Billy Graham's Stand

I agree he did not view those verses through the same eyes as some others, but don't you think it is pretty clear?? We are not talking about minor doctrines or petty ideas. We are talking about major, fundamental doctrines on which the Christian faith stands.

The reason I would say something like intentional direct disobedience is due to the fact that Graham was lovingly and scripturally confronted from Scripture in private many times by men he highly respected and by men whose advice he sought. This was not like you and I writing a letter to him. These were close personal relationships where Scripture was handled and discussed. He was shown the significance of what he was doing.

I don't know that he compromised the integrity of the SCriptures. I have never seen anyone try to make that argument. But it is possible to be disobedient without doing that and I think that is the category into which this falls.

 

If you read my earlier post where I quoted directly from his book.

Why would anyone accept advice from someone like the following? '"Some of the things they say are pure fabrications.... I do not intend to get down to their mud slinging and get into endless arguments and discussions with them.... We are too busy winning souls to Christ and helping build the church to go down and argue with these... publicity-seekers.'"

In the churches I pastored I have seen the same thing. The people who gave me the most trouble were those who had never led a person to Christ and certainly never discipled anyone.

Personally I don't want to waste my time in endless arguments who cannot name people they are discipling. Their fruit shows. It is zero. Actually the church might get more done if they were not there. If they are born again their fruit doesn't indicate that.

Jesus didn't command us to have perfect theology before we disciple someone. He said in effect get busy the harvest is plentiful.

 

I am sure BG has received advice from both sides at every level. Because he did not listen to those whom you or I feel he should have does not mean he violated scripture. He made certain choices of association that I may or may not agree with in order to proclaim the gospel. If one embraces your view of secondary separation they would call such actions disobedience. I, on the other hand, believe that one can operate from a controversial platform and still remain true to the gospel itself.

 

I dont' have "a view" of secondary separation. Separation is primary. Based on the plain reading of Scripture, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion.

Whether or not Graham has remained true to the gospel is another discussion. But in this one, you are certainly right ... but remaining true to the gospel is not the only concern. That is very narrow minded to think in such small compartments. The base doctrines of Christianity encompass much more. Too often that is overlooked and it should not be.

 

You may or may not agree? Tell us, SBCbyGrace, do you agree or not? What did Graham do that you think we (fundamentalists) disagree with that was not really wrong? Or what did he do that you think is wrong?

 

It seems as if one of my earliest discussions with you was over "secondary separation." No need to tread through that area again I suppose.

If BG's primary aim was to preach the unadulterated gospel to as many people as possible in as many venues as possible, then it is not thinking in small compartments. As far as I know BG's intent has not been about theological discourse. It has been about evangelism. Again, the associational choices he made in the process are debatable but not grounds for declaring direct disobedience (IMHO).

 

I am simply said that Graham has operated from a platform that has not always included "evangelical" Christians. Was that a mistake? Well it depends upon your definition and application of the principles of secondary separation (or what Larry calls primary separation). For BG, the gospel was not tainted so he evidently believed it was acceptable.

 

What? </font>[/QUOTE]What I am getting at is the idea that Jesus gave the great commission in Mt. 28:19,20. But all of us know that so often the people who give the most trouble in churches are those who are just warming the pews. They are like concrete--all mixed up and permanently set. They have ideas on how to grow a church and do evangelism and discipleship. But their life shows they have not done any of what they claim to know how to do.

Those who often claim to have the "right" theology often prove otherwise by their lack of obedience to Mt. 28:19,20. Often they cannot name anybody who is living for Jesus Christ because of their life.

Their advice and words don't agree with their proof of obedience. JAmes says that the proof of a saving faith is followed by good works. One of those works is making disciples.

Jesus said Mt. 4:19, "Follow Me and I will make you fishers of men." Fishermen are more and more succesful as they fish. They get wiser and learn more to help improve their catch. So it with those who make disciples.

The next time you hear a complainer just ask him who to name those who are living for Jesus Christ because of their life. Usually the answer is the same--silence.

 

Why would you assume that BG is telling you the whole story?? I have seen the "pure fabrications" and they are not "pure fabrications." I don't doubt but what some people may have said some untrue things, but that was not the basis. He did not want to get into "mudslinging" becuase he had no answer. It was not about publicity in the least. In fact, as you well evidence, it brought bad publicity on men who loved BG, Christ, and the gospel very much. They in fact loved them all enough to tell the truth, even when it made them unpopular. Remember there are two sides to every story.

But the men who were talking to Graham had preached to more than Graham had; they had more experience in theology and evangelism than Graham did; and in some cases, have probably to this day had a wider ministry than Graham has had. These were certainly not people who were not discipling or evangelizing. They were evangelists and pastors.

Very pious of you but irrelevant. First, it's not true. SEcond, the demands of obedience do not depend on what others may or may not be doing.

But Jesus said to love God above all else and love is demonstrated by keeping his commandments. In some areas, Graham failed to love God more than all else.

 

How in the world can you possibly make this statement?? How do you konw that many people?? The people under discussion here ... the ones who had conversations with BG ... are all gone. There is no way you can say that about them. You certainly do not know me or anyone else in this forum. This sounds like a statement that comes from a very high horse.

 

How in the world can you possibly make this statement?? How do you konw that many people?? The people under discussion here ... the ones who had conversations with BG ... are all gone. There is no way you can say that about them. You certainly do not know me or anyone else in this forum. This sounds like a statement that comes from a very high horse. </font>[/QUOTE]I think perhaps you misunderstood what I tried to convey.

