# Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father



## shackleton

[video=youtube;axxlXy6bLH0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0[/video]
Starts at about 1:20
If this is true I guess we do not need to evangelize.


----------



## jlynn

God have mercy, indeed!


----------



## AThornquist

Yep.


And Yep yep.


----------



## Tim

Sad, sad, sad. Sad.


----------



## Tripel

> Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father



That is clearly a twisting of what Billy Graham actually said.


----------



## AThornquist

On Larry King he also pulled the "I don't judge who's going to heaven or hell--I leave it up to God" card. We jump all over Joel Osteen for saying that on Larry King but Graham is often seen as off-limits for criticism. I love the man and praise God for his past ministry, but oh how tragic it is to see him slip so far into the molasses pit of inclusivism.


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is clearly a twisting of what Billy Graham actually said.
Click to expand...


Huh?

Did you watch the video? 

Sure he didn't say "I deny that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to the Father".

But, what he DID say is equivalent to this. He has CLEARLY denied the exclusivity of Christ, and to my knowledge never backed off this.


----------



## jonmo

I agree with Daniel. It is actually not very clear from this short clip if that is what Billy Graham is saying. In general, I am somewhat nervous about some of the things that Rev Graham has said in recent years but this is by no means the worst.

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 04:45:40 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is clearly a twisting of what Billy Graham actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Did you watch the video?
> 
> Sure he didn't say "I deny that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to the Father".
> 
> But, what he DID say is equivalent to this. He has CLEARLY denied the exclusivity of Christ, and to my knowledge never backed off this.
Click to expand...


I watched the video and I am not sure it was as clear cut as you suggest. I think he was very political in his answer but still pointed to Christ. There are probably better examples of where Rev Graham's theology is somewhat lacking (some people have provided some links here).


----------



## Tripel

toddpedlar said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is clearly a twisting of what Billy Graham actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Did you watch the video?
> 
> Sure he didn't say "I deny that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to the Father".
> 
> But, what he DID say is equivalent to this. He has CLEARLY denied the exclusivity of Christ, and to my knowledge never backed off this.
Click to expand...


Yep, watched it twice. He never denied that it is through Jesus that we are saved--he seemed to be talking about people who know they are in need of salvation and do not know the name of Jesus, yet are saved by Jesus' work.

I'm not denying some problems in his theology, though I think his words have been twisted.


----------



## toddpedlar

jonmo said:


> I agree with Daniel. It is actually not very clear from this short clip if that is what Billy Graham is saying. In general, I am somewhat nervous about some of the things that Rev Graham has said in recent years but this is by no means the worst.
> 
> -----Added 6/26/2009 at 04:45:40 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is clearly a twisting of what Billy Graham actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Did you watch the video?
> 
> Sure he didn't say "I deny that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to the Father".
> 
> But, what he DID say is equivalent to this. He has CLEARLY denied the exclusivity of Christ, and to my knowledge never backed off this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the video and I am not sure it was as clear cut as you suggest. I think he was very political in his answer but still pointed to Christ. As I said in my other post, there are probably better examples of where Rev Graham's theology is somewhat lacking (some people have provided some links here).
Click to expand...


What he said was that people, not even knowing the name of Christ, but feeling a longing for something, so they turn to the only light they have, and are saved and will be in Heaven with us.

WITHOUT KNOWING Christ.

PERIOD.

IT started out sounding like he was talking about men and women of all backgrounds being called out of those religions (or non-religion) and coming to Christ for salvation... but he never said that. All he said is that they'd be saved by turning to the only light they have, trying to fill the void they feel, and without even knowing the name of Christ, they'll be saved.

That's heresy. 

Sorry if you disagree.


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is clearly a twisting of what Billy Graham actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Did you watch the video?
> 
> Sure he didn't say "I deny that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to the Father".
> 
> But, what he DID say is equivalent to this. He has CLEARLY denied the exclusivity of Christ, and to my knowledge never backed off this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, watched it twice. He never denied that it is through Jesus that we are saved--he seemed to be talking about people who know they are in need of salvation and do not know the name of Jesus, yet are saved by Jesus' work.
> 
> I'm not denying some problems in his theology, though I think his words have been twisted.
Click to expand...


To say that one is saved by Jesus' work, even if he does not know the name of Christ, is blasphemy. It's not just a "problem", it's blasphemy.


