Inclusivism and B. Graham

[Marcia]

Posted by Swaimj:
The inclusivism which sparked this thread was the event in Utah in which evangelicals courted Mormons for joint worship. The issue is fellowshiping with non-believers and worshipping with them.

I started this thread and it was not the event in Utah that sparked it! I statred it based on some remarks by Billy Graham trying to get clarity on that and on Inclusivism (people can know Christ through non-Christian religions) today in the church. Please read the OP.

I think you are thinking of another forum (maybe the Fundamentalist one) where a thread started on the event in Utah.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Thanks for posting that, gb. That is the verse.

Back to unbridled tongues lashing a servant of God, Billy Graham, who has served the Lord his whole life and now is sick and old.

7 pages so far...

You are making unfair accusations yourself, LE. All 7 pages here are not attacks on B. Graham and as I said before, that was not what I was doing in starting this thread. I am wondering if you are even reading what I wrote.

I disagree with unfair attacks on him or on anyone, but there is nothing wrong in discussing remarks made by any believer, whoever they may be, and comparing them to scripture. We should hold no believer's teachings or public remarks beyond the realm of comparison to scripture.

So while you seem to abhor criticism of Graham, don't fall into the same pit yourself by unfairly criticizing those of us who have a Biblical basis for evaluating teachings and remarks by any Christian. Only God's words are beyond criticism.

 

[LadyEagle]

I haven't been unfair in my criticisms. And I do abhor criticism of Graham and others who profess to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Some here have seemed to put themselves on some kind of pedestal here judging whether or not someone is a heretic or even questioning the salvation of others who profess to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We will all be held accountable for our words against others who profess to be born-again Christians, and a lot of these things that are being posted here on this board and others could, technically speaking, be considered slander or defamation of character in a court of earthly law. At the very least, whether the accusations are true or not, these threads appear to be gossip. No one on this Board is qualified to judge the salvation of another but there sure is a lot of stone throwing at people who aren't even here on the Board to defend themselves, their beliefs, or their positions. Billy Graham has brought countless souls to the Lord through the years. I seriously doubt there is one member of the many who post on this board that can even come close. By their fruits we shall know them. Well Billy Graham has a lot of good fruit through his lifetime of service for the Lord.

 

[Marcia]

LE, you still seem to miss the point. I, and many others, are not judging Graham's salvation. I have never done that.

I am not saying he is a heretic, either. If you don't find his comments in the OP disturbing, then I am really surprised. You seem to think it is wrong to criticize any questionable teachings of anyone known as a Christian when the Bible actually tells us to do the opposite. What I am discussing here are his comments to Schuller; I am not trying to defame Graham's character.

Someone who brings many to Christ can still say some things in error. Some solid Christians even go off into really false teachings, such as Clark Pinnock, a solid evangelical who began to teach there is no hell, then he becames an open theist, and now says God might have a body.

Are we to remain silent when a Christian speaks out publicly but says something that seems in conflict with God's word? No! We are to question it and evaluate it, and reject it if is contrary to God's word.

It is not putting one's self on a pedestal to do this. The standard is God's word and the judgement comes from God's word. That is the measuring stick for teachings.

 

[Pastor Larry]

And I do abhor criticism of Graham and others who profess to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Christ, Paul, Peter, Jude, and John all criticized some who professed to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Do you abhor their actions?

Graham has done some unbiblical things that are worthy, not only of criticism, but rejection and repudiation. Those who love Christ and his gospel make take a stand against the methods that Graham has used for more than 50 years. We must ask the question Christ asked: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you? (Luke 6:46). We must ask that question both of Graham and of those who defend him. If you call Jesus Lord, then why do you not obey his command about protection and defense of hte gospel and separation from apostates and disobedient brethren?

It is not putting oneself on a pedestal to do that. It is putting the word of God on the highest pedestal, above personal loyalties and feelings, and above appearances. Graham was wrong and has been for 50 years. He deserves criticism, and he needs to repent. I hope that he will. He has done some good (how much is certainly far from clear, based on the statistics gathered after his crusades. It may well turn out that he has done less with more than anybody in history.) But even with the good done, we cannot overlook the sin.

 

[Paul33]

I agree that Billy Graham has been a faithful servant of Jesus Christ.

But that doesn't mean that Billy Graham is infallible or never in error in regards to his statements.

Billy seems to get pressured into saying things that have often made evangelicals and fundamentalists raise their eyebrows.

I agree with Marcia. If you read the initial post and article, what he said is alarming.

Yes, God is gracious. And yes, God will save whom he will. But for us to say emphatically we know that others in pagan religions are saved without ever knowing that they are saved is saying more than Scripture allows. At least in my opinion.

This question, "What about the pagan who has never heard the Gospel?" seems to plague Arminian theology. Somehow nature and the Spirit are enough to save someone even if they never hear a Gospel presentation.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
I don't have a religion. I am in an intimate relationship with Jesus, Johnv.

Excellent. That's exactly where all of us as Christians need to be

Although, you and I do have religions. However, we weren't saved through those religions. Those religions serve to support our relationships with our Lord.

 

[swaimj]

I think you are thinking of another forum (maybe the Fundamentalist one) where a thread started on the event in Utah.

I stand corrected.

 

[LadyEagle]

This question, "What about the pagan who has never heard the Gospel?" seems to plague Arminian theology. Somehow nature and the Spirit are enough to save someone even if they never hear a Gospel presentation.

This seems to plague Calvinism, too. If someone is elect and predestined, why bother to preach the Gospel? Yikes!

The real truth lies in the middle of both extremes.

 

[blackbird]

Amen, LE!!! Amen!!

 

[Bro Tony]

Ditto to the Amen for LE

Bro Tony

 

[Pastor Larry]

If someone is elect and predestined, why bother to preach the Gospel?

That is one of the easiest questions ever asked. You bother to preach the gospel precisely because people have been elected and predestined. It is what gives gospel preaching hope. Apart from election and predestination, it would be utterly useless to preach the gospel because no one would respond.

 

[Dr. Bob]

It WAS an issue for all Christians. Most felt racially superior (White European/American is better than the Yellow hordes of Asia or slaves in Africa) that God had chosen to bless THEM with the Gospel and tough luck to the rest of the world.

Calvinists around 1800 finally got the message that God not only elected MEN to be saved, but elected a MEANS for this - the preaching of the Gospel.

Wm Carey convinced them of the need to send men preaching the Gospel to the ends of the earth. And the modern missionary movement began.