BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Amazing, Jim.

Nothing amazing there. Jim just didn't read any of the posts.

Never heard of “allegiances were ecumenical” as in insult before. That’s like, “he’s so bad because he was understanding and cooperative with a wide variety of Christians.” Way to go Jim.

I don't think I've ever heard the people who start coming forward during an invitation at a Billy Graham crusade referred to as "decoys." It was a standard practice to have those who were serving as counselors come forward as well as those who were responding to the invitation. Where else would they come from? Anticipating several hundred decisions required having several hundred counselors available, and they'd have to get up and walk forward in order to meet those responding to the invitation.

I also don't see a problem with "ecumenical alliances", and there was a time when that would have bothered me. Association doesn't necessarily constitute "endorsement," and the BGEA had a pretty strong statement of faith. The scripture says, "Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." I don't believe the church organizations and structures that have been built on standards of human origins represent what "The Church" really is when it comes to what Jesus established. If Graham really had a gift for evangelism that came from the Holy Spirit, he would have developed a broader vision that recognized and included a much broader "Christian" community than separatist denominationalism could accept. That whole argument reminds me of the exchange recorded in Mark 9, where John tells Jesus that they stopped someone from casting out demons in his name because he wasn't one of them. Most of Graham's critics were his fellow conservative Evangelicals.

I think BG had it right. He was more concerned in whom people believed --- not so much the what.

That is one of most evangelicals problems. We focus on the what more than the who.

That's the main cause for the anti-Calvinist protest happening. The last time I checked (this morning), I share the same Who that my non-Calvinists brothers share.

So Jim's "point" was the result of his cherrypicking which of your (Sandy's) sentences to cite?

This is a bit off-topic (especially the Fosdick part), but is the sort of thing I am known to wonder about:

1) It's my understanding that in the 1950s there were demonstrations in England protesting Graham's being allowed into the country because of his extremist views, but I've never known what particular issue sparked them. Was it his anti-Catholic positions (which also, by turning him towards Nixon, may have helped initiate his long-running collusion with worldly power in DC)?

2) The mention of Dr. Fosdick, and his regret that such a fine paper would print an ad for such a modernist, pope-loving book, reminds me of the question whether there are many anti-modernists who refuse to sing "God of grace, and God of glory" because of its author's modernist inclinations, and on a related line of thought, whether there are many Trinitarians (Baptist or otherwise) who refuse to sing "It came upon the midnight clear" or "A mighty Fortress is our God" because their author and translator, respectively, were Unitarians.