's teaching onto campus if there were not some sympathy with his views? Were Dr. Kimball's coming to C-N only a matter of balance (which it certainly wasn't - speakers like him are the norm - last year Dr. Stanley Hauerwas was endorsed when he lectured on campus) then he wouldn't have received their endorsement would he?

Are you ashamed of your school/former profs? If not, then why not share that info with me. I'd be more than happy to tell you about each of the men who taught me.

You know good and well that no major evangelical theologian classifies "egalitarian ministry" as "conservative theology." Maybe in your mind such is the case, but that is not the reality.

So, in other words, there's nothing wrong with placing God as some arbitrary bookend upon a theory of evolution that was rooted in 19th century, post-renaissance atheism? Theistic evolution is nothing more than an attempt by Christians to redeem a theory that was forged within an atheistic worldview.

So then, you have no problem admitting that Moses (or whoever you think wrote Genesis) had no problem borrowing a Babylonian account of the flood when he was "inspired" by God to write his own thoughts about world-wide cataclysm?

Let's go through this one more time: the exact Greek term used by Paul is theopneustos . It only appears one time in the Bible - 2 Tim. 3:16. It is a word that is formed by two Greek terms: theo (God) and pneustos (breath or to breathe). Thus, when broken down etymologically, the word clearly means "God-breathed." That being said, I am fully aware of the fact that many translations choose the word "inspiration" to translate the word, but as I have plainly demonstrated such a translation simply will not do. When you change the meaning of the word from "God-breathed" to "inspired," then you are only attempting to accomidate such things as dynamic inspiration and an errant Bible. That is dishonest exegesis and it should be rejected at all costs. If the Bible is "God-breathed," then it must be inerrant. To deny that is to deny the logical obligation that theopneustos carries with it.

Have you not read 2 Peter 3:16? If you have, then surely you know that Peter recognized Paul's words as Scripture. Paul also recognized the words of Christ as the Word of God (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18). Thus, your attempt at diverting the discussion at this point is an invalid one.

So then, you're saying that it is acceptable to deny the logical obligations of the Word of God? Clearly, the Bible does claim inerrancy in 2 Tim. 3:16 though that exact term may not be used. Let's apply your logic elsewhere: The Bible never claims that God is Triune by using that exact term - does that mean that our Lord is not the Triune God of heaven and earth? We should have no problem "forcing" on others what the Bible plainly states to be true.

You can't claim that the Bible is inerrant and then turn right around in the next breath and deny its truthfulness by explaining away literal passages as allegorical or figurative. The only way that liberals have been getting around Gen. 1-11 for two centuries now is by claiming that they are allegorical. Again, church history knew nothing of this until post-renaissance, atheistic-centered thinking dominated the scene in the 19th century.

Tell me, what errors are there in the first 3 chapters of Genesis if they are taken literally? I'd like to know so I can blot those errors out of my Bible.

Wow, really? Please tell me where in the world I can go and "observe" this phenomenon then. To the contrary, that's why evolution is called "theory" - it can't be placed under the tests of the scientific method. Thus, it is just as much an issue of faith as biblical creationism. Yet, the world likes the theory of evolution because you don't need some cumbersome God in the picture if you've got evolution to fall upon (or so they think - they don't realize you have a little problem with infinite regress if you throw God out of the equation - I guess that's another reason someone came up with the brilliant idea of theistic evolution).

That's classic liberal spin. If we can't accept what the Bible says about creation (through sound exegesis), then why should we accept what it says about the historicity of ancient civilizations? Why should we accept what it says about supernatural occurences such as miracles? For that matter, why should we accept what it says about salvation? You create quite a slippery slope when you make a statement like that.

Where does the Bible say that its only "matter" is spiritual affairs? Inclusivists are now telling us that even spiritual affairs are not the real "matter" of Scripture, but rather tolerance and unconditional acceptance apart from any notion of conversion. Your statement creates many more problems than it solves.

"Apocalyptic," "probably"...why not just do sound exegesis and let the Word speak for itself? If you did, you would find that the world and all that is must've been created in six 24 hour days because anytime the Hebrew word yom (day) appears in the OT with a numerical qualifier (as it does throughout Gen. 1), it is always in reference to a 24-hour period of time. How can you do honest exegesis by changing the rules for the creation account? The exegetical evidence against macro-evolutionary theories of creation is overwhelming, and that's why most liberals have simply relegated Gen. 1-11 to a status of "allegorical," "figurative," "apocalyptic," etc.

There is only one full-time religion faculty member who even claims to be an inerrantist. With all the other views of quasi-inerrancy that are floating around out there (eg. - inerrancy of purpose, etc.), one would think that all the members of the faculty could at least claim one of them. The fact that they don't speaks volumes. Aside from this, I have one student testimonial after another in my files that states that students have been consistently taught that the Bible contains errors. Just so you won't think that its only a few students, I have about 400 signatures of students on file who signed a petition indicating that such was the case - clearly errancy of God's Word is the only position being taught on a consistent basis.

