# Billy Graham's Compromise



## JM

[video=youtube;ZuQm9ONsF48]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQm9ONsF48[/video]


----------



## Rich Koster

When I heard him say to Robert Schueller, during an interview, comments that opened doubt to the exclusivity of Christ, it revealed his true colors. Sad, sad,sad.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

This video is pretty silly. I doubt Grahm would ever say that it is walking down to the platform that saves you but your faith. This is the type of super-calvinist muck throwing that we don't need.


----------



## jandrusk

How is the video silly? I can tell you that I personally examined a variety of sources on this topic and the video is articulating Billy Graham's heresy as he has publicly said on Larry King among other sources. This is not mud slinging, but this is a good example of contenting of the faith that was once given to the saints. How can he say in one breath come to Christ to be saved, but then that all will be saved even those who have never heard the gospel?


----------



## Notthemama1984

In all fairness to brother. Graham, I believe he was very solidly Christian in his early years, but towards the end of his life has begun saying some rather goofy things. Is Graham an Arminian? Yes. A revivalist? Yes. Has God used him to bring in the harvest? Yes. Does God increase His flock through heretics? No.

---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

I am also reminded of Dr. MacArthur's story of his mentor Dr. Feinberg. No one would doubt the validity of Dr. Feinberg's salvation or accuse him of being a heretic. MacArthur tells the story of how Dr. Feinberg developed alzheimers later in life and for whatever reason he completely forgot that he was a Christian. He went back to being a devout Jew. Similarly my grandma has reverted back to Catholicism because of her alzheimers. Are we to say that because of something heretical Dr. Feinberg said or did later in life now makes him a complete heretic and as such bound for hell? I think not. 

Dr. Graham is very old and I do not think his mind is all there anymore. In his old age he has said some heretical things, but in my mind this does not make him a heretic and bound for hell.


----------



## jandrusk

I don't think you can simply attribute old age to his arminian positions. From a rationalistic point of view what he has been saying has been embraced by other heretics(Such as Robert Shueller) and it's not like he has forgotten who Christ is. I think he has just changed his position and I don't think Dr. McMahon would be bringing it up as he does if he thought there was mental defect involved. I'm not passing judgment on him, but against his teaching as being unbiblical and anti-Christian.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I agree that he was Arminian his whole life and a revivalist as well. I was referring more towards Dr. Graham's statements doubting the exclusivity of Christ. In my opinion, the former is not grounds to be labeled a heretic, the latter is. I equate the latter to old age and mental defect. Dr. Graham is 80 years old in that interview with Schuler. I find it interesting that with all of the Billy Graham crusade audio and video available nothing is brought up about his views on the exclusivity of Christ until he is 80 years old. Somehow this one interview with Schuler (and a few subsequent interviews later) trumps the previous 50+ years of ministry. 

It should also be noted that as early as 2000, Dr. Graham had to have brain surgery to drain excess fluid. I am not sure how long the excess had been building, but in my mind it is not that much of a stretch to see that his mental capacity could be affected.

I pray that Christendom does not throw me under the bus for something I say when I am 80.


----------



## Jack K

Some of Billy Graham's teachings and methods do indeed need to be challenged. Too bad this video failed to do so with the sort of humble and respectful style of confrontation Graham himself got so right.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

[video=youtube;ZWMmItKZh3Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWMmItKZh3Y&feature=watch_response[/video]

[video=youtube;6YPKdbpVT6I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YPKdbpVT6I&feature=related[/video]


[video=youtube;SDZ1h7QdaNs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDZ1h7QdaNs&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Notthemama1984

Aaron,

No one is denying that Graham said these things. I am simply pointing out that the first statement is when he is 80 and in the second he is 87 (it should also be noted that by this time he is being treated for fluid on the brain, parkinsons, and prostate cancer. Obviously his health is not top notch which will affect mental capacity). Is Dr. Graham wrong for saying these things? Absolutely. Should Dr. Graham be labeled a heretic? Absolutely not.


----------



## Peairtach

Iain Murray rather than Iain Murphy "Evangelicalism Divided" (Banner of Truth).

I never liked Billy Graham's Arminianism, altar calls, associations with the Papacy, etc. 

