Republished October 12, 2010 (first published in February 1997) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, –

“And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

I have been warning about Billy Graham’s compromise for decades, and it is a very difficult thing to do. He is one of the most popular men in the world. He is universally acclaimed as a wonderful Christian and a great evangelist. When you say something critical of Billy Graham, many people consider it equal to blasphemy against Almighty God!

The Lord knows, if I thought I could fulfill my obligations before God as a preacher of His Word and still keep my mouth shut about the Billy Grahams of our day, I would do it in a heartbeat! I am convinced, though, that this is not possible, and by God’s grace I would rather please Him than man.

In February 1997, I published an article in O Timothy magazine about Jerry Falwell’s support of Billy Graham. We noted that a watershed of sorts had occurred at Falwell’s Liberty University, in that the 1997 commencement speaker was Dr. Billy Graham, the foremost spokesman for the New Evangelical movement. The announcement in the National Liberty Journal stated:

“It is befitting that Dr. Graham will speak at Liberty’s 1997 Commencement, since his grandson, William Franklin (Will) Graham IV, will be among the graduating seniors. (Another grandson, Roy Graham, is a freshman at Liberty.) … Dr. Falwell said, ‘This will be Dr. Graham’s first visit to Liberty. THIS COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS WILL NO DOUBT BE REMEMBERED HISTORICALLY IN THE NEXT CENTURY AS ONE OF LIBERTY’S HIGH DAYS. I am grateful that Dr. Graham is taking time from his busy schedule to grace us with his presence” (emphasis added) (National Liberty Journal, December 1996, pp. 1, 17).

The National Liberty Journal did not give one word of warning about Graham breaking down the walls of biblical separation between sound churches and apostate churches in this generation. There was not one word of warning about Graham sending thousands of converts back to Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and modernistic Protestant churches that preach false gospels.

Independent Baptist preachers who are affiliated with Liberty University are leading fundamental Baptists right into the arms of the devil’s ecumenical movement.

In the February 1997 article, I agreed with the National Liberty Journal that it was befitting for Graham to speak at Liberty University, because though Dr. Falwell and his church and school claimed at the time to be fundamental Baptists, for many years they had been sliding into the New Evangelical camp and today they are firmly entrenched in that unscriptural position. To openly praise and support Billy Graham is irrefutable evidence of this.

The February 1997 article was also published via the Fundamental Baptist Information Service by e-mail over the Internet, and in turn it was sent out to a Baptist news group. Many of the responses we received from that public posting were very negative. In reading these, I was impressed anew at the ignorance that is rampant even in the staunchest Bible-believing circles. Many of those who responded were completely ignorant of the fact that Billy Graham has sent multitudes of converts back to the Roman Catholic Church or that he praises Christ-denying Modernists. These things were not done in the dark, yet many Christians are entirely ignorant of them.

A chief cause for this ignorance is cowardice in the pulpits. Too many Christian “ministers” are belly-serving cowards. It is as simple as that. Their goal is to go with the flow and to make people feel good about themselves and to continue to draw a paycheck and pad their retirement fund rather than to preach the truth regardless of the cost. The Bible describes these men as “dumb dogs” (Isaiah 56:10). What good is a watchdog that will not bark at danger? If ever there were an hour in which preachers need to lift the voice against the error that is on every side, it is today, but what we have for the most part are dumb dogs.

In the article on Falwell supporting Graham, we mentioned a number of things of which Dr. Graham is guilty. Following is the documentation to each of these charges.


The evidence for this is overwhelming. We have documented it extensively in our 354-page book Evangelicals and Rome.

As early as Sept. 21, 1957, Graham said in an interview with the San Francisco News, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.”

In his autobiography Just As I Am, Graham made the following statements:

“He [Willis Haymaker, Graham’s front man] would also call on the local Catholic bishop or other clerics to acquaint them with Crusade plans and invite them to the meetings; they would usually appoint a priest to attend and report back. This was years before Vatican II’s openness to Protestants, but WE WERE CONCERNED TO LET THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS SEE THAT MY GOAL WAS NOT TO GET PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR CHURCH; rather, I wanted them to commit their lives to Christ” (Page 163).

In 1983, The Florida Catholic (Sept. 2, 1983) reported of the Orlando crusade: “Names of Catholics who had made decisions for Christ were provided at that meeting by Rick Marshall of the Graham organization.” The report said the names of 600 people had been turned over to the Catholic Church.

