Is Graham an apostate?

[Linda64]

Originally posted by npetreley:
The question put to Graham was "Can Jesus come into the life and soul of a person without that person having the Bible or having heard the name Jesus?" Graham said, "yes". Then he rambles about "tribal situations" (whatever that means), just like an old man being put on the spot.

I happen to agree with Graham on the "yes" part.

npetreley--have you not read Romans 1?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:18-20)

The Scriptures say man is without excuse. Five missionaries went into the Equadorian jungles and were martyred 50 years ago. If they believed that man could be saved without hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ--why even bother going?

We men love to read things into scripture in order to create our personal checklists of rules on exactly what is required to be saved. One of those checkmarks we love to add is that you need to know the name "Jesus".

But scripture doesn't actually say that. It says things like "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." It doesn't say things like "Anyone who fails to call on the exact name 'Jesus' cannot possibly be saved."

Scripture says things like "There is no other name by which..." It doesn't say "There is no other way except that we know and specifically mouth the exact name..."

Scripture says what scripture says. We are not to add or take away from God's Word (Rev. 22:18-19). Where the Bible is silent, we are NOT to put our own interpretation into what WE THINK it SHOULD say.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

"When the PLAIN SENSE of Scripture makes COMMON SENSE, seek no other SENSE."-- David Cooper

I have a feeling God doesn't give a hoot about our checklists, and praise God for that.

God does give a hoot--a very big hoot--about adding and taking away from His Holy Word. God's Word is NOT a checklist. It is our sole authority for Christian living. Jesus Christ bore the sins of the ENTIRE world in His body on the Cross at Calvary. When someone says that a person does not have to name the Name of Jesus to be saved is to make a mockery of our Lord's sacrifice. Remember the words of the song--Everybody Ought To Know Who Jesus Is? That's why missionaries are sent all over the world.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

NO MAN means NO MAN comes to the Father but by Jesus Christ!

 

[Marcia]

Linda, I agree with what you say.

Inclusivism is not universalism, but close to it. Inclusivists still believe some will go to hell - those who outright reject Jesus when they know about him, and those who reject evidence for God.

But many inclusivists seem to believe that anyone who has some concept of God, as vague as it might be, can be saved. Or they believe someone can know Christ without knowing about the historical Jesus. As I've pointed out on other threads on this topic, this view is becoming ever more popular among evangelicals, including on the BB.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Linda64:
Five missionaries went into the Equadorian jungles and were martyred 50 years ago. If they believed that man could be saved without hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ--why even bother going?

Because God commands us to go. And it is God who works in us to will and to do according to His good purpose. Whether or not God can specially reveal the Gospel without the use of a missionary is irrelevant. To refuse to spread the Gospel would be to disobey God.

Originally posted by Linda64:
Scripture says what scripture says. We are not to add or take away from God's Word (Rev. 22:18-19). Where the Bible is silent, we are NOT to put our own interpretation into what WE THINK it SHOULD say.

That was exactly my point.

Originally posted by Linda64:
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17)

And yet the author of this passage was Paul, who was saved by special revelation by Jesus Himself.

Note also that many people like to rewrite the last verse as "Faith cometh by hearing the word of God." There are 2 things wrong with this.

1. That's not what it says. It says "Faith cometh by hearing, AND hearing by the word of God."

2. The "word" of God is not "logos". It is "rhema" or "utterance, something said".

I don't claim that my interpretation is the only possible one, but it sure looks to me like that verse is saying "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes when God says so."

Originally posted by Linda64:
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

This is true. There is none other than Jesus whereby we must be saved. It does NOT say, "there is no way to be saved except by saying the name Jesus."

Originally posted by Linda64:
God does give a hoot--a very big hoot--about adding and taking away from His Holy Word.

My point exactly.

Originally posted by Linda64:
NO MAN means NO MAN comes to the Father but by Jesus Christ!

I couldn't agree more. But you are adding to the Word of God if you are saying this means you have to KNOW and/or SPEAK the name of Jesus. That's not what the verse says. It simply says that no man can come to the Father except through Jesus.

I can tell you truthfully that NO MAN can come into my apartment but by the front door. That doesn't mean the person has to know that the name of the object is "door" or has to speak the word "door". He simply cannot get in any other way.

 

[Marcia]

npetreley, when Paul was saved, he had a real encounter with the real Jesus Christ, not God the Father, not Buddha, not his idea of who God is.

So how is someone saved by believing in Christ without knowing about Jesus or knowing who he is?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Marcia:
npetreley, when Paul was saved, he had a real encounter with the real Jesus Christ, not God the Father, not Buddha, not his idea of who God is.

So how is someone saved by believing in Christ without knowing about Jesus or knowing who he is?