An old man with his grey cells deteriorating may say many things in the wrong way.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I am going to echo Boliver here. Graham is incredibly old and is obviously not totally of a sound mind. As "influential" as he is I pray that the Lord takes him soon. I very much believe he is a Christian and has been very much used of God in the past. You can not deny that what he did was incredibly effective. To bash a man in his very old age and limited mental/physical capacity who has done so much for the church is rather sad.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> No one is denying that Graham said these things. I am simply pointing out that the first statement is when he is 80 and in the second he is 87 (it should also be noted that by this time he is being treated for fluid on the brain, parkinsons, and prostate cancer. Obviously his health is not top notch which will affect mental capacity). Is Dr. Graham wrong for saying these things? Absolutely. Should Dr. Graham be labeled a heretic? Absolutely not.



This is all I have know of Billy Graham. Did he say the opposite in his younger years?


----------



## Puritan Scot

Scripture commands us *Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm. 1 Chronicles 16v22* and also reminds us *How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. Romans 10v15.16*

Unfortunately the history of the Christian church is shrewn with instances of where biblical compromise and lack of discernment amongst Christians has blighted the progress of the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

However sadly it would appear that Dr McMahon is not alone in highlighting that things are far from well regarding Billy Graham's ministry over the last fifty years and it is with no pleasure that one has to acknowledge this.

Can I suggest that we google *BILLY GRAHAM COMPROMISE* and see things for ourselves. 

When we are ministering to men and womens souls and their eternal salvation - it beholds us to do so with the utmost of holy reverence, godly fear and due diligence.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Here are some other quotes from the Larry King interview.



> there are problems of sin and habit that cannot be solved outside the person of our Lord Jesus Christ.





> The biggest problem I have is hydrocephalus, which is too much fluid on the brain, and they discovered that about four or five years ago at Mayo's, and they operated to put a stent in, but it didn't go right. And I had to have three -- four operations in the brain.


 This shows that his mental capacity is not there. He forgot he had a fourth brain surgery. 



> But Jesus made this astounding claim. Jesus said: I am the truth. Jesus said, I am the truth! I am the embodiment of all truth. And if you're going to get to heaven, you've got to believe that.





> KING: You've see so many changes in a life well-lived. One of the biggest must have been the change of the church and the black.
> 
> GRAHAM: Television.
> 
> KING: The American black -- television -- I mean black person. Your church. Other churches.



Yeah that makes sense.



> GRAHAM: Both, I think that it's both. It brings people together around one faith around they're (INAUDIBLE), Nigerian creed -- not the Nigerian, I'm getting mixed up. But it's a creed thing that we all believe in and follow from different, different religious groups -- the Nicene Creed is what I am trying to say.



Nigerian, Nicene same thing.



> KING: But -- your Franklin once said, he was very critical of Islam. He called it evil and wicked. How did you react to that?
> 
> GRAHAM: Well, he has my views and I have mine





> It's Christ who died on the cross, who rose again, who's coming again, that offers you salvation free.



So we can see that Dr. Graham says some very good things in that interview, but also some things that shows he is easily confused.

CNN.com - Transcripts

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------




puritanpilgrim said:


> This is all I have know of Billy Graham. Did he say the opposite in his younger years?



Are you saying that throughout his entire life he advocated an inclusive view of Christ and a somewhat pluralistic view of salvation?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

A similar thing happened to David Chilton. After some serious health problems some less-than-orthodox folks got a hold of his intellect and that in turn led him to say some pretty wacky things towards the end of his life.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Are you saying that throughout his entire life he advocated an inclusive view of Christ and a somewhat pluralistic view of salvation?



No. I was asking what he views were when he was younger.


----------



## Phil D.

puritanpilgrim said:


> This is all I have know of Billy Graham. Did he say the opposite in his younger years?



Yes. (see at about 10:00 into the video)

[video=youtube;4c-KXjSFTKY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c-KXjSFTKY&feature=player_detailpage[/video]


----------



## Notthemama1984

puritanpilgrim said:


> Are you saying that throughout his entire life he advocated an inclusive view of Christ and a somewhat pluralistic view of salvation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I was asking what he views were when he was younger.
Click to expand...


He was Arminian his entire life. His pluralistic possibilities only occur after he is 80.


----------



## Pergamum

The bar for calling someone a heretic should be very high. 

There is a difference between minor error, gross error and heresy. 

I believe Calvinists often throw out the H-Bomb way too often.

Many Calvinists believe that God can save some without personnel faith and knowledge in Christ (infants and the mentally deficient). Therefore, Graham's words ought to be taken in the light of charity and dismissed as error when appropriate, but should not necessarily be used (as nauseum) to prove him as a heretic. 

Several of the folks I know who are the most ascerbic and condemning towards Graham are also the laziest in personal evangelism such that I would rather have Graham over them any day.


----------



## Scott1

It is wise to be extremely charitable in all this.

Both in light of our calling to regard highly those in the household of faith, and in light of the incredible amount of good fruit borne through the life of this individual.

This does not mean he is right in everything, it doesn't mean that he will not be judged in light of a higher standard as a leader, or that he is not having limitations that are affecting him in the latter part of his life.

Nor ought we overuse the word, "heretic."

He can still be engaged through his ministry association, through that of his son's on points of doctrine- as well as be thanked for what he has done.

It would indeed be most sobering to see someone fall away greatly at the end of their life, after having run a good race, fought a good fight, and then to give in at the end, or prove out that what seemed to be never was.

And it behooves us all to be most careful in making that assessment, particularly the latter.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I truly believe that some of you are being way too lenient with Billy graham. The fact that he did altar calls even in his earlier years should be a sign of the weakness of his preaching and his lack of understanding the sovereignty of God. With the lack of understanding the sovreignty of God he misses the point of the Gospel as a whole. I think the history of the council of Dort should be seen in light of this conversation.


----------



## lynnie

Iain Murray's book "Evangelicalism Divided" was mention earlier on the thread. It is a stupendous analysis of the evangelical leaders in Britain shacking up with liberals who denied the most basic fundamentals of Christianity. It includes a careful treatment of Billy Graham, without malice, and back when Graham was in full possession of his mental facilities. The issues with Graham are extremely serious, far more than just being Arminian. You might want to read that book.


----------



## jogri17

jandrusk said:


> I don't think you can simply attribute old age to his arminian positions. From a rationalistic point of view what he has been saying has been embraced by other heretics(Such as Robert Shueller) and it's not like he has forgotten who Christ is. I think he has just changed his position and I don't think Dr. McMahon would be bringing it up as he does if he thought there was mental defect involved. I'm not passing judgment on him, but against his teaching as being unbiblical and anti-Christian.



listen to those older than you... they have something called life experience.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------




Andrew P.C. said:


> I think the history of the council of Dort should be seen in light of this conversation.



Dort's theology was 100% right, but it was not right to condemn arminians as heretics in the same sense (if it was) as pelegians and donatists. It was clearly not right to execute arminians and put them in prison. Exile... that's another story


----------



## Tripel

There are a lot of things I like about the PuritanBoard, but this thread represents the thing I dislike the most: the periodic bashing of those who are either non-reformed or just not reformed enough. 

Look, we get it. Billy Graham is not reformed. He is no theologian and has never claimed to be. His view of salvation and the sovereignty of God is and has been faulty.

So can we just give it a rest? Of what benefit is this thread? 

For all the talk about the importance of the 9th Commandment on the PB, there seems to be no restriction on use of the word Heretic. 

For all of his faults, Billy Graham has been an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of God. Despite all of his errors in theology, Billy Graham has preached Christ to more people than any of us could ever dream. 

He's a flawed man--no doubt about it. But do we really need to keep harping on it?


----------



## Steve Curtis




----------



## Phil D.

Daniel, I would respectfully argue that it is precisely because of his great fame and continuing influence that what Rev. Graham says is indeed relevant, and merits discussion. As such, his errors should be pointed out and refuted. Yet there is certainly a right and wrong way to do this.

Personally I am not among those who would attach the label "heretic" to him, especially given the way that term is often intended. I, for one, first heard the gospel under a system very similar to what Rev. Graham operates under. Despite its many, many flaws, in his sovereignty the Holy Spirit graciously still used that message to open my eyes "unto salvation." I will always thank God for that. I am also very thankful that ever since then God has graciously been leading me from "truth to truth" in my spiritual journey.


----------



## Tripel

Phil D. said:


> Daniel, I would respectfully argue that it is precisely because of his great fame and continuing influence that what Rev. Graham says is indeed relevant, and merits discussion. As such, his errors should be pointed out and refuted.




