Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

[Greg Linscott]

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? ).

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the autographa of Scripture. If I am representative of "evangelicals," , and I think I am, then for what *good* reasons would BJU not allow me ,or one like me, to speak or teach there about theology etc?

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.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by ForHisGlory15:
My greatest concern for BJU, a school which I love, is that they would be more willing to humbly confess wrong. The racial attitudes and actions of their former years (yes, they did have "Whites Only" signs above several drinking fountains/restrooms) have never been completely acknowledged as they ought to have been, let alone confessed. [snip]

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.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]

It would probably depend on your associations ... whether or not you obey the biblical commands to separate from apostates and disobedient brothers.
===

Larry

I think I'm beginning to understand some of BJU's position. I guess my problem is that I might not be as clever or as quick as some to define apostacy or to without reservations label disobedience.

EG, re apostacy, IMO it is terrible Christological mistake to suppose that God the Son is eternally and immanently of a lower rank in authority than is the Father ( Jo 14:28) and eternally essentiated by the Father ( Jo 5:26) and progressively taught by the Father(Jo 5:19, 20). Yet those texts oft are so interpreted!

IMO the divine attributes inhere in the divine essence, therefore, a difference in how divine qualities are possessed would result in an ontological difference as well.

But I feel a little too shy to call the majority of the church fathers and modern Christologists as Bavinck, Shedd, Berkhof, Grudem, Williams, Dahms et al "apostates."

RE "disobedience" it does seem to me that God would not send a brother to a millish school to "earn" a doc in six or eight months. So, I think that one MAY be disobedient!

Yet, Andersonville seems quite popular here doesn't it? Nevertheless, I hesitate to separate my "fellowship" from those who get docs for MUCH less time and effort than is normally expected.

Further, IMO, gluttony and lack of exercise may be sinful. Yet, I rarely see some fundamental churches which deny membership to fat and / or lazy people. Do you?

See my problems?

Of course if I had some ecclesiastical hierarchy to guide me and tell me when I am right or wrong in judging others like, say, Catholics or Mormons MAY have , then I would be better able to make such decisions I suppose.

Anyway Many Thanks,

Bill G.

[ February 15, 2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Larry,

I know full well what is going on in the mindset of the fundamentalists.

"Dialoguing with liberals" was the issue of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the 20s to 40s. The phrase is almost synonymous with "cooperating in ministry." To be in the denomination instead of out was seen to be "cooperating in ministry" or "endorsing compromise" even if the one "in" opposed the liberalism that was overtaking the denomination.

Pastor Larry, when Bob Jones III spoke at Furman under the auspices of their "religion in life" series, he did what was previously loudly condemned. The justification was that Furman is not "Christian" but secular! Therefore, what Bob Jones III did was similar to inviting unbelieving artists to the BJ campus, only in this case, in reverse (a believer speaking at a nonbelieving university).

Pastor Larry very subtlely has to reconstruct history to make BJIII's actions acceptable.

Make no mistake. Anyone dialoguing with new-evangelicals or liberals was cut off by BJU.

 

[Palmetto Boy]

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.

 

[Paul33]

I understand your point.

However, Billy Graham preached the gospel undiluted. Despite his poor judgment in how he referred to some who were part of putting together the invitations for him to come and speak in their cities, BG preached.

Just like BJIII preached.

I agree. No one should confuse BJIII's speech/sermon at Furman with support for liberalism. And no one should have confused Billy Graham's sermons during his crusades with support for liberalism.

Billy Graham preached whereever he was invited to preach and it didn't matter to him if some were trying to use him or his name. He took every opportunity he got, unlike BJIII which is just starting to take those opportunities.

 

[Greg Linscott]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[Paul33]

What makes the events different is the 55 years between them. Otherwise, its the same thing.

You refer to recent comments by Graham. I'm refering to 1950.

The 1950 Billy Graham and the 2004 BJIII.

Both going where they are invited to go to preach their message.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[Paul33]

Have you seen old footage of Billy Graham preaching in 1950! He was a spitfire. He looked and spoke like any other fundamentalist preacher looked and spoke in that era.

Compare apples with apples.

This Billy Graham was an evangelist and revivalist who had not compromised his Biblical message.

He was invited to preach in L.A. or Boston, etc., and he had determined that he would go and speak wherever he was invited. He decided that he would no longer limit his speaking to forums put together by only fundamentalists. It didn't matter to him that some on the "invitation committee" were not fundamentalists.

These are the facts. That's what it was like in 1950.

This falling out that Billy Graham had with BJU was soon repeated, so much so that even John R. Rice was no longer welcome at BJU.

But now, BJIII speaks under the auscpices of Furman University's "religion in life" series.

I will turn the same phrase back to you. I don't know how you can't see that this is similar. Both men accepted invitations to speak at the request of committees that included liberals.

When BJU criticizes others for accepting speaking engagements from organizations that aren't "completely" fundamental and then separates from them, their now doing the same is open to scrutiny, is it not?

 

[Paul33]

I'll give you a different example.

If a person attends Dallas Theological Seminary or TEDS, in the past, they would have been avoided by BJU. Probably still are.

However, it was ok to go to a purely secular university.

Does this make sense? If you go to a leading evangelical seminary you are avoided. But if you go to Notre Dame or the University of Wisconsin, that's ok.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Paul33:
[qb] I'll give you a different example.

If a person attends Dallas Theological Seminary or TEDS, in the past, they would have been avoided by BJU. Probably still are.

However, it was ok to go to a purely secular university.

===

Well, then I'm OK.

I went to Western CB Seminary and got "polluted." I must be polluted because I like De Young there and had two courses in Greek exegesis under him, but De Young appeared on a TV panel with liberals and presented his views on homosexual;ity ( or abortion, I forget). So, I'm guilt by association, I guess!

But I also went to Oregon State and got "cleansed."

 

[Pastor Larry]

I will turn the same phrase back to you. I don't know how you can't see that this is similar. Both men accepted invitations to speak at the request of committees that included liberals.

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?

 

[Paul33]

When did Graham in 1950 speak in support of liberal theology?

He preached the fundamentals of the Christian faith in 1950. He preached that everyone was a sinner and that everyone needed to turn to God in repentance through Jesus Christ.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Paul33:

Both men accepted invitations to speak at the request of committees that included liberals.

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.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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?

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

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

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.

 

[Palmetto Boy]

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.