not to keep picking at billy graham, however>>

my main contention is how billy graham has endorsed the other means of salvation that the catholic church has laid out.

but i dont like how he has made such an outlandish comment even in jest about the clintons </font>[/QUOTE]TexasSky, must I remind you that: AS every good Baptist and Republican knows you cannot be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time. It's an either or situation. And too, if you have ever supported the Clinton's and speak of THEM as Christians, you too cannot be a Christian.......... ............ (tongue in cheek in case you missed it)

 

Here is what Graham said of Sen. Joe McCarthy in 1953:
"While nobody likes a watchdog, and for that reason many investigation committees are unpopular, I thank God for men who, in the face of public denouncement and ridicule, go loyally on in their work of exposing the pinks, the lavenders and the reds who have sought refuge beneath the wings of the American eagle and from that vantage point try in every subtle, undercover way to bring comfort, aid and help to the greatest enemy we have ever known — communism."
I totally agree with that statement, but would Graham?

click here

In 1957, Graham said, "Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish." (San Francisco News).

At Billy Graham's 1984 Vancouver, British Columbia crusade, the vice-chairman of the organizing committee said, "If a Catholic steps forward there will be no attempt to convert them and their names will be given to the Catholic church nearest their homes" (Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1984).

I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant... we cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, MADE CHRISTIAN, THROUGH INFANT BAPTISM."
(Graham)

In 1962, a Roman Catholic bishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, blessed the people that came forward at the invitation. (Daily Journal, International Falls, Minnesota, Oct. 29, 1963, cited by the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1963).

In 1959, he had the liberal Bishop James A. Pike lead in prayer at one of his events. Yet Pike said in an episcopal letter: "Religious myth is one of the avenues of faith and has an important place in the communication of the Gospel." He called the garden of Eden a myth and said, "The virgin birth... IS A MYTH which churchmen should be free to accept or reject..."

 

Lets see. Jesus preached the gospel and He was crucified. Paul preached and he was stoned and finally beheaded. All the apostles were either martyred or banished. Billy graham recieves the accolades of Bill Clinton, Time, Newsweek and the New York Times. Is he doing something wrong?

 

Persecution sometimes can be indicative of faithfulness, but to say that all preachers of the gospel must be persecuted is improper, IMO.

 

It is amazing the lengths people will go to justify tearing down a Christian, while claiming themselves to be Christians.

 

To anyone knocking Brother Graham about this or that comment he may have made someone, sometime over several decades: would you like everything you have said in the hearing of another person for the past 50 years nitpicked over to the point of questioning your salvation? As Jesus said: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone..." (John 8:7)

 

I wonder how well you will be commenting on issues when you are 86 years old?

 

And suffering from diseases like water on the brain, Hodgkins disease and suffering from strokes.

 

Not to mention the more recently diagnosed Parkinsonism.

 

Yes,

Let's all be wonderful examples of Christians and rip a fellow Christian who is almost 90, and ill, and who is so ill he asks God to take him home to shreads. Let's ignore the work he has done FOR God, and all the times He spoke correctly the message of salvation, and instead, zero in on what we perceive to be mistakes and tear him apart like rabid animals moving in on a weak prey. I'm sure Christ is very proud of those doing so. *Rolling my eyes*

 

You had sources for the other quotes but not this one. What is the source for this? - it should not be posted without a source.

 

KEn,

No one is knocking Graham over a comment he "may have made." These are stated positions and actions that he has persisted in for fifty years. They are not anomalies. They have been verified time and time again.

When it comes to this issue of Graham's compromise of the gospel and his disobedience in his associations, I am without sin (John 8:7). But that is not the point of John 8:7. The point of John 8:7 is not that the adulterer was okay in her sin, but that the Pharisees were hypocrites. To draw the analogy here, Graham is not right, but those who point it out shouldn't be hyprocrites. I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself. I am not a hypocrite in this area, and it has affected us here. Graham is wrong. Let's not get blinded by the fame that has come to him.

 

Clinton is only a Christian and a Baptist when it is politically expedient for him. BTW, he didn't get his religion until he was defeated for re-election for governor by conservative Frank White. After that, he found the largest Baptist Church he could and put his face in front of the camera as much as he possibly could.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Massdak and the rest who criticize Graham:

Do you believe that to be a Christian you must understand perfectly every Christian doctrine?

Bill Graham has preached Christ crucified for atonement for sins for 60+ years. I do not agree with everything Billy Graham has said or done during his ministry, but for you or anyone else to declare the man unsaved and a heretic is beyond laughable.

The validation of salvation is a transformed life. Graham has poured out his life to Christ in ministry, and has exemplified the moral integrity many ministers lack.

As far as Graham believing the Pope is standing before Christ as we speak, once again, the Catholics have the gospel. Where the gospel is, salvation is possible.

 

I would simply attribute his recent false teachings to old age, senility, illness, and him not being himself. Unless someone can show a lifetime pattern of heresy, I am willing to give Graham the benefit of the doubt. But, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be corrected.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Was Graham old and ill in 1950 when this started? Have we really stooped so low as to attribute this to illness when it has begin going on for 2/3 of Graham's life? He wasn't ill back then. He didn't have Parkinson's and whatever else he has now. My heart goes out to him and his family for the health problems. But we cannot fail to see his disobedienc, even though he is a man of great moral integrity.