It's relevant in terms of his fame, but it's not relevant in terms of timeliness. This is not new news. The same objections are being raised over something he said many years ago. I'm not sure if the purpose of this thread is for all of those who are new to the PB and weren't around for the last Billy Graham bashing or if it's kind of a semi-annual thing when there aren't enough current figures to bash. 



> Yet there is certainly a right and wrong way to do this.



Exactly. 

I want to make it clear I'm not arguing against criticism. I'm just against criticizing the same thing over and over when it's not even timely. Billy Graham is a punching bag on the PB. That brings me pause. The Lord (in His perfect will) chose to use Billy Graham as an instrument to bring many people to Christ (including a lot in my family). A little more grace is deserving, I would think.


----------



## Phil D.

Tripel said:


> A little more grace is deserving, I would think.



I agree.


----------



## jandrusk

I think Graham's _theology_ needs to be put under a microscope, not if he is or is not a true Christian, only God knows that. If the theology that he is and has been promoting is in contradiction to the Holy Scriptures then we must fight against that teaching. I do think someone needs to confront him on these issues, but from listening to him speak even in his 80's I do not sense irrationality in his responses, but compromise. Given the fact that Robert Schuller's face lights up when he speaks of Universal Salvation speaks all for itself.


----------



## Bookmeister

Tripel said:


> His view of salvation and the sovereignty of God is and has been faulty.
> 
> So can we just give it a rest?


 
No, we can't. If his view of salvation and sovereignty are flawed what's left to consider him orthodox?


----------



## Phil D.

I've always admired the way George Whitefield handled his doctrinal differences with John Wesley. (I realize that perhaps for some here Whitefield wasn't Reformed enough to qualify as a good example, but I offer it nonetheless.) After engaging in a vigorous and principled defense of the Reformed understanding of the Doctrines of Grace in a letter to Wesley, Whitefield concluded:

Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For Christ's sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man's salvation to depend on his own free will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it "Free Grace Indeed." Free, not because free to all; but free, because God may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.

Till you do this, I must doubt whether or not you know yourself. In the meanwhile, I cannot but blame you for censuring the clergy of our church for not keeping to their articles, when you yourself by your principles, positively deny the 9th, 10th and 17th.

Dear Sir, these things ought not so to be. God knows my heart, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. *I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul.[emphasis added]*

There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done.

But I hope the Lord will show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the Lord should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir,

Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ,

George Whitefield​
The entire exchange can be read here, and I highly recommend doing so.

There is also this account of Whitefield's attitude toward Wesley

Whitefield to the last spoke of Wesley with a touching affection. On one occasion when a censorious Calvinist asked him whether he thought they would see John Wesley in heaven, "I fear not," said the great preacher, "for he will be so near the throne, and we shall be at such a distance, that we shall hardly get a sight of him." He remembered him warmly in his will, and it was in obedience to the expressed wish of Whitefield that Wesley was selected to preach his funeral sermon. (William Lecky, _A History of England_, 2:626f)​


----------



## jogri17

Amen Daniel.

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------




Bookmeister said:


> No, we can't. If his view of salvation and sovereignty are flawed what's left to consider him orthodox?



You sound like Herman Hoeksema and the the denomination he founded.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28

I agree with Dr. C. Matthew McMahon regarding Billy Graham. I also appreciate his courageous efforts at exposing him. 

George Bush, Sr. asked Billy Graham in A.D. 1985: "Billy, some people say you have to have a born-again experience to go to heaven. Mother here is the most religious, kind person I know, yet she has had no born-again experience. Will she go to heaven?" Graham responded: "George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians. It sounds as if your mom was just born a Christian."


----------



## Phil D.

Romans 8 Verse 28 said:


> George Bush, Sr. asked Billy Graham in A.D. 1985: "Billy, some people say you have to have a born-again experience to go to heaven. Mother here is the most religious, kind person I know, yet she has had no born-again experience. Will she go to heaven?" Graham responded: "George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians. It sounds as if your mom was just born a Christian."



This questionable claim in Bush's memoirs is critiqued here.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28

Phil D. said:


> Romans 8 Verse 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Bush, Sr. asked Billy Graham in A.D. 1985: "Billy, some people say you have to have a born-again experience to go to heaven. Mother here is the most religious, kind person I know, yet she has had no born-again experience. Will she go to heaven?" Graham responded: "George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians. It sounds as if your mom was just born a Christian."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This questionable claim in Bush's memoirs is critiqued here.
Click to expand...