 

Gee, I don't know. I wonder how Liberty University managed to do it? I wonder how Cedarville College managed to do it? I wonder how our seminary undergrad programs have managed to do it? Several of those schools mentioned have the unwavering accredidation of SACS, and in the U.S. you can't do any better than that in academic circles. Accredidation is always a "straw man" that is thrown up by the liberals to scare trustees away from enfocing the teaching of biblical principles in the classroom.

Let me tell you a quick story about accredidation. When SEBTS was still teaching source hypotheses, errancy, theistic evolution, etc., that was when it LOST its accredidation. The school had been nearly run into the ground under liberal control. Yet, I'm proud to say that after 10 years of post-conservative resurrgence education, the school has regained the full accredidation of SACS and has even added a Ph.D. program (which by the way doesn't affirm theistic evolution). The whole accredidation thing is nothing more than a liberal straw man.

And you know why? Because for some 1850 years of church history, biblical creation (as derived from the sound exegesis of Scripture) was the only acceptable view of God's creative work. There was no need that volumes should be written on the subject. As I said, theistic evolution, day-age theories, gap theories and the like were the views of creation that were invented just after the time of Darwin. Prior to Darwin's time, it wasn't necessary to defend a doctrine that is so plainly derived from the honest exegesis of God's Word.

A better passage? The context of the Book of Romans as it pertains to the Fall from Romans 5-8 is that of a Fall into sin and death. I don't think a "better passage" is necessary when the one that I provided for you plainly makes the point. Just because you chose to try and argue around it in order to try and preserve some a priori convictions is not my fault. I think it is you who needs to find the biblical evidence that will substantiate your claims.

Yes, but what you failed to mention is that originally (in their pre-Fallen state) they were never forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life. The only tree they were forbidden to eat from was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17). For as God said, in the day that they ate from the fruit of that tree they would "surely die." There act of disobedience was sin in the sight of God. While I recognize that God created man and woman as human beings and not gods, the clear teaching of Scripture is that they would've never known death had they not sinned in the Garden.

Just a couple of small problems with your understanding of sin and the Fall:

1. Rom. 5:12 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through SIN, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

2. Rom. 6:23 - "For the wages of SIN is death..."

Thus, when you say that "death came not as an immediate result of sinning," you are actually speaking contrary to what God's Word plainly says about the advent of death into God's creation. Not only did death, disease, and disorder come to mankind, but it also affected the entire order of creation (cf. Rom. 8:20-22). This can be seen also in the fact that briars, thorns, etc. were never a part of God's original plan for the Earth. According to Gen. 3:17-18, they were a result of Adam's sin and subsequent Fall in the Garden. Attempting to reach those passages otherwise is nothing more than a desparate attempt at making room in God's Word for macro-evolutionary theories of creation.

By the way, I don't think we are left with "best guesses" about what would've happened to Adam had he not sinned. Obviously, if he would've never sinned he would've never died because the Bible plainly says that "the wages of sin is death." Apart from sin, there would've been no death - no guessing required. That's Theology 101. Can you name one prominent theologian that would support your view of sin and the Fall? My apologies if I am wrong, but it pretty well sounds like something original to you.

In the context of the creation account, physical death is clearly in view (Gen. 3:19). Same goes for Paul's words in Rom. 6:22-23 (everlasting life vs. death). Again, to simply define death as "spiritual death" apart from the physical aspect is an attempt at making accomidation for macro-evolution.

This is no exaggeration and I chose that word on purpose. When folks begin to teach there are errors in the Bible, that biblical creationism can't possibly be feasible, that open theism is valid, and that there may be other ways of salvation in other religions, then they have become apostate teachers. Jude wrote much about such apostacy (interestingly, I'm currently preaching through Jude on Sunday nights).

There has been a cloud of secracy over what's being taught at C-N for some time now. For instance, last year a member of the religion faculty (a woman) delivered a message during CLW time, but wouldn't even make the tape of her message available in the library so that it could be checked out and listened to (I know, because I tried to check it out). The only way she would allow you to watch it was in her office while she watched it with you. If that's not an attempt at keeping other from getting some answers, I don't know what is.

1. No one wanted to be accused of impartiality towards one school over another. That would've simply created more problems.

2. Several messangers (and scores of students) have made numerous allegations against them.

3. It wasn't just one student. I hit the mic twice at the annual meeting, as did several others. (And we received strong support from the majority gathered in Sevierville)

Have I not already told you to drop the conspiracy theories? Have I not already said that this whole thing has been grassroots? The TBC just wants the truth, and I believe that we will have it very soon.

 

I ran into a similar thing in another state. The state and local level did nothing to help me. It seems to me that in the SBC it is a good ol' boy club and everybody wants to save themselves for the future so they can get a high place of "service." My situation was with a church I was pastoring. I was lied to about the church in the hope I could turn it around. The former pastor told me it was a great church. Later I find out he wanted a DOM job in that same state. Then I read in the SBC papers about the new DOM. I read the article to his former pastor and we both agreed the guy lied to the SBC about himself.

