The inevitable Pat Robertson thread

[arunma]

So, what do you guys think about Pat Robertson's effective death fatwa against President Chavez?

This is just my $0.02, but I've always thought that Robertson was a nutcase, so this doesn't really surprise me. Despite Robertson's slavish loyalty to the political right, today I heard Bob Dole call him "stupid." And on a religious note, I don't think it befits a person in a pastoral office to call for the execution of a political leader. How many people could imagine Paul or Peter encouraging Christians to assassinate Caesar?

[aReformedPatriot]

The story cracks me up. I dont understand Christians sometimes.

[MrJim]

Ya know it's hard to say about this guy. Obviously he's a dangerous dude but he's there through his audience. I've not seen 700 Club in years but some people out there must keep him in business and if they do not call him down on this stunt then they are in effect endorsing his actions.

Would be neat to hear of his audience stand up to this.

Note, too, that there is an element in Christianity out there that wouldn't have a problem with this.

[Joykins]

I have a theory, and it is only a theory, that the more you feel you have to talk, the more stupid things you will say.

P. Robertson has a history of saying a lot of really stupid things. Ultimately he is responsble to God for not only his stupid sayings but for anyone he leads astray by them :(

[MbiaJc]

So, what do you guys think about Pat Robertson's effective death fatwa against President Chavez?

This is just my $0.02, but I've always thought that Robertson was a nutcase, so this doesn't really surprise me. Despite Robertson's slavish loyalty to the political right, today I heard Bob Dole call him "stupid." And on a religious note, I don't think it befits a person in a pastoral office to call for the execution of a political leader. How many people could imagine Paul or Peter encouraging Christians to assassinate Caesar?


I have put all TV evangelists in the same basket, with one excepton. That excepton is Bill Graham.

I think they have all done great harm to Christanity. As Romsfel would say "they are not helpful".

[£amb]

So, what do you guys think about Pat Robertson's effective death fatwa against President Chavez?

This is just my $0.02, but I've always thought that Robertson was a nutcase, so this doesn't really surprise me. Despite Robertson's slavish loyalty to the political right, today I heard Bob Dole call him "stupid." And on a religious note, I don't think it befits a person in a pastoral office to call for the execution of a political leader. How many people could imagine Paul or Peter encouraging Christians to assassinate Caesar?

Well of course with this happening, believers are already being questioned on this in GA board for everybody: http://www.christianforums.com/t2015675-why.html

May want to go ahead and put your 2 cents in here also...:D

[MrJim]

I have a theory, and it is only a theory, that the more you feel you have to talk, the more stupid things you will say.


^_^

Isn't this called "Joykins' Law of Speech"?

[arunma]

I have put all TV evangelists in the same basket, with one excepton. That excepton is Bill Graham.

I think they have all done great harm to Christanity. As Romsfel would say "they are not helpful".

I agree. Billy Graham has always kept himself away from the politicians, who would have us believe in other gospels. It's too bad there aren't more evangelists like him.

[Iollain]

I think he has gotten to involved in what is going on in the world because the 700 Club has a world news show, let it alone Pat.

[MagusAlbertus]

So, what do you guys think about Pat Robertson's effective death fatwa against President Chavez?
fatwa indeed; Seems to be the same worldly spirit that creates a fatwa that would have a Christian leader calling for the death of someone.

that said, Chavez is a bad dude and if more lives would be saved by removing him than leaving him, then it's something the US should consider.

[novcncy]

fatwa indeed; Seems to be the same worldly spirit that creates a fatwa that would have a Christian leader calling for the death of someone.

that said, Chavez is a bad dude and if more lives would be saved by removing him than leaving him, then it's something the US should consider.[/font]

I totally agree with you, MagusAlbertus. I have no problem with the concept, I just think it's utterly ridiculous that Pat Robertson is advocating it. (And it is technically illegal....) The ironies of this particular man being involved in this are indescribable.

PS Guess who was criticizing PR on the radio today? JESSE JACKSON, of all the fruit bats in the tree......

[Imblessed]

fatwa indeed; Seems to be the same worldly spirit that creates a fatwa that would have a Christian leader calling for the death of someone.

that said, Chavez is a bad dude and if more lives would be saved by removing him than leaving him, then it's something the US should consider.[/font]

Well, Pat's really done it. IF the government HAD thought about just assasinating the guy, they can't now! I mean, can you imagine the backlash if someone took him out right now?

