SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Criticizing: Judging By Basilea Schlink

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi everyone,


Waltern,


You said,


"As Christians, we are commanded to compare the words and teaching and doctrinal positions of other "Christians" (or those that say they are Christians) against the only true measure--the Holy Bible. That is exactly what I have done in my posts."




What you have posted here [b]are your selected representations[/b] of the teachings of this man through qoutations and other such.




Are we supposed to go interview the [i]Gastonia Gazette [/i](or any of the other media qouted here) and the reporters that worked there in 1967 to corroborate [b]your allegations[/b]? Or to check to see if you have faithfully represented the qoutations here without mis-representing what was actually said in context?





You also said,


"If you find fault with my post, then answer it point by point with BIBLE SCRIPTURE that supports your view."







[b][color=000000] One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. [/color][/b]




- Dueteronomy 19:15(KJV)


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2008/6/19 22:22Profile









 Re:

To ChrisJD:

You posted:

"Are we supposed to go interview the Gastonia Gazette (or any of the other media qouted here) and the reporters that worked there in 1967 to corroborate your allegations? Or to check to see if you have faithfully represented the qoutations here without mis-representing what was actually said in context?"

My reply:

You can believe whatever you want to believe. If you do not believe me, then prove me wrong on Billy Grahams positions that I have posted here. Why not write him a letter and get his response? Just send my post to him with your letter and see what the reply is, if any. It will only be silence! Why? [b]Because what I have posted here is a matter of public record that has transpired since the late 1960's.[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter


Quote:

ChrisJD wrote:
Hi everyone,


Waltern,


You said,


"As Christians, we are commanded to compare the words and teaching and doctrinal positions of other "Christians" (or those that say they are Christians) against the only true measure--the Holy Bible. That is exactly what I have done in my posts."




What you have posted here [b]are your selected representations[/b] of the teachings of this man through qoutations and other such.




Are we supposed to go interview the [i]Gastonia Gazette [/i](or any of the other media qouted here) and the reporters that worked there in 1967 to corroborate [b]your allegations[/b]? Or to check to see if you have faithfully represented the qoutations here without mis-representing what was actually said in context?





You also said,


"If you find fault with my post, then answer it point by point with BIBLE SCRIPTURE that supports your view."







[b][color=000000] One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. [/color][/b]




- Dueteronomy 19:15(KJV)


 2008/6/19 22:48
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Waltern,





"Why don't write him a letter and get his response?"



Wait, you are making public accusations against this man and I should write him a letter?


What????


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2008/6/19 22:51Profile









 Re:

To ChrisJD & others:

[b]The reason why so many Christians today think that they don't have a right to judge anyone is because they have been indoctrinated with the worldly teaching of "tolerance."[/b] To the world tolerance means that truth is subjective, and there is no absolute truth. This means no one has to right to tell someone else that they are wrong, because one person's opinion is just as good as someone else's. Therefore we hear such things as, "who are you to judge me, or to tell me if I am right or wrong?" According to the latest statistics [b](The New Tolerance, by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, pages 173-174) 50% of Christians youth do not believe that an objective standard of truth exists, while 53% of the adults do not believe in absolute truth; Two-thirds of the 70% of Americans who say it is important to follow the teachings of the Bible reject moral absolutes. This is why many Christians today think that no one has the right to say anything to them, because that is judging them. When you bring this attitude into the church you have to ignore the Scriptures, because they do teach that there are absolute truths. Scriptures plainly teaches that believers are not to walk around blindly, ignoring sinful behavior or false teaching; and if we do then we are in direct conflict with clear teaching of God's Word.[/b] Christians need to take to heart the words of Peter and other apostles in Acts 5:29 when told that we are not to judge anyone, "...We ought to obey God rather than men." Christians, nor churches can afford to ignore God's Word and turn a blind eye to those who propagate the false teaching that no Christian has a right to judge another. To do so will only lead to confusion and division among the church body, and shows a contempt for God's Word. But we must also acknowledge that when it comes to judging, we need to always check our motives before we say something to another believer. If what we are doing is not based squarely upon God's Word and a love for our brother or sister in Christ, then it is best to keep our mouths shut.

Today, one of the most quoted verses that we hear thrown out by people is [b]Judge not, that ye be judged[/b]” Therefore meaning, [b]“who are you to judge me?” “Don’t you know that you are not supposed to judge people?”[/b] Usually this is what comes out of a person’s mouth [b]when confronted about their behavior, their personal beliefs, or for what they are TEACHING.[/b] Is this really what the New Testament teaches, or is this just a smoke screen to cover-up unbiblical behavior or teachings? Let’s look at what the New Testament teaches concerning a Christian’s position when it comes to making judgments.

Let’s start with the most often quoted passage in Matthew 7:1-5 where is says, “1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

[b]If we stop with the first verse, as most people do, it would seem to teach that to judge anyone is totally wrong. The problem with this is that it pulls the verse out of the context in which it was written. By the time you get to verse 5, it is clear that Jesus is talking to hypocrites[/b] (i.e., the Jewish religious leaders) who are condemning others for not living up to their standards. The context for this section along with Luke 6:39-42 is the Sermon on the Mount, [b]in which Christ was rejecting Phariseeism as a means by which a person could attain righteousness that would make them fit to enter the kingdom of heaven.[/b] The Pharisees claimed to have the most authoritative voice in Israel in matters pertaining to Moses’ law. Therefore they demanded explicit submission to their teachings (i.e., the oral traditions).”

Jesus Christ says this about the Pharisees in Matthew 5:20,[b] "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Christ wasn't declaring that the Scribes and Pharisees were righteous, but was pointing out that their righteousness fell short because it was based upon the legalism of their oral traditions and not God's Word.[/b] So no one could enter the kingdom of heaven by trying to live up to their standards. People do the same thing today when they go beyond what God has declared and set their own standards, and then expect others to live up to their standards. The fallacy of this is how can sinful man set higher standards than a totally holy and righteous God can? The nation of Israel and its leaders were blind to the God's truth, and Christ told them in this passage what they needed to do to remove their blindness in verse 5, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." When we remove the beam of legalism from our eyes then we can begin to see what God expects of us, and then we are able to help others who are stumbling also. The point of this whole passage was a warning about judging others based upon their own standards because they would be judged according to their own standards, which they themselves could not even live up to. Jesus also reinforces this in John 7:24 where He tells the crowds not to judge according to mere appearances (their superficial understanding of Him healing a man on the Sabbath), but they were to use a righteous judgment. If this is not the case then Jesus Christ contradicted Himself in Luke 12:54-59, where he tells the people to judge for themselves what they were seeing and hearing from His ministry to see if it was right according to what was taught in the Today, one of the most quoted verses that we hear thrown out by people is "Judge not, that ye be judged." Therefore meaning, "who are you to judge me?" "Don't you know that you are not supposed to judge people?" Usually this is what comes out of a person's mouth when confronted about their behavior, their personal beliefs, or for what they are teaching. Is this really what the New Testament teaches, or is this just a smoke screen to cover-up unbiblical behavior or teachings? Let's look at what the New Testament teaches concerning a Christian's position when it comes to making judgments.
Let's start with the most often quoted passage in Matthew 7:1-5 where is says, "1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." If we stop with the first verse, as most people do, it would seem to teach that to judge anyone is totally wrong. The problem with this is that it pulls the verse out of the context in which it was written. By the time you get to verse 5, it is clear that Jesus is talking to hypocrites (i.e., the Jewish religious leaders) who are condemning others for not living up to their standards. The context for this section along with Luke 6:39-42 is the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ was rejecting Phariseeism as a means by which a person could attain righteousness that would make them fit to enter the kingdom of heaven. The Pharisees claimed to have the most authoritative voice in Israel in matters pertaining to Moses' law. Therefore they demanded explicit submission to their teachings (i.e., the oral traditions). Jesus Christ says this about the Pharisees in Matthew 5:20, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Christ wasn't declaring that the Scribes and Pharisees were righteous, but was pointing out that their righteousness fell short because it was based upon the legalism of their oral traditions and not God's Word. So no one could enter the kingdom of heaven by trying to live up to their standards. People do the same thing today when they go beyond what God has declared and set their own standards, and then expect others to live up to their standards. The fallacy of this is how can sinful man set higher standards than a totally holy and righteous God can? The nation of Israel and its leaders were blind to the God's truth, and Christ told them in this passage what they needed to do to remove their blindness in verse 5, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." When we remove the beam of legalism from our eyes then we can begin to see what God expects of us, and then we are able to help others who are stumbling also. The point of this whole passage was a warning about judging others based upon their own standards because they would be judged according to their own standards, which they themselves could not even live up to. Jesus also reinforces this in John 7:24 where He tells the crowds not to judge according to mere appearances (their superficial understanding of Him healing a man on the Sabbath), but they were to use a righteous judgment. If this is not the case then Jesus Christ contradicted Himself in Luke 12:54-59, where he tells the people to judge for themselves what they were seeing and hearing from His ministry to see if it was right according to what was taught in the Scriptures concerning the Messiah. So it is clear from just a brief look at what Jesus taught in these few verses that He wasn't teaching that all judgment was wrong, but only when it is based upon human opinions and motives, and not God's Word. With this said, now lets turn our attention to what the Bible teaches about judging.

