Billy Graham

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Do that at a Billy Graham crusade and you get shown the door or invited to the police station. You ever seen Billy Graham pray through into a powerful baptism in the Holy Ghost with tears, snot, and tongues everywhere?

So, if such experiences are "more Spirit", and it's the remedy of the day, how come Billy never took his medicine?

Votive,

Please try to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not the judge of those who have passed. They are in the hands of God. I do pray that God have mercy on Graham's soul if at all possible. Although I admit that I'm hard pressed with regards to finding such a possibility based upon my limited, and often imperfect, understanding of Scripture. In doing this, I'm not putting Graham in Heaven. Nor am I putting Graham in Hell. I'm only letting Graham go. Giving the issue of Graham's salvation to God. Where it belongs.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Do that at a Billy Graham crusade and you get shown the door or invited to the police station. You ever seen Billy Graham pray through into a powerful baptism in the Holy Ghost with tears, snot, and tongues everywhere?

I admit, I never saw Billy Graham "pray through". However, am I to assume that he never did? What if he did at some point and I just wasn't there? Again, I'm not all knowing. And therefore, I am certainly not Billy Graham's judge.

To be fair... I've never witnessed anyone on this forum, or any other Apostolic forum, "pray through" either.

So, if such experiences are "more Spirit", and it's the remedy of the day, how come Billy never took his medicine?

Again, I can't say if Billy Graham ever "prayed through" or not. And again, that's why I decline from casting a judgment.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does this mean?

What I mean by this is that the foundation of our salvation (literally the fact that we are saved by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus) must be the same. Jesus is our foundation, the teachings of the apostles and prophets reinforce that foundation.

Bible, King James Version

1Cor.3 Verses 10 to 13

[10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
[11] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
[12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
[13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

If the foundation is Jesus, and the teachings of the apostles and prophets are the reinforcing of that foundation, every man's work will be tested by time. If it be good or bad it will be tested by fire. The work (or doctrine in this case) may not be able to withstand the test. It may be destroyed. Just because a man's work is destroyed, does not necessarily mean that he cannot be saved. The next verse in the passage from 1 Corinthians says this (to continue along this vein) . . .

Bible, King James Version

1Cor.3 Verses 13 to 15


[13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
[14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

To me this means that there is room for doctrinal error on some points, but the foundation must be solidly laid on Jesus and the apostles and prophets. The foundation is essential, the details other than the foundation are important, but obviously not as crucial.

To continue using the analogy of a building, what this might mean is that the crown molding, while it may give a good appearance, does not have a significant impact on the structural integrity of the building overall. (It is possible that there is even a net loss, or that it is dead weight from a structural standpoint.) As such these details (of doctrine, back to that) may be of no significance, little significance, or they may be of great significance, but they are not to be confused with the structural elements of the building.
(Wine or grape juice for communion, length of sleeves, jewelry, red dresses, open toed shoes, swallowing a camel, but straining at a gnat?)

I know every man's doctrine is important (especially to him) but from a scriptural standpoint there are "weightier matters". Let every man be convinced in his own heart, and seek out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Rest assured that every man's work will be tested.

In regards to Billy Graham, it appears to me that he either strayed from the foundation, or possibly never was on the foundation according to the post by Amanah. I don't feel good about that, but I didn't know him and I hope that I'm not judged for eternity for one case of misspoken or misunderstanding that I have had. I can understand Aquila's position, and I certainly can understand and agree with the opposing view.

Does this clarify the remark about the foundation . . . at all?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Weird. Paul wanted the Corinthians to judge the fornicator in chapter 5 and toss him to the curb directly into Satan's hands. He said he had already personally judged the situation having not even been present. He then reprimanded them for not having anyone wise enough to judge financial issues and fights between brethren in the church, then chided them for not realizing that saints are going to judge angels.

Judging the living is a far cry from judging the dead, in my opinion. If Billy Graham were alive today and we were all talking at a BBQ, and you shared Acts 2:38 salvation with him, warning that anything else isn't the complete message of the NT, I'd be backing you up. I'd be saying, "Amen". However, Billy Graham has passed from this life. His reward, whatever it is, is what it is. I can only pray that God have mercy, and leave it at that.

Aquila, what you're missing is this: you have a moving of the goal posts regarding salvation and the Gospel.

