Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Palmetto Boy:

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.

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.

"...even those who don't believe the gospel are granted legitimacy." I am not sure where you get this. Personally I know Catholics who are believers and lead people to Christ.

My mom is still a Catholic. She is now a believr though. About two years ago she went to a conference to learn how to share her faith. What I see happening is the Catholics have become more evangelical and the protestants have more infighting. Can anyone name one Baptist convention or denomination who has at least maintained or increased their evangelism in the past 50 years. None that I know of.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Palmetto Boy:

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 certainly made race one color. While others in the south to this very day have continued to sit on the sidelines. I never saw such disrespect toward others until I lived in the south. Even the convention I was a part of continued to encourage separate churches. I was glad to leave the SBC once I realized they would not take a stance and require their pastors to take a stance against such nonsense.

A friend of mine form seminary was pastoring a church in LA. When I arrived at his home he asked if I noticed anything in the town. I hadn't. In fact I went to a store in the so called not so good part of the town where those with different colored sking lived and asked for directions. When he started telling me about the differences I asked him what he was going to do about it. He told me if he tried to something about it his church would see him out of town. This was 1997. Another friend of mine in SC led a black youth to Christ and invited him to church only to be met with the segregationist deacons and the youth was told he could not enter the church. What a witness of the gospel of Christ and love shown toward that new believer. I am sure Satan used those demons at the front door or the SBC church well. Where is the stance of pastors and those in the SBC? A few years ago I wrote one of the leaders in the conservative resurgence and former pres. of the SBC and got an interesting reply. It was not a reply that indicated anything would be done except to tell me to move on. So much for conservatism (really liberalism in practice).

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Palmetto Boy:
he made evangelicalism the "big tent" party--where even those who don't believe the gospel are granted legitimacy--


===

I cannot probably mount a defense against ALL whom anyone might say are evangelicals. But there are over 2000 Christian teachers and/or scholars in the EVANGELICAL Theological Society . If a reader has some evidence that any of these "don't believe the Gospel," then let's see it forthwith.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

In his crusades when liberals invited to come and speak on their behalf. Was that a serious question? Have you really not thought through this?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>[/QUOTE]What in the world are you talking about? I have no idea where this came from. It is not even remotely connected to the discussion here.

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?

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.

Graham's condemners ought to be glad God didn't do with them like He did Ananias and Sapphira.

There is a major difference: Those who confronted Graham and tried to persuade him to turn from his disobedience were being obedient to God. Annanias and Sapphira were not. It is amazing that after all these years, with all that is so well known about Graham, that people still defend his actions. For the life of me, I will never understand that. I can understanding defending MacArthur or Piper ... but Graham??? Really folks ...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by UZThD:

Originally posted by Palmetto Boy:
he made evangelicalism the "big tent" party--where even those who don't believe the gospel are granted legitimacy--


===

I cannot probably mount a defense against ALL whom anyone might say are evangelicals. But there are over 2000 Christian teachers and/or scholars in the EVANGELICAL Theological Society . If a reader has some evidence that any of these "don't believe the Gospel," then let's see it forthwith.

I believe the comment was that liberals were brought into evangelicalism, making it a big tent party. Graham certainly did that. By having apostates on his platforms and steering committees, and by sending people back to apostate churches, he granted them legitimacy. For example, the Catholic church...Graham for years has sent people back to the Catholic church. They teach a false salvation. There are Catholics who are saved, to be sure. But if someone knows and agrees with what the Catholic church teaches, they are not saved. Scripture makes that plain. Graham gave great encouragement to these apostates to continue their ways. It is to his shame that he did so.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

For what it's worth, the local example of liberals and apostates I can give from the 60s is the presence on the platform of James Pike, the Episcopal Archbishop of Northern California at the San Francisco Crusade.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Originally posted by UZThD:
[qb]

Originally posted by Palmetto Boy:
he made evangelicalism the "big tent" party--where even those who don't believe the gospel are granted legitimacy--


===

I cannot probably mount a defense against ALL whom anyone might say are evangelicals. But there are over 2000 Christian teachers and/or scholars in the EVANGELICAL Theological Society . If a reader has some evidence that any of these "don't believe the Gospel," then let's see it forthwith.

I believe the comment was that liberals were brought into evangelicalism, making it a big tent party. Graham certainly did that. By having apostates on his platforms and steering committees, and by sending people back to apostate churches, he granted them legitimacy.

===

I am not defending Graham. I am defending Evangelicalism. In the quote upon which I commented the referent of "IT" IS Evangelicalism--NOT Graham's crusades. I am saying that the Evangelicals I fellowship with give NO legitamacy to disbelievers of the Gospel. If we might allow an Evangelical to define Evangelicalism, Pierard in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says E. "emphasises CONFORMITY to the basic tenets of the Faith." (p379) With this definition, apostates will not be legitimatized.

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Larry,

I'm not defending Graham's actions. Billy Graham has done alot of good for the kingdom of God. But he is human and prone to sin like the rest of us. When he called "liberals" good Christians, that was wrong. He did it for PR reasons, no doubt. Or because it is hard to speak negatively of those who praise you, etc.

The point I'm making, which I know you will never concede, and that's ok, is that BJIII is doing something today that he would have criticized others for doing in the past.

I like what one poster posted! Jesus and Paul did the same thing! That is, they preached where they were invited to preach despite the fact that some on the committee that extended the invitation were "nonbelievers" or "liberals."

It's true! Jesus spoke at the home of pharisees several times, ate with sinners and publicans, etc.

Billy Graham's sins were that he was too "nice" to some who invited him to speak. He was. I admit it. But to condemn the man's whole ministry because of his shortcomings? Come on!

The same standard by which you judge Billy, God will use to judge you.

This petty, bickering attitude of pointing out the faults of others and then pubicly rejecting their ministries and/or fellowship is the blight that is fundamentalism. It didn't start out this way, but Satan is quick to use our righteousness to sow seeds of discord.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why obedience to Scripture a "petty, bickering attitude"? Have we really stooped that far in our biblical understanding and/or allegiance to Scripture? Once we start endorsing the clear violation of Scripture by refusing to separate and expose when teh Bible commands, we have gone down teh wrong road.

Graham's sins were not that he was "too nice" to someone who invited him to speak. Graham's sins were that he failed to obey clear scriptural commands regarding apostasy. He disobeyed God in an area where God commanded those who are obedient to separate. Don't define down his sin by acting like he said "Hi" to someone who disagreed. He was openly defiant of God's command.

As for Jones doing what he would have condemned years ago, maybe or maybe not. I doubt it, but that is not the issue. Graham was/is wrong and what Jones did was not even remotely similar, except that they both spoke to audiences who disagreed or at least were neutral. To compare that to Christ and Paul is similar for Jones, very dissimilar for Graham. Graham went under the sponsorship and endorsement of ministries and ministry leaders who were apostate and liberal. Christ nor Paul ever did such a thing. To go to someone's house or eat dinner with them is certainly not even in the area code, much less the ball park of this discussion.

Fundamentalism of past generations was a very dogmatic group. What I called before "historical myopia" is evident. By failing to understand the past, we are left attributing things to them that they did not tolerate.

 

[Paul33]

Jones went to speak under the auspices of Furman University's "Religion in Life Series."

In the past, Jones may have debated his "liberal" enemies. He certainly would not have gone under their sponsorship, which he did. He would have chosen a neutral setting.

Billy Graham didn't go to debate the liberals, or even dialogue with them, like Jones did. He went to preach the gospel to the masses. That the sponsorship committee wasn't as "separatistic" as some would have liked was a non-issue with Graham. He didn't go to debate the finer points of separation. He went to preach the gospel!

The hyper fundamentalists of days gone by still don't get it. Is it possible that the doctrine of separation as espoused by hyper fundamentalists isn't in Scripture?

Look where this doctrine led Jones. He seperated from John R. Rice!

Rediculous.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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 in the world are you talking about? I have no idea where this came from. It is not even remotely connected to the discussion here.
Graham is an evangelist not a pastor or denominational leader. When you share your faith I am sure you leave your church problems home. So does Graham.

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?

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.
So is abortion. Does that make it right and Christians should not take a stand. The last time I lived in the south over 50 percent went ot church. That is a majority.

Graham's condemners ought to be glad God didn't do with them like He did Ananias and Sapphira.

There is a major difference: Those who confronted Graham and tried to persuade him to turn from his disobedience were being obedient to God. Annanias and Sapphira were not. It is amazing that after all these years, with all that is so well known about Graham, that people still defend his actions. For the life of me, I will never understand that. I can understanding defending MacArthur or Piper ... but Graham??? Really folks ...

I don't defend everything he has done. I am sure I would do differently. But God has not called me to that position. It's like the employee who wants to be the boss and doesn't have a clue. Certainly the fundamentalists in the south who slandered Graham were wrong. He names their actions as lies and they have never disagreed with him. He wrote it in his recent book, "Just As I Am. I have no reason to believe he is not telling the truth. Do you? How would one expect anyone to listen to a liar? Is that not disobedience of a great magnitude? His so called accusers and obedient ones have zero credibility because of their lies. Their excuses and accusations are numerous but their fruit speaks for itself. We know them not by what they say by what they do.

I do know one thing that whe I was pastoring a church and we became involved with one of the crusades it changed the church. People began sharing their faith more. It was a good thing. I am not sure I have ever supported his method or bringing people forward to help them. But I really canot think of another way I could offer as a suggestion. So until God calls me and I have a better way it is best if I just support him. Regularly I am around non-Christians and never once have I ever heard anyone ever speak disrespectfully of Graham. But I have heard loads about TV preachers and local hollerers who condemn others at the university and in their churches. But I am sure if you examined me you could find plenty wrong and if I examined you I could find what I was looking for.

If you expected Graham to listen to those kind of critics then ask yourself would you listen to liars?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Graham's sins were not that he was "too nice" to someone who invited him to speak. Graham's sins were that he failed to obey clear scriptural commands regarding apostasy. He disobeyed God in an area where God commanded those who are obedient to separate.

Too nice! The folks in the south were too complacent and cowards to speak against what Graham did. Graham seperated fast when he refused to allow segregation while there. The law? What utter nonsense! Don't hide behind that cloak of unrighteousness. So is abortion the law. Will you hide behind it too? W.A. Criswell spoke against it in his own church at FBC Dallas. Right in the middle of the south the others did not. Is it not the responsibility of pastors to take a stand for what is right. If you do not then oyu do not belong there pastoring especially if you allow the people to tolerate unrighteousness and inhumane treatment. It took a man like King to stand up for something when the fundamentalists who had all the right theology hiding behind the cloud just watched. I have zero respect for those so called Christians who shrink from declaring the truth.

 

[Paul33]

gb93433,

That's a great point! Where was the fundamentalist cry to seperate from those who were tolerating racism and inequality?

Perhaps, it was Billy Graham seprating from the fundamentalists that made them so mad!

 

[Paul33]

I already know the answer to my question.

There is a difference between personal separtion and ecclesiastical separation. Blah, blah, blah!

Fundamentalists of the BJU type have a way around everything they don't want to do.

 

[Palmetto Boy]

UZThD, I agree with your distinction about the term evangelicalism. In today's world Christianity, evangelicalism, and fundamentalism all are used to describe movements that aren't Christian, evangelical, or fundamental in the true meaning of the words. It is in that sense that I used it, rather than opting for the also controversial "new evangelicalism."

 

[Palmetto Boy]

I'm not one to devote time to evangelical witch-hunting, but I am surprised that several posters who are usually tough on theology issues are giving Graham a pass. This is about the gospel, so there is little room to get it wrong.

Here are just a few examples of his errors:
-In the May 15, 2003 edition of World Magazine Graham was cited as siding with Barbara Bush in an argument with her son where she claimed that regarding Jesus Christ as the only way was "too narrow and exclusivistic."
-In recent television appearances Graham (unlike his son) has been unwilling to distinguish our God and Allah.
-In McCall's Magazine (Jan 1978) Graham said, "I used to believe that pagans in far off countries were lost going to hell if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT." (His office later issued a statement saying there may have been some inaccuracies in the article, but that Graham 'was pleased with accuracy of the article on the whole.' He never backed away from the statement.) Graham later promoted the same theology in a 5/31/98 interview with Robert Shuller.
-Graham in in the Japanese newspaper 'Mainichi Daily News'(May 28th 1978): "I think communism's appeal to youth is its structure and promise of a future utopia. Mao Tse-Tung's eight precepts are basically the same as the Ten Commandments. In fact if we can't have the Ten Commandments read in the schools I'll settle for Mao's precepts'."
-Speaking on infant christening ('Lutheran Standard' 'Time' Oct. 27th 1961) Graham said, 'I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant ... we cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian, through infant baptism'.

Graham's autobiography dates his ecumenical views back as far as college. I've tried to stick to gospel related quotes here. If you follow the news you know that Graham has made some disappointing comments in relation to Bill Clinton's actions and other issues. However, I know that every leader is susceptible to making mistakes or saying things that come across wrong. These can be forgiven, but we must be jealous for the gospel!

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Palmetto Boy:
UZThD, I agree with your distinction about the term evangelicalism. In today's world Christianity, evangelicalism, and fundamentalism all are used to describe movements that aren't Christian, evangelical, or fundamental in the true meaning of the words. It is in that sense that I used it, rather than opting for the also controversial "new evangelicalism."

===

Thanks.The Evangelicals that I know will not compromise the Gospel including the six or eight (IMO) essentials of the faith or legitimatize liberal or other nonChristian opinions on that Gospel and on those doctrinal essentials .If one does, then IMO he is not Evangelical ; he is something else.

 

[Paul33]

Palmetto Boy,

Your point is well taken. Graham has and does make very disappointing statements in regards to the gospel.

On these statements and others, fellow Christians should seek to hold him accountable.

His son is doing a better job now than he is. We can pray for strength to do and say the right thing for them and us.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Jones went to speak under the auspices of Furman University's "Religion in Life Series."

In the past, Jones may have debated his "liberal" enemies. He certainly would not have gone under their sponsorship, which he did. He would have chosen a neutral setting.

Not true. He went to present his view of life and Christ to people who didn't agree. They invited him to give a different perspective, not to agree with theirs. With Graham it was totally different. They invited him because they believed he would help their ministry. Those who so totally different that it is hard to believe you still can't see it. Jones went to disagree, to present an alternate viewpoint. Graham went to agree, or to support the ones who invited him.

hat the sponsorship committee wasn't as "separatistic" as some would have liked was a non-issue with Graham.

And that is exactly the problem. IT is not an "non-issue" with God. Graham took an issue and made it a non-issue. He disobeyed God.

The hyper fundamentalists of days gone by still don't get it. Is it possible that the doctrine of separation as espoused by hyper fundamentalists isn't in Scripture?

Hyper fundememtalists aren't the point of this discussion. I agree that their doctrine is not supported by Scripture. But that's okay. Start another thread about that.

Look where this doctrine led Jones. He seperated from John R. Rice!

Rediculous.

Only ridiculous if the commands of SCripture are "petty bickering" (isn't that what you called it?). I must admit I don't understand your perspective. I don't know on what authority you say that we should only obey part of God's commands. I think we should obey them all, including the ones on separaton. No one is perfectly consistent, and we could grant some latitude to Graham on many things. But association with apostates is not one of them if we value Scripture highly.