billy graham

Hum, sounds like Billy Graham might be a closet Primitive Baptist.

Seriously though, I wouldn't agree with a lot of what he has said or done, but I believe he has done what he felt in his heart to be the right thing, and I won't condemn him for that.

I never met the man, but my uncle who was a Southern Baptist minister knew him fairly well years ago, (Uncle Paul died 21 years ago). and brought a good account of him.

 

Rev G:
As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with BG when he makes such statements. Yet I have read enough of your posts to know that you realize the type of hybrid-form of anonymous Christianity BG is implying here. I categorically disagree with him on this issue, but his suggestion still does not operate outside of the sacrifice of Calvary.

Since this discussion appears to be winding down, I will say once again that I do not espouse all of BG's "theology" or methods, but I do recognize he is a man God has used in a mighty way and for that reason alone, I must acknowledge that God works in methods outside of my own preferences.

What an awesome God we serve

 

Just a few closing comments.

And my point is that he said in numerous contexts, with differents audiences, reported by different sources. In all of this, the message has been the same. I think your argument falls.

I agree it can be the sign that God is at work, but it always is not. Yet you use the argument you detest by arguing "the facts of those who have been converted." I think the point of Scripture is that obedience is still better than sacrifice. If he does not hold to biblical doctrine, as he himself has demonstrated through his own words, then there is a problem. Don't lose sight of that in the midst of "those who have been converted."

That is not the issue here. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The issue is, Has BG compromised the gospel? To any objective reader of his own words, he clearly has.

But you have seen the quotes. How can you deny that he said what he said?? The words themselves convey what he means and he has never repudiated or corrected it. He has in fact enlarged and confirmed it through subsequent interviews.

The whole issue with BG comes down to a simple fact that people are unwilling to use the Scripture as the standard for truth and association. BG abandoned it long ago, against the advice of some of those whom he respected the most. Now some are following in his own steps. Yet we must return to the teaching of Scripture and separate and expose those who contradict it or disobey it.

 

I worked in two of his crusades and was sadly disappointed. The plants (counsellors) are instructed to get the people moving. They even said they wanted the cameras to catch it. I read the quotes concerning the pope and BG endorsement of the rcc, six ways to heaven, etc. I became very discouraged. His daughter Ann Lotz and even Franklin are more conservative. I try to attribute it to his becoming elderly, etc. I appreciate what the Lord has done through him but I'm no longer in the personality/fame cult. Our country is entirely too much into name chasing. The follow through for his crusades is disappointing as well. Whatever the Lord does he does in spite of us anyway. Anything that we can give Him, He has already given us! I've known of men that were saved in a bar, but does that mean we need to send everybody to them? Where ever and how ever God saves is OK with me, but we do have an accountability to the truth and to His Word, no matter what what our name is.

 

Let's get something clear here:

BGs statements to Schuller are eivdene of a belief in inclusivism. But inclusivism is still based in the uniqueness of Christ and His person. It is still an afirmation of Sola Fide. It is not universalism. And it is, like it or not, a legitmately evangelical position. I don't hold to it myself, but I realise that it is NOT a "liberal" position since th eopsition does NOT rest on theologically liberal assumptions or methds of interpretation.

I suggest a read of "Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World" from Zondervan's "Counterpoints" series is in order.

To me this is again evidence that people are not saying that BG has compromised the Gospel or foresaken the Bible, but rather that BG has dared to disagree with some folks who have forgotten how to disagre charitably as well as their owen fallibility in interpretation.