Evangelist Billy Graham Wants You To Vote Republican

Back in May, legendary Christian evangelist Billy Graham took out a full-page ad in 14 newspapers across North Carolina in order to get the public to vote against gay marriage.

Ultimately, while I don’t think he was directly responsible for it, civil rights for everyone were rejected in that vote. Whether the ad was made with his approval or his organization’s leaders just rubber-stamped his name on it, one thing was very clear in the aftermath: Whatever Graham may have been in the past, he was throwing it all away to play politics on an issue he would’ve been better off avoiding.

Now, he’s doubling-down on his bigotry.

Graham (and his people) are purchasing full-page ads in newspapers across the country urging readers to vote for candidates who “base their decisions on biblical principles,” “protect the sanctity of life,” “support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman,” and support Israel.

In other words, vote for all the Republicans:

I always thought that Graham’s appeal to most Christians was that he was never about politics; he was always about Jesus.

Now we know better: He’s as much a conservative shill as James Dobson, Bryan Fischer, Mike Huckabee, and all those other Christian leaders who see the government as little more than a tool to advance their faith, non-Christians be damned.

Considering how many states are voting on the issue of marriage equality this coming election (and how many of them appear to be polling in the right direction), I’m happy to say that Graham and his generation of anti-gay crusaders are giving way to a younger generation, one that is less religious and far more inclusive than our predecessors. That shift can’t happen fast enough.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Sindigo

    Could he lose his tax breaks for this?

    • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

       I don’t think so. He’s not explicitly saying vote Repugnican. He could certainly argue it’s not endorsement of a candidate.

      • George Wiman

        Exactly why the tax break / candidate thing might be meaningless because it’s really clear who he means.  I’d be OK with pulling all of their tax breaks. Then they wouldn’t have to be so coy.

  • Cindy

    Come on. Billy is too infirm. Franklin is the evil mastermind here.

    • ZedZero

      Agreed , I strongly suspect there is abusive manipulation behind this.

    • Guest

       Maybe so.  But who taught Franklin everything he believes?

  • Fargofan

    If you believe the biblical quote is authentic, Jesus himself said his kingdom was not of this world. His supposed followers want to “correct” that.

  • NixManes

    Given the recent scrubbing of the Billy Graham website of the page calling Mormonism a cult where it was claimed that “it is very important that we recognize cults and avoid any involvement with them,” it’s going to be interesting to see if Mormons do a post-death baptism for him.

    Plus, those who respected Graham for his stance on things like this have to be wondering about him now, having blown is credibility on his death bed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-A-Anderson/100000016895400 John A. Anderson

    If you thought Graham wasn’t political, you must be very young. He has sucked up to every president since Nixon. He’s also a rabid anti-Semite, as the Nixon tapes reveal.

    • Octoberfurst

       Good point! In my younger days I used to admire Billy Graham because he seemed like a genuinely nice guy and didn’t  preach politics. Only later did I learn what a suck-up he was to every President and how he loved being around the rich and powerful.  Then came the Nixon tapes where Graham was heard giving  an anti-Semitic diatribe. After that I lost all respect for him. Now he is just a senile old bigot no different than Pat Robertson.  And his son Franklin is a certified loon who is full of hate and intolerance. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.  

      • Evertoniancalvinist

        Hey Octoberfurst… In your post you condemn Billy G. for being a “suck up to every president and love being around the rich”….. You probably are right and this is probably true. However, what I want to know is this: Given your atheistic worldview, how does it make sense to condemn Billy for this? The guy is trying to get ahead. He was smart enough to figure out that he could better his situation by “sucking up”. I don’t understand how you could fault the man for doing this??? It would make sense for the Christian to frown upon these “sucking up” ethics, but not the atheist. Can you explain to me how you are being consistent with your worldview when condemning Billy? Or are you just going to Ad Hom out of this problem?

        • Coyotenose

           You’ve already been answered dozens of times as to why we don’t act like that. Again, you are intentionally being deceitful and trolling. You’re a stupid, shoddy liar.

        • Helanna

          Actually, I don’t think it does make sense for a Christian to condemn him. After all, doesn’t Christianity boil down to sucking up to God enough to avoid hell? He’s really just following Jesus’ wishes.

          • Evertoniancalvinist

            Hi Helanna….No, that is not a true representation of Christianity. The believer is saved from hell strictly on the basis of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. No sucking up necessary. Salvation is a gift of God. ;)

          • nakedanthropologist

            You’re right – he IS just being a good Christian.  Lots of sucking (;-), plucking, and frowning on other peoples’ fucking.  Too right you are!

        • Octoberfurst

           How many times do people have to explain to you that just because a person doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean they have no morals. Frankly I don’t want to waste any more time talking to you because you are an idiot.

          • Evertoniancalvinist

            Octoberfurst… I understand that you have morals. I agree. That’s how you were able to condemn Billy G. What I want to know from you is how do you account for these morals that you have? What standard of goodness are you using to judge Billy’s character as bad. I want you to think about the very foundations of your atheist worldview, and then tell me how you reasoned to the position of condemning Billy’s ethics. Can you do that for me?

            • IndyFitz

              What’s your point?  Without gods, we can’t have morals?  That you would have none without gods?  That atheists must be pretending to have morals, since we don’t believe in your gods?  That atheists secretly believe in your gods and don’t want to admit it?  What is the basis for you hammering this repeatedly?  Because so far it looks like those who have commented that you’re an idiot are correct.  Please explain why you’re hammering this so you can be properly debated.

            • Antinomian

              Oh jeez, this guy again…..

            • Blaphemous_Kansan

              This post may be deleted as non-substantive and not adding to the discussion, but I had to come out of my blog-lurker bedroom  to tell you that you are a TOTAL FUCKING BORE!!!!! 

              There are plenty of places on the internet where you can masturbate your ego much more effectively than here.

            • HughInAz

              People have repeatedly explained to you the ways in which atheists can have morals, and you just keep mindlessly regurgitating your dime-store theology and making the same dumbass comments over and over again. And then you wonder why people lose patience with you.

        • Jesusdoppelganger

          “It would make sense for the Christian to frown upon these “sucking up” ethics, but not the atheist.”

          Huh?  Graham is/was basically a lobbyist for the evangelical block.  I don’t care if he tries to use the political machinery to do his bidding, so long as he doesn’t endorse specific candidates and so long as his political buddies respect the Establishment Clause.  I don’t much respect Billy Graham; but I’m unaware of any ethical violations on his part.

          • Pseudonym

            Before the 1970s, there was no “evangelical bloc”. That was largely a creation of the neoconservatives, of which Billy Graham was not one.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Bryne/100002441143047 Arthur Bryne

          The lack of a God means that one doesn’t use an is-ought bridge based on God.
          However, it is possible to have non-theist is-ought bridges that
          consider “sucking up” to be better than, worse than, equivalent with, or incomparable to some other course of action. (Any of the four can be philosophically achieved by the trivial step of taking it as a moral axiom.) The question is which is-ought axiomatic bridge is used. Furthermore, the phrase “he could better his situation” implicitly presumes a particular ordering relationship on a set of situations, that may be based on a different ordering relationship.
          In short, the reason you don’t understand appears to be that you are presuming some premises are held by atheists (in implication), which are not necessarily so.

          I think I’ve suggested the Wikipedia entry on Posets and the one on the Is-Ought Problem in your direction, before. However, you generally seem disinclined to respond to that.

    • Pseudonym

      I don’t think that anyone has ever claimed that Graham, wasn’t political. The claim was that he was nonpartisan. Until 2000, he was, at least in public.

      Having said that, it is highly unlikely that Billy Graham himself is in any way responsible for this. He would never have exploited his position in this way. This is “his people” exploiting his senility for their for their own cynical power games.

      Whatever you think of what he did, he does not deserve to be treated this way, by his own family no less.

    • Stev84

      He sucked up to everyone since Truman

  • CelticWhisper

    “candidates who “base their decisions on biblical principles,” “protect the sanctity of life,” “support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman,” and support Israel.”

    I never have quite understood the Republican love for Israel.  Aside from the Middle East being rich in oil…what do they care?  Is it a Jesus thing?  We have to “save” Israel or else Jesus won’t love America anymore?  I mean…that sounds satirical.  That sounds like mean-spirited sarcasm I myself have thrown at fundies who piss me off.  Don’t tell me that there are Republicans who actually, seriously believe it without a trace of irony.

    Okay, so let’s say we do support Israel.  Its opponents aren’t going to give up, and even then…what do we do with it?  With the nation, with its people, with our partnership?  Aside from political leverage in an oil-rich region…what good does it do us?  This is especially baffling when there is so much emphasis on moving away from fossil fuels, whether it be for environmental reasons (Greens, some Democrats) or for bolstering local economies (Libertarians, some GOP) or for…well, screw it, a whole host of reasons.

    Is that it?  Is it Republicans scratching the backs of their oil-magnate buddies by keeping a foot in the door in the Middle East and wrapping the whole thing in Stupid Jesus Shit (TM) rhetoric to hoodwink their voter base?

    Please don’t mistake this for me being anti-Israel or an anti-Semite.  I’m not.  I just always end up scratching my head when I hear “OMG Israel” in politics.  I…don’t get it.

    • Gus Snarp

      Well, for the more extreme fundamentalist Christians support of Israel is about the rapture. They believe literally in the Revelation and the other end times prophecies in the Bible and that means that in order for Jesus to come again and judge mankind and all that, the Jews have to be in control of Jerusalem. It’s that simple. Some of them are even working to breed the special red heifer that will signal the end of the world. “They’re immanentizing the eschaton!”

      How they got to the point where the end of the world is supposed to be a good thing,  I don’t know. You would think that they would want to have the most possible time to save the most possible people and to reduce human suffering. you’d also think they would remember the bits about Jesus saying he would come as a thief in the night and no one could foretell the time. Or that they wouldn’t think that God needs their help in geopolitical matters in order to align things so he can end the world.

      In my day the people who wanted to end the world were always the baddies…

      • CelticWhisper

         Thanks for that.  Their mentality is…completely fucking cuckoo.

    • Ballus Maximus

      Basically what they are saying is support the war with Iran that the Repugnicans will most assuredly initiate. Protect the sanctity of life, but kill baby kill. How very Christian. 

    • Stev84

      Israel also has universal healthcare and had gays openly in the military since 1993. Their fetish is truly incomprehensible.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mandy.m.robbins Mandy Marx Robbins

    I would bet that he had very little to do with that ad. It was his people and his organization cashing in on the current political right-wing movement so that they can still be relevant in their bigoted community once ole Billy buys the farm.

    • Christy

       I agree. Billy Graham is 93, he’s had Parkinson’s for years, vision and hearing loss, and a whole host of other medical problems.  The man can barely hold a conversation these days.  Which isn’t to say that there aren’t a number of legitimate criticisms you can make of Billy Graham – He was a bit too fond of his access to political power, and more or less anointed his son Franklin, who is a nasty piece of work, as his successor.

      At this point in his life, however, I doubt he’s with it enough to have much of an opinion about anything.  I am pretty sure this is all his son Franklin’s doing.  Based on his past behavior, I have no problem believing that he would take advantage of his father’s incapacitation to further his own agenda.

      • Spaigew

        In other words, vote for the party that respects the Bible and this will keep our nation under GOD.  They are eluding to having people vote for the Republican candidate. Somebody wake up people who are sleeping on this. I do recall when mega churches all over the nation were told something similar. We had more people being made a fool of and changed their party and voted for that wolf that was in sheep’s clothing (Bush).  Not only was he a liar but a thief.  He stole the election anyway. Vote for the candidate that has been transparent and honest all along. Thats Christianity enough for me. Please encourage the young people to get out and vote early. 

  • DougI

    Hating Jews, hating gays, I’m sure there’s a lost list of people this fundy hates.  Given the fact that his son is more open and honest about who he hates the nut probably doesn’t fall far from the tree.  No worries though, when he dies the media will go on a cock polishing fest about how great Graham was.

  • Ndodii

    i am a Christian and support Rev Graham’s position. Christians are simply meant to promote Biblical values, and these include, saying no to homosexuality. We boldly declare that God created us male and female, not John and Bruce! so, whichever party promotes those values, might not be the best, but maybe, a better devil!

    • Michael

      …then you should promote ALL bilical values, not just the ones that don’t mention raping women, polygomy, and killing innocent babies.  You might want to read your book again.

    • Jesusdoppelganger

      “Christians are simply meant to promote Biblical values…”

      But a significant number of your values conflict with those of the United States Constitution – those that underpin equal protection under the law.  Please, feel free to promote your cherry-picked biblical values; but in contradistinction to the argument put forward by the religious right that atheism is un-American, I’m calling these values and those who promote them un-American.

    • Edmond

      What do you mean “saying no to homosexuality”?  Do you mean that someone is trying to FORCE you to be gay?  Do you mean you’re being forced into a relationship that doesn’t suit you?  Do you mean that you are being married to someone of your gender against your will?

      Or, do you mean that you want to control the relationships of OTHER people?  Do you mean that you want to interfere in someone ELSE’S marriage?

      If you don’t feel that a homosexual relationship is for you, then you can “say no” to that.  But you only speak for yourself.  It is not your position to dictate that decision for someone else.  Are you going to “say no” for ME, and for what I want in my life?

      It seems that your “biblical values” involve railroading over the lives of others, whether they have adopted your religion or not.  I prefer the party which allows each of us to make our OWN decisions regarding love and religion, not one which presumes to ORDER me to live according to YOUR values.

    • http://twitter.com/sploork Rob Follett 47%

      Yay! Another idiot!

    • Baby_Raptor

      Congratulations. What you’re missing is, you’re supposed to support your chosen interpretation and it’s values IN YOUR OWN LIFE. The law says that you cannot use your religion to force other people to do things, and hey–Jesus said to follow man’s law!

  • Jesusdoppelganger

    “I always thought that Graham’s appeal to most Christians was that he was never about politics; he was always about Jesus.”

    Wait, you’re kidding, right?

    Graham was always about the politics.  He and GOP presidents from way back enjoyed a symbiotic relationship.

  • http://twitter.com/sploork Rob Follett 47%

    So this guy wants polygamous, arranged marriages?  When my brother dies do I have to marry his wife?  What a tool.

  • Sue Blue

    Damn, I thought this old fart was dead.  This guy was a geezer back in the dark ages when my parents watched those hideous “Billy Graham Specials” on TV, and I thought he was senile then.  Does his organization trot out his cryogenically-preserved corpse and do a voice-over whenever there’s a big old imaginary moral crisis or the religiopolitical breezes are blowing the right way?  
    Here’s a headline for you:  “White Geezer Zombie Says, ‘Vote Republican For Jesus’ Sake…and Get Off My Lawn!”   Because we all know that everyone listens to senile old religious crackpots and takes their opinions seriously.  All intelligent young people go through their day constantly asking themselves, “What would that dried-up old mummy Billy Graham do?”

  • nakedanthropologist

    I’ve never liked Billy Graham.  My mother does (she’s Catholic), but even when I was a believer I couldn’t get into his stuff.  There was a weekly column of his that was part of my hometown’s Sunday newspaper – a Q & A piece.  Pesonally, I always thought his answers were pretty lame because he always made them about Jesus.  People would write in with real problems, and he would give them some useless Jesus-y dribble.  There was never any practical advice.  Now that I’m an adult, I realize how incredibly redundant my anecdote is.

  • kaydenpat

    “I always thought that Graham’s appeal to most Christians was that he was never about politics; he was always about Jesus.”

    I tend to agree with you.  I believe it’s probably his son Franklin who has pulled his father into this extreme conservatism.  Too bad that he’s allowing his legacy to be sullied.

  • Robster

    Is this man a resurrected Billy Graham?  He must be as old as the bloke in a boat, Noah. Or is it the same one that’s been rattling around since the earth was created in a week, 6000 years ago? He does show that decomposition can look good.

  • http://www.bigfatsinner.com/ Daniel Lee Baker

      I don’t understand any Christian who seeks to change the world through voting or by pushing to get laws past.  Jesus called them to be separate from the world, not part of it’s government structure.  (Mathew 5:39  and 2 Corinthians 6:17)  It is not their place to judge homosexuals or anyone else.  It is not their place to try and regulate their behavior.  Jesus never called them to get involved in any of that.  They are called to be separate and to prepare themselves to be a part of God’s government (the Kingdom of God)  when it gets here.  But it ain’t here yet and until it is they are expected to be as meek as lambs, harmless as doves.  They should be “[working out their] own salvation with fear and trembling,” and worrying about the beam in their own eye, not the spec in their neighbor’s eye.  Why isn’t anybody busting their chops over this?  I think it is fine for them to believe as they do.  But it is not okay in the eyes of Jesus for them to be getting involved in human politics and law making.

  • http://reasondecrystallized.blogspot.com/ Andrew

    As I wrote on my blog: Billy Graham, one of the last evangelical leaders who was not a Republican shill, recently repented of that failing via a full-page ad in the WSJ.  Worried about the future of the country, which he referred to using a phrase that was added to the pledge of allegiance when he was 35, the elder Graham firmly cemented his legacy as a civil rights opponent defender of marriage the way God intended: between one man and however many women he can afford one woman.  He also all-but-endorsed Mitt Romney, following which all references to Mormonism being a cult disappeared from his website.

    And in unrelated news, the nones just hit 20%.  One wonders why.

  • revrocky210

    [Hi Hemant. Fascinating blog. Check this out  -  what I stumbled upon on the net.]

          Famous Rapture Watchers – Addendum

                       by Dave MacPherson

    (The statements in my “Famous Rapture Watchers” web article appeared in
    my 1983 book “The Great Rapture Hoax” and quoted only past leaders. I am
    now honored to include these additional quotes from some other
    leaders.)

         Oswald J. Smith: “…I am absolutely convinced
    that there will be no rapture before the Tribulation, but that the
    Church will undoubtedly be called upon to face the Antichrist…”
    (Tribulation or Rapture – Which?, p. 2).

         Paul B. Smith: “You
    are perfectly free to quote me as believing rather emphatically in the
    post-tribulation teaching of the Bible” (letter dated June 9, 1976).

         S. I. McMillen: “…Christians will suffer in the Great Tribulation” (Discern These Times, p. 55).

        
    Norman F. Douty: “…all of the evidence of history runs one way – in
    favor of Post-tribulationism” (Has Christ’s Return Two Stages?, p. 113).

        
    Leonard Ravenhill: “There is a cowardly Christianity which…still
    comforts its fainting heart with the hope that there will be a rapture -
    perhaps today – to catch us away from coming tribulation” (Sodom Had No
    Bible, p. 94).

         William Hendriksen: “…the one and only second coming of Christ to judgment” (Israel in Prophecy, p. 29).

        
    Loraine Boettner: “Hence we conclude that nowhere in Scripture does it
    teach a secret or pre-tribulation Rapture” (The Millennium, p. 168).

        
    J. Sidlow Baxter: “…believers of the last days (there is only one
    small part of the total Church on earth at any given moment) will be on
    earth during the so-called ‘Great Tribulation’ ” (Explore the Book, Vol.
    6, p. 345).

         Merrill C. Tenney: “There is no convincing
    reason why the seer’s being ‘in the Spirit’ and being called into heaven
    [Revelation 4:1-2] typifies the rapture of the church…” (Interpreting
    Revelation, p. 141).

         James R. Graham: “…there is not a
    line of the N.T. that declares a pre-tribulation rapture, so its
    advocates are compelled to read it into certain indeterminate texts…”
    (Watchman, What of the Night?, p. 79).

         Ralph Earle: “The
    teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture seems first to have been
    emphasized widely about 100 years ago by John Darby of the Plymouth
    Brethren” (Behold, I Come, p. 74).

         Clarence B. Bass: “…I
    most strongly believe dispensationalism to be a departure from the
    historic faith…” (Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, p. 155).

        
    William C. Thomas: “The return of Jesus Christ, described by parousia,
    revelation, and epiphany, is one single, glorious, triumphant event for
    which we all wait with great eagerness!” (The Blessed Hope in the
    Thessalonian Epistles of Paul, p. 42).

         Harold J. Ockenga:
    “No exegetical justification exists for the arbitrary separation of the
    ‘coming of Christ’ and the ‘day of the Lord.’ It is one ‘day of the Lord
    Jesus Christ’ ” (Christian Life, February, 1955).

         Duane
    Edward Spencer: “Paul makes it very clear that the Church will pass
    through the Great Tribulation” (“Rapture-Tribulation” cassette).

        
    J. C. Maris: “Nowhere the Bible teaches that the Church of Jesus Christ
    is heading for world dominion. On the contrary – there will be no place
    for her, save in ‘the wilderness,’ where God will take care of her
    (Rev. 12:13-17)” (I.C.C.C. leaflet “The Danger of the Ecumenical
    Movement,” p. 2).

         F. F. Bruce: “To meet the Lord [I
    Thessalonians 4:17]…on the final stage of…[Christ's] journey…to
    the earth…” (New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1159).

         G.
    Christian Weiss: “Some people say that this ['gospel of the kingdom' in
    Matthew 24:14] is not the gospel of grace but is a special aspect of the
    gospel to be preached some time in the future. But there is nothing in
    the context to indicate this” (“Back to the Bible” broadcast, February
    9, 1976).

         Pat Brooks: “Soon we, in the Body of Christ, will
    be confronted by millions of people disillusioned by such false
    teaching [Pre-Tribism]” (Hear, O Israel, p. 186).

         Herman
    Hoeksema: “…the time of Antichrist, when days so terrible are still to
    arrive for the church…” (Behold, He Cometh!, p. 131).

        
    Ray Summers: “Because they [Philadelphia] have been faithful, he
    promises his sustaining grace in the tribulation…” (Worthy Is the
    Lamb, p. 123).

         George E. Ladd: “[Pretribulationism] may be
    guilty of the positive danger of leaving the Church unprepared for
    tribulation when Antichrist appears…” (The Blessed Hope, p. 164).

        
    Peter Beyerhaus: “The Christian Church on earth [will face] the final,
    almost superhuman test of being confronted with the apocalyptical
    temptation by Antichrist” (Christianity Today, April 13, 1973).

         Leon Morris: “The early Christians…looked for the Christ to come as Judge” (Apocalyptic, p. 84).

        
    Dale Moody: “There is not a passage in the New Testament to support
    Scofield. The call to John to ‘come up hither’ has reference to mystical
    ecstasy, not to a pretribulation rapture” (Spirit of the Living God, p.
    203).

         John R. W. Stott: “He would not spare them from the
    suffering [Revelation 3:10]; but He would uphold them in it” (What
    Christ Thinks of the Church, p. 104).

         G. R. Beasley-Murray:
    “…the woman, i.e., the Church…flees for refuge into the wilderness
    [Revelation 12:14]…” (The New Bible Commentary, p. 1184).

        
    Bernard L. Ramm: “…as the Church moves to meet her Lord at the
    parousia world history is also moving to meet its Judge at the same
    parousia” (Leo Eddleman’s Last Things, p. 41).

         J. Barton
    Payne: “…the twentieth century has indeed witnessed a progressively
    rising revolt against pre-tribulationism” (The Imminent Appearing of
    Christ, p. 38).

         Robert H. Gundry: “Divine wrath does not
    blanket the entire seventieth week…but concentrates at the close” (The
    Church and the Tribulation, p. 63).

         C. S. Lovett: “Frankly I
    favor a post-trib rapture…I no longer teach Christians that they will
    NOT have to go through the tribulation” (PC, January, 1974).

         Walter R. Martin: “Walter Martin finally said…’Yes, I’m a post-trib’ ” (Lovett’s PC, December, 1976).

         Jay Adams: “Today’s trend is…from pre- to posttribulationism” (The Time Is at Hand, p. 2).

        
    Jim McKeever: “Nowhere do the Scriptures say that the Rapture will
    precede the Tribulation” (Christians Will Go Through the Tribulation, p.
    55).

         Arthur Katz: “I think it fair to tell you that I do
    not subscribe to the happy and convenient theology which says that God’s
    people are going to be raptured and lifted up when a time of
    tribulation and trial comes” (Reality, p. 8).

         Billy Graham:
    “Perhaps the Holy Spirit is getting His Church ready for a trial and
    tribulation such as the world has never known” (Sam Shoemaker’s Under
    New Management, p. 72).

         W. J. Grier: “The Scofield Bible
    makes a rather desperate effort…it tries to get in the ‘rapture’ of
    the saints before the appearing of Antichrist” (The Momentous Event, p.
    58).

         Pat Robertson: “Jesus Christ is going to come back to
    earth again to deliver Israel and at the same time to rapture His
    Church; it’s going to be one moment, but it’s going to be a glorious
    time” (“700 Club” telecast, May 14, 1975).

         Ben Kinchlow:
    “Any wrath [during the Tribulation] that comes upon us – any difficulty -
    will not be induced by God, but it’ll be like the people are saying,
    ‘The cause of our problems are those Christians in our midst; we need to
    get rid of them’ ” (“700 Club” telecast, August 28, 1979).

        
    Daniel P. Fuller: “It is thus concluded that Dispensationalism fails to
    pass the test of an adequate system of Biblical Interpretation” (The
    Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, p. 369).

         Corrie ten Boom:
    “The Bible prophesies that the time will come when we cannot buy or
    sell, unless we bear the sign of the Antichrist…” (Tramp for the Lord,
    p. 187).    
       
         Francis Nigel Lee (church historian etc., 9 earned doctorates!): “Dave
    MacPherson, in his various books, has made a major contribution toward
    vindicating Historic Christian Eschatology. The 1830 innovations of the
    disturbed Margaret Macdonald documented by MacPherson – in part or in
    whole – immediately spread to Edward Irving and his followers, then to
    J. N. Darby and Plymouth Brethrenism, and were later popularized by the
    dispensationalistic Scofield Reference Bible, by Classic Pentecostalism,
    and by latter-day pretribulationists like J. F. Walvoord and Hal
    Lindsey.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X