|
Author
|
Topic: The Sinner's Prayer:
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
I think, quite simply that God does not want us to place our faith in persons. He wants us to place our faith in Him. So Billy is just a person, and there may be some peculiarities which God 'has allowed'. But:
1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
Billy is not our leader, but one who has preached the Name of Christ.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
On the subject of repentance:
I do agree with you all that repentance is all those things........turning from sin, turning from unbelief, turning from a rebellious spirit towards God.........but I believe that the fullness of repentance has arrived when one has turned to God with their whole heart.
After all, it is half-hearted lukewarmness that we are warned against by Jesus in His Revelation.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi becauseHElives,
I have watched many of Billy Grahams episodes and his sermons appear to have an "evangelistic appeal" in the sense that people are drawn by conviction of the message. He appears to to have been a man dedicated to the service of the Lord......not afraid to lift up the Name of Jesus.
I saw a video with him meeting with the pope. Having read much of the doctrine of Roman Catholicism I too am uphalled at the perversions of scripture. I, like you, wonder why Billy Graham would not have had talks with the Vatican adressing at least some of the obvious perversions. Was he unaware? Was he too frightened to speak up? Was he possibly just more exited about having the opportunities to meet prominent figures? I just dont get it.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
becausehelives: I do not believe that the Catholic Church is saved. However, I do believe that there are Catholics who are saved. Perhaps they are lacking something in the way of sanctification (understanding), but remember that the bezzibub seeks to confuse and limit as many as he is able. So the way that I look at it is this:
Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
And the most important one:
Rom 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Love is the rule, not condemnation. Are we not strong, you and I? Many are not. Therefore we do not have to bark at them. We need to show the way.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Paul and the new Birth
by Cornelius R. Stam
The Pauline revelation leads us into glorious truths respecting both our position and experience as believers. Indeed, the new birth itself, as it takes place in the believer today, is directly related to the divine baptism by which Christ and the believer are made one.
How was Christ made one with mankind? He was baptized into the human race. He did not merely come to dwell with men. He became man. How? By being born into the race. Was this by natural birth? No, by supernatural birth. He was begotten of the Holy Spirit. But His baptism into the human race did not end with His birth and life on earth. So fully did He become one with man, that He even died man's death on the accursed tree. He was baptized into death (Luke 12:50) and, as we now know, into our death.
And it is there, at the Cross, that we become one with Him. The moment one looks in faith to Calvary, acknowledging: "He is no sinner; I am the sinner. Christ is dying my death"; that moment he becomes one with Christ; baptized into the crucified, risen Lord Himself (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:26,27) not only positionally, in the reckonings of God, but exponentially, by the Spirit. And thus a new life is begotten.
By natural birth? No, by supernatural birth. Some hold that the Epistles of Paul do not teach the new birth, but this is an error. His familiar word teknon, generally translated simply "child" in our English Bibles, means literally, "born one." And he uses this word with regard to our spiritual relationship to God.
Furthermore, the Apostle teaches the very truth of the new birth in Tit. 3:5, where he says:
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost."
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Michael about Billy Graham...
Updated April 5, 1999 (first published 1993) (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) – The following material is part one of a four-part series of articles documenting Evangelist Billy Graham’s relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.
"It is one thing to invite unconverted Roman Catholics to a gospel meeting to hear the gospel preached, but it is quite another matter to go to a meeting where Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholic priests that are still firmly in Rome, are preaching from the platform." --Christian News, June 26, 1988
Nothing more plainly evidences the bankruptcy of New Evangelicalism than its flirtations with Rome, and in this report we intend to trace this sad and serious matter.
Some do not believe we should deal with negative matters such as this. They do not believe we should name names and publicly expose the compromises of Christian leaders. But we must.
First, we must preach messages of this nature as a matter of obedience. The Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the apostates publicly (Matthew 23), and the Apostles followed in His footsteps. They rebuked and warned of false teachers and compromisers by name. Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his compromise of the truth (Gal. 2:9-14), then wrote it up in an Epistle for all of the churches to see. In the Pastoral Epistles alone, eight men are mentioned publicly for their errors (1 Tim. 1:19-20, 2 Tim. 1:15, 2:17, 4:10, 4:14-16). We are commanded to "preach the word ... reprove, rebuke, exhort..." (2 Tim. 4:2). This is a matter of obedience.
Second, we must preach messages of this nature because of concern for the gospel. Ecumenical relationships between Evangelicals and Catholics touches on the gospel. Rome preaches a sacramental gospel that is cursed of God and that leads people to Hell. The Council of Trent, reaffirmed by Vatican II, proclaimed, "If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed" (Canon 12). Rome is an avowed enemy of the New Testament faith.
Those who fellowship with Romanism put a stamp of approval--unwittingly, perhaps, but just as surely--upon the false gospel preached by their Roman Catholic friends.
When Billy Graham includes Catholics in his evangelistic crusades and sends inquirers to Catholic churches, those looking on are made to think that Roman Catholicism must be true Christianity. When Evangelical leaders fellowship with Rome, a climate is created whereby it is very difficult to preach that Catholics need to be saved and leave their apostate denomination. Ecumenical Evangelicals break down the walls between truth and error and muddy the waters of gospel work.
Ecumenical relationships are an exceedingly serious matter with eternally destructive consequences.
Any attempt to document the connection between Evangelicalism and the Roman Catholic Church must begin with Billy Graham because he is Evangelicalism’s foremost personality in the latter half of the twentieth century. Harold Ockenga said that Graham "on the mass level is the spokesman of the convictions and ideals of the New Evangelicalism" (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II). An article in Christianity Today in 1992 noted, "It would be difficult to overestimate Billy Graham’s importance in the last 50 years of Evangelicalism. ... Graham personally embodied most of the characteristics of resurgent Evangelicalism. ... de-emphasizing doctrinal and denominational differences that often divided Christians. ... For Evangelicalism, Billy Graham has meant the reconstitution of a Christian fellowship transcending confessional lines--a grassroots ecumenism that regards denominational divisions as irrelevant rather than pernicious" ("Can Evangelicalism Survive Its Success?" Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1992).
Ockenga and Christianity Today admit that when we look at Billy Graham, we are looking at New Evangelicalism, and the fact is that for almost fifty years Graham has cooperated with Rome.
Let me pause and reply to THE CHARGE THAT THOSE WHO WARN OF GRAHAM’S COMPROMISE HATE HIM. Those who are opposed to biblical separation have often charged us with this, but it is slanderous and untrue. By no means do we hate Dr. Graham. I grew up in a Southern Baptist home and always loved to hear Billy Graham preach on the radio and television during my youth. I still get a thrill when I hear his voice. I have often prayed for the man, and I have often asked the Lord why a man who has preached the Gospel to so many people would so compromise the Gospel to refuse to identify and avoid false teachers. Dr. Graham’s preaching was partially instrumental in the salvation of my wife and her mother. They heard Graham on television in Alaska in the early 1960s, were stirred to seek the Lord, found a little Baptist church, and were led to Christ by the pastor of that church. I stand before the Lord tonight as I write this. He knows that I do not hate Billy Graham. I am brokenhearted over his compromise. I have shed many tears over the confusion that has been wrought by his unscriptural methodology, and I refuse to keep my mouth shut when the very Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake. It is better to obey God than man, my dear friends. This is serious business. Paul did not hesitate to rebuke Peter publicly for his compromise and hypocrisy because he was confusing the Gospel in the minds of the observers (Galatians 2:11-14). I realize that I am not Paul, but God has told me to earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3), and that is what I intend to do.
When Graham first began his evangelistic ministry, he preached against Modernism, Catholicism, and Communism; but he soon dropped the negative content of his preaching and adopted a tolerant, neutral, positive approach to the ministry. In so doing, he rejected the Bible, because the Bible is not a tolerant, neutral, positive-only type of Book.
WHEN DID GRAHAM’S COMPROMISE BEGIN?
