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.”
When I entered seminary back in 1989, I was challenged by teaching that has come to be described as neo-orthodoxy. This teaching was presented as being open minded to what others believe. It was presented as the “humility” approach to understanding scripture without forcing one’s belief on another. I struggled with much of the teaching, such as, Jesus did not really walk on water because it cannot be reproduced thus it is only an embellished story of his followers. Some have called this teaching liberal, others called it moderate, and others called it heretical. When I struggled with the teaching my late father told me to hold onto the teaching that was validated with scripture and historically accepted and use that as a filter to determine if the new teaching was useful. I took his advice and it has worked very well as I do theology today.
With that in mind, I was reading Dr. Nathan Finn in his latest post at Between The Times. Dr. Finn certainly has the credentials to present what he has presented concerning the issues of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. However, his approach to the issue is one that, I believe, is full of flaws. Why? He seems to completely ignore the historical evidence of baptism being a prerequisite to the Lord’s Table. To be fair, he does express the historical record, but his summary seems to one built on sinking sand at least, and an apparent call to change the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) at the most.
In order to show where Dr. Finn’s suggestions will lead us, I would like to take his same assumptions and apply them to the Conservative Resurgence. In other words, I will borrow his outline and even a few of his words and logic in order to see where we would be had the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence taken Dr. Finn’s approach.
On other blogs and some of the comments on Wes Kenney’s recent post, there seems to be some confusion concerning what Southern Baptists have adopted as our confession of beliefs regarding baptism and the Lord’s supper. Wes dealt with this subject of baptism and the Lord’s table two years ago. The post and comments are interesting needless to say. Recently, the term, “Landmark” and “neo-Landmark” has been thrown around by some. In this post, I will show how “closed,” “strict,” and “close” communionists fit well withing the framework of the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M), but those that practice open communion, practice opposite of the beliefs stated in the confession of faith adopted by Southern Baptists.