Will Billy Graham go to heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TylerAlex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus said,"I am the way,the truth and life."He is the truth so you need to seek him for the truth.
 
**ImageofGod>>Dave is right, to an extent. Graham can be saved, but it is not as assured as a holy Catholic who has the full truth. **

Let me get this straight. Catholics believe they are the only ones who have the full truth yet they only “hope” for salvation whereas us Protestants don’t have the full truth but we still believe in a know so salvation? If Catholics only “hope” for salvation while us Protestants believe in a know so salvation, how can you then say that BG is not as assured as a “holy Catholic”? :eek:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but anyone who has Christ has the fullness of truth. It don’t matter if I’m Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal or full blown Amish…if I have Christ I have the fullness of truth. Is truth Jesus…or the Church?
 
TylerAlex said:
But what exactly is the “truth” you are getting at?
Click to expand...
From a Catholic point of view, the Truth is a person, Jesus Christ. When one departs from “dogma” which is defined as “revealed truth” then one contends against Jesus Christ.

For instance, Billy Graham’s Bible only has 66 books. He rejects the dogma that the Bible has 73 books. Such contention against truth is a damnable sin. To what extent is Billy Graham culpable of the objectively grave sin of rejected chapters and versus of the written Word of God? I dunno. That takes an omniscience that I do not have. However, I do know that his rejection of dogma is a damnable sin to which we are called, like Christ to say, “sin no more.” Why? Because the implications of being on the opposite side of truth is eternal damnation, IF the subjective elements (known only to God) of full advertence of intellect and perfect consent of will are present. It would be highly imprudent of God’s faithful to presume those subjective elements are NOT present, and therefore we can simply precind from teaching the DOGMAS we know to be God’s Divine relevation to those who contend against such Dogmas.

Does that make sense? In other words, we know there are grave material sins which are damaging to his soul, the extent of which we cannot say. It may result in eternal damnation if the sin is formal, that is, the “form” of mortal sin (full advertence/perfect consent) is also present. Whether the grave sin is merely material or formal, we are called to enlighted those who are on the oppostie side of truth. We are called to “instruct the ignorant” and “admonish the sinner” as these are among the spiritual works of mercy. We are call to hold fast to Divine and Revealed truth, and always uphold it and refute error, to strive to convert others to that same truth.

Why care about material grave sin which is not also formal? Because material grave sin is still damaging to one’s soul, even if he is not perfectly culpable. It is also damaging to the souls of others influenced by him, and we may not presume that these souls who contend against truth, even if doing so ignorantly, will not suffer eternal damnation for their ignorance. To the extant that ignorance of what we are bound to know is voluntary, it is a sin which is culpable. Our job is not to judge the culpability of such material sins, but instead our job is to teach the truth and to point out the aweful consequences of grave sin, and with the help of God’s grace teaching and converting all that we can to the truth.
 
JWilson said:
I believe he is going to heaven without a doubt.That is only my belief and of course not the final authority on that matter.He spent 60 years telling people that God loves them and how they can be saved.Protestants believe that we can have a ‘know so’ salvation as apposed to a "hope so’ one that catholics believe.We believe in Bible based teaching and anything that contradicts or adds to what is written is wrong and a sin.The word doctrine came about because of different interpretations of the Bible.You can’t tell me the rosary,confessing sins to a priest,hailing Mary, and purgatory are in the Bible.So if they are not in the Bible who made these things up?The Church?Without the Bible how would we even know how to live?It is the inspired word of God and I choose to live by it rather than what the church doctrine tells me I can and cannot do.How would I know a lie if I didn’t have the Bible to tell me so ?'Jesus loves me this I know,for the Bible tells me so.I should hope if a priest gives a sermon that it is Bible based and not something off the top of his head or something only the catholic church says to be true.I think this is where the catholics and protestants differ the most.
Click to expand...
What if you are wrong and there is more to it?

There is very strong evidence to support the contrary. That is a pretty strong bet to make… and the consequences of losing that bet are huge.

What would make you change your mind?
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
From a Catholic point of view, the Truth is a person, Jesus Christ. When one departs from “dogma” which is defined as “revealed truth” then one contends against Jesus Christ.

