# Billy Graham Answers Your Questions



## biblicalthought (Mar 16, 2008)

Sadly, I had a project that required for me to read "Billy Graham Answers Your Questions." There's no date of the publication (looks like a small private run) but probably early sixties would be my guess. I say sadly, not because I had to read Billy Graham, sadly because of how clear this book points out his apostasy. Since I had to type up many quotes from the book, I thought they'd be helpful resources here that aren't widely available for sermons, lectures, or whatever. The quotes that I have pulled all (in some way) demonstrate doctrines he now rejects. Here are some of the quotes. 



> “…our final salvation does not depend upon whether we did or did not have to work on Sunday, but whether our sins have been taken away by Christ and whether we are trusting in His merit for our salvation.” 108





> “Some day you will realize that god has the last word. I pray that you may discover this truth this side of eternity…Some day you will have to stand in His presence. Having rejected Him and the redemption from sin which we have through faith in Jesus Christ, you will have to stand on your own merits – and this no man can do. Your problem, my problem, the problem of each individual in the world is that of sin, rebellion against God and the breaking of His holy laws. He has made full provision for our dilemma but we must accept this or bear the consequences. Read John 3:18.” 193





> “Outside of faith in Christ man are ‘perishing’ which means ‘lost’ in this world and the world to come.” 200





> “John 3:16 says: ‘For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ The very next verse tells us, ‘For god sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.’ Here we have the love of God in sending His Son and the fact that He did not come to condemn but to save. But there is more, for the next verse tells us: ‘He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’ Here and in other places in the New Testament we find that God sent His Son to redeem men who are already condemned by their sins. It is an offer of free pardon to all who will receive it.” 205





> “The Bible plainly says: ‘He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life.’ Jesus Himself said, ‘No man cometh unto the Father except by me.’ Therefore, I challenge people to accept Christ.” 208





> “Q: A famous Christian theologian recently stated that after a life-long study of the religions of the world he was convinced that there was no such person as a ‘non-Christian’ – that every Buddhist temple and heathen shrine was a marker on the road to God. This sounds reasonable, but is it Christian?
> A: Over the platform in all our Crusades there is a text which reads: Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’ This points up the distinctiveness of Christianity, and the exclusiveness of its teaching. Christ IS Christianity, and there can be no true Christianity apart from Him.” 227-228


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 16, 2008)

So....what's the point of these quotes.

These quotes are FAR from apostasy.

Has he changed these views and if so, can you quote the changes so that we can compare them.


----------



## biblicalthought (Mar 16, 2008)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I assumed everyone would know about his rejection of these doctrines. He holds to a wide-mercy view of God's grace. This view teaches than God is saving people in other religions such as Islam and Hinuism without ever hearing the name Jesus. The view holds that pagans are held up to the light they're given, and if they do pretty good, and if they've never even heard of Jesus much less the Gospel, that we'll see them in heaven. This is one example.

So the quotes show how tight his doctrine "used to be" before his later departure. The quotes show that he once believed evangelical doctrine and when compared to what he has taught over the last quarter-century - clearly demonstrates his spostasy. This is why I said it was sad. 

One of the more popular demonstrations was his appearance on the Hour of Power with Robert Schuller. Here's a video:


----------



## Herald (Mar 16, 2008)

Stephen, you need to be fair. If you're going to accuse Billy Graham of apostasy than cite quotes and sources. I would hope you would do this with any man who stands thus accused.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 16, 2008)

Thanks, Joshua! Now I'm really depressed and I can't even use that excuse the British man used.

I have head some of Billy's comments over the years that troubled me. But, the Hour of Power comments were the most appalling ever.

One of my profs in college began as a S.D. famer. He used to say: "Pick your ruts carefully. You will be in them for a very long time." It appears that when you start out with an evangelicalism suffused with Finney, and if you live long enough, you will tend to end up in some rank heresy.


