Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

"...even those who don't believe the gospel are granted legitimacy." I am not sure where you get this. Personally I know Catholics who are believers and lead people to Christ.

My mom is still a Catholic. She is now a believr though. About two years ago she went to a conference to learn how to share her faith. What I see happening is the Catholics have become more evangelical and the protestants have more infighting. Can anyone name one Baptist convention or denomination who has at least maintained or increased their evangelism in the past 50 years. None that I know of.

 

Graham certainly made race one color. While others in the south to this very day have continued to sit on the sidelines. I never saw such disrespect toward others until I lived in the south. Even the convention I was a part of continued to encourage separate churches. I was glad to leave the SBC once I realized they would not take a stance and require their pastors to take a stance against such nonsense.

A friend of mine form seminary was pastoring a church in LA. When I arrived at his home he asked if I noticed anything in the town. I hadn't. In fact I went to a store in the so called not so good part of the town where those with different colored sking lived and asked for directions. When he started telling me about the differences I asked him what he was going to do about it. He told me if he tried to something about it his church would see him out of town. This was 1997. Another friend of mine in SC led a black youth to Christ and invited him to church only to be met with the segregationist deacons and the youth was told he could not enter the church. What a witness of the gospel of Christ and love shown toward that new believer. I am sure Satan used those demons at the front door or the SBC church well. Where is the stance of pastors and those in the SBC? A few years ago I wrote one of the leaders in the conservative resurgence and former pres. of the SBC and got an interesting reply. It was not a reply that indicated anything would be done except to tell me to move on. So much for conservatism (really liberalism in practice).

 

In his crusades when liberals invited to come and speak on their behalf. Was that a serious question? Have you really not thought through this?

 

So you are saying that when(if you do)you knock on the doors of non-believers you tell them how the church should straighten itself out.</font>[/QUOTE]What in the world are you talking about? I have no idea where this came from. It is not even remotely connected to the discussion here.

Segregation was the law of the land in teh south. Jones tried to start a school for black students so they could get a legal education. He arranged for black students to go to northern schools so they could get a good education.

There is a major difference: Those who confronted Graham and tried to persuade him to turn from his disobedience were being obedient to God. Annanias and Sapphira were not. It is amazing that after all these years, with all that is so well known about Graham, that people still defend his actions. For the life of me, I will never understand that. I can understanding defending MacArthur or Piper ... but Graham??? Really folks ...

 

Why obedience to Scripture a "petty, bickering attitude"? Have we really stooped that far in our biblical understanding and/or allegiance to Scripture? Once we start endorsing the clear violation of Scripture by refusing to separate and expose when teh Bible commands, we have gone down teh wrong road.

Graham's sins were not that he was "too nice" to someone who invited him to speak. Graham's sins were that he failed to obey clear scriptural commands regarding apostasy. He disobeyed God in an area where God commanded those who are obedient to separate. Don't define down his sin by acting like he said "Hi" to someone who disagreed. He was openly defiant of God's command.

As for Jones doing what he would have condemned years ago, maybe or maybe not. I doubt it, but that is not the issue. Graham was/is wrong and what Jones did was not even remotely similar, except that they both spoke to audiences who disagreed or at least were neutral. To compare that to Christ and Paul is similar for Jones, very dissimilar for Graham. Graham went under the sponsorship and endorsement of ministries and ministry leaders who were apostate and liberal. Christ nor Paul ever did such a thing. To go to someone's house or eat dinner with them is certainly not even in the area code, much less the ball park of this discussion.

Fundamentalism of past generations was a very dogmatic group. What I called before "historical myopia" is evident. By failing to understand the past, we are left attributing things to them that they did not tolerate.

 

What in the world are you talking about? I have no idea where this came from. It is not even remotely connected to the discussion here.
Graham is an evangelist not a pastor or denominational leader. When you share your faith I am sure you leave your church problems home. So does Graham.

Segregation was the law of the land in teh south. Jones tried to start a school for black students so they could get a legal education. He arranged for black students to go to northern schools so they could get a good education.
So is abortion. Does that make it right and Christians should not take a stand. The last time I lived in the south over 50 percent went ot church. That is a majority.

There is a major difference: Those who confronted Graham and tried to persuade him to turn from his disobedience were being obedient to God. Annanias and Sapphira were not. It is amazing that after all these years, with all that is so well known about Graham, that people still defend his actions. For the life of me, I will never understand that. I can understanding defending MacArthur or Piper ... but Graham??? Really folks ...

I don't defend everything he has done. I am sure I would do differently. But God has not called me to that position. It's like the employee who wants to be the boss and doesn't have a clue. Certainly the fundamentalists in the south who slandered Graham were wrong. He names their actions as lies and they have never disagreed with him. He wrote it in his recent book, "Just As I Am. I have no reason to believe he is not telling the truth. Do you? How would one expect anyone to listen to a liar? Is that not disobedience of a great magnitude? His so called accusers and obedient ones have zero credibility because of their lies. Their excuses and accusations are numerous but their fruit speaks for itself. We know them not by what they say by what they do.

I do know one thing that whe I was pastoring a church and we became involved with one of the crusades it changed the church. People began sharing their faith more. It was a good thing. I am not sure I have ever supported his method or bringing people forward to help them. But I really canot think of another way I could offer as a suggestion. So until God calls me and I have a better way it is best if I just support him. Regularly I am around non-Christians and never once have I ever heard anyone ever speak disrespectfully of Graham. But I have heard loads about TV preachers and local hollerers who condemn others at the university and in their churches. But I am sure if you examined me you could find plenty wrong and if I examined you I could find what I was looking for.

If you expected Graham to listen to those kind of critics then ask yourself would you listen to liars?

 

Too nice! The folks in the south were too complacent and cowards to speak against what Graham did. Graham seperated fast when he refused to allow segregation while there. The law? What utter nonsense! Don't hide behind that cloak of unrighteousness. So is abortion the law. Will you hide behind it too? W.A. Criswell spoke against it in his own church at FBC Dallas. Right in the middle of the south the others did not. Is it not the responsibility of pastors to take a stand for what is right. If you do not then oyu do not belong there pastoring especially if you allow the people to tolerate unrighteousness and inhumane treatment. It took a man like King to stand up for something when the fundamentalists who had all the right theology hiding behind the cloud just watched. I have zero respect for those so called Christians who shrink from declaring the truth.

 

UZThD, I agree with your distinction about the term evangelicalism. In today's world Christianity, evangelicalism, and fundamentalism all are used to describe movements that aren't Christian, evangelical, or fundamental in the true meaning of the words. It is in that sense that I used it, rather than opting for the also controversial "new evangelicalism."

 

I'm not one to devote time to evangelical witch-hunting, but I am surprised that several posters who are usually tough on theology issues are giving Graham a pass. This is about the gospel, so there is little room to get it wrong.

Here are just a few examples of his errors:
-In the May 15, 2003 edition of World Magazine Graham was cited as siding with Barbara Bush in an argument with her son where she claimed that regarding Jesus Christ as the only way was "too narrow and exclusivistic."
-In recent television appearances Graham (unlike his son) has been unwilling to distinguish our God and Allah.
-In McCall's Magazine (Jan 1978) Graham said, "I used to believe that pagans in far off countries were lost going to hell if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT." (His office later issued a statement saying there may have been some inaccuracies in the article, but that Graham 'was pleased with accuracy of the article on the whole.' He never backed away from the statement.) Graham later promoted the same theology in a 5/31/98 interview with Robert Shuller.
-Graham in in the Japanese newspaper 'Mainichi Daily News'(May 28th 1978): "I think communism's appeal to youth is its structure and promise of a future utopia. Mao Tse-Tung's eight precepts are basically the same as the Ten Commandments. In fact if we can't have the Ten Commandments read in the schools I'll settle for Mao's precepts'."
-Speaking on infant christening ('Lutheran Standard' 'Time' Oct. 27th 1961) Graham said, 'I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant ... we cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian, through infant baptism'.

Graham's autobiography dates his ecumenical views back as far as college. I've tried to stick to gospel related quotes here. If you follow the news you know that Graham has made some disappointing comments in relation to Bill Clinton's actions and other issues. However, I know that every leader is susceptible to making mistakes or saying things that come across wrong. These can be forgiven, but we must be jealous for the gospel!

 

===

Thanks.The Evangelicals that I know will not compromise the Gospel including the six or eight (IMO) essentials of the faith or legitimatize liberal or other nonChristian opinions on that Gospel and on those doctrinal essentials .If one does, then IMO he is not Evangelical ; he is something else.

 

Not true. He went to present his view of life and Christ to people who didn't agree. They invited him to give a different perspective, not to agree with theirs. With Graham it was totally different. They invited him because they believed he would help their ministry. Those who so totally different that it is hard to believe you still can't see it. Jones went to disagree, to present an alternate viewpoint. Graham went to agree, or to support the ones who invited him.

And that is exactly the problem. IT is not an "non-issue" with God. Graham took an issue and made it a non-issue. He disobeyed God.

Hyper fundememtalists aren't the point of this discussion. I agree that their doctrine is not supported by Scripture. But that's okay. Start another thread about that.

Only ridiculous if the commands of SCripture are "petty bickering" (isn't that what you called it?). I must admit I don't understand your perspective. I don't know on what authority you say that we should only obey part of God's commands. I think we should obey them all, including the ones on separaton. No one is perfectly consistent, and we could grant some latitude to Graham on many things. But association with apostates is not one of them if we value Scripture highly.