ECT Devout Mormon claims Billy Graham once defended him as saved

[musterion]

It's Glenn Beck, who has always been less than a reliable source on many things, so who knows if this anecdote is true.

The video was of a 2014 interview in which the two talked about the life and character of Graham, and the memories they had of the crusade preacher.

“I remember five years ago, your father asked me some very pointed questions,” Beck outlined at one point during the discussion. “And somebody in the room said, ‘Just a reminder, he’s Mormon.’ And your father turned to the individual and said, ‘I know.'”

“And he looked back at me and said—we were talking about a certain subject—and he said, ‘Tell me how you know that came from Christ,'” he recalled. “And I told him.”

“And he (Graham) looked back to the other individual and said, ‘He sure sounds Christian to me,'” Beck said.

Ruth Graham nodded her head and smiled.

Beck then fell silent as he became visibly moved in recounting the story.

Moments later, after gathering himself, he turned to Ruth and asked, “How do we get people to play nice with each other?”

“Oh, Glenn,” she replied, taking a deep breath. “I don’t know. We have such division. We have such rancor, not only in our political world, but in our Christian world, our religious world. And I know that breaks Jesus’ heart.”

http://christiannews.net/2018/03/03...ham-defended-him-a-mormon-as-being-christian/

[video=youtube;DxhRhl2-wVI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=DxhRhl2-wVI[/video]

 

[musterion]

Watch her reaction after Beck's calculated weepy speech starts at 27:23. Her answer to Beck's whine is exactly what Meshak says, word for word. Neither of the people in this video are saved.

Also...

“When we were children, we were making fun of the devil, and Daddy stopped us and said, ‘Don’t make fun of the devil. He’s a good devil,'” Ruth recounted, laughing. “Daddy never said anything ugly about anybody. … It’s quite a legacy for me, to not be so critical.”

 

[nikolai_42]

Watch her reaction after Beck's calculated weepy speech starts at 27:23. Her answer to Beck's whine is exactly what Meshak says, word for word. Neither of the people in this video are saved.

Also...

“When we were children, we were making fun of the devil, and Daddy stopped us and said, ‘Don’t make fun of the devil. He’s a good devil,'” Ruth recounted, laughing. “Daddy never said anything ugly about anybody. … It’s quite a legacy for me, to not be so critical.”

The ecumenism of the first point and the whole idea that division is, of itself, bad - I get the problem there. I believe Graham capitulated to ecumenism fairly early on. I won't say where that leaves him personally before God, but for him to imply (note he did not out right say) that a Mormon is a true believer is to take the place of God. However, I would also point out that Graham never actually said he was a Christian (just that he sounded like one). It could simply be that discernment was not one of his strengths. In on sense, that statement is very dangerous because it broadens the Way. But in another sense it simply shows how Graham approached things much like the Good Samaritan. He would not think ill of anyone. That's great - but the critical issue becomes where that approach eclipses the division the gospel brings. So while I personally believe Graham compromised to the detriment of many, I see a willingness to be as harmless as a dove (even if he maybe wasn't as wise as a serpent).

Which leads me to my thought about the second quote.

The point there is that we shouldn't be speaking evil of things (and principalities) we don't fully understand. We aren't called to do that and the biblical warrant for keeping your head down when dealing with these spiritual realms is pretty clear :

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jude 1:8-10

When we start throwing stones at the devil, not only are we intruding into an arena we weren't called to, but we are inviting him to throw back...

 

[DAN P]

Hi and Eph 6:11-18 and we wrestle not against flesh and blood , BUT against world rulers of the darkness of this AGE !!

dan p

 

[nikolai_42]

Hi and Eph 6:11-18 and we wrestle not against flesh and blood , BUT against world rulers of the darkness of this AGE !!

dan p

That is not the same thing as directly going after individual spiritual entities (such as Satan). It first reminds us that our enemy is not some other person, but realizing that we are in a war that takes place against unseen forces means that we wrestle the way we are told. Paul's letter to the Ephesians there tells us that the manner of our struggle is primarily defensive - not offensive.

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Ephesians 6:10-18

This is God's ordained struggle for us. This is how we are taught to resist the devil. It is HIS power, after all, that carries the day. So if we presume to appropriate it in our own way (like insulting the devil) then we are in a precarious position of putting our own selves where God alone should be. Satan, be he good or evil, is still a dignity of sorts - in that he has (borrowed) authority that God will have to judge. We should not be putting ourselves in the place of judging things we haven't seen (again, Jude 1:10).

