# Billy Graham: "My Hope" Presentation: Helpful or Harmful?



## thistle93 (Nov 8, 2013)

Hi! Wondering if anyone saw Billy Graham's "My Hope" presentation yesterday? While defiantly not in line with Reformed doctrine do you think it was at all helpful to the cause of the Gospel or just harmful? 

Thoughts and explain why you think so? 



Again I know probably not a lot of fans of Billy Graham's methodology (including myself) on this forum but please do not respond if have not seen it. You can watch it online if so desire so can respond. 
Blessings!

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Herald (Nov 8, 2013)

I saw part of it. I liked Rev. Graham's emphasis on the offense of the cross. I am not a fan of his Finneyist model, but I recognize that God will use the message in spite of the messenger (Phil. 1:18).


----------



## Josh Williamson (Nov 8, 2013)

While not Reformed, I think it was a good presentation of the Gospel.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 8, 2013)

There were certainly elements with which I disagree, but I am thankful for the clear manner in which he discusses the truth of the Gospel; the offence of the Cross; man's depravity; the need for the imputed righteousness of Christ; and necessity of repentance and faith. 

I do think it would have been better if they'd of left out the stories about the rapper and the woman, and simply focused on Billy Graham and his message. 

But overall, I rejoice in the Gospel being proclaimed through a man's last will and testament and pray God's mercy, kindness, and peace to be with him.

CORRECTION: As it turns out; I was referring to the video "The Cross"

[video=youtube;bba2Dqaw6SI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bba2Dqaw6SI#t=1700[/video]


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 9, 2013)

> 2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.





> Php 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.


So, while uncertain of the material consistency of the vessel, nor the veracity of the motive, I will yet still rejoice that Christ was preached. This vapid, vacuous, and violent generation needs that above all else.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 9, 2013)

The more one grows in understanding the Word of our God, the more one is able to see the Arminian (man-centered) tone through much of the presentation, and all the inconsistency that produces in the presentation itself.

Yet,



> We deserve the cross, we deserve hell, we deserve judgment, and all that that means. I know that there are many people that dispute that. People don't want to hear that they are sinners, to many people it's an offense. The cross is offensive because it directly confronts the evils which dominate so much of this world.
> 
> -Reverend Billy Graham




This redeems it for me.

I'm encouraged that a 95 year old man can wheel himself forward in his home and both proclaim and be heard by millions with this message.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 9, 2013)

The means God uses to harvest His own are many and varied. I see no point in dissecting the errors of a 95 year-old man on death's door. If he's still preaching error at that age, it's not likely to change.

But I will rejoice that several million people heard some things that are true about the Gospel, knowing that God is able to use that to bring His people out of darkness. That's what I prayed for about this event. We can trust Him to use other means to rinse out the mud.


----------



## Philip (Nov 9, 2013)

> When a man asserts that the "power" of the atonement is dependent upon a man's response thereto, that is NOT the Gospel.



No it's not. But when a man says, "repent and believe in Jesus Christ" _that_'s the Gospel.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Nov 9, 2013)

I watched it and summarized it here.
I have a fuller summary coming up.


----------



## Philip (Nov 9, 2013)

> Not when "Jesus Christ" is filled up with stuff that's not of him, and His work is watered down. Terms need proper definitions.



So because a man is Amyraldian, he isn't preaching Jesus? One can be mixed-up about the atonement and still preach that Christ alone makes atonement. Even we teach that Christ's death and resurrection are sufficient to cover the sins of all, even though we believe it is only efficient to do so for the elect. The sufficiency of Christ constitutes the Gospel.


----------



## MarieP (Nov 9, 2013)

Shawn Mathis said:


> I watched it and summarized it here.
> I have a fuller summary coming up.



I clicked on your link and am being inundated with ads!!!!


----------



## Berean (Nov 9, 2013)

MarieP said:


> am being inundated with ads!!!!



AdBlock Plus, Marie. For Firefox, IE, Opera, Android, and Chrome. No ads. Free.

https://adblockplus.org/


----------



## Andres (Nov 9, 2013)

thistle93 said:


> Again I know probably not a lot of fans of Billy Graham's methodology (including myself) on this forum but please do not respond if have not seen it. You can watch it online if so desire so can respond.



Link?


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Nov 9, 2013)

Here is my review: The Cross: Billy Graham's old message packaged in new media

[Sorry about the ads; I don't get many pop-ups--may be my setup. But the company lets me write without restrictions]


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 9, 2013)

> That is no atonement which does not actually save men, but merely makes men "savable." That is glory to man, and not to Yahweh alone. It is not the Gospel.



