# MacArthur on Billy Graham



## TheocraticMonarchist

Thoughts? I didn't know Graham was liberal.

[video=youtube;oNq4oZ71Hok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNq4oZ71Hok[/video]


----------



## Arch2k

I'm glad that there is some public exposure of the theology of Billy Graham, and the pope for that matter. I have ran into far too many people, even in Presbyterian congregations that still think that Billy Graham preached the true gospel. Way to go MacArthur.


----------



## Marrow Man

Yes, but be very careful in how you deal with Graham's errors. He is sort of a sacred cow in so-called evangelicalism. If Protestantism had a pope, would his name be Billy?

BTW, does anyone have a link to that exchange b/t Graham and Schuller? I would be interested in having a transcript of that.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

It's on youtube. If you watch this clip it will eventually get to it.

[Video Removed by Moderator -- Second Commandment violations after the first 7 minutes; you may watch the first seven minutes at the link below]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MZWug3QAvs&feature=related


----------



## Kim G

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> Thoughts? I didn't know Graham was liberal.



I'm sorry, but this made me laugh. I grew up in fundamentalism, and "Billy Graham" is a curse word and synonym for the devil.  

I've since had to temper my thoughts regarding his ministry, trying to sort truth from error. I read Franklin Graham's Book _The Name_ last year and was actually impressed (keep in mind that I was still in fundamentalism then and had heard terrible things about his ministry).


----------



## OPC'n

He's been liberal from day one from what I hear


----------



## chbrooking

It certainly makes one indignant out of jealousy of God's glory and honor. But doesn't it make you just weep, too? God draws straight lines with crooked sticks, and undoubtedly used BG for his glory. And so it tears my heart in two to see a man whose message, though quite simple, perhaps too simple, was once the gospel, now discard the only sure hope, trading the belt of truth for that of liberalism, relativism, universalism, discard truth for folly, leaning on that broken reed rather than trusting in him alone who would not break a bruised one. I think it ought to be a warning to us all -- unless He sustain us to the end, we will surely fall.


----------



## Marrow Man

Iain Murray's _Evangelicalism Divided_ talks a good bit about Graham's history, especially his early days. This simply demonstrates what happens when one is not well-grounded in systematic theology, In my humble opinion. Anyone who touts Charles Finney as a great evangelist needs to have his preaching license revoked.


----------



## puritan lad

I've seen the Schuller interview several times. It's a shame that people esteem this man so highly in Christian circles. To question Billy Graham is tantamount to suggesting that America is not a Christian nation. (oh. wait...)


----------



## Wannabee

Scott, why so cynical???





kidding...


----------



## Dieter Schneider

A good book has been written by E Hulse


----------



## DMcFadden

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> Thoughts? I didn't know Graham was liberal.
> 
> YouTube - John MacArthur on Catholicism, and Billy Graham



The older I get, the more appreciative I become of Johnny Mac. Of all the prominent Christians who speak on television programs, John MacArthur and Franklin Graham are two of the most reliable defenders of the truth.

"There is a wideness in God's mercy," Schuller practically shouts in response to Billy Graham.


----------



## Scott1

Scripture tells us you will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:16-20)

One can't help but see a lot of good fruit in this man's life, over a lifetime. That doesn't mean perfection or even that he has not trended away from that in recent years (not saying that is the case, only that a lifetime of good fruit does not equal perfection).

I would need to review some of these concerns in more detail.

My caution would be we not be ready to receive assertions without good basis and without proper context. The ninth commandment requires this. We want to be treated the same by others.

I would caution against automatically receiving assertions in an unsourced You Tube documentary (post#4). (Not saying some of the assertions are not true) It is done in a somewhat mocking manner and with an obvious agenda to discredit. None of us would want to be appraised in this manner... even if we wrong on some things.

One might also note that Reverend Graham has been maligned many times in his life, suffered much, and endured patiently. Many times it has been for the sake of the gospel.


----------



## Marrow Man

Scott, I think the only reason Jonathan posted the video at # 4 (subsequently removed b/c of Second Commandment violations) was because it had video of the segment b/t Schuller and Graham where the universalist nonsense is spouted (instead of posting a transcript).


----------



## Arch2k

Billy Graham's heresy has been well documented. Here is the Wild Boar News Podcast on Billy's heresy from our own Matthew McMahon:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/podcast/WBNP8.mp3


----------



## DMcFadden

> My caution would be we not be ready to receive assertions without good basis and without proper context. The ninth commandment requires this. We want to be treated the same by others.
> 
> I would caution against automatically receiving assertions in an unsourced You Tube documentary (post#4). (Not saying some of the assertions are not true) It is done in a somewhat mocking manner and with an obvious agenda to discredit. None of us would want to be appraised in this manner... even if we wrong on some things.




Scott, the following is a transcript of the exchange between Dr. Schuller and Dr. Graham broadcast on May 31, 1997. The man who put out the transcript was one of my former residents (he went to be with the Lord yesterday morning), cited 11x in Grudem's theology, and a Cal Tech PhD. I vouch for his honorableness and truthfulness.



> Billy Graham Believes Catholic Doctrine of Salvation Without Bible, Gospel, or Name of Christ
> 
> by Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D
> 
> Television interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller. Part 1, an approximately 7-minute-long broadcast in Southern California on Saturday, May 31, 1997. The following is an exact transcript* of an excerpt close to the end of this broadcast.
> Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?
> 
> Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.
> 
> Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?
> 
> Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.
> 
> Schuller: [R. S. trips over his tongue for a moment, his face beaming, then says] I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.
> 
> Graham: There is. There definitely is.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> It's on youtube. If you watch this clip it will eventually get to it.
> 
> [Video Removed by Moderator -- Second Commandment violations after the first 7 minutes; you may watch the first seven minutes at the link below]
> 
> YouTube - Billy Graham Says Jesus Christ is Not the Only Way




Sorry about #2! I remembered seeing that, and minimizing the screen, but I forgot when I gave you the link later in the day!


----------



## Scott1

Dennis,

Thanks for that information.

What the transcript reports is troubling.

It's always better to see things in print than the scary music and shadowy photography in the you tube video (that got edited for second commandment violation). Not to be humorous but the video almost looked like one of the Breshnev era Soviet propaganda films. I don't think any of us would want to be portrayed in that manner, even if we were wrong about some things.

I wonder if Dr. Graham has responded or clarified his position on this in other forums, such as does the BGEA actually hold that people can go to heaven without knowing Christ. I know he has been accused of many things over his life and has responded to some of them.

Isn't it also interesting that, as you say, Dr Graham's son is (along with Dr MacArthur) is one of "the most reliable defenders of the truth."

It's also difficult to understand this because some of us have heard Dr Graham (on television or radio) say things to the effect there is no way to heaven except through Christ. So this is truly puzzling.


----------



## DMcFadden

Scott,

Actually (and as a lifelong evangelical it kills me to admit it), Dr. Graham has made a NUMBER of similar comments in recent years. It seems that as he has aged, he has become more accepting of the "wideness in God's mercy" as Schuller calls it. Remember that BG started out as an anthropology major at Wheaton and began with a fairly strong Arminian streak. 

I, for one, contend that modern American Arminianism is an intrinsically unstable system. Follow it diligently enough and you may very well find yourself in the same camp as openness folks like Pinnock. The fuzziness in the emergent movement, some areas of Pentecostalism, and mega-church evangelicalism demonstrate pretty disappointingly (but not unpredictably) what happens when we begin our theological pilgrimage with a over emphasis upon human free will. How can we honestly say that millions of people are going to hell, particularly some who are such evidently sincere religionists?


----------



## KMK

But heaven help you if other Christians suspect that you do not hold Mr. Graham in the highest esteem. There are some who make this the test of your conversion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

[video=youtube;TNCnxA91fHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE[/video]


----------



## Spinningplates2

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> It's on youtube. If you watch this clip it will eventually get to it.
> 
> [Video Removed by Moderator -- Second Commandment violations after the first 7 minutes; you may watch the first seven minutes at the link below]
> 
> YouTube - Billy Graham Says Jesus Christ is Not the Only Way



I knew that some Christians did not permit pictures of Christ but was unaware that it was universally accepted on this board that this was a violation of the 2nd commandment. Did I miss this rule when I read what we all had to agree on to be a member here?


----------



## Marrow Man

Spinningplates2 said:


> I knew that some Christians did not permit pictures of Christ but was unaware that it was universally accepted on this board that this was a violation of the 2nd commandment. Did I miss this rule when I read what we all had to agree on to be a member here?



