What would you have done in 1957?

You talk about a debate. Exactly which liberals are you talking about? Not all liberals are the same and there are varying definitions of a liberal. Would you lump all non-liberals together and accept their beliefs?

 

swaimj wrote,

This evangelist did not preach inside any kind of structure because there are no structures large enough to contain the crowds that came to hear him preach and to be healed of their infirmities. He preached out in the open using massive sound systems. His sound man was the best in the business—on one occasion he served as my sound man when I was preaching and I will never forget the experience!

I was very intrigued by this evangelist and I became very curious as to why many people were being miraculously healed when he preached, since I and all of his other top people knew that he was a very ungodly man. Therefore I spent some time talking with the man who was in charge of screening those who were healed to be sure that they were really healed before their photographs were published. I hinted to him that the evangelist was a phony, and right away he told me that he knew the kind of man that we were working for. He told me that he was also intrigued by the same question, and that the only answer that he could come up with was that God chose to be glorified through this man’s preaching even though the man himself was a phony. The miraculous healings were very genuine, and the crowds were tremendous, especially in third world countries. This evangelist was never used by God to preach to crowds of a large size in the United States.

Although he was very much a fundamentalist in the doctrines that he preached, you are likely to find out much more about him under the subject of Pentecostal evangelism in third world countries.

 

John of Japan wrote,

There is, of course, no such thing as a “classical theological liberal.” If by "liberal" you mean that they absolutely deny that Jesus was God, please post a list of such men that Billy Graham associated himself with in a manner than hindered his effectiveness as an evangelist. And please post documentation to support your claim that these men absolutely denied that Jesus was God and that Billy Graham’s association with these men hindered his effectiveness as an evangelist. So far, all that we have is a lot of noise and hot air.

************************

Gold Dragon,

There really have been some ultraliberals who have denied that Jesus was God. Check out the following theologians and their theology:

Ernest Renan saw Jesus as a sentimentalist
Bouck White saw Jesus as a revolutionist
Bruce Barton saw Jesus as an expert salesman
Albert Schweitzer saw Jesus an apocalyptist
Thomas N. Carver saw Jesus as an economist
Binet-Sanglé saw Jesus as a paranoiac
Middleton Murry saw Jesus as a genius

Albert Schweitzer, for example, wrote on page 398 of his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus,

The entire text of this book can be found online at:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

 

John of Japan wrote,

Modern church history is very much outside of my area of expertise. But off of the top of my head, Carl Brumback and Timothy L. Smith come to mind.

However, Christian theology is not quite so much outside of my area of expertise (New Testament exegesis and translation theory), and I cannot think of a single Christian theologian of any consequence who believes that fundamentalism and the Charismatic Movement are mutually exclusive or who would deny that the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal body in the world, is a Christian fundamentalist body of believers.

However, you still have not posted any data that supports your notions about Billy Graham. Let’s have some data or an apology from you.

 

Well Craig has finally convinced me.I am thowing away my library and my bibles.Whenever I need to know anything I'll just ask him.

 

Naughty little boys need to be given a good spanking!

If you have some data to post that supports John of Japan’s notions, please post it. But whatever you do, please refrain from personal attacks because they make Christians look like sinners rather than saints.

 

That is the most cordial entry I've seen you make on this board in days.I'm just trying to move you in a more cordial loving direction.I know you have it in you.I know you love the Lord Jesus Christ. I am just rying to get you to let some of that shine through.I will keep you in my prayers as always.

 

A friend of mine once said, "Liberals and fundamentalists lie in the same bed. Just on opposite ends." He implied that one group can be just as bad as the other. For example the police were called into the SBC convention in the 1980's during a convention when the liberals and fundamentalists were fighting. In 1957 I would have done as any other person who was trying to win people to Christ and make disciples. I think Billy Graham did that well by enlisting the help of Dawson Trotman from the Navigators. Out of the Navigator ministry came several other ministries. The Navigators are still enlisted to help the BGEA. In fact the man who leads the discipleship part of the BGEA was in the Navigators at one time. The proof is in the quality of the ministry and what people do later in life. Compare the disciples of the fundamentalists and the Navigators today. Whose wining people and making disciples? That is what is critical. I have never seen a person who regularly shares their faith and makes disciples ever get far off the track.

 

Are the Navigators considered liberals?

 

gb93433 wrote,

What does this have to do with Billy Graham associating himself with other men of God who were less conservative in their theology than John of Japan would have personally preferred?

 

There you go.

 

I love the way the waters have been muddied on this thread. First, the definition of a liberal is being debated and, according to the way this thread is going, we do not know what a liberal is and we are not sure that there is anything wrong with their position. On the other hand, Craig By The Sea has further muddied the waters as to the definiton of a fundamentalist by bringing up an irrelavent anecdote about an famous evangelist whose crowds were larger than Billy Grahams, yet no one has ever heard of him and CBTS will not identify him.

So we have entered into complete relativism in which no one can be defined or labeled and the ultimate criteria for fellowshipping with another is whether or not they are "nice".

John of Japan has asked a simple question and the answer to it is being avoided by these rabbit-trail asides. Billy Graham changed his strategy for evangelism in 1957. HE knows this. Read his biography and he speaks of it and defends what he did. By confusing the definition of liberal and fundamentalist, you guys are avoiding the question as to whether the change in strategy, the change that Billy Graham knows that he made, was right or wrong, good or bad. Stop obfuscating guys, answer the question!

 

If Billy Graham was working with (on his evangelical team) so-called Christians who denied the diety of Christ, that would be a major problem with me. That's how John defined liberal replying to my question. I'm not talking about speaking one or twice with them. I'm talking about working closely with them.

Now, John, can you give me an example?

 

swaimj wrote,

I did answer the question. Billy Graham did the right thing and 48 years of church history has conclusively proven that he did the right thing. Had John of Japan done the right thing, we wouldn't have to be defending the greatest evangelist of all time for making the right decision.