Would you then argue that a presentation by an Amyraldian or Lutheran is not a gospel presentation nor do they present Jesus?


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 9, 2013)

Shawn Mathis said:


> Here is my review: The Cross: Billy Graham's old message packaged in new media
> 
> [Sorry about the ads; I don't get many pop-ups--may be my setup. But the company lets me write without restrictions]



Pastor,
This link appears to not work.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Nov 9, 2013)

Link Fixed. Thanks.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 9, 2013)

> What, exactly, is "a Gospel presentation"? This is the root of the problem. The idea that "the Gospel" is proclaimed outside of the authority of the Church is the problem. "The Gospel" is bound up in discipleship, which is bound up in the life of the church. When parachurch organizations or personalities rise to the level of "Evangelists," and act as men who are not under authority, we have missed the boat on the King's orders. A part of "a Gospel presentation" is teaching folks "to observe all things whatsoever [Christ] has commanded." Part and parcel to that is everything He did, His "mission," what He was sent to do. What He came for was to save His people from their sins, not make all men without exception "savable," and He accomplished EXACTLY, and ONLY that which He wanted to accomplish. He was and is every bit successful, and painting Him as a needy Saviour, wanting something apart from that which He decreed, is a gross misrepresentation of the God of Scripture.


Aah then, Josh, I see that it must have been that you were saved directly into perfect theological soundness, and NO means were used by God to facilitate that salvation other than those that were pure in their orthodoxy. Or could it be that you were ever not where you are now spiritually?

Nobody is endorsing Billy Graham or his ministry/theology. The fact is that Jesus' name has been declared, and some valid things about His gospel have been put in the ears of many. God's Word does not return to Him void. Even when a heretic proclaims it, the elect will hear it and be drawn to the truth in spite of the heresy. so, in that I will rejoice. Christ is in all ways and in every instance victorious. His enemies will be caught in their own snares.


----------



## kodos (Nov 10, 2013)

I was converted under the preaching of a pastor very much in the vein of Billy Graham. My wife was as well. I highly doubt that The Lord regenerated me when I understood TULIP, or became a member of a reformed church. I still remember the intensity of the passionate love I felt for my Lord at the time. It has mellowed, matured since then like the love I have for my wife of 10 years. But it was oh so real. 

That said I pray that my children stay in the Reformed Faith for that is where the gospel and Christ are most clearly seen.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 10, 2013)

> Sorry, but the blanket assertions of "God loves you, and is willing to forgive you of your sins" just are not the Gospel. "I look out across an audience . . . and think of all the different people with different backgrounds, and their vaarious needs, and I know that they are objects of God's mighty love to the point that he gave his son . . ."



Josh,

I am not a big fan of Dr. Graham either, mainly because he is essentially an inclusivist, and I also understand your point about the atonement. What I fail to understand is why you would have a problem with telling people that God loves them? In Matthew 5, Jesus tells his disciples to love even those who hate them because if they only love those who love them, then they are no better than the tax collectors. The point is that they should be like God, who is perfect. So then, unless you are arguing that the elect hate God, then it is clear that God loves even the unelect.


----------



## JML (Nov 10, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> then it is clear that God loves even the unelect.



So what about this verse?

*Psalm 11:5*
The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked,
And the one who loves violence His soul hates.


----------



## Herald (Nov 10, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> > What, exactly, is "a Gospel presentation"? This is the root of the problem. The idea that "the Gospel" is proclaimed outside of the authority of the Church is the problem. "The Gospel" is bound up in discipleship, which is bound up in the life of the church. When parachurch organizations or personalities rise to the level of "Evangelists," and act as men who are not under authority, we have missed the boat on the King's orders. A part of "a Gospel presentation" is teaching folks "to observe all things whatsoever [Christ] has commanded." Part and parcel to that is everything He did, His "mission," what He was sent to do. What He came for was to save His people from their sins, not make all men without exception "savable," and He accomplished EXACTLY, and ONLY that which He wanted to accomplish. He was and is every bit successful, and painting Him as a needy Saviour, wanting something apart from that which He decreed, is a gross misrepresentation of the God of Scripture.
> 
> 
> Aah then, Josh, I see that it must have been that you were saved directly into perfect theological soundness, and NO means were used by God to facilitate that salvation other than those that were pure in their orthodoxy. Or could it be that you were ever not where you are now spiritually?



A bit snarky with this reply, don't you think? 