For instance, Billy Graham’s Bible only has 66 books. He rejects the dogma that the Bible has 73 books. Such contention against truth is a damnable sin. To what extent is Billy Graham culpable of the objectively grave sin of rejected chapters and versus of the written Word of God? I dunno. That takes an omniscience that I do not have. However, I do know that his rejection of dogma is a damnable sin to which we are called, like Christ to say, “sin no more.” Why? Because the implications of being on the opposite side of truth is eternal damnation, IF the subjective elements (known only to God) of full advertence of intellect and perfect consent of will are present. It would be highly imprudent of God’s faithful to presume those subjective elements are NOT present, and therefore we can simply precinde from teaching the DOGMAS we know to be God’s Divine relevation.

Does that make sense? In other words, we know there are grave material sins which are damaging to his soul, the extent of which we cannot say. It may result in eternal damnation is the sin is formal, that is, the “form” of mortal sin (full advertence/perfect consent) is also present. Whether the grave sin is merely material or forma, we are called to enlighted those who are on the oppostie side of truth. We are called to “instruct the ignorant” and “admonish the sinner” as these are among the spiritual works of merlcy. We are call to hold fast to Divine and Revealed truth, and always uphold it and refute error, to strive to convert others to that same truth.

Why care about material grave sin which is not also formal? Because material grave sin is still damaging to one’s soul, even if he is not perfectly culpable. It is also damaging to the souls of others, and we may not presume that these souls who contend against truth, even if doing so ignorantly, will not suffer eternal damnation for their ignorance. To the extant that ignorance of what we are bound to know is voluntary, it is a sin which is culpable. Our job is not to judge the culpability of such material sins, but instead our job is to teach the truth and to point out the aweful consequences of grave sin, converting all that we can to the truth.
Click to expand...
Wow… you have earned my profound respect with your post. Thank you… and I mean that sincerely.

Don’t you find it immensely intriguing that one could be one of the greatest evangalists in the world… presumably show profound works and fruits… and still be so close to losing salvation?

This all brings the fraility of such down to a personal level for me. We must remain ever so vigilant.
 
What if I’m wrong ?I have to believe what the Bible says and believe it is inspired by God.
As for your Bible having 73 books and ours has 66,who wrote the other 7 that we don’t have?Is there a date at which they were added?Were they inspired by God?Do these books hold the many teachings that the protestants object to?
 
JWilson said:
What if I’m wrong ?I have to believe what the Bible says and believe it is inspired by God.
Click to expand...
You have to know what the Holy Bible consists of, don’t you? The Protestant abbreviated version, for example, has a* truncated* version of the Book of Daniel. Every ancient Christian manuscript, thousands upon thousands extant, testify to the larger version of Daniel. By what authority do Protestants truncate the inspired Book of Daniel accepted by EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH before the advent of Protestantism?

Same with the Book of Esther. EVERY Christian manuscript tesitifies to a larger version than the truncated Protestant version. The Protestant version of Esther does not even mention God!!!
As for your Bible having 73 books and ours has 66,who wrote the other 7 that we don’t have?
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit.
Is there a date at which they were added?
Click to expand...
They were canonized at the same time as the rest of the Christian Bible, in AD 382, according to even Protestant historians.
Were they inspired by God?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Do these books hold the many teachings that the protestants object to?
Click to expand...
I dunno…read the Catholic Book of Esther here, it DOES mention God. Do you object to it? If so, why?

The Catholic Book of Daniel can be read here. As I said, every Christian Church, EVERY ONE OF THEM, accepted these books before the Protestants carved them out of the Holy Bible. I find that rather disconcerting, as should any Christian.
 
Image_of_God said:
Fr. Most does a wonderful article on “No Salvation Outside the Church.”
I hope this helps Tyler:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura5.htm
Click to expand...
This article comes as close to arguing for salvation outside the church that I have seen yet presented in this thread.

However, he does not go far enough. He fails to discuss specifically where people can cross the line in their ignorance or degree of separation from the Catholic Church, and the implications for such.

In the end he declares the following:
That fact that salvation is possible in this way does not mean that there should be no missions or attempts to bring back the Protestants. Richer and more secure means of salvation are to be had with formal explicit adherence to the Catholic Church. Therefore we need to make every effort.
Click to expand...
Is that what the Catholic Church comes down to (as compared to other denominations and faiths)… a richer and more secure means of salvation?

It just seems to me there are greater stakes than that.
 
Tyler,
It’s really sad to hear that you think Billy has done some great works but is risking his salvation by not obeying the catholic church doctrine.You really have no idea what salvation is Tyler.When I read your very early statements a few days back you made us to believe that you were a new catholic and wanted answers to questions.You have attempted to completely condemn the protestants faith as well as Billy Graham.You know the catholic doctrine more than you make out to know and are out to prove that protestants have it all wrong and may not make it to heaven.You chose a key figure in the protestant church to bash.I would question your own salvation and not Billy’s or any other protestants.You’re offensive and I’m so glad not all catholics are like you because you’re a very poor representative of the faith.You attempt to play the innocent card and yet you know exactly what you’re doing and what you’re doing is wrong.
 
Dave,

I would really like to read these books and to further investigate what you say to be true.I am very interested as to what they may contain and who wrote them.The Holy Spirit inspired whom to write them?
 
JWilson said:
Tyler,
It’s really sad to hear that you think Billy has done some great works but is risking his salvation by not obeying the catholic church doctrine.You really have no idea what salvation is Tyler.When I read your very early statements a few days back you made us to believe that you were a new catholic and wanted answers to questions.You have attempted to completely condemn the protestants faith as well as Billy Graham.You know the catholic doctrine more than you make out to know and are out to prove that protestants have it all wrong and may not make it to heaven.You chose a key figure in the protestant church to bash.I would question your own salvation and not Billy’s or any other protestants.You’re offensive and I’m so glad not all catholics are like you because you’re a very poor representative of the faith.You attempt to play the innocent card and yet you know exactly what you’re doing and what you’re doing is wrong.
Click to expand...
You continually elevate the discussion to personal attacks… many times on me. I have never once levied an attack on you. I believe I have maintained a high level of respect for Billy Graham, while at the same time asking a an important question.

My own faith in Catholicism is between me and God.

I have been honest with my intentions regarding posing this question, and the questions related to this thread. I claim a strong ignorance of the Catholic Faith… but also a desire to learn as much as I can.

I am just trying to find answers… I am sorry if your own insecurity and prejuduces are affecting you like this. All I can do if offer prayer for you.
 
TylerAlex said:
…Is that what the Catholic Church comes down to (as compared to other denominations and faiths)… a richer and more secure means of salvation?

It just seems to me there are greater stakes than that.
Click to expand...
And what if they did join the Catholic Church? Does that assure them of eternal glory in heaven? I personally know of some Protestants who adhere* more closely* to Catholic teachings than many Catholics I know.

My point is that whoever contends against Catholic faith is in need of fraternal correction, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or none of the above. If Paul could give Peter fraternal correction, as St. Catherine gave Pope Gregory, then certainly Billy Graham is not immune.

With regard to fraternal correction, **Pope Benedict XVI **teaches:
Fraternal correction is a work of mercy. None of us sees himself or his shortcomings clearly. It is therefore an act of love to complement one another, to help one another see each other better, and correct each other.
Click to expand...
I think that one of the very functions of collegiality is to help one another, also in the sense of the previous imperative, to know the shortcomings that we ourselves do not want to see - “ab occultis meis munda me” [from my secret ones cleanse me - Psalm 18:13 Douay-Rheims] , the Psalm says - to help one another to open ourselves and to see these things.
Click to expand...
Of course, this great work of mercy, helping one another so that each of us can truly rediscover his own integrity and functionality as an instrument of God, demands great humility and love.
Click to expand...
Only if it comes from a humble heart that does not rank itself above others, that does not consider itself better than others but only a humble instrument to offer reciprocal help; only if we feel this true and deep humility, if we feel that these words come from common love, from the collegial affection in which we want to serve God together, can we help one another in this regard with a great act of love.
Click to expand...
Here too the Greek text adds some nuances. The Greek word is “paracaleisthe”; it is the same root as the word “Paracletos, paraclesis”, to comfort. It does not only mean to correct but also to comfort, to share the other’s sufferings, to help him in his difficulties. And this also seems to me a great act of true collegial affection. (Pope Benedict XVI, Opening of the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 3 October 2005)
Click to expand...
 
Tyler,
Back in 1983 I went to BC Place Stadium (Canada)to see Billy Graham and Mother Theresa on the same podium.Mother Theresa did not see it as an opportunity to convert protestants but instead to join hands with Billy Graham,put aside our differences and present the good news to all people.Mother Theresa would not have flown all that way to a Billy Graham crusade if she thought he was preaching heresy.I have always admired her for not having a judging bone in her body.
You say you’re not attacking me personally but if you attack Billy Graham or any other protestant you are indeed attacking me and my “protestant” beliefs.I can’t imagine how many catholics would scold me if I were to pose the question ‘will Mother Theresa go to Heaven’.Can you not see that?Are there any catholics out there who would agree with what I’m saying?
 
Tyler** is **attacking you, me and every other Protestant personally. I’ll explain myself if I have to but I’m sure it’s not necessary. I will be nice though…and not report it.
 
JWilson said:
Tyler,
Back in 1983 I went to BC Place Stadium (Canada)to see Billy Graham and Mother Theresa on the same podium.Mother Theresa did not see it as an opportunity to convert protestants but instead to join hands with Billy Graham,put aside our differences and present the good news to all people.Mother Theresa would not have flown all that way to a Billy Graham crusade if she thought he was preaching heresy.I have always admired her for not having a judging bone in her body.
You say you’re not attacking me personally but if you attack Billy Graham or any other protestant you are indeed attacking me and my “protestant” beliefs.I can’t imagine how many catholics would scold me if I were to pose the question ‘will Mother Theresa go to Heaven’.Can you not see that?Are there any catholics out there who would agree with what I’m saying?
Click to expand...
I sent you a private message offering reconciliation.

My apologies to any I have offended. The last post by itsjustdave1988 reminded me that we are to be charitable in our ways… and, if I have not been so in my manner anywhere in these forums… I offer my most sincerest apologies.

Blessings.
 
TylerAlex said:
This article comes as close to arguing for salvation outside the church that I have seen yet presented in this thread.

However, he does not go far enough. He fails to discuss specifically where people can cross the line in their ignorance or degree of separation from the Catholic Church, and the implications for such.

In the end he declares the following:

Is that what the Catholic Church comes down to (as compared to other denominations and faiths)… a richer and more secure means of salvation?

It just seems to me there are greater stakes than that.
Click to expand...
Well, not to be mean, but how far does he need to go? Is he supposed to go as far as you wish, or go as far as the truth? The Catholic Church excommunicated Feeney in the 40’s for teaching that everyone is damned if not in the Catholic Church directly. The Church is a surer way to be saved, since Protestantism and Catholicism cannot be perfectly true at the same time, one of them has elements that are false and therefore harmful to one’s salvation. I believe the latter to be true.
Not the Fr. Most is not “arguing” for Salvation Outside the Church, he is teaching what the Church has taught from the beginning.
Again, people are not God. Only God knows who is truly ignorant and who is not. People cannot decide that.

I will try to explain that:
The Catholic Church is the only means of Salvation for those who know it contains all the truths of Jesus.
It is a more securer means of Salvation for those who do not understand the Church, but are Christian. It should not be doubted that the Protestant Churches do have some elements that it has gotten from the Catholic Church. But the scary thing is that there can be so many added elements in some Protestant faiths, that they are hardly Christian. And this can make salvation in that particular instance almost completely possible for those who knowingly continue to practice it, while knowing that Jesus did not teach it.
 
ImageofGod>>The Church is a surer way to be saved, since Protestantism and Catholicism cannot be perfectly true at the same time, one of them has elements that are false and therefore harmful to one’s salvation. I believe the latter to be true.

Christ is a surer way to be saved! In fact, He is the only way! The rest of your statement is as disrespectful to Protestants as it is for me to say that the Catholic Church has some elements that are false and therefore harmful to one’s salvation.
 
I must agree with Dave again. There are some Protestants that are more Catholic than some members of the Catholic Church. Take for example the conservative Lutherans and Episcopalians who have a greater chance of salvation than those who do not even follow the teachings of the Catholic Church that they are in.
However, even they are encouraged to enter full communion with the Catholic Church for she loves them.🙂
 
I just read this from Orestes a. Brownson

"With regard to the several protestant sect in whose good faith we know them too well to believe, we do not judge individuals, for judgement has not been commited to us: and we dare not say when a protestant dies that he is damned, for we do not know what passed between God and the individual at the last moment when the breath left the body: BUT this we dare say, if one dies an adhearing protestant up to the last moment, he is surly damned, and is forever deprived of heaven and will never see God as he is. Protestantism is an open and avowed revolt against the church of God, a total rejection, in principle, of christ and his authority, therfor of christianity itself. "

He also talkes about invincable ignorance and says " lets face it at death most people do not have invincable ignorance"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top