The following exchange is the fruit of an email sent to me privately. I wish it had been posted here, but it was not, so I will post both sides of the correspondence (below):
**************************************
Steve,
I wanted to say thank you for your great 30 session teaching on church history. After listening to the final MP3 on the 20th century, I was shocked to hear you say no one has been able to "dig up any dirt" on Billy Graham. I won't go any further other than to offer the the following 1 minute MP3 clip, which features part of an interview by Robert Schuller of Billy Graham.
I would like you to listen to this one minute clip, and then tell me if you agree with what Billy has said:
http://www.earthquakeresurrection.com/G ... huller.mp3
Please reply,
Dave
*****************************************
Hi Dave,
I've been traveling and too busy to respond to all my emails. I heard the sound bite you sent from Billy Graham. What dirt on him did you think it contained?
Steve
*****************************************
Steve,
So what dirt does the audio have on Billy? How about these quotes from that audio:
"the body of Christ consists of people from all Christian groups, or outside Christian groups"
"everyone who loves 'Christ', whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ"
"whether they are Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or unbelievers, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God"
"they know in their heart 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 are going to be with us in heaven."
Steve, you agree with all these statements? Billy is implying that sincere Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will be in heaven because they were born into a system of religion, and that's the only light they have, and they are saved. Robert Schuller exclaims there's a "wideness in God's mercy" after Billy says what he calls "fascinating"...but does that mesh with "the narrow path," the name of your show? Should you rename your show "the wide path," since God's mercy is so wide that he includes people of all religions in the body of Christ?
What about needing to have their sins washed by the blood of Christ? Billy said they don't even need to know the name of Jesus Christ to be members of it...if that's the case, we need to call ALL the missionaries home. And yet, Peter said there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. What's the need of calling Muslims to repentance if Billy says they are already members of the body of Christ and on their way to heaven?
If you want my opinion, Billy is preaching another gospel...rather than a rock of offense and a stumblingblock, it's an ecumenical, tolerant gospel of inclusion. This isn't the only time he's said things like this.
Please reply,
Dave
*****************************************
Dave,
I think you need to listen to the sound bite again—more carefully and more charitably. I confess to being a little put-off when young, hot-headed, heresy hunters decide to write-off an aged, circumspect and saintly statesman of the Kingdom on the basis of the contents of a one-minute sound bite.
Billy specifically limited his comments about the body of Christ to those "who love Christ and who know Christ," whom God is calling "out of the world"—whether Buddhists, Muslims, or whatever.
Billy said:
"the body of Christ consists of people from all Christian groups, or outside Christian groups"
So true! There are people in all Christian groups (denominations) and people, like myself, who do not belong to any such group, but who are part of the body of Christ. Why understand this any less charitably than necessary?
Billy said:
"everyone who loves 'Christ', whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ"
I don't know why you would put "Christ" in quotation marks. Billy didn't. By doing so, you add a less distinctly Christian spin to his statement. Not very charitable. I also believe that all who love Christ may be regarded as members of His body, whether they understand this or not.
Billy said,
"whether they are Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or unbelievers, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God"
Why did you omit the words immediately preceding this clause? They were as follows: "That's what God is doing today: He's calling people out of the world for His name—whether they are Muslim, Buddhist..." Do I believe this? Of course! Don't you? I thought all Christians believed that Buddhists and Muslims could be called out of the world to become members of the body of Christ through loving and knowing Christ. I don't know why this would be controversial.
Finally, Billy said:
"they know in their heart 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 are going to be with us in heaven."
I don't know whether this statement is true or not, but it is believed by many conservative evangelicals, and I don't see why Billy Graham would not be entitled to his opinion as much as anybody else. Peter said something very similar, in Acts 10:34-35—
"In truth, I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him."
This statement was made about Cornelius and his family, who were neither Christians, nor even Jews, but were pious heathen. Because their unenlightened worship was pleasing to God (Acts 10:4), they were "accepted" (v.27) and were granted the opportunity to enter the body of Christ, just as the faithful remnant of Israel were permitted to do. Where would such an "accepted" man (or a faithful O.T. Jew) have gone if he had died before hearing about Christ?
Paul appears to have had a similar attitude and opinion, as stated in Acts 17:26-27—
"God has made from one blood every nation of men...so that they should seek the Lord, in hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from any of us..."
Interestingly, Paul acknowledged that some of the Athenians were already ignorantly worshipping the God that Paul came to proclaim to them (Acts 17:23). He seemed to think it possible for a heathen to "seek the Lord" and "grope for Him," and, conceivably, even to "find Him."
How could it be otherwise? Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Is this limited to that small percentage of people who have had the opportunity to hear the gospel correctly preached to them? Can't He also save those who have had no such opportunity (e.g., the Old Testament saints)? No one has ever been saved apart from Christ. He is clearly the Savior of all men—especially those who believe (1 Tim.4:10). Whether they need to know about His atoning work in order to be atoned by it is less clear. Hebrews 11 lists many people who, apparently, were saved by their faith, but never knew the name of Jesus, nor about His cross or resurrection.