Billy Graham’s compromise and disobedience began very early in his ministry. He was born in 1918 into a Presbyterian home. He claims to have been saved under the preaching of Baptist evangelist Mordecai Ham in 1934. He graduated from high school in May 1936 and attended Bob Jones College (which later became Bob Jones University) in the fall. He switched to Florida Bible Institute after only one semester, because he did not like the strict discipline. He notes in his biography that "one thing that thrilled me [about Florida Bible Institute] was the diversity of viewpoints we were exposed to in the classroom, a wondrous blend of ecumenical and evangelical thought that was really ahead of its time" (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 46). It was during his time in Florida that Graham felt the call to preach. In late 1938, he was baptized by immersion into a Baptist church; and in early 1939, he was ordained to preach by a Southern Baptist congregation. Graham graduated from the Florida Bible Institute in May 1940, and started at Wheaton College that September, graduating from there in 1943. Graham pastored the Western Springs Baptist Church during the last year at Wheaton and for about a year after his graduation. In May 1944, he began preaching for the newly formed Chicagoland Youth for Christ, and in January 1945, he was appointed the first full-time evangelist for Youth for Christ International. He was president of Northwestern Schools (founded by W.B. Riley) from December 1947 to February 1952, though he continued to travel and preach for Youth for Christ and then independently. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was formed in 1950 and the Hour of Decision radio broadcasts began that same year. Graham conducted his first citywide crusade in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in September 1947. His October 1948 crusade in Augusta, Georgia, marked the beginning of an openly ecumenical program. It was the first one that was sponsored by the city ministerial association. The Graham organization began demanding broad denominational support for his crusades. During Graham’s 1949 Los Angeles crusade, his ministry began to receive national press coverage. Graham’s final rift with most Fundamentalist leaders did not occur until 1957, though. This was brought about by the open sponsorship of the liberal Protestant Church Council in New York City. The Graham crusade committee in New York included 120 Modernists who denied the infallibility of Scripture. The wife of Modernist Norman Vincent Peale headed up the women’s prayer groups for the Crusade. Modernists like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., sat on the platform and led in prayer. In the National Observer, Dec. 30, 1963, King said the virgin birth of Christ was "a mythological story" created by the early Christians. In Ebony magazine, January 1961, King said: "I do not believe in hell as a place of a literal burning fire."
THE COMPROMISE BEGAN MUCH EARLIER THAN 1957, THOUGH. AS EARLY AS 1944, BILLY GRAHAM WAS BEFRIENDED BY ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CATHOLIC LEADERS IN AMERICA, FULTON SHEEN. When Sheen died in December 1979, Graham testified that he had "known him as a friend for over 35 years" (Religious News Service, Dec. 11, 1979). Fulton Sheen was a faithful son of Rome. In his book Treasure in Clay, Sheen said that one of his spiritual secrets was to offer Mass every Saturday "in honor of the Blessed Mother to solicit her protection of my priesthood." Sheen devoted an entire chapter of his biography to Mary, "The Woman I Love." He said, "When I was ordained, I took a resolution to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist every Saturday to the Blessed Mother ... All this makes me very certain that when I go before the Judgment Seat of Christ, He will say to me in His Mercy: ‘I heard My Mother speak of you.’ During my life I have made about thirty pilgrimages to the shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes and about ten to her shrine in Fatima" (Fulton J. Sheen, Treasure in Clay, p. 317).
In his autobiography, Graham describes the first meeting with Sheen, though he doesn’t give the exact date. He says he was traveling on a train from Washington to New York and was just drifting off to sleep when Sheen knocked on the sleeping compartment and asked to "come in for a chat and a prayer" (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 692). Graham says: "We talked about our ministries and our common commitment to evangelism, and I told him how grateful I was for his ministry and his focus on Christ. … We talked further and we prayed; and by the time he left, I felt as if I had known him all my life." Thus, Graham claims now that he accepted Fulton Sheen’s sacramental gospel as the truth even in those days. There is a serious problem with this, though. There was a deception in this. While Graham was meeting with Fulton Sheen and befriending him as a fellow evangelist, Graham was assuring fundamentalist leaders, such as Bob Jones Sr. and John R. Rice, that he was opposed to Catholicism and that he was a separatist and a Fundamentalist. It is obvious, though, that Billy Graham never was committed to that in his heart.
When Graham met Sheen in 1944, it was three years before his first citywide crusade. Graham had started preaching for Youth for Christ in 1944 and was an unknown young man. Why would a man as famous as Fulton Sheen go out of his way to befriend an insignificant young fundamental Baptist preacher like Billy Graham? Graham was only eight years out of high school at the time.
Boston’s Archbishop Richard Cushing also "exercised a special influence over Billy Graham beginning in 1950. Cushing printed ‘BRAVO BILLY’ on the front of his diocesan paper during the January 1950 campaign. In an interview in 1991, Graham referred to this as one of the highlights of his ministry:
"Another significant thing happened in the early ‘50s in Boston. Cardinal Cushing, in his magazine, The Pilot, put ‘BRAVO BILLY’ on the front cover. That made news all over the country. He and I became close, wonderful friends. That was my first real coming to grips with the whole Protestant/Catholic situation. I began to realize that there were Christians everywhere. They might be called modernists, Catholics, or whatever, but they were Christians" (Bookstore Journal, Nov. 1991).
By the end of 1950, Graham had formed a permanent team of staff members who arranged his meetings. Willis Haymaker was the front man who would go into cities and set up the organizational structure necessary to operate the crusades. One of his duties even in those early days was as follows: "He would also call on the local Catholic bishop or other clerics to acquaint them with Crusade plans and invite them to the meetings; they would usually appoint a priest to attend and report back. This was years before Vatican II’s openness to Protestants, but WE WERE CONCERNED TO LET THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS SEE THAT MY GOAL WAS NOT TO GET PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR CHURCH; rather, I wanted them to commit their lives to Christ" (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 163).
In his 1997 autobiography, Graham acknowledged that he began to draw close to Rome very early in his ministry:
"At that time [March 1950], Protestantism in New England was weak, due in part to theological differences within some denominations, the influence of Unitarian ideas in other denominations, and the strength of the Roman Catholic Church. In spite of all that, a number of Roman Catholic priests and Unitarian clergy, together with some of their parishioners, came to the meetings along with those from Evangelical churches. With my limited Evangelical background, this was a further expansion of my own ecumenical outlook. I now began to make friends among people from many different backgrounds and to develop a spiritual love for their clergy" (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 167).
Need I remind my readers that the Catholic and Unitarian and Modernist "clergy" that Graham learned to love in the late 1940s and early 1950s were men who denied the very faith that Graham claimed to believe. The Catholic clergy that Graham loved denied that salvation is through the grace of Christ alone by faith alone without works or sacraments and they denied, further, that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice. The Modernist clergy that Graham loved denied that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and questioned or openly denied the virgin birth, miracles, vicarious atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Unitarian clergy that Dr. Graham loved were men who denied the Godhead and blood atonement of Jesus Christ and who scoffed at the infallibility of the Holy Bible. Why did Graham not rather love those who were in danger of being deceived by these wicked false teachers enough to warn them of these men? Why did he not rather love God’s Word enough to stand against its enemies? Why did he not rather love the Christ of the Bible enough to reject those who had rejected Him? Graham’s love was motivated in the wrong direction. He loved the false shepherds, but he did not love the sheep that were led to eternal ruin by these shepherds.
It is obvious that false teachers like Fulton Sheen and Richard Cushing had a strong influence on the young evangelist. He was also influenced by theological Modernists. In a lecture to the Union Theological Seminary in February 1954, Graham testified that the year previous he had locked himself into a room in New York City for an entire day with Jesse Bader and John Sutherland Bonnell, that he might ask them questions and receive their counsel. By this action, Graham was actually locking himself into a room with the Devil, because these men were certainly the Devil’s ministers (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Bader and Bonnell were both rank liberals who denied many doctrines of the New Testament faith. Bader was secretary of the radical National Council of Churches. In an article in Look magazine (March 23, 1954), Bonnell stated that he and most other Presbyterian ministers did not believe in the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, a literal heaven and hell, and other doctrines.
God warned Graham to mark and avoid those who teach contrary to apostolic truth (Rom. 16:17). He warned him that error is like a canker (2 Tim. 2:16-18) and like a leaven (Gal. 5:9), that "evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33), but he ignored the warning.
By 1950, Billy Graham had so fallen under the power of Catholicism that he turned to it for solace during an illness. During his 1950 New England campaign, Graham fell sick for several days in Hartford, Connecticut. Executive Secretary Gerald Beavan "stayed at his bedside and read to him from Bishop Fulton Sheen’s Peace of Soul" (Wilson Ewin, The Assimilation of Evangelist Billy Graham into the Roman Catholic Church). We have seen that Sheen was a great lover of Mary and was certain of God’s mercy only because of his devotion to Mary. Why would a young fundamental Baptist preacher turn to the writings of such a man for comfort?
Graham began holding citywide meetings in 1948. As early as 1950 there were rumors that Graham was cooperating with Catholics.
