Yes, I am “in Christ.” No, you’re not “in Christ.” Yes, I AM! No, you’re NOT!

Last night, I was reviewing some discussions I had with a couple of Roman Catholics backss when I began this blog over a year ago. The dialogue reached a point where the Catholics claimed to be “in Christ” just as much as I claimed to be “in Christ.” I was a Catholic for twenty-seven years; educated in a Catholic grammar and high school, and I’ve learned even more about Catholicism since I left that church and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior in 1983. I’m fully aware that Catholic parlance is filled with references to “Jesus the Savior,” “faith,” “grace,” and the like, but when Catholics use such terms, they mean something entirely different than what evangelicals understand.

In my exchanges with the Catholics about being “in Christ,” I said the term referred to a believer’s position before a Holy God; covered in Christ’s righteousness. I have no righteousness of my own. When I accepted Jesus as my Savior, His perfect righteousness was imputed to me. In Holy God’s perfect court of Law, I stand completely condemned by my sin, but my Savior took my place and bore the penalty for my sin on the cross. I am washed and redeemed by His blood and I’m able to go free ONLY because of His righteousness.

In contrast, Rome teaches that God’s grace is infused into the Catholic through its sacraments, empowering them to obey the Ten Commandments (impossible!) and live an increasingly sanctified life, enabling them to merit Heaven. So a Catholic faithful to their church’s teachings cannot rightly say they are “in Christ,” because their salvation depends ultimately on how well they obey the Ten Commandments (impossible!) right up until the moment of their death. Positionally before God, they are NOT “in Christ,” they are “outside of Christ” because they are attempting to merit their own salvation rather than accepting Jesus as Savior by faith alone.

My Catholics friends were quite taken aback that I would dare to suggest that they were not “in Christ.” Who was I to tell them that? Was I making myself out to be God Almighty by deciding who was going to Heaven and who wasn’t? How rude! How narrow-minded and judgmental!

But God’s Word says there is only one Way to salvation, and that’s Jesus Christ. Christ is either your Savior or He is not. It’s not enough to call Christ your Savior, you must be trusting in Him by faith alone. If you tell me that salvation is merited by obeying the Ten Commandments through grace (impossible!), as Catholicism teaches, then I can tell you with absolute confidence that Jesus is not your Savior and you are not “in Christ.” To illustrate, let’s suppose you’re on a sinking ship in the middle of the ocean, and I show up in my rescue boat and beg you to get in. Praising and admiring the rescue boat for its wonderful qualities won’t save you. You have to abandon your ship and get into the rescue boat. You have to be in the rescue boat for the boat to save you. Likewise, gushing about “Jesus the Savior,” “faith,” and “grace” won’t save you when you’re still trying to merit your own salvation. You’re not “in Christ,” you’re denying Christ and trusting in your own abilities and “goodness.”

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” – 2 Corinthians 5:21

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” – Romans 8:1

In today’s climate of plurality and tolerance, theological debates such as the one above are widely frowned upon and are to be avoided at all costs. The only requirement, according to Rick Warren and friends, is that we all “just love Jesus.” That’s a sinking ship, friends.

What does it mean to be in Christ?

More on D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones


In every age, the Holy Spirit has raised up godly men to preach and uphold the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone; men who would not bend a knee to the compromise and error that surrounded them. With that in mind, I must say that I truly appreciate the ministry of John MacArthur. I may not agree 100% with some of his theology regarding secondary issues, but there’s only a handful of nationally-known preachers out there today like MacArthur who stand in the gap and refuse to cooperate and compromise with betrayers of the Gospel. Another man of God from a couple of generations ago who I’ve been reading about quite a bit lately is D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who went home to be with the Lord in 1981.