I became convinced that their state and national press is so full of comparisons and gossip that I decided to leave. I did return for a short while but then left for good. I found all the infighting and gossip were not good for me. I do not find it edifying nor helpful for ministry.

Jesus had to deal with liberals. So I guess we are in good company. The nice thing about independent churches is that the liberals self destruct. Whereas in a denomination and convention they affect everyone else.

In my lifetime mostly on the west coast I have watched churches that don't do evangelism die and those that preach the gospel and do God's work flourish. I think in the next generation we will see that more than now. So I think it is just a matter of time many will clean themselves out due to becoming secular. When I was a student At SWBTS on the extension campus of HBU I noticed placards of pictures showing people who had given large sums of money to the university. Several of us noticed the horoscope in the students newspaper. When confronted with the issue the school responded that they have students who are not Christians working on the paper. I also found out to my dismay that they actually have students working on those things and invite non-believers to study at so many Baptist schools. Just think of the legal issues that could involve later should a former student want to teach there and was not a believer. Every Christian school I looked at attending will not accept students who cannot give a testimony of salvation.

A few years ago I witnessed to a lady whose husband had died and he had been a rabbi in the local area. In our discussion she told me she had gone to a well known SBC university. That university did not change her. She just knew more about what the Christians believed and believed they were wrong.

I became so disgusted after what I saw in the SBC universities and among their churches I left.

 

Oh, I'm not worried about what will be done at C-N or at out other two schools for that matter. Yet, the fact that God is sovereign doesn't give me the right to stand by and do nothing either. That's like the five-point Calvinist who says that God will save them so I don't need to bother going. Yet, if the Great Commission is still a part of God's Word (which I'm not sure about now - it could be apocolyptic for all we know) then he has an obligation to go regardless of the fact that God has promised to save His elect.

It is clear that no amount of examples, biblical exegesis, student testimony, etc. that I provide for you is going to be sufficient to get you to think that there is a problem at C-N that must be dealt with. Clearly, you will defend C-N and other institutions like it because they affirm some of the a priori conclusions that you have about Scripture. I'm glad that you won't be the one making the determination about what will be done with C-N and the other schools. Were we to use your "methods of investigation" we would ultimately be led to an anything goes attitude towards Christian liberal-arts education. That may be fine with you, but I can promise that such an attitude won't "cut it" with the rank-and-file Tennessee Baptist who wants to see the faith of our students strengthened and not torn down.

You may not think that students are having their faith torn down at any of our schools, but a good Pastor friend of mine (who ironically now preaches about 3 miles away from C-N's campus now) has told me on several occasions that he considered walking away from his Christian faith on account of what he was taught by the religion faculty at C-N. Is this the kind of student "edification" that our CP $$$ should be going to fund? I think not, and I feel sure that the messengers to the 2005 annual meeting will agree with me.

 

Anleifr and Todd,

Your dialogue is sometimes interesting and sometimes tiresome. But why do I think you probably won't reach a mutually agreeable conclusion?

Anyway, two things:
Anleifr,
I don't think SACS accredits individual programs. A schools is either accredited across the board or it isn't. There may be some groups out there that put their blessings on individual programs, but the six regional accrediting bodies don't usually accredit "Biology" or "Geology" or math or english or anything else. They accredit the universisty as a whole based upon numerous criteria. And it is highly unlikely that a "Christian" college would have accreditation problems because it teaches creation, or intelligent design, or if its biology profs teach evolution only as a humanistic theory.

Todd,
That being said, I can't speak for Cedarville, but I can promise you that Liberty has never enjoyed "unwavering" accreditation. It has often had more to do with financial and governance issues than academic issues, but Liberty has found itself on probation with SACS numerous times. Borek was brought in several years ago precisely because of his ties to SACS and his ability to guide the school back to full standing. Recent events and Borek's resignation have raised SACS eyebrows again. Liberty has never "lost" accreditation, but it has come dangerously close. But again...that has nothing to do with teaching creation or teaching evolution strictly as "theory."

Ok guys, carry on...

 

RandR, the assertion that a school can't teach biblical creationism in the biology and geology departments and still have the full accredidation of an agency such as SACS is ridiculous, and I don't think that An needs to be convinced of that. Liberals have been using the accrediation issue as a straw man against teaching conservative, biblical Christianity for years - why should things be any different now?

 

Here at Union, our trustees have adopted a process for responding to the TBC investigation. Here's the story, if you're interested:

http://www.uu.edu/news/newsreleases/release.cfm?ID=785

 

wow lots to read here...don't really know what to say

accreditation issues are always bring about tenuous relations. To simply say that liberals use such and such as a straw doesn't advance the convo all that much.

Also Liberty's accreditation issues really have never had anything to do with academic freedom or faculty dismissal (one of the benefits of offering no one tenure) but more the end of money and huge amounts of debt. SWBTS probationary period came out of the firing of Dilday, a tenured professor/president, which is against accreditation standards.

welll more reading to do here obviously