Updated and enlarged February 1, 2006 (first published February 17, 1997) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

This article is part two in a six-part series titled “Billy Graham and Rome” by David W. Cloud. It is excerpted from the book Evangelicals1 and Rome, copyright 1999, 2001, Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, Michigan.

BILLY GRAHAM AND ROME -- PART 2 of 6

Billy Graham is evangelicalism's foremost personality in this 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: Exposing the Gray of Compromise). An article in Christianity Today for Oct. 5, 1992, entitled “Can Evangelicalism Survive Its Success?” 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.”

Thus, 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 that he was 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 be-friending him as a fellow evangelist, Graham was assuring Funda-mental-ist leaders, such as Bob Jones Sr. and John R. Rice, that he was opposed to Catholicism and that he was a separatist and a Fun-da-mentalist. It is obvious, though, that Billy Graham was never 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 Catholic leader as famous as Fulton Sheen go out of his way to befriend an insignifi-cant 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? 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 Christ? 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 in 1953 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). Thirty years later, Graham admitted to the Religious News Service that Bader was one of his “very close advisers and friends” (Christian News, March 31, 1986). 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’s began holding citywide meetings in 1948. As early as 1950 there were rumors that Graham was co-oper-ating 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 (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 deter-mined 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” (Billy Graham, radio broadcast, Bob Jones University, Dec. 1951).

Graham, who has been called “Mr. Facing Both 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 North-western 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 a gospel 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 Greenville, 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 1957 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.

A Year by Year Survey of Graham’s Relationship with Rome

We will look now at the history of Graham’s love affair with Rome. No other man in this generation is more responsible than Billy Graham for breaking down the walls between truth and error.

1950

As noted already, 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 Graham met Sheen about five years before this. Sheen was a great lover of Mary and was certain of God’s mercy only because of his devotion to Mary.

“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).

In his 1997 autobiography, Just As I Am, Graham acknowledged that he began to draw close to Rome in the early 1950s:

“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).

1952

On September 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. [As already noted, Sheen was a staunch Romanist and a great lover of the Catholic Mary.] Graham said, ‘MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE REACHED A DECISION ON 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. If, after we move on, the local churches do not feel the effects of these meetings in increased membership and attendance, then our crusades would have to be considered a failure.’”

1955

On December 29, 1955, Billy Graham met in his hotel suite with James Bennet and Jack Wyrtzen. (They were urging him not to pursue the path of ecumenical compromise.) He confirmed his intention of sending converts back to the Roman Catholic Church (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990’s).

1956

A rally banquet was held on September 17, 1956, at the Hotel Commodore, New York City, attended by 1,100 people. Graham was guest of honor and main speaker. Graham stated that he wanted Jews, Catholics, and Protestants to attend his meetings and then go back to their own churches. This statement was confirmed by the New York Evening Journal on Sept. 18, 1956, as follows:

Graham said: ‘THEN WE’LL SEND THEM TO THEIR OWN CHURCHES—ROMAN CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT OR JEWISH. We hope this way to see the forces of crime at least lose a skirmish. The rest will be up to God’ (Billy Graham, Church League of America).

Protestant Church Life, the official organ of the Protestant Council, confirmed this statement in its issue of September 29, 1956: “Referring to the Billy Graham New York Crusade scheduled for May, 1957, Dr. Graham said: ‘We’re coming to New York not to clean it up, but to get people to dedicate themselves to God and to send them on to their own churches--Catholic, Protestant or Jewish ... The rest is up to God.” This is also cited in William Martin, A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story, p. 223.

1957

In the May 6, 1957, issue of Newsweek, Graham stated:

“I have many friends among Catholic priests, and a number of New York Catholic leaders have written me stating that they believe New York needs a spiritual awakening, and have promised me their prayers and interest even though they could not officially support the meetings. The Catholic Church has always been as friendly and as tolerant as their church law will allow them toward our crusades.”

In an interview with the San Francisco News of Sept. 21, 1957, Graham team member Walter Smyth admitted that seekers at the San Francisco crusade were referred to Catholic churches. He said, “EVEN IF THE PENITENTS ARE NON-PROTESTANT, THEY ARE REFERRED TO THE CHURCH OF THEIR CHOICE. ... San Francisco is a heavily concentrated Roman Catholic City.” When Smyth later denied this, the paper stood by its report, and when Graham arrived in town, the paper asked the evangelist himself whether inquirers were sent to Catholic churches. His answer appeared in the Nov. 11, 1957, issue: “ANYONE WHO MAKES A DECISION AT OUR MEETINGS IS SEEN LATER AND REFERRED TO A LOCAL CLERGYMAN, PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC OR JEWISH.”