From the Board Rules (see link in signature):



> Confessional Subscription: Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to them in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard.



From the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 109:



> The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; *the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature*: Whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.


----------



## Rich Koster

I watched an interview (can't remember if it was 60 Minutes or not) where BG got wishy washy on the "Is Christ the only way?" discussion. I have a problem with any preacher in any denomination that doesn't take a stand and proclaim YES.

-----Added 4/25/2009 at 07:43:19 EST-----



Marrow Man said:


> Yes, but be very careful in how you deal with Graham's errors. He is sort of a sacred cow in so-called evangelicalism. If Protestantism had a pope, would his name be Billy?
> 
> BTW, does anyone have a link to that exchange b/t Graham and Schuller? I would be interested in having a transcript of that.



Actually, I think C. Peter Wagner positions himself as protestant pope


----------



## DMcFadden

Rich Koster said:


> Actually, I think C. Peter Wagner positions himself as protestant pope



C. Peter Wagner? Protestant pope? Wagner was another one of my seminary profs (man did I have some lulu teachers!). I knew he was in to continuing apostleship but have never heard him claim popehood.


----------



## py3ak

Billy Graham's autobiography chronicles his own decline from memorizing the Shorter Catechism to growing fuzziness. _Just As I Am_ doesn't take you the whole way, because the decline has continued and because Graham doesn't tell you everything. But over 40 years ago Lloyd-Jones explained things to him and he didn't get it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dennis,

You're more connected to the decline of orthodoxy within Fuller. Here's what I took down for notes last week concerning the view of Accommodation at Fuller:

c.	Accommodation
i.	Limited inerrancy
ii.	When the Bible speaks about science or history or cultural matters the Scripture writers are accommodating to the limitations of the time they lived
iii.	Accommodationism by the writers does not introduce errors into the scripture, rather accommodation is the explanation of the errors in the Scripture. God does not err but human authors “mess it up” due to their human limitations and being a "person of their time"
1.	Fuller seminary is famous for this
2.	Within 15 years the founders spoke of Revelational and Non-revelational Scripture (Dan Fuller)
3.	Revelational Scripture can be trusted
4.	Non-revelational Scripture cannot be trusted
5.	1972: Scripture is only infallible in matters of faith and practice

Sorry if the notes seem disjointed as I arranged them to make sense to me but it seems Billy sort of fell into the same view of inerrancy, which is a gateway to denying other fundamentals.


----------



## DMcFadden

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dennis,
> 
> You're more connected to the decline of orthodoxy within Fuller. Here's what I took down for notes last week concerning the view of Accommodation at Fuller:
> 
> c.	Accommodation
> i.	Limited inerrancy
> ii.	When the Bible speaks about science or history or cultural matters the Scripture writers are accommodating to the limitations of the time they lived
> iii.	Accommodationism by the writers does not introduce errors into the scripture, rather accommodation is the explanation of the errors in the Scripture. God does not err but human authors “mess it up” due to their human limitations and being a "person of their time"
> 1.	Fuller seminary is famous for this
> 2.	Within 15 years the founders spoke of Revelational and Non-revelational Scripture (Dan Fuller)
> 3.	Revelational Scripture can be trusted
> 4.	Non-revelational Scripture cannot be trusted
> 5.	1972: Scripture is only infallible in matters of faith and practice
> 
> Sorry if the notes seem disjointed as I arranged them to make sense to me but it seems Billy sort of fell into the same view of inerrancy, which is a gateway to denying other fundamentals.



Rich,

Your notes describe a time just before my matriculation to Fuller. But, as I experienced the school in the mid 70s, your notes accurately summarize some of the key moves. Remember that BG was a notable in the founding of Christianity Today AND was an intimate of the same people who founded Fuller.

It grieves me (since Dan Fuller is one of my residents in my retirement community and he and Ruth are two of the sweetest, dearest, and most humble Christians you will ever meet) to see how well-meaning folks unwittingly contributed to the rapid decline of evangelicalism. Dan's seminal article on the subject appeared in print in “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,” _Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society_ 11 (1968) pp. 75-83. 

