TheocraticMonarchist
Puritan Board Junior
Thoughts? I didn't know Graham was liberal.
[video=youtube;oNq4oZ71Hok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNq4oZ71Hok[/video]
[video=youtube;oNq4oZ71Hok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNq4oZ71Hok[/video]
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thoughts? I didn't know Graham was liberal.
Thoughts? I didn't know Graham was liberal.
YouTube - John MacArthur on Catholicism, and Billy Graham
My caution would be we not be ready to receive assertions without good basis and without proper context. The ninth commandment requires this. We want to be treated the same by others.
I would caution against automatically receiving assertions in an unsourced You Tube documentary (post#4). (Not saying some of the assertions are not true) It is done in a somewhat mocking manner and with an obvious agenda to discredit. None of us would want to be appraised in this manner... even if we wrong on some things.
Billy Graham Believes Catholic Doctrine of Salvation Without Bible, Gospel, or Name of Christ
by Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D
Television interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller. Part 1, an approximately 7-minute-long broadcast in Southern California on Saturday, May 31, 1997. The following is an exact transcript* of an excerpt close to the end of this broadcast.
Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?
Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. 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. 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. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what 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.
Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts 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?
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, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.
Schuller: [R. S. trips over his tongue for a moment, his face beaming, then says] I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.
Graham: There is. There definitely is.
It's on youtube. If you watch this clip it will eventually get to it.
[Video Removed by Moderator -- Second Commandment violations after the first 7 minutes; you may watch the first seven minutes at the link below]
YouTube - Billy Graham Says Jesus Christ is Not the Only Way
It's on youtube. If you watch this clip it will eventually get to it.
[Video Removed by Moderator -- Second Commandment violations after the first 7 minutes; you may watch the first seven minutes at the link below]
YouTube - Billy Graham Says Jesus Christ is Not the Only Way
I knew that some Christians did not permit pictures of Christ but was unaware that it was universally accepted on this board that this was a violation of the 2nd commandment. Did I miss this rule when I read what we all had to agree on to be a member here?
Confessional Subscription: Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to them in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard.
The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.
Yes, but be very careful in how you deal with Graham's errors. He is sort of a sacred cow in so-called evangelicalism. If Protestantism had a pope, would his name be Billy?
BTW, does anyone have a link to that exchange b/t Graham and Schuller? I would be interested in having a transcript of that.
Actually, I think C. Peter Wagner positions himself as protestant pope
Dennis,
You're more connected to the decline of orthodoxy within Fuller. Here's what I took down for notes last week concerning the view of Accommodation at Fuller:
c. Accommodation
i. Limited inerrancy
ii. When the Bible speaks about science or history or cultural matters the Scripture writers are accommodating to the limitations of the time they lived
iii. Accommodationism by the writers does not introduce errors into the scripture, rather accommodation is the explanation of the errors in the Scripture. God does not err but human authors “mess it up” due to their human limitations and being a "person of their time"
1. Fuller seminary is famous for this
2. Within 15 years the founders spoke of Revelational and Non-revelational Scripture (Dan Fuller)
3. Revelational Scripture can be trusted
4. Non-revelational Scripture cannot be trusted
5. 1972: Scripture is only infallible in matters of faith and practice
Sorry if the notes seem disjointed as I arranged them to make sense to me but it seems Billy sort of fell into the same view of inerrancy, which is a gateway to denying other fundamentals.
Dr. Fuller plainly distinguishes between revelational matters which he considers inerrant and an undefined area of non-revelational statements wlxich are not. Though convenient for sidestepping certain biblical difficulties, this dichotomy is unworkable and unscriptural. It is unworkable simply because there is no way to determine which biblical material is revelational and which is not. It will not do to keep referring, as he does, to the mustard seed, a rather trivial case of usus loquendi.
The Evangelical Theological Society, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 16 (The Evangelical Theological Society, 1973; 2002), 16:71.
Yet it is undeniable that, in his article on Warfield, most of the material which in his view would belong to the “revelational” category lies outside the reach of science and history, safe from their critical control. To say this is a “dichotomy” may be too strong. Nonetheless, there is a marked tendency to equate the non-revelational material with the testable and possibly errant and to reserve inerrancy for the theological truth which cannot be falsified. In any case, the two sorts of biblical teaching are so inextricably united in the text that the theological truth is discredited to the extent that the factual material is erroneous. Furthermore, it looks as if the area of “revelational” material shrinks before the advance of the latest critical charges. A convenient apologetic device, no doubt, but one which places the whole scriptural teaching in jeopardy.
My concern with Dr. Fuller's position is that the limited errancy stance can slide easily into an unlimited errancy stance. Just because the “revelational/nonrevelational” distinction is so fuzzy, he gives us a slope, not a platform. Until now he has confined his “biblical errors” to the marginalia. May it always be so.
The Evangelical Theological Society, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 16 (The Evangelical Theological Society, 1973; 2002), 16:71-72.