Dr. Graham answered my letter

That's wonderful. That doesn't suprise me, I've only heard him preach the gospel. And John 14:6 is one of my favorite verses and something I tell people all the time when they tell me all roads(or gods) lead to heaven.

 

What did you expect?

The fact remains that Graham, for more than thirty years, has said things that open the door to other ways of salvation, including baptismal regeneration of infants. For more than 40 years, Graham has sent the responders to his messages back to churches like the Roman Catholic Church. For more than 50 years, Graham has accepted the sponsorship and cooperation of men who deny the very fundamentals of the gospel.

These are documented facts that create serious problems for Graham. The fact that he claims to preach salvation through Christ alone is expected, and is probably true. But the fact that in interviews and conversations out of the pulpit he has allowed for the salvation of those who do not believe in Christ and follow Christ is at the very least troubling and shows a great lack of discernment and judgment. What you say out of the pulpit, and what you do not say, is just as important as what you do say. We must not overlook these things in our efforts to applaud Graham's commitment and integrity. Doctrine does matter. When God gave us his word, it included more than "salvation through Christ." We must not now make it include less, or pretend like the rest of it doesn't matter.

Obedience is always better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams.

 

That is great.

Pastor Larry's fundamentals of the gospel?

I think his approach to this issue shows great discernment and judgement.

 

That is great.</font>[/QUOTE]It is not great to send converts back to an apostate church that has rejected the doctrine given to the church by Christ.

Pastor Larry's fundamentals of the gospel?[/quote][/qb]No, of course not. I don't have any fundamentals. They are the fundamentals of God's word revealed to us, such as teh virgin birth, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

I think his approach to this issue shows great discernment and judgement. [/QB][/QUOTE]YOu think wrong then. It is not great discernment and judgment to waffle on what God has said. There is no question about the fate of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, or those who do not hear about Christ. God has given clear revelation about what their end is. When Graham said something different than God said, Graham compromised. He had a wonderful opportunity to say "I love them enough to tell them they need to come to Jesus Christ for forgiveness." But he didn't. And that is not discernment or judgment. It is compromise.

And we need to say that lovingly, just as I have. There is no need to be ugly about it. There is no need to engage in personal attacks. We need to love God and man enough to state the truth, even when it is unpopular.

 

Sounds like Steve Brown.

He lives in Orlando, pastors a church in Atlanta (says he preaches there every week), and heads a ministry based in Homestead.

 

Yeh Larry, but the fact is, that there are many on this Board who will think that you and the other Calvinists are also into heresy, since your way of salvation is NOT what the Bible teaches.

 

You know my position on this. I disagree that this applies to the RCC any more than it applies to Baptists.

All of those BG co-operates with believes in the virgin birth as well as salvation by grace through faith in Christ as far as I know. Which do not believe in the virgin birth?

BG chose to say things the way he chose to say them. I respect him for not being bullied to give the formulaic responses that he knows certain Christians groups want him to say. His words are not spoken for the approval of the healthy, but to bring the sick to Christ.

 

TS,
Could we see a copy of the email message you sent the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association???

The response sounds like a typical public relations response from an association that wants to respond in a favorable way without really answering the question. Knowing what was asked of them might help explain the response you got back.

I also question your thread title as it was not Dr. Graham who answered your email but his spokes person who answered FOR him.

Additionally, why blot out the person's name who provided the response back to you???

 

You know my position on this. I disagree that this applies to the RCC any more than it applies to Baptists.</font>[/QUOTE]Your position is biblically incorrect. The RCC is apostate, having left key doctrines of hte Christian faith 1500 years ago.

All of those BG co-operates with believes in the virgin birth as well as salvation by grace through faith in Christ as far as I know. Which do not believe in the virgin birth?</font>[/QUOTE]Going back to the 50s, he has been associated with the NCC and WCC, liberal theological organizations made up largely if not primarily of people who deny the fundamentals, such as the virgin birth.

As a side note, it never ceases to amaze me how many people have such dogmatic stands on issues and then reveal that they no little if anything about the issue.

It is either apostasy or ignorance to suggest that Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc might get into heaven without personal faith in Jesus Christ. Your respect for him is based on his political correctness, not his stand for God's word. He will bring no sick to Christ while he suggests that people might get to heaven without Christ.

Where is the love for God and man when we allow this type of teaching to go unconfronted, and pretend that because Graham is "such a great man who has preached to so many with such great results" he gets a free pass on doctrinal aberrance? When Scripture speaks to an issue, we should not try to be politically correct under the guise of "bringing the sick to Christ." Let's expect more from people who claim to preach the gospel.

 

Our position on salvation is well within the mainstream of historical orthodox Christianity. People who think we are into heresy either don't know what heresy is, or don't know the Bible. We have acquitted our doctrine quite well from Scripture, as you have well experienced in your many attempts. But don't sidetrack this to get on your pet issue. Save that for its proper place.

 

While the NCC and WCC do have theologically liberal churches and members who may deny the virgin birth in them, denial of the virgin birth is not a defining statement for either group and I would say there are way more members in both groups that would affirm the virgin birth than those that deny it. Just because some liberal Christians deny the virgin birth doesn't mean all of them do.

 

But the fact I pointed out is that the sponsors of Graham's crusades all the way back to the 50s have included those who deny these basic doctrines. And I highly doubt that there are "way more members" in both of those groups who would affirm that. I think you need to do some research on this issue.

 

My wife's grand-dad is 88yrs.old He has been a baptist preacher for 68 years. He remembers BG from day one of his public ministry. He also remembers the struggle between modernism and the fundamentalist from almost the beginning.

As a pastor in the Pittsburgh area back in the late 50's he went to all the meetings preceeding
BG's Pittsburgh area crusade. This was right before he went to New York for his crusades there. It might have been very early 60's. At any rate this was before BG started incorporating a ecumenical flavor into his crusades.

He stood there that day before all those pastors and boldy proclaimed "I'll never have a modernist on my platform" Not long after that he welcomed the WCC, Roman Catholics and other ecumenical groups to participate in his ministry.

I said that to say this. My grandfather in law said something pretty interesing. He said you know "Billy Graham packed stadiums before he ever went ecumenical". "The modernist needed him BG. He didn't need them".
Its his opinion that BG was used of God these many years because the message BG has preached all these years has been "The Gospel".
However: he also thinks that BG will have to give account for all his associations with those who really don't proclaim the Gospel. RC's etc...
I think that is a fair assumption. This is coming from an old "fightin fundamentalist". Dont' be scared by the terminology. If you ever studied what the preachers were up against in the 20's to 50's you would stand up and fight as well.

I have always thought BG preached the plain Gospel yet he has made poor choices with whom He cares to be associated with. Just my two cents.

 

KJ, try reading the 7 page thread here about Billy Graham. I did and that explains alot. I especially liked the last page, but that's just me.

 

Not true. I was a counselor at a BGEA crusade in DFW several years ago. To be a counselor, we had to go through an extensive 4-week (I think) training session about how to share Christ with any who came forward. During the invitation, the counselors were paired up with those who came forward. We talked with them, answered questions they may have had, and shared the gospel with them. THEN we gave them literature to take home and read.

CJ