Ironically, Fuller was immediately taken to task by none other than Clark Pinnock (now the doyen of the openness movement but once a staunch inerrantist!!!):



> Dr. Fuller plainly distinguishes between revelational matters which he considers inerrant and an undefined area of non-revelational statements wlxich are not. Though convenient for sidestepping certain biblical difficulties, this dichotomy is unworkable and unscriptural. It is unworkable simply because there is no way to determine which biblical material is revelational and which is not. It will not do to keep referring, as he does, to the mustard seed, a rather trivial case of usus loquendi.
> The Evangelical Theological Society, J_ournal of the Evangelical Theological Society _Volume 16 (The Evangelical Theological Society, 1973; 2002), 16:71.



Pinnock presciently noted that bifurcating the Bible into "revelational" and "non revelational" materials would lead to no good.



> Yet it is undeniable that, in his article on Warfield, most of the material which in his view would belong to the “revelational” category lies outside the reach of science and history, safe from their critical control. To say this is a “dichotomy” may be too strong. Nonetheless, there is a marked tendency to equate the non-revelational material with the testable and possibly errant and to reserve inerrancy for the theological truth which cannot be falsified. In any case, the two sorts of biblical teaching are so inextricably united in the text that the theological truth is discredited to the extent that the factual material is erroneous. Furthermore, it looks as if the area of “revelational” material shrinks before the advance of the latest critical charges. A convenient apologetic device, no doubt, but one which places the whole scriptural teaching in jeopardy.
> 
> *My concern with Dr. Fuller's position is that the limited errancy stance can slide easily into an unlimited errancy stance. Just because the “revelational/nonrevelational” distinction is so fuzzy, he gives us a slope, not a platform. Until now he has confined his “biblical errors” to the marginalia. May it always be so.*
> The Evangelical Theological Society, _Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society _Volume 16 (The Evangelical Theological Society, 1973; 2002), 16:71-72.



My only factual quibble (and it is a *VERY* small one) relates to the dating in one point in your notes: *"2.	Within 15 years the founders spoke of Revelational and Non-revelational Scripture (Dan Fuller)"*. Dan Fulller was not a founder, but the son of the founder, evangelist Charles Fuller. However, the 15 year number is certainly accurate enough. The school was founded in 1947 but 15 yeears later a meeting took place that led to the exodus of several inerrantists soon enough. In December of 1962 a faculty-trustee retreat dealt with issues of Biblical inspiration. Lindsell later cited this meeting ("Black Saturday" he called it) as the year when the decline at FTS began. 

Actually, Lindsell, ever the historian, saw three causative factors bearing witness to the "coming crisis" in 1962 - a. the presence on the board and the future role of uber-wealthy trustee C. Davis Weyerhaeuser who did not believe in inerrancy, b. a faculty meeting where a teacher said that what he was about to say might cost him his job; he said it and it didn't; and c. Dan Fuller taking a second doctorate in Basel under Cullman and Barth and returning with a "changed" view of the Bible. Wilbur Smith resigned after the '62-'63 school year, followed by Harold Lindsell (later editor of Christianity Today) in '64 and Gleason Archer in '65. Dan's article on Warfield, proposing the revelational/non-revelational distinction did not come out until '68 or 21 years after the shool's founding. Whether he was espousing it in '62 (i.e., 15 years after the school's founding) or not, I don't know. But, he was never "one of the founders" and probably did not begin pushing his particular "insights" until around 20 years after the start of Fuller.

It is discouraging to remember how many of my teachers in the mid 70s claimed to be "Reformed" (or trained in Presbyterian schools) but refused to hold to inerrancy: Jack Rogers, James Daane, Lewis Smedes, William S. LaSor, Paul K. Jewett, Ray S. Anderson, etc. John Piper, on the other hand, had many of these same teachers and came out of Fuller with a love for Dan (that keeps him from distancing himself from the man, even now!) and a commitment to the Doctrines of Grace. Go figure.


----------



## DMcFadden

Dan saw himself as guarding inerrancy from the awkward facts of the Bible. I heard the same thing from my old prof Bob Gundry who used a virtually identical "defend the Bible" by drawing your circle of defense tighter line for his Matthew commentary. In both cases, these pious men thought that if they had a smaller territory to defend, then they could withstand the onslaught of the critics more effectively. Go figure! My trajectory is in the OPPOSITE direction: since people are going to laugh at the Bible anyway, you might as well "own" the whole thing and quit worrying about what others might think.


----------

