Billy Graham's Compromise

[Bookmeister]

His view of salvation and the sovereignty of God is and has been faulty.

So can we just give it a rest?

No, we can't. If his view of salvation and sovereignty are flawed what's left to consider him orthodox?

 

[Phil D.]

I've always admired the way George Whitefield handled his doctrinal differences with John Wesley. (I realize that perhaps for some here Whitefield wasn't Reformed enough to qualify as a good example, but I offer it nonetheless.) After engaging in a vigorous and principled defense of the Reformed understanding of the Doctrines of Grace in a letter to Wesley, Whitefield concluded:

Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For Christ's sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man's salvation to depend on his own free will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it "Free Grace Indeed." Free, not because free to all; but free, because God may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.

Till you do this, I must doubt whether or not you know yourself. In the meanwhile, I cannot but blame you for censuring the clergy of our church for not keeping to their articles, when you yourself by your principles, positively deny the 9th, 10th and 17th.

Dear Sir, these things ought not so to be. God knows my heart, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul.[emphasis added]

There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done.

But I hope the Lord will show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the Lord should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir,

Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ,

George Whitefield​

The entire exchange can be read here, and I highly recommend doing so.

There is also this account of Whitefield's attitude toward Wesley

Whitefield to the last spoke of Wesley with a touching affection. On one occasion when a censorious Calvinist asked him whether he thought they would see John Wesley in heaven, "I fear not," said the great preacher, "for he will be so near the throne, and we shall be at such a distance, that we shall hardly get a sight of him." He remembered him warmly in his will, and it was in obedience to the expressed wish of Whitefield that Wesley was selected to preach his funeral sermon. (William Lecky, A History of England, 2:626f)​

 

[jogri17]

Amen Daniel.

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------

No, we can't. If his view of salvation and sovereignty are flawed what's left to consider him orthodox?

You sound like Herman Hoeksema and the the denomination he founded.

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

I agree with Dr. C. Matthew McMahon regarding Billy Graham. I also appreciate his courageous efforts at exposing him.

George Bush, Sr. asked Billy Graham in A.D. 1985: "Billy, some people say you have to have a born-again experience to go to heaven. Mother here is the most religious, kind person I know, yet she has had no born-again experience. Will she go to heaven?" Graham responded: "George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians. It sounds as if your mom was just born a Christian."

 

[Phil D.]

George Bush, Sr. asked Billy Graham in A.D. 1985: "Billy, some people say you have to have a born-again experience to go to heaven. Mother here is the most religious, kind person I know, yet she has had no born-again experience. Will she go to heaven?" Graham responded: "George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians. It sounds as if your mom was just born a Christian."

This questionable claim in Bush's memoirs is critiqued here.

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

George Bush, Sr. asked Billy Graham in A.D. 1985: "Billy, some people say you have to have a born-again experience to go to heaven. Mother here is the most religious, kind person I know, yet she has had no born-again experience. Will she go to heaven?" Graham responded: "George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians. It sounds as if your mom was just born a Christian."

This questionable claim in Bush's memoirs is critiqued here.

I'll grant you that most anything Bush says is questionable. But at the same time, I find it believable given Billy Graham's track record.

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

I've always admired the way George Whitefield handled his doctrinal differences with John Wesley.

Personally, I'd say that I most admire how Augustus Toplady handled his doctrinal differences with John Wesley. I believe Toplady was right about what was at stake and handled things accordingly. Toplady sums up the matter very well in Arminianism - The Road back to Rome.

 

[Notthemama1984]

George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians.

Paedos make a similar claim especially dealing with infant deaths. We are not labeled heretics. Why is Graham?

 

[kvanlaan]

You sound like Herman Hoeksema and the the denomination he founded.

And there is the other side of the coin. Those calling for temperance rarely dispense it.

We all know where Graham stands, he's never claimed to be anything but what is being represented here.

Here is what the PB founder has to say on the subject:

WBNP #8
Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.
This just in – In a recent survey of a large portion of evangelical pastors, they were asked who is the most influential figure in the church today. No, they did not say Jesus Christ.
But this is to be expected of theological morons. Instead,they named Billy Graham. In what he called his last sermon, Billy Graham sermonized a final time March 11-12 at
the New Orleans Arena. His cornerstone saying in every sermon is “God loves you, Jesus loves you.” Billy Graham, is called the famous “evangelist” of the 20th century.

However sad the Billy Graham Crusade is about the retirement of their world ridden evangelist, it is a cause of rejoicing for those who know the true Gospel of
sovereign grace. For the poor doctrine and the compromising theology is finally at an end, or so we hope. Certainly others will take his place, such as his son Franklin who is infected with the same heretical theology that Graham had been, and is, still to this day. But knowing that Franklin Graham will not be as cherished as his father has become a cause of rejoicing for those who
hold the truth so dear. We do not need to speak of Graham’s association with the Mason, or New Age movement.

Rather, we simply need to listen to a sermon or two to find his deviant gospel glaring back. Billy Graham, like Arminius, or even worse than Arminius, herald the same secular man’s religion as the Remonstrance did four hundred years ago. Not only was Graham an avowed Arminian, but he was also the voice of a watered down Gospel; which is no Gospel at all. His theology is not
only riddled with error, but his compromises demonstrate the worst sort of heretical teaching. On May 31, 1998 he had a television interview with Robert Schuller (another
arch-heretic that the church should be keenly aware), as reported in the May-June 1997, Foundation magazine. Graham said, “I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows
Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ.” In September 1993, Graham held a crusade in Columbus, Ohio. In a pre-Crusade
television interview, Graham said (speaking of the people of Columbus, Ohio): "You're too good, you don't need evangelism. ... In fact, that's what kept us from coming
[to Columbus] for so long." Curtis Mitchell, who documented Graham’s invitational preaching, says the following is a typical use of words by Graham, “I am going
to ask you to come forward. Up there – down there – I want you to come. You come right now – quickly. If you are with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t
let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life
to Him…” Such things are said as he shares his stage with Roman Catholic priests, and boasts of unity at the expense of the Gospel. Billy Graham has made it no small matter
that he has aligned himself with an ecumenical spirit surrounding the apostate church of Rome and her wicked priests; which have accompanied him at his evangelistic
crusades. It is one thing to invite unconverted Roman Catholics to a gospel meeting to hear the gospel preached, but it is quite another matter to go to a meeting where
Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholic priests that are still firmly in Rome, are preaching from the platform." Similar expressions of Charles Finney’s Pelagianism can be found
throughout his years of preaching. Graham was a revivalist, no doubt., But a revivalist of Finney’s heretical teaching on decisional regeneration, and its
destruction of the Gospel. When the stadium is packed with religiously inclined people, and Billy Graham gives the invitation to the masses to come and accept the Lord, where
is his theology coming from? When preacher after preacher beckons the people to come to the altar, where are they getting their theology from? Jesus never asked for the
multitudes to come forth publicly and show forth a profession of faith, check a box on a card and go home assured of their salvation. The Bible, contrary to Graham,
does not say that. One cannot decide to be regenerate on a whim, or walk down a flight of stairs towards a man calling them to act on their own accord. Graham has through the
years increasingly accommodated error in order to gain greater influence. Iain Murray, in his book Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to
2000 (Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), includes two chapters describing Graham’s influence on evangelicalism, and demonstrating his move from a more conservative stance to a
willingness to embrace proponents of error and heresy.

Billy Graham began as a brush salesman, and the same tactics he used to go door to door to sell Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones a brush or two, he has used for years to
continue his sales pitch to the ignorant and sentimental.

Yes, Billy Graham preached his last sermon. What do we say to this? We say Amen, and thank God.
This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off

So who's gonig to call Dr McMahon and Iain Murray on the carpet for their remarks?

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

George, some of us require a born-again experience to understand God, and some of us are born Christians.

Paedos make a similar claim especially dealing with infant deaths.

I'd recommend you re-read the Reformed confessions, etc. What we state here and here regarding infant deaths isn't at all similar to that Graham quote.

 

[Notthemama1984]

In paedo vs. credo debates, the credo will say that faith cannot be present without an expression of that faith (or something along those lines). The paedo in return points to John the Baptist and says that God can produce faith in infants apart from an outward expression of that faith. I am not pointing to the confessions or anything like that. I am merely pointing out that paedos make a similar claim and the term "heretic" is never thrown into the discussion.

Graham simply states that some people are born Christians. He does not say anything about the how or why, just that some are.

Also the quote is a quick blurp that is being recalled by a man years after the fact who was originally drunk when the quote was made. Surely this can not be the basis for deeming one a heretic.

 

[Phil D.]

So who's gonig to call Dr McMahon and Iain Murray on the carpet for their remarks?

Not trying to call anyone on the carpet here, brother. Simply sharing my perspective and how I have come to view certain aspects of Rev. Graham's life and ministry. That's all.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I wish the ring had never come to me. Frodo Baggins.

I am so glad I am not Billy Graham.

 

[jayce475]

In paedo vs. credo debates, the credo will say that faith cannot be present without an expression of that faith (or something along those lines). The paedo in return points to John the Baptist and says that God can produce faith in infants apart from an outward expression of that faith. I am not pointing to the confessions or anything like that. I am merely pointing out that paedos make a similar claim and the term "heretic" is never thrown into the discussion.

Graham simply states that some people are born Christians. He does not say anything about the how or why, just that some are.

Also the quote is a quick blurp that is being recalled by a man years after the fact who was originally drunk when the quote was made. Surely this can not be the basis for deeming one a heretic.

The need for the expression of faith is worlds apart from the need not to be born again. Whether or not this quote makes Billy Graham a heretic, it was heresy if indeed it was spoken through his lips.

 

[Notthemama1984]

In paedo vs. credo debates, the credo will say that faith cannot be present without an expression of that faith (or something along those lines). The paedo in return points to John the Baptist and says that God can produce faith in infants apart from an outward expression of that faith. I am not pointing to the confessions or anything like that. I am merely pointing out that paedos make a similar claim and the term "heretic" is never thrown into the discussion.

Graham simply states that some people are born Christians. He does not say anything about the how or why, just that some are.

Also the quote is a quick blurp that is being recalled by a man years after the fact who was originally drunk when the quote was made. Surely this can not be the basis for deeming one a heretic.

The need for the expression of faith is worlds apart from the need not to be born again. Whether or not this quote makes Billy Graham a heretic, it was heresy if indeed it was spoken through his lips.

I thought the quote was saying that not all Christians have a born again experience, some have faith from the beginning. If I misread the quote, I apologize.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Or he could merely be referring to the reality that not every one has an born-again "experience." As unusual as that might be for a revivalist (like Graham), it is certainly not foreign even to the Reformed tradition to understand that some, while indeed born again, do not have knowledge of a point in time in which that new birth occurred. For some, raised as covenant children, the sense is that they have "always" been saved (though, theologically, this would be contested).
Alas, not every child of God can sing (with the revivalists), "It was on a ________(day of the week)________ Somebody saved me!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I ventured into this thread after I saw it had gone on so long and, sadly, found the predictable prideful and acerbic assaults from certain men in both camps. Closing it down.