Where did I ever say that Billy Graham was, without a doubt, "saved"? Nowhere. When reflecting theologically, I voiced that those who have faith in Christ and have repented of their sins have done what was necessary to receive justification. In addition, I admitted that they have not been identified with Christ in baptism, nor have they received the regeneration that comes from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And so, for those precious souls who have indeed received justification through faith upon repentance and passed on... I can only pray that God have mercy upon them, seeing that they had yet to experience the fullness of NT salvation.

The goal posts aren't moved. If at some point I hope that a police officer would let a speeder off with only a warning, have I changed the speed limit? If the officer only issues a warning, has he changed the speed limit? Does that mean that when I teach my kids how to drive, I'm going to tell them to ignore the speed limits? God forbid! For no law has been changed. And anyone asking for instructions on driving will hear me tell them, "obey the speed limit".

I might pray that God have mercy on an Evangelical. However, I understand that even if God were to have mercy, it doesn't change Acts 2:38. And though I might pray that God have mercy on someone who didn't obey all of Acts 2:38, it doesn't mean that I'm going to tell others that they don't have to obey Acts 2:38.

No goal posts have been moved.

If you have a coworker who comes to you for prayer tomorrow and wants a Bible study and asks "What must I do to be saved?" You're going to preach the Gospel and the application of the same, right? You or an elder are going to baptize him in Jesus name and when he comes up out of the water singing in tongues, you're going to jump for joy and shout to the Lord, right?

Of course my dear brother. Why would anyone think otherwise?

So, if such a thing occurs, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in one place, for this coworker of yours.

But for Billy Graham or others, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in another location.

I must not be explaining it well.

God is sovereign. And God alone is the judge. And when God judges, a part of that judgment is the thoughts and intents of the heart. Knowing this, I only offer a prayer for people like Graham. And I leave the judgment in God's hands. Nothing God does changes the Gospel. In fact, any exception predicated upon God's sovereign mercy would make the rule. However, as I said before, based on my limited and imperfect understanding of Scripture, I'm hard pressed to see such a possibility. But since I'm not all knowing, I can't rule it out either.

With regards to "Christians" who followeth not us, I leave their judgment entirely in the hands of God. I will neither declare that they are in Heaven, nor will I declare that they are in Hell. I will tell what I know based on what I have studied. They didn't know or obey the fullness of the Gospel. If someone asks, "Bro. Chris, Billy Graham wasn't Apostolic. Will I see Billy Graham in Heaven?" I will only answer, "I don't know. That is entirely up to God. But YOU can KNOW that you are in the Lamb's book of life if you have obeyed the Gospel as preached in Acts 2."

I'm sure you know the saying "Stick to your guns". And I'm sure you know what it means, too. But, while you're more than happy to pull your trigger on the man screaming at the altar for mercy or deliverance, and don't mind unloading on the sinner covered in snot and tears with tongues all around, your guns remain strangely holstered when it comes to this.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here.

If both are alive and well before me... and one is indeed pleading for mercy at an altar... and another is worshipping with all their might... why would I pull my trigger or either of them?

You keep saying you won't judge and are just letting God be God. But you are judging. When you write "no assurance", you mean you have judged that such a person might not be saved. But if that person might not saved, who else might not be saved? Who else might not have "full assurance"? How can you tell the difference?

Anyone who has put their faith in Christ, but who have yet to understand or obey Acts 2:38 has no assurance of salvation. While living, I can only offer warning and admonition to obey Acts 2:38. After their passing, I let it go and allow God to be the judge. I might pray for God to have mercy. But such mercy would still be entirely God's prerogative.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ at all hasn't even the most remote chance of salvation.

At some point, you have to have met someone you felt died in "full assurance". I assume you have "full assurance" about yourself, your wife, your elders, and even people here at AFF. You called some people here the creme de la creme of Apostolic Pentecost (even though you keep saying we're not getting it, that we aren't very systematic in our approach, that we rush right past Acts 2:38 without comprehending the deeper realities of it???).

Indeed I have. I assume you've obeyed Acts 2:38 and that you live your life seeking greater Christlikeness. I'd say that you have full assurance that if you remain in this way, you'll make it. But if you, or me, or anyone else departs from this way... there is no assurance of anything. There's no assurance that one would have time to return in repentance. There's no assurance that one would even have the time for death bed prayer. And there is no assurance that God will have mercy. Although, I'm the sensitive buffoon that would be crying and praying that God forgive and bring such a poor soul home.

So, where does this "full assurance" come from? What sets these apart? What makes you know these are saved when you don't know or can't proclaim who IS NOT saved?

Acts 2:38.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

You can't have it both ways. But when you say you won't judge or try to be God for someone, you are judging that, even without correct doctrinal understanding of the Apostle's faith, even without correct application of the same, such a one might still make it, because of sovereignty and mercy. So, for this one, you've judged them sufficiently saved to make heaven if mercy will allow, despite missing the key components, and speak in the stead of God in order to do so, because ONLY GOD HAS THE RIGHT TO FOREGO AND RELENT. You say, God alone is judge. Then you say, "But these might make it", which is a judgment all the same.

I simply let God be God. I cannot say with assurance that anyone like you mentioned is saved. Nor can I say with assurance that I know the mind of God so well that I know that there is absolute no way God would or could sovereignly choose to have mercy and grace on a soul that had only experienced repentance. Some things are best left in the hands of God. If someone were to day, "Well, I don't want to be baptized in the name of Jesus, I'd rather choose to rely on God's sovereign grace and mercy." I'd answer, "You can do as you wish. However, since you now know that the Bible commands us to be water baptized in the name of the Lord, there is no way you can claim ignorance. You need to search your heart. Are you refusing to be baptized out of rebellion? Fear? Anxiety, because someone you love wasn't baptized and has passed on? Regarding their soul, God is just. Allow Him, and Him alone, to be their judge. Fear? What is there to fear? Rebellion? Why try to prove a point at the cost of your soul? I admonish you to obey the Scripture and be baptized."

Acts 2:38 is the rule. Any exception is entirely up to God.

To say God may allow these into eternal life is to say, on God's behalf, that God doesn't need to stick to His guns regarding what He has already established is the only plan of salvation. He can change His mind, if He wants to. He can quibble and waffle. He can nullify the Apostle's faith and its application for anyone He chooses, simply to be merciful, meaning Jesus is not as good as His Word, He's only a capricious respecter of persons. You are impugning the Lord, here, and I guess, for whatever reason, you don't see it.

I think you're taking this idea a lot farther than I would. It feels like I'm being pressed between affirming God's absolute sovereignty or affirming Acts 2:38.

There several ways I've seen this topic approached. The labels I'm giving them are only general descriptions, not actual terms. Here they are:

A.) 1-Stepper position. This position holds that Scripture only requires one to come to faith and repent. After repentance, salvation is assured. I don't believe that this is biblical. Because the Bible clearly teaches that through Acts 2:38 (repentance, JN baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit) we experience justification, identification, and regeneration.

B.) "The Light Doctrine". This teaches that one is only responsible for the "light" (or revelation) they see and understand in Scripture and if they live in the fullness of this "light" they are assured salvation. Again, this flies in the face of the fullness of Acts 2:38. It would also imply that it is better to not understand the fullness of the NT teaching on salvation than to know and understand it.

C.) 2-Stepper. This is like the 1-Stepper argument. Only they choose two out of the three elements of Acts 2:38. Some say upon repentance and baptism, or repentance and Holy Ghost infilling, one is assured salvation.

D.) 3-Stepper (General). This teaches that one must experience the fullness of Acts 2:38 to be assured salvation. However, it is very general in it's approach, allowing for the historical development of the experience. Repentance, water baptism, and Holy Spirit infilling might have looked differently and have been referred to using different terms down through the ages. Baptismal formula illustrates Apostolic tradition vs. church tradition, but obedience to baptism is the rule. The Holy Spirit infilling may have not been spoken of using terms like "tongues" and "pray through", but may have been referred to or experienced as "spiritual ecstasy", "unintelligible weeping, sobbing, or utterance", being "falling prostrate as dead", accompanied with visions, dreams, miracles, healings, etc. Those who hold this position emphasize that the terms we use today and the manner of experience we have with Acts 2:38 may appear different than in centuries past, but underneath justification, identification, and regeneration are still taking place. Some will argue that even in other traditions today Christians repent, are baptized, and experience the baptism of the Spirit in various manners. I believe there is "some" intellectual merit to this argument. But one must be extremely cautious with how it is applied through one's study of history. Because not every visionary experience or "ecstasy" included an "unintelligible" experience. As can also be said of various Christian traditions alive today.

E.) 3-Stepper (Classical). This teaches that to be saved one must obey the fullness of Acts 2:38 in exactly the same manner as it is understood by 20th Century Apostolic Pentecostals; one must even use the very terms coined in the 20th Century for the experience, or they are lost. This position argues that prior to the 20th Century Apostolic revival no Christian was saved for nearly a 2,000 year period. Some try to make the case that various shady groups down through history held to their strict understanding of Acts 2:38. However, a thorough review of those groups in relation to their own theologians will reveal that they were often a far cry from believing in Acts 2:38 in the same manner as 20th Century Apostolic Pentecostals do. Any honest soul will see the sectarian extremism in this position. Even their revisionist rewriting of Christian history to claim historical spiritual ancestry is a brazenly dishonest pursuit that damages their testimony. But this view is clear, concise, and easy to cheer for, especially among those who have been lucky enough to experience Acts 2:38 in this manner.

And then there is the approach I was taught....

F.) 3-Stepper (Sovereign God). This view holds that regardless of who might or might not have held to an Acts 2:38 soteriology down through history, the fullness of Acts 2:38 has always been the standard and therefore only in the fullness of Acts 2:38 can one have assurance of salvation. Such assurance ended after the Apostles and was lost with the apostasy of the Roman church. Any Christian souls saved by God down through history who had not known of or experienced the fullness of Acts 2:38 were saved by a sovereign and merciful God on account of their faith in spite of their error, not on account of some measure of it. The same can be said of any Christian who hasn't experienced or come to understand Acts 2:38 today. Such a sovereign act of grace is not guaranteed. And therefore outside of Acts 2:38 there can be no assurance of salvation. The fate of "Christians" who do not understand or who have not experienced the fullness of Acts 2:38 is left entirely in the hands of God. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And we leave it at that.

I pray I've helped to clarify.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Votive,

Please try to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not the judge of those who have passed.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I will admit that I'm hesitant to say that Billy Graham made it. I'll admit that Billy Graham had a far different theological understanding than ours, and perhaps even his fellow Trinitarians.

Why are you still arguing? Is this about you being the ecclesiastical snowflake of the forum? Therefore you have to argue from silence? Where did Jesus and the apostles teach that at the last minute there was another option? The Light Doctrine, 1-Stepper position, 2-Stepper, 3-Stepper (General), 3-Stepper (Classical), 3-Stepper (Sovereign God)??? Bro, i'm Apostolic because of what the Apostles taught, not some Forum definition of Apostolic. Listen, I'm asking you for once to take a moment to think, instead of wanting to WIN the game. Because seriously, all you ever do is make yourself look pretty much...insane. I'm not attacking you, I'm just reading what you are posting. You don't pass judgement on the dead? But you know that Billy Graham didn't obey even you sovereign God 3-stepper mumbo jumbo? You would back up Votivesoul with amens if Votivesoul was telling Billy Graham over BBQ that he needed to be baptized in Jesus name? 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.

Originally Posted by Aquila

They are in the hands of God.

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.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do pray that God have mercy on Graham's soul if at all possible.

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!

Chris, I do believe the Apostle Paul would call you anathema. Because you are teaching another Gospel. Paul NEVER taught what you are proposing here? That you can be flipping rosary beads praying to a statue of what you may believe to be of Jesus? Yet, still make heaven because of some unknown reasons? Sad, Chris your doctrine is false hope.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Although I admit that I'm hard pressed with regards to finding such a possibility based upon my limited, and often imperfect, understanding of Scripture.

REALLY? Wait, please forgive me in advance. Seriously no offense. There was an old sister 97 who was in my Bible studies years ago in the city of Fort Lauderdale. She knew her Bible, she understood the scripture, and had some awesome revelations. There was a Baptist preacher who wanted to interrupt the Bible study and started to present his easy believism. Again, no offense, but he made the statement close to the one you posted in the above quote. The old sister always let me handle the Trinitarian troublemakers. But this time she surprised me. She looked him dead in the eyes and told him, "son, If you have a simple, and imperfect understanding of the Bible, then shut up, and sit down and learn something. Because if your brain moved as fast as your mouth you be getting somewhere!" Brother, telling a group that you don't know what you are talking about after you argue with them with 15 or more posts, really doesn't help the argument. All it does, is raise eyebrows, and send eyes rolling.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In doing this, I'm not putting Graham in Heaven. Nor am I putting Graham in Hell. I'm only letting Graham go. Giving the issue of Graham's salvation to God. Where it belongs.

No, in plain English you are being wishy washy, and dealing with the fear factor of your own emotions. Nicer than Jesus, Better than Paul, all because of unrepented sin in one's life? Worried if you don't allow the dead to get a second roll at the dice may cause you to lose a turn when God invites you to play some celestial Monopoly? You want that get out of Hell free card? This is where the First Church of NPR become the church where everything is nice. Come a sinner, stay a sinner, and leave a sinner. God loves you just the way you are and wants you to stay just the way you are. sad.

[JamesGlen]

Benincasa,


I ran across this article just googling J Dobson doctrine. I listen to JD multiple times a week in regard to parenting and marital disciplines from the scriptures. I admire the mans lifelong devotion to that. Any way, running across this little read, this person slams Dobson basically, in my understanding, as Dobson is preaching another gospel because he pushes things outside of simply believing...so with that said, your view of the scriptures has them both not born again, and lost as 2 boys kissing, is that correct?
These people like Dr Dobson that have life long passionately helped families learn the importance of striving to have godly families, godly parenting etc, from the scriptures, and you believe that same bible that he strives to base his family values off of, has him splitting hell wide open,(because he misunderstands biblical salvationwl doctrine) is that accurate?

That’s just a bigger pill than what I think I can choke down ...him reading the same bible, lifelong doing his best to be a scriptural disciple of our Savior, impacted thousands molding them into godly men and women, striving to stop abortion, etc etc , and yet he’s got a one way ticket to burn in hell.

Please respond with your thoughts on this, as well as to this following link regarding its author and to whom it is written, Dobson:


http://www.jesusisprecious.org/wolves/james_dobson.htm



.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

Benincasa,


I ran across this article just googling J Dobson doctrine. I listen to JD multiple times a week in regard to parenting and marital disciplines from the scriptures. I admire the mans lifelong devotion to that. Any way, running across this little read, this person slams Dobson basically, in my understanding, as Dobson is preaching another gospel because he pushes things outside of simply believing...so with that said, your view of the scriptures has them both not born again, and lost as 2 boys kissing, is that correct?
These people like Dr Dobson that have life long passionately helped families learn the importance of striving to have godly families, godly parenting etc, from the scriptures, and you believe that same bible that he strives to base his family values off of, has him splitting hell wide open,(because he misunderstands biblical salvationwl doctrine) is that accurate?

That’s just a bigger pill than what I think I can choke down ...him reading the same bible, lifelong doing his best to be a scriptural disciple of our Savior, impacted thousands molding them into godly men and women, striving to stop abortion, etc etc , and yet he’s got a one way ticket to burn in hell.

Please respond with your thoughts on this, as well as to this following link regarding its author and to whom it is written, Dobson:


http://www.jesusisprecious.org/wolves/james_dobson.htm



.

Salvation by works???? Yet, I'm called the legalist?

[Evang.Benincasa]

If Dobson, and Billy Graham get a pass then doctrine is meaningless. Hard pill to swallow? What is even more flipped out, is Galatians 1:8 (even when enlarged, bolded, and colored) still doesn't have any impact. My lands, the Apostle Paul, and Jesus never ever taught a view which was inclusive, but exclusive. Sorry, but you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Just because the guys has good works, means NOTHING in eternity. This is a package deal, faith, trust in what the apostles preached, and allowing the Spirit of Truth to be your pastor and master in Jesus name.

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

If Dobson, and Billy Graham get a pass then doctrine is meaningless. Hard pill to swallow? What is even more flipped out, is Galatians 1:8 (even when enlarged, bolded, and colored) still doesn't have any impact. My lands, the Apostle Paul, and Jesus never ever taught a view which was inclusive, but exclusive. Sorry, but you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Just because the guys has good works, means NOTHING in eternity. This is a package deal, faith, trust in what the apostles preached, and allowing the Spirit of Truth to be your pastor and master in Jesus name.

Please cite scripture written by Paul, of what he taught as being the gospel, according to him (Paul, having written Gal. 1:8).