I just hope he doesn't die soon by any means, at least until this whole PR garbage is forgotten--or we'll get blamed.....

[arunma]

Just a curiosity question (not trying to start a debate), but what's so bad about President Chavez? I haven't read much about him, but from what I can tell, he's just another communist. I'm sure you'll all agree that communists aren't intrinsically bad; it's the totalitarianism and atheism which usually follows it that's bad.

[MagusAlbertus]

I'm sure you'll all agree that communists aren't intrinsically bad; does communism, the total control of your work and income by the state, require that you have a atheistic regime that kills anyone who disagrees politically



No


It’s just the way it’s always been every time it’s been brought to power. Now if God where directly in charge of the communism I’m sure the whole thing would workout just fine.

It’s like asking “is heroin un-Christian” Well, heck, not sure.. I just know that almost everyone that does it becomes an addict and has there life destroyed.

[eldermike]

I totally agree with you, MagusAlbertus. I have no problem with the concept, I just think it's utterly ridiculous that Pat Robertson is advocating it. (And it is technically illegal....) The ironies of this particular man being involved in this are indescribable.

PS Guess who was criticizing PR on the radio today? JESSE JACKSON, of all the fruit bats in the tree......

This made me laugh so hard I pulled something.

[arunma]

does communism, the total control of your work and income by the state, require that you have a atheistic regime that kills anyone who disagrees politically
[/font]


No


It’s just the way it’s always been every time it’s been brought to power. Now if God where directly in charge of the communism I’m sure the whole thing would workout just fine.

It’s like asking “is heroin un-Christian” Well, heck, not sure.. I just know that almost everyone that does it becomes an addict and has there life destroyed.

You were making a good point, but I disagree with the comparison between heroin and communism. There is a direct relationship between using heroin, and becoming adicted to it. But in theory, a communist government could allow religious freedom, or even officially sanction the Christian religion. It is noteworthy that virtually all communist governments have been atheistic. But on the other hand, correlation doesn't imply causation.

My only objection is to the belief that capitalism is intrinsically Christian, while communism is un-Christian.

[9-iron]

Yeah, when he a Farewell said we have no one to blame but ourselves concerning 9-11 I lost interest. Of course, as someone mentioned above, 90% of the TV are pretty flaky to start with.

[9-iron]

They should put a mandatory retirement age for TV evangelist. After spending the last few days on the one secular board I frequent, this hurts the image of all Christians. Just not the Charasmatics, but everyone. Kind of like the Baptist preacher evicting members for voting democratic.

[Joykins]

Wasn't the early church pretty much a commune?

[novcncy]

Yeah, when he a Farewell said we have no one to blame but ourselves concerning 9-11 I lost interest. Of course, as someone mentioned above, 90% of the TV are pretty flaky to start with.

Well, that's interesting that that would turn you off. Sort of like it wasn't REALLY Israel's fault they got invaded by Syria, and it wasn't really Judah's fault they got invaded by Babylon. The blame for those invasions clearly and totally falls on Senacharib and Nebuchadnezzar, respectively.

[9-iron]

Well, that's interesting that that would turn you off. Sort of like it wasn't REALLY Israel's fault they got invaded by Syria, and it wasn't really Judah's fault they got invaded by Babylon. The blame for those invasions clearly and totally falls on Senacharib and Nebuchadnezzar, respectively.

The references you provided weren't living under Grace, they were under the old convenant.....

[abbygirlforever]

Well ABC Family can't kick Robertson off their station because he has some sort of right to his time slot that they can't get around. I'm sure that if they could they would've kicked him out long ago.

Pat is a nut. That being said, perhaps Chavez should be removed from power. However, he has to do something to deserve it first, and I've not heard of anything specific that would warrant that, such as killing his own people or plotting genocide, etc. And there are ways to remove him from power without killing him. Besides, I don't think Christians should be calling for somebody's head on a pike, so to speak.

[novcncy]

The references you provided weren't living under Grace, they were under the old convenant.....

Hmmm. Curious and curiouser, to borrow from Loius Carroll.

