Billy Graham went to be with the Lord he loved and served. Here is his final column (see the image below). I thought it was a good one until I read the last sentence.
At the beginning of the last paragraph, Graham explained he will be in heaven, not because of the works he did, but because he believed in Jesus:
“I won’t be in heaven because I’ve preached to crowds or because I’ve tried to live a good life. I’ll be in heaven for one reason: Many years ago I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ…”
If anyone could earn their way into heaven, it was Billy Graham. But he’s clear about this—he won’t be in heaven for all the ministry he did, or for trying to “live a good life.” No one will. Not me. Not you. You aren’t saved by works. Salvation is by faith apart from works (Gal 3:11; Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Amen!
And more than that, Graham is clear that eternal salvation is by a single act of faith that happens at a point in time (“Many years ago…”). That’s exactly right. It only takes a moment of faith to be born-again forever. At that instant, Jesus gives the believer eternal life (John 3:16, 36). Not temporary life. Not probation. Eternal life.
So far, so good.
But then, in the last sentence of the same paragraph, Graham wrote this:
“Do you know you will go to heaven when you die? You can, by committing your life to Christ today” (emphasis added).
What?
Graham began the paragraph by teaching salvation by faith apart from works. But he ended by teaching salvation by commitment. Is that the same thing?
Don’t most people understand that “commitment” involves behaving a certain way? Don’t most understand that it involves doing works?
When a man and a woman make a commitment to each other in marriage, isn’t that a promise to love each other, care for each other, be there during the tough times, and be completely devoted to each other in all they do? Isn’t it a promise to act a certain way?
Is that what Graham meant?
Graham might have meant “committing your life” as a synonym for “faith apart from works,” but I guarantee you, that’s not what most people will hear. When they read that last sentence, they will understand that going to heaven depends on committing themselves in the sense of doing good deeds. But Graham just explained that was not the basis of salvation. He just wrote that all the ministry he so faithfully carried out was not the reason he would be in heaven. And yet, in that last sentence, he wrote that you can go to heaven if you commit.
Do you agree that’s a contradiction? Do you agree that sends a mixed message about the condition of salvation?
Let me be clear: You are not eternally saved by committing yourself. You are eternally saved by faith, apart from your commitments, best efforts, and good works. Do you know what your commitments and good works are for? Helping out family, friends, and neighbors. But they are not for earning eternal life. Good works are for your neighbor, not for salvation.
Graham was right the first time—salvation is by faith, faith, and only faith.
I know some readers will think that it’s wrong to point out this simple contradiction in Graham’s column. They will interpret my discussion of the last paragraph as an all-out personal attack against the man and his entire ministry, which it isn’t. Thankfully, Graham was open to correction. In this very column, he admitted, “I’m sure I failed in many ways.” We all have. I certainly have.
That’s why you don’t go to heaven based on your commitments! We all fail in many ways. That’s why Jesus promised to give you eternal life by simply believing in Him, apart from works.
Even the best of us can fail to present the saving message clearly, and, sadly, Graham’s last column is an example of preaching a mixed message. It shows that even the most gifted communicators and evangelists can unintentionally be unclear in presenting the saving message. If Billy Graham can make that mistake, so can everyone.
In this column, Graham wanted to be remembered for his faithfulness. Don’t you want to be remembered for sharing the promise of life clearly?
Brady
very good, I am sooo glad YOU/GES caught/understood Billy correctly. For all l my life, ever since I was 8-9 years old I never quite understood WHY Billy Graham rose to such popularity (one reason I can only think of “maybe” he was a great “storyteller”). Let me explain just a little. I had gotten saved when I was 6-7 years old by a church where they actually made sure you actually KNEW and exactly understood who Jesus was and John 3:16 and that only what Jesus only told Nicodemus and the whole world how to be saved is THEE only saving message. And I wholeheartedly believed that because I saw Jesus words for myself and I did even at that age understand what opposites/contradictions were, therefore I knew nothing else besides John 3:16 was true, anything else besides John 3:16 and it was NOT of God, even at the tender age of 6-7. Sooo, therefore by the time I heard of Billy Graham and started listening and watching him on TV I knew I could know when someone was telling the truth about how to be saved.