 
I'll grant you that most anything Bush says is questionable. But at the same time, I find it believable given Billy Graham's track record.

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------




Phil D. said:


> I've always admired the way George Whitefield handled his doctrinal differences with John Wesley.



Personally, I'd say that I most admire how Augustus Toplady handled his doctrinal differences with John Wesley. I believe Toplady was right about what was at stake and handled things accordingly. Toplady sums up the matter very well in Arminianism - The Road back to Rome.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Romans 8 Verse 28 said:


> George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians.



Paedos make a similar claim especially dealing with infant deaths. We are not labeled heretics. Why is Graham?


----------



## kvanlaan

> You sound like Herman Hoeksema and the the denomination he founded.



And there is the other side of the coin. Those calling for temperance rarely dispense it.

We all know where Graham stands, he's never claimed to be anything but what is being represented here.

Here is what the PB founder has to say on the subject:



> WBNP #8
> Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.
> This just in – In a recent survey of a large portion of evangelical pastors, they were asked who is the most influential figure in the church today. No, they did not say Jesus Christ.
> But this is to be expected of theological morons. Instead,they named Billy Graham. In what he called his last sermon, Billy Graham sermonized a final time March 11-12 at
> the New Orleans Arena. His cornerstone saying in every sermon is “God loves you, Jesus loves you.” Billy Graham, is called the famous “evangelist” of the 20th century.
> 
> However sad the Billy Graham Crusade is about the retirement of their world ridden evangelist, it is a cause of rejoicing for those who know the true Gospel of
> sovereign grace. For the poor doctrine and the compromising theology is finally at an end, or so we hope. Certainly others will take his place, such as his son Franklin who is infected with the same heretical theology that Graham had been, and is, still to this day. But knowing that Franklin Graham will not be as cherished as his father has become a cause of rejoicing for those who
> hold the truth so dear. We do not need to speak of Graham’s association with the Mason, or New Age movement.
> 
> Rather, we simply need to listen to a sermon or two to find his deviant gospel glaring back. Billy Graham, like Arminius, or even worse than Arminius, herald the same secular man’s religion as the Remonstrance did four hundred years ago. Not only was Graham an avowed Arminian, but he was also the voice of a watered down Gospel; which is no Gospel at all. His theology is not
> only riddled with error, but his compromises demonstrate the worst sort of heretical teaching. On May 31, 1998 he had a television interview with Robert Schuller (another
> arch-heretic that the church should be keenly aware), as reported in the May-June 1997, Foundation magazine. Graham said, “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.” In September 1993, Graham held a crusade in Columbus, Ohio. In a pre-Crusade
> television interview, Graham said (speaking of the people of Columbus, Ohio): "You're too good, you don't need evangelism. ... In fact, that's what kept us from coming
> [to Columbus] for so long." Curtis Mitchell, who documented Graham’s invitational preaching, says the following is a typical use of words by Graham, “I am going
> to ask you to come forward. Up there – down there – I want you to come. You come right now – quickly. If you are with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t
> let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life
> to Him…” Such things are said as he shares his stage with Roman Catholic priests, and boasts of unity at the expense of the Gospel. Billy Graham has made it no small matter
> that he has aligned himself with an ecumenical spirit surrounding the apostate church of Rome and her wicked priests; which have accompanied him at his evangelistic
> crusades. It is one thing to invite unconverted Roman Catholics to a gospel meeting to hear the gospel preached, but it is quite another matter to go to a meeting where
> Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholic priests that are still firmly in Rome, are preaching from the platform." Similar expressions of Charles Finney’s Pelagianism can be found
> throughout his years of preaching. Graham was a revivalist, no doubt., But a revivalist of Finney’s heretical teaching on decisional regeneration, and its
> destruction of the Gospel. When the stadium is packed with religiously inclined people, and Billy Graham gives the invitation to the masses to come and accept the Lord, where
> is his theology coming from? When preacher after preacher beckons the people to come to the altar, where are they getting their theology from? Jesus never asked for the
> multitudes to come forth publicly and show forth a profession of faith, check a box on a card and go home assured of their salvation. The Bible, contrary to Graham,
> does not say that. One cannot decide to be regenerate on a whim, or walk down a flight of stairs towards a man calling them to act on their own accord. Graham has through the
> years increasingly accommodated error in order to gain greater influence. Iain Murray, in his book Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to
> 2000 (Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), includes two chapters describing Graham’s influence on evangelicalism, and demonstrating his move from a more conservative stance to a
> willingness to embrace proponents of error and heresy.
> 
> Billy Graham began as a brush salesman, and the same tactics he used to go door to door to sell Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones a brush or two, he has used for years to
> continue his sales pitch to the ignorant and sentimental.
> 
> Yes, Billy Graham preached his last sermon. What do we say to this? We say Amen, and thank God.
> This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off



