SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Is Billy Graham a Universalist??? (see USA Today)

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )

 Re: The Religious World

When Christ was speaking about "the world hating us" He wasn't talking about the regular joe, he was talking about the religious world. Those like the Pharisees, Lawyers(intrepreters of Gods law) Scribes, Saducees etc.. These are the ones that hate us, not the so called world in a global sense of the word.

It's this religeous world we must be careful of when they speak well of us. Because they did the same thing to the false prophets.

It wasn't the people that hated Paul and Silas or Barnabas when they went from city to city it was the religeous jews, they went about stirring up the people, causing a riot. When a riot is started the marjority of the people of no idea what they are coming together for, they just join in.

The same thing at Christ trial, it was the religeous leaders who stirred up the people to cry crucify him. Pilot wanted to let Him go, but the religious crowd wanted Him dead.

So it is today, it is the religeous crowd that wants the Christian who stands for the truth of Gods word against a wicked and perverse generation that will be persecuated for His names sake.

The populas is impressed when things begin to happen amongst believers,

"By this shall all men know that ye have love one toward another".

The populas is actually looking to us for answers, and all were giving them is religious garggling, and they are not impressed. Our testimony is crap, when we are supposed to be a living testimony, but rather we are a dead dried up corpse. We talk like a Christian and they hear that, but they don't see anything that would convince them that Christ is alive in us.

Believe it or not, but the whole wide world is looking for Jesus Christ. You know what keeps them in bondage?

Thier religion and their religious leaders.

Look at the Islamic countries, their leaders can stir the people up so quickly against Christianity. Thank God for the radio and those who have satillite in those countries they can hear about Christ in their own homes and they come to a knowledge of Christ.

Jesus was a friend to publicans and sinners, whores, beggars and thieves. But amongst His own, His own received Him not, those who were supposed to be standing for the truth and defenders of the law, they didn't receive Him, they rejected Him.

What say ye?


 2005/5/18 16:31

Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Hi all,

I have shown in my previous post that the May 15, 2005 article had taken a quote of Graham [b]completely out of context[/b]. Thankfully, the actual context was published the next day by the same newspaper. I believe this is the mechanics behind all these false allegations concerning Billy Graham.

As for the so-called interview with Robert Schuller, I think it is at worst [b]bogus[/b], or at best, taken completely out of context. All sources I could find on the web are secondary (tertiary..), none of them have the reputation to back up their claims. All claimed to be providing the full transcript, but they conflict with one another in the actual day of interview. Some say May 31, 1997, others say June 8, several say May 3, one say October 20. Without verifiable documentation, I am very hesitant to accept these claims. And is it surprising that statements are fabricated or distorted to attack Billy Graham?

The facts simply don't line up.



Further examination shows that the earliest source one could find (probably the only source too) for the "interview with Robert Schuller" is an article written by a [i]Robert E. Kofahl[/i].

Attached at the end of that article, it says, [i]"Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D., and the Rev. Harold L. Webb certify the accuracy of the transcripts from Parts I and II, respectively, of the televised interview of Dr. Billy Graham by Dr. Robert Schuller."[/i]

There is no other source to authenticate the interview that I could find on the web. Had Billy Graham really made such earth-shattering statements, it would be reasonable to assume that we should find other independent sources to corroborate the story, but here we find only one.


 2005/5/18 16:40Profile

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri


Thanks for looking into this Sam. Your research is greatly appreciated.

God Bless,


Robert Wurtz II

 2005/5/18 16:44Profile

Joined: 2003/6/13
Posts: 210
Southern California


Just wanted to throw in my two cents here...

I have been preaching in our city's central park for the last year and a half every Saturday morning. I go there during the week as often as I can to walk around, pray as I pick up the trash and just be a presence. I talk to whoever is there (streetpeople, mostly).

In no way do I compromise the preaching and teaching of God's word, regardless of who is there. I declare it plainly and very rarely without my opinion. I say about sin what God's word says about sin. I declare the need for repentance and what that should look like in the lives of those who come to listen. I exhort them with all that I have and all that I am.

