Pastors Need To Expose Billy Graham

Since this has been hashed and rehashed to death many times before, please start winding down your comments. Thank you.

 

Pastor Dirk,

I'm grew up in Alturas. It is about 3 hours north east of Redding. Some of my friends live in Redding though, and I drive through it everytime I go anywhere. Right now I am a graduate student at Stanford University though.

 

So, as usual, it all boils down to anti-Catholic hatred.

Larry, in all my years of Catholic education, I was never taught that anything other than Christ's death on the cross subsequent resurection saves us.

In fact, the Jesuits and nuns who taught us would have been horrified at that thought. Fr. Joe would have read the riot act to whoever taught that.

May God bless Billy Graham and may He send us 10,000 more Billy Grahams.

Viva Graham!

You guys had better learn to like catholics now because you're going to be spending eternity with an awful lot of them.

Mike

http://www.keylife.com

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:
Larry, in all my years of Catholic education, I was never taught that anything other than Christ's death on the cross subsequent resurection saves us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Catholics teach that baptism saves, and that the works of man keep salvation. Neither is found in Scripture.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:



Catholics teach that baptism saves, and that the works of man keep salvation. Neither is found in Scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Larry, may I ask what your background in Catholicism is?

I wasn't taught those things.

I was taught that baptism was an outward sign that one has been sanctified by God and that works are not the source of salvation but the result of it.

Mike

http://www.keylife.org

 

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Cskokido ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:
I was taught that baptism was an outward sign that one has been sanctified by God and that works are not the source of salvation but the result of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the catechism

1239 Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Should you need further clarification about this, just visit the thread down the dial about non Baptist beliefs. The catholics in there are constantly arguing that baptism is regenerative. If you were taught that baptism is purely an outward symbol, then it was not in accordance with the Catholic catechism and what they RCC has taught for 1500 years

On works, I don't right off where that is in the catechism but again, check in the thread down the dial. I have been well educated by the RCC's about what they believe.

 

Did Jesus not say something to the effect of whoever is without sin cast the first stone?

Did Jesus (or was it Paul) who also said to leave the other groups alone as long as they are preaching Christ's gospel, they are either for us or against us.

Now, let me make the final argument: Billy Graham has been diagnosed with Parkinson's and my mother and ex-pastor have both had this terrible, terrible disease. It directly effects the brain and IT WILL cause changes in the character of a person to the point very similar to Alzheimer's, but somewhat different. I have noticed that Billy Graham's biggest compromises have occurred since he has been diagnosed. Maybe we need to try to be a little understanding with a man who has "tried" to do what is right and who will no doubt get more crowns in heaven than I will!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Folks, this has been hashed out in other threads where documented proof has been given of Graham's denial or compromise of biblical doctrine. While it is wonderful that he has been used to bring many people to the Lord (though perhaps not as many as one might think), that does not excuse the issue. The issue is his fidelity and obedience to biblical truth and he has compromised on that many times. We, by nature, are pragmatic and pretend that its okay so long as people are getting saved. It is not okay. We are commanded to separate from false teachers and disobedient brethren. We should not let personalities or personal affinities get in the way of biblical thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since I do not wish to appear going against my friend, and brother in Christ, and use this thread as a tennis court of personal observations about Billy Graham, my I offer the following Bible verse as a final point of arbitration:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils (demons) in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. Mark 9:38-40<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Two concluding observations (on my part):

First to Philip, the changes date back as you can see from the articles cited to the 60s, the compromise with unbelievers to the 50s. This is not recent. I sympathize with Parkinson's sufferers and was saddened at the recent "Prayer Service" at the National Cathedral to see Graham stumble on his way up the steps to the podium. I do not sympathize with rejection and compromise of truth however and that is the issue here.

To Barnabas, I appreciate your spirit and testimony on this board. However, I must say to you as well, that the verse you cite has nothing to do with this issue. This is an issue of obedience and the epistles are clear on this matter. We are to confront them, expose them, mark them,and separate from them. I cannot, for the life of me, see where there is any room for debate on this. I know there is; I just don't know why.

Remember people, the results are not the issue; the motives are not the issue; the obedience is the issue. God wants obedience, not sacrifice.

For those interested, let me recommend the following reading:

Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation and The Tragedy of Compromise.
Fred Moritz, Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation.

 

The Apostle Paul would not probably fit in too well with many today.

1CO 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. [20] To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. [21] To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. [22] To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. [23] I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

The gifting of an evangelist is different. The goal is to get people saved. To preach the good news to whoever, whenever.

I don't think Billy Graham fits the mold of most conservatives. I don't know of many conservatives that are winning the lost like Billy Graham.

And you can hear the drone and the whine of the complainers: "How do we know they are really saved? All we can see if what our eyes tell us. We know God looks on the heart, but we can't see that. We are men and can only see outward appearances. We are not God, but we can be like Him as judges. Let's do our best to judge according to what our eyes tell us."

I am glad that I will stand before the Righteous Judge on that Day. Each one of us will get the opportunity to see what really mattered to the Lord Jesus.

There just might be a few surprises.

