Dr. Graham answered my letter

Apples and oranges, if you study what the synagogues were like.

Obedience is always bigger. You seem, like others, to have fallen prey to the size of ministry measurement. You don't think it could have been bigger because you judge by size rather than obedience. Scripture never makes that the test.

I am not recommending anyone be like Falwell.

As you should know from what I Have written, I am not recommending anyone "drive people" (whatever that means). We must share the gospel in love and faithfulness. But we must be obedient.

 

Apples and oranges, if you study what the synagogues were like.

Obedience is always bigger. You seem, like others, to have fallen prey to the size of ministry measurement. You don't think it could have been bigger because you judge by size rather than obedience. Scripture never makes that the test.

I am not recommending anyone be like Falwell.

As you should know from what I Have written, I am not recommending anyone "drive people" (whatever that means). We must share the gospel in love and faithfulness. But we must be obedient.

PErhaps the bigger question is "Where actually are they." The BBU was the subject of the downgrade controversy, was it not? I don't think any of those organizations are particularly known for their faithfulness to the truth of God's word. Perhaps, had the evangelicals just up and left, those organization would have ceased to exist. And faithful ones could have taken their places. But when the evangelicals support liberalism and compromise, they lend their weight to their enemies. When Graham had Pike pray (and many others since then of similar vein) he was lending his stature and authority to the ministry of an infidel. And people come along and say, "So and so must be alright because I saw him on with Graham." You see, we send messages by what we do and what we tolerate. What you tolerate is what you will get.

But this is not the test. The test is faithfulness. To say, "If I didn't compromise I couldn't have preached," shows a misguided focus. The focus is always on doing right. And if that limits the crowd, then it does.

 

Apples and oranges, if you study what the synagogues were like.
</font>[/QUOTE]The synagogues were full of religious non-believrs and they didn't believe Jesus. 'A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.' "And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief." I don't get your point. So what's the difference?

 

But this is not the test. The test is faithfulness. To say, "If I didn't compromise I couldn't have preached," shows a misguided focus. The focus is always on doing right. And if that limits the crowd, then it does.

Doing what is right is not the focus. Faith in Christ is the focus (Heb. 11:6). Some claim to have small crowds because they are “so holy”. Ever seen a humble man claim holiness? I would contend they are so arrogant that God is not using them. But rather Satan is using their cesspools of filth. Most of the time arrogance limits crowds.

You are wrong. I have had people in Bible studies I have led who did become Christians in the Catholic Church. One Catholic Church I know gives an invitation for people to receive Christ. In fact they are doing evangelism. A few years ago my mother who is still in the RCC became a Christian and in recent years she went to a conference on how to witness.

I am 51 and have never had anyone from any hyperfundamentalist church knock on my door.

Doesn’t fruit tell what the vine is connected to?

 

The difference is sponsorship. Christ was not speaking with the invitation and approval of apostates. Graham is. I have no problem speaking to non-believer who are religious. They need to be spoken to. But not under the sponsorship and cooperation of apostates from whom God has commanded us to separate.

But this is not the test. The test is faithfulness. To say, "If I didn't compromise I couldn't have preached," shows a misguided focus. The focus is always on doing right. And if that limits the crowd, then it does.

How can you be faithful to Christ without doing right? You can't. You have set up a false dichotomy. Christ has called us to do right, to be faithful and leave the result to him.

I tend to agree, but would caution that we can't judge a man's faithfulness by the size of his crowds. Jesus didn't end up too well when he died. There was only two with him and one of them was a long ways away the Bible tells us.

First, what they mean by "recieve Christ" is entirely different than what the Bible means by that. Second, there are people in the RCC who are saved, but it is in spite of their doctrine and not because of it.

So????

Sure, but the "fruit" of Graham's crusades has to be measured in biblical terms, not in other terms. To say that Graham has preached to 210 million people is irrelevant in this discussion. My point is that a lot of people can draw a crowd and get a response. That is not "fruit." Those are results, but they are not fruit. The Detroit Lions can routinely draw 60-70 thousand people on a Sunday, and they probably have more praying going on there than most churches do. But no one would accuse them of having God's blessing because they can draw a big crowd. Crowds are not always the evidence of God's blessing. Nor are salvation decisions. Remember, God used a donkey to get his work done. And he uses us, who are sometimes worse than donkeys because we make bad decisions when we know better. Truth and obedience must be judged by Scripture alone.