In 1984, at the Vancouver, British Columbia crusade, the vice-chairman of the organizing committee, David Cline of Bringhouse United Church, said, “If Catholics step forward THERE WILL BE NO ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THEM and their names will be given to the Catholic church nearest their homes” (Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1984).

In 1987 a Catholic priest, Donald Willette of St. Jude’s Church, was a supervisor of the counselors for the Denver crusade. Willette reported that from one service alone 500 cards of individuals were referred to St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church in Englewood, a suburb of Denver (Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990s).

In 1989, Michael Seed, Ecumenical Advisor to (Catholic) Cardinal Hume, said of Graham’s London crusade: “Those who come forward for counseling during a Mission evening in June, if they are Roman Catholic, will be directed to a Roman Catholic ‘nurture-group’ under Roman Catholic counselors in their home area” (John Ashbrook, New Neutralism II, p. 35).

In 1992, the Catholic archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, had set a goal to supply many of counselors needed for the Graham crusade. All Catholics responding to the altar call were channeled to Catholic churches.

Billy Graham’s crusade in Cincinnati, Ohio, June 27-30, 2002, included full participation of the Roman Catholic Church. In preparation for the crusade, five Catholic parishes — Our Lady of Lourdes in Westwood, Our Lady of the Rosary in Greenhills, Our Lady of the Rosary and Guardian Angels in Cincinnati, and Trinity Center in Dayton — presented week-long courses to prepare Catholic counselors to deal with those who came forward in response to Graham’s invitations. According to Curtis Kneblik, assistant director of evangelization for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Dayton, invitations were sent out to 9,000 Catholics to request their participation in this training, and hundreds responded. Priest Charles Bowes told his parish that the Graham mission was a “golden opportunity to evangelize Catholics and to help our parish…” (The Catholic Telegraph, May 10, 2002).

When Catholic leaders refer to “evangelizing Catholics,” they do not mean what Bible believers mean, that such Catholics are unsaved and on their way to hell. They believe, rather, that the Catholics who go forward at the Graham crusade already have Christ through their infant baptism and that that they merely need to be brought into a more active sacramental relationship with the Catholic Church. When Catholics hear of “receiving Christ,” they do not think in terms of receiving Christ once-for-all through faith in His blood. They think, rather, in terms of Catholic doctrine, which teaches that they receive Christ continually in the sacraments, such as the mass and confession, yet they can never be assured of eternal life because the Catholic gospel is a mixture of faith plus works. Kneblik admitted this when he said: “We have an altar call every Sunday. Christ is truly present (in the Eucharist). We have to stand up and walk toward Him like they did on that field” (The Catholic Telegraph, July 12, 2002).

This is the false christ of the mass. The Catholics who went forward in the Graham crusade were subsequently invited to join a Catholic study group in their area. The strong Catholic participation was not mentioned in the official Billy Graham material on the crusade, but the information can be found at the Roman Catholic diocese web site.

Graham’s June 1996 crusade in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, brought the participation of 119 Catholic parishes and 269 Lutheran congregations (Christianity Today, July 15, 1996). This represented 53 percent of the Catholic parishes. This is a dramatic change from the 1973 Minneapolis crusade, when no Catholic churches and only a few Lutheran churches participated. Archbishop Harry Flynn, head of the archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, urged priests to become involved in the crusade “in an effort to reach alienated Catholics” (Morphew Clark, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Jan. 13, 1996). Priest Robert Schwartz of the St. John Neumann Catholic parish told reporters that about 60 members of his parish had been trained to counsel those who came forward during the crusade.

In 1997, Graham said that nearly all of his crusades were supported by Roman Catholic churches. He said this in an interview with New Man magazine, published at that time by Promise Keepers. Following is his statement on Catholicism:

“Early on in my life, I didn’t know much about Catholics. But through the years I have made many friends within the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, when we hold a crusade in a city now, nearly all the Roman Catholic churches support it. And when we went to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., for the crusade [last year], we saw St. Paul, which is largely Catholic, and Minneapolis, which is largely Lutheran, both supporting the crusade. That wouldn’t have happened 25 years ago” (“Billy Graham in His Own Words: What the Evangelist Has Learned from a Lifetime of Ministry to the World,” New Man, March-April 1997, pp. 32, 33).

