Gen. James Green
S OMEONE GAVE ME a small book written by the Rev. Billy Graham (BG) called Where the Savior Leads (2013), the foreword written by his son Franklin:
“My father’s life is a wonderful example of what God can do when a person follows Jesus Christ faithfully. From the time he gave his life to Jesus as a teenager, he sought God’s leading. Through his ministry, millions of people around the world have heard the Good News of the Savior who loves them unconditionally.
For this devotional book, we’ve selected 31 excerpts from his articles published in “Decision” magazine. Each one offers a reminder of what it means to follow Christ and how He can guide the choices we make. I pray that these readings will help you to experience the joy and hope that can be found when we choose the path that leads to everlasting life...”
What caught my attention the most is the slight change made in his writings. At over 95 years of age, I think Billy is having second thoughts about some of the things he has believed, taught, and did.
In another small book sent to me called Billy Graham’s Sad Disobedience, by Rev. David Cloud (second edition printed in Nov. 2012) has something very different to say about Franklin’s father. I will quote extensively from Cloud’s book, for he too is a Baptist, like the Grahams.
I will also be quoting from Dr. Cathy Burn’s book (2001, 788 pages!) called Billy Graham and His Friends.
Lest I forget, at the end of this article, I will print The Word of The Lord that we (General Deborah and myself) received after discussing some of the things I had planned to write.
Straight from Billy’s own Mouth
UPON RECEIVING Billy’s book, I flipped thru it quickly, but page 39 jumped out at me: God’s view of Tolerance, Day 20 (he uses Deut. 30:19, 20 for his text):
One of the pet words of this age is “tolerance.” It is a good word, but we have tried to stretch it over too great an area of life. Too often we have applied tolerance where it does not belong. The word “tolerant” means “broad-minded, willing to put up with beliefs opposed to one’s convictions, the allowance of something not wholly approved.”
Tolerance, in one sense, implies the compromise of one’s convictions, a yielding of ground on important issues. Hence, over-tolerance in moral issues has made us soft, flabby, and devoid of conviction...
There is a manifest tolerance of broad-mindedness about morals; this is characteristic of our day. We have been sapped of our conviction and drained of our beliefs, and we are bereft of our faith.
If you were to ask someone the way to New York City and he said, “Oh, just take any road you wish,” you would question either his sanity or his truthfulness. Nevertheless, we have somehow gotten it into our minds that “all roads lead to Heaven.” People say, “Do your best,” “Be honest,” and, “Be sincere—and you will make it to Heaven all right.”
If you don’t know much about this “famous” Baptist preacher, these words won’t catch your attention. But what I see is that in his old age, Billy Graham is turning away (somewhat) from his “Gospel” to the “Gospel” of Jesus Christ. Note his words:
“...we have applied tolerance where it does not belong...hence, over-tolerance in moral issues has made us soft, flabby, and DEVOID of CONVICTIONS (my emphasis)...we have been sapped of our convictions and drained of our beliefs, and we are bereft of our faith.”
I believe that is a real conviction. If any preacher has undermined the Biblical Gospel and became “broad-minded,” it has been this sick old man (reflecting back on his compromising life).
Note his last words: “...we have somehow gotten it into our minds that ‘all roads lead to Heaven.’” That is exactly what BG has been preaching over the years. This will be my main point of argument also, since this damnable heresy has become very popular amongst the “Christian” churches.
Intro by David Cloud
“AND JEHU the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord” (2 Chron. 19:2).
“I have been warning about Billy Graham’s compromise for decades, and it is a very difficult thing to do. He is one of the most popular men in the world. He is universally acclaimed as a wonderful Christian and a great evangelist. When you say something critical of Billy Graham, many people consider it equal to blasphemy against Almighty God!
The Lord knows, if I thought I could fulfill my obligations before God as a preacher of His Word and keep my mouth shut about the Billy Graham’s of our day, I would do it in a heartbeat! I am convinced, though, that this is not possible, and by God’s grace I would rather please Him than man. I am not boasting. I know that I am not better than other men. I am a sinner saved by God’s grace. I have fallen far short of God’s perfect will for my Christian life, but God has given me a zeal for His truth and I “hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128).
In February 1997, I published an article in O Timothy magazine about Jerry Falwell’s support of Billy Graham. We noted that a watershed of sorts had occurred at Falwell’s Liberty University, in that the 1997 commencement speaker was Dr. Billy Graham, the foremost spokesman for the New Evangelical movement. The announcement in the National Liberty Journal stated:
“It is befitting that Dr. Graham will speak at Liberty’s 1997 Commencement, since his grandson, William Franklin (Will) Graham IV, will be among the graduating seniors. (Another grandson, Roy Graham, is a freshman at Liberty.) ... Dr. Falwell said, ‘This will be Dr. Graham’s first visit to Liberty. THIS COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS WILL NO DOUBT BE REMEMBERED HISTORICALLY IN THE NEXT CENTURY AS ONE OF LIBERTY’S HIGH DAYS. I am grateful that Dr. Graham is taking time from his busy schedule to grace us with his presence” (emphasis added) (National Liberty Journal, December 1996, pp. 1,17).
The National liberty Journal did not give one word of warning about Graham breaking down the walls of biblical separation between sound churches and apostate churches in this generation. There was not one word of warning about Graham sending thousands of converts back to Roman Catholic (RC), Greek Orthodox, and modernistic Protestant churches that preach false gospels.
Independent Baptist preachers who are affiliated with Liberty University are leading fundamental Baptists right into the arms of the devil’s ecumenical movement and the one world church.
In the February 1997 article, “I agreed with the National Liberty Journal that it was befitting for Graham to speak at Liberty University, because though Dr. Falwell and his church and school claimed at the time to be fundamental Baptists, for many years they had been sliding into the New Evangelical camp and today they are firmly entrenched in that unscriptural position. To openly praise and support Billy Graham is irrefutable evidence of this.
The February 1997 article was also published via the Fundamental Baptist Information Service by e-mail over the Internet, and in turn it was sent out to a Baptist news group. Many of the responses we received from that public posting were very negative. In reading these, I was impressed anew at the ignorance that is rampant even in the staunchest Bible-believing circles. Many of those who responded were completely ignorant of the fact that Billy Graham has sent multitudes of converts back to the Roman Catholic Church or that he praises Christ-denying Modernists. These things were not done in the dark, yet many Christians are entirely ignorant of them.
A chief cause for this ignorance is cowardice in the pulpits. Too many Christian “ministers” are belly-serving cowards. It is as simple as that. THEIR GOAL IS TO GO WITH THE FLOW AND TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES AND TO CONTINUE TO DRAW A PAYCHECK AND PAD THEIR RETIREMENT FUND RATHER THAN TO PREACH THE TRUTH REGARDLESS OF THE COST. The Bible describes these men as “dumb dogs” (Isaiah 56:10). What good is a watchdog that will not bark at danger? If ever there were an hour in which preachers need to lift the voice against the error that is on every side, it is today, but what we have for the most part are dumb dogs.”
Graham Denies Christ!
AS WE GO into this article you’ll see how Billy Graham DENIES the very one he calls his Lord. On page 19 of Graham’s book, “You Can Depend on the Bible,” Graham writes: “…Because the Bible is God’s Word, it does not contradict itself or teach falsehoods—because God cannot lie…” But Billy Graham, over many years has claimed that there are many “paths” to God, and that Jesus is only one of them. But, does the Bible, specifically Jesus’ own Words say this? NO! What does Graham believe about John 14:6?: “Jesus said to him (Thomas), I AM THE WAY and THE TRUTH and THE LIFE; no one comes to the Father EXCEPT BY (through) ME.” Is Jesus lying? Graham thinks so. Remember this article is about Christianity and how it relates to “other religions.” Can people get to God (Heaven) WITHOUT going through Jesus?
Intro by Cathy Burns
BEFORE WE GO any further, let me give you Cathy Burns’ (CB) introduction to her book:
1. LET’S MEET SOME OF BILLY’S FRIENDS
“Billy Graham is one of the best-known as well as one of the best-loved individuals of the 20th century. He has been in the listing of “most admired men” for 36 consecutive years—more than any other person. Chuck Colson states that he is the “greatest evangelist of this century—perhaps the greatest since Paul...” Others refer to him as “the world’s best-known evangelist,” “the world’s most beloved evangelist,” “the most honored evangelical alive” “the nation’s pastor,”or “America’s pastor.”
Knowing that Graham was so well respected and revered, and hoping to help our community hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, I took the responsibility for trying to bring Graham’s films to our school—and succeeded. Even though I was still in high school, I felt a burden to reach out to others and tell them about Jesus. At that time, I thought Graham’s films would be one of the best methods available and I was even one of the counselors after the film was aired. Since that time, Graham’s popularity has only increased.
Little by little I started hearing about some aspects of Graham’s ministry with which I didn’t agree, but I’d just shrug my shoulders and ignore it. Eventually, those “little things” started to add up to quite a large number of difficulties. As I started to research some of these issues, I found more and more problems—problems far worse than I could have possibly imagined. I started noticing Graham’s own words in his autobiography and compared that with other sources. I read many biographies on Graham—most of which were authorized by Graham himself, and/or published by Graham’s ministry (under World Wide Publications). Since I’d been researching the New Age and related movements for the past 19 years, I noticed some names with which I was familiar. As I continued to dig and research, unbelievable associations were uncovered, and some things started to fall into place. I started to understand many things I had not comprehended before. I am now sharing this extensive research with you, and hope you will continue to do your own research as well.
This first chapter, especially, may be a little difficult to read and digest, but I feel it is necessary in order to lay a framework for the succeeding chapters. This was not an easy book to write, but, as I think should be evident, it has been extensively researched and documented. Many people will not like what has been uncovered, but I believe the truth should be shared with others. Many will want to hold to their cherished beliefs (no matter how false they are), but I just ask you to read it and then check out the facts for yourself.
Remember, IT IS BETTER TO BE DISTURBED BY TRUTH THAN TO BE DECEIVED BY FALSEHOOD. Proverbs 27:6 notes: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” Galatians 4:16 asks: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”
Since he is esteemed and revered in the eyes of so many, I think it’s very important to look at Billy Graham himself, some of his close friends, as well as some of those he has invited to share the platform with him at his Crusades. While I’m sure that Graham would not be in agreement with the views (political, spiritual, or even otherwise) of all those encouraged to sit on his platform, his words of praise for many of them certainly gives the impression that he considers these people to be fellow Christians and individuals to be respected and admired. It is one thing not to make a disparaging remark about someone; it is quite another thing to heap praise on a person.
It is obvious that someone in Graham’s position does not want to be “negative” about people because he would lose many friends, but does he need to unnecessarily brag up people who are flaunting open sins? For instance, on Larry King Live, Graham said that although he has been friends with Bill Clinton for years, he has not, and would not bring up the issues of homosexuality or abortion to him. Graham said that if he did that, he “would not be invited back to the White House.” (As John 12:43 says: “[T]hey loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”) Silence in a case like this is bad enough, but a few months later, in an interview with U.S. News and World Report on May 3, 1993, he said about Clinton: “I am quite impressed with his charisma and with some of the things he believes. If he chose to preach the gospel instead of politics, he would make a great evangelist.” He also said: “From a biblical point of view, we should be headed in the direction of goodness and righteousness, away from crime and immorality and towards one’s neighbors who are in need. I’m encouraged by the emphasis President Clinton and Hillary are putting on that.”
Graham says Bill and Hillary are leading us in the direction of goodness and righteousness, yet Clinton was recently photographed at a Democratic fund-raiser with Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy. The photo then appeared in the May 2000 issue of Playboy. “This is hardly a righteous influence! Clinton had also “appointed over a score of homosexuals to his staff.”
Graham also said that he forgives (and seems to excuse) Clinton’s sexual misconduct: “I forgive him. Because I know the frailty of human nature, and I know how hard it is, and especially a strong, vigorous, young man like he is; he has such a tremendous personality. I think the ladies just go wild over him.” It’s great to have man’s forgiveness, but that is not sufficient. Clinton needs to ask for God’s forgiveness, for only God can cleanse the heart.
In Graham’s autobiography, Just As I Am, he mentions that he was with President Clinton on May 1, 1996. He states: “It was a time of warm fellowship with a man who has not always won the approval of his FELLOW CHRISTIANS but who has in his heart a desire to serve God and do His will.” [Emphasis mine throughout]
“At a luncheon for 500 newspaper editors at their annual convention in Washington, D.C., Graham said that the President’s personal life and character are ‘irrelevant.’ At the luncheon...he promoted Clinton as a man of God. He explained that he and Clinton had been close friends for many years and stated, ‘I believe Bill has gone to his knees many times and asked God to help him.”
The praise flowed both ways, however. At a dinner in Washington with about 650 people in attendance, Clinton praised both Billy and Ruth Graham.
When people consider someone like Clinton (who is a sex pervert, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, etc.) to be a Christian, we are in desperate spiritual trouble! When someone like Graham does so, we are even in a more profound dilemma since multiplied thousands look up to Graham as a spiritual advisor and man of God.”
Be Ye Separate?
DOES BG believe 1 Cor. 6:9, 10?
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Does BD believe 2 Cor. 6:14-17?
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”
We must face the REAL TRUTH about this Baptist evangelist; he is, and has been the vanguard of the New Evangelical movement, which PRIDES itself in its RENUNCIATION of “separatism.” Billy has done a marvelous job of promoting what the Bible calls “sin,” “abomination,” and “damnation.” He has made the Roman Catholic church (and many apostate protestant churches, plus many false religions, communism, and even the Homosexual movement etc., etc. acceptable to evangelicals. This, in turn, has helped in building up (not tearing down) the one-world apostate church with the “Babylonian Jesus” at its head. We can rightly say that BG is a 1 Cor. 15:33 man.
Converts are Turned over to Apostate Churches
IN Evangelicals and Rome (354 page book), there are documented cases where this has been done. We can go back to Sept. 21, 1957, where Graham stated in the San Francisco News: “anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish.” How nice of Billy!
