SBC Paige Patterson appointed to President Emeritus of SWBTS

[subllibrm]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.......... Heb 6:4-6 is a road of no return

You obviously aren't a "once saved always saved" Baptist. 

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

"supremacist theology"

Scratching my head going huh?  ??? ???

When he cannot respond with a cogent argument he engages in an ad hominem attack. That is the sine qua non of the Theological Liberal (Modernist). Its foundation can be found in the bible, however: Genesis 3:1, "Yea, hath God said?"

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"supremacist theology"

Scratching my head going huh?  ??? ???

Yep. The idea that one's theology is the absolute perfect one and must be adhered to by everyone else. In other words, "my theology is supreme to all other theological viewpoints".

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"supremacist theology"

Scratching my head going huh?  ??? ???

When he cannot respond with a cogent argument he engages in an ad hominem attack. That is the sine qua non of the Theological Liberal (Modernist). Its foundation can be found in the bible, however: Genesis 3:1, "Yea, hath God said?"

LDS: The Book of Mormon is the Word of God.

Evangelical: I don't believe it.

LDS: "Yea, hath God said?" You are questioning God!

See? You can apply your "biblical" logic to whatever scenario with which you disagree.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

You obviously aren't a "once saved always saved" Baptist. 

I disagree. I tend to think Hebrew 6:4-6 is badly misunderstood by many Christians. The writer is not saying that the enlightened person is saved then turns and loses his salvation.

He is saying that a person can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit when hearing the Gospel preached, but never being born again, and will then turn and walk away from God and His word. And it will be impossible to renew [no "them" in Greek] to repentance because he has already rejected the word of God, and by so doing rejected the God of the word. "They crucify the Son of God for themselves" [not "again" or "afresh" in Greek but "up"]. Their sin has already sent Christ to the cross so they cannot put Him up on the cross again for themselves only, for their unrepented sin of denying the word of God and the God of the word.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You obviously aren't a "once saved always saved" Baptist. 

I disagree. I tend to think Hebrew 6:4-6 is badly misunderstood by many Christians. The writer is not saying that the enlightened person is saved then turns and loses his salvation.

He is saying that a person can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit when hearing the Gospel preached, but never being born again, and will then turn and walk away from God and His word. And it will be impossible to renew [no "them" in Greek] to repentance because he has already rejected the word of God, and by so doing rejected the God of the word. "They crucify the Son of God for themselves" [not "again" or "afresh" in Greek but "up"]. Their sin has already sent Christ to the cross so they cannot put Him up on the cross again for themselves only, for their unrepented sin of denying the word of God and the God of the word.

And this post clearly admits the idolatry of Evangelicalism, the elevation of canon as equivalent to Deity.

What is claimed to be "rejection of the word of God" in reality is "rejection of my exegesis of the word of God".

So Evangelical, systematic theology is the only correct way and when one rejects said style of exegesis and accepts, say, Didactic, Liberation, Liberal, Post-Liberal, Queer, Mimetic Apophatic or Eastern Orthodox theology, then that one is "rejecting God".

sub, this is a perfect example of what I meant by "supremacy".

 

[Ransom]

So it bugs you that I keep bringing up sexual assault and white supremacy.

Believe me, you get under my skin considerably less than a literal broken record.

Since these seem to be sensitive points with you, I recommend a little introspection.

Nah. White guilt is a fairy tale only soy boys believe in.

 

[Bob H]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.......... Heb 6:4-6 is a road of no return

You obviously aren't a "once saved always saved" Baptist. 

I'm no baptist but my aim wasn't at the baptist.

 

[Bob H]

I disagree. I tend to think Hebrew 6:4-6 is badly misunderstood by many Christians. The writer is not saying that the enlightened person is saved then turns and loses his salvation.

He is saying that a person can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit when hearing the Gospel preached, but never being born again, and will then turn and walk away from God and His word. And it will be impossible to renew [no "them" in Greek] to repentance because he has already rejected the word of God, and by so doing rejected the God of the word. "They crucify the Son of God for themselves" [not "again" or "afresh" in Greek but "up"]. Their sin has already sent Christ to the cross so they cannot put Him up on the cross again for themselves only, for their unrepented sin of denying the word of God and the God of the word.

I've read all the opinions on it and that one don't wash. But if it is right that throws the "I" down the sewie hole. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Nah. White guilt is a fairy tale only soy boys believe in.

That right there is a display of a literal deadly combination: white supremacy and toxic masculinity.

There are black bodies in the ground as evidence just as there are female and LGBTQ bodies in the ground due to the combination of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

 

[Ransom]

Once upon a time,

That right there is a display of a literal deadly combination: white supremacy and toxic masculinity.

And they lived happily ever after.

