Whence Goeth Our Baptist Colleges?

[gb93433]

Originally posted by shannonL:
If you mean your nominal southern baptist church member who just warms a pew and is theologically challenged to put it kindly. I would say you were right.

Exactly. They are members though.

 

[PrincipleDesigns]

I can also testify that it is conservative indeed.

Chuck Colson said in a graduation address that I personally heard; he thought that UU would become the Wheaton of the SB Convention.

How can you say the word conservative and the name Chuck Colson only one breath apart? It's a joke to refer to the SBC as conservative.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It is also a joke to say a woman's hair has to be down to her waist and she has to wear dresses all the time, but that's another thread.

 

[PrincipleDesigns]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
It is also a joke to say a woman's hair has to be down to her waist and she has to wear dresses all the time, but that's another thread.

If you are going to post irrelevant comments in threads, then it is better to stay silent.

 

[Tom Butler]

PD, you said

It's a joke to refer to the SBC as conservative.

Please define conservative and how the average Southern Baptist is not.


Oh, never mind, that's not the subject of this thread. Sorry.

Tom B.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Amen to that. Keeping mouths shut off-topic would be nice.

The definition of "conservative" and "moderate" have often been very confusing to the non-SBC.

But the SBC realized long ago that many of its members, churches, colleges and seminaries are "moderate" compared to "conservative", but FEW are truly "liberal" compared to historic modernism and liberalism espoused in most denominations.

Of course the CBF bunch that is leaving the convention truly ARE "liberal" and we all agree "good riddance".

 

[Rzbk]

I just noticed this thread and I wanted to reply to Humblesmith's comments on Paul Pressler's statement about the thesis that said by the second year 32% of Southern Baptist Seminary students did not believe in the Virgin Birth. I heard that thesis referred to many times in the early days of the conservative resurgence and since I was a student at a Southern Baptist Seminary, Southwestern in the 70s, I found it hard to believe. I know it was not true at my seminary. I never met a student or a teacher that said they did not believe in the Virgin birth. I felt if it was true those students should probably not be in seminary and if any teachers taught the virgin birth was not true they should be fired. When I was close to Southern Seminary where they thesis was written, I went be to see it and made a copy of parts of it. It was written in 1976. This was at the end of the Vietnam War and right after Watergate. There was a lot radicalism on all campuses including some seminary campuses. I am sure there were some students there simply to avoid the draft.
The survey was taken by 190 students of the over 2000 attending Southern at that time. I don't know how representative it was of the student body there. I know it would not represent the student body at SWBTS. It was divided into diploma, M Div and Ph.D students. There were many answers that bothered me a great deal and were a disappointment. However, I will stick to the Virgin Birth question. There were 4 possible answers. Of the 190 students overall, 114 or 61% said they believed the vigin birth was completely true. 38 or 20% said that is was probably true. 25 or 13% said it was probably not true. 10 or 5% said is was not true. When he compared 1st year and 3rd year M Div students, which is probably what Pressler was referring to, the first year students had 14% probably not true and 2% not true. I think that would be 7 and 1 students for each response. The 3rd year students 21% probably not true and 12% not true. I think that was 7 and 4 students. So even though the percent went from 16% to 33% for the probably not and not true. By my estimate it was an increase of about no more than 5 students.
I don't mean to imply this is not important. I think that it is disturbing. I would like to see the results if all 2,000 students took the survey. I have not doubt that if the survey had been taken at my seminary and all students responded it would have been very different.
I share this to say we need to look at the facts carefully before we make broad statements about our seminaries. I was at a Southern Baptist seminary before the so called conservatave resurgence. It was unapologeticly theologically conservative. I can guarantee you that it was not true that 32% of the 2nd or 3rd your students denied the Virgin birth as Pressler tries to imply. Its faculty was conservative. It president proudly stated he was a theological conservative and an inerrantist. That did not keep him from being attacked by Pressler, Patterson, etc. Makes you wonder if theology was the main purpose of their movement.

 

[CompassionateConservative]

Originally posted by Tom Butler:
What about the state convention colleges and universities? What's driving this trend? Are they worth fighting for or should we just say good riddance? And where to you see this going? Tom Butler

From my perspective, there are a few things we can know for sure and several things we cannot. First, we can know for sure that the trend you're describing is not being ignored. Second, we can know for sure that conservatives and moderates have polarized solutions. Third, in some cases, conservative Southern Baptists are establishing new college campuses to replace these. One example would be Southeastern College at Wake Forest. I can think of one example, where an independent school that was close to shutting down is being remade into an SBC school.

Obviously, though, this latter option is the slow route. What we do not know for sure is what the immediate consequences will be. Each state convention will likely approach each scenario on a case by case basis.

 

[CompassionateConservative]

Originally posted by Rzbk:
It president proudly stated he was a theological conservative and an inerrantist. That did not keep him from being attacked by Pressler, Patterson, etc. Makes you wonder if theology was the main purpose of their movement.

On what issues did Pressler, Patterson, etc. attach your president?

 

[Humblesmith]

I'm working from memory, as the book is not here in front of me, but I suspect that Pressler was likely counting just the people who checked the "completely true" category. So I doubt he was lying about the figures, but he could have been leaving out that a larger percentage checked "likely true." (this brings to mind the old joke: "figures don'e lie, but liars figure")

I was not a baptist in the '70's, so all I got was what was in the papers. No axe to grind on my part.

I assume you're speaking of Russell Dilday. I never met the man. One of our current deacons told me he was a personal friend of Dildays, and spoke very highly of him. However, regarding innerrancy, all is not as it appears.

Dilday wrote a book called "Doctrine of Biblical Authority" in which he defends "revelatory innerrancy" which is defined as saying the bible is innerrant in all that it was intended to reveal by God. It is what others call "the intentionalist view of truth." Basically, it says that if someone intended to exaggerate a statement, then it's not a false statement. If someone intended to communicate a spiritual truth by inserting a few facts that were not real, then it's still considered true and innerrant.

My problem with this view is that there's no way to distinguish between what the author intended, and a flat out lie. If someone intended to stretch the truth, it's not a lie, it's innerrant.

So Mr. Dilday may very well be a great guy, I have no idea, and I certainly don't have any basis to question the man's sincerity. But "revelatory innerrancy" is not innerrancy. It is a very poor hermeneutic that leaves a big door open for problems. Clark Pinnock recently claimed a similar view, claiming to be an innerrantist, saying that some of the numbers in the OT were innerrant because the authors intended to give false numbers.

Heavens no!