Inclusivism and B. Graham

The statements Dr. Graham made were shocking, to say the least. I am surprised at this. I know that he is not perfect, and could even see a lot of ego in his book; but to be so liberal on other religions reaching to God really surprises me.

Does he not preach that we need Jesus Christ to get to heaven? I thought that was his main evangelism approach in the past.

Does he not believe what he is preaching?

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT questioning Dr. Graham's Christianity. Personally, I think he is a Christian.

Are we sure these aren't just urban legends?

Since Dr. Bob confirmed this, I doubt they are? This is sad to hear about a fellow brother.

I guess power does corrupt. I notice a lot of egotism among the head honchos in the Southern Baptist Convention and they seem to not even realize it. I read Dr. Pressler's story of the "reformation" of the SBC and it appeared that he was quite stuck on himself. Maybe I am wrong, but sometimes I think this becomes a sin when people get a taste of power.

There is a difference between standing up for Christianity and having a "better than thou" attitude.

If Dr. Graham actually said that people can reach God through other religions, then he has a problem. Why do you think he would preach the way he does and do something else?

Is this an on-going thing, or could it be related to his Parkinson's syndrome?

My mother had Parkinson's and for the last twelve years of her life she had little mental capacity. It is a sad a debilitating disease, more than people realize, unless they have been close to it.

 

It very well could be, but none of us know and none of us is in the position to judge.

I just can't stand the direction these threads have taken lately. Surely there must be better things to discuss rather than tearing down ministries.

"He that winneth souls is wise," says the Bible. Billy Graham and his ministries and branches of ministries have probably won more souls to Jesus Christ all over the world than anyone posting on this board.

 

This is well known. You can find information as far back as 1947 that Graham willfully participated with apostates in violation of Romans 16:17-18, 2 Peter 3, Jude 1, 2 John, 2 Thess 5, etc. Graham willfully rejected the counsel of men that he highly respected.

You are a pastor and declare something without supporting documentation? Did you ever write a term paper in high school without documentation? You certainly didn't go to much of a college if they never taught you to document everything you write. Ever done research without documentation? A student who does that in a secular university of college especially on a thesis or dissertation is expelled due to plagiarism.

Graham has taught that a person does not have to know Jesus Christ or have personal faith in him to be saved. Graham has allowed that a person might be saved by baptism. Graham has cooperated with Roman Catholics and claimed to preach the same gospel as they do.

Do you really expect anyone to believe you when you have not even gone to www.bgea.org? On the front page is HOW TO KNOW JESUS CHRIST.

So again I ask where is your supporting documentation?

 

gb, This is correct.

My questions were based on the link on the front page of this thread which was supposedly an interview with Billy Graham. But, as you know, websites have been known to lie. Gasp---no joke!

If it is true, I hope it is a result of his Parkinson's syndrome.

Ladyeagle, we are not trying to tear down or judge Billy Graham, we are trying to determine if his "preaching and teaching" is accurate. I certainly hope it is, but even Dr. Bob has mentioned that there are problems.

GB and I would like some documentation besides a judgemental website, much like a KJVo website.

I have no doubt that Billy Graham has won many to the Lord. But, bad teaching can destroy his ministry faster than us simply talking about it on a thread that would be boring to ALMOST everybody except a Baptist.

I think it is the churches responsibility to help a brother live by the Bible. I know Dr. Graham has advisors. Whether they are doctrinally correct, or he listens to them; I don't know.

I will pray for him; however, and I think that should be the point behind these threads, not to be judgemental to the man himself.

Does that make sense?

 

gb93433, have you read his interview with Robert Schuller? I certainly wouldn't judge a life of ministry on the basis of one interview, but I think the interview is just one example in a long line of ecumenical compromises. Of course, this is just my opinion.