So what you're saying is that God's relationship and blessing/judging of a nation has nothing to do with their blatant rebellion against Him? What's actually important is the covenant of the day, as opposed to doing what is right? After all, grace will enable God to ignore sin?

Definitely curious. God didn't change just because the covenant did.

[arunma]

Well, that's interesting that that would turn you off. Sort of like it wasn't REALLY Israel's fault they got invaded by Syria, and it wasn't really Judah's fault they got invaded by Babylon. The blame for those invasions clearly and totally falls on Senacharib and Nebuchadnezzar, respectively.

While I disagree with 9-iron's logic, I agree with his conclusion. It was Israel's fault that they were invaded so many times, because they broke the covenant. However, the New Covenant is not a national convenant. The Jewish church was simultaneously a national power and a religious body. The Christian church is the latter but not the former. America isn't God's institution, so what happens to us as a country does not reflect God's will for the church.

Now if you were Catholic and saw Vatican City invaded, I suppose the argument could be made that God was angry with the church. But since none of us here believe that the church exists as any sort of political state, it makes no sense to say that America was attacked due to American immorality.

Finally, please remember that no prophet has appeared to prophesy to us since the Apostle John died (actually, some would argue that John the Baptist was the last prophet). So we don't really know what God's will is, apart from what is said in the Bible. Therefore, we shouldn't act as if we know that God has punished a secular nation for its sins.

[arunma]

So what you're saying is that God's relationship and blessing/judging of a nation has nothing to do with their blatant rebellion against Him

To some extent, yes. God blessed such men as Pharaoh, King Saul, King Nebuchadnezzar, Caesar, and Pontius Pilate. Jesus specifically said to Pilate "you would have no power over me, were it not given you from above." Both Paul and Peter said that the Roman authorities were God's servants (despite that these "servants" beheaded Paul and crucified Peter). The cases of Pharaoh and Saul are particularly relevant here, because at the right time, God tore their kingdoms away from them.

God will sometimes bless entire nations in order to accomplish his will. And sometimes he will curse nations which are faithful to him. Egypt, for example, eagerly accepted the Gospel after Saint Mark preached there. Yet they were ultimately overrun by Muslims, who opposed the Gospel. Based on evidence from the Bible and secular history, it makes no sense to say that God rewards good deeds with political success. That sounds like the Prosperity Gospel on a national level, to me.

[9-iron]

I agree with his conclusion. It was Israel's fault that they were invaded so many times, because they broke the covenant. However, the New Covenant is not a national convenant. The Jewish church was simultaneously a national power and a religious body. The Christian church is the latter but not the former. America isn't God's institution, so what happens to us as a country does not reflect God's will for the church.


This is good. You summed up what I was getting at.


Definitely curious. God didn't change just because the covenant did.



You are correct. However, Gentiles were never part of the old convenant per say. God did change in the sense He allowed us Gentiles to take part in salvation He intended for the Jews. It is all covered in Romans. Regardless, once the veil was torn in the temple the 'nation thing' became null and void.

[MagusAlbertus]

correlation doesn't imply causation.

My only objection is to the belief that capitalism is intrinsically Christian, while communism is un-Christian.
think about it, to have faith in the government to tell you exactly how to live your life you must reject God in the role. here is a direct relationship between using heroin, and becoming adicted to it.[ direct relationship between over-arching governmental power and abuse of it :-)


but, like i said, a comunism run by God himself would work just fine.

[arunma]

but, like i said, a comunism run by God himself would work just fine.

That, as we physicists would say, is the trivial solution. Technically, a divinely ordained fascism would also work just fine.

think about it, to have faith in the government to tell you exactly how to live your life you must reject God in the role.

Hold on, you're committing a strawman fallacy. You've falsely assumed that communism requires us to have any faith that should rightly only go to God. I could make precisely the same argument against a capitalist government. For example, when I drive, I have faith that the government is right to tell me I can't exceed 55 miles per hour on the highway. I have faith that the government is right to collect taxes from me. For thirteen years I had faith that the government was right to force an education upon me. In all of these ways, the government tells me how to live my life.

What you are saying is that the government is right to do all of these things, but that only God can dictate my financial affairs. You've arbitrarily drawn the line here, so there's a significant flaw in your argument.

