Question: ....I am somewhat troubled by what appears to be a lack of consistency in your newsletter, ...

December 1, 1998

TBC Staff

Question: Let me first begin by saying that your ministry has been tremendously helpful to me in my studies, and in my ministry....Occult Invasion, next to A Woman Rides the Beast, is probably one of the most important works written in the history of the church....However, I am somewhat troubled by what appears to be a lack of consistency in your newsletter, by your referring to Hank Hanegraaff, Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, Billy Graham, W. A. Criswell, et al. as men who are “brothers in Christ,” instead of calling them what they are, considering the fact that these men have made their position on the gospel clear. That is, they’re willing to compromise the one true gospel (1 Cor:15:1-4; Gal:1:6-10) for a lowest common denominator “theology” with that harlot of Rome for the sake of a pseudo-unity of ecumenism...I admonish you, Dave, to remain thoroughly consistent in your manner of defending truth, and cease calling these men “brothers in the Lord” when it’s manifest that they are not. If you continue to call these men Christians, are you not denying the gospel and Christ of Scripture also...?

Response: Exactly where to draw the line between those who are saved but compromise and those who are not saved at all (a line which you apparently have drawn to your own satisfaction) is a question with which I have often wrestled. As in everything else, we must, to the fullest extent possible, take our direction from Scripture. Without question, Paul curses (anathematizes) all those who preach a false gospel (Gal:1:6-8). It seems clear that he does not consider those upon whom he pronounces that anathema to be Christians. Paul also refers to those who preach “another Jesus” and denounces them as “false apostles, deceitful workers” and implies that they are Satan’s “ministers” (2 Cor:11:13-15). Likewise, Peter denounces “false prophets...[and] false teachers...who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pt 2:1).

The same denunciation belongs to men such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland and others who declare that redemption does not come through Christ’s shed blood and His death upon the cross, but through His being tortured by Satan in hell. That is a false gospel upon which these men stand firm in spite of many attempts to correct them. They certainly come under Paul’s curse and we do not consider them brothers in Christ. I cannot say, however, that those who do preach the true gospel yet fellowship with these false prophets and who fail to denounce the error in their false gospel are therefore also not Christians.

Roman Catholicism, too, is a false gospel. Those who proclaim it likewise come under Paul’s curse. Catholicism clearly states that salvation comes only through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments (“If anyone says that the sacraments...are not necessary for salvation but...without them...men obtain through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be anathema” - Trent, Seventh Session, General, Can 4). Catholicism also states that redemption was not accomplished through Christ’s death on the cross but is in the process of being accomplished through Catholic liturgy, especially the Mass (“For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our redemption is accomplished.” - Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Intro., 2.).

The men whom you name embrace practicing Roman Catholics as Christians—Catholics who believe and obey Rome’s false gospel of sacraments and works for salvation. Yet unlike Hagin, Copeland, et al., they do not themselves preach a false gospel. They do preach the truth and many souls have been saved through their ministry. You say that “these men have made their position on the gospel clear. That is, they’re willing to compromise the one true gospel (Gal:1:6-10; 1 Cor:15:1-4;) for a lowest common denominator ‘theology’ with that harlot of Rome for the sake of a pseudo-unity of ecumenism....” It is sadly true that they compromise.

As for making “their position on the gospel clear,” however, I am not aware that they have ever denied the gospel or that they themselves do not believe the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom:1:16). Nor am I aware that they preach a false gospel. They encourage those who do preach Rome’s false gospel, and they call those who believe it Christians. This is reprehensible and undoubtedly leads many astray by confirming Catholics in their error. Indeed, they may thereby have encouraged more on their way to hell than they have led to Christ. Nevertheless, on that basis alone I cannot say that they themselves are not Christians. Christ will be their judge, as He is mine and yours.

I think their situation is analogous to that of Peter. In Galatians 1, Paul curses those who preach a false gospel; and the implication is that it is the same gospel which they have believed, and therefore they are not saved. In chapter 2:11-16, he denounces Peter for compromising the gospel out of fear of James and “them which were of the circumcision.” In fact he says that Peter “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” by putting the Gentiles under the law. That is serious, but Paul never says that Peter is a false apostle or that he is not saved.

John warns us not even to receive into our homes those who deny “the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn 7-10). But the men you name do not deny the doctrine of Christ. In fact, they affirm it. At the same time, they join in an unequal yoke with those who proclaim Rome’s false gospel. The contradiction is inexplicable and the compromise is scandalous—but I can no more say they are not Christians than Paul could say Peter was not.

Billy Graham is highly regarded as an evangelist, but has made serious compromises over a long period of time, so let us deal briefly with him. In 1948 Billy said, “The three gravest menaces faced by orthodox Christianity are communism, Roman Catholicism, and Mohammedan-ism (sic).” But by 1952 Billy was working closely with the Catholic Church and sending those who went forward at his crusades back to that apostate institution. In 1978 Billy said, “I’ve found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of Orthodox Roman Catholics....We only differ on some matters of later Church tradition.” And today Billy says of the Pope, “He and I agree on almost everything.”

Billy Graham has met with the Pope five times, has discussed theology with him at length, and has spent as much as a week at a time at the Vatican in discussion with Catholic theologians. Thus Billy cannot be excused as ignorant of Catholicism. He surely must know that the Pope (with whom he claims to “agree on almost everything” and any theological differences “are not important as far as personal salvation is concerned”) wears the scapular, relying upon its promise to keep him from “eternal fire.” The Pope looks to Mary for salvation, believes and teaches that he is offering Christ afresh each time he says Mass, denies salvation through faith in Christ without Church sacraments, etc. and is the leader of a Church that is sending hundreds of millions to hell with a false gospel. Yet Billy has called the Pope “the greatest religious leader of the modern world.” In 1972 the Billy Graham organization began to commend Catholic books and literature, including the biography of Pope John XXIII. It contained hundreds of pages of the Pope’s devotion to Mary and the saints, worship of the Eucharistic wafer, and his trust in the sacraments for salvation, yet Billy commended it in ads as “a classic in devotion.”

Catholicism hasn’t changed since Billy called it one of the three “gravest menaces faced by orthodox Christianity”; Billy has apparently changed. Why? By his own admission he has been influenced by friendship with priests, bishops, cardinals, influential Catholics and the Pope. Of Boston’s Cardinal Cushing, Billy said, “He and I became close, wonderful friends. That was my first real coming to grips with the whole Protestant/Catholic situation....” What he called “coming to grips” did not involve facts and biblical truth, but feelings of friendship.

Far from denying the gospel, however, Billy without question preaches it and many souls have been saved as a result. Yet, like Peter, he compromises. In 1978 he preached in four Catholic cathedrals in Poland, and was preaching in Cardinal Wojtyla’s cathedral the night Wojtyla was made Pope in Rome. Obviously Billy was not preaching anything that would bring him into conflict with Roman Catholicism’s false gospel or he would not have been welcome. As early as 1957 he said, “I have no quarrel with the Catholic Church.” The ecumenical advisor to England’s Cardinal Hume wrote, “We know Dr. Graham to be a truly ecumenical evangelist....Billy Graham has helped our church greatly and many have ‘renewed’ their [Catholic] faith under his great ministry.” (Hume thanked Billy for turning over to him 2,100 names from the Earl’s Court Crusade in London.) In his crusade at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Billy called people forward with these words, “Many of you want to come tonight and reconfirm your confirmation...the decision that you made when you joined the Church.” That was a misleading compromise of the gospel which encouraged Catholics to continue in their lost condition with a false hope.

At his 1957 San Francisco crusade Billy insisted that Bishop James Pike open in prayer, though Pike lived in open immorality and denied the deity of Christ, the atonement and Resurrection. According to the 12/17/58 Oakland Tribune, of the 1,300 Catholics who went forward at that crusade, “practically all remained Catholic, continued to pray to Mary, go to Mass, and confess to a priest.” Thus Cuthbert E. Allen, who had first brought Billy into Roman Catholic institutions to preach, could state in defense of having done so, “Billy Graham is preaching a...theology most acceptable to Catholics.” That is not the gospel.

Such compromise is reprehensible. It is even worse than Peter’s compromise and has continued over a much longer period of time (46 years at least). Nevertheless, on that basis I cannot declare that Billy Graham is not a Christian, in view of the fact that he does believe and preach the biblical gospel. Nor can we say that Bill Bright, Charles Colson, J.I. Packer and others are not Christians because they have joined in partnership with Roman Catholics in ECT 1 and 2 to jointly preach the gospel.

The men you name do believe and preach the biblical gospel and do not preach the false Catholic gospel. It is incomprehensible that they deceitfully call Catholics who believe Rome’s false gospel Christians and thereby encourage them in their error. But I cannot find any basis in Scripture for saying that these men are themselves not saved. I pray earnestly that they will renounce their error, and I ask you to pray for them as well.

Printer-friendly version