One year ago yesterday, we posted an interview with Southwestern Seminary president Dr. Paige Patterson, as Tim Rogers talked with Dr. Patterson in Jacksonville, Florida. Today, we present another.
Dr. Patterson was in Hugo, Oklahoma for the Frisco Baptist Association‘s annual evangelism conference, and I was able to talk to him briefly after the conference had ended. We talked about issues ranging from ecclesiology to ecumenism, the characteristic passion for missions that has always defined Southwestern, to the future legacy of the seminary as envisioned by the school’s eighth president. We even talked a little about some of the silly rumors generated by recent tabloid blogging.
You can listen to the interview right here in the post, or you can pack it onto your iPod for later use. Just click on the iTunes button in the sidebar under “Podcast.”
Wes,
Thanks for getting Dr. Patterson to respond to the gossip.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Brother Wes,
Great interview. Classic Dr. Patterson–he never backs down. Professors should be able to look anyone anyplace in the world in the eye and say Jesus died for you.
Blessings,
Tim
Wouldn’t his saying that he would expect all professors to be able to say to anyone “Jesus died for you” mean that he wouldn’t/doesn’t want Calvinists on staff due to the L of TULIP? Does he mean 4 pointers are ok but not 5 pointers?
Can I say to all that Jesus died for you? I would say no. Can I say to all that they must repent? I would say yes! And maybe its TUDIP because it’s a Definite Atonment :)
Brother John,
Can I say to all that Jesus died for you? I would say no.
Are you serious? Spurgeon, in his sermon on Romans 10:14,15 said; ” But when I read this verse, I did what I ask you to do, I caught at it; it seemed like a life-line thrown to a sinking man. I clung to it, and it became a life-buoy to me: “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “Ah!” thought I, “I do call on that blessed name, I will call on that glorious name; if I perish, I will never cease to invoke that sacred name.” An invocation of the name of God, a trusting in God, and a consequent calling upon God and acknowledgment of God, this it is that saves the soul.
He goes on to say; “But here is another word, a sure word: “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” There is no “if” here; no “maybe” here; but a glorious “shall.” Our shalls and wills are poor, puny things; but God’s “shall” is firm as the eternal mountains.
It seems that your “No” goes against God’s “whosoever”.
Blessings,
Tim
Joe,
As a 5-pt-er myself…and understanding the biblical doctrine of limited atonement…I have no problem with witnessing to someone and saying that Jesus died for your sin. The atonement is certainly sufficient for all while being efficient only in the hearts and lives of the elect. And another thought…it is the sin of the world that placed Jesus on the cross. The fact of the fall of man in the garden necessitates a Redeemer. From that original sin, all men are left “dead in their trespasses and sins.” Certainly the Scripture then also speaks truth in that the “free gift is not like the offense,” we do not preach universal atonement from the Scripture (neither Arminian or Calvinist would do such). BUT, we are to be about this task of calling many to repentance while understanding that “many are called but few are chosen.”
Sola Gratia!
Brother Scott,
Your answer is, as CB Scott would say, a 10 ring at 1000 yards. If someone cannot openly tell someone that is lost that Jesus died for them, then we have a more serious problem than anyone realizes.
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks, Tim.
Scott,
You see, you make too much sense. Some people dont want sense. They dont want to hear good sense. But, you continue to offer good sense. So, they dont want to hear you, nor none like you.
Apparently, they’d rather make things up.
David :)
VolBond… :-)
Thanks for the kind words my MABTS brother!
Tom Nettles, By his Grace and For His Glory; Pg’s. 302-321.
Benji,
Nettles has well stated the two, five-point perspectives on limited atonement. Thanks for the reminder. While I appreciate much of what Dr. Nettles has written and done, I remain unconvinced by his argument for the second view.
Where do you find yourself on this issue?
Sola Gratia!
Tim,
You tell folks that Jesus loves them and I’ll tell them to repent.
