Fundamentalist

Indeed - sin is rebellion and God is not in the business of promoting rebellion against the Law of God.

 

The only problem with Chick's portrayal of the Vatican recruiting Graham through Hearst after WW2 is that Graham was a died-in-the-wool, hellfire preaching, liberal-fighting, Catholic opposing Fundamentalist in those days! John R. Rice mentored him and Bob Jones supported him! So Chick's narrative is based on a false premise.

 

The problem with that portrayal is that Graham did have leaders from all different denominations as part of his volunteer staff. He was not known for directing his listeners to any specific denomination.

IF someone here knows for a fact that he turned away Catholic or Orthodox clergy and would not let them minister during his crusades - please speak out.

Hint: I do know that he invited SDAs to participate.

 

This is acommon logical facalicy:
it happens with John Nelson Darby who is
condemned for teaching in 1828 what he taught in the
USofA after the civil war. Actually he (Darby or Graham)
grew a little in Grace in his last 40 years.

These young folks don't have 40 years of Bible study
under their belt to know: You can grow in Grace in
your last 40 yerars. (Goodness -- at my age I'm Cramming
for Finals

 

Here is a quote from a 2005 crusade

Looks like they were not going for the RC groups.

But there are more details at this site - Page references below appear to be from Graham's book "Just as I Am"

 

I can't give a defining answer. The town I was in
had maybe 2% Catholics and maybe two Orthodox persons.
It was one of the Movies that I ministered at.
This was in the late 1960s.

From the middle 1970s until today (22 Dec 2007) I
am a trained lay minister to those seeking salvation
(in our church we call them 'first responders' and even
list a couple of Men first responders and a couple of
women first responders. Others of us will come forward
at the invitation, if needed).

IMHO Seventh Day Adventists are generaly saved
individuals who band together for normal Christian
reasons. I know this by experience, not book learning.

 

Thanks Ed.

I believe there are saved Catholic Christians as well as SDA and baptist. My point was simply to show that I think Graham tried to be very inclusive at his meetings.

 

:laugh: Never stop growing, amen?

 

In those days, before the New Evangelical movement really got under way, all the fundamentalist mass evangelists were interdenominational. They just wouldn't include liberals or Catholics. John R. Rice even had Pentecostals (pre-Charismatic) cooperate in his crusades as long as they were for souls being saved.

 

I am not ready to dismiss Graham because he was inclusive at his evangelistic meetings OR because he called them "Crusades".

Those all seem like nits to me.

If you say that his teaching directed his listeners away from scripture, or obedience to Christ or any such thing I am ready to listen - but I have not heard it yet.

in Christ,

Bob

 

As a linguist, I have to tell you that words change in meaning, and one word can have many meanings. I think it is pretty strange to say someone is a Catholic spy simply because they use the word "crusade" for their evangelistic meetings.

Until the word became politically incorrect for the very reasons you are giving, it was used in English in a lot of contexts for a lot of efforts, both Christian and non-Christian. Were those various organizations all Catholic? Pshaw!

P. S. And remember, the Crusades were against the Muslims. I'm not pro-Catholic, but I'll take Catholics over Muslims any day! It was the Muslims who first conquored the Middle East by "rape, murder and pillage of villages" as you put it, and by forced conversions. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, all that area was once Christian until the Muslims took over and killed millions of Christians.

 

Well, this is kind of insulting, intimating that I'm unwise and deceived by religious charlatans in spite of the fact that you know me only from a couple of posts on the BB.

FYI, I'm on record on the BB for opposing the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham at: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4309
But that certainly doesn't mean I have to swallow Alberto's wild statements.

 

// [Chick said Hort and Wescot were closet
catholics, and he's got the information to prove it.] //

Chick is full of himself

He can't prove it.

 

//I believe this is part of the apostacy prophecied
in 2 Thessalonians, the falling away from the faith.
They are falling away from the true Word of God,
and now using corrupted bibles that have the words changed.//

TeeHee.

I have no idea why people copy stuff from other sources (illegal on this board)
That have already oft been copied by other people (who are now
banned for not using BB protocall). I myself have said it before:
The Prime Directive of bb (bullentin boards):

READ BEFORE YOU WRITE.

It will save a lot of repeated errors and grief.

Here is an Old Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ,
and by our assembling vnto him,
2 That ye be not suddenly mooued from your minde,
nor troubled neither by spirit, nor by worde, nor by letter,
as it were from vs, as though the day of Christ were at hand.
3 Let no man deceiue you by any meanes:
for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first,
and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition,

Yep, this Bible (Like the Bishop Bible before it and
the King James Version after it) are written in early MODERN ENGLISH
(not middle English - hardly anybody on this BB can read middle English).
Yep, 2 Thess 2:3 has no mention of 'apostasy' in it.

It is the MVs (Modern Versions of the 20th Century /1901-2000/
that say 'apostasy in them, not the Great Old Bibles
of the 16th-18th Centuries: 16th (1501-1600),
17th (1601-1700), and 18th (1701-1800).

