Please forgive me. I assumed that you used the KJV because that is what most fundamentalists use.
No problem. I do sepearte from KJV Only kind of people though, if that is any consolation about my consistency
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!
Dissimilar because 1) there is nothing inherently wrong with the KJV; there is something inherently wrong with Graham's gospel and those who sit on the platform and have their names on teh sponsorship list; 2) using the KJV does not send someone to an apostate church, but Graham does; 3) time issues (400 years vs right now) distinguish the association issue. Graham in the sixties specifically said he would not go somewhere without modernists and liberals on his committee. He turned down invitations from fundamentalists only becuase of that. That shows where his heart was.
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.
What they think is irrelevant. IT is a matter of obedience. The KJV issue is completely different. There is no implied or inherent endorsement of apostates. There is with Graham
Pastor Larry, why do you make this discussion personal? Why do you speak in terms of being "teachable."
There was nothing personal implied, and I tried to make that clear. Perhaps I failed. My point is that you seem so combative about this and so convinced that you are right, and yet you seem to have a distorted view of what it means to be a separatist. You say you sat down at BJU and NBBC and asked, and found them "harsh." I have never experienced that from any men that I know from either institution. IN any case, there was no "innuendo, projection, and condescension" implied. Judging from your responses here, I can see why you found them harsh ... not because they actually were, but because you had a mindset against it. But interestingly below, you say you didn't find them as harsh until after you left and reflected on it. Did you go back and try to reconcile it with them, or probe a little deeper? When I have issues understanding someone's position, I go back and keep studying. That would seem the right thing to do.
"Being teachable" is the trademark label that is applied to anyone who sees through the hypocrisy, or just asks an honest question.
To be honest, Paul, I don't sense a lot of honest questions here. It seems that virtually everything you ask (and I say virtually because I don't remember all) is a "gotcha" kind of question. You resort to attacks like hypocrisy, making it personal, while asking me not to do that. That just seems inconsistent. I am not particularly bothered by it. I just find it inconsistent.
"Teachable" means willing to learn. I don't sense that in you. I have tried to be that. I have listened to other perspective and weighed them against Scripture. Your method of argumentation about BJU in general seems like this. It is interesting as well that I rarely see you post on any other topic. Perhaps I just miss it adn we frequent different places, but it seems like this is really a thorn under your saddle and you can't let it go and let them obey God in teh dictates of their conscience. You know, I think BJU is wrong on many things (different things than you no doubt), but I don't constantly go after them. In fact, people have accused me of giving them a free pass because I don't constantly go after them. It seems like you can't let it go.
You too have made an error in statement.
And what was that?
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.
Overtime I have become more convinced that their general position on separation is not harsh, but biblical. Paul and Christ tolerated nothing in the way of false doctrine and disobedience, and they were not willing to let the false teachers shut them up, no matter what others thought. I am not sure what "minor doctrinal views" you have in mind, but to my experience, BJU has been way too flexible on doctrine. Their separation has been largely in the area of ecclesiastical compromise.
