Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

Honestly, FHG, that was one of the things that attracted me to my alma mater in Iowa. There was the strong commitment to militant Fundamentalism without some of the "political" baggage and good ol' boy pressure (or so it seemed to me as a young man in his twenties, who also happened to have parents of mixed national origin, and didn't feel like having to declare he was either "white" or "asian"). Of course, no campus is perfect, and Faith has its problems it deals with too in its historic ties with the GARBC.

BJU has provided wonderful services to churches like mine, and I will still continue to turn to them for resources and recommend them as an option among many for students. But lock-step marching orders are something I accept from the Word of God... and my wife (did I just type that? ).

 

It would probably depend on your associations ... whether or not you obey the biblical commands to separate from apostates and disobedient brothers. If you do, then they would probably have someone like you in. If you don'tk then they probably wouldn't.

Contrary to Paul's mistakeni assertion, It is not about dialoguing with liberals. It is about cooperating with them in ministry endeavors. Taht is a common mistake, usually made by those who don't really understand what is going on in the separatist mindset.

 

Um? Since we are being eminently Biblical here and holding others up to criticism for being extra-Biblical, could you please give me several clear Scripture references condemning this practice as sinful? I’ve always been taught that racism is sinful but I really never read in the Bible where racism is specifically condemned as sinful. Since it is today’s most horrific sin, more so than hating your white brother or sister or neighbor, I would really like to see it in Scripture for myself.

I suppose that we're all disappointed that Paul didn't publicly repent of his racism when he wrote: "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true." Seems that dear ole Paul was a mite prejudiced against them [sic] Cretians.

Of course, Paul really got acerbic when he called the High Priest an urinal wall. Talking about sarcasm! And, then there was the time when he talked about circumcision and said that he wished they were altogether cut off. He wasn’t referring to death either—it was worse! Follow the imagery. Gruesome!

Remember now that we’re taking our Bible straight without any tradition.

 

To the clear the waters so that we can have a reasonable discussion, let's address the Dr. Bob at Furman issue. Speaking at a secular University is being compared to Billy Graham's evangelistic techniques.

The difference is that Dr. Bob was asked to come to a forum to present a contrasting view on religion. The Furman seminars focus on differing views. What Bob Jones III did is not so novel compared with the places his grandfather and D.L. Moody spoke.

Billy Graham, on the other hand, joins hands in his crusades with people who do not believe the gospel. They celebrate their unity.

FWIW Some friends of mine in New Hampshire were saved in a Graham crusade. They were sent back to their Catholic church and stagnated for about 10 years. Then they began to read their Bibles and around the same time someone invited them to an evangelical church. They got involved with a Bible-believing church and began to grow in Christ.

I think it is fair to say that Fundamentalism has been week at producing apologists, but I hope that is a trend that will change. There is, however, a big difference between being a true apologist and cooperating with unbelievers in sharing the gospel.

 

Important distinction: Graham accepted/accepts endorsement from apostates. I don't think that any would argue that Furman is now a BJU extension campus. Much different issue.

 

There are serious differences between Graham and Jones. Graham did compromise the gospel, so far as saying that paedobaptism was regenerative and that Jews who didn't accept Christ might go to heaven. Those were direct attempts to pacify others and they were compromises of the gospel. Furthermore, the gospel is not the only thing at stake Doctrine was also compromised by sending people back to liberal and apostate churches. Graham could not take a biblical stand on those issues because the people that were paying the bills wouldn't like it. Jones did no such thing in going to Furman. It was so whollly dissimilar it doesn' belong in the same conversation.

Graham didn't go to give a different perspective and he went with the endorsement of apostates. Jones went to give a different perspective, with the undersatnding that the people who invited knew he differed from them and that is precisely why he was invited.

I haven't redefined history in the least. It is true that dialoging with liberals was essentially cooperting and searching for respect. But that may not be understood today. And that needed to be clarified.

 

No, it is not a matter of 55 years. It is a matter of fundamental distinction between what is going on. I can't imagine you don't see that. And Graham's comments on those matters go back about 30 years. That isn't recent ... at least by my estimation.

This is fundamentally dissimilar. I am not sure why you have such an urge to tar Jones' actions, apart from some apparent personal animosity. I hope that is not the case, but I can't find another explanation for it.

 

But the difference is obvious: Graham went to speak in support of; Jones went to give a different opinion of. How can you possibly not see that?

 

So did Jesus and Paul.

In Graham's book "Just As I Am" he names the kind of fundamentalists who gave him a hard time as liars." I do not know of one time that they have denied his claim. They have sought to discredit him. Sounds just like what the one who seeks to kill, steal and destroy. I don't place much of what any of them say as truth. I have seen them in business and churches and they prove themselves every time.

 

Graham stood against segregation while the others in the south stood against the wall and relaxed.

 

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. What a waste of time. I don't have enough energy or hours in a day (and neither did he) to spend my time telling people about the sins of the church but rather the gospel of Christ.

Graham did stand against segregation in the holy land of the south while so many others did not. Where were his condemners such as Jones in support against segregation. No where to be found? Graham's condemners ought to be glad God didn't do with them like He did Ananias and Sapphira.

 

Paul33 and gb93433 you are seemingly arguing only that Billy Graham was biblical in the 1950s. Do you feel that he has continued to be biblical in his ministry?

While I don't think I have ever heard the partisans on either side admit it, Billy Graham introduced a very difficult dilemma to evangelicalism. This is not a simple, black and white question. Furthermore, I'm not sure that in their current state evangelicals and fundamentalists have done a good job handling the blurring of lines that Graham popularized.

Graham could have cooperated with lots of diverse people and history would never have noticed (for Moody and others were doing this). It is the fact that he made evangelicalism the "big tent" party--where even those who don't believe the gospel are granted legitimacy--that has spawned the almost half-century long debate.