Compromisers Promoted At Bob Jones University

Ouch!

By the grace of God I'm almost normal again!

Dr. Bob,

List out for me the schools that you think a good Baptist should attend?

I would think that MBBC would be legalistic along the same lines as NBBC and BJU. Is it not?

 

Come on, Dr. Bob, quit playing with me. Boy, calling someone Dr. Bob sure brings back memories!

Since I didn't have enough demerits to get kicked out, they called me spiritually flippant! I'm not sure what that means, but I think it has something to do with me saying that I would wait until I gradutated from BJU before deciding if I would go to DTS or BJU Graduate School.

Ironically, if I hadn't been denied reenrollment, I probably would have earned a Ph.D. from BJU!

Think how that would have followed me around. Who knows, I might even be the president of a certain college my grandfather started instead of being rubbed out!

 

Paul, I don't remember specifically what you said so I wasn't specifically addressing you. As for my broad comments, if you have particular questions about them perhaps I could address them. My experience with people and associations is that quite often there is more to a story than is being told. People tend to slant a story to make their particular side look good. I have no idea in your case and do not mean to impugn you in anyway.

As for my disagreements with BJU, they are largely theological. I think they are weak on the doctrine of soteriology. I think they are weak on baptistic principles. I think they are inconsistent in some practices. Having said that, most of the faculty are Baptist and in fact BJU faculty make up a very large percentage of the church workers in Greenville area baptist churches. About 10 years ago, the then provost said in a faculty in service training session that they were an independent Baptist college. So we should dispense once and for all with the notion that they are anti Baptist or non-Baptist. They are officially non-denominational, but they are highly Baptist in most ways. They plainly are not. They are more interdenominational than I would be, and BJIII has a lot of speakers in that I would never associate with.

As for legalism, the idea that they are legalistic is a failure to understand the purpose of institutional rules and standards. Institutional rules and standards exist for the good of the insitution. BJU has never, to my knowledge, claimed that godly people always follow their institutional standards. They have rules for a reason and the larger an organization, the more important those standards become. One cannot mistake an educational institution for a local church in terms of ministry and philosophy, and those who have been in education should know that better than all.

I would and have recommended students to BJU. They are, hands down by a long margin, the best Christian education available for college. I would also recommend Clearwater, which I consider to be a good school. Aside from that, and even with that, I am increasingly of the opinion that perhaps staying at home and getting a secular education along with vital involvement in the local church may be the best solution. I can see the benefits to both sides.

As for foxrev, both he and I know that he has not told the complete truth in here. He has said some plainly false things and has been confronted about them. He has exalted his own personal opinion and personal standards to somethign that everyone should abide by. When BJIII supposedly refused, foxrev got offended and is now namecalling and attacking, based purely on his own opinion of where lines ought to be drawn. By his own standard, we should publicly expose him and separate from him. We should call him a compromiser. AFter all, we can do that on objective biblical truth (such as the injunction about truth-telling); he has done it only on his own opinion.

 

Well said, Pastor Larry.

For what it's worth, Maine is a nice place for a vacation, although most of our color is gone now.

Thanks for a biblically balanced, well-reasoned, and articulate viewpoint. It is truly encouraging to see that Fundamentalists can thoughtfully distinguish and discern bewteen truth and error- that militancy can be practiced without being obstinate and abrasive.

 

You are not following the process of Matthew 18. This is not a church. Unless you are a member of the same assembly as BJIII, you cannot take it to his church. You talked to him apparently and were unable to convince him you were right. You have to leave it at that. You are not God and you don't get to judge him beyond what you have done.

I am not judging your thoughts and motives. I am judging what you have done here. I am following the biblical commands of discerning, telling the truth, and confronting those who do not.

You have clearly not spoken the truth about everything:
1. You said BJU limits the number of children faculty can have (http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/8/365.html?). That is an outright lie. They do not. Then you changed and said they effectively do it by limiting insurance ... that a family can have more than three, they just have to pay the insurance for them (something entirely different than what you said). I wrote you in a PM and told you that I had just gotten off the phone with a faculty member of over 38 years who said that the policy that was recently changed had to do with free education, not insurance ... They would give free education to three kids and you had to pay for the rest. He said he did not believe that the insurance was limited to three kids, but he could ask a fellow faculty member who had six kids (explicitly refuting your notion that they only allowed three). In sum, you made a false statement, then changed it to something that is apparently not true either, in an attempt to cover up for your first statement.

2. You said that BJU dropped its dressed standards to where girls in their magazine looked like prostitutes (p. 2). That was an outright false statement. If you thought they looked like prostitutes, then you need to see a real prostitute. There were no private parts revealed, contrary to your claim on p. 4.

3. You said Stephen Jones was dressing unbibiblically by following fads such as spiked hair, long sideburns, and low profile glasses (p. 5). You provided no evidence that he actually looks like that, nor did you provide any biblical evidence that either is actually wrong. In fact, you admitted it wasn't inherently wrong, it was simply faddish. So it was clearly a matter of your own opinion and sense of style.

4. You accused BJIII and BJU of being anti-KJV (p. 1). That is a flatly false statement. They are not anti-KJV in the least. They use the KJV as their official Bible.

5. You accused BJIII of publishing books against the KJV (p. 1). That is a flat out false statement. Both books in question were published by Ambassador Herald Press (emeraldhouse.com), which is not connected with BJU.

6. You accused BJII of compromising on the Bible (p. 3). That is a false statement. The position he professes to hold is the biblical one, and the one that historic Christianity has defended for 2000 years.

Here are six concrete examples of the kind of stuff I have been confronting withh you. They are not matters of opinion or judgment. They are matters of clear binary statements ... they are either right or wrong. In these cases, they are wrong. It is unfortunate that it had to come down to all of this. You could have responded properly to begin with, by ceasing to make false accusations and attacks based on preference. That would have ended all of this a long time ago. But you continued, and now you want me to take a vacation perhaps so that you do not have to be confronted by it. YOu were wrong to make these statements. You should not have.

Your issue with Gregory is a valid issue of concern. I agree with you. I have long said that BJIII has people into speak that I disagree with. I do not know Dick Gregory, nor much about him. I know the IFCA is broad and conservative. But I would not have Gregory to speak. Had you focused on that issue of substance you would have been fine. But you left that, and got into these other issues. Now you are refusing to make it right.

And no, I don't need a vacation.

 

That means you are willfully refusing to apologize for your untrue statements? Why? I didn't distort anything you said. I didn't twist a word of it. I gave the location of everyone of them so that they can be found and verified. You were caught, and now you are blaming it on me. That is simply wrong. And you have the audacity to attack BJIII in a public forum while refusing to acknowledge your own failures. That is very disappointing.

 

Regarding soteriology, I'm guessing that Pastor Larry is referring to issues regarding Calvinism/Arminianism.

Regarding proof: foxrev, the burden of proof should lie with the one who presents the charges. Its like me accusing you of some character flaw- say, adultery- and then all of us assuming it must be true because you can't prove where you were last night when you told your wife you went hunting.

 

I have a student from my church there right now. I have sent students there before. Yes, they are weak on soteriology, but overall, they are a good school. And I can easily correct the weakness through the preaching of the pulpit and the teaching of hte word of God. Their weakness is a lack of consistency.

Why woulnd't I have a right to speak here about this? My guess is that I know way more about it than you do, based on what you have said here.

I showed the proof in the previous page. I gave references so that all could see. There is no doubt about your being wrong. I didn't include things that involved opinion.

No kidding?? For real???

Instead of apologizing for your previous false statements, you have now added to it. I didn't threaten you in the least, or try to put the fear of man in you. I emailed you privately becauase the comment I was addressing was about 6 pages in the past and I didn't want to rehash it in public. I was simply pointing out a factual correction concerning a statement that you made. There was absolutely no threat, and I still have the PM to prove it.

You are wrong, and you should have apologized.

I can't imagine why you would persist. Those six statements I made are not even disputable. They are clearly untrue and even those who don't like BJU know they are untrue.

I doubt very seriously that you know more than I do.

Yes I do.

Yes I do.

 

Greg is right. It isn't manifesting his youth. I'd sooner think it is manifesting his reading ability. He has been around the baord enough to know my stand and was completely right in what he said. You should not have jumped on him. He knew what he was talking about.

 

1 Timothy 4:12

Since my youth has been drug into this...

foxrev, I am an unashamedly militant fundamentalist. I do not shy away from that label as many of my generation have done. But, frankly speaking, men like yourself are the ones I hold at least partially responsible for the percieved decline of our movement through the loss of its potential young leaders. All this energy directed toward relatively insignificant issues. Little to no distinction is made between "low profile glasses and spiky hair" and compromise in areas like ecumenical evangelism... it's enough to make me want to go "neo" myself!

Friend and brother (and I mean that sincerely), consider this: the likelihood of BJ3, Stephen, or anyone else in the BJ administration being swayed by what you have posted (or even reading it, for that matter) on this board is truly remote. However, the potential for impressionable believers to be weakened and discouraged by the public airing out of your "dirty laundry" is much greater. I humbly implore you to consider your ways, and contemplate the effect the words you have chosen have on those who are reading them. May we all strive to "be an example of the believers."

 

Well said, Greg.