New Evangelicalism - Way of Life Literature

New Evangelicalism: Its History, Characteristics,and FruitCopyright 2006 by David W. CloudThis edition February 2012ISBN 1-58318-100-8Published by Way of Life LiteraturePO Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061866-295-4143 (toll free) - fbns@wayoflife.orgwww.wayoflife.orgCanada: Bethel Baptist Church4212 Campbell St. N., London Ont. N6P 1A6519-652-2619 (voice) - 519-652-0056 (fax)info@bethelbaptist.caPrinted in Canada byBethel Baptist Print Ministry2

ContentsAbout Way of Life’s eBooks .......................................... 4Introduction .................................................................... 6The History of New Evangelicalism .............................. 8The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy ............. 8A Rejection of Fundamentalism ............................... 34The Old Evangelicalism ........................................... 38The Influence of New Evangelicalism ......................... 45The Characteristics of New Evangelicalism ............... 48Repudiation of Separatism ....................................... 48Dialogue ................................................................... 56A Love for Positivism ............................................... 74Exalting Love and Unity above Doctrine ................. 89Pragmatism ............................................................. 100Intellectualism ........................................................ 105Anti-Fundamentalism ............................................. 112Inconsistency and Contradiction ............................ 122Essentials and Non-essentials ................................. 126A Social-Justice Emphasis ..................................... 132Spiritual Pacifism ................................................... 136The Fruit of of New Evangelicalism ......................... 140Apostasy in Doctrine .............................................. 142Apostasy in Ecumenism ......................................... 160Apostasy in Christian Living .................................. 183Apostasy in Acceptance of Heretics ....................... 186...................................................................Conclusion 1973

About Way of Life’s eBooksSince January 2011, Way of Life Literature books havebeen available in eBook format. Some are available forpurchase, while others are available for free download.The eBooks are designed and formatted to work well ona variety of applications/devices, but not all apps/devicesare equal. Some allow the user to control appearance andlayout of the book while some don’t even show italics!For best reading pleasure, please choose your readingapp carefully.For some suggestions, see the report “iPads, Kindles,eReaders, and Way of Life Materials,” at the Way of Lifeweb site at the Way of Life web site www.wayoflife.org/database/styled-3/Which Format?Our goal is publish our books in the three most popularformats: PDF, mobi (Kindle, etc), and ePub (iBooks, etc).Individual titles, though, may not be available in allformats.The PDF version from our web site will always be thelatest and most up to date version. The PDF editions areavailable either from the online catalog, for titles thatmust be purchased, or from the Free eBooks section fortitles that are free.Way of Life, Amazon Kindle, Apple iBooks?Many of the Way of Life titles can be found onAmazon.com, Apple iBookstore, and/or GoogleBooks. The major advantage of obtaining your eBook4

from the Amazon Kindle store or Apple’s iBooks store isthat they provide syncing across devices (i.e.: a Kindlereader and Kindle for PC or Kindle for Mac and iPad). Ifyou read on multiple devices and use bookmarks or makehighlights, consider a store download from theappropriate site.5

IntroductionI am convinced that few errors are as destructive tofundamentalist Bible-believing churches as NewEvangelicalism. When people leave fundamentalistBible-believing churches, where do they go? Do theyjoin the Roman Catholic Church or a modernisticProtestant church, such as the United Methodist, thePresbyterian Church U.S.A., the United Church ofCanada, or the Uniting Church of Australia? Do they joina cult such as Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witness? Thatseldom occurs. Most people that leave fundamentalistchurches go the positive-thinking, easy-going NewEvangelical route.Few false philosophies more directly pull at members offundamental Baptist churches than New Evangelicalism.Church members are confronted with it on every hand--through popular Christian radio and television preachers,at the local ecumenical bookstore, through members ofother churches, through ecumenical evangelisticcrusades, through political and social activity, throughinterdenominational organizations such as PromiseKeepers.It is therefore essential that we understand the nature ofNew Evangelicalism.We are concerned that many of the members offundamentalist churches do not have a clearunderstanding of exactly what New Evangelicalism is,6

nor of the history of the doctrinal battles that have beenfought to preserve the Truth in the past 100 years.Many seem to think that New Evangelicalism is aproblem that existed decades ago and that no longer is anissue.To be ignorant of the insidious and pervasive nature ofNew Evangelicalism is to be unprepared to identify andresist it; yet large numbers of Bible believers do notknow anything about it. When a fundamental Baptistevangelist recently asked the students of a well-knownindependent Baptist school to raise their hands if theycould define New Evangelicalism, only two couldrespond.Hosea 4:6 warns, “My people are destroyed for lack ofknowledge…”7

The History of New EvangelicalismThe Fundamentalist-Modernist ControversyThe Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy set the stagefor New Evangelicalism.To understand New Evangelicalism, we must go backtwo centuries to the formation of theological modernism,which had its origin in Europe, particularly in Germany,in the 19th century and was the rationalistic thinking ofthat time applied to Christianity. It was the dawn of the“scientific era”; many believed that mankind was on theverge of discovering the secrets of the universe andsolving mankind’s problems.Anti-Christian thinkers such as Darwin, Hegel, and Marxled the movement to dethrone God and replace Him withMan. Unregenerate “Christian” professors in manyEuropean universities and seminaries, having alreadyrejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God, gladlyaccepted the humanistic thinking of the day and set out toapply evolutionary philosophy to the Bible andChristianity.The result was tragic: The Bible was brought down to thelevel of a mere human book, inspired only in the sensethat Shakespeare’s writings were “inspired.” Jesus Christwas brought down to the level of a mere man: a greatteacher, perhaps, but a mere man nonetheless8

Theological liberalism spread like ivy, which first sleeps,then creeps, then leaps. This is precisely what occurredwith modernism. It began in a seemingly insignificantway in the 18th century; it crept forward and expandedits influence in the 19th; and then it leaped fromdenomination to denomination and spread throughout theworld in the 20th. It was introduced to Americandenominations by men who studied in prestigious,though apostate, European universities and by Europeanprofessors and pastors who visited American schools anddenominational churches.Nominal Christianity had paved the way for thisapostasy.In Germany, the Lutheran state church was spirituallypowerless. The nation’s citizens were members of thechurch by the rite of infant baptism, but for the most partthey were not born again and the new birth was seldompreached.A similar situation existed in England, though to a lesserdegree. The Church of England, which dominatedreligious life, largely represented a nominal Christianity,but unlike in Germany, there was a stronger evangelicalmovement within the state church of England. There wasalso a stronger independent church movement apart fromthe state apparatus, as represented by Baptists,Methodists, Brethren, Salvation Army, and others.Spiritual revivals had produced good fruit in England inthe late 18th and early 19th century9

Theological modernism arose in a day when hereticalphilosophies and doctrines were on the increase.It was the age of “enlightenment” in which rationalismwas positively encouraged by Frederick II, the“philosopher king,” who reigned over Prussia for 46years (1740-1786). The “age of enlightenment” shouldactually be called the “age of unbelief.” Frederick was “athorough rationalist and patron of ‘free thought.’ Thesight of a cross, it was said, was enough to make himblaspheme” (Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 5).The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of 1934 correctlydefined the “Enlightenment” as “shallow and pretentiousintellectualism, unreasonable contempt for authority andtradition.”H. E. G. PAULUS (1761-1851) of Heidelberg, Germany,devised naturalistic explanations for Christ’s miraclesduring the first half of the nineteenth century. Heclaimed, for example, that Jesus did not walk on thewater but was actually walking on the shore and in themist and fog it only appeared that he was walking on thewater. Paulus devised the ridiculous hypothesis that Jesusdid not die on the cross, but only swooned, and in thecoolness of the tomb revived, and after an earthquakemoved the stone he walked out and appeared to thedisciples. (He did not explain how that a nearly dead mancould convince the disciples that he was the resurrectedMessiah.)FREDERICK SCHLEIRMACHER (1768-1834) ofHalle, Germany, exalted experience and feeling over10

Bible doctrine. He used traditional Christian languagebut gave it a new definition. He emphasized the necessityof knowing Christ through faith, but his “faith” did notmean believing the Bible as the infallible Word of Godbut referred merely to man’s own intuition orconsciousness. Schleiermacher did not considerhistorical biblical reality to be necessary to faith. Bydivorcing faith from the objectivity of an infallible Bibleand genuine history, Schleiermacher made it possible forone to be an atheist and a Christian at the same time.Thus he could say, “With my intellect I am a philosopher,and with my feelings quite a devout man; ay, more thanthat, a Christian” (quoted by Daniel Edward,“Schleiermacher Interpreted by Himself and the Men ofHis School,” British and Foreign Evangelical Review,vol. 25, 1876, p. 609).Schleiermacher barred doctrinal preaching from thepulpit (Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, 2000, p.11).“Schleiermacher is correctly viewed as the chief sourceof the massive change which has occurred in the historicProtestant denominations during the last two hundredyears. ... In his separation of the intellectual content ofChristianity (the objective biblical revelation) fromChristian ‘feeling’, Schleiermacher seemed to providea means whereby the essence of Christianity couldremain unaffected, no matter how much of the Biblewas rejected. Hostile criticism of Scripture need nottherefore be seen as a threat to the ‘faith’ ... Christianity,it was concluded, could be successful irrespective of11

whether Scripture were preserved as the Word of God,and this thought was the more appealing as thetheological scholarship of the nineteenth century becameincreasingly destructive” (Iain Murray, EvangelicalismDivided).Schleiermacher paved the way for the New Evangelicalview that men can be genuine Christians and “love theLord,” even though they reject biblical doctrine. It was inthis way that Billy Graham could have sweet fellowshipwith modernistic unbelievers and Roman Catholicbishops and popes and thereby influence multitudes withhis terrible compromise. (For documentation see The SadDisobedience of Billy Graham, which is available as afree eBook from Way of Life Literature --www.wayoflife.org.)F. C. B AUR (1792-1860), founder of the TuebingenSchool of New Testament criticism (Tuebingen,Germany), claimed that the Gospel of John was notwritten by the Apostle John and, in fact, was not writtenuntil 170 A.D., and that only four of Paul’s Epistles wereactually written by him. Baur argued that the NewTestament was merely the natural record of the earlychurches which was doctored by later writers. Baur’sschool was very influential in the spread of modernism.DAVID F. STRAUSS (1808-1874), a pupil of F.C. Baur,“dismissed all the supernatural and messianic elements inthe Gospels as myth.” In his book The Life of Jesus(1835-36) he boldly denied Jesus’ divinity.12

SÖREN KIERKEGAARD (1813-1855) popularizedexistentialism in contrast to biblical absolutism.Everything is relative. Though little known in his lifetimebeyond the borders of Denmark, his writings laterbecame influential through translations. For instance,Robert Runcie, who was Archbishop of Canterbury overthe Church of England from 1980 to 1990, said he wasindebted to Kierkegaard for the idea “that religion hadnothing to do with the rational part of your mind.”Runcie said this showed him a way in which he “couldhold together a fundamental skepticism with religiousdevotion” (Humphrey Carpenter, Robert Runcie: TheReluctant Archbishop, 1977, p. 88). This has become theprominent approach among theological modernists. TheirChristian faith has no solid historical basis.The GRAF-WELLHAUSEN THEORY was named forJulius Wellhausen (1844-1918) and Karl Heinrich Graf(1815-1869). (Wellhausen published the Prolegomena tothe History of Ancient Israel in 1878.) According to thistheory, the Old Testament is not divine revelation butmerely the record of the evolution of Israel’s religiousthinking. Wellhausen held “that Hebrew religion hadundergone a development from the primitive stories ofnomadic times to the elaborate, institutionalized ritualismof the period of the centuries before the birth ofChrist” (The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing,1977, p. 554). More than anything else the Graf-Wellhausen theory has destroyed the authority of theBible in the minds of men.13

Wellhausen denied the historicity of Abraham, Noah, andother Bible characters. He claimed that Israel did notknow about Jehovah God until Moses taught them this atMt. Sinai. He claimed that the laws and the priestlysystem were not given by Moses but were developedafter Israel was in Canaan and, in some cases, after theBabylonian exile. He claimed that most of the Pentateuchwas written during the days of Israel’s kings as a “piousfraud.” This theory has, in its ever-changing forms,wielded vast influence in theological education in mostdenominations.Therefore, at the heart of theological modernism is ANATTACK UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.A central tenant is the critical approach, which questionsthe traditional authorship and historicity of thePentateuch and other parts of Scripture. The result is toquestion or openly deny Old Testament miracles such asthe worldwide Flood of Noah’s day, God’s destruction ofSodom by fire from heaven, Lot’s wife turning to a pillarof salt, the divine judgments upon Egypt, the crossing ofthe Red Sea, the account of Job’s suffering, and Jonah’sexperience in the whale’s belly.The translators of the Revised Standard Version of 1951were modernists and their writings illustrate this attack.They represented the creme of theological education inthe mainline Protestant denominations in America at themid-point of the 20th century. Following are just a fewexamples of their modernistic thinking:Clarence T. Craig: “Revelation has sometimes beenunderstood to consist in a holy book. ... Even on14

Christian soil it has sometimes been held that thebooks of the Bible were practically dictated to thewriters through the Holy Spirit. ... I DO NOT THINKTHAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIANPOSITION. ... The true Christian position is the BibleCONTAINS the record of revelation” (Craig, TheBeginning of Christianity, 1943, pp. 17, 18).Millar Burrows: “We cannot take the Bible as awhole and in every part as stating with divineauthority what we must believe and do” (Burrows,Outline of Biblical Theology).Russell Bowie: “According to the ENTHUSIASTICTRADITIONS which had come down through theFOLKLORE of the people of Israel, Methuselah lived969 years” (Walter Russell Bowie, Great Men of theBible, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1937, p. 1).Julius Bewer: “The dates and figures found in thefirst five books of the Bible turn out to be altogetherunreliable” (Bewer, The Literature of the OldTestament, 1940).Fleming James: “The narrative of calling down firefrom heaven upon the soldiers sent to arrest him isPLAINLY LEGENDARY. . . . What REALLYhappened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGERKNOW” (James, The Beginnings of Our Religion).Edgar Goodspeed: “The oldest of these elements[that formed Genesis] was a Judean account of thenation’s story from the beginning of the world to theconquest of Canaan by the tribes. ... BABYLONIANMYTHS AND LEGENDS AND CANAANITEPOPULAR TALES HE FREELY APPROPRIATED tohis great purpose of enforcing morality and theworship of one God. Sometimes crude oldSUPERSTITIOUS IDEAS still cling to some of these.The writer of this ancient record was a prophet ... Hewrote his book about 850 B.C. in the SouthernKingdom of Judah. ... And IN THE CAPTIVITY INBABYLONIA THESE BOOKS [THE FIRST SIXBOOKS OF THE BIBLE] WERE COMBINED INTO15

A GREAT COMPOSITE WORK of history and law ...So at last, not long after 400 B.C., arose theHexateuch” (Goodspeed, The Story of the OldTestament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1934, pp. 107-110).Learoy Sperry: “Plainly no divine fiat compoundedman out of the dust of the earth and the universalspirit on a Friday in the year 4004 B.C. It is harderthan once it was to see God walking in that gardenin the cool of the evening” (Sperry, Signs of TheseTimes, New York: Doubleday, 1929, p. 110).A more recent illustration of theological modernismcomes from the pen of JOHN SHELBY SPONG, abishop (now retired) in the Episcopal Church in America.Consider an excerpt from this man’s writings:“Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birthare not literally true? The answer is a simple anddirect 'Yes.' Of course these narratives are notliterally true. Stars do not wander, angels do notsing, virgins do not give birth, magi do not travel to adistant land to present gifts to a baby, andshepherds do not go in search of a newbornsavior. ...“To talk of a Father God who has a divine-humanson by a virgin woman is a mythology that ourgeneration would never have created, and obviously,could not use. To speak of a Father God so enragedby human evil that he requires propitiation for oursins that we cannot pay and thus demands thedeath of the divine-human son as a guilt offering is aludicrous idea to our century. The sacrificial conceptthat focuses on the saving blood of Jesus thatsomehow washes me clean, so popular inEvangelical and Fundamentalist circles, is by andlarge repugnant to us today” (John Spong, Rescuingthe Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinksthe Meaning of Scripture, Harper & Row, 1991, pp.215, 234).16

Another recent example of theological modernism isTHE JESUS SEMINAR. This misnamed organization,composed of some 75 “experts in religion and NewTestament studies,” began meeting in March 1985 (theproject was first announced in 1978) with the skepticalobjective of discovering which words of the Gospels areauthentic.In the 1980s, the Jesus Seminar scholars cast ballots onthe authenticity of Christ’s sayings in the four Gospelsusing pegs or balls. After discussing a passage, thepresumptuous “scholars” would cast their votes. Redindicated a strong probability of authenticity; pinkindicated a good probability; gray indicated a weakprobability; and black indicated little or no probability.The colors therefore indicated various degrees of doubtin God’s Word.In 1993, the Jesus Seminar published The Five Gospels:The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. Thisincluded a new translation called “The Scholar’sTranslation.” The color coding was incorporated into thetext to describe the degree to which the various portionsof the Gospels are considered authentic. Very few of thepassages are red!The Seminar concluded that Jesus spoke only 18 percentof the sayings attributed to Him in the Bible. Accordingto this group of modernistic scholars, Christ did notspeak most of the beatitudes in the Sermon on theMount; He did not say anything about turning the other17

cheek; He did not speak the parable of the sower, theparable of the ten virgins, the parable of the ten pieces ofmoney, or the parable of the talents; He did not say, “Iwill build my church, and the gates of hell shall notprevail against it.” He did not say, “Take eat, this is mybody,” and the other sayings associated with the Lord’sSupper. He did not pray in the garden of Gethsemane. Hedid not say, “Father, forgive them; for they know notwhat they do,” or, “My God, my God, why hast thouforsaken me,” when He was on the cross.The Seminar determined that Jesus did not walk on thewater, did not feed the thousands with only a few loavesand fishes, did not prophesy of His death or resurrectionor second coming, did not appear before the Jewish highpriest or before Pilate, did not rise again bodily on thethird day, and did not ascend to Heaven.According to the Jesus Seminar, “THE STORY OF THEHISTORICAL JESUS ENDED WITH HIS DEATH ONTHE CROSS AND THE DECAY OF HISBODY” (Religious News Service, March 6, 1995).These modernistic scholars announced to the world thatJesus Christ was a mere man who was plagued withdelusions and was caught up in some sort of politicalintrigue and events beyond His control.At the Redlands, California, meeting in 1986, JesusSeminar scholar Ron Cameron stated:“THE DEATH OF JESUS WAS LIKE A CARWRECK; IT’S AN ACCIDENT OF HISTORY. ... I’m18

not sure why the Romans killed Jesus, but thegospel stories are not historical in the modern senseof the word. I don’t think Jesus had the notoriety thatthe gospels say he had. His sayings don’t anywheregive evidence that he was trying to found a churchor a reform movement” (Christian News, April 7,1986).Jesus Seminar leader Marcus Borg made the followingstatement to the religious press in 1992:“I would argue that the truth of Easter does notdepend on whether there was an empty tomb, orwhether anything happened to the body of Jesus. ...I DO NOT SEE THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION ASEXCLUSIVELY TRUE, OR THE BIBLE AS THEUNIQUE AND INFALLIBLE REVELATION OFGOD. ... It makes no historical sense to say, ‘Jesuswas killed for the sins of the world.’ ... I am one ofthose Christians who does not believe in the virginbirth, nor in the star of Bethlehem, nor in thejourneys of the wisemen, nor in the shepherdscoming to the manger, as facts of history” (BibleReview, December 1992).(For a refutation of modernistic theories of Bibleinspiration see the Advanced Bible Studies Series courseon Bible Doctrine or the Way of Life Encyclopedia of theBible & Christianity, available from Way of LifeLiterature.)Theological modernism flies under many flags andassumes many guises. Not all modernists are as bold andplain spoken as the translators of the RSV or John Spongor Marcus Borg, BUT ALL DENY THE INFALLIBLEINSPIRATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.19

It is important to remember that the Holy Spiritprophesied of this. The Lord’s apostles warned that manyunregenerate false teachers would creep into the churchesand would deceive many, and in fact, such false teacherswere already active during the times of the apostles.“But there were false prophets also among thepeople, even as there shall be false teachers amongyou, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,even denying the Lord that bought them, and bringupon themselves swift destruction. And many shallfollow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom theway of truth shall be evil spoken of” (2 Pet. 2:1-2).“For I know this, that after my departing shallgrievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing theflock. Also of your own selves shall men arise,speaking perverse things, to draw away disciplesafter them” (Acts 20:19-30).“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the lattertimes some shall depart from the faith, giving heedto seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speakinglies in hypocrisy; having their conscience searedwith a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:1-2).“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse andworse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).“For the time will come when they will not enduresound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall theyheap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;and they shall turn away their ears from the truth,and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the lastdays scoffers, walking after their own lusts, andsaying, Where is the promise of his coming? forsince the fathers fell asleep, all things continue asthey were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet.3:3-4).20

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, whowere before of old ordained to this condemnation,ungodly men, turning the grace of our God intolasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, andour Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye haveheard that antichrist shall come, even now are theremany antichrists; whereby we know that it is the lasttime. They went out from us, but they were not of us;for if they had been of us, they would no doubt havecontinued with us: but they went out, that they mightbe made manifest that they were not all of us” (1John 2:18-19).“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spiritswhether they are of God: because many falseprophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).The “Fundamentalists”The term “fundamentalism” has come to mean anynumber of things and is commonly used in a derogatoryand slanderous way by those who do not believe theScriptures and particularly by those who hate biblicalseparatism. It is used to describe all sorts of dangerousextremism, such as Islamic terrorism, Pentecostal snakehandling,and Ayrian Nation racism.Biblical fundamentalism has no affinity with any of thesethings. Let’s consider the origin of the name“fundamentalist.”Fundamentalism arose from the doctrinal controversiesthat embroiled American churches at the beginning of the19th century when theological modernism began to takecontrol of seminaries, Bible colleges, and leadership21

positions in the denominations. In America, the churchsituation was significantly different than in Europe andeven in England. There were no state churches, and thenation was blessed with powerful revivals in the 1700s,1800s, and the early 1900s. As theological modernismbegan gaining adherents in U.S. denominations,regenerate Christian leaders who believed the Bible tooka stand against it.The theological battle that followed was called theFundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.The stage was set for this conflict by the publication of aseries of books that were written to expound fundamentaldoctrines of the Christian faith. Published over a fiveyearperiod from 1910-1915, The Fundamentalscomprised 90 articles written by 64 authors. With thefinancial backing of California oil magnates Milton andLyman Stewart, some three million copies of the 12paperback volumes of The Fundamentals weredistributed to Christian workers in the United States and21 foreign countries. The articles defended the infallibleinspiration of Scripture, justification by grace alonethrough faith alone, the new birth, the deity, virgin birth,miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and othercardinal Bible doctrines.Not only did The Fundamentals address the heresy oftheological modernism, but also that of of Romanism,Socialism, and some of the Cults. Contributors includedW.B. Riley, James Gray, G. Campbell Morgan, H.C.G.Moule, James Orr, A.T. Pierson, Thomas Spurgeon (son22

of Charles), J.C. Ryle, Philip Mauro, W.H. GriffithThomas, R.A. Torrey, and B.B. Warfield.The fundamentalist cause was further advanced with thegathering of the World Conference on ChristianFundamentals in Philadelphia in 1919.It is said that the name “fundamentalist” was first used in1920 by Edward Lee Laws, editor of the WatchmanExaminer, a Northern Baptist publication. Laws coinedthe term “to describe a group of concerned Baptists whohad just met at the Delaware Avenue Baptist Church inBuffalo, New York, to discuss the problem of modernismin the Northern Baptist Convention” (David Beale,S.B.C. House on the Sand? p. 195).In England few accepted the name “fundamentalist,”preferring to remain known as evangelicals. PeterMasters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle inLondon, says:“In the UK the term fundamentalist has not beenmuch used” (Are We Fundamentalists? 1995, p. 4).England’s G. Campbell Morgan said:“I dislike the word ‘Fundamentalist’ as much as Idislike the word ‘Modernist.’ I always decline to belabeled by either designation. My own position isthat of holding the evangelical faith in itsfullness” (“Fundamentalist Foibles,” The BiblicalEvangelist, Oct. 12, 1984).23

The fundamentalist movement was never homogenouseven in its earliest days. There were many types offundamentalists and many divisions.Protestant fundamentalists in general were more orientedtoward a “unity in diversity” type of fundamentalism thatignored such things as ecclesiology and prophecy for thesake of a wider umbrella.The authors of The Fundamentals represented thebroader approach to fundamentalism. They held a widevariety of doctrine, including some serious doctrinalerrors. James Orr of Scotland even denied the verbalinspiration of Scripture and allowed for theisticevolution. J. Campbell Morgan denied the literal fire ofhell and believed that men could be saved even if they donot hear of nor believe in Christ.Baptist fundamentalists have tended to be concernedabout a broader number of “fundamentals.” G. ArcherWeniger observed:“The bulk of fundamentalism, especially the Baptistsof every stripe who composed the majority by far,never accepted ... the lowest common denominatorin doctrine” (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in CalvaryContender, April 15, 1994).An example was J. Frank Norris, who stood againstmodernism in the Southern Baptist Convention. He stoodfor the whole counsel of God and was not afraid to makean issue of anything clearly taught in Scripture.24

Historic fundamentalism involved a militant stand fordoctrinal truth and separation from error.Since the 1980s some professing fundamentalists, suchas Jerry Falwell and Jack Van Impe, have been claimingthat historic fundamentalism is simply a stand for “thefive fundamentals.” They downplay the issue ofseparation and doctrinal militancy, but the following factsrefute this.First, that historic fundamentalism was more than theaffirmation of “the five fundamentals” is stated by itshistorians.George Marsden gives the following overview:“By the 1930s, then it became painfully clear thatreform from within could not prevent the spread ofmodernism in major northern denominations, MOREAND MORE FUNDAMENTALISTS BEGAN TOMAKE SEPARATION FROM AMERICA’S MAJORDENOMINATIONS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH.Although most who supported fundamentalism in the1920s still remained in their denominations, manyBaptist dispensationalists and a few influentialPresbyterians were demandingseparatism” (Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism:Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 7).George Dollar, one of the few historians of thefundamentalist movement to write from the standpoint ofa genuine fundamentalist, gives this definition:“Historic fundamentalism is the literal interpretationof all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and25

the militant exposure of all non-biblical affirmationsand attitudes” (Dollar, A History of Fundamentalismin America, 1973).Dollar divides fundamentalism into the following threeperiods:From 1875 - 1900 conservative leaders raised the banneragainst modernism within the denominations.From 1900 - 1935 these struggles resulted in men leavingtheir denominations to form separate churches andgroups. “They were the architects of ecclesiasticalseparation.”From 1935 - 1983 the second generation fundamentalistscontinued the battle from outside of the mainlinedenominations and also contended against the NewEvangelical movement.It is evident that this historian, who gave a significantportion of his life to the examination of these matters,identifies historic fundamentalism with theologicalmilitancy and biblical separation.David O. Beale, who also has written a history offundamentalism from a fundamentalist perspective, givesthis definition:“The essence of Fundamentalism ... is theunqualified acceptance of and obedience to theScriptures. ... The present study reveals thatpre-1930 Fundamentalism was nonconformist, whilepost-1930 Fundamentalism has been26

separatist” (Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: AmericanFundamentalism Since 1850, Bob Jones UniversityPress, 1986, p. 5).I offer one other example. John Ashbrook has deep rootsin the fundamentalist movement. His father, William,was brought to trial by the Presbyterian denominationbecause of his stand against modernism. After hisseparation from liberal Presbyterianism, WilliamAshbrook established an independent fundamentalistchurch. He also wrote an incisive book on NewEvangelicalism entitled Evangelicalism: The NewNeutralism. The first edition of this work appeared in1958.His son, John, after a period of toying with NewEvangelicalism as a young man, became afundamentalist leader in his own right. John’s book NewNeutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise is veryinsightful. In looking back over the fundamentalistmovement since the 1930s, John Ashbrook definesfundamentalism in this way:“Fundamentalism is the militant belief andproclamation of the basic doctrines of Christianityleading to a Scriptural separation from those whoreject them” (Ashbrook, Axioms of Separation, nd.,p. 10).To define “fundamentalism” as a mere belief in a fewcardinal doctrines of the Christian faith and to downplayits separatist stance is a perversion of history.27

Second, that historic fundamentalism was more thanthe affirmation of “the five fundamentals” is provenby the fact of New Evangelicalism.If it were true that historical fundamentalism was merelya stand for “the five fundamentals,” the New Evangelicalmovement of the 1940s would have made no sense,because New Evangelicalism has always held to “the fivefundamentals.”In fact, Harold Ockenga, one of the fathers of NewEvangelicalism, said that there are at least several dozenfundamentals! Some of the fathers of NewEvangelicalism were more conservative than some offundamental Baptists today.It was not a stand for “the five fundamentals” that NewEvangelicals protested. The keynote of NewEvangelicalism was the repudiation of the separatismand other militant aspects of old-line fundamentalism,which proves that fundamentalism was characterized bythese very things.In his history of Fuller Theological Seminary entitledReforming Fundamentalism, historian George M.Marsden makes it plain that Fuller’s early leaders wereconsciously rejecting the separatist aspects of old-linefundamentalism.It is clear to honest historians that fifty years agofundamentalism was characterized by theological28

MILITANCY and SEPARATISM, and it was this factthat produced the New Evangelical reaction against it.Third, that historic fundamentalism was more thanthe affirmation of “the five fundamentals” isacknowledged by historic fundamentalistorganizations and publications.Consider The Fundamentalist, published by J. FrankNorris, an influential Baptist leader of Texas.Independent Baptist historian George Dollar describesNorris’s paper in this way:“The Fundamentalist alarmed and alerted ...Reading the 1920-1930 back issues of TheFundamentalist, one can almost see the smoke andhear the battle cries of those times” (Dollar, TheFight for Fundamentalism, published by the author,1983, p. 3).Norris’s paper is representative of that entire generationof fundamentalism in that it was noted for its boldmilitancy for the truth.Consider the following definition of fundamentalism thatwas given by the World Congress of Fundamentalists,meeting in 1976 in Usher Hall, Edinburgh, Scotland.Note particularly the last two points:A fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the LordJesus Christ who--1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to theinerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible.2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.29

3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged onlyby the Bible.4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historicChristian Faith: The doctrine of the Trinity; theincarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement,bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, andSecond Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; the newbirth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; theresurrection of the saints to life eternal; theresurrection of the ungodly to final judgment andeternal death; the fellowship of the saints, who arethe body of Christ.5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors topreach it to every creature.6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiasticaldenial of that Faith, compromise with error, andapostasy from the Truth.7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.The Congress summarized its definition in this way:“Fundamentalism is militant orthodoxy set on firewith soulwinning zeal.”Those who deny the militancy and separatism of historicfundamentalism are trying to rewrite history.Instead of admitting that they have repudiatedfundamentalism and have adopted a New Evangelicalstance, these revisionists are trying to redefinefundamentalism to fit their backslidden condition.We close with the words of G. Archer Weniger, whoshowed the fallacy of the view that fundamentalism ismerely a concern for “the five fundamentals”--30

“The five fundamentals have only to do with thePresbyterian aspect of the struggle withmodernism. ... The bulk of Fundamentalism,especially the Baptists of every stripe whocomposed the majority by far, never acceptedthe five fundamentals alone. The World’s ChristianFundamentals Association, founded in 1919, had atleast a dozen main doctrines highlighted. The samewas true of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship,which originated in 1920. A true Fundamentalistwould under no circumstances restrict his doctrinalposition to five fundamentals. Even Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, a New Evangelical theologian, listed at leastseveral dozen doctrines essential to the Faith. Theonly advantage of reducing the Faith down to five isto make possible a wider inclusion of religionists,who might be way off in heresy on other specificdoctrines. It is much easier to have large numbers ofadherents with the lowest common denominator indoctrine” (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in CalvaryContender, April 15, 1994).Fundamentalism Not EnoughLet me emphasize my own conviction that old-lineevangelicalism and fundamentalism at their best werebiblically deficient. I am a fundamentalist insofar as Ibelieve in biblical dogmatism and militancy for the truth(Jude 3) and separation from error, but I am more than afundamentalist. The goal of my Christian life andministry is not to be a good fundamentalist (or even to bea good Baptist). My goal is to be faithful to Christ andHis Word in all particulars.Following are two serious errors in fundamentalism as amovement:31

The first error is the trans-denominational characterthat has characterized fundamentalism.I do not accept the philosophy that limits the basis offellowship to a narrow list of “cardinal” doctrines, suchas the infallibility of Scripture and the deity of Christ.While the Bible does indicate that some doctrines aremore important than others, all teaching of the Bible isimportant and is to be taken seriously.In Matthew 23:23, Christ emphasized both sides of thistruth.“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, andhave omitted the weightier matters of the law,judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to havedone, and not to leave the other undone.”Observe that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for omitting the“weightier matters of the law,” but he also taught them tokeep the “lesser matters.”Timothy was instructed not to allow any other doctrinethan that which Paul had delivered to him (1 Tim. 1:3)and was solemnly exhorted to keep even the “spots” ofdoctrine (1 Tim. 6:13-14).Paul himself was committed to the “whole counsel ofGod” (Acts 20:27).This biblical position on doctrine does not allow me tooverlook “denominational differences” such as the mode32

of baptism, the manner of the Lord’s Supper, eternalsecurity, the woman’s role in the ministry, the exercise ofspiritual gifts, or the interpretation of prophecy. I canaccept as true Christians those who differ with me onsuch things, because these are not necessarily issues of“damnable heresy” (2 Pet. 2:1), but I cannot have jointministry with them, because I do not believe the Bibleallows it.The second error of historic fundamentalism is the“universal church” mentality.It is common to view “the church” as composed of allprofessing Christians in all denominations. To call all ofthe denominations the “church” naturally produces anecumenical mentality and makes the purifying of thechurches impossible.Harold J. Ockenga used the many divisions ofevangelicalism and fundamentalism as an excuse for thenon-separatist mentality and warned about the“shibboleth of having a pure church” (Ockenga, “FromFundamentalism, Through New Evangelicalism, toEvangelicalism,” Evangelical Roots, edited by KennethKantzer, p. 42).This is dangerous and unscriptural thinking. God’s Worddoes call for a pure church, but it is not a universalchurch that we are to purify. That would be impossible.No, it is the New Testament assembly that we are topurify (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). To attempt to purify a“universal church” is something the New Testament33

never envisions or requires. God has given His peopleclear instruction about discipline of sin and heresy, andthose instructions are in the context of the assembly (i.e.,1 Corinthians 5; Titus 3).Regardless of what one believes about the NewTestament definition of the church, it is a fact that in anysort of practical sense biblical church truth can be appliedproperly only to the assembly. (I also reject every sort ofBaptist Bride position. See the article “Are You a BaptistBrider?” at the Way of Life web site -- wayoflife.org.)A Rejection of FundamentalismNew Evangelicalism arose as a rejection offundamentalism.The founders of New Evangelicalism grew up infundamentalist homes. They were “another generation.”“And also all that generation were gathered untotheir fathers: and there arose another generationafter them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet theworks which he had done for Israel” (Judges 2:10).In the first half of the 20th century, evangelicalism inAmerica was largely synonymous with fundamentalism.Many historians make this connection, including MarkEllingsen (The Evangelical Movement) and GeorgeMarsden (Reforming Fundamentalism). Marsden says,“There was not a practical distinction between34

fundamentalist and evangelical: the words wereinterchangeable” (p. 48).When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)was formed in 1942, for example, participants includedsuch fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R.Rice, Charles Woodbridge, Harry Ironside, and DavidOtis Fuller.By the mid-1950s, though, a clear break betweenseparatist fundamentalists and non-separatistevangelicals occurred. This was occasioned largely bythe ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham. Thestronger men disassociated from Graham and his crowd,dropped out of the NAE, and the terms evangelicalismand fundamentalism began “to refer to two differentmovements” (William Martin, A Prophet with Honor, p.224).The sons of the old-line evangelical-fundamentalistpreachers determined to create a “New Evangelicalism.”They would not be fighters; they would be diplomats,positive in their emphasis rather than militant, infiltratorsrather than separatists. They would not be restricted by aseparatist mentality.Harold Ockenga claimed to have coined the term “NewEvangelical” in 1948. The very influential Ockenga waspastor of Park Street Church in Boston, founder of theNational Association of Evangelicals, co-founder andfirst president of Fuller Theological Seminary, firstpresident of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president35

of Gordon College, on the board of directors for the BillyGraham Evangelistic Association, chairman of theGordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and one-timeeditor of Christianity Today.Following is how Ockenga defined New Evangelicalismin 1976 when he wrote the foreword to Harold Lindsell’sThe Battle for the Bible:“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connectionwith a convocation address which I gave in the CivicAuditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming thetheological view of fundamentalism, this addressREPUDIATED ITS ECCLESIOLOGY AND ITSSOCIAL THEORY. The ringing call for AREPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND THESUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT received ahearty response from many evangelicals. The namecaught on and spokesmen such as Drs. HaroldLindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, andGleason Archer supported this viewpoint. We had nointention of launching a movement, but found thatthe emphasis attracted widespread support andexercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism...DIFFERENT FROM FUNDAMENTALISM IN ITSREPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND ITSDETERMINATION TO ENGAGE ITSELF IN THETHEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE OF THE DAY. IT HADA NEW EMPHASIS UPON THE APPLICATION OFTHE GOSPEL TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL,POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC AREAS OF LIFE.Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement ofChristian theology in accordance with the