Billy Graham's Theology Does Not Fit With Lutheranism (please, help!) [Archive]

KagomeShuko

23rd April 2005, 05:32 PM

The other day I was told that somebody had removed me from their LiveJournal friends list simply because they did not want to read anything bad about Billy Graham. I did not remember posting anything bad about Billy Graham whatsoever.

Then, I remembered when I posted about not going to the counselor training for Rachel's Challenge (http://www.rachelschallenge.com).

This is what I posted:
I thought about it over and over, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going. The only counseling training available is that of the Billy Graham Evangelistic people. I would not doubt that this counseling will turn into one of those rallies with people saying "I accepted Christ!"

Oh, I'll be happy for them, but you aren't going to find me at those things very often. I'll go if it's something I want to see, but not because of Billy Graham.

If the person wants to remove me,that's fine. I don't care.

However, I was talking to another person and I went to Billy Graham's site and found this link about how he describes how to receive salvation (http://www.billygraham.com/DMag_Article.asp?ArticleID=421).

I had written up a post on why this does not fit with Lutheran theology, using just the first three points. I started with the whole we cannot accept Christ for ourselves.

I was trying to explain this to a lapsed Catholic and trying to explain the theology. Yet, no matter how many times I used examples that we even used, he seemed to act like I was telling him something completely foreign.

From my Catholic friends on LJ, I've heard a lot closer things to Lutheranism than what he was saying. In fact, what he told me sounded VERY Baptist.

I could not get him to understand the whole thing with Christ accepting us. It seems that there is yet another person who wants me to explain as well.

We're not arguing. They are just interested.

However, I'm just a bit stressed with other things at the moment.

Can any of you help me by using Lutheran theology and strictly Bible verses and examples (the book of concord is great, but these two will just simply go, "And so?" if that's presented).

Thanks so much.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

VeryTiredGirl

23rd April 2005, 09:38 PM

Can any of you help me by using Lutheran theology and strictly Bible verses and examples (the book of concord is great, but these two will just simply go, "And so?" if that's presented).

Thanks so much.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

This site talks about decision theology and gives some Scripture verses:http://tinyurl.com/8yt6k

This is the LCMS website. If you check under FAQ's and Doctrine, you may find more of what you're looking for. The "What About" section does not have anything, but the FAQ's and Doctrinal statements areas do. http://tinyurl.com/c3xb6

For a Bible verse, how about John 15:16, " You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."

John 1:12-13 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– 13children born not of natural descent,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26048c)] nor of human decision or a husband's will,but born of God."

Ezekiel 36:26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."

From Luther's Small Catechism, the Third Article of the Apostle's Creed and explanation: "I believe in the Holy Spirit..." What does this mean? "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith..."

Good luck! :wave:

cenimo

24th April 2005, 12:58 PM

KagomeShuko

How does Billy Graham's Theology not fit with Lutheranism? I'm just curious...

VeryTiredGirl
For a Bible verse, how about John 15:16, " You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."

John 1:12-13 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– 13children born not of natural descent,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26048c)] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

Are you saying Lutherans believe in predestination?

SPALATIN

24th April 2005, 01:49 PM

KagameShuko

How does Billy Graham's Theology not fit with Lutheranism? I'm just curious...

Billy Graham and his ministry are Baptist in their teaching. They teach that God has done his part and now it is up to us to our part and either accept him or reject him. Lutherans believe that it is all God and that we have nothing to do with being saved as that was taken care of at the cross. We believe that it is because of God's love for us (John 3:16-17) that he in his graciousness sent his son to die for us. This is all Christ's merit and nothing we do of ourselves.

Are you saying Lutherans believe in predestination?
[/color]

Yes, but not double pre-destination as the Calvinsts do.

stlsweeti

24th April 2005, 03:41 PM

I'm glad this thread was started. I just love listening to Billy Graham and I own a number of his books. He speaks in a language that's easy to understand. I grew up without any religious background and I just started attending church a couple of years ago. Although I like the Lutheran church, I admit that I have a hard time understanding what they are saying sometimes and I don't have anyone to help me understand (thank goodness for this website, I'd be lost without all of you.)

VeryTiredGirl

24th April 2005, 04:05 PM

KagameShuko

How does Billy Graham's Theology not fit with Lutheranism? I'm just curious...

[/color]

Graham preaches decision theology, that the person must make a conscious decision to be saved. Lutherans believe that saving faith is a gift from God, not something we can decide for ourselves.

KagomeShuko

24th April 2005, 05:02 PM

Thanks, guys! (I have a headache from comments over in my LiveJournal when posting dialogue with educated Catholics from CF).

Stein Auf!
Bridget

RedneckAnglican

24th April 2005, 05:29 PM

Billy Graham and his ministry are Baptist in their teaching. They teach that God has done his part and now it is up to us to our part and either accept him or reject him. Lutherans believe that it is all God and that we have nothing to do with being saved as that was taken care of at the cross. We believe that it is because of God's love for us (John 3:16-17) that he in his graciousness sent his son to die for us. This is all Christ's merit and nothing we do of ourselves.

Yes, but not double pre-destination as the Calvinsts do.

Could you please explain "double pre-destination"?...I understand GOD saving us through Jesus and us not being able to except Jesus through our own merits...How does this explain those who still are not Christian?...Did GOD grant them wisdo and they not except it?...or are they Christians anyway and don't know it...Please forgive my ignorance...this is something that probably has been taught to Lutherans all thier lives...bbut I haven't been Lutheran for long enough to know some of the finer points...and this hasn't been covered with pastor, yet...

VeryTiredGirl

24th April 2005, 05:56 PM

Could you please explain "double pre-destination"?...I understand GOD saving us through Jesus and us not being able to except Jesus through our own merits...How does this explain those who still are not Christian?...Did GOD grant them wisdo and they not except it?...or are they Christians anyway and don't know it...Please forgive my ignorance...this is something that probably has been taught to Lutherans all thier lives...bbut I haven't been Lutheran for long enough to know some of the finer points...and this hasn't been covered with pastor, yet...

I actually just found out what double predestination is right now, looking it up for you. ;)

Here's what it is: "
Predestination is a Christian doctrine according to which a person's ultimate destiny, whether it be salvation or damnation, is determined by God alone prior to, and apart from, any worth or merit on the person's part. In some cases, it is claimed that God only determines those to be saved; in others, that he determines those to be saved and those to be condemned. The latter teaching is called double predestination."

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/predesti.htm

Loosely translated, in double predestination, it's believed that God chose in the beginning who was going to be saved, and who was going to go to Hell. In double predest., it's believed that some people are essentially 'born to be condemned'.

An extra link: http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/Articles/DoublePredestination.htm

Apparently, the person writing this claims Luther may have actually believed in double predestination, although I'm not sure I see it.

"You may be worried that it is hard to defend the mercy and equity of God in damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly persons, who, being born in ungodliness, can by no means avoid being ungodly, and staying so, and being damned, but are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish; as Paul says: "We were all the children of wrath, even as others" [Eph. 2:3], created such by God Himself from a seed that had been corrupted by the sin of one man, Adam. But here God must be reverenced and held in awe, as being most merciful to those whom He justifies and saves in their own utter unworthiness; and we must show some measure of deference to His Divine wisdom by believing Him just when to us He seems unjust. ... what perversity is it on our part to worry at the justice and the judgment of the only God, and to arrogate so much to our own judgment as to presume to comprehend, judge and evaluate God's judgment!" (Luther, in his book "The Bondage of the Will")

CrossWiseMag

24th April 2005, 06:39 PM

Luther didn't believe in double predestination. Calvinists always say he did, because they don't understand what he's saying in works like "Bondage of the Will." Viewed through a Calvinist lens (Calvinists DO teach that God picked who would be in hell from the beginning of time), Luther's words seem Calvinist. But he wasn't Calvinist -- no matter how many Calvinists might tell you he was!

As for Billy Graham -- sure he's a nice guy. But his theology doesn't get a free pass. He encourages people to make "altar calls" and "dedicate their lives to Jesus" to become Christians. What he doesn't make clear is that there can be no Christians unless God makes someone a Christian. We cannot decide _on our own_ to become a Christian. The Bible speaks very clearly to this in many, many places.

Graham also denies the gospel of baptism and the Lord's Supper, denying the saving power of the sacraments. Baptism can't do anything, according to Baptist theology, because it's something a person does. Baptists (and Graham, in this case) don't understand that baptism is God's work for sinners -- not a sinner's work for God. And the same with the Lord's Supper, which is truly "for forgiveness of sins," but viewed by Graham as a new law that Christians are told to keep merely to remember Jesus.

VeryTiredGirl

24th April 2005, 06:48 PM

RedneckAnglican

24th April 2005, 06:54 PM

AngelusSax

24th April 2005, 08:04 PM

Graham also denies the gospel of baptism and the Lord's Supper, denying the saving power of the sacraments. Baptism can't do anything, according to Baptist theology, because it's something a person does. Baptists (and Graham, in this case) don't understand that baptism is God's work for sinners -- not a sinner's work for God. And the same with the Lord's Supper, which is truly "for forgiveness of sins," but viewed by Graham as a new law that Christians are told to keep merely to remember Jesus.

There's only one problem with Lutheran Theology on these two things, and it mostly comes from wording rather than anything of real substance. But it can be used to promote a theology which says any baby who dies before their Baptism date is damned to hell. It's a misuse, I believe, but I've come across it (not on these boards).

As for the other points, I am in definite agreement. We don't accept Jesus on our own, but through Jesus we confess Him... which appears to outsiders to be an acceptance decision, but it isn't really.

CrossWiseMag

24th April 2005, 09:37 PM

I think you've got it Redneck. I think of it this way: we may all have "free will" as humans, but every single one of us employs our "free will" to fight God, run from God, and sin against God -- until the Holy Spirit makes us believers.

KagomeShuko

24th April 2005, 10:36 PM

Okay, so now, I have this guy saying he doesn't like the sound of "predestiny" (yes, that's what he called it). He doesn't seem to understand. I want to make sure what I post for him would seem clear. I don't dare post without the TCCL experts going over my post. I think I wrote it okay, but I think that a lot of times.

So, without further ado, is this okay?

We, cannot, of ourselves, choose to "accept" Jesus as our Lord and Savior. However, through Jesus Christ we can confess that Jesus died for our sins.

Lutherans teach predestination, but not double predestination.

In [single] predestination, it is said that God's want and will is for everybody to be saved. However, God foreknew that people would reject salvation. It is not God's will to condemn any person to hell. This is not found in [single] predestination.

Double predestination says that all persons created by God were either created with the destiny to be saved or the destiny to be condemned to hell. This is not in line with Lutheran theology.

All people are able to "come to Christ" through the Holy Spirit working through them. Thus, through Christ, they will also confess Christ.

The work is not ours, but God's.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

helmikaarina

25th April 2005, 01:57 AM

I believe that there is no seeking for God without Holy Spirit. This longing we have for God (even if we don't yet know it's God we are longing for) is already God's work in us. So when a person goes and listens to Graham and decides to accept Jesus, it's a choice he is able to do because of God's work in him.

Being a evanceligal - lutheran myself I do admit there are doctrinal differences between denominations. It seems to me that it's not enough for us to be Christians, it's importat to have our own denomination. It's like a family, but at the same time we all are God's children.

Words are sometimes difficult, life is simple.

Jim47

25th April 2005, 07:35 AM

ok...l think i got it...let me see if this is close...I can't "accept" Jesus as my Lord and Savior...because I as a human am to far gone in sin to be able to even fathom GOD...however...though JESUS CHRIST I can CONFESS that Jesus died for me...is this what we're getting at?...

This is a subject that I love to discuss but yet still feel inadequate in explaining completely. I was just searching for some scripture that came to my foggy little mind and instead found this. Perhaps the scripture I am posting will halp someone else think of the other appropiate scriptures.

Eph 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The following scripture I think can easily be misunderstood.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

What it is actually saying is that we no longer live to satisfy our sinful desire, but because of Christ we now have a burning desire to serve Him.

Sorry I just can't remember the other scripture, :blush: and it is by far a better explaination.

pastel

25th April 2005, 11:02 AM

I used to call it "double whammy predestination" ... ummm come to think of it, I still do! :P

VeryTiredGirl

25th April 2005, 08:47 PM

We, cannot, of ourselves, choose to "accept" Jesus as our Lord and Savior. However, through Jesus Christ we can confess that Jesus died for our sins.
I think it's through the Holy Spirit that was can confess that Jesus died for our sins.

ChiRho

27th April 2005, 08:35 AM

There's only one problem with Lutheran Theology on these two things, and it mostly comes from wording rather than anything of real substance. But it can be used to promote a theology which says any baby who dies before their Baptism date is damned to hell. It's a misuse, I believe, but I've come across it (not on these boards).

As for the other points, I am in definite agreement. We don't accept Jesus on our own, but through Jesus we confess Him... which appears to outsiders to be an acceptance decision, but it isn't really.

There is no problem with Lutheran theology on this matter. Believing comes from the Spirit through Word and Sacrament. St. John the Baptist lept in the womb of Elizabeth when hearing of Thy salvation. As the mother prays, so believes the child. But for pagan children, we hold no such hope. This is consistent with Scripture and our Confessions.

Pax

AngelusSax

27th April 2005, 12:59 PM

There is no problem with Lutheran theology on this matter. Believing comes from the Spirit through Word and Sacrament. St. John the Baptist lept in the womb of Elizabeth when hearing of Thy salvation. As the mother prays, so believes the child. But for pagan children, we hold no such hope. This is consistent with Scripture and our Confessions.

But sadly, there are Lutherans out there who truly believe that even a Christian mother who gives birth to a still-born baby will not see her baby in Heaven, that since the baby was not baptized in water, the baby went to hell.

Like I said, the problem is in how we say it... and I suppose to some degree interpret what is said. When anyone can tell a Christian woman--who prays regularly--that her baby went to hell because it was still-born and therefore not baptized in water, it is very sad, and IMO wrong.

SPALATIN

27th April 2005, 01:55 PM

But sadly, there are Lutherans out there who truly believe that even a Christian mother who gives birth to a still-born baby will not see her baby in Heaven, that since the baby was not baptized in water, the baby went to hell.

Like I said, the problem is in how we say it... and I suppose to some degree interpret what is said. When anyone can tell a Christian woman--who prays regularly--that her baby went to hell because it was still-born and therefore not baptized in water, it is very sad, and IMO wrong.

Angelus,

I don't think that the Lutheran church goes so far as to say that the child will be in hell (maybe 50 or 60 years ago) but not now. Today we would say. I don't know, but I leave it to the efficacious grace of God to determine whether the child will be there for me when I die. If we look at King David and his fasting and praying while the child he and Bathsheba conceived in Adultery was dying we see a man who was begging for God's mercy on this child and after he was told that the child had died he got up from his fast, cleaned up and broke his fast.

His servants were puzzled by this and he told them that while the child lived he prayed for mercy to spare the life, but now that the child was gone he knows that the child will not be able to come to him but that he will one day be re-united with the child in his death.

To say that a child will be hell-bound if not baptized before it dies is not ours to judge but God's.

stlsweeti

27th April 2005, 02:35 PM

But sadly, there are Lutherans out there who truly believe that even a Christian mother who gives birth to a still-born baby will not see her baby in Heaven, that since the baby was not baptized in water, the baby went to hell.

As a Lutheran and a mother of two still-born children, I would most certainly like to believe that my little angel babies are in heaven. I cannot see why God would send them to hell. :cry:

Protoevangel

27th April 2005, 03:41 PM

night2day

28th April 2005, 07:53 AM

But sadly, there are Lutherans out there who truly believe that even a Christian mother who gives birth to a still-born baby will not see her baby in Heaven, that since the baby was not baptized in water, the baby went to hell.

Like I said, the problem is in how we say it... and I suppose to some degree interpret what is said. When anyone can tell a Christian woman--who prays regularly--that her baby went to hell because it was still-born and therefore not baptized in water, it is very sad, and IMO wrong.

Very disheartening, but true. :cry:

My elder brother was born stillborn; my neice had a fatal neural tube defect, one in which the brain had grown only partially if at all, and died 7 days after she was born last year; and now another nephew on the way has the something along the lines of the same disorder.

True, Jesus commands us to "baptize all nations". Notice there are situations in the scriptures where baptism isn't available, that are beyond possibility. (Such as the thief on the cross for example.) We are commanded to obey. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit cannot work faith within the infant's heart according to the Gospel, which is what He does at Baptism only with the the water and the Word. We are limited, God isn't.

Why it would be best to simply say we leave them within God's loving hands.

Edited to add: Actually, the Scriptures seem to take more the position of why would baptism be rejected if it is indeed fully capable of being given? Or, more to the point,the question should rather focus on those, or their caregivers, who are Christan and are fully able to be baptized...but steadfastly reject it, thereby rejecting Christ's own command to do so. At a spiritual level, it shows something rather disturbing.

Personally, I believe this is why the Scriptures focus more so on issues we as human beings can address with fellow Christians...while with others... we can only assure them of God's rich mercies.

night2day

28th April 2005, 08:03 AM

I've heard it said recently on the air that Billy Graham, his son, Mother Teresa, and Pope John Paul John the II all believed the samed gospel. (Franklen was being interviewed by FOXNews I think) I'm seeking to have this verified or wondering if anyone else knows of this since basic teach teachings of catholism which, by nature, cannot rescind the Council of Trent, as well as Billy Graham, Teresa, and II all reportedly beleved in universalism, that Jesus wasn't really the only way to to gain salvation...only the most easiest way.

Such universialistic beliefs would go against Southeren Baptist doctrine wouldn't it?

CrossWiseMag

28th April 2005, 09:55 AM

Billy Graham has espoused a "universalism" that's very similar to Pope John Paul II's. He hasn't always thought that, as far as I know. But yeah -- universalism is not Southern Baptist.

SPALATIN

28th April 2005, 01:43 PM

AngelusSax

28th April 2005, 04:22 PM

Perhaps it is being put on the spot by the media to give an answer and rather than come off condemning everone who does not believe they cop the universalist plea. Come to think of it didn't Mel Gibson do the same thing when Passion came out last year?

Well, he certainly said we are all universally equal in sharing in the blame for putting Christ on the cross with our sins... I don't know if he copped a universalistic salvation plea or not, but he certainly did say we're all to blame for the cross.

night2day

28th April 2005, 07:44 PM

...Come to think of it didn't Mel Gibson do the same thing when Passion came out last year?

Unfortunately, he did. I still have that "special" prime time interview that was done. His belief was it's easier for Catholics, but ultimately all can be saved regardless whatever religion.

night2day

28th April 2005, 07:58 PM

Well, he certainly said we are all universally equal in sharing in the blame for putting Christ on the cross with our sins... I don't know if he copped a universalistic salvation plea or not, but he certainly did say we're all to blame for the cross.

Universalism is a theology which claims all will ultimately be saved regardless of what religion they are from or what they believe. Or, put another way, "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere."

In catholocism Jesus' atoning work on the the cross wasn't nearly enough. We have to do our own parts. Their version of grace doesn't even fall under the same definition as ours. It's an "infused grace" in which God gives them the strength to do good works in order to help "pay off the bill" of their sins.

Rememeber at the recent Pope's death? Many catholics were praying to God that he be accepted into Heaven immediately. Now...to a Lutheran...that's a rather foriegn concept to grasp since we don't accept teachings such as limbo and purgatory. But, to catholic foundational teaching, it cannot be removed by any edict of theirs to my knowledge.

As commented above, What the Grahams and the others were noting was they believed in a universalism in which anyone, regardless if by grace, through faith, Jesus Christ was thier Lord and Savior they would still be saved...it would just....take them longer.

One has to wonder then, what would be the point of spreading thew Gospel as Jesus commanded if that were the case?

AngelusSax

28th April 2005, 10:40 PM

One has to wonder then, what would be the point of spreading thew Gospel as Jesus commanded if that were the case?

Oh, I think I know the answer to this one (besides "none")!!

The point would be to bring a little Shalom (peace which returns us internally to the way it was meant to be in Eden) to each other... to live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be. Bring a little heaven on earth... since it's only with the knowledge of the Gospel we can do that (and really, we'd all be acting stewards for God... it'd be His good works anyway, we'd just be vessels).

Like I said, it's either that... or there is no point under universalism.