“...some of the early planning of our program had a lot to do with a Catholic parish that had James Kennedy’s program ... The gospel is the gospel and everybody knows what the basic gospel truth is ... denominational differences [are] in the follow-up ... there were a couple of things in James Kennedy’s process that we as Catholics couldn’t accept because it wasn’t Catholic teaching. FOR EXAMPLE, TOO OBVIOUS WAS THE TOTAL ASSURANCE OF SALVATION ... AND THE OTHER ONE IS SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE. FOR CATHOLICS WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH AND ALSO THROUGH OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST. We don’t earn our salvation but we believe that there are acts of obedience and cooperation in God’s Spirit that are tied up with salvation” (Interview by Dennis Costella with Keith Fournier and Chris Noble, 1988 National Conference on the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, Friday-Sunday, May 27-29, 1988, Notre Dame Campus, South Bend, Indiana).

Do you see the tremendous deception in this? Fournier says the gospel is the gospel, implying that we are all preaching the same basic gospel, yet he goes on to deny the very heart of the gospel which is salvation through the grace of Christ ALONE by faith ALONE. He would call this difference merely a matter of “interpretation” or perhaps an issue of semantics, but that is not the case. To add any kind of works to Christ’s grace is a matter of heresy and blasphemy, and brings God’s curse upon anyone who preaches it (Gal. 1:8-10). Fournier claims that he believes in salvation by God’s grace, but by adding works and sacraments to grace he corrupts grace. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6).

Fournier says “we are saved by faith AND ALSO through obedience to Christ,” yet he claims he doesn’t believe in earning salvation. This is Jesuit sophistry at its diabolic best.

When I find a man who is steadfast in the type of deception that Fournier spouts, I will not argue with him nor will I put up with him. I will obey God and reject him and separate from him. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition REJECT; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10-11). Note that God does not instruct us to debate heretics endlessly. After the first and second admonition, they are to be rejected.

There is no excuse for today’s evangelical leaders to be deceived by this kind of duplicity. If a man is not doctrinally strong enough to see through Rome’s deceptions, he is not qualified to be a Christian leader (Titus 1:9-11). Today’s evangelical leaders have impressive scholarly qualifications, but they have little spiritual discernment. The latter cannot be obtained from an institution of higher learning. It comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit to obedient, regenerated saints. “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt. 11:25).

WHAT EVANGELICALISM WAS A GENERATION AGO

Evangelicalism of our day is a different creature from that of the 1940s and earlier. Fifty years ago the term “evangelical” was a word which referred to firm, Bible-believing Christianity. Though the term “evangelical,” like fundamentalism, has never had an established definition and always incorporated a wide latitude of belief, as a rule it traditionally described Protestants who believed the Bible without reservation, who preached the new birth, and who were stridently opposed to Rome. Generally speaking (and certainly in contrast to the mushy Evangelicalism of today), the Evangelicals of North America of bygone generations were militant soldiers for Christ.

Some trace the term “evangelical” to the English revivals of the Wesleys and Whitefield. Others trace it to the earliest days of the Protestant Reformation. In either case, Evangelicalism of old was dogmatic and militant. It was old-fashioned Protestanism. Luther was excommunicated by the Pope; John Wesley was barred from Anglican churches. All of the Protestant denominations once identified Rome as the Revelation 17 whore of Babylon. Anyone familiar with the old Lutheran and Methodist and Presbyterian creeds knows this. Though we Baptists don’t see eye to eye with them on many important points, those men stood militantly for what they believed to be the truth. Not only did old-line evangelicals define what they believed the Bible taught, they defined it in contradiction to error. They were boldly militant for the truth as they saw it. This is exactly what today’s New Evangelical is not.

Consider examples of this from the old Methodist Articles of Religion:

“Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. ... The Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”

“...the sacrifice of Masses in the which it is commonly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit.”

David Otis Fuller, speaking of evangelical soldiers of bygone days, said,

“Each man possessed the same fierce conviction—that all truth is absolute, never relative. For these men, truth was never a nose of wax to be twisted to suit their system of dialectics or deceptive casuistry. Two times two made four. In mathematics, their supreme authority was the multiplication table; in theology, their absolute authority was the Bible” (D.O. Fuller, Preface, Valiant for the Truth, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961, pp. ix,x).

An example is the late evangelist James Stewart. He was used in a mighty way in revivals in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Iron Curtain and his published sermons were characterized by uncompromising declaration of Bible truth. Not only did he preach the gospel and the positive truths of the Word of God, but he preached against error and compromise. In sermons such as “Potpourri Evangelism,” Stewart witnessed mightily against modern ecumenical evangelism. Consider a quotation from that sermon, first preached in the 1940s and ‘50s:

We must be more afraid of flattery from the camp of the enemy than persecution. Read the pages of Church history. Persecution never did the Church of God any harm, but compromise with the world has always robbed it of the power of its purity. ...

‘Potpourri Evangelism’ consists of two features: mixed evangelistic campaigns and mixed Christianity. By mixed evangelistic campaigns I mean the alliance of Modernistic and Evangelical churches together in an evangelistic effort. ...

When religion gets up a revival, it must have from five to twenty churches of heterogeneous creeds and sectarian bodies to go into a great union effort; it must have a mammoth choir with great musical instruments, and many preachers and multiplied committees, and each committee headed by some banker, judge, mayor, or millionaire’s wife. It signs cards as a substitute for the broken-hearted cry of scriptural repentance. It must count its converts by the hundreds in a few days’ meeting. It must apologize for natural depravity. ...

Human religion’s enterprises have an atmosphere of earthliness about them. It despises the day of small things and scorns little humble people and lonely ways. It is eager to jump to the height of prosperity. Its music has no pathos in it, its laughter lacks divine cheerfulness, its worship lacks supernatural love, its prayers bring down no huge answers, it works no miracles, calls forth no criticism from the world, and has no light of eternity in its eyes. It is a poor, sickly thing, born of the union of the heart of the world with the head of Christian theology—a mongrel, bastard thing with a backslidden church for its mother and the world for its father. Oh, my dear brother and sister, never forget that this unnatural monster will be destroyed at the coming-again of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ (James Stewart, Evangelism, Asheville, NC: Gospel Projects, pp. 25-28).

How popular would James Stewart be in evangelical circles today?

Baptist C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is another example of what “evangelical” meant in generations past. Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s ministry was characterized by faithfulness to the truth, holiness of life, a gospel of pure grace, and unhesitating exposure of error. Though maligned and misunderstood, Spurgeon did not draw back from separating from the Baptist Union because of the false doctrine that was being countenanced therein. He also stood unhesitatingly against Roman Catholicism. Consider this excerpt from one of Spurgeon’s sermons:

“It is impossible but that the Church of Rome must spread, when we who are the watchdogs of the fold are silent, and others are gently and smoothly turfing the road, and making it as soft and smooth as possible, that converts may travel down to the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John Knox back again. Do not talk to me of mild and gentle men, of soft manners and squeamish words, we want the fiery Knox, and even though his vehemence should ‘ding our pulpits into blads,’ it were well if he did but rouse our hearts to action” (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs. 322-3).

When was the last time you read something like that in Christianity Today magazine! Old Spurgeon hit the nail on the head. Sadly, today’s evangelicalism is indeed in the business of turfing the road of Roman Catholicism to make it smooth for those traveling thereon to Hell.

Many other examples could be given to show that evangelicalism of past generations involved the boldest contention for the faith. Evangelical warriors of a bygone age did not fail to label Rome that “Mother of Harlots,” and would have considered it unthinkable to have fellowship with Romanism.

The New Evangelical leaven spread rapidly. New Evangelical philosophy has been adopted by such well-known Christian leaders as Bill Bright, Harold Lindsell, John R.W. Stott, Luis Palau, E.V. Hill, Leighton Ford, Charles Stanley, Bill Hybels, Warren Wiersbe, Chuck Colson, Donald McGavran, Tony Campolo, Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, David Hocking, Charles Swindoll, and a host of other men. New Evangelicalism was popularized through pleasant personalities and broadcast through powerful print, radio, and television media. Christianity Today was founded in 1956 to voice the new philosophy. Through publishing houses such as InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, Tyndale House Publishers, Moody Press, and Thomas Nelson—to name a few—New Evangelical thinking was broadcast across the world. New Evangelicalism became the working principle of large interdenominational organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals, National Religious Broadcasters, Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, Back to the Bible, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, World Vision, Operation Mobilization, the Evangelical Foreign Mission Association, World Evangelical Fellowship, the National Sunday School Association, etc. It was spread through educational institutions such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, Gordon-Conwell, BIOLA, and Moody Bible Institute. Countless conferences have been organized to promote New Evangelicalism. Two of the largest and most influential were Amsterdam ‘83 and Amsterdam ‘86 which were sponsored by Billy Graham Ministries and were attended by thousands of preachers from across the world.

Because of the tremendous influence of these men and organizations, New Evangelical thought has swept the globe. Today it is no exaggeration to say that almost without exception those who call themselves Evangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line evangelicals, with rare exceptions, have either aligned with the Fundamentalist movement or have adopted New Evangelicalism.

The Evangelical movement today is the New Evangelical movement. For all practical purposes, they are the same.

“Part of the current confusion regarding New Evangelicalism stems from the fact that there is now little difference between evangelicalism and New Evangelicalism. The principles of the original New Evangelicalism have become so universally accepted by those who refer to themselves as evangelicals that any distinctions which might have been made years ago are all but lost. It is no doubt true to state that ‘Ockenga’s designation of the new movement as “New or Neo-Evangelical” was abbreviated to “Evangelical.” ... Thus today we speak of this branch of conservative Christianity simply as the Evangelical movement’” (Ernest Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise, p. 96).

NEW EVANGELICALISM IS NOT A DENOMINATION OR A GROUP. IT IS A SPIRIT OF DISOBEDIENCE. IT IS A MOOD OF COMPROMISE. It is a rejection of many of the negative aspects of New Testament Christianity. IT IS AN ATTITUDE OF POSITIVISM. Old-line Presbyterians can be New Evangelical. Old-line Methodists can be New Evangelical. Fundamental Bible churches can be New Evangelical. INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS CAN BE NEW EVANGELICAL. Many are, in fact, and the number appears to be growing rapidly. Beware, friends. Don’t be deceived by the label. Examine the content, and avoid that which is contrary to the Word of God. Call it what you please, an attitude of positive-only neutrality is not New Testament Christianity.

THE LAST DAYS TO BE CHARACTERIZED BY APOSTASY

The fact that the wall between truth and error is being torn down in one generation, though grievous, should not surprise us. Did the apostles not foretell of apostasy, compromise, spiritual decline, doctrinal confusion, religious duplicity? Note passages such as Matthew 24; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 Timothy 4; 2 Timothy 3-4; 2 Peter 2-3; Jude; and Revelation 13 and 17. These prophecies paint a picture of the course of the church age, and it is one of deepening religious apostasy and a false unity which will grow throughout the age and will come into full blossom just prior to Christ’s return.

This is exactly what has happened during the past 1900 years of church history, yet this present generation has witnessed a tremendous increase in the pace of the apostasy. Not only are the Protestant denominations moving back toward the Roman fold, but those who had never before affiliated with Rome are beginning to associate with her.

EVANGELICALISM AND ROME

Nothing better illustrates the downfall of evangelicalism than its increasingly close relationship with Roman Catholicism. The evangelical warriors of past generations considered Rome the Mother of Harlots. This doesn’t mean old-time evangelicals hated Roman Catholics. Far from it. It was their love for souls that motivated them to preach the gospel to Catholics that some might be saved and plucked as brands from the fire.

Roman Catholicism, as noted earlier, has changed since the 1800s, but it has not changed its basic heretical nature. The changes have been cosmetic with the design of furthering its treacherous ecumenical goals.

It is impossible to conceive of Charles Haddon Spurgeon calling the blasphemous Pope of Rome a “great evangelist” as Billy Graham has said of John Paul II. It would be impossible to picture evangelist James A. Stewart inviting a Catholic bishop to stand with him on a platform to “bless” those coming forward at a gospel service, yet this is exactly what Billy Graham did in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1963.

Today’s New Evangelicals are indeed a different brand from those of bygone days. Rome hasn't changed, but evangelicalism certainly has.

___________________________________________



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).

“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 cooperating with Catholics.

In 1950 Dr. Robert Ketcham of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches came across a newspaper article indicating that Graham expected Catholics and Jews to cooperate in a revival in Oregon and another which reported that Graham had turned over decision cards to Roman Catholic churches. Ketcham promptly sent a letter of inquiry to Billy himself. His letter brought him a strong rebuke from Graham’s executive secretary, Jerry Beavan. Part of Beavan’s reply was as follows:

‘For example, you asked if Billy Graham had invited Roman Catholics and Jews to cooperate in the evangelistic meetings. SUCH A THOUGHT, EVEN IF THE REPORTER DID SUGGEST IT AS HAVING COME FROM MR. GRAHAM, SEEMS RIDICULOUS TO ME. SURELY YOU MUST KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. ... FURTHER, THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT MR. GRAHAM WOULD EVER TURN OVER ANY DECISION CARDS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE’ (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II).

Graham was soon openly doing what Mr. Beavan labeled “ridiculous” and “inconceivable.” On Sept. 6, 1952, reporter William McElwain, writing for the Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, remarked on Graham’s ecumenical activities with Rome:

Graham stressed that his crusade in Pittsburgh would be interdenominational. He said that he hopes to hear Bishop Fulton J. Sheen at one of the Masses at St. Paul’s Cathedral tomorrow. Graham said, ‘Many of the people who have reached a decision for Christ at our meetings have joined the Catholic church and we have received commendations from Catholic publications for the revived interest in their church following one of our campaigns. This happened both in Boston and Washington. After all, one of our prime purposes is to help the churches in a community.’

It doesn’t sound to me that Dr. Ketcham’s aforesaid questions were ridiculous. Graham publicly admitted he was already turning seekers over to the Catholic Church in the early 1950s. In an interview with the Religious News Service in 1986, the 67-year-old Billy Graham admitted that his ministry was deliberately ecumenical even in the early days (Christian News, March 31, 1986).

Since then, Graham has moved ever closer into fellowship with Roman Catholicism and Modernism. As John Ashbrook, author of New Neutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise, notes, “Compromise takes a man farther than he intends to go.” The Bible warns that “evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).

How have Graham’s ecumenical relationships affected him? The January 1978, issue of McCall’s magazine contained an interview with Graham by James Michael Beam. Graham admitted his change in thinking:

“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders—people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition—has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction. I’ve found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics, for instance. They believe in the Virgin Birth, and so do I. They believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and the coming judgment of God, and so do I. We only differ on some matters of later church tradition.”

This is strange talk. The errors of the Roman Catholic Church are not mere matters of “later church tradition.” Roman Catholicism is the utter perversion of the gospel and of the New Testament church by the intermingling of biblical truth with paganism and Judaism. Rome’s false sacramental gospel of grace plus works requires that we label it cursed of God (Gal. 1:6-10); but Dr. Graham long ago determined to look upon Roman Catholicism as true Christianity, and he has led multitudes astray by that decision.

Graham Was Warned Many Times

Some of my readers have asked if I have personally warned Billy Graham about his disobedience. The answer is no, I have not. I have no means of doing so. All of Graham’s correspondence is filtered through his massive organization. I do not have the ear of Billy Graham. I don’t need to warn Graham, though. That has been done repeatedly by men who have had the opportunity to do so. We need to state emphatically that Dr. Billy Graham has been warned many times for his disobedience to God’s Word. In the early days of his compromise, Graham was warned repeatedly by prominent Christian leaders such as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Robert Shuler, G. Archer Weniger, James Bennet, Carl McIntire, Bryce Augsburger, Charles Woodbridge, and Robert Ketcham.

It must be remembered that Billy Graham was plainly identified as a Fundamentalist when he began preaching. As already noted, he attended the staunch Fundamentalist Bob Jones College and counted himself one of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.’s preacher boys. Graham associate Cliff Barrows was a Bob Jones graduate. Graham interviewed Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., on his Hour of Decision radio broadcast in December 1951, and concluded by saying:

“It’s wonderful in these days of secular and materialistic education to see a great University that stands for the gospel of Jesus Christ, not only old-fashioned Americanism that we so desperately need today, but is injecting into our society your men and women that take their stand for the gospel of Jesus Christ” (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 Northwestern and Bob Jones.

Consider some of the men who personally pleaded with Graham to turn from his unscriptural path:

James Bennet was a prominent New York attorney and Bible teacher who knew Graham from the time he graduated from Wheaton. He encouraged Graham during the early years of his ministry, but when Graham began openly yoking together with Modernists and Catholics, Bennet attempted to turn him from this error. He met with Graham in New York City before the 1954 crusade and pleaded with him not to proceed with his ecumenical plans. When Graham refused to obey the Word of God, Bennet resigned from the campaign invitation committee and wrote a public warning about the direction Graham was pursuing (James E. Bennet, “The Billy Graham New York Crusade: Why I Cannot Support It,” A Ministry of Disobedience, Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, May-September 1957).

James Bennet lovingly warned Billy Graham.

Dr. John R. Rice, editor of the influential Sword of the Lord weekly Fundamental Baptist paper, also supported Graham during his early years. In fact, Graham was on the Cooperating Board of the Sword. Dr. Rice was a very loving and gracious Christian gentleman, and he pleaded with the young Billy Graham to turn from his ecumenical adventures. In her biography of John Rice, Viola Walden, who was Rice’s faithful secretary for 46 years, testified that Dr. Rice greatly loved Graham and repeatedly tried to reason with him (Walden, John R. Rice, pp. 164-167). Graham and Rice met in Scotland in 1955, and Graham assured the elder evangelist:

“I have promised God I will never have on my committee working in an active way in any of my campaigns men who do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, who do not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, who do not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible—these men will never be on my committee. I have promised God” (Graham, cited by Pastor Roland Rasmussen, Reasons Why I Cannot Support Billy Graham, chapel message delivered at Bob Jones University, Feb. 15, 1966).

As it became obvious that Graham was not following his own counsel but was pursuing the ecumenical course, Rice met with him again and urged him to obey the Bible: Dr. Rice referred to this occasion in an article a couple of years later: “I visited Dr. Graham in his own home in Montreat, North Carolina, by his invitation, and we talked earnestly on such matters” (John Rice, Sword of the Lord, June 20, 1958).

Graham, of course, did not listen, and John Rice publicly disassociated himself and the Sword from the young evangelist in 1957. Viola Walden notes that far from having a mean attitude toward Graham, Dr. Rice “prayed regularly [for Graham] even long after denouncing his compromise” and “rejoiced over the many saved in Dr. Graham’s crusades” (Walden, pp. 166,167).

John R. Rice lovingly warned Billy Graham.

Dr. Bob Jones, Sr., first met Billy Graham when the elder evangelist came to Charlotte, North Carolina, for 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.

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).

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).

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).

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.”

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. “Therefore 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.”

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.)

1971

Graham brought the concluding message at the 29th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, April 22, 1971, in Los Angeles, California. He described the prayer groups which were formed the last time he had gone to New York City: “Some of them were Jewish, some were Roman Catholic, in fact hundreds were Roman Catholic, meeting to pray” (Graham, cited by D.A. Waite, What’s Wrong with the N.A.E.? - 1971). Donald Waite remarks, “If [these were] true Jews and true Roman Catholics, thus unsaved, how in the world could they pray and get through to God without coming through the blood of Calvary’s cross and personal faith in Jesus Christ? Such ecumenicity on Graham’s part is serious indeed.”

1972

In January 1972, an article appeared in the Catholic magazine Homiletic & Pastoral Review by the aforementioned Charles W. Dullea, Superior of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Entitled “A Catholic Looks at Billy Graham,” this article explains why the Vatican supports Graham.

“The Catholic will hear no slighting of his Church’s teaching authority, nor of Papal or Episcopal Prerogatives, no word against the Mass or sacraments or Catholic practices. Graham has no time for that ... THE CATHOLIC, IN MY OPINION WILL HEAR LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, HE CANNOT AGREE WITH.”

In June 1972, Billy Graham was honorary chairman of Campus Crusade’s International Student Congress on Evangelism known as Explo ‘72, in Dallas, Texas. Roman Catholic parishes participated. Mr. Paul Eshelman, director for Explo ‘72 said, “Roman Catholics have been involved in arrangements. ... Sisters helped with advance registrations; young men studying for the priesthood worked in Explo’s Dallas office.”

Catholic literature distributed at the congress read in part, “True Catholics believe that under the appearance of bread and wine, achieved at the consecration of the Mass, the very real body of Christ is present in the tabernacle of their Churches” (Logos, May-June 1972).

On April 21, 1972, Billy Graham was awarded the International Franciscan Award by the Catholic Franciscan friars for “his contribution to true ecumenism” and “his sincere and authentic evangelism” (Minneapolis Star, April 22, 1972, quoted by the F.E.A. News & Views, Jul.-Aug. 1972). In acknowledging the award, Graham said: “While I am not worthy to touch the shoe laces of St. Francis [a Roman Catholic ‘saint’ who believed in salvation by works], yet this same Christ that called Francis in the 13th century also called me to be one of His servants in the 20th century” (The Gospel Standard, Feb. 1986).

At the Greenville, Missouri, crusade with Billy Graham associate Ralph Bell, a local Roman Catholic priest was on the platform to read the Scripture (D.A. Waite, What’s Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1972?, report on the 30th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, April 11-13, 1972, St. Louis, Missouri).

At the Charlotte, North Carolina, crusade, “the monks of Belmont Abbey sent their ‘felicitations, good wishes and, more important, fervent prayers. ... We accept you as a friend, brother and alumnus” (John Pollock, Billy Graham, p. 129).

When Graham was invited in 1972 to conduct a crusade in Central Italy, “he learned from a very high source that the Vatican did not object” and that “his attitude was deeply appreciated” (Pollock, p. 130).

Billy Graham associate evangelist Ralph Bell conducted a crusade in Papua, New Guinea, in 1972, “strongly supported by the Roman Catholic archbishop as well as by all Protestant churches” (Pollock, p. 152). This Billy Graham Evangelistic Crusade ecumenical venture paved the way for a seminar in June 1976 that included Roman Catholics (Ibid.). One of the chief goals of Graham crusades is the promotion of ecumenical unity, and probably no other organization has had more influence in this realm.

Graham visited Ireland in 1972. He did not conduct a crusade in Ulster (Northern Ireland), but he visited Belfast and met with Catholic and Protestant church leaders. He had a private meeting in Armagh at the palace of Cardinal Conway, head of the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland. Protestant leaders were also present. Graham spoke to students at Queen’s University under the sponsorship of both Catholic and Protestant chaplains (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 429). In Dublin, in the Irish Republic, he met with “clergy from all denominations” at Milltown Park, the headquarters for the Jesuits.

1973

Graham was one of the leaders of the ecumenical Key ‘73 evangelistic crusade held across North America, and was involved in the decision to invite Catholics into the program. “Opening his ecumenical North American Key 73 Crusade, Graham commented on a biography of Pope John XXIII. Speaking of the book’s presentation of the Pope’s devotion to Mary and the saints, the evangelist called this ‘a classic in devotion’” (Wilson Ewin, The Chilling Significance of Pope John Paul’s October 22, 1996 Address: The One World Church, Quebec Baptist Mission, 1996, p. 14).

In Milwaukee on October 21, 1973, Graham said, “This past week I preached in a great Catholic Cathedral a funeral sermon for a close friend of mind who was a Catholic [publisher James Strohn Copley], and they had several bishops and archbishops to participate, and as I sat there going through the funeral Mass that was a very beautiful thing and certainly straight and clear in the gospel, I believe, there was a wonderful little priest that would tell me when to stand and when to kneel and what to do.” (Billy Graham, Church League of America, p. 84).

Billy Graham says that the Catholic Mass is clear about the gospel. Does he really think that a priest re-sacrificing Christ is the gospel? The Catholic Mass is not a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; it is an alleged re-offering of that sacrifice. The Vatican II Council reaffirmed that the Mass is “a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated” and that through the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass Christ offers “himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108). This is not the gospel that Paul and the Apostles preached. They preached that Christ was “once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28). The biblical gospel is that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3,4). The Bible gospel says Christ was sacrificed once, was buried once, and was resurrected once, and that one offering takes care of the believer’s sin. There is absolutely no instruction in the New Testament for the formation of a special priesthood in the churches (every believer is a priest, 1 Peter 2:5,9) or for the offering of a sacrifice. There is no need. Christ, our High Priest, has done that for us. In the Roman Catholic Church, Christ hangs on the cross perpetually in their crucifix. The Pope’s staff has a carving of Christ hanging on the cross. The symbolism of the crucifix is derived from Rome’s heretical view of the gospel. Instead of an empty cross depicting a once-for-all, completed sacrifice, they have a perpetually crucified Christ depicting their doctrine of the Mass.

At the end of October 1973, Graham held a crusade in St. Louis, Missouri. Catholic Archbishop John T. Byre said in the St. Louis Review, the Catholic Archdiocesan weekly: “St. Louis is fortunate to have the presence of the Rev. Billy Graham. During a Graham crusade, the participants are asked to make a decision for Christ. In Catholic circles this is referred to as a ‘commitment to Christ.’ Catholics have little reason to disagree with Dr. Graham as far as the theology of his crusade is concerned. He makes a determined effort to keep them non-sectarian and THUS AVOIDS THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF THE SACRAMENTS AND THE CHURCH. Some 50 nuns served as counselors and others sang regularly in the choir” (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990s).

1974

In August 1974, Graham chaired the influential International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne, Switzerland. Bishop A. Jack Dain, chairman of the Congress Planning Committee, publicly acknowledged that “this Congress would have been impossible without Billy Graham.” Though all participants were supposed to be Evangelicals, they came from every sort of compromised and apostate denomination: Church of England, Free Methodist, Church of South India, etc., including many connected with the radical World Council of Churches. In addition, it was announced that five administrators of the World Council of Churches and three Roman Catholic priests had been invited to attend (F.E.A. News & Views, Jul.-Aug. 1974). The ecumenical spirit of the Lausanne congress was expressed in the Lausanne Covenant, which claimed that “a new missionary era has dawned” and that “a growing partnership of churches will develop and the universal character of Christ’s church will be more clearly exhibited.” This promotes the false idea of a universal “church” composed of all denominations.

1976

In March 1976, Graham appeared with Roman Catholic Archbishop Joseph L. Bernardin before the U.S. Congress to say “every man, woman and child on earth has the right to a nutritionally adequate diet” (Chicago Sun-Times, March 29, 1976).

In September 1976, it was reported that the St. Madelaine Sophie Catholic parish of High Springs, Florida, purchased and refurbished a drive-in theater, and were under contract with Billy Graham’s World Wide Pictures to show religious films. Proceeds went to build up Roman Catholicism through the parish building fund (BFT #565, Hayes Minnick, Orlando, Florida).

In October 1976, Graham was quoted in the Southern Cross, a Catholic paper: “I think that Protestants, in reaction to the Catholic position, have made far too little of Mary. Mary was the most remarkable and most blessed of all women” (Minnick). By not condemning the Catholic heresies surrounding Mary, Graham plays right into the hands of the Catholic Church.

1977

During Graham’s crusade in Asheville, South Carolina, in early 1977, one of the overflow halls was St. Laurence Catholic Church.

Graham held a crusade on the campus of Roman Catholic Notre Dame University in May 1977. He said, “I have no qarrel with the Catholic Church” (William Martin, Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story, p. 223). Christianity Today gave this report:

“Would Billy Graham conduct a crusade at the Vatican? If a place were made available and Christian leaders in Rome wanted him to, he might. No campaign in Catholicism’s capital is on the evangelist’s calendar now, but his five-day crusade last month on the Notre Dame University Campus proved he is not afraid to go deep into Roman Catholic territory. It also showed that many elements in the once hostile Catholic community are now receptive to Graham’s type of ministry. Graham’s sermons were of the type that audiences around the world have heard, with only a few more references to such Catholics as Bishop Fulton Sheen and Mother Teresa of Calcutta” (Christianity Today, June 3, 1977).

The invitation Graham gave at Notre Dame played right into the hands of the Catholic hierarchy. He said to the crowd, “Many of you want to come tonight and reconfirm your confirmation. You want to reconfirm the decision that you made when you joined the church” (Wilson Ewin, The Assimilation of Evangelist Billy Graham). His goal apparently is to make better Catholics of his listeners. It is no wonder that Graham is praised by Catholic leaders. A preacher who truly loves Roman Catholics will tell them plainly that Rome’s gospel is false and that the sacraments have absolutely nothing to do with biblical salvation.

In November 1977, Graham held a crusade in Manila, the Philippines. Christianity Today editor Harold Lindsell quoted the Graham team: “We didn’t know what to expect when we came here because the Protestant population in the Philippines is very small. But during the crusade we have seen some of the greatest unity among churches that we’ve ever experienced, and we have received marvelous support from the Catholic Church” (Christianity Today, Dec. 30, 1977).

1978

For Graham’s Milwaukee crusade in August 1978, Roman Catholic Archbishop Rembert Weakland sent a letter to priests throughout his archdiocese telling them they could support the meetings. These gave Graham “some of the most loyal support,” not only in attendance but also as campaign workers. Christianity Today, September 7, reported, “Graham had these Catholic ... churchgoers in mind during his sermons ... At each meeting he repeated a recent statement attributed to Pope John Paul II, ‘The priority of the Church ought to be to evangelize those who have already been baptized.’ He followed this statement at the concluding service on Sunday with, ‘Perhaps many people need to come and reconfirm their confirmation’” (Ewin). To “reconfirm their confirmation” is not the gospel and is not biblical salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a process that begins at baptism, is strengthened through confirmation, and is fed by the other sacraments throughout one’s life. For a Catholic to reconfirm his confirmation would mean he continues to trust in the Catholic sacraments for his eternal salvation, rather than repenting of those dead man-made works and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

In October 1978, Graham held a crusade in Catholic Poland. It was an occasion for unprecedented ecumenical alliances. The Chicago Sun-Times for October 7, 1978, gave this report on his arrival in Warsaw: “American evangelist Billy Graham was welcomed Friday by the Roman Catholic Church, which is opening its doors for the first time to his Crusade for Christ. ‘We are happy that you will preach in several cities in Catholic churches, where the overwhelming majority of listeners will be Catholics,’ Bishop Wladyslaw Miziolek told Graham at Okecie Airport. Bishop Miziolek is chairman of the Committee on Ecumenism of the Polish Catholic Church.”

“Prior to the crusade, there had been a controversy over Roman Catholic involvement ... when the crusade executive committee announced that inquirers would be referred to participating Catholic churches. ... Finally, a compromise was reached: any Catholic inquirers would be directed to nondenominational nurture groups where they would be encouraged to make up their own minds about church membership” (Christianity Today, June 29, 1979).

Note that the Graham team wanted to deliver inquirers over to the Catholic churches as is their normal mode of operation elsewhere, but they were somewhat stymied in this instance by some protests. It is possible that inquirers were turned over to individual Catholic counselors. A report in the Church Scene for March 8, 1979, stated that Graham was training Roman Catholics in follow-up techniques so that R.C. inquirers at the crusade may be referred to them” (reprinted in Evangelical Action, April-May 1979, p. 4).

At the Milwaukee Billy Graham Crusade in 1979, a Roman Catholic Mass was conducted as part of the follow-up for new converts (F.B.F. News Bulletin, May-June 1986).

In September 1979, The Christian Courier of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, published the following report on the Milwaukee Crusade:

“Sister Maureen Hopkins, Director of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Milwaukee Roman Catholic Archdiocese, and a liaison member of the Crusade committee, reported that 120 people have volunteered within the Catholic community to help her with the task of contacting each of the 3,500 inquiries. Sr. Maureen received the names and telephone numbers from the Crusade Committee, based upon the inquirer’s indication of having a Catholic background on his inquiry card. ... All 3,500 were immediately invited to a Eucharistic celebration which was held on August 16 at St. Theresa’s Church in Milwaukee. The Mass was attended by more than 400 people. The primary purpose for the Mass was to remind the inquirers that their commitments to Christ should be nurtured within the sacramental framework of the church.”

Christianity Today for Sept. 7, 1979, pointed out that almost a year before the Crusade, Graham had sent a team member to conduct a seminar explaining the crusade enterprise for Milwaukee priests and lay workers. “It is a tragedy that 3,500 decision cards were turned over to the Roman Catholic Church, but it is a worse tragedy when you realize that it did not ‘just happen.’ It was planned by the world’s best-known evangelist” (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II).

In October 1979, Pope John Paul II made his first visit to the United States. Time magazine gave Graham’s startling viewpoint on this:

“No other man in the world today could attract as much attention on moral and spiritual subjects as John Paul. He is articulating what Catholic and Protestant churches have traditionally held, the moral values from the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. The country is responding in a magnificent way. It shows there’s a great spiritual hunger. The Pope has reached millions of Protestants. The organized ecumenical movement seems to be on the back burner and ecumenicity is now taking place where Roman Catholics and Protestants share beliefs in matters like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ” (Billy Graham, Time, October 15, 1979).

Graham appeared on the Phil Donahue show on October 11, 1979, and in discussing Pope Paul II’s visit to the U.S.A., said: “I think the American people are looking for a leader, a moral and spiritual leader that believes something. And the Pope does. He didn’t mince words on a single subject. As a matter of fact, his subject in Boston was really an evangelistic address in which he asked the people to come to Christ, to give their lives to Christ. I said, ‘Thank God, I’ve got somebody to quote now with some real authority’” (The Gospel Standard, Feb. 1986).

On December 9, 1979, popular Catholic Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen died. Sheen upheld Rome’s heretical dogmas. [See note under year 1950.] He was a staunch enemy of the New Testament faith. When questioned about Sheen’s death, Graham called it “a great loss to the nation and both the Catholic and Protestant churches. He broke down walls of prejudice between Catholics and Protestants ... I count it a privilege to have known him as a friend for over 35 years. I mourn his death and look forward to our reunion in heaven” (Religious News Service, Dec. 11, 1979). As noted under the comments for the year 1950, Sheen’s hope was in Mary, not in Christ’s completed atonement. Unless he repented and turned wholly to Christ on his deathbed, we have no biblical cause to believe Sheen will be in Heaven.

1980

In an interview that appeared in the Jan.-Feb. 1980, issue of the Saturday Evening Post, Graham made the following comments about the Catholic Pope:

“Since his election, Pope John Paul II has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of this century. ... The Pope came [to America] as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist, forthrightly urging those who have perhaps given little thought to spiritual matters to realize the truth of the Christian message and commit their lives to Christ. ... The Pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age—by pointing people to Christ. ... Also, in countless ways many evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics are discovering they share a common bond through their mutual commitment to the Christian faith. … Recently I learned that the word ‘pontiff,’ (a title by which the Pope is often known) comes from the Latin words which originally meant ‘bridge builder.’ During his visit to America, Pope John Paul II was indeed a bridge builder, and that is something our divided world desperately needs. In a world which often seems to have lost its way, his voice will continue to remind us of our responsibilities to each other—and to God” (Billy Graham, “The Pilgrim Pope: A Builder of Bridges,” The Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980).

Historically, “pontiff” refers to the papal title of Pontifex Maximus, which was used by the high priests of ancient heathen religion in the Roman Empire and was adopted by the early popes (Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, 1979). “The title of Supreme Pontiff was reserved in ancient Rome to the emperor, who as head of the principal college of priests in Rome was seen as the bridge or bridge-builder between men and the gods. The title was given to the Pope by Gratian in A.D. 375…” (Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 758). The word “pontiff” in Latin and Italian means “bridge.” On the map of Rome that I purchased when I toured the Vatican several years ago, the word “pontiff” is used to describe the bridges over the river Tiber that flows through Rome. The term “pontiff” points to the Pope’s blasphemous claim to be a bridge between man and God.

1981

On January 13, 1981, Graham had his first audience with a Roman Pope. Graham gave the following account of his historic meeting with John Paul II: “I spent about a half-hour with the Pope in very private, intimate conversation. He was extremely warm and interested in our work. We discussed the Christian faith, both our agreements and some of our differences. When I was at the Vatican, I spoke at a vesper service at the North American College, which is a seminary for students from North America. I understand I was the first Protestant to speak there. It was a very inspirational and Christocentric service, with much contemporary music” (Christianity Today, July 17, 1981). Graham gave the Pope a wooden carving of a shepherd with his sheep, thus symbolically fortifying the false papal claim to be the shepherd of all Christians.

In July 1981, Graham’s Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization held a four-day American Festival of Evangelism in Kansas City, Missouri. Multitudes of Roman Catholics were among the 8,000 who attended. Wilson Ewin gives the following report on the ecumenical aspects of that meeting:

Any doubts regarding the Committee’s true attitude toward Roman Catholicism and the needs of its people were dispelled by facts emanating from this 1981 Missouri Festival.

Instead of presenting the need of Roman Catholics for evangelism and how to do this, the meetings stressed unity and cooperation with Roman Catholicism. The festival emphasized that Lausanne Committee participants no longer believe in the evangelism of Roman Catholics. Instead, they believe in Roman Catholicism’s own evangelization to produce Roman Catholics for the strengthening of the papacy. This was shown through the fact that several Roman Catholic workshops were included in the Festival. EVANGELICALS WERE SHOWN HOW TO BECOME AND HOW TO MAKE GOOD ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Reporting on the work by Roman Catholics at the Festival, the American Catholic Charismatics’ own New Covenant magazine, October 1981, stated, ‘Fr. Glenn C. Smith, evangelization officer for the diocese of Rockford, Illinois, told how Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Cary, Illinois, grew from 1,000 to 6,000 members in 10 years because of persistent efforts. Every Easter some 100 joined the church ... Fr. Kenneth Boyack, a Paulist priest from Greensville, South Carolina, said that plans to organize evangelism offices in dioceses and evangelism committees in parishes should provide a much greater number of converts by 1990.’

... the Lausanne Committee’s American Festival placed a stamp of absolute acceptance upon authentic, medieval and historic Roman Catholicism. By association and official participation in the Kansas City Festival, 150 RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS HAVE PROCLAIMED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE WITH AND ACCEPT ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Wilson Ewin, Charismatic Control).

1982

Graham prepared for the spring 1982 New England campaign in heavily Catholic territory by a visit to Boston’s Cardinal Medeiros. The Cardinal called the March meeting “a discussion of mutual interest and concerns.” This was followed by a strategy consultation on May 25. The Cardinal said, “I was delighted to receive Dr. Graham and a few of his colleagues into my home for dinner” (The Pilot, May 28, 1982). Reporting on this, Priest Conley, Coordinator of Communications for the Archdiocese stated, “The Crusade’s purpose is not proselytizing—or sheep stealing ... 100 PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS AND LAITY ARE BEING TRAINED TO FACILITATE THE FULL RECONCILIATION TO THE CHURCH [OF ROME] of those men and women who will have been moved by Dr. Graham’s preaching” (The Pilot, May 11, 1982).

“Each step of the campaign saw the evangelist engaged in consultation with the bishop of the individual state. Following the crusade, meetings took place between the Graham Association and Catholic clergy. PEOPLE WHO CAME FORWARD DURING THE CAMPAIGN WERE THEN TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. One such occasion took place at Pope John XXIII Seminary in Weston, Mass. on the evening of June 9, 1982. Over 2,100 inquiries were given to priests and nuns” (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990s).

In May 1982, Graham made a six-day trip to the Soviet Union. He admitted that he had sought advice of Vatican officials on the most effective approach in dealing with the Soviets during his trip (Arkansas Democrat, May 24, 1982).

In August 1982, Graham held a crusade in Spokane, Washington. The Sept. 2, 1983, issue of The Florida Catholic notes the large Catholic response: “When the time came [the altar call], more than 1,700 Catholics rededicated themselves. And in Milwaukee, where the archbishop also allowed Catholic participation, more than 4,000 Catholics responded.” All of these people were turned over to Catholic parishes.

1983

In 1983, Graham held a crusade in Orlando, Florida. More than 600 names of those who came forward during the altar call were given by the Graham team to Roman Catholic churches for follow-up. This was reported in The Florida Catholic, a publication of the Roman Catholic Church. I have this periodical before me as I write:

“About 180,000 persons attended the Crusade and some 600 of the Catholics who attended went forward for Dr. Graham’s altar call and were counseled about their commitment to the Lord. ... Although the Orlando diocese was not a sponsor of the eight-day event, some 150 Catholic people and educators rallied to an April 20 meeting at St. James Cathedral offering their services in the follow-up. Names of Catholics who had made decisions for Christ were provided at that meeting by Rick Marshall of the Graham organization” (The Florida Catholic, Sept. 2, 1982).

1983 was also the year for Amsterdam ’83, Graham’s first meeting for itinerant evangelists. It was thoroughly ecumenical. Speaking at this meeting, Graham noted: “Those who came here were from over thirty religious denominations, including Reformed, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Pentecostal, and many other groups, including the Vatican and a very high level delegation from the Orthodox Churches of the Soviet Union, including two Metropolitans” (Foundation, Vol. IV, Iss. IV, 1983).

1984

October 14-21, 1984, found Graham conducting a crusade in Vancouver, British Columbia. David Cline of Bringhouse United Church, a vice-chairman of the organizing committee of the Graham Crusade, stated the policy regarding Catholic inquirers: “If Catholics step forward there will be no attempt to convert them and their names will be given to the Catholic church nearest their homes” (Vancouver Sun, October 5, 1984).

Catholic Archbishop James Carney asked his priests and congregations to offer prayers for Graham’s ministry in Vancouver. Priest Vincent Hawkswell of Holy Rosary Cathedral reminded his congregation that Billy Graham’s visit to Vancouver is important (The Sun, October 9, 1984).

Billy Graham came to Vancouver less than a month after the Pope had been there; thus, he had a wonderful opportunity to expose the Pope’s false gospel. Instead, Graham used Vancouver as a forum to endorse the Pope. Graham reported that during his trip to Russia he had been awakened early one morning by his son, Franklin, to hear the Pope’s message given at Vancouver. Billy Graham was quoted as saying, “I’ll tell you—that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I’ve ever heard. It was tremendous. Of course, I’m a great admirer of his. He gives moral guidance in a world that seems to have lost its way” (Foundation, Vol. V, Issue 5, 1984).

In 1983, Pastor Randal Gilmore wrote to the Graham organization and received the following answers to questions in regard to a showing of Graham film The Prodigal in his town:

Q. What do you intend to do with unchurched people who make a decision?

A. We will refer them back to the local committee. They in turn will refer them to a Bible-teaching church. They, of course, will not be referred to a church like the ‘Church of Scientology.’

Q. What about Roman Catholics who get saved? What will you do then?

A. We will tell the Father.

Q. Will you direct them into another church?

A. Definitely not!

Q. You mentioned the ‘Church of Scientology’ as an example of a church that does not teach the Bible. Do you consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a Bible-teaching church?

Q. Our philosophy is this: A new believer is like a live chick, and a live chick will not go to a dead hen.

Q. Are you trying to say your organization believes the Roman Catholic Church is a dead hen?

A. NOT AT ALL. A DEAD HEN COULD BE A FUNDAMENTAL CHURCH THAT TEACHES YOU HAVE TO WEAR YOUR HAIR A CERTAIN LENGTH. THAT’S WORKS SALVATION (Baptist Bulletin, June 1984).

Ecumenists are tolerant, positive, and non-judgmental toward almost everyone and everything except the dreaded Fundamentalist. The Graham organization calls good evil and evil good. The Roman Catholic Church, which teaches a works salvation (under the guise of an unscriptural definition and doctrine of “grace”), is considered a safe place to send a new Christian. On the other hand, the Fundamentalist church, which teaches that salvation is solely by the grace of Christ through faith, is considered dangerous, because it preaches that believers are under obligation to obey God’s Word (including 1 Corinthians 11), not in order to be saved but because we are saved (Ephesians 2:8-10)!

In May 1984, Graham pointed to Mother Teresa as a hero model for American youth (Calvary Contender, Nov. 15, 1985).


1985

Graham preached in Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches in Romania Sept. 7-17, 1985. “His evangelistic association in Minneapolis said the invitation was extended on behalf of the fourteen religious denominations that are officially recognized by the Romanian government, and was signed by Metropolitan Antonie of Transylvania, chairman of the External Affairs Department of the Romanian Orthodox Church” (The Christian News, Sept. 2, 1985).

After leaving Romania, Graham preached in Hungary. Christianity Today, Nov. 22, 1985, noted that leaders from many denominations sat on the platform with Graham. In Budapest Cardinal Laszlo Lekai, primate of the Roman Catholic Church, was seated on the platform. In Pecs, Catholic Bishop Jozsef Cserhati co-hosted Graham and introduced him to the crowd. Weeks earlier, he had sent letters to be read in all the Catholic churches in the area, urging parishioners to attend the Graham rally. Catholic and Protestant clergy worked together, and both Catholic and Protestant choirs sang at the meeting. Graham’s visit was sponsored jointly by the Baptist Union and an alliance that included Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals, and Methodists. The meetings were said to be the most ecumenical ones ever held in Hungary (National Christian Council Review, National Christian Council of India, May 1986).

It was also in 1985 that the Paulist National Catholic Evangelization Association and Tyndale House Publishers jointly published a book containing a chapter by Billy Graham. The book What Christians Can Learn from One Another about Evangelizing Adults called for greater cooperation between Protestants and Catholics in so-called evangelism, and included articles by Cardinal Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Robert Schuller, Bill Bright, Jack Wyrtzen, and others.

1987

In his Denver, Colorado, crusade of 1987, Graham had the full backing of the regional Catholic hierarchy, trained dozens of Catholics as “counselors,” and sent to local Catholic churches the names of hundreds of those who had responded to the altar calls each night.

“Roman Catholic Archbishop James V. Casey of Denver, before his sudden death in mid-March, pledged cooperation with the crusade and said Catholics were ‘free to take part in it.’... My concern is that when you make a commitment to Christ, especially when you are an adult, you need support from the Christian community. Of course, I want people to be able to find that support among the believers in our Catholic community’” (Moody Monthly, May 1986).

A Catholic nun, Macrina Scott, director of the Catholic Biblical School in Denver, “says she trained about 80 counselors and Bible teachers to assist Billy Graham’s Rocky Mountain Crusade” (Christian Beacon, July, 1987).

Further, a Catholic priest, Donald Willette of St. Jude’s Roman Catholic Church, was a supervisor of the 6,600 trained counselors. Thus, Catholic support for Graham’s Denver crusade was significant and the resulting dividends were handsome: Willette reported that from one service alone 500 cards of individuals were referred to St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church in Englewood,a suburb of Denver (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990’s).

What did the Catholic churches do with the hundreds of people who were referred to them? According to the July 25, 1987, issue of Denver’s largest daily newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News, “Catholics were waiting to help Catholics express their new and renewed faith in their mother church.”

Catholic leaders have learned that they have nothing to fear from Billy Graham’s crusades. They use the Graham crusades to retrieve non-practicing Catholics and even to gain proselytes to Romanism. Graham’s call to “receive Christ,” or “make the step of faith,” or “come to Christ tonight,” is general enough to allow Catholic leaders to insert their sacramental gospel into it, and the fact that Graham is working with the Catholic churches and never sounds any warnings about Romanism gives people the idea that he accepts their theology. Catholic priests simply teach the inquirers that they are born again at baptism and repeatedly renewed in Christ through all sorts of religious activities--the mass, family duties, the rosary, even coming forward at evangelistic rallies. If anyone doubts that this is what is happening at Graham’s crusades, consider another report from the 1987 Denver Crusade:

“The 5,000 Rocky Mountain Billy Graham Crusade choir softly sang the evangelical classic ‘Just As I Am’ as a counselor called for help from the Rev. Donald Willette. Hundreds streamed forward Monday in response to Graham’s call to become Christians or to rededicate their lives to the faith. One Roman Catholic worshiper walked the aisle but had trouble expressing his feelings. [Catholic priest] Willette, a supervisor among the 6,600 trained crusade counselors, was standing about 30 yards from the evangelist’s pulpit, waiting to help out in just this situation. ‘Catholics have trouble with the expression “Born again,”‘ Willette said, moments before the Tuesday service. ‘I try to help people understand what this experience means, in light of the teaching of the church’” (“Counselors Help Brethren Heed Graham Call,” Rocky Mountain News, July 25, 1987).

According to this and hundreds of other reports which could be cited, Graham allows Roman Catholic laymen and priests to stand before his pulpit and to reinterpret what he has preached “in light of the teaching of the church,” meaning the Catholic Church. What could be more foolish and wicked?

When the crusade is completed, the Catholic churches have reaped immense benefits, not only because of those who return to the Roman fold but because of the increased acceptance they have gained in the eyes of the community by Graham’s endorsement.

1988

In Aug. 1988, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association co-sponsored A National Festival of Evangelism called Congress ‘88 in Chicago, Illinois. The congress was cosponsored by the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, was a plenary speaker.

The Congress ‘88 Committee refused an application by the Bible Baptist Church of Nashua, New Hampshire, to display books and literature for the evangelism of Roman Catholics. Their letter states, “In view of the fact that Congress ‘88 is supported by both Protestant denominations and the National Catholic Evangelization Association, it would be inconsistent with our goals to single out one of our supporting groups to be a target for evangelism. Since we are working together with Roman Catholics who believe in evangelism, we do not feel that we can grant your request to exhibit at Congress ‘88” (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990’s).

The Nov. 18, 1988, issue of Christianity Today featured articles praising Graham on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Kenneth Kantzer observed, “And today Roman Catholics usually make up the largest single denominational group attending his citywide crusades.” Martin Marty, a modernist in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, said: “Graham would refuse to come to your town unless there was broad church federation backing. He would not like to be on stage unless the United Methodist bishop or even, he has hoped since 1965, the Catholic bishop was there.”

1989

In 1989, Billy Graham went to London for his Mission ‘89 Crusade. British Cardinal Basil Hume made the following statement:

“We are, as the Catholic Church in this country, working as closely as we can with Billy Graham in his Mission ‘89 ... The view I take is that I believe the grace of God is at work in the Mission and, if it helps people return to their own churches, then that is good” (Foundation, Nov.-Dec. 1989).

Michael Seed, Ecumenical Advisor to Cardinal Hume, wrote about recruiting Catholics to take part in the Billy Graham Group Leaders Training Courses:

“The idea behind this is that those who come forward for counseling during a Mission evening in June, if they are Roman Catholic, will be directed to a Roman Catholic ‘nurture-group’ under Roman Catholic counselors in their home area. If certain people present themselves for counseling at a Mission and have no church roots at all then they are asked ‘which church brought you’ and are asked to contact that church. ...

“The Cardinal has already sent greeting to Dr. Graham and will be meeting Dr. Graham before the Mission. We know Dr. Graham to be a truly ecumenical evangelist.”

In July, 1989, Seed wrote the following:

“Dr. Graham called on Cardinal Hume the day before his Mission on June 13th and the Cardinal attended with myself the Mission at Earls Court on Monday, June 26th.

“Some 2100 Catholics ‘went forward’ at Missions evenings in London which was excellent--from nearly all our Parishes in Westminster. ... Billy Graham has helped our Church greatly and many have ‘renewed’ their faith under his great ministry” (Ashbrook).

Roman Catholic Northern Ireland singer Dana appeared with Graham at London’s Wembley Stadium (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jul. 10, 1989).

In September 1989, Graham held a crusade in Little Rock, Arkansas, “supported by the usual mixed crowd of Southern Baptists, charismatics, and liberals. The Roman Catholic Archbishop is fully cooperating, training personal workers, and expects at least 600 referrals to the Catholic Church” (Baptist Challenge, Aug. 1989).

1990

“Billy Graham spent January 8-13, 1990 for meetings with a number of Vatican officials. Included was a private meeting with Pope John Paul II. Reporting on this the Boston Archdiocese stated that ‘Dr. Graham said it is particularly evident in the Pope’s speeches that his attitudes and decisions are based on his great personal spiritual life ... He bases His work and messages and vision on biblical principles.’ A Religious News Service photograph showed Graham presenting the Pope with a handmade quilt from a place near his home in North Carolina. Using the phrase ‘bridge builder’ from his close friend, Cardinal Cushing, Graham referred to Pope John Paul II as ‘indeed a bridge builder, and that is something our divided world desperately needs’“ (Ewin, The Assimilation of Evangelist Billy Graham).

This was Graham’s second audience with a Roman pontiff.

In Apr. 1990, Graham held a crusade in Albany, New York. The following is a description which appeared in a Catholic publication:

“About 20,000 persons are busy making ready for Billy Graham’s 1990 Capitol District Crusade, including representatives from 18 Protestant denominations in the area and a delegation of top Catholic officials appointed by Bishop Howard J. Hubbard.

“The Graham Crusade, scheduled for Apr. 22-29 at the Knickerbocker Arena in Albany, comes in response to a request made by Bishop Hubbard and other religious leaders, who three years ago formally invited the world renowned evangelist to preach here. ‘There are nine Catholics on the SO-person executive committee set up to direct the Crusade. ... Diocesan officials view the Graham Crusade as a tool for evangelization,’ explained an executive committee member, Rev. James Kane, director of the diocesan ecumenical commission....

“As for the specific dogmatic content of Mr. Graham’s sermons, Father Kane said, ‘there is nothing that the Catholic should feel uncomfortable with or be leery of.’ He said the evangelist’s emphasis on the Gospel and on the importance of the individual’s personal relationship with Christ is consistent with Catholic teaching.

“‘However,’ he added, ‘we would, of course, emphasize the importance of the Eucharist and the Mass, the sacraments, and the importance of the structure and organization of the Church and its bishops and the Pope’“ (The Evangelist, Roman Catholic Diocese paper of Albany, New York, quoted in Foundation, Jan.-Feb. 1990).

Wilson Ewin’s prayer letter for Jul. 6, 1992, reported this regarding Graham’s June 1990, crusade in Catholic Quebec: Rick Marshall, mission director and a member of the Minneapolis-based staff, said in an interview, “It is being made clear to all staff and volunteers there is to be no proselytizing” (The Gazette, Montreal, Mar. 17, 1990). Jesuit priest Charles Dullea said, “It is interesting to note that there is no follow-up on Roman Catholics” (A Catholic Looks at Billy Graham, p. 47).

1991

From Sept. 22-29, 1991, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association held a crusade in St. Louis, Missouri, co-sponsored by the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Graham associate Ralph Bell was the speaker. Priest Vincent A. Heier, director of the Archdiocesan Office for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and a member of the crusade executive committee, “stressed that although the effort is ecumenical, people who attend the crusade and are interested in the Catholic faith will be directed to Catholics. ‘Billy Graham has always been very ecumenical ... Billy Graham has not necessarily pushed people into one denomination or another but he’s tried to encourage whatever denominations that want to cooperate’.”

In a letter to priests in the archdiocese encouraging them to attend upcoming seminars, Catholic Archbishop John L. May noted that “Catholics will be needed to receive those who approach seeking out information on the Catholic Church during the actual crusade” (Australian Beacon, May 1991).

The Detroit Free Press for Sept. 29, 1991, quoted Graham as saying, “The Roman Catholics know that I’m not against them, and in my thinking, rightly or wrongly, I represent all the churches.”

1992

In Apr. 1992, Graham paid a five-day visit to Communist North Korea under the auspices of the government-sanctioned Korean Christian Federation and the Korean Catholic Association, and preached in a Protestant church and a Catholic church. He delivered a message from the Pope to communist President Kim, and Kim entrusted him with a return message for the Pope (Christianity Today, May 18, 1992).

Regarding the Graham crusade in Philadelphia in June 1992, Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua, archbishop of Philadelphia, sent out a letter with the following comments:

“As Catholics, in union with our Holy Father, the Pope, we are completely committed to our Church’s ecumenical work. ... The Archdiocese ... has developed an understanding with the Greater Philadelphia Billy Graham Crusade [June 24-28] that is fully in accord with Catholic ecumenical principles.”

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the archdiocese sent forty trained counselors for the Crusade. After each crusade session, Catholics coming forward were linked up with Catholic counselors and referred to the Catholic Church (Calvary Contender, Jul. 1, 1992).

In Sept. 1992, Graham was scheduled to hold a crusade in Portland, Oregon. According to Christians Evangelizing Catholics, 10,000 counselors were expected to attend classes, and Roman Catholic churches set a goal to supply 6,000 of these. Those who respond to the altar call will be directed to Catholic parishes (Catholic Sentinel, April 24, 1992, cited in Christians Evangelizing Catholics, June 1992).

1993

In March 1993, Billy Graham traveled to the Vatican and met with a Roman Catholic Pope. This was at least the third time that he met with John Paul II. Graham said, “I’m always impressed by the Pope’s warmth and friendship...” He said the Pope showed a special interest in his crusade in Essen, Germany; and well he should, given the number of converts Graham crusades refer Romeward” (Calvary Contender, April 15, 1993).

Graham’s June 1993 crusade in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, brought together 1,050 churches representing 65 denominations. The crusade chairman was Episcopalian Fred Fetterolf. There were six Catholics on the executive committee.

The Catholic Church took an active part in the Graham crusade in Columbus, Ohio (Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 19, 1993).

1994

__________________________

These are not isolated facts, but exemplify Graham’s philosophy and methodology through the years. For half a century Graham has turned inquirers over to Catholic churches, has accepted honorary degrees from Catholic schools, has flattered the Popes with amazing accolades, and has visited Pope John Paul II to seek his counsel. In the Evangelical world, Billy Graham has no equal in the building up of Roman Catholicism. More than any other one man Billy Graham has paved the way for the widespread acceptance of a Catholic Pope by Protestants and Baptists. His groundbreaking but unscriptural ecumenical evangelism has downplayed doctrine and exalted experiential religious unity.

Billy Graham has had opportunity to preach to more people than any other man in this generation, perhaps in history. When he stands before God, he will give account for the souls of those who were deceived by his false ecumenical message and were thereby turned to false gospels such as Rome’s.

The alarm must be raised against associating with error and against following disobedient Christian leaders who are involved in these activities. The error of New Evangelicalism is not so much what it teaches that is wrong, but what it refuses to preach and the illicit fellowship in which it is involved. If we don’t lift a voice against compromise of this magnitude, surely we must be branded as traitors. Brethren, “Keep thee far from a false matter” (2 Kings 10:10).



VATICAN II REAFFIRMS CATHOLIC HERESIES

While the declarations of the Catholic Vatican II council of the 1960s did bring changes to the Catholic Church, it did not change its foundational dogmas. Not only did Vatican II uphold Rome’s false dogmas, it actually strengthened them.

The more than 2,400 bishops attending Vatican II reaffirmed such Roman heresies as papal supremacy, the Roman priesthood, the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, the sacramental gospel, Catholic tradition on equal par with Scripture, Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-redemptress with Christ, auricular confession, pilgrimages to “holy shrines,” purgatory, and prayers to and for the dead.

All of these Roman dogmas are reaffirmed in Vatican Council II--The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. This book is published by the Roman Catholic Church and contains the Imprimature: Walter P. Kellenberg, D,D., Bishop of Rockville Centre, Aug. 12, 1975. “Imprimature” is the official Catholic stamp of approval and means “let it be printed.”

Consider some quotes from the Vatican II documents:

The Mass a Re-sacrifice of Christ

“Hence the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated; a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said ‘do this in memory of me’ (Lk. 22:19) … In the Mass, therefore, the sacrifice and sacred meal belong to the same mystery—so much so that they are linked by the closest bond. For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when ‘he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearances of bread and wine.’ … For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108).

Christ Present in the Elements of the Mass

“In this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species ‘is called real, not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 1, E, p. 114).

“In the celebration of Mass there is proclaimed the wonderful mystery of the real presence of Christ our Lord under the eucharistic species. The Second Vatican Council and other magisterial pronouncements of the Church have confirmed this truth in the same sense and the same words as those in which the Council of Trent defined it as an article of faith. ... Christ becomes present through an essential change in the elements” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, foreword, 3, p. 154).

The Mass Is a Part of Salvation

“As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch is sacrificed’ (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).

The Mass the Center of Christian life

“The celebration of the Mass ... is the centre of the whole Christian life for the universal Church, the local Church and for each and every one of the faithful. For therein is the culminating action whereby God sanctifies the world in Christ and men worship the Father as they adore him through Christ the Son of God” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, chap. 1, 1, p. 159).

Christ Is to Be Worshipped in the Wafer

“The reservation of the sacred species for the sick ... led to the praiseworthy custom of adoring the heavenly food which is preserved in churches. This practice of adoration has a valid and firm foundation, especially since belief in the real presence of the Lord has as its natural consequence the external and public manifestation of that belief” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 3, I A, p. 131).

“The faithful should therefore strive to worship Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. ... Pastors [priests] should exhort them to this, and set them a good example. ... The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle [place where the consecrated wafer is kept and worshiped between Masses] should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honour our Lord in this sacrament” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 3, I B, p. 132).

“Devotion, both private and public, towards the sacrament of the altar even outside Mass ... is highly recommended by the Church, since the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and summit of the whole Christian life” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 3, III, p. 134).

“All the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten. For even in the reserved sacrament he is to be adored because he is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Intro., C 6, pp. 109,10).

“It is necessary to instruct the faithful that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour and that the same worship and adoration given to God is owed to him present under the sacramental signs” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Facilitating Sacramental Eucharistic Communion in Particular Circumstances, Piety and Reverence Towards the Sacrament, p. 221).

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON: “If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Confirmation, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ or either sex are not bound thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during Lent, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that by those words, Do this for a commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 2).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 5).

TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: “If anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the gospel; or that those who do not preach are not priests at all, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: “If anyone says that the bishops who are chosen by the authority of the Roman pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops, but merely human deception, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 8).

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY: “Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached.”

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS OF SAINTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES: “The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the cura animarum, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, that it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, or that it is foolish to pray vocally or mentally to those who reign in heaven.”

Pope Pius IV (1559-1565) issued a summary of the decisions of the council under the title “Pope Pius’s Creed.” We will quote part of this creed, which has ever since been regarded as an authoritative summary of the Catholic faith:

“I profess also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law ... namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, and that they confer grace. ...

“I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...

“I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.

“Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invocated; that they offer prayers to God for us; and that their relics are to be venerated.

“I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and of the mother of God, ever virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained; and that one honour and veneration are to be given to them.

“I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

“I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman church, the mother and mistress of all churches. And I promise to swear true obedience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.

“I also profess, and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared, by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. And likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize, all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church.

“This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved...” (Miller’s Church History, pp. 1081-1082).

These proclamations and anathemas were fleshed out in the murderous persecutions vented upon true Christians by Rome, and Trent has never been annulled. Vatican II referred to Trent dozens and dozens of times, quoted Trent’s proclamations as authoritative, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. The New Catholic Catechism cites Trent no less than 99 times. That is my own count. There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Every Cardinal, Bishop and priest who became a member of the Council also signed that document (Wilson Ewin, You Can Lead Roman Catholics to Christ, Quebec Baptist Mission, 1990 edition, p. 41).

Consider a few examples of how Vatican II looked upon Trent:

“The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent [remain] intact...” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 37).

“Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I, this present Council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine of divine revelation” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, p. 678).

“[Christ] is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 110).

“For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent, by which under either species or kind there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire), the sign of the eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 124).

“The Roman Missal, promulgated by our predecessor St. Pius V in the Year of our Lord 1570 by decree of the Council of Trent, is universally acknowledged to be among the most useful of the many fruits which that Council brought forth for the good of the Church of Christ” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 138).

“When issuing decrees that the Order of the Mass should be revised, the Second Vatican Council ruled, among other things, that certain rites were to be restored to the vigour which they had in the days of the holy Fathers. These are the very words used by St. Pius V in his Apostolic Constitution Quo primum whereby he promulgated the Tridentine Missal of 1570 [Trent]. The employment of the very same words indicates that the two Missals, though separated in time by four centuries, are nevertheless inspired by and embody one and the same tradition. ... In those troubled days St. Pius V was unwilling to make any changes in the rites except minor ones; he was intent on preserving more recent tradition, because at that time attacks were being made on the doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice present under the eucharistic species” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 155).

“In this way the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have in many respects been fulfilled and perfected by those of the Second Vatican Council” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 159).

“This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent” (Constitution on the Church, p. 377).

“The sacrament of baptism cannot be repeated ... and therefore to baptize again conditionally is not allowed unless there is prudent doubt of the fact, or of the validity, of a baptism already administered (Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4)” (Decree on Ecumenism, p. 445).

“The Fathers of the Council, continuing the work begun by the Council of Trent, confidently entrust to superiors and professors in seminaries the duty of training Christ’s future priests in the spirit of that renewal promoted by the Council itself” (Decree on the Training of Priests, p. 654).

HAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THEN, CHANGED?

You have read for yourself the solemn proclamations of Rome’s official Vatican II Council. These are proclamations made by the Pope and the college of bishops, and according to Catholic teaching, there is no higher authority than “the Church’s dogma and interpretation of Scripture.” Of course, we realize there are Catholics do not believe these teachings, but where shall we go to find the official teachings of Catholicism? To the Vatican itself, of course. To say that the Vatican doesn’t know Catholic doctrine is like saying Hitler didn’t know Nazism.

Though some dramatic changes were made during and since the Vatican II Council, the Roman Catholic Church remains the same blasphemous, unscriptural institution it always has been. It is not possible to believe the previously quoted Vatican II pronouncements and think otherwise. Yet, the lie that Catholicism is becoming more evangelical, more biblical, and more spiritual continues to be propagated with blind perseverance. It is this lie that is being used to encourage the ecumenical fellowship between Catholics and Protestants. The same lie is a clever tool for persuading Catholics to stay in the Roman Church when they are converted or when they begin doubting Catholic doctrines.

Since it is plain that the Roman Catholic Church continues to uphold doctrines that are blasphemous and contrary to the Word of God, it is therefore inexcusable for Billy Graham and other evangelicals to affiliate with it or to speak of it in a positive fashion. The Word of God commands us to separate from those who teach error.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5).

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8).

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).