Found the soy boy.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I worked on a book project in the early ?90s with Paige; he was a part of a conservative team of authors, I was with the moderate team. The resultant volume was Beyond the Impasse, a destination that eluded us. What struck me immediately was his incapacity to listen to anything that challenged his fundamentalist world view. I remember one exchange between distinguished Old Testament scholar Walter Harrelson and Patterson about their approach to Scripture and what was at stake if you let go of inerrancy. ?If there is no literal historical Adam and Eve,? Patterson purported, ?then we have no doctrine of sin.? Harrelson responded with his characteristic kindness, yet incisive perspective: ?O my dear brother, my questions are so much larger than that!? He wisely knew that a false assumption about Scripture would not allow a coherent faith.

Patterson?s obscurantist vision also permitted him to overlook numerous flags about Pressler?s untoward behavior with young men. As long as his own place of honor was preserved, he could look a blind eye at his close colleague?s alleged overtures, whose case is now in court. The goal of reclaiming the SBC from its liberal drift mattered more than the integrity of those guiding this pursuit, as recent disclosures confirm.
Today is a time of reckoning for Southern Baptists, as even Albert Mohler has observed.  It seems like he is hastening to get toward the right side of history on sexual abuse ? distancing himself from his colleague ? even though he was a pawn in the larger conservative movement. His ambition blunted his theological perspicuity, and he changed his course for the sake of being acceptable to his sponsors. As a professor when he was a graduate student, I remember a different persona.

Selective inerrancy is as damaging as cherry-picking of texts that reinforce liberal presuppositions. Reading the whole of the human-divine text tells the story of God?s engagement with humanity in the various epochs of forging the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible relentlessly speaks of societal changes and the hope that the new community forged by Christ will override patriarchal structures.

Hiding behind inerrancy in order to preserve male privilege does irreparable damage to a lucid Christian witness. Lord knows, we need to tell our story better and live it more fully, so that both women and men might flourish.

Baptist News Global: The peril of selective inerrancy

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Once upon a time,

That right there is a display of a literal deadly combination: white supremacy and toxic masculinity.

And they lived happily ever after.

Found the soy boy.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my point about the poisons within Western Evangelicalism.

I would much rather align myself with the vulnerable than with the machismo oppressors. If that makes me a "soy boy" or "Ni--er Lover", then so be it. It is not you who defines who I really am so your opinion (which you are very welcome to) doesn't matter.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Rod Dreher, my favourite apostate, wrote...

Looks like I've got some work to do.

I?m sure you?re his favorite cut and paste, repeat inane liberal talking points apostate.
Plus, Hyles didn?t do a number on Dreher, so you have that going for you.

Since I've never heard of the guy, I doubt that is the case.

It really bugs you when someone thinks outside the confines of your supremacist theology. It really seems to bother you when you can't be in control of another's theological thought process.

I wasn?t aware that one could be in control of anyone but his or her self.
I didn?t attend Hyles Anderson...

I didn't mean you DID control, but rather try to control or manipulate and it bothers you to be. Hence your attempts at personal jabs at those with whom you disagree politically and/or theologically, in an effort to disempower them. Guilt-baiting, consistent criticism, "intellectual bullying", insisting personal opinion is the only correct viewpoint (even in theology), passive-aggressive commentary and making claim to being victimized by those who hold other ideals are key signs you exhibit in attempts to control or manipulate.

Or they could just be bully tactics to boost your own ego by belittling those with whom you disagree.

So yes, Hyles-Anderson did teach me something: how to recognize manipulation tactics.

I?m sorry but you said ?it bothers you when you can?t be in control of another?s theological thought process? . That is the statement I responded to.

But then you say that?s not what you meant to say, it?s only what you said.
Then you post that long pop psychology cliche o?rama.

I have NO respect for your inane viewpoint. I could go to almost any liberal rag and read your exact verbiage. You?ve gone from Hyles to modern progressive thought...but still parrot the line.
You?ve just changed your line...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Rod Dreher, my favourite apostate, wrote...

Looks like I've got some work to do.

I?m sure you?re his favorite cut and paste, repeat inane liberal talking points apostate.
Plus, Hyles didn?t do a number on Dreher, so you have that going for you.

Since I've never heard of the guy, I doubt that is the case.

It really bugs you when someone thinks outside the confines of your supremacist theology. It really seems to bother you when you can't be in control of another's theological thought process.

I wasn?t aware that one could be in control of anyone but his or her self.
I didn?t attend Hyles Anderson...

I didn't mean you DID control, but rather try to control or manipulate and it bothers you to be. Hence your attempts at personal jabs at those with whom you disagree politically and/or theologically, in an effort to disempower them. Guilt-baiting, consistent criticism, "intellectual bullying", insisting personal opinion is the only correct viewpoint (even in theology), passive-aggressive commentary and making claim to being victimized by those who hold other ideals are key signs you exhibit in attempts to control or manipulate.

Or they could just be bully tactics to boost your own ego by belittling those with whom you disagree.

