The news that Billy Graham intends to conduct another campaign in these islands this year will afford no pleasure to those who wish to see the Church of Christ prosper. His previous campaign was condemned by the Free Presbyterian Church publicly, alone of all the Churches in Britain. We understand from American sources that this condemnation was painful to Dr. Graham and his colleagues. The reasons for this condemnation were the unsoundness of the doctrine and the unscriptural nature both of the worship and the practices connected with the campaign, and the consequent dangers to the eternal welfare of precious immortal souls.
Since his previous campaign in 1955, Dr. Graham has certainly not improved. With regard to doctrine, there has been issued recently by Christianity Today an essay on “Fundamentals of the Faith.” Christianity Today is the largest evangelical magazine in the U.S.A. and intends to publish a series of these essays on various fundamentals. The first essay is on the subject of the “New Birth,” and the author is Billy Graham.
The whole subject of the new birth requires the most careful consideration, since any mistake on this part of divine revelation will have the most serious consequences. Billy Graham’s essay is very far from being the accurate, full, and scriptural, presentation of the new birth that it ought to be. Any inquirer coming to this essay would be left with very strange and unsound ideas of this great spiritual miracle, through which a sinner is translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.
In handling the subject of the new birth it is absolutely necessary to indicate the necessity for it. This necessity lies in the fact that man is dead in trespasses and sins and is wholly unable to do anything of a spiritual nature, until he is born again or quickened from above. It is evident, however, that Billy Graham does not understand this. Speaking on this particular subject he says, “The context of the third chapter of John teaches that the new birth is something that God does for man when man is willing to yield to God.” In this same paragraph he mentions that the Bible teaches that man is dead in trespasses and sins. If this is so, how can a man dead in trespasses and sins be willing to yield to God in order that he may be born again? This is typical of the muddled conception of the new birth which runs through the whole of this essay. In the Gospel according to John to which Billy Graham refers, Chapter I tells us that those who are born again are those “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Speaking of the conversion of Lydia, Dr. Graham says, “One was Lydia, business woman of the city of Thyatira, who was a worshipper of God and who went for prayer to the riverside where she heard Paul preach. She opened her heart, believed, and was converted without struggle or conflict.” Billy Graham says that Lydia opened her heart. The Bible says, “whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” In the one case the new birth is presented as an act of Lydia while, in the Scriptural sense, it is presented as an act of God.
It is further evident that Billy Graham looks upon the new birth as the fruit of faith, and not upon faith as the fruit of the new birth. He says “Any person who is willing to trust Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour can receive the new birth now.” This strange idea that faith goes before the new birth arises from false views of man’s inability to do anything to save himself as indicated above. In giving directions as to how sinners are to receive Christ, Graham says, “First, you must recognise that God loved you so much that He gave His Son to die on the cross.” This is not true. Scripture does not require of sinners to believe that God loved them in the first instance. It does require of sinners to believe that God loved sinners, and that Christ died for sinners, and that God is offering them in Christ eternal salvation, and calling upon them to trust in Him. Billy Graham, of course, teaches this because he believes that Christ died for all and, therefore, that God loved all. He further gives this direction in connection with the sinner closing in with Christ. “At this moment you can either bow your head or get on your knees and say this little prayer which I have used with thousands of people in every continent: ‘O God, I acknowledge that I have sinned against Thee. I am sorry for my sins. I am willing to turn from my sins. I openly receive and acknowledge Jesus Christ as my Saviour. I confess Him as Lord. From this moment on I want to live for Him and serve Him. In Jesus’ name. Amen.’ If you are willing to make this decision, if you have to the best of your knowledge received Jesus Christ, God’s Son, as your own Saviour then, according to the preceding statements of Scripture, you have become a child of God in whom Jesus Christ dwells.” A greater travesty of the soul spiritually closing in with Christ in the everlasting gospel could hardly be conceived of. The exercise of true faith is an exercise of the soul looking to Christ, seeing in Him, in His Person and work, that salvation which is able to meet all the sinner’s needs and so, being renewed in his mind, he is enabled to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the Gospel. The advice given by Billy Graham to the unfortunate people who are prepared to follow him is an advice which is altogether founded upon what man can do.
It is rumoured that Dr. Graham learned the Shorter Catechism in his youth. We commend to him the excellent answer to the question, What is effectual calling? and recommend that he keeps it before him on the next occasion he writes on the subject of the new birth. “Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ as He is freely offered to us in the gospel.”
Two pamphlets have recently been sent to us for review dealing with Dr. Billy Graham’s present activities. Both these pamphlets are written by Baptists and contain references to Baptism with which we would not agree, but their value lies in the fact that they are written by men who previously supported Billy Graham, but whose eyes have now been opened to see his defects and his departures from scriptural practice. One of the most alarming features of Dr. Graham’s practice has been his form of co-operation with the Roman Catholic Church. His counsellors, of course, advise those who make decisions to be on Christ’s side at his meetings, to return to the Churches from which they came, and, if this church happens to be the Roman Catholic Church, they are sent straight back there.
In 1964, Dr. Graham held a large crusade at Boston where he was supported by the Roman Catholic, Cardinal Cushing, who praised his efforts and encouraged Roman Catholics to attend the Crusade services. Dr. Graham says with regard to this, “Not only did many Roman Catholics come to my meetings but, since then, many Roman Catholic publications have been writing up my ministry and I have received numerous invitations to speak at Roman Catholic institutions.” It is a very bad sign indeed on the ministry of any man when he is praised by the devotees of the Anti-christ.
The first of these pamphlets, “Back Billy Graham?” is written by a Californian pastor in connection with the arrival of Billy Graham’s team in Los Angeles to conduct a crusade in that city. The chief point of complaint is that the sponsorship of the Crusade includes modernists, and that this has been a feature of Billy Graham’s attitude especially since the summer of 1954. Graham’s way of looking at the situation of sponsorship is “I intend to go anywhere, sponsored by anybody, to preach the gospel of Christ if there are no strings attached to my message. I am sponsored by civic clubs, Universities, ministerial associations and Councils of Churches all over the world. I intend to continue.”
In the Los Angeles campaign he had Bishop Kennedy as one of his sponsors. This man is an out and out modernist. Again, during the New York Crusade, Billy Graham honoured false teachers like Dr. Robert J. McCracken, modernist successor of Dr. Harry E. Fosdick, having him sit on the platform with gospel preachers and asking him to lead in prayer before the great crusade audience. This, of course, gave Dr. McCracken a cloak of respectability in the eyes of unsuspecting Christian people. Yet Dr. McCracken denies the virgin Birth, the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, His bodily resurrection, the infallible inspiration of the Bible, etc.
At the San Francisco crusade there were three well-known ecumenical leaders, Revs. C. J. Bartlett, Dr. Jesse Baird and Dr. Sanford Fleming. Another infidel modernist was Bishop James A. Pike, one of the most modernistic of the Episcopalian Bishops in the U.S.A. This man has stated, “The virgin birth is a myth which Churchmen should be free to accept or reject.” In a booklet issued by Billy Graham called “Evangelism and the Church Today” he says, “The great theologians of today are Rudolph Bultmann, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niehbur, Paul Tillich and Carl Henry.” All these men, with the sole exception of Carl Henry, reject the Bible as the Word of God given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The very fact that he would include Dr. Henry in this list is indicative of how lacking in spiritual discernment Billy Graham really is.
Dr. Graham has also been closely associated with the World Council of Churches. One of the great figures in this movement, Dr. G. Paul Musselman, warmly describes Billy Graham in the following words, “I call Billy Graham the newest and greatest of the ecumenical voices.” This widespread association of Billy Graham with modernists indicates his complete failure to witness on the side of divine truth. Those who preach the gospel are also set for the defence of the gospel and it is only too evident that Billy Graham is a complete stranger to the necessity for this.
The writer of the pamphlet gives the following advice to those of his readers, who are Bible believers, in connection with backing Billy Graham, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us” (2 Thess.: 3, 6).
The second pamphlet confirms these various charges and at the same time holds that the most serious effects of Graham’s inclusivist attitude have been on those who profess to hold to the evangelical faith. The writer quotes a great many cases of those who began as evangelists but who, through the influence of Graham, became associated with infidels and fell away from the faith. For instance, the following is related of one in particular who was widely spoken of as Graham’s possible successor during his previous campaign in Britain. “Evangelist Chuck Templeton, a close friend and fellow worker of Billy Graham in the Youth for Christ Movement, went to Princetown, became an evangelist with the National Council of Churches, then worked as an evangelist for Presbyterians, but finally in disgust quit the ministry entirely. He was divorced, left off all Christian work, and when last heard of was writing skits for T.V.”
The thoroughly unsound doctrine and practice of Billy Graham constitute him a danger to the evangelical cause in Britain. His whole attitude to modernism is a clear proof that he never understood the words of the Apostle, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. i: 8). The same remarks apply to his attitude to Romanism. In this connection, it needs to be remembered that Arminians in doctrine are never real opponents to Romanism for the simple reason that much of the Papist doctrine is of the very essence of Arminianism. The Arminian, Papist or Modernist never found himself a helpless sinner at the footstool of sovereign mercy, pleading for acceptance in Christ’s name alone. Our land does indeed need a revival, but the advent of Billy Graham and his team will not bring that about, but rather have the tendency to lead unsuspecting souls further away from the Truth as it is in Jesus.
“That in thee may thy people joy,
wilt thou not us revive.
Show us thy mercy, Lord, to us
do thy salvation give.”
(Psalm lxxxv: 6, 7).
Back Billy Graham? Dr. Graham’s Daring. Obtainable from D. Roberts,
183 Long View Road, Close, Morriston, Swansea.