James E. Bennet was a prominent New York attorney and Bible teacher. He resigned from the crusade committee for Graham’s New York Crusade when he saw that Graham was committed to working with Modernists and false teachers. In his summary of Graham’s 1957 New York Crusade, “Final Analysis—A Ministry of Disobedience,” Bennet gave this interesting bit of information:

Furthermore, a friend of mine (a minister of a church on Long Island) went into the inquiry room as an inquirer, and when the counselor asked him what church, he said, ‘To be saved, must I have a church?’ The counselor answered, ‘Yes, you must have a church.’ ‘Can I have a Catholic Church?’ ‘Certainly, if you want to,’ said the counselor. So he gave the name of a Catholic Church in his own locality. Two days later the priest of that church called him up; said he had the card, and would be glad to interview him as a prospective member of that church. I could cite many instances which came to my personal notice. It was one of the most sinful acts of the whole crusade, and will continue to cause inestimable damage. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, MODERNISTIC, LIBERAL AND OTHER FORMS OF UNBELIEVING CHURCHES (Letter from G. Archer Weniger to Mr. Walter Smyth, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Dec. 20, 1957).

1958

The Graham organization and the co-operating churches in the San Francisco Crusade appointed Dr. Charles Farrah to follow up the “converts” and to report on the same. His findings were announced December 16. According to the Oakland Tribune, of the roughly 1,300 Catholics who came forward, PRACTICALLY ALL REMAINED CATHOLIC, CONTINUED TO PRAY TO MARY, GO TO MASS, AND CONFESS TO A PRIEST (Oakland Tribune, Wed., Dec. 17, 1958, cited by G. Archer Weniger, The Blu-Print). No wonder the Catholic Church supports Graham crusades.

1960

In a report in Newsweek magazine in October 1960, Graham admitted that he would not lead Catholics out of their denomination: “Despite their probable Roman Catholic background, some 50 percent of Spanish-speaking New Yorkers have no current church affiliation of any kind, according to Protestant churchmen. Dr. Graham made it clear that he and his fellow crusaders have no intention of doing any proselyting. He emphasized: ‘The important thing to us is that these people are unchurched. We want them to accept Christ and they can do that whether they think of themselves as Catholics or Protestants’” (Newsweek, October 17, 1960).

1961

The Bible warns that “evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33), and Graham’s close affiliation with heretics over the years has certainly corrupted his doctrinal discernment. In a 1961 interview with the Lutheran Standard of the liberal American Lutheran Church, Graham testified that all of his children except the youngest were baptized as infants. (Graham grew up as a Presbyterian and joined a Southern Baptist church after he started his evangelistic career; his wife, Ruth, remained a Presbyterian). Graham then made the following amazing statement:

“I have some difficulty in accepting the indiscriminate baptism of infants without a careful regard as to whether the parents have any intention of fulfilling the promise they make. But I DO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS AT THE BAPTISM OF AN INFANT, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian Truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the miracles of God, but I BELIEVE THAT A MIRACLE CAN HAPPEN IN THESE CHILDREN SO THAT THEY ARE REGENERATED, THAT IS, MADE CHRISTIAN, THROUGH INFANT BAPTISM. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me” (Graham, interview with Wilfred Bockelman, associate editor of the Lutheran Standard, American Lutheran Church, Lutheran Standard, October 10, 1961).

1962

Graham conducted crusades in Latin America in 1962. He notes that they had to “move with great caution” because of divisions and controversies between Protestants and Catholics in that part of the world. In his 1997 autobiography, he refers to that division as the fault of both Catholics and Protestants.

“Nor was the fault always on the Catholic side, I knew. Often Latin American Protestants were guilty of intolerance, negative preaching, and inflammatory language. I had no intention of adding fuel to the fire. In fact, whenever possible during our trip south (as well as on other tours), I tried to meet with local Catholic leaders, to the occasional consternation of some of our hosts. My goal, I always made clear, was not to preach against Catholic beliefs or to proselytize people who were already committed to Christ within the Catholic Church” (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 357).

The charge Graham makes against Latin American Protestants of “intolerance, negative preaching, and inflammatory language” could easily be made against the Lord Jesus Christ and against the Lord’s Apostles. Christ’s sermon against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 sounds very intolerant and negative, as does Paul’s sermon against the Galatian heretics in Galatians chapter 1. Bible preachers who are faithful to the Word of God are always intolerant of error. “There-fore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128).

The Roman Catholic bishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, stood beside Graham during his 1962 crusade in that city, and blessed those who came forward at the invitation. Graham said this illustrated that “something tremendous, an awakening of reform and revival within Christianity” was happening (Daily Journal, International Falls, Minnesota, October 29, 1963, cited by the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1963).

The man who paved the way for Graham to visit Latin America was Ken Strachan, whose father founded the Latin America Mission. Strachan was a dedicated ecumenist who shared Graham’s view “that there needed to be a coming together in some way and some form between Catholics and Protestants” (Just As I Am, p. 357).

By 1962 the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association edited the Halley Bible Commentary (subtitled the Pocket Bible Handbook) to remove references to Rome’s murderous Inquisition (Wilson Ewin, Today’s Evangelicals Embracing the World’s Deadliest Cult, p. 57). The BGEA organization acquired the printing rights of the book but was not supposed to change it. Pastor Jimmy Robbins of Cowpens, South Carolina, told me that Henry Halley’s widow was upset at the way the Graham organization changed her husband’s work by removing pages 676 to 705 which had described the martyrdom of millions through the papal Inquisition.

1963

Upon the death of Pope John XXIII in 1963, Graham made this amazing remark from Bonn, Germany: “I admire Pope John tremendously. I felt he brought a new era to the world. It is my hope that the Cardinals elect a new Pope who will follow the same line as John. It would be a great tragedy if they chose a man who reacted against John, who re-erected the walls” (Michigan City News-Dispatch, June 2, 1963).

In 1963, Graham spoke at a Park Sheraton Hotel breakfast that was held to support his New York World’s Fair pavilion. The New York Times of October 25 reported that he spoke on increasing cooperation between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and said if Pope Paul asked him to go out and preach the gospel, he would do it (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990’s). The problem with such a statement is that it confuses people and fails to make any distinction between false gospels and the true gospel. Pope Paul did not preach the true gospel of the grace of Christ. He preached Rome’s sacramental grace-works gospel. Why, then, does Graham say he would preach the gospel if asked by Pope Paul? What gospel would he preach under such circumstances? Pope Paul’s gospel, or the Bible gospel? Graham pretends that they are the same, and herein lies the great error and wickedness of ecumenical evangelism.

It was also in 1963 that Graham first spoke at a Roman Catholic institution. It was the Belmont Abbey College. Four years later he was awarded an honorary degree by this institution (The Gastonia Gazette, Nov. 22, 1967). The priest who invited Graham, Cuthbert Allen, Executive Vice-President of the college, noted that Graham was scheduled to speak at other Catholic colleges that year. In the New York Times for October 25, 1963, Graham acknowledged that he had preaching engagements scheduled at five Roman Catholic institutions. Priest Cuthbert Allen made the following interesting observation of Graham’s ministry:

I am the one who, being acquainted with Billy Graham, invited him to speak to the Fathers, the Nuns, students and invited guests, and I am pleased to reply to your inquiries.

Billy Graham gave an inspiring and a theologically sound address that may have been given by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen or any other Catholic preacher. I have followed Billy Graham’s career and I must emphasize that he has been more Catholic than otherwise, and I say this not in a partisan manner but as a matter of fact.

Knowing the tremendous influence of Billy Graham among Protestants and now the realization and acknowledgment among Catholics of his devout and sincere appeal to the teachings of Christ ... I WOULD STATE THAT HE COULD BRING CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS TOGETHER IN A HEALTHY ECUMENICAL SPIRIT.

I was the first Catholic to invite Billy Graham; I know he will speak at three other Catholic universities next month; I believe he will be invited to more Catholic colleges in the future than Protestant colleges.

So I am well pleased, then, to answer your question: BILLY GRAHAM IS PREACHING A MORAL AND EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY MOST ACCEPTABLE TO CATHOLICS (Letter of May 19, 1965, from Cuthbert E. Allen to Mr. Julius C. Taylor, reprinted in The Christian News, October 1, 1984).

1964

In 1964, Graham spent forty-five minutes with Richard Cardinal Cushing, Catholic Archbishop of Boston. Cushing gave unqualified support for Graham. The Cleveland Plain Dealer for October 8, 1964, reported Cushing’s words:

“I am 100% for the evangelist. I have never known a religious crusade that was more effective than Dr. Graham’s. I have never heard the slightest criticism of anything he has ever said from a Catholic source.”

