billy graham

Curtis,

I stnad by the "fundy crakc". Why? becuase you have only posted "eviodence" that Graham is not behaving like a fundamentalist. You have not shown true apostasy. Graham is being "charged" with not toeing the fundy line on some issues. So the "crack" is relevant.

I say that you must do more than show that Graham is not a fundamentalist if you want to accuse him of apostasy. You must show that the fundamentalist answer in this case is the right one, the biblical one.

So the "crack" is not meant to belittle,but simply to point out what should be obvious. I apologise if it came across the wrong way.

Neverhteless I must point out that the standard of apostsy being used here, implicitly assumed, is not biblical, and so Graham is not an apostate, nor has he betrayed the gsopel. He has simply not behaved like a fundamentalist. Those two are NOT the same thing unless it can be so demonstrated. You can't assume it. But the assumption is htere, implicit. You may not like that I challenge it. You dont' have to think about it if you don't want to.

I have read this nonsense before. I don't feel it necessary to re-read it all. If there is something particularly relevant that you think is new, that I may not know, I'll be happy to look at it if you'll be so good as to point it out.

 

Those quotes have been discussed ad nauseam. They are all about context. The effort to categorize Graham's theology based upon a few sporadic comments made to secular magazines is similar to identifying the NT teaching on faith & works by reading exclusively from James.

If you want to understand what BG believes about the gospel, read his books on the subject matter and listen to his sermons. Don't categorize him based upon a few comments made in an exclusive context. He is a man who has been greatly used by God. We can only pray God uses us a small portion of how greatly He has used BG.

 

God has truly blessed his ministry. Thousands, perhaps millions have been saved thru his ministry. I won't argue that.

But in his later years, he compromised. The facts are there. His own words are his worst enemy.

Please point to me the "ad nauseum" discussion about Circuit Rider's posts, as I cannot find them.

 

My friends, I take Dr. Graham for what he is and has been since 1947, an evangelist. He was never known as a theologian, nor a great apologist for the great doctrines, but simply an evangelist. The post campaign duties were always left to the counsellors and the follow up churches.

Over the years, I never heard him offer a gospel different to what I would preach; the Lord Jesus Christ,,,,,,the way, the truth and the life...

I never like the platform presence, but this was the price one pays for such widespread evangelistic meetings,,,,where whole cities are involved.

With regard to some seekers being encouraged beforehand, what church hasn't had a loved one or friend walk the aisle with a friend, a seeker?

In his twilight years, I find it very difficult to be personal and critical about Dr. Graham. I appreciate what some are saying about the organization, and I probably agree with some of it, but still, I would rather remember Graham as one who loved, beyond anything, his Lord and Saviour, and when he enters into eternal rest, the declaration will be, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

Cheers,

Jim

[ December 12, 2002, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

That's correct. I re-state that I do not hate the man. I am just telling folks to be cautious.

It was an old Billy Graham sermon that got me on my knees.

My Dad still supports him.

There are fundy preachers out there who need to be avoided.

I am not judging his salvation, or anyone who listens to him.

Praise God for those saved under his ministry.

I respect the man for his morals, his family, his travels, and his willingness to take criticism.

 

I wasn't necessarily referring to BB discussions (although the subject has been addressed extensively in recent months). These quotes are quite commonplace in the BG discussion. Nothing new. Again, it is about context.

I can agree that some of BG's affiliations can be questioned and statements he has made in certain unifying contexts create concern among some fundies, but overall, I respect the man and his ministry.

It is extremely difficult to criticize someone God has used in such a tremendous manner.

And if someone is contemplating it, save the "if it is about numbers, the mormons must be right" arguments for those who are a little more naive in their reasoning.

 

Billy Graham apostate?

This is a strange, strange place.

Joshua

 

Gettin stranger all the time, Joshua.

SBCbyGRACE, it seems after the fireworks, we are finding common ground.

I do like a lively discussion first thing in the A.M.

When it comes right down to it, I will be more worried about facing God myself, and what I have done down here. I will never deny great works have been done by God thru this man.

 

A person committed to Scripture cannot seriously question whether or not Graham has compromised the gospel. When a man asserts that the RCC is evangelical and teaches salvation scripturally, he has compromised the gospel, if not apostatized. When a man teaches that there is something that happens at infant baptism (besides getting the baby wet), he has compromised the gospel. When a man asserts that there may be salvation apart from the conscious knowledge of Jesus Christ, salvation even in the conscious rejection of Christ (as he has done with the Jews), he has compromised the gospel, if not apostatized.

We need to get past the personality cult that infects the Christianity. Certain people have accused the fundamentalists as being too driven by personalities, such as Jack Hyles, Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell. In fact, Joshus just brought some of these names up the other day. But it is also true that we need to get past the personality cult of Graham. He has changed his doctrine and that is compromise, his message from the pulpit not withstanding. When you send people back to unbiblical churches, such as the RCC, you have compromised. Graham as done this for more than 40 years.

This is not an attack on him or on his integrity. However, we need to get past his fame and look at his doctrine. This is a matter of truth. These statements quoted are documented in public places and many more could be quoted to demonstrate that these are not isolated. To claim he is an evangelist not a theologian is not sufficient. Those who teach will be judged by a higher standard (James 3:1). He is responsible for what he has said. It is a sad day when this type of teaching is accepted as uncompromised. Let us return to Scripture rather than personalities.

 

What PL is actually saying ... "unless you believe exactly as I do, you cannot be committed to the Bible (or else you would believe what I believe)."

Stop the redundant circle

Hate to disappoint you but everyone does not have to fit in your box in order to be committed to Scripture.

 

That's not what he said at all, don't change what he said just so you can berate him. This has turned into a good discussion, lets keep it like that.

Answer his post the way he wrote it, or don't answer it.

BB Mod Squad.

 

Sorry. Perhaps this paraphrase is more accurate: "If you suggest BG has not compromised the gospel, you are not committed to Scripture."

Is that better?

The circle rolls on

 

A great answer is to tell us how he hasn't compromised, and why what he has said isn't wrong.

Respect the man or not, those comments that have been posted here are serious. Answer those. Tell us what he really said. Tell us how saying it doesn't hurt the gospel. Prove he's lying. Post up some sort of rebuttal, don't sink to childish remarks.

 

I think what I said stands for itself and in no way resembles what you have said. Your second attempt was much better and reflects the actual state of reality when the emotions are separated from it. BG says one thing; Scripture says another. With whom with you side?

The points I brought up are not minor points of interpretation. They are points of compromise to the gospel as revealed in Scripture. It is not about "my box." It is about what Scripture says. I would like to think that Graham misspoke or was misunderstood. However, he has never repudiated or clarified his comments. In fact, he has reiterated them on numerous occasions.

Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is not some minor doctrine. Let us not pretend like it is.

On the other hand, why don't you defend these comments from Scripture rather than from emotion?

[ December 12, 2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

To know BG's biographical journey and to suggest that he is a man who is not committed to Scripture is not even worthy of a rebuttal.

BG believes Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. Enough said.

Again, I do not endorse everything BG has said. He has suggested some things in certain contexts that raises the ire of the fundies. His agenda and method sometimes dictate his words. You have every right to disagree with him when that happens. But to suggest that he is not committed to the Bible is a serious accusation against a man upon whom God's hand rests and who has based his ministry upon the Word of God.

 

BG says one thing; Scripture says another. With whom with you side?

From you point of view. From other peoples' points of view, he's not violating scripture. If it were that clearcut, it would be a nonissue. There's probably not a single publicly religious Christian figure that hasn't been criticized by his/her own kind (other Christians). Often, we can be our own worst critics. I can't tell you how many times I've literally heard people espouse the attitude of "Yeah, he's doing Christian work, but he's not doing it good enough".

 

Now this is more like it. Please, carry on.