not to keep picking at billy graham, however>>

PL,

Like I said, "Unless someone can show a lifetime pattern of heresy, I am willing to give Graham the benefit of the doubt."

Do you have that evidence and source information for that evidence? I was not alive in 1950.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Larry,

What Graham did in 1950 is irrelevant as he affirmed his belief, publically, that salvation comes through Christ, and Christ alone, in June of 2005.

You are not qualified to speak for the man's beliefs. He has stated what he believes. It is not your place to call him a liar about what he has stated is his belief.

 

The evidence is documented in many places such as Standing Without Apoloyg by Dan Turner, Promise Unfulfilled by Rolland McCune, as well as numerous other places such as the link I gave above. This is not secret.

To say that what Graham did in 1950 is irrelevant is misguided and naive. It it was only what he did in 1950, it would be one thing. It was early in his ministry and he was young. He rejected the advice he sought from older and wiser men. He has continued for almost 60 years on the pattern he started in the 40s.

What he stated in 2005 is contradicted by almost 60 years of behavior and preaching. And what he stated in 2005 was weak anyway.

If I tell you I am 5'2" tall should you believe me? What if, when you see me, you find out that I am actually 6' tall. Do you have the right to call me a liar? (I haven't called Graham a liar, BTW). Of course you do, because you see that my reality doesn't match up with my words. That is exactly what Graham has done. Granting that he says he believes in Christ as the only way, why hasn't he shown it with his life and words? And why do you defend him in with such clear problems?

If this were something that started last year or in teh last five years, it would be different. If it was something he toyed with in the 50s and later repented and return to biblical practice, it would be different. But not only did he go down the wrong path, he did it against the advice of godly men, and he persisted in it for more than fifty years. What is good about 50 years of disobedience?

 

Maybe not for you. But it certainly is for me. Are these books you are citing here? Where is the link earlier in this thread? I must go look for it now.

Joseph Botwinick

 

PL,

I can't find the link you posted above. Would you please repost it?

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ah ... it was another thread ... The books give a more detailed view.

HEre it is again: http://www.freepres.org/pamphlet_details.asp?graham_facts

 

Larry,

You sure are giving words you claim to disagree with a lot of publicity.

 

This thread about attacks on Brother Graham reminds me of the old story about Christians forming a circle, raising their weapons, and yelling fire.

 

Not sure how. But we need to give these words publicity. We need to teach people SCripture and point out error. What is wrong with that?

First, there are no attacks of Graham going on. But are you of the opinion that we should disobey Scripture in order to say nice things about Graham? I find that to be a choice I cannot live with. Here, we have two choices: 1) We can obey God and point out Graham's compromise and disobedience or 2) We can fail to obey God and point out Graham's compromise and disobedience.

 

Graham was 13 years old when he dedicated his life to full-time service to the Lord, and made up his mind to go into the ministry.

He was 19 when he preached his first sermon for Christ.

He attended Wheaton College and studied Anthroplogy, and he earned his living as a door-to-door brush salesman, while trying to win others to Christ.

He has delivered the word of God in 185 countries to over 210 million people.


And Larry - Yes, you can call a cowchip a pancake, but it doesn't make it any less a cowchip and you are attacking Dr. Graham.

 

Or 3) we can rejoice that Billy Graham has faithfully preached the basic gospel message for decades in situations where doors were previously closed. We can rejoice that God has used BG to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ to literally millions of people. We can rejoice that God uses imperfect vessels to proclaim His good news. We can rejoice that God uses people who differ from my own beliefs and interpretations. We can rejoice that BG has gained a hearing among world leaders that few, if any, evangelicals have ever received. That BG has remained faithful and above board morally and ethically.

The options you offer are definitely not the only two available. If they are, you have a full-time responsibility of hunting down every public speaker with whom you disagree and pointing out their "compromise and disobedience". Anything less would be disobedience on your part.

Agree or disagree with BG on every thing he has said or done, just give the guy a break and rejoice in the God who has used BG to accomplish His purpose in the spread of the good news.