Brother John,
How does one repent without knowing there is forgiveness available? Let me just ask it this way? Would you present the Gospel to Osama Bin Laden or would you say that is “casting pearls before swine”?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I am sorry, but I would shoot Bin Laden. I don’t think he eats pork anyway.
cb
Brother CB,
Because I know you and have seen you in operation concerning witnessing, I am not going to reply about that Bin Laden remark. I know better. You would witness to him. Of course you may be like Lester Rolof in the process. :)
Blessings,
Tim
I always liked Pastor Rolof. I thought he had a stellar approach.
Thank you, Tim. :-)
cb
Scott,
I don’t think I come down hard one way or the other on the “sufficiency” issue theologically.
However, I do believe–concerning application–that if one is going to say that one “must” preach “Jesus died for your sins” to lost sinners in order to preach the gospel, then one must also say there was alot of nongospel preaching going on in the book of Acts in order to be consistent.
Or at least that “Jesus died for your sins” [or some such statement] was not recorded in that book.
God Bless,
Benji
Tim,
I’m not a hyper and I don’t have time for a blog battle, I know the Gospel, and Jesus loves you isn’t it…
Maybe Joel Osteen is rubbing off while your ironing your clothes for worship on Sunday.
Good day
John,
I would concur that ‘Jesus loves you and has a wonderful purpose for your life’ (a la Rick Warren) is not the Gospel. Without an understanding of sin and the need for repentance there is no Gospel.
I dare say though, that repentance would seem unnecessary without the promise of forgiveness also (if not first) explained.
SOLA GRATIA!
Brother Scott,
Your post is on target,…thx
Martha also gives a consistent testimony about what Jesus knows all believers can say……
John 11:25-27 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, (26) and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” (27) She *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”
It is too bad that men will try to one up God. His promises are true, not some rambling in theology…..All things in Christ are yes, not some contrived notions of soteriology.
2 Corinthians 1:18-22 But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no. (19) For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us–by me and Silvanus and Timothy–was not yes and no, but is yes in Him. (20) For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us. (21) Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, (22) who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.
It is abundantly clear that God will save some. It is not up to us to declare whether we think some or all would be saved…..we are commissioned to preach the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Paul has made clear,…we judge know one according to flesh anyway.
Whether Dr. Patterson wants to have or not have points on the TULIP should not really matter….. Some just can’t figure that out.
Blessings,
Chris
Now, seriously,
It is evident that Scott Gordon, as noted in comment #5, has spent great time, prayerfully, in the study of the Word and in many, many works of theology. Also, he has obviously read tons of sermons and writings of pastors and preachers of old in order to be at peace in presenting his position on soteriology.
My respect for Scott Gordon rose greatly today. No one is able to articulate the position as has he without “crawling on hands and knees” through valleys of print and leaving many tear stains of prayer on the pages of his Bible.
He has not just jumped on a “bandwagon” that rolled through a seminary classroom, hallway, or coffee-shop of the student center. He has labored. His theology is not from the shallow pool. He went deep.
It has been my observation that he is the kind of guy Paige Patterson has sought to teach in the classrooms of which he has been made accountable by the SBC to hire teachers.
Only a blind and deaf monkey would not know that I differ strongly and with great vigor with Dr. Patterson on several issues in the last five years. But I know he seeks scholars to teach for Southern Baptists. Has he made mistakes in the choosing of some? Of course. Has he lowered the standard? No. Will he lower the standard? No. He will continue to seek the best scholars available to teach Southern Baptists.
Some may be of various positions relating to soteriology, but they will all be scholars. But above all, they will all believe the Word of God is inerrant.
cb
CB,
Thank you, my brother.
Sola Gratia.
Brother Wes,
Thanks for getting this quick interview.
I don’t really have any axes to grind with Dr. Patterson. I would say though, that in the short interview there were other important issues that should raise eyebrows not pertaining to any TULIP. One is the letting go of professors because of the economic downturn.
The president of any institution in America would have to have had their head buried in sand to not know that America has been on the brink of an economic downturn for almost three years or longer, and Presidents that would have understood this…do have mitigation processes in place to meet the challenge.