So yes, Hyles-Anderson did teach me something: how to recognize manipulation tactics.

I?m sorry but you said ?it bothers you when you can?t be in control of another?s theological thought process? . That is the statement I responded to.

But then you say that?s not what you meant to say, it?s only what you said.
Then you post that long pop psychology cliche o?rama.

I have NO respect for your inane viewpoint. I could go to almost any liberal rag and read your exact verbiage. You?ve gone from Hyles to modern progressive thought...but still parrot the line.
You?ve just changed your line...

Did you pull your shoulder out of joint with that reach?

Trying to control and successfully controlling are two different things. I would like to control myself downhill skiing. but guess what? I can't. I have tried and tried again and when I get to any amount of speed, I always fail to stop in the correct manner. I want control but can't have it.

That is the point I was making.

Me:

It really seems to bother you when you can't be in control of another's theological thought process.

You:

I wasn?t aware that one could be in control of anyone but his or her self.

Me:

I didn't mean you DID control, but rather try to control or manipulate and it bothers you to be.

There is nothing contradictory in what I said. Wanting to control and the ability to control are two different things. But then again, your ego can't take someone telling you the truth when it disagrees with your desired perception.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Rod Dreher, my favourite apostate, wrote...

Looks like I've got some work to do.

I?m sure you?re his favorite cut and paste, repeat inane liberal talking points apostate.
Plus, Hyles didn?t do a number on Dreher, so you have that going for you.

Since I've never heard of the guy, I doubt that is the case.

It really bugs you when someone thinks outside the confines of your supremacist theology. It really seems to bother you when you can't be in control of another's theological thought process.

I wasn?t aware that one could be in control of anyone but his or her self.
I didn?t attend Hyles Anderson...

I didn't mean you DID control, but rather try to control or manipulate and it bothers you to be. Hence your attempts at personal jabs at those with whom you disagree politically and/or theologically, in an effort to disempower them. Guilt-baiting, consistent criticism, "intellectual bullying", insisting personal opinion is the only correct viewpoint (even in theology), passive-aggressive commentary and making claim to being victimized by those who hold other ideals are key signs you exhibit in attempts to control or manipulate.

Or they could just be bully tactics to boost your own ego by belittling those with whom you disagree.

So yes, Hyles-Anderson did teach me something: how to recognize manipulation tactics.

I?m sorry but you said ?it bothers you when you can?t be in control of another?s theological thought process? . That is the statement I responded to.

But then you say that?s not what you meant to say, it?s only what you said.
Then you post that long pop psychology cliche o?rama.

I have NO respect for your inane viewpoint. I could go to almost any liberal rag and read your exact verbiage. You?ve gone from Hyles to modern progressive thought...but still parrot the line.
You?ve just changed your line...

 

[Ransom]

It is not you who defines who I really am so your opinion (which you are very welcome to) doesn't matter.

Your attempts to shame me for my opinions and falsely associate me with "white supremacy" belie your assertion. Obviously it masters to you very much, pajama boy.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

https://swbts.edu/news/releases/statement-southwestern-theological-seminary/

FIRED

 

[Twisted]

https://swbts.edu/news/releases/statement-southwestern-theological-seminary/

FIRED

Good statement.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Rod Dreher, my favourite apostate, wrote...

Looks like I've got some work to do.

I?m sure you?re his favorite cut and paste, repeat inane liberal talking points apostate.
Plus, Hyles didn?t do a number on Dreher, so you have that going for you.

Since I've never heard of the guy, I doubt that is the case.

It really bugs you when someone thinks outside the confines of your supremacist theology. It really seems to bother you when you can't be in control of another's theological thought process.

I wasn?t aware that one could be in control of anyone but his or her self.
I didn?t attend Hyles Anderson...

I didn't mean you DID control, but rather try to control or manipulate and it bothers you to be. Hence your attempts at personal jabs at those with whom you disagree politically and/or theologically, in an effort to disempower them. Guilt-baiting, consistent criticism, "intellectual bullying", insisting personal opinion is the only correct viewpoint (even in theology), passive-aggressive commentary and making claim to being victimized by those who hold other ideals are key signs you exhibit in attempts to control or manipulate.

Or they could just be bully tactics to boost your own ego by belittling those with whom you disagree.

So yes, Hyles-Anderson did teach me something: how to recognize manipulation tactics.

I?m sorry but you said ?it bothers you when you can?t be in control of another?s theological thought process? . That is the statement I responded to.

But then you say that?s not what you meant to say, it?s only what you said.
Then you post that long pop psychology cliche o?rama.

I have NO respect for your inane viewpoint. I could go to almost any liberal rag and read your exact verbiage. You?ve gone from Hyles to modern progressive thought...but still parrot the line.
You?ve just changed your line...

Don?t you hate it when you can?t control other people?s thoughts...or posts.
And, thanks for posting an illustration of your belief system....