Billy Graham

[John Yurich]

4 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

Below is from the book two posts above.  That is not compromise?   If not... please tell me what it is.  That is merely one example of many many many.

 

In 1993, Graham repeated this doctrine 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).

And you actually believe that Graham believes what he stated in 1993? Why would you believe that Graham really believes that salvation can come about apart from Jesus when he preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation? That is totally illogical for anybody to believe that Graham believes that salvation comes about apart from Jesus when he preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation.

[No Nicolaitans]

1 minute ago, John Yurich said:

And you actually believe that Graham believes what he stated in 1993? Why would you believe that Graham really believes that salvation can come about apart from Jesus when he preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation? That is totally illogical for anybody to believe that Graham believes that salvation comes about apart from Jesus when he preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation.

John,

I appreciate what I perceive as being your sense of humor; however, Mr. Graham has shown in personal interviews what his view of salvation is...and it's not biblical. 

If this is all just a game to you (along with your other posts in other threads), then have your fun while it lasts. It's no longer humorous...even to me. If it's not a game, and you actually believe what you're posting, then you have a long way to go my friend.

[1611mac]

8 minutes ago, John Yurich said:

And you actually believe that Graham believes what he stated in 1993? Why would you believe that Graham really believes that salvation can come about apart from Jesus when he preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation? That is totally illogical for anybody to believe that Graham believes that salvation comes about apart from Jesus when he preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation.

John, since it seems that there is no reason to believe what anyone says you might as well not reply to posts as I have no reason to believe that you believe what you say. Have a good day my friend.

[John Yurich]

1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

John,

I appreciate what I perceive as being your sense of humor; however, Mr. Graham has shown in personal interviews what his view of salvation is...and it's not biblical. 

If this is all just a game to you (along with your other posts in other threads), then have your fun while it lasts. It's no longer humorous...even to me. If it's not a game, and you actually believe what you're posting, then you have a long way to go my friend.

Graham's does not really believe those statements he made in those interviews because of the fact that he preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation from the pulpit. It is totally illogical for anybody to believe that Graham believes those statements he made in those interviews.

2 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

John, since it seems that there is no reason to believe what anyone says you might as well not reply to posts as I have no reason to believe that you believe what you say. Have a good day my friend.

When a minister makes statements that contradict what he preaches from the pulpit then it is only logical to believe that he does not believe those statements made outside of the pulpit.

[BaptistJonStewart]

On 4/15/2012 at 3:57 AM, irishman said:

Yes, Presbyterians are Catholic, but not "Roman Catholic" same with Lutheran and Episcopalian. They merely broke away from popish control, but kept most of their false doctrine.

I believe Billy Sunday was Presbyterian too, and he had some funny ideas. J. Vernon Mcgee also.

While Billy Sunday and J. Vernon McGee were Presbyterians, they were also fundamentalists. Bob Jones Sr. was a fundamentalist as well. 

[No Nicolaitans]

42 minutes ago, John Yurich said:

When a minister makes statements that contradict what he preaches from the pulpit then it is only logical to believe that he does not believe those statements made outside of the pulpit.

Does a pulpit magically make a preacher and/or his words infallible?

[1611mac]

And why is a preacher responsible for only the words he speaks in the pulpit?  

[weary warrior]

If God calls a man (and we cannot know for sure that he didn't), and that man starts off well in his youth, do we do well to gnash upon him ourselves today? If people were saved in the beginning (and there are many thousands with solid testimonies of salvation from his early crusades) can we completely disregard all fruit because of later bad fruit, and say God never had his hand upon him? I view this topic in light of the example we have of David and Saul. Saul went off the rails bad later in life, but David still refused to verbally castigate him, out of respect for the One who called Saul initially, and whom Saul would eventually give an answer to. The callings of God are without repentance. May I caution us to be careful how we denigrate a man who did great things for God at one time, and leave judgement in the hands of that God?

I do not contradict or doubt all of the examples given of his falling away, nor am I a fan or follower. However, as men of God, we must always humbly remember that but for the grace of God, there stand we all. A little grace from us for a wayward, fallen brother would not be out of line.

[John Yurich]

2 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

If God calls a man (and we cannot know for sure that he didn't), and that man starts off well in his youth, do we do well to gnash upon him ourselves today? If people were saved in the beginning (and there are many thousands with solid testimonies of salvation from his early crusades) can we completely disregard all fruit because of later bad fruit, and say God never had his hand upon him? I view this topic in light of the example we have of David and Saul. Saul went off the rails bad later in life, but David still refused to verbally castigate him, out of respect for the One who called Saul initially, and whom Saul would eventually give an answer to. The callings of God are without repentance. May I caution us to be careful how we denigrate a man who did great things for God at one time, and leave judgement in the hands of that God?

I do not contradict or doubt all of the examples given of his falling away, nor am I a fan or follower. However, as men of God, we must always humbly remember that but for the grace of God, there stand we all. A little grace from us for a wayward, fallen brother would not be out of line.

Graham does not really believe those statements in those interviews that contradict the biblical doctrine of salvation that he preached from the pulpit. And thus it is illogical to believe that Graham believes those statements in those interviews that contradict the biblical doctrine of salvation that he preached from the pulpit.

10 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

And why is a preacher responsible for only the words he speaks in the pulpit?  

If a preacher preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation from the pulpit and makes contradictory statements outside of the pulpit then the contradictory statements he makes outside of the pulpit he does not really believe. That is logic.

[1611mac]

40 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

I do not contradict or doubt all of the examples given of his falling away, nor am I a fan or follower. However, as men of God, we must always humbly remember that but for the grace of God, there stand we all. A little grace from us for a wayward, fallen brother would not be out of line.

Well, I think anyone would agree that we all rejoice about the "good" done in his ministry...  In my mind that is a given...

But his teaching has not changed. False doctrine is to be rebuked. If I spouted false doctrine here you would rebuke me... you wouldn't ask how many people have been saved as a result of my preaching Christ.  And then, even at that, you'd have to decide how many "salvations" it takes to "qualify" for non-rebuke.  We have too many compromising pragmatists!

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by 1611mac

[John Yurich]

7 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

Well, I think anyone would agree that we all rejoice about the "good" done in his ministry...  In my mind that is a given...

But his teaching has not changed. False doctrine is to be rebuked. If I spouted false doctrine here you would rebuke me... you wouldn't ask how many people have been saved as a result of my preaching Christ.  And then, even at that, you'd have to decide how many "salvations" it takes to "quality" for non-rebuke.  We have to many compromising pragmatists!

 

Graham has never preached nor believed any false doctrine. Just because he made statements outside of the pulpit that seem false does not mean he believes those statements. Graham does not believe those false statements made outside of the pulpit. And it is illogical for anybody to believe that Graham believes those false statements made outside of the pulpit.

[No Nicolaitans]

27 minutes ago, John Yurich said:

Graham has never preached nor believed any false doctrine. Just because he made statements outside of the pulpit that seem false does not mean he believes those statements. Graham does not believe those false statements made outside of the pulpit. And it is illogical for anybody to believe that Graham believes those false statements made outside of the pulpit.

John, you are either continuing your game, or you are naive in your understanding.

Popes make statements from pulpits, Benny Hinn makes statements from pulpits, and all kinds of false teachers make statements from behind pulpits, yet the pulpit doesn't make the statement true.

If you actually believe what you're espousing, you have my deepest and most sincere regret for your naivety. However, if you are just espousing shenanigans that are supposedly pointed at Christianity, you are the one looking quite foolish...not us.

Which is it friend? 

Sadly...as much as I appreciated your "uniqueness" at first...I will no longer play your game at this point.

[Disciple.Luke]

3 hours ago, John Yurich said:

Graham has never preached nor believed any false doctrine. Just because he made statements outside of the pulpit that seem false does not mean he believes those statements. Graham does not believe those false statements made outside of the pulpit. And it is illogical for anybody to believe that Graham believes those false statements made outside of the pulpit.

Your reasoning is what is illogical. Billy Graham is only a sinful human like everyone else, and that's why we have to examine our beliefs daily to make sure our beliefs fall in line with the Bible. Even if an angel from heaven comes down preaching a "different" gospel, we would have to reject it as false teaching.

Even if, as you say, that false statements outside the pulpit don't really count as his personal beliefs, that would just make him look like a hypocrite and a liar.

I respect Billy Graham, but he isn't infallible when it comes to doctrine and theology.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Disciple.Luke

[weary warrior]

4 hours ago, 1611mac said:

Well, I think anyone would agree that we all rejoice about the "good" done in his ministry...  In my mind that is a given...

But his teaching has not changed. False doctrine is to be rebuked. If I spouted false doctrine here you would rebuke me... you wouldn't ask how many people have been saved as a result of my preaching Christ.  And then, even at that, you'd have to decide how many "salvations" it takes to "qualify" for non-rebuke.  We have too many compromising pragmatists!

 

 Ya'll do what you want, I didn't intend to start a conflict, and I don't now. If my mild observation was offensive, I do apologize. That wasn't my intention. I don't think the subject matter is worth friction between us. But know this. Rebuking someone is going to them in person and telling them they did wrong. Talking to others about the wrong a third person did is gossiping, and even a fallen man of God is still a man of God, and we should be careful. You're right, I would rebuke you if you were on here doing as he did. But I would not get on another forum and spend pages of posts discussing your failures with others. That's all I was trying to point out. But it's all good. Again, I'm want no fuss.

[1Timothy115]

13 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

 Ya'll do what you want, I didn't intend to start a conflict, and I don't now. If my mild observation was offensive, I do apologize. That wasn't my intention. I don't think the subject matter is worth friction between us. But know this. Rebuking someone is going to them in person and telling them they did wrong. Talking to others about the wrong a third person did is gossiping, and even a fallen man of God is still a man of God, and we should be careful. You're right, I would rebuke you if you were on here doing as he did. But I would not get on another forum and spend pages of posts discussing your failures with others. That's all I was trying to point out. But it's all good. Again, I'm want no fuss.

WW, you nailed it.

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.