1. Areas that we should withhold judgment on.
a. When it comes to personal convictions or preferences (non-moral issues) on which the Bible has no clear teaching then we should not judge someone who makes those choices. Romans 14:1-23 speaks about not judging another believer because of their eating preferences (vv.1-4), or how they view the significance of special days (vv.5-8). But Paul does make it clear that our opinions or convictions on these matters should not become a stumbling block to other believers, then it would become a moral issue (vv.13-23).

b. We should not judge people just by their outward appearance (John 7:24; James 2:1-4). This is superficial judgment that is often based upon how someone looks or talks, and is not based upon what they are actually doing for the Lord. The problem with this type of judgment is that it usually has it roots in legalism and not Scripture.

c. We should withhold judgment upon another Christian's service (1 Corinthians 4:1-5). The context of this passage is dealing with divisions in the church a Corinth because of factions and false teachers who all calming superiority over the others. As a result some were criticizing Paul's ministry because they felt that he wasn't doing what they thought that he should be doing. The problem wasn't Paul's ministry or what he was teaching, but it was the attitude of some in the church. This doesn't mean that we are not to be discerning about a ministry, but that we are not supposed to condemn others because they are not doing what we think they should be doing. We need to keep in mind that some plant and some water, but ultimately it is God who causes the growth (1 Corinthians 3:1-9). An example of this would be when we start thinking that we could preach or write better sermons than the preacher, or we think that we could do a better job than what someone else is doing in another area of ministry. Or that we think that a person isn't doing something in a way that we think it should be done. When you do things like this, you are in a sense looking at individuals more like chess pieces and not people chosen by God to do the best they can with what God has given them.

d. This last area tends to build off of the other areas, and that is letting our tongues express our opinions about others (James 4:11-12). When we criticize others, we are placing ourselves in the position as judge and pronouncing judgment upon them when we may not know or understand all the details of why someone is doing what they are doing. Again, let me remind everyone that these passages are addressing non-moral issues. When it comes to sin, false teaching or ministries, the Bible clearly teaches that we are to be discerning which means we need to make an judgment based upon God's Word.

2. Areas that we should make judgments on.
a. Christians are to judge disputes between members of the local body of believers so they can settle these disputes (1 Corinthians 6:1-8). This is so that the problem doesn't spill over into the non-believing world, which discredits the church's witness to the lost.
b. The local church is to judge the unrepentant sins of its members, and to take the appropriate actions. Unconfessed sin needs to be publicly judged rightly and condemned (1 Corinthians 5:3-5). When we do this, it must be done according to God's Word (see Matt.18:15-20). The purpose of this judgment is not to condemn, but to restore the sinful believer into useful service (Galatians 6:1-5). If the sinful believer refuses to repent, then we are to break fellowship with them until they do repent (1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 3:6). Christ rebuked the church of Thyatira for not judging a woman who was a false teacher and prophetess, and who was sinning (Revelation 2:20-24).

c.[b] We are to rightly judge the doctrinal teaching of preachers and teachers by God's Word (Matthew 7:15-20; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 14:29; Titus 1:10-16; 3:10; Hebrews 13:7; 1 John 4:1; Revelation 2:20-24). Peter and John both told the Jewish leaders to judge what they were saying to see if it was true or not according to God's Word (Acts 4:19). Paul tells the Corinthians to judge what he was saying (1 Corinthians 10:15). It does need to be pointed out that we are not to listen to accusations against our pastor/leaders unless there are at least two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19-20). [/b]

d.[b] We are to rightly judge potential Elders/Pastors and Deacons to see if they measure up to the qualifications given in the Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).[/b] The reason why many churches have the problems that they have is because they fail to obey God's Word and appoint people who are not qualified according to God's Word. This means that we have to discern or judge others by God's standards in order to be obedient to God's Word.
e. We are told in 1 Thessalonians 5:14 to "admonish the unruly." In verse 15, we are told to "see to it that no one repays another with evil for evil." So it is clear that we as believers have to be discerning about other believers. This doesn't mean that we are to go around looking for every little speck or flaw, but that when we see people doing things that are clearly unbiblical then we are to speak up and say something.

f. We are to examine or scrutinize ourselves to see if our faith is real (2 Corinthians 13:5-7). This testing is to see if we are truly saved and if we are doing right in the sight of God. We are also told to judge (scrutinize) ourselves before we partake of the Lord's Supper to see if our spiritual condition is correct (1 Corinthians 11:31).

Conclusion. The reason why so many Christians today think that they don't have a right to judge anyone is because they have been indoctrinated with the worldly teaching of "tolerance." To the world tolerance means that truth is subjective, and there is no absolute truth. This means no one has to right to tell someone else that they are wrong, because one person's opinion is just as good as someone else's. Therefore we hear such things as, "who are you to judge me, or to tell me if I am right or wrong?" According to the latest statistics (The New Tolerance, by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, pages 173-174) 50% of Christians youth do not believe that an objective standard of truth exists, while 53% of the adults do not believe in absolute truth; Two-thirds of the 70% of Americans who say it is important to follow the teachings of the Bible reject moral absolutes. This is why many Christians today think that no one has the right to say anything to them, because that is judging them. When you bring this attitude into the church you have to ignore the Scriptures, because they do teach that there are absolute truths. Scriptures plainly teaches that believers are not to walk around blindly, ignoring sinful behavior or false teaching; and if we do then we are in direct conflict with clear teaching of God's Word. Christians need to take to heart the words of Peter and other apostles in Acts 5:29 when told that we are not to judge anyone, "...We ought to obey God rather than men." [b][color=CC0033]Christians, nor churches can afford to ignore God's Word and turn a blind eye to those who propagate the false teaching that no Christian has a right to judge another. To do so will only lead to confusion and division among the church body, and shows a contempt for God's Word.[/color][/b] But we must also acknowledge that when it comes to judging, we need to always check our motives before we say something to another believer.

Sincerely,

Walter
:-D

 2008/6/19 23:06
HeartSong
Member



Joined: 2006/9/13
Posts: 3162


 Re: Criticizing: Judging By Basilea Schlink

pastorfrin,

Thank you for posting this article. As I read it, I realized that I had been standing in judgment of others just a short two hours ago. How easily we are deceived about the truth of our sin. Blessedly the Lord puts others around us to bring the matter to our attention so that we may repent.

I have become painfully aware that the judgment of others does in fact bring about condemnation to the one standing in judgment - that Satan is lurking about just waiting for words to be put forth that release him to bring about sorrow and destruction to God's children.

The response to this post is a clear indication that Satan would have us to be deceived in this matter. Oh how God's heart must be grieved to see his beloved bite and tear at each others flesh.

Forgive us Father for we have sinned.

 2008/6/19 23:22Profile
pastorfrin
Member



Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406


 Re: Criticizing: Judging By Basilea Schlink

HeartSong,

You are welcome and I join with you in praying:

Quote:
Forgive us Father for we have sinned.




Brothers and Sisters,

Many years ago as a young A/G minister I believed what was written and taught by men of God within the A/G organization. The fact is, I was more than naïve enough to believe that all their teachings must be of God and that they were without error.
It did not take long for me to discover that they were not perfect and some of their teaching did not line up with the word of God. So what did I do? I rejected all of their teaching and looked for men who taught nothing but the truth of God’s word. Guess what? I could not find any I could totally agree with. This discovery placed me in quite a dilemma, what was I to do?
As I prayed about the situation I began to hear the word listen in my spirit. This happened several times as I sought the Lord and finally it came to me; Listen to what is being said and then judge each teaching on its own individual merit. So I began to do just that, to listen first and allow the Holy Spirit through the word of God to show me truth and error from every article, sermon and teaching. The person was not judged, nor all their teaching, unless all was found to be false.

There has not been one single person that I have met over the years that I have not learned something from, If, I have taken the time to listen to them.

When we throw a blanket judgment upon someone without meeting them face to face and listening to what they have to say, we only become a part of the problem. How can anyone make a true judgment of another person on rumors, and innuendoes?
If it is impossible to meet with someone, judge each article, teaching and sermon on its own merit and you will be surprised at how much one may be blessed by taking the time to listen.

There is hardly a man or woman listed in the archives of SI who would not be judged as a false teacher if you go to the right discernment site and the Lord knows there are plenty to choose from.


BrotherTom,
No, I do not lean toward any one teacher other than the Holy Spirit and no, I do not agree with all Basilea Schlink has taught or stood for, nor do I agree with all you have brought forth since you have been on SI, does that mean I should call you a false teacher? No, I should think not, instead I read what you have to say and each time I compare it with my understanding of what the word of God says. I do this with each and everything I read and listen to. The Holy Spirit is here to teach us and show us the truth, if we take the time through the word of God to allow Him to do so.

