QUOTE]Originally posted by Todd:
GB and BB, you guys are excellent at redaction history (maybe that's because moderates/liberals are so sympathetic with higher criticism). [/quote]
Interesting how you have alleged things about my theology without any basis in reality. If you took the time to actually talk to me about my beliefs, you would know that I reject so-called “higher criticism”.
Furthermore, your continued allegations that I practice “redaction history” is getting really old. Why don’t we discuss the issues instead of making unsubstantiated charges against me. Can you do that?
Further, you continue to make claim after claim with no substantial evidence to validate those claims.
I can help you research some of these facts if you are interested, but you’re going to have to be an honest student and check them out for yourself. You have accused me so many times of editing history that I think you need to find out the truth for yourself. It seems pretty clear you assume I will not tell you the truth.
And when you did provide some attempt at some verifiable proof of your claims about seminary enrollment, you provided information from a clearly biased source (BGCT) that was at least four years old (website copyright 1996-2000).
And you failed to mention that I explicitly told you it was several years old. I’m not trying to hide anything here. I have first-hand information about most of the information regarding Southwestern Seminary that is included in that report.
As for the issue of bias, I don’t think it is terribly biased. (Note that the BGCT report urges continued support of the Golden Gate seminary – hardly a position that an anti-SBC report would take.)
Your "proof" was not even relevant to the current condition of today's SBC seminaries!
And I also noted that. But, for the record, my statements about seminary enrollment dealt with the years between about 1983 and 1995 – not the last few years.
Regarding my claims, with each of the ones that I made in my previous post they were all substantiated by REAL first-hand information, and not simply some type of hear-say.
I find it interesting that you want me to accept your first-hand and anonymous second-hand information without question, but you won’t accept my first-hand testimony regarding the events at Southwestern and the treatment of certain professors I know.
The only one you challenged me on (the prof at SEBTS), I would be more than happy to provide you with his name if I knew that he would allow it.
His story seems so far off base that I’d need for him to have the nerve to come forward if I’m going to believe his allegations.
If you would be interested in talking with him about his experience within the Ph.D. program under Dilday, I'm sure he would be happy to do so. Just let me know and I'll try and set it up.
Can he provide any evidence of his story? For instance, I can provide some tangible evidence of the content and timing of my meeting with Hemphill back in Spring 1995 where he threatened me to keep my mouth shut about his admission that the seminary trustees and administration had lied about the firing of Dilday. (I have notes written in his own hand, a transcript of our discussion – sealed and postmarked within a few days of our meeting with copies residing on three different people’s permanent files throughout Texas, and a copy of something I wrote that landed me in his office in the first place. The three people who have copies of the documentation do not know each other and are on differing sides of the issues from me, but they are all honest people who know me very well.)
Also, when I told you I could validate the content of the "open theism" breakout session of the CBF from last year's annual session, you said that such proof was not necessary…
Because I don’t have much doubt that one of the two speakers in the Breakout session was sympathetic to open theism. Of course you made the logical leap that because the session allow a person sympathetic to open theism to present his side of the issues on an equal playing field with someone who opposed it, that the entire CBF was somehow “espousing” it.
…and then you proceeded to say that I had not provided the info.
I think what you are referring to is my demand that you prove that the CBF was “espousing” open theism. If that’s the only “proof” you have, you have absolutely no proof.
…Well DUH! I'm not going to give you info that you're not even going to look at (for fear that it may tear down many of your pre-conceived notions about the SBC). If you want it, I'll be more than happy to give it to you. If you don't want it, don't claim that I'm not willing to offer you the information.
If you can provide proof that the CBF “espouses” open theism, I would like to see it. But having a speaker present that side of the theological issue during an information/discussion session is not proof. In fact, it demonstrates that the CBF has not embraced open theism because they have to bring in a speaker to explain it to them!
I'm not sure that this string will be very edifying to anyone, because some of you guys keep insinuating that some of the SBC key leaders have been manipulative and purgurous, yet you have provided no valid proofs of those claims. Even the information you provided about the "changing of the locks" can't be validated.