I hold him in high regard, yet am puzzled by many of his actions. I cannot understand how they can send a new convert back to an apostate, Roman Catholic church. That is exactly what they do at the crusades. People from a broad range of churches work at these crusades. They ask the new convert - the person who walks the aisle and makes a profession of faith - where they go to church - and they steer them back to that church. I don't know what they do if the person has not attended in the past. It is my understanding that they take this approach so they won't offend the churches in the city where the crusade is being held. Undoubtedly thousands of being make professions of faith at the crusades, and certainly some are genuine conversions. Of course, some are not genuine. He is not to blame for the false professions per se, but sending someone who has made a profession of faith to a Roman Catholic church, Episcopalian church, or some other church that has strayed from the faith is inexcusable.

 

Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Interesting that this should be quoted. Every dispensational school I can think of taught that when Graham was young. I was taught that from those who graduated from DTS, Talbot, Biola ,and Western Conservative seminary in Portland. I have heard that in almost every SBC church I have attended too.

Certainly I don't agree with that now. But it is an attempt to explain about those who have not heard and those in the OT looking forward.

I ntoiced that MacArthur's picture is posted. If one examined MacArthur's disciples and faculty you would see some strange things too. A few years ago my wife and I were attending a church that had a man from the faculty at Masters Seminary preach. Many of agreed that they would not want him to come. His theology was off some.

A close friend of mine graduated from Masters Seminary. One day I handed him a Mishnah I bought for him and he asked me what is was. He told me was never taught what it was and had never heard of it before. He has a doctorate from there. He knew little about the intertestamental period and the literature written during that time. The school just feeds them what they want them to know and nothing more. So MacArthur is not so good himself.

 

Yes, it does. But the "broadcast" was made in May 31, 1997. He may have had the beginning of Parkinson's disease when that interview was made, or perhaps didn't understand the question.

And you would be surprised how many people surf on this site who aren't Baptists. There are sites that even link to this board in an attempt to make fun of Christians and belittle the Name of Jesus Christ. So don't think it's only Baptists who are interested in what goes on here. What is posted on here can be, and is, viewed by people all over the world, Christians, atheists, non-Christians, and those who hate Christians and everything we stand for.

As far as Rev. Graham's advisers, I think he is pretty much totally retired and in bad health now. The ministries he started have carried on. His son, Franklin, has a wonderful ministry called Samaritan's Purse, for one.

 

Scotter, have you thought that maybe Dr. Graham justifies it in his mind that maybe those Christians might have a positive effect on change in the other denominations?

The error in this justification is that new Christians are impressionable and would very likely become confused if they are not self motivated to study and stand up for the truth.

Based on the one interview. I certainly hope this is related to the Parkinson's. I am not sure about Billy's son, but he may be having a "modern age" influence on his dad who is sick.

I run a Christian Low Power FM radio station (Yes, licensed by the FCC, not what you would call a "pirate" station).

We play contemporary Christian music, but we are very careful to play only "adult contemporary" that is doctrinally correct. We will not play the rock and roll and so called Christian rap.

We have a lot of adult listeners.

What surprised me was Dr. Graham interviewed with one of the "hard" rock bands. Saying that you have to do this to reach the kids today. When the band put most of the emphasis on themselves and not Jesus.

BUT, when watching the interview I noticed the toll the Parkinson's was taking on him and he was responding very, very slowly; much like my mother did when she had early stage Parkinsons.

I assumed that Dr. Graham had become more tolerant due to the effect the Parkinson's has on the brain. After all, Parkinson's is strictly a brain disease.

SAD.

But again, I at least hope that his theory was to send the people into the churches to have a positive effect on the churches. It seems like a well-meaning, but ill conceived plan.

 

Phillip,

Quite possibly his motive is that these new converts would bring light to denominations that had fallen from the truth. This is nothing new as Spurgeon was in thick of the downgrade controversy. Should he stay in, or should he pull out? As you point out, sending a new babe back to a church that doesn't teach the truth is wrong.

Regarding his Parkinson's, I have no idea and its impact on his actions. I know that some who have followed his ministry closely would quickly cite compromises dating back more than 30 years.

