Billy Graham's Approval of JPII and the RCC

[Mean Old Man]

Billy Graham\'s Approval of JPII and the RCC

Billy Graham did a phone interview on Larry Ling Live this past Saturday. In the interview he says of the former Pope, "œI think he's with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the cross." (you can see the entire transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/02/lkl.01.html ).

Billy Graham´s approval of the Roman Church is no new thing. But Graham´s comments do disturb me. Graham is probably the most influential evangelical leader of our day. And by embracing the faith of the RCC´s leader in the way that he does, he embraces the whole system of Romanism, suggesting that they believe in the cross (I take "œthe cross" to mean the gospel of the cross). Thus, as it relates to the gospel of Jesus Christ, he is essentially giving added credibility to a false system of doctrine. And in doing so, the lie that Romanism (as a theological system) teaches the true gospel of the cross will be accepted by the undiscerning masses.

That said, I have few questions"¦

1) Is Graham really that naïve as to actually believe what he says concerning JPII´s and the RCC´s system of faith? If so, what does this say about Graham´s ministry of evangelism? If not, what does this say about his ministry? It would seem to me that he is either too naïve to lead in the way that he does (or perhaps did); or he is purposely avoiding the truth, which would also disqualify him as a leader?

2) In light of the comments above, why do many reformed Christians, even leaders in the reformed church, embrace Graham´s ministry? For example, I have heard RC Sproul say (with what seemed to be a sense of approval) that Graham is the greatest evangelist of our day. How can one, who is supposedly a great evangelist, be either deceived or not forthright about the one area, which is supposed to be his specialty? In my humble opinion, it just doesn´t add up. And I do not understand why so many reformed (and even non-reformed) evangelical protestants allow this to go unchallenged.

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by Mean Old Man]

 

[blhowes]

Billy Graham is just one of those guys that kind of makes me shake my head, wondering where/why he changed. Have you ever heard Billy Graham preach when he first came onto the scene? What a difference between then and now.

 

[Ken S.]

valuable and convincing references, thank you very much

 

[Scott Bushey]

There is a multitude of theological potholes one can trip over when defining the theology of BG. keep in mind, BG is not a theologian; I don't believe he would claim to be. Unfortunately, he missed the tree's for the forest! he is an exuberant evangelist, yet he really doesn't understand anything above or beyong the simple gospel message; and even in that, his understanding of that is wrong to a degree (theologically).

Most people shiver in closed quarters if taken to task on the likes of Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul and of course someone like BG. Don't dare say something against the likes of them! The simple reasoning is that the majority of people are as confused as Graham is about God and the things of God.


[Edited on 4-4-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott]

Tim LaHaye in the Left Behind series likewise treated the pope as saved. He was raptured. Both LaHaye and Graham are prominent.

 

[Ken S.]

If Pope was raptured, there could hardly be any unraptured left behind.

 

[BaptistReformer]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
There is a multitude of theological potholes one can trip over when defining the theology of BG. keep in mind, BG is not a theologian; I don't believe he would claim to be. Unfortunately, he missed the tree's for the forest! he is an exuberant evangelist, yet he really doesn't understand anything above or beyong the simple gospel message; and even in that, his understanding of that is wrong to a degree (theologically).

I think Scott Bushey hit the key point. Mr. Graham is not a theologian. I would add however, since he is not a theologian, he is also not a qualified evangelist. That is not to say, of course, that no one was ever saved as result of hear the Gospel proclaimed by Mr. Graham. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. But to separate theology from evangelism is to take the heart out. Most of the popular evangelists are cheer leaders with pelagian theology. They can incite a response from people that gives a false sense of hope.

I teach a class at our church on Evangelism. It is a THEOLOGY class, not a methodology class. If we do not understand the theology of the gospel, we will never be able to be minister of true reconciliation. We will jsut give hearers a false sense of security becuase "asked Jesus to do something."

A bit off the subject, but Mr. Bushey's comments begged the discussion of the theology of evangelism

Make it a great day!

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by Ken S.
If Pope was raptured, there could hardly be any unraptured left behind.

Very true!

 

[Scott]

This is odd - last night I was reading a biography of Bishop Fulton Sheen (famous and very influential American Catholic Archibishop and host of the Catholic Hour show) and the book quoted Billy Graham as saying that this Catholic Archbishop was the greatest preachers of the 20th century.