Why then do we evangelize? For the very reason Billy Graham mentioned in the sound bite: so that people may come to know Christ and be included in the Body of Christ! We don't evangelize just to give people an opportunity to go to heaven. Abraham is in heaven, and he never heard the name of Jesus in his lifetime (though we can be pretty sure that he became well acquainted with Him in the afterlife). We evangelize so that people, in addition to going to heaven after they die, may know Christ and live for the glory of God right now.
The kingdom of God, which we preach, is "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.14:17). It is the will of God for every living creature that they possess these things. Those that are never evangelized will never be able to fulfill the purposes in life for which God created them. Where, in the book of Acts, does any preacher mention heaven or hell as incentives for coming into God's kingdom? The Gospel is not so much about people escaping the fate that they deserve as it is about God receiving the glory in their lives that He deserves!
You asked:
"Steve, you agree with all these statements? Billy is implying that sincere Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will be in heaven because they were born into a system of religion, and that's the only light they have, and they are saved."
I didn't hear any suggestion from Billy Graham that people will go to heaven "because they were born into a system of religion." If he believed that, he would probably not have preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to more people than has any other preacher in history. There is a difference between saying that a person may be saved despite the fact that he has only been exposed to ancestral religion, on the one hand, and saying, on the other, that he is saved because he was born into such a religion. Billy Graham may believe the former, but he certainly does not believe the latter. You misrepresent him.
You asked:
"...but does that mesh with 'the narrow path,' the name of your show? Should you rename your show 'the wide path,' since God's mercy is so wide that he includes people of all religions in the body of Christ?"
No religions will ever be included in the body of Christ...only reborn believers in Jesus Christ are there. The question of who may or may not be in heaven is another matter, and it is God's decision, not ours. Billy Graham stated his opinion, which is shared by many Christians. His opinion may be mistaken, but it hardly constitutes "dirt" on the guy. The path of discipleship is still narrow, and few there be that find it. But that is another matter than what Billy Graham is discussing in this sound bite.
You asked:
"What about needing to have their sins washed by the blood of Christ? Billy said they don't even need to know the name of Jesus Christ to be members of it...if that's the case, we need to call ALL the missionaries home. And yet, Peter said there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. What's the need of calling Muslims to repentance if Billy says they are already members of the body of Christ and on their way to heaven?"
Billy Graham believes, as we do, that nothing can wash away our sins other than the blood of Jesus, and that there is no other name (that is, no other Person) whereby we must be saved. Have you never heard him preach? If Billy doesn't believe in missionaries, why would he preach the Gospel, as he has, in every nation? Are you not thinking clearly? If the implications of his statements were as you suggest, then the man would be in a career entirely other than the one he has chosen. Perhaps it would make more sense to interpret his comments in a manner consistent with what is known of his life?
You said:
"If you want my opinion, Billy is preaching another gospel...rather than a rock of offense and a stumblingblock, it's an ecumenical, tolerant gospel of inclusion. This isn't the only time he's said things like this."
Again, have you ever heard Billy Graham preach the gospel (that is not what he is doing in his interview with the heretic Schuller: he is stating a personal opinion). I have heard Billy Graham preach scores of times, since my youth (I got saved at one of his crusades). The gospel he preaches sounds pretty pure to me. I think he has become stronger in the emphasis on repentance in his preaching over the past few decades. Could you send me a sample of Billy presenting the Gospel and it being the wrong one?
For a fellow Christian to attack Billy Graham for his honestly answering a question concerning his opinion, is a low blow. Do you ever state any controversial opinions of your own? How would you like the brethren to judge you when you do? I am frankly astonished at how many nit-pickers there are in the body of Christ, criticizing and undermining the men who are actually reaching the lost! It is no surprise that the heathen see nothing in the Church to convince them that Jesus is real (John 17:21, 23).
I hope this adequately answers your concerns. God bless you.
In Jesus,
Steve
Does Billy Graham preach the wrong Gospel?
Does Billy Graham preach the wrong Gospel?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
" God is calling out a people for HIS name."
He is merely saying that they be muslim, jew etc...That God is calling a people to himself. Mr. Graham is not saying that these other middle
eastern religions are saved...Dave, please listen again and this time
listen with an attentive ear not what others may have said before you
listened.
He is merely saying that they be muslim, jew etc...That God is calling a people to himself. Mr. Graham is not saying that these other middle
eastern religions are saved...Dave, please listen again and this time
listen with an attentive ear not what others may have said before you
listened.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
More of the original correspondence—
******from Dave********************
Steve,
You've definitely given me some things to ponder, and I think I understand how you are interpreting Billy's comments. It seems we understand them in different ways. I understand you have an affinity with Billy because you were saved at one of his crusades, and that your parents were watching a Graham movie when you were born (if I remember correctly).
But I want to make sure I understand your position on the "wideness of God's mercy". Do you agree with Robert Schuller's statement that there is "a wideness in God's mercy", about which Billy agreed "There is"? Do you not see a contradiction between these statements and Jesus' statement to strive to enter the strait gate, for narrow is the path that leads to life and few there be that find it, but WIDE is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that find it? To me this is a no-brainer. Schuller talks about a wideness in God's mercy, when there is nothing in scripture that says there is a wideness in God's mercy. Why would Billy agree with this statement? If you or I were in that interview, we would have to say, "No Robert, there isn't a wideness in God's mercy. It's a narrow path that leads to life." I dare say that you would repeat the words Billy spoke and claim them as your beliefs?
Your last paragraph was not describing my intent. The whole purpose of the email was to respond to your audio on which you said that no one has been able to dig up any dirt on Billy. This is simply not true...by my way of defining "dirt" as being not preaching a biblical gospel. Yes, I've heard Billy preach many times...good, solid, biblical gospel, but he also preaches an ecumenical, tolerant gospel. And the world loves Billy...because he doesn't offend anyone. Jesus said to beware if the secular world loves you. If the secular world hates you...then you know you are on the narrow path.
The way I interpreted his answer was that Muslims turn to Islam because that is the only light they know (were born into). Buddhists come into Buddhism because that is the religion they were born into. What Billy said was that they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God, even though they are still members of that pagan religion.
I'd be surprised to hear you agree with this, given your prior statements that there is a remnant who are truly saved...within Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy. So how can people who are worshipping other gods in Buddhism and Islam be part of the body of Christ? You and I just aren't understanding Billy's words the same way, I guess.
You said below that evangelism is so that they can live their lives for the purpose God has given them. I've been taught (by being raised A/G) that the purpose of evangelism is to take the gospel to other nations because they are LOST and on their way to hell. Do you mean that the apostles gave up their lives for Christ, not so much that people could be saved from eternal hell, but primarily that they could live "their best life now" on a temporal earth? That's the "purpose" of evangelism? If I'm misunderstanding your paragraph below, then please illuminate me.
The purpose of evangelism is so that lost souls on their way to hell can be saved eternally, not so they can find God's purpose for their life now. A tangential result of them becoming saved is, of course, that they begin to seek God's will and live their lives to the fullest for him (which may include suffering and persecution) until they die. But the reason for preaching the gospel in foreign lands is to save souls from an eternal hell and judgment. Jesus certainly preached hell, even though Acts may not show the disciples using it. They did preach eternal judgment, and that implies heaven or hell.
I don't think the martyrs through the ages would suffer roasting and beheading if the only purpose for their evangelism was so that people could live their best life now on earth. They suffered it because they knew their eternal reward, and the eternal fate of those who did not turn.
If you disagree with what I've said above, I'd like to know.
Thanks,
Dave
**********response***********************
Hi David,
Schuller is, without question, a heretic. I have no evidence that Billy Graham is one, though. Schuller's comment was a quote of the first line of a great hymn, by W.F. Faber, written in 1862. The words are as follows:
There's a wideness in God's mercy
like the wideness of the sea;
there's a kindness in his justice,
which is more than liberty.
There is welcome for the sinner,
and more graces for the good;
there is mercy with the Savior;
there is healing in his blood.
There is no place where earth's sorrows
are more felt than in heaven;
there is no place where earth's failings
have such kind judgment given.
There is plentiful redemption
in the blood that has been shed;
there is joy for all the members
in the sorrows of the Head.
For the love of God is broader
than the measure of man's mind;
and the heart of the Eternal
is most wonderfully kind.
If our love were but more faithful,
we should take him at his word;
and our life would be thanksgiving
for the goodness of the Lord.
I have never had any difficulty singing that hymn, nor do I see any conflict between its message and the teaching of Jesus about the narrow gate. In fact, it would seem that Paul was implying a great wideness of God's mercy in Eph.3:18-19—
"[that you]...may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width [wideness] and length and depth and height—to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge..."
While I do not favor the NIV, I do not think it misses the meaning of this passages when it paraphrases: "...to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ."
I don't know the circumstances under which the hymn was written, but I would imagine that it was this verse that inspired Faber to write what he did. I see no twisting of the scripture or contradiction in his rephrasing it as he did.
The way you were taught is the way I was taught, about evangelism. We were taught man-centered motivation, instead of God-centered motivation. The Gospel benefits man, but its main function (as with everything God does) is to bring appropriate glory to God. That man is going to hell is indeed a tragedy—both to man and to God. But even if men escape hell, if they do not live for God, God is ripped off. I live for God, not to avoid hell (it never even comes to my mind). I live for God because God is worthy of my devotion and I love Him. In other words, I live for God for His glory, not for my satisfaction.
This is what motivates Christians once they outgrow their spiritual diapers and begin to live as men and women of God. Sadly, our churches seldom teach this, but instead appeal to man's self-interest in all things. I believe there is a sanctified self-interest that can not help but be a part of the Christian life, but concern for the reward, security and profit of "self" has to recede into the back of our minds, and concern that God no longer be blasphemed in the lives of His creatures must assume center stage, if we are to grow up into Christ in all things.
The frequent reference to John Osteen's book, "Live Your Best Life Now," represents a complete failure on your part to grasp this principle. Osteen is another example (like Schuller) of a preacher who appeals entirely to people's self-interest—the exact opposite of anything I have advocated. While it is true that a holy life is one's "best life now," the question must be "best for whom?" Men must live the life that is best for God, even if it is a life of poverty, persecution and martyrdom. This is the motivation behind the Gospel.
If you think the way people live their lives is secondary and tangential to the issue of their escaping hell, all I can say is that the Bible is not written as if you were correct about this. The Sermon on the Mount (and the content of the Gospels as a whole) certainly devotes more space to how one must live to please God than it does to the question of heaven and hell (probably by a factor of ten-to-one in the volume of the statements). This is true, also, of Paul's epistles, which are full of instruction of how to live for the glory of God, but contain no direct references to hell at all.
You may emphasize salvation from hell as much as you wish in your preaching and in your motivating others to evangelize. All I can say is that, if you do so, you will be taking a strategy very unlike that modeled by the preachers in the New Testament (read their sermons).
American evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are cultural expressions of Christianity that we were immersed in along with our baptism. They are the environment and the paradigm to which we tend to adjust all of our thinking about spiritual things. We tend to be religiously provincial. That is why the study of church history is so valuable. The church fathers, Saint Patrick, Augustine, Francis of Assissi, the Waldenses, the Reformers, the Anabaptists, the Moravians—all had their own cultural paradigms of Christianity and interpretations of scripture that differed in some ways from our own. Ours (and theirs) are not sacrosanct. Primitive, apostolic Christianity is the safest norm by which to compare our views.
As you say, you interpret Billy's comments differently than I do. Since his words may be said to be ambiguous, and could (maybe) be understood as you understand them, or else as I do, there are two rules that my interpretation observes, which yours neglects: 1) charity of judgment, and 2) harmonizing a man's words with his actions. I am quite sure that you are misunderstanding his intent, and the mistake is due to these two factors.
You have repeated your accusation that Billy Graham "preaches another Gospel." I questioned this and asked for an example of his preaching the Gospel where this charge can be observed. All you have provided thus far is an interview where Billy Graham expressed an opinion (one that is not really very controversial, but an opinion nonetheless). This is not an instance of his preaching the Gospel. This is a case of a man answering questions about his beliefs. I will ask again, when has Billy Graham ever preached a Gospel other than the one you and I preach? If you know of no instance, then it would be more charitable to retract the false accusation against the brother.
In Jesus (with all the saints),
Steve
******from Dave********************
Steve,
You've definitely given me some things to ponder, and I think I understand how you are interpreting Billy's comments. It seems we understand them in different ways. I understand you have an affinity with Billy because you were saved at one of his crusades, and that your parents were watching a Graham movie when you were born (if I remember correctly).
But I want to make sure I understand your position on the "wideness of God's mercy". Do you agree with Robert Schuller's statement that there is "a wideness in God's mercy", about which Billy agreed "There is"? Do you not see a contradiction between these statements and Jesus' statement to strive to enter the strait gate, for narrow is the path that leads to life and few there be that find it, but WIDE is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that find it? To me this is a no-brainer. Schuller talks about a wideness in God's mercy, when there is nothing in scripture that says there is a wideness in God's mercy. Why would Billy agree with this statement? If you or I were in that interview, we would have to say, "No Robert, there isn't a wideness in God's mercy. It's a narrow path that leads to life." I dare say that you would repeat the words Billy spoke and claim them as your beliefs?
Your last paragraph was not describing my intent. The whole purpose of the email was to respond to your audio on which you said that no one has been able to dig up any dirt on Billy. This is simply not true...by my way of defining "dirt" as being not preaching a biblical gospel. Yes, I've heard Billy preach many times...good, solid, biblical gospel, but he also preaches an ecumenical, tolerant gospel. And the world loves Billy...because he doesn't offend anyone. Jesus said to beware if the secular world loves you. If the secular world hates you...then you know you are on the narrow path.
The way I interpreted his answer was that Muslims turn to Islam because that is the only light they know (were born into). Buddhists come into Buddhism because that is the religion they were born into. What Billy said was that they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God, even though they are still members of that pagan religion.
I'd be surprised to hear you agree with this, given your prior statements that there is a remnant who are truly saved...within Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy. So how can people who are worshipping other gods in Buddhism and Islam be part of the body of Christ? You and I just aren't understanding Billy's words the same way, I guess.
You said below that evangelism is so that they can live their lives for the purpose God has given them. I've been taught (by being raised A/G) that the purpose of evangelism is to take the gospel to other nations because they are LOST and on their way to hell. Do you mean that the apostles gave up their lives for Christ, not so much that people could be saved from eternal hell, but primarily that they could live "their best life now" on a temporal earth? That's the "purpose" of evangelism? If I'm misunderstanding your paragraph below, then please illuminate me.
The purpose of evangelism is so that lost souls on their way to hell can be saved eternally, not so they can find God's purpose for their life now. A tangential result of them becoming saved is, of course, that they begin to seek God's will and live their lives to the fullest for him (which may include suffering and persecution) until they die. But the reason for preaching the gospel in foreign lands is to save souls from an eternal hell and judgment. Jesus certainly preached hell, even though Acts may not show the disciples using it. They did preach eternal judgment, and that implies heaven or hell.
I don't think the martyrs through the ages would suffer roasting and beheading if the only purpose for their evangelism was so that people could live their best life now on earth. They suffered it because they knew their eternal reward, and the eternal fate of those who did not turn.
If you disagree with what I've said above, I'd like to know.
Thanks,
Dave
**********response***********************
Hi David,
Schuller is, without question, a heretic. I have no evidence that Billy Graham is one, though. Schuller's comment was a quote of the first line of a great hymn, by W.F. Faber, written in 1862. The words are as follows:
There's a wideness in God's mercy
like the wideness of the sea;
there's a kindness in his justice,
which is more than liberty.
There is welcome for the sinner,
and more graces for the good;
there is mercy with the Savior;
there is healing in his blood.
There is no place where earth's sorrows
are more felt than in heaven;
there is no place where earth's failings
have such kind judgment given.
There is plentiful redemption
in the blood that has been shed;
there is joy for all the members
in the sorrows of the Head.
For the love of God is broader
than the measure of man's mind;
and the heart of the Eternal
is most wonderfully kind.
If our love were but more faithful,
we should take him at his word;
and our life would be thanksgiving
for the goodness of the Lord.
I have never had any difficulty singing that hymn, nor do I see any conflict between its message and the teaching of Jesus about the narrow gate. In fact, it would seem that Paul was implying a great wideness of God's mercy in Eph.3:18-19—
"[that you]...may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width [wideness] and length and depth and height—to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge..."
While I do not favor the NIV, I do not think it misses the meaning of this passages when it paraphrases: "...to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ."
I don't know the circumstances under which the hymn was written, but I would imagine that it was this verse that inspired Faber to write what he did. I see no twisting of the scripture or contradiction in his rephrasing it as he did.
The way you were taught is the way I was taught, about evangelism. We were taught man-centered motivation, instead of God-centered motivation. The Gospel benefits man, but its main function (as with everything God does) is to bring appropriate glory to God. That man is going to hell is indeed a tragedy—both to man and to God. But even if men escape hell, if they do not live for God, God is ripped off. I live for God, not to avoid hell (it never even comes to my mind). I live for God because God is worthy of my devotion and I love Him. In other words, I live for God for His glory, not for my satisfaction.
This is what motivates Christians once they outgrow their spiritual diapers and begin to live as men and women of God. Sadly, our churches seldom teach this, but instead appeal to man's self-interest in all things. I believe there is a sanctified self-interest that can not help but be a part of the Christian life, but concern for the reward, security and profit of "self" has to recede into the back of our minds, and concern that God no longer be blasphemed in the lives of His creatures must assume center stage, if we are to grow up into Christ in all things.
The frequent reference to John Osteen's book, "Live Your Best Life Now," represents a complete failure on your part to grasp this principle. Osteen is another example (like Schuller) of a preacher who appeals entirely to people's self-interest—the exact opposite of anything I have advocated. While it is true that a holy life is one's "best life now," the question must be "best for whom?" Men must live the life that is best for God, even if it is a life of poverty, persecution and martyrdom. This is the motivation behind the Gospel.
If you think the way people live their lives is secondary and tangential to the issue of their escaping hell, all I can say is that the Bible is not written as if you were correct about this. The Sermon on the Mount (and the content of the Gospels as a whole) certainly devotes more space to how one must live to please God than it does to the question of heaven and hell (probably by a factor of ten-to-one in the volume of the statements). This is true, also, of Paul's epistles, which are full of instruction of how to live for the glory of God, but contain no direct references to hell at all.
You may emphasize salvation from hell as much as you wish in your preaching and in your motivating others to evangelize. All I can say is that, if you do so, you will be taking a strategy very unlike that modeled by the preachers in the New Testament (read their sermons).
American evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are cultural expressions of Christianity that we were immersed in along with our baptism. They are the environment and the paradigm to which we tend to adjust all of our thinking about spiritual things. We tend to be religiously provincial. That is why the study of church history is so valuable. The church fathers, Saint Patrick, Augustine, Francis of Assissi, the Waldenses, the Reformers, the Anabaptists, the Moravians—all had their own cultural paradigms of Christianity and interpretations of scripture that differed in some ways from our own. Ours (and theirs) are not sacrosanct. Primitive, apostolic Christianity is the safest norm by which to compare our views.
As you say, you interpret Billy's comments differently than I do. Since his words may be said to be ambiguous, and could (maybe) be understood as you understand them, or else as I do, there are two rules that my interpretation observes, which yours neglects: 1) charity of judgment, and 2) harmonizing a man's words with his actions. I am quite sure that you are misunderstanding his intent, and the mistake is due to these two factors.
You have repeated your accusation that Billy Graham "preaches another Gospel." I questioned this and asked for an example of his preaching the Gospel where this charge can be observed. All you have provided thus far is an interview where Billy Graham expressed an opinion (one that is not really very controversial, but an opinion nonetheless). This is not an instance of his preaching the Gospel. This is a case of a man answering questions about his beliefs. I will ask again, when has Billy Graham ever preached a Gospel other than the one you and I preach? If you know of no instance, then it would be more charitable to retract the false accusation against the brother.
In Jesus (with all the saints),
Steve
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Here is yet more of this dialog, for any who may be interested:
*************Dave wrote**************************************
Ah, I had never heard of that hymn....perhaps that is where Schuller got that quote. I'm relieved to hear you say you believe Schuller is a heretic. You asked for an example of Billy preaching another gospel. I still maintain that the one I provided is one, but I think l can provide more. If Schuller is a heretic, then why did he agree with Billy's statements, if Billy's statements were the true gospel as you maintain? It seems to me that a heretic would not agree with the true gospel. Either Schuller is a heretic, or Billy's words are not a true gospel and Schuller agreed with them because heretic's don't believe the true gospel.
Your email was awesome, and I'm going to save it and ponder it for a long time. You've changed my perspective as far as preaching against hell, even though I still believe it has a place in the gospel. Your words about man-centered movtivation for evangelism hit me hard...you've pegged me and my church, I think!! I find it amazing that escaping hell when you die never even enters your mind. Your words about people coming to him for God's glory rather than being saved from hell are illuminating. The part that touches me the most is when you said "concern that God no longer be blasphemed in the lives of His creatures must assume center stage, if we are to grow up into Christ in all things."
So, would this be your message if you were to street preach to unbelivers...that God should not be blasphemed in the lives of His creation any longer, rather than any mention of hellfire judgment? Would you first convince them of their sin through the law, then reveal the gospel? The wages of sin is death...do you not see that as spiritual, eternal death in hell? I'm just curious of how you would witness one on one and street preach, because I have a great desire to do so. I've been influenced by Ray Comfort's Way of the Master method of witnessing, if you are familiar with that (law to the proud, grace to the humble...the law must first convince of a need for the gospel before the light of the gospel be revealed).
To tell the truth, I have a Calvinistic (staunch five pointer) friend who says the same thing...that God's glory is the whole focus of salvation, etc. He is the person I emailed you in the past about who said "God loves himself more than he loves humanity," because he created some for destruction and some for reward. (This is also the view of Paul Washer, a missionary and street preacher you may have heard about who was kicked out of the Baptist denomination for preaching God loves himself more than he loves humanity). I found the idea that God loves himself more than he loves humans to be counterintuitive...he is love, and he sent his Son to save what we screwed up...his perfect creation. If that's true, then how could he love himself more than he loves us? His response was that all through the O.T., it says God does things for his own glory/pleasure, and so that means he cares about and loves himself more than us. Would you agree that God loves/cares about himself and/or his glory more than he loves humanity?
In Christ,
Dave
*************My response*************************************
Hi David,
As for God loving Himself more than mankind (I actually answered this one on the air some weeks ago), I believe the statement is inflammatory and unhelpful. God certainly knows that He is of greater importance and value than all of mankind, and that His will is more important than the collective will of all humanity combined, but this is not exactly what I understand by the word "love."
Love is seen in choices made, and especially in the choice to make selfless sacrifices. "Greater love has no man than this..." In Jesus, we see the heart of God. In giving His life for us, Jesus showed greater love for us than for Himself (1 John 3:16). At the same time, His sacrifice was not only motivated by love for mankind, but also by love for the Father (John 14:31). Jesus being sent to us was a manifestation of the Father's love to us as well (1 John 4:10). So there was a lot of directions God's love was going in the death of Christ: God's love for us; Christ's love for us; Christ's love for the Father. There is no mention of the Father's love for Himself, so I would not think it helpful to use that expression, which only introduces controversy and confusion. To say that God loves us any less than He loves Jesus would be unscriptural (John 17:23). Thus, unless we can say that God loves Himself more than He loves Jesus, then we can not properly say that He loves Himself more than He loves us.
You asked:
"If Schuller is a heretic, then why did he agree with Billy's statements, if Billy's statements were the true gospel as you maintain? It seems to me that a heretic would not agree with the true gospel. Either Schuller is a heretic, or Billy's words are not a true gospel and Schuller agreed with them because heretic's don't believe the true gospel."
I didn't say that Billy Graham's statements were the Gospel; I said they were his opinion. I also have many opinions. Not all of them are "the Gospel." In the interview, Schuller did not ask Billy what the Gospel is, he asked his opinion about the future of Christianity. While Billy's answer never addressed that specific question, he nonetheless did not make any attempt to present or explain the Gospel in his answer. He was talking about something else. He was discussing peripheral doctrinal matters, not the Gospel. There is no preaching in that sound bite.
I think Schuller agreed with Billy's statement (that is, his view on a peripheral doctrinal matter). I know many evangelicals who share his view, and I know some who hold various other views of the ultimate disposition of those who never hear the Gospel. I obviously can't agree with all the viewpoints out there, but the fate of the ignorant is not a core component of the saving message to those who believe.
All Christians believe that the Bible declares a fearful wrath of God awaiting those who persist in being His adversaries (e.g., Matt.25:41/ Heb.10:27/ Rev.14:11), but some consider the torment to be endless, others think it temporal, and some even believe it will be purgative, leading to repentance and reformation (cf. my "Three Views of Hell" lectures at http://www.digitalministries.us/page10.html). None of these people necessarily hold views contrary to yours or mine about what the Good News of the Kingdom is.
By the way, Ray Comfort is a personal acquaintance and friend of mine (though we have not seen each other in years). He and I have preached on the same platform more than once, and we have had private meals together. I have heard his message many times, as my son had a 10-part video series of his, and Ray sent him all of his books. I love and respect him. Having said that, I do not necessarily agree with his suggestion that it was normative in apostolic preaching to present the ten commandments to convict sinners. It is not that I would oppose this practice. It is simply that I find no examples of it in the apostolic preaching. Ray is a great gift to the body of Christ (as is Billy Graham), but in establishing the essentials of evangelistic presentations, I suggest that we must look primarily to Jesus and the apostles, not to great modern preachers, for our information.
How would I present the Gospel on the street to a sinner? I would do what Peter, Philip and Paul always did. I would preach Jesus. Generally, four elements seem to have been most frequently included in the apostolic preaching, though not always in the same order (see, for example, Acts 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43; 13:16-41/17:7, 22-31/ 26:1-27):
1) A summary presentation of the life, character and deeds of Jesus, including His death and resurrection;
2) A proclamation of Christ as the fulfillment of God's promises made through the prophets of old (when preaching to Gentiles, this part was often replaced with pointing out that God's goodness has been demonstrated through creation and His providential care);
3) A declaration that, through His resurrection from death, Jesus was vindicated by God and assumed royal status in heaven as the Lord and Judge of all mankind. Hence, His kingdom stands eternally opposed to all sin and rebellion against God;
4) A call to repentance and acknowledgment of the Lordship of Jesus, to be expressed in submission to water baptism and a life of obedience to Christ (in several cases, there is also the promise of the remission of sins associated with these actions).
I do not always present every one of these in my evangelizing (and some sermons in Acts either omit or pass lightly over one or more of them). The basic message that I must give, if I am to be satisfied that I have shared the Gospel can be boiled down to two essential topics:
1. What God has done in procuring forgiveness of sins for man in Christ, and His establishing a kingdom under the Lordship of Christ; and
2. What man must do in response: Submit to Christ, repent, trust in Him, be baptized, and follow Jesus until death.
The need to emphasize the sinfulness of the sinner, the details of the law, or the specific nature of the final judgment may be called-for in varying degrees, depending upon the condition of the subject's heart, and what he/she already knows and is convicted of. I have no one-size-fits-all presentation of the Gospel. I try to communicate the relevant truth in appropriate situations, as opportunity arises.
Blessings to you, Bro!
In Jesus,
Steve
*************Dave wrote**************************************
Ah, I had never heard of that hymn....perhaps that is where Schuller got that quote. I'm relieved to hear you say you believe Schuller is a heretic. You asked for an example of Billy preaching another gospel. I still maintain that the one I provided is one, but I think l can provide more. If Schuller is a heretic, then why did he agree with Billy's statements, if Billy's statements were the true gospel as you maintain? It seems to me that a heretic would not agree with the true gospel. Either Schuller is a heretic, or Billy's words are not a true gospel and Schuller agreed with them because heretic's don't believe the true gospel.
Your email was awesome, and I'm going to save it and ponder it for a long time. You've changed my perspective as far as preaching against hell, even though I still believe it has a place in the gospel. Your words about man-centered movtivation for evangelism hit me hard...you've pegged me and my church, I think!! I find it amazing that escaping hell when you die never even enters your mind. Your words about people coming to him for God's glory rather than being saved from hell are illuminating. The part that touches me the most is when you said "concern that God no longer be blasphemed in the lives of His creatures must assume center stage, if we are to grow up into Christ in all things."
So, would this be your message if you were to street preach to unbelivers...that God should not be blasphemed in the lives of His creation any longer, rather than any mention of hellfire judgment? Would you first convince them of their sin through the law, then reveal the gospel? The wages of sin is death...do you not see that as spiritual, eternal death in hell? I'm just curious of how you would witness one on one and street preach, because I have a great desire to do so. I've been influenced by Ray Comfort's Way of the Master method of witnessing, if you are familiar with that (law to the proud, grace to the humble...the law must first convince of a need for the gospel before the light of the gospel be revealed).
To tell the truth, I have a Calvinistic (staunch five pointer) friend who says the same thing...that God's glory is the whole focus of salvation, etc. He is the person I emailed you in the past about who said "God loves himself more than he loves humanity," because he created some for destruction and some for reward. (This is also the view of Paul Washer, a missionary and street preacher you may have heard about who was kicked out of the Baptist denomination for preaching God loves himself more than he loves humanity). I found the idea that God loves himself more than he loves humans to be counterintuitive...he is love, and he sent his Son to save what we screwed up...his perfect creation. If that's true, then how could he love himself more than he loves us? His response was that all through the O.T., it says God does things for his own glory/pleasure, and so that means he cares about and loves himself more than us. Would you agree that God loves/cares about himself and/or his glory more than he loves humanity?
In Christ,
Dave
*************My response*************************************
Hi David,
As for God loving Himself more than mankind (I actually answered this one on the air some weeks ago), I believe the statement is inflammatory and unhelpful. God certainly knows that He is of greater importance and value than all of mankind, and that His will is more important than the collective will of all humanity combined, but this is not exactly what I understand by the word "love."
Love is seen in choices made, and especially in the choice to make selfless sacrifices. "Greater love has no man than this..." In Jesus, we see the heart of God. In giving His life for us, Jesus showed greater love for us than for Himself (1 John 3:16). At the same time, His sacrifice was not only motivated by love for mankind, but also by love for the Father (John 14:31). Jesus being sent to us was a manifestation of the Father's love to us as well (1 John 4:10). So there was a lot of directions God's love was going in the death of Christ: God's love for us; Christ's love for us; Christ's love for the Father. There is no mention of the Father's love for Himself, so I would not think it helpful to use that expression, which only introduces controversy and confusion. To say that God loves us any less than He loves Jesus would be unscriptural (John 17:23). Thus, unless we can say that God loves Himself more than He loves Jesus, then we can not properly say that He loves Himself more than He loves us.
You asked:
"If Schuller is a heretic, then why did he agree with Billy's statements, if Billy's statements were the true gospel as you maintain? It seems to me that a heretic would not agree with the true gospel. Either Schuller is a heretic, or Billy's words are not a true gospel and Schuller agreed with them because heretic's don't believe the true gospel."
I didn't say that Billy Graham's statements were the Gospel; I said they were his opinion. I also have many opinions. Not all of them are "the Gospel." In the interview, Schuller did not ask Billy what the Gospel is, he asked his opinion about the future of Christianity. While Billy's answer never addressed that specific question, he nonetheless did not make any attempt to present or explain the Gospel in his answer. He was talking about something else. He was discussing peripheral doctrinal matters, not the Gospel. There is no preaching in that sound bite.
I think Schuller agreed with Billy's statement (that is, his view on a peripheral doctrinal matter). I know many evangelicals who share his view, and I know some who hold various other views of the ultimate disposition of those who never hear the Gospel. I obviously can't agree with all the viewpoints out there, but the fate of the ignorant is not a core component of the saving message to those who believe.
All Christians believe that the Bible declares a fearful wrath of God awaiting those who persist in being His adversaries (e.g., Matt.25:41/ Heb.10:27/ Rev.14:11), but some consider the torment to be endless, others think it temporal, and some even believe it will be purgative, leading to repentance and reformation (cf. my "Three Views of Hell" lectures at http://www.digitalministries.us/page10.html). None of these people necessarily hold views contrary to yours or mine about what the Good News of the Kingdom is.
By the way, Ray Comfort is a personal acquaintance and friend of mine (though we have not seen each other in years). He and I have preached on the same platform more than once, and we have had private meals together. I have heard his message many times, as my son had a 10-part video series of his, and Ray sent him all of his books. I love and respect him. Having said that, I do not necessarily agree with his suggestion that it was normative in apostolic preaching to present the ten commandments to convict sinners. It is not that I would oppose this practice. It is simply that I find no examples of it in the apostolic preaching. Ray is a great gift to the body of Christ (as is Billy Graham), but in establishing the essentials of evangelistic presentations, I suggest that we must look primarily to Jesus and the apostles, not to great modern preachers, for our information.
How would I present the Gospel on the street to a sinner? I would do what Peter, Philip and Paul always did. I would preach Jesus. Generally, four elements seem to have been most frequently included in the apostolic preaching, though not always in the same order (see, for example, Acts 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43; 13:16-41/17:7, 22-31/ 26:1-27):
1) A summary presentation of the life, character and deeds of Jesus, including His death and resurrection;
2) A proclamation of Christ as the fulfillment of God's promises made through the prophets of old (when preaching to Gentiles, this part was often replaced with pointing out that God's goodness has been demonstrated through creation and His providential care);
3) A declaration that, through His resurrection from death, Jesus was vindicated by God and assumed royal status in heaven as the Lord and Judge of all mankind. Hence, His kingdom stands eternally opposed to all sin and rebellion against God;
4) A call to repentance and acknowledgment of the Lordship of Jesus, to be expressed in submission to water baptism and a life of obedience to Christ (in several cases, there is also the promise of the remission of sins associated with these actions).
I do not always present every one of these in my evangelizing (and some sermons in Acts either omit or pass lightly over one or more of them). The basic message that I must give, if I am to be satisfied that I have shared the Gospel can be boiled down to two essential topics:
1. What God has done in procuring forgiveness of sins for man in Christ, and His establishing a kingdom under the Lordship of Christ; and
2. What man must do in response: Submit to Christ, repent, trust in Him, be baptized, and follow Jesus until death.
The need to emphasize the sinfulness of the sinner, the details of the law, or the specific nature of the final judgment may be called-for in varying degrees, depending upon the condition of the subject's heart, and what he/she already knows and is convicted of. I have no one-size-fits-all presentation of the Gospel. I try to communicate the relevant truth in appropriate situations, as opportunity arises.
Blessings to you, Bro!
In Jesus,
Steve
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Thank you Steve for posting this so we could read it. I found it very insightful in many ways so I really wanted to give my appreciation to you both....Glow
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
Steve,
I am not sure if you are aware of this but comments like these about Billy Graham get around. It's a blessing that someone such as yourself could question those comments, so that people wont be captured by a fault finding and critical heart. If I ever come across this again (which I have in the past), I will direct people to come and read your response to these things.
Thanks Steve!
I am not sure if you are aware of this but comments like these about Billy Graham get around. It's a blessing that someone such as yourself could question those comments, so that people wont be captured by a fault finding and critical heart. If I ever come across this again (which I have in the past), I will direct people to come and read your response to these things.
Thanks Steve!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thank you Steve for pointing out truth about Billy Graham.
Isnt it like people to point out a fault about maybe 1 thing
and yet what about all the good he has done for God's
kingdom...
In the manner we judge we shall be judged.
I am grateful for all your writings Steve for God's glory.
Isnt it like people to point out a fault about maybe 1 thing
and yet what about all the good he has done for God's
kingdom...
In the manner we judge we shall be judged.
I am grateful for all your writings Steve for God's glory.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: