| Author | Message | ||
| Maryann |
On an intersting note. I noticed that the Library 'puter that I'm using had a lot of action on formeradventist.com this morning!;-)) It showed up on the history. I hope that this person will join the conversation. Welcome:):):) if you read this! And please join us at the FAF meetings on Friday evening at Trinity Church near I-10 and Ford at 7pm. The directions are posted on another thread. See ya there;-)))))) :):):).....Maryann | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Max and Bill: I'm just back from Brazil and find your superbly interesting discussion. I just have one comment on Max statement pasted below: Iím not so sure about other religions, but I think that the sovereignty of God is so powerful and all-pervasive that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that God could work through Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. First, let me say that I strongly believe the sovereignty of God as you describe. I find interesting that people who hold such rightful belief have a problem with "Unconditional election" and "Limited Atonement". I do not know if this is your case, Brother Max, but I just thought I should throw this in. Also, I do not believe that John 3:16 is a broad offer with no limits. That would be against the sovereignty of God as mentioned above. I BELIEVE THAT JOHN 3:16 is not a "deal offer" but a STATEMENT OF A FACT. Jesus is NOT saying, Hey Nick, God gave me to the world, and now if you and the world keep your part of the deal by believing you shall be saved. He is just saying that "those who believe, will be saved". And no one can believe without the Holy Spirit first acting upon them. The natural man cannot and will not, understand the things of God. Second, God can WORK THROUGH, using your terms, Budhism and Hinduism, Islam and etc.. as you said, but WORK THROUGH does not mean ENDORSEMENT OR APPROVAL of these sets of beliefs. The interesting part of WORK THROUGH is that GOD WORKS TRHOUGH these mentioned beliefs to WORK PEOPLE OUT OF SUCH BELIEFS into the knowledge of Jesus. There are plenty of BVC's (Book, Chapter and Verses) to present as evidence that even those who believed in God, outside the claims of the Gospel, God in His sovereignty, as you mentioned, WORKED THROUGH these beliefs only to bring them out of them into the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The most evident text, I believe, is Cornelius, who touched God's heart by his benevolent acts. Since no one can be saved by benevolent acts, such as alms, self denial, separation from the world, rolling spindles of prayer, humming or chanting prayers, or others, Cornelius had to be led to Christ and God in His sovereign will, which we call ELECTION, saved Cornelius THROUGH CHRIST. God could have revealed Himself to Cornelius personally or as He did to Paul, but he chose to send Peter, since this one also needed a lesson. That's God. He will REVEAL CHRIST for the ELECT Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Budhists, etc.. either by sending a preacher or "dropping them out of their horses". But one thing is certain: THEY WILL ALL LEAVE THEIR FORMER BELIEFS AND EMBRACE THE TEACHING OF CHRIST AS PAUL, WHO NOT ONLY EMBRACED THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, BUT WAS A CHAMPION AGAINST JUDAISM (which could be BUDHISM, HINDUISM, ISLAMISM etc.) This, does not agree or disagree with you, Brother Max. It simply, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION brings discipline to the term you used: "WORK THORUGH". Grace Ambassador | ||
| Max |
Hi GA, Hope you enjoyed a good visit in Brazil. I don't seem to have a problem with your post. I do, however, prefer to stick to Scripture alone as the "sticking points" for discussion. In that respect, I would appreciate some Scripture to define "Unconditional election" and "Limited Atonement." Max of the Cross | ||
| Billtwisse |
Dear GA: I know that you have a passion for souls and a commitment to evangelism that stands in the tradition of such men as Judson, Carey, Livingston, the apostle Paul himself, and a host of countless 'heroes for Christ' in the last 2000 years--who were given their inspiration by God himself. Men and women in this age have little appreciation for the value of ministries such as yours in testifying of the grace of God. No, I don't believe that my statement here is an exaggeration or anything close to it. You love Christ and the gospel; your life is a powerful testimony to the working of God's Spirit. I wish that I could imitate you as you imitate Christ. I feel humbled and am reminded of my own failures. I hope to get up to Michigan and see you sometime this summer, the Lord willing. So far my commitments have prevented it but I believe that this will change at some point. Your brother in Christ, --Twisse (you know my real name) | ||
| Billtwisse |
Dear Max: I am going to attempt, by God's grace, to work through these issues. I know that we both love the Lord--so this is a matter of trying to agree in Christ, not a matter of division. I will put your statements in green, simply to distinguish them from my responses. Bill, I really do want to hear your thoughts on Christ's statement, "Other sheep have I not of this fold." The thing that worries me a bit about this dialogue is the danger of drifting into an assumption that we must judge for God. Who are we to sit here and say that people who have never heard the name of Jesus cannot be saved? Seems as though that kind of judging is God's job, not ours. You are certainly right! I realize that many evangelical theologians have taken the stance that all who don't hear the name of Jesus in this life are going to hell. I am not sure what MacArthur's core position is: it seems that he leans in this direction (I don't know for sure--you would need to write GTY to get their actual position at this point in time. They have changed on other issues in the last 25 years--for the better--so maybe you can get them to reconsider). I have personally known many pastors and individuals who believe this. I have 'felt the heat' for denying the truth of this notion as much as any modernist theologian has--yet I denounce the modernists as not knowing the scriptures or the power of God! The issue is HOW those who don't hear the name of Christ in this life are saved. Is it through natural theology--or a special work of the Holy Spirit? I affirm the latter. Therefore it is wrong to say that those who haven't yet believed are saved, from an existential standpoint. Large numbers of these persons will never believe the gospel. Only those whom the hound of heaven seeks out will believe--in one of 3 ways: 1. They hear the gospel at some point in this life. 2. An angel or rock proclaims the gospel to them in this life (however unlikely). 3. They hear the gospel upon entrance to the heavenly kingdom. This is how 'elect infants dying in infancy' (Westminster Confession) and elect idiots (those who have no mental capacity to hear and understand the language of the gospel) are saved. The above three situations have nothing to do with natural theology. Those who subscribe to the notion of 'general revelation' (nature, reason, conscience, and religion) affirm that persons can be saved through the knowledge that is available in these entities. I affirm with Karl Barth, 'NO!' 'Other sheep have I not of this fold' refers to those who will be saved among the nations, in addition to those saved out of physical Israel. I believe that this interpretation will stand up to the historical position of Christian interpreters. Well, I am tired--so response to your other points will be coming soon! In the gospel, --Twisse | ||
| Cindy |
Grace Ambassador/(Dear Uncle Milt)...Welcome back. :-)) I've MISSED your always grace-filled comments!! Would you mind posting your web site address again? Since I moved to the West in October, I've still got papers, with adresses and such, unorganized; and I don't know how to pull it up by using computer techniques... Max and Bill...I'm enjoying the above conversation... I'll have to get back on later; heading out to take my son for an eye exam and new contacts!...and running late... :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Max: Thank you for your words and congratulations on your "sticktoitness" to scripture alone. I however refer you back to countless OF SCRIPTURES GIVEN in posts, both from me and other members of and in this forum on "UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION" and "LIMITED ATONEMENT". Also, a man called John Calvin, who lived some 600 years ago, has fully expounded, exposed, exibited and explained such scriptures. Your discussion with Bill on Graham's and McCarthur is very important and should not be distracted by repeating something that is already on record in this forum. You can be certain that the books you are discussing and mentioning are spreding a lot of "doubt" at best, and CONFUSION at worse, as they are read in different languages and cultures. As such, I do not want to distract your thread and VOW to seek to learn from it. Plus, you have your Bible and I am sure that if the translation of the copy of your Bible is anywhere between NIV and KJV you are well capable of finding such scriptures in there. The reason why I raised the issue is that I am always puzzled by this two sided nature of your postings that ARE SO RICH in knowledge and INSIGHT and then ALL OF A SUDDEN, you appear to be contradicting the former and falter on the latter. I know that your character is of a full mature Christian and you will prayerfully consider what I am saying. Keep up the good work and your zeal for the Scriptures. Sincerely before the Lord! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Bill: Thank you so much for your confidence. It is nothing new that I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU in a recent point you made" CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION. Religion comes from the Latin "religare" which means: RELINK RECONNECT The idea is that MAN IS CAPABLE OF RECONNECTING WITH GOD at his convenience either by CHURCH ATTENDANCE, BENEVOLENCE, NATURE WORSHIPPING etc.. CHRISTIANITY, as I explain in my Web Site is NOT: RELINKING OR, RECONNECTION WITH GOD CHRISTIANITY IS ANOTHER "R" WHICH IS: R E C O N C I L I A T I O N And RECONCILIATION is not a step taken by man, THE OFFENDER, but, PRAISE GOD, is a step taken by the OFFENDED PARTY, GOD HIMSELF, who gave us (His initiative) the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION! 2 Corinthians 5:17-18. PRAISE HIS WONDERFUL NAME! Again, you were right! Inspirationally right! In "religion" we have man trying to re-connect with God. In Christianity we have God RECONCILING MAN TO HIMSELF IN CHRIST JESUS. The only faith that teaches such a think. We do not look for God, God looks for us! SOMEONE OUGHT TO PREACH ON THAT THIS SUNDAY! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Cindy: I hope to be counted worthy in Jesus of your statements! here is my web site: (It has not been updated since I am publishing more studies in Porutugese at this point) CLICK HERE: EMBASSY OF GRACE I hope you like it! | ||
| Max |
Dear Thread, It looks as though I'm going to be forced to state my position baldly. (And I love you all!) I will not argue that God will save those who have never heard the name of Jesus and who never will. Nor will I argue that He won't. I will argue that if the answer has been revealed in Scripture alone, then I will accept that answer. But if it has not been revealed -- and right now I don't think it has -- then it is arrogant and prideful and an attempt to control God to think to know one way or the other, especially with what appears to be prideful knowledge that condemns a brother -- such as Billy Graham -- for whom Christ died. The alpha and omega of sin is to cotton to the cottonmouth's lie: "You will be like God." Only the will that is submitted to the Holy Spirit WITHIN the believer can by some God-chosen concrete act of obedience in response to the fist of God's pure grace -- such as: * refraining form God's special-reserve fruit or * changing one's plans on the road to Damascus or * going out and weeping bitterly after hearing the rooster crow or * raising the knife-of-sacrifice over your son Isaac's young body or * despising one's self and repenting "in dust and ashes" in the face of God's superior intellect and sovereignty -- will suffice to the hearing and knowing of the Word of God who is Christ Jesus as revealed by scriptural witnesses. Therefore, unless I can be shown by Scripture alone I cannot accept that God will or will not save any of those who have never heard the name of Jesus. And by saying this I do not say that it is wrong to hold opinions and to engage in discussion as long as it is "in Christ" and therefore mutually respectful. Billy Graham holds one opinion: God will. Others hold the opposite: God won't. But it is wrong, a sin and a great evil for MacArthur to condemn Billy Graham for holding an opinion opposite to his in this matter. I did not hear Graham condemning MacArthur because of his stance. Let God be God, let him reign in heaven and on earth, let us be content with his footstool, let us probe with our telescopes and scanning electron microscopes, let us feast upon his Word (Jesus Christ as witnessed by Scripture alone), let us seek to think his thoughts after him as he has revealed them to us through nature and through Scripture. But let us not seek to think his thoughts before him but rather after him, and let us not condemn those who disagree with us "in disputable matters" (Romans 14). Blessings to all, Max of the Cross | ||
| Graceambassador |
CongratAX Max! Hey Brother Max, you present your argument so admirably that I have to insist in commenting in some points where I think there is not a shred of disagreement: First you said: It looks as though I'm going to be forced to state my position baldly. (And I love you all!) I believe you meant BOLDLY. I do believe you have hair and did not pull if off as you so candidly stated your thoughts! Second: But if it has not been revealed -- and right now I don't think it has -- then it is arrogant and prideful and an attempt to control God to think to know one way or the other, especially with what appears to be prideful knowledge that condemns a brother -- such as Billy Graham -- for whom Christ died I agree. Provided that a little dose of Biblical Balanced Calvinism, ADDED to a large one of MILTONIANISM (this servant of yours and God) is inserted, and I will oblige: God will save those who never heard the name of Jesus through WESTERN PREACHERS in evangelistic cusades as we know them. But God will save whom He wills because Salvation is according to the pleasure of His Will. BUT GOD WILL REVEAL JESUS ALWAYS, INDEPENDENT OF A MASS EVANGELISM CRUSADE, OR SOME FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS TRACKS. HE WILL REVEAL JESUS THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THEN, NO ONE WILL ENTER GOD'S ETERNITY WITHOUT KNOWING JESUS. Paul is an example, although later he had to be taught by Annanias. The notion that God cannot reveal His Son to a Budhist or a Hindu without them "hearing" the name of Jesus, and to assume that to hear the name of Jesus can be accomplished only by hearing to a preacher, is PRECHEROCRACY! PREACHERS IN CONTROL! NOT SO... AS A PREACHER I REJECT THIS NOTION! It may be good for fund raising in some evangelical circles, but it is not Biblical. Sadly, this is the notion in the American Evangelicalism. People will hear the name of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, whether it takes a preacher or not! But remember: The Holy Spirit alone. To assign credit to any other agent, such as nature, and others is like giving credit to the ball for entering the hoop rather than to the one who shoots it! But it is wrong, a sin and a great evil for MacArthur to condemn Billy Graham for holding an opinion opposite to his in this matter. I did not hear Graham condemning MacArthur because of his stance. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU WITH THE ADDITION THAT IT IS WRONG FOR ANY CHRISTIAN TO CONDEMN ANOTHER CHRISTIAN IN MATTERS THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH FOUNDATIONAL DOCTRINE. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN AMERICA QUITE OFTEN MUCH LESS FOR THEOLOGICAL POSITIONING AND MUCH MORE FOR MINISTERIAL COMPETITION. (Here I am condeming too). I am not familiar how fierce the condemnation of MacArther to Billy Graham is, but there is no need to qualify it. I'd prefer using other Bible methods of correcting a Brother whom we think he is in error rather than to "condemn". If in fact what MacArthur wrote can be construed as condemnation by a body of holy men and women of God rather than an isolated individual. So, in principle and in premise, I agree with your post with the above insertions. I will continue to read but I will not post so often since I am involved in ministering to some people in Brazil, via the WEB. Grace Ambassador Grace Ambassador | ||
| Graceambassador |
A Final Thought: I know that Romans 10:17 states "How can they hear without a preacher?" and "How can they preach unless they be sent?" Many will think that my point above may imply uselesness of preachers. Not so! Preachers are an important part of spreading the Gospel and they are defined by anyone in Christianity who shares and witness the name of Christ. In the post above I refer the the "functional" position of a preacher according to churchianity. This is what causes this condition I called PREACHEROCRACY. Such condition is found in virtually EVERY AUTOPSY OF DEAD CHURCHIANITY. This is revelant to the discussion of this thread because I believe that this discussion could only occur among American preachers, i.e., Billy Graham and/or MacArthur. Most true Christians that I know around the world, carry upon their own shoulder the responsibility of preaching and sending to preach as stated in Romans 10:17-18. The proof that preachers can fail in reaching "unbelievers" is the fact that unbelievers may not believe or even hear the report of institutional preachers. Verse 16 states that quoting Isaiah 53. Contrarywise, we KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT CONVICTS AND CONVINCES WITHOUT FAIL! In any case, however, to place the credit on the preacher for the actions of the Holy Spirit, even when a preacher is involved for such an action, is indeed giving credit to ball for entering the hoop rather than to the one who shot it, as I stated before. The issue of my discussions with other preachers on methods of evagelism is, and I hope will always be: "what God called me to do to fulfill my role and how I am to go about fulfilling it?". It is not whether a Budhist or a Hindu can believe without knowing the name of Jesus or not. IF a Budhist or a Hindu, or a JEW, even a CATHOLIC lives in my neighborhood, I WILL MAKE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, the fact that they hear the name of Jesus. Those who live in India, Sudan, Burma, Tibet and others... Well, God has His own Spirit and methodology. In 1978, in Bible School, I heard a missionary who told us that when China took over Tibet, the only portion of the Tibetan language they had available was a copy of the New Testament translated into Tibetan and transformed into written language by (I believe) the Wycliff Bible Translators. So, YOU GUESSED... In order to learn the Tibetan Language PART OF THE CHINESE RED ARMY HAD TO READ PORTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Who knows how many we will find in heaven one day? This is a Sovereign God making sure that those that are afar WILL HEAR and know about Jesus. Either for their Salvation or their planned rejection (1 Cor 1:22-23 and Romans 9).Either to confess Christ in glorious victory, or to bow under His name in the, (to quote Brother Max) begrudging worship of a beaten foe: ěThe devils believe and trembleî kind of worship acknowledgment. I believe this became a book called (if memory serves me correctly...): GOD SPOKE TIBETAN. God HAS CALLED US OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS MARVELOUS LIGHT. He has called Budhists out of the darkness of Budhism; Hindus out of the darkness of Hinduism, etc. He, God, comes down to BRING US UP! (1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 3:7-8) Grace Ambassador | ||
| Max |
Grace Ambassador, That was one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read. As I read it, it became obvious to me that God is blessings you by using you. I loved your "basketball through the hoop" parable. Yes, the stones are crying out and have always been crying out. Max of the Cross | ||
| Max |
Brother GA, Here is a portion of the interview in which Billy Graham is said to have spoken deceptive heresy about about the salvation of those who by the time they die have never heard the name of Jesus. I'd like your thoughts on this: By Billtwisse on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 09:24 pm: Response from 'Grace to You' ministries: Brethren, Many weeks ago, I promised to reveal the source of a Billy Graham quotation that I was challenged on. If anyone is still interested, I finally got the information I requested back from GTY. Here is the response: Thank you for writing to Grace to You. As one of John's colleagues, I am familiar with John's materials and perspectives on various issues, so he asked me to write to you on his behalf. I welcome this opportunity to help you with your question. I apologize for the delay in my response to you. Over the past couple months, a number of unforeseen events have caused a backlog of letters to develop. I wanted to answer your letter sooner, but I'm glad I can do so now. I trust you understand. You wrote: I am desperately trying to find a reference for a Billy Graham quotation that John MacArthur referred to in his 11/05/00 sermon at GCC. I was in attendance. The issue of concern was Billy acknowledging that persons of non-Christian religions and 'unbelievers' are partakers of Christ and salvation. If it is possible for you to provide this quotation and reference, I would be most grateful to receive it . . . Good to hear from a brother in Christ from (:my home town:). I grew up in (:a neighboring town:) and went to (:my home town:) when our team played basketball games there. To answer your question, I went on the internet and found these remarks at a site I visited: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/ecumen ism.htm This unfortunate interview was conducted by Rev. Robert Schuller in 1997. For a copy of the video tape this interview came from, call Robert Schuller Today at 1-800-9POWER9, and order the $20 video tape of the May 31, 1997 (Program #1426) Hour of Power TV broadcast message titled, "Say 'Yes' To Possibility Thinking." Please note that the corresponding $5 audio tape DOES NOT contain the interview with Billy Graham -i.e., you really have to cough up the $20 if you want to see this evidence that one of the men God has used to bring countless millions to salvation has now given in to the spirit of the age, the spirit of false unity called Ecumenism and Inter-Faith. Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity? Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer-you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they're going to be with us in heaven. Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying? Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived. Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy. Graham: There is. There definitely is. I hope my reply has helped you. "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:3). Sincerely, Doug McMasters Supervisor of Pastoral Correspondence dougm@gty.org Grace to You P. O. Box 4000 Panorama City, CA 91412 Max of the Cross | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Max and Bill: I was approaching my computer with the FAF forum mimimized and when I openned, I saw your post. So,I will take a break in my Portuguese writing and respond such a courtesy from Max to post the interview in question in this thread. I do not mean to be the arbiter of any discussion, but I am a "new broom" here and a "new broom" can reach corners where the "old broom" cannot (specially because it is "bald"). So I will start by cutting and pasting some of what Billy Graham said, some comments on Schuller and perhaps a conclusion of my own. Here it goes: And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world Note the "calling out" that I referred to. If this is what Billy is saying, I have not a problem! Calling out spoken by a preacher cannot be a grammatical enphatic statement. Calling out is theologically the translation of the ek-klesia, as called-out. Called out in opposition to staying in and doing what is in the place whence one has been called out. This is simple theology. No problem with that. Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have... Because I believe in the Total Depravation of men, (All have sinned... The natural man cannot understand the things of God... The heart is deceitfull in every way and other texts) I have a problem in believing that these people can find what they do not have, even if they know it. There has to be an intervention of the Holy Spirit so that they will know for a fact that they don't have what they need. Furthermore, Billy states that he met these tribal people. If they continue NOT TO KNOW CHRIST after they met with Billy Graham, I think it will REALLY take the Holy Spirit to help them! I, Milton, prefer to say that the Holy Spirit will REVEAL JESUS TO THESE PEOPLE. It is better than some "sugar coated" optmism that says that these people will be saved period. We have to be careful to sitck to the Biblical way of looking upon things. I think it would have been better for Billy Graham just to stick with traditional Biblical views of Soteriology. Remember that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would testify of Him. He is the supreme preacher! The only lesson we learn from a postage stamp is that it sticks to something until it gets to its destination! I repeat that Billy should have prudently stuck with the Biblical view of how one is saved. Schuller asks reaffirmation: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying? Why did not Schuller, a graduate of Hope College, here in Holland Michigan, two blocks away from my home, and a minister ordained by the Reformed Church of America, strongly Calvinist, simply state: "Then you Billy believe in the Calvinistic view that God will save His Elect no matter where they are and what background they have from whatever system of darkness they live in"? I will tell you why he did not ask that way. We're deadly afraid of theology. Specially TV preachers such as Schuller. Theology is boring, it does not sell and the more we reveal what Thelolgical stance we have, the more we will lose some of our listeners and even friends. AS A TV preacher, one thing Schuller cannot lose: VIEWERS. Not because of his Theology, not because of of his physical appearance. TV has actually paid a diservice for the Gospel in that sense. We all want to get along! Wrong! Beware when men starts to speak all manner of kind things about you IF YOU ARE JESUS' SERVANTS...We know who taught us that don't we? Max and Bill, do you know what really bothers me in this whole thing? Not the fact that unfortunately this watered down Gospel is the norm in America. Not the fact that preachers on TV need to maintain their positions to themselves and portray something "acceptable" to their audiences. God is Sovereign and He will do His work despite of men. So these do not bother me! What bothers me is the premise of the interview itself. The initial question: Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity? We Christians should be TEACHING what is the future of Christianity. Have we not read the end of the Book yet? I know, that question was made in an atmosphere is a "tonight show". But, can ministers of God, who received endless resources from the Body of Christ use their time a little bit more wisely. When will a minister rise up as Paul and say: "About the future time, I will not have you ignorant"? And start teaching... See, that is what bothers me. TV ministry became so talk show like, so HARMLESS to the kingdom of darkness that its effectiveness is also null and void. In one extreme, we have my former boss Swaggart, pointing his finger at everyone and then fouling up the name Christian. In the other extreme, everyone is afraid of the real "acute" KERIGMA. Furthermore, Billy Graham is now an elderly preacher. In his hay-day, I'll bet you (oops, Christians can't bet) I guarantee you, that Billy would have said: "Well, these people are dying without Christ, but if you would send me 10 dollars, each one of you watching me by television, I will buy equipment, I will take my crusade team to these countries, I will bribe these countries authorities to allow the team to get in and I will take the Gospel to these countries so these people will not be doomed to hell." Am I saying anything that anyone in this forum has not heard on TV? Let me reveal a secret and conclude: In foreign countries, American Evangelicalism is becoming a laughing stock. Just like your election (political election) system. People see preachers that are more TV personalities than servants of God. They see, by TV churches that are more akin to the amusement park than to the battlefield, going to church is like going to Disneyland, they are seeing ChristianS seeking what Jesus said we would never get from the world: ACCEPTANCE. That is what bothers me! I hope I did not offend anyone, I hope I did not join the "condemnation" crowd. I am just a servant of God with a little more "brstles" in my broom that the ones currently being used. I love America. I consider myself to be a missionary to America. The things that I spoke about here, I speak fearlessly from the pulpit. Some shun me some do listen and do something about. I believe, at this point, this is my calling. Again, in loving admonition. I will continue to do so with Grace and expectation that God will do the work beyond me and my teaching and preaching. I pray that the readers of this forum understand that. Sincerely in Christ Grace Ambassador | ||
| Max |
Dear Grace Ambassador, Having just read your latest reply, I feel I have less understanding of you than I did following your post previous to this last one. It looks as though I need to follow the ěinterview format.î Though I donít like to, it can be very efficient. Grace Ambassador: Because I believe in the Total Depravation of men..., I have a problem in believing that these people [whoíve never heard the name of Jesus] can find what they do not have, even if they know it. There has to be an intervention of the Holy Spirit so that they will know for a fact that they don't have what they need. Max: Come on, G.A.! He wouldnít be Billy Graham -- of all people! -- if he did not mean exactly that it was the Holy Spirit who was telling them they needed something they didnít have! Grace Ambassador: Furthermore, Billy states that he met these tribal people. If they continue NOT TO KNOW CHRIST after they met with Billy Graham, I think it will REALLY take the Holy Spirit to help them! Max: Are you joking, G.A.? If so, then your humor appears to be unworthy of the Christian person Iíve met on this website. Graham said, ěYes, [it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible], because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations [who] have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.î To imply from this innocent statement -- and Iím not saying that was what you were doing, but I do wonder -- that Billy Graham failed to witness to Christ in these situations is just simply unworthy, judgmental, and un- Christlike. Maybe he was in a situation where he was unable to witness openly -- on a military- escorted tour in the mountains of Laos, for example. Spying out the land, so to speak. Or maybe he DID witness. How do you know? Maybe he DID witness and was reporting to Schuller what he had learned from them. If so, then praise God! When Christís disciples complained about another man who was not one of the 12 was witnessing to Him, He reprimanded them. Grace Ambassador: The Holy Spirit will REVEAL JESUS TO THESE PEOPLE. It is better than some "sugar coated" optimism that says that these people will be saved period. Max: I didnít hear Billy Graham say, ěThese people will be saved period.î I heard him say, ěThey turn to the only light that they have.î And that light, in the context of Billyís remarks, MUST mean the Holy Spirit. In the context of Billyís whole life and teachings, there simply can be no question about that. Grace Ambassador: We have to be careful to stick to the Biblical way of looking upon things. I think it would have been better for Billy Graham just to stick with traditional Biblical views of soteriology.... Billy should have prudently stuck with the Biblical view of how one is saved. Max: How has he not? Grace Ambassador: Why did not Schuller, a graduate of Hope College, here in Holland Michigan, two blocks away from my home, and a minister ordained by the Reformed Church of America, strongly Calvinist, simply state: "Then you, Billy, believe in the Calvinistic view that God will save His Elect no matter where they are and what background they have from whatever system of darkness they live in"? Max: Canít speak for or about Schuller. Still learning about him. But I would certainly resist anyone trying to shove Calvin, as much as I like his theology, down my throat! Scripture alone, still alone after all these centuries. Grace Ambassador: What bothers me is the premise of the interview itself. The initial question: Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity? Max: Doesnít bother me. Grace Ambassador: When will a minister rise up as Paul and say: "About the future time, I will not have you ignorant"? And start teaching ... Max: Maybe itís because ministers are not eyewitnesses, earwitnesses and touchwitnesses to our God Jesus Christ in the flesh as were Paul and the other New Testament sources. Grace Ambassador: Furthermore, Billy Graham is now an elderly preacher. In his heyday, I'll bet you (oops, Christians can't bet) I guarantee you, that Billy would have said: "Well, these people are dying without Christ, but if you would send me 10 dollars, each one of you watching me by television, I will buy equipment, I will take my crusade team to these countries, I will bribe these countries authorities to allow the team to get in and I will take the Gospel to these countries so these people will not be doomed to hell." Max: Billy Graham has preached all over the world and easily to more non-North- Americans than any other New Testament evangelist in history, mostly by virtue of television. God is sovereign. God knows how to use technology. Billy Graham is not Schuller, is not Swaggart, and he is not Benny Hinn (or whatever that sorcerer's name is). He's Billy Graham, and his words need to be understood for what they are in the context of his own life. Grace Ambassador, God is loving and blessing you and helping you to grow in grace just as he is all of us in Christís various sheep pens. Max of the Cross | ||
| Billtwisse |
I can't believe how much I had to read to catch up after less than a day! Well, I think all of us (including myself) have wavered between objective discussion/study and subjective interaction in our history of posting here. We can't base our opinions of one another on changing moments of cyber-triumph and cyber-failure. The internet is not like real life discussion--because it takes much more effort and time to clarify misunderstandings. I'm not accusing--just reminding us all of the 'beast' that we face in trying to work through things together using this mode of discussion. GA, I want to reaffirm what you said in your most gracious response to me: In "religion" we have man trying to re-connect with God. In Christianity we have God RECONCILING MAN TO HIMSELF IN CHRIST JESUS. The only faith that teaches such a thing. We do not look for God, God looks for us! I put this in red because it is so much in line with the heart of the gospel! For many years I have taught the equation: Religion = man reaching up to find God; Christianity = God reaching down to find man in Jesus Christ. It is so significant how the Lord teaches the same truth to so many! The most profound I have ever read on this issue is the first chapter of Gordon Clark's "Religion, Reason, and Revelation" entitled: Is Christianity a Religion? May the Lord continue to bless you richly in his wonderful grace! I'm going to finish my response to Max in a separate post because of an annoying 'spontaneous disconnect' that made me have to type some of this twice! I don't want to lose what I have said so far. --Twisse | ||
| Billtwisse |
Max, let me finish responding to the other issues that you raised in one of your 'not so recent' (maybe 2 days old) posts! The text you quote, Ephesians 2:12, is certainly very powerful. The Gentiles were indeed ěwithout hope and without God in the world.î However, this is said in the face of the gospel. I donít think we human beings can make judgments about the saved or unsaved status of humans who have never heard and never do hear the gospel. Say, for example, the Native Americans who were living in the New World at the time. I believe we have to refrain from judging them, being content to know that the God of all creatures is just. I like NIV Romans 2:14-15. ěIndeed when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.î The NIV text note to the ělaw for themselvesî phrase says, ěThe moral nature of pagans, enlightened by conscience, functioned for them as the Mosaic law did for the Jews.î Bottom line: Theyíre not better off than the Jews who had the Law of Moses; nor were the Jews better off than these Gentiles. Everyone is saved by the cross alone. ěSalvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be savedî (Acts 4:12). ěEveryone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his nameî (Acts 10:43). But these texts do not say that the heathen must hear the name in order to be saved under it. And I think it is going beyond Scripture to so judge. I can't disagree with anything you have said here. In fact, I heartily endorse all of it! I do think some additional observations are in order: 1. The covenant people in the OT were certainly not 'better off' than the Gentiles with regard to law. The were worse off, since law came in to increase the trespass (Rom. 5:20). But they were infinitely better off also: they had the covenants of promise preceeding the law (and continuing alongside of it), which were the gospel of Christ in seed form. In these the true knowledge of Yahweh was revealed--though only in a flicker of glory compared to that which came after Christ. 2. The problem I have with Dr. Graham's statement is not the claim that persons may be saved without hearing the name of Jesus in this life. It may be that for others, not myself. For me, it is his positive assertion that members of the body of Christ exist all over the place in the Buddhist world, Muslim world, non-Christian world, etc. as they exist in the Christian world. To me, that is patently unbiblical. God may have elected some to salvation who are in these other situations, but it is entirely wrong to say that they are already Christians and in the body of Christ. That is--unless they have renounced their idols and false religion and believed the gospel. That is clearly the NT perspective. At our moment of personal salvation: the angels rejoice, God declares us to be 'in Christ' before the angels and departed saints, we enter the body of Christ. Before that point, we were saved only in God's eternal plan for our salvation--known exclusively to himself. It is wrong to confuse the various aspects of salvation (election, Calvary, resurrection, personal justification, final glory). Elect heathen who will be saved one day are not yet in Christ's body. You raise a very interesting point about unsaved people worshipping God. Scripture says, "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God'" (NIV Romans 14:11). And, ěat the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earthî (Philippians 2:10 NIV). But there are two ways of worshipping God -- (1) loving response to Godís loving actions in history and (2) the begrudging worship of a beaten foe: ěThe devils believe and trembleî kind of worship acknowledgment. Iím not ready to say that Christís statement, ěOther sheep have I not of this fold,î is not an assertion of His prevenient grace. Yes, I would agree that ěConversion and incorporation into the body of Christ occurs at a historical point in time.î But is this ěbody of Christî identical to the ěother sheep penî? Or are their other considerations related to Godís jurisdiction? I have already responded to this: the 'other sheep' are candidates for the body of Christ in the future. They enter it when the Holy Spirit gives them faith. In context, they are the Gentiles (in contrast to the Jews who already believed) who did not yet know Christ but would one day hear the gospel and believe. I do not reject all natural theology, only natural theology that fails to subordinate to revealed theology. I think Paulís statements in Romans and Acts are statements of natural theology -- not meant to prove Godís existence, but to prove His sovereignty and jurisdiction over all. I'll have to save this one for another day! I agree that not all who seek God find him. But I take that a step further and say no one seeks God who is not sought by God first. And God seeks all (John 3:16-18). The Spirit of God works in all residents of the planet. We would differ on our interpretation of John 3:16-18. The 'world' to be saved is those who believe. This is a whole different discussion, however, and one that we have had before. I cannot agree with this: ěThe only reason an unbeliever truly seeks God is because of the prevenient work of the Holy Spirit; not nature, conscience, reason, or religion,î since I believe that the Holy Spirit works THROUGH nature, conscience, and reason. If the Holy Spirit uses nature, conscience, and reason to reach someone, then it is the Spirit--not nature, conscience, or reason--that is responsible for the person seeking to know the true God. For me, the issue is a 'general' knowledge available to all persons in these 3 entities--versus a special knowledge available only when the Spirit enters the picture. One is natural theology, the other spiritual. Iím not so sure about other religions, but I think that the sovereignty of God is so powerful and all-pervasive that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that God could work through Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. I will echo GA's sentiment: the only way that God uses false religion is to convict persons of how horrible and God-denying it is--in contrast to the truth of the gospel. He uses it positively only to get people out of it! --Twisse | ||
| Max |
Bill, A few reactions (numbered): 1.Thanks for the further insight on the Jews being both "no better off" and yet "infinitely better off" -- excellent paradoxing. 2. We'll just have to agree to disagree about Billy Graham's ^^positive assertion that members of the body of Christ exist all over the place in the Buddhist world, Muslim world, non-Christian world, etc. as they exist in the Christian world.^^ I just don't understand him saying that. I think he means no more than the fulfillment of Christ's warning against presumptive and arrogant thinking: "Other sheep have I not of this fold." Furthermore, I think if you told Dr. Graham that such sheep ^^are already Christians and in the body of Christ,^^ he would remonstrate with you in no uncertain terms. For myself, I would say that asserting either that they are or are not "already Christians and in the body of Christ" would be going beyond Scripture alone. I don't think we know enough about the "pre-salvation elect" to render such judgments. We are dealing with divine mystery here and should tread as softly as Moses did on the ground surrounding the "burning but un-consumed" bush. For Jesus proclaims in no uncertain terms that those sheep are HIS and "no one can snatch them out of my hand!" Jesus is assuming his "jealous God" role here: Don't you dare touch MY sheep, not in your theology, not even in your dreams! 3. ^^We would differ on our interpretation of John 3:16-18. The 'world' to be saved is those who believe.^^ Again, I would plead divine mystery, unrevealed mystery! For a God who is outside of time the cross existed from before the foundations of the earth were laid. Yes, the cross occurred as a point of intersection between heaven and earth, between God and human, between the eternal and the temporal. Yet of this eternal aspect to the cross we know so little that the whole of all our theological knowledge approaches infinitely close to zero, something I would call a "theological singularity." Hebrews 11:39 says that Abel, Enoch, Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and so many others that the writer did not have time to list them "were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us [the cross] so that only together with us would they be made perfect" (v.39 NIV). Yet with all their differences those sheep of Christ's "other fold" who have never heard the name of Jesus must, in some way that we do not and perhaps cannot understand till "all is revealed," be on an equal footing with them. For we must have faith that our Sovereign is just. I would not argue against your assertion that ^^the 'other sheep' are candidates for the body of Christ in the future.^^ But the concept appears to be too limited. For if the parallel holds, then those faithful Israelites who died without having "received what had been promised," would stand as examples for what happens to Christ's "other sheep" who have also died without having "received what had been promised." I do not say that my idea is necessarily so. I say only that your idea may -- for this reason -- be reaching into the area of the mysteries that have not been revealed. 4. ^^If the Holy Spirit uses nature, conscience, and reason to reach someone, then it is the Spirit--not nature, conscience, or reason--that is responsible for the person seeking to know the true God.^^ Agreed. But even under your scenario the Spirit is nevertheless USING nature, conscience, and reason according to His good pleasure. Nor is it up to us to place any kind of constraints on Him by way of human categories such as "natural theology." I have all kinds of problems with such reasoning. 6. ^^...the only way that God uses false religion is to convict persons of how horrible and God-denying it is--in contrast to the truth of the gospel. He uses it positively only to get people out of it!^^ Well, maybe. But then again, maybe not. Again, "the mystery of the unrevealed" should prevail and be respected, even revered. Falling backward in time -- past Tillich and Barth, past Luther and Calvin, past Augustine and Aquinas -- all the way back to Scripture alone, Max of the Cross | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Max: Unfortunately I was not clear in my response to you and misled you. I am a great admirer of Billy Graham and look up to him. I DID HIS VOICE ON TV as well! I led you to believe that I was criticizing him. I was not. I was actually saying that I find it impossible for a person not to know Jesus after shaking hands or "meeting" (Billy used the words "I met") Billy Graham. He DOES NOT HAVE TO WITNESS. HE IS A WITNESS, HIS PRESENCE IS A WITNESS! There was neither criticism nor humor. Just a sense that if people fail to know Jesus after meeting Billy Graham, perhaps we find here a typical case of rejection of the Gospel. I'm sure you've seen it as well. Again, there was no criticism. There was and there is in me a sadness that on TV people have to change their views. Billy said one night at Larry King live that a person can continue to be a homosexual and be saved. Later he corrected himself and said that "they would be saved only if they lived their homosexual lives in celibacy". Ask Larry King the tape. This is what I say. Things are said in TV that are not a match with the speaker's beliefs. Have you seen Shculler praying in public gatherings? He prays as a politician that addresses to this impersonal God without mentioning the commom "in the name of Jesus" in the end. Just not to offend Jews, Muslims etc.. Personally I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO THE FATHER BUT BY THE SON! Even if what I said appears to be critical, it is not, and if it should be construed as such, it should be construed as a criticism of how most preachers on TV represent themselves before the cameras. I could go into the other points as well, but it suffices to say that I believe that Graham was refering to the Holy Spirit and that I WAS NOT CRITICIZING HIM. Now, I would not call Hymn, Swaggart and others sorceres. Again, sorry if I led you to believe that I was disputing your points or CRITICIZING one of the pillars of 20th century evangelism: Billy Graham. I can respond to any other points you feel that I perhaps was unchristian in my assessment of their behavior on TV. But before you do, check their books, follow their ministry, (even personally as I did in the past), listen to them in their churches and then chack what they say on TV. I'm sure you will see that I am not saying anything that is not perceivable to the most untrained eye. Grace Ambassador |