Paul and Peter, however, both tell us to obey the government. They don't qualify that with "if the government doesn't control your life." In fact, the same government these two men wrote about killed them in 66 AD. You might be able to get away with saying that certain forms of government are better than others, but you can't make a Biblical argument that God ordains capitalism and hates communism.

direct relationship between over-arching governmental power and abuse of it :-)

You might be right that powerful governments tend to abuse their power. But you've failed to prove that the direct result of powerful, central government is abuse of power. It's possible for powerful governments to be benevolent. Abuse of power is one of many possible outcomes of having a centralized government, so you've failed to make the point that I think you were trying to make.

[MagusAlbertus]

Clearly you where looking to start a debate, or you wouldn't be coming back at me with condescension. I’m not replying to what you just posted, but if you send it as a PM i'll be happy to thoughtfully debate with you there. Needless to say I didn't write the post you've attempted to de-construct with the intent to argue, but rather converse.

Problem with an argument is that it always gets in the way of a good conversation.



Though if fallacious arguments are your bug, then check out the argumentative principle of “charity”.

[arunma]

Woah Magus, no hostilities intended. I hope you didn't take my post the wrong way, but I appologize if I sounded condescending.

[ZiSunka]

Pat Robertson should no longer be allowed to have a public voice. He has disgraced himself as a Christian by suggesting that any person should be done away with. Shame on Pat Robertson. It would be bad enough coming from an atheist, but coming from someone who prides himself on speaking for Christ? It's nothing but a disgraceful shame! :mad:

[arunma]

Yes...back to the topic at hand.

It seems to me that most people here recognized Pat Robertson as one who misrepresents the Gospe,l before he made this comment. I only wish that people would recognize him as a false teacher, but I don't think that his followers will do so.

My real problem with all this is that he has put shame to all of us. CNN calls him a "whack job." And worse, MSNBC imputes the entire evangelical church by calling this an "evangelical fatwa." So now, many unbelivers who don't know any better are going to shy away from us. Pat Robertson's attempts to whore the church to the state may now turn many souls away from Christ.

[JPPT1974]

Pat Robertson should no longer be allowed to have a public voice. He has disgraced himself as a Christian by suggesting that any person should be done away with. Shame on Pat Robertson. It would be bad enough coming from an atheist, but coming from someone who prides himself on speaking for Christ? It's nothing but a disgraceful shame! :mad:

If he's supposed to be "Christian" then he shouldn't be saying these extreme things you know. But by saying what he said on Monday, really clinched my dislike of him to hatred. Sad but true.

[novcncy]

God will sometimes bless entire nations in order to accomplish his will. And sometimes he will curse nations which are faithful to him. Egypt, for example, eagerly accepted the Gospel after Saint Mark preached there. Yet they were ultimately overrun by Muslims, who opposed the Gospel. Based on evidence from the Bible and secular history, it makes no sense to say that God rewards good deeds with political success. That sounds like the Prosperity Gospel on a national level, to me.

I agree with most of what you said, Arunma. It is true that God raises up and destroys nations according to His will.

I don't neccessarily agree with your assertion about prosperity gospel. I think a good example is found in the book of Jonah. The Assyrians were under no covenant with God, yet God wanted them to repent, and threatened them with judgement should they fail to do so. America is a lot like Ninevah. Whether or not we are an "institution" of God, does not mean that He is not interested in the hearts of the people. As long as those hearts are hardened or even willfully deaf to God, God will not bless. There is a huge difference between being relatively ignorant of God, and choosing to blatantly defy Him. Unfortunately, it seems most Americans are eager to defy God, and it's a bad situation for the country as a whole.

If you take the time to study each of those examples you mentioned, you can see a common thread, that even extends through Israel. It starts with an ability to overlook obvious needs, then proceeds to an ignoring of responsibilities before God, the third step is a hardened heart, one that resists God, and the final step is complete inability the even hear God. So where are we?

[9-iron]

Yep, let's drag him up to capitol hil and stone him. We are all sinless and have never shed a negative light on the gospel to the secular world. I have 2 1/2 lb. stone, cocked and ready to throw, bring that heretic here. Oh, can you grab Farwell as well, the secular crowd thinks he is a whack job as well.