All this being said, some of those that are closest to me now are the most notorious sinners in the community. Some have turned to God and I know because they are different, radically altered, born-again. Some aren't. They know what I live, they know what they will get when I see them in the middle of the night at Alberto's Taco shop drive-thru, they know what they'll get when i see them in the Hope Thrift Shop, they know what they will get when they call me on my phone...and knowing that they will ultimately hear nothing but Jesus, the problem of the darkness of their hearts and the need for them to respond to God's offer of the "Great Exchange" light of all of this, they know I will listen to them ramble on and that all I will do is point them to Jesus, these are some of the closest people to me in the work God has given to me to do.

The people that 'hate' the most are, as has been pointed out in earlier posts, are the ones "locked in" in regards to the way they think about those reaching out to they that are 'in the world' and their methods.

It is so easy, and I know by many years of personal experience from being on both sides, to pick apart someone's approach and 'method' either from the sidelines or 'the inside'.

I think that if the world were to interview me multiple times in a year, or a month, without a disease that affects my bodily operations, and be quoted in and out of context repeatedly by every form of media that exists, mixed up with a few people's personal world views, I would not like to visit a website to see what Christians declare regarding my soul, and my relationship to God Almighty. There could be some interesting conclusions...

Yes, the world will hate us as they hated the Master. Yes, they will persecute those who follow the Teacher. No, a servant is not greater than his Master. Yes, they will flog you and cast you out of the 'synagogues' and deliver you up. Jesus is referring to the religious, who have a form of godliness, but have forgotten or denied that God can and will actually do the impossible in the lives of those who are in the dark. He is speaking about those who claim to live in hold and walk and emit the Light, the whole time sitting in the seat of the scornful, disdaining the truly humble ones, who receive the insult and the accusation.


 2005/5/18 17:33Profile

Joined: 2003/10/30
Posts: 1554


Brother Josh, thank you for your response.

When I read the verse that brother Zeke posted: "When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." it came to my mind about few examples from the biographies of some great men of God from the past.

George Muller, what an example of a faithful man of God.
After his death it is written:
"Next day, Monday March 14th 1898, was the day of the funderal. It is said that nothing like it has been seen in Bristol before or since. Firms closed or gave their employees time off to witness the event and pay their respects; thousands of people lined the route of the procession; on Bristol cathedral and other churches flags flew at half mast and muffled peals were rung; in all the main streets they put up black shutters or drew their blinds. The city mourned...Nearly a hundred carriages including the mayor's state coach where a crowd of about seven thousand people gathered at he main gates...Obituary articles appeared in most national newspapers, the Daily Telegraph, said: 'Mr. Muller's life and example, by their eloquent and touching beauty cannot fail to impress even a sceptical and utilitirian age.'..."

John Wesley , he was hated-yes, he was beaten-yes, he was stonned-yes. And yet it is said of him:
"At the time of his death he was probably the best known and best loved man in England."

 2005/5/18 18:38Profile

Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re: Reason for this post

Well, this has been quite a discussion! :-?

Just to be clear, it is obvious reading my post starting this thread that I have refrained from making ANY accusation against Billy Graham personally. Who am I to do that? What we can do is put out the facts or reports and weigh their truthfulness and consequences. This is my goal in posting this.

While Billy Graham has drawn huge crowds to hear his preaching, this shouldn't put him above questioning. A comment was made concerning Graham's "record" and on that basis he shouldn't even be questioned at all. (He obviously wasn't being railed against) Well as long as Graham is alive, he is making his record. So are we (you and me) I might add.

It is important for those of us who would be in the position to support a Graham crusade to know WHO we are supporting. This is our right. Just as a person shouldn't slander Graham here, a person should also not slander one who chooses not to support him and gives good reason.

I wanted to put the info out there and see if you could help me make sense of it. That is all.

So thank you all for helping. This is coming along great. :-D

Just a side note. To [b]discount[/b] a cited statement by Graham, it is necessary to produce the source cited. You can't just say "I didn't find it on the internet, so it didn't exist." Or "I found this with different dates so it didn't exist." This doesn't help our discussion. 1) Produce the document or video, 2) Read or listen to it, 3) then say whether it did or did not contain the claimed information. Without this, citations are only a "see for yourself."

As to the Battle Cry issue that I cited, here's the link to "see for yourself". You can pick up whatever dates they cite and go from there to the television station to "see for yourself."

On a personal note, I don't see why soulwinner Jack Chick would want to trump up charges against Graham. He seems to really love gospel preachers.

OK, I'm going to put some more info for all of you to examine about Graham. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. When proven guilty? You decide for yourselves.



 2005/5/18 19:04Profile

Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re: More Graham quotes

Here are some more "Graham quotations." I found it interesting that the dates match between Chick and this one concerning the "neo-universalism". (I should have used "neo-universalism" instead of "universalism" before. (the belief that men can be saved without the knowledge of Christ) Well there are a lot of things here. You examine them. We are commanded to know them that labor among us. With our local churches being involved with supporting Graham, he comes into the context of this scriptural command to the local church.

We've kept this discussion relatively free from personal attacks. Let's keep it that way. Blessings. RT


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 letters (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 Ecumenic 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).

This is simply amazing. Does Billy Graham really believe that the sacramental grace-works gospel that built Belmont Abbey is the way of salvation? If so, why does Graham preach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone without works or sacraments? Why does he remain a Baptist rather than joining the Catholic Church? On the other hand, if Graham does not believe Rome’s gospel is true, why did he say what he does? Why does he fellowship with Rome? The evangelist tries to have it both ways, but it is impossible. This is why Graham has been called “Mr. Facing Both Ways”!


The evidence for this is overwhelming. We have documented this extensively in our 354-page book Evangelicals and Rome (Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061). 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 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). 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, 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 altar call were channeled to Catholic churches. These are just a few examples of the hundreds that could be given.


In 1979 Graham called Pope John Paul II “the moral leader of the world” (Religious News Service, Sept. 27, 1979). He also said that John Paul II “is almost an evangelist because he calls to people to turn to Christ, to turn to Christianity” (The Star, June 26, 1979, reprinted in the Australian Beacon, August 1979, p. 1). 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.” In a lengthy article about the Pope in 1980, Graham praised the Pope as a “bridge builder” and said: “Pope John Paul II has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of the century” (Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980). After visiting the Pope in 1981, Graham said, “We had a spiritual time” (Christianity Today, Feb. 6, 1981, p. 88). Graham made the following statement about the Pope’s address in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1983: “I’ll tell you--that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I’ve ever heard. It was tremendous” (Foundation magazine, Vol. V, Issue 5, 1984).


The Roman Catholic bishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, stood beside Graham during his 1963 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).


In a 1961 interview with the Lutheran Standard of the liberal American Lutheran Church, Graham testified that all of his children except the youngest were baptized as infants (Graham grew up as a Presbyterian and his wife is still Presbyterian). Graham then made the following amazing statement:

“I have some difficulty in accepting the indiscriminate baptism of infants without a careful regard as to whether the parents have any intention of fulfilling the promise they make. But I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian Truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the miracles 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. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me” (Graham, interview with Wilfred Bockelman, associate editor of the Lutheran Standard, American Lutheran Church, Lutheran Standard, October 10, 1961).


Billy Graham was questioning the literal fire of hell as far back as 1951. During his crusade in Greensboro, North Carolina, from Oct. 14 to Nov. 18, 1951, Graham made the following statement:

“I know that God has a fire which burns but does not consume; one example is the fire of the burning bush which Moses saw. I know also, however, that in many places throughout the Bible, the term ‘fire’ is used figuratively to connote great punishment or suffering. The Bible speaks of fire set by the tongue” (Graham, cited by Margaret Moffett Banks, “Crusader: Graham saved souls, made headlines,” News & Record, Greensboro, North Carolina, March 15, 1999).

The author of this secular newspaper article noted that Graham “stopped short of describing a literal Hell, where tormented souls burn for eternity.”

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.”

In his 1983 “Affirmations” for evangelists, Graham said the fire of hell could be symbolic:

“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” (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).

In Time magazine, November 15, 1993, Graham said: “The only thing I could say for sure is that hell means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to be hell. When it comes to a literal fire, I don’t preach it because I’m not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be—not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.”


In an interview with McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said: “I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost—were going to hell—if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God—through nature, for instance—and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ‘yes’ to God.”

Though Graham later tried to stem the controversy brought about by his comments, he continued to allow for the possibility that the unsaved in other religions might not go to hell if they respond to natural light.

In 1985, Graham affirmed his belief that those outside of Christ might be saved. Los Angeles reporter David Colker asked Graham: “What about people of other faiths who live good lives but don’t profess a belief in Christ?” Graham replied, “I’m going to leave that to the Lord. He’ll decide that” (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, July 22, 1985). While this answer might appear reasonable to those who do not know the Bible, in reality it is a great compromise of the truth. God has already decided what will happen to those who die outside of faith in Jesus Christ. The book of Ephesians describes the condition of such as “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). That is why Christ must be preached. Men without a saving knowledge of Christ are condemned already (John 3:18). There is no mystery or question about this matter, because the Bible has plainly spoken.

In 1993, Graham repeated this philosophy in an interview with David Frost. “And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they’re in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. … I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don’t know” (The Charlotte Observer, Feb. 16, 1993).

In a 1997 interview with Robert Schuller, Billy Graham said, “God’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven” (broadcast on Robert Schuller’s Hour of Power, May 31, 1997).


Graham’s close affiliation with unbelieving false teachers has been widely documented for 40 years. There were 120 Modernists on his New York Crusade committee in 1957. One of those was HENRY VAN DUSEN, president of the extremely liberal Union Theological Seminary. Van Dusen denied Christ’s virgin birth. In his book Liberal Theology, he stated that Jesus is not God. Van Dusen and his wife later committed suicide together.

Another Modernist exalted by Graham during the 1957 New York Crusade was JOHN SUTHERLAND BONNELL, pastor of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. Bonnell was on the executive committee and was honored by Graham on the platform during the meetings. Bonnell had also participated in Graham’s Scotland crusade in 1955. Graham mentions Bonnell twice in a strictly positive manner in his 1997 biography, Just As I Am. In an article in Look magazine (March 23, 1954) Bonnell had stated that he and most other Presbyterian ministers did not believe in the virgin birth or bodily resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, a real heaven and hell, etc. This unbelieving wolf in sheep’s clothing said that he and most other Presbyterians “do not conceive of heaven as a place with gates of pearl and streets of gold. Nor do they think of hell as a place where the souls of condemned are punished in fire and brimstone.”

In his 1959 San Francisco Crusade, Graham honored the notorious liberal BISHOP JAMES A. PIKE by having him lead in prayer. Graham had attended Pike’s consecration at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral on May 15, 1958 (William Stringfellow and Anthony Towne, The Death and Life of Bishop Pike, p. 306). Pike would also have been involved in Graham’s 1957 New York Crusade, as he was the dean of the extremely modernistic Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York from 1952 to 1958. Yet Pike was a rank, unbelieving Modernist, a drunkard, an adulterer. He denied the Trinity and refused to state the traditional benediction, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen!” He abbreviated this to “In the name of God, Amen!” Three times Pike was brought up on heresy charges in the Episcopal Church. In an article in Look magazine Pike stated that he did not believe the fundamentals of the faith. In a pastoral letter that was to be read in all the Episcopal Churches of his diocese, Pike 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 an article in Christian Century, Dec. 21, 1960, Pike declared that he no longer believed the doctrines stated in the Apostles’ Creed. The same month that article appeared Graham again joined Pike at his Grace Cathedral for a Christian Men’s Assembly sponsored by the National Council of Churches. Three times Pike was picked up by San Francisco police while he was wandering around in a drunken, confused state late at night. He spent four years in intensive psychoanalysis. Pike was twice divorced, thrice married, and had at least three mistresses. One of his mistresses committed suicide; one of his daughters attempted suicide. His eldest son committed suicide in 1966 at age 20 (associated with his homosexuality), and Pike got deeply involved in the occult in an attempt to communicate with the deceased. Three years later Pike died from a 70-foot fall in a remote canyon in the Israeli desert near the Dead Sea. His maggot infested body was found five days later. The 56-year-old theologian got lost in the desert while on an extended honeymoon with his 31-year-old third wife (and long time mistress). A biography about Pike noted that “never before in the history of the Episcopal Church had a Solemn Requiem Mass been offered for a bishop in the presence of three surviving wives” (The Death and Life of Bishop Pike, p. 202).