 

The difference is sponsorship. Christ was not speaking with the invitation and approval of apostates. Graham is. I have no problem speaking to non-believer who are religious. They need to be spoken to. But not under the sponsorship and cooperation of apostates from whom God has commanded us to separate.</font>[/QUOTE]If apostates invite and approve of a "true teacher", he should not preach there, but if they disapprove and don't invite him, he should. From where do you get such doctrine?

[ June 28, 2005, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

It should have said driven away Larry.

Throughout the book Of Acts It gives #'s of the people saved. 3,000 on the day of pentacost etc.


Billy Graham has led literly thousands upon thousands to the gates of Heaven. God annointed him and blessed his ministry. You can not overlook that. To do so would be foolish. You talk about a person's shortcomings, I like to notice their strengths. We can run a man's ministry thru the mud but at the end of the day Billy Graham has more of an impact in the world over the last 100 years for Christ than anyone else. He preaches Jesus is the only way to heaven. I have never heard him preach a false gospel.

His ministry has stood the test of time and people want to tarnish it. Noone is perfect and we all have made mistakes. We are quick to critize others. You disagree with some people involved in his crusades they are mot who I would have chosen either. To say God has not blessed Billy Graham someone has serious issues. The lives touched by the gospel is testimony enough.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

One can do right things and not be a believer. One can also do wrong things and be a believer. It happens all the time.

I don’t doubt that. If every person who claimed to hold perfect doctrine stepped forward we would only have liars who would step forward. Our doctrine is revealed in our obedience–and that is not prefect. I have met some RCC priests whom I believe are believers and are leading people to salvation in Christ.

So many of them claim to have the truth but are disobedient troublemakers. I simply find that those who are sharing their faith are seldom pointing the finger and causing trouble. They don’t have time for such nonsense. They have passion for the lost not spending time bad-mouthing others. Compare their sermons to Jesus’ preaching. How many times did Jesus ever condemn other religions such as Judaism, Gnosticism and Mithraism. He condemned the religionists. I see no mention of other religions. He simply presents the truth. The good news is not in picking apart other religions but in the gospel of Christ.

Just suppose the fundamentalists were right when they approached Graham. Do you think it is possible the fundamentalists Graham named as liars caused him to steer farther away from or closer to them?

I agree. Remember God is the judge not scripture. When I see him my Bible will not be there. God is the author of scripture. Scripture is not equal with God. God uses His word. God goes much deeper through the Holy Spirit. Have you heard BG’s response to the 210 million? He claims nothing for himself. I believe God has used him more because of his humility matching his message than any other single thing.

Decisions in churches do not always stick. That is the reason follow up is so vital.

My daughter when she was five came forward in a VBS. Then the church I pastored was involved in the BGEA at a crusade. She brought a friend and came forward with the friend making a decision. The last time I asked her about those times they are now meaningless. We have never written down any dates. We want her to live the Christian life, not live on a past decision. She knows she is a Christian. We read the Bible to her since she was born. She started sharing her faith well before she came forward in VBS. She has shared her faith for as long as I can remember. When she was only a few months old we took her visiting with us. When she came forward at the BGEA crusade they gave her some of the best materials I have ever seen for follow up. My wife led a group Bible study for teenage girls who had made decisions at the crusade. It is a man who was in the Navigators at the same time as me who now heads the follow up for BGEA. It was Dawson Trotman, the founder of the Navigators, who started the follow up program for the BGEA.

 

God sees fruit not dead wood.

All one has to do is to compare the fruit of both he and his critics. It is the fruit that is the result of the vine it is connected to.

 

I am willing to bet that you are a lot smarter than you are letting on here. I think you know exactly what I mean. This foolish type of argumentation is getting us nowhere. Focus on teh facts.

Yes, sponsorship is important. In Acts 16, Paul rebuked a demonic girl for telling the truth. Why? Because the source of the message is important. The sponsorship under which it comes is important.