----------



## Herald (Mar 16, 2008)

I think my point was missed. I am not saying Stephen was wrong. I was making the point that when we accuse someone of apostasy we need to present the proof, not just assume the proof. Apostasy is akin to calling a person unsaved. A heretic is someone who is unsaved. Strong words. I didn't see a video on Stephen's post and just now saw that it was deleted. My caution still stands but let me give Stephen credit for posting a video that supposedly has Billy Graham in his own words.


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 16, 2008)

Well, these quotes simply sound like the Gospel to me. 

As a reformed thinker I disagree with Graham on a few things, but he is my brother in Christ. 

Can you show where he has changed his views from these points? I would be hard pressed to believe that he has rejected that which his entire ministry has taught for over half a century. 






biblicalthought said:


> Sadly, I had a project that required for me to read "Billy Graham Answers Your Questions." There's no date of the publication (looks like a small private run) but probably early sixties would be my guess. I say sadly, not because I had to read Billy Graham, sadly because of how clear this book points out his apostasy. Since I had to type up many quotes from the book, I thought they'd be helpful resources here that aren't widely available for sermons, lectures, or whatever. The quotes that I have pulled all (in some way) demonstrate doctrines he now rejects. Here are some of the quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## biblicalthought (Mar 16, 2008)

Here are three verifiable examples that should qualify as documented proof. These quotes come "after" the quotes I posted from the book and show a span of nearly twenty years. I apologize for assuming that everyone here would be familiar with Graham's apostasy. 



> “I used to think that pagans in far-off countries were lost--were going to hell--if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. ... I believe there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God--through nature, for instance--and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying yes to God.” McCall’s Magazine 1978





> “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.”(May 31, 1997 Interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller)





> "There are a lot of groups that feel a little bit strange around me, because I am inclusive," says Graham, who draws a distinction between "evangelical" — a label often claimed by conservative Protestants — and "evangelism." USA TODAY 2005



I have been aware of this for quite some time now. It was heart-wrenching to read through the book. The book portrayed a strong evangelical understanding of the Gospel. As far as I know, this (the PB) is the only place on the internet that makes these quotes from the book available.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 16, 2008)

I have a somewhat fuller transcript of the Robert Schuller interview, which I had to ferret out when the BGEA was having some special televised programs in Mexico City.



> The interview was broadcast on May 31, 1997 on the Hour of Power television program, titled "Say 'Yes' To Possibility Thinking," program #1426.
> 
> Dr. Schuller: "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"
> 
> ...



I also have a .gif of a letter sent by Cardinal Roger Mahony, at the time Archbishop of Los Angeles, urging cooperation and prayer for the Billy Graham Crusade, as they saw it as an opportunity for an influx of alienated Catholics. There is a rather telling sentence in it:


> [Crusade] officials have assured me that, in keeping with Dr. Graham's belief and policy, there will be no proselytizing, and that anyone identifying him or herself as a Catholic will be referred to us for reintegration into the life of the Catholic Church.



Earlier he had stated:


> While there are some doctrinal differences in our theologies, we can certainly support Dr. Graham's core message of the need for conversion of life and the establishment of a personal relationship with Jesus.



Further documentation can be found in Iain Murray's _Evangelicalism Divided_. I've read Billy Graham's autobiography, and it does make quite clear that he's shifted positions over the years. Another point was the interview (I believe it was with Larry King) where he would not take such a strong position as Franklin Graham did on the state of the Muslims.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ivan (Mar 16, 2008)

joshua said:


> On Larry King Life he was asked, concerning salvation, "What about those like the Jews, the Muslims, who _don't _believe..." Graham responded, "That's in God's hands. I can't be their judge." King: "You don't judge them?" Graham: "No. No, I don't say 'You're going to hell.' "



Sounds a lot like Joel Osteen.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 16, 2008)

There is a difference between apostasy and error. Graham is in error, but I would not call him apostate. Like John Stott who denies hell but holds to all the other orthodox doctrines, I still hold these men to be erring brothers and not apostates. The charge of apostasy or heresy is HEAVY indeed and it must be proven that he has denied the very faith rather than just one article of this faith that may not be damning.


----------



## biblicalthought (Mar 16, 2008)

Pergamum, I appreciate the distinction you've made. I disagree though. A denial of the Gospel is much more than mere error. I agree that error doesn't always mean apostasy - otherwise we'd all be cooked! But this error is that denial of the faith that you've mentioned. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are all called by the same God? I don't think so.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## bookslover (Mar 17, 2008)

Interesting: John MacArthur, in the video, says that Graham has believed some of this stuff since at least 1960, back when he was in his prime as a fire-breathing evangelist.

Graham will be 90 this coming November 7.


----------



## biblicalthought (Mar 17, 2008)

Yeah, I don't know how reliable this is, but Jack Chick has a page saying the same thing.

Billy Graham - Champion of the Catholic Church


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 17, 2008)

A former pastor of mine wrote the BGEA regarding the concerns John MacArthur raised about the Schuller interview. The BGEA responded in a letter (that I have in my possession somewhere) blaming the answers on Graham's Parkinson's and maybe other health problems, saying that Graham said things on that program that he has never believed. However, going back to at least the 1978 McCall's interview that Stephen quoted from, he has been making these kinds of inclusivist statements for decades. If I recall correctly Graham or the BGEA claimed he was misquoted in the McCall's article, but he has continued to make similar statements. 

I believe Graham was probably eventually led astray by his cooperation with Roman Catholics and liberal protestants that dates back to the 1950's. This cooperation consisted of sending respondents who identified themselves as Catholic to Catholic churches, etc. in exchange for their support in putting on the crusades. Iain Murray relates how the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1960's despised what Graham stood for but cooperated with him in hopes that his crusades in Britain would help bring people back to the Anglican church. This is probably the kind of thing that MacArthur refers to with the 1960 statement. 

Iain Murray goes into all of this at some length in both the 2nd volume of the authorised biography of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his _Evangelicalism Divided_. ML-J was one of the few prominent evangelical leaders in Britain who never cooperated with Graham. This was due to the cooperation with non-evangelicals as well as the use of the invitation system.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 17, 2008)

Ivan said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > On Larry King Life he was asked, concerning salvation, "What about those like the Jews, the Muslims, who _don't _believe..." Graham responded, "That's in God's hands. I can't be their judge." King: "You don't judge them?" Graham: "No. No, I don't say 'You're going to hell.' "
> ...



 You beat me to the comment.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 17, 2008)

First, full disclosure, I LIKE Graham and honor his personal integrity and record of service.
Second, my second child professed faith in Christ at the Anaheim crusade back in the 80s. For that alone, I will always have a tender spot in my heart for the old crusader.

Still, YIKES! It just amazes me that Graham was the key player in the founding of _Christianity Today_ and (to quote President Mouw) "played an important role in the founding of Fuller Seminary and was a member of Fuller Seminary’s board of trustees for six years.” One need not be a conspiracy nut to see a certain similarity of "broadening of perspective" in all three ministries.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 17, 2008)

Just listen to his radio show. Far different than his older stuff. Down right fire and brimstone it used to be, but, alas. Biblicalthought is right.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 17, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Just listen to his radio show. Far different than his older stuff. Down right fire and brimstone it used to be, but, alas. Biblicalthought is right.



I've heard references to this before, but I think I am far too young to have been around any of it.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

biblicalthought said:


> Yeah, I don't know how reliable this is, but Jack Chick has a page saying the same thing.
> 
> Billy Graham - Champion of the Catholic Church



So, let me get this straight. You are calling Graham an apostate - i.e. someone who is going to HELL. And you are using Jack Chick as evidence?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > There is a difference between apostasy and error. Graham is in error, but I would not call him apostate. Like John Stott who denies hell but holds to all the other orthodox doctrines, I still hold these men to be erring brothers and not apostates. The charge of apostasy or heresy is HEAVY indeed and it must be proven that he has denied the very faith rather than just one article of this faith that may not be damning.
> ...



There is entirely too much condemning to hell on the PB.

We should be VERY careful how we use the words "heretic" and "apsotate" and reserve these words to those that clearly fall outside the faith.


There are many Christians who are unsteady on the issue of "What about the native who has never heard, the mentally incapacitated and the infant" which they lump all three into the same category.

What about the infant? At least some on the board would assert that infants are saved apart from explicit faith and knowledge in Jesus Christ. What about the mentally retarded? Many would assert that these are saved without an explicit faith in Christ or knowledge of who he is.

What about the OT saints? Many of these were saved only with a murky understanding of who the Prophet to come was.

What about some new believers who were Muslims who come to faith in Isa AlMasih. The believe in a divine Jesus who was also human but they don't quite understand the Trinity fully yet.


I disagree with Billy Graham here and I think he errs. But he does not deserve the term "apostate" until you can affirm that he beleives in something that puts him outside salvation.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 17, 2008)

You know what I believe to be the fundamental problem with Billy Graham?

Who sent him to preach the Gospel, or did he send himself?

In connection with that, which consistory supervised his labours?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Bert, interesting question. Was he sent by a denomination? Also, who sent George Whitefield. If someone does this sort of evangelism, what sort of Biblical principles do they need to follow?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Joshua:

The initial post mentions "his apostasy"...


----------



## CDM (Mar 17, 2008)

Time permitting I will post some comments said by Billy Graham. What I've read so far is mild compared to the ones I am familiar with. 

BTW, his sermons used to be printed in every Monday's _Charlotte Observer_ back in the 60's and 70's.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Joshua; 

I never singled you out individually. 

But the term "apostate" IS being used - though not by you. This term last I checked means that the person considered an apostate is going to hell...and that's a pretty heavy charge. 


Yes, you are quite right, your responses are far from condemning him to hell and I agree with you that Graham needs to retract his statements or offer an explanation.

So...in short...I'm WITH YOU brother!!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 17, 2008)

If Graham proclaims any way other than Christ alone in which man can be saved, then he is anathema. Do we all agree on this? 

If so, then is their evidence that Graham preaches another way to be saved than Christ alone? 

From what I have read and heard from this thread Graham is saying even those who have never heard of Christ are saved.

This does not appear to be that difficult of a discernment. He would not even be allowed membership into the church based on such proclamations. He needs to repent and believe.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> There are many Christians who are unsteady on the issue of "What about the native who has never heard, the mentally incapacitated and the infant" which they lump all three into the same category.
> 
> What about the infant? At least some on the board would assert that infants are saved apart from explicit faith and knowledge in Jesus Christ. What about the mentally retarded? Many would assert that these are saved without an explicit faith in Christ or knowledge of who he is.



See my latest post here for a question relative to this. It could be that the infant and the mentally retarded person do have knowledge but are unable to express it like someone with fully developed faculties. 

If Graham has found people living in jungles "trying to live for God," this only proves that Paul was correct in Romans 1 when he said that we all have innate knowledge of God, not enough for salvation, that we suppress, twist, and distort into a god of our own creation. Paul's question later in Romans: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" is meaningless if Graham's conclusions are correct.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 17, 2008)

We know that infants have knowledge - John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb...

As for the mentally retarded, many people have spoken of their strong faith, even if they had trouble articulating it as an adult believer would.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Again,

There are Christians that we would still consider brothers that express doubt about certain classes of people and whether they need to exercise explicit faith in Jesus Christ, such as the OT saints, babies and the mentally retarded. Some include natives too.

In other words, most OT saints did not know the future redeemer as Jesus Christ the God-Man. Babies do not exercise an explicit faith of Jesus Christ in the same way as we do (if at all) and the mentally handicapped do not either. How are they then saved?

Some theologians have expressed doubt about these issues. This does not mean that they are denying the Gospel. They are merely expressing doubt about some hard questions.



A good book that addresses these issues is Millard Erickson's "How Shall They be Saved: The destiny of those who do not hear of Jesus."


My issue here is the word "apostate". Graham is in error on a great many points, but I would caution against charging someone with apostacy until he has denied the faith.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Yes, I disagree with Graham here. There are no "innocent natives", as per Romans 1. Babies I believe are saved, but without EXPLICIT faith in Jesus. John leaping in his mother's womb proves little. The mentally handicapped may almost be totally braindead and may not know who they are even, much less our saviour.

So, my main point, again, is that this is an issue in which disagreement with us does not necessarily mean that one is doomed to hell. Disagreement with the PB position on this does not entail that one is "apostate" - we need to be careful how we use that word.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 17, 2008)

I would recommend to all of you John Owen's book entitled 
*Apostasy From the Gospel*. He clearly spells out that apostasy occurs long before an outright denial of the faith. After reading this book you will discover that Graham has indeed fallen into apostasy. Ian Murray's book, *Evangelicalism Divided *shows the influence that Graham had on evangelicalism. Apostasy always starts out on the slippery slope. I must concur with Biblical Thought that Graham has clearly departed from the truth. He is ecumenical and anyone who regards the anti-Christ in Rome as a great Christian leader has departed from the faith.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Again,
> 
> There are Christians that we would still consider brothers that express doubt about certain classes of people and whether they need to exercise explicit faith in Jesus Christ, such as the OT saints, babies and the mentally retarded. Some include natives too.
> 
> ...





Pergamum said:


> Yes, I disagree with Graham here. There are no "innocent natives", as per Romans 1. Babies I believe are saved, but without EXPLICIT faith in Jesus. John leaping in his mother's womb proves little. The mentally handicapped may almost be totally braindead and may not know who they are even, much less our saviour.
> 
> So, my main point, again, is that this is an issue in which disagreement with us does not necessarily mean that one is doomed to hell. Disagreement with the PB position on this does not entail that one is "apostate" - we need to be careful how we use that word.




I don't want to go too far , but I'll copy this addition I made to the other thread:



Davidius said:


> What is "explicit faith"?
> 
> Does being "braindead" equate to not being able to know things? I don't see how this can be the case if the physical material of the brain itself is not the location of our knowledge, but only the way through which our immaterial mind is connected to the material body. If the brain is dead, the mind/spirit is still alive, and if this is where knowledge resides, then it does not follow that a braindead person does not know who he is. He merely can't express it to us.



If all of this is true, then the cases of infants and the mentally handicapped cannot be used to defend what Graham is saying, because elect infants and mentally handicapped are not saved _without knowledge of God as Redeemer_; they just can't express this knowledge that truly resides in their regenerated souls/renewed minds.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Stephen, so you would declare publicly that Billy Graham is going to hell?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Davidius: Interesting.

Regardless, my main beef is the A word, apostasy. I am okay with saying the Graham is in error, but we throw around terms like heretic, apostate, etc very loosely on the PB sometimes.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Davidius: Interesting.
> 
> Regardless, my main beef is the A word, apostasy. I am okay with saying the Graham is in error, but we throw around terms like heretic, apostate, etc very loosely on the PB sometimes.



I understand your desire to tread lightly and commend it.  

The main point of my digression was to end up asking you whether you believe that Graham is teaching another Gospel. You originally brought up the "gray area" of infants and the mentally handicapped. If these groups, however, are of a different sort and hence irrelevant to the discussion at hand, then we are left with Graham saying that someone with no knowledge of Christ can be saved. Is this another Gospel or isn't it? It doesn't seem to me that individuals on this thread are using the terms "apostate" and "heretic" too loosely. They're only using them as Paul used them, i.e. to label someone who preaches another Gospel. So, again: is he teaching another Gospel? What error would you say that Graham has committed if it is not the error of teaching salvation outside of Christ?

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 17, 2008)

The issue of mentally handicap and infants clouds a very clear issue and is irrelevant.

This is a case where a *minister *is proclaiming another way to be saved other than Christ. Deal with THAT issue and how Galatians chapter 1 applies. All I keep hearing is be careful with the not-so-nice term of "Apostasy" as an argument. I would agree if we were discussing an ignorant lay-person, but not a world renown minister of the gospel as Billy Graham. The Apostle anathematized leaders of the church. Their fruit (or lack there of) is more apparent, more deliberate and more harmful.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Your points are interesting (on this thread and that other brain/mind thread especially).. 


I do not believe that we can quickly say that this is an example of another Gospel. 

I do think we should tread lightly. 

There are difficulties when we deal with "special classes" of people such as babies and the mentally retarded. Therefore, a differing view in regards to how God treats them might not mean a wholesole departure from the Gospel.

Many people I know were saved due to Billy Graham witness, some even at his tent meetings. Either we scratch these people off as unsaved because someone cannot be saved without the Gospel or we acknowledge that Graham's theology is full of error but is, nonetheless, containing the core of the Gospel and hope that the Lord can even use him.

This is my main and almost only dog in this fight...the A word (and also that H word too).

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Chris: Again, are you therefore now publicly ready to declare Graham anathema and all who listen to him as promoting a false Gospel and all who benefitted under his teaching as mislead and ignorant too and me, who is defending him as a possibly saved minister as ignorant...and to write in a public forum for all to see that Billy Graham is going to hell?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Chris: Again, are you therefore now publicly ready to declare Graham anathema and all who listen to him as promoting a false Gospel and all who benefitted under his teaching as mislead and ignorant too and me, who is defending him as a possibly saved minister as ignorant...and to write in a public forum for all to see that Billy Graham is going to hell?



Since when do the ends justify the means? If someone hears the gospel from a Judas or a Balaam and is saved as a result, does that mean that particular Judas or Balaam must be a true disciple of Christ?


> ...But even if we or an angel from heaven should *preach to you* a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is *preaching to you* a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.



The question remains, *is Billy Graham preaching a different gospel or not?* Yes or no? If yes, then therefore the church must publicly declare Graham as anathema. 

The Gospel and Christ is just THAT important no matter how friendly or effective Dr. Graham is or was. It may hurt some feelings but the Word of God is very plain on this matter.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

So, you are ready to say the Graham is hellbound and that all (even on this board) who claim to have benefitted from him are deluded? And that I, who am defending him as merely a man in error but not a false teacher, ...I am than defending a false Gospel?


We agree that error is present, but I think you go too far with the Apostasy thing.


I would say that Graham has preached a basic Gospel that is often encrusted with error. He thus preaches the Gospel, though he leaves much to be desired.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 17, 2008)

Unless he repents, he shall surely perish.

There is only one Door, through which all must enter.

I do not see him as a shepherd, but as a hireling, who scatters the sheep.

Read in wikipedia he was ordained as a Southern Baptist. Fine so far.

From there on though, seems like he set himself up, not as an ambassador of Christ, working in His body the church, but in his own private venture. Seems to me, he preached Christ for bread.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum, what exactly is your argument here? You have yet to say anything other than that Billy Graham is in error and we should be careful with declaring him apostate. You have yet to answer the direct question if Graham is proclaiming any other way than Christ for salvation. The answer to that is the answer to whether the apostasy charge is warranted.

I do not believe the laity are to dish out official anathema's and really members of confessional churches can’t anathematize anyone even if they tried unless they left the church; however, we are to discern truth from error and this is an easy one. Billy Graham believes people are saved even if they have never heard of Christ. That is not the Christian gospel and therefore if Billy Graham is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

You insist on including that all who have benefitted from him are deluded. What about those Balaam prophesied to? Or Judas Iscariot? The High Priest prophesied and yet was a blasphemer if the Holy Spirit. Graham can very well be apostate but that does not equal that everyone who may have been benefited by the means God used through Him are deluded. That is not even logical.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Bert: 

Those are heavy charges and I hope you are wrong. 

I am sure you would not lightly charge a possible servant of God with being a hireling of the devil and I am sure that you know the seriousness of that charge and the guilt you incur if you do so lightly.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Chris:
Why not just call him in error? That is my main argument. To say that he errs is enough, to say that he is an APOSTATE is not substantiated enough. We throw those terms around too lightly just as you are now doing. That is my one beef with this thread.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 17, 2008)

I hope I am wrong too.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

I think we agree. Perhaps I have made my point and should go to bed.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 17, 2008)

As to whether the theology was condemned by the church, the Synod of Dordt, with representation from the Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Germany, judged arminianism to be heresy.

Thus Billy Graham is condemned as a heretic. And seems here that his arminianism is not the worst heresy he preached....

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Stephen (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I think we agree. Perhaps I have made my point and should go to bed.





Yes, perhaps

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stephen (Mar 17, 2008)

Apostasy is simply a departure from the gospel. One does not have to deny every cardinal doctrine of the faith to have apostatized. We recognize liberal denominations as apostate (PCUSA, ECUSA, UCC, ELCA, UMC) even though many of them have congregations that uphold the truth. Apostacy never begins as an absolute betrayal of the faith, but is of varying degrees. Graham has joined himself with those who are false teachers (the pope of Rome and Robert Schuller) therefore he partakes of their sin. In essence he has departed from the the gospel.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Chris:
> Why not just call him in error? That is my main argument. To say that he errs is enough, to say that he is an APOSTATE is not substantiated enough. We throw those terms around too lightly just as you are now doing. That is my one beef with this thread.



Why didn't the Apostle just call the Judaizers as simply being in error?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 17, 2008)

Would herding any human being into the clutches of the Roman synagogue of Satan for any reason, much less in exchange for 'cooperation' from it's priesty-dudes, be the action of a true minister of the gospel? He would insist that he is a minister of something he would call the gospel. Does the Lord call it that? If not, then what exactly could we say he _is_ a minister of?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 17, 2008)

> So, you are ready to say the Graham is hellbound and that all (even on this board) who claim to have benefitted from him are deluded?


Nobody has "benefitted from him". Some have benefitted from hearing scripture and snippets of gospel at his crusades, certainly, but what they were actually benefitting from is the work of the Spirit in their hearts and the decrees of God in ordaining they should hear them. Not only vessels of gold and silver, but wood and clay also.

I think this involves a huge problem in the church today. I hear, "those _______ may have a few things wrong, but look at how effective they are in evangelism, so maybe we shouldn't be so hasty in calling their theology heretical" all the time. The problem lies in how far we're willing to go in filling that blank. Just because God used a dope-smoking deviant to first talk to me about the bible does not mean that dope-smoking deviants should not be considered wrong. I guess that's one reason I've never had a problem understanding that even an apostate may be used by God to harvest His own.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 17, 2008)

Joshua,

Thanks for closing the thread but let me add a thought because this thread really bothered me.

Hebrews 4:11-15



> 11Let *us* therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
> 
> 14Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.



Look, my writing here speaks for itself in terms of how strident I am against the compromise of the Gospel. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which we must fear for ourselves _and_ for any brother. That fear doesn't take the form, in the Scriptures, of making personal pronouncements of apostasy. It is one thing to say that a man is manifesting an unbelieving spirit in a particular instance while it is quite anther to make a pronouncement of apostasy.

You may wish to note that when Paul writes in Galatians 1:8-9 that he uses an impersonal address. He could have named names or he could have even said if _you_ do this. This is the nature of spritual warning. Notice also in Hebrews 6:


> 4For it is impossible, in the case of *those* who have once been enlightened, who have tasted(J) the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.


Again, the use of an impersonal address, which is a break from the personal address that he is using in Hebrews to that point. Why? Because it is the nature of warning that such things are _real_ spiritual dangers and that men had bettter steer clear of unbelief on the one hand. On the other hand, however, it is not presented for individuals to say: "Well, I must be unable to repent because I did this...."

Also, since _we_ are commanded to fear together for one another then we are supposed to be of the mind that we desire to restore men, to snatch them from the fire. We are not supposed to have the attitude that they're turned inexorably but to warn and plead.

Thus, two concluding thoughts:

1. Warn men who have a spirit of disbelief with all your heart, soul, and strength. Make sure they know what the consequences are of unbelief.
2. Don't you dare presume to know the hidden things of God and to proclaim that a man has passed the point where repentance may be found. God has appointed a day, calling it Today. Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts!


----------

