This is not about church issues. It is about obedience. I would not go sharing my faith with apostate. I have a different faith than they do. I can't "leave that at home" so to speak. It is fundamental.
So? What is the point? You are discussing two different things.
If anyone slandered Graham, then they were wrong. I have never seen any one provide these slanders, so I don't know. I did read part of his book. Found it ironic in many ways. The fact that He names their actions as lies and they have never disagreed with him] means nothing. He may be the one lying. Who knows?
He was certainly disobedient and it is not a stretch to think that he would defend himself against that.
So as long as good comes from disobedient it is alright? Isn't that precisely why God struck Uzzah dead? Isn't that precisely why God said what he did in 1 Sam 15:22 ... that he wanted obedience and not sacrifice?
Obredience by separation is always a better way, even if your crowd gets smaller.
Graham should hae listened to the Spirit filled men that God placed in his life. He didn't. People who have done studies on the fruit of Graham's ministry say that he has probably done less with more than any evangelist in history. The vast majority of decisions made at his crusades are nowhere to be found just a year later (97% or more). He sent them back to apostate churches to grow in their Christian faith. Why is it so hard to see it is wrong to do that?
In the end, take the personalities out of it (Graham, Jones, Rice, whoever) and think about the Bible. When the Bible says mark and separate from false teachers, why give anyone a free pass for choosing to not to do that? Is it really okay if we think that good will come from it? That is the highest form of self-worship. Someone exalts themselves to think that they can understand the sitaution better than God can. God, from his eternal righteous viewpoint, told us how to deal with apostates, false teaches, and disobedient brothers. And all I can say is Woe to those who choose to disregard his commands because we might be able to preach the gospel to more people. In the end, I don't think God gives us the option of chooosing which of his commands are really important and which we can disagree with.
Bob Jones III lied to Larry King
Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges & Seminaries' started by Paul33, Dec 22, 2004.
Page 7 of 10
-
-
Who invited Graham to speak? Most of those on the committee were devout, fundamental, Bible-believing Christians!
Who invited Jones to speak? Most of those on the committee were rank liberals.
Billy Graham accepted invitations to hold crusades where the vast majority of the sponsorship committee were orthodox, historic Christians!
Separation? Having come out of the fundamentalist movement, both NBBC and BJU, I can tell you that they apply "separation" when it fits them.
You have taken one issue, separating from apostates, and made it your flagship issue.
Anyone who disobeys this principle, or fellowships with those who disobey this principle, must himself be disfellowshiped.
Where is your consistency on other issues? One poster made the point that segregation in the south, though the law of the land, was bibically immoral. When BJU disobeyed God's Word concerning segregation, where was the outcry to separate from a disobedient brother?
Ah, it only applies to the principle of ecclesiastical separation. It doesn't apply to all the other sins mentioned in the Bible. If a brother is a glutton, eats too much at the church potlucks, is he disciplined, chastised, and when he fails to repent, ostracized?
You already know the answer.
So why do you separate from those who "disobey" the principle of avoiding apostates but not from those who "disobey" the principle of glutonny? -
-
Abortion on demand is the law of the land. When women are seeking to have an abortion, what do you do about it?
When I was at BJU in the early 80s, they had the audacity to criticize those prolifers who sat in front of abortion mills on the basis that those clinics were private property.
BJU failed in its moral responsibility to speak out against segregation and abortion! I never heard one sermon on abortion and how we should oppose it and try to change hearts and laws. -
Oh, but they did have a rule about who you could date? No interacial dating, because the Bible said so!
Why didn't the rest of the fundamentalists separate from BJU because of their disobedience in twisting the Scripture to fit their cultural heritage?
You see, its only some sins that are important enough to separate over. Speaking at the invitation of a committee that has "some" liberals in it is abhorent. An abomination! Graham must be separated from.
Coddling segregationists, and gluttons, and looking the other way concerning abortion, well, we all have faults, don't we? And so the fundamentalists gave BJU a pass. -
Pastor Larry,
You said this issue of separating from apostates is about obedience?
You said that you would not go evangelizing with an apostate.
What translation of the Bible do you use, Larry?
Is it the KJV?
Why do you use a translation of the Bible that was sponsored by apostates, liberals, and Anglicans?
When you witness with your KJV of the Bible, you go using a Bible that was sponsored by the very wicked King James. Why is that?
Why are you obedient? Why don't you obey God and stop using this apostate sponsored Bible? -
Again, that is a key difference that you overlook. Graham was speaking in support of; Jones was speaking in contrast or objection to. He was giving a different perspective.
But let's not kid ourselves. Most people aren't gluttons. Being overweight is, for the most part, not a separation issue, as we can tell from Scripture. In 1 Cor 11, it was probably part of the issue dividing the church, but not because of gluttony itself but because the poor were being left out while the rich gorged themselves.
But to quote Jones Sr., "Two wrongs don't make it right." The fact that some don't confront sin in their lives doesn't mean that they should tolerate other sin. Jones Sr also said, It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right. That was Graham's major failure. He believed that by disobeying Scripture he could preach the gospel to more people. It was wrong.
You seem to have a "my way or the highway" approach that you attack fundamentalists for. I am not sure why you attack us by using the same attacks you attack us for. That seems inconsistent. -
Larry,
I couldn't understand your last paragraph. In any event, I'm not attacking anyone.
In my opinion, I am a true, historic fundamentalist.
Discerning who is liberal is subject to differing perspectives and relationships. It is easy to separate from those whom you have no relationship to. It is easy to separate from those with whom you feel excluded. It is different when you have long-term relationships. Each individual in seeking to obey God in the area of ecclesiastical separation has a different starting point or relationship with an "offending brother" that makes the point of separation different for each person.
It is such a gray area that to require others to come to the same point that you are in separation issues is very dangerous and devisive.
One person comes to a conclusion about someone else and separates. Another has not yet arrived at the same conclusion. How much freedom and time do you give to your brother to come to the same conclusion that you did?
Very complicated and tricky. -
-
-
Timing my friend.
At BJU in the early 80s, these topics were not preached from the chapel pulpit.
Did you hear it preached in the early 80s at BJU? -
Where did I probably twist?
-
You have a lot of questions and seemingly a lot of misunderstanding, very simplistic at best. When you were at BJU and NBBC did you ever sit down in a teachable manner and ask these questions of the professors? Were you always this combative and what seems to be unteachable? I don't mean that offensively, but it seems that you are not willing to entertain any position that doesnt conform to your own way of thinking. Why not go back to one of these places and sit down with a few profs and express a sincere desire to learn. Don't be combative or hateful. Just ask questions ... and listen. -
Again timing.
We are talking about segregation in the 60s and 70s, abortion in the 80s, and gluttony in any decade.
Stick to the contextual references that are implied or stated.
Bob Jones III may very well speak out against abortion today. In the 80s he was more concerned about the private property rights of butchers and murderers. Can you imagine the prophets of old doing what BJIII did? Supporting the property rights of abortionists?
Rose-colored glasses? -
-
-
Pastor Larry,
Please forgive me. I assumed that you used the KJV because that is what most fundamentalists use.
I'm glad you use the NASU.
You made an interesting point. You said that the KJV of the Bible is separated from the apostate sponsorship, and that is why it is ok to use it.
Millions of people who attended Billy Graham crusades had no idea who sponsored his visits. Therefore, using the same logic, Billy Graham's sponsorship is a nonissue!
It is irrelevant. Except for a small vocal fundamentalist contigency, no one knew who sponsored Billy Graham. When Billy Graham rolled into town, no one was thinking, oh boy, Graham is sponsored by a committee that has a couple liberals on it.
Pastor Larry, why do you make this discussion personal? Why do you speak in terms of being "teachable."
I would encourage you to discuss the issues without resorting to innuendo, projection, and condescension.
"Being teachable" is the trademark label that is applied to anyone who sees through the hypocrisy, or just asks an honest question.
You too have made an error in statement. I did ask these questions at NBBC and BJU. I bought their answers hook, line, and sinker. It was only as time passed that I began to see the harshness of their hermeneutic. Minor points of doctrine became issues on which to separate. Doctrinal views that are well within range of historic orthodoxy. -
Pastor Larry,
Someone who is teachable would say that BJU did twist the Scriptures to fit their cultural heritage. And when their culture changed, they changed their view of Scripture.
That was the purpose of BJIII's appearance on Larry King Live. But instead of saying, we used to believe this but now we don't, he acted like they never believed the Bible taught against interacial dating and marriage.
Now will you be teachable and accept this post, or is it too simplistic? -
-
For you, the issue with Graham was black and white. For thousands of other fundamentalists, it wasn't.
Amazing that you, Pastor Larry, can articulate with absolute clarity that I am not a historic fundamentalist. I have never called an apostate a believing brother. I have never cooperated with apostates. I did attend a Billy Graham crusade when I was 11 with my independent Baptist fundamentalist pastor who happened to be my dad! Does that mean I cooperated with liberals? :(
Page 7 of 10