Billy Graham: Why The Hate?

[The Rogue Tomato]

This is not new or liberal thinking.  From Spurgeon:

"But suppose it should be one of those who are living in the interior of Africa, and he does not hear the gospel; what then?" He shall hear the gospel; either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him rather than that the promise of the Almighty God should be broken.

"I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else"




Charles Spurgeon

Very good.  I don't know what that has to do with the line of discussion, but it's a good quote. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, Jesus uses preaching, etc., as a means.  My question was, is that the ONLY means?  Is Jesus unable to save anyone without a preacher and a Bible?

You didn't ask me specifically but my answer is no. Paul had neither when he was saved on the road to Damascus.

I will concede that this was not / is not the norm but there is no way I am going to make a proclamation that God is unable to save as He sees fit to do so.

Good grief. Paul had studied the Scriptures for most of his life. He read the Gospel. The preaching of the prophets. The revelation of God to humanity. Why in the world do you think he immediately said....


Act 9:6  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

But it really doesn't matter that Saul/Paul called Him... LORD!!!  You know, Paul made mistakes sometimes. Just ask SM.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, Jesus uses preaching, etc., as a means.  My question was, is that the ONLY means?  Is Jesus unable to save anyone without a preacher and a Bible?

You didn't ask me specifically but my answer is no. Paul had neither when he was saved on the road to Damascus.

I will concede that this was not / is not the norm but there is no way I am going to make a proclamation that God is unable to save as He sees fit to do so.

Again, I don't know what Graham was thinking, so I'm not trying to speak for him.  But given that God can and does save without a preacher and Bible, then it is certainly possible that God saves the people Graham was talking about. 

This is not new or liberal thinking.  From Spurgeon:

"But suppose it should be one of those who are living in the interior of Africa, and he does not hear the gospel; what then?" He shall hear the gospel; either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him rather than that the promise of the Almighty God should be broken.

It is human arrogance to think God cannot or will not save without the help of human intervention.

Are you saying the Scriptures instantly appeared somewhere out of thin air? Human intervention was necessary.

AGAIN. The Scriptures are the preaching of God's revelation to humanity... In and of themselves. The onus is upon you to prove that God saves apart from the Scriptures.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So you are saving when someone says "Accept Jesus Christ into your heart" it is wrong? They must say "Accept Jesus Christ the LORD into your heart" ???

I never said I reject him as Lord. He is Lord over all. This is biblical truth. Perhaps truth so simple it doesn't always need to be said.

Yeah. Jesus Christ being Lord is so simple that we don't have to say every again. Its understood by everyone.... thus no one needs to know it.

I don't what kind of child you're trying to be.... but simple truths need repeating over and over and always. There is no end to simple truths.

So many preachers, teachers, tracts, videos present the gospel without insisting on the verbal expression of declaring him Lord. Even Peter said "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

You have very little understanding of the Scriptures. Peter said this to a group of Jew that had just called for the death of their own Master. A rebellious people of God that refused to accept the baptism of John and rejected their own Messiah.

Peter later said.

1Pe 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 

I think you are over emphasizing something that isn't best (or needed to be) overemphasized.

Sure. You enjoy being just like a Jehovah Witness. You see no need to be anything different. Enjoy your delusion.

But - you are saying the Bible teaches that part of the gospel is calling Jesus Christ Lord. To state that would be essential. To not state it would be equal to denying it.

I never said anything such thing. Jesus Christ is Lord. To say its not necessary to call Him Lord is down right stupid. Call Him friend. Call Him Saviour..... but cease to call Him Lord... NEVER

But I thought salvation was of the Lord. I thought God, through His Spirit, nudged me toward the cross. The gospel was shared and I was compelled to accept this gift. Faith was granted so that I may believe. I see my condition, I see the gift of the cross, I come with child like faith.

You're a Calvinist NUT that believes that God was more focused on securing your redemption than He was your neighbors that's going to hell. That he chose you and damned others all based on his "good pleasure". Your "gospel" has no place in Eternity.

Now. I am told I had it wrong. I need to pause and declare the Son of God Lord. I NEED TO SAY THIS. I must say this so that Jesus Christ knows I am speaking to him, not the other Jesus Christ who isn't Lord.

You're one saying it isn't necessary to call Jesus Lord. Isn't that what you're saying?

I'm saying its important to emphasis that Jesus Christ is the Lord and that all men need to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. You're saying it doesn't really matter.

You think I am trolling. And I am not. I am just trying to understand.

Timmie.... you've never understood much of anything. That's why you come around here time and time again with something different to start an argument about.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This is not new or liberal thinking.  From Spurgeon:

"But suppose it should be one of those who are living in the interior of Africa, and he does not hear the gospel; what then?" He shall hear the gospel; either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him rather than that the promise of the Almighty God should be broken.

"I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else"




Charles Spurgeon

Spurgeon had his idols. Calvinism was one of them.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

AGAIN. The Scriptures are the preaching of God's revelation to humanity... In and of themselves. The onus is upon you to prove that God saves apart from the Scriptures.

The scriptures point to Jesus.  Jesus saves.  It is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Jesus cannot save without the scriptures. 

Put another way, the scriptures are of no use to people without Jesus.  But it does not follow that Jesus is of no use to people without the scriptures.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

 

[rsc2a]

Interesting that the one screaming loudest about making Jesus Lord is the same one filled with vitriol towards everyone else...

 

[rsc2a]

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Interesting that the one screaming loudest about making Jesus Lord is the same one filled with vitriol towards everyone else...

You're so playful. Have you lost the pork chop from around your neck?

 

[praise_yeshua]

AGAIN. The Scriptures are the preaching of God's revelation to humanity... In and of themselves. The onus is upon you to prove that God saves apart from the Scriptures.

The scriptures point to Jesus.  Jesus saves.  It is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Jesus cannot save without the scriptures. 

Put another way, the scriptures are of no use to people without Jesus.  But it does not follow that Jesus is of no use to people without the scriptures.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

How do you know Jesus saves?

Prove it? What is your source for information?

Pointing to the Scriptures as evidence and then denying the necessity of the Scriptures is rather childish. Do you even recognize this simple mistake?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

AGAIN. The Scriptures are the preaching of God's revelation to humanity... In and of themselves. The onus is upon you to prove that God saves apart from the Scriptures.

The scriptures point to Jesus.  Jesus saves.  It is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Jesus cannot save without the scriptures. 

Put another way, the scriptures are of no use to people without Jesus.  But it does not follow that Jesus is of no use to people without the scriptures.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

How do you know Jesus saves?

Prove it? What is your source for information?

How do I, personally, know Jesus saves?  The scriptures.  But my knowledge of that fact didn't save me.  Jesus did.  God clearly wants us to know him, and we can know him better through the scriptures.  But it does not follow that the scriptures are what saves us. 

I can see why you think so, though.  To you, it's all about free will choice, and you can't make a choice for Jesus if you don't know about him from the scriptures or from preaching of the scriptures. 

But that's not what the scriptures, themselves, say.  The scriptures say we are chosen, and we are chosen because Jesus knows us, as opposed to those he never knew.  The scriptures say "All the Father has given me shall come to me", not "All the Father has given me shall come to me if and only if they learn about me from the scriptures and then make the right choice".  The statement is definitive.  SHALL come to me.  Period.

 

[praise_yeshua]

AGAIN. The Scriptures are the preaching of God's revelation to humanity... In and of themselves. The onus is upon you to prove that God saves apart from the Scriptures.

The scriptures point to Jesus.  Jesus saves.  It is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Jesus cannot save without the scriptures. 

Put another way, the scriptures are of no use to people without Jesus.  But it does not follow that Jesus is of no use to people without the scriptures.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

How do you know Jesus saves?

Prove it? What is your source for information?

How do I, personally, know Jesus saves?  The scriptures.  But my knowledge of that fact didn't save me.  Jesus did.  God clearly wants us to know him, and we can know him better through the scriptures.  But it does not follow that the scriptures are what saves us. 

I can see why you think so, though.  To you, it's all about free will choice, and you can't make a choice for Jesus if you don't know about him from the scriptures or from preaching of the scriptures. 

But that's not what the scriptures, themselves, say.  The scriptures say we are chosen, and we are chosen because Jesus knows us, as opposed to those he never knew.  The scriptures say "All the Father has given me shall come to me", not "All the Father has given me shall come to me if and only if they learn about me from the scriptures and then make the right choice".  The statement is definitive.  SHALL come to me.  Period.

Keep repeating this in your head. It'll help the uncertainty go away.

You say Jesus saves because of the Scriptures. I never said the Scriptures save. Not once. Those are your words. The Scriptures do inform. You need to prove that Jesus saves apart from the means of the Scriptures. You can't prove this. The proof you're looking for comes from the Scriptures. The very proof you need.... is the very proof you say isn't essential. You're failing logic 101.

Have you ever read that Scripture that talks of ALL THINGS WORKING TOGETHER?

Have you ever given an thought to this? You're talking as if nothing works together...... That things magically happen apart from cause and effect. You're trying to remove the yoke from the egg and pretend it never was part of the egg. I know better.

 

[praise_yeshua]

AGAIN. The Scriptures are the preaching of God's revelation to humanity... In and of themselves. The onus is upon you to prove that God saves apart from the Scriptures.

The scriptures point to Jesus.  Jesus saves.  It is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Jesus cannot save without the scriptures. 

Put another way, the scriptures are of no use to people without Jesus.  But it does not follow that Jesus is of no use to people without the scriptures.

39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

How do you know Jesus saves?

Prove it? What is your source for information?

Pointing to the Scriptures as evidence and then denying the necessity of the Scriptures is rather childish. Do you even recognize this simple mistake?

Salvation is by Faith. Not security in scripture proof.

FAITH IN WHAT TIM? FAITH IN WHAT?

You wouldn't even know the Truth without the Scriptures. You wouldn't have anything to place your trust in.... without the Scriptures.

If one person tells another person about Jesus Christ (or in your case LORD Jesus Christ) would that message return void?

That message came from the Scriptures Tim. That message came from the Scriptures. It didn't get out your lips till you learned from the Scriptures.

I personally would use scripture as authority since we have it. God has made it immensely available.

Good grief. Here let me share some Scripture with you. You obviously don't know it or you wouldn't have said such nonsense.

1Co 4:7  For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

"Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples.”

Nothing better than a Christian declaring his glory! One can do that with their life you know.

They can? Just how do they pattern their life after Christ? Does it happen through osmosis? Magic? You know about The Lord Jesus Christ because someone told you. You know about Him because someone got their information from the Scriptures. You haven't received one thing you didn't get from another. Not one.

 

[rsc2a]

PY is clearly the smartest man who has ever lived.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I believe in eternal salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone. Always have.

Liar. You haven't ALWAYS did anything. Breath.... maybe. If you didn't do that... you'd be dead.

Just how do you believe in salvation by Grace....through faith? Did it just magically pop in your head one day?

Now. Regarding the intricate details of understanding freewill vs election ... well that is another matter that i wrestle with. I do know Salvation is of the Lord. I do know Christ commands us to share the gospel. I do know it is a gift. I do know I felt the call from Christ to come.

You heard the Gospel. You didn't get a divine personal call to Christ apart from the Gospel. You heard the "call of God" to all of humanity..... the GOSPEL.

Regarding this Lordship debate. I don't reject his Lordship. He is LORD over all. Clearly. But - I don't believe it is essential to share that as a doctrinal fact. I don't believe in resolutions or commitments. I believe in Salvation by grace.

Well. You have no place in ministering the Gospel or telling others about the Lord Jesus Christ. Every apostle or follower of Christ felt it NECESSARY to share what you call "doctrinal fact".

Do you lead anything? I sure hope you don't.

Naturally we need to be certain we speak of the correct God of the universe. We need to be sure the one hearing the message doesn't think this is some magic trick to get into heaven. But - I think anyone who accepts the God of the Bible, the fact he send his son, and the fact his son died for them will be focused on the correct God. Now - if they later say "I don't believe Jesus is Lord!" we have an issue for sure. But - babes in Christ learn.

Good grief. A child knows what the word "Lord" means. It doesn't take a babe in Christ to understand or acknowledge the Divinity of Christ Jesus.

The prodigal son never stayed in the pig pen you know. But he was always the son.

What that has to do with anything we're talking about... is beyond me. The prodigal son was lost. Do you remember the words of the Father? The Father said this "son" was lost.

Do you not believe what the Father said about his son?

 

[praise_yeshua]

PY is clearly the smartest man who has ever lived.

Out of pork chops?

You're sword is dull and your armor weak. Men like you always sit on the side lines reacting jealously to those fighting the battle. You can't fight yourself...... but you'll sure try to drag anyone down that can. I wouldn't be using such argument if I were you. It just makes you look like a whiner....... You look like a whiner... because you are one. You're incapable of engaging in the simplest discussions without using your "na-na na-na boo-boo" tactics.

 

[subllibrm]

Colloquialisms and figures of speech not allowed here.

 

[subllibrm]

I believe in eternal salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone. Always have.

Liar. You haven't ALWAYS did anything. Breath.... maybe. If you didn't do that... you'd be dead.

Okay, you really want to pick that nit? Anyone reading his statement in context knows that his "always" refers to  when/since he first believed in Christ. And you call everyone else a NUT.  :

And since I am calling you out for needless nit picking, I will let the horrible grammar in your second sentence slide. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

I believe in eternal salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone. Always have.

Liar. You haven't ALWAYS did anything. Breath.... maybe. If you didn't do that... you'd be dead.

Okay, you really want to pick that nit? Anyone reading his statement in context knows that his "always" refers to  when/since he first believed in Christ. And you call everyone else a NUT.  :

And since I am calling you out for needless nit picking, I will let the horrible grammar in your second sentence slide. 

I would question your "context". I don't believe he "always" believed this since he first believed in Christ.

I don't use "always" unless I define the context of "always". The word "always" is generally full of pride. Notice that I didn't say "always" is "always" full of pride.

My problems with grammar "are" more related to a general problem with keyboards. I think faster than I can type. I don't generally "nit pick" grammar. That would be hypocritical of me since my fingers are grammatically deficient.

Feel free to continue "nit picking" me. Its telling you ignore the vast majority of what I write. You "always" have since I meet you here.

 

[Just John]

I believe "hate" is the wrong word.  Graham's compromise with moderates, liberals and Rome is well documented.  If someone came forward during a crusade with a RC background, they would pair them with a RC counselor.  Why would Bible-believers promote such things?

I attended a Graham crusade in San Diego in 1976.  It was something to see and observe.

So did Billy Sunday!  I was shocked when I found that out but true.