 

[musterion]

The ecumenism of the first point and the whole idea that division is, of itself, bad - I get the problem there. I believe Graham capitulated to ecumenism fairly early on. I won't say where that leaves him personally before God, but for him to imply (note he did not out right say) that a Mormon is a true believer is to take the place of God. However, I would also point out that Graham never actually said he was a Christian (just that he sounded like one). It could simply be that discernment was not one of his strengths. In on sense, that statement is very dangerous because it broadens the Way. But in another sense it simply shows how Graham approached things much like the Good Samaritan. He would not think ill of anyone. That's great - but the critical issue becomes where that approach eclipses the division the gospel brings. So while I personally believe Graham compromised to the detriment of many, I see a willingness to be as harmless as a dove (even if he maybe wasn't as wise as a serpent).

Which leads me to my thought about the second quote.

The point there is that we shouldn't be speaking evil of things (and principalities) we don't fully understand. We aren't called to do that and the biblical warrant for keeping your head down when dealing with these spiritual realms is pretty clear :

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jude 1:8-10

When we start throwing stones at the devil, not only are we intruding into an arena we weren't called to, but we are inviting him to throw back...

Can you see Christ calling Satan "a good devil"?

 

[nikolai_42]

Can you see Christ calling Satan "a good devil"?

In a way, I think He did. Billy Graham just had a different way of pointing it out (that may have been more appropriate to the situation). Jesus said this :

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
John 8:44

In the context of the Graham quote, I think he was affirming that Satan is very good at what he does - he is the very embodiment of what he does. So casting insults etc... at him is only being like him. He is a very good devil because he does what he has always done. If even Michael wouldn't give him a tongue-lashing, what is the purpose of our kicking sand in his face (metaphorically, of course)? We are only taunting the very essence of evil. I don't remember Jesus ever taunting anyone. That is the tone of a mocker.

So I read Graham's quote a little differently.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Later in his Ministry, Billy Graham seemed to have embraced some form of 'Universalism.' Sort of like what Oprah Winfrey believes. He seemed to be saying, you don't really NEED to have any knowledge of Christ in order to be a 'Child of God.' Listen to this entire YouTube in order to see what I'm saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0

 

[nikolai_42]

Later in his Ministry, Billy Graham seemed to have embraced some form of 'Universalism.' Sort of like what Oprah Winfrey believes. He seemed to be saying, you don't really NEED to have any knowledge of Christ in order to be a 'Child of God.' Listen to this entire YouTube in order to see what I'm saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0

If nothing else, that now famous interview muddied the waters quite a bit. I read that his son (I think) claimed that Billy didn't really understand the question the way it was being asked and so it was torn out of context - but they also (as far as I am aware) didn't make significant efforts to speak against what came across. It would be foolish to say that all of a sudden Billy Graham was saying what he had never said - that you don't need to "name the name of Christ" (a phrase I have heard him use more than once in televised messages) for salvation. So I don't think he was trying to say that - but he was certainly trying to be appealing to as many as he could. THAT, I think, was his failing. An honest one (wants as many to hear the gospel as possible and receive it) but I also think that's where he compromised early on (sending everyone who came forward at a service back to their home church for discipling, whatever church it was - including Roman Catholic churches). Graham was on Larry King at one point and that's essentially what he said. King asked him about those that preach fire and brimstone and Graham said they had a right to preach that and were actually right - to a certain extent - but he said his calling was to preach the love of God, the cross and the forgiveness. Graham never (I don't believe) denied Christ as the only way. He simply soft-pedaled the conviction of sin that one must have before coming to salvation. If he had spoken the whole truth, I don't think he would have had anywhere near the acclaim he did.

 

[musterion]

There was nothing wrong with the question he was asked. It was very clear, straightforward and right to the point. Graham just tried to walk a tightrope on how we answered it, and failed. The proof of that is when he acknowledged those who rightly say what the apostles all said, that some people will go to hell based on what they believe, and said that they are correct "to a point." Graham, if he eves preached that, had refused to do it for decades.

No. He knew what the question was asking. He just didn't want to deal with it honestly so he was evasive. That, or what he said is really what he believed because he had in fact turned into some kind of Universalist. I actually lean towards the second possibility.