So who's gonig to call Dr McMahon and Iain Murray on the carpet for their remarks?


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28

Chaplainintraining said:


> Romans 8 Verse 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paedos make a similar claim especially dealing with infant deaths.
Click to expand...


I'd recommend you re-read the Reformed confessions, etc. What we state here and here regarding infant deaths isn't at all similar to that Graham quote.


----------



## Notthemama1984

In paedo vs. credo debates, the credo will say that faith cannot be present without an expression of that faith (or something along those lines). The paedo in return points to John the Baptist and says that God can produce faith in infants apart from an outward expression of that faith. I am not pointing to the confessions or anything like that. I am merely pointing out that paedos make a similar claim and the term "heretic" is never thrown into the discussion.

Graham simply states that some people are born Christians. He does not say anything about the how or why, just that some are. 

Also the quote is a quick blurp that is being recalled by a man years after the fact who was originally drunk when the quote was made. Surely this can not be the basis for deeming one a heretic.


----------



## Phil D.

kvanlaan said:


> So who's gonig to call Dr McMahon and Iain Murray on the carpet for their remarks?



Not trying to call anyone on the carpet here, brother. Simply sharing my perspective and how I have come to view certain aspects of Rev. Graham's life and ministry. That's all.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I wish the ring had never come to me. Frodo Baggins. 

I am so glad I am not Billy Graham.


----------



## jayce475

Chaplainintraining said:


> In paedo vs. credo debates, the credo will say that faith cannot be present without an expression of that faith (or something along those lines). The paedo in return points to John the Baptist and says that God can produce faith in infants apart from an outward expression of that faith. I am not pointing to the confessions or anything like that. I am merely pointing out that paedos make a similar claim and the term "heretic" is never thrown into the discussion.
> 
> Graham simply states that some people are born Christians. He does not say anything about the how or why, just that some are.
> 
> Also the quote is a quick blurp that is being recalled by a man years after the fact who was originally drunk when the quote was made. Surely this can not be the basis for deeming one a heretic.


 
The need for the expression of faith is worlds apart from the need not to be born again. Whether or not this quote makes Billy Graham a heretic, it was heresy if indeed it was spoken through his lips.


----------



## Notthemama1984

jayce475 said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> In paedo vs. credo debates, the credo will say that faith cannot be present without an expression of that faith (or something along those lines). The paedo in return points to John the Baptist and says that God can produce faith in infants apart from an outward expression of that faith. I am not pointing to the confessions or anything like that. I am merely pointing out that paedos make a similar claim and the term "heretic" is never thrown into the discussion.
> 
> Graham simply states that some people are born Christians. He does not say anything about the how or why, just that some are.
> 
> Also the quote is a quick blurp that is being recalled by a man years after the fact who was originally drunk when the quote was made. Surely this can not be the basis for deeming one a heretic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The need for the expression of faith is worlds apart from the need not to be born again. Whether or not this quote makes Billy Graham a heretic, it was heresy if indeed it was spoken through his lips.
Click to expand...

 
I thought the quote was saying that not all Christians have a born again experience, some have faith from the beginning. If I misread the quote, I apologize.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Or he could merely be referring to the reality that not every one has an born-again "experience." As unusual as that might be for a revivalist (like Graham), it is certainly not foreign even to the Reformed tradition to understand that some, while indeed born again, do not have knowledge of a point in time in which that new birth occurred. For some, raised as covenant children, the sense is that they have "always" been saved (though, theologically, this would be contested).
Alas, not every child of God can sing (with the revivalists), "It was on a ________(day of the week)________ Somebody saved me!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I ventured into this thread after I saw it had gone on so long and, sadly, found the predictable prideful and acerbic assaults from certain men in both camps. Closing it down.


----------

