Billy Graham

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

Please cite scriptur written by Paul, e of what the gospel is according to him (Paul, having written Gal. 1:8).

James, I'm still waiting for your scriptures.

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

James, I'm still waiting for your scriptures.

You are all blab son, you got everybody going to hell except yourself. Post the scriptures that Paul wrote as being the gospel, to follow up on your Gal. 1:8 claim, or stop running your mouth.

[JoeBandy]

Someone brought Mathew 7:14 into this discussion.. So lets bring Mathew 7:16-19 into it!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

You are all blab son, you got everybody going to hell except yourself. Post the scriptures that Paul wrote as being the gospel, to follow up on your Gal. 1:8 claim, or stop running your mouth.

JG, does this mean you can't prove what you believe about Dobson and Billy Graham.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Someone brought Mathew 7:14 into this discussion.. So lets bring Mathew 7:16-19 into it!!

So, that covers James Dobson, Billy Graham, Claude Ely and Mother Teresa?

[Evang.Benincasa]

What a plant produces according to Jesus isn't about being a sweetie pie, because Jesus Himself, upbraided rebuked, in Spanish Bible "reproached" His apostles, because their lack of faith, and understanding Mark 16:14. The plant produces what its root system supplies. That root is Christ, and Jesus gave no leeway for anyone to get into the sheepfold any other way.

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Someone brought Mathew 7:14 into this discussion.. So lets bring Mathew 7:16-19 into it!!

Those are good scriptures.
Which begs the question: Just what is "good fruit"?

In Genesis, God said: "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon
the earth: and it was so." Without the gospel, whose seed does a man bear
and what seed is he yielding? Is it the seed of the herb (the corruptible seed
that is to be burned); or of the incorruptible seed,"...that lives and abides
forever...": which is begotten/conceived by the Holy Spirit?

Again the Lord speaks, in Matt 7:21-23, saying that there are those who will
be cast away although they do "...prophesy...cast out demons...and do many
wonderful works..." in His NAME!
So why are they called "...workers of iniquity..."? Because iniquity corresponds
to KNOWING to do good, and rejecting to do it ! And just where did the workers
of iniquity REJECT to do good?

Ask me and I will tell you.

Brother Villa

[aegsm76]

What an amazing thread.
It seems some people are ok proclaiming that we have the "true" gospel, until pointing out that their favorite "mainstream" religious personalities are going to hell.
Either we have the truth or we do not.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, but God is going to save Billy for what???? That's all I'm asking, but you seem not to be providing that, you just want us to fawn over your posts like what you are blowing is glowing.

That's a fair question.

I'll answer by starting with a question.

Why is God going to save anyone at all???

None of us deserve it. In fact, we all deserve Hell. Now, why would God save Billy Graham, seeing that He didn't know and/or obey the Apostolic Gospel??? For the same reason that God would choose to save anyone... for the sake of His glory, and to have compassion on one who believed (assuming that Billy's faith was genuine). When God shows mercy on anyone, it brings Him glory. God doesn't rejoice in the destruction of the wicked. And the salvation of mankind through God's elect is His revealed desire. Every time God has His way, this gives Him glory. Every time God doesn't get His desire... it gives the enemy glory.

For nearly 1,800 years, there is no recorded history of any church holding to exactly what we believe. Now, unless God chose to have a sovereign mercy upon those Christians whose hearts were truly sincere and searching, every human being who professed faith in Jesus during that 1,800 year period was lost. If the Gospel's purpose is to provide salvation for mankind, this would imply that it has been an ABYSMAL failure. It would also demonstrate that Satan's efforts to bring the official church into apostasy not only worked... but by doing so Satan successfully alienated the majority of mankind from God through... His own church. As a result, Jehovah would be the only God that... failed. I don't buy that. I can't buy that. God is large and in charge. And no matter what deception might fly, God is sovereign. And it is God's mercy that makes the rule. For example, if a man is guilty of some grave sin and God forgives... does that do away with the commandment? NO. If Satan drags the institutional church into apostasy in a Hellish effort with doctrines of devils to use the very Christianity faith intended to save to alienate man from God and drag man to Hell... and God has a sovereign mercy on those sincere souls... does that negate the truth? NO. It simply demonstrates that God is sovereign and that God will NOT play second fiddle, allowing Satan to hijack His own church in its entirety. And in this... God would be glorified.

Mercy will always triumph over judgment as it pertains to God's elect. And any man's salvation on account of God's sovereign mercy... is God's triumph.

Really? So, you are saying that really they aren't. Because for some UNKNOWN reason they taught religious mythology and because they did good works God judged them righteous. 3-Stepper Sovereign God? Actually I got one better, no stepper, because after you got all these people to follow your formula, they still aren't saved. Because there isn't actually a salvation, they never know they are saved. You probably keep reminding them they that are continually sinners, that "blessed assurance" is not so sure? Chris, think about it. If John Calvin, Martin Luther, Pope John Paul the 2nd are in the hands of God as being saved, then why is doctrine important? Why did Paul rebuke the Churches of the Roman Asia Minor? Ones who were of Paul, ones who were of Cephas, ones who were of Apollos, and ones who were of Christ? Why all the warnings? Why was Paul fighting against those who would add to the word of God. Peter telling the churches that somethings Brother Paul had written in his epistles were hard to understand. Yet, UNLEARNED men twisted them to their OWN damnation? Peter didn't say may their souls rest in God's hands. The New Testament is DEAD SILENT on your "They're in God's Hands" doctrine. Not a peep from Jesus, or the Apostles. Not a peep bro, not a peep.

Please note, even in the churches rebuked by Paul over their sectarian practices and various additions to the Gospel... Paul still identified them all as "the church", "the saints", and "brethren". Paul rebuked them... but Paul didn't disown them.

When the disciples came to Jesus about the man casting out devils who "followeth not us", Jesus explained something interesting:

Luke 9:49-50 King James Version (KJV)
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

In our sin (the sectarian attitude that Paul was rebuking) we forbid all who are not a part of the Apostolic Movement. Those who are doing a work for Christ and followeth not us are rebuked and condemned...we're so like the disciples sometimes. However, Christ's answer to them was, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." Was Billy Graham against us? I don't know of any encounter in which Billy Graham took a stand against Pentecostals. And if he did at some point pitch himself against us, it must have been early on... because Graham became rather open to Christians of all traditions at about the midpoint of his ministry. Was Graham following us? Nope. But he was for us. How? He proliferated the name of Jesus as many other traditional Christians have done. That paves the way for us to share greater truth with those who at the very least have heard of Jesus through men like Billy Graham.

Jesus also said...

Matthew 10:41-42 King James Version (KJV)
41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

The rabbis have a similar saying: "He that gives food to one that studies in the law, God will bless him in this world, and give him a lot in the world to come.", (Syn. Sohar).

Anyone professing to know Christ and who does good in the name of being a disciple of Christ, will not lose their reward. Let us consider that Billy Graham is considered to be the most widely known and most widely appreciated evangelists in America, and perhaps even the world. Graham, even with imperfect understanding, advanced the knowledge of the name of Jesus, breaking up the soil for us who wish to plant the seeds of greater truth. Graham also had one of the greatest missionary organizations of charity on earth, The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Providing water, food, clothing, shelter, and medicine to countless numbers of people throughout the globe (many of which in Africa were no doubt Apostolic)... all in the name of... Jesus Christ.

Jesus Himself tells us that people like Graham are not only for us, but that they also will not lose their reward.

TO BE CONTINUED....

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

Wow, then you're a better man than the Apostle Paul. Galatians 1:6-9

I am astonished how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to corrupt the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse! As we have said before, even now I say again: If anyone is preaching a gospel to you contrary to what you received, let him be accursed!

Before we go any further with your statement here, let's ask ourselves an important question.

What is the Gospel???

Gospel means, "Good News". Generally speaking, the term Gospel is used to describe the entire story of Christ's life. It is also used to denote Christ's teachings. But what is it more specifically according to Paul himself? Let's see...

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The "Gospel" is how Christ died for our sin, was buried, and that He rose again on the third day. THAT is the Gospel, the "Good News". Now, there are over 41,000 Christian denominations. All who believe in the truth of Scripture will testify that Christ died for our sin, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Where they differ isn't necessarily rooted in some denial of the Gospel, but rather in their application of the Gospel. So, let me ask you this... did Billy Graham believe in and teach that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day? YES! So, Billy didn't believe in another "Gospel", Billy just didn't know how to properly apply that Gospel as the Apostles did. So, the notion that Graham taught "another Gospel" can be dismissed. We can agree on the fact that Billy Graham didn't know how to properly apply that Gospel in its fullness.

Chris, I do believe the Apostle Paul would call you anathema. Because you are teaching another Gospel.

Of course you do, dear brother. In fact, every time I've spoken to you or read your interactions with others, anyone who doesn't agree with you is anathema. lol Therefore, when you make this charge, it kinda loses its meaning.

Here's a question.

Did "Acts 2:38" or the "Apostolic Movement" die for you and me? Was it buried? Did it rise again on the third day according to Scripture? Do we worship a verse of Scripture? Do we sing praises to a movement? NO! It's all about JESUS. Only Jesus died for us, was buried, and arose in the third day. If we teach that anything other than the Gospel being Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, we're teaching another Gospel. Since you dismiss that this work of Christ is the Gospel, holding to the notion that Acts 2:38 is the Gospel, I woefully have to inform you that YOU teach another Gospel.

Paul NEVER taught what you are proposing here?

According to Paul, the Gospel is the atoning death, burial, and resurrection of Christ:

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

That you can be flipping rosary beads praying to a statue of what you may believe to be of Jesus?

Does the Bible forbid "prayer journals"? Does it forbid "buildings"? Does the Bible forbid "pews"? Does the Bible forbid "offering plates"? Does the Bible forbid "steeples"? Does the Bible forbid "crosses" upon those steeples? Does the Bible forbid "white collars"? Does the Bible forbid "robes"? No. Those are just modern innovations designed to assist us in regards to our faith in some way, shape, or form. In ancient times the number of illiterate people was quite high. Then add on the fact that many who could read couldn't read Greek or Latin. In addition, Bibles were hand written by Scribes until the printing press, making ownership of a Bible an extremely rare occurrence. As a result, icons, statutes, paintings, etc. depicting Jesus, the Apostles, and events recorded in Scripture, were used to communicate the Gospel. For those who didn't own Bibles, these were as cherished as the Scriptures themselves. Essentially, these images were their Bible. And they felt the same awe, reverence, and ecstasy upon gazing at these things as we do when we saddle up with a cup of coffee and read our Bibles in the morning. We're so blessed. We have Bibles. We can read. We're even allowed to read the Scriptures. And instead of being thankful and humbled by this, having mercy and understanding towards those who related to the faith through images on account of not being so blessed... we condemn them. Now, I will agree with you in that as time progressed these apostate institutions began attributing mythological meaning and near idolatrous veneration of these items. But we'd have to look deep into the heart of every individual venerating such an item. Are they venerating the individual or truth artistically depicted... or are they venerating the actual item? That is where the dividing line between true spiritual reverence and idolatry would lie. Consider for a moment the tapestries of the Tabernacle and how upon those tapestries the Cherubim and Seraphim were depicted. Imagine how there were golden statues of Cherubim crafted upon the mercy seat of the ark itself. Consider how these images appeared upon the walls of the Temple. Artistic depictions of the spiritual realities of our faith are not forbidden. Take a look at children's Bibles and the pictures depicting various Biblical stories and truths are found throughout. I still remember the pictures I reverenced in my most cherished children's Bible when I was a child. Jumping to the accusation of idolatry is important as a cautionary measure. But to do so in blanket condemnation without thorough consideration of circumstance is unwarranted.

Prayer beads... *eye roll*. Ancient Christians recited prayers, much like those recited in synagogues. They felt the need to count those prayers and originally, prayer beads were a means of counting. It was just a tool, like a prayer journal is a tool to help us record, track, and reflect on our prayers today. They also used stones, sticks, and other means to count their prayers. Of course, I believe that this practice evolved into a superstitious observance. But again, many were illiterate. When praying these prayers and approaching a specific bead, they'd reflect on the truth of a given story in Scripture relating to Christ's passion or Christ's life. As alien as it might seem to us who are privileged to own a Bible and be a part of a church that encourages personal prayer... it was a tool to count prayers and to recall the truths of Scripture. While prayer beads are a practice I personally would never engage in... I'm hesitant to offer a blanket condemnation on an ancient people who might have used them. Now, I will condemn the superstition that they've evolved into among those traditional Christians today. The vain repetition of prayer doesn't earn any kind of "points" or "indulgence" as taught by most of these apostate churches. And as a result, I would encourage any Christian alive today to read the Bible and pray from the heart, not from a script or in effort to gain heavenly "points" towards salvation.

So, my position here is nuanced based on my studies on the topic. Icons and prayer beads? Sure, for the illiterate of the early church, fine. But for modern Christians? Unnecessary. To gain points towards heaven? Nope. To venerate any inherent divinity in the icon or statue itself? NOPE. I'd admonish the modern Christian to put away these childish things.

Yet, still make heaven because of some unknown reasons? Sad, Chris your doctrine is false hope.

God's glory and desire to have mercy is not an unknown thing.

TO BE CONTINUED...