Continued from Billy Graham and the Church of Rome – By Ian Paisley

PART ONE
Dr. Graham’s Fellowship with and Eulogy of the Church of Rome

It is necessary to have clear and distinct knowledge of what Rome really teaches if we are going to have true and proper views of that great sin before the Lord of fellowshipping with her.

No better course could be adopted in order to discover the real nature of Rome’s Antichristianity than to examine a textbook which is a “must” for her priests in preparation for their priesthood.

Such a textbook is DIGNITY AND DUTIES OF THE PRIEST OR SELVA (A collection of Materials for Ecclesiastical Retreats. Rule of Life and Spiritual Rules) by St. Alphonsus de Liguori.

Just how high Alphonsus is reckoned in the scale of precedence of Roman saints can be seen from the “Notice” which appears in the preface to the volume. It concludes with this eulogy: “LIVE JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH AND ALPHONSUS!” ¹

“Jesus has died to institute the priesthood. It was not necessary for the Redeemer to die in order to save the world; a drop of his blood, a single tear, or prayer, was sufficient to procure salvation for all; for such a prayer, being of infinite value, should be sufficient to save not one but a thousand worlds. But to institute the priesthood, the death of Jesus Christ has been necessary. Had he not died, where should we find the victim that the priests of the New Law now offer? A victim altogether holy and immaculate, capable of giving to God an honour worthy of God. As had been already said, all the lives of men and angels are not capable of giving to God an infinite honour like that which a priest offers to him by a single Mass.” ²

The above statement is a hideous blasphemy. “Christ died for the ungodly.” ³

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” ⁴

“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” ⁵

The purpose of the blood-shedding on the Cross was not to institute the massing priesthood of Rome, but to purchase the redemption of the people of God.

Any system which holds such an unscriptural view as Rome does of the Work of the Cross is plainly not a Christian system at all, but is part of the system of Satan and Antichrist.

“The kings of the earth glory in honouring priests: ‘It is a mark of a good prince,’ said Pope St. Marcellinus, ‘to honour the priests of God.’ ‘They willingly,’ says Peter de Blois, ‘bend their knee before the priest of God; they kiss his hands, and with bowed down head receive his benediction.’ ‘The sacerdotal dignity,’ says St. Chrysostom, ‘effaces the royal dignity; hence the king inclines his head under the hand of the priest to receive his blessing.” ⁶

“Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a confessional to administer the sacrament of penance, and a priest to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ the priest would likewise say over each of his penitents, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ and the penitents of each would equally be absolved.” ⁷

“Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of the consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created — He spake, and they were made — so it is sufficient for the priest to say, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ and behold the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ. ‘The power of the priest,’ says St. Bernardine of Siena, ‘is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.'” ⁸

“With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.” ⁹

The testimony of the historic Christian faith against the apostasy of the Papacy is made crystal clear in the great foundation creeds of the Churches of the Reformation.

Episcopalian, Church of England

“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” ¹⁰

“The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifice of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” ¹¹

Presbyterian

“There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.” ¹²

Of the Lord’s Supper:

“In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same, so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.” ¹³

Methodist

John Wesley’s comment on the term “man of sin” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3:

“However, in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, ‘Most Holy Lord’, or, ‘Most Holy Father’, so that he sitteth — Enthroned. In the temple of God. Mentioned Rev. 11:1, Declaring himself that he is God — claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” ¹⁴

“The offering of Christ, once made; is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore 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 a dangerous deceit.” ¹⁵

Baptist

“The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all Power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God: whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” ¹⁶

Congregational

“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but he is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” ¹⁷

A GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES

What John Huss wrote (1373–1415 A.D.)
An epistle of John Huss unto the people of Prague reads:

“The more circumspect you ought to be, for that Anti-Christ laboureth the more to trouble you. Death shall swallow up many, but of the elect children of God the kingdom of God draweth near… Know ye, well-beloved, that Anti-Christ being stirred up against you deviseth divers persecutions.” (Acts & Monuments, iii pp. 497-8)

What Lord Cobham said (1417 A.D.)
Lord Cobham, that famous man of God, lived just a century before Luther. When brought before King Henry V and admonished to submit himself to the Pope, as an obedient child, this was his answer:

“As touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe them neither suit nor service, forasmuch as I know him by the Scriptures to be the great Anti-Christ, the son of perdition, the open adversary of God, and an abomination standing in the holy place.”

What the British Reformers taught
All the English Reformers, including Tyndale, Latimer, Cranmer, Bradford, and Jewell, held the Pope of Rome to be the Man of Sin. So did John Knox in Scotland, and he sounded out his testimony on this subject as with a trumpet. Knox declared:

“The Pope is the head of the kirk Anti-Christ.”

Knox further declared:

“As for the Roman Church, as it is now corrupted… I have no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan and the head thereof, called the Pope, to be the Man of Sin of whom the Apostle speaketh, than that I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered by the procurement of the visible Church of Jerusalem.”

What Bishop Ridley wrote (1557 A.D.)
Bishop Ridley, who was burnt under Queen Mary, declared:

“The See of Rome is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is Anti-Christ himself indeed; and for the same causes this See at this day is the same that St. John calls, in his Revelation, Babylon, or ‘the whore of Babylon,’ and spiritual Sodom and Egypt, ‘the mother of fornications and abominations on earth’.”

Martin Luther
On December 1, 1520, Luther published two tracts in answer to the Bull, one of which was entitled Martin Luther Against the Execrable Bull of Anti-Christ. In its conclusion he admonishes the Pope and his Cardinals no longer to persevere in madness, “no longer to act the undoubted part of the Anti-Christ of the Scriptures”.

What Melanchthon wrote (1530 A.D.)
Melanchthon was clear in his convictions that Rome is the Babylon of the Apocalypse, and the Pope the Man of Sin. In his disputation on marriage, referring to the 1st Epistle to Timothy, he says:

“Since it is most certain that the Pontiffs and monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and without any doubt true, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is the very Anti-Christ.”

What Calvin wrote (1530 A.D.)
Calvin wrote:

“The arrogance of Anti-Christ of which Paul speaks, is that he, as God, sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. For where is the incomparable majesty of God after mortal man has been exalted to such a height that his laws take precedence of God’s eternal decrees? I deny him to be the Vicar of Christ who, in furiously persecuting the Gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Anti-Christ; I deny him to be the successor of Peter who is doing his utmost to demolish every edifice that Peter built.”

What William Tyndale wrote (1536 A.D.)
Tyndale wrote:

“Though the Bishop of Rome and his sects give Christ these names (His rightful names), yet in that they rob Him of the effect and take the signification of His names unto themselves, and make of Him but a hypocrite, as they themselves be, they be the right Anti-Christs, and deny both the Father and the Son; for they deny the witness that the Father bore unto His Son, and deprive the Son of all the power and glory that His Father gave Him.”

What John Knox preached (1547 A.D.)
Knox, at St. Andrews in 1547 A.D., launched the Reformation in Scotland with a sermon on Daniel 7, teaching that the Little Horn was identical with the Man of Sin and Anti-Christ, and signified the Roman Papacy. The people, on hearing this sermon, cried out: “If this is true we have been miserably deceived.” Who but the Holy Spirit gave Knox that mighty, two-edged sword?

What Archbishop Cranmer said (1509–1556 A.D.)
Cranmer, at his trial, declared:

“And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished therefor; for, may I come to the fire, it shall first be burned; and as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy, and Anti-Christ, with all his false doctrines.”

On uttering this, Cranmer was pulled down from the stage and led to the fire.

What John Bradford said (1510–1555 A.D.)
Bradford declared:

“Anti-Christ, which now by the will of God doth rage for the trial of our faith, doth nothing else but procure us a ready horse to bring us to heaven.”

Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Bradford were burned for their testimony against the Papal Anti-Christ, just as Huss, Jerome, and Cobham had been before. Thousands of martyrdoms have sealed this testimony, and to reject this testimony is to reject the foundation of the noblest and divinest work which has been wrought in this world since the day of Pentecost.

The Translators of our Bible (1611 A.D.)
The Translators of our Bible in 1611, in their preface, declare that in writing in defence of the Truth, which “had given such a blow unto that Man of Sin as will not be healed”, in common with the Reformers, they regarded the dynasty of Popes as the Anti-Christ of Scripture.

ROME DOES NOT CHANGE

Uninformed people conditioned by the ecumenical double talk of the Church Unity advocates have come to believe that Rome is changing. This is proclaimed continually from the platforms of the World Council of Churches. Evidently their strategy is that if they repeat this lie over and over again, unwary, ill-taught, and unthinking Protestants will believe it. Alas, many have fallen poor dupes to this pernicious propaganda.

The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have, however, made no secret of the fact that their Church will not change, and that union will be on their terms and on their terms only.

Preaching at a service in St. Aidan’s Methodist Church, Eastbourne, on Sunday evening, 29th January, 1967, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC DELEGATE to Great Britain, Archbishop Igino Cardinale, told a congregation of Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Methodists that it was no secret that the Roman Catholic Church claimed to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH and envisaged reunion ONLY AS TAKING PLACE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ITS OWN COMMUNION!

CARDINAL HEENAN, ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER, recently declared:

“Ecumenism does not mean pretending that all denominations are equally true; it does not mean that the Catholic Church has nothing more than other churches. The ultimate object of ecumenism is to unite all Christians under the Vicar of Christ — the Pope.”

CARDINAL BEA, Head of the Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity, states:

“No Catholic of education will believe that the (Vatican) Council can or would change even a single dogma. The Supreme Pontiff and the Council have a duty, inherent in their ecclesiastical authority, to preserve whole and entire the doctrine passed to them by tradition, and no love for the separated brethren can induce us to lay even the lightest hand on the sacred deposit of the faith.”

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton, on his return from the final session of the Vatican Council, states that the Church of Rome had not changed its doctrine “one iota”. The aim and object of the Church of Rome is the conversion of Britain to Roman Catholicism. The same bishop has declared:

“Our aim is the conversion of every man, woman, and child in England to the Roman Catholic religion, and we must fulfil our charter.”

In a detailed analysis of the ecumenical council’s lasting effects, Pope Paul VI said:

“Its teachings have brought about no liberation or break from the church’s traditional dogmas, but rather their confirmation and development.”

THE POPE, addressing a general audience on the opening day of a week of worldwide prayer for unity, candidly acknowledged the difficulties posed by the supreme role which Roman Catholic doctrine gives the Pope. He quietly reiterated that he was the authentic representative of Christ on earth! “But,” continues the Pope with reference to unity, “it must not take place at the cost of the integrity of the Catholic faith and of our Church discipline, nor must it be guided by an easy criticism of our own things and by an equally easy willingness to copy other people’s things, good and respectable as they may be.”

Is any further proof required to Christians to show that Rome will not change her erroneous doctrines and unscriptural beliefs? ¹⁸

DR. GRAHAM AND THE CHURCH OF ROME

As far as Dr. Graham is concerned, the Reformation might never have taken place, the Reformers and martyrs might never have given their testimony sealed with blood, and the great creeds and confessions of historic Protestantism might never have been penned.

First by gradual stages and now by leaps and bounds, the evangelist has come closer and closer to the system of the Harlot Church of Rome. ¹⁹

He recognised Rome as a great Christian communion and the influence of Pope John XXIII The Second ²⁰ as a vital spiritual force for revival.

Given a standing ovation by 2,000 priests and nuns in his first address to a Roman College, Dr. Graham said:

“I don’t know when it began. Perhaps during World War II… I think the emphasis that the late Pope John brought, the Ecumenical Council of the Bishops of Rome itself — a council that has the prayers of all Christendom — herald the present Christian revolution… The emphasis of our time may be on the Holy Spirit. Everywhere people are gathering — Protestants, Catholics, and yes, Jews — to pray together. I know of 114 such groups in Long Island itself. Is the Holy Spirit in our time doing something that is beyond any of us?” ²¹

To call the Second Vatican Council a work of the Holy Spirit is nothing short of blasphemy and a very serious blasphemy indeed. In the dark pagan dogmas and Councils of Rome the Holy Spirit of God has no part whatsoever. The Spirit of God never works contrary to the Word of God.

At the beginning Dr. Graham sought to conceal this growing alignment with the Papal Church.

Dr. Bob Jones, President, Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, called attention to the methods of the Billy Graham Organization in attempting to conceal the activities of their master in this field.

Speaking to the students and faculty at the University on February 8th, 1965, he said:

“Dr. Graham has said he would go anywhere under any sponsorship. This is a pretty broad statement. That means that if a Buddhist priest invited him to go to preach in a Buddhist Pagoda under Buddhist sponsorship, he would go. That statement is as broad a statement as one can conceive. He did not say, ‘I would go to any Bible-believing church.’ He said, ‘I will go anywhere under any sponsorship.’ But wait, Dr. Graham’s public relations department states that he does not go under modernistic sponsorship — that he does not ‘sponsor’ them and they do not ‘sponsor’ him. I say this, and I say it bluntly; and I have said it in print — the public relations department of the Graham Organization and the people who answer the letters addressed to Dr. Graham do not seem to care whether they tell the truth or not. They are completely unscrupulous when it comes to misrepresenting the facts. They try by misdirection, deceit, and false statements to persuade the public they are not doing what they are doing. You cannot depend upon any statement that comes out officially from the Graham Organization as to what they are doing and as to what their stand is. They will tell you one thing one time, and they will tell you something else another. I suggest, therefore, that those who have not seen it read a letter written by a member of the Graham staff who passed away about six months after this letter was written. The letter attempts to deceive and misdirect and give a false impression. I have paragraph by paragraph shown the fallacy of what he said and have pointed out how inconsistent and deceitful this letter is. ²² Now, this is a perfect example of the tactics of the Graham Organization. I can quote others, but this is all you need to show how their public relations organization works.” ²³

Dr. Edman, in the letter referred to, sought, with a cunning which would do credit to the Jesuits, to conceal Dr. Graham’s intention of alignment with Romanism. Dr. Graham’s first steps to popery were taken with great care and carefully covered over by his faithful employees.

DIRECTING CONVERTS TO ROME

Dr. Graham’s original method as an evangelist was to have the co-operation only of Bible-believing Churches and ministers and to direct the converts to such churches and ministers. His Organization still seeks to allay the questions of born-again believers by maintaining that this is still done. A letter with the Billy Graham heading to this effect has helped to stifle much criticism on this vital matter. Unthinking people, not realising that “the same Organization must be tried and proved,” ²⁴ accept such letters and assurances as ex-cathedra.

The hard facts of this crucial matter have now been well exposed.

The paid agents of the Billy Graham Organization, however, continue to deceive those evangelical Protestants who enquire into this matter.

Dr. G. Archer Weniger of San Francisco exposed the duplicity of one of these agents in a letter to the same on December 20th, 1957. ²⁵

Dr. Weniger listened to Dr. Graham’s Director at a meeting before the Conservative Baptist ministers of the Bay Area in November at the Calvary Baptist Church. He listed in his letter six glaring errors in Mr. Smyth’s presentation of the Graham plan of campaign.

Number Three read as follows:

“You stated clearly, ‘Billy Graham has never at any time in history given any cards to Catholics.’ The San Francisco News of September 21st, 1957, carried an interview with you in which it was stated, ‘Even if the penitents are non-Protestants they are referred to the church of their choice.’ You stated that this was false. We checked with the Church Editor who said the paper considers it a correct statement. We suggested that this be a question to put to Graham. Accordingly, the San Francisco News reported on November 11, 1957, evidently from a private interview, quoting Dr. Graham as follows on page 3: ‘Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.’

You will recall that the Executive Secretary of the Graham Appearance Committee for his visit two years ago reported that eleven cards indicated the Catholic Church as their choice. A check with the Committee in charge showed that it was Dr. Graham’s wish that these be turned over to the Catholic Churches. Rather than to send these converts back to the Roman Catholic Church, he tore up the cards.”

The distinguished New York attorney, Mr. James E. Bennett, has an address entitled, “Final Analysis — a Ministry of Disobedience”, in which he sums up the New York Crusade. In this address he says:

“Furthermore a friend of mine (a minister of a church on Long Island) went to the Crusade. Then he went in the enquiry room as an enquirer, and when the counsellor asked him what church, he said, ‘To be saved must I have a church?’ The Counsellor answered, ‘Yes, you must have a church.’ ‘Can I have a Catholic church?’ ‘Certainly, if you want to,’ said the counsellor. So he gave the name of a Catholic Church in his own locality. Two days later, the priest of that church called him up, said he had the card, and would be glad to interview him as a prospective member of that church. I could cite many instances which have come to my personal notice. It was one of the most sinful acts of the whole Crusade and caused, and will continue to cause, inestimable damage. There is no doubt that thousands of people have been assigned to Roman Catholic Churches, Synagogues, modernistic, liberal, and other forms of unbelieving churches.”

GRAHAM AT HARVARD

The Billy Graham Mission at Harvard in February of 1964 again revealed the way Dr. Graham and his Organization and crusades work.

The Harvard Christian Fellowship, which sponsored Graham’s mission, had sought the co-operation of all those groups at Harvard and Radcliffe claiming to be Christians.

A number of the students who came forward were “of the Roman Catholic tradition.”

The “follow-up” cards for these students were given to Roman Catholics.

This took place with the knowledge and approval of Dr. Graham.

This step was taken in the conviction that Roman Catholics who made decisions for Jesus Christ could “grow in grace” in the Roman Church as well as in the Protestant Church.

In the U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, August 27th, 1954, an interview with Dr. Graham is reported:

Question: What are these people with you?

Answer (by Dr. Graham): Well, we have a team of specialists in running the organization. All I am is the preacher. We have a song leader because before I get up to speak, we have some community singing of hymns. Then we have to arrange for a soloist to sing. We have a secretarial service and a vast follow-up system.

For example: If a person in one of these campaigns makes a commitment to Christ, we do not drop him. He is followed up. The ministers all do that. His name and address and a lot of information about him is taken and within 24 hours that is sent to a minister of the church of his choice regardless of denomination.

The San Francisco News of September 21st, 1957 reported an interview with Walter Smyth which said concerning the follow-up system:

“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.

The same paper in its November 11th issue of the same year quoted Dr. Graham:

“Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.”

Protestant Church Life reported Dr. Graham on September 29th, 1956 as saying:

“We’re coming to New York, not to clean it up, but to get people to dedicate themselves to God and then send them back to their own churches — Catholic, Protestant or Jewish.”

In the Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, September 6, 1952, Dr. Graham “stressed that his crusade in Pittsburgh would be interdenominational”. He said that he hoped to hear Bishop Fulton J. Sheen at one of the masses at St. Paul’s Cathedral tomorrow. He added:

“Many of the people who reach 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 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 crusade would have to be considered a failure.”

When an evangelist declares he intends going to mass in the morning, his loyalty to the one, once and for all, never to be repeated, sacrifice of Christ is, to say the least, questionable.

The martyrs died because “they would not go a-massing.”
Were they wrong?
Did they die in vain?

There are some who are impatient with this controversy. Some say that instead of engaging in controversy in the Church, we ought to pray to God for a revival; instead of polemics, we ought to have evangelism.

“Well,” asks Dr. Machen, speaking to the Bible League of London on “The Importance of Christian Scholarship”, “what kind of revival do you think that will be? What sort of evangelism is it that is indifferent to the question what evangel it is to be preached? Not a revival in the New Testament sense,” he replied, “not the evangelism that Paul meant when he said, ‘Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel.’ No, my friends, there can be no true evangelism which makes common cause with the enemies of the Cross of Christ. Souls will hardly be saved unless the evangelists can say with Paul: ‘If we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel than that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed!’ Every true revival is born in controversy and leads to more controversy. That has been true ever since our Lord said that He came not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword. And do you know what I think will happen when God sends a new Reformation upon the Church? We cannot tell when that blessed day will come. But when the blessed day does come, I think we can say at least one result that it will bring. We shall hear nothing on that day about the evils of controversy in the Church. All that will be swept away as with a mighty flood. A man who is on fire with a message never talks in that wretched, feeble way, but proclaims the truth joyously and fearlessly in the presence of every high thing that is lifted up against the Gospel of Christ.”

A startling revelation came out in the editorial of the Daily Journal at International Falls, Minnesota, October 29th, 1963, which stated:

“If Pope Paul asked me to go out and preach the gospel as I see it, I would do it,” Billy Graham told 750 Protestant ministers in New York recently. The evangelist recalled that at a recent crusade in São Paulo, Brazil, the Roman Catholic bishop stood beside him and blessed the converts as they came forward. These incidents illustrate Graham’s declaration that “something tremendous, an awakening of reform and revival within Christianity,” was happening to both Protestant and Roman Catholic.

This “togetherness” was also manifested on the Finance Committee for the Graham Easter Sunday (Birmingham, Alabama, 1964) when the following diverse religions were represented by Mr. Hodo, a Presbyterian; Mr. Pless, an Episcopalian; Mr. Friend, a Jew; and Col. Prichard, a Roman Catholic. (Sword of the Lord, 7/8/64)

The Graham Organization and the co-operating churches in the San Francisco Crusade appointed Dr. Farrah to follow up the ‘converts’ and report on the same.

He reported that of over 1,300 ‘Catholics’ who came forward, “practically all remained ‘Catholic’, continued to pray to Mary, went to Mass and confessed to the priest.” (Sword of the Lord, 7/2/64)

George Burnham in Billy Graham: A Mission Accomplished (1955), a book which carries Dr. Graham’s preface, states that the press were told prior to the crusade in Paris that those converts “requesting reaffirmation in the Catholic faith would be turned over to the Catholic Church.”

GRAHAM AND THE CARDINAL

During the Boston Crusade, Cardinal R. Cushing, R.C. Archbishop of Boston, declared himself one hundred percent for Graham. Dr. Graham’s own paper, The Christian, fully reported a meeting between the evangelist and the cardinal. The meeting took place at the evangelist’s request. We reproduce it in full:

“More than 40,000 people attended the first four meetings of the last week of the crusade, bringing the total for four weeks to near the quarter million mark.

The Boston paper gave long reports each day of Dr. Graham’s sermons, so that each issue of the paper contained what amounted to a clearly stated gospel message. The Boston Herald announced at the end of the crusade that it would be publishing Dr. Graham’s daily syndicated column in which he answers questions sent in by readers.

The biggest headlines, however, went to the forty-five minute meeting with Cardinal Cushing — the first occasion on which Dr. Graham has had a meeting with a Roman Catholic Cardinal. There were 35 newspapers present at the meeting and that is its own intimation of the importance of what one newspaper called ‘a meeting between two giants of different religious faiths.’

Dr. Graham told the Cardinal that he felt there was a great need in the world for the proclamation of the Gospel. ‘We defended it so long it is time to proclaim it. And I feel that the new spirit in the world was the result of what happened in Rome.’ ‘Well it comes a few hundred years late,’ said the Cardinal. ‘It will take a long time before they feel the full impact of it.’

The Cardinal expressed the opinion, ‘There should be more agreement between faiths, and I believe there will be now.’ Dr. Graham replied, ‘This started with you long before we heard of Pope John.’ ‘Well I am a Catholic, but I’m for you,’ the Cardinal said, ‘No Catholic can listen to you without becoming a better Catholic. You preach Catholic as well as Protestant doctrine.’

When Dr. Graham said he had never met the Pope, Cardinal Cushing offered, ‘If you ever go to Rome I’ll arrange a private audience.’

Dr. Graham said that his preaching was much closer to the theology of the Roman Catholic Church than to that of the farther out Protestants. As the two men parted, and Dr. Graham said he was going to speak to the students at the Boston College, the Cardinal said, ‘I’m glad to hear that. That’s my Alma Mater.'”

GRAHAM AND THE APOSTOLIC DELEGATE TO ENGLAND

The Christian and Christianity Today of June 30 reported:

“‘It is young people who have a future for America,’ Dr. Billy Graham told a distinguished gathering at a breakfast given for him on Tuesday last by Sir Cyril and Lady Black at the London Hilton.

As was the case last year the occasion brought together M.P.s, the Mayors of a number of London Boroughs, industrialists, leading churchmen of all denominations, including the apostolic delegate (The Pope’s representative to Britain) and representatives of many professions.

Sir Cyril welcomed them all in a felicitous speech and received a warm response from his listeners, when he suggested the sending of a message of fraternal greeting and good wishes to Cardinal Heenan who, it was reported, was making a steady recovery from his illness.”

The Christian and Christianity Today, June 30th, 1967, in an article by David Combs entitled ‘The Truth in Love’, analysed some of the editorials of religious and secular papers on the return of Billy Graham for his Earl’s Court crusade. He quoted the Baptist Times with evident pleasure: “We do not agree with those who think that Dr. Graham is theologically suspect because of the ecumenical nature of his crusades, or because of his readiness to have contact with leaders of the ecumenical movement, and with Roman Catholics.” His comment: “Breathe again Billy.”

The following was related to me in my own home by that eminent preacher from Scotland, the Rev. Duncan Campbell, the instrument the Lord used in the preaching in the great revival in the Outer Hebrides.

“Mr. Campbell told me that one day in the city of Edinburgh his son was having a cup of tea in a cafe. A young man beside him got into conversation. Mr. Campbell witnessed to this young man, and evidently the young man was concerned about salvation. So much so that he followed Mr. Campbell’s son out of the cafe, requested his name, his address and his telephone number, and promised that if he ever came to Christ he would inform him.

Some time afterward when the Campbell family were at family prayer, the telephone rang, and it was this young man wishing to speak to Mr. Campbell’s son. He told him, ‘I am sure you will be delighted to know that I have made a decision for Christ at Dr. Billy Graham’s crusade at Earl’s Court.’ Mr. Campbell naturally was delighted, and sought to put this young man in touch with evangelical ministers in the city of London who could look after his spiritual welfare. Some time afterward Mr. Campbell’s son received a letter from this young man, and in the letter the young man said something like this:

‘I am sure you will be delighted to know that I am going to be received into the Roman Catholic Church very shortly.’ Mr. Campbell’s son was naturally very upset about this matter. He got on the phone and contacted the young man and spoke to him about it. He asked, ‘How did this come about?’ The young man said, ‘Oh it’s all right, when I was at Dr. Billy Graham’s crusade they asked me what church I belonged to. I said that I didn’t go to any church. Then they said, ‘What was the last church you were in?’ I said, ‘Well as a matter of fact, I happen to be the secretary to a prominent English film star, and he is a Roman Catholic. When his chauffeur is away I drive him to a Roman Catholic Church, and I usually go in with him to the service.’ The Billy Graham counsellor said, ‘Oh that is all right,’ and he took the name of that particular Roman Catholic Church that the young man attended with his employer.

A few days afterwards a priest from that church called on the young man. He told him he had received a communication from the Billy Graham Organization, that he had come out for Christ at Dr. Graham’s service, and that he had been requested to do the follow-up work. The result of that follow-up work was the reception of that young man who had not been a Roman Catholic into the Roman Catholic Church. This is but one example of the tragedy that results from Dr. Billy Graham’s alignment with the Roman Catholic Church.”

DR. GRAHAM SENT ME BACK TO THE CHURCH OF ROME

Mr. Japheth Peres writes the following:

“Many people have asked me what I think about Billy Graham. When I hear that name I recall a crusade that Billy Graham conducted in New York back in 1957. I will tell you my experience during this crusade and you will know what I gained from Billy Graham.

Before 1957 if anyone were to ask me what church I belonged to, I would say that I belonged to the Catholic Church. If they would ask me certain questions about my religion I wouldn’t know what to answer, because I didn’t know very much about it, except I was sprinkled when I was a baby.

During the summer of 1957 I went to a camp under the direction of a Presbyterian minister who taught us a lot about the Bible. Actually this was the first time I had picked up a Bible to study and learn from it. At the end of the camp I was convinced that Catholicism was wrong. This belief only lasted a few weeks until I went to the Billy Graham crusade. The Presbyterian minister, along with other friends who believed that Billy Graham was a man of God, took us — that is, my friends and me — to see Billy Graham.

Madison Square Garden was packed, but we had arrived early, and were sitting on the main floor not too far from Billy Graham. When he finished he called the audience to respond. I was scared but my friend persuaded me to go forward. I went along with a large crowd. Then Billy Graham told us to go to some rooms in the back, so we did. There were many counsellors with us and when we had gone into a room Billy Graham spoke to us through a microphone congratulating us for accepting Christ as personal Saviour.

My counsellor took my name and address and asked me to what church I belonged. I wasn’t attending any at that time but I told him that I belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. He asked me which one, and I said, ‘St. Anne’s on 12th and 3rd Avenue.’ He took down all this information and began to tell me that I should go to this church (the Roman Catholic Church). He said that he would send me Bible lessons by mail, and to go to the church to which I belonged. I was fourteen years old then. Since Billy Graham sent me to the Catholic Church I was under the impression that this was the right church. By the end of 1958, after having studied the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and being convinced the Catholic Church was true, I had made my first communion, one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. What did I gain from the Billy Graham crusade?

I gained about one year and a half in darkness and ignorance of the Bible because Billy Graham sent me to the Catholic Church.”

Mr. Peres is currently studying for the ministry in Portland, Oregon, and is preaching each Sunday afternoon to a small group of Spanish-speaking people in that city. He is married and has one child. His full testimony is reproduced in the section of this book entitled ‘Documents Reproduced for Evidence.’ It is a photostatic copy of his testimony as it appeared in a Baptist periodical, “The North Star Baptist.”

The Berlin Congress on evangelism sponsored by Dr. Billy Graham and Christianity Today opened on October 26th, 1966. Dr. Graham was very eager to have the Church of Rome represented at this congress.

As a result of negotiations with Rome two Roman Catholic priests were present. One, the Rev. John Basil Shearin, editor of Catholic World, and the other, the Rev. William Joseph Manseau of Wellesley, Massachusetts. In an official release from the Berlin Conference, sponsored by the congress, the following appeared:

“‘Vatican Council II in Rome and the World Congress on evangelism here displayed the same interest in exalting the Bible,’ a prominent Roman Catholic editor in the United States says.

‘However,’ said the Rev. John Basil Shearin of New York, editor of The Catholic World, ‘I am disappointed that this meeting has not shown the same interest in the ecumenical movement and Christian Unity as found at the Vatican Council.’ He said among individual congress delegates he had discovered a ‘great amount of ecumenical interest.’

Another major difference in the two, continued Shearin, was that Vatican Council II made ‘a greater emphasis on openness to the world, and towards church involvement in social action.’ The priest, the Rev. William Joseph Manseau of Wellesley, Massachusetts, said their appearance at the congress, under whatever title, was ‘a significant first.’ The editor classified his coming as being in the role of a journalist. Manseau was at the congress as an observer.

Asked to evaluate Billy Graham’s evangelistic ministry, Manseau said, ‘It is a beautiful gift from God. Billy Graham speaks to the people in the street in a way that is quite captivating. He does it in the world, walking the streets of Soho in London, or in Times Square.’

‘He goes among the people and talks about Jesus’ love for them. One reason they are alienated is that no one loves them.’ Manseau told of a lay group he is associated with in ‘Catholic’ life in Canada and the Western U.S. ‘We have a storefront church in Boston,’ he said. ‘Every Wednesday evening we have a Bible service; we read the Bible, pray, sing, and preach.’

‘It might be considered a low-key pentecostal service. We have door-to-door visits to ask people to read the New Testament and to share with them our Christian life.’ He explained this approach ‘espoused the programme of the Vatican Council.’

He said, ‘The whole church is focusing on the Bible.’