Sent from my iPhone killing Galaxy S-4


----------



## Philip (Nov 10, 2013)

For myself, it is enough to see Christ proclaimed to the world. Are there problems with the theology? Yes, but Christ is proclaimed. He who is not against us is for us.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 10, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > then it is clear that God loves even the unelect.
> ...



Obviously God loves the elect differently than he loves the unelect, but the mere fact that he chose to have an elect at all demonstrates his love towards humanity. In Matthew 5, Jesus uses the example of rain and sun falling on the just and the unjust as evidence of this. Clearly he does not say that salvation falls on the just and the unjust, but God's general provision does, and the motivation for this is his perfect love.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 10, 2013)

Herald said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> > > What, exactly, is "a Gospel presentation"? This is the root of the problem. The idea that "the Gospel" is proclaimed outside of the authority of the Church is the problem. "The Gospel" is bound up in discipleship, which is bound up in the life of the church. When parachurch organizations or personalities rise to the level of "Evangelists," and act as men who are not under authority, we have missed the boat on the King's orders. A part of "a Gospel presentation" is teaching folks "to observe all things whatsoever [Christ] has commanded." Part and parcel to that is everything He did, His "mission," what He was sent to do. What He came for was to save His people from their sins, not make all men without exception "savable," and He accomplished EXACTLY, and ONLY that which He wanted to accomplish. He was and is every bit successful, and painting Him as a needy Saviour, wanting something apart from that which He decreed, is a gross misrepresentation of the God of Scripture.
> ...


Yep. Uncharitable. My apologies, Josh.

What I was trying to convey, although obscured by my flesh, is that I know God used unorthodox, and even heterodox, means to bring me out of darkness into the light, and I might go so far as to presume He did the same with Josh.


----------



## joejohnston3 (Nov 10, 2013)

Philip said:


> For myself, it is enough to see Christ proclaimed to the world. Are there problems with the theology? Yes, but Christ is proclaimed. He who is not against us is for us.



I am glad this was stated! I was raised Assemblies of God and loved Billy Graham growing up but since finding the truth, i.e. Reformed Faith, I definitely see the issues with other teachings and doctrine. However, I am glad when Christ is preached and pray for others outside the Reformed Faith that they will see the truth but understand that God can do His work in spite of it.


----------



## JML (Nov 10, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Obviously God loves the elect differently than he loves the unelect, but the mere fact that he chose to have an elect at all demonstrates his love towards humanity.



I agree it is clear that God has a love for humanity (John 3:16). However, people like Graham go beyond that to stating that God loves every individual which is not the teaching of Scripture as I showed above in my Scripture reference.


----------



## Tripel (Nov 10, 2013)

We all agree about theological errors in his doctrine of salvation, I thank the Lord for Billy Graham. And I rejoice for all of the people who heard a (flawed) presentation of the Gospel. Yes, I'd much rather have a solid gospel presentation preached to the millions, but I'd rather have Billy Graham preaching to millions on TV than nobody. After all, it's his flawed Gospel-presentation that God used to save my grandfather and great-grandfather, and because of them, many more in my family.


----------



## Philip (Nov 10, 2013)

Tripel said:


> Yes, I'd much rather have a solid gospel presentation preached to the millions, but I'd rather have Billy Graham preaching to millions on TV than nobody. After all, it's his flawed Gospel-presentation that God used to save my grandfather and great-grandfather, and because of them, many more in my family.



It is quite easy to judge from the peanut gallery.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 10, 2013)

The valid points about the man-centered tone of the gospel presentation, and the inconsistency biblically and even logically that produces, notwithstanding, and even the theatrics used, notwithstanding...



> The Cross: Billy Graham's old message packaged in new media
> 
> With a home-spun feel in a country mansion, the new movie was introduced by his own son, Franklin. It proceeded with a curious montage of TV images of a younger Billy Graham "hailed" as a Billy Sunday, lauded as a "spiritual leader" by Reagan and warmly welcomed by Johnny Carson. Perhaps they wanted the audience to know about his popularity.



Let's have a regard for placing this in a true light. Mr. Graham has lived in this mountain home, very accessible to people, and not in luxury for most of his life. Stories abound of he and Ruth's hospitality in the beautiful scenery around their "mansion."
Though the Grahams could easily, long, long ago have acquired huge wealth and an opulent lifestyle, they never did.
Visiting their "mansion" would only be a disappointment for those expecting to see the trappings of wealth.

And how can we fault a 95 year old man for living in his ancestral home?


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Nov 10, 2013)

Scott, I think you have misunderstood a simple description of the opening scene. There is no critique of him living in a big house but a description of the mood of the movie.


----------

