New Dilday Book on his firing from SWBTS

Is your language what you would call conservative? If so please leave it with the conservatives. You do show yourself as a conservative. Jesus spews those kind out of His mouth. Jesus commands us to be radical Christian not conservative. Your language is vulgar and in poor taste. That kind of language is not found among the godly.

But on another issue. I personally know Dr. Dilday and have seen and heard many things. I was working on his home for several months at the time he was fired. I had been in every room of his home including his library. When I began to hear from the so called conservatives about their accusations I took a lok through every book in his library and did not find one book that was not conservative or even smacked of liberalism. Durinf the time he was accused of many things never once diod he ever say anything bad about any of his accusers. I cannot say that about his accusers though. In fact if you talk with any of his accusers you will find at the time the chairman of the trustees was shacking up with two women in the church he was pastoring. During that same time I found him to be a most gracious man.

I have erad the book Dilday wrote several years ago on the Bible. It is straight down the line. Even some of the folks who accused him of being liberal I asked if they had read the book and most of the time the answer was, "No."

It amazes me that some on the BB would call some men liberal that Paige Patterson would not.

We all need to realize in any organization there are the liberals, radicals and conservatives. Some are radical believers and are absolutely obedient. Others are conservative in their evangelism, giving and theology. Others are just plain liberal. You will know when you are a radical. Others will let you know by their opposition. Why would Satan atack the dead?

 

GB, I agree that DD's choice of words in regard to Dr. D was wrong, but why did you choose to condemn his use of words and not Scuba's as well? Let's be consistent.

 

It's one thing to be critical of another but quite another to use vulgar langauage. Scripture speaks against using that kind of language. There is no room for vulgarity among believers.

Eph. 5:3,4, "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks."

The word translated "coarse jesting" is really vulgar talk.

 

It is available at amazon.com

 

I take back my line about him being an old fart. He is a viper, a dog, etc.

 

GB, don't you think that calling someone a "fool" is also out of line (see Scuba's last post). As I said, let's be consistent.

 

I really feel sorry for you that you spend so much time looking for the poorest in others. It is a good thing God doesn't do that to you.

 

If you are convicted by the Holy Spirit, why didn't you confront him on it? Isn't that avoiding your responsibility.

What has been your position in the SBC?

What do you think about the actions of the SBC supporting the BFA?

 

Let me just add, why are you consistently wrong in avoiding what is your responsibility?Why didn't you address the person who called someone a fool?

If you are not part of the problem nor the solution then it is gossip. You are gossiping by choosing to not take a stance and reprove the person.

 

Referring to someone as a fool is not wrong. Todd, you posted the Sermon on the Mount text. Christ did not forbid the use of fool, he merely pointed out that contempt was enough to cast a person to hell.

The proverbs refer to many kinds of fools.

 

GB, if you would've read my posts, you would've seen that I called out Scuba for his use of the word "fool," so please don't say that I am "consistently wrong in avoiding what is my responsiblity."

GB and DD, here's how the Bible I read defines a fool: "The fool hath said in his heart 'There is no God" (Ps. 14:1). I'm sorry, but I don't think that just because someone appreciates the ministry and now the Presidency of Dr. P, that he should be classified as a fool. I'm sorry GB, but it appears that you were content to correct DD, but for some reason you saw nothing wrong with Scuba's use of the word fool. Could it be because he was attempting (in his own way) to defend Dr. D - someone you have come in here and defended time and again? Like I said, if we're going to exemplify Christ, then we all need to be consistent.

 

You need to quit assuming that your judgments are perfect! Because you are absolutely wrong. So now you libel me by declaring something I never wrote! Amazing that you changed from "appears. . ." to "but for some reason you saw nothing wrong with Scuba's use of the word fool." How is that you see fit to change perspective in the same sentence. Are you prone to exaggeration?

 

GB, so you're saying you saw absolutely nothing wrong with Scuba's choice of words...is that what I'm hearing? If not, then why not condemn his choice of words just as you did DD's when he called Dr. D and "old fart?" As I said, if we're going to be faithful followers of Christ, then let's be consistent.