Is Graham an apostate?

You are correct in the fact this should be a discussion of Billy Graham. Comparing Falwell's problems does not change Billy Graham's theology. You said a "decisional brand of salvation" which is a whole other subject getting into free will vs. Calvinism, which I am sure is addressed in other threads. Yes, one thing about Graham that does bother me is the coziness with established powers that be.

 

I myself had noticed you used the word "if", which leaves me, again, to agree with you. Sans the content and context of the entire interview, and given the sources that typically repeat the info of the OP, it suggests that objectivity on the content here is suspect. But, yes, "if" this was said, given the whole context and content, I'd be in agreement with you.

That's actually something I was able to check up on a few years ago. The context of what he was saying was that Hell wasn't necesserily a literal physical place that you could point to and say "there is is", or "here are the GPS coordinates to Hell". However, he was emphasizing that Hell is a real place, regardless of whether it's physical or not. He further went on to say that a person who rejects the gift of salvation is destined to an eternity in Hell.

That being said, there is no shortage of people who took the "hell is not a literal place" line and spun it to give the impression that Graham either doesn't believe in Hell, or doesn't believe that it's real. Obviously, he does, and having researched that, I can attest to that fact 100%.

Given that, it puts the topic of the OP in greater suspicion.

 

Thanks John... again. We're agreeing too much you know. People are gonna think we're wimps... let's talk about marriage some more.

Just kidding. I don't think we're all that far off there either.

 

Saturneptune: With Rev Graham, it's more than "free will" vs. Calvanism. The slick invitation system, the folks planted in the congregation to begin coming forward (to prime the pump), the quick prayer and easy believeism and the granting of assurance by man all work together to move salvation from a work of God to a work of man. Unfortunately, along with the "seeker sensitive" folks, it appears Rev Graham has retreated from any outward stance that the seeker might find offensive. That's really hard to do and stay true to the gospel. However, I do believe Billy Graham has been greatly used of God. I just believe in his later years, he has waivered.

 

thank you scott

 

GLC,
Welcome, it took me a while to figure out who this is. I agree with your post. He did a great work of God, but it's probably time to move on, just wish people would recognize what he has done for the Lord, surely lots more than me.

 

Hey, GLC, welcome from me, too.

TB

 

Has anyone ever heard of a David Bruce? He used to be a youth pastor and then pastor at my church in KY when I was a kid.

From what I have been told, he works with Billy Graham and is very high on the chain of command, not far under the son Franklin.

 

Do you mean, as an example, his promotion of the special Billy Grahm edition of the Message Bible, or his promotion of the Passion movie, and attesting to it's scriptural accuracy? I am going to have to get back to you on this...

 

You make it sound like he was pushing it. I know that the BGEA had an edition of the Message with commentaries from Graham. So what? Unless one has decided ahead of time that the Message translation is evil, it's hardly of concern. You're coming from the stance that anyone who endorses the Message is an apostate. Hardly objective or accurate.

Same thing. You've decided ahead of time that anyone who endorses the Passion movie is an apostate. Hardly objective on your part.

In fact, your violin appears to only play two tunes: "The Message" and "The Passion". I'm sure I'm not the only one who is growing weary of hearing them in such repetition.

 

Regardless of BG's ecumenical endeavors throughout the years there is one thing for sure. Whether you disagree with his associations or his methods in putting together his crusades. One must admit that when he steps to the podium to preach to the masses he has always preached the simple, pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I've watched him on TV for 30yrs. As sure as the sun comes up in the morning Billy Graham is going to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I think that is very plain to all.
Now his associations and things like that leave alot to be desired. But as far as a "Gospel preacher" I think he was faithful to what God had called him to do in this world.
If He has had deviant motives in uniting evangelicals with false teaching only Billy himself knows this and God Almighty.
Personally I appreciate the fact that he has always preached the simple message of the cross.
Let God judge him for his questionable associations and endeavors into ecumenicalism.

 

Excellent post shannonL. I agree 100% and that is rare with your posts.

 

Guess who else believed that.

-- C. H. Spurgeon

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/sum&sub.htm

 

Graham admits that many of those who come forward are not saved and will never be saved.

He also admits that these are decisions, not conversions. He believes that some are truly converted, some will be converted, and some are not converted at his crusades.

I think Graham should be given some credit for making this admission. Obviously, he is in his old age distancing himself from some of his former thoughts and practices.

Only God can convert the sinner, and Graham admits this.

 

Graham laid out his message and methodology, and then invited the pastors and churches of the city to work with him.

If they didn't believe his message and approve of his methodology, then they were the ones who were compromising.

Jesus said something like "If they aren't against me, then they are for me."

Everyone knew what Graham was going to preach. Those who didn't believe his message but supported his crusades are the hypocrites, not Graham.

 

I agree. And I also think that it takes at the very least a special revelation of the Gospel to be saved. What constitutes a revelation of the Gospel is up for debate, however.

The question put to Graham was "Can Jesus come into the life and soul of a person without that person having the Bible or having heard the name Jesus?" Graham said, "yes". Then he rambles about "tribal situations" (whatever that means), just like an old man being put on the spot.

I happen to agree with Graham on the "yes" part.

We men love to read things into scripture in order to create our personal checklists of rules on exactly what is required to be saved. One of those checkmarks we love to add is that you need to know the name "Jesus". But scripture doesn't actually say that. It says things like "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." It doesn't say things like "Anyone who fails to call on the exact name 'Jesus' cannot possibly be saved."

Scripture says things like "There is no other name by which..." It doesn't say "There is no other way except that we know and specifically mouth the exact name..."

I have a feeling God doesn't give a hoot about our checklists, and praise God for that.

 

npetreley doth make a wise point.

 

If anyone wants to knows what inclusivism is, the posts by npetreley is it.

 

Main Entry: inclusivism
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: the practice or principle of being inclusive and acceptance of other belief systems; inclusiveness

Sounds like "universalism" to me!