It is a solid failure on the part of Dr. Patterson to have to let anyone go for the reason of economic downturn with a three year headstart on mitigation. The boards that I am a part of would have no qualms of dismissing a president, whose mission is to serve the board and those associated with our ministries or with our companies,… who did not have a plan to mitigate the firing of low paid workers. Seminary professors are not highly paid….so it is astonishing that some of the most important assets of the seminary would be considered for layoff because of poor planning in an economic downturn.
This is simply poor stewardship for a Seminary that is associated with over 42,000 churches and 16 million members. There are so many ways to protect these men and women as primary assets.
Blessings,
Chris
No educated person could have predicted THREE years ago that the Dow would dip below 8000 points (as it has 3 times recently).
Southern Baptist seminaries are not the only educational institutions that are hurting financially.
Brother BDW,
Many educated people did….
It is not difficult to read the markets, inventories and economic policies to ascertain that lower than usual interest rates (along with some other key factors, governmental spending, etc.) over an extended period of time has yielded the results that are in operation in the economy today. Banks simply hid the symptoms for too long and now have to suffer the rescue by a lesser efficient institution (our government) as a consequence, not a benefit. In just three more years we will see a stiff increase in interest rates to satisfy the losses that the wealthy in this country have suffered. That is just how economics works my friend.
The company I work for reorganized 5 years ago, by rearranging about 9 billion in credit services, understanding what was around the corner in the U.S. which makes up 80% of our 9 billion in annual revenue worldwide. You better believe we knew what was occurring. You speak of the DOW,…it is simply an indicator, not a driver. It will stay in its current range for sometime, as it has found a reasonable bottom this go around.
Your right though, other education systems are suffering,….all I am saying is that someone should have known and prepared……Nehemiah is a good example of someone that understood and lead his people.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother B’Diddy,
What great insight. You are correct many institutions of higher education are having to tighten belts in order to maintain budgets in this economic time.
Blessings,
Tim
Chris,
Every institution that has money invested has been severly hurt by the economic downturn. Endowments for all instituions of higher learning have especially been hit hard. But it was only this past fall when the bottom fell out, not three years ago. No economist was predicting this type of scenario that we are in.
In the interview, Dr. Patterson stated that he “hoped not” and that “we are not certain at all that we would have to eliminate any professors… we have been working very hard to cut everything else in the world…We don’t know yet what we are going to have to do…” I think you are way off base to accuse Dr. Patterson (and the trustees) of poor stewardship, for not having the ability to control the investment income that has dropped across the entire market. Endowments (and their invenstment thereof) is usually stable. You are out of line with your comment.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Brother Ron,
You may be right…I could be out of line with the statement I made. All I know is that the economic downturn has not been a secret for quite a long time. Maybe I should have sent Paige a letter warning him of the impending problems looming on the horizon and to get his ducks in a row. That would have been the better thing to do, instead of launch a grenade today. I am not trying to arm chair quarterback here either though….. The fact remains; it is the responsibility of the president of institutions to be aware of these things. Some do this better than others. Some succeed, others do not. That does not make the guys,…bad guys. But, sometimes it will cause a guy not to be the president.
If men and women are the most important assets, then property should be auctioned off before they are…..unless the property is a better investment.
The company I work for has some 47,000 employees. We have not cut back employees during the past few years and continue to expand. I may get a pink slip tomorrow though….so I better be careful.
Blessings,
Chris
Charles Spurgeon quote below:
Another says, “I want to know about the rest of the people. May I go out and tell them—Jesus Christ died for every one of you? May I say—there is righteousness for everyone of you, there is life for every one of you?” No; you may not. You may say—there is life for every man that comes. But if you say there is life for one of those that do not believe, you utter a dangerous lie. If you tell them Jesus Christ was punished for their sins, and yet they will be lost, you tell a wilful falsehood. To think that God could punish Christ and then punish them—I wonder at your daring to have the impudence to say so!
