Inclusivism and B. Graham

But gb, wasn't this the religious leaders they were disobeying? They were not disobeying the civil leaders in this particular case. </font>[/QUOTE]Still shows the point God comes first not some other person or law. Still shows who we are to submit to. God is first. Not all laws are godly. For example an abortion is legal but not right. Not all laws man makes are right.

In the NT when the emperor demand they call him Lord he could have had a person executed by naming Christ as Lord when they were baptized. Some were too. By namimg Christ as Lord they were in effect remouncing the emperor as their Lord. America is an easy country to make great claims of theology because it often does not get put to much of a test. My friend who was a missionary in Ethiopia for a long time told me that during communism it was illegal to talk to anyone about the gospel on the street. But they did anyway. Should the German Christians have obeyed Hitler and became a gestapo to help him?

During the time of communism it was illegal to hide Jews but people did.

Will we obey man or God first? We must resist the Devil.

 

GB, with all respect to your post, Pastor Larry and I have agreed to disagree on the topic of BJU and race, in hopes that this thread not get hijacked. My apologies if my posts ended up doing exactly that; 'twas not my intent.

 

So, when Billy Graham gets to heaven, and I've no doubt that's where he will go, will the Lord say, "Billy, Billy, Billy. You and your "inclusivism." Why did you fail me?"

I seriously doubt it! I believe he will hear, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." And then I believe the Lord will show him all the sea of thousands of souls he won to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the thousands of fruit borne from those thousands.

Some people really need to get a grip. It's not about doctrine and denominations, people! It's about JESUS!

 

There has been no "awful smear" on Graham. The facts stated here are documented facts. You don't have to like them. That doesn't change the truth of them.

No one here that I saw called Graham an apostate. Graham is disobedient because he has cooperated with apostates. That is an undeniable fact. Graham has compromised the gospel by condoning and accepting the endorsement of those who preach a false gospel. That is an undeniable fact.

 

And he certainly should come before defending the disobedience of Graham.

I said nothing about him being an apostate. He has clearly compromised the gospel by allowing for baptismal regeneration and works salvation. He has said that people might be able to be saved with knowing Jesus Christ. That is plainly a compromise of hte gospel. At this point, I will stop short of calling him an apostate.

I did no such thing. I do not know of any evidence that BJ supporting stealing people. No one here has put forth such evidence. Weren't you the one blasting me for allegedly not having sources? Do you want to be consistent and blast yourself for it? Or would you like to retract it?

And that is exactly what Graham did. And the church is weaker.

Absolutely. But completely off topic.

No, not at all. Show me where God said anything about segregation. I don't know of any text that can be used to support that.

Please tell me you are not seriously citing MLK as a source of moral authority. He was a cheater, a womanizer. He was far from morally upright.

That may be so, but that is not the topic here. No on is supporting stealing people, nor is anyone talking about supporting it.

A common tactic, but misplaced. Where PEter and John rightfully disobeyed government, it was to obey God. Segregation was not an issue where that applies. God did not address the equality of people anywhere but the church. In fact, writing to slaves, God told them to work hard and be satisfied in their place (1 Cor 7; Titus 2; Col 3; Eph 6). You must use Scripture rightly to have authority.

I have been the one here consisting about the facts. We cannot deny the facts that Graham compromised with the world to achieve his own goals. You want to ignore that fact and change the subject to someone else. Why? Because you apparently don't want to deal with the facts about Graham.

The statistics I gave on the previous page are staggering in their failure rates. Doesn't that speak volumes about this issue? Doesn't the fact that Graham knowingly compromised with unbelievers and false teachers tell us everything we need to know?

God said to expose them and separate from them. Will you obey God or not?

 

Dear swaimj,
I agree that, as you describe, the Mormon meeting was wrong. But I also know that many things are not reported accurately.

But could you explain what you and other fundamentalists believe about inclusivism?

I have heard it explained that Billy Graham was NOT saying that "good" pagans who have never heard of Jesus can go to Heaven because they did the best they could and were better on the curve than other "worse" pagans. All are sinners, anyone who goes to Heaven goes by the blood of Jesus. But that MAYBE it is possible, God doesn't tell us everything clearly, that God can save people without human instrumentality of missionaries?

Is Rahab in Heaven? How much did she really know about Jesus? Are Job's children in Heaven?

A particular kind of this thinking exists among the Primitive Baptists on this board. Is this a disputable matter or in your view shows that they are sliding towards apostacy?

Karen

 

Inclusivism is taking people who are not Christians, or who hold doctrines that are clearly outside of Christianity and fellowshipping with them as brothers as though there is no difference in what they believe or as though their false teaching does not matter.

I think the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's statement on salvation is clear and I have no controversy with it. However, Billy Graham's personal statements on salvation contradict the official statement. There is a long history of this type of contradiction. The Biblical teaching on salvation is that outside of faith in the person of Jesus Christ, there is no salvation. That is why Jesus commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

According to Hebrews 11, Rahab is in heaven. Rahab knew nothing at all about Jesus. In the OT, believers were responsible to believe the revelation they were given and if they believed that revelation their faith was counted for righteousness. Rahab's revelation consisted of the stories of God's power displayed in relation to the nation of Israel for the purpose of protecting them and delivering them from Egypt. She believed those stories and, in faith, acted to save the spies. The revelation God has given man today is the gospel of Jesus. Any faith short of or other than faith in Jesus cannot save.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I'm not sure how you are linking PBs to this subject. I'm not sure of the referent who is possibly sliding into apostasy. Can you restate this question?

 

It actually has been used both ways. In the old days, before any dreamed up modern inclusivism, ecumenism was called inclusivism.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I'm not sure how you are linking PBs to this subject. I'm not sure of the referent who is possibly sliding into apostasy. Can you restate this question? </font>[/QUOTE]I'll try. The referent is PB's. I bring them up because many seem to believe a variety of inclusivism. What I understand them to say is that you can be eternally saved and never know it in this lifetime. That preaching the Gospel brings knowledge, comfort, etc. to the regenerate, but that it is very possible to live all your life as a Hindu, die thinking you are one, and wind up in Heaven.
The Primitive Baptists on this board seem to be FAR more inclusivist than anything Billy Graham ever dreamed of. But is apostate as accurate as just greatly mistaken?

Karen

 

Hang on a minute. The "religion" issue has nothing to do with salvation etc. The Christian religion doesn't save anyone any more than any other religion. Only Jesus does that, and Jesus knows no religion. Religion is what we practice, it is not what saves us.

 

I don't have a religion. I am in an intimate relationship with Jesus, Johnv.

 

James spoke of true religion in his epistle, Ladyeagle. If you are truly saved, you do have a religion.

 

Good point. Okay, I have both.

(Just pickin' at Johnv )

 

James 1:26, 27, "If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

 

Thanks for posting that, gb. That is the verse.

Back to unbridled tongues lashing a servant of God, Billy Graham, who has served the Lord his whole life and now is sick and old.

7 pages so far...

 

OK, I think I understand what you are saying, Karen. I disagree with the PBs on this aspect of their theology for a person must place personal faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

I am not sure this doctrine makes PBs inclusivist in the sense we are speaking of here. The inclusivism which sparked this thread was the event in Utah in which evangelicals courted Mormons for joint worship. The issue is fellowshiping with non-believers and worshipping with them. PBs, as I understand them, do not reach out to unbelievers at all; preferring to wait until God sovereignly brings the elect to them. I am not a PB and I don't intend to misstate their beliefs. Perhaps one of them will comment on this.