Over the years I have found it an unpleasant but at times necessary task to warn and discipline members of our congregation and other ministers as well. Keeping in mind the scripture which admonishes us to:

Galatians 6:1
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.


If warning was the only reason then there is a scriptural precedence for doing so, and that is exactly what the article posted taught.

The problem is this, instead of warning, it seems way to often, criticism, judging, and belittling of the brethren is the result and the Lord will judge those who do such things.

In His Love
pastorfrin

 2008/6/20 1:06Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: With right judgment

Waltern.

[i]And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.[/i] 2Sa 12:7

I removed the content from your posting on Billy Graham as the site in question clearly states:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.[/b]

These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for [b]Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians.[/b] Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is [b][i]TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR.[/i][/b]


(Italics and embolden their own.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is impossible not to notice when this header is above each and every article. Do not post such things here, respect their wishes.

I do not know if there is anything worse than to add embellishments to things already troublesome, even flatly wrong in an effort to over prove them. It's a cynical pragmatism and biting cynicism that makes the accuser worse and in need of rebuke for sinning the sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor. It is the effortless and ready acceptance to overlook that which paints and taints that which is true by excepting the false as acceptional.

[i]I cannot hear what you are saying over what you are saying[/i]

Or in other words, the very point Nathan stated to David, [i]Thou art the man[/i].

It is this sort of fanfare that puts discernment ministries and other like-minded under a need for their own discerning as has been mentioned here time and again. The minute the embellishments come in, whatever truth noted, warned of, exposed, is lost and my ears will close to it. It is of the wrong spirit and often full of venom and vendetta. It is more often out to destroy, not repair, strangle rather than warn, vile and violent, not borne of grief or concern. It is pride and rebellion, [i]sin[/i] but allowed to be washed out, cast behind the back and spiritually pragmatisied as the ends justify the means.

The irony of proving out wrong judgment and criticism is right within it's opposites or perhaps opponents, those teaching us how to judge rightly.



_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/6/20 9:19Profile









 Re:With right judgment?

Dear Moderator

What I posted previously was not from the site that you mentioned. The title of the website is: [b] "IS BILLY GRAHAM A CHRISTIAN"[/b]---- and can be found at the following site, that has no such provision about internet posting:

http://members.fortunecity.com/sitaram/page142.htm

There are many sites on the internet that post the views of Billy Graham, and compare them to the Anvil, God's word.

This is the entire posting from the site, that I previously posted partially:

[b]Is Billy Graham a Christian?[/b]
No one would believe me when I said that there are fundamentalist Christians who claim that BILLY GRAHAM is not a Christian. So here it is folks. This something posted at a website which calls into question just how "christian" Billy Graham is. Personally, I think he is a very saintly man for a TV evangilist who has led a spotlessly clean life. But here are some of the points which some fundamentalists will cite as "problems" with Billy Graham's ministry:

[b]Billy Graham accepts degrees from Catholic colleges and says the Catholic gospel is the same as his own [/b]

[b]Billy Graham has turned thousands of converts over to apostate churches[/b]

[b]Billy Graham thinks the Pope is a great evangelist[/b]

[b]Billy Graham thinks there is special power in infant baptism [/b]

[b]Billy Graham does not believe hell is a place of literal fiery torment [/b]

[b]Billy Graham invites Catholic bishops onto his platform to bless those who come forward at his invitations [/b]

[b]Billy Graham praises Christ-denying modernists[/b]

[b]Billy Graham has promoted practically every perverted Bible version to appear in the last four decades [/b]

[b]Billy Graham's Disobedience To The Word of God [/b]
"And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldst thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord" (2 Chronicles 19:2)

We have begun sending out articles from time to time by e-mail to those who desire to receive them. Many of these are articles from the "Digging in the Walls" section of O Timothy magazine. In October we sent out the article from Volume 12 Issue 9 on Jerry Falwell supporting Billy Graham. That e-mail posting was in turn sent out to a Baptist news group, which is a discussion group on the Internet.[b] Many of the responses we received back from that public posting were very negative. In reading these, I was impressed anew at the ignorance of the average Christian (I use that term in the broadest sense) today. Many of those who responded were completely ignorant of the fact that Billy Graham has sent multitudes of converts back to the Roman Catholic Church or that he praised modernists.[/b] These things were not done in the dark, yet many Christians are entirely ignorant of these things. Why? The average Christian "minister" today is a coward whose goal is to fit in the ecumenical scene and to make people feel good about themselves rather than to preach the truth regardless of the cost. The Bible describes these men as "dumb dogs." What good is a watch dog that will not bark? If ever there were an hour in which preachers need to lift the voice against the error which is on every side, it is today. But what do we find? Dumb dogs.

In the article on Falwell supporting Graham we mentioned a number of things of which Dr. Graham is guilty. Following is the documentation to each of these charges. I realize that most of the readers of O Timothy know these facts, but I also realize that it is not always a simple matter to put your hands upon accurate documentation.[b] I trust the following is helpful in giving an answer to those who challenge the veracity of those attempting today to defend the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints[/b]:

[b]Billy Graham accepts degrees from Catholic colleges and says the Catholic gospel is the same as his own[/b]
On Nov. 21, 1967, an honorary degree was conferred on Graham by the Catholic priests who run Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, during an Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue. The Gastonia Gazette reported:

"After receiving the honorary degree of doctor of humane letter (D.H.L.) from the Abbey, Graham noted the significance of the occasion--" a time when Protestants and Catholics could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas 10 years ago they could not,' he said.

"The evangelist's first sermon at a Catholic institution was at the Abbey, in 1963, and his return Tuesday was the climax to this week's Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue, a program sponsored in part by the Abbey and designed to promote understanding among Catholic and Protestant clergymen of the Gaston-Mecklenburg area.

"Graham, freshly returned from his Japanese Crusade, said he 'knew of no greater honor a North Carolina preacher, reared just a few miles from here, could have than to be presented with this degree. I'm not sure but what this could start me being called "Father Graham," ' he facetiously added.

"Graham said... 'Finally, the way of salvation has not changed. I know how the ending of the book will be. The gospel that built this school and the gospel that brings me here tonight is still the way to salvation" ("Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree," Paul Smith, Gazette staff reporter, The Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, North Carolina, Nov. 22, 1967).

[b]Billy Graham has turned thousands of converts over to apostate churches[/b]
The evidence for this is overwhelming and has been widely documented. We have documented this in our book Flirting with Rome: Evangelical Entanglement with Roman Catholicism (Volume 1), available from Way of Life Literature (1219 N. Harns Rd,. Oak Harbor, WA 98277). As early as Sept. 21, 1957, Graham said in an interview with the San Francisco News, "Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish." In 1983, The Florida Catholic (Sept. 2, 1983) reported of the Orlando crusade: "Names of Catholics who had make decisions for Christ were provided at that meeting by Rick Marshall of the Graham organization." The report said the names of 600 people had been turned over to the Catholic Church. In 1984, at the Vancouver, British Columbia crusade, the vice-chairman of the organizing committee, David Cline of Bringhouse United Church, said, "If Catholic step forward there will be no attempt to convert them and their names will be given to the Catholic church nearest their homes" (Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1984). In 1987 a Catholic priest, Donald Willette of St. Jude's Church, was a supervisor of the 6,600 counselors for the Denver crusade. Willette reported that from one service alone 500 cards of individuals were referred to St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church in Englewood, a suburb of Denver (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990s). In 1989, Michael Seed, Ecumenical Advisor to (Catholic) Cardinal Hume, said of Graham's London crusade: "Those who come forward for counseling during a Mission evening in June, if they are Roman Catholic, will be directed to a Roman Catholic 'nurture-group' under Roman Catholic counselors in their home area" (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II, Mentor, Ohio: Here I Stand Books, 1992, p.35). By September 1992, the Catholic archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, had set a goal to supply 6,000 of the 10,000 counselors needed for the Graham crusade. All Catholics responding to the alter call were channeled to Catholic churches. These are just a few examples of the hundreds which could be given.

[b]Billy Graham thinks the Pope is a great evangelist[/b]
In an interview with The Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980, Graham described the visit of John Paul II to America with these words: "The pope came as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist... The pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age--by pointing people to Christ." Foundation magazine, Vol. V, Issue 5, 1984, reported that Graham made this statement about the Pope's address in Vancouver, B.C. in 1983: "I'll tell you--that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I've ever heard. It was tremendous."

[b]Billy Graham thinks there is special power in infant baptism[/b]
In a 1961 interview with the Lutheran Standard, Graham said: "I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant... we cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian, through infant baptism" (Lutheran Standard, October 27, 1961).

[b]Billy Graham does not believe hell is a place of literal fiery torment[/b]
The Orlando (Florida) Sentinel for April 10, 1983, asked Billy Graham: "Surveys tell us that 85% of Americans believe in heaven, but only 65% believe in hell. Why do you think so many Americans don't accept the concept of hell?" He replied: "I think that hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched."

"Hell is not the most popular of preaching topics. I don't like to preach on it. But I must if I am to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We must not avoid warning of it. The most outspoken messages on hell, and the most graphic references to it, came from Jesus Himself. ...Jesus used three words to describe hell. ...The third word that He used is 'fire.' Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ...I've often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched. What a terrible fire that would be-- never to find satisfaction, joy, or fulfillment!" (A Biblical Standard For Evangelists, Billy Graham, A commentary on the 15 Affirmations made by participants at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1983, Worldwide Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 45-47).

[b]Billy Graham invites Catholic bishops onto his platform to bless those who come forward at his invitations[/b]
The Roman Catholic bishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, stood beside Graham during his 1962 crusade in that city, and blessed those who came forward at the invitation. Graham said this illustrated that "something tremendous, an awakening of reform and revival within Christianity" was happening (Daily Journal, International Falls, Minnesota, Oct. 29, 1963, cited by the New York Times, Nov. 9. 1963).

[b]Billy Graham praises Christ-denying modernists
This has been widely documented for 40 years.[/b] In Graham's San Francisco Crusade, 1959, he honored the notorious liberal Bishop James A. Pike by having him on the platform and to lead in prayer. He also appeared at Grace Cathedral with Pike. Yet Pike had written in LOOK magazine, expressing himself as not believing in the fundamentals of the faith. Pike, in a pastoral letter that was to be read in all the Episcopal Churches of his diocese, stated that "Religious myth is one of the avenues of faith and has an important place in the communication of the Gospel." He spoke of the "myth of the Garden of Eden." He said, "the virgin birth... is a myth which churchmen should be free to accept or reject..."

In Graham's 1963 Los Angeles Crusade, Methodist Bishop Gerald Kennedy was chairman of the crusade committee. yet, Kennedy has denied just about every one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. His printed endorsement is found on the jacket of Nels Ferre's book, The Sun And The Umbrella. In this book Ferre said, "Jesus never was nor became God." ... Ferre says the idea of Christ's pre-existence "is the nature of the grand myth which at its heart is idolatry." Ferre wrote another book entitled The Christian Understanding Of God. In this book he said, "We have no way of knowing, even, that Jesus was sinless." In this book he promotes the theory that Jesus may have been the son of a German soldier. Yet, Graham's campaign chairman endorsed Gerre and his book. In fact, Graham said on August 21, 1963, "Bishop Kennedy is one of the ten greatest Christian preachers in America." The first Sunday of the Crusade, Graham took ten minutes to eulogize Dr. E. Stanley Jones, who is a deluxe modernist and proves it in his book on Mahatma Gandhi (E.L. Bynum, Why We Cannot Support The Billy Graham Crusade, Lubbock, Texas: Plains Baptist Challenger)

Graham's attitude toward modernists is evident in his pleasant relationship with the World Council of Churches. He has attended all but two of the WCC's General Assemblies. Consider the following statements taken from the telegram sent in 1983 by Graham to Philip Potter, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. Dr. Graham did not appear at the WCC Sixth Assembly in 1983 because of prior engagements: "Dear Philip: Your gracious and generous invitation to speak twice in Vancouver was deeply appreciated. ...I have tried to juggle my schedule but it is just too heavy at this late date for me to make the drastic changes that would be necessary for me to be in Vancouver. This will be only the second general assembly of the WCC that I have had to miss. I will certainly miss seeing you and many other old friends and fellowshipping with those from all over the world..." (FOUNDATION, Vol. IV, Issue IV, Los Osos, Calif.: Fundamental Evangelistic Association, 1983). We should note here that Philip Potter is an apostate Christian leader. He does not believe that those in non-Christian religions are lost, and he advocates violent communist movements!

These are a mere three examples of Graham's habit of honoring wicked, Bible-denying modernists.

[b]Billy Graham has promoted practically every perverted Bible version to appear in the last four decades[/b]
In 1952 Billy Graham accepted a copy of the modernistic Revised Standard Version and told a crowd of 20,000 people: "These scholars have probably given us the most nearly perfect translation in English. While there may be room for disagreement in certain areas of the translation, yet this new version should supplement the King James Version and make Bible reading a habit throughout America" (Graham, cited by Perry Rockwood, God's Inspired Preserved Bible, Halifax, N.S.: People's Gospel Hour, nd., p. 15)

Graham's endorsement of the Revised Standard Version foreshadowed Evangelicalism's capitulation to the endless stream of modern versions. Graham has endorsed practically every new version to appear on the scene, no matter how flippant and unfaithful.

In his autobiography, modernist Bible paraphraser J.B. Phillips (1906-1982) stated that Billy Graham spoke highly of his work as early as 1952: "I think it was in 1952 that I received a visit from Dr. Billy Graham with his charming and intelligent wife. 'I want to thank you, Dr. Phillips,' he began, 'for Letters to Young Churches'" (J.B. Phillips, The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 116).

[b]Graham almost single-handedly rescued the Living Bible from oblivion. [/b]"The Living Bible might be called 'The Billy Graham Bible,' for it was he who made it the success that it is. According to Time magazine, July 24, 1972, Billy Graham ordered 50,000 copies of the Epistles, and a short time later ordered some 450,000 more, and still later ordered 600,000 special paperback versions for his autumn television crusade in 1972. From that time on, orders began to pour in" (M.L. Moser, Jr., The Case Against the Living Bible, Little Rock: Challenge Press, p.9).

That was only the beginning of Graham's love affair with the Living Bible. At Amsterdam '86, Graham allowed Living Bibles International to distribute free copies of the Living Bible in 40 differed languages to the 8,000 evangelists in attendance (Light of Live, Bombay, India, Sept. 1986, p.23). Graham distributed 10,000 copies of the Living Bible to people who attended his Mission England Crusade (Australian Beacon, No. 241, Aug. 1986). In 1987, Graham appeared in television ads for The Book, a condensed version of the Living Bible. He said it "reads like a novel."

In an ad which appeared in a 1991 issue of Charisma magazine, Graham said: "I read The Living Bible because in this book I have read the age-abiding truths of the scriptures with renewed interest and inspiration. The Living Bible communicates the message of Christ to our generation" (Charisma, March 1991, p. 98).

[b]Billy Graham is also one of the men who first helped make the perverted Good News for Modern Man (Today's English Version) popular by distributing it through his Association. Graham "called it an excellent translation over nationwide television from his campaign in Anaheim, California." It was then distributed by the Grason Company of Minneapolis, the distributors of Billy Graham materials (M.L. Moser, Jr., The Devil's Masterpiece, Little Rock: Challenge Press, 1970, p. 80).[/b][b][color=CC0000] The Good News for Modern Man replaces the word "blood" with "death" in speaking of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and corrupted practically every passage dealing with Christ's deity. The translator of the Good News for Modern Man, Robert Bratcher, does not believe that Jesus Christ is God. [/color][/b]

Sincerly,

Walter


Quote:

crsschk wrote:
Waltern.

[i]And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.[/i] 2Sa 12:7

I removed the content from your posting on Billy Graham as the site in question clearly states:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.[/b]

These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for [b]Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians.[/b] Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is [b][i]TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR.[/i][/b]


(Italics and embolden their own.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is impossible not to notice when this header is above each and every article. Do not post such things here, respect their wishes.

I do not know if there is anything worse than to add embellishments to things already troublesome, even flatly wrong in an effort to over prove them. It's a cynical pragmatism and biting cynicism that makes the accuser worse and in need of rebuke for sinning the sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor. It is the effortless and ready acceptance to overlook that which paints and taints that which is true by excepting the false as acceptional.

[i]I cannot hear what you are saying over what you are saying[/i]

Or in other words, the very point Nathan stated to David, [i]Thou art the man[/i].

It is this sort of fanfare that puts discernment ministries and other like-minded under a need for their own discerning as has been mentioned here time and again. The minute the embellishments come in, whatever truth noted, warned of, exposed, is lost and my ears will close to it. It is of the wrong spirit and often full of venom and vendetta. It is more often out to destroy, not repair, strangle rather than warn, vile and violent, not borne of grief or concern. It is pride and rebellion, [i]sin[/i] but allowed to be washed out, cast behind the back and spiritually pragmatisied as the ends justify the means.

The irony of proving out wrong judgment and criticism is right within it's opposites or perhaps opponents, those teaching us how to judge rightly.



 2008/6/20 9:44









 Re:

From Walter:

Like I have said previously, there are many sites on the internet that address Mr. Billy Graham. This is another site that documents his views in relation to God’s Word, and is excellent. The author suggests sending his material to others, as I will do here:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/billy_graham.html

William Franklin Graham, Jr. born on November 7, 1918, an ordained Southern Baptist and founder of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), has been, arguably, the best known, best loved and most influential evangelical for the approximately 50 years he has been in the public forum. For many of those years he has remained, according to polls, one of the 10 most admired men in the United States.

Billy Graham has been a spiritual adviser to several U.S. presidents, and according to Time Magazine “served as the nation's spiritual counselor”. In fact George W. Bush credits the Reverend for helping him with his personal conversion.

“Eisenhower and Kennedy began the tradition of consulting the evangelist, but Johnson, Nixon and Ford intensified the fashion that concluded with Bush's naming him "America's pastor."”

http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/graham01.html

There is little doubt as to Graham’s far-reaching influence...

“Graham's magazine, Decision, reaches 1.7 million people, his column appears in more than 100 newspapers, his radio program is on 700 stations worldwide, and several of his books have been best-sellers. (Angels, published in 1975, sold one million copies in just 90 days.) Graham has reportedly preached to over 200 million people and once claimed that precisely 2,874,082 of them have stepped forward to "accept Jesus Christ as personal Savior" (11/15/93, Time magazine)”.
[http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/graham/general.htm]

Time Magazine made the following statement which admirably sums up one aspect of the life and ministry of the most renowned evangelist of them all, a side that is all too often lacking in today’s so called Christian leaders.. .
“… there have been no scandals, financial or sexual, to darken Graham's mission. His sincerity, transparent and convincing, cannot be denied. He is an icon essential to a country in which, for two centuries now, religion has been not the opiate but the poetry of the people. [http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/graham01.html]

However Billy Graham is not getting any younger and has been plagued by several health problems. He has all but retired.
At the age of 87, probably at the end of his life and in poor health, Billy Graham no longer appears in public. He and his wife, Ruth, have retired to their house a small mountain in Montreat, N.C, which they have lived in for 50 years spending “his days talking to his friends, reading newspapers, seeing visitors almost every day, and spending time with his wife, Ruth, and family”. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/11/earlyshow/living/main770774_page2.shtml]

His last crusade, in June 2005, in New York city was attended by a reported 250,000 people over three days, which was the first time I sat up and really paid any real attention to Billy Graham. I have obviously been aware of him for many years. I had read a couple of his books, heard him on television once or twice and was aware that he was about to conduct his last crusade.[b] But He had never really made any serious inroads into my consciousness until the day that Bill and Hillary shared the podium with him in New York at what was supposed to be his last Christian crusade. (I do not share others enthusiasm for the word,which carries unpleasant connotations ).

In acknowledging his ‘special guests’ Graham said "They're a great couple," and then recalled a remark he'd once made about the Clintons when they were in the White House. "I felt when he left the Presidency he should be an evangelist, because he has all the gifts--and he'd leave his wife to run the country."

Bill and Hilary Clinton? Was he kidding or was I hearing things? Since this is not meant to be a critique of the Clintons, I will forgo the sordid details. Suffice to say Bill Clinton dragged the Presidency to its lowest level since Watergate, abusing his position as president, lying countless times, perjuring himself under oath, betraying his wife and disgracing his office. Not exactly the epitome of a fine upstanding citizen, leave alone living up the holiness Christians are called to.

I began to do a little digging and one of the first articles I read about the Crusade on the Fox News site, said…
“Religious experts say Graham has garnered such a following and made such a mark on the world in large part because he managed to reach out not only to other, non-Evangelical Christians but also to people of different faiths. He's a person who transcends the categories we try to inflict on people in theology," said Harvey Cox, a professor of divinity at Harvard University. "Certainly he belongs within the Evangelical camp, but he's an exemplary Christian figure as a statesman. He has never been exclusivist in his views."

In fact, he's always made a point of including Christians of all denominations in the planning of his mass events, in spite of harsh criticism by some of his colleagues for doing it. And because of his ability to cross over lines that divide, New York is a particularly fitting place for his last crusade.

"Here in New York, not only is there a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, but a mixture of problems," Graham said this week. "But I think in this country we are still together as Americans. We're proud of that. Thank God we have the freedoms we do. Thank God for all these people."” [Catherine Donaldson-Evans. Billy Graham Holding Last Event In The U.S. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160557,00.html

In the years that it has taken to build this site I have been disappointed many many times with the discovery that many Christian leaders who I once looked up to, actually had feet of clay. And please.. before you write me, loudly asserting that “no one is perfect”. I already know this.. But I hope it is not too much to ask of a church leader that they believe and teach sound doctrine. At least regarding the primary doctrines that have much bearing on salvation.
But not Billy Graham! Surely America’s most famous preacher could not be crossing over lines that divide.[/b]

Surely Fox News was just being Fox News and I could discount much of what they say…
However in an article entitled Pilgrim’s Progress (in the August 14, 2006 issue of Newsweek)[b] Billy Graham made these rather damning statements on Page 2 and 3 respectively...
"There are many things that I don't understand," he says. He does not believe that Christians need to take every verse of the Bible literally; "sincere Christians," he says, "can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology—absolutely."[/b]

"I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord," Graham says. "This is a little difference in my thinking through the years."[b] He has, then, moved from seeing every word of Scripture as literally accurate to believing that parts of the Bible are figurative—a journey that began in 1949, when a friend challenged his belief in inerrancy during a conference in southern California's San Bernardino Mountains.
A discordant note was beginning to sound, which this section of the article on Page 5 did nothing to quiet… [/b]

"A unifying theme of Graham's new thinking is humility. He is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way to salvation. When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have." Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham's view, only God knows who is going to be saved: "As an evangelist for more than six decades, Mr. Graham has faithfully proclaimed the Bible's Gospel message that Jesus is the only way to Heaven," says Graham spokesman A. Larry Ross. "However, salvation is the work of Almighty God, and only he knows what is in each human heart." [Pilgrim’s Progress. August 14, 2006 Newsweek Online].

[b]But what is really alarming is that the comments in the Newsweek article do not seem to be a a temporary aberration, the result, perhaps, of a mind clouded by age and illness, but rather represent a long standing view. Over 25 years ago Billy Graham was quoted as saying..
“I used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them.. I no longer believe that.” (I Cant’ Play God Any More. McCall’s, January, 1978).[/b]

Just as his liking for the Clintons was reflected in early 1997 in his book Just As I Am.
“The previous day, President Clinton called and asked me to stop by the White House. We ended up spending much of the afternoon together, talking not only about the past and current events, but also about the Bible and what it says about God's plan for our lives. It was a warm fellowship with a man who has not always won the approval of his fellow Christians but who has in his heart a desire to serve God and do His will”. (Page 656).

USA Today had this to say
Today, as many fundamentalists and traditionalists refuse to share podiums with people who don't share their exact vision of salvation, Graham opens his events to Christians of every stripe. More than 1,300 Protestant and Catholic churches are sponsoring the June 24-26 event in Flushing Meadow. (Cathy Lynn Grossman . The gospel of Billy Graham: Inclusion).
[b]I am afraid that I am one of those fundamentalists who take the instructions in the Word of God seriously and wish so called ‘Christian’ leaders would do so as well.[/b] As I type, the name Rick Warren springs to mind, being one of those so called Christians who shares podiums with and endorses books by seemingly anyone, without regard to their beliefs. But there again I should not be surprised as Warren’s theology itself falls short in any number of areas. Since I do not wish to digress from the topic at hand I invite the read to read it for himself.
Turning to the Christian sites I read the following statement which admirable sums up the questions that were now rearing their ugly heads...
“Former President Bush called Graham "America's pastor." Harry Truman called him a "counterfeit" and publicity seeker. Pat Boone considers him "the greatest man since Jesus." Still another says Graham "has done more harm to the cause of Christ than any other living man."” Who's correct?” [http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/graham/general.htm]

[/b]So the question to be asked is:
Has he done untold good or untold harm to the cause of Christ than any other living man? [/b]

Consider the seriousness of the article. Newsweek is one of the most widely read news magazines in the world and will draw more attention than all the one-liners buried on page 26 of a Christian magazine put together.
And how should we judge the speaker?
“..as conservative evangelicals, we must be consistent in our criticism of those who error from biblical truth. Were the comments Graham made to come from the mouths of a confessing liberal, we would unequivocally denounce those statements without apology. Yet for some reason when someone of such high repute (and I sincerely mean that – Graham is one of the most well-respected and honorable men no doubt), we tend to let them say whatever they want without public criticism. This is a tragic but truthful reality. We must be honest, transparent, and up front, even when it means admonishing someone much holier than I/we would ever be”. [Timmy Brister. Moore About Billy Graham. http://timmybrister.com/2006/08/29/moore-about-billy-graham/]

[b]The Connections..
Peale and Schuller[/b]
Two of Billy Graham’s endorsements concern me very much. And again, since this is not a critique of these two men, I have kept the details to a minimum. But it has to be said that they are probably two of the most apostate men in the ‘Christian’ world.

[b]1) Norman Vincent Peale
"I don't know anyone who has done more for the kingdom of God than Norman and Ruth Peale, or have meant any more in my life -- the encouragement they have given me" [speech at a National Council of Churches luncheon on 12/6/66 quoted by Bible for Today (Hayes Minnick, BFT Report #565, p. 28)].
Another day we had lunch with Dr. Norman Vincent Peale and his wife, Ruth; his preaching on 'the power of positive thinking' had made him familiar to millions. Mrs. Peale did a magnificent job heading up the women's prayer groups for the Crusade, and Dr. Peale was warmly supportive of the meetings. Although our emphasis in preaching differed, I found him a deeply committed believer with a genuine concern that men and women give their lives to Christ. (Just As I Am, Page 315)
Yet in a television interview with Phil Donahue in 1984, Peale said:
"It's not necessary to be born again. You have your way to God; I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine...I've been to Shinto shrines; and God is everywhere."
An amazing statement from a man Billy Graham calls “a deeply committed believer”. I have no idea what Pale’s Bible says. but mine quite definitely has Jesus making the statement
"...Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Following are a few points from an article by the Watchman Expositor.
“Peale called the virgin birth `some theological idea' of no importance to salvation (Family Weekly, April 15, 1984, Cover Story).
On March 28, 1980, Dr. Peale was the featured speaker at an 85th birthday dinner honoring Mormon prophet speaker Spencer W. Kimball. The official Mormon newspaper reported that Brigham Young University bestowed an honorary degree on Dr. Peale (Church News, February 9, 1980, p. 11).
Included on the same page was a transcription of a radio address Peale made on April 27, 1975, when Dr. Peale "received a blessing" from Prophet Kimball. In this radio address Peale said that he had been struggling with a difficulty for several weeks. While speaking in Salt Lake City he was invited "to be received by the President of the Church." After lauding the "righteous" Mormon church, Peale said, "I met with these men of God... these three dedicated Christian leaders (Mormon first presidency) I felt he [Kimball] was so spiritual." Peale then related how the three leaders laid hands on him and prayed. Peale stated "Sir, He is here, I feel His presence," (emphasis mine).[/b]

Dr. Peale himself credits his theology of positive thinking to Ernest Holmes, founder of New Age/Occultic Church of Religious Science (Ernest Holmes, The First Religious Scientist, James Reid, p. 14). In fact, Peale borrowed the phrase "positive thinking" from Charles Fillmore, founder of the New Age Unity School of Christianity (Positive Imaging, p. 77).
Peale consistently operates with New Age doctrine and practices, emphasizing the creative power of thought and that consciousness is true reality and aligning your consciousness by meditation or affirmation, will automatically bring what you desire”. (http://www.watchman.org/reltop/peale.htm)

[b]2) Robert Schuller[/b]
An endorsement of Robert Schuller by Billy Graham appears on the back cover of Robert Schuller's 1985 edition of Self-Esteem: The New Reformation (first published in 1982) along with the endorsement of W. Clement Stone who is on Schuller's international board of directors. Billy Graham also
“…advised Schuller, back in 1969, to start his "Hour of Power" television show. In 1972, Graham made Schuller a leader in his Anaheim Crusade, saying, "There is no one in all the world I love in Christ more than I do Bob Schuller. ... He has done some of the greatest things for the Kingdom of God of any man in our generation" (David Beale, S.B.C. House on the Sand, p. 144).
Graham made a personal appearance on Schuller's 1000th anniversary program (aired 4/2/89), relating how he had encouraged Schuller 20 years earlier when he said,
"Bob, why don't you think of telecasting your services."
[Graham spoke at Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral in 1985, and the two men came up with a joint definition of "born again" as "a decision to stop carrying your own luggage" (Paul Harvey's report, 7/15/85).]” [http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/graham/general.htm]

[b]Schuller reinterprets the doctrines of the Word of God to conform with his self-esteem philosophy. His Christ is a Jesus who provides men with self-esteem. Schuller's gospel is the replacement of negative self concepts with positive ones. To Schuller, sin is merely the lack of self-esteem. [/b]To Schuller, the greatest evil is to call men sinners in a Biblical fashion and thereby injure their self-esteem. Schuller is a universalist who believes that all people are the children of God. His goal is to help each person understand and enjoy this "fact." Bottom line, Schuller's message is that there is no need for one to recognize his own personal sin, no need for repentance, and no need for the crucifixion of self. In fact, concerning the latter point, Schuller teaches just the opposite philosophy -- that self is to be exalted -- which is nothing less than an outright denial of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: [http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/schuller/general.htm]

Schuller's Crystal Cathedral has hosted workshops for A Course In Miracles, a blatantly New Age human-potential course along with other New Age teachers, some on his Hour of Power television program. As recently as 2003 he plugged psychiatrist Jerry Jampolsky as having ‘found’ God, Neglecting to mention that Jampolsky found "God" through A Course In Miracles, or that Jampolsky's book, Love is Letting Go of Fear, is completely based on the teachings of A Course In Miracles. On the dedication page of his book he thanks the authors of A Course In Miracles stating that his book was based on their work.

[b]The Catholic Connection
This site has an large section on Catholicism. Few people to day are willing to go as far as to classify Catholicism as a cult but when the word cult is defined, Catholicism fits the bill.. perfectly. [See A Cult is a Cult]
Yet Billy Graham had this to say:
“I’ve found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics, for instance....We only differ on some matters of later church tradition” (I Cant’ Play God Any More,” McCall’s, Jan. 1978. p. 158).
And
“This past week I preached in a great Catholic Cathedral a funeral sermon for a close friend of mind who was a Catholic [publisher James Strohn Copley], and they had several bishops and archbishops to participate, and as I sat there going through the funeral Mass, that was a very beautiful thing and certainly straight and clear in the gospel, I believe, there was a wonderful little priest that would tell me when to stand and when to kneel and what to do.” (Billy Graham, Church League of America, p. 84. October 21, 1973).

Most people do not seem to realize that the Church teaches that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice, that a prime function of the Catholic priesthood is to offer sacrifice, that an altar is a place of sacrifice, and that the word host is from the Latin word hostia, meaning sacrificial victim. All of which was reiterated by Vatican II. (See The Catholic Mass)
“Hence the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated; a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said ‘do this in memory of me’ (Lk. 22:19) … In the Mass, therefore, the sacrifice and sacred meal belong to the same mystery, so much so that they are linked by the closest bond. For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when ‘he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearances of bread and wine.’ … For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108). (Cited In Billy Graham And Rome - PART 6 By David Cloud. Way Of Life)[/b]

Just As I Am
Billy Graham’s autobiography, "Just As I Am," (Harper San Francisco. April 30, 1997) published in 1997, achieved a "triple crown," appearing simultaneously on the three top best-seller lists in one week. The Editorial Review of Just as I am on Amazon.com says this..
“In this memoir, Graham looks back at age 78 on his lifetime of personal relationships, ministry, leadership, and experiences. He chronicles such events and stories as his boyhood in North Carolina, his first steps in ministry, details of evangelistic trips and revivals, and meetings with world and local leaders. There are 35 pages of photos, four pages outlining all his crusades from 1947 to 1996, a list of all his books, and a 15-page index of names and places. Graham concludes his memoir with a look at the lessons he has learned in the course of his work. His honesty in describing the toll that his travels placed on his family and his ready willingness to credit the many who added to his journey make this both a heartwarming and memorable reflection….” Leroy Hommerding, Citrus Cty. Lib. System, Beverly Hills, Fla.

[b]All of which I am sure are true, however Just as I Am also contains some exceptionally unsettling statements.
For example
"He [Willis Haymaker*] would also call on the local Catholic bishop or other clerics to acquaint them with Crusade plans and invite them to the meetings; they would usually appoint a priest to attend and report back. This was years before Vatican II's openness to Protestants, but we were concerned to let the Catholic bishops see that my goal was not to get people to leave their church; rather, I wanted them to commit their lives to Christ." (Page 163, emphasis added)
*Willis Haymaker was the front man who would go into cities and make all the arrangements necessary to for the crusades.
My goal, I always made clear, was not to preach against Catholic beliefs or to proselytize people who were already committed to Christ within the Catholic Church. Rather, it was to proclaim the Gospel to all those who had never truly committed their lives to Christ. (Page 357) (emphasis added)[/b]

I was grateful for the statement one U.S. Catholic newspaper made as it reviewed our first South American trip: 'Never once, at least in our memory, has [Billy Graham] attacked the Catholic Church. . . . (Page 368. Parenthesis in original)
We also suspected, with some justification, that some of the hard-line Communist officials hoped to use an American Protestant evangelist to weaken the strong authority of the Roman Catholic Church. If so, it was a naive hope; I would not have done or said anything that might be taken as anti-Catholic. (Page 482. Referring to a Trip to Poland). (emphasis added)

In a January 1997 interview with Midwest Today, (January 1997) called A Conversation With Billy Graham one question and answer was ..
Q. You talked about emphasizing more the love and mercy of God in the later years of your ministry. Can you tell us a little bit about how that applies to people of other faiths?
A. Well, you know when I was growing up and after I came to Christ in the beginning of my life and went to school, I didn't know much about Catholics; I didn't know much about Lutherans; and people who were more ritualistic in their worship.
Through the years I have been thrown [together] with them and have a great many friends in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, when we go to a city now nearly all of the Roman Catholic churches support it. When we went to Minneapolis for the crusade -- St. Paul, which is next door joined with Minneapolis, it 's largely Catholic and Minneapolis is largely Lutheran -- they all supported the crusade, which wouldn't have happened 25 years ago. But it does today.
The same is true with the Eastern Orthodox churches, because when I went to Russia, long before Communism fell, I was the guest of the Orthodox church.