In Graham’s 1963 Los Angeles Crusade, Methodist Bishop GERALD KENNEDY was chairman of the crusade committee. On August 21, 1963, Graham praised Kennedy as “one of the ten greatest Christian preachers in America.” Yet, Kennedy has denied just about every one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. In his book God’s Good News, Kennedy said, “I believe the testimony of the New Testament taken as a whole is against the doctrine of the deity of Christ” (p. 125). Kennedy’s printed endorsement is found on the jacket of NELS FERRE’S book, The Sun and the Umbrella. In this book Ferre denied practically every doctrine of the Word of God. He said, “Jesus never was nor became God.” He calls the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence “the grand myth which at its heart is idolatry.” In Ferre’s book The Christian Understanding of God, he said, “We have no way of knowing, even, that Jesus was sinless.” He denies the virgin birth of Christ and replaces it with his blasphemous theory that Jesus may have been the son of a German soldier. Yet, Graham’s campaign chairman, Gerald Kennedy, endorsed Ferre and his blasphemies.

In Los Angeles Graham also praised E. STANLEY JONES, liberal missionary to India. Jones denied the virgin birth, the Trinity, the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture, and many other doctrines of the faith.

At a National Council of Churches meeting in 1966, Graham praised BISHOP LESLIE NEWBIGEN of South India. Newbigen was a universalist and a syncretist who believed that there is salvation in non-Christian religions. In his book The Open Secret, Newbigen claimed that the church is not “the exclusive possessor of salvation.”

In 1974, Graham featured MALCOLM MUGGERIDGE at the Congress on World Evangelization, yet Muggeridge disbelieved the Bible and New Testament Christianity. In his book Jesus Rediscovered, Muggeridge stated that it is “beyond credibility” to imagine that God had a virgin-born son who died and rose from the dead.

In his biography, Graham praises KARL BARTH as “the great theologian” and states: “In spite of our theological differences, we remained good friends” (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 694). Graham does not warn his readers that Barth denied the New Testament faith. He refused to believe the virgin birth. He rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. Barth was also a wicked adulterer who kept a mistress in his house in the very presence of his wife, Nelly (Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, translated by John Bowden, pp. 158,164,185-86).

Another of the many false teachers praised in Graham’s biography is MICHAEL RAMSEY, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Graham calls him “a giant of a man” and says, “We were friends for many years” (Just As I Am, p. 694). Graham fails to warn his readers that Ramsey was an unbeliever who denied the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. In the London Daily Mail for Feb. 10, 1961, Ramsey said: “Heaven is not a place for Christians only. I expect to see many present day atheists there.” In 1966, Ramsey had an audience with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican. He addressed the Pope as “Your holiness” and expressed his desire for closer unity with Rome. As Ramsey and the other Anglican clergy were departing they bowed and kissed the Pope’s ring. Speaking about this papal visit a year later, Ramsey testified that he and the Pope walked arm and arm out in St. Peter’s Basilica and dedicated themselves to the task of unifying “all Christendom and all the churches of all the world into one church” (Ramsey, cited by M.L. Moser, Ecumenicalism Under the Spotlight, pp. 22-23). In 1972, while preaching at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhatten, Ramsey said: “I can foresee the day when all Christians might accept the Pope as the presiding Bishop.”

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 merely a few of the hundreds of examples that could be given of Graham’s habit of yoking together with and honoring wicked, Bible-denying modernists.


In an interview with a United Church of Canada publication in 1966, Graham gave the following reply to a question about the virgin birth of Christ:

Q. Do you think a literal belief in the Virgin birth--not just as a symbol of the incarnation or of Christ’s divinity--as an historic event is necessary for personal salvation?
A. While I most certainly believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, I do not find anywhere in the New Testament that this particular belief is necessary for personal salvation (“Billy Graham Answers 26 Provocative Questions,” United Church of Observer, July 1, 1966).

