What Good Person is going to die?

Some in network news said they were shamed into covering Mother Teresa's funeral after the Diana circle-jerk.

Who's death would make right thinking people the saddest?

While I don't believe in synchronicity...

Comments

  • said:


    Who's death would make right thinking people the saddest?
    [/quote:23sifaz9]

    Vince Shlomi.

  • Absent Shlomi, I would have to nominate Billy Graham. Sure, a hiccup or two when he allowed himself the seduction of politics, but otherwise a profoundly influencing, relatively non-divisive, and (in my view) inspiring man. He walks what he talks. Paul-like. Kudos to him.
  • Nelson Mandela for many (although he gets a mixed reception in some circles)
  • +1 to Billy. He's the man. His children are awesome too. I don't know of anyone else who's delivered the Gospel message as widely and as quickly as that family. Give them 10 seconds on any news show and they'll let you know how to get to Heaven.
  • Having had the opportunity to meet Billy Graham in person, my vote goes to him as well... Only a matter of time now anyway. That he's still with us is probably nothing more than God's grace. He is the real deal, and though I'm not his biggest fan, in this world, "real deal" folks are rare enough to be worth knowing.
  • Someone once asked Ravi Zacharias (Christian apologist) what the Christian world would do without Billy Graham. Ravi's first thought was, "What about [b:a5fzhjtv]ME?!?![/b:a5fzhjtv]" Funny aside, he said God will raise up great people as needed; the Christian advance does not rest upon individuals but upon God. Christianity did not die with Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, or John Wesley.
  • said:

    Someone once asked Ravi Zacharias (Christian apologist) what the Christian world would do without Billy Graham. Ravi's first thought was, "What about [b:2t386w6e]ME?!?![/b:2t386w6e]" Funny aside, he said God will raise up great people as needed; the Christian advance does not rest upon individuals but upon God. Christianity did not die with Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, or John Wesley.[/quote:2t386w6e]

    Precisely...

    As good a man as Billy Graham is, his crusade evangelism has ended up a non-player after some examination. About 2-3% of those claiming Graham evangelism seem to stay the course long-term -- a fact that bothered him a lot.

  • Because it's Graham's job to save them?
  • Guy, do you believe that people can lose salvation (I currently forget the theological term)?
  • said:

    Because it's Graham's job to save them?[/quote:1gt8m1zq]

    Of course not... We're saved by Jesus Christ alone. Graham is just the messenger.

    The problem is (from the Graham Association) that people "think" that they are saved by the nature of the experience that they've had at one of his crusades, and in a sense, Graham "soft-pedals" the evangelistic message -- "Just come to Jesus..." without fully explaining all the ways and whys of true biblical salvation, and with (mostly) counselors on the field filling out a form with name and address of the "saved" ones. All these are turned into local churches for follow up, but after working the Graham Crusade in Louisville a few years ago, I can say with some assurance that just about zero people were actually assimilated into local churches as a result of the record crowds at Papa John's Cardinal Stadium.

    (Note: I was on the preparation team for this event, and worked hand in hand with local pastors to prepare, track, and follow up on evangelistic efforts from the crusade, so I have some insider information on how everything turned out. Especially bothersome to me was the fact that 90+% of the crowd were already church members just coming out to see one of their hero's of the faith.)

    I'l be happy to discuss the Evangelical perspective on salvation, but perhaps that is for another thread? I'll let you guys decide. Let me know...

  • Thanks for the above, Guy. That is kind of the impression I get from many evangalists. I often see people soft-pedal the message, and converts enjoy a few hours of experience.
  • Walking into a church, taking the hand of the preacher, going to the altar, praying a prayer, participating in an ordinance or sacrament of the church, memorizing some word or words, etc., no more makes one a Christian than standing in a garage makes one a car. It takes a spiritual re-birth to accomplish the act of truly becoming a Christian in the biblical sense (which is "anti-religious" in nature). Some of the activities above may happen in the process of one's becoming a Christian, so often the events are seen as the result instead of the other way around. The result begets the event, not the event begetting the result.

    Hope that makes sense, but I doubt that it will to a lot of folks.
  • I don't disagree with the problems associated with those who respond to alter calls or the tracking of those people. I still think Graham does an awesome job getting the message out and even if only 2-3% truly convert that is a massive number that is exponentially larger than the combined efforts of everyone on this board. Even if the percentage was zero, I still admire him and his family for their focused effort. The rest I leave up to God.

    As for soft-pedaling, do you believe his teachings are not Biblical? I'm not a follower of him, I've never been to one of his meetings like you have, but I've never heard him say something that I thought was Biblically innacurate. Who are some other soft-pedalers?
    said:

    Guy, do you believe that people can lose salvation (I currently forget the theological term)?[/quote:schmm1c8]
    Perseverance of the saints?

    I don't know what Guy thinks about it but I don't believe it is a philosophy that NAMB agrees with.

  • said:

    I don't disagree with the problems associated with those who respond to alter calls or the tracking of those people. I still think Graham does an awesome job getting the message out and even if only 2-3% truly convert that is a massive number that is exponentially larger than the combined efforts of everyone on this board. Even if the percentage was zero, I still admire him and his family for their focused effort. The rest I leave up to God.[/quote:2veb3aaa]

    Agreed... Graham is doing good work. And he has indeed reached more people than any other person alive now or at any time in the past (his crusade numbers are higher than the combined total population alive during Paul's time).

    I am still of a mind that the crusade method of evangelism is a lost cause however. Let's imagine that Billy Graham has 100,000 attendance at every crusade and does a crusade a week. Even if 50% of all the people accept Christ, after 10 years of that, because of the way world population is growing, there are more people needing evangelism than there were when he started. On the other hand, should one person lead one other to Christ, then both go and lead one other, and so one, within the space of 10 years, everyone is scouring the globe looking for the last person to accept Christ (the checkerboard and penny illustration).

    God never specifically detailed anything like crusade evangelism (nor evangelism by the Crusades, for that matter) with the possible exception of Jonah, who was called to preach to the entire city of Ninevah, who indeed responded to the message of repentance that was preached. What is specified over and again is one neighbor loving another and sharing the good news -- multiplication versus addition. Of course, some of the people that God touched via Graham's activities (or Bill Bright, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, or any of the myriad of crusade evangelists since George Whitefield, who was likely the first to try this venue or Charles Finney who invented the concept of "coming forward" in the invitation period after the preaching).

    said:

    As for soft-pedaling, do you believe his teachings are not Biblical? I'm not a follower of him, I've never been to one of his meetings like you have, but I've never heard him say something that I thought was Biblically innacurate. Who are some other soft-pedalers?[/quote:2veb3aaa]

    I used the term "soft-pedaling" on purpose, for that is different than suggesting that his teachings are not biblical. They are biblical, and more so than a lot of modern preachers who have diluted the concept of a real heaven and a real hell until they are unrecognizable and non-Christian in nature. By "soft-pedaling" the gospel, what is implied is something akin to "easy believism" whereby all that is require to have a right faith in Jesus Christ is to ask. From that notion comes the assurance from the pulpit (or from the evangelist) that tells the new convert, "Now that you have uttered this prayer (or the name of Jesus, etc.) you are once and forever saved and safe." I cannot find that notion in Scripture, except to take one particular verse out of context (context explains the entire process of redemption, including all the component parts of salvation) and which is used by SO many pastors and evangelists that is is difficult to know where to start and stop naming them.


    said:

    said:

    Guy, do you believe that people can lose salvation (I currently forget the theological term)?[/quote:2veb3aaa]
    Perseverance of the saints?

    I don't know what Guy thinks about it but I don't believe it is a philosophy that NAMB agrees with.[/quote:2veb3aaa]

    Perseverence of the saints is the term used to describe those justified in Christ (by Christ) who also follow through with their sanctification (being made holy -- or in the image of Christ) for the balance of their "pre-life" on earth in preparation for their eternal salvation and glorification in "heaven" which is actually this physical world re-created, plus everything else God intends for us, including access to His realm, to us now, un-reachable.

    Once saved, always saved -- not so good with me. The concept is valid, but the description is REALLY lacking depth and theological accuracy. Simplified "bumper-sticker" salvation slogans like that lead to the soft-pedaling I mentioned above -- mainly a religious exercise that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with true biblical salvation.

  • Guy, that you believe salvation isn't easy doesn't make it so. Though I think your faith and Biblical study is quite admirable, and your mission highly noble, it is not [i:2jleg9q4]required[/i:2jleg9q4] of all redeemed. The Bible says to follow Christ as with the faith of a child. It is by this (blind) faith that ultimately leads us to Him - not mystical revelations and rigorous philosophical debate.

    This is why Billy Graham is who he is, and Ravi Zacharias and others - while very important - are left to the footnotes of Christianity.
  • I'm not saying it is not that "easy" -- so don't mistake my terminology. It is ultimately "easy" to become "saved." What I'm saying is that the easy words said route isn't always the way it works.

    With Christ doing the heavy lifting of salvation -- according to the Bible -- it IS easy for us, but "easy" does not equate to "simple" nor does it equate to some formulatic recitation or action, as espoused by many a church and denomination.

    In a sense, those churches and denominations (and by default, evangelists) are usurping the role of God in salvation by proclaiming what is only God's domain -- the salvation of the soul. Yes, they can lead a person into that relationship with God, through Christ, by introducing them to God via the Word, the sharing of the gospel, by a prayer, or even by the testimony of a life changed, but none of those things "saves." That happens when God imputes righteousness, adopts, elects, effectually calls, justifies, redems, and grants faith enough to repent. None of those things are possible in purely human terms apart from God's involvement, hence the difference between the religious exercise of "easy believeism" and true biblical re-birth, where the Holy Spirit does his work within the heart/soul/mind of the individual.
  • said:

    the checkerboard and penny illustration[/quote:3ow5lxpx]
    I'm not familiar with this. I'm sure there are a lot of Christian analogies I simply was never exposed to.

    said:

    I used the term "soft-pedaling" on purpose, for that is different than suggesting that his teachings are not biblical.[/quote:3ow5lxpx]
    That's the sense I got. It's not unbiblical to, for example, omit the word "sin", but it sure isn't complete. On the other hand, "federal headship," although helping complete the picture, probably isn't required either, but it's arguably less important to the Gospel than the word "sin".

    said:

    Once saved, always saved -- not so good with me. The concept is valid, but the description is REALLY lacking depth and theological accuracy. Simplified "bumper-sticker" salvation slogans like that lead to the soft-pedaling I mentioned above -- mainly a religious exercise that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with true biblical salvation.[/quote:3ow5lxpx]
    I agree. Good way to put it.

  • The penny and the checkerboard is an old metaphor used to illustrate the gains of multiplication versus addition.

    Consider a checkerboard with 64 squares. If you put 1 penny on the first box, 2 pennies on the second box, 4 pennies on the third one and continue to do this until you fill the whole checker board.

    How many by the end of the 64 squares?

    The number is astounding...

    This guy illustrates it nicely:
    http://home.att.net/~Jerry-L-Duke/Book/chapter_4.html
Sign In or Register to comment.