not to keep picking at billy graham, however>>

That's not a choice given teh circumstances.

I am not defining disobedience in terms of a particular view of separation. I am defining it in terms of the Bible. God said to mark and separate from those who cause division by teaching contrary to the doctrine. Graham disobeyed that command. God said that anyone who preaches another gospel is anathema. Graham disregarded that command. That has nothing to do with SBC or IFB. It has to do with God's clear commands.

The cooperation is sponsorship. I have given resources that make it clear what is entailed. I am not talking about a minor point of disagreement. This is a major issue.

Yes, because it contradicts his actions and his other statements.

 

Pastor Larry, are you attempting to admonish Billy Graham as your brother in Christ, or as an unbeliever?

 

I choose to give Dr. Graham A PASS. You could too given the fact that he as old as he is and has covered so much more ground than you or I have and likely more than several of us all put together. PL, I can only pray that when you reach the age of Dr. Graham some one younger will give you a pass, afterall, byt that time you will have earned a pass, just like Billy Graham has.

I also hope that God will grant you a pass for all the accusations you've made against this man of God.

NO matter what is said here on this board against him, he will always be remembered by me as a man I have often looked up to with respect and awe in the way he preached and told others about Jesus Christ. Billy Graham holds a special place in my heart that none of you here can push out of my heart with all of your accusations. I have a feeling I am not alone in this either.

 

At the end of the day, Larry has the right to practice a level of separation and "admonishment" that he deems right. But also at the end of the day, his view is not necessarily the correct one. It is his own interpretation and belief.

My earlier challenge remains intact -- Larry you need to hunt down and admonish all other "disobedient" public figures or you are not being consistent with your earlier options.

 

Massdak,

How do you know that John Paul was not a Christian? How do you know that he never turned his life over to Christ as Lord and Savior?

Did you ever sit down and discuss it with Him?

Graham did.

Did you know that John Paul said salvation came through the blood of Christ?

Did you know John Paul taught this: "Man's greatness and dignity consist in being a child of God and being called to live in intimate union with Christ."

Did you know he taught that Christianity required a personal committment to Christ?

I don't agree with 75% of the Catholic Church, but I have learned that 90% of what people think the Catholics teach is wrong. I took the time to ask the clergy of the Catholic church. See, I got to noticing that according to my history book - almost every original mission in this country was Catholic, so I wondered who so many heathens could do such good. I started asking hard questions of people in authority.

Sure, the Catholics have their anti-Popes, and their sinful priests, and their laymen who never met Christ. Guess what - so do the Baptists. There are ministers who run off with church secretaries, one charged with murdering his wife, laymen who never met Christ. No church is perfect.

Catholic's do baptize babies. Some lay Catholics think that saves their child. That isn't what the clergy tell me their doctorine teaches. Catholic clergy tell me it is a dedication ceremony following ancient traditions. A parent's promise to raise the child in the ways of God. Baptists call it "dedication."

Catholics have confirmation. It has become little more than a ritual to some, but it is meant to be a time when a child raised in the ways of God, who has made a personal committment to Christ, stands up and proclaims Christ before men. Baptists have the kids who walk down the center aisle who mean it, and the kids who don't mean it. Catholics have the kids who confirm just to make mom and dad proud. But that doesn't mean NO confirmation is real.

Certainly, no other church has been plagued with as many false teachings as the Catholic Church, but unless you've talked to John Paul yourself, its wrong to judge if he is or is not truly a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. And if you are so going to judge all Catholics, make them your mission field.

I find it fascinating that Catholics are more hated, more feared than Mormons. Catholics acknowledge Christ as the only begotten son of God the Creator. Mormons do not.

It is even more wrong to condemn Billy Graham for showing love to John Paul.

 

I am assuming he is a brother in Christ who is disobedient. I have not questioned his salvation. But I am not really admonishing him. I am warning those who are swayed by the allure of success. I am warning them about disobedience to God's word.

 

So old people don't have to be obedient? What is that about? I must confess I have never seen that distinction in SCripture. Furthermore, this is not about the disobedience of a elderly man. It is about the life long disobedience of a man who deliberately turned his back on teh warnings from God's word. Graham started down this path of disobedience in his 30s, and has never turned.

I don't need a pass for obeying God's word. I am not sure why you think I do. EVerything I have said has been shown to be correct historically, and correct biblically. It is interesting that no one is really challenging the actual facts. They just want to give him a free pass.

Why is that?

Have you read Galatians 2? Peter was a much greater evangelist than Graham, and did much less than Graham did in terms of compromise of the gospel. But Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, confronted Peter for his compromise of the gospel. Now if Paul confronts the apostle Peter for something fairly small and insignificant, why should we not confront Graham for a much greater compromise?