Whether or not someone wants you to preach tells you a lot about your message. I will not invite someone to preach here who I think will contradict what I believe. So why would the Catholic church invite Graham? Do you really think they preach the same gospel? Why would hte liberal apostates invite Graham? Do you really think they believe the same thing? It seems to me that they invite precisely becuase he is no threat to their false teaching.

Jesus said, 2 John 1:10-11 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching (of Christ), do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. Graham in his "bringing them in and greeting them" participated in their evil deeds. This is a part of Scripture you don't like to talk about for some reason. You have yet to address even one of hte passages I have put forth about the biblical command for separation. Why? Why not address what Jesus said?

 

Pastor Larry,

Just to clarify a point; No, I have neither changed my views theologically nor changed my views on separation of the believer. What did change, was my willingness to accept that God can use the vessel less equipped in certain areas.

When I was a military chaplain in Korea, I did not choose the man who was lying on the battlefield dying. His religious views did not matter. I prayed with him and held his hand. I was just another chaplain. I did not compromise what I believed.

The same is true whe conducting a secular funeral because you happen to be an available clergy. What is the point in flogging a dead carcass? I want to be available to the survivors and I sure can't be there when I am flogging them.

As the destiny of the Baptist Union and Convention, they would like the United Church of Canada. The bastion of liberal theology in Canada and perhaps the largest church in Canada.

Both Baptist unions mentioned are dominated by sound evangelicals to-day. I prefer the approach....by all means, that I might win some.
I guess it is part of growing older. We either moderate in life or we become unbearable in attitude and demeanor.

With you, I do not measure success in numbers, but that was never my calling. My calling was to preach the word to all peoples of all ages in each succeeding generation that Christ can save....borrowing he words from a missionary song.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think it is because they can recognize a fellow brother in Christ and obey the command of Christ below better than some.

Sure they have their doctrinal problems, but so do we all.

 

And??

How do you know?

How do you know?

I am not, nor am I questioning either assertion above. I am questioning what standard you use to gain such knowledge. I think it if a faulty standard. The one thing Graham is right on is that he can't judge people's hearts. But you seem all too willing to pick up where he left off.

I actually have talked about both. You have not.

Then why did he say what he said to McCalls' Magazine in 1972, to Robert Schuller more recently, and countless times in between? Why does he say that the Catholic church preaches the same gospel he does? That doesn't add up. And somewhere, even the most simple among us need to recognize that.

Has it? I disagree. I think his ministry has, by and large, been a tremendous failure, based on his potential. There has not been a great national outpouring of righteousness. Cities have not turned back to God as they did in previous generation under evangelistic preaching. Certainly there has been good done, but let's not oversell it.

I don't think I said that, did I? I questioned the standard by which we judge blessing, and pointed out that God uses donkeys to do his work. To say that God approves of what Graham did is to ignore the revelation that God gave us on the matter. God already told us what he thinks of Graham's actions and words, and he told us so 19009 years before Graham did them. He knew what God said, and chose to do it anyway. How is that laudable?

 

I think it is because they can recognize a fellow brother in Christ and obey the command of Christ below better than some.</font>[/QUOTE]Why would the Catholic church believe Graham is a brother in Christ when Graham is supposed to be preaching teh biblical way of salvation? Why do we so easily ignore the realities of doctrinal differences? This is not a minor issue. This is a major issue, and people who believe what the Catholic church teaches are not our brothers in Christ.

And that love forbids us from allowing people to go on in false religion without being told the truth. Why do we not love people enough to do that?

 

I absolutely agree. And I think when all is said and done, there will be seen to be a lot more smoke than fire.

 

I agree absolutely on this, which was my point about donkeys. I rejoice in every soul saved under the ministry of Graham. But as Uzzah found out hte hard way, doing a good thing still requires obedience.

 

Not at all. Of course I don't believe those are false religions and neither does BG. My list of false religions probably would include many folks not on your list and exclude many folks on your list.

 

But whose list they are on doesn't matter. This is not a personal subjective matter. False religions are determined by their adherence to God's revelation in Scripture. By that standard, Romanism is a false religion. And love requires that we point it out. The fact that some don't believe it is all the more reason we need to point it out.