 

My humble and final observation on this subject is that among Indendent Baptists the word separation is very dominant. I am afraid that if it were left to us even the very heaves would be separated and we would place believers into different compartments. As for me, I am glad that I am saved! As for the rest of you, I have my doubt. But thank be to God, I am not the one to judge who is saved and who is not.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Barnabas ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barnabas:
My humble and final observation on this subject is that among Indendent Baptists the word separation is very dominant. I am afraid that if it were left to us even the very heaves would be separated and we would place believers into different compartments. As for me, I am glad that I am saved! As for the rest of you, I have my doubt. But thank be to God, I am not the one to judge who is saved and who is not.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Barnabas ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN BROTHER!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Luke 9:49-50
"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

 

Since everyone is quoting Scripture, I will join in:

Rom 16:17-18 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

2 John 9-11 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

 

Good Bible verses, but none of them fit the subject at hand. We are not talking about secondary separation, are we?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barnabas:
Good Bible verses, but none of them fit the subject at hand. We are not talking about secondary separation, are we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is secondary separation?? I don't believe in it. I think you separate from two kinds of people ecclesiastically speaking: You separate from unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-7:1) and you separate from disobedient brothers (above listed verses). Separation is separation and all the above verses have to do with the topic at hand.

I know how secondary separation was coined and how it is used. It is an unfortunate misnomer used by some to color others as hyper separatists. I don't use the term because of that reason.

Graham failed to separate from unbelievers and disobedient brothers. That puts him in the category of disobedient (although some comments cause much greater concern than that). We separate from Graham, not because of who he runs with, but because of his lack of obedience to Scripture. He, according to Scripture, has caused divisions contrary to the truth which we have learned; he is therefore to be marked and separated from. Graham did not consider accursed those who preach a different gospel. He has not obeyed the Word of God in Scripture regarding these issues. He is therefore to be separated from. In the end, separation is not about Graham (or whoever the person may be); it is about our own devotion to the truth. When we love the truth, we separate from those who compromise it.

 

Well said! So let me ask you, since you have judged Graham in that way, do you consider him a saved man or judge him condemned?

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Barnabas ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barnabas:
Well said! So let me ak you, since you have judged Graham in that way, do you consider him a saved man or judge him condemned?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, let me say that I have not judged his spiritual condition. I have only tried to make an assessment of his outward actions which can clearly be seen. It is those that give cause for concern.

To answer your question honestly, ... I don't know. For a long time, I said he was simply disobedient. He was a close friend of Bob Jones Sr in the early years of his ministry and exhibited a great heart and way with people. Even after he left BJU, he and Jones Sr stayed in contact and I believe Jones Jr preached for him at a crusade once upon a time. In time, he began to seek the bigger crowds and compromise his associations as outlined above. He was confronted on numerous occasions and urged to return but his mind was made up.

However, in recent years, comments that he has made regarding knowledge of Jesus Christ as not being necessary for salvation have caused great concern. He has said that Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, etc. may be going to heaven which belies a definite cheapening of the gospel and perhaps even a tacit preaching of another gospel. It gives me great cause for concern. I hope perhaps he has failed to clearly delineate his views. However, his comments seem to clear for that.

I must admit that I no longer spend a lot of time following him and what he says. I have a number of things in my files from various publications and interviews with him. I leave it at that. I have too much to do to spend a lot of time researching it. I will say that every report I have seen confirms Graham to be a man of impeccable integrity in both morality and finances.

 

Thanks for your candid answer Bro. Larry. Just for the record, I have questioned some of the printed accusations against Dr. Graham and got answers to the contrary. I have yet to hear Graham preach from the pulpit that there is another way to go to heaven. His messages have not changed since he began his ministry. It is simple, to the point, and always the same. He advocate the only way to be saved, and that is through Jesus!

Now I have also some inside information, of which I am not at liberty to post in an open forum. The East European advisor of Billy Graham was a personal friend of mine. He went to be with the Lord a few years back, but we talked with him about these problems. He knew Dr. Graham intimately, being a former Dean of the Baptist Theological Seminary in Budapest, Hungary, but did not see any deviation from his doctrine (based on the many crusade preachings and not according to the Larry King Alive show).

I understand from your post above that you have records in your possession to the contrary. I respect that, but at this point I'd like to suggest that the Lord knows all this thing and He is the one who will make the final judgment. And all that which is chaff He will burn in the fire and only the precious gold will remain. Trust that you'll concur!

 

I have admired B G for many years, but during the Clinton administration he made some comments that, while not anti-biblical, disturbed me, coming from one that I'd considered so BASIC in Christ!

It was during one of the many Clinton sex scandals. I don't remember the exact quote, but the gist of it was this: "I can certainly understand the girls attraction to Mr. Clinton! After all he is very attractive to the opposite sex."

What I read from this attitude was that Clinton may have been a bit "naughty", but as sexy as he is, you can't expect him to always be able to "JUST SAY NO".
I have no idea that this was what Mr Graham meant, but I could not come up with anything remotely different from the statement!
If anybody else remembers this incident and has other views, I sure would appreciate your input.

I've always noticed that B. G. was the only big name in Christianity that the media could never find ANYTHING to slap him around with. For that reason I've always been skeptical of "he said she said" reports about him.

However, he is human, and I guess that he could fall into the trap of greed, pride, power etc just like so many before him.