----------



## Tripel

Todd,

Do you think there is any difference in suggesting that someone can be justified apart from Christ and suggesting that someone can be justified by Christ without actually knowing the name of Christ?

I think they are both flawed, yet different. It's one thing to suggest there is more than one way to salvation. It's another thing to suggest that salvation by Christ can come to those who may not know the name of Christ.


----------



## jandrusk

I don't think it's a twisting of Grahams words and I quote: “Whether they are conscious of knowing Christ or not are part of the Body of Christ.” So he clearly said that some people and he reference Muslims, can know Christ without being conscious of it. Well if they are not conscience of it then they cannot accept the work of the atonement. And if they cannot _willingly_ accept then I'm afraid they have not embraced Christ or His Gospel and this is clearly another gospel that Graham and Schueller are preaching. They need much prayer to be delivered from this heresy that is found in Universalism. 

So if you read between the lines everyone is in the Body of Christ potentially as even the person who only knows Christ subconsciously is not aware of this knowledge and then what is the point of preaching? What was the atonement for? Why call anyone to repentance? Can you repent subconsciously as well? Perhaps this is where the Arminian gospel takes you.


----------



## Tim

Yes, and if Graham cannot speak clearly and without ambiguity about this after all those years of ministry, there is something wrong.


----------



## shackleton

Tripel said:


> Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is clearly a twisting of what Billy Graham actually said.
Click to expand...


That was just the YouTube heading, I copied and pasted it.


----------



## Scott1

This has been the subject of threads recently on Puritan Board, including this video clip (search key word "Billy Graham") to see previous discussion about this. (e.g. http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/macarthur-billy-graham-47462/)


----------



## Tripel

toddpedlar said:


> To say that one is saved by Jesus' work, even if he does not know the name of Christ, is blasphemy. It's not just a "problem", it's blasphemy.



I'd say that is bad theology, not blasphemy.


----------



## Idelette

Does anyone know where the full interview can be viewed?


----------



## lynnie

Iain Murray covers this in detail in the book Evangelicalism Divided. It is shocking how off the narrow path Graham was. Murray has many well documented sources. It is horrifying.


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> Todd,
> 
> Do you think there is any difference in suggesting that someone can be justified apart from Christ and suggesting that someone can be justified by Christ without actually knowing the name of Christ?
> 
> I think they are both flawed, yet different. It's one thing to suggest there is more than one way to salvation. It's another thing to suggest that salvation by Christ can come to those who may not know the name of Christ.



The way to salvation that Scripture presents CANNOT (no uncertain terms) be phrased that involves not even knowing who Christ is. PERIOD. This is a non-negotiable. To posit that someone can be "saved by Christ" apart from explicit faith in Christ is beyond horrific. It is another gospel, and a false one at that.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

lynnie said:


> Iain Murray covers this in detail in the book Evangelicalism Divided. It is shocking how off the narrow path Graham was. Murray has many well documented sources. It is horrifying.





Murray shows Graham was off the reservation back in the 1960's...


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that one is saved by Jesus' work, even if he does not know the name of Christ, is blasphemy. It's not just a "problem", it's blasphemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that is bad theology, not blasphemy.
Click to expand...


I'm probably being loose with the term, though I do believe the suggestion that someone can be saved apart from knowledge of and explicit faith put in Christ, the Son of God is indeed blasphemous.


----------



## Idelette

This actually doesn't surprise me at all...Graham has always been very ambiguous when it comes to the gospel.


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> Todd,
> 
> Do you think there is any difference in suggesting that someone can be justified apart from Christ and suggesting that someone can be justified by Christ without actually knowing the name of Christ?
> 
> I think they are both flawed, yet different. It's one thing to suggest there is more than one way to salvation. It's another thing to suggest that salvation by Christ can come to those who may not know the name of Christ.



If you say "can salvation come to one who doesn't know Christ by name", I will say Yes, surely... that is to say, there is no restriction on point of origin for someone who comes to faith in Christ (which is the ONLY path to salvation according to the Word of God). Salvation can come to them - though they will not go to their grave not knowing Christ by name. Salvation comes to all sorts of people, but it is by faith (and not simply some implicit "faith in God", but faith in Jesus Christ our Lord) that one is saved.


----------



## Tripel

toddpedlar said:


> To posit that someone can be "saved by Christ" apart from explicit faith in Christ is beyond horrific. It is another gospel, and a false one at that.