In his zeal to appease the apostates in the United Church of Christ (its current moderator, Bill Phipps, denies that Jesus Christ is God), Graham tells an absolute lie. How would it be possible for a saved person to deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? If Jesus Christ were not virgin born, he was a sinner; and if he were a sinner, he could not have died for our sins. Further, if Christ were a sinner and if He were not virgin born, He was a liar for making such claims and the Bible that records those claims is a blatant and wicked lie, and the Bible-believing Christian is a deceived and foolish person whose faith has no authoritative foundation. Therefore, apart from the virgin birth there is no Gospel and no Salvation and no authoritative Bible. Billy Graham is dead wrong. The virgin birth of Christ is “fatal” doctrine, meaning it is crucial for salvation. The entire Gospel stands or falls on the virgin birth.


“How you believe doesn't affect the doctrine. Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and blowed and created a man just like that” (“Cooperative Evangelism at Harringay,” United Church Observer, July 1966).


Newsweek magazine, April 26, 1982, examined the debate on the issue of biblical infallibility. The article noted that Billy Graham is not on the side of inerrancy. “Billy Graham, for one, clearly is not. ‘I believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God,’ Graham says, ‘but I don’t use the word ‘inerrant’ because it’s become a brittle divisive word.’” Graham avoids controversy at any cost. He knows that Modernists and unbelieving Evangelicals are willing to call the Bible “authoritative and inspired” even while denying that it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. Graham aligns himself with this unbelieving camp. If the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, who can dogmatically determine which part is and which part is not inerrant! If the Bible is not inerrant, it is not authoritative.


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, July 15, 1985). Schuller is false teacher who preaches a false gospel. He uses biblical terms but redefines them with unbiblical means. He defines born again as “to be changed from a negative to a positive self-image--from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust” (Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 68). In an article in Christianity Today, October 5, 1984, Schuller said, “I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.” In spite of Schuller’s unbelief and false gospel, Graham has repeatedly honored him. In 1983, Schuller sat in the front row of distinguished guests invited to honor Graham’s 65th birthday. In 1986, Schuller was invited by Graham to speak at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam. Schuller was featured on the platform of Graham’s Atlanta Crusade in 1994.


As the year 1988 closed, Graham told U.S. News & World Report that theology no longer meant anything to him: “World travel and getting to know clergy of all denominations has helped mold me into an ecumenical being. We’re separated by theology and, in some instances, culture and race, but all that means nothing to me any more” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 19, 1988).

 2005/5/18 19:16Profile

 Re: Son of Chick

allow me to quote the Word of God, and I'll use both the NIV and the KJV versions of Holy Scripture:

"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

or as the NIV puts it;

"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels".

2 Timothy 2:23

I watched one Los Angeles night as over 10,000 precious souls walked from death into life after Pastor Graham preached a gospel message. Nuff said.

 2005/5/18 19:47

 Re: Graham off on his doctrine

Billy Graham may be a little off on his doctrine, but my God who isn't?

If we had our doctrine and teachings together, we'd be power houses, saturated in virtue and soaked in love.

I don't know one single Christian that has anything in his life together, but one thing that I know about my brothers is that they have a love for the LORD. Regardless if they are in the pit of despair or are exalted on the mountains of spice, they know their God!

Isn't that enough?

You know the only one who can correct Billy Graham is an Apostle.

And if you want to teach him anything, then you must go to him and entreat him as a friend.

WHO ARE WE TO DISPLAY PUBLICLY ABOUT THIS MAN WHO HAS gone to places like China and the Soviet Union, to help pave the way for Christianity in those countries. We have no idea what an impact he has left in those countries.

Listen to what Jesus said about this very thing.

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: [b]for he that is not against us is for us.[/b]

 2005/5/18 21:14

Joined: 2004/5/13
Posts: 36



I dont have much time but i have to tell you i disagree with much what you said. Especially this statement:

"Believe it or not, but the whole wide world is looking for Jesus Christ. You know what keeps them in bondage? "

I believe that all the world is blinded by their sin, and that none can come to Christ lest the Father draw them, because man is an utter and dreadful position of death, and blindness. Man's natural desires are evil all the time, and mans mind is said in scripture to naturally have emnity(hatred) towards God. All men naturally love there sin and want to stay in it, they despise God, and his law. As the following scriptures teach..

Romans 3:9 "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. 10As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

There are none that seek after God, none, All have turned aside. This is an absolute statement to all men, and teaches the deprived condition of all man.

So this statement by you
"Believe it or not, but the whole wide world is looking for Jesus Christ. You know what keeps them in bondage? "

This statement doesnt align with scripture. Scripture teaches, only those God picks,(elects, choses), actually come to Him, through His son. It is not mans choice, but Gods, God Soverignly choses some for eternal life, and some for destruction. He is just in doing this because all men are deserving of eternal destruction, therefore He has mercy on whom He wills to have mercy.

Man in his depraved state as Romans 3:9 taught, man can not, nor will not choice God or seek God, without God first drawing Him. Because it is impossible because of mans sinful condition. All men are blinded and enslaved to sin, we are all naturally enemies of God, & were sons of the devil.

If this be the case the only way man could see to choose God, to desire God, is if God, had mercy on Him, and drew Him to Himself.

Here is one scripture that specifically and clearly teaches Gods Soverign choice, to chose some for eternal life, and others to eternal destruction.
Romans 9:14 "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As He says also in Hosea:

“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

I have to strongly disagree with you that it was only the religious leaders that hated Jesus.

Jesus was hated by one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Betrayed Jesus.

Look at Israel Gods people in the Old Test, Most heathen nations, hated them. And attempted to destroy Israel.

Look at China today, all the persecution the true believers have by the world, Chinese Government.

All the world hates the light, they love their own alone.

To say that only religous leaders hate christians, and not the world is to say that the world has love, for christ and His church, and naturally loves Gods ways, this is unscriptural.

Saying that all man, seek God, and love God, is to deny what Gods word teaches the depraved state of min, in his sin.

Peter preaching to jews, on the day of pentacost, said
Acts 2:23“Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death"

36“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Peter told these men"5And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven."
That they were responsible for killing the Savior!
All of us are guilty for this crime because of our sin.

Karl here is some biblical definitions of the word world used in scripture, in the contexts we are looking at.
kosmos kos'-mos
the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

Nelsons Bible Dictionary of the word (world)

“World” is also associated with mankind. Christ said of His disciples, “You are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14a). Often world is used to indicate “the men of this world” who are said to lie in wickedness (Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19). The men are called “the world,” not only because they compose the greater part of the world’s population, but mainly because they pursue and cherish the things of this world. The Psalmist describes these men “as having their portion in this life” (Ps. 17:14).
“World” may also denote the fleeting character of life’s riches and pleasures and the folly of making them of central importance in life. “Will a person gain anything if he wins the whole world, but loses his life?” (Matt. 16:26).
Jesus states, “You belong to the world here below but I come from above” (John 8:23). Jesus was living in this world as a sphere of habitation, but He was separated from its atmosphere that was temporal and worldly. The term “world” also denotes the condition of human affairs, with people alienated from and opposed to God. Jesus wants His followers to live in the world to serve and to witness but not get caught up in the godless pleasures and perversities of life. “I do not ask you to keep them out of the world, but I do ask you to keep them safe from the Evil One” (John 17:15).
Youngblood, Ronald F., General Editor; F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, Consulting Editors, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995.

Hopefully you can see all mans thoughts are evil continually, and loves darkness and hates the light,
Genesis 6:5 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that EVERY INTENT of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY. 6And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

This is the state of all mankind after the fall. And is the same today.

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19“IF YOU WERE OF THE WORLD, THE WORLD WOULD LOVE ITS OWN. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, THEREFORE THE WORLD HATES YOU."

This speaks of all the whole world. Those who are of the world, and unless you are born from above, you are of this world.

So yes the religous leaders may hate Gods true people, but this will only be, because they are of the world, and not Gods children.

1 John2:15 "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For ALL THAT IS IN THE WORLD—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever."

This speaks not of a specific group of people within the whole world, but the whole world in this age, and its core.

2Cor4:3 "But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them."

Who is the god of this age, it is satan.

Karl i hope you can see, the truths i am trying to point out.

Must go,


 2005/5/19 2:28Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy