not to keep picking at billy graham, however>>

About divisive, it is a person that creates factions. It has nothing to do with popularity in the church, but with doctrine and unity. When doctrine is compromised, unity cannot stand. Paul attributes the division, not to the person who separates, but to the person who compromises doctrine.

With respect to validity of the accounts, the purpose of taking two or three is to establish the issue. It is drawn off the OT principle that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" these things should be established.

 

Larry, you are right. I'm just saying it plays out differently in the Church. It is done more on a popularity basis. If you are popular you can say what you want. If you aren't, then you are divisive.

 

If God had spoken to me through the Spirit and told me to be critical and condemning of a man of God like Billy Graham...... when asked if my motivation was of the Spirit or of myself, I would have proudly stood up and said that my motivation was of the Spirit.

Pastor Larry, you haven't done that ...... twice.

You need to re-examine your heart in this matter.

I think this fact is plain to more than just me here.

 

If so, then that is sin. It might be hard at times, but we must strive to do it God's way, and let the chips fall where they do.

 

What are your primary sources of information? I do not recall seeing any.

I have read plenty of interviews where the person told me and a few others in person quite a different story than what we read.

 

I have given them before. Why do you continue to question this? Graham doesn't question it. He knows it. In fact, on the Wheaton.edu website of Graham's archives you can find a pamphlet written in 1957 by Ernest Pickering that details the problems almost fifty years ago. Primary sources are cited in STanding Without Apology by Dan Turner and Promise Unfulfilled by Rolland McCune. This is old news.

 

Thank you. I did look at the pamphlet. I found it quite interesting when I compare it to what Graham said about a number of fundamentalists in his autobiography "Just As I Am". He named those fundamentalist insults as lies. Considering that, would you blame him for not wanting to associate with liars/fundamentalists? Even if they were right, do you think their lies would attract his loyalty and consideration? None of the fundamentalists have questioned his statement about them.

I think the biggest mistake he made was to enlist the help of any one person or church. He addressed some issues that were raised before the message on May 15, 1957.

I thank God for Youth For Christ. When I taught high school, many students would talk about what they heard the next day when they attended the meeting put on by YFC. Not one church was doing anything to reach those students.

 

The facts that I am referring are not disputed as lies. Some may have lied about Graham at certain times. But the facts that I am talking about are documented. They aren't lies.

It is historically wrong to say that no church was reaching those kids. That is simply not true and irrelevant anyway. YFC back in past generations was a good organization. Unfortunately, they, like Graham, sold out.

The facts remain the facts. Graham has never repented of these ungodly associations and his compromise of hte gospel. Don't try to shift blame.

 

Maybe Graham told people to go to a church of their choice because he believes the RC church is ok to go to. Maybe he figures their "choice" would be somewhere solid. Maybe he figures all these people getting saved at his services have come with people who will take them to solid churches. There are so many variables to this "church of your choice" statement that we should be careful not to judge Graham's intentions.

KJ out...

 

Well if he told them all to go to Billy Bob's Baptist church and 40,000 showed up on Sunday, there might just be a problem with parking space.

 

Do you really mean to suggest that parking problems are a good reason to go to a false church? I don't.

I believe converts are referred to the church of their choice, in other words, whatever they put down.

 

Or maybe BG does not believe it is his responsibility to tell people where to go to church. I would actually agree with him. We are not the Holy Spirit. It is our job to proclaim the good news. It is not our job to convert and conform. If a person is genuinely a believer, the Holy Spirit will grow that person into Christlikeness (with or w/o our input on where a person should attend church).

I recognize that our church is not for everyone. I would be foolish to try and tell people where to go to church. Give the Holy Spirit some credit and allow Him to lead people to where they need to be. It is not BG's job and neither it is yours or mine.

 

I too recognize that our church is not for everyone. But don't you recognize that it is sin to recommend someone go to an apostate church? I am not even talking about churches about which we may differ. I am talking about sending converts to an apostate church. That is wicked, no matter which way you cut it.

The Holy Spirit works through many ways in our lives. Don't discount that, and don't discount the power of your words. When a new believer hears a "man of God" say something, they put a lot of stock in it. That is exactly why James says "Let not many of you be teachesr for you will be judged by a higher standard."

 

What is this - the never-ending thread on Billy Graham?

 

This thread is mislabeled..... the picking at Billy Graham never stops.

 

Larry's concerns are certainly valid. In the early 1950s when Graham started allowing modernists to be part of the sponsorship team, that was confusing and disconcerting.

Having known apostates pray at his crusades was absolutely mind-boggling.

BG did these things to have a wider audience. He thought that neo-orthodoxy and liberalism were on the decline and that conservative Christianity was on the rise.

He was right in his assessment, but that doesn't excuse what certainly appeared to be compromise. Today, since conservative Christianity has to a certain extent arrived, we don't need to do what BG did. I can have a crusade with evangelical support and never encounter an apostate. We don't need them. Graham, for some reason, in the 50s thought that he did need them. And, of course, the liberals used him for their own purposes.

The only caution to my post is this: I can read the debate from primary sources as to what happened and why in the 50s change of Billy Graham, but I can't really get a sense of the tone of the times. Reading something in print often feels different than actually witnessing the event. There may have been reasons why BG went the way he did that I can't pick up on in print only. I've talked to eyewitnesses of these events and come away with a different impression.

Still, I can't help but wish that Billy Graham would have steered clear of Peale, Pike, and others of that ilk.