Bob Jones III lied to Larry King

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by gb93433:
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.

This is not about church issues. It is about obedience. I would not go sharing my faith with apostate. I have a different faith than they do. I can't "leave that at home" so to speak. It is fundamental.

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.

So? What is the point? You are discussing two different things.

Certainly the fundamentalists in the south who slandered Graham were wrong.

If anyone slandered Graham, then they were wrong. I have never seen any one provide these slanders, so I don't know. I did read part of his book. Found it ironic in many ways. The fact that He names their actions as lies and they have never disagreed with him] means nothing. He may be the one lying. Who knows?

He was certainly disobedient and it is not a stretch to think that he would defend himself against that.

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.

So as long as good comes from disobedient it is alright? Isn't that precisely why God struck Uzzah dead? Isn't that precisely why God said what he did in 1 Sam 15:22 ... that he wanted obedience and not sacrifice?

So until God calls me and I have a better way it is best if I just support him.

Obredience by separation is always a better way, even if your crowd gets smaller.

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

Graham should hae listened to the Spirit filled men that God placed in his life. He didn't. People who have done studies on the fruit of Graham's ministry say that he has probably done less with more than any evangelist in history. The vast majority of decisions made at his crusades are nowhere to be found just a year later (97% or more). He sent them back to apostate churches to grow in their Christian faith. Why is it so hard to see it is wrong to do that?

In the end, take the personalities out of it (Graham, Jones, Rice, whoever) and think about the Bible. When the Bible says mark and separate from false teachers, why give anyone a free pass for choosing to not to do that? Is it really okay if we think that good will come from it? That is the highest form of self-worship. Someone exalts themselves to think that they can understand the sitaution better than God can. God, from his eternal righteous viewpoint, told us how to deal with apostates, false teaches, and disobedient brothers. And all I can say is Woe to those who choose to disregard his commands because we might be able to preach the gospel to more people. In the end, I don't think God gives us the option of chooosing which of his commands are really important and which we can disagree with.

 

[Paul33]

Who invited Graham to speak? Most of those on the committee were devout, fundamental, Bible-believing Christians!

Who invited Jones to speak? Most of those on the committee were rank liberals.

Billy Graham accepted invitations to hold crusades where the vast majority of the sponsorship committee were orthodox, historic Christians!

Separation? Having come out of the fundamentalist movement, both NBBC and BJU, I can tell you that they apply "separation" when it fits them.

You have taken one issue, separating from apostates, and made it your flagship issue.

Anyone who disobeys this principle, or fellowships with those who disobey this principle, must himself be disfellowshiped.

Where is your consistency on other issues? One poster made the point that segregation in the south, though the law of the land, was bibically immoral. When BJU disobeyed God's Word concerning segregation, where was the outcry to separate from a disobedient brother?

Ah, it only applies to the principle of ecclesiastical separation. It doesn't apply to all the other sins mentioned in the Bible. If a brother is a glutton, eats too much at the church potlucks, is he disciplined, chastised, and when he fails to repent, ostracized?

You already know the answer.

So why do you separate from those who "disobey" the principle of avoiding apostates but not from those who "disobey" the principle of glutonny?

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

That's not why Graham separated. Graham maintained a close relationship with Jones until the 50s, including having Jones Jr speak for him at some of his crusades.

The law? What utter nonsense! Don't hide behind that cloak of unrighteousness. So is abortion the law.

Abortion is not the law. No one is requiring you to have an abortion. But segregation was different. It was not a matter of taking human life. In the cause of life, I do not get to disobey the law. Segregation was wrong to be sure, but we can not disobey God. We must use legal means to change the law and ultimately that is what happened. Jones went to great lengths to minister to black people and help them get an education while obeying the law of the land.

I have zero respect for those so called Christians who shrink from declaring the truth.

I feel the same way, which is why I am extremely disappoitned to see people shrink from declaring the truth about Graham and his disobedience. We should have more respect for God and his commands than we do for any man, including Graham.

 

[Paul33]

Abortion on demand is the law of the land. When women are seeking to have an abortion, what do you do about it?

When I was at BJU in the early 80s, they had the audacity to criticize those prolifers who sat in front of abortion mills on the basis that those clinics were private property.

BJU failed in its moral responsibility to speak out against segregation and abortion! I never heard one sermon on abortion and how we should oppose it and try to change hearts and laws.

 

[Paul33]

Oh, but they did have a rule about who you could date? No interacial dating, because the Bible said so!

Why didn't the rest of the fundamentalists separate from BJU because of their disobedience in twisting the Scripture to fit their cultural heritage?

You see, its only some sins that are important enough to separate over. Speaking at the invitation of a committee that has "some" liberals in it is abhorent. An abomination! Graham must be separated from.

Coddling segregationists, and gluttons, and looking the other way concerning abortion, well, we all have faults, don't we? And so the fundamentalists gave BJU a pass.

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Larry,

You said this issue of separating from apostates is about obedience?

You said that you would not go evangelizing with an apostate.

What translation of the Bible do you use, Larry?

Is it the KJV?

Why do you use a translation of the Bible that was sponsored by apostates, liberals, and Anglicans?

When you witness with your KJV of the Bible, you go using a Bible that was sponsored by the very wicked King James. Why is that?

Why are you obedient? Why don't you obey God and stop using this apostate sponsored Bible?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Who invited Graham to speak? Most of those on the committee were devout, fundamental, Bible-believing Christians!

"Most" is an overstatement to be sure. But he was invited by liberals to support their ministry.

Who invited Jones to speak? Most of those on the committee were rank liberals.

I am not sure who exactly invited Jones so I can't testify to their position exactly. But the point is that they invited him to give a different perspective, not to support the perspective they already had.

Again, that is a key difference that you overlook. Graham was speaking in support of; Jones was speaking in contrast or objection to. He was giving a different perspective.

Billy Graham accepted invitations to hold crusdades where the vast majority of the sponsorship committee were orthodox, historic Christians!

So as long as we almost obey it is okay? If we only have one or two apostates the commands of Scripture don't apply??? Not sure how that works ...

You have taken one issue, separating from apostates, and made it your flagship issue.

Actually not. Doctrine is the flagship issue. Separation is what sets us apart from others (no pun intended).

Anyone who disobeys this principle, or fellowships with those who disobey this principle, must himself be disfellowshiped.

Yes, because of the necessity of obedience to the word. Obviously, there are some issues such as the centrality of the doctrine, the issue of separation vs. non-cooperation etc.

Where is your consistency on other issues. One poster made the point that segration in the south, though the law of the land, was bibically immoral. When BJU disobeyed God's Word concerning segration, where was the outcry to separate from a disobedient brother?

I don't know that BJU disobeyed God's word on segregation. Do you a command of God in mind that they disobeyed? God's only command about race was that all men are in the image of God (I don't know that Jones ever denied that) and that all are one in the body of Christ (and I don't know that Jones ever denied that). I am not sure what other commands you might have in mind.

Ah, it only applies to the principle of ecclesiastical separation. It doesn't apply to all the other sins mentioned in the Bible.

Obviously, not all sins bring the same response. That is patently obvious from Scripture.

If a brother is a glutton, eats too much at the church potlucks, is he disciplined, chastised, and when he fails to repent, ostracized?

He could be, and in some cases should be. Most churches don't practice church discipline anyway, which is to their shame.

You already know the answer.

Did I give the one you were expecting?

So why do you separate from those who "disobey" the principle of avoiding apostates but not from those who "disobey" the principle of glutonny?

I don't. I separate from both. I won't have a fat out of shape preacher in my pulpit to preach the virtues of Christian living and discipline. Why do you think I would?

But let's not kid ourselves. Most people aren't gluttons. Being overweight is, for the most part, not a separation issue, as we can tell from Scripture. In 1 Cor 11, it was probably part of the issue dividing the church, but not because of gluttony itself but because the poor were being left out while the rich gorged themselves.

But to quote Jones Sr., "Two wrongs don't make it right." The fact that some don't confront sin in their lives doesn't mean that they should tolerate other sin. Jones Sr also said, It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right. That was Graham's major failure. He believed that by disobeying Scripture he could preach the gospel to more people. It was wrong.

You seem to have a "my way or the highway" approach that you attack fundamentalists for. I am not sure why you attack us by using the same attacks you attack us for. That seems inconsistent.

 

[Paul33]

Larry,

I couldn't understand your last paragraph. In any event, I'm not attacking anyone.

In my opinion, I am a true, historic fundamentalist.

Discerning who is liberal is subject to differing perspectives and relationships. It is easy to separate from those whom you have no relationship to. It is easy to separate from those with whom you feel excluded. It is different when you have long-term relationships. Each individual in seeking to obey God in the area of ecclesiastical separation has a different starting point or relationship with an "offending brother" that makes the point of separation different for each person.

It is such a gray area that to require others to come to the same point that you are in separation issues is very dangerous and devisive.

One person comes to a conclusion about someone else and separates. Another has not yet arrived at the same conclusion. How much freedom and time do you give to your brother to come to the same conclusion that you did?

Very complicated and tricky.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Abortion on demand is the law of the land. When women are seeking to have an abortion, what do you do about it?

If someone came to me, I would counsel against it, I would tell them it is murder, I would give them other alternatives such as adoption.

When I was at BJU in the early 80s, they had the audacity to criticize those prolifers who sat in front of abortion mills on the basis that those clinics were private property.

If they did this, they were right. You don't get to trespass on private property. I can't block the door of a bar because it is a sin to get drunk. I have to abide by the law. If the law comes and tells my wife she has to have an abortion, I will disobey that law.

BJU failed in its moral responsibility to speak out against segregation and abortion! I never heard one sermon on abortion and how we should oppose it and try to change hearts and laws.

So because you never heard something means they failed? I have never heard you speak out against drunkkeness, immorality, nudity, etc. Does that mean you failed? Or might that mean that I merely haven't heard you do it? I have heard Jones speak out about both of those things. You apparently missed it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Oh, but they did have a rule about who you could date?

They have lots of rules about dating. A rule about dating, even interracial dating, is not unbiblical or racist. That is a common misconception.

No interacial dating, because the Bible said so!

They should not have based in on the Bible. Many people have wrongly used the Bible. They are wrong to do so.

Why didn't the rest of the fundamentalists separate from BJU because of their disobedience in twisting the Scripture to fit their cultural heritage?

Probably a bit of a twisting yourself there.

You see, its only some sins that are important enough to separate over.

Yes, that is true. SCripture makes that clear.

Coddling segregationists, and gluttons, and looking the other way concerning abortion, well, we all have faults, don't we? And so the fundamentalists gave BJU a pass.

Completely false. No one is looking the other way about abortion, or coddling segregationists. Gluttony falls in a bit of a different category. And yes, we have all faults. I don't know anyone who denies that.

 

[Paul33]

Timing my friend.

At BJU in the early 80s, these topics were not preached from the chapel pulpit.

Did you hear it preached in the early 80s at BJU?

 

[Paul33]

Where did I probably twist?

 

[Pastor Larry]

You said this issue of separating from apostates is about obedience?

Yes.

You said that you would not go evangelizing with an apostate.

Yes.

What translation of the Bible do you use, Larry?

NASB 95 Update

Is it the KJV?

Nope.

Why do you use a translation of the Bible that was sponsored by apostates, liberals, and Anglicans?

I don't ... but you are misunderstanding some things. The KJV is separated from its association with apostates and liberals. It is not even remotely connected with it. But I don't use it anyway.

When you witness with your KJV of the Bible, you go using a Bible that was sponsored by the very wicked King James. Why is that?

I don't, and it isn't true anyway.

Why are you obedient?

Because God tells me to be. I am sure I am not always consistent or obedient. But I try to be.

Why don't you obey God and stop using this apostate sponsored Bible?

False premise ... along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

You have a lot of questions and seemingly a lot of misunderstanding, very simplistic at best. When you were at BJU and NBBC did you ever sit down in a teachable manner and ask these questions of the professors? Were you always this combative and what seems to be unteachable? I don't mean that offensively, but it seems that you are not willing to entertain any position that doesnt conform to your own way of thinking. Why not go back to one of these places and sit down with a few profs and express a sincere desire to learn. Don't be combative or hateful. Just ask questions ... and listen.

 

[Paul33]

Again timing.

We are talking about segregation in the 60s and 70s, abortion in the 80s, and gluttony in any decade.

Stick to the contextual references that are implied or stated.

Bob Jones III may very well speak out against abortion today. In the 80s he was more concerned about the private property rights of butchers and murderers. Can you imagine the prophets of old doing what BJIII did? Supporting the property rights of abortionists?

Rose-colored glasses?

 

[Pastor Larry]

At BJU in the early 80s, these topics were not preached from the chapel pulpit.

I can't speak authoritatively to everything that is preached from there, much less 20 years ago. I know that they have spoken out on both issue with conviction and authority.

Where did I probably twist?

When you said they twisted Scripture to fit their cultural heritage. That is probably a misrepresentation of what they actually did.

 

[Pastor Larry]

We are talking about segregation in the 60s and 70s,

Segregation was not a matter of clear teaching of Scripture. Unequal treatment was. But Jones worked actively to help black students get an education under the laws that existed.

abortion in the 80s,

They spoke against it.

and gluttony in any decade.

This is like throwing Radio Flyers in with Cadillacs and BMWs. It just doesn't fit.

In the 80s he was more concerned about the private property rights of butchers and murderers. Can you imagine the prophets of old doing what BJIII did? Supporting the property rights of abortionists?

Property rights are a matter of legality. It would be a violation of Romans 13 to violate their property rights. And you don't get to choose which laws to obey or not. It is right to fight against abortion. It is also right to obey property rights and trespassing laws. I have said the same thing: We should not block entrances to abortion clinics, or shoot abortionists, or bomb them. We should pray, evangelize, counsel, give alternatives, etc. It is never right to do wrong.

Rose-colored glasses?

Nope.

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Larry,

Please forgive me. I assumed that you used the KJV because that is what most fundamentalists use.

I'm glad you use the NASU.

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!

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.

Pastor Larry, why do you make this discussion personal? Why do you speak in terms of being "teachable."

I would encourage you to discuss the issues without resorting to innuendo, projection, and condescension.

"Being teachable" is the trademark label that is applied to anyone who sees through the hypocrisy, or just asks an honest question.

You too have made an error in statement. I did ask these questions at NBBC and BJU. I bought their answers hook, line, and sinker. 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.

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Larry,

Someone who is teachable would say that BJU did twist the Scriptures to fit their cultural heritage. And when their culture changed, they changed their view of Scripture.

That was the purpose of BJIII's appearance on Larry King Live. But instead of saying, we used to believe this but now we don't, he acted like they never believed the Bible taught against interacial dating and marriage.

Now will you be teachable and accept this post, or is it too simplistic?

 

[Pastor Larry]

couldn't understand your last paragraph. In any event, I'm not attacking anyone.

YOu certainly seem to be attacking Jones and other fundamentalist because they don't see separation as you do.

In my opinion, I am a true, historic fundamentalist.

But not according to history.

Discerning who is liberal is subject to differing perspectives and relationships. ... It is different when you have long-term relationships.

But no less important. And I think this was a great struggle for Jones Sr in the late 40s and 50s with Graham. They had personal relationship and I think it broke Jones Sr's heart to see Graham go down that road. But he did it out of what he believed to be loyalty to God's word. Time has shown Jones to be right. You should read the two or so chapter devoted to this topic in Turner's STanding Without Apology. YOu will the picture of a man (Jones Sr) who greatly loved Graham and tried everything possible to maintain the friendship. Graham often wrote Jones for advice and Jones had a deep affecton for Graham personally. But in the end, his loyalty to Scripture won. I am convinced that what you say is one of the hardest things ... the people we love and know, and those who seem to be doing great things.

Each individual in seeking to obey God in the area of ecclesiastical separation has a different starting point or relationship with an "offending brother" that makes the point of separation different for each person.

I disagree. The starting point my be different, but the end should be the same.

It is such a gray area that to require others to come to the same point that you are in separation issues is very dangerous and devisive.

I would never separate over gray areas. I find not cooperate with, and I might give a different perspective, but I wouldn't make it an issue of exposure and separation. With Graham, we are not talking about gray areas. It is easy to miss that being 60 years removed from the genesis of this issue, but we really should go back and read the history of it.

One person comes to a conclusion about someone else and separates. Another has not yet arrived at the same conclusion. How much freedom and time do you give to your brother to come to the same conclusion that you did?

Depends on teh clarity and necessity. On a clear issue with a mature brother or a knowing apostate, not much. On a clear issue with an immature brother, much more time. On an unclear issue, even more time, if ever. And I might just choose to disagree agreeably and let it rest.

Very complicated and tricky.

On some issues, yes. But not on the issue with Graham. That is as black and white as it gets.

 

[Paul33]

For you, the issue with Graham was black and white. For thousands of other fundamentalists, it wasn't.

Amazing that you, Pastor Larry, can articulate with absolute clarity that I am not a historic fundamentalist. I have never called an apostate a believing brother. I have never cooperated with apostates. I did attend a Billy Graham crusade when I was 11 with my independent Baptist fundamentalist pastor who happened to be my dad! Does that mean I cooperated with liberals?