Oh, the Translators of the Geneva Bibles had the English word 'apostasy'
(brought from the Greek) meaning falling from the faith - but they
chose 'departing'. IMHO that means a departing from THE EARTH.
In verse one Paul says He will talk about the 'assembling' conducted
by Jesus - here is where he speaks of it again: in 2 Thess 2:3.

That is the way I believe and I prove it from the KJVs
NOT from the MVs. TeeHee - searching for a Bible that proves
my theory and end up using the KJVs not my MVs.

But anybody could have looked that up, if they were interested
in reading the BB.

//Information provided by Robert Stewart//

Oops, you gave credit.
Please give a pointer.
I for one check especially all references to or about the Bible to
see if it really does say that especially in God's Holy UNALTERED & INERRANT
written Word - available in 100s of English Translations.

Anyway, IMHO, all the misinformation & poor opinions of
your quotation have been already debunked on the BB many times.
I see no reason to WRITE MY OWN STUFF AGAIN. Come on -
if it is in print somewhere, we Freedom Readers have already blown up
the untruths, wrong hunches, misinformation, propaganda.
Don't dare tell me ever that my TNIV is other then the UNTARNISHED
INERRANT Written Word of God preserved WITHOUT ERROR for
the 21st Century (2001-2100) (The century I live in).

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (TNIV = Today's New International Version, 2006):
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way,
for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs
and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Yep, the 'rebellion' is what I call the pretribulation
Rapture2 (Resurrection1 followed immediately by a Rapture1) of Jesus.
It opens the Tribulation Period (AKA: the Wrath of God) and is
phase one at the beginning of a 7-year-long 'day' of the Lord
(AKA: Day of Christ) called the Tribualtion Period.

But it sure is a lot easier to show in the OLD BIBLES
where 'departure' (or a form of it) is used in the 12
English Bibles preceeding the KJVs and 'falling away'
in the KJVs.

 

exactly the wrong pew

 

Again, I humbly ask, petition, beseech, and pray
you will add the the Translation, Version & Edition.
I am required by God to check out all
scriputre passages.
With 2½-dozen Paper versions and 4-dozen Cyber
versions available to check, this causes me to
sadly waste God's time in my life.

Yes, I know that will mean that you have to edit your
scripture. Your scriputre is right then when you quote it.

Your scripture sounds like the reading of
KJ21 = The 21st Century King James Version
(Deuel Enterprises, 1994)
but some punctuation varies and some
Capitalization varies (Son of Man v. Son of man).

Here is my writing that shows that What Jesus said
here is actually showing the pretribulation rapture2 =
a resurrection1 followed by a rapture1, is
to be in our future.

Here is an earlier writing I wrote which one could
find around the BB several places -- if one
really cared.
--------------------------------
Pretribulation view of Matthew 24:

Here is a pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church,
pre-Millinnial Return of Christ,
Futurist understanding of Matthew 24.

In Matthew 24:3 the disciples of Jesus
ask three questions:

(in the order asked):
1. When will the Temple be destroyed?
2. What is the sign of His coming?
3. What is the sign of the end of age?

Jesus answers these questions in
Matthew 24:4-44, then follows them with
some parables in Matthew 24:45 through Matthew 25..

Here are the answers of Jesus in the
order the questions were asked:

1. When will the Temple be destroyed?
Matthew 24:4-14

2. What is the sign of His coming?
Matthew 24:15-30

3. What is the sign of the end of age?
Matthew 24:31-44

Here is a summary of the answers
in the order in which events will occur
(not in the order in which the questions were asked):

1. When will the Temple be destroyed?
Soon, it was in 70AD

3. What is the sign of the end of age?
No signs preceeding the end of the age

2. What is the sign of His coming?
The Sign of His coming will be the
Tribulation period.

Recall the Greek language in which this
Mount Olivet Discourse (MOD) was written
did not have Microsoft Word to do it with.
So many ands, buts, and other connectors
give the outline. 'Polysyndeton' is a retorical device that uses
(in English) repeated connectors (usually 'and')
instead of an outline. This is most noticable
in the Bible in Genesis 1 and Matthew 24.
I believe the major outline to be:

1. When will the Temple be destroyed?
Matthew 24:4-14

2. What is the sign of His coming?
Matthew 24:15-30

3. What is the sign of the end of age?
Matthew 24:31-44

The Gathering in Matthew 24:31 is the
Rapture/resurrection which ends the
current church age (gentile age, age of grace,
last days, etc.)

Thus Matthew 24:4-14 describes all of the
church age even up to this time.
Matthew 24:4-14 describes the church age.
The signs of Matthew 24:4-14 are signs
that the church age continues
NOT that the end is near..

-------------------------------------

Which is a simple and more complete reading
of what Jesus had to say.

As always, feel free to tell me the first verse
after Matthew 24:29 that isn't covered by
the 'after the Tribulation of those days'.
I believe the answer is NOT Matt 24:31
by the above reasons.

Also feel free to explain how Jesus answered these
three questions of the Disciples according to
your post-tribulation a-mill (the Millinnial Messanic
Kingdom of Christ is to be discrned as a Spiritual
truth only) viewpoint.