In fairness, I appreciate the link. It appears that he realizes that what he said was wrong and unbiblical. I wonder, however, if one presses the issue with him today if he would articulate the same response. What troubles me, however, is how similar this approach of correction is/was with Billy Graham. Graham has a front-page cover article in Newsweek in which he appears to deny inerrancy and clearly argues against explicit faith in Christ alone. The next issue, he offers a weak clarification . . . in the “letters to the editor” section! Who reads that I might ask? For ever million who read the article, I estimate a thousand read the letter to the editor. Such is the letter on Osteen’s website. Millions listened and watched on Larry King Live. How many, do you think, have read this article?

When you are placed in front of an audience with the gospel, your true colors shine. Has MacArthur or Mohler fumbled the faith on Lary King Live or anywhere else? No, because it is the same with them no matter how big the audience or being afraid of offending someone. They are God’s representatives, and the only person they are afraid of offending is Him. A Christian leader should not have to be going back and forth making clarifications or corrections after the fact when in essence, they don’t really matter anyway.

That may sound harsh, but the reality is we have spokesmen for the evangelical world who either don’t know what they believe or are too embarrassed to say it like it is. Ted Haggard did the same thing when interviewed by Barbara Walters on the “heaven” special. As convictional and confessional Christians, we should not accept such weak and tipid presentations of the truth.

Seriously, I saw it in the bookstore today. I was tempted to get it, but I am trying to keep myself from purchasing books that are not required for my Spring classes right now. I am definitely interested in reading it, however. The table of contents look appealing, and I am certain that the scholarship will prove more than competent to handle the current issues regarding baptism today.

I’m thankful that God uses weak and broken men to build his Kingdom rather than waiting for us to get everything just right. If that were not so, there would be no Church today and I certainly would be a useless tool, unfit for service.

Thanks man. Indeed, evangelicalism and the SBC is in a crisis and need of real leadership from this new generation. We need men like Carl F.H. Henry, Machen, Schaeffer, and Lloyd-Jones in our generation. A new day brings new challenges which must be met with new leadership. May there be men for the day.

Graham is a tough one for me. I have deep respect for him, for his integrity and longevity in ministry, his love and commitent to Christ, etc. I also have serious disagreements with Graham on several issues, including his view of decisional regeneration, inclusivism, and probably on inerrancy (though I would need some clarification on that). Regarding his being in the top 10, I am not sure how he is currently influencing Americans or Christianity at this time, but then I again I don’t know how the people who put this list together measure “influence.” Suffice it to say, Graham is one of the most admired men in recent history, and that should be recognized. I just wonder if his ministry and legacy will also include his weak and I would argue unbiblical stance on key issues.

I hope that gives you a little on where I stand with Graham. I wrote recently on his Newsweek special several months ago. You can retrieve those articles in the best of 2006 post I did last week.