Billy Graham Answers Your Questions

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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]

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

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[Davidius]

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?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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).

 

[Pergamum]

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?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

I hope I am wrong too.

 

[Pergamum]

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

 

[BertMulder]

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....

 

[Stephen]

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

Yes, perhaps

 

[Stephen]

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.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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?

 

[Mushroom]

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?

 

[Mushroom]

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.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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!