 

[nikolai_42]

There was nothing wrong with the question he was asked. It was very clear, straightforward and right to the point. Graham just tried to walk a tightrope on how we answered it, and failed. The proof of that is when he acknowledged those who rightly say what the apostles all said, that some people will go to hell based on what they believe, and said that they are correct "to a point." Graham, if he eves preached that, had refused to do it for decades.

No. He knew what the question was asking. He just didn't want to deal with it honestly so he was evasive. That, or what he said is really what he believed because he had in fact turned into some kind of Universalist. I actually lean towards the second possibility.

Did you read his last (?) book? I didn't, but from what I know, it was very clearly not universalist.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article38008473.html

If you listen to what he actually said to both Schuller and King, he never said that there was salvation in any other name but Christ and he never said (plainly) that everyone would be saved. He told Larry King that his calling was simply to call men to Christ and preach forgiveness. I agree that's the gospel without the teeth of proper conviction - but he never says anything that categorically puts him in the universalist camp. If you look (again) at the Schuller interview, his answer is - to begin with - odd. Schuller asks what Graham thinks the future of Christianity is. What Graham answered really wasn't a direct answer to that question. So I still wonder if his answer was proper for what was asked. It was a "squishy" answer, I agree. But to call him a sort of universalist is to necessarily call his son a liar (who said the above book was all Billy - and not just a cut and paste of his sermons) and to impute beliefs that Billy himself has never publicly confessed. If 50 years of claiming that Christ is the only way can be undercut by a 2 minute clip that is not explicitly in direct contradiction to that claim, then one must question the allegation.

And - once again - I do believe he compromised and that softened his message over time. But the compromise was ecumenism of a dangerous sort - not disavowing the (personal) necessity of Christ for salvation. For the record, I think his decisionism was a problem as well. I'm prepared to say I believe there were things that were of serious concern - but one of them was not Christ alone for salvation. Sharing the platform with liberals and modernists, mass altar calls and indiscriminately directing people back to their own churches after the crusade - these were issues that should have been changed. But that would have cost him the size of his audience. Not that he wanted acclaim, but that he couldn't take controversy and simply wanted a nice "good message".

 

[musterion]

Okay, so he was inconsistent. His trumpet gave an unclear sound as far back as the '50s when his crusade workers would refer Catholics back to priests.

 

[nikolai_42]

Okay, so he was inconsistent. His trumpet gave an unclear sound as far back as the '50s when his crusade workers would refer Catholics back to priests.

Yep. And it is a little odd that it all seemed to start with William Randolph Hearst publicizing one of his early crusades. I don't think he ever looked back after that. I don't know exactly what happened at that point but there were a number of prominent preachers who warned him about his compromises then. It doesn't appear he ever heeded their cautions.

But I want to make it clear that while I think he had a severe lapse in discernment (that arguably affected most of his years of ministry), I don't think he ever preached a false gospel - just didn't consistently emphasize the whole part of what is necessary in salvation (conviction of sin FIRST followed by the grace and mercy of God). And I certainly wouldn't go as far as saying he wasn't saved (which I'm not saying you are charging).

 

[musterion]

I'd have to hear or read what he preached in the late '40s before Hearst took notice of him.

 

[nikolai_42]

I'd have to hear or read what he preached in the late '40s before Hearst took notice of him.

I've heard a couple of different slants on his trajectory (that he really had liberal seeds planted in him at bible college and he just went downhill slowly from there - or that he was rock solid until the LA crusade and then he steadily became liberal from there). His close friendships with men like Fulton Sheen and JPII are problematic for me. Having said that, I'm having trouble finding anything pre-1949 that shows what he preached. I am almost positive (almost...) that I heard or read him preaching a complete gospel that left no room for superstition (like that found in Rome) or what is now commonly called "easy-believism" (which I would chalk up to decisionism/altar call approach). But honestly, I haven't been able to (re)find that.

 

[musterion]

We've also read reports from people who knew him WAY back who said he was a Freemason, as many old time Baptists were. When asked about it, which evidently was not all that infrequently, he would neither refuse nor deny it. That suggests he was indeed a Mason. He never admitted it but recanted. He never denied it either (because he didn't want to lie?).

Altogether, his trying to remain mum on it led everyone to believe he was still a Mason.

Wonder if he was buried with the apron.

 

[2003cobra]

I think Billy Graham had the understanding and wisdom to know that Jesus is the judge of who is His follower.

His statement “He sure sounds like a Christian to me” is not a usurping of the position of Jesus as judge.