T-Bone said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
T-Bone said:
As a SBC pastor...I am not sure the Seminary is the place for evangelism... If it is, we have a problem.
T-Bone you were adamant the convention was not liberal in another thread. Still sticking to your guns?
Yes I am adamant the convention is not liberal...your definition of the term and understanding of how the SBC works is lacking, at least from my perspective.
The workings of this one seminary, while I may not agree with them is hardly liberal. I don't know of anyone who would put Patterson in liberal camp...matter of fact he acts more like IFB and his theology is very conservative.
Why do you run to liberal label just because there is a disagreement of policy?
Liberal is just a label, it is used to describe a lot of things.
When I see a statement that any evangelical college is allowing an unbeliever of any kind to be a student, I have to wonder how they could think this is possible. First of all, it is a violation of the principle purpose of a "Seminary or "Bible College", which is the training of people for the ministry. Secondly, it is a violation of separation as described in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. When an unbeliever is admitted into a college/seminary ministry, the only way to deal with him is to water down the message. The purpose of the seminary or college is not even to gather the saved, but to gather or provide a place those among the saved who want to specifically invest in furthering their walk, specifically in the are of church ministry. So, things are taught and said that have no place for the unbeliever. Matthew 7:6. The watered down message is going to result in watered down classes and watered down graduates.
You refer to it as "policy", but in effect it is "practice". What we believe ought to affect what we practice, and if you like the word policy, we ought to make policies that reflect what we practice that in turn resulted from what we believe. There is a huge interconnection between belief and practice. A simplified way of saying this might be "My beliefs affect my practice, and as I organize I institute policies that reflect my practice and belief. The problem is, historically, policies are the last thing to change, because changing policies opens a can of worms. The underlying beliefs and practices have already changed before the policy gets changed. If the belief and practice had not changed, neither would the policy.
Hence, changing from "conservative" scripture based policies is the drift into liberalism.
Edit: I wanted to answer out of respect, I have other posts I still want to answer, but Sunday is getting closer, gotta keep my eye on the ball, I will respond, but not right away.