You will notice that I wrote, "usually" not always.

I do not know anything about the conversations with BG I wasn't there and I wasn't directly referring to that.

Did BG lie or tell the truth in his book? I have not read anything to refute that have you? If so give me the primnary sources and I will be glad to read them.

I gathered that you don't believe what I said, So I would challenge you to ask the people in your church alone, "Who's living for Jesus because of your life.

It takes on the average of two years to disciple a new believer. So if that is the case then the average Christian should have discipled the number of years they since they became a Christian minus two and divide that number by two. For example if a person has been a Christian 20 years they should have discipled on the average of at least nine people. So that means that the average church should be growing about nine times in 20 years minus the deaths. That is just by simple discipleship and the average Christian discipling one person every two years. But then if you were to take and add to the picture the idea of multiplication. If one person discipled on the average of one person each year and the people he discipled were to reach on the average of one person each year it would take 16 years to reach 32768 people. That is a sizeable town.

I am curious could you tell me who the men were who "warned" Billy Graham and what they did to reach people?

 

The goal of the Christian life is to be obedient to Christ in everything that we do. BG supporters seem to be promoting a kind of Chritian schizophrenia in which you compartmentalize the Christian life into areas in which is OK to disobey God as long as you have other areas in which you do a really really good job of obeying him.

Billy Graham embarked upon a course of willing and planned compromise with liberalism in the 1950s and he has remained consistent to his strategy over the years. By the 1950s, fundamentalists had separated from liberals and left the denominations to the liberals. BG and his new-evangelical allies ceased the practice of separation, planning to win people to Christ, send them back into the liberal denominations, and over time turn the denominations back to conservatism. This strategy is not a biblical strategy. This strategy has in 50 years, not succeeded. Rather, liberals have used Billy Graham and their support for him as a cover to ligitimize their false teaching. The BG strategy has had the opposite effect that new-evangelicals desired and projected for it has served to entrench the liberals in their position of power in the denominations. It's time you guys recognized the failure and rejected this faulty methodology.

 

So are you agreeing that BG is not obeying Mt 18:19-20? I wonder how many he can actually name? Does he do follow-up visits? Does he disciple those people that come forward at his crusades?

I had also read that before the opening of Russia, he had several crusades in Russia. He would abide by the Communist law, not to speak openly, in public, of the Gospel. When asked about what he could do for those believers that were imprisoned for the sake of Christ, he stated that their is punishment for breaking the laws, and that those people became too zealous in their belief. </font>[/QUOTE]I was directly involved with the follow up of those who made decisions as were many other pastors and churches. We attended classes before the crusade. The team that helped Billy Graham made sure each person was contacted and what the response was. We had a number of them in Bible study in our church. It was the best thing that ever happened to the people in the church. The influence of the classes and the crusade itself gave the people more boldness and they began to pray more for lost people.

Billy Graham has a team of men that oversee the follow up. The person who started that was Dawson Trotman. Now it is a man who was in The Navigators in the past.

I do not know much about the situation in Russia nor do we. He may have been told that he should not make a big splash because the situation might have been worse for the Christians. I do not know.
We can see in scripture that even Jesus told a man to say nothing. Jesus instructed his disciples in Mt. 10:5,6, "These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Jesus did not send them to just anybody. He gave them specific instructions.

Mt 10;17-21 says, "As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. "You know the commandments, `Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.' " And he said to Him, "Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up." Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

IF a man came to us what would we do? Jesus did not give him the gospel. He reached into his heart first and then said, "Come follow me."

I have a very close friend that was a missionary in a communist country for 26 years. He told me that it was illegal for sharing your faith as a Christian. You could be executed. But he did and people came to Christ. Today there are an enormous number of people living for Christ because of his life. He told me that every week they had their Bible study at a different location because of visitors that could be informants. He told me of hundreds that were executed almost for no reason. Perhaps if I asked him more questions he might give me more information. It amy sound bad to us about what BG did but he may have been given some advice by some Christians there. I really don't know. So I just leave it alone and trust that he did what he felt was right before God. I guess when God gives us that chance then we can do as we see fit. But God in His sovereignty has not given me such a direct opportunity.

 

I agree with you on some things and others I do not.

You wrote, "The goal of the Christian life is to be obedient to Christ in everything that we do.

I absolutely agree.

I remember Billy Graham being interviewed on TV about liberalism and a man who was once with him. The man was a liberal and they went their separate ways. They interviewed both and got their story. The one is fruitless and of course you know about Billy Graham.

You wrote, "BG supporters seem to be promoting a kind of Chritian schizophrenia in which you compartmentalize the Christian life into areas in which is OK to disobey God as long as you have other areas in which you do a really really good job of obeying him.

I response to what you wrote I don't quite see those kind of things among his workers. In fact I went to one of his evangelism schools. The most powerful messages I have ever heard in my life were given there. I think everybody walked away changed and more commited to Christ. One man spoke of the time he spoke out against racism and got several threats from people. He received threats regularly because of his stand for Christ and the work the church he pastored did. That pastor had courage to do what is right. From my personal experience I just can't even imagine what you are saying about the BGEA being liberal. Would I do some things differently? Probably. But I am not sure how I would work out the logistics of following up on that many people.

But suppose Billy Graham is all wrong. Perhaps we should do as Paul did in Phil 1:15-18, "Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice."

If there are some who would like to come west and train people to evangelize and disciple people you are more than welcome to come. There is a lot of work to be done. The churches that are winning people to Christ and making disciples are staying open and those that do not are either existing or are already closed.