My point is that Paul wasn't saved because the disciples went and preached the gospel to him. Paul wasn't saved because a missionary came to him and preached the gospel. Jesus revealed Himself personally to Paul. That's called a special revelation, which is the term Spurgeon used to illustrate his point.

If Jesus can do it to Paul, He can do it to anyone. It is not up to us to assume that Jesus only did it that once, and decided that from then on, He would rely exclusively on people to preach the Gospel in order for the Gospel to come to one of His chosen.

We are commanded to preach the Gospel, and preach it we must. But if Jesus decides to reveal Himself to someone out of reach of any missionary, then that is up to Jesus, according to His own good pleasure. It is to our peril to say that it can't happen any other way except some human go and preach the Gospel to that person. We would be telling God what He can or cannot do, what He would or would not do.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
npetreley, when Paul was saved, he had a real encounter with the real Jesus Christ, not God the Father, not Buddha, not his idea of who God is.

So how is someone saved by believing in Christ without knowing about Jesus or knowing who he is?

My point is that Paul wasn't saved because the disciples went and preached the gospel to him. Paul wasn't saved because a missionary came to him and preached the gospel. Jesus revealed Himself personally to Paul. That's called a special revelation, which is the term Spurgeon used to illustrate his point.

If Jesus can do it to Paul, He can do it to anyone. It is not up to us to assume that Jesus only did it that once, and decided that from then on, He would rely exclusively on people to preach the Gospel in order for the Gospel to come to one of His chosen.
</font>[/QUOTE]npetreley, you are not arguing for inclusivism above. You are arguing for Jesus revealing Himself as He wills, and I don't disagree. In fact, if you read my testimony, you will see that God drew me to Christ without anyone witnessing to me.

What we were discussing was inclusivism, which is that people can be saved without knowing Jesus, who he is, or anything about him. In other words, someone in a culture who has never heard of Jesus can be saved if they are worshiping some kind of god (inclusivists, as far as I know, don't specify what kind of god, if any, it must be). Or they say that someone can know Christ by knowing Allah, Buddha, etc.

Must go to SE Baptist Seminary to speak at a conference there, then am moving, so this may be it for a few days. I might get to post a bit before the move.

 

[EdSutton]

Billy Graham, or Joe Blow, for that matter, may or may not be an apostate. But for me, at least, I want something a little more substantial than a questionable snip from an interview before making up my own mind, as to that.
That said, am I putting a stamp of approval on what the Rev. Dr. Billy has preached over the years? In some ways, yes; in some ways, no.
I'm one of them 'free grace' types your mother warned you about.

I believe that salvation is entirely by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and is based on his once and for all time satisfactory sacrifice on Mt. Moriah. The issue is entirely that simple. I do not believe that discipleship or 'lordship' in one's life is a necessary part of "really and truly believing" (a phrase that you will not find in Scripture). I do not believe the Bible teaches a 'turn or burn', 'forsake or bake', 'try, cry or fry' religion. All that above are nothing more than adding something to grace. And the term is "grace", BTW, not 'free grace', as I used before for the purpose of identification , for 'free grace' is redundant. So my take is that Billy is far from clear and accurate. But that does not equal apostate, in my book. Sorry if I am getting back on the original idea of the OP, just when some were having such fun. Heh! Heh!
In his grace,
Ed

 

[saturneptune]

Ed,
I enjoyed your post very much and agree with you. There has been a lot of critical posts about Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and Hal Lindsey, among others. I am not really sure what they said, where their heart is, or for that matter, whether the posts are true or not. But this I do know, any one of these ministries I am sure has been used by God to bring more people to Jesus Christ than I ever will. I have to wonder about those who post also. Another thing that seems to gnaw at me is the concept I have seen here about "knowing" who is saved and who is not. That really takes ignorance and arrogance at the same time. The only two persons who know if Pat Robertson is saved or not is Pat and the Lord. And even if we could tell, I do believe we have better things to do as Christians that speculate who is going to heaven.

Thanks for your post

 

[EdSutton]

Thanks, sn. Waa'al at'er all, we'uns is a-both from God's country, it 'pears.
I never ask anyone where they are from. If they are from KY, they'll usually tell you; if not, why make 'em feel bad? Heh! Heh!
In His grace,
Ed

 

[Athanasian Creed]

Billy Graham may or may not be an apostate (he might not personally believe, as defined, that he has 'abandoned ones religious faith' but God's Word, the ultimate authority, may prove otherwise) One thing he is, without question, is a compromiser and has paved the path to the scourge of Satan known as ecumenism to bring together Christ and Belial. In his trying to be "all things to all men" he has become wishy-washy and, as a result, he is spoken highly of of all men contrary to Scripture -

Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

I begin to have doubts about him when he went to the Soviet Union in 1982 and would not grant an audience with those of the unregistered Church - those persecuted for their true faith in Christ. I can only guess he didn't want to 'offend' his hosts, the same ones who, themselves, were either compromisers and/or persecuters. He had the audacity to return to America and declare that there was religious freedom in the SU, even though there was no such thing whatsoever!