So you don't think it is a twisting of his words to say that Graham believes Christ is not the only way to salvation?

I'm all for a thread that talks about the errors in his theology. But how about we stick to quoting the man directly, rather than attributing statements he did not make???


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> To posit that someone can be "saved by Christ" apart from explicit faith in Christ is beyond horrific. It is another gospel, and a false one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think it is a twisting of his words to say that Graham believes Christ is not the only way to salvation?
> 
> I'm all for a thread that talks about the errors in his theology. But how about we stick to quoting the man directly, rather than attributing statements he did not make???
Click to expand...


I do not think it is a twisting of his words. It captures what his words mean, which is that people can be saved apart from knowing Christ as Lord and Savior. You might not like the way the video was titled, and I wouldn't probably have titled it that way.... but Graham DOES in those words posit the concept that people can be saved without ever actually knowing Jesus Christ. THAT indicates that he believes (or at LEAST was saying) that Christ is not the only way to salvation.

I really don't understand what the objection is. The title to the thread did NOT lie - it did not say "Billy Graham said, 'Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation.'" What it said was a summary of what that video showed quite clearly. Tactful? not so much.


----------



## Tripel

toddpedlar said:


> I do not think it is a twisting of his words.



We'll just have to disagree on that. I found the title of the video extremely misleading. I expected someone to ask Graham if Christ is the only way and for him to answer "No". 



> ... but Graham DOES in those words posit the concept that people can be saved without ever actually knowing Jesus Christ. THAT indicates that he believes (or at LEAST was saying) that Christ is not the only way to salvation.



If we were to ask Billy Graham right now, or better yet, if at the end of the video clip he was asked in clarification if Christ is the only means to salvation, what do you think his answer would have been?


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think it is a twisting of his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll just have to disagree on that. I found the title of the video extremely misleading. I expected someone to ask Graham if Christ is the only way and for him to answer "No".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but Graham DOES in those words posit the concept that people can be saved without ever actually knowing Jesus Christ. THAT indicates that he believes (or at LEAST was saying) that Christ is not the only way to salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were to ask Billy Graham right now, or better yet, if at the end of the video clip he was asked in clarification if Christ is the only means to salvation, what do you think his answer would have been?
Click to expand...


I don't discount the possibility (remote, though i think it is) that we are wrong in the assessment. He is a master communicator, and I don't see how his words could have been clearer. If asked, I think he might argue as was suggested earlier, that people who are saved are ALL saved by Christ's Cross - EVEN IF THEY DO NOT KNOW HIM BY NAME. 

So I think what he said accurately reflects what he believes - that some who do not know Christ are saved by His Cross. 

So he would argue that Christ is the only means... but his statements about salvation are in DIRECT contradiction to that explicit statement, should he have said this.

Todd


----------



## Prufrock

Daniel, If I might interject here -- we need to remember that words are not static, but carry with them the intention of the speaker. Of course, if you asked Billy Graham, "Yes or no -- Is Jesus Christ the only way to salvation?" he would surely say, "Yes!"; but, as I noted in another thread the other day, the Pope could also recently say, "We are justified by faith alone." This is meaningless, however, as he intends something wholly different than we do by the words. When _we_ say "Christ is the only way to salvation," we mean "faith in Christ receiving and resting upon his redemptive work" is the only way to salvation; this is not what Graham would mean by the words. Therefore, in the sense that _we_ intend, it seems only honest to conclude that Graham would deny the proposition.

Either way, it probably shouldn't matter too much to us one way or the other. Graham for many other reasons is already well outside the pale of orthodoxy, and I doubt many here would be referring friends and family to Graham's teachings as a sound guide. I can see how the information _might_ be useful, however, if someone ever asks for reasons _why_ we wouldn't refer them to Graham.


----------



## Tripel

toddpedlar said:


> I really don't understand what the objection is. The title to the thread did NOT lie - it did not say "Billy Graham said, 'Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation.'" What it said was a summary of what that video showed quite clearly. Tactful? not so much.



I honestly did not mean to make a big deal out of this, but I thought it was appropriate to point out that the title of the video is not an accurate description of what is actually said. 
We are all fully aware that Billy Graham is no theologian. I realize he has been wrong about many things. But I don't for one second believe that Graham is blasphemous or is preaching that there is another way to salvation.

Maybe I'm just overly sensitive on this issue--Like thousands of others, Billy Graham was influential in my family. My grandfather professed faith in Christ over 50 years ago because Graham was preaching Christ and him crucified. The Lord then used my grandfather to lead my great-grandfather, my grandmother, and my father to Christ.

Yes, Graham's theology was/is flawed. But what good are we doing by dragging up old video clips and passing them around with misleading titles? (And I realize the person who posted this did not create the title). Like I said before, it's fine to discuss where Graham was wrong, but let's stick to what he actually said.


----------



## Idelette

I tried to find the entire interview online, but to no avail! However, I did find this video with John Macarthur who had a transcription of the interview....and he quotes Schuller and Graham at greater length. I think it clearly lays out where Graham stood on the gospel in later years!

[video=youtube;mC2WPR7q4pU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC2WPR7q4pU[/video]


----------



## AThornquist

I gave a link to a thread with that video up top


----------



## Idelette

AThornquist said:


> I gave a link to a thread with that video up top



Oh really?  LOL.....I didn't see it...

Thanks for pointing it out!


----------



## kvanlaan

[video=youtube;Bx29MRL4L6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx29MRL4L6c[/video]


----------



## Igor

In His Grip said:


> This actually doesn't surprise me at all...Graham has always been very ambiguous when it comes to the gospel.


It was through Dr. Graham (his book) that I found Christ as the ONLY way - there was nothing ambiguous in his message. As for those who never heard the Gospel, there are different opinions on that (many in my denomination, I believe, would not be that shocked by this), and I suppose I cannot be the final judge of it: the Scripture does not seem to reveal as everything in this matter. 
Dr. Graham may be wrong - as well as everybody else. Just my opinion.


----------



## jogri17

this is somewhat old news...


----------



## Idelette

Igor said:


> In His Grip said:
> 
> 
> 
> This actually doesn't surprise me at all...Graham has always been very ambiguous when it comes to the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> It was through Dr. Graham (his book) that I found Christ as the ONLY way - there was nothing ambiguous in his message. As for those who never heard the Gospel, there are different opinions on that (many in my denomination, I believe, would not be that shocked by this), and I suppose I cannot be the final judge of it: the Scripture does not seem to reveal as everything in this matter.
> Dr. Graham may be wrong - as well as everybody else. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Well, in his early years of ministry Dr. Graham might have preached a somewhat clear gospel message. (although there were many other things that I would have disagreed with him on.) However, over the years that message was heavily watered down to the point that Christ is no longer the ONLY way! As long as I've been alive and heard him speak on the radio or television....his message has always been very ambiguous. In fact, I've heard Billy Graham say with his own mouth that wickedness in the Bible does not mean that we do wicked things.....but that we are simply separated from God. Personally, I don't think you'd be able to find a recent interview or broadcast with him clearly laying out the gospel. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Knoxienne

Since the fifties and sixties, Graham associated himself with and cozied up to all sorts of ungodly, traitorous, globalistic movements and people. There's a reason he was so popular and it's not because of his biblical orthodoxy - orthodoxy is never popular.


----------



## christianhope

Regarding the teaching that those who have never heard the gospel, and yet are considered saved, I believe the following scriptures teach otherwise clearly:

Romans 10:13-15 (King James Version)

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

**If they have never heard the name of the Lord, how then can they call on Him and believe? One cannot be saved without hearing the Name of Christ, the gospel - only those who do can be saved.


----------



## Marrow Man

Kauffeld said:


> **If they have never heard the name of the Lord, how then can they call on Him and believe? This scripture should settle the issue, for it clearly teaches one cannot be saved without hearing, and therefore believing in "the name of the Lord" - only those who do so can be saved.



Agreed, and Acts 10 should also considered as well -- God sent Peter as a missionary to the household of Cornelius to preach the gospel. God ordains the ends as well as the means.


----------



## harvelljr

I wonder if I would be accused of twisting Grahams words if I quote from him. 
He said, "I have found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics."

Graham is not only semi-pelagian in his teaching, but is also pluralistic. He has also accepted an award by Charles Templeton for progressing science over the scriptures. Templeton made up an award called the "Templeton Noble Prize." This is given to those who aide Templeton in getting rid of the ancient scriptures and replacing them with faith in science. Graham along with Bill Bright and others have accepted this award.

Need I say more?


----------