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm
Tim,
Wouldest thou be willing to telleth Bin Laden that God hateth him? :shock:
Psalm 5:5,
chadwick
Brother Chad,
Wouldest thou be willing to pray for Bin Laden’s salvation?
Matthew 5:44
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Yea! Behold, and if I ever get the opportunity to preach to Bin Laden, I hopeth to preach the entire counsel of God’s Word to him.
Acts 24:25,
chadwick
PS,
Here is a quote from Rolfe Barnard:
“Oh! my friend, what that old sinner needs to hear first of all is not that God loves him and Christ died for him. He needs to stick to this fact that Jesus Christ saves sinners; Christ came down here to save sinners.”
Chadwick,
CB and I would be glad to slap Bin Laden into the next county! Then, after we put chains on him, and shave his beard and hair, and put pink clothes from Victoria’s Secret on him; then we’d ask him if he’d like to talk about his soul before the execution takes place.
David
:)
David,
I am blushingly speechless! :shock:
chadwick
Vol,
A well thought plan. Let’s send it to Washington D.C.
:-)
cb
Brother David,
I think your intention was humor with this comment. I, for one, do not find it humorous in the least. We are speaking of a man created in the image of God.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
From the Middle East,
it is because of that fact that man is made in the image of God that God ordained the death penalty in Genesis 9:5. Bin Laden deserves to die, though possibly without the treatment (humorous as it is) of Volfan’s.
We’re talking about a murdering, radical maniac. I would like to see us stop him before he murders more innocent people.
David
Besides, FTME, I said what I did as a humorous response to Chadwick, and I like to make CB smile.
David
:)
Pingback: SWBTS Trying to Oust Calvinist Professors? « Mark12ministries’s Weblog
Tim: From Charles Spurgeon on limited atonement
“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if…” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ’s death; we say, “no my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
Charles Spurgeon
And I want to thank Wes for the interview as well. It made things much clearer to me. Even listening at 1 am in the morning. :)
Debbie,
Maybe you can get your Pastor to answer these questions from a statement he made about Wes and the interview with Dr. Patterson….
a)who his sources are?
b)who were the “preacher boys” at the big “dinner” interview with Dr. Patterson?
c)what restaurant did they eat at?
d)what did the “preacher boys” eat?
Let’s see just how good his informants really are?
So far, these questions, or anything about the statement Wade about the “preacher boys dinner” with Dr. Patterson has been ignored.
David
chirp…chirp…chirp…chirp
The crickets are getting loud, Debbie.
David
Sister Debbie,
You need to re-state this; Even listening at 1 am in the morning. The post was not made available to the public until 5am.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Actually, I was able to listen to it a little after it was posted. It was not in the article if you clicked on it, but it was on the main SBC Today page. I posted my comment at 1:41 AM after listening to it.
Ron P.
Yeah, sorry about that, Tim. After telling you I would have it set to post at 5, I began having trouble with the podcasting software, so I just went ahead and posted it, so it was available around that time.
What some readers here may not know about Chadwick’s comment is that Rolfe Barnard was an evangelist from the mid-twentieth century who was “gasp”…a Calvinist.. He was also a graduate of…”gasp”…Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. His sermons on sermonaudio.com are worthy of attention.
Your questions, David Volfann, have not been ignored. On the contrary, the answers have been pasted on every web site that you have asked them.
David, it is obvious to everyone that you, Wes, Scott and others seek to discredit me. I have encouraged others, and I would encourage you, to remember there is a difference between calling someone “a liar” and challenging the accuracy of what he writes.
I shall intentionally write only those things which I believe to be true. I shall never intentionally lie. If, however, you have questions about what I have written, feel free to ask. I would simpy encourage you and your friends to refrain, if it is possible, from calling a brother in Christ “a liar.” As ministers of the gospel, we should know the difference between challenging one’s words or actions and assaulting one’s character. The response, as given on other web sites, about how I knew about last night’s meeting with Patterson is copied and pasted below:
“One of your friends emailed me and told me that you and several “preacher boys” were going to get with Dr. Patterson at dinner to “interview” him in an attempt to discredit me. The fact that his schedule did not permit him to spend an extended amount of time with you is irrelevant. Your friend’s email only spoke of intentions, and likewise, my comment only spoke of intentions. Thanks for the link.