[b]Bishop Fulton L. Sheen[/b]
“One whom I have yet to mention - and with whom I felt a special affinity - was Roman Catholic preacher Bishop Fulton L. Sheen”. (Just As I Am. Page 692).
In regard to the first time Billy Graham met the Bishop (on a train from Washington to New York) he said ..
“I was in my pajamas, but I was delighted to see him and invited him in. We talked about our ministries and our common commitment to evangelism, and I told him how grateful I was for his ministry and his focus on Christ”. (Just As I Am Pages 692-693) (Emphasis Added)
In Fulton Sheen’s book Treasure in Clay, he said that one of his spiritual secrets was to offer Mass every Saturday “in honor of the Blessed Mother to solicit her protection of my priesthood.” Sheen devoted an entire chapter of his biography to Mary, “The Woman I Love.” He said,
“When I was ordained, I took a resolution to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist every Saturday to the Blessed Mother ... All this makes me very certain that when I go before the Judgment Seat of Christ, He will say to me in His Mercy: ‘I heard My Mother speak of you.’ During my life I have made about thirty pilgrimages to the shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes and about ten to her shrine in Fatima” (Fulton J. Sheen, Treasure in Clay, p. 317. Quoted in Billy Graham And Rome - Part 2. Way of Life Literature).

[b]Pope John Paul[/b]
Graham narrates his first visit with the pope describing their relationship as cordial.
“When we left Hungary, we set off on a brief trip to the Vatican. Years before, I had visited the city-state as a tourist, but on this trip I was to be received by Pope John Paul II, my first visit with a pope. As I was ushered into his quarters, Pope John Paul II greeted me, and we shook hands warmly. I found him extremely cordial and very interested in our ministry, especially in his homeland. After only a few minutes, I felt as if we had known each other for many years.
He also expressed great delight at the small gift I had brought him, a woodcarving of a shepherd with his sheep, done by a North Carolina craftsman. We recalled together Jesus' words in John 10:14,16. . . . In turn the pope gave me a medallion commemorating his papacy and several magnificently bound volumes”. (Just As I Am Pages 488-489)
And further
“I was asked by Pope John Paul II to participate with him during that same time period in an unprecedented ecumenical service of worship during his visit to Colombia, South Carolina. It was not to be a Mass but a service of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. I was to speak on the subject of the family”.
“I was looking forward to that event, especially since the pope and I had a cordial relationship”
In the above mentioned interview with Midwest Today, (in January 1997) called A Conversation With Billy Graham he was asked
Q. You've had an audience with Pope John Paul II?
A. The first time I dined with him, we were sitting across the table, and he reached out and touched my hand and said, "We are brothers."
So whatever happened to “contending for the faith”??

[b]Billy Graham Believes The Late Pope John Paul Went To Heaven
Billy Graham said the late Pope was “the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world in the last 100 years.” [/b]
Larry King: “There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?”
Graham: “Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don't think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope -- I think he’s with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.” [Larry King Live aired April 2, 2005] [See Death of A Pope]

[b]In the words of David Cloud
“This is a most amazing statement by the man who is considered the world’s foremost evangelist. Graham expresses less than certainty about his own salvation but complete certainty about the Pope’s, even though he preached a false gospel of grace mixed with works and sacraments and put his trust in Mary as his intercessor. Graham should know that John Paul II did not believe in the cross in any scriptural sense. Rather he believed in the cross PLUS baptism PLUS the mass PLUS confession to a priest PLUS the saints, and above all PLUS Mary. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6). “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal. 1:6)”. (David W. Cloud. [/b]http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns15.html)

In view of the above comments it is hardly surprising that Billy Graham’s meetings and crusades were not only endorsed and partially sponsored by Catholic Churches but that the names of hundred of converts were turned over to Catholic churches. This has been extensively documented by Way of Life Literature, and shows an enduring pattern over many years.. Some examples are
Sept. 21, 1957, Graham said in an interview with the San Francisco News, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.

In 1983, The Florida Catholic (Sept. 2, 1983) reported of the Orlando crusade: “Names of Catholics who had made decisions for Christ were provided at that meeting by Rick Marshall of the Graham organization.” The report said the names of 600 people had been turned over to the Catholic Church.
In 1984, at the Vancouver, British Columbia crusade, the vice-chairman of the organizing committee, David Cline of Bringhouse United Church, said, “If Catholic step forward there will be no attempt to convert them and their names will be given to the Catholic church nearest their homes” (Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1984).
[b]In 1987 a Catholic priest, Donald Willette of St. Jude’s Church, was a supervisor of the counselors for the Denver crusade. Willette reported that from one service alone 500 cards of individuals were referred to St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church in Englewood, a suburb of Denver (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990s). [/b]
In 1989, Michael Seed, Ecumenical Advisor to (Catholic) Cardinal Hume, said of Graham’s London crusade: “Those who come forward for counseling during a Mission evening in June, if they are Roman Catholic, will be directed to a Roman Catholic ‘nurture-group’ under Roman Catholic counselors in their home area” (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II, p. 35).

By September 1992, the Catholic archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, had set a goal to supply many of counselors needed for the Graham crusade. All Catholics responding to the altar call were channeled to Catholic churches.

June 27-30, 2002: Billy Graham’s crusade in Cincinnati, Ohio, June 27-30, 2002, included full participation of the Roman Catholic Church. In preparation for the crusade, five Catholic parishes -- Our Lady of Lourdes in Westwood, Our Lady of the Rosary in Greenhills, Our Lady of the Rosary and Guardian Angels in Cincinnati, and Trinity Center in Dayton -- presented week-long courses to prepare Catholic counselors to deal with those who came forward in response to Graham’s invitations. According to Curtis Kneblik, assistant director of evangelization for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Dayton, invitations were sent out to 9,000 Catholics to request their participation in this training, and hundreds responded. Priest Charles Bowes told his parish that the Graham mission was a “golden opportunity to evangelize Catholics and to help our parish…” (The Catholic Telegraph, May 10, 2002).

November 2004 : The Billy Graham organization preparing for the November 2004 crusade in Los Angeles, California, promised the Roman Catholic archdiocese that Catholics will not be “proselytized.” A letter from Cardinal Roger Mahony, dated October 6, 2004, and posted at the archdiocese web site, stated: “When the Crusade was held in other locations, many Catholics responded to Dr. Graham’s message and came forward for Christ. Crusade officials expect the same for the Los Angeles area. These officials have assured me that, IN KEEPING WITH DR. GRAHAM’S BELIEF AND POLICY, THERE WILL BE NO PROSELYTIZING, AND THAT ANYONE IDENTIFYING HIM OR HERSELF AS CATHOLIC WILL BE REFERRED TO US for reintegration into the life of the Catholic Church. We must be ready to welcome them.” {Billy Graham's Disobedience To The Word Of God. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns15.html }

[b]The Mormons[/b]
In a January 1997 interview with Larry King, Graham said that he has wonderful fellowship with Rome, is comfortable with the Vatican, and agrees with the Pope on almost everything. (emphasis added)
KING: What do you think of the other [churches] ... like Mormonism? Catholicism? Other faiths within the Christian concept?

GRAHAM: Oh, I think I have a wonderful fellowship with all of them.

KING: You’re comfortable with Salt Lake City. You’re comfortable with the Vatican?

GRAHAM: I am very comfortable with the Vatican. I have been to see the Pope several times. In fact, the night — the day that he was inaugurated, made Pope, I was preaching in his cathedral in Krakow. I was his guest ... [and] when he was over here ... in Columbia, South Carolina ... he invited me on the platform to speak with him. I would give one talk, and he would give the other ... but I was two-thirds of the way to China...

KING: You like this Pope?