Now, I absolutely LOVED Billy Graham’s storytelling, but it ALWAYS puzzled and bothered me he NEVER gives the same “saving message” that Jesus did. And I never looked up to Billy Graham-like most did because he did NOT say the same things as Jesus did how to be saved and that got to me and I knew it was WRONG. If what Jesus was saying is true then I KNEW what Billy Graham taught could NOT be true too. They were 2 different saving messages and only God’s/Jesus message is true I knew.
Therefore, I never had the kind of Admiration or respect for Billy Graham-like most did because I knew because of Jesus saving message Billy Graham was anything but a man of God and fool the masses with his hellish devilish message.
Look at how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees. Sooo, actually was Billy Graham really any different than the Pharisees??? No, absolutely not!!! Sooo, why are sooo many bewitched by him???
Brady
Also, anyone can go to Billy Graham’s website and see his statement of faith and see he actually believed and taught WORKS salvation, he was actually a Calvinist?Reform.
Brady
correction, I did not mean for the “?” to be after “Calvinism”.
Scott Moffat
This will not be popular with many of his followers. Billy Graham is an idol of evangelicalism. He was David Platt before David Platt. Your article is spot on. Graham’s legacy is as the preeminent universalist.
Glenn Benfield
Billy Graham will be judged by God. Works that endure will be handsomely rewarded. But just like you, Shawn, I have a major problem with Mr. Graham’s theology. For many years, I read his column in his ministry’s Decision Magazine. The articles would always end in an invitation to commit and surrender your life to Christ. Never was the issue one of exhorting people to believe in Jesus Christ paying for my sins, because this is the only way I could possible gain eternal life. Grace and imputed righteousness were never discussed. And faith was always defined as commitment.
Months after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Rev. Graham
came to the New Orleans Arena to purportedly give a message of hope to those who had suffered so badly from Katrina. He was very near the end of his ministry, but he came to New Orleans for the first time. On Sunday, I went to intently hear his message. When he got to the invitation, near the end of his sermon, he explained John 3:16, word-by-word. To me, the critical word in this verse is “believe”, since this word describes our most vital response. Rev. Graham said: “Believe…believe means to commit…” I remember I felt like standing from my seat, which was far from him, and screaming: LIAR! BELIEVE MEANS TO BELIEVE!!! But I knew this would not be winsome in any way, so I held my peace. Shawn, to this day–over 12 years later–I have been angry at Billy Graham and his ministry! To me, he may possibly be accursed for preaching a false gospel (Gal 1:8). What a shame!!! Jesus Christ paid for every sin ever committed on this planet, but the BGEA has convinced untold numbers of people that there is no rest! No one should commit, surrender, take up their cross to gain eternal life. How do people like Billy Graham read their bible and miss this???
Thank you, Shawn for having the courage to speak truth in this matter.
Shawn Lazar
I’ll have to do a study on Graham’s invitations. Truthfully, I haven’t followed his ministry closely. It would be interesting to catalog the different ways he gave an invitation, and whether or not he was clear that salvation was by believing. Sadly, from what you say, it looks like the “commitment” message has been preached by him for a while.
Carl Johnson
I like the way Oswald Chambers states it, “I am not saved by believing. I simply realize I am saved by believing. And it is not repentance that saves me. Repentance is only the sign that I realize what God has done through Christ Jesus. The danger here is putting the emphasis on the effect, instead of on the cause.” I would add to that that when I realize that I am saved, I hear the voice of Jesus saying, “Follow me,” and I make the decision to commit my life to being His follower. And, by making that commitment I spend time in fellowship with Him by reading and applying His Word, and through that commitment and as a result of His Word, “I have written this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life.”, I can know without a doubt that if I died today I would go to Heaven.
Billy Graham did not have the opportunity to disciple all of the people he preached to. He had to depend on the local churches to take care of that. Perhaps, Billy Graham wanted to make the point that after believing that there is the commitment to follow Jesus every day. Since he is not part of this thread we will not know till later.
Greg Burda
Shawn, Thanks for your blog post. While I admire yours and GES’ attention to specific words (words matter!) it could be that you are off the mark here. As it pertains to this specific article and not any others he has written, one could take “commit” to mean “entrust” and not necessarily to “pledge” or “devote”. If he meant “entrust” I see that as being similar to what occurs the moment one believes in Jesus for eternal life. When I believed in Jesus for eternal life I entrusted my eternal destiny to Him. Before that, I had entrusted my eternal destiny to myself, based upon my works. I trust you’ll see this as a potential explanation. However, in extremely important matters such as the communication of the gospel of salvation I tend to agree with Hodges that there’s nothing wrong with using biblical language. We all use synonyms, but it’s probably best to stick with that.
Respectfully, Greg
Ken Tamashiro
Thanks, Shawn, for the good story.
I saw the contradiction also at the end.
Sadly though many erroneously think that’s Gospel Truth based on the Traditions of Men throughout the centuries.
I have always felt conflicted when leaving a type of Crusaid because of a contradictory message of the Gospel. It was like if I wanted eternal life, the verbal contract is: commitment and discipleship to Christ or there is no deal at all.
Faith and commitment involved my effort to be received by God in Heaven or the deal was off.
Maybe it was good that I felt something was wrong here intuitively.
When I read Mathew it seemed to give the idea of Discipleship Salvation, but now knowing that Christ wanted men to stand up for their Belief in Him and say I Believe and will follow Him because Jesus is the Messiah. There is no commitment there just Belief in Him.
Thank God for sending me a Free Grace Pastor that helped set me free.
Marty Cauley
Graham brought much wheat into the kingdom. Unfortunately, he also brought in many tares with his inconsistencies. Perhaps more tares than wheat.
M Ong
You can’t say anything negative. Everything is universally positive.
But if I said I will clean up your backyard for free, but after I’m done
you have to commit your life to me. No one is signing up for that.
andrew
You folks are slicing the bologna a bit too thin. Billy Graham is not a theologian but an evangelist of the Arminian persuasion although he would not support the notion o flossing ones salvation. He is not a Calvinist and he does not stress works or performance. He stresses believing and accepting. He is a wonderful man and to accuse him or error is silly. If you want to accuse Piper or Sproul of error I am with you because they are 5 point Calvinists who believe in perseverance and final salvation which is nonsense. Graham is nothing like that. He is a simple preacher and we shouldn’t nit pick him.
David Blackburn
Shawn,I AM A FAITH ALONE CHRIST ALONE BELIEVER, my question is will the people that walked the isle and prayed the prayer be saved
Mark D Richmond
I remember Arch Rutherford castigate me for questioning Graham’s theology many years ago when he preached to our free grace congregation. It was insulting to me to say the least. When any MAN is elevated ABOVE the scriptures we have a problem Houston. I used to listen to selected evangelistic crusades that were televised by TBN and the fact was that listening to Graham was like listening to schizophrenic theologically. First it was believe, then it was commit, then do you have fruit, then do you measure up as evidence of your faith. I questioned that to Mr. Rutherford and was told that no Christian had the right to question such a faithful man of God. After that I became more convinced that getting too close to a preacher, teacher or evangelist was a mistake. Now dont get me wrong I still listen and learn from well taught men BUT the scripture is the final arbiter. What did Mr. Graham believe? I have no idea because he never delivered a coherent message when I listened to him. My sense is he believed ib faith alone, but his teachings were confusing to say the least,
Florin Hiltz
I don’t think it helps the Free Grace movement to castigate Bill Graham to much. I do agree with most of what has been said. But one can lose the opportunity to build into someone else’s life if you beat up someone they respect. I have followed Bill Graham’s ministry for years and have tried to point out the Biblical inconsistencies and theological problems with his invitations and preaching, but I have tried to do it with respect for those I am talking to. Because more than anything I want to help people see the truth and focus on that, not the man. It would seem that Billy’s life has been a good example to many people. So we should be kind but point out the problem with kindness to those we are trying to help. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it