It can if you take the time to check it out. Unfortunately, since the event occurred 10 years ago next month, most of that information from third parties (secular newspapers and such) is no longer available on the internet. If you go to your library and do a newspaper search for March 1994, you will likely find more information than you can handle.
If it can, then please provide us with the information we need to validate your claim.
Here’s a simple Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dilday+locks+Southwestern+firing&btnG=Google+Search
You may allege that the information is “biased”, but do your own research at your library and read the newspapers from that era. You will discover the truth.
Otherwise, quit passing along things as true that can't be validated.
Almost everything that I have said can be validated by someone who is interested in checking it out. The Texas Historical Collection of the BGCT in Dallas has a number of documents related to the period around the Dilday firing. If you contact them, they may be able to make some copies of information (that is not copyrighted) and send them to you for a nominal fee to cover their costs of duplication and postage.
You might preface such a comment like the one you made with, "Well, I heard..." or "This is what I saw at SWBTS..." but don't pretend like such a claim is absolute truth when it can't be validated.
That’s good advice for you too.
In my opinion, some of you want to believe everything the BGCT and the ABP tells you without attempting to verify your information with the named individuals mentioned in their stories.
Not true. I check out most of what I read – especially if it is controversial. I’ve never caught the BGCT or ABP in a lie. I’ve caught Baptist Press in more lies and distortions than I can remember.
The reason for your belief? I can't speak for your own reasons, but I do know many moderates/liberals who were turned off to the SBC when they saw many of their professors and friends removed from positions of leadership within the SBC and its seminaries (for theological/philosophical reasons).
You forgot to mention “political reasons”.
This is my point - when moderate/liberal/pro-CBF folks attack the SBC, rarely do I find that they attach their theology…Clearly, these are the best attempts that they can make to try and prove their case - "we can't find a chink in their theology, so instead we'll just attack their characters."
Apparently you’ve missed all of the discussion and critique of the “family” amendment to the BF&M in 1998 and the theological critique of the BF&M 2000.
Furthermore, the character-assassination tactics of many SBC leaders are contemptible.
On the other hand, when you find folks like myself who are theologically conservative making statements about the CBF, former SBC leaders, and others, most often you will find them rooted in theology, not personalities.
That explains your “typical moderate/liberal” comments I suppose…
It is the moderate/liberal crowd that made the whole "resurrgence" thing an issue of personalities. The moderate/liberal folks seem to thrive on critiquing the SBC and it's current leadership - if you don't believe me, just attend one of their annual meetings…
Have you ever attended one of the allegedly “moderate/liberal” meetings like a CBF meeting or BGCT annual meeting? I have attended three CBF annual meetings and at least a dozen BGCT annual meetings since the late 1980s, and have not seen the emphasis on personalities that you allege. Most of the discussion (when we’re discussing the SBC at all) is about theological issues.
It's worthy of note that if SBCers did want to attack personalities within CBF life, they wouldn't have to look very far (David Currie - how many times has he been married?
I don’t know if he has been divorced or not. If you know, you need to either say so or don’t mention it at all. Your open-ended question/allegation serves only to make him appear immoral or unstable.
…Tony Campolo - hasn't he become increasingly more liberal, as evidenced by his wife's approval of the homosexual lifestyle?
Campolo does not condone homosexual relationships, but his wife is more open to them. His wife’s views are different than his own. Of course you’re using guilt by association to try to make Campolo appear like he supports homosexual relationships when he does not.
…It is not even necessary for those who are on the theological "right" of the issues to make these kinds of attacks though - their theology is so easy to expose as faulty that such personal attacks are useless and unnecessary.
[qb]
By remaining with the objective truths of Scripture and sound exegesis, I'm more than confident that I will be able to refute your errant theologies.
It doesn’t sound like you are willing to consider my “errant” theology.
If you could lose the condescending attitude and your false assumptions about people like me, there might be hope for having a fruitful and enlightening discussion.