GRAHAM: I like him very much. ... He and I agree on almost everything.
In an interview with Larry King on June 16th 2005, King asked..
KING: Are you forgiving of the infirmities of other people?
GRAHAM: Absolutely. I am. I mean, I . . .
KING: Isn't that hard?
GRAHAM: . . . try to forgive. I never hold a grudge. In fact, many people say that I never get angry. I don't think I get angry. But maybe I do sometimes, but I keep it. I don't explode to anybody.
KING: Do you feel the same about other faiths?
GRAHAM: Absolutely.
KING: Buddhism?
GRAHAM: I love them all, and welcome them all, and love to be with them, and friends with all of them. For example, I just talked to a man in New York City, he was a Mormon.
KING: My father-in-law.
GRAHAM: Your father-in-law. And I've loved the Mormons for years, and yet there is a big divide between the Mormons and some of the other groups. But I have great friends among the Mormons. And the same among the Catholics. Of course, I loved Pope John Paul II and watched the whole process of his suffering, his dying and the tremendous -- my daughter went to represent me . . .
KING: I know. You were on with us the night he died.
GRAHAM: That's right. Thank you.
KING: But what about those faiths -- the Mormons and the others that you mentioned -- believe in Christ. They believe they will meet Christ. What about those like the Jews, the Muslims, who don't believe as you believe.
GRAHAM: That's in God's hands. I can't be their judge.
KING: You don't judge them?
GRAHAM: No. No, I don't say you're going to hell, and you're, oh, I don't.
{http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns15.html}
(See Christian Exclusivism Explained and Defended)

[b]Homosexuality[/b]
At San Francisco Crusade, 1997 Billy Graham stated:
“There are other sins. Why do we jump on that sin [homosexuality] as though it’s the greatest sin?...What I want to preach about in San Francisco is the love of God. People need to know that God loves them no matter what their ethnic background or sexual orientation. I have so many gay friends, and we remain friends” (“Graham Welcomes Gays at San Francisco,” Christian News, Oct. 20, 1997, p. 7).
While it is absolutely true at homosexuality is not the “greatest sin”, it is equally true that there are umpteen Biblical passages against homosexuality, starting with Leviticus 18:22. To claim one has gay friends and do nothing to try and save them is not being a friend. It is condoning behaviour which the Bible says is unacceptable, a sin that will commit the doer to hell. [See Section on Homosexuality

[b]Baptism[/b]
In an interview with Patricia Rice of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on October 10, 1999, Billy Graham said..
“Baptism is very important because Jesus taught that we are to believe and to be baptized. But that is up to the individual and the church that they feel led to go to. The churches have different teachings on that. I know that in the Lutheran or the Episcopal or Catholic Church it is a very strong point, and in the Baptist church. But there are some churches that would not insist on baptism. So, I give them the freedom to teach what they want. I am not a professor. I am not a theologian. I’m a simple proclaimer. … I’m announcing the news that God loves you and that you can be forgiven of your sins. And you can go to heaven. My job from God is not to do all these other things. … I am not a pastor of a church. That’s not my responsibility. My responsibility is to preach the gospel to everyone and let them choose their own church, whether it is catholic or protestant or orthodox or whatever it is”.
Also
“I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant....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 Christian, through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me” (A Lutheran Looks at Billy Graham, Oct. 10, 1961, p. 12). [See Section on Baptism]

[b]The Alpha Course[/b]
An article which appeared originally in International Alpha New s(March 2000 but is now in the Alpha archives is entitled (http://alpha.org/runningacourse/news/2000/03/billygraham.htm)
“Billy Graham has invited Alpha leader Nicky Gumbel to speak at a major conference he is organising in Amsterdam, Netherlands, this July”.
And goes on to say
“Mr Gumbel has been asked to speak at a workshop on the Alpha course at the conference, to be attended by 10,000 evangelists from around the world. Mr Graham wrote, “Your experience and expertise as a leader will be a great asset to the conference, and participants will gain invaluable knowledge and insight from the content of the workshop.”” [See Section on The Alpha Course]
America
[b]“…asked whether God has forsaken America, Graham's answer is fast and firm: "Noooo!" His reply stands on faith.
"The Lord said, 'I will never forsake you.' No matter how sinful we are, how bad we are, God loves us. At least from my point of view, I believe he sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for us because he loves us and he doesn't have any termination to that love." (USA Today.. The gospel of Billy Graham: Inclusion. Cathy Lynn Grossman).[/b] The promise in Hebrews of never forsaking us is sandwiched between being content with the things we have and not fearing what man can do to us. It is in the larger context of an exhortation to Christian and can not possibly apply to an apostate nation that America has become. On the contrary The Bible teaches that when a nation under judgment refuses to repent, it will ultimately reach a point where God will deliver it from judgment to wrath from discipline to doom. [See Section Our Country Our Children]

[b]The Templeton prize[/b]
Billy Graham was awarded and accepted the Templeton prize in 1982 (Bill Bright won it in 1996 and Charles Colson in 1993), Sir John Templeton, after whom the award is named, happens to serve on the Parliament of World Religion's Board of Trustees and has been closely linked to the Rockefeller family fortune. Along with being the donor of the Templeton Prize, Sir John established The Templeton Foundation in 1987. The foundation serves as an umbrella for a wide assortment of interfaith activities, currently funding more than 150 projects, studies, award programs and publications worldwide. (John Templeton Foundation, "General Information" (http://www.templeton.org/about.asp#4 [accessed September 16, 1998]).
The first Templeton Prize, awarded in 1973, went to Mother Teresa of Calcutta. 34 Recipients since that time have included Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, former President of India and Oxford Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics (1975); Leon Joseph Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Brussles and a pioneer in the Charismatic Renewal Movement (1976); Nikkyo Niwano, A Japanese Buddhist leader (1979); Rev. Professor Stanley L. Jaki, a Benedictine monk and Professor of Astrophysics at Seton Hall University (1987); Dr. Inamullah Khan, Founder and Secretary-General of the Modern World Muslim Congress and a Vice President of the World Constitution and Parliament Association [see WCPA letterhead, Exhibit O-1 in Chapter 7], (1988); Baba Amte, a wealthy Hindu lawyer/humanitarian (1990); The Rt. Hon. Lord Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth (1991); and Pandurang Shastri Athavale, founder and leader of the Bhagavad Gita-based self-study known as Swadhayaya - which incorporates self-worship (1997).
See More on The Templeton Award
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/new_age_parliament.html#Templeton
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/rick_warren_new_age.html#Templeton%20Foundation
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/parliament_world_religions.html

[b]Amsterdam
While I am no fan of John MacArthur, he rightly asks the question
“How can you have the Amsterdam meeting over there; that great convocation of evangelists sponsored by the Billy Graham organization; the opening prayer was by a Roman Catholic and one of the messages by [the] Archbishop of Canterbury who denies that Jesus rose from the dead? How do you embrace all of that and call it Christianity?”[/b]

[b]“George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, is another example of the ecumenical confusion at Amsterdam 2000. Carey is the head of the Anglican and Episcopal churches, and as such he is in close fellowship with every sort of heresy and moral abomination. There are thousands of homosexual Anglicans, many of whom boldly march in public to demand their "rights." There are many homosexual "clergy" within the Anglican denominations. Many Anglican clergy deny and question the virgin birth, vicarious atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Carey has no business speaking to a group of evangelists who claim to be faithful to the Bible, yet he was one of the key speakers at Amsterdam. It is not surprising that Carey said that he recognizes "all Trinitarian bodies of Christ are legitimate expressions of Christ’s body." That means that he believes the Roman Catholic Church is a true church of Jesus Christ. He went on to say that Evangelicals and Catholics, "have so much in common," and he encouraged ecumenical dialogue. To the contrary, the Apostle Paul said that all who preach a false gospel are cursed of God (Galatians 1), and this is true regardless of whether or not they believe in the doctrine of the Trinity”. (Ecumenical Confusion And Deception At Graham Conference. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ecumenicalconfusion.htm]
Conclusion:
“I applaud Graham for his integrity through the years, his passion to preach, and his humility which has exuded from his interactions with other people. By far, he is one of the most respected men in the world. Yet, all that does not excuse him from his recent comments nor does it eclipse the glaring problems with his theology and methodology. I know it sounds like I am coming down hard, but I believe there are certain issues and certain times when it is necessary. As I have stated, my admiration for him on the areas I mentioned still stand while I strongly disagree with him on some of the most essential, non-negotiable matters of the Christian faith. This is one case where moderation simple won’t stand”. [Timmy Brister. The Billy Graham School of Ecumenism. http://timmybrister.com]
I could not have said it better myself, however the above statement does not go far enough. Billy Graham has often been pointed to as one of the leading influences on the New Ecumenism… Which is a sad commentary on America’s Pastor”.
Billy Graham has put a stamp of approval on the false gospel preached by the Roman Catholic church. When he “..includes Catholics in his evangelistic crusades and sends inquirers to Catholic churches, those looking on are made to think that Roman Catholicism must be true Christianity. When evangelical leaders fellowship with Rome, a climate is created whereby it is very difficult to preach that Catholics need to be saved and leave their false “church.” Ecumenical evangelicals break down the walls between truth and error and muddy the waters of gospel work” [David W. Cloud.[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter


 2008/6/20 14:53
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
What I posted previously was not from the site that you mentioned



It was verbatim and directly attributable to the same site that you linked at bottom.

The rest of this is now a hijacking of the thread because of your selfish agenda. We will allow you the benefit of having the last words seeing that you can hear no others.

Thread locked.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/6/20 16:05Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy