Posted on 11/08/2014 6:51:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Billy Graham is ringing in his 96th year with friends and family on Friday, and fellow faith leaders are sending an outpouring of well wishes to the famed evangelical preacher today.
In a far cry from last year's birthday celebration involving over 800 guests, Graham is marking his birthday this year with a quiet celebration at his Montreat, NC home, according to a press release issued on Nov. 7. Will Graham, the grandson of Billy Graham, was unavailable for comment to The Christian Post, but his father Franklin assured fans that the 96-year-old is doing well.
"Although his physical condition keeps him homebound, he remains interested in current events and the ongoing work of the ministry that he began more than 60 years ago," said Billy Graham's eldest son.
The president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association also announced the debut of "Heaven," the latest "My Hope with Billy Graham" film, which features a never-before-seen message from Billy.
"Opportunities like 'My Hope' and the 'Heaven' film are ways that we can help my father to continue the work that God called us to do," Franklin added. "Please pray for my father, and for those who will watch this film, that they too may know the peace found in Jesus Christ."
Recorded last year, the message conveys a still-passionate Billy Graham who discussed his imminent death.
"I know I'm going to heaven. I'm looking forward to it with great anticipation," Graham says in the film before explaining how people can share that same faith.
Despite his struggle with deteriorating eyesight and hearing, Graham still enjoys daily devotions, Bible reading and prayer with his staff, as well as visits with family and close friends. On his 96th birthday, many of Graham's friends, including Saddleback Church's Rick Warren, posted special messages on social media.
"Happy #96th to my oldest mentor #BillyGraham. Thanks for guiding, defending and loving me for 35 yrs," the pastor wrote on Twitter.
I did not read “holy and Catholic” in the text of John.
If Jesus miraculously provided His actual body and blood that night what
then was the need for Calvary?
The reformation?
How’s church discipline working with regards to brazen sinners still receiving communion?
At the Last Supper did the disciples consume the physical body and blood of Christ as He stood before them?
If so why was Calvary necessary if Christ in the Last Supper established the sacrament that would provide eternal life?
Or do you believe transubstantiation was instituted AFTER Christ’s death and resurrection given before His resurrection the prophecies were not completely fulfilled; and Jesus Christ had yet had a glorified body?
Your links revealed Frakies friend who knew the family well, said Frankie was not being honest.
Please, do you really want to discuss churches, sexual misconduct and lack of accountability?
Yes, I read the review. The friend was not there when it was just father, mother, and son. Nor was he there their whole lives. His perceptions do not invalidate Frank's; it seems like the typical Preacher's Kid movie to me. Why do you call him Frankie ?
Please, do you really want to discuss churches, sexual misconduct and lack of accountability?
Are you a Bill Gothard supporter ?
That's just it, it HASN'T been "debunked" - ever. The current doctrine ya'll follow wasn't even widely discussed, much less held universally, until the Fourth Lateran Council in the THIRTEENTH century! It wasn't until the Council of Trent three hundred years later that it was declared as official dogma. So, only to Roman Catholics, maybe - the elitist, sola ecclesia kind, has this idea been debunked.
I think it's quite telling how far you are taking this denial of the JESUS CHRIST spoken words of the term "born again", not to mention the times St. Peter used it as well. Are you saying they were both engaging in hopelessly useless and unnecessary theatrical fads? I think you should be careful skating so close to blasphemy.
The Catholic view affirms the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist in that Christ is “truly, really, and substantially” present and the elements are mysteriously changed, transformed, and become the body and blood, along with the soul and divinity of Christ, the whole Christ. Also, we believe the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, in that the one and only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is “re-presented” or “made present” for our benefit and application today. I shall call this the “literal” or “realist” view. Why do Catholics (and Orthodox) believe this? First, we believe it is a solidly biblical teaching. Second, we know it is the clear and unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, those early Saints, Bishops, and immediate successors of the Apostles, the Christian believers for the first several centuries of Christianity. The evidence for the Catholic belief in the Eucharist is simply overwhelming.
Do you acknowledge that the Aristotelian ideas of "real" and "substance" played a large part in the development of the dogma of transubstantiation?
Is it your claim that the doctrine of "Transubstantiation" has ALWAYS been the belief of the Catholic church?
Is it your belief that unless a person also believes as RCs do, they are not going to be saved?
Is it your belief that ONLY the Roman Catholic church has a "valid Eucharist" and no other church can enjoin members in the observance of the Lord's Supper?
God Bless Billy Graham
Don’t even know who Gothard is. But do know about pederast and pedophile priests and the horrible accountability or lack thereof.
He was known as Frankie when his father was still alive. Even when he dishonored his father by carting him on stage infirm and with advancing dementia.
I do find it odd Catholics seem to take the word of confirmed atheists and agnostics and try to point blame to their church failing. Yet when RCs born and bred end the same way, the church is not at fault and the fallen RC is somehow self excommunicated.
There is no spiritual ID check in place of which I'm aware. No one can deceive the Holy Spirit though. I don't find communion in Protestant churches to be consistent, nor do I find it to be genuine. It seems to be a groping in the dark for an authenticity that eludes them. They don't really know what to do with it.
Bill Gothard was prominent in Fundamentalist and Evangelical circles for a soMewhat expensive seminar he sold . I would not be surprised if the Schaeffers were clients and the type of product Frank objected to when he wrote. On February 27, 2014 the Board of Directors of the Institute in Basic Life Principles placed Gothard on indefinite administrative leave while it investigated claims that he sexually harassed and molested several female employees.[28] The claims had been publicized on Recovering Grace, a website and support group for former followers of Gothard's teachings.[29] As many as 34 women who worked for Gothard claim that he harassed them; four claim that he molested them,[1] and one of the accusers claims that Gothard molested her when she was 16 years old.[30]
He was known as Frankie when his father was still alive. Even when he dishonored his father by carting him on stage infirm and with advancing dementia.
Did they do that with Billy Graham too ? He seemed to lose his memories in his 80s when the issue of certain antisemitic conversations with President Nixon came up. Billy Graham said he couldn't remember. He must have lost his memories. Otherwise he lied and could not be a genuine Christian in a state of grace. So he must have started losing it even before then. Yet they still trotted him out to be on TV, and asked for money. Of course the conversations were taped and came to public light.
I do find it odd Catholics seem to take the word of confirmed atheists and agnostics and try to point blame to their church failing. Yet when RCs born and bred end the same way, the church is not at fault and the fallen RC is somehow self excommunicated.
Frank Schaeffer is a confirmed Evangelical who has fallen away because he regards the movement as hypocritical, phony, etc. As such, he is an embarrassment and threat to himself, if not the movement.
>>I don’t find communion in Protestant churches to be consistent, nor do I find it to be genuine. It seems to be a groping in the dark for an authenticity that eludes them. They don’t really know what to do with it.<<
It’s really not that difficult. The Lord’s Supper was clear and simple in the apostolic churches. Paul lays out the do’s and don’ts in 1 Corinthians 11 and told us that each time we gather and eat the bread and drink the cup we proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes again.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Corinth was a problem church and 1 Corinthians was sent to correct problems. They were doing it wrong. They did not discern the Lord's body for one thing. All the churches in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee would have been doing it properly. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Your last post was revealing. Do you have knowledge of the ministry of Francis Schaeffer? He was far from a Televangelist. His ministry was to the academics and intelligensia of Western Europe and North American. He saw the rise of the counter culture, liberalism, atheistic humanism, and Darwinistic evolution. He saw our Western Christian faith and culture crumbling and focused his ministry on battling (apologetics) the counter culture and engaging academia with the Truth of Christ. He was also an artist (Frankie inherited those genes) and film producer of some apologetics films.
You might even agree with many of his books.
>>Frank Schaeffer is a confirmed Evangelical who has fallen away because he regards the movement as hypocritical, phony, etc. As such, he is an embarrassment and threat to himself, if not the movement.<<
How is he a “confirmed” Evangelical? This is where we have a huge philosophical difference. Not everyone sitting in Christian pews are Christians. I mean your own church affirms people in rebellion to doctrine self excommunicated.
Well we can test this out can’t we? Will an Evangelical church allow Frankie to be a member of their church, break bread with them? Not a chance unless he is repentant.
Is Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry still receiving communion?
Again never heard of Gothard. I have heard of a lot of Evangelical ministries, but not Gothard.
These sins usually happen when one person lifts himself up over others.
Gothard harassed and sexuality molested women. Scores of priests have molested and raped teen boys and young boys.
Both categories of sinful people are headed to the fire pit unless they repent and put on Christ.
Still not seeing “holy Catholic.”
Where’s transubstantiation inferred in the text?
Do you think Frank and Edith were confirmed Evangelicals ? I think I know why you assume not everyone sitting in Christian pews are Christians, but since you assert it, why should I regard any individual sitting in Evangelical pews a Christian ? Why not take your assertion, throw out OSAS, and make them prove it until their last day. Only then would you admit they are a Christian. Cognitive dissonance; Frank Schaeffer was a Christian, as were his parents (you should read what his mother allegedly said to him), and Frank has fallen away.
>>Corinth was a problem church and 1 Corinthians was sent to correct problems. They were doing it wrong. They did not discern the Lord’s body for one thing. All the churches in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee would have been doing it properly.<<
An interesting interpretation after the fact. I agree getting drunk and turning communion into a social event and causing divisions and excluding some to partake is doing it wrong and Paul is correcting such. He then explains the Lord’s Supper is solemn and for all who have examined themselves worthy may partake.
That’s a far throw from saying Paul confirms the doctrine of transubstantiation. The context here is not Christians denying the literal bread and wine changing to flesh and blood of Christ. The context shows the Corinthians were being gluttonous and drunks at the sacred gathering to eat the bread and drink the cup to proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes again.
This is what happens when man tries to back read doctrines into texts.
Parable of the soils my friend. All of our pews have every type of soil.
I was born, baptized, educated, confirmed in the Roman Catholic church. A very practicing and active Irish Catholic family. Honestly I saw the majority of my peers who were confirmed with me hardly show up to church after confirmation. As the years went on not attending at all. The hope is they would come back, went to another parish or moved away. We don’t know for sure
My Evangelical church experience was similar. Some hear the Word, are excited and a few months or couple of years later never show up again. The hope is they will come back, or they found another church or moved. We don’t know for sure.
As Acts 2 tells us the Lord adds to the church. And Jesus told His disciples the parable of the soils and the wheat and tares.
So yes the wheat and tares sometimes sit side by side and Satan is no respecter of denominations or churches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.