THE BILLY GRAHAM organizational committee, preparing for the November 2004 crusade in Los Angeles, California, promised the Roman Catholic archdiocese that Catholics will not be “proselytized.” A letter from Cardinal Roger Mahony, dated October 6, 2004, posted at the archdiocese web site, stated:
“When the Crusade was held in other locations, many Catholics responded to Dr. Graham’s message and came forward for Christ. Crusade officials expect the same for the Los Angeles area. These 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 CATHOLIC WILL BE REFERRED TO US for reintegration into the life of the Catholic Church. We must be ready to welcome them.”
In case you don’t know it, Cardinal Mahony has been found guilty of covering up child abuse cases (both boys and girls) committed by pedophile priests under his care (we offer several DVDs on this criminal behavior, especially the one called “Deliver Us From Evil,” in which Mahony is seen LYING like a DEMON to cover for his priest).
Roman Catholic actor Jim Caviezel was featured on the platform at the second night of the Billy Graham Los Angeles Crusade, Nov. 18-21, 2004. Caviezel starred as “Jesus” in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. He says he prayed to St. Genesius of Arles and St. Anthony of Padua (for help in his acting career. He visited Medjugorje to witness the site where Mary allegedly appeared to six young people. Caviezel said, “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.” Caviezel prayed the Rosary to Mary every day during the filming.
Does Graham believe Caviezel’s gospel? or does Caviezel believe Graham’s gospel? or is it biblical truth that “two must be agreed to walk together” is no longer in force today? What confusion and disobedience!
This is just the tip of the iceberg. For many decades, Billy Graham has turned large numbers of his converts over to the hands of wolves in sheep’s clothing—such as Catholic priests and modernistic Protestant pastors.
Accepting Degrees From Rome
BILLY GRAHAM accepted degrees from Catholic colleges and said the Catholic gospel is the same as his own. On Nov. 21, 1967, an honorary degree was conferred on Graham by the Catholic priests who ran Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, during an Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue, The Gastonia Gazette reported:
“After receiving the honorary degree of doctor of humane letters (D.H.L.) from the Abbey, Graham noted the significance of the occasion—‘a time when Protestants and Catholics could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas 10 years ago they could not,’ he said.
“The evangelist’s first sermon at a Catholic institution was at the Abbey, in 1963, and his return Tuesday was the climax to this week’s Institute for Ecumenic Dialogue, a program sponsored in part by the Abbey and designed to promote understanding among Catholic and Protestant clergymen of the Gaston-Mecklenburg area.
“Graham, freshly returned from his Japanese Crusade, said he ‘knew of no greater honor a North Carolina preacher, reared just a few miles from here, could have than to be presented with this degree. I’m not sure but what this could start me being called “Father Graham,’” he facetiously added.
“Graham said... ‘Finally, the way of salvation has not changed. I know how the ending of the book will be. THE GOSPEL THAT BUILT THIS SCHOOL AND THE GOSPEL THAT BRINGS ME HERE TONIGHT IS STILL THE WAY TO SALVATION” (“Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree,” Paul Smith, Gazette staff reporter, The Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, North Carolina, Nov. 22, 1967).
This is simply amazing. Does Billy Graham really believe that the sacramental grace-works gospel that built Belmont Abbey is the way of salvation? If so, why does Graham preach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone without works or sacraments? Why does he remain a Baptist rather than joining the Catholic Church?
On the other hand, if Graham does not believe Rome’s gospel is true, why did he say what he did? Why does he fellowship with Rome? The evangelist tries to have it both ways, but it is impossible. This is why Graham has been called “Mr. Facing Both Ways”!
Caught on Film!
YOU MANY want to write for my 4 DVDs entitled: “Christ vs. Satan’s Revolution,” which are about the 60's Rock N Roll Revolution. And on there, I have some good film of BG (I show that Graham is a 33rd degree mason also...anyone at that level knows about the “Lucifer Initiates”…they know about “Lucifer, the Light-bearer.” they know that Freemasonry portrays this enemy of God as “God,” as taught by Albert Pike, past Supreme commander, 33rd degree Mason, in his “Morals and Dogma” [860 pages]. BG did not want the world to know about him being a 33rd degree Mason, check out the background in these discs).
Meanwhile, Back in Rome
IN HIS BOOK, Just As I Am, BG wrote:
“MY GOAL, I ALWAYS MADE CLEAR, WAS NOT TO PREACH AGAINST CATHOLIC BELIEFS OR TO PROSELYTIZE PEOPLE who were already committed to Christ within the Catholic Church. Rather, it was to proclaim the gospel to all those who had never truly committed their lives to Christ” (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 357).
The Pope, an Evangelist
IN 1979 GRAHAM called Pope John Paul II “the moral leader of the world” (Religious News Service, Sept. 27, 1979). He also said that John Paul II “is almost an evangelist because he calls to people to turn to Christ, to turn to Christianity” (The Star, June 26, 1979, reprinted in the Australian Beacon, August 1979, p. 1),
In an interview with The Saturday Evening Post (Jan.-Feb. 1980), Graham described the visit of John Paul II to America in these words:
“The pope came as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist...The pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age—by pointing people to Christ.”
In a lengthy article about the Pope in 1980, Graham praised the Pope as a “bridge builder” and said: “Pope John Paul II has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of the century” (Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980),
After visiting the Pope in 1981, Graham said, “We had a spiritual time” (Christianity Today, Feb. 6, 1981, p. 88).
This “worship” of the RC pope, and Roman Catholicism could go on page after page. Several years ago I put together 2 magazines, “Is Roman Catholicism Christian?” You can write for them—they are free.
In Sept. 2000, a RC document entitled: “Dominus Iesus” was issued by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and confirmed and ratified by Pope John Paul II (see R.M. Bennett’s “Dominus Iesus: Rome Exalts Her Throne, the Protestant Challenge,” 2001, No. 2, p. 3). What does this mean? It means that thru the official Vatican decree, “declares the RCC to be the ONLY ‘instrument for the SALVATION of ALL humanity.’”
Cathy Burns Writes:
“KARL KEATING, a very prominent Catholic, assures us that, ‘There is no new teaching in it. It was issued as a reminder of the church’s constant teaching…non-Catholic churches are ‘defective’…True ecumenism demands that we view ourselves and others clearly without blinders. This means we need to keep in mind that, while other Christian bodies adhere to many truths, each of them is missing something” (see Keating, op. cit. p. 2).
Watch out for RC snakes! You see, in order to reach out to the “separated brethren” (non-Catholic), some priests are being instructed to be friends with them, use their evangelical terminology, i.e., be “born again,” “get saved” etc. BG sees nothing wrong with all this stuff. Well, the New Testament Ekklesia has NO Pope!...Jesus Christ is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5, see also Rom. 14:11; Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10, 11).
Roman Catholicism = Other Religion
SOME OF YOU may disagree with me, but I do not believe that the RCC is, in any way, a true Church, or THE true Church that Christ established!
The heart of this article is this: It comes down to what British theologian Lesslie Newbigin has written:
“It has become a commonplace to say that we live in a pluralist society—not merely a society which is in fact plural in the variety of cultures, religions, and lifestyles which it embraces, but pluralist in the sense that this plurality is celebrated as things to be approved and cherished” (Christianity, 1997, p. 154).
This Christian is making a distinction between pluralism as a fact-of-life, and pluralism as an ideology—the belief that pluralism is to be encouraged and desired, and that normative claims to truth are to be censured as imperialist and diversive (important aspect of the postmodern world view).
SO, WE NOW ASK: “How does Biblical Christianity relate to other religious traditions?”
Graham has no problem with this...but I am not Billy Graham. From the get-go, “Jesus Christianity” (as opposed to “Judaism”) has had tensions. Not only from Old Testament Judaism, but from classic pagan cultures all about.
As for today, we who are born-again, Spirit-filled, and water-baptized disciples of Christ Jesus (as opposed to the “Babylonian Jesus”) encounter traditions, movements, beliefs, practices and religions. SOME THINGS CATEGORIZED AS “RELIGIONS” MAY BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD AS CULTURAL MOVEMENTS WITH RELIGIOUS COMPONENTS.
It is asked: in what way can such traditions/movements etc. be understood—within the context of the Christian belief in the universal saving will of God, made known by and through Jesus the Christ? After all, Paul wrote: “…I admonish and urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be offered on behalf of ALL men (this includes the non-Christian peoples)…for such (prayer) is good and right, and (it is) pleasing and acceptable to God our Savior, who wishes All men (humankind) to be saved and increasingly to perceive and recognize and discern and know precisely and correctly the (divine) Truth:…that there (is only) one God, and (only) one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for ALL (people), attested to at the right and proper time”—Paul (1 Tim. 2:1-6). Now, how does Mr. Billy Graham interpret these verses?—seeing that he preaches “Universalism”—all will be saved. But he goes further, proclaiming that many will not have to repent of their sins, receive God’s forgiveness, and be born-again—oh, no, certain races/religious beliefs etc. will save them!
Billy did not always preach this.
William R. Hearst (a millionaire publisher of many large newspapers/magazines) was the first one to put BG in the lime-light. Graham wrote about this event in 1949 when a journalist attending one of his meetings told Graham: “You’ve just been kissed by W. R. Hearst.” The message was to “Puff Graham” (see his “Just As I Am” book, p. 149-150). This “kiss” has been written about dozens and dozens of times. This “kiss,” I believe, was the “kiss of death” for BG. He began to preach unscriptural things after that and fellowship the WORLD, which is strictly forbidden in Scripture!!
Back to 1 Timothy 2:1-6
LET’S BREAK these verses down (I quoted from the Amplified Bible). Since Graham believes that there is salvation in “other religions,” let’s see if we find it in the Scriptures. The apostle Paul writes about the universality of the Christian Faith (2:1-7). First, we know that the Christian faith is “for all men” (v. 1). I will now quote from the KJV and the RSV. Paul uses the word “urge,” which is more emphatic than “ask.” IF, and I do mean “if,” all men can find salvation in THEIR religions/beliefs/practices, there would be no need to write about the need for “all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (Christian Truth, v. 4).
“Knowledge of the Truth” (v. 4) is a technical term in the Pastorals (see 2 Tim. 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; elsewhere in the New Testament only Hebrews 10:26). it is the equivalent of “to be saved” or “to become a Christian.” The phrasing is Hellenistic in that it uses the language of intellection to express religion. Its use of “truth” is similar to that of John.
You see, the Greek words however, seem carefully chose. “Knowledge” here is not the familiar “gnosis,” but a special compound word ἐπίγνωσις (Strong’s G1922), perhaps used to avoid a word with such heretical connotations as “gnosis.” “Knowledge of truth” in this sense is arrived at by using the intellect than through repentance and faith. It, as stated by some scholars, is knowledge by acquaintance or experience rather than knowledge by description. Anyway, the phrase thus presupposes a clear and established rule of faith (I can’t say “Biblical Faith,” for there was no Bible in print, but for our day we must insist on saying “Biblical Faith”).
It is Love!
YES, THE CALL FOR REPENTANCE IS GOD’S LOVE—UNIVERSAL LOVE. But there is a stipulation: one MUST repent of his/her sins—turning 180 degrees. His love for the “lost” is the “call;” our love for the Savior is “acceptance”…we accept the condition to repent. You see, the pursuing love of God knows no exceptions—Jesus died for the world (Jn. 3:16), but the lost must repent in order to be saved (I have several magazines in print explaining all this repentance-acceptance-forgiveness- faith-grace etc—free).
Because God wills all men to be saved, therefore, He wills that all men should be prayed for. It is our duty, dear believers, to pray for the lost, and not let them perish in their sins.
McCall’s Magazine, 1978
HERE IS “PUFFED UP” Graham’s response to salvation in other religions. In an interview with McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said:
“I used to believe 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 that 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.”
Though Graham later tried to stem the controversy brought about by his comments, he continued to allow for the possibility that the unsaved in other religions might not go to Hell if they respond to natural light.
In 1985, Graham affirmed his belief that those outside of Christ might be saved. Los Angeles reporter David Colker asked Graham: “What about people of other faiths who live good lives but don’t profess a belief in Christ?” Graham replied, “I’m going to leave that to the Lord. He’ll decide that” (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, July 22, 1985),
While this answer might appear reasonable to those who do not know the Bible, in reality it is a great compromise of the truth. God has already decided what will happen to those who die outside of faith in Jesus Christ. The book of Ephesians describes the condition of such as “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). That is why Christ must be preached. Men without a saving knowledge of Christ are condemned already (John 3:18). There is no mystery or question about this matter, because the Bible has plainly spoken.
In 1993, Graham repeated this doctrine in an interview with David Frost:
“And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they’re in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. ... I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don’t know” (The Charlotte Observer, Feb. 16, 1993).
THE FOLLOWING discussion between Robert Schuller and Dr. Billy Graham I have recorded on the Rock N Roll DVDs that I’ve already talked about.
In his interview with Robert Schuller in May 1997, Graham again said that he believes people in other religions can be saved without believing in and personally receiving Jesus Christ:
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; [trips over his tongue for a moment, his face beaming, then says] I, I’m so thrilled to hear you say this. There’s a wideness in God’s mercy.
GRAHAM; There is. There definitely is (Television interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller, broadcast in southern California on Saturday, May 31, 1997).
There you have Billy’s Gospel: the pagans “ARE members of the body of Christ because they’ve been called by God…and that they’re going to be with us in Heaven.” Pray tell me WHERE in the whole New Testament do we find such a thing? This totally contradicts all the “salvation” texts in the New Testament.
Good Morning America
GRAHAM TOLD host Charles Gibson in an interview that “MUSLIMS AND JEWS CAN BE SAVED BY FINDING GOD IN THEIR OWN WORSHIP SYSTEMS” (also stated in David R. Barnhart’s Islam: The Cross or the Crescent?, The Vine and Branches, 1998, vol. 13, Issue 3, p. 7). That statement contradicts 1 Tim. 2:4 and dozens of others. Romans 10:1 tells us something very different. Let’s look at it:
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved.” Paul goes on to point out that Israel’s “righteousness” is not good enough to merit God’s saving grace. Has Billy missed this verse? Paul, the man of God he was, DID NOT adhere to the damnable doctrine of individuals being predestined or foreordained to Heaven or Hell, as too many believe today. He, nor Christ, ever hinted at redemption without repentance first. Jesus’ message to Israel, as well as that of the Baptist, was “Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Mt. 4:17; see Mt. 3:2 for John’s message to Israel. We offer free materials on this vital subject: NO REPENTANCE, NO SALVATION).
While I’m on this subject of Israel, please don’t present Rom. 11:26 as proof of Universalism. Some take Paul’s statement, “And so all Israel shall be saved” as proof that the Jews will not be lost, but eventually saved. Billy believes this (or he used to). The expression: “all Israel” should be understood as the believers in Israel as a whole. Scholars believe that the believing remnant of Israel (i.e., those who are the survivors at the end of the age) and the faithful in Israel of past generations constitute “ALL ISRAEL.”
ON JAN. 2, 2000, on Fox News, BG said: “I have never targeted Muslims. I have never targeted Jews” (“BG and His Friends,” p. 19). May we ask WHY!? Both religions are pagan, Judaism less so.
In McCall’s magazine (Jan. 1978), we read: “Graham once believed that Jews, too, were lost if they did not convert to Christianity. Today, Graham is willing to leave that up to God…Billy is particularly opposed to evangelical groups…who have made Jews the special target of their proselytizing effects…Billy says ‘I would never go after someone just because he is a Jew…’” Say, now, is this Baptist evangelist better than Jesus, Paul? They targeted the Jews. We do also. We also target Muslims and the “lost” church folks as well. Hey, let’s get serious about Heaven and Hell. Oops! Billy does not believe in Hell, per se.
Play on Words
TODAY’S RELIGIONISTS argue for the need to move AWAY from a Christ-centered approach, and move to a God-centered approach (a “Copernican Revolution”). God, not Jesus Christ the Lord, is much better, they argue. They argue that it is necessary to move AWAY from “the dogma that Christianity is at the centre, to the realization that it is ‘God’ who is at the centre, and that all religions…including our own, serve and revolve around Him. At the centre is God’s will to save all men.” This is true to an extent, but it IS JESUS the Christ who is the propitiation for man’s sins.
Romans 3:25 (Amp. Bible) says: “Whom God put forward as a mercy seat and propitiation by His blood—the cleansing and life-giving sacrifice of atonement and reconciliation (to be received) through faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over and ignored former sins without punishment!!” But today, God will not pass over man’s sins…this is WHY we MUST preach the Good News to those who are LOST. Billy ought to know this (see also 1 Jn. 2:2 and 4:10). So, Jesus is at the centre.All or a Few?
ONE PROFESSOR, John Hick, in his book “God and the Universe of Faiths” argues: “If God wishes everyone to be saved, it is inconceivable that God should be revealed in such a way that only a small portion of humanity could be saved” (as reprinted in “Christianity” by Alister E. McGrath [of Oxford fame] 1997, p. 156).
He has a point, but all religions started out small. Jesus’ disciples were given the great Commission:
“Go then and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them…” (Mt. 28:19, 20).
If Jesus’ disciples would obey this commission, the world would know about the Good News. Look at poor rebellious Billy—admitting that he refuses to witness to Muslims (comprised of over a billion lost souls alone!!) and Jews. And what about Roman Catholics? He sees no need there too, for he believes them to be “Christian.” HA! we have led literally thousands of Roman Catholics to the Savior. Some have been Roman Catholic for years, but have never given their hearts to Jesus. This is “religion” folks. Don’t even try to convince me that popes are Christian. HA! They are Christless!!
Back to Hick. He draws the conclusion that it is necessary to recognize that all religions lead to the same God. In other words: “all paths lead to God;” I counter this by saying that even if they do (but they do not), one HAS to go THRU JESUS CHRIST in order to get into Heaven. This is Biblical Christianity, not Emergent Churchianity. (See our teachings on the “Recreant Philosophers”—examining the Emergent Church Movement. Sicko, apostate Brian McLaren is top dog in this anti-Christ movement. All one has to do is read his “A Generous Orthodoxy” (2004), in which he literally mocks Christ’s atoning death for the sinner. He tells his readers to ‘drop any affair you may have with certainty, proof, argument…’ Sorry, I’ll stick with the Bible, not your vile book.)
To My Point
MY POINT IS THIS: I refute the popular idea (lie!) that Christians have no special access to God, who is universally available thru all religions. While there are good things in other religions, the plan of saving grace is only found in the Christian Bible. Believing in this “all paths lead to God” stuff invokes beliefs that God’s way and standard is either complementary or contradictory to any accepted notions on salvation.
People that adhere to this false notion are merely adopting a theocentric, rather than a Christocentric, approach. Yet, the insistence that God is known thru Christ implies the authentic Christian knowledge of God.
TRUE SPIRIT, traditional, Biblical Christianity has been, and will forever be resistant to the homogenizing agenda of religious pluralists, on account of its high Christology. One theologian has rightly stated that: the suggestion that all religions are more or less talking vaguely about the same “God,” finds itself troublesome in relation to certain essentially Christian ideas, most notably: the doctrines of incarnation (virgin birth of Christ) and the Trinity (I like tri-unity better). Now, many that once held to these doctrines, no longer believe them. (I have writings on these also.)
Now, let’s face it, many that claim to be “Christian” are really not Christian. So, it is easy for them to discard certain Bible doctrines (like BG). Believing in the divinity of Jesus and His resurrection are other doctrines that are being discarded. These snakes, fakes, and flakes want to put Jesus the Christ on the same level as other religious figures. HA! Christ will never be degraded to whereas God would accept this liberalism.
IN “CHRISTIAN MESSAGE in a Non-Christian World” (1938), Hendrik Kraemer (d. 1965) emphasized that God has revealed “the Way and the Truth and the Life” in Jesus the Christ, and wills this to be know to all humankind. This is true! But Kraemer’s question is whether such knowledge (Jn. 14:6) is only available thru Christ, or whether Christ provides the only framework by which such knowledge may be discerned and interpreted elsewhere. In essence, is Christ the “only” messenger for humankind or are there others (there is an ongoing debate over the natural and revealed knowledge of God).
It now must be asked: what then, of those lost souls who have never heard the Gospel? Are not particularists denying salvation to those who have not heard of Christ?—or, who having heard the news, choose to reject both the message and messenger?
Those arguing from a pluralist perspective, suggest that the doctrine that redemption is only possible thru Christ is inconsistent with belief in the universal saving will of God. It must be pointed out that this subject (mainly published in the 1980's) of “particularism” termed this type of approach as “exclusivism.” Both are used today.
KARL RAHNER (d. 1984) wrote “Theological Investigations” in which he laid out 4 theses:
1—Christianity is the absolute religion, founded on the unique event of the self-revelation of God in Christ. But this revelation took place at a specific point in history. Those who lived before this point, or who have yet to hear about this event, would thus seem to be excluded from salvation—which is contrary to the saving will of God;
2—For this reason, despite their errors, non-Christian religious traditions are valid and capable of mediating the saving grace of God, until the Gospel is made known to their members. After the Gospel has been proclaimed to the adherents of such non-Christian religious traditions, they are no longer legitimate, from the standpoint of Christian theology;
3—The faithful adherent of non-Christian religious tradition is thus to be regarded as an “anonymous Christian;”
4—Other religious traditions will not be displaced by Christianity. Religious pluralism will continue to be a feature of human existence.
It is clear that this Jesuit writer strongly affirms the principle that redemption/salvation may ONLY be had thru Christ Jesus, as He is interpreted by Biblical Christian tradition—for, as he explains, “Christianity understands itself as the absolute religion, intended for all people, which cannot recognize any other religion beside itself as of equal right.” So far so good. But, as pointed out by critics, Rahner supplements this with an emphasis upon the universal saving will of God: God wishes that all should be saved, even though not all know Christ. He is quoted as saying: “Somehow all people must be able to be members of the church.”
Where have we heard this before? Oh, yes, from dear Billy Graham! Did Billy teach Rahner, or did Rahner teach billy? Doesn’t matter, both believe the same way. Rahner argues that saving grace MUST be available outside the bounds of the church—in other religious traditions (which are by nature inauthentic/human inventions). While it may be true that many contain portions of truth, THEY ARE NOT THE TRUTH.
This “saving grace” stuff outside of Biblical Christianity is fast becoming the modern church’s “darling.” Most in the Big ministries are sounding this BIG FAT LIE!! Rahner believes, as billy Graham believes, that other religious disciples have accepted God’s grace, without being fully aware of what it is. Scholars disagree, calling it paternalist, offering “honorary status granted unilaterally to people who have not expressed any desire for it.” At least this Roman Catholic admits that the beliefs of non-Christian religious traditions are not purely true, while allowing that they may, nevertheless, mediate the grace of God by the lifestyles which they evoke.
Butting Roman Heads
IN THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, in its decree on “other faiths” (see Nostra Actate, Oct. 28, 1965), the Council followed Rahner in affirming that “rays of divine truth” were indeed to be found in other religions. However, heads butt, where Rahner allowed other religions/faiths/beliefs to have soteriological (Dealing with the doctrine of salvation [Greek soteria, Strong’s G4991]) potential. The Roman Catholic Council maintained the distinctiveness of the Christian faith (or what they considered to be “Christian”) at this point. Here is their response:
“The RCC rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct (really? What about militant Islam/ISIS etc?), the precepts and doctrines (hey, what about Islam calling Christians idolaters which need to be put to death for believing that God has a Son—to name only one of their doctrines!) which, although differing in many ways from her own teachings (wait, what about Judaism? which certainly rejects Jesus Christ, Christianity and Christians!), nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.” The Bible calls other religions “darkness,” and their disciples “children of wrath.” Better study your Bible, Roman Catholics (I have magazines printed on all these subjects—free). The Council continues: “yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6).” But the RCC does not proclaim the above Scripturally. Justification by faith, opposed to merit, is rejected. The list goes on and on.
In conclusion, we could rightly say that Rahner is both revelationally and soteriologically inclusive; Vatican II is revelationally inclusive, yet soteriologically particularist.
Lest we forget, it was the RCC that put the true followers of Christ to DEATH. Currently she is covering for child-molesting priests and nuns (etc.) raping and murdering many (which is documented by the way) and is considering doing away with laws against GLBTQs. So much for purity, holiness, and righteousness!! And we all know that the Vatican is run by a “black” (not in color) pope…and we all know it is filled with sex perverts of all kinds…and we all know that liars and thieves inhabit that city set on a hill. Is Roman Catholicism Christian? NO WAY!
Comfortable with the Vatican
IN A JANUARY 1997 interview on Larry King Live, Graham said that he has wonderful fellowship with Rome, is comfortable with the Vatican, and agrees with the Pope on almost everything.
KING: What do you think of the other [churches] ... like Mormonism? Catholicism? Other faiths within the Christian concept?
GRAHAM: Oh, I think I have a wonderful fellowship with all of them.
KING: You’re comfortable with Salt Lake City. You’re comfortable with the Vatican?
GRAHAM: I am very comfortable with the Vatican. I have been to see the Pope several times. In fact, the night — the day that he was inaugurated, made Pope, I was preaching in his cathedral in Krakow. I was his guest ... [and] when he was over here ... in Columbia, South Carolina ... he invited me on the platform to speak with him. I would give one talk, and he would give the other ... but I was two-thirds of the way to China...
KING: You like this Pope?
GRAHAM: I like him very much. ... He and I agree on almost everything.
Pope Went to Heaven
ON LARRY KING LIVE, aired April 2, 2005, Billy Graham said the late Pope was “the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world in the last 100 years.” When Larry King asked, “There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?” Graham replied;
“Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don’t think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope — I think he’s with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.”
This is a most amazing statement by the man who is considered the world’s foremost evangelist. Graham expresses less than certainty about his own salvation but complete certainty about the Pope’s, even though he preached a false gospel of grace mixed with works and Sacraments and put his trust in Mary as his intercessor. Graham should know that John Paul II did not believe in the cross in any Scriptural sense. Rather he believed in the cross PLUS baptism, PLUS the mass, PLUS confession to a priest, PLUS the saints, and above all...PLUS Mary.
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6).
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal. 1:6).
At Home in All Churches
IN A MAY 30,1997, interview, Graham told David Frost:
“I feel I belong to all the churches. I’M EQUALLY AT HOME IN AN ANGLICAN OR BAPTIST OR A BRETHREN ASSEMBLY OR A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.... Today we have almost 100 percent Catholic support in this country. That was not true twenty years ago. And the bishops and archbishops and the Pope are our friends” (David Frost, “Billy Graham in Conversation,” pp. 68, 143).
ALTHOUGH he calls “sinners” to accept Christ, realize his interpretation of “salvation” is not the Bible’s (see our Rock N Roll DVDs for this). Billy and Robert Schuller (who died not long ago) were very close buddies. Yet, Schuller hated the word “sinner.” David Cloud records this statement in his “O Timothy” (1993 vol. 10, issue 7) under Evangelicals and Modernist Robert Schuller :“Schuller contends that the most destructive thing that can be done to a person is to call him/her a sinner. In an article in “Christianity Today” (Oct. 5, 1984), Schuller said: “I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.”
There you have it! This LOST humanist hates the Word of God—which commands us to do what this pervert tells us not to do.
May I now ask, what are we to do with all these New Testament sayings/commands/warnings/ exhortations/demands etc. that we find from Matthew to Revelation? What of 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:8; Mk. 2:17; Matt. 9:13; Lk. 5:32 and Jam. 5:20 to name a few?
Pervert Schuller calls Biblical evangelism DESTRUCTIVE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. HA! I will dare to say that he, being in Hell’s fire and torment right now, would love to hear the Gospel.
And this pervert was a close friend of Billy Graham.
Just what was Schuller’s take on sin? You can find his answers in his book “Self Esteem: The New Reformation,” 1982. Even the term “self-esteem” is unbiblical. The Bible tells us to DIE TO SELF, MORTIFY SELF, CRUCIFY SELF—exactly the opposite of what this pervert taught. And most of today’s BIG ministers teach this BULL!
He says “Sin is an act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem.” Just where do we find this in Scripture? What about Hell? “It is the loss of pride that naturally follows separation from God—the ultimate and unfailing source of our souls’ sense of self-respect…A person is in Hell when he has lost his self-esteem.” Really now? Jesus says Hell is a place of fire and torment, weeping, suffering, etc. (write for our many booklets on Hell—free).
This pervert goes so far as to say that “Christ is the Ideal One, for he was Self-Esteem Incarnate.” To add insult to injury, Schuller now tells us that to follow Jesus means “daring to dream a great dream.” The Bible never even hints at such chicanery, yet this odious doctrine has become the KING on the throne preached, taught, and believed by these reptilian creatures called “ministers of God!” Their hubris knows NO bounds...Jude speaks of “filthy dreamers” who “defile the flesh” (v. 8). What does Jesus say about following Him? (Read Matt. 16:24-26; Mk. 8:34-37; Lk. 9:23-25 for your answer.)
Billy’s Many Friends
IF ONE WAS to take the life of BG and list all his “friends,” one will see that this man is F-A-R from being a Biblical Christian. He fellowships active sodomites, Rock N Rollers, workers of the occult, masons, communists, people in all religions, liberal professors, preachers, and teachers, environmentalists, atheists, and hob-nobs with those organizations such as the National Council of Churches (NCC), the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the rich and powerful of this world…
Past director of the WCC replied to “Is Jesus the Only Way?” (S. Wesley Ariarajah):
“Jesus makes no claims to divinity or to oneness with God…thus, can a Christian turn around and say to the Buddhist that her or she is misguided?...we have no grounds to do so” (Graham, “Just As I Am”).
I don’t know if these people are actually Biblically DUMB!, or just rebellious? Well, for the record, JESUS DOES MAKE THE CLAIM: “I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE” (Jn. 10:30, see also v. 33). Jesus also makes the claim in Jn. 14:6 to be ~note the wording here:~ “…the way (not ‘a way’), the truth (not ‘a portion of truth’), and the life (not ‘a life’).
One really needs to investigate the leadership positions in the NCC/WCC etc. One needs to check out the authors of Biblical dictionaries/lexicons. The Inclusive Language Lectionary, was produced by the NCC, with lesbian Virginia R. Mollenkott serving on the committee (as its editor!). Hence, God is addressed in feminine terms. I’ve already written about this self-professed lesbian, but BG sees nothing wrong with all this stuff. “Christianity Today (CT)” (BG’s magazine) praised Mollenkott’s book “Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?” As late as 1992, CT referred to this lesbian as an evangelical author (her abomination goes back to 1979, in 1985 she “comes out” (see “Sojourners” magazine). Cathy Burns reports that the first time lesbian Virginia publicly admitted her “lesbianism” was before none other than the Governing Board of the NCC.
TODAY’S BACKSLIDDEN, apostate, Hell-bound, and reprobate church believes, and lets us all know it!, that Jesus is NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GOD!! This theme pretty much goes along with the goal of the One World Government. This present generation reminds me of what Proverbs 30:12 states: “there is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.” Amen! We’re a sick and seedy generation, a generation of GLBTQ parishioners within the church, lots of professing believers, but few possessing the Holy Spirit. A generation that acts oh, so holy, but lives like devils. A generation that loves the world, and hates Biblical standards.
1 World Gov. (=) 1 World Religion
THIS IS NOT A FLUKE. A New Age organization called World Goodwill lists some goals that should alarm us all: “The Churches and the world religions should indicate the unity within all facets of truth which will provide a universal platform, one to which all (note that word ALL!) men everywhere could give allegiance. Such a platform should include:
* The truth that…all men are divine;
* The truth that evolution governs the growth of the human being…”
(see “The Problems of Humanity: The Building of Right Human Relations: The Problems of the Church,” p. 10, 11).
These crazies think that religions should create common world religious institutions and display the U.N. flag in all houses of worship (Muller, “Chronology of Education with Quotable Quotes,” p. 77). Muller (Robert), a Roman Catholic who follows demon-inspired Alice Bailey, is pushing this. Of course, BG endorses this kind of stuff too.
Muller is quoted by CB as saying, “We must move as quickly as possible to a one-world government; A ONE-WORLD RELIGION; under a one-world leader” (Ibid, p. 543).
Just what do these crazies suppose to do to bring about this anti-Christ duo? They pretty much point at “shaking off the chains of the past and to bring a new unity and livingness into religion”…starting with theological seminaries (one might want to examine Dwight L. Kinman’s “The World’s Last Dictator,” 1995, p. 81).
What is purposed is: “We either CHANGE or DIE!” they point out, without any apology!, that the message of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with Jesus’ death, wrath, or eternal Hell! Really? Christ had 2 messages:
1. He came to save the sinner (that “awful” word!!);
2. Unrepentant sinners will go to Hell eternally. All this “God loves everybody, and everybody will make Heaven” is demonic (if you don’t believe me, request my two books called “The Wrath of God”—and search the Scriptures I quote). All this “tolerant” let’s-all-agree-together New Age BULL is not from the Bible. The very disciples of such demonic thinking/teaching/living will eventually find themselves in the very WRATHFUL HELL they say DOES NOT EXIST.
THIS HAS ALMOST BEEN extinguished from today’s churches and seminaries etc. Amsterdam 2000 was a conference sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association (BGEA,) which included 10,000 evangelists and church leaders from 209 nations—A REAL BIG DEAL. Its very first speaker, John Stott (JS, I have refuted some of his unBiblical beliefs), claims to believe in Hell, but not in “eternal punishment.” He is a proponent of conditional immortality or annihilationism (see our “Hell” books on this BIG LIE!). Previous to this, the BGEA’s magazine, “Christianity Today,” printed Stott’s interview (Jan. 8, 1996) in which JS said he believed in (the “darling doctrine” of) the ultimate annihilation of the wicked, not eternal conscious torment (eternal torment is what the Bible teaches). Stott was also a contributing editor of “Sojourners”—a very liberal, pro-abortion, pro-GLBTQ, pro-feminist rag—Sojourners eventually joined the anti-Christ/unBiblical/unChristian Unitarian Universalist Association which is full of Bible-haters (oh, they don’t claim this, but their beliefs/fruits show it to be fact). They support Marxism (check out the FBI’s research on this group, along with Institute for Policy Studies). Well, no surprise, BG is cozy with the commies, he even brags about this. I make up nothing in this writing.
The “Orlando (Florida) Sentinel” for April 10, 1983, asked Billy Graham: “Surveys tell us that 85% of Americans believe in Heaven, but only 65% believe in Hell. Why do you think so many Americans don’t accept the concept of Hell?”
Graham replied: “I think that Hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst Hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched.”
In his 1983 “Affirmations” for evangelists, Graham said the fire of Hell could be symbolic:
“Jesus used three words to describe Hell. ... The third word that He used is ‘fire.’ Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC.... I’ve often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched” (“A Biblical Standard for Evangelists,” Billy Graham, A commentary on the 15 Affirmations made by participants at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July, 1983, Worldwide Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 45-47).
In “Time” magazine, November 15, 1993, Graham said: “The only thing I could say for sure is that Hell means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to be Hell. When it comes to a literal fire, I don’t preach it because I’m not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning Hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be—not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.”
If I’m not mistaken, Graham finally accepted the NO Hell stance. In his years of old age—2015—I think he is having second thoughts about of all the liberal things he proudly espoused for popularity’s sake...as well as lots of $$.
Theology No Longer Matters
Graham has done this so long that he has become one of them. Listen to what he says concerning theology: As the year 1988 closed, Graham told U.S. News & World Report that theology no longer meant anything to him: “World travel and getting to know clergy of all denominations has helped mold me into an ecumenical being, We’re separated by theology and, in some instances, culture and race, but all that means nothing to me any more” (“U.S. News & World Report,” Dec. 19, 1988).
Back To Amsterdam
IF ONE LOOKS at the names of speakers at this great Billy Graham event, one will see that it was a gathering of people that were everything but “Christian.” That was 15 years ago (note: BG did not attend this event in person because of illness. But as a good ol boy, he sent greetings to all!).
WE COME to the end...“Is Christ the ONLY way, or just A way?”
One of Billy’s close friends was Norman Vincent Peale—we’ve all heard of this “positive thinking” man. He was famous (of course!). Peale denied the virgin birth, deity, resurrection, and he did NOT believe Christ to be THE ONLY WAY to God/Heaven. On the Phil Donahue TV program (1984) Peale stated: “It’s not necessary to be born again.” Well, JESUS THINKS SO. He tells us 3 times in John cpt. 3 that: “…Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God;” “…Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God;” “…Ye must be born again” (vv. 3, 5, 7).
Peale continues: “You have your way to God: I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine…Christ is ONE of the ways. God is everywhere” (many publications reprinted this quote).
Did this bother BG? NO WAY! In 1956, Graham went to Japan and arranged for both conservatives and modernistic pro-Shinto believers to unite for the purpose of evangelism. On the platform, we find a noted Japanese liberal, Kagawa, who was an outspoken opponent of Biblical truth (note this: this man was also a Socialist).
And before we finally put a period at the end of this article, I must mention the good ol phoney Mormons. Peale called the then President, S. W. Kimball, “a great man of God and a true prophet of Jesus Christ” (this quote can also be found in many newsletters). Peale wouldn’t know a true prophet of Jesus Christ if one was to shake his hand.
IN 2012, FRANKLIN GRAHAM told CNN that he was shocked when he learned that there was an article at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s web site naming Mormonism as a cult. The article was removed soon after Billy met with Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney Franklin said:
“We have 10,000 pages and I didn’t write the 10,000 pages. Other people have written it. There was a discussion as to what a cult was and they had a definition of a cult and then they gave some examples and when I found out there were examples, they took them off. But I was shocked that we even had that on there” (“Franklin Graham Was Shocked,” “Christian Post,” Nov. 15, 2012).
Claiming that this is “name-calling,” Franklin said, “If I want to win a person to Christ, how can I call that person a name? That’s what shocked me, that we were calling people names. ... I’m an evangelist and I want to reach as many people as I can. If I’m calling them names, it doesn’t work.”
David Cloud Comments:
“NO ONE HAS done more to build the apostate one-world church than Billy Graham through pursuing humanistic pragmatism instead of being faithful to God’s Word, and Franklin is following in his footsteps. Both hide their compromise under the shadow of being an “evangelist,” but where does the Bible say that an evangelist is exempt from earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), a faith that includes the whole body of New Testament truth and not just salvation by grace alone? And where does the Bible say that an evangelist is exempt from marking and avoiding those who teach contrary to apostolic doctrine (Romans 16:17), or from turning away from those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:5), or from identifying and rebuking false teachers and compromisers plainly as Jesus and the apostles did (Matthew 23:13-33; 2 Corinthians 11:12-15; Galatians 1:6-9; Philippians 3:18-19; 1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:16-18; 4:10,14; 2 Peter 2; 2 John 2:7-11; Jude 4-19)?
Jesus is the Evangelist of evangelists, yet He denounced false teachers publicly as hypocrites, blind guides, children of Hell, fools and blind, serpents, and vipers. Paul called them vain babblers, vessels unto dishonor, enemies of the cross of Christ, accursed, and false apostles. Peter called them presumptuous, self-willed, as natural brute beasts, beguiling unstable souls, cursed children, and wells without water. John called them deceivers. Jude called them filthy dreamers, clouds without water, twice dead, raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame, wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever, and murmurers.
By not plainly condemning false teachers, the Grahams are brazenly, presumptuously disobeying the Bible and demonstrating that they are not true Bible preachers.
When measured by the standard of popular “evangelicalism” the Grahams are greatly acclaimed, but when measured by the infallible and unchangeable Word of God, they are found to be enemies of the very cross that they profess to love, because it is impossible to preach the truth and hold hands with the enemies of the truth without destroying the truth.
“And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem. And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD” (2 Ch. 19:1-2).
Jehoshaphat’s compromise with Jehu was not a small thing. It resulted in the spiritual corruption of Israel at the hands of Jehoshaphat’s son and grandson Jehoram and Ahaziah, who brought idolatry into Judea through their relationship with Ahab’s family, the bridge to which was foolishly built by Jehoshaphat, the pragmatist.
We must remember that Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism was also a mason (as so many have been and are). Robert Schuller was a 33rd degree mason, as well as BG, who is still one, as well as N. V. Peale (I offer my readers two magazines we put together on this anti-Christ religion). Mormonism IS NOT Christian! There are millions of sincere, but lost, souls trapped in this false religion (false because it “claims” to be “Christian”).”
PROPHETIC WORD was spoken to us in reference to Billy Graham’s life:
FOOLS SOW TO INIQUITY AND REAP THE SAME!
June 25, 2015
I SPEAK UNTO THEE this day and I say when men and women will sow unto iniquity, then they expect they will reap in righteousness, oh what fools they are. Yet I say there are those who have betrayed me, gone a whoring, created their own god under Babylon’s Jesus, loved it so, and wallowed in the spiritual fornication and whoredom. Then they think somehow they must reap in righteousness. But I say they are fools who are taken in their folly, for I say they have sown unto iniquity, they have sown unto their whoredoms, they have sown unto that which is a grief unto me. Then they think somehow they will reap in righteousness and I the Living God will stand with them, I say they are utter fools. I say this day that I the Living God do not call you to sow to iniquity, that you will indeed reap in the turmoil of the same. But I say that I call you to sow to righteousness that you can indeed be reaping and reaping in me. That is, reaping of the righteousness, reaping of the truth, reaping of the way that I provide. I say the way that you humble your flesh is to continue in REPENTANCE REVOLUTION unto me. That is, to continue to cry out, to continue to keep yourself in me, and walk uprightly in my way. I say this day that I the Living God do not call men to sow unto iniquity but I say that they do it of their own accord. They do it because they want to taste the world, flirt with the world, and even commit whoredom with the world. I say they do it because they want to be accepted and approved of men. Then I say when they reach their ripe old age, they think they will reap in righteousness but I say they are fools. I say the very things they have done in their drunkenness, the very things they have done in their desire to be received of men, will return to haunt them. I say this day there is no reason to be haunted, if you walk uprightly in me. I say thank me, praise me.