Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

No problem. I do sepearte from KJV Only kind of people though, if that is any consolation about my consistency

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.

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

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.

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.

And what was that?

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.

 

For fundamentalists, it was always black and white. It was part and parcel of why some fundamentalists left to become new evangelicals. It was, in essence, the continental divide that determined where one ended up back in teh 60s.

I am merely commenting on what you have said here. I don't know any more than that. Based on what you said, you don't fit the model of historic fundamentalist.

Of course not, and reductio ad absurdum doesn't help you. This is the type of thing that provoked my "teachable" comment. You don't seem to be willing to entertain the actual facts. You seem to want to reduce it to absurdities. I don't know any fundamentalists would say that means you are cooperating with liberals.

[/qb]No, not at all. As I indicated, it is the general tenor your approach that is concerning. You don't seem to be asking honest questions as much as making accusations (didn't stand against race or abortion issues; too judgmental; etc).

Graham has made it clear from 50 years that he disagreees with what the Jones's have done. With respect to Furman, he probably wouldn't have had an issue, but then he shouldn't have. I am sure he had no issue whenever one of hte Jones's preached the gospel.

Again, I would encourage you to read what was actually said and what transpired. Graham was wrong, undeniably. And Jones, out of obedience to Scripture, separated. WE can't overlook that. It was a scripturally mandated "war path" if that is the term you want to use.

No, not really. I don't think so anyway ...

 

I vaguely remember the pharmakon one now that you mention it. I don't even remember what it was about ... Isn't that funny. I have no idea what the issue was ...

 

Incorrect. IT would be better to say non-cooperation. But they turn out a lot of post tribbers ... too many for my taste.

Assuming you means charismatic issues, you are correct, and they are as well. That is an issue over which we should separate.

Incorrect. Both schools have people from both sides, unfortunately.

Not entirely correct, partiallly correct. They question, with good reason, why someone would go to a seminary that is not fundamentalist. Why shouldn't they question that? Isn't that a reasonable question?

I don't think that is true. I don't think they would agree with that either, though perhaps I miss your point. Being teachable has nothing to do with where you go to school. IT is about attitude.

In some things, they are. I hope that changes.

 

I didn't concede anything about feeling attacked. I thought you were talking about actualities. I must have misunderstood. Sorry. Yes, feeling attacked depends on which side you are on. The legitimacy of the "attack" or "confrontation" is a whole different issue. Don't confuse "feeling attacked" with the legitimacy of bringing up an issue. Your daughter who misses her 11:00 curfew by an hour might feel attacked by you, but it would be an unjust feeling, I am sure we would agree.

Probably, but "feeling" cannot be the issue in biblical matters. I know that Jones felt deeply for Graham and it was troublesome to him to separate. But we cannot make decisions based on feeling or based on how other people might feel about something. We have to base our decisions on the biblical mandate, and that is what Jones did.

 

What is?

Sorry, I must have missed them. I have seen nothing personal that offended me in the least. I hate it when I am supposed to be offended and no one tells me. Am I just thick skinned, or are you that bad at insulting people???? ... It was a joke Paul ... But in fact, that was the most personal thing I have said so far.

Why should we? Motivations for belief or positions are important factors in biblical change (with no insinuation about which of us needs to change). I wonder why I believe what I do. In fat, that is what caused me to sit down and think through a lot of things. Do I believe this because it is waht I was taught? Or do I believe this because it is what God says? That is why I believe what I believe ... Because I sat down and said "Why do I believe this" and then worked it out through Scripture.

The logical conclusion of virtually all views is absurdity. So what? That doesn't mean anything. It is not a good method of debate.

I would say it would be a no-no, and if a pastor took people and encouraged them to go, I would ay it shows a direction of new evangelicalism. I would not say that about someone who merely went. I would consider going just to see it firsthand. I would not invite anyone to go with me.

I don't know of any place this is true, which doesn't mean much since my knowledge is limited. I know Jones Sr said he liked Graham. I like Graham to a large degree. I appreciate his personal integrity and financial integrity. But again, to state the far out or the wild example you can come up with means nothing for the sake of real debate. I don't disagree that some might hold that. I don't think it would be representative of all.

 

Without a doubt ...

In my experience, "not teachable" is usually the kindest thing said. Just read what people say about dispensationalists. I wish they would only say we are not teachable. That would at least be civil ... The liberals and evangelicals have said some very ugly things about fundamentalists. Don't ever forget that.

Have a great day.

 

We are certainly not without blame. I am not defending much of what some fundamentalists say and do.

I am really gone for real this time ...

 

Segregation and slavery is wrong and unrighteous. It is the devaluing of human life and stealing people. So you call the devaluing of God’s creation (segregation) serving God. Not at all! It is serving Satan. Phil. 2 says that we are to count others as more important than ourselves. How did segregation serve that purpose. How did that law serve that purpose.

Better read in James when James talks about pure and undefiled religion. It is standing up and taking care of the downtrodden and those who cannot take care of themselves. So you say it is okay to stand with the unrighteous and go along with the law even when it violates scripture.

Better read your Bible again in Acts about disobeying the law when the apostles were told not to share their faith but they refused. How about the book of Daniel when Daniel refused to stop praying? Who is your God? The law of the land or God himself?

God is God and sometimes making Him Lord requires taking the tough road. It is easy to criticize others and take the easy road when it is comfortable but what about taking the high road of righteousness? It is road less traveled of Christ that is the only road there really is that honors Christ.

So are you saying then Christians had better stay out of countries where it is illegal to share Christ? That’s the law.

 

GB,

You are confusing a couple of things. We are to disobey government when it commands us to disobey God. No other time. Based on that, your post answers itself.

Taking God's road is certainly tough, but our commitment must be to obedience, not expediency. We must operated by God's commands even when it is unpopular.

And don't think I am defending segregation or slavery. I am not. I didn't say it was okay to stand with the unrighteous and go along with a law that violates Scripture. I never said anything even remotely similar to that, and you know it.

 

I think you counsel, evangelize, give alternatives, love, and provide help. I don't think you can physically restrain someone from getting an abortion. We can't disobey the law on a matter such as this and I don't think it helps the cause in the long run anyway. Sit-ins that block doors and driveways are illegal and should not be used. Abortion is a horrible blight on America and the world at large. We have killed a generation and we should be ashamed about that.

 

Then what did you mean when you wrote, "Segregation was the law of the land in teh south. Jones tried to start a school for black students so they could get a legal education. He arranged for black students to go to northern schools so they could get a good education."

Isn't that compromise? Refusing to stand up against unrighteousness is disobedience to God.