I don't have videos but I may have quite a bit of his sermons on .mp3. If you can find the Romans series, or the 9/ll or Bonfire sermons they were impactful.

God used Dwight in my life and I'm grateful. Hope his family is all well.

He currently teaches some Bible studies at Houston's First Baptist.

I prefer Jonathan Edwards though…

Dwight is apparently a direct lineal descendent of Jonathan and the only one that had been a preacher.

Jabin said:

---

Dwight is apparently a direct lineal descendent of Jonathan and the only one that had been a preacher.

---

yah, he's real proud of that. On any bio he creates.

Jabin said:

---

Good job!

Dwight Edwards may be the best preacher I've ever heard. He had his personal demons, but none of those take away from either God's grace or the abilities that God gave Dwight.

And I say that having had the privilege to have heard some of the greatest preachers of the 20th and 21st centuries.

---

I'm not so sure. I'd point to Karl Barth as a foil:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/theologians-karl-barth-adultery/

Quote:

---

Asking this question isn't an exercise in the fashionable tendency to "cancel" theologians from the past in the spirit of self-righteousness. Nor is it a demonstration of speculative psychologizing. Barth himself wasn't silent in his private correspondence with Kirschbaum about how he conceptualized their affair from a theological perspective. Indeed, he readily admits his actions affected how dogmatic he allowed himself to be. "A strange consequence of our 'experience'" writes Barth, "will be that my seminar this summer about the recent history of theology will turn out much more lenient, merciful, cautious than it would have been the case otherwise!"

Barth would even go so far as to justify his sin theologically. At one point, he says to his mistress, "It cannot just be the devil's work, it must have some meaning and a right to live, that we, no, I will only talk about me: that I love you and do not see any chance to stop this." According to Barth, the pious option was to remain in the tension between the revealed commands of God's Word and the assumed ordination of God in his love for Kirschbaum. It couldn't possibly be that God intended for him to deny his affections for a woman who wasn't his wifeeven though this is what Scripture clearly teaches.

So he concludes God has purposes to keep him in this tension: refusing to divorce his wife and refusing to deprive himself of his relationship with Kirschbaum. "Thus I stand before the eyes of God, without being able to escape from him in one or the other way." God, according to Barth, has placed him in an impossible dilemma, where the closest thing to obedience, and the most pious option, is to stay in an adulterous relationship.

---

Response:

1. As far as I know, Dwight was not in a physically adulterous relationship.

2. The demons I referred to may not have been affecting Dwight throughout his ministry. In other words, we should not leap to cast out Dwight's entire ministry because of his failings at the end.

3. Are you suggesting that we ought to listen only to preachers and teachers who are without fault and without sin? I assume that you're not. In that case, what standard do you use to determine which sins are acceptable, which teachings by sinners are acceptable, and which sinners are acceptable as teachers and preachers?

4. I am not an expert, or even knowledgeable about Barth. However, I suspect that there was a lot more wrong with Barth's theology and teachings than merely those aspects affected by his affair.

Jabin said:

---

Response:

1. As far as I know, Dwight was not in a physically adulterous relationship.

2. The demons I referred to may not have been affecting Dwight throughout his ministry. In other words, we should not leap to cast out Dwight's entire ministry because of his failings at the end.

3. Are you suggesting that we ought to listen only to preachers and teachers who are without fault and without sin? I assume that you're not. In that case, what standard do you use to determine which sins are acceptable, which teachings by sinners are acceptable, and which sinners are acceptable as teachers and preachers?

4. I am not an expert, or even knowledgeable about Barth. However, I suspect that there was a lot more wrong with Barth's theology and teachings than merely those aspects affected by his affair.

---

1. How is that possible when he is currently married to his mistress?

2. It did great harm to his church.

3. Yes, ministers who are involved in public scandal should be deposed. They must be above reproach.

4. Agree. Barth is trash.

Jabin said:

---

Response:

1. As far as I know, Dwight was not in a physically adulterous relationship.

2. The demons I referred to may not have been affecting Dwight throughout his ministry. In other words, we should not leap to cast out Dwight's entire ministry because of his failings at the end.

3. Are you suggesting that we ought to listen only to preachers and teachers who are without fault and without sin? I assume that you're not. In that case, what standard do you use to determine which sins are acceptable, which teachings by sinners are acceptable, and which sinners are acceptable as teachers and preachers?

4. I am not an expert, or even knowledgeable about Barth. However, I suspect that there was a lot more wrong with Barth's theology and teachings than merely those aspects affected by his affair.