 

Yes, it does. But the "broadcast" was made in May 31, 1997. He may have had the beginning of Parkinson's disease when that interview was made, or perhaps didn't understand the question.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you understand the statement. Parkinson's is a long lasting disease. It does not necessarily kill a person, but often can due to the shut-down of organs (breathing, stomach action) etc. As the brain gets weaker and weaker.

When my mother was in the early stage. And I mean right after she was diagnosed from her hand shaking; she started having problems.

She would be in the house and complaining about that old man that was hanging around and she didn't know who he was. (It was my dad.) I would take her to the bedroom and tell her dad just got home and she would walk out and be extremely happy to see him home and ask him where he had been for the past two days. It was HARD on all of us, until we finally accepted it as God's will (she was one of the best Christians I have ever known--I don't know a thing that mom didn't give thanks to Christ for--plus she prayed for me and my brothers continuously when she was well.).

This stuff is REALLY bad and people don't understand how much it can effect the thoughts.

I would certainly hope that the statements that you can get to heaven through other religions is an effect of that. It is very possible. But, I don't know if he believed that before. You certainly would not think it from his sermons.

 

Here I go again trying to give excuses for the actions, but is it possible that he just over-did the brotherly-love-thing, patiently trying to convert these people?

(In the early days.) and maybe the REAL compromising (such as Muslim is a way to God.) didn't come until later?

Just wondering aloud. Again, I don't know to what extent he compromised, but I do know he preached the truth in his earlier sermons. I haven't heard many since he has been sick.

 

For all here on this thread - FYI:

BILLY GRAHAM ORG. STATEMENT OF FAITH

 

"That all men everywhere are lost and face the judgment of God, and need to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through His shed blood on the cross."

"In using every modern means of communication available to us to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world."

I certainly hope he was sick when he made the statements with Dr. Schuller.

Other bad decisions can be forgiven. (example: sending new Christians to the Catholic church--wrong, but they are saved.)

 

As I said, this is not even questionable. I have posted documentation about this on this website going back more than 2 years. This has been roundly discussed many times. All you need to do is read what Graham has said himself.

You are incorrect. Commonly accepted knowledge does not have to be documented. If I say something that is commonly known, I don't need to document it. Furthermore, this is a discussion board. You can read up on Graham at a number of different places. These facts are well known.

Did you read the previous page? Graham has said this going back as far as 1972 in McCall's Magazine. He repeated it with Schuller (whom he has highly praised) more recently. This was documented so all your complaining about me not documenting something sounds like hypocrisy. YOu have already seen teh documentation and refused to believe it. Or maybe you just missed that post.

1978, McCall's Magazine:

"I used to think that pagans in far-off countries were lost -- were going to hell -- if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. ... I believe there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God -- through nature, for instance -- and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying yes to God."

1993 interview with David Frost:

"And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they're in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. ... I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don't know" (The Charlotte Observer, 2/16/93).

Lutheran STandard article:
"I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christians through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that's all right with me" (10/10/61, The Lutheran Standard).

This information could be multiplied many times over. As I have said, this is common knowledge. Graham has taught and endorsed false doctrine. He has been disobedient to God in his assocations and partnerships. This is not new in teh least.

 

Greg Laurie recently spoke about having lunch with Billy Graham and asking him what one thing he would do differently. Graham's response? "I would preach more about the cross and the blood of Jesus."

Here is a man that God has used to preach to more people than any preacher in the history of the world and yet we evangelicals / fundies somehow find a way to pick him apart. Give me a break.

Someone even questions his salvation???? This blows my mind. If we focused as much attention and energy on the lost as we do the "saved who differ" we would come a lot closer to making a genuine impact.

Bottom line: Billy Graham believes that people are saved only through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

God commands us to expose and separate from false teachers and disobedient brothers. Billy Graham is both, as you have seen. You cannot place your personal affections above your commitment to God.

A similar instance is found in Scripture in Gal 2. Peter, a man who had preached to more people than anyone else in church history up to that time and had seen many thousands come to Christ under his ministry, was confronted by Paul for false teaching and for not walking in line with the gospel. If Paul had your mindset, he would not have said anything. Yet Paul, concerned for the truth of the gospel, confronted him, and rightly so.

Those who love God and his gospel can do no less. Where Graham is wrong and disobedient, those who love God must confront him and call him to repentance.

Graham has contradicted this on numerous occasions as you have seen through the citations above. Furthermore, it is not even accurate. People are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Graham has specifically said that people do not necessarily have to have faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. THat is a false gospel.

Why is it that people are so willing to give him a free pass on these blatantly wrong positions? Can someone help me understand that?

 

God commands us to expose and separate from false teachers and disobedient brothers.

You definitely have the choice to separate from him if you desire.


Billy Graham is both, as you have seen. You cannot place your personal affections above your commitment to God.

And as you have seen, Billy Graham has also made it clear that he believes salvation comes strictly through Jesus Christ. In a previous thread on this subject matter, I quoted extensively from Graham's own works/books where he restricts salvation to Jesus alone.


Where Graham is wrong and disobedient, those who love God must confront him and call him to repentance.

Again -- you have the choice to do this if you desire. That does not make you the final authority on this matter.

Evidently God has blessed his ministry beyond human comprehension despite his "disobedience". Would you agree with this?


Graham has specifically said that people do not necessarily have to have faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

Billy Graham has never said there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ.


Why is it that people are so willing to give him a free pass on these blatantly wrong positions? Can someone help me understand that?

Maybe we just recognize God has used him to introduce hundreds of thousands to Jesus Christ and we recognize that BG is human and may not fit succinctly in our theological box like we desire.

Maybe BG recognizes that there is a mystery element in the cross that the finite human mind cannot comprehend yet he maintains the belief that salvation can only come through Jesus Christ.

Maybe he recognizes God alone is the final authority on this issue and God's mercy is beyond anything we can understand totally.

Maybe in his finite longing to understand God's mercy his exclusivism is not quite as exclusive as your soteriology demands. Does that make him disobedient? Well obviously you have already determined that fate.

Modernism strikes again.

 

Excellent point. There is no such thing as a perfect person, a perfect preacher, or a perfect church. There is not one of us, not one of our pastors, and not one church in existence, that does not have at at least some messed up theology somewhere.

Now, for me, Billy Graham was at the Rose Bowl this past weekend. Knowing that this will likely be his last appearance due to health concerns, I went. His message was biblical and dead on. I don't care much for what people say about Graham in the past, and if I had, I would have been able to discern the difference, just as I would do so from a sermon on Sunday morning. I can only attest to one appearance and one message. Indeed, we need not put people on pedestals. But it seems we take that stance only when we hear something we agree with, and ignore that stance when we hear something we disagree with.

 

Marcia,
Is this the type of inclusivism that Billy Graham is also involved in? I find this type of thing that goes on in evangelical circles repulsive.

EVANGELICAL PREACHES

DHK

 

Yes, and as Machen pointed out long ago, it strikes at the heart of Christianity. Modernism finds a "new and better" way, instead of sticking with the one God gave us in his word. And I think therein lies the problem.

You reference several times the idea that "I can do that if I want to." You are right. But the Bible goes farther than simply permission to do such. The Bible gives commands. Had those who professed to follow God been obedient to God's commands, it is unlikely that Graham would have ever ended up where he did. The pressure brought to bear by those who love God and his standards could have been the factor that turned Graham back to the biblical truth.

The statements Graham has made about Jesus Christ being necessasry for salvation do not offset the clear allowances he has made for other means of salvation apart from conscious faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches one way ... conscious faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. When Graham says that baptism saves, he has compromised the gospel. When Graham says that people might be saved who have never heard of Jesus Christ, he has compromised the gospel. That surely is not a matter of debate, is it? When God's word speaks, we do not have the authority to speak otherwise.