Inclusivism and B. Graham

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
He was not a racist, and the school policy was that people could not date outside their race.

Uhhh, that was a racist policy, and if he endorsed it, he was engaging in a racist act. </font>[/QUOTE]No it's not John. We have had this discussion before. Racism is unequal treatment of people based on their skin. No race was treated unequally. They were treated the same and had the same opportunities.

In the south, segregation was the law. To violate that law would be disobedience to God according to Romans 13. That was their position. So Jones Sr worked through other ways to get a biblical education for black people. Hardly the act of a racist. I can't testify to everything that he (or anyone else) may have said or did. They lived in a different era as well. None of which has any relevance to this conversation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />they also check with the local churches and refer people to the local churches.

Including Catholic churches, which is major part of the problem. </font>[/QUOTE]I trust you have proof of this? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, again, a well known fact. You can call them and ask them. They have Roman Catholics who serve as sponsors and counsellors at their crusades. They send people back to the church of their choice. This is documented in US New and World Report (Aug 27. 1954).

Statistics from Graham's crusades show a very small percentage continue in the faith as little as a year later. For instance, Win Arn reports in 1978 that .3% (or 15.3% ... I have conflicting numbers) of decisions from the Seattle crusade of 75 were in church a year later (Eternity, April 1978; This crusade was studied because it was claimed by Graham to be the most successful to date). Peter Wagner reports in 1977 that 3% of a Graham crusade decisions were incorporated into a local church. From 1958 Cow Palace Crusade in San Francisco, less thatn 1% became church members (Oakland Tribune, Dec 17, 1958). More statistics could be cited, but they all show the majority of decisions were from people who were already attending church, and very few of the decisions seemd to have any last impact as little as a year later. Clearly, the big numbers we often see do not seem to tell the whole story. Bob Jones Sr, a great evangelist in his own right said that Graham did less with more than any evangelist in history (from a letter of March 6, 1957).

I think Graham has gotten a lot of publicity but the end will show that he doesn't have that many true converts, at least based on these studies people have done and are doing. The church is not stronger today than it was 50 years ago. It is more worldly. Graham is a man of great personal integrity to be sure. But there are serious questions about the genuineness of the fruit, and there are no questions about the fact that he has been disobedient to God's word.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Originally posted by Johnv:
[qb]No it's not John. We have had this discussion before. Racism is unequal treatment of people based on their skin. No race was treated unequally. They were treated the same and had the same opportunities.

I think most would disagree. Forbidding a person to date a person outside their own race is indeed racism, no matter how you slice it. The notion that it is not racist because there doesn't appear to be any inequality is ridiculous. The racism displayed here in the dating ban is an example of discrimination based on race, which is racism. It is discriminating without merit of people based on race.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No it's not John. Sorry. There was not discrimination based on race. All races were treated equally. That is simply not racism and misdefining it does a great deal of injustice to real racism because it masks it and confuses it. But nevertheless, that is not an issue at this point.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
No it's not John. Sorry. There was not discrimination based on race. All races were treated equally. That is simply not racism and misdefining it does a great deal of injustice to real racism because it masks it and confuses it. But nevertheless, that is not an issue at this point.

Issue or not, the notion that you don't find the dating ban discriminatory concerns me. "Separate but equal" is a tool of Satan, and for BJU to have adhered to it for as long as they did should be of concern to everyone.

 

[Scott J]

BJU is not a public institution. They don't even claim tax exemption any more.

BJU did not forbid admittance to members in mixed marriages.

It isn't a matter of "separate but equal" but rather hear are our policies that you must voluntarily agree to in order to attend here as a student in good standing. This is not entirely unlike institutional limitations on free speech through conduct rules at liberal schools all over the country.

The policy, according to their account given when it was very publicly rescinded, was in answer to a complaint by Asian parents back in the 50's or 60's.

Had I considered Bob Jones and had found out about the policy, it would have turned me away. I dated several American Indian girls in high school. Race would not have been a concern if marriage had ever become a consideration.