 

Actually, we have a choice to be thankful for a brother whom the Lord has used to spread the message of salvation by grace through faith to millions around the world, and to acknowledge this about a brother who may have only a short few years left on this earth before he goes to be with Jesus in person.

 

Does that mean that Graham is allowed to be disobedient? Why do you keep ignoring that? There is nothing wrong with being 13 when you surrender for full time service (I was older). There is nothing wrong with being 19 when you preach your first sermon (I was younger). There is nothing wrong with attending college (I did) or studying anthropology (I didn't). There is nothing wrong with earning a living in sales (I did) while trying to win others to Christ (I did). There is nothing wrong with delivering the gospel in 185 countries to 210 million people. All of that is fine and well.

But ...

1. Graham compromised the gospel by saying the gospel of the RCC is the same as the biblical gospel, and by saying that Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and others might get to heaven without personal faith in Jesus Christ.
2. Graham has cooperated with apostates and infidels who deny the gospel he claims to preach.

Those two things are not an attack. I didn't do these things. It is not an attack to point out the truth. You are defending the indefensible. Why? I can't figure that out.

 

Graham clarified those statements saying that there is only way to heaven, and that without Christ one did not enter into heaven.

In other words, he said that what you think he meant is NOT what he meant.

Yet, you insist on rejecting his clarification.

He has apologized for mistakes he made in the past - and yet, you reject his apology.

What gives you the right to refuse the man's apologies?

 

Larry,

Do you contend that BG believes that a person can enter heaven through a means other than Jesus Christ?

 

Pastor Larry

You are right to point out where Billy Graham has compromised. It is wrong to call him a heretic and proclaim him to be unsaved.

I don't know if you have done that because I haven't read all the threads, but I know some people have. That is over the top. I don't agree with a lot of things Billy Graham has done and said, but I do not suppose I can declare him unsaved. I have never heard of any message that he has preached to be anything other than true gospel. That counts for alot in by opinion.

 

He has said that and he has been sufficienty unclear on the issue as to leave doubt about his public stance. He has never clarified it sufficiently.

I have done neither.

 

Dear Pastor Larry,
While I disagree with your conclusion, I admire your standing for truth in spite of personalities.

No, I don't think BG is allowed by God to be disobedient. Nor is any Christian.
But you as an IFB and I as an SBC disagree on what is disobedience, because here you are defining it in terms of a particular view of separation. That view is somewhat unique to IFB's.
Part of the issue is that you and I are trying to interpret unclear statements of BG in light of clear statements. But you and I disagree on which are the clear statements and which are the unclear statements.

See your No. 1 statement I quoted. I do NOT hear BG saying that Buddhists may get to Heaven without faith in Christ. I hear an unclear statement that God is capable of and will call people from every time period and group with or without our help. (No, I'm not a Primitive Baptist.) There is a humility expressed that God does not depend on BG nor on any one of us.
Jesus Christ is the only Way to the Father. I have personally heard BG say that many times.

See your No. 2 statement. I don't know everything BG has done cooperatively, but what I know of seems to have been "cooperation" on BG's terms, not theirs. For some reason, they came to see and hear what was going on and participated in that. They actually heard the Gospel. It is a good thing when Lutheran pastors hear the Gospel and take it back to their congregations!
It is a good thing when atheists hear the Gospel!
It is a good thing when Baptists hear the Gospel and take it back to their congregations!

Karen

 

He has said that and he has been sufficienty unclear on the issue as to leave doubt about his public stance. He has never clarified it sufficiently.

Do you believe the quote below is unclear?

 

Since the start of his ministry people have tried to discredit Billy Graham. Liberals call him a funemental. The fundementals call him liberal. The right says he on the left. the left says he is on the right. His ministry has stood the test of time.

He preaches Jesus and Jesus alone as the only way to Heaven. He preaches the love Of God to a dying world. He preaches the gospel in a simple and understood manner. He is steadfast in preaching of the gospel.

People have talked about the # wh o fall away from churches after crusades. You look at total #s and Billy's is right on target with The Sbc #'s.