Touching on authority of the Bible, a frequent reference in congress speeches and discussions, Shearin said a Vatican Council pronouncement ‘teaches that the Bible is the ultimate authority and Catholic life must be regulated by the Bible. There is strong support for the idea that all revelation is in the Bible, that tradition is simply the church meditating on the Bible.'”

Dr. Carl McIntire, President of the International Council of Christian Churches, who by the way was shut out as a press representative at the Berlin Congress, in his book Outside the Gate points out that the Jesuits are adept at the sort of fellowship provided at the Berlin Congress. “It is a function of the Jesuit ministry to participate.

Cardinal Bea, in charge of Christian unity for the Pope, is a Jesuit, and he is perhaps the finest example of the implementation of the Jesuit principles in the twentieth century.

Representing the Roman Catholic Church at Berlin were Father John B. Shearin, editor of the Catholic World, who likened Graham’s meeting to the Vatican Council in that ‘the spirit of Pope John hovered over it; Billy Graham was physically, palpably, and inescapably present, speaking admirably and holding together forces which would unquestionably have exploded in all directions save for his presence.’ Father Shearin also said, ‘The doctrinal unity at the Vatican Council found no parallel at the Berlin Congress.’

The second Roman Catholic observer, Father William Manseau, assistant pastor of All Saints Catholic Church, Roxborough, Massachusetts, commented upon the ‘respectful love’ manifest in the conference.”

Dr. McIntire points out that the only Catholics who should have been in attendance at a World Conference on scriptural evangelism are those Catholics who have been converted and can testify to how they have left the Roman Catholic Church with its superstition, idolatrous mass, and worship of the Virgin. We fully endorse these remarks of Dr. McIntire.

Of course, no word of condemnation of Rome was permitted at the congress, but Carl Henry and Dr. Graham conspired to insult the fundamentalists, and Henry called Dr. McIntire an “evangelical gadfly”, and also recommended that he should walk towards the Iron Curtain, the Berlin Wall, and then keep walking. This is a good example of ecumenical love: a love that hates the fundamentalists who honour a Virgin-born Saviour, and a love that brings into its bosom the servants of the Roman Antichrist.

Priest Manseau, one of the delegates to the congress, or observers to the congress from the Church of Rome, said in an interview with the Toronto Daily Star that his activities have the approval of the ecumenical commission of Boston’s Catholic Archdiocese, and the blessing of Richard Cardinal Cushing. He further stated, “Mr. Graham doesn’t represent church spires and stained glass windows, but goes amongst the common people talking about the love of Jesus for them.” The Toronto Daily Star, November 19th, continues, “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 Saint Billy.”

In The Christian and Christianity Today, July 14th, 1967, Dr. J. D. Douglas reports on Dr. Graham’s visits to Milan and Zagreb. In Zagreb in Yugoslavia a meeting was held “on a piece of land owned by the Roman Catholic Church, and overlooked by an army hospital administered by that church. Morning and afternoon services between them drew over 7,000 people.

“The weather cleared up by the afternoon and the sun was shining when Dr. Graham mounted the temporary rostrum with Dr. Branko Lovrec who had shared the work of interpretation with Dr. Horak. Back on the platform also were Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Lutheran clergy, who thus missed none of Dr. Graham’s three meetings in Zagreb.” The report goes on to close by stating that everyone linked hands to sing some verses of “Blest Be the Tie That Binds.” “This truly ecumenical occasion was seen not least in one group of five clergy, hands linked. It consisted of a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, two Orthodox and a Presbyterian minister.” Of the Saturday evening service the paper reports, “After the service the Roman Catholic Archbishop greeted him, that is Billy Graham, warmly, said how much he had appreciated Dr. Graham’s coming, and wished God’s continuing blessing on his ministry. Many others surged round to shake his hand and it was some time before he could make his way through the crowd outside to his cars.”

The Gaston Gazette, Wednesday November 22nd, 1967, a photostat copy of which appears in the section of this book “Documents Reproduced for Evidence”, stated that after receiving the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Humane Letters, D.H.L., from the Roman Catholic Abbey, Graham noted the significance of the occasion: “A time when Catholics and Protestants could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas ten years ago they could not.” Graham also said that he knew of no greater honour a North Carolina preacher reared just a few miles from here (Charlotte) could have, than to be presented with this degree. “I’m not sure that this couldn’t start me being called Father Graham,” he facetiously added. He concluded his message with these words, “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.”

These statements by Dr. Graham reveal just how far he has travelled down the Romeward road. First of all he says that he knows of no greater honour than to receive a degree from a Roman Catholic institution. This is an awful confession, and if an honour of this sort is to Dr. Graham the highest point that he could aim for, then his vision is most certainly marred by the darkness of Popery itself. A true minister of the gospel would regard the greatest honour to be the honour of walking in God’s will in such a manner as to receive not the plaudits and commendation of men, but the blessing and benediction of heaven.

Again Dr. Graham confesses that the gospel that built a Roman Catholic Abbey is the same gospel that he preaches and that it is still the way to salvation. What a confession! What a revelation! What a tragedy! The gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament has no common ground whatsoever with the false gospel of the Roman Antichrist. The gospel that Rome teaches comes under the condemnation of the apostolic writer Paul when he says, “Those that preach another gospel,” (and Rome’s gospel is most certainly another gospel) have to receive the anathema, the eternal curse of God Himself.

DR. GRAHAM AND THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Without a doubt the aim of both the National Council of Churches in America and the World Council of Churches on an international level is the final unity of all churches with the Roman Catholic Church. One of the first presidents of the World Council of Churches, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, at that time the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion, said that “if the Pope wanted to come in as chairman of a general council of churches, we would be glad to welcome him.” Both the leaders of the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches in America have made it clear that they want final union with the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Rolland Rasmussan, Pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Canoga Park, California, in his message, ‘Reasons why I cannot support Billy Graham”, delivered at Bob Jones University on February 15th, 1966, reports, “Billy Graham was asked in 1948 what he thought the World Council of Churches would do when they met that summer. He said, ‘I believe they will elect the Antichrist!’ In 1961 he said that the World Council of Churches, New Delhi Assembly could be another Pentecost. Times have changed, but God’s word never changes.”

The Ecumenical Press Service, July 14th, 1966, headed its story, “Billy Graham tells D.I.C.A.R.W.S.,” which stands for the Division of Inter-Church Aid, Refugee and World Service, “that he sees new ecumenical spirit.” The story reported, “London: Dr. Billy Graham, American evangelist, said here that he sees a new spirit in the world which he believes can be attributed to the ecumenical movement. He spoke to the concluding session of the summer meeting of the World Council of Churches Division of Inter-Church Aid, Refugee and World Service (D.I.C.A.R.W.S.).”

Dr. Graham had been conducting a month-long evangelistic campaign in London, in which he had preached to congregations totalling one million people. The D.I.C.A.R.W.S. meeting coincided with the end of the campaign.

“There is a new spirit of working together in the world, and this is true of my own relationships with churches,” Dr. Graham said. He told the committee that he was a man with an evangelical message and an ecumenical heart.

Dr. Graham recalled that he had attended the W.C.C.’s Third Assembly at New Delhi in 1961, and he hoped he would have the privilege of being at the Fourth Assembly at Uppsala, Sweden, in 1968. As a matter of fact, Dr. Graham was at the Fourth Assembly at Uppsala, Sweden, and was heard to remark in public to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, “God bless you, Sir.” For Dr. Graham to wish the Archbishop of Canterbury (the notable traitor who is doing his best to undermine the Protestant foundations both of the British Throne and the National Church) God’s blessing is of course a revelation of Graham’s thinking, of Graham’s theology and of Graham’s ecclesiastical way. Certainly it is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

On December 4th, 1966, the Miami Beach Daily Sun carried a headline “National Council of Churches asks Catholics in.” The story read, “The National Council of Churches — in one of the most dramatic developments of the ecumenical movement — has invited the Roman Catholic Church to add its endorsement of essential belief in the Council’s constitutional preamble.

“Roman Catholics in the past have sent observers to the conferences.

“If they accept the offer they will now be afforded a voice in the Council’s policies; but the Roman Catholic Church would neither be a member nor have a vote in Council affairs.

“Several members of the audience were fearful that the invitation would be embarrassing to ourselves, and to them.

“Dr. R. H. Edwin Espy, board secretary, said the Roman Catholic Church did not want to ask for closer association but did want the Council to extend its offer.

“Bishop Wesley Lord, chairman of the committee offering the resolution, commented that, ‘This is not something out of the blue.’ He said that greater co-operation was ‘in line with the spirit of the time in which we live.’

“John Coventry Smith of New York summed up the development of closer ties by saying, ‘I think that when someone courts another both know when they are ready to pop the question.'”

That was reported on December 4th, 1966. On December 6th, 1966, Billy Graham at the National Council of Churches luncheon responded to the introduction by Mrs. Norman Vincent Peale thus: “Ladies and gentlemen — when I was invited to speak here I wasn’t sure whether the programme committee had gotten the right Graham or not, because I was a little overwhelmed. I still am overwhelmed. And I’m sure that I owe, at least in part, this occasion to my long-time friend, and a person whom I admire so much, Mrs. Peale. I don’t know anyone who has done more for the kingdom of God than Norman and Ruth Peale, or who has meant any more in my life — the encouragement they have given me.

(Norman Vincent Peale is the well-known author of The Power of Positive Thinking and other books. His definition of faith is not faith in the atoning blood of Jesus or faith in the cross-work of the Lord Jesus Christ, or faith in Christ’s bodily resurrection. The trouble with Dr. Peale is that he does not believe in saving faith in Jesus Christ. He speaks of faith and the how of getting it, and what it will do for a person, but the one thing needful — Christ of the cross and the empty tomb — is found wanting. It becomes a case of any faith being valid which is successful in attaining the well-adjusted life. The accent is most definitely on the ability of the person who is seeking to come into possession of faith. However, Christ’s sacrifice is not the object of faith which results in forgiveness for the individual, as far as Dr. Peale is concerned. There is entirely too much trust in the power of positive thinking, and too little in the power of God unto salvation, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of God and Saviour of the world, in the message of Norman Vincent Peale. Yet Graham tells us that he has done more for the kingdom of God than anyone else that he knows. Peale’s message is not the gospel, but is a hotch-potch of psychology without Christ, and without hope, and leads to a delusion and not to God’s salvation.)

Graham continues, “But I am highly honoured to be here to address you. My denomination is not a member of the National Council of Churches, and I am reminded of a man that asked another one on the street (he was trying to do some sort of witness), and he went up to this man and said, ‘Are you a Christian?’ He said, ‘No, thank God, I am a Baptist!’ My wife is a Presbyterian. Her denomination is in the National Council so perhaps I am here by marriage.” Later in his remarks Dr. Graham said, “We need to remind ourselves of such scriptures as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, ‘Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.’ Now some people have interpreted that verse to mean the National Council — that you’re to come out and not touch the unclean thing. (Laughter) That’s not the meaning there; the meaning is the paganism — the evils of the world. Indeed we’re to go into the world, and mingle with the publicans and sinners, but we’re not to participate in the moral and social evils.” A press release from the National Council of Churches at Miami, dated December 5th, read, “Evangelist Billy Graham helped draw a capacity crowd to a discussion on evangelism tonight, held in connection with the National Council of Churches General Assembly.”

“Dr. Graham reviewed for the study group what went on at a recent world conference of evangelical Christians in Berlin.

“He denied there had been efforts at the Berlin meeting to organise a council of fundamentalists in competition with the World Council of Churches.

“Dr. Graham admitted there are basic differences in the approach to evangelism by different segments of Christianity, but observed:

“‘I find to the extreme right and the extreme left the same spirit — an exclusiveness, a hard dogmatism. And I sincerely believe there is room for something in between.’

“He declared the church must be concerned both with winning people to Christ and with social action. ‘People,’ he said, ‘must be converted from the world to Christ, and also from Christ back to the world.’ ‘There is a great section of the church that feels these two conversions go hand in hand, and I am one of them,’ he affirmed.”

It is quite evident that Dr. Graham is now a part of the ecumenical dialogue, and recognised by both the World Council and the National Council as an ecumenical evangelist. He has completed his journey to the ecumenical downgrade. Dr. M. H. Reynolds Jr., the superintendent of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association, commented, “Dr. Billy Graham gave the apostate National Council of Churches a tremendous boost in Miami, and the clear distinctions between truth and error were obliterated by his presence there — by his praise for apostates — by his twisting of scriptures — by his ridiculing of the fundamentalist position, and by his attempts to build a bridge of understanding between the poles of evangelism. Dr. Graham is leading some evangelicals into a closer co-operation and fellowship with the National and World Councils of Churches (whose leaders are false prophets), and this is contrary to the repeated commands of scripture. Dr. Graham is disobeying the Word of God. (Ephesians 5:11; II Corinthians 6:14-18; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14.) The issue is not Billy Graham as a person. The issue is whether or not believers will obey the Word of God or follow men. You must choose, but it is our obligation as a watchman to sound a warning. (Acts 20:17-31; Ezekiel 33:1-11)”

The Christian and Christianity Today of the 5th July, 1968, gave prominence to Dr. Graham’s recent pronouncement concerning Roman Catholics and Protestants. We quote: “Dr. Billy Graham, acknowledging the support Roman Catholics have given to his crusades, declared in San Antonio that Catholics and Protestants are not prepared for organic union.” At a press conference during his crusade in this Texas city, Dr. Graham discussed a wide range of subjects. He was introduced to newsmen by the Rev. Buckner Fanning, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church. “There is a new climate of understanding and dialogue between Protestants and Catholics,” Dr. Graham declared. “I am much closer to Catholic theology than I am to the extreme liberal theology of some Protestants. But from opinions that I hear expressed during my travels I’d say that Catholics are not ready for organic union, and neither are we. When I say we, I mean Protestants.” During the press conference Dr. Graham expressed his views on church union in the new era of ecumenism. “I don’t think we have to all unite and be one big church to do the work of God,” he said, “but there are areas where we can co-operate.” The evangelist said the Catholic Church had given “tremendous co-operation” in areas where he had held crusades, and added, “A great part of our support today comes from Catholics. We never hold a crusade without priests and nuns being much in evidence in the audience.”

It is quite evident from this latest pronouncement that Dr. Graham is convinced that evangelism is one of the areas in which he can co-operate with the Roman Catholic Church. He eulogises the Church of Rome and says that Roman Catholics have given him tremendous co-operation in the areas where he has held his crusades, and further he has added that a great part of his support today comes from “Catholics”.

Dr. Noel Smith, the editor of The Baptist Bible Tribune, commenting on Dr. Graham’s statement at the Roman Catholic College of Belmont Abbey, Belmont, North Carolina, that things have changed in the last ten years between Protestants and Catholics, says: “There was a time when Protestants protested — protested against every basic and decisive doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. But today the only people the Protestants protest against are the people who seriously and intelligently believe what a Protestant is supposed to believe. Reformation Day long ago became an offence to most Protestants. Nowadays, Reformation Day is a day for Protestant orators — if you can call the artificial jargon oratory — to tell the audience how much like the Roman Catholics the Protestants are. If Mr. Graham had ever one time in his public life denounced Roman Catholic persecution of Baptists and Protestants would he have received the Roman Catholic hood? (The hood of the Roman Catholic Doctorate which he received.) If Mr. Graham had ever one time in his public life declared that the difference between Roman Catholic Baptism and salvation by personal faith in the Atoning Blood of Christ, was the difference between Hell and Heaven, would he have received a Roman Catholic hood? If Mr. Graham had ever one time in his public life declared that the Inspired Word of God was the sole rule of faith and practice, and that the proposition that tradition was of equal authority in matters of faith and practice was a doctrine of demons, would he have received a Roman Catholic hood? Now before you write us and tell us what ignoramuses and bigots we are, how jealous we are, what pharisaical sectarians we are, you get the book of Acts and read it straight through, and then you compare the evangelism of the book of Acts with the evangelism of Billy Graham. There is a difference between principle and expediency.”

E. J. Grant writes, “Mr. Graham is not a Protestant by any stretch of the imagination. His betrayal of true Protestantism into the hands of such enemies of God as the National Council of Churches, and the old mother of harlots herself, absolutely forbids that he be called a Protestant. He has never had a word of protest against this chief enemy of the true saints of God, but has sent some of his converts into Roman Catholic Churches; also he has spoken in their colleges and he has the commendation of their bishops and of Cardinal Cushing, Boston, Massachusetts. In a crusade meeting in Montevideo he had a Roman Catholic bishop ‘bless’ each convert that came forward! Space forbids or we could tell of many incidents that displayed his double-minded wickedness in ways altogether contrary to God’s way of truth and holiness… ‘A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.’ Never form an opinion of Romanism by what she is in the U.S.A. Know her history for one thousand years back, and what she is in Mexico, South America and any nation where she holds sway; and more important know what God has to say of this evil system of lying doctrine, and its final end as the mother of harlots in Revelation chapter 18. Go to any of these Roman Catholic countries and see how Roman Catholicism has dulled the minds, heart and conscience of countless millions of souls with ignorance, superstition and poverty.”

As the final climax to this question we will quote the following from a booklet by Dr. C. S. DeVold The 1914 Cause of World War I: “Romanism is not Christianity in any sense, but a gross travesty on religion. It is a poisonous plant, germinated in the hot house of hell, which grows and thrives in wars and corruption. Therefore is it any wonder that humanity groped in the dark for a thousand years? Popery had destroyed all sacred writings and put out the lights of secular education. Yes, Rome still is, and ever has been, the Jezebel of Revelation; the seducer and murderer of the true saints of God. With millions of martyrs waiting the day of God’s judgement that will be meted out to this corrupted system of thinly disguised idolatry and superstition.

With Mexico and most of South America kept in darkness and poverty indescribable; and true Protestant missionaries hated, persecuted and even murdered by the priests of this evil system, when they in love and pity for these benighted people seek to bring the true gospel of our adorable Lord and Saviour to them. And still this counterfeit evangelist will hobnob and cater to this evil system; and worse still lead millions of Christians worldwide on in his evil way by example. That any true Christian will defend such wickedness is utterly incomprehensible to us. The only clue to this will be found in Lot, the father of Moabites and the Ammonites, both by his own daughters — and yet we learn from inspiration that Lot has a righteous soul!”

BILLY’S BACKSLIDING

The Rev. Jack Glass, the leader of the Sovereign Grace Evangelical Baptists of Scotland has issued the following prayer for Billy Graham: “Lord, forgive Dr. Graham for causing division among those who love the Lord Jesus. Forgive him for breaking down the walls of separation from apostasy (II Corinthians 6; Ephesians 5:11; II John 1:10) and thus helping the World Council of Christless Churches. Forgive him for being friendly with modernists who blaspheme the Name of Jesus (II Chronicles 19:2). Forgive him for sending his converts back to the Papal Antichrist. Forgive him for turning the sheep for whom Christ died over to modernistic ministers, who as wolves will tear them asunder. Heal his backsliding. For Jesus’ sake, Amen.”

(To be continued.)