The Billy Graham organizational committee preparing for the November 2004 crusade in Los Angeles, California, promised the Roman Catholic archdiocese that Catholics will not be “proselytized.” A letter from Cardinal Roger Mahony, dated October 6, 2004, and posted at the archdiocese web site, stated: “When the Crusade was held in other locations, many Catholics responded to Dr. Graham’s message and came forward for Christ. Crusade officials expect the same for the Los Angeles area. These officials have assured me that, IN KEEPING WITH DR. GRAHAM’S BELIEF AND POLICY, THERE WILL BE NO PROSELYTIZING, AND THAT ANYONE IDENTIFYING HIM OR HERSELF AS CATHOLIC WILL BE REFERRED TO US for reintegration into the life of the Catholic Church. We must be ready to welcome them.” Roman Catholic actor Jim Caviezel was featured on the platform at the second night of the Billy Graham Los Angeles Crusade, which lasted from Nov. 18-21. Caviezel starred as “Jesus” in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. He says he prayed to St. Genesius of Arles and St. Anthony of Padua for help in his acting career. He has visited Medjugorje to witness the site where Mary allegedly appeared to six young people. Caviezel said, “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.” Caviezel prayed the Rosary to Mary every day during the filming. Is it that Graham believes Caviezel’s gospel, or is it that Caviezel believes Graham’s gospel, or is it that the biblical truth that two must be agreed before they walk together is no longer in force today? What confusion and open disobedience!

This is just the tip of the iceberg. For many decades, Billy Graham has turned large numbers of his converts over to the hands of wolves in sheep’s clothing such as Catholic priests and modernistic Protestant pastors.

FRANKLIN GRAHAM is continuing in his father’s footsteps. He told the Indianapolis Star that his father’s ecumenical alliance with the Catholic Church and all other denominations “was one of the smartest things his father ever did” (“Keeping it simple, safe keeps Graham on high,” The Indianapolis Star, Thurs., June 3, 1999, p. H2).

Franklin said: “In the early years, up in Boston, the Catholic church got behind my father’s crusade. That was a first. It took back many Protestants. They didn’t know how to handle it. But it set the example. ‘If Billy Graham is willing to work with everybody, then maybe we should too’” (The Indianapolis Star, June 3, 1999).

Franklin’s 1998 crusade in Adelaide, Australia, left no question about his direction. Present at the media launch for the crusade were Catholic Archbishop Leonard Faulkner and Anglican Archbishop Ian George. The Festival South Australia News said, “The Archbishops agreed that Festival SA with Franklin Graham next January would be the greatest event the churches have seen in this State’s history.” Almost 400 churches registered for Graham’s Christian Life & Witness Course which was conducted in preparation for the crusade. Twenty-three denominations were represented. The churches included 49 Roman Catholic (false grace plus works gospel), 82 Uniting Church (ultra liberal), 30 Churches of Christ (baptismal regeneration), 25 Anglican (mostly liberal), 1 Greek Orthodox (sacramental gospel), and 3 Seventh-day Adventist (Ellen White is a prophetess, death is only sleep, and punishment in hell is not eternal).

Those who responded to the Gospel invitation at the crusade were sent to the aforementioned sponsoring churches for “discipleship.” Thus we again have the strange sight of a supposed shepherd happily and willfully giving his sheep into the hands of wolves. This is the most spiritually-doctrinally confused hour which the world has ever seen.

The Vice-Chairman for the Franklin Graham Festival in Lubbock, Texas, April 28-30, 2000, was Paul Key, evangelism director for the Catholic Diocese of Lubbock. Key was a Presbyterian minister for 18 years before converting to Catholicism. He has written a book entitled “95 Reasons for Becoming and Remaining a Catholic.”

Roman Catholics participated in Franklin Graham Festivals in Corpus Christi, Texas, in 2005, and in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 2004 (“Central Canada 2006 Franklin Graham Festival Background and Pastoral Notes for Catholic Clergy and Workers,” by Luis Melo, Director of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs, Archdiocese of Saint Boniface, n.d.).

Many Roman Catholics were trained as counsellors for the Franklin Graham Festival in Baltimore, Maryland, July 7-9, 2006. Catholic priest Erik Arnold of the Church of the Crucifixion in Glen Burnie, Maryland, led the team of 225 Catholics who participated in the crusade. He said, “It was a great opportunity for the Christian churches to show their unity in leading people to Christ” (“Catholic Counselors Attend Billy Graham Festival,” The Catholic Review, July 12, 2006). The Graham organization delivered the names of 300 people to the Roman Catholics for “follow up,” and these received a letter from Cardinal William Keller “encouraging them in their faith and inviting them to get involved in the church.” They will be taught, among a multitude of other heresies, that it is acceptable to pray to Mary. In fact, some of the counsellors are from the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen in Baltimore.

Roman Catholics also participated in the Franklin Graham Festival in Winnipeg, Canada, in October 2006. The previous year the Graham team approached the Catholic bishops in Winnipeg soliciting their support and involvement (“Central Canada 2006 Franklin Graham Festival Background and Pastoral Notes for Catholic Clergy and Workers,” by Luis Melo, Director of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs, Archdiocese of Saint Boniface, n.d.). In response, each archdiocese in central Canada had official representation on the Festival Executive Committee, and various parishes provided workers to be trained as counsellors and to provide follow up. The Catholics were told: “Following in the footsteps of his father, Franklin Graham will present basic Christianity. The Catholic will hear no slighting of the Church’s teaching on Mary or authority, nor of papal or Episcopal prerogative; no word against the Mass/Divine Liturgy or sacraments, nor of Catholic practices or customs” (Ibid.).


On Nov. 21, 1967, an honorary degree was conferred on Graham by the Catholic priests who run Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, during an Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue. The Gastonia Gazette reported:

“After receiving the honorary degree of doctor of humane letters (D.H.L.) from the Abbey, Graham noted the significance of the occasion–’a time when Protestants and Catholics could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas 10 years ago they could not,’ he said.

“The evangelist’s first sermon at a Catholic institution was at the Abbey, in 1963, and his return Tuesday was the climax to this week’s Institute for Ecumenic Dialogue, a program sponsored in part by the Abbey and designed to promote understanding among Catholic and Protestant clergymen of the Gaston-Mecklenburg area.

“Graham, freshly returned from his Japanese Crusade, said he ‘knew of no greater honor a North Carolina preacher, reared just a few miles from here, could have than to be presented with this degree. I’m not sure but what this could start me being called “Father Graham,”’ he facetiously added.

“Graham said… ‘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” (“Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree,” Paul Smith, Gazette staff reporter, The Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, North Carolina, Nov. 22, 1967).

This is simply amazing. Does Billy Graham really believe that the sacramental grace-works gospel that built Belmont Abbey is the way of salvation? If so, why does Graham preach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone without works or sacraments? Why does he remain a Baptist rather than joining the Catholic Church? On the other hand, if Graham does not believe Rome’s gospel is true, why did he say what he does? Why does he fellowship with Rome? The evangelist tries to have it both ways, but it is impossible. This is why Graham has been called “Mr. Facing Both Ways”!


The Roman Catholic bishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, stood beside Graham during his 1963 crusade in that city, and blessed those who came forward at the invitation. Graham said this illustrated that “something tremendous, an awakening of reform and revival within Christianity” was happening (Daily Journal, International Falls, Minnesota, Oct. 29, 1963, cited by the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1963).


On his trip to Poland in 1979 Graham stood in front of the shrine of the Black Madonna of Jasna Gora in Czestochowa and greeted the Catholic worshippers who were there to venerate Rome’s false Mary as Queen of Heaven. A photograph of this was published in the February 1979 issue of Decision magazine, a copy of which I obtained a few years ago from the Graham Center at Wheaton College. By preaching in the Catholic churches in Poland and by visiting that nation’s major Mary shrine and not plainly telling the people that the Roman Catholic gospel is false and by pretending that the Catholic prelates and priests are fellow believers, Graham confused multitudes of people about the nature of the very gospel itself.


In his 1997 autobiography, Just As I Am, Graham said his goal was not to lead people out of Roman Catholicism: “MY GOAL, I ALWAYS MADE CLEAR, WAS NOT TO PREACH AGAINST CATHOLIC BELIEFS OR TO PROSELYTIZE PEOPLE who were already committed to Christ within the Catholic Church. Rather, it was to proclaim the gospel to all those who had never truly committed their lives to Christ” (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 357).


In 1979 Graham called Pope John Paul II “the moral leader of the world” (Religious News Service, Sept. 27, 1979). He also said that John Paul II “is almost an evangelist because he calls to people to turn to Christ, to turn to Christianity” (The Star, June 26, 1979, reprinted in the Australian Beacon, August 1979, p. 1). In an interview with The Saturday Evening Post (Jan-Feb. 1980), Graham described the visit of John Paul II to America with these words: “The pope came as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist … The pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age–by pointing people to Christ.” In a lengthy article about the Pope in 1980, Graham praised the Pope as a “bridge builder” and said: “Pope John Paul II has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of the century” (Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980). After visiting the Pope in 1981, Graham said, “We had a spiritual time” (Christianity Today, Feb. 6, 1981, p. 88). Graham made the following statement about the Pope’s address in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1983: “I’ll tell you–that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I’ve ever heard. It was tremendous” (Foundation magazine, Vol. V, Issue 5, 1984).


In a January 1997 interview on Larry King Live, Graham said that he has wonderful fellowship with Rome, is comfortable with the Vatican, and agrees with the Pope on almost everything.

KING: What do you think of the other [churches] … like Mormonism? Catholicism? Other faiths within the Christian concept?

GRAHAM: Oh, I think I have a wonderful fellowship with all of them.

KING: You’re comfortable with Salt Lake City. You’re comfortable with the Vatican?

GRAHAM: I am very comfortable with the Vatican. I have been to see the Pope several times. In fact, the night — the day that he was inaugurated, made Pope, I was preaching in his cathedral in Krakow. I was his guest … [and] when he was over here … in Columbia, South Carolina … he invited me on the platform to speak with him. I would give one talk, and he would give the other … but I was two-thirds of the way to China…

KING: You like this Pope?

GRAHAM: I like him very much. … He and I agree on almost everything.


On Larry King Live aired April 2, 2005, Billy Graham said the late Pope was “the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world in the last 100 years.” When Larry King asked, “There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?” Graham replied: “Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don’t think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope — I think he’s with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.” This is a most amazing statement by the man who is considered the world’s foremost evangelist. Graham expresses less than certainty about his own salvation but complete certainty about the Pope’s, even though he preached a false gospel of grace mixed with works and sacraments and put his trust in Mary as his intercessor. Graham should know that John Paul II did not believe in the cross in any scriptural sense. Rather he believed in the cross PLUS baptism PLUS the mass PLUS confession to a priest PLUS the saints, and above all PLUS Mary. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6). “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal. 1:6).


In a May 30, 1997, interview, Graham told David Frost: “I feel I belong to all the churches. I’M EQUALLY AT HOME IN AN ANGLICAN OR BAPTIST OR A BRETHREN ASSEMBLY OR A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. … Today we have almost 100 percent Catholic support in this country. That was not true twenty years ago. And the bishops and archbishops and the Pope are our friends” (David Frost, Billy Graham in Conversation, pp. 68, 143).


Billy Graham conducted a crusade in St. Louis, Missouri, in October 1999. In an interview with the press, Graham said that baptism is not his concern and not his business. The following is his statement: “Baptism is very important because Jesus taught that we are to believe and to be baptized. But that is up to the individual and the church that they feel led to go to. The churches have different teachings on that. I know that in the Lutheran or the Episcopal or Catholic Church it is a very strong point, and in the Baptist church. But there are some churches that would not insist on baptism. So, I GIVE THEM THE FREEDOM TO TEACH WHAT THEY WANT. I am not a professor. I am not a theologian. I’m a simple proclaimer. … I’m announcing the news that God loves you and that you can be forgiven of your sins. And you can go to heaven. My job from God is not to do all these other things. … I am not a pastor of a church. That’s not my responsibility. MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERYONE AND LET THEM CHOOSE THEIR OWN CHURCH, WHETHER IT IS CATHOLIC OR PROTESTANT OR ORTHODOX OR WHATEVER IT IS” (Billy Graham, interview with Patricia Rice, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 10, 1999).

This is a strange statement in light of the explicit command by the Lord Jesus Christ: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

Billy Graham is called an evangelist. The prime example of an evangelist in the New Testament is Philip, and Philip baptized his converts!

“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36-38).


  1. Belum ada komentar.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:


You are commenting using your account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout /  Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout /  Ubah )


Connecting to %s

%d blogger menyukai ini: