Billy Graham's final sermon: 'I've wept' for America

Billy Graham’s uniting with liberals and Roman Catholics in evangelistic efforts was wrong. (I can’t think of anyone today who has followed his evangelistic example.) When he passes away, the era of large public evangelistic campaigns will end. For fundamentalists, he was the “test” of which side you were on. For the observing world, he was, in their eyes, a Christian that most of them respected. That observing world, if and when they even notice Billy’s enemies, see another example of Christians fighting among themselves. Well, not really fighting each other because Billy Graham never responded to his critics.

I have a question for his critics of which I am one. Is Billy Graham a Christian. If you think he is, why does your treatment of him resemble that of the hatred we ought to have for apostates? (Unless you believe that lack of separation equals apostasy.) If you don’t think he’s a Christian then say so. And start looking for someone to replace him as the object of your affliction.

[Dave Gilbert] I do not believe the unscriptural “essentials” doctrine, because to me, every word of God is truth…there are no “essentials” to be divided from “non-essentials”. The saying that is often attributed to Augustine of Hippo, ” In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. ” is not something I subscribe to, because every word of God, His very words, are important to me as a believer.

Dave, you really need to rethink this particular belief of yours. It is absolutely true that all Scripture is inspired and profitable (2 Tim. 3:16-17). However, not every Scriptural doctrine is of equal importance. While that may seem like a shocking statement to you, it is not one I made up—it came from the apostle Paul himself.

In 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Paul says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (ESV). The UBS NT Handbook says regarding this phrase: “Of first importance is literally ‘in (the) first (plural),’ an expression used only here in the New Testament. The phrase can mean ‘first in time’ or ‘first in importance.’ It seems likely that Paul intended both meanings here: ‘first and foremost’ (REB); ‘of first importance’ is another possibility.” Warren Wiersbe says, “ ‘First of all’ means ‘of first importance.’ The Gospel is the most important message that the church ever proclaims” (Bible Exposition Commentary). (See also Clark, Barnes, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Calvin, JFB, Matthew Henry, Lenski).

Here’s the point: the Gospel is of first importance. Not everything in the Bible is of first importance, because if everything is of first importance, then nothing is. The error of the liberals is that too little (if anything) is of first importance (and to agree with you, I think this is where Billy Graham erred in his ministry); the error of many fundamentalists is that too much is.

If this is objectionable, just think about it logically. I don’t know any church which believes that there is one and only one correct understanding of the “sons of God/daughters of men” in Gen. 6 and that that doctrine is on par with the deity of Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone and that a person must believe the correct doctrine about Gen. 6 in order to be a member of their church. So even the staunchest fundamentalists recognizes there are “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines of Scripture; they just draw a bigger circle around the essentials.

Also to lump Billy Graham together with Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Paula White, Jaunita Bynum, and Joyce Meyer, is slander to me. Billy Graham preaches the true Gospel; his error is in his associations and ministry methods. The others you mentioned do not preach the true Gospel at all. You will never see any of them give a Gospel presentation like the one we are discussing.

Dave, a few thoughts and questions:

1. You do understand the New Testament was written in Greek, not English, correct? So we seek to understand the meaning of the original words of Scripture. The Greek word protos in 1 Cor. 15:3 can mean first in time or first in importance (among other meanings), and I was simply pointing out that commentators believe Paul is probably referring to first in importance, or perhaps using both meanings (“first and foremost”).
2. You say Scripture is all we need. Certainly I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for life and doctrine. But God has also given us teachers to help us understand the Scripture (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). You believe this to, if (I assume) you attend a local church in obedience to Scripture. Paul commanded Timothy to teach doctrine (1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2), and to train men who could teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). Commentaries are just helpful tools that teach us things to help us better understand the Scripture. (Obviously we should compare them with Scripture to see that they are true.)
3. You misunderstand what is meant by “non-essential.” It does not mean “non-important” or “not helpful/useful/profitable” (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17). It simply means that it is not on par with the central truths of Christianity about which we must contend. I don’t know about you, but I am not willing to give my life as a martyr over my particular understanding of the sons of God/daughters of men in Gen. 6, and I am not willing to separate from brothers who disagree with my understanding of that passage, but I would do both of those things over doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, etc.
4. Billy Graham’s statements on Larry King and Robert Schuller’s Hour of Power regarding the possible salvation of those throughout history who have never heard the name of Christ were serious error, I agree. And they do give me great pause concerning his ministry. I was glad to see that in this presentation he talked about Christ being the only way to the Father.

Dave, thanks for the interaction. I agree that we are no doubt striking a deceased equine on this thread, and have also diverged into multiple bunny paths as well, so this will probably be my last post too (although feel free to respond to anything I say here).

I am not surprised that you do not attend a church; in fact, I suspected as much, which is why I made a statement to that effect. I have found on my time here on SI that those who hold views similar to yours and/or doctrinal views outside what might be considered mainstream Christianity tend to become dissatisfied with more and more churches until they can’t find any that they agree with, which leads them to withdraw from attending church altogether.

Now, let me be clear: there is no Scriptural command to attend a church building, and there are no Scriptural requirements as to the minimum size of a congregation (the word “church,” of course, simply means “assembly”). But according to the New Testament, a biblical church must be a place where: (1) the Word is preached; (2) the ordinances of baptism and communion are observed; and 3) there are pastors and deacons (some would also add (4) church discipline is conducted; and (5) the church is organized for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission). Does your gathering meet those criteria?

Also, you are once again taking a verse out of context. Mt. 28:20, as I’m sure you are aware, is part of a passage where Jesus talks about church discipline:

Matt 18:15-20

15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” (NKJV)

Notice the “two or three” mentioned in v. 20 is also mentioned in v. 16 (and v. 19 mentions “two of you”). So the “two or three” in v. 20 refers to the “two or three” witnesses of v. 16, which refers to establishing the validity of testimony against a sinning brother (see Deut. 19:15). Jesus is there in the midst when even just a few brothers confront a sinning brother (v. 16) or ask for something in Jesus’ name (v. 19; perhaps referring to a prayer of excommunication).

But relevant for our discussion is that the “two or three” of v. 16 is clearly distinguished from the “church” in v. 17. In other words, Jesus does not see the “two or three” as the same as “the church.” It seems that the church (“assembly”) would normally be larger than two or three.

Obviously churches have to start somehow, and often churches do start with just two or three. But even though there is no minimum size in the NT, there is really no sense that churches are supposed to stay that small or that there is something better or more spiritual or more biblical about just a handful of believers as opposed to a larger group. And again, a NT church observes the two ordinances and has two officers.

As to your views on “teachers,” I’ll just say that that is not what “teacher” or “teaching” means. It refers to explaining the sense of Scripture, not just pointing people to the right verses. I would quote a Greek lexicon but that won’t mean much to you. :) See Acts 18:24-28 for an example.

I would also note that you are not consistent in your application of your beliefs, as you directed us to other sites that explain (one could say, “teach”) us why Billy Graham should be rejected. And you are also posting on this site trying to convince others of your beliefs, explaining to us (“teaching”?) why we should believe the way you do.

But again, I understand why you believe the way you do about Billy Graham, even though I am not personally ready to call him a heretic, false teacher, or apostate.

Thanks again for the sharpening, Dave. God bless.

Dave,

I appreciate your candor with respect to your position on the local church, and a couple of thoughts might be appropriate, if I may.
You admit that you need to grow with respect to your ability to interact graciously with others, but I would submit that avoidance of a local church actually produces the opposite effect. As a pastor, I remind those under my influence that the close proximity of the church family leads inevitably to some jostling and jolting of one another (we are all sinners, after all), but that provides exactly the opportunities necessary for the Spirit to do his sanctifying work in us. Think of all the opportunities to forgive our brothers for uncharitable acts and attitudes that we miss if we exclude ourselves from the church, and how many opportunities to ask for forgiveness for our own unkind actions.

The other point I wanted to mention was that your statements concerning the church you grew up in, may not, indeed do not reflect all churches. You mentioned specifically the doctrine of election that had fallen into neglect, but are there not many other churches which affirm that Biblical teaching? In your haste to dismiss the church in which you were raised, may you not have dismissed the multitude of others without adequate consideration?

Paul