Billy Graham

[John81]

At a Billy Graham Crusade.

Mr. Graham preaches his message, them an invitation is given. They have several trained counselors for those who come forward. During their brief training they have to agree, when someone comes forward to them, to ask if they have a preference, if they state Catholic or whatever, if they are Baptist they have to send that person to a Catholic or whatever counselors.

Mr. Graham will accept pastors, or Church Workers from almost any church to be counselors at his crusades, in fact he sends people ahead to try & get all of the local churches to join in with him & support his crusade, for that gives him credibility, an insures a larger crowd of people, with more people supporting him with their money, & of course, that insures many will leave with a false hope.

Which, if a person goes to a Catholic counselor, & their preference is Baptist, that is great, for likely they will be truly counseled on the one & only way a person can be saved. Yet if they go to one of the other counselors, they will likely be told the wrong ways.

Yet, the Catholics are not the only other one that teaches works based salvation, most organized churches teach some sort of work based salvation. So in effect, most that go forward at a Mr. Graham Crusade will be taught a false hope of being saved, its harder to win someone to Christ that has a false hope than one that has no hope.

Yet, the Baptist that joins in this service, just by being there, is saying, I approve of everything that is preached, taught, & or done at this crusade.

That has long been one of the most dangerous aspects of the Billy Graham crusades. Thousands went forward, not all of which were born again at that time, only to find themselves referred back to whatever church they claimed an affliliation with, even if it was the false church of the RCC or some other gospel preaching church like a liberal Episcopal or United Methodist church. What opportunity did these folks then have of actually hearing the Gospel there?

While many did come to Christ over the years at his crusades, many more made emotional "decisions for Christ" and then left those crusades feeling okay with God and in no need of further attention to the matter.

Much of the material put forth by Billy Graham ministries, especially as time went by, was of a very watered down, ecumenical and simplistic nature.

The ministry is now in the hands of Billy's son Franklin. While there are issues to address with how Franklin does some things, I have noticed that he takes every opportunity to present the Gospel no matter where he is at. There has not been a time I've seen him on a news program or any other show on TV where he didn't present the Gospel message, and oftentimes more than once.

[JerryNumbers]

His son uses the same plan for counselors as his father did, so its the same old thing at their crusades. And son carry's much of his fathers baggage.

[John81]

His son uses the same plan for counselors as his father did, so its the same old thing at their crusades. And son carry's much of his fathers baggage.

I agree, that aspect is still a mess. The only thing I was pointing out is that, unlike his dad, Franklin takes the opportunity to present the Gospel any time he has an audience, whether in public, on radio or TV and no matter who is present. Billy became to worried about offending someone to do that, but at least for now, Franklin puts the Gospel forth often. Even so, I would certainly not endorse Billy Graham Ministries.

[lettheredeemedsayso]

The Presbyterian statement of faith - the Westminster Confession - is almost identical with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

The principle differences from Baptists concern:
baptism - of believers by immersion, rather than infants, optionally by sprinkling;
church government of churches by a presbytery of elders, rather than independency;
and the role of civil magistrates - the net effect being that where possible Presbyterians become the established church - as in Scotland & Geneva.

In England the Presbyterians & other non-conformists suffered harsh restrictions after the restoration of Charles II in 1660, & were expelled from their pulpits & suffered serious penalties if they continued to preach. The Ps largely departed from their doctrine by 1700 & many became unitarian. Happily the Methodist revival called the people back to the Gospel. The Baptists never had a national influence.

About 30 years ago the English Ps & Congregationalists (Independents) merged to form the United Reformed Church. The (dis)unity was such that the Congs divided into 4 - one faction merging, & one maintaining the faith & 2 more or less modernist. (The Evangelical Congregational Fellowship.) There were more in the Cong church before the merger than in the United Reformed.

That is what I thought

[JerryNumbers]

I know nothing about Presbyterian statement of faith, yet I do know for fact their teachings is unlike Baptist teachings.

[swathdiver]

I've seen a quote from Billy Graham in the late 1940s showing his ecumenism, rejection of separation and other heresies. He's been a great tool for Satan and awful for the cause of Christ by sending many millions more to hell than to heaven.

[Melchizedek]

Billy Graham

Attended Reformed Presbyterian Church as a youth with his parents & while attend it he claimed to have been saved.

The Presbyterian Church claims one is saved because of grace, yet they hold to lots of the same teaching of the RRC & Lutheran, that this saving grace is extended though baptizing & the Lord's Supper.

I had been told that he grew up as a Baptist, that was not true, it seems his 1st experience with Baptist was the 1st church he was pastor of was 1st Baptist Missionary Church of Western Springs in IL.

Now I understand where he was coming from in accepting false teaching about being saved, & joining together will the Catholics, Pentecostals, Lutherans, & so on.

Gotta love that amazing Catholic grace. How sweet the sound. We don't like Presbyterians either. Women pastors? What will they think of next.

[Invicta]

I always thought he was a Southern Baptist.

[JerryNumbers]

I always thought he was a Southern Baptist.

 

No, the Southern Baptist embraced him as if he was some type of savior. He is the main reason the Southern Baptist Convention went liberal. 

[DaveW]

He did preach salvation at one stage, but came.out many years ago with a changed perspective, including all religions as legitimate.

My mum was saved at a Billy Graham "crusade" many many years ago, but as was their method, those that did actually get saved were left to wander in the wilderness without a "Philip" to guide them.

As a result I was brought up in a moral, but non-christian home.
Years later my mum and Dad (saved in Vietnam about the same time as mum - again, no follow up) were invited by friends to an IFB church - knew that the message was.what they both heard years before, and have never looked back.

He did preach it once, but not for many years now.

[Invicta]

My aunt and cousin were both saved at a Graham 'crusade'.

 

I have always had problems with that word.  Crusades were evil wars.  Many of them were conducted to exterminate Christians.

[DaveW]

My aunt and cousin were both saved at a Graham 'crusade'.

I have always had problems with that word. Crusades were evil wars. Many of them were conducted to exterminate Christians.

Yes, and I also have problems with the method.
To tell people of salvation and then leave them to whatever wolves are prowling is not only dangerous, it is also unbiblical.

With my father in Vietnam it is understandable. It was in the war, he met the guy once, never again, but that once was enough. The situation was that way.
Billy Graham and others of his Ilk? Should know better, and should at the very least have suggested contacts wherever they go. Alas, he was already ecumenical by that time and couldn't be seen to promote one over the other - it would affect his popularity.......

Even evangelical outreach should be done under a local church.

[John81]

Yes, and I also have problems with the method.
To tell people of salvation and then leave them to whatever wolves are prowling is not only dangerous, it is also unbiblical.

With my father in Vietnam it is understandable. It was in the war, he met the guy once, never again, but that once was enough. The situation was that way.
Billy Graham and others of his Ilk? Should know better, and should at the very least have suggested contacts wherever they go. Alas, he was already ecumenical by that time and couldn't be seen to promote one over the other - it would affect his popularity.......

Even evangelical outreach should be done under a local church.

The sad thing is that many Baptist churches and Christians today do much the same thing. They go out soul winning, all too many do this in an unbiblical manner, and once they get someone to say a "salvation prayer" with them, they put a mark in their notebook and move on. The potential newborn believer in Christ is left undiscipled.

 

Billy Graham made a conscious decision to water down and ignore most all things for the sake of being able to preach the way of salvation to larger crowds. Those who responded were all too often ushered right into the watered down or false churches they came from. True discipleship was almost nonexistent and there was no consistent discussion with those coming forward to see if they actually understood the Gospel and had been born again or not.

 

Worse yet, as he got older he began making statements that contradicted the Gospel he had been preaching in his crusades! Billy came out saying he couldn't believe God would send someone to hell if they had never directly heard the Gospel clearly presented to them, so they must get some sort of free pass into heaven. (If I'm not mistaken, Charles Stanley has adopted a similar position latter in his life) Billy further stated that there were some in other religions who were "sincere" (whatever that may mean) in wanting to serve God so even if they were Muslim, Hindu, Mormon or whatever, they would be going to heaven too. (This is a position that Mother Teresa also promoted)

[KAT]

John81 said:

 

"The sad thing is that many Baptist churches and Christians today do much the same thing. They go out soul winning, all too many do this in an unbiblical manner, and once they get someone to say a "salvation prayer" with them, they put a mark in their notebook and move on. The potential newborn believer in Christ is left undiscipled."

 

 

So true.

[JerryNumbers]

He did preach salvation at one stage, but came.out many years ago with a changed perspective, including all religions as legitimate.

My mum was saved at a Billy Graham "crusade" many many years ago, but as was their method, those that did actually get saved were left to wander in the wilderness without a "Philip" to guide them.

As a result I was brought up in a moral, but non-christian home.
Years later my mum and Dad (saved in Vietnam about the same time as mum - again, no follow up) were invited by friends to an IFB church - knew that the message was.what they both heard years before, and have never looked back.

He did preach it once, but not for many years now.

 

If you will check out the Presbyterian you will find that they do not teach salvation only by grace though faith, although they do teach your save by grace,  but it though works, baptizing, & church membership.

 

And yes, many of his sermons seems to say by grace though faith, not of works, not of self, its a gift.

 

And because of that teaching is why he will call Catholics, brothers & sister in Christ, as well as all of those protestant churches that came out of the RCC bringing RCC teachings with them. He has been a great bridge builder, & led many churches, many people, into  false teachings.