Prince Charles and Billy Graham Defend Which Faith?
Prince Charles
The following news item was of interest:
LONDON: The Prince of Wales, who turned 60 yesterday, plans a symbolic change when he becomes king by taking the title Defender of Faith to reflect Britain’s multicultural society.
The move requires only a small grammatical change: dropping the definite article from the monarch’s present title of Defender of the Faith.
But it is very symbolic because it would mean that the king, as head of the Church of England, would no longer be known as Defender of the Faith, a title bestowed on Henry VIII for his support for Catholicism by PopeLeo X in 1521.
The Prince caused controversy within the Anglican Church when he floated the idea several years ago of becoming Defender of the Faiths in an attempt to embrace the other religions. In a compromise he has opted for Defender of Faith, which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his coronation. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/charles-to-defend-faith-not-the-faith/2008/11/14/1226318936014.html
As the article points out historically, the throne of England was to support the Church of England.
But this type of change is not limited to Prince Charles.
Billy Graham, April 1966
According to E. Bynum, Billy Graham in 1948 taught against Catholicism, but a later he changed his mind:
In 1948, Graham said, “The three gravest menaces faced by orthodox Christianity are communism, Roman Catholicism, and Mohammedanism,” NOW, he is continually saying nice things about the Catholics. In 1963 Dr. Graham spoke at Belmont Abbey College, a North Carolina Catholic school. On Nov. 21, 1967, he returned to Belmont Abbey to receive an honorary degree. At that time he made a shocking statement. He said, that he “knew of no greater honor” than the receiving of this degree. Then the shocker comes when he said, “The gospel that built this school and the gospel that brings me here tonight is still the way to salvation”…
A disturbed Roman Catholic wrote Graham about some of the changes going on in the Catholic Church. In his answer, Graham wrote, “Above all, don’t pull out of the church! Stay in it, stay close to the Lord, and use these experiences as an opportunity to help your church be what God intends and what the world needs.” What an answer for a Baptist preacher to give. This was published in his newspaper column, “My Answer”.
Billy Graham says: “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.” (1957) Roman Catholic Cardinal Cushing said: “I am 100% for the evangelist . . . I have never known a religious crusade that was more effective than Dr. Graham’s. I have never heard the slightest criticism of anything he has ever said from any Catholic source.” (1964) In 1963 Billy Graham said that he had a Roman Catholic bishop stand beside him and bless the “converts” as they came forward in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (
Bynum EL. Why We Cannot Support The Billy Graham Crusade. Tract # G-603. TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH, Lubbock, Texas)
Perhaps I should add that the falsely labeled magazine “Christianity Today” had a piece about Billy Graham that I read last week were he was explaining that he had become more supportive of the Church of Rome.
The fact is that neither the throne of England nor Billy Graham are willing to step out and defend THEIR original faith, let alone the true faith of the Bible. Both of these leaders represents clear changes within the Protestant world.
For example, notice what the 19th century Scottish religious historian and Presbyterian minister, James Aitken Wylie, most famous for writing The History of Protestantism, wrote:
The Apostle John, speaking of the great apostasy to arise in Christendom, calls it the “Antichrist.” And the Pope has taken to himself, as the name that best describes his office, the title “Vicar of Christ.” All we shall ask as the basis of our argument are these two accepted facts, namely, that John styles the “apostasy,” “the Antichrist,” and that the head of the Roman system styles himself “Christ’s Vicar.”
The Papacy holds in its name the key of its meaning. We shall make use of that key in unlocking its mystery and true character. The Papacy cannot complain though we adopt this line of interpretation. We do nothing more than use the key it has put into our hands.
The Apostle John, we have said, speaking of the apostasy, the coming of which he predicts, styles it the “Antichrist.” And we have also said that the Papacy, speaking through its representative and head, calls itself the “Vicar of Christ.” The first, “Antichrist,” is a Greek word, the second, “Vicar,” is an English word; but the two are in reality one, for both words have the same meaning. Antichrist translated into English is Vice- Christ, or Vicar of Christ; and Vicar of Christ, rendered into Greek is Antichrist — Antichristos. If we can establish this, and the ordinary use of the word by those to whom the Greek was a vernacular, is decisive on the point — we shall have no difficulty in showing that this is the meaning of the word “Antichrist,” — even a Vice-Christ. And if so, then every time the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ, he pleads at the bar of the world that he is the “Antichrist.
(Wylie J.A. The Papacy is the Antichrist, A Demonstration. Chapter 1. Edinburgh, 1888.)
Yet, now many Protestants no longer believe doctrines like that.
Compromises with the Catholics of Rome clearly will help the Beast (see Europa, the Beast, and the Book of Revelation) and the False prophet (Two Horned Beast of Revelation and 666) as they rise up (most likely in the next decade, see Does God Have a 6,000 Year Plan? What Year Does the 6,000 Years End?).
People need to be grounded in the Christianity of the Bible and not the compromised versions that the majority of those who profess Christ follow.
Of course, the Living Church of God is NOT Protestant as we trace our history back to the original apostles and do not hold many doctrines that the Protestants kept from the Church of Rome as opposed to the Bible. And, I believe that, those who truly wish to follow the cry of sola Scriptura will be led by God to support us.
Several articles of possibly related interest may include:
Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants How the Living Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background.
Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible? Though he is known for his public sola Scriptura teaching, did Martin Luther’s writings about the Bible suggest he felt that prima Luther was his ultimate authority? Statements from him changing and/or discounting 18 books of the Bible are included. Do you really want to know the truth?
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions. Português: Qual é fiel: A igreja católica romana ou a igreja viva do deus? Tambien Español: Cuál es fiel: ¿La iglesia católica romana o La Iglesia del Dios Viviente? Auch: Deutsch: Welches zuverlässig ist: Die Römisch-katholische Kirche oder die lebende Kirche von Gott?
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Living Church of God Both groups claim to be the original church, but both groups have differing ways to claim it. Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?
There are Many COGs: Why Support the Living Church of God? This is an article for those who wish to more easily sort out the different COGs. It really should be a MUST READ for current and former WCG members or any interested in supporting the faithful church. It also explains a lot of what the COGs are all about.
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
 |
Tweet |
|