---

The article about Barth is worth reading. Much of this was unknown until his family released the journals, though some of it was suspected. I don't know why you'd suspect Barth of missing the mark on everything else if you don't know him. That seems like a reflex to protect yourself more than a reasoned reflection on him.

I strongly caution you against overlooking someone's sin, especially that which was ongoing and unrepentant, simply because all people sin. Leaders are held to a higher standard by God so why wouldn't we do the same? Why so quick to dismiss?

If edwards' sermons are untrustworthy it's his own fault and you should be suspicious of his theology rather than those that question him. What man could abandon his own family but teach fully over something like David and Nathan, or epistles that talk about qualifications of offices, or Matthew 19, etc.? What understanding of Christ and the church or self sacrifice can he have and preach on well if he'd abandon his own wife? You can't know when it started or how long it went on or if there weren't others before.

I understand that he was formative but we need to approach him with caution. It is ok to grieve and remember without abandoning your faith or deconstructing it. I'm not asking you to do that or challenging your faith. I'd just hesitate to talk about the greatness of his sermons (I say this as someone with the complete works of Jonathan Edwards on my bookshelf).

I don't want to get involved in a long discussion on this topic, but am willing to make this one additional response:

Quote:

---

The article about Barth is worth reading. Much of this was unknown until his family released the journals, though some of it was suspected. I don't know why you'd suspect Barth of missing the mark on everything else if you don't know him. That seems like a reflex to protect yourself more than a reasoned reflection on him.

---

I guess that I don't understand your point. On the one hand, you argue that we should consider Barth's affair in considering his theology, but then in your words above you seem to be supporting Barth. Which is it? Your position on Barth is confusing.

And I did read the article and Barth's situation is substantially different than Dwight's. From the article:

Quote:

---

Barth not only pursued a long-term romantic courtship with Kirschbaum but also invited her to live with him and his family. This put incredible strain on his relationship with his wife, Nelly, who wasn't oblivious. In fact, her depression was so severe that at one point she put an ultimatum to Barth: either Kirschbaum moves out of the house, or Nelly would do the unthinkable and divorce him. Barth, ever committed to rational and well-thought-out actions, responded by calling a meeting between himself, his wife, and his mistress to talk the matter over. The result was that Nelly received a "no" to her ultimatum, and she was effectively forced to remain living with her adulterous husband and his mistress.

---

As far as I know, Dwight has never been accused of any behavior so bizarre. Barth's behavior calls into question not only his theology, but his entire rationality. And by saying that, I am in no way trying to excuse or justify Dwight's sin.

As far as I know, Dwight's sin was a period of alcoholism and a platonic long-distance relationship with a woman who was not his wife. However, I haven't lived in Texas for years, so I'm definitely out of the loop. If there was more to it than that, let me know.

Quote:

---

I strongly caution you against overlooking someone's sin, especially that which was ongoing and unrepentant, simply because all people sin. Leaders are held to a higher standard by God so why wouldn't we do the same? Why so quick to dismiss?

---

Who's overlooking someone's sin? I never said that or implied that. To the contrary, I believe that Dwight did need to leave the church. His sins did much to harm the good he had done in the years before.

I am suggesting that someone's sin does not denigrate their entire life's work. King David is the role model on that score. Despite his constant sins (more than just Bathsheeba), he is the only person to be referred to in the Bible as "a man after God's own heart." That is not to dismiss or excuse his sin, but rather to recognize that none of us are defined entirely by our sins and failures.

Quote:

---

If Edwards' sermons are untrustworthy it's his own fault and you should be suspicious of his theology rather than those that question him. What man could abandon his own family but teach fully over something like David and Nathan, or epistles that talk about qualifications of offices, or Matthew 19, etc.? What understanding of Christ and the church or self sacrifice can he have and preach on well if he'd abandon his own wife? You can't know when it started or how long it went on or if there weren't others before.

---

You ignored my questions.

But to go further - Which preacher or theologian is without sin?

Which parts of their works are influenced by their sin and which are not?

What parts of Dwight's teachings and theology do you believe were influenced by his sins?

How do you explain the meteoric growth of Grace Bible Church under Dwight's pastorship? Was it all demonic?

Quote:

---

I understand that he was formative but we need to approach him with caution. It is ok to grieve and remember without abandoning your faith or deconstructing it. I'm not asking you to do that or challenging your faith. I'd just hesitate to talk about the greatness of his sermons (I say this as someone with the complete works of Jonathan Edwards on my bookshelf).

---

His sermons were great, and I say that unapologetically while grieving for Dwight's later failures. Dwight's sermons were instrumental in getting my Dad in a closer walk with God, as just one example.

There's lots of miscommunication that occurs in digital communications. Just so you know, your posts here lately come across as very judgmental, willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and attempting to set a standard of sinless perfection that no person, preacher, or teacher (other than Christ) can meet.

• Every pastor that has ever lived is a sinner and continues to sin.
• Every pastor or religious teacher's theology should be questioned.
• Every pastor should be above reproach in order to remain a pastor. (This does not mean sinless perfection, which only Jesus is capable of).
• A pastor that is removed from duties due to sin doesn't mean that they are no longer useful to the kingdom.

For the choir director. A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.
51 Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
4 Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6 Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Make me to hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.
9 Hide Your face from my sins
And blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners will be converted to You.

As I posted in the other thread about him that was bumped months ago, platonic is not what the relationship was from my understanding. It was an emotional affair and he left his family for her (they're now married as mqb stated earlier). How is that so dissimilar? Why should I so quickly dismiss this sin?

Edit: Again, you're really quickly glossing over adultery because you liked his sermons and seem to think his sin wouldn't influence his preaching. It would for all of us, regardless of what it was. An ongoing affair is more influential than you think. I'm not saying this as someone who hasn't experienced friends or church staff committing it. Affection for someone outside the marital bed impacts your thoughts in your spare time (you text them, think about ways to spend time with them). You stop pursuing your spouse and it's noticeable for them.

Look, he's human. So was Moses, I mean, he murdered an Egyptian, so was Noah, he was a drunkard, so was...well, pretty much anyone God chooses to be an advocate because, we are all human. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there seems to be a pattern of whom God chooses to lead and it doesn't come from piety and separation from the world. His sermons helped a great deal of people. To discount that because of worldly decisions is pure foolishness and prideful on your part. Anyway, here are more of his sermons.

I'm not sure we read the same Bible. Moses faced consequences for his actions: he was rejected by his own people and fled to Midian fearing punishment for his actions. They rejected his leadership.

This is no different. It is right and reasonable to ask if his sermons were influenced by his sin and if Dwight was truthful with himself, surely not even he could rebut that or confidently say they weren't.

God's choice to use people despite their sin does not excuse it and they always face consequences, which means loss of opportunity sometimes and office. I do not think God would agree with your leadership criteria.

David was a man after God's own heart. He murdered and committed adultery. I've murdered and committed adultery. Therefore, I'm a man after God's own heart.

AGC said:

---

I'm not sure we read the same Bible. Moses faced consequences for his actions: he was rejected by his own people and fled to Midian fearing punishment for his actions. They rejected his leadership.

This is no different. It is right and reasonable to ask if his sermons were influenced by his sin and if Dwight was truthful with himself, surely not even he could rebut that or confidently say they weren't.

God's choice to use people despite their sin does not excuse it and they always face consequences, which means loss of opportunity sometimes and office. I do not think God would agree with your leadership criteria.

---

And Dwight also faced consequences for his action.

You seem to believe that because some appreciate and value Dwight's sermons, that they also excuse his behavior. That's not true at all.

It's not all black and white like you're trying to make it. You've created a standard of sinless perfection for pastors that no person, other than Jesus, can meet.

Jabin said:

---

AGC said:

---

I'm not sure we read the same Bible. Moses faced consequences for his actions: he was rejected by his own people and fled to Midian fearing punishment for his actions. They rejected his leadership.

This is no different. It is right and reasonable to ask if his sermons were influenced by his sin and if Dwight was truthful with himself, surely not even he could rebut that or confidently say they weren't.

God's choice to use people despite their sin does not excuse it and they always face consequences, which means loss of opportunity sometimes and office. I do not think God would agree with your leadership criteria.

---

And Dwight also faced consequences for his action.

You seem to believe that because some appreciate and value Dwight's sermons, that they also excuse his behavior. That's not true at all.

It's not all black and white like you're trying to make it. You've created a standard of sinless perfection for pastors that no person, other than Jesus, can meet.

---

You misunderstand and misstate my position. The question I ask is, given that he hid his sin and didn't repent of it but ran to it, should we assume that they're theologically sound rather than changed (like Barth)? What happens to the prayers of men who don't honor their wives? Is the Holy Spirit speaking through him in these cases? If he taught on adultery or leadership in the church during that time and prayed about it, did he listen to the answer (since he didn't change his behavior)?

