Did Billy Graham do More Harm Than Good to the Church?

[Reynolds]

I think that he expressed what he always believed. If given enough time to speak the true thoughts of a man will come out.

You obviously didn't watch the video.
Later in his life, Billy Grahams heart for sinners became obvious. He wanted to see as many people in heaven and as few people in Hell as possible. As my link confirms, he never compromised his message of salvation. He sincerely hoped Gods mercy is broader than we understand it but he never changed his message of The Cross.

Watched my link yet?

 

[thatbrian]

You obviously didn't watch the video.
Later in his life, Billy Grahams heart for sinners became obvious. He wanted to see as many people in heaven and as few people in Hell as possible. As my link confirms, he never compromised his message of salvation. He sincerely hoped Gods mercy is broader than we understand it. He never changed his message of The Cross.

Watched my link yet.

Billy believed in decisionalism, not Christianity.

 

[Reynolds]

You watched the link yet?
Billy was not a Calvinist. You saying non Calvinists are not Christians? Say what you mean. Quit beating around the Bush. You have already said Graham was not a Christian. Are all Non-Cals lost?

Billy believed in decisionalism, not Christianity.

 

[thatbrian]

You watched the link yet?
Billy was not a Calvinist. You saying non Calvinists are not Christians? Say what you mean. Quit beating around the Bush. You have already said Graham was not a Christian.

Most Non-Cavinists are just ignorant (not a bad word) Christians, but they are Christians. However, Billy has a false gospel on his lips in that clip. That's another story.

 

[Reynolds]

Non-Cavinists are just ignorant (not a bad word) Christians, but they are Christians.

How? They would believe in "decisionalism not Christianity."

 

[thatbrian]

How? They would believe in "decisionalism not Christianity."

Some do, but most know that God saved them.

 

[Reynolds]

Some do, but most know that God saved them.

You watch my link? Graham obviously knew who saved him.

 

[Reynolds]

Most Non-Cavinists are just ignorant (not a bad word) Christians, but they are Christians. However, Billy has a false gospel on his lips in that clip. That's another story.

Again. Did you watch the link I provided?

 

[JonC]

Yes. Amen. I agree. God uses flawed men to do His work. But, does He use ones who proclaim a false gospel in such a manner?

I never listened to him. There are some who believe Edwards offered a false gospel (some Calvinist as well because he departed from their view), and of course many take issue with Finney.

I did read one of his books long ago. It wasn't my cup of tea, but he did present the gospel clearly.

All I can do is be thankful and praise God so many have been reached through his ministry (to include some of my family members) with the gospel regardless of any error Graham may have taught.

So I guess the answer is "yes", God does use people regardless of theological error. I even know some who were saved through the ministry of the RCC (although all but one left the RCC shortly afterwards).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

When Did Graham's Compromise Begin?

 

[HankD]

I agree with whoever said we should leave Grahams judgement/reward to God.

 

[thatbrian]

I agree with whoever said we should leave Grahams judgement/reward to God.

There are more than one kind of judgement.

 

[church mouse guy]

When Did Graham's Compromise Begin?

I don't believe that Graham was syncretistic in any matter unless it was for associating generally with many others who were not SBC. I think that Graham stayed true to his doctrinal beliefs.

Camp Chesterfield near Indianapolis is a major spiritualist/spiritism installation and they picketed Graham on his last crusade in Indianapolis in 1999, which astonished me. No one can please the world.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The praise of Billy Graham indicates something that is think is a serious problem in Christianity : pragmatism. The fact that he won people to Christ does not mean that he did do a lot of harm to the cause of Christ. Who knows how many people were confused and mislead by his intimate association with apostate and his heretical statements, some of which have been posted already.

And while yes Jesus ate with publicans and sinners, he did not however yoke together with Pharisees and Sadducees or send them into the cities to preach alongside his disciples. Shame on anyone who uses the example of Jesus to defend Billy Graham’s compromises.

 

[thatbrian]

The praise of Billy Graham indicates something that is think is a serious problem in Christianity : pragmatism. The fact that he won people to Christ does not mean that he did do a lot of harm to the cause of Christ. Who knows how many people were confused and mislead by his intimate association with apostate and his heretical statements, some of which have been posted already.

And while yes Jesus ate with publicans and sinners, he did not however yoke together with Pharisees and Sadducees or send them into the cities to preach alongside his disciples. Shame on anyone who uses the example of Jesus to defend Billy Graham’s compromises.

You raise a good point regarding the confusion that Graham created. He distorted both gospel and Christianity, and because of his reach, that likely confused millions.

I would argue that he "inoculated" people against Christianity. His handy work had millions convinced they were Christians because the walked up front at some event, so they were immune to all future efforts to present the gospel to them.

 

[HankD]

There are more than one kind of judgement.

Please give a little respect for the dead Brian.

Wait a few days before condemnation of the man.

 

[HankD]

How could Billy Graham kept anyone out of the heaven if the doctrine of election is true?

 

[rlvaughn]

One thing that comes up almost immediately in such a discussion is Calvinism. I can testify that I heard opposition to Billy Graham from missionary Baptists who also opposed Calvinism, long before I had ever seen a Baptist Calvinist. These folks thought Graham's message was weak (not heretical), his methods (decoys, repeat-after-me prayers, etc.) were misguided, and his alliances were ecumenical (and all of this long before his Robert Schuller interview, at which time, btw, he was 79 years old).

All this just to say that opposition to Billy Graham was not merely a Pro-Calvinism versus Anti-Calvinism divide.

 

[HankD]

One thing that comes up almost immediately in such a discussion is Calvinism. I can testify that I heard opposition to Billy Graham from missionary Baptists who also opposed Calvinism, long before I had ever seen a Baptist Calvinist. These folks thought Graham's message was weak (not heretical), his methods (decoys, repeat-after-me prayers, etc.) were misguided, and his alliances were ecumenical (and all of this long before his Robert Schuller interview, at which time, btw, he was 79 years old).

All this just to say that opposition to Billy Graham was not merely a Pro-Calvinism versus Anti-Calvinism divide.

I have also had some misgivings about some of the strategies but I still think it is a little ghoulish to go after the man before he is even buried.

 

[loDebar]

He was the public picture of large local churches that were involved in the crusade long before the meetings, The local believers were leading the decision makers to Christ on the floor while he was on the podium., He was asking for decisions, to come forward, which is most difficult. The local leaders were to continue discipleship for these new believers when the crusade was over.

It was the same as the "tent meetings" just larger.

There is a mission state at their site,