 

He devoted his life to the furtherance of a false gospel, led countless millions to do the same, and never repented. Jesus said by their fruits you shall know them. I think JPII's fruits speak for themselvse in comparison to Scripture.

No one is condemning Graham for "showing love to JOhn Paul." He called him a Christian brother, and that is the problem. He wasn't, at least if the Bible contains the gospel of salvation.

 

I don't need a pass for obeying God's word. I am not sure why you think I do. EVerything I have said has been shown to be correct historically, and correct biblically. It is interesting that no one is really challenging the actual facts. They just want to give him a free pass.

Why is that?
.........</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Pastor Larry,
Maybe you missed my questions to you. I was challenging some of the "actual facts".
I'll try to recap. (I forget which of these three threads my post was on.)

You and I are each attempting to interpret unclear statements of BG in light of clear statements. But we differ on which statements are clear or unclear.

For example, I agree that BG made an unclear statement on Larry King. That he made a statement on LK is an "actual fact". And I don't dispute that.
I dispute your interpretation. You say it MEANT that Muslims might go to Heaven without faith in Christ.
I say it MEANT that God hasn't given us a list of which Muslims he will save. But there will be ex-Muslims in Heaven. God can reach anybody.
Yes, I agree with you that it, at the very least, should have been more clear. However, we don't know what was edited.

Re: cooperation with apostates. I wish he had made a more clear separation from Bishop Pike.
(And I DO say that BG has made some outright incomprehensible statements such as "no religious persecution in the Soviet Union". But many people did call him on it. He was elderly when he said that,too.)

Anyway, I maintain that yes, it is an "actual fact" that Lutherans and others have been on crusade committees. But they were the ones who willingly cooperated with BG's methods, and they heard the Gospel and took it back to their congregations. They chose to cooperate with BG, not that BG compromised according to their beliefs.

Karen

 

Texassky, your view of the RC church, infant baptism, and confirmation couldn't be further from the truth. I suggest picking up a copy of the 1994 RC catechism and start reading it, comparing it to God's Word. Any "religion" that prays to dead people, says God has a mom, and the teaching of the church is to override the Bible when it doesn't coincide with God's Word is a cult.

 

webdog - That isn't my view. I ended up in an airport with a Catholic Cardinal for a long, long, long time, and we started discussing the differences in what our church's teach.

What I relayed above is what the Cardinal said the Catholic Church really teaches, as opposed to what many well meaning Catholics think it teaches.

Understand - I don't believe in "praying to the Saints," but to a Catholic, it isn't "praying to the dead." It is, in their mind (I know they are wrong), praying to a person who has preceeded them into heaven and who has a position similiar to an angel.

And, Christ did have a mother. He acknowledged her on earth.

 

Not that I support it because I am not sure. But these people do not believe they are praying TO dead people.

All who are Christians have ETERNAL LIFE...therefore they are STILL alive. They aren't praying TO them...they are asking them to pray WITH them...kinda like we do when we conduct the gossip, I mean prayer chain.

We should really try to understand what people believe before presuming to state it for them. That could be grounds for a slander accusation around here if my advice is not heeded.

 

this is very discouraging how some look at the serious errors and unbiblical aspects of how catholics pray to saints, and the many added conditions they place for salvation other then just Christ. i must warn those who make light of serious errors that they are endorsing it even by being indifferent to the seriousness of unsound doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you just clarify please? Are you addressing me...or the others? I believe I am right in what I said though.

 

While I do not agree with prayers to the saints, it is not the determiner of whether a person can have genuine faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

 

Herein lies the difference. Paul was under the inspiration of the Spirit to confront Peter.

1-Are you comparing yourself to Paul???
AND
2-Are you under the inspiration of the Spirit, or under the inspiration of Pastor Larry???

 

TexasSky

Right on, sister That was your best, most well reasoned post I have read to date. The Catholic church has the gospel. Where the gospel is, salvation is possible. For someone to condemn Billy Graham because he believes the Pope was saved is the height of presumption.

 

Quoting KJ: "They aren't praying TO them...they are asking them to pray WITH them...kinda like we do when we conduct the gossip, I mean prayer chain."

Now that's funny!!!

 

This part of the Baptist Board is for Baptists only. But you wouldnt know it. I have a question for some of the RC sympathizers here. Why do you choose to be a Baptist instead of a Roman Catholic? Is it because your parents were Baptists? Or is it because there is a Baptist church right up the street from where you live? Would you be just as comfortable in a Catholic church as well as a Baptist Church? Some of you are better apologists for that false religion that Keating, Matatics, Staples all put together. Satan is using you mightily. Thanks.