Yesterday, I “just happened” to come across the above video of a discussion of Lloyd-Jones from one of MacArthur’s conferences, featuring MacArthur, Mark Dever, Iain Murray, associate and biographer of Lloyd-Jones, and Jonathan Catherwood, one of Lloyd-Jones’s six grandchildren. The 41-minute video was a real treat for me and such a blessing to listen to. MacArthur names Lloyd-Jones as one of his most powerful influences, which comes as no surprise. I’ve been meaning to read one of Lloyd-Jones’s many books but didn’t know where to start. In the video, Murray recommends new readers of Lloyd-Jones begin with “Studies in the Sermon on the Mount,” which I promptly ordered from Amazon this morning. Review to follow sometime waaaaaay down the road. Thank you, Lord, for faithful teachers who defend the Gospel and who stand in the gap for your people like Lloyd-Jones and MacArthur.



“The Good Place” typifies all false religion


Caution: This trailer contains some crass humor typical of prime-time television these days.

If you were to ask 1000 random people why God should let them into Heaven when they die, recent polls indicate around 10% would say they don’t believe in God. The vast majority, maybe around 70%-75%, would answer that God should let them enter into Heaven because they’re good people or they’ve tried their best or practiced their religion faithfully; something along those lines. Maybe around 15%-20% would answer that they would go to Heaven only because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and are trusting by faith in Him alone. The percentage of professing evangelicals would be even lower in areas outside the Bible Belt, like here in New York State.

Speaking of the notion that good people go to Heaven, a new television show has recently premiered on NBC titled, “The Good Place,” featuring Ted Danson and Kristen Bell. The premise of the show is as follows:

“After she is struck and killed by a tractor-trailer…, a woman named Eleanor (Bell) wakes up to discover she has entered the afterlife. But when she is told by her mentor Michael (Danson) that she is in “the good place” because of her good deeds by helping get innocent people off death row, she realizes that a mistake has been made as people think she is someone else with the same name.” – from Wikipedia

So the culture once again perpetuates the widely-held notion that people merit salvation by being good while bad people go to “the bad place.”

But where does Jesus Christ fit into all of this? I very much doubt there will be any mention of Jesus throughout the life of this series. If people are able to merit their own salvation as they imagine or as they are taught by their false churches, Jesus would not have had to die on the cross to pay the penalty for sins. But the Bible says we are all sinful people, none of us are good, and we all need the Savior.

“Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” – John 5:25-26

Thanks to my buddy, Glenn, for bringing “The Good Place” to my attention.

The Unfinished Reformation – A qualified recommendation

The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestantscast After 500 Years
By Gregg Allison and Chris Castaldo
Zondervan, 2016, 171 pages

As we approach the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017, a bevy of books are being published to commemorate the event. Many evangelicals have little knowledge of what drove the Protestant Reformers to break from Rome in the 16th century. In this era of growing ecumenism, are the issues that fueled the Reformation still relevant for today?

In this short book, theologian, Gregg Allision, and pastor, Chris Castaldo, examine the commonalities and differences between Roman Catholicism and evangelical Christianity. We share such doctrines as the Trinity, the nature of God, Scripture as divine revelation, the Person and saving work of Jesus Christ, and man’s fallen nature. As for differences, the authors mention disagreement over tradition, the apocrypha, the role of Mary, authority, the sacraments with emphasis on baptism and the Lord’s Supper, purgatory, and justification.

The main disagreement which caused the Reformers to break with Rome was over how a person appropriates the gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Rome says salvation comes by the infusion of grace imparted by the church’s sacraments, which enable the participant to live an increasingly sanctified life so that they are able to merit Heaven. The Reformers pointed to God’s Word, which says salvation is by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. We have no righteousness in ourselves, but when we repent of our sins and accept Jesus Christ as our Savior, His perfect righteousness is imputed to us.

As in their previous books, the authors go to great lengths to be cordial and charitable regarding Catholicism, perhaps to a fault. A Catholic could read this book and focus on the commonalities and cordialities and perhaps casually dismiss the differences as a matter of interpretation and semantics. It is my view that Catholics are best served by a direct approach to their church’s false doctrines rather than by being discreet and circumspect. When people are on a sinking ship or in a burning building, “dialogue” may not be the most helpful rescue method. Readers interested in a more direct approach to Catholicism should consult books by James G. McCarthy, James R. White, and William Webster. See my Books tab here for over 300 books that compare Roman Catholicism to Scripture.