My point is that we don't have to force everyone to conform to our ideals. Most things can, and should, be left to normal social forces and debate within the free market of ideas.

 

[Exile]

It seems that for some, the acceptance of inclusivism is the first step toward full-blown philosophical pluralism, i.e. the belief that all religions are equally true and can all lead to God (whatever he is conceived to be). I don't think that Billy Graham will ever become a pluralist, but other professing Christians have, or are moving in that direction. Spreading the true gospel is becoming more and more difficult in a world where witnessing is considered evil and oppressive by many.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Issue or not, the notion that you don't find the dating ban discriminatory concerns me.

Why should it trouble you that I don't find a non-discriminatory policy discriminatory? Who was discriminated against?

"Separate but equal" is a tool of Satan,

Really??? How does Satan benefit from that? That is a strange claim. I happen to think that separate but equal is bad social policy, but I hardly find anything theological about it.

and for BJU to have adhered to it for as long as they did should be of concern to everyone.

The dating policy had nothing to do with separate but equal. Races were not kept separate. They were treated equally.

But alas, this is way off topic, so let's return it to its topic: Billy Graham and Inclusivism.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Why should it trouble you that I don't find a non-discriminatory policy discriminatory? Who was discriminated against?

Because it IS discriminatory. It tells a person that they may not date a person of a race different from them. One might as well say that having a ban on acquaintences of a different race is not discriminatory.

Really??? How does Satan benefit from that? That is a strange claim. I happen to think that separate but equal is bad social policy, but I hardly find anything theological about it.

It divides the brethern without scriptural or practical merit.

The dating policy had nothing to do with separate but equal. Races were not kept separate. They were treated equally.

Races were kept separate when the agenda was dating.

But alas, this is way off topic, so let's return it to its topic: Billy Graham and Inclusivism.

Agreed. Let's agre to disagree, and return the topic to its original upright position.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


An apostate is someone who rejects biblical truth, such as the deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, etc. Graham has pursued and gained the endorsement and participation of such people.

Having been involved with the BGEA I see no evidence of your claims. I simply see it as exaggeration to prove your point or perhaps you have been misled by someone else. I have never heard him deny any of the beliefs you claim he doesn't believe. I t seems to me his website certainly would not agree with what you believe about his beliefs.

How is your definition of an apostate any different than the 90 percent of the congregation in churches who never lead one person to Christ in their entire lifetime and never disciple anyone? Are they not disobedient and live as practical atheists?

Yes, but disobedience in a particular area is not apostasy. The definitions are very different. And their disbodience does not justify Graham's disobedience or anyone else's.

Disobedience in the area of making disciples is living as a practical atheist. James would say the proof of your faith is in your life. The proof of those who do not make discipels in their disobedience to the command Jesus gave. If one is not a fisher of men he is not living for Christ Mt. 4:19). I would question his obedience and his god.

I don’t see how we can escape the idea that if people are not making disciples they are disobedient. Seems to me to be quite straightforward.

Yes, but entirely different things. We don't discipline people overeating, being late to church, etc.

Overeating has nothing to dso with the command Jesus agve to make disciples. That is major noit some minor ned or problem. That is big time major disobedience. Usually those who do not make disciples try to minimize the command in Mt. 28:19, 20.

 

[aefting]

A few weeks ago we had on the BB the song that was sung at by some fundamentalists at a church service. The same words were repeated over and over. It was sickening. I just wonder where their pastor went to school. Do you support those kind of folks?

That was from the Hyles-Anderson Pastor's school. What does that have to do with the BG issue? And, no, nobody participating on this thread supports those kind of folks.

Andy

 

[steveo]

I did email his ministry along time ago about the schuller interview, and they sent me a reply saying his health was bad causing him to say this, and he stands by what he always believed that salvation was through Jesus alone.
I'm not sure about his past stuff like sending new converts to catholic churchs, which is wrong.
Steve

 

[LadyEagle]

I did email his ministry along time ago about the schuller interview, and they sent me a reply saying his health was bad causing him to say this, and he stands by what he always believed that salvation was through Jesus alone.

Thank you so much for clearing up this awful smear on Rev. Graham. A couple of us figured that was the case, but some people are always looking for the beam in someone else's eye, or in other words, seeking to throw a fellow believer under the bus, to put it in modern terms. (sigh) I'm rather sick of it and probably Jesus isn't too thrilled either.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by steveo:

I'm not sure about his past stuff like sending new converts to catholic churchs, which is wrong.
Steve

If I remember right, if the person who comes forward puts on their form the name of the church who brought them, then that church will be notified of their response unless itr is a church like JW's or Mormons, etc. One church I pastored was the main church that received the responses if a church was not named. One time we received notification of a person who came from the Mormon Church who made decisions.

I don't get too excited about who brings who because the people who are eager to grow and read their Bible will end up in a church doing the same thing. The dead end up in the same church. The alive end up in a church that is alive.

What it boils down to is that a particular evangelical church is made the main church. Of course most likely the churches who bring the laregr number will probably have the greatest number of decisions as well. That church will be sent the greatest number of responses too. It is most likely the church that brings the most people is probably the most evangelical chruch too. As for the church I pastored then, we knocked on doors as a church once a month. I knocked on 75 to 200 doors each month and most of the time took someone else with me. I know there was not one other pastor knocking on doors in the area where we lived. There were times when we would knock on a door and a person from another church would answer the door and cheer us on. There were several times the person at the door would say something like they wished ther church would do that. I learned a lot about the community and evangelism when I did that.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


I think Graham has gotten a lot of publicity but the end will show that he doesn't have that many true converts, at least based on these studies people have done and are doing. The church is not stronger today than it was 50 years ago. It is more worldly.

Sure Graham has gotten a lot of publicity. So did Jesus. So did the prophets. So did Paul. I kinda think they were doing what God called them to do. Doesn't it talk about that in Romans 12? So what's the problem?

All I can tell you is that I have never once been a part of that decline you mentioned.

The church as a whole has been on a steady decline for about the last fifty years. Discipleship is a big buzz word today that very few really understand. If one takes a serious look at how Jesus trained his disciples you do not see a class once a week, or someone standing before a class telling the students about a passage, but training to do ministry once Jesus leaves.

Graham partners with the churches to do the follow up. The problem is that most churches are lazy and want an easy way out of the real job of making disciples. They are simply not prepared. Every SBC church I pastored, when I told the deacons I wanted them to go with me knocking on doors you should have seen the response and heard the excuses. Sometimes someone would get rather irritated telling me that was not very effective. Sometimes I would ask them to share when the last time was they shared their faith. Often it had been a very long time.

It takes 20 minutes to two hours to lead a man to Christ but 20 months to two years to get him on the road and going. It takes about two years to get a person to the point where they are able to lead another to Christ and dsiciple them.
I just can't put the blame on an evangelist but the church who does the follow up.

This problem has been around long before Billy Graham was born.

Sometime read http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm118_8.htm

Once you have read about the problem Dawson Trotman encountered then tell us what you see as the real problem.

Do you think the follow up of the people in Acts 4:4 was the exclusive responsibility of the evangelist/preacher?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Thank you so much for clearing up this awful smear on Rev. Graham. A couple of us figured that was the case, but some people are always looking for the beam in someone else's eye, or in other words, seeking to throw a fellow believer under the bus, to put it in modern terms. (sigh) I'm rather sick of it and probably Jesus isn't too thrilled either.

I couldn't agree with you more!!

 

[Marcia]

Since I started this thread, I would like to clarify that I was not "looking for the beam in someone's else's eye," but merely trying to get feedback on Inclusivism, the statments of BG, and any info on it.

When things are said in public ministry, Christians need to evaluate them. We are commanded to react to teachings that are questionable or off. I had a professor that once said wherever the gospel is preacher, Satan will attack it. The Gospel is constantly under attack, and often from within the church (I am not speaking about BG here, just to let you know, but more in general terms).

Looking for the beam in someone's eye has to do with hypocritical judgment of someone for sin. We are not discussing sin here but teachings and false teachings, something the NT warns about all over the place.

Jesus warned about false teachers and false christs; Paul warned in his last message to the church in Acts 20 about false teachers rising up from among those in the church; 1 and 2 Timonthy urges believers to hold to sound doctrine; 1 Timothy 4 says that many in the church will turn away to teachings that tickle their ears; 2 Cor 11.13-14 tells us that Satan will have allies who appear as the "ministers of righteousoness;" the books of 1 John, Galatians, and Colossians were partly written to refute false teachings within the church that were leading believers astray; and I could cite many more passages.

This has nothing to do with beams in people's eyes but rather the attack of Satan on the church through false teachings. I can also cite sound evangelicals who have bought into the false teachings of denying hell, open theism, inclusivism, and other such teachings. This is going on all the time. To deny this or to ignore it is dangerous. We don't have to look for it -- it is all around.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
He was not a racist, and the school policy was that people could not date outside their race.

Uhhh, that was a racist policy, and if he endorsed it, he was engaging in a racist act. </font>[/QUOTE]No it's not John. We have had this discussion before. Racism is unequal treatment of people based on their skin. No race was treated unequally. They were treated the same and had the same opportunities.

In the south, segregation was the law. To violate that law would be disobedience to God according to Romans 13. </font>[/QUOTE]My God comes first before any man-made law. Islam is the law in the Middle East. So does that mean don't send missionaries there and don't preach the gospel there?

You really shocked me by what you just wrote in comparison to what you wrote about Billy Graham. You suggest that Graham is apostate and compromises the faith. But then you support BJ who did not stand against stealing people but rather trying to work around it. Now I know why we have the same problems in the church today--compromise. Stealing is wrong any way you look at it.

Are you suggesting that we are to compromise our faith to obey a law that goes against what God says? Martin Luther didn’t think so. Martin Luther King didn’t think so. The apostles didn’t think so. I wonder what the black slaves thought about stealing people. It was the law. The U.S. government blessed stealing people and so did anyone else who participated in that practice and supported it.

Read Acts 4:19, 20, "But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Should they have disobeyed God to obey those in authority? It was the law to obey the authority.

Suggesting that we go around a fact and compromise with the world is suggesting we invite the world in and compromise a litle here and a little there.

 

[Marcia]

Read Acts 4:19, 20, "But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Should they have disobeyed God to obey those in authority? It was the law to obey the authority.

But gb, wasn't this the religious leaders they were disobeying? They were not disobeying the civil leaders in this particular case.

 

[swaimj]

It is interesting that this thread has coalesced around the topics of Billy Graham's ministry and the actions/words of the president of Fuller Theological Seminary. The BGA and Fuller Seminary were seminal forces in the rise of new-evangelicalism in the late 50s. What has been their record in the matter of inclusivism?

In his 1957 NYC crusade, Graham provoked a firestorm when he invited Catholics and liberals onto his platform. This inclusivism was criticized by many at the time and provoked a schism between evangelicals and fundamentalists that exists to this day. Graham has adamantly persisted in this inclusivism for almost 50 years now. Read Harold Lindsel's The Battle for the Bible and George Marsen's Reforming Fundamentalism and you will learn of Billy Graham's involvement with Fuller Seminary in its early days. When professors who rejected inerrancy were brought on faculty, Billy Graham sat silently by and refused to contest their retention. So it is no surprise that the president of Fuller Seminary has taken inclusivism to a new (low) level with his joint worship service with Mormon's and a public "apology" for (what he thinks are) evangelical misunderstandings of their theology. His actions in worshipping with Mormons and seeking "understanding" are a continuation of the philosophy and methods of Billy Graham.

I am amazed that so many on this thread turn a blind eye to the history of Billy Graham's actions over the last 50 years. Sentimentally they attribute the Schuller interview to old age and seem to think that the "real" Billy Graham would never do such a thing. Dry those sentimental tears and look at the last 50 years of American evangelical history! The "Utah" event is no shock. It is the natural culmination of the methods embraced by Billy Graham so many years ago.