The fact that you seek to continually discredit me, and join Peter, in calling me a liar, is an issue between you and Jesus, not me. All “liars,” Scripture says, shall have their place in the lake of fire, so I can assure you that I am careful to only write intentionally truthful words. It seems that your goal is to discredit me, your brother in Christ. I am confident, however, that my words will stand the test of time.”
You, David, have asked for “the name” of the man who emailed me to tell me about the meeting and the interview. As I have stated on other sites, this is the reason I will not give it to you.
“I neither have the desire, nor do I feel the need, to tell you the name of this man. The reason? The lack of conscience in you, Wes, Scott and Peter in writing horrible things about brothers and sisters in Christ, gives me every incentive in the world to not reveal to you who it was.
I accept what you dish out to me, but I would be ashamed of myself were I to direct you to this man so that you might call him the same names you feel the freedom to call me.
It would not be even remotely Christian for me to do so.”
Have a good evening, David.
I am praying for you and your friends.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wade,
Thanks for stopping by.
Wade,
The “lack of conscience” in me and us????? The way WE attack people?????
Wow, this just keeps getting sillier by the minute.
Wade, your blog is a constant attack on people…on complementarians, on conservatives, and especially towards Dr. Patterson.
And, I guess you answer straightens everything out… another anonymous source told you. Tell us who the friend of Wes is that wrote you. If he’s a friend of Wes, I promise you that we wont lash out at him with sharp teeth. We wont even gnaw on him a little bit.
It would help to end all of this… if you’d just tell us who it was.
We dont bite.
David
I feel honored, I am being prayed for, not by Jesus as John 17 tells me, but also by the “savior” of the SBC.
:)
Tim
Pingback: Paige Patterson: ‘Ecumenical movements always fail, and we cannot go there.’ : Sic et Non
Calvinists cannot look at every person in the eye and say, “Christ died for your sins.” Doctrine of particular or limited atonement is clear that Christ died for the elect, not everyone. Dr. Patterson just confirmed the fate of Calvinist professors at SWBTS.
I finally got the time to listen to the video. Sounds like one to four pointers will be OK, but anyone who bears the dreaded L of theology may not be, if Dr. Patterson proves consistent in his interpretation and stated belief in the video. What, pray tell, would he have told Spurgeon?
I was so taken with the passionate interview with a man who was obviously tired when he gave this interview. That is, until I began to read the comment thread. Patterson is obviously committed to the gospel, to the churches, and to reaching the lost, as came out in the interview-we really heard from this man’s heart in a weak moment.
Unfortunately, these heartfelt thoughts are being shrouded over and lost because of the imposition of ideas that have come from another blog, a blog that has been making unsubstantiated claims. And now, the conversation has shifted to whether a Calvinist can say that Christ died for lost people. Even though some of the Calvinists themselves have objected to the idea that such passionate presentation of the gospel is perfectly compatible with Calvinism, the conversation continues and the unsubstantiated charges are subtly brought over from the other blog.
May I ask a favor from the editors of SBC Today? Would you please consider closing the comment stream in order to allow people to listen to Patterson directly without distracting (and what some might legitimately consider to be rumor-mongering) catcalls from the gallery? SBC Today is a reputable blog that does not need to become intertwined with less reputable blogs.
Thank you for considering my request.
Granted.
Pingback: On Southern Baptist Blog Wars, Liberals & Fundamentalists | the big daddy weave
Pingback: On Southern Baptist Blog Wars, Liberals & Fundamentalists | the big daddy weave
Pingback: On Southern Baptist Blog Wars, Liberals & Fundamentalists | the big daddy weave
Pingback: Calvinistic Chaos: Predestined Conflict « Pickling In His Presence