Another deficiency of this book is that an invitation to accept Christ comes only at the end and in a very indirect manner. Forgive the poor analogy but this book is like an automobile dealership that is happy to display its inventory but never leads the customer towards making a purchase decision.

With all of that being said, in our current era of ecumenical compromise, I do welcome this book from a major (c)hristian publisher, which affirms the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith and accurately critiques Rome’s false gospel of sacramental grace and merit. “The Unfinished Reformation” is available from Amazon or from your local (c)hristian book store.

Opinion: Prayer in public schools

I attended Catholic parochial grammar school in the 1960s and even though I was verypray young at the time, I can remember the nuns buzzing about the U.S. Supreme Court rulings banning conscripted prayer and Bible reading in public schools (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Murray v. Curlett, 1963). I felt sorry for those poor kids in public schools for not being able to pray like me. By seventh grade, I was envying them.

The ban on school sanctioned prayer was an extremely bitter pill for evangelicals to swallow and remains a sour memory. The ban on school prayer was the first major defeat in the war to defend American “Christendom.” We’re still fuming about it 54 years later. But that was just the beginning. Since then, most every example of government-endorsed religious expression has been challenged in the courts with no end in sight.

From our history lessons, we know the Puritan Christian immigrants to this country could not imagine anything other than the theocratic form of government they imposed. Many universities got their start as church-sponsored seminaries. Mounting demand for religious freedom led to the prohibition of a state religion by the federal constitution adopted in 1793 but Christianity would remain as a major influence on federal, state, and local governments for 150 years. It was agreed from Maine to California that America was a “Christian nation.” Government sanctioned prayer and the reliance on Judeo-Christian laws, values, and “morality” were matters of unquestioned course. Americans had convinced themselves that God had set up a covenant relationship with the United States in the same way He had with ancient Israel; that America was THE “chosen” nation.

But things have changed in a big way in the last sixty years. The growing number of non-Christian immigrants to this country and those who rejected religion altogether began to challenge government’s sponsorship of Christianity. First to go was prayer in schools. Then Bible readings. Then such things as Christmas creches, etc., etc..

My take: Countries can’t be Christian, only people can accept Christ. We can no longer assume other citizens are Christians as was once accepted in this country. Christians can no longer impose their privileged status by claiming majority rule. That day is gone. That flag has flown. It’s obviously impossible to determine the number of genuine Christians in the U.S. but a 2014 Pew poll reveals only 25% of the population claims to be evangelical Christian (many say the actual number is quite a bit lower), 45% are mainline Protestant or Catholic, and the remaining 30% belong to other religions or are atheists/agnostics. The government is supported by taxpayers with a wide spectrum of beliefs regarding religion and it should be completely secular. If government sanctions one religious group it must in fairness sanction all of them. If we allow monuments of the Ten Commandments on our courthouse lawns we must also allow scripture from every other religious group. On second thought, the atheists will have something to say about that. No, government must be completely secular.

I choose not to pray with non-Christians. The Lord does not want me bowing my head in a prayer led by a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, etc. Why would Christian parents want their children to participate in prayers led by a Hindu or a New Ager in a public school? Christians look back with longing to a simpler time when the vast majority of people in this country professed to be Christians and the church had a strong influence throughout the culture. But the probable reality was that a very large number of professing Christians hadn’t accepted Christ at all but were just going along with the institutionalized flow imposed by American “Christendom.”

Christians, teach your children about the Lord every day in your homes. Bring them to church. But please stop complaining about prayer being banned from public schools back in 1962. Conscripted prayer in schools wasn’t a great idea then and it’s an even worse idea today. With America becoming increasingly secularized, maybe Christians can go back to spreading the Gospel instead of worrying about retaining their control of the culture or “reclaiming America for Christ.”

