Inclusivism and B. Graham

Isn't he a presbyterian?

 

Isn't he a presbyterian? </font>[/QUOTE]He is a member of FBC, Dallas.

 

That is one of the reasons I left the SBC. It a 1-2-3 say after me, your saved and live like the Devil with no cost.

What I have actually found if the gospel is clearly presented with the cost Jesus commands people are more likely to follow Him. The preacher who knows the cost will be more encouraging to the person who gives their life to Christ. Some of the most committed Christinas we have in America are in the prisons. Some of the best discipleship being done is amoing the prison population too.

 

Won't we all.

I think you said it well. We have a lot of work to be done. The harvest is plentiful.

I do know this that when the church I was pastoring got involved with one of Graham's crusades it changed the life of our church. People did more evangelism afterward. They did ouitreach more. One things that grabbed my attention is when we got a card on a young lady whose parents were Mormon. I am sure that young lady will never forget the time she came forward during a Graham crusade. It would be interesting to follow that lady as she gets older.

The things I heard him say would have agreed with what two dispensational pastors who taught in the churches I attended shorlty after I became a Christian.

If the church is doing it was why it that never once did any Christian invite me to church or any function or give me the gospel until a young man knocked on my door in college? He came from a family of non-Christians just like myself.

 

I was involved in his Dallas Mission a couple of years ago - what a great event. His planning team comes in a year prior to the event and sets up training for all involved in getting the word out about the event and especially in the follow up of those who accept Christ as their savior at the event. I was very impressed by the associations commitment to the follow up of new believers, making sure that they understood what they had done, and directing them into the local church.

Seeing a bit of the inner workings of his ministry was a great experience, I thank God for Billy Graham's his ministry. I wonder who the Lord will raise up to take his place after he is gone.

 

I went to one of his services about 20 years ago and it was PURE BIBLE.I've seen some of his services on TV & they have been PURE BIBLE.

 

No, again this is common knowledge (and way off topic). You are not required to document every single thing. You document views that are unique, that are original to someone, or that are not common. For instance, I don't need to provide documentation that WWII started in 1939. That is common knowledge. I do need to document a quote that I make about the beginning of WWII. My point is that common knowledge does not need to be documented.

Secondly, this is a discussion forum, not a technical research paper. I didn't find a need to document an off the cuff comment I was making. When you asked for it, I gave it.

Again, not always. Sometimes the bibliography is of works consulted, sometimes of works cited. It depends on your purpose or instructions. Many times in writing, you pick up a book to see if it says anything about your topic. You don't include it when it doesn't. Different professors have different rules on this.

The writer generally determines that it is common knowledge if it appears in numbers of sources (i.e., unanimous and well known), or is something known without benefit of direct study (e.g., WWII started in 1939).

I am well familiar with rules of documentation. I have written probably close to one thousand pages of research with full documentation. My thesis bibliography is 10 pages long and the thesis contains 328 footnotes in just over 100 pages. So I am familiar with the rules of documentation, and in research writing, safe is always better than sorry.

The typical penalty for plagiarism is expulsion and rightly so. You cannot steal someone else's work and claim it as your own.

I wrote what I wrote because you didn't know about it apparently. These quotes of Graham go back more than 30 years, and his actions go back more than 50 years.

[/b]I don't either. I just happened to know something about this. I haven't taken a lot of time to do my personal research. I have cited articles that quote Graham. When I made the original statements, I made statements that are well known. When I cited specific quotes, I gave the source for them.

I told you something. You didn't believe me, so I proved it.

Bob Jones Sr and Jr among others. Jones Sr was a mentor to Graham in his early days. Jones Jr and Graham were contemporaries, and Jones Jr preached for Graham at some of his crusades, such as Columbia.

Denial of the gospel and participation with apostates is not small, at least not in the Scripture.

And they are wrong. It was wrong to be sitting with Schuller to begin with. Schuller is an apostate who has denied the gospel. To sit with him in an approving setting is sin. Graham failed to obey the biblical command to mark, expose, and separate from false teachers. He should have never been there, unless to confront Schuller's false teaching.

I bet you wouldn't, but I have perhaps said some things that could be misunderstood. But Graham's comments have been consistent over more than 30 years. His clarifications have been clear and have supported what I and others have said. His actions of participation with apostates have been consistent over 50 years. That is not an anomaly or a poorly chosen word.

 

Dear GB93433,
How do you and your church do your evangelism?When you witness how do you do it?I am always interested in learning about how people witness. It adds arrows to my personal evangelism quiver.

 

On the Billy Graham web site, it clearly shows they not only have followup discipleship classes, but they also check with the local churches and refer people to the local churches. Just in case anyone is interested.

 

Bob Jones Sr and Jr among others. Jones Sr was a mentor to Graham in his early days. Jones Jr and Graham were contemporaries, and Jones Jr preached for Graham at some of his crusades, such as Columbia.

Wasn’t Bob Jones a racist too? My understanding is that he did not let people of other races date. If you read what Graham writes about the fundamentalists in his book Just As I Am it is quite pointed. He names them as liars. They were his critics while at the same time, liars.

There are a great many people standing for faith and obedience who spend great amounts of time discipling others. These things are not mutually exclusive. One can obey God's word in both areas: We can expose and separate from false teachers and disobedient brothers and disciple people at the same time. And many people are. One does not have to condone Graham in order to be discipling others.

I agree, that is the reason I left the SBC. I saw so much compromise. I thought it was good they stood for the Bible, and supported them, until I realized it was just hot air. When I ran into trouble with some deacons giving me trouble because they supported the Mormon bishop. I asked the SBC for some help and they refused telling me they could do nothing because the churches are autonomous. They continued to take their money. Later I found out from one of the men at the state level that it had been happening for over 20 years witht that church.

 

No and yes. He was not a racist, and the school policy was that people could not date outside their race. Jones Sr often recommended black students to schools in the north because the south was still legally segregated. He pursued the option of starting a school for black students, but it didn't pan out.

Nevertheless, he was a mentor of Graham when Graham started in evangelism. When Graham started down the road of disobedience to God, Jones Sr. begged him not to, and encouraged him to return to biblical obedience. Graham refused.

I can't recall what Graham wrote about this. But Graham was certainly wrong to unite with apostates. He was living (and still is) in biblical disobedience, for which I personally am saddened. When he chose to associate with apostates who teach a different faith, he chose a path of disobedience, against the advice of many.

 

Including Catholic churches, which is major part of the problem. Graham has chosen not to see the real differences between the Bible and Catholicism and by referring his "converts" back to a Catholic church he is at the very least harming them spiritually. But he has to do that to keep the wide range of support he has. He can't take a stand for the truth without losing that support, and Graham has always been more interested in the support.

 

Uhhh, that was a racist policy, and if he endorsed it, he was engaging in a racist act.

 

No and yes. He was not a racist, and the school policy was that people could not date outside their race.

Explain to me how that is biblical. If you will recall Graham set the stage for going against racism for which the south was well noted. Has BJU ever stood against racism in the south? Not once that I have read or heard in the national news.

I can't recall what Graham wrote about this. But Graham was certainly wrong to unite with apostates. He was living (and still is) in biblical disobedience, for which I personally am saddened. </font>[/QUOTE]Just read the book. It's there. Graham names one group as liars--the fundamentalists. I just wonder who they would be? Do you know? Have you ever wondered why Graham does not associate with those kind of people? Do you really expect him to associate with those kind of "truth tellers." You do know where that kind of truth that James talks about comes from? Gehenna. A few weeks ago we had on the BB the song that was sung at by some fundamentalists at a church service. The same words were repeated over and over. It was sickening. I just wonder where their pastor went to school. Do you support those kind of folks?

What I saw printed I would disagree with. To disagree with someone and call his teaching wrong is one thing, but to name one as an apostate is another. How is your definition of an apostate any different than the 90 percent of the congregation in churches who never lead one person to Christ in their entire lifetime and never disciple anyone? Are they not disobedient and live as practical atheists? Does that mean almost every church in America is an apostate church? Many of my friends who have been missionaries in other countries think so. Take a look at your own church. How many have led at least one person to Christ in your own congregation? If anyone is not sharing their faith then according to you, they are disobedient and apostate and should not be associated with. So when was the last time you exercised discipline on someone in your congregation who was disobedient by not sharing their faith and discipling someone. Are they not teaching disobedience by their example.
I don’t see how we can escape the idea that if people are not making disciples they are disobedient. Seems to me to be quite straightforward.

Look at Mt. 4:19 and 28:19,20. Is not Mt. 4:19 true and 28:19,20 a command?

Did not the early church members share their faith and make disciples? Is that not in accordance with scripture? Do you ever discipline the disobedient in your church who never make disciples? If you do not isn't that inclusivism?

 

Uhhh, that was a racist policy, and if he endorsed it, he was engaging in a racist act. </font>[/QUOTE]You'll notice where his school was. It was not where racism was openly condemned. I wonder what BJU did to openly condemn racism?

 

Including Catholic churches, which is major part of the problem. </font>[/QUOTE]I trust you have proof of this?

 

I have no idea who they are. I don't know what he said. There are some fundamentalists who have lied to be sure. But I don't know the specifics.

There is something that seems strange. Yesterday you said you didn't spend time researching Graham, you spent your time reading the Bible, praying, etc. But now you admit that you have researched Graham at least to some extent. That seems strange.

Graham left fundamentalism 50 years ago because he wanted a broader audience, bigger crowds, and the only way to do that was join hands with apostates.

Again, I have no idea what the issues are you are referring to.