[eldermike]

My real problem with all this is that he has put shame to all of us. CNN calls him a "whack job." And worse, MSNBC imputes the entire evangelical church by calling this an "evangelical fatwa." So now, many unbelivers who don't know any better are going to shy away from us. Pat Robertson's attempts to whore the church to the state may now turn many souls away from Christ.

I suggest to my small group that they never watch these TV preachers. But, pray for them every day because when they fall, and they will all fall, you are going with them.

Man is not capable of not falling to the pride of life when a million people can't wait to hear your next words.

Ministry is one on one, go and make diciples but stay away from microphones that go out to a million people your pride will snare you.

[Imblessed]

I suggest to my small group that they never watch these TV preachers. But, pray for them every day because when they fall, and they will all fall, you are going with them.

Man is not capable of not falling to the pride of life when a million people can't wait to hear your next words.

Ministry is one on one, go and make diciples but stay away from microphones that go out to a million people your pride will snare you.


:amen:
and
:amen:!!

[MbiaJc]

Yes...back to the topic at hand.

It seems to me that most people here recognized Pat Robertson as one who misrepresents the Gospe,l before he made this comment. I only wish that people would recognize him as a false teacher, but I don't think that his followers will do so.

My real problem with all this is that he has put shame to all of us. CNN calls him a "whack job." And worse, MSNBC imputes the entire evangelical church by calling this an "evangelical fatwa." So now, many unbelivers who don't know any better are going to shy away from us. Pat Robertson's attempts to whore the church to the state may now turn many souls away from Christ.


:amen:
All tv evanglist have done great damage to Christanity, except Billy Graham.

[arunma]

:amen:
All tv evanglist have done great damage to Christanity, except Billy Graham.

Indeed. I think everyone here agrees that Billy Graham is a single righteous man in an otherwise depraved business.

[eldermike]

Indeed. I think everyone here agrees that Billy Graham is a single righteous man in an otherwise depraved business.

He never said anything but what was written in the bible. The bible says that all men are liars, I think Graham took that to heart and never spoke his opinions.

[ZiSunka]

:amen:
All tv evanglist have done great damage to Christanity, except Billy Graham.

Even Billy Graham.

"Robert Schuller is a great man of God, whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop and loose" Billy Graham, speaking of the apostate TV preachers who teaches that there is no such thing as personal sin and that recognition of the crucifixion is not necessary to salvation. "There is no one in all the world I love in Christ more than I do Bob Schuller. ... He has done some of the greatest things for the Kingdom of God of any man in our generation"

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, 7/22/85).

There is fairly good evidence that in Graham's later crusades, his sympathies were more in line with the idea of salvation through sacrements, since in the 1994 Cleveland crusade, 6000 people were refered to the Roman Catholic church for follow up, but only 3500 were refered to protestant churches. Said Graham,
"I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christians through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that's all right with me" (10/10/61, The Lutheran Standard).

"Sinners can be saved by their good attempts at living a life quite apart from their surrounding community. A personal relationship to Jesus Christ by being born again is NOT necessary to salvation for everyone, especially those who are born into situations that are oriented toward salvation through good works. God sees their attempts to be good and accepts them for their good intentions. There is definitely a wideness in God's mercy that goes beyond knowing and loving Jesus Christ. In the end, He will save who He saves and I don't presume to exclude those who never heard the name of Jesus or who called Him by a different name. Hindus, Buudhists, whatever name they call themselves, they are worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ whether they know it or not. Everyone who calls upon the name of any lord is calling on the name of Jesus, no matter what name they are using. Since there is only one God, everyone who seeks a god is worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ." Gospel Talk Live, 1992

[arunma]

Wow, those are some heretical statements. Nonetheless, heresy isn't as serious as Robertson's hateful and political statements.

Not that I mean to diminish heresy.

[Joykins]

How are they heretical? Baptismal regeneration, while not a Baptist/Anabaptist belief, is certianly in the mainstream of Christianity. Likewise even Paul suggested that other routes of salvation may be available to those who have not heard the gospel.

[arunma]

When did Paul say that.

[Joykins]

When did Paul say that.

Romans 2:12-16

[arunma]

But Joykins, that passage doesn't seem to mention salvation for unbelievers. All it says is that Gentiles have have knowledge of God's Law. If anything, that means that they too need salvation in Christ.

Oh by the way, I don't consider baptismal regeneration to be especially heretical. I was referring to Graham's belief that unbelievers can be saved. That said, this isn't the worst heresy anyone's ever concocted. I still maintain that he's a good televangelist among the false teachers.

[aReformedPatriot]

How are they heretical? Baptismal regeneration, while not a Baptist/Anabaptist belief, is certianly in the mainstream of Christianity. Likewise even Paul suggested that other routes of salvation may be available to those who have not heard the gospel.

No dear, all that verse is saying is that there is a basic moral law written on the hearts of men and speaks of the fact that there is no excuse. See, the purpose of the law is show us that we need God, it exposes our sin. The curse of the law is death for transgressing it. At the same time, men without the law "shall also perish without the law." Because even though they do not have the law of moses, they carry out parts of it because morals are absoloute. We're so evil that we will even transgress the unwritten law that is written on our hearts. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves" Thus we are still judged by it. We cannot escape the fact that we need Christ.

Does that make sense, it is pretty late?

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

[elanor]

Oops. Didn't realize I was in a congregational forum. Sorry! :sorry:

[seebs]

What's to say? It's absolutely contrary to Christianity, and I believe also to US law. I think it's worse that he tried to lie about it afterwards, though; that makes it seem as though he's maybe not particularly repentant.

[seebs]

On the topic of salvation: Matthew 25:31-46 answers it for me. There will be sheep who never knew they were sheep. There are people walking this road who have not seen the roadsign. I am joyful, for God is great and merciful, and His grace exceeds my comprehension.

[No Swansong]

.

[Ragamuffins]

So, what do you guys think about Pat Robertson's effective death fatwa against President Chavez?
First I have heard of it. Robertson lost all relevance with me when he moved away from God and into the political ring. What he says in my opinion is the equivalent to flea dung.

[novcncy]

Even Billy Graham.

"Robert Schuller is a great man of God, whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop and loose" Billy Graham, speaking of the apostate TV preachers who teaches that there is no such thing as personal sin and that recognition of the crucifixion is not necessary to salvation. "There is no one in all the world I love in Christ more than I do Bob Schuller. ... He has done some of the greatest things for the Kingdom of God of any man in our generation"

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, 7/22/85).

There is fairly good evidence that in Graham's later crusades, his sympathies were more in line with the idea of salvation through sacrements, since in the 1994 Cleveland crusade, 6000 people were refered to the Roman Catholic church for follow up, but only 3500 were refered to protestant churches. Said Graham,
"I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christians through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that's all right with me" (10/10/61, The Lutheran Standard).

"Sinners can be saved by their good attempts at living a life quite apart from their surrounding community. A personal relationship to Jesus Christ by being born again is NOT necessary to salvation for everyone, especially those who are born into situations that are oriented toward salvation through good works. God sees their attempts to be good and accepts them for their good intentions. There is definitely a wideness in God's mercy that goes beyond knowing and loving Jesus Christ. In the end, He will save who He saves and I don't presume to exclude those who never heard the name of Jesus or who called Him by a different name. Hindus, Buudhists, whatever name they call themselves, they are worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ whether they know it or not. Everyone who calls upon the name of any lord is calling on the name of Jesus, no matter what name they are using. Since there is only one God, everyone who seeks a god is worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ." Gospel Talk Live, 1992

YAY!!!!!!!

I can't stand Billy Graham, for those very reasons, but I didn't want to rock to boat too hard. THAT, is the very spirit of ecuminicalism we were talking about in another thread, and exactly why I am so against it.

But anyway, thanks for the post, LL.

[Imblessed]

Indeed. I think everyone here agrees that Billy Graham is a single righteous man in an otherwise depraved business.

While I agree he seems to be the only one that seems to have excaped the "big head syndrome"---I don't care for him as a preacher.


He's gotten to be more of a universalist in his old age then he used to be. Some of the things he's said over the last decade have been outright heretical. Anyone who says this: " In the end, He will save who He saves and I don't presume to exclude those who never heard the name of Jesus or who called Him by a different name. Hindus, Buudhists, whatever name they call themselves, they are worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ whether they know it or not. Everyone who calls upon the name of any lord is calling on the name of Jesus, no matter what name they are using. Since there is only one God, everyone who seeks a god is worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ."

is leaning wayyyy towards universalism......


While I agree that God will save whom He desires to save, and I agree that there will be people in heaven that we would never think, to expouse that Hindus and Buudhists are saved simply because they worship a god....is rediculous to say the least...and that statement keeps me from considering Billy Graham to be the only righteous man on TV.


That said, I don't dislike him, I just think that he's gone a long way from the evangelist of his youth, and I wouldn't take much of what he has to say as Total Truth....


(I hope my dad never sees this post ;)....he's a huge fan of Billy Graham....I think it was a tv show with Billy Graham that caused him to become christian...about 30 years ago.....)

[Joykins]

But Joykins, that passage doesn't seem to mention salvation for unbelievers. All it says is that Gentiles have have knowledge of God's Law. If anything, that means that they too need salvation in Christ.

Oh by the way, I don't consider baptismal regeneration to be especially heretical. I was referring to Graham's belief that unbelievers can be saved. That said, this isn't the worst heresy anyone's ever concocted. I still maintain that he's a good televangelist among the false teachers.

I'm trying to draw a line between "heretical" (which what he said, isn't) and "controversial" (which what he said, is). It's not heretical to believe that God may judge those who have not heard the gospel *but act as if they have* according to their deeds and faith in something that has God's characteristics; all we know is that salvation in Jesus Christ is an assured thing.

We know that although God is just he is also merciful; if one goes down to earth and die for ALL MANKIND it speaks of a God who wants to save everyone he can and is not looking for ways to condemn them.

[9-iron]

Graham replied, "I'm going to leave that to the Lord. He'll decide that" (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 7/22/85).
We know what the Lord says in the Bible, so there is nothing wrong with this statement.

"I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christians through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that's all right with me" (10/10/61, The Lutheran Standard).


Well, a jailor believed and Paul said his entire household would be saved. How do we know there weren't infants in the househould. It was the jailor's faith that saved his household. I think parents who are serious about committing their kids to Lord can stand on these scriptures.

You can take these quotes and make them mean what you want. I have read Graham's autobiography and several other books by him and book written about him by other authors. Graham was real careful in about not offended those who he was trying to reach. He believed things he said outside the pulpit were subject to his human bias and wrong thinking.
Thus, he was careful as to not condemn anyone during interviews and such. However, if anyone who has heard him preach in the pulpit, he pulled no punches.

[aReformedPatriot]

Oops. Didn't realize I was in a congregational forum. Sorry! :sorry:

I will spare the warning this time! :D:P:wave:

[arunma]

9-Iron brings up a good point. It's important for Christians to not offend people, because the Gospel is offensive enough by itself. That said, based on what I've read here, I don't think Graham should have changed the Gospel message, because the Gospel is the one thing with which Christians are allowed to be offensive.

[JPPT1974]

Even though I am not a big fan of his, I will not say a bad word about him. But I will pray and hope for his sake that He really is a "REAL Christian!" Not a phony one who only preys on money. That he will know Christians that are sincere in their faith wouldn't say extreme things like these.

[ZiSunka]

We know what the Lord says in the Bible, so there is nothing wrong with this statement.


Well, a jailor believed and Paul said his entire household would be saved. How do we know there weren't infants in the househould. It was the jailor's faith that saved his household. I think parents who are serious about committing their kids to Lord can stand on these scriptures.

You can take these quotes and make them mean what you want. I have read Graham's autobiography and several other books by him and book written about him by other authors. Graham was real careful in about not offended those who he was trying to reach. He believed things he said outside the pulpit were subject to his human bias and wrong thinking.
Thus, he was careful as to not condemn anyone during interviews and such. However, if anyone who has heard him preach in the pulpit, he pulled no punches.






The novel "Body Farm" by Patricia Cornwell was dedicated to Billy Graham, and Graham says he loved the book and is flattered that it was dedicated to him. The novel contains story lines about cross-dressing, murder, child rape, homosexuality, drug addiction, and the worst part is that the main character commits adultery and is completely unrepentant. She feels if she is entitled to sleep with another woman's husband who is her coworker. None of these immoral subjects is treated with condemnation or anything other than acceptance. Every aberant behavior is treated as if it were perfectly normal.

I am astonished that Billy Graham would be flattered by such a book being dedicated to him or even that he would allow such a book to be dedicated to him. He knew ahead of publication about the dedication and approved and was grateful for it.

I have heard him preach on the pulpit at the Cleveland crusade and I can say his preaching was particularly uninspired and uninspiring. Of the people who went down to the field at the invitation, only about 1/10th of them were making a new confession of faith in Christ. Almost all of the people came down either because everyone else was coming down (they didn't want to make confessions of faith, they just wanted to see what was going to happen on the field) or they were there because they thought there were gifts going to be given out (Graham's invitation said that all interested people should come down to the field to speak with a counsellor and receive gifts--he didn't say the gifts were just booklets).

Of the thousands of people on the field over the course of the event, less than 500 were new believers and because there is so little follow up for these people, a year later, only 3 returned postcards saying they were still active Believers. That means millions of dollars and untold local resources were spent to put on a show that reaped a harvest of 3 saved souls. I think that Christian's dollars could be spent more productively than that.

[MagusAlbertus]

500 were new believers sounds like a good thing to me!

I don't know the internal rate of return on the expendature of other funds, but i do agree that's a low number of continued believers, though *as it seems you disagree* i do beli ve in OSAS.

Billy Gram isn't anything though, it's God working through him, so don't get caught up in some book a friend of his wrote.

[ZiSunka]

But only three persisted in the faith Mag, which means that only three really got saved. And about 6 million dollars were spent to put on this crusade, mostly local money donated by Clevelanders for the sake of the souls of Clevelanders. I think we were owed more than just three new Christians after investing 6 million and a year of our lives.

though *as it seems you disagree* i do belive in OSAS.


I believe that those who are truly saved are saved forever, but I do also agree with Jesus that not everyone who utters his name is saved, and that not everyone who gets excited about the faith will persist in relationship to him, meaning those people are not really saved.

[MagusAlbertus]

I think we were owed more than just three new Christians after investing 6 million and a year of our lives. I understand ware you're coming from, 3 confirmation post-cards is a sad indication, though i disagree with the idea that you where 'owed' anything i can definitely see how you feel you could have invested in a much much better way.

but:

Returning a postcard does not a continuing believer make. Have hope that all of those who confessed with there mouth where believing with there heart, even if they lost a post-card or moved or where simply to wraped up in other things to reply to a post-card a year later.

[ZiSunka]

I understand ware you're coming from, 3 confirmation post-cards is a sad indication, though i disagree with the idea that you where 'owed' anything i can definitely see how you feel you could have invested in a much much better way.

but:

Returning a postcard does not a continuing believer make. Have hope that all of those who confessed with there mouth where believing with there heart, even if they lost a post-card or moved or where simply to wraped up in other things to reply to a post-card a year later.

Unfortunately when they followed up with the area churches, they found that none of the people who had been "saved" at the crusade were still coming to church. One church had been given 200 referrals and one year later, not even a single one was still coming to church.

The Billy Graham association admits that that is the biggest problem with the crusades, even with diligent follow up (we were all given a list of people to follow up with after the crusade, and all the counsellors I knew continued to follow up for at least 6 months), all but 1 or 2 percent fall away within one year of the crusade. They produce "believers" who burn hot during the emotional preaching, but then cool off quickly and disappear like embers in a dying campfire. With the ten people I followed up with, within 3 months they were no longer going to church ("we're just too busy," or "it was just a phase we were going through" was the usual response). Likewise my fellow counsellors. Within a few weeks, the new believers stopped coming to Bible study, then church, then any Christian activities at all.

The crusades don't produce believers who persist in the faith because one hour of preaching alone is not enough to make someone have saving faith in Christ.

During that same year, the church where I went received ten new families, none of whom had gone to the crusade. They were all brought to faith through the witness of Christians they personally knew, fortified with what they heard on Christian radio and from the preaching of local pastors. Without investing one extra dime, 35 new believers fellowshipped themselves with our church.

Not one person from the crusade joined any church in our community.