Weekend Roundup – News and Commentary – 09/25/16

No sooner do I empty my inbox each weekend, that it fills right up again! Here’s the newsrs from the last seven days:

Remember smiling ecumenical minister, Robert $chuller (pictured)? He was the Joel Osteen of the previous generation. No messages about sin or hell, just lots of smiles. He died last year and his ostentatious glass church complex was bought by the local Catholic diocese and is currently being renovated to the tune of $72 million. $chuller’s ultra doctrine-lite grandson, Bobby Schuller, unsurprisingly has a regular slot on TBN.

Graham is absolutely right about the prosperity gospel, but I don’t know what was more harmful to the true Gospel witness; the prosperity gospel that’s rampant on TBN or Graham’s ecumenism with Rome?

Enlightening! Ca$h for canonization! No surprise. These kinds of backroom deals have been part and parcel for the Catholic church for centuries, folks.

Catholic traditionalists and progressives continue their no-holds-barred fight to control the future of the church. This is not how you spell u-n-i-t-y.

The American Catholic church is in deep, deep crisis mode as younger people are dropping away like the plague. They wonder why they should climb Catholicism’s mountain of religious legalism and liturgical rigmarole when the pope says even atheists will go to Heaven if they “follow the light they are given” and are “good.”

A week doesn’t go by that I don’t see a story about Rome pushing its ecumenical agenda.

This is an interesting article on the Catholic church’s premier Marian apparition, with the church marking Fatima’s 100th anniversary next year with great fanfare.

I applaud this school official in Italy who banned Catholic mass from public schools. I think I need to post a message down the road about American evangelicals who continue to bemoan the discontinuation of prayer in public schools.

Speaking of demons and exorcists…

This past Wednesday, I commented on FOX channel’s new series, “The Exorcist.” See here. Justex by coincidence, the Catholic church reported last week that its chief exorcist, father Gabriel Amorth (pictured), had died at the age of 91 (see article below). Amorth was ordained as a priest in 1954 and became an official exorcist in 1986. By 2013, he claimed that he had performed 160,000 exorcisms (that number does not represent individuals; some people required multiple exorcisms).

As I stated in my previous post, I’ve never come across a person who was completely overtaken by demonic possession like the poor fellow in Mark 5:1-20 but the Bible also says demonic possession may be of a more subtler variety. See here.

But it seems to me that reports of full-blown demon possession come mainly from Roman Catholic areas and I have my theories about that. Could it be that demonic possession seems to be prevalent among Catholics because:

  1. Catholics are predisposed to the occult. Catholicism is notorious for syncretizing (mixing) pagan beliefs and practices with (c)hristianity.  Roman Catholic sacramentals, widely used by the faithful – candles, medals, holy water, scapulars, statues, crucifixes, rosaries, novenas, prayers to the dead – promote superstition and predispose the practitioners to occultic influences. From Catholicism, it’s not a long stretch to horoscopes, seances, palm reading, etc. My deceased mother-in-law was heavily into psychic practices prior to leaving Catholicism and accepting Christ. Throughout Central America and the Caribbean, as another example, Catholicism is tightly intertwined with voodoo paganism. So in these heavily Catholic areas where quasi-occultic practices flourish, perhaps people are more susceptible to full-blown demonic possession?
  2. Priests are exalted as deliverers. In these full-blown exorcism narratives, Catholic families are dependent upon their priest (proclaimed to be an “alter Christus” – another Christ) to rid the demon/s from their possessed loved ones. Consequently, priests are held in high esteem as saviors and redeemers. But priests do not bring the Good News of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone to anyone. They are in bondage themselves to a false gospel of sacramental grace and merit. Satan delights in false gospels of merit and may step in occasionally to assist the spiritually blinded clerics in blinding and leading their followers.

Those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Savior by faith and are born again by the blood of the Lamb and are sealed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot not be possessed by a demon. See here. But demons can certainly tempt and influence believers. Just look at the current state of the evangelical church (TBN, prosperity gospel, doctrine-lite seeker mega-churches)! We must be constantly on guard and fighting the good fight of faith through the power of the Lord and His Word.

“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.” – 1 Peter 5:8-9

Rome’s exorcist, Father Gabriel Amorth, dies at age 91

Hollywood’s stereotypical demons star in Fox’s “The Exorcist”


Anybody a horror film fan? My wife is, but I can’t relate in the slightest. Anyway, FOX is premiering its new series, “The Exorcist,” this Friday, September 23rd at 9 PM EST. The only cast member I recognize is Geena Davis.

I was seventeen-years-old when the original “The Exorcist” movie came out in 1973 and I remember it being quite the cultural phenomenon. It was a must-see event. I bought my ticket and was spooked to the max throughout most of the movie, just like the rest of the audience. My friends and I talked about Linda Blair and those unsettling special effects for well over a week. I wasn’t a Christian at the time but the movie made a big impact on me. If  Satan was real – and he certainly seemed to be according to the world that I knew – then God was real as well. I would accept Jesus Christ as my Savior ten years later.

The New Testament mentions demon possession quite a bit. I’ve never actually encountered a person who was possessed as the Bible describes, but I know from the Bible that demons constantly tempt and influence people. The Bible even says those who haven’t accepted Christ are children of Satan.

“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” – John 8:44

When it comes to spiritual issues, Hollywood always relies on the popular standby stereotypes, e.g., “Did you notice Susie levitating over her bed last night? Better call the parish priest!” But we’re told in the Bible that Satan is a very subtle being. Obviously, few people would be attracted to the disgusting demonic ogres we see on the big (and little) screen. The Bible says Satan appears as an angel of light. He deceives. He entices. He offers a “respectable” alternative to the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. He inspires people to attempt to earn their own salvation through false religion and by being “good.” Satan’s message appears to be a “good,” “rational,” and “beautiful” message of tolerance and plurality as opposed to the “fanaticism” of those “Bible-banging” born-againers.

It’s sadly ironic to me that the characters in these Hollywood productions run to Catholic priests for help in dealing with demonic possessions when it’s the Roman Catholic gospel of sacramental grace and merit, a false gospel, that’s one of the greatest spiritual dangers in this world. The trusted clergyman with a backward collar and his message are what’s perilous to peoples’ souls, not an ugly, revolting, demonic stereotype.

Will I be watching the premier of “The Exorcist”? Probably, just to observe the world’s misleading caricature of the evil one.

Billy Graham – Part 2

Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000ed
By Iain H. Murray
The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000, 342 pages

For part one of this post, please see here.

German higher biblical criticism came to the US in the 19th-century and was a swift-spreading cancer in seminaries and mainline Protestant churches. Believing churchmen drew a line in the sand with a series of 90 essays on the basics of the Christian faith, published between 1910 and 1915, and known as “The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth.” Bible Christians rallied around the cherished doctrinal truths but, as mainline liberalism gained wider support, the fundamentalist movement increasingly adopted a bunker, circle-the-wagons mentality.

Billy Graham began his ministry as a fundamentalist, but he and other evangelicals recognized that fundamentalism took the opposite approach to Jesus’s admonition to be in the world, but not of the world. Graham and friends (Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, Edward Carnell, et al.) reasoned they could more effectively reach souls for Christ by cooperating with mainline liberals and unbelievers rather than by separating from them. But just as fundamentalism had its unhealthy sectarian extremism, Graham’s “New Evangelicalism” had its own pitfall. Cooperation works both ways and Graham’s cooperation with unorthodoxy and unbelief led to accommodation, compromise, and eventually, betrayal of the Gospel. Graham sacrificed right doctrine on the altar of numbers, popularity, and ecclesiastical respectability and set a precedent for generations of pastors and para-church leaders to come.

In “Evangelicalism Divided,” Iain Murray, a former close associate of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, documents the rise and fall of Graham and New Evangelicalism. The larger portion of the book is devoted to circumstances in England, which closely mirrored those in the United States. Swimming against the rising tide, Lloyd-Jones called upon evangelicals to break ties with mainline liberalism and unbelief. In opposition to Lloyd-Jones, England’s New Evangelicals, led by John Stott and J. I Packer, rationalized that believers would be far more effective if they worked within the Anglican church. Not surprisingly, Packer would go on to be one of the charter signers of the ECT – Evangelicals and Catholics Togther – ecumenical accords. As for the current state of Anglicanism, is there even one Bible-believing minister within the entire denomination?

Murray may wander a bit but overall this is an excellent book. There were so many passages I wanted to quote, but where to stop? I would have ended up quoting half the book. For everyone who wonders HOW and WHY Graham and company ended up eventually betraying the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, this book is a sad but necessary eye-opener.

“The reason why the BGEA (Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) decided to co-operate with liberals and other non-evangelicals (such as Roman Catholics – Tom) was never set out in terms of principle. The fact is that the policy was seen as a neccessary expedient designed sincerely for the best end, namely to gain a wider hearing for the gospel. Crusades depended on crowds and in the Graham story there is an almost ever-present concern for maintaining and increasing numbers. ‘Keeping an eye for maximum public impact’ and ‘trying always for the largest possible crowds’ was a settled part of the Billy Graham Association’s strategy.” pp- 58-59.

“We may be small in numbers but since when has the doctrine of the remnant become unpopular among evangelicals? It is one of the most glorious doctrines in the whole Bible. We are not interested in numbers. We are interested in truth and in the living God. ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?’ …If we stand for God’s truth we can be sure that God will honour us and bless us.” – a quote from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, p.293.

See more reviews of “Evangelicalism Divided” here. My thanks to Pastor Jim for providing the link.

Billy Graham – Part 1


Billy Graham is widely honored as the greatest evangelist of the last 100 years. No individual has done more to spread the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. The 97-year-old Graham is such an influential and reverenced figure that some Christians go so far as to predict his death will usher in either great spiritual revival or great judgement.

But my experience with Graham was quite different. I left Roman Catholicism and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior in the early 1980s. What joy to have my sins forgiven and to walk in fellowship with the Lord! I had watched several of Graham’s crusades as a Catholic. Perhaps the televised crusades had softened my heart on my journey to the Lord, but I don’t recall them having made a personal impact. But as a new Christian, I was thrilled to be able to stand with such a famous and revered figure as Billy Graham in declaring the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Many months after accepting Christ, I came across some information that was critical of Graham. I learned that his crusades were planned in cooperation with local Roman Catholic clergy. When Catholics came forward at Graham’s invitation to accept Christ, they were referred to Catholic workers and eventually sent back to Catholic parishes. Catholics were told that coming forward at a Graham crusade was simply a recommitment to their sacramental baptism and confirmation. Catholicism talks about “faith” and “grace” but their bottom line is a gospel of sacramental grace and merit.

I was shocked by Graham’s betrayal of the Gospel. What was he thinking? I had “swam across the Tiber,” AWAY from Rome’s false gospel, to the Gospel of grace through faith only to find evangelicalism’s favorite son encouraging Catholics to remain in error and convincing other evangelicals to embrace Rome as a genuine Christian church. How could this have happened?

I’m currently reading a book titled, “Evangelicalism Divided,” by Iain Murray, a former associate of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, which offers some explanations for why Graham and other-like minded evangelicals accommodated and compromised with doctrinal error in the pursuit of “results” and popularity and how this eventually led to the betrayal of the Gospel. I’ll be reviewing that book as the second part of this post.

Graham is so highly esteemed by evangelicals that few will tolerate any kind of criticism of him. In our post-modern age of tolerance and niceness, any kind of negative appraisal is widely frowned upon, even if an individual is leading millions into gross doctrinal error. Consequently, I’m not going to expend a great amount of effort writing about Protestantism’s living “saint.” If you’ve hung with me this far, you may want to watch the attached video in which Dr. Graham was interviewed by positivist gospel preacher, Robert Schuller. In the interview, Graham states that people of all religions will be saved; a universalist belief. Since Graham stated that belief in Jesus Christ and the Gospel wasn’t important to salvation, it’s understandable why he had no qualms with Rome’s gospel of sacramental grace and merit.

Brothers and sisters, be careful who you follow. They may not be all they appear to be. If the world esteems them highly, that may be your first clue.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:6-9

“For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” – Luke 16:15