In 1950 Dr. Robert Ketcham of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches came across a newspaper article indicating that Graham expected Catholics and Jews to cooperate in a revival in Oregon and another which reported that Graham had turned over decision cards to Roman Catholic churches. Ketcham promptly sent a letter of inquiry to Billy himself. His letter brought him a strong rebuke from Graham’s executive secretary, Jerry Beavan. Part of Beavan’s reply was as follows:
‘For example, you asked if Billy Graham had invited Roman Catholics and Jews to cooperate in the evangelistic meetings. SUCH A THOUGHT, EVEN IF THE REPORTER DID SUGGEST IT AS HAVING COME FROM MR. GRAHAM, SEEMS RIDICULOUS TO ME. SURELY YOU MUST KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. ... FURTHER, THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT MR. GRAHAM WOULD EVER TURN OVER ANY DECISION CARDS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE’ (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II).
Graham was soon openly doing what Mr. Beavan labeled "ridiculous" and "inconceivable." On Sept. 6, 1952, reporter William McElwain, writing for the Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, remarked on Graham’s ecumenical activities with Rome:
Graham stressed that his crusade in Pittsburgh would be interdenominational. He said that he hopes to hear Bishop Fulton J. Sheen at one of the Masses at St. Paul’s Cathedral tomorrow. Graham said, ‘Many of the people who have reached a decision for Christ at our meetings have joined the Catholic church and we have received commendations from Catholic publications for the revived interest in their church following one of our campaigns. This happened both in Boston and Washington. After all, one of our prime purposes is to help the churches in a community.’
It doesn’t sound to me that Dr. Ketcham’s aforesaid questions were ridiculous. Graham publicly admitted he was already turning seekers over to the Catholic Church in the early 1950s.
In an interview with the Religious News Service in 1986, the 67-year-old Billy Graham admitted that his ministry was deliberately ecumenical even in the early days. He told the interviewer that one of his "very close advisers and friends" was Dr. Jesse Bader, a liberal Disciples of Christ clergyman who was secretary of the radical National Council of Churches (Christian News, March 31, 1986).
Since then, Graham has moved ever closer into fellowship with Roman Catholicism and Modernism. As John Ashbrook, author of New Neutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise, notes, "Compromise takes a man farther than he intends to go." The Bible warns that "evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33).
How have Graham’s ecumenical relationships affected him? The January 1978, issue of McCall’s magazine contained an interview with Graham by James Michael Beam. Graham admitted his change in thinking:
"I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders--people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition--has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction. I’ve found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics, for instance. They believe in the Virgin Birth, and so do I. They believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and the coming judgment of God, and so do I. We only differ on some matters of later church tradition."
This is strange talk. The errors of the Roman Catholic Church are not mere matters of "later church tradition." Roman Catholicism is the utter perversion of the gospel and of the New Testament church by the intermingling of biblical truth with paganism and Judaism. Rome’s false sacramental gospel of grace plus works requires that we label it cursed of God (Gal. 1:6-10); but Dr. Graham long ago determined to look upon Roman Catholicism as true Christianity, and he has led multitudes astray by that decision.
GRAHAM WAS WARNED MANY TIMES
Some of my readers have asked if I have personally warned Billy Graham about his disobedience. The answer is no, I have not. I have no means of doing so. All of Graham’s correspondence is filtered through his massive organization. I do not have the ear of Billy Graham. I don’t need to warn Graham, though. That has been done repeatedly by men who have had the opportunity to do so. We need to state emphatically that Dr. Billy Graham has been warned many times for his disobedience to God’s Word. In the early days of his compromise, Graham was warned repeatedly by prominent Christian leaders such as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Robert Shuler, G. Archer Weniger, James Bennet, Carl McIntire, Bryce Augsburger, Charles Woodbridge, and Robert Ketcham.
IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT BILLY GRAHAM WAS PLAINLY IDENTIFIED AS A FUNDAMENTALIST WHEN HE BEGAN PREACHING. As already noted, he attended the staunch Fundamentalist Bob Jones College and counted himself one of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.’s preacher boys. Graham associate Cliff Barrows was a Bob Jones graduate. Graham interviewed Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., on his Hour of Decision radio broadcast in December 1951, and concluded by saying: "It’s wonderful in these days of secular and materialistic education to see a great University that stands for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not only old-fashioned Americanism that we so desperately need today, but is injecting into our society your men and women that take their stand for the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Graham, who has been called "Mr. Facing Two Ways," was already moving in a completely different direction from Bob Jones even as he was uttering this effusive praise. Graham was also on the Cooperating Board of Dr. John R. Rice’s The Sword of the Lord. From December 1947 to 1952, Graham was also president of Northwestern Schools (founded by famous Fundamentalist leader William Bell Riley) and was editor of that school’s Fundamentalist publication, The Pilot, the masthead of which boldly proclaimed a "militant stand against Modernism in every form." During his early years, Graham was awarded honorary doctorates from Northwestern and Bob Jones.
Consider some of the men who personally pleaded with Graham to turn from his unscriptural path:
JAMES BENNET was a prominent New York attorney and Bible teacher who knew Graham from the time he graduated from Wheaton. He encouraged Graham during the early years of his ministry, but when Graham began openly yoking together with Modernists and Catholics, Bennet attempted to turn him from this error. He met with Graham in New York City before the 1954 crusade and pleaded with him not to proceed with his ecumenical plans. When Graham refused to obey the Word of God, Bennet resigned from the campaign invitation committee and wrote a public warning about the direction Graham was pursuing (James E. Bennet, "The Billy Graham New York Crusade: Why I Cannot Support It," A Ministry of Disobedience, Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, May-September 1957).
James Bennet lovingly warned Billy Graham.
DR. JOHN R. RICE, editor of the influential Sword of the Lord weekly Fundamental Baptist paper, also supported Graham during his early years. In fact, Graham was on the Cooperating Board of the Sword. Dr. Rice was a very loving and gracious Christian gentleman, and he pleaded with the young Billy Graham to turn from his ecumenical adventures. In her biography of John Rice, Viola Walden, who was Rice’s faithful secretary for 46 years, testified that Dr. Rice greatly loved Graham and repeatedly tried to reason with him (Walden, John R. Rice, pp. 164-167). Graham and Rice met in Scotland in 1955, and Graham assured the elder evangelist:
"I have promised God I will never have on my committee working in an active way in any of my campaigns men who do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, who do not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, who do not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible--these men will never be on my committee. I have promised God" (Graham, cited by Pastor Roland Rasmussen, Reasons Why I Cannot Support Billy Graham, chapel message delivered at Bob Jones University, Feb. 15, 1966).
As it became obvious that Graham was not following his own counsel but was pursuing the ecumenical course, Rice met with him again and urged him to obey the Bible: Dr. Rice referred to this occasion in an article a couple of years later: "I visited Dr. Graham in his own home in Montreat, North Carolina, by his invitation, and we talked earnestly on such matters" (John Rice, Sword of the Lord, June 20, 1958).
Graham, of course, did not listen, and John Rice publicly disassociated himself and the Sword from the young evangelist in 1957. Viola Walden notes that far from having a mean attitude toward Graham, Dr. Rice "prayed regularly [for Graham] even long after denouncing his compromise" and "rejoiced over the many saved in Dr. Graham’s crusades" (Walden, pp. 166,167).
John R. Rice lovingly warned Billy Graham.
DR. BOB JONES, SR., first met Billy Graham when the elder evangelist came to Charlotte, North Carolina, for an evangelistic meeting during Graham’s senior year in high school. Billy’s father, Frank, was impressed with Jones and wanted his son to attend Bob Jones College in Tennessee. (The school moved to Greensville, South Carolina, in 1946, and the name was changed to Bob Jones University.) Billy did attend Bob Jones the fall after he graduated from high school (1936), but he did not fit in well with the strict disciplinary atmosphere and he soon moved on to the Florida Bible Institute and then to Wheaton in 1940 (from whence he graduated--with a degree in anthropology!). Dr. Bob Jones supported Graham during his early years, and Graham even wrote to Jones to say that he got his evangelistic burden at Bob Jones College and he wanted to be called one of Dr. Jones’s "preacher boys" (Bob Jones, Sr., letter to a supporter, March 6, 1957). As Graham began to launch out on his career of yoking together with false teachers, Dr. Jones corresponded with him and reproved him for his compromise. At first, Graham claimed that he had no intention of working with Modernists or Catholics. On June 3, 1952, Graham told Jones, "The modernists do not support us anywhere." It was not long, though, before Graham openly practiced what he privately denied. His 1954 New York Crusade included 120 Modernists on the committee.
Bob Jones, Sr. lovingly warned Billy Graham.
DR. CHARLES WOODBRIDGE was another prominent Christian leader who attempted to correct Billy Graham. Woodbridge was a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary and a member of the National Association of Evangelicals before he rejected the New Evangelicalism that was taking over in that day and separated himself from this false philosophy. Woodbridge was a highly educated Presbyterian, with an MA from Princeton, a Ph.D. from Duke, and further studies at Berlin and Marburg Universities in Germany and the Sorbonne in Paris. In his classic book The New Evangelicalism, Woodbridge relates a visit that Graham made to his home in 1958:
"Dr. Graham came to my home in Altadena, California, in 1958 to chat with me about these things. We talked for two hours. I pointed out to him Romans 16:17. I did my best to persuade him to come out from among unbelievers, so far as the conduct of his campaigns was concerned. But to no avail" (Woodbridge, The New Evangelicalism, 1970, p. 44).
Charles Woodbridge lovingly warned Billy Graham.
JACK WYRTZEN, founder of Word of Life, also warned Graham. The following testimony is from a pastor who witnessed one of the meetings in which Fundamentalist leaders tried to correct Billy Graham:
"In 1957, I sat in a meeting where Jack Wyrtzen and Dr. Woodbridge spoke face to face with Billy Graham about his compromise and the direction he was heading away from Fundamentalism. Billy Graham was at Word of Life Inn for two days of meetings near Schroon Lake, New York. That fall was the 'great New York Crusade.' It was following that meeting that both Dr. Woodbridge and Jack Wyrtzen stopped all support and fellowship with Billy Graham. Dr. Wyrtzen spoke to the staff of WOL regarding his reasons for pulling away from Graham. I was a young Christian at the time (saved at Word of Life on June 24, 1956, at 19 years of age.) It was the next year that Dr. Woodbridge broke fellowship with Dr. Graham for the same reasons" (E-mail dated Feb. 27, 1999, from Pastor Bob Welch, D. Min, Collegegate Baptist Church, Anchorage, Alaska).
Jack Wyrtzen lovingly warned Billy Graham. (Later, Wyrtzen would travel the ecumenical path himself.)
DR. ROBERT KETCHAM was the leader of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches in 1950 when he saw some news clippings stating that Graham was working with Jews and Catholics in his meetings and was turning decision cards over to Catholic parishes. Ketcham wrote immediately to Graham and asked if the reports were true. The reply from Graham’s executive secretary, Jerry Beavan, included the following:
‘For example, you asked if Billy Graham had invited Roman Catholics and Jews to cooperate in the evangelistic meetings. SUCH A THOUGHT, EVEN IF THE REPORTER DID SUGGEST IT AS HAVING COME FROM MR. GRAHAM, SEEMS RIDICULOUS TO ME. SURELY YOU MUST KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. ... FURTHER, THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT MR. GRAHAM WOULD EVER TURN OVER ANY DECISION CARDS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE’ (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II).
It was not long until Beavan’s reply was proven a deception. Graham was intent upon working with Modernistic and Catholic and Jewish leaders, and he was intending to turn decision cards over to the same. The point here, though, is that Dr. Ketcham approached Billy Graham directly about this matter.
Robert Ketcham lovingly warned Billy Graham.
Another Christian leader who warned Graham was the late WILSON EWIN, longtime missionary to Roman Catholic-dominated Quebec. Graham cannot say that Ewin did not understand Roman Catholicism or Catholic evangelism. Unlike Graham, who travels from place to place and preaches largely in formal, organized settings, then returns to the seclusion of his hotel suite, Ewin lived among Roman Catholics and worked with them as a pastor and evangelist day by day, month by month, decade after decade. He dedicated his book You Can Lead Roman Catholics to Christ to "the salvation of dear Roman Catholics whom I love and for whom our Saviour died and shed His Blood."
"For twenty years, I have watched the crusades and ministry of Dr. Billy Graham. In fact, Ruth [Ewin’s wife] and I sang in the choir and were counselors in one of the Graham crusades. Many letters were written to Billy expressing grave concern about his illicit affair with the Roman Catholic system. I even visited his evangelistic headquarters in Minneapolis to alert the Graham Organization about its overt compromise with Roman Catholicism. Graham has indeed allowed the truth to fall into the street through his ecumenical ministry" (Wilson Ewin, prayer letter announcing his book The Assimilation of Evangelist Billy Graham into the Roman Catholic Church, January 1993).
Wilson Ewin lovingly warned Billy Graham.
These are only a few of the men who have attempted to reprove Graham for his error. In fact, Graham mentions these warnings in his biography.
"Much more painful to me, however, was the opposition from some of the leading fundamentalists. Most of them I knew personally, and even if I did not agree with them on every detail, I greatly admired them and respected their commitment to Christ. Many also had been among our strongest supporters in the early years of our public ministry. Their criticisms hurt immensely, nor could I shrug them off as the objections of people who rejected the basic tenets of the Christian faith or who opposed evangelism of any type" (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 302).
Graham goes on to call the criticism "harsh." He also claims that the men who criticised him demonstrated "a lack of love," but the disobedient always say that no matter how tender and loving the rebukes are. They always confuse correction with persecution. It is human nature to do that, and it raises a smokescreen to hide the real issues. Reproof is never an easy thing to receive (nor to give!), and it always seems to be unloving to those who refuse to accept it. Further, one can always find some fault in the reprover, because he or she is also a sinner. Proverbs teaches that one’s attitude toward biblical reproof exposes the condition of the heart.
"He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth" (Prov. 10:17).
"The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise. He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getting understanding" (Prov. 16:32).
Billy Graham does not have a good attitude toward biblical reproof. He has refused to turn from the path of plain disobedience, and he slanders those who have loved him and God’s Word enough to attempt to correct him.
Billy Graham was warned. He has had many opportunities to repent. Sadly, he has clung steadfastly to the course of disobedience to God’s Word.
SEE PART 2 OF 4 "BILLY GRAHAM AND ROME"
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/grahamrome1.htm
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
But repentance is not mere 'acknowledment', if it is only that and not a 'turning from'. For repentance is 'turning' from unbelief; and that means turning 'to' belief that we are saved, which also means 'delivered' from from death. And sin equals death.
So when you say wildb:
quote:
Acknowledgment is to the unbeliever greater than is repentance from the falling from Grace of the believer.
Repentance comes from acknowledgment of the need.
Repentance comes from acknowledgment of the need to repent. As one redeemed, that is because unbelief, per-se (the ultimate sin), doesn't recognize, and receive the finished work (and working), which delivers us altogether from 'bondage' to a failure. It is as important as acknowldegment of the unbeliever is. Else one justifies the unseemly. This is the epistles through and through.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
The "Four Spiritual Laws," is perfectly fine. It simply states that a person's salvation depends on (in this order), fact, faith, and feeling. The reason it says this in the booklet should be self evident, for fact is of utmost importance. That fact is clear to all of us here, which is that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified at the hands of sinful men, and HE rose again on the third day.
So who could overlook that 'faith' is next in line. For without faith, one cannot come to a knowledge of their savior, which is by having 'faith' in the 'fact' of His appearing. And all of this is stated to keep the one who is approaching Christ, safe from the lie of the devil that they should 'feel' something. For feeling is not uppermost with regard to salvation.
I have no problem with Billy Graham. He preached Jesus. I am thankful for Billy Graham. America is fortunate that God raised him up.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
We are justified solely through the Blood of Christ.
Romans 5:1,9 “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Man’s legal standing with Heaven is one of condemnation, and worthy of the righteous wrath of almighty God. Romans 3:23 “ For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;”
Justification is the act of God whereby He accepts the blood of Christ as the complete and satisfying sacrifice for all human sin, propitiation, thus changing our legal status and establishing a means of reconciliation with man.
Believers are justified by the grace of God through faith. Titus 3:7 “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Romans 3:28 “ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” We see that the status of man is changed from that of the condemned to that of an heir, one who is able to inherit. Thus man is reconciled to God through the propitiation of Jesus Christ and restored to full legal righteous standing.
If one is truly saved, justified, then the Holy Spirit will begin the process of Sanctification, with the evidence of the Fruit of the Spirit. The Believer will turn their heart more and more to God, and thus from the heart keep His Commandments.
The word sanctification means to be set apart. The Holy Spirit is endeavoring to make the believer holy (set apart from the world), and spiritual (set apart to reflect the character of God). This is being accomplished in four phases.
First, the believer at conversion in receiving Christ, is set apart from sin (forgiven) and set apart to Christ, this is preparational sanctification. Matt. 23:19 “Ye fools and blind; for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift.”
Second, the believer is set apart from the worldly realm and is set apart to the Heavenly realm, this is positional sanctification. John 17:21 “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
The third form of sanctification sets apart the believer from the “old man” (sin nature), to the “new man” (thirst after righteousness). This is practical sanctification. 1Thess. 5:23 “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The fourth form of sanctification sets apart from the stain of sin and sets us apart to be presented pure and without blemish before the judgment seat of Christ. This is prospective sanctification. Eph. 5:27 “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
What could be clearer than the contrast of fleshly fruit and spiritual fruit found in Galations 5:
19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
And these are the commandments which we are to keep:
1 John 3:
23: And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24: And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
We are to be fruit inspectors as we look in the mirror. If there is an absence of Christ's fruit in our heart and life, is God within us?
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
I believe Sinners Prayer started out on the right track. But it has to be more then just a prayer there has to be a heart change. If a pig is given a bubble bath and other beauty treatments and he goes back into the mire he is still filthy. A sinner has to do more then go down and shake the Preacher's hand and repeat a prayer. It has to come from the heart and there has to be a life change. Only God can do a life change. We cannot save ourselves.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
alcoholics in "Alcoholics Anonymous" acknowledge their need, does this mean they have repented and are saved?
The sinners prayer theology is more of false doctrine like "once saved always saved" that is keeping people from the True Gospel that Saves.
Whatever Happened To Repentance?
By David Wilkerson
August 2, 1999
__________
Whatever happened to repentance? You rarely hear the word mentioned in most churches today — even in Baptist, Pentecostal or evangelical circles. Pastors nowadays seldom call for their congregations to sorrow over sin — to mourn and grieve over wounding Christ by their wickedness.
Instead, the message we hear from many pulpits today is, "Just believe. Accept Christ, and you'll be saved." The text used to justify this message is Acts 16:30-31.
In this passage, the apostle Paul was being held in jail when suddenly the earth shook and all the cell doors opened. The jailer immediately thought all the prisoners had fled, which meant he faced execution. In despair, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself when Paul and Silas stopped him, assuring him no one had escaped.
Seeing this, the man fell down before the apostles and cried out, "…Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
As we read this passage, it's important to remember that the jailer was on the verge of suicide, with sword in hand. He was already at a point of repentance — on his knees, broken and trembling, before the apostles. So his heart was truly prepared to accept Jesus in genuine faith.
In the gospel of Mark, Christ tells his disciples, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). It's clear from what Jesus says here that salvation is found in simply accepting him and being baptized.
However, Jesus prefaces his statement with this word: "…Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (verse 15). He's saying, in essence, that before people can believe in him, the gospel must first be preached to them.
And what is this gospel Jesus refers to? It's the gospel that Jesus himself preached — the gospel of repentance!
Think about it — what was the first message Jesus delivered, after he emerged from the temptation in the wilderness? Scripture says, "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17).
Jesus called people to repent before he even called them to believe! Mark writes, "…Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15). Christ preached, "Repent first — and believe."
Elsewhere Jesus says of his mission, "…I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matthew 9:13). And he told the Galileans, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3).
Jesus' gospel was all about repentance!
John the Baptist Also Preached Repentance,
to Prepare Israel for the Coming of Christ.
John's message to the Jews was simple and straightforward: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:1-2).
People came from everywhere to hear John preach. And he told them in no uncertain terms: "The messiah is soon to appear in your midst — so, you'd better get ready to meet him! You may feel excited that he's coming. But I'm telling you, your hearts are not prepared — because you're still holding onto your sins!
"Outside you appear clean and holy. But inside, you're full of dead men's bones! You're a generation of vipers, snakes, with absolutely no fear of God. Yet you have no concept that you're even sinners. I warn you — you must deal with your sin before you can believe on the savior and follow him. So, repent, turn from your sin -- and live in a way that reflects genuine change!"
What gospel did Peter preach to the masses on the day of Pentecost? The Bible tells us that when the people heard the apostle testify, "...they were pricked in their heart, and said...Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:37-38).
Peter didn't tell these people just to "believe and be saved." He didn't ask them to merely make a decision, to cast a vote for Jesus. No -- he told them to repent fast, and then be baptized in obedience to Christ!
What gospel did Paul preach to the pagan Athenians on Mars Hill? He told them very directly, "...God...now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30).
These Greek intellectuals had no trouble believing in God. In fact, you could say their very pastime was "believing." They believed in many gods -- first this one, then that one. Whenever someone came along preaching a god persuasively, they believed in it. So, they believed -- but they did it while living in sin. Simple belief wasn't enough!
Paul told these men, "No, no -- that's not, Christ! Jesus can't simply be added to your list of gods. You may believe in them all, but you can't merely do that with Jesus. He has come to save you from your sins. And he commands all his followers to repent and be cleansed!"
Later, Paul preached the same gospel of repentance to King Agrippa: "...I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:19-20).
Paul is saying, "Everywhere I've been, I've preached repentance. And genuine repentance proves itself by its actions!"
These passages make clear to us that the apostolic church preached unabashedly the same gospel John and Jesus preached: "Repent for the remission of your sins!"
What Does It Mean To Repent?
Some Christians believe repentance means simply to "turn around" and go in the opposite direction. But the Bible tells us repentance is much more than this.
I once heard a man say, "I'm so glad I know New Testament Greek. It translates the word 'repent' as meaning, 'to change one's mind.'"
No -- this man doesn't know his Greek! The full, literal meaning of the word "repent" in the New Testament is "to feel remorse and self-reproach for one's sins against God; to be contrite, sorry; to want to change direction." The difference in meanings here rests on the word "Want." True repentance includes a desire to change!
Moreover, simply being sorry doesn't constitute repentance. Rather, true sorrow leads to repentance. Paul states, "Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death" (2 Corinthians 7:10).
Paul is speaking here of a sorrow that's without regrets -- one that's genuine, that "sticks" in the life of the repentant person. This kind of godly sorrow naturally produces a repentance that includes a hatred for sin, a righteous fear of God and a desire to right all wrongs.
It shouldn't surprise us, then, that Paul preached repentance to believers. He delivered a strong message of repentance to the Christians in Corinth. The Corinthian believers had been richly blessed by God, having sat under mighty teachers of the word. Yet their congregation remained rife with sin.
First Paul testifies to the Corinthians, "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds" (2 Corinthians 12:12). But then Paul tells them very directly: "I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would..." (verse 20).
What was Paul's fear? It was simply this: "Lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed" (verse 21).
This tenderhearted shepherd loved the compromising saints in Corinth. Yet he knew they'd been well-taught that a lifestyle of gross sin was wrong. And he told them, "When I come to visit you, you're going to see me hanging my head in grief. My eyes will flow with tears, and my voice will wail in sorrow.
"If I see you continuing to indulge in uncleanness, fornication and lust, I'll be utterly broken -- because the gospel has not done its work in your heart. You haven't yet repented of your sin. And I will call you loudly to repent!"
These Words of Paul Put Me to Shame!
As I read Paul's words, I find myself examining my own ministry And I have to ask, "Have I cut short the gospel Jesus preached -- the gospel of repentance? Have I essentially taken scissors to my Bible and removed the higher cost of following Christ? Have I lowered his standard by telling people, 'Just believe and be saved'?"
As I look at the church today, I wonder: Do we evangelicals insist on a biblical "godly sorrow" as evidence of true repentance? Or are we leading masses of unrepentant people into a false peace? Are we wrongly instructing them that all God requires of them is to say, "I believe in you, Jesus"?
Have we cut short genuine conviction for sins? Have we jumped in and offered salvation to those who haven't actually repented -- who haven't sorrowed over their trespasses, who haven't seen the exceeding sinfulness of their sins, who have sought faith so they could merely hide their lusts behind it?
We constantly hear awful exaggerations about the numbers of people who come to Jesus through various ministries. Christians report that scores of people were saved as they preached in prisons, schools, tribal meetings. They say, "Everybody in the place gave his heart to Jesus. When I finished preaching, they all came forward for salvation."
No -- that is a tragic exaggeration! All too often, what actually happens is that everyone simply repeats a prayer. They merely pray what they're told to pray -- and few of them grasp what they're saying. Then most go back to their heathen ways!
Such people never experience a deep work of the Holy Spirit. As a result, they never repent, never sorrow over their sins -- and never truly believe. Tragically, we've offered them something Jesus himself never offered -- salvation without repentance!
I believe the church has even taken the feeling out of conviction. Think about it -- you hardly ever see tears on the cheeks of those who are being saved anymore. Of course, I know tears don't save anyone. But God made us all human, with very real feelings. And any hell-bound sinner who has been moved upon by the Holy Spirit naturally feels a profound sorrow over the ways he has grieved the Lord.
The apostle Peter felt this kind of godly sorrow, when he denied knowing Jesus. Suddenly, he was flooded with the memory of what Jesus had told him: "Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he Wept" (Mark 14:72).
As Peter remembered these words, he was overcome with emotion. And suddenly, he went running through Jerusalem, weeping, "I've betrayed the Lord!"
Beloved, we simply cannot work up that kind of repentance in our own flesh. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal to us how, like Peter, we also have wounded our loving savior. And that revelation ought to fill us with deep sorrow!
I don't agree with all of the Puritan writers' doctrine, but I love their emphasis on holiness. These godly preachers called their sermons "deep ploughing." They believed they couldn't sow true seeds of faith until the soil of their listeners' hearts had been deeply plowed.
So the Puritans made sure their preaching went deep, cracking all the fallow ground of their listeners' souls. Their sermons produced genuine repentance in their congregations. And, in turn, over the years this produced strong, mature, faithful Christians.
Today, however, most preaching is all sowing with no plowing. I hear very few sermons nowadays that dig deeper than the topsoil. Deep plowing doesn't just address the disease of sin; it digs down to the very cause of the disease. Much of the preaching we hear today focuses on the remedy while ignoring the disease. It offers a prescription without providing surgery!
Sadly, we cause people to think they've been healed of sin when they never knew they were sick. We put robes of righteousness on them when they never knew they were naked. We urge them to trust in Christ when they don't even know their need to trust. Such people end up thinking, "It can't hurt to add Jesus to my life."
C.H. Spurgeon, the powerful English preacher, said the following about the need for repentance:
"I trust that sorrowful penitence does still exist, though I have not heard much about it lately. People seem to jump into faith very quickly nowadays...I hope my old friend repentance is not dead. I am desperately in love with repentance; it seems to be the twin sister of faith.
"I do not myself understand much about dry-eyed faith; I know that I came to Christ by the way of weeping-cross...When I came to Calvary by faith, it was with great weeping and supplication, confessing my transgressions, and desiring to find salvation in Jesus, and in Jesus only."
When Times Square Church Was Founded,
We Pastors Preached the Law
for the First Few Years.
Why did we preach the law for so long in our church? We did it because many in our congregation were calling themselves Christians -- yet their lives didn't reflect it!
In those early years, many people came forward to the altar at the end of every service. They repeated a pastoral prayer and "accepted salvation by faith." Yet, most of those people never felt any conviction for their sin. They didn't experience godly sorrow -- and so their lives didn't reveal true repentance.
Supposedly repentant theater actors professed Christ on Sunday but went back to their blasphemous shows during the week. Homosexuals prayed for salvation but still indulged in their sinful lifestyle. Others confessed Jesus at our altar yet continued their adulterous affairs, fornication or drug use.
This is why we thundered conviction from our pulpit! The Holy Ghost led our pastoral team to expose all sin, rebellion and disobedience to his word. We preached hell so hot, people got up and left our services. And we preached heaven so real, compromisers trembled at the awesome reality of Christ's holiness.
Our preaching of the law was absolutely necessary at that time. It is God's mirror, revealing every hidden, secret thing. And it brought the people in our congregation to an awareness of the exceeding sinfulness of sin.
While some people ran out, others ran forward in genuine repentance. One of these was a booming-voiced actor named David Davis. He surrendered all to Jesus in true repentance. And today, he and his wife pastor a thriving church in Israel, where they've preached Christ for almost ten years.
While the true work of repentance was accomplishing its purpose in our church, the Holy Spirit then led us to preach the glory of grace. We taught on the New Covenant, on power over sin through the Holy Spirit, on walking by faith. In short, we began to build up the saints.
Through that whole experience, we also discovered the dangers of preaching only the law and focusing primarily on sin. If people are given a steady diet of this message alone, they begin to lose hope and wallow in despair, thinking, "I'll never measure up." They constantly turn inward rather than looking to the cross for hope.
Yet when a church is the Lord's, it can trust God's Spirit to bring the message of the law whenever it's needed. If Jesus sees his people lapsing into an "easy believism," he'll once again bring the lash of the law upon them, with all mercy and grace.
You see, repentance isn't a one-time experience. It's not some hurricane that strikes once and then is gone forever. Nor do we experience repentance only in a moment of crisis, and then merely talk about it the rest of our lives. No -- sorrow for sin should be our constant teacher!
Spurgeon testified, "I freely confess that I have a very much greater sorrow for sin today than I had when I came to the savior more than thirty years ago. I hate sin more intensely now than I did when I was under conviction. There are some things that I did not know to be sin then, that I know to be sin now. I have a much keener sense of the vileness of my own heart now than when I first came to Christ...
"Sorrow for sin is a perpetual rain, a sweet, soft shower, which to a truly saved man lasts all his life long...He is always sorrowful that he has sinned...He will never stop grieving until all sin has gone."
Jesus Said Something to the
Church in Ephesus That
Causes Me to Tremble!
You may remember the seven churches that John mentions in Revelation 2. Among them is the church of Ephesus -- a congregation Jesus commends very highly.
I like to think of our church in Times Square as being like the Ephesian church. That body of believers labored in one of the world's most populous cities, never fainting in the midst of vile wickedness. The people lived sacrificially, hated sin and refused to accept false doctrines. They stood strong in faith, loving God with all their heart no matter what temptations Satan threw at them.
Yet Christ knew something was amiss among these people. And he so loved this church — it was such a bright lamp to the nations — he wasn't about to sit idly by and let it die. So he told the Ephesians, "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (Revelation 2:4).
Jesus was saying, "Your fire is going out! The love for me that once motivated your faithfulness is waning. You once bore my burden for the lost — but now you're satisfied merely to sit and listen to sermons. You've become totally engrossed in your own personal concerns, and you're ignoring mine. You've fallen far from where you once stood!"
Jesus then tells them, "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen…" (verse 5). He's saying, "Think back! You used to yearn to come to my house, to be with my saints, to bear my burden. But now an hour on Sunday morning is plenty for you!"
So, dear Christian — are you still on fire for Jesus? Are you in love with him as passionately as when you first got saved? Or have you lost interest in his concerns, forsaking all ministry? Do you have too much else going on in your life? If so, the Lord says to you, "I've got something against you. You've left your first love!"
Listen to what Jesus says to us at this point: "…repent, and do the first works…" (same verse). He's saying, "Mourn over your growing apathy. Be contrite — take it seriously. Then let your grief lead you back to where you were when you first loved me!"
Christ then gives us a word that lets us know we'd better take heed. He says, "…or else…" (same verse). He immediately spells out the consequence: "…I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick…" (same verse).
Jesus is saying here that unless we repent, he's going to remove all the spiritual authority we've been given. This includes our influence on our city, our community, our neighborhood, those in our sphere of influence. Every bit of influence we have will be taken from us, he says, "Except ye repent!"
Right now, churches across the world are shutting their doors. Their lights are literally being turned out — because that's the judgment they incur for refusing to repent! God said they would lose their discernment, their spiritual blessings, their finances, his very presence. Now they're dead, lifeless, with only memories of his past blessings.
I preached in many such churches thirty years ago. At that time they were packed with zealous believers. Today, barely a dozen people sit in their pews. Soon they'll dwindle to nothing, and their doors will shut for good. God has written "Ichabod" over their doors — meaning, "The Spirit of the Lord has departed!"
Yet, beloved, God gives this same message to every Christian individually. He says, "If you refuse to repent — if you remain in your apathy — I'll remove your lampstand. You'll no longer have any influence over your family, your coworkers — anyone!"
This is exactly what happened to the Ephesian church. God waited patiently — over 1,000 years, in fact — for that church to repent. Yet finally the time came when their backsliding was more than he could endure.
The historian Gibbon writes: "The first candlestick of Ephesus was extinguished. The barbarous lords of Ionia and Lydia trampled on the remains of Christianity. Now the Mohammedan mosques invoke the god of Mohammed. Only the church of Philadel-phia still stands erect."
Yet, even as we read these words, we are not to fear. Jesus ends his admonition to us this way: "…To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7).
Dear saint, Jesus is that tree! He's telling us, "If you'll repent, I'll give you constant life from my very being. And as long as you continue to love me, I will provide a flow of supernatural life in you. This life will be revealed in your discernment, your love for people, your good works for my kingdom!"
This is the trait that distinguishes every Christian who's truly in love with Jesus. Such a believer is full of life — and everyone around him knows it!
Jesus promises that your godly sorrow, your repentant heart and your renewed love for him will lead you to life. So, pray to him right now: "Lord, give me a truly repentant heart. Take me back to who I was when I was first in love with you. Yet, this time take me farther, deeper in you, than I've ever been before!"
As you repent, God's Spirit will begin to produce in you a new revelation of the glory of Christ. And he'll make it known to everyone around you!
---
Used with permission granted by World Challenge, P. O. Box 260, Lindale, TX 75771, USA.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Glory belongs to Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7432
|
posted
God heareth not a sinner's prayer unless it is a prayer of repentance for Salvation.
The sinner's prayer is a doctrine of man and not of God; and is found no where in the Word of God.
John 9:31:
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His Will, him He heareth.
The only thing God Word tell a sinner to do is "Repent and be baptize."
If any man tries to come any other way they are a thief and a robber that too is the word of God.
Selah
--------------------
If you ever get so hungry for God that you are in pursuit of Him, He will do things for you that He won't do for anybody else.
Posts: 112 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Wild B,
So I guess my next question for you is this>>
Is repentance just an acknowledgement of our sin?
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi Wild B,
What are your thoughts on homosexuals being in the church? Are they born-again because they have admitted that they fall short of the glory of God and that they have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior?
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
You sir need to learn how to rightfully divide the word.
HOW TO BE BORN AGAIN
* The Sinner: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23
* The Problem: "Jesus answered. . .Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3
* The Sentence: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
* The Savior: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8
* The Solution: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9
* The Timing: "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." II Corinthians 6:2
* Your Acceptance of God's Gift: If you really believe that Jesus Christ took your place in judgment for your sins on the Cross, you can pray the following prayer.
* The Prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, be merciful to me a sinner. I do now receive you as my personal Lord and Savior.
* The Result: If you sincerely prayed the above prayer, you are now born again! John 3:3
* Welcome to God's Family: "Therefore if any man (or woman) be in Christ, he (or she) is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." II Corinthians 5:17
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
The Sinner's Prayer:
"Modern apostasy and false teaching that prevents men from being saved."
The earliest notion of sinners prayer is less than 500 years old. It wasn't formalized as a theology until around the time of Billy Graham.
No one in the Bible ever prayed for their initial salvation. They did however believe, repent, confess Jesus and be immersed in water for the forgiveness of their sins. The sinners prayer is a an innovation that thwarts God's plan of salvation. First they replaced believers baptism by immersion with infant baptism by sprinkling. Second they later replaced baptism altogether with the "sinners prayer" so that baptism is no longer even part of the plan of salvation. If you prayed the "sinners prayer" for your salvation, you are still lost in your sins, because it is not what God said to do.
The Sinner's Prayer
C.S. Lewis used the term "a great cataract of nonsense" to describe how people use a modern idea to construe Bible theology. One such example, perhaps the best example, is a conversion method called the Sinner's Prayer. It is more popularly known as the Four Spiritual Laws.
Lewis used this term to describe what happens when someone looks backward at the Bible based only on what he or she has known. Instead, an evangelical should first discern conversion practices from Scriptures and then consider the topic in light of two thousand years of other thinkers. As it is, a novel technique popularized through recent revivals has replaced the biblically sound practice.
Today, hundreds of millions hold to a belief system and salvation practice that no one had ever held until relatively recently. The notion that one can pray Jesus into his or her heart and that baptism is merely an outward sign are actually late developments. The prayer itself dates to the Billy Sunday era; however, the basis for talking in prayer for salvation goes back a few hundred years.
Consider the following appeal:
"Just accept Christ into your heart through prayer and he'll receive you. It doesn't matter what church you belong to or if you ever do good works. You'll be born again at the moment you receive Christ. He's at the door knocking. You don't even have to change bad habits, just trust Christ as Savior. God loves you and forgives you unconditionally. Anyone out there can be saved if they ... Accept Christ, now! Let us pray for Christ to now come into your heart."
Sound familiar? This method of conversion has had far-reaching effects worldwide as many have claimed this as the basis for their salvation. Yet, what is the historical significance of this conversion? How did the process of rebirth, which Jesus spoke of in John 3, evolve into praying him into one's heart? I believe it was an error germinating shortly after the Reformation, which eventually caused great ruin and dismay in Christendom. By supplying a brief documentation of its short, historical development, I hope to show how this error has served as "a great cataract of nonsense".
The Reformation
Although things weren't ideal after the Reformation, for the first time in over a thousand years the general populace was reading the Scriptures. By the early 1600s, one hundred years after the Reformation was initiated, there were various branches of European Christendom that followed national lines. For instance, Germans followed Martin Luther. There were also Calvinists (Presbyterian), the Church of England (Episcopalian), various branches of Anabaptists and, of course, the Roman church (Catholics). Most of these groups were trying to revive the waning faith of their already traditionalized denominations. However, a consensus had not been reached on issues like rebirth, baptism or salvation--even between Protestants.
The majority still held to the validity of infant baptism even though they disagreed on its significance. Preachers tended to minimize baptism because people hid their lack of commitment behind sayings like "I am a baptized Lutheran and that's that." The influence of the preachers eventually led to the popular notion that one was forgiven at infant baptism but not yet reborn. Most Protestants were confused or ambivalent about the connection between rebirth and forgiveness.
The Great Awakening
The Great Awakening was the result of fantastic preaching occurring in Europe and the eastern colonies during the early to mid 1700s. Though ambivalent on the practice of baptism, Great Awakening preachers created an environment that made man aware of his need for an adult confession experience. The experiences that people sought were varied. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield and John Wesley furthered ideas of radical repentance and revival. Although there is much to be learned from their messages, they did not solve the problems of the practices associated with baptism and conversion.
Eventually, the following biblical passage written to and inspired for lukewarm Christians became a popular tool for the conversion of non-Christians:
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. ....Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:14-20)
This passage was written explicitly for lukewarm Christians. Now consider how a lecturer named John Webb misused this passage in the mid 1700s as a basis of evangelizing non-Christians:
"Here is a promise of Union to Christ; in these words, I will come in to him. i.e. If any Sinner will but hear my Voice and open the Door, and receive me by Faith, I will come into his Soul, and unite him to me, and make him a living member of that my mystical body of which I am the Head." (Christ's Suit to the Sinner, 14)
Preachers heavily relied on Revelation 3:20. By using the first-person tense while looking into the sinner's eyes, preachers began to speak for Jesus as they exhorted, "If you would just let me come in and dine with you, I would accept you." Even heathens who had never been baptized responded with the same or even greater sorrow than churchgoers. As a result, more and more preachers of Christendom concluded that baptism was merely an external matter--only an outward sign of an inward grace. In fact, Huldreich Zwingli put this idea forth for the very first time. Nowhere in church history was such a belief recorded. It only appears in Scripture when one begins with a great cataract of nonsense. In other words, it only appears in the New Testament through the imagination of readers influenced by this phenomenon.
Mourner's Seat
A method originated during the 1730s or '40s, which was practically forgotten for about a hundred years. It is documented that in 1741 a minister named Eleazar Wheelock had utilized a technique called the Mourner's Seat. As far as one can tell, he would target sinners by having them sit in the front bench (pew). During the course of his sermon "salvation was looming over their heads." Afterwards, the sinners were typically quite open to counsel and exhortation. In fact, as it turns out they were susceptible to whatever prescription the preaching doctor gave to them. According to eyewitnesses, false conversions were multiplied. Charles Wesley had some experience with this practice, but it took nearly a hundred years for this tactic to take hold.
Cane Ridge
In 1801 there was a sensational revival in Cane Ridge, Kentucky that lasted for weeks. Allegedly, people barked, rolled over in the aisles and became delirious because there were long periods without food in the intense heat. It resulted in the extreme use and abuse of emotions as thousands left Kentucky with wild notions about rebirth. Today it is generally viewed as a mockery to Christianity.
The excesses in Cane Ridge produced expectations for preachers and those seeking religious experience. A Second Great Awakening, inferior to the first, was beginning in America. Preachers were enamored with the idea that they could cause (manipulate) people into conversion. One who witnessed such nineteenth century hysteria was J. V. Coombs who complained of the technique:
"The appeals, songs, prayers and the suggestion from the preacher drive many into the trance state. I can remember in my boyhood days seeing ten or twenty people laying unconscious upon the floor in the old country church. People called that conversion. Science knows it is mesmeric influence, self-hypnotism … It is sad that Christianity is compelled to bear the folly of such movements." (J.V. Coombs, Religious Delusions, 92ff).
The Cane Ridge Meeting became the paradigm for revivalists for decades. A lawyer named Charles Finney came along a generation later to systemize the Cane Ridge experience through the use of Wheelock's Mourner's Seat and Scripture.
Charles Finney
It wasn't until about 1835 that Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) emerged to champion the system utilized by Eleazar Wheelock. Shortly after his own conversion he left his law practice and would become a minister, a lecturer, a professor, and a traveling revivalist. He took the Mourner's Seat practice, which he called the Anxious Seat, and developed a theological system around it. Finney was straightforward about his purpose for this technique and wrote the following comment near the end of his life:
"The church has always felt it necessary to have something of this kind to answer this very purpose. In the days of the apostles, baptism answered this purpose. The gospel was preached to the people, and then all those who were willing to be on the side of Christ, were called out to be baptized. It held the place that the anxious seat does now as a public manifestation of their determination to be Christians"
Finney made many enemies because of this innovation. The Anxious Seat practice was considered to be a psychological technique that manipulated people to make a premature profession of faith. It was considered to be an emotional conversion influenced by some of the preachers' animal magnetism. Certainly it was a precursor to the techniques used by many twentieth century televangelists.
In opposition to Finney's movement, John Nevin, a Protestant minister, wrote a book called The Anxious Bench. He intended to protect the denominations from this novel deviation. He called Finney's New Measures "heresy", a "Babel of extravagance", "fanaticism", and "quackery". He also said, "With a whirlwind in full view, we may be exhorted reasonably to consider and stand back from its destructive path." It turns out that Nevin was somewhat prophetic. The system that Finney admitted had replaced biblical baptism, is the vertebrae for the popular plan of salvation that was made normative in the twentieth century by the three Bills --- Billy Sunday, Billy Graham and Bill Bright.
Dwight Moody and R. A. Torrey
However, it wasn't until the end of Finney's life that it became evident to everyone and himself that the Anxious Bench approach led to a high fallout rate. By the 1860s Dwight Moody (1837-1899) was the new apostle in American evangelicalism. He took Finney's system and modified it. Instead of calling for a public decision, which tended to be a response under pressure, he asked people to join him and his trained counselors in a room called the Inquiry Room. Though Moody's approach avoided some of the errors encountered in Finneyism, it was still a derivative or stepchild of the Anxious Bench system.
In the Inquiry Room the counselors asked the possible convert some questions, taught him from Scripture and then prayed with him. The idea that prayer was at the end of the process had been loosely associated with conversion in the 1700s. By the late 1800s it was standard technique for 'receiving Christ' as Moody's influence spread across both the United States and the United Kingdom. This was where a systematic Sinner's Prayer began, but was not called as such until the time of Billy Sunday.
R. A. Torrey succeeded Moody's Chicago-based ministry after his death in 1899. He modified Moody's approach to include "on the spot" street conversions. Torrey popularized the idea of instant salvation with no strings attached, even though he never intended as much. Nonetheless, "Receive Christ, now, right here" became part of the norm. From that time on it became more common to think of salvation outside of church or a life of Lordship.
Billy Sunday and the Pacific Garden Mission
Meanwhile in Chicago, Billy Sunday, a well-known baseball player from Iowa, had been converted in the Pacific Garden Mission. The Mission was Chicago's most successful implementation of Moody's scheme. Eventually, Sunday left baseball to preach. He had great public charm and was one of the first to mix ideas of entertainment with ministry. By the early 1900s he had become a great well-known crusade leader. In his crusades he popularized the Finney-Moody method and included a bit of a circus touch. After fire and brimstone sermons, heavy moralistic messages with political overtones, and humorous if not outlandish behavior, salvation was offered. Often it was associated with a prayer, and at other times a person was told they were saved because they simply walked down his tabernacle's "sawdust trail" to the front where he was standing. In time people were told they were saved because they publicly shook Sunday's hand, acknowledging that they would follow Christ.
Billy Sunday died in 1935 leaving behind hundreds of his imitators. More than anything else, Billy Sunday helped crusades become acceptable to all denominations, which eventually led to a change in their theology. Large religious bodies sold out on their reservations toward these new conversion practices to reap the benefits of potential converts from the crusades because of the allure of success.
Both Dwight Moody and Billy Sunday admitted they were somewhat ignorant of church history by the time they had already latched on to their perspectives. This is highly significant because the Anxious Seat phenomenon and offshoot practices were not rooted in Scripture nor in the early church.
Billy Graham, Bill Bright
Billy Graham and his crusades were the next step in the evolution of things. Billy Graham was converted in 1936 at a Sunday-styled crusade. By the late 1940s it was evident to many that Graham would be the champion of evangelicalism. His crusades summed up everything that had been done from the times of Charles Finney through Billy Sunday except that he added respectability that some of the others lacked. In the 1950s Graham's crusade counselors were using a prayer that had been sporadically used for some time. It began with a prayer from his Four Steps to Peace with God. The original four-step formula came during Billy Sunday's era called in a tract called Four Things God Wants you to Know. The altar call system of Graham had been refined by a precise protocol of music, trained counselors and a speaking technique all geared to help people 'accept Christ as Savior.'
In the late 1950s Bill Bright came up with the exact form of the currently popular Four Spiritual Laws so that the average believer could take the crusade experience into the living room of their neighbor. Of course, this method ended with the Sinner's Prayer. Those who responded to crusades and sermons could have the crusade experience at home when they prayed,
"Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be."
Later, in 1977 Billy Graham published a now famous work entitled, How to Be Born Again. For all the Scripture he used, he never once uses the hallmark rebirth event in the second chapter of the book of Acts. The cataract (blind spot) kept him away from the most powerful conversion event in all Scripture. It is my guess that it's emphasis on baptism and repentance for the forgiveness of sins was incompatible with his approach.
The Living Bible and Beyond
By the late 1960s it seemed that nearly every evangelical was printing some form of the Four Spiritual Laws in the last chapter of their books. Even a Bible was printed with this theology inserted into God's Word. Thus, in the 1960s, the Living Bible's translation became the translation of choice for the crusades as follows:
"Even in his own land and among his own people, the Jews, he was not accepted. Only a few welcome and received him. But to all who received him, he gave the right to become children of God. All they needed to do was to trust him to save them. All those who believe this are reborn! --not a physical rebirth resulting from human passion or plan--but from the will of God."(John 1:11-13, Living Bible, bolds mine)
The bolded words have no support at all in the original Greek. They are a blatant insertion placed by presuppositions of the translator, Kenneth Taylor. I'm not sure that even the Jehovah's Witnesses have authored such a barefaced insertion in their corrupt Scriptures. In defense of Taylor's original motives, the Living Bible was created primarily with children in mind. However, the publishers should have corrected the misleading verse in the 1960s. They somewhat cleared it up in the newer LB in the 1990s, only after the damage has been done. For decades mainstream evangelicals were using the LB and circular reasoning to justify such a strong 'trusting moment' as salvation, never knowing their Bible was corrupted.
A whole international enterprise of publishers, universities and evangelistic associations were captivated by this method. The phrases, "Receive Christ," and "Trust Jesus as your personal savior," filled airwaves, sermons, and books. James Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion counselor-training program helped make this concept of conversion an international success. Missionaries everywhere were trained with Sinner's Prayer theology. Evangelicalism had the numbers, the money, the television personas of Graham and Kennedy and any attempt to purport a different plan of salvation would be decried as cultic and "heresy."
Most evangelicals are ignorant of where their practice came from or how Christians from other periods viewed biblical conversion. C.S. Lewis regarded it as chronological snobbery when we don't review our beliefs against the conclusions of others:
"Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age." (Learning in Wartime, 1939)
While most do this unknowingly, evangelicals are skewing church auditoriums all over the world from a clear picture of conversion with a nonsensical practice.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