Graham returned the favor by saying: “I feel much closer to Roman Catholic tradition than to some of the more liberal Protestants” (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II). This type of statement is popular ecumenical jargon, but it does not mean anything. What does it mean to feel closer to Catholic tradition than to liberal Protestantism? Both are unscriptural. Both must therefore be rejected! It is not an either-or situation. The Bible believing Christian is taught by the Word of God to reject all forms of error (Psalm 119:128; 1 Timothy 1:3).

1966

In May 1966, Graham made this statement: “I find myself closer to the Catholics than the radical Protestants. I think the Roman Catholic Church today is going through a second Reformation” (Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia, May 24, 1966).

In July 1966, Graham held a crusade in London, England. Before leaving London, Graham met with the apostolic delegate from the Vatican (Graham interview with Edward B. Fiske, New York Times, July 17, 1966).

In October 1966, Graham was honorary chairman of the “World Congress on Evangelism” in Berlin, Germany. The congress was funded by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Observers included representatives from the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches. Paulist priest John B. Sheerin, special correspondent for the Religious News Service and editor of the Catholic World, spoke of Graham’s powers of compromise:

“The delegates had come from all over the world and from disparate backgrounds and theologies which were reflected in their diverse and dissonant interpretations of the Bible. Only the Holy Spirit, working through Billy Graham as the human instrument, could have welded together so quickly so many men of different creeds. The spirit of Pope John hovered over the council. Billy Graham was physically, palpably and inescapably present at the Congress speaking admirably and holding together forces that would unquestionably have exploded in all directions save for his presence.”

A month after the Berlin Congress, the Toronto Daily Star of November 19, 1966, quoted a priest, William Manseau, one of the Catholic observers at the Berlin World Congress on Evangelism: “Father Manseau noted approvingly that a Catholic publication in England recently suggested that some day the Catholic Church may canonize the Baptist evangelist, making him ‘St. Billy’” (M.L. Moser, Jr., Ecumenicalism Under the Spotlight).

1967

On Nov. 21, 1967, an honorary degree was conferred on Graham by the Catholic priests who operate Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, during an Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue. The Gastonia Gazette reported:

In this decade of the 20th century, ‘in the midst of our generation,’ the world is experiencing a ‘final shaking,’ evangelist Billy Graham told an audience of 1700 Protestants and Catholics at Belmont Abbey College Tuesday night...

After receiving the honorary degree of doctor of humane letters (D.H.L.) from the Abbey, Graham noted the significance of the occasion—‘a time when Protestants and Catholics could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas 10 years ago they could not,’ he said.

The evangelist’s first sermon at a Catholic institution was at the Abbey, in 1963, and his return Tuesday was the climax to this week’s Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue, a program sponsored in part by the Abbey and designed to promote understanding among Catholic and Protestant clergymen of the Gaston-Mecklenburg area.

Graham, freshly returned from his Japanese Crusade, said he ‘knew of no greater honor a North Carolina preacher, reared just a few miles from here, could have than to be presented with this degree. I’m not sure but what this could start me being called “Father Graham,”’ he facetiously added.

In a serious tone, Graham said we are living in a ‘critical and crucial period in a busy world. And, I want to speak especially to the students tonight.’ Many students from Belmont Abbey and Sacred Heart College turned out to hear the Southern Baptist evangelist...

‘There are five definite things which will not be shaken, and will serve as mountains on which to hold,’ Graham said. ...

‘Finally, the way of salvation has not changed. I know how the ending of the book will be. THE GOSPEL THAT BUILT THIS SCHOOL AND THE GOSPEL THAT BRINGS ME HERE TONIGHT IS STILL THE WAY TO SALVATION’ (“Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree,”, Paul Smith, Gazette staff reporter, The Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, North Carolina, Nov. 22, 1967).

This is simply amazing. Does Billy Graham really believe that the sacramental grace-works gospel that built Belmont Abbey is the way of salvation? If so, why does Graham preach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone without works or sacraments? Why does he remain a Baptist rather than joining the Catholic Church? On the other hand, if Graham does not believe Rome’s gospel is true, why did he say what he does? Why does he fellowship with Rome? The evangelist tries to have it both ways, but it is impossible. This is why Graham has been called “Mr. Facing Both Ways”!

1969

Graham’s 1969 crusade in New Zealand pleased Modernistic, Jewish, and Catholic leaders. Writing on March 8, 1969, the Moderator Elect of the Presbyterian Church in New Zealand, Modernist O.T. Baragwanath, stated:

“This is the greatest ecumenical occasion that New Zealand has ever known. Thousands of ordinary Christian people have been studying and praying with those of other traditions for many months. This friendship is not going to disappear. There is a completely new atmosphere between the Churches. Roman Catholic and Jewish leaders, though not participating in the crusade, attended the opening session of the school of evangelism and listened with evident respect to a quiet and scholarly address by Mr. Graham” (Winston G. Broadbent, Roman Catholicism and Billy Graham, p. 6).

The June 19, 1969, issue of the New York Times contained a half-page article on Graham follow-up techniques:

After inquirers are dealt with by ‘counselors’ and cards on each are filled out, a ‘Co-Labor Corps’ sits at long tables until midnight each night counting and sorting the cards and licking envelopes that will go out in the morning mail to ministers of about 1,000 churches. The ‘Corps’ sifts through maps and phone books, finding the church nearest the addresses on the cards, regardless of whether or not they are liberal, conservative, Protestant, Catholic or Jewish (Billy Graham, The Church League of America, pp. 67-68).

The United States Congress of Evangelism was held in Minneapolis, Sept. 8-13, 1969. Billy Graham was the sponsor and Roman Catholics were included in the program. A priest, John J. Okeefe, led the Thursday morning devotions (The Baptist Bulletin, Nov. 1969).

1970

The Graham-sponsored Euro 70 was a technological marvel. Graham’s messages were broadcast to venues across Europe by means of closed-circuit television. As always, one of the products of the crusade was ecumenical unity. The chairman of one of the Norwegian relay sites testified, “There has been a marked closing of ranks of all Christian associations in the towns and surrounding areas” (John Pollock, Billy Graham, p. 80). A professor at a Roman Catholic divinity school in Zagreb, Yugolavia, said Euro 70 awoke the hope “in many hearts that ecumenism in our region will not remain just an empty word.”

From 1970 to 1972 Jesuit priest Charles Dullea, Superior of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, researched the message and methodology of Billy Graham’s crusades for a doctoral dissertation written for the Gregorian University in Rome. Dullea was granted interviews with Graham and with his staff and was allowed to study the follow-up at crusades in New York and Los Angeles. Dullea’s doctoral dissertation was published in 1973 in a book entitled A Catholic Looks at Billy Graham. I have a copy of this in my library.

Dullea’s description of the follow-up at Graham crusades is fascinating, and he made an amazing discovery: When Catholic churches do not actively participate in Graham crusades “there is no follow-up on Roman Catholics” (p. 47). Dullea writes:

“In the follow-up room in Shea Stadium in June 1970 I saw a thick packet of decision cards designated ‘No follow-up.’ These were ‘Catholic and Cultists.’ ... There is no follow-up on these cases. They are simply dropped. I was told that the percentage of Catholic decisions for Christ reached almost 20% of the whole” (Dullea, A Catholic Looks at Billy Graham, Paulist Press, 1973, p. 47).

This unconscionable practice was the result of Graham’s incredible ecumenical zeal. Apparently, he would rather have no follow-up of Catholic inquirers than risk offending Catholic leaders by sending the names of inquirers to non-Catholic churches for follow-up. (Dullea’s treatise was read in manuscript form by Dr. Robert Ferm of the Graham Evangelistic Association prior to publication.)

__________________________________________

This is part of a six-part series titled “Billy Graham and Rome” by David W. Cloud. It is excerpted from the book Evangelicals and Rome, copyright 1999, 2001, 2005, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061.

EVANGELICALS AND ROME. EVANGELICALS AND ROME: THE ECUMENICAL ONE-WORLD “CHURCH” (D.W. CLOUD) [ISBN 1-58318-058-3] Nothing more plainly demonstrates the ongoing fulfillment of prophecies pertaining to end-time apostasy and the formation of a world-world harlot “church,” and this volume documents evangelicalism’s flirtation with Rome over the past half century. The introduction documents the history and apostasy of evangelicalism since the 1940s. Part 1 answers the question “Is the Roman Catholic Church Changing?” It includes a study from official Vatican II documents as well as from the New Catholic Catechism proving that the RCC has not changed its heretical position on such things as the mass, the papacy, Mary, purgatory, the priesthood, prayers to the dead, and the sacraments. The author also shows that Vatican II and the New Catechism affirm the blasphemous declarations of the Council of Trent. Part II covers “Billy Graham and Rome,” documenting Billy Graham's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church from 1950 to present. Part III covers “Other Influential Evangelical Leaders and Organizations and Rome,” covering dozens of popular evangelical leaders and organizations, including Bill Bright and Campus Crusade, Tony Campolo, Christianity Today, Christian Research Institute, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Elizabeth Elliot, Jerry Falwell, Fuller Seminary, Franklin Graham, Carl Henry, Bill Hybels, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, D. James Kennedy, J.I. Packer, Luis Palau, Robert Schuller, John R. Stott, Thomas Nelson, United Bible Societies, Jack Van Impe, Wheaton College, World Magazine, World Vision, Wycliffe Bible Translators, and Youth for Christ. Part IV deals with “The Southern Baptist Convention and Rome.” Part V deals with “The Charismatics and Rome.” Dozens of influential Charismatic leaders and organizations are documented, including 100 Huntley Street, 700 Club, AGLOW, Assemblies of God, Jamie Buckingham, Morris Cerullo, David Yonggi Cho, Paul Crouch, Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship, Kenneth Hagin, Michael Harper, Jack Hayford, Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne, Rex Humbard, Kathryn Kuhlman, David Mainse, Melodyland Christian Center, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, James Robison, Vinson Synan, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ralph Wilkerson, John Wimber, and Youth with a Mission. Part VI deals with “Promise Keepers and Rome” and Part VII with “Contemporary Christian Music and Rome.”’ Part VIII deals with the subject of “Evangelical Catholics” and looks at the phenomenon of so-called evangelical Catholicism and charismatic Catholics. The book “Evangelical Catholics” by Keith Fournier (foreword by Chuck Colson) is reviewed and refuted from Scripture. Part IX looks at the many ways “Rome Denies Salvation by Grace Alone.” Part X deals with the agreement between “Lutherans and Catholics on the Doctrine of Salvation by Grace.” Part XI looks at Evangelicals and Catholics Together II. Part XII answers the question “Was Mother Teresa a True Christian?” Did she teach the people under her care the true Gospel? This study contains an interview with a nun who works with Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity. Read this amazing interview and learn what this Calcutta-trained nun does to prepare Hindus for death. Part XIII examines the charge that we don’t understand the Catholic Church. 2nd edition August 2001, 371 pages, 7X8, perfect bound. $19.95

ROME AND THE BIBLE: TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS PERSECUTION OF THE BIBLE AND OF BIBLE BELIEVERS (D.W. CLOUD) [ISBN 1-58318-003-6] To our knowledge, this is the first history ever published which details the Roman Catholic Church’s relationship to the Bible from the first millennium to the present. The book could also be titled “The Bible Through the Centuries.” The author has spent thousands of dollars obtaining rare documents relevant to this history (such as a 1641 edition of Foxe’s unabridged Acts and Monuments) and researched the topic in important theological libraries in Canada, America, and England, including the British Library. The book covers the Roman Catholic Inquisition from the 11th to the 19th centuries, particularly the role played by the Inquisition to keep translations of the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It contains the history of ancient separated Christians, including the Waldensians and the Lollards. It gives the history of the English Bible from John Wycliffe to William Tyndale, and the history of the Spanish, German, French, and Italian Bibles. It contains amazing biographies of royal queens who loved the Bible. It gives the decade-by-decade details of papal condemnations of 19th-century Bible societies and of Roman Catholic persecution in the 19th century. It describes the 20th-century phenomenon of Rome changing tactics and joining hands with the Bible societies. It documents the similarities between the Latin Vulgate and the modern versions. It answers the question: Has the Roman Catholic Church changed? The book contains 95 illustrations from rare out-of-print books. Dr. Ian Paisley, Martyrs Memorial Presbyterian Church, Belfast, Northern Ireland, commended us for Rome and the Bible and showed us his copy in which he had written the following words: “Brother Cloud is not beclouded!” Fourth edition revised and enlarged, September 2001, 331 pages, 7X8, perfect bound. $19.95

_____________________________

POSTAGE AND HANDLING

U.S.A.--15% ($4.00 minimum)

CANADA/FOREIGN--20% ($4 minimum)

NAME__________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS_______________________________________________________________

CITY/STATE/ZIP_________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE/E-MAIL_____________________________________________________

VISA # _________________________________________________________________

MASTERCARD #_________________________________________________________

NAME ON CARD_________________________________________________________

EXPIRATION DATE_______________________________________________________

Way of Life Literature

P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143 (toll free), fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail)
http://www.wayoflife.org (web site)

Canada: Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London, Ont. N6P 1A6, 519-652-2619 (voice), 519-652-0056 (fax)

SEE PART 3 OF 4 "BILLY GRAHAM AND ROME"