Franklin Graham Festival

The biggest problem with Graham is the ecumenical involvement with those who deny the gospel. He follows in the footsteps of his father, though not to the extreme his father did.

A local church would be better served with preaching and living the simplicity of hte gospel.

 

Do you care to identify the ecumenical groups "that deny the Gospel?"

 

A church I served several years ago helped in Tuscaloosa AL with one. I could not disagree more with your statements. The Gospel was presented with absolute, total clarity. Local evangelical churches followed up.

This doesn't replace the local church's outreach efforts, it augments it.

 

Good post and in the absence of the vague statement you quoted, I believe you are correct. The quote should have probably read "those who dont agree with me in my theology have denied the Gospel."

With all the difference of opinion in the forum, who are we talking about, other types of Baptists, other protestants, or what.

Sounds like the old there will only be Baptists in heaven syndrome.

 

I figured that would stir up a little excitement.

It is well established over the years that the BGEA is involved with those who deny the gospel. This dates back to the 40s and 50s. So it is hardly new. When you are involved with those who deny the virgin birth, or salvation by grace alone through faith alone, you have participated with those who deny the gospel, and failed to obey God (Gal 1:6ff), and compromised the gospel itself.

This has nothing to do with "my theology." My theology is irrelevant. It has to do with what God has said and commanded.

As I say, Franklin is different than his father, and his gospel is certainly more clear, from what I have heard. I have more confidence in Franklin than his father. But the problem is not in the presentation of the gospel, i.e., what is said. The problem is in what is not said. When the doctrine such as the RCC is tacitly endorsed by their participation without confrontation over their false doctrine, then what is not said annuls, and even makes worse, what is said.

Most follow-up studies over the years of the BGEA have shown very little impact in the local church. The reality is that given the vast platform that Graham has had for the past 60 years, he has done very little with it, in terms of real results that last past the closing song. I think only eternity will tell, but the fruit does not give much confidence.

Over the years, there have no doubt been many saved through the BGEA and now Franklin, and I rejoice in that. However, we must not be blind to realities of the compromise that has gone on. God does at times choose to work in spite of men's disobedience and not because of it.

We have created a largely unthinking church. We do not know enough doctrine to discern right from wrong. We do not have enough discernment to see these distinctions. We are too easily wowed by numbers and lights and excitement. I think it does not speak well of the modern church. And the fact that these things are so foreign to us shows just how much the shepherds of God's flock have failed us.

Billy Graham was a major figure in the separation of the New Evangelicalism from the old evangelicalism (Fundamentalism), and it was over some of the very issues such as compromise and cooperation with those who deny the gospel. Rolland McCune's Promise Unfulfilled is an excellent and well-documented book of the compromises and failures of the whole approach modeled by the BGEA.

The reality is that there are things more important than getting people saved. If we compromise the gospel by sending mixed messages, they will not be saved anyway.

 

Larry, we'll just agree to disagree on some points.

I would also contend that to some degree, the lack of local church impact is somewhat effected by the poor follow-up that some churches do. Several area churches in Tuscaloosa dropped the ball in this area. The ones with a great follow-up program did see some impact.

Keep in mind, this is observational stuff on my part, rather than scientific numbers.

 

This is the first I've heard of it, and I have no idea who he is.

 

The important thing is God's word, and with reference to this situation, obedience to his commands regarding separation for the sake of the gospel. I think it is beyond any question that Billy Graham was disobedient in that area, and hardly anyone disagrees. The best reason offered is that he got a chance to preach the gospel, the idea being that the preaching of the gospel overrides God's commands to separate from those who preach "any other gospel," even if it is an angel from heaven.

But again, historically, it has been very little impact, given the size of the crowds and numbers of decisions. It is true that poor follow up may have affected it. It is also true that an unclear gospel has affected it.

My comments were in reference to scientific numbers from a study done.