Dr. Graham answered my letter

How can you not see anything wrong with a direct violation of the commands of Scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]If there was a direct violation of scripture, I would help to point it out.

His cooperation with some groups is a direct violation to the Doctrine of Separation as understood by some. I believe that understanding to be an incorrect intepretation of the relevant passages. But even if it was a correct interpretation, it is not applicable to this situation because of Separatists misunderstanding of the theological positions of those who are different from them.

 

Rom 16:17-18, Gal 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude, 2 Thess 3 are just a few of the many passages that address this very issue of cooperation with false teachers and apostates, compromise of the gospel, and disobedient brothers. '

The fact that you differ from the separatists does not make them wrong. They are correct. When the Bible says things like mark, expose, separate, have no fellowship with, we are not permitted to redefine that to mean have them on your organizing committees, let them pray, send converts to their church, etc. This is a black and white issue with Graham. There are others for whom it is not so black and white, but for Graham, it is clear cut and has been for more than 40 years.

 

BG has not cooperated with those folks. He has cooperated with folks you think fall under those categories. I don't think they do.

 

PL,

You are wasting your breath. There is no black and white or right and wrong with Post-modern thinkers.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Just an fyi that this postmodern thinker does believe in a black and white and a right and wrong. But that they are often found in surprising places and sometimes may not be as easy to find as we originally thought. I hope we can find these things together as a community of believers relying on God's divine scriptures.

 

When BG cooperated with the WCC and NCC, and men like Bishop Pike, he associated with those who deny hte Christ he claims to preach. Pike denied the virgin birth and the Trinity (as have many on Graham's organzing committees). In disobedience to Rom 16:17-18, Graham failed to separate from someone who caused division by teaching contrary to the truth we received. When Graham cooperated with the Roman Catholic Church, he associated and encouraged those who preach another gospel. Paul said that even if an angel from heaven preaches another gospel, they are to be anathema. For Graham to send converts back to teh apostate RCC was direct disobedience to the command of God in Gal 1. IN fact, it is possible that one of the reasons why the great differences between biblical Christianity and Romanism have been ignored or overlooked is because of GRaham's compromise. When he said at Belmont Abbey that the gospel he preached and the gospel of the RCC was the same was pure compromise, unless he wasn't preaching the gospel of Christ revealed in Scripture. The RCC hasn't taught that gospel for more than 1500 years. They certainly didn't preach the same gospel in 1967 when Graham said that.

Graham stood in Moscow under the Soviet regime and said there was no evidence of religious persecution. That was completely false. There was great religious persecution.

The fact that you "don't think they do" ... that is, fit in this category, is irrelevant. God did not establish your thoughts as the test of truth. He gave us his inspired word. He is the one who tells us what is right and wrong. Graham wasn't appointed to change those categories.

Here is a short list of more problems with Graham. This list coule be enlarged many many times if we were to list all the examples of this kind of stuff:
http://www.freepres.org/pamphlet_details.asp?graham_facts

 

Then you believe you cannot make any judgments from the Word of God on who is going to Heaven or Hell? Is that what you are saying?

 

Then you believe you cannot make any judgments from the Word of God on who is going to Heaven or Hell? Is that what you are saying? </font>[/QUOTE]I explained this in the other post. I believe he is right that he is not the Judge. We are able to make judgements of who is going to heaven or hell but we could be wrong because we are not the Judge.

 

While you ar;e doing that, you should stop misrepresenting what other people say. YOu konw good and well that I never said a person's salvation is dependent on which church they go to. You have distorted the truth in pious sounding language.

It is important what church someone goes to because God said it was. When a church doesn't preach the truth, you shouldn't go there. You should not recommend people go there. And if someone stays knowingly in a false church or under false teaching, it does call into question their salvation, if you believe Scripture. The Bible says that God changes us.

 

As Baptists, we are so sure that we know exactly how people go to heaven.

The underlying bottom line is that no one goes to heaven except through Jesus Christ! I think we all agree with that. There is no other way!

But our "formula" of how to go to heaven is just as man-made as those we accuse of having a formula. We accuse Lutherans and Catholics of infant baptismal regeneration. We accuse the Christian Church of baptismal regeneration. We accuse MacArther of Lordship salvation. We accuse some Baptists of easy believism, etc.

But the truth is, a large percentage of "believers" in our churches are not saved. They raised their hand, walked the aisle, said a prayer, were pronounced saved, and got up unregenerated! You know it, and I know it.

So how does God save a person? Not by ethnicity, not by personal choice, not by another person's choice for us, but born of God. And the proof is that those born of God receive him. We can preach the gospel and ask people to receive Christ. Those born of God will confess that Jesus is Lord, believe that God raised him from the dead, and call on his name.

Now can God do this for an infant baptized in a Lutheran church? Before you say no, can God save your infant son when he dies at age two?

 

In our Cooperating with Catholics thread a while back, I addressed the many accusations the the RCC preach another gospel. I was hoping you would have been more involved in that thread since it was originally your question I was addressing. Would you like for us to revisit that thread?

Regarding Bishop Pike, I am not familiar with his theological positions. I'll see what I can find out about him.

Regarding the WCC and NCC, the best I could find so far regarding their position on the virgin birth is an found in the WCC website but does not explicitly discuss the virgin birth. I'll keep looking.

 

I was involved in that thread for a while. The fact that the RCC does not preach the biblical gospel is well documented. Until recent years, it was never disputed that we differed from them. It shouldn't be disputed now.

I don't want to be rude or condescending at all, but it amazes me that you have such a firm position on something when you don't even know the facts about it. It is vitally important that we arm ourselves with knowledge both of God's word and of what people are doing. We can never make good decisions without knowing.

I don't think yOu won't find a requirement for belief in the virgin birth because they don't require it. AGain, this is well documented from history.

 

I don't want to be rude or condescending at all, but it amazes me that you have such a firm position on something when you don't even know the facts about it. It is vitally important that we arm ourselves with knowledge both of God's word and of what people are doing. We can never make good decisions without knowing.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm always open to learning and knowing more. Thanks for educating me on BG's association with Bishop Pike. It would be interesting to hear BG's explanation for that association.

 

This is what I've been able to gather about Pike so far.

1913 - born, raised Roman Catholic
1943-45 - served in the US navy
1946 - Pike's episcopal priesthood ordination
1951 - B.D. from Union Theological Seminary
1952 - appointed Dean of Cathedral of St. John Divine in NYC
1953 - wrote "Beyond Anxiety"
1955 - wrote "The Church, Politics and Society"
1957 - wrote "The Next Day"
1958 May - Pike's bishop of SF ordination
1958 May - Pike prays at BG SF crusade
1960 Dec - Graham speaks at Pike's church
1963 - wrote "A Time for Christian Candor"
1966 - censured by the House of Bishops
1966 - son's suicide
1967 - wrote "The Other Side"
1967 - divorced Esther Pike
1968 - remarried Diane Kennedy
1969 - died

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0839020.html
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/crypt/cry_20011114.shtml
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/anglican-liberalism.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/books/features/bookwk/040830.html

The Christianity Today article does a good job of explaining why Pike was invited to pray at the SF crusade.

I believe most of Pike's more controversial views about the Trinity and the virgin birth were made in his book "A Time for Christian Candor", although these views were suggested before the writing of this book.

 

I can't stop doing something I never started. I haven't misrepresented him. I have said what he said. I have given evidence in support of it where you can go and check for yourself. I don't need to misrepresent it. He was very clear in what he said, or perhaps not very clear which is the problem. He wasn't clear that personal faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven. He wasn't clear that apostates have no place in the ministry of believers. Those are serious issues.

 

If all the believers had abandoned the British Baptist Union and the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, I shudder to think where they would be to-day. To-day, the majority are sound evangelical twice-born people.

I think there is a place for one to be a beacon of truth in the halls of darkness. It is for those individuals to give account for what they believe and how they live for Christ.

I know a goodly number of sound, fundamental Christians within the Anglican Church, and I thank God for their devoted witness. If there is no darkness, what is the point in being a candle shining forth the good news that Jesus saves?

Cheers,

Jim

 

We should absolutely be a beacon in teh halls of darkness Jim. But we should not join hands with those of darkness to be that light, especially when those of the darkness pretend to be of the light. Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and sinners. He never asked the Pharisees to support him. Let's follow his example, not Graham's.