Unfortunately, he is not alone in his apostacy/compromise. There are many within the evangelical world that are just as bad (and worse)


Ray

 

[npetreley]

You want to see compromise? Read the Baptist Confession of 1689 and then compare it to what is taught in most Baptist churches today.

I'd focus on that problem before I get upset about Billy Graham.

Marcia: No, I am NOT arguing for inclusivism. I am not convinced that Billy Graham was, either. I can't read minds. I can only read the on-the-spot reponse made by an aging man to a question that wasn't specific enough to prompt a good answer.

 

[atestring]

When a person wins as many sosuls to Jesus as Billy Graham has I will listen to them. Until i meet such a person I will be discusted to hear accusations about a Man of God Like Billy Graham!!!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by atestring:
When a person wins as many sosuls to Jesus as Billy Graham has I will listen to them. Until i meet such a person I will be discusted to hear accusations about a Man of God Like Billy Graham!!!

I've been to a Billy Graham crusade. I have a great deal of admiration for Billy Graham and all God has done through him. I think the criticism lodged against him is unwarranted if for no other reason than that it is based on so little knowledge of what he really thinks. The poor guy is old and (IMO) was never really terribly eloquent, despite the fact that he could deliver a great sermon during his crusades.

However, I have to take issue with the premise, "When a person wins as many souls to Jesus". People do not win souls. God uses people like Graham to harvest souls.

Furthermore, although I know of many people who have attended Billy Graham crusades, all of them were Christians before they attended. I have asked people in Bible studies if they were saved at a Billy Graham crusade. Nobody has ever said yes. I have asked them if they know anyone who was saved at a Billy Graham crusade. Nobody has ever said yes.

This is hardly a scientific survey, and I'm confident God has used Graham to reach lots of people with the Gospel. But just because you see thousands of people respond to a Graham altar call doesn't necessarily mean what it appears to mean. Again, this is not much of a data point, but virtually everyone I know who has responded to that altar call was already a Christian.

 

[Marcia]

I think there is a false dichotomoy going on here. Billy Graham does give the gospel and I think that many are saved through that (I personally know 2 people who were saved listeing to B. Graham). Yet some of his statements that sound inclusivistic are problematic.

It's not an either-or situation - either BG is giving the gospel and has perfect theology or BG is not giving the gospel/has it wrong, etc.

I see BG as someone God has used and who does give the gospel but I am also disturbed by some of his statements. After all, he is a man and we can't put him on a pedestal. No man should be on a pedestal and all men's words should be measured by the Bible. It doesn't matter who they are. At the same time, any criticism of any Christian's teachings should be based on solid evidence and judged by biblical doctrine. We are told to judge teachings, behavior, and ideas by the Bible.

 

[atestring]

Well Marcia, i guess you and your group have someone else to criticize.
Live it up!!
i am sure you will find someone else soon.

Plese don't leave me out!

 

[EdSutton]

Is it just me, or did I just see a cheap shot?
In His grace,
Ed

 

[atestring]

I have had it up to my eyeballs with cheapshots on Godly ministers of the Gospel.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Furthermore, although I know of many people who have attended Billy Graham crusades, all of them were Christians before they attended. I have asked people in Bible studies if they were saved at a Billy Graham crusade. Nobody has ever said yes. I have asked them if they know anyone who was saved at a Billy Graham crusade. Nobody has ever said yes.

I have had several involved in a Bible study after A Graham crusade who made first time decisions.

Almost everyone in the church I was pastoring at the time was involved in the crusade. It made an incredible difference in the church. I certainly helped their ability to share their faith and it got them into the community.

One of the decisions on the list was a young lady who was a Mormon. However, her parents were unwilling to let her come to the Bible study. I would assume she will never forget that event she attended and in the impact it made in her life.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Marcia:
It's not an either-or situation - either BG is giving the gospel and has perfect theology or BG is not giving the gospel/has it wrong, etc.

BG obviously doesn't have perfect theology. Neither do you nor myself. None do. But BG definitely had the gospel right.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I have had several involved in a Bible study after A Graham crusade who made first time decisions.

Like I said, my data point isn't very significant. I'm glad to see that your experience is different. I know God has used Billy Graham to reach people, I just thought it was odd that I couldn't find any of them.