Billy Graham Answers Your Questions

[biblicalthought]

Sadly, I had a project that required for me to read "Billy Graham Answers Your Questions." There's no date of the publication (looks like a small private run) but probably early sixties would be my guess. I say sadly, not because I had to read Billy Graham, sadly because of how clear this book points out his apostasy. Since I had to type up many quotes from the book, I thought they'd be helpful resources here that aren't widely available for sermons, lectures, or whatever. The quotes that I have pulled all (in some way) demonstrate doctrines he now rejects. Here are some of the quotes.

“…our final salvation does not depend upon whether we did or did not have to work on Sunday, but whether our sins have been taken away by Christ and whether we are trusting in His merit for our salvation.” 108

“Some day you will realize that god has the last word. I pray that you may discover this truth this side of eternity…Some day you will have to stand in His presence. Having rejected Him and the redemption from sin which we have through faith in Jesus Christ, you will have to stand on your own merits – and this no man can do. Your problem, my problem, the problem of each individual in the world is that of sin, rebellion against God and the breaking of His holy laws. He has made full provision for our dilemma but we must accept this or bear the consequences. Read John 3:18.” 193

“Outside of faith in Christ man are ‘perishing’ which means ‘lost’ in this world and the world to come.” 200

“John 3:16 says: ‘For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ The very next verse tells us, ‘For god sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.’ Here we have the love of God in sending His Son and the fact that He did not come to condemn but to save. But there is more, for the next verse tells us: ‘He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’ Here and in other places in the New Testament we find that God sent His Son to redeem men who are already condemned by their sins. It is an offer of free pardon to all who will receive it.” 205

“The Bible plainly says: ‘He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life.’ Jesus Himself said, ‘No man cometh unto the Father except by me.’ Therefore, I challenge people to accept Christ.” 208

“Q: A famous Christian theologian recently stated that after a life-long study of the religions of the world he was convinced that there was no such person as a ‘non-Christian’ – that every Buddhist temple and heathen shrine was a marker on the road to God. This sounds reasonable, but is it Christian?
A: Over the platform in all our Crusades there is a text which reads: Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’ This points up the distinctiveness of Christianity, and the exclusiveness of its teaching. Christ IS Christianity, and there can be no true Christianity apart from Him.” 227-228

 

[Pergamum]

So....what's the point of these quotes.

These quotes are FAR from apostasy.

Has he changed these views and if so, can you quote the changes so that we can compare them.

 

[biblicalthought]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I assumed everyone would know about his rejection of these doctrines. He holds to a wide-mercy view of God's grace. This view teaches than God is saving people in other religions such as Islam and Hinuism without ever hearing the name Jesus. The view holds that pagans are held up to the light they're given, and if they do pretty good, and if they've never even heard of Jesus much less the Gospel, that we'll see them in heaven. This is one example.

So the quotes show how tight his doctrine "used to be" before his later departure. The quotes show that he once believed evangelical doctrine and when compared to what he has taught over the last quarter-century - clearly demonstrates his spostasy. This is why I said it was sad.

One of the more popular demonstrations was his appearance on the Hour of Power with Robert Schuller. Here's a video:

 

[Herald]

Stephen, you need to be fair. If you're going to accuse Billy Graham of apostasy than cite quotes and sources. I would hope you would do this with any man who stands thus accused.

 

[DMcFadden]

Thanks, Joshua! Now I'm really depressed and I can't even use that excuse the British man used.

I have head some of Billy's comments over the years that troubled me. But, the Hour of Power comments were the most appalling ever.

One of my profs in college began as a S.D. famer. He used to say: "Pick your ruts carefully. You will be in them for a very long time." It appears that when you start out with an evangelicalism suffused with Finney, and if you live long enough, you will tend to end up in some rank heresy.

 

[Herald]

I think my point was missed. I am not saying Stephen was wrong. I was making the point that when we accuse someone of apostasy we need to present the proof, not just assume the proof. Apostasy is akin to calling a person unsaved. A heretic is someone who is unsaved. Strong words. I didn't see a video on Stephen's post and just now saw that it was deleted. My caution still stands but let me give Stephen credit for posting a video that supposedly has Billy Graham in his own words.

 

[CalvinisticCumberland]

Well, these quotes simply sound like the Gospel to me.

As a reformed thinker I disagree with Graham on a few things, but he is my brother in Christ.

Can you show where he has changed his views from these points? I would be hard pressed to believe that he has rejected that which his entire ministry has taught for over half a century.

Sadly, I had a project that required for me to read "Billy Graham Answers Your Questions." There's no date of the publication (looks like a small private run) but probably early sixties would be my guess. I say sadly, not because I had to read Billy Graham, sadly because of how clear this book points out his apostasy. Since I had to type up many quotes from the book, I thought they'd be helpful resources here that aren't widely available for sermons, lectures, or whatever. The quotes that I have pulled all (in some way) demonstrate doctrines he now rejects. Here are some of the quotes.

“…our final salvation does not depend upon whether we did or did not have to work on Sunday, but whether our sins have been taken away by Christ and whether we are trusting in His merit for our salvation.” 108

“Some day you will realize that god has the last word. I pray that you may discover this truth this side of eternity…Some day you will have to stand in His presence. Having rejected Him and the redemption from sin which we have through faith in Jesus Christ, you will have to stand on your own merits – and this no man can do. Your problem, my problem, the problem of each individual in the world is that of sin, rebellion against God and the breaking of His holy laws. He has made full provision for our dilemma but we must accept this or bear the consequences. Read John 3:18.” 193

“The Bible plainly says: ‘He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life.’ Jesus Himself said, ‘No man cometh unto the Father except by me.’ Therefore, I challenge people to accept Christ.” 208

“Q: A famous Christian theologian recently stated that after a life-long study of the religions of the world he was convinced that there was no such person as a ‘non-Christian’ – that every Buddhist temple and heathen shrine was a marker on the road to God. This sounds reasonable, but is it Christian?
A: Over the platform in all our Crusades there is a text which reads: Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’ This points up the distinctiveness of Christianity, and the exclusiveness of its teaching. Christ IS Christianity, and there can be no true Christianity apart from Him.” 227-228

 

[biblicalthought]

Here are three verifiable examples that should qualify as documented proof. These quotes come "after" the quotes I posted from the book and show a span of nearly twenty years. I apologize for assuming that everyone here would be familiar with Graham's apostasy.

“I used to think 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 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.” McCall’s Magazine 1978

“God is doing today; He'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.”(May 31, 1997 Interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller)

"There are a lot of groups that feel a little bit strange around me, because I am inclusive," says Graham, who draws a distinction between "evangelical" — a label often claimed by conservative Protestants — and "evangelism." USA TODAY 2005

I have been aware of this for quite some time now. It was heart-wrenching to read through the book. The book portrayed a strong evangelical understanding of the Gospel. As far as I know, this (the PB) is the only place on the internet that makes these quotes from the book available.

 

[py3ak]

I have a somewhat fuller transcript of the Robert Schuller interview, which I had to ferret out when the BGEA was having some special televised programs in Mexico City.

The interview was broadcast on May 31, 1997 on the Hour of Power television program, titled "Say 'Yes' To Possibility Thinking," program #1426.

Dr. Schuller: "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"

Dr. Graham: "Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time."

"What God is doing today is 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 they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven."

Dr. Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

Dr. Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

I also have a .gif of a letter sent by Cardinal Roger Mahony, at the time Archbishop of Los Angeles, urging cooperation and prayer for the Billy Graham Crusade, as they saw it as an opportunity for an influx of alienated Catholics. There is a rather telling sentence in it:

[Crusade] officials have assured me that, in keeping with Dr. Graham's belief and policy, there will be no proselytizing, and that anyone identifying him or herself as a Catholic will be referred to us for reintegration into the life of the Catholic Church.

Earlier he had stated:

While there are some doctrinal differences in our theologies, we can certainly support Dr. Graham's core message of the need for conversion of life and the establishment of a personal relationship with Jesus.

Further documentation can be found in Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided. I've read Billy Graham's autobiography, and it does make quite clear that he's shifted positions over the years. Another point was the interview (I believe it was with Larry King) where he would not take such a strong position as Franklin Graham did on the state of the Muslims.

 

[Ivan]

On Larry King Life he was asked, concerning salvation, "What about those like the Jews, the Muslims, who don't believe..." Graham responded, "That's in God's hands. I can't be their judge." King: "You don't judge them?" Graham: "No. No, I don't say 'You're going to hell.' "

Sounds a lot like Joel Osteen.

 

[Pergamum]

There is a difference between apostasy and error. Graham is in error, but I would not call him apostate. Like John Stott who denies hell but holds to all the other orthodox doctrines, I still hold these men to be erring brothers and not apostates. The charge of apostasy or heresy is HEAVY indeed and it must be proven that he has denied the very faith rather than just one article of this faith that may not be damning.

 

[biblicalthought]

Pergamum, I appreciate the distinction you've made. I disagree though. A denial of the Gospel is much more than mere error. I agree that error doesn't always mean apostasy - otherwise we'd all be cooked! But this error is that denial of the faith that you've mentioned. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are all called by the same God? I don't think so.

 

[bookslover]

Interesting: John MacArthur, in the video, says that Graham has believed some of this stuff since at least 1960, back when he was in his prime as a fire-breathing evangelist.

Graham will be 90 this coming November 7.

 

[biblicalthought]

Yeah, I don't know how reliable this is, but Jack Chick has a page saying the same thing.

Billy Graham - Champion of the Catholic Church

 

[Pilgrim]

A former pastor of mine wrote the BGEA regarding the concerns John MacArthur raised about the Schuller interview. The BGEA responded in a letter (that I have in my possession somewhere) blaming the answers on Graham's Parkinson's and maybe other health problems, saying that Graham said things on that program that he has never believed. However, going back to at least the 1978 McCall's interview that Stephen quoted from, he has been making these kinds of inclusivist statements for decades. If I recall correctly Graham or the BGEA claimed he was misquoted in the McCall's article, but he has continued to make similar statements.

I believe Graham was probably eventually led astray by his cooperation with Roman Catholics and liberal protestants that dates back to the 1950's. This cooperation consisted of sending respondents who identified themselves as Catholic to Catholic churches, etc. in exchange for their support in putting on the crusades. Iain Murray relates how the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1960's despised what Graham stood for but cooperated with him in hopes that his crusades in Britain would help bring people back to the Anglican church. This is probably the kind of thing that MacArthur refers to with the 1960 statement.

Iain Murray goes into all of this at some length in both the 2nd volume of the authorised biography of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his Evangelicalism Divided. ML-J was one of the few prominent evangelical leaders in Britain who never cooperated with Graham. This was due to the cooperation with non-evangelicals as well as the use of the invitation system.

 

[danmpem]

On Larry King Life he was asked, concerning salvation, "What about those like the Jews, the Muslims, who don't believe..." Graham responded, "That's in God's hands. I can't be their judge." King: "You don't judge them?" Graham: "No. No, I don't say 'You're going to hell.' "

Sounds a lot like Joel Osteen.

You beat me to the comment.

 

[DMcFadden]

First, full disclosure, I LIKE Graham and honor his personal integrity and record of service.
Second, my second child professed faith in Christ at the Anaheim crusade back in the 80s. For that alone, I will always have a tender spot in my heart for the old crusader.

Still, YIKES! It just amazes me that Graham was the key player in the founding of Christianity Today and (to quote President Mouw) "played an important role in the founding of Fuller Seminary and was a member of Fuller Seminary’s board of trustees for six years.” One need not be a conspiracy nut to see a certain similarity of "broadening of perspective" in all three ministries.

 

[Grymir]

Just listen to his radio show. Far different than his older stuff. Down right fire and brimstone it used to be, but, alas. Biblicalthought is right.

 

[danmpem]

Just listen to his radio show. Far different than his older stuff. Down right fire and brimstone it used to be, but, alas. Biblicalthought is right.

I've heard references to this before, but I think I am far too young to have been around any of it.

 

[Pergamum]

Yeah, I don't know how reliable this is, but Jack Chick has a page saying the same thing.

Billy Graham - Champion of the Catholic Church

So, let me get this straight. You are calling Graham an apostate - i.e. someone who is going to HELL. And you are using Jack Chick as evidence?

 

[Pergamum]

There is a difference between apostasy and error. Graham is in error, but I would not call him apostate. Like John Stott who denies hell but holds to all the other orthodox doctrines, I still hold these men to be erring brothers and not apostates. The charge of apostasy or heresy is HEAVY indeed and it must be proven that he has denied the very faith rather than just one article of this faith that may not be damning.

Unlike denying eternal punishment, this is more than "on article of this faith." It is foundational. To assert that one can come to the Father by any way other than Christ is cut the heart out of the Gospel.

There is entirely too much condemning to hell on the PB.

We should be VERY careful how we use the words "heretic" and "apsotate" and reserve these words to those that clearly fall outside the faith.


There are many Christians who are unsteady on the issue of "What about the native who has never heard, the mentally incapacitated and the infant" which they lump all three into the same category.

What about the infant? At least some on the board would assert that infants are saved apart from explicit faith and knowledge in Jesus Christ. What about the mentally retarded? Many would assert that these are saved without an explicit faith in Christ or knowledge of who he is.

What about the OT saints? Many of these were saved only with a murky understanding of who the Prophet to come was.

What about some new believers who were Muslims who come to faith in Isa AlMasih. The believe in a divine Jesus who was also human but they don't quite understand the Trinity fully yet.


I disagree with Billy Graham here and I think he errs. But he does not deserve the term "apostate" until you can affirm that he beleives in something that puts him outside salvation.

 

[BertMulder]

You know what I believe to be the fundamental problem with Billy Graham?

Who sent him to preach the Gospel, or did he send himself?

In connection with that, which consistory supervised his labours?

 

[Pergamum]

Bert, interesting question. Was he sent by a denomination? Also, who sent George Whitefield. If someone does this sort of evangelism, what sort of Biblical principles do they need to follow?

 

[Pergamum]

Joshua:

The initial post mentions "his apostasy"...

 

[CDM]

Time permitting I will post some comments said by Billy Graham. What I've read so far is mild compared to the ones I am familiar with.

BTW, his sermons used to be printed in every Monday's Charlotte Observer back in the 60's and 70's.

 

[Pergamum]

Joshua;

I never singled you out individually.

But the term "apostate" IS being used - though not by you. This term last I checked means that the person considered an apostate is going to hell...and that's a pretty heavy charge.


Yes, you are quite right, your responses are far from condemning him to hell and I agree with you that Graham needs to retract his statements or offer an explanation.

So...in short...I'm WITH YOU brother!!

 

[ChristopherPaul]

If Graham proclaims any way other than Christ alone in which man can be saved, then he is anathema. Do we all agree on this?

If so, then is their evidence that Graham preaches another way to be saved than Christ alone?

From what I have read and heard from this thread Graham is saying even those who have never heard of Christ are saved.

This does not appear to be that difficult of a discernment. He would not even be allowed membership into the church based on such proclamations. He needs to repent and believe.

 

[Davidius]

There are many Christians who are unsteady on the issue of "What about the native who has never heard, the mentally incapacitated and the infant" which they lump all three into the same category.

What about the infant? At least some on the board would assert that infants are saved apart from explicit faith and knowledge in Jesus Christ. What about the mentally retarded? Many would assert that these are saved without an explicit faith in Christ or knowledge of who he is.

See my latest post here for a question relative to this. It could be that the infant and the mentally retarded person do have knowledge but are unable to express it like someone with fully developed faculties.

If Graham has found people living in jungles "trying to live for God," this only proves that Paul was correct in Romans 1 when he said that we all have innate knowledge of God, not enough for salvation, that we suppress, twist, and distort into a god of our own creation. Paul's question later in Romans: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" is meaningless if Graham's conclusions are correct.

 

[BertMulder]

We know that infants have knowledge - John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb...

As for the mentally retarded, many people have spoken of their strong faith, even if they had trouble articulating it as an adult believer would.

 

[Pergamum]

Again,

There are Christians that we would still consider brothers that express doubt about certain classes of people and whether they need to exercise explicit faith in Jesus Christ, such as the OT saints, babies and the mentally retarded. Some include natives too.

In other words, most OT saints did not know the future redeemer as Jesus Christ the God-Man. Babies do not exercise an explicit faith of Jesus Christ in the same way as we do (if at all) and the mentally handicapped do not either. How are they then saved?

Some theologians have expressed doubt about these issues. This does not mean that they are denying the Gospel. They are merely expressing doubt about some hard questions.



A good book that addresses these issues is Millard Erickson's "How Shall They be Saved: The destiny of those who do not hear of Jesus."


My issue here is the word "apostate". Graham is in error on a great many points, but I would caution against charging someone with apostacy until he has denied the faith.