BILLY GRAHAM ON THE HOUR OF POWER WITH ROBERT SCHULLER

Date June 12, 2007

Ken Silva at Apprising Ministires shares this post with us. You need to read this one.

You can find the post here !

Category Posted in Billy Graham

2 Responses to “BILLY GRAHAM ON THE HOUR OF POWER WITH ROBERT SCHULLER”

  1. Amanda Cares Alot said:

    October 24th, 2007 at 1:26 am

    What do you guys do for a living? Is this it? Ok some of you probably hold down awesome jobs. No doubt. I’ve already been able to make friends with a couple “non-ecuminical” baptist folk which I previously worked with over ten years ago. I told them to quit cursing the darkness and begin shining the light. They just laughed. At least they laughed…that was a good start. They said they wanted to curse the darkness AND shine the light. Well okay. I wouldn’t hesitate to say that at least one of those fellows is doing the work of the Lord as a missionary and the other is a pastor I believe. Ok great. Yet when it comes to this non-ecuminical paranoia, I have this to say. I prefer Christ’s disclipes seen in scrupture to the attitude conveyed by those who think they are being “non-ecuminical”. Why? Because Christ’s disciples were more duplicatable and one could relate more to their state of deprived humanity…more so than the pharasee type attitude Christ lacked appreciation for. “Pharasuticalness” is just another form of deprived humanity…it’s just that less people can relate to it and it’s not very convincing. But forget convincing…leave the results up to God, right? EXACTLY! Christ chose people who many of us (although I can’t speak for you) would consider as losers. From a human perspective many a leader would not have chosen such people. However, this is what I benefit from when Christ chose disciples who were clearly less than perfect. One can begin to see the corrilation between the struggles the disciples were having and oneself. As far as trying to catch people in an unlawful act (or doctrine) goes….you know which group in the new testament was good at that. (The pharasees). I will briefly commend the pharisees for their dedication. (Clap, Clap, Clap). I mean, I believe it was the pharasees or a similar group that helped in preserving the scriptures as they copied them. The scribes took spelling any name of God very seriously and it was very sobering for them…something I find very difficult to fathom and contemplate. Wow. Ok back to pharisees trying to catch people in the act. Even me trying to catch you being a pharasee is somewhat hypocritical of me. If I’m willing to take at least a passing glance at my actions and behaviours can’t you do the same and find just as much wrong in yourself as you could find in anybody else? And expect to find something just as upsetting to yourself as what you find in other people? (Some of which are Billy Graham for crying out loud…not that He’s above reproach, but He’s above your reproach.) Their’s just as much dirt there lurking beneath the surface of your piety as what you think there is in something or someone else. Christ washing your slate clean is exactly that, not an excuse to not grow up and refuse to see the need to grow up. Christ’s blood is always good enough to wash your sins away upon you confessing it before Him in true repentence. Confess your sins as often as you need to. What I’m trying to avoid is you coming at me saying that I said that Christ’s blood isn’t good enough when in fact that’s not what I said or am about to say. Not at all. What I am saying is that even sinning after Christ washed your sin away is in itself a sin of its own. So you sin again, you confess your sin again. So don’t avoid or neglect examining yourself in the name of there being no sin there due to Christ having already having washed it away. Why not do that? Because you sin again and you may be reminded of what Christ said to the pharasees, “Because you say you have no sin your sin remains.” I don’t know if they thought the blood of bulls and goats made it so they didn’t have to see what they needed to see in themselves or what. It was in the name of something noble and religous that kept them from seeing. “Because you say you see your sin remains” might be a more accurate quotation. So I told you to look at yourself and indicated that that might be a good thing. Are you self-condemning too? Wait a minute…self condemnation might not be good either but at least if you could see momentarily what you are doing to other people and maybe even what you are doing to yourself is not edifying to the body of Christ…then upon examining yourself the plank would be out of your eye to think about even having a discernment type ministry for those who have specks in their eyes…no, after repenting you wouldn’t waste your time on the specks as you sometimes do now. Go after the planks. I mean, if your going to be discerning you need to include yourself in that whole process and search deep enough to find something just as sobering internally as you would externally. I think you have the ability. Don’t destroy yourself in the process. Allow for God’s mercy…He does have that attribute as well as judgement you know. Even if the Bride is sick it doesn’t need you or me as it’s doctor. So I don’t know if I should tell you to give yourself your own medicine or not, hopefully a small dose will just taste bad enough to stop and won’t take you farther away from being well. You already know who the Bride of Christ needs (Christ) but already knowing doesn’t mean you still don’t need to know. And it’s knowing Christ that’s even more important than dis-association. Even you would say that the way to catch counterfeit money is to study (or associate) real money. Furthermore it was the Pharasees who weren’t happy who Jesus hung out and ate with or with whom he associated. (I already know that’s no excuse for me to hang out with whoever just because I can point to that being in scripture…so spare yourself). And allow me to address this whole thing of catching someone making referrence to someone else’s quote who isn’t biblical from your perspective. While it’s probably better not to take or use someone’s quote with whom you don’t yourself agree with, implicating a person based on who they quoted doesn’t always make them guilty of whatever you’re trying to make them guilty of. Guilty by association, right? Guilty by association doesn’t always implicate. Of course if someone passionately quotes a person in history known as being evil then there’s more than likely a problem. However, even Jesus allowed Himself to refer to Herod’s inscription on a coin as the pharasees were trying to catch him in a quote they were intending to broadcast to cause problems. While that may not quite be the same, it bears some significance and consideration. If someone basically lived their whole life out of line with God’s word, and they came up with one good impactful quotation, I still hope there may be some redeptive value in the one good thing they did come up with…one can always preface the fact that this person thought this way about this or that and you don’t agree with that aspect. Even pagans know enough about the truth to know where their mouth is, I mean they’re not usually blocking their view with spoonfuls of food. Associate with Jesus, don’t exclude him from your fellowship in the name of only including Him. “If you did it to the least of these, You did it to me.” That scripture right there is a stronger implication against yourself than Billy Graham being implicated for quoting the wrong person. The implication is if you exclude the “least of these” you may end up excluding the One you intended to include by means of excluding everyone else other than yourself. That’s the main danger I see right now amidst probably worse dangers concerning this whole non-ecuminical doctrine.

  2. Amanda Cares Alot said:

    October 25th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Oh…I meant Caesar’s inscription, I shouldn’t have said Herod’s inscription. Woops.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>