You're treating it like stealing a paper clip or innocuously lying about being late to dinner. What Christian can't tell the difference between such things? A guy who speeds by 2-3 mph occasionally isn't likely to soften his sermons on adultery like one might in this case (see Barth again). We all understand the addict who wrestles with their addiction but this is not the case here. This has nothing to do with a sinless standard for preaching. It is clear unrepentant sin. The Lord removed His spirit from people who did such things in the Old Testament (not because one must be sinless to be king).

Quote:

---

The question I ask is, given that he hid his sin and didn't repent of it but ran to it, should we assume that they're theologically sound rather than changed (like Barth)? What happens to the prayers of men who don't honor their wives? Is the Holy Spirit speaking through him in these cases? If he taught on adultery or leadership in the church during that time and prayed about it, did he listen to the answer (since he didn't change his behavior)?

You're treating it like stealing a paper clip or innocuously lying about being late to dinner. What Christian can't tell the difference between such things? A guy who speeds by 2-3 mph occasionally isn't likely to soften his sermons on adultery like one might in this case (see Barth again). We all understand the addict who wrestles with their addiction but this is not the case here. This has nothing to do with a sinless standard for preaching. It is clear unrepentant sin. The Lord removed His spirit from people who did such things in the Old Testament (not because one must be sinless to be king).

---

So you're saying that since Dwight sinned at age X (say 45 or 50), that sin contaminates his teachings back to his earliest days? That is harsh and completely contrary to everything that the Bible teaches, explicitly and implicitly.

What exactly have I said that conveys that I'm treating Dwight's sin "like stealing a paperclip or innocuously lying about being late to dinner"? That's not true at all. I believe that Dwight's sin, like all sins, was horrendous and grieved God. Dwight's sin almost certainly also hurt his wife and children badly.

But you say that speeding is OK. We can listen to preachers that speed. What if the preachers who speed are unrepentant for doing so? How do you make the distinction between speeding and other sins and what is your Biblical basis for it? (Is it because you occasionally speed so that it can't be that bad?) How much sin is too much, where is the line drawn, and who makes that decision?

Even your reference to the Biblical accounts of God removing his spirit contradicts your position. That means that prior to that event, those individuals were filled with God's spirit. King Saul is an example: he was God's anointed. Yes, God withdrew his Spirit from Saul but that did not make all of Saul's previous actions ungodly, and interestingly David continued to treat Saul as God's anointed even after that event.

BTW, are you Dwight's ex or one of his kids?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The question I ask is, given that he hid his sin and didn't repent of it but ran to it, should we assume that they're theologically sound rather than changed (like Barth)? What happens to the prayers of men who don't honor their wives? Is the Holy Spirit speaking through him in these cases? If he taught on adultery or leadership in the church during that time and prayed about it, did he listen to the answer (since he didn't change his behavior)?

You're treating it like stealing a paper clip or innocuously lying about being late to dinner. What Christian can't tell the difference between such things? A guy who speeds by 2-3 mph occasionally isn't likely to soften his sermons on adultery like one might in this case (see Barth again). We all understand the addict who wrestles with their addiction but this is not the case here. This has nothing to do with a sinless standard for preaching. It is clear unrepentant sin. The Lord removed His spirit from people who did such things in the Old Testament (not because one must be sinless to be king).

---

So you're saying that since Dwight sinned at age X (say 45 or 50), that sin contaminates his teachings back to his earliest days? That is harsh and completely contrary to everything that the Bible teaches, explicitly and implicitly.

What exactly have I said that conveys that I'm treating Dwight's sin "like stealing a paperclip or innocuously lying about being late to dinner"? That's not true at all. I believe that Dwight's sin, like all sins, was horrendous and grieved God. Dwight's sin almost certainly also hurt his wife and children badly.

But you say that speeding is OK. We can listen to preachers that speed. What if the preachers who speed are unrepentant for doing so? How do you make the distinction between speeding and other sins and what is your Biblical basis for it? (Is it because you occasionally speed so that it can't be that bad?) How much sin is too much, where is the line drawn, and who makes that decision?

Even your reference to the Biblical accounts of God removing his spirit contradicts your position. That means that prior to that event, those individuals were filled with God's spirit. King Saul is an example: he was God's anointed. Yes, God withdrew his Spirit from Saul but that did not make all of Saul's previous actions ungodly, and interestingly David continued to treat Saul as God's anointed even after that event.

BTW, are you Dwight's ex or one of his kids?

---

I'm not related to him at all.

I don't see what's so hard about the concept. Rarely have I met a man that does such a thing who hadn't already stated down that road years before. I know at least 5-6 couples personally where this has happened (likely more that I'm simply ignorant of). Some survived, some didn't. In all cases, behavior changed well before it was discovered and red flags / inconsistent behavior were written off with grace and good intentions.

The point is that you don't know when it began and how much of his ministry was impacted. It is not harsh to say so, but reasonable and well founded to caution people who listen to these to be wary and weigh all things. It's also possible the Holy Spirit was not speaking through him in the throes of it or answering his prayers. That's wild. Teachers carry a higher burden than us lay people.

Once again I do not assert sinlessness as a bar for preaching. That's a strawman you're constructing which has the effect of diminishing adultery in service of protecting formative preaching in your life. His model of marriage was Christ and the church with serious implications for failure. We have a lot of scripture regarding such things and the implications go beyond hurt feelings. Nothing I'm saying is unscriptural or unreasonable.

You're treating his actions as if they occurred at a single point in time. That's the biggest difference between our assessment. I say we don't know how much of his preaching and ministry was impacted because we don't have the full scope. Thus we should be hesitant to speak so confidently about the Holy Spirit being present in his sermons.

You kind of sound like GBC leadership or something. This is way too close to home for the responses you are putting forth. Very odd.

How much sin is too much sin? You said speeding is OK. Why is it OK? What sins are permissible in a pastor, which are not, and why? I've asked you that question in various forms multiple times and you keep avoiding it, probably because you have no answer. You're just convinced that Dwight is a bad man but cannot say why he is but a pastor that persistently speeds is not.

You also seem to ignore the pattern repeated over and over again in the Bible of God using deeply flawed men. None of the Patriarchs were chosen to be the recipient or heir to God's covenant because they deserved it.

You're right, I cannot tell when Dwight's sin began. But neither can you. You choose to reject all of God's work through Dwight even though you have no idea where Dwight was spiritually at any point in time. That seems very harsh, judgmental, and unsupportable Biblically.

You seem to be placing yourself in God's role, judging Dwight and the value of his ministry.

ETA: You also seem to assume that I and others took Dwight's teaching as authoritative. You ignore the fact that I and most others would compare Dwight's teachings to the Bible's teachings on point. I didn't attend Grace at all in the last years of Dwight's pastorship so I have no idea whether his teaching started straying from the Word as he fell deeper and deeper into sin.

As an example of what I appreciated about Dwight was his way of describing the differing roles of issues in the Bible the Christians of good faith disagree over. With regard to those issues, Dwight described some as issues that he'd be willing to give his life over. Others, he might be willing to give a few years or months of his life. And many he'd only be willing to give up lunch over. I thought that was a great way to put in perspective many of the theological differences that split the Church so badly. We should not allow minor issues (i.e., the ones we'd only give up lunch over) to create divisions in the body of Christ.

Tibbers said:

---

You kind of sound like GBC leadership or something. This is way too close to home for the responses you are putting forth. Very odd.

---

You kind of sound like Dwight or something. This is way too close to home for the responses/videos you are putting forth. Very odd.

Yeah, sorry, I've seen a lot of marriages fail due to adultery and churches hurt by such conduct. You clearly loved him dearly. I hardly think a warning label is provocative or controversial.

Jabin said:

---

How much sin is too much sin? You said speeding is OK. Why is it OK? What sins are permissible in a pastor, which are not, and why? I've asked you that question in various forms multiple times and you keep avoiding it, probably because you have no answer. You're just convinced that Dwight is a bad man but cannot say why he is but a pastor that persistently speeds is not.

You also seem to ignore the pattern repeated over and over again in the Bible of God using deeply flawed men. None of the Patriarchs were chosen to be the recipient or heir to God's covenant because they deserved it.

You're right, I cannot tell when Dwight's sin began. But neither can you. You choose to reject all of God's work through Dwight even though you have no idea where Dwight was spiritually at any point in time. That seems very harsh, judgmental, and unsupportable Biblically.

You seem to be placing yourself in God's role, judging Dwight and the value of his ministry.

ETA: You also seem to assume that I and others took Dwight's teaching as authoritative. You ignore the fact that I and most others would compare Dwight's teachings to the Bible's teachings on point. I didn't attend Grace at all in the last years of Dwight's pastorship so I have no idea whether his teaching started straying from the Word as he fell deeper and deeper into sin.

As an example of what I appreciated about Dwight was his way of describing the differing roles of issues in the Bible the Christians of good faith disagree over. With regard to those issues, Dwight described some as issues that he'd be willing to give his life over. Others, he might be willing to give a few years or months of his life. And many he'd only be willing to give up lunch over. I thought that was a great way to put in perspective many of the theological differences that split the Church so badly. We should not allow minor issues (i.e., the ones we'd only give up lunch over) to create divisions in the body of Christ.

---

Correct, I avoid the question because it's irrelevant. We could nuance to death what sin disqualifies a pastor but we don't need to with Dwight do we? It doesn't impact that he failed the office. It is distraction to find my personal standard and comes close to ad hominem, as if my imperfection or inconsistency has a bearing on what this man did.

Nor is it unreasonable to ask how we can trust what he said since he wasn't obeying the Holy Spirit. It doesn't matter how much you press for a standard or claim flawed men are used. I'm not holding someone up as a great teacher (despite not listening to God).

I don't know that God chooses to work through men because of their sin, rather than despite it. Either way it's not a good argument to say we can take it all at face value. We are all like Israel, in a constant battle with sin. And our sin does impact our ministry, the people follow their king. We haven't delved into pastoral council he offered during that time or fallout from those he counseled in their own marriages that later found out about his.

If you're upset about this perhaps you should focus on the reason for it: the man himself. Imagine if he'd kept his covenant how different this discussion would be (it probably wouldn't even be a discussion here at all). It's ok to say that you're sad about his choices but that you remember his sermons fondly. It's ok to say you hold on to some of his teaching. We must temper claims of greatness though.

No, it's just upsetting to hear such a dismissive opinion. How do you come to know Dwight? Grew up in College Station too? And yep, you got it. I'm Dwight Edwards. You're almost as silly as you're pious and judgmental.

Tibbers said:

---

Hey guys, remember this amazing pastor at Grace Bible Church? Well, going through the attic I found some old sermons on tape so I figured I'd digitize them and present them here for y'all to listen. This man was the greatest pastor I've ever heard. His stories were amazing, his dissection of the current and future times, his impact on the community just can not be overstated. Below is part 1 of his What the Future Holds sermon which I think he gave back in the late 80s.

---

Dismissive? Ironic post is ironic. Let's revisit op with some bold formatting. Does it sound like I'm the one overreacting when I say you should throttle back a little and be mindful of his conduct and how it may have changed or influenced his preaching?

He was an amazing pastor. His sermons were incredible. Have you listened to them? My guess is not. He did have a huge impact on the community and built Grace up from the tiny church where I was baptized to where it is now. The man himself baptized me or do you feel that process was somehow illegitimate because your eyes can pierce a man's soul? I get that he made a mistake, but part of being a Christian is forgiveness. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. With all the missiles you're chunking, you should be pitching for the Astros. I really think your outrage is missing the mark and I wonder its origin. I really do. Forgive the man and move on.

I know nothing about Dwight or any of this.

I do know that Satan loves it when Christians bicker and divide.

Tibbers said:

---

He was an amazing pastor. His sermons were incredible. Have you listened to them? My guess is not. He did have a huge impact on the community and built Grace up from the tiny church where I was baptized to where it is now. The man himself baptized me or do you feel that process was somehow illegitimate because your eyes can pierce a man's soul? I get that he made a mistake, but part of being a Christian is forgiveness. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. With all the missiles you're chunking, you should be pitching for the Astros. I really think your outrage is missing the mark and I wonder its origin. I really do. Forgive the man and move on.

---

Yes, I heard some in college. Yes, he had a big impact…and then he did a lot of damage. Doubting his preaching or theology because of his egregious sin is not immoral or unchristian in any way. It is perfectly reasonable and required (because of his actions, not anyone else's).

Baptism is not the work of man, so I'm not sure how his sin would impact it.

Forgiveness is part of being Christian. It doesn't obligate someone to trust in the present or future. I think you have those concepts mixed up and misapplied. Before accusing others of being unforgiving perhaps revisit your posts here, your tone, and your own accusations? Why are you so defensive and invested?

No problem at all. We're good.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I know nothing about Dwight or any of this.

I do know that Satan loves it when Christians bicker and divide.

---

Thank you for the reminder.

Jabin I owe you an apology. I have talked past you. I was trying to stick to a simple message throughout, mainly that we must temper the claims of greatness in the face of what we know of the man. That's all I want to convey. It doesn't mean he had no impact or that all his sermons are corrupted.

---

Good bull.