by Sandy » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:20 am
How many other SBC seminary VP's, when called on to preach at the SBC annual meeting, chose the substitutionary atonement of Christ as their topic? For that matter, I wonder how frequently that has ever been the topic of a sermon preached at an SBC annual meeting, considering the fact that the vast majority of messengers probably have a pretty good working knowledge of the theology, and likely already believe in it?
Dr. Molly Marshall has been teaching, preaching and writing for a long time. It would have been quite easy for Scott Lamb to have researched her record and easily proven that she wasn't a believer in the substitutionary atonement of Christ by simply quoting her. So why didn't he just do that? Because the accusation that she doesn't believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ is, er, ah, eh, uh, oh.....(come on, don't mince words!) a lie. It is pretty clear from her teaching, preaching and writing, that she does indeed believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. What the Pressler-Pattersonites don't like about Dr. Marshall is that she is an intelligent, hard-working, God-called, Holy Spirit-filled woman who has had a successful career in theological education.
For that matter, what pre-1979 SBC president is on the record for calling belief in the substitutionary atonement of Christ "slaughterhouse religion?" K. Owen White? W.A. Criswell? Jimmy Allen? Which of the pre-1979 SBC seminary presidents didn't believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ? Who, among those who delivered sermons at SBC gatherings prior to 1979, wouldn't have preached on the substitutionary atonement because they didn't believe in it?
Many people have been asking the same question for more than 25 years. Who are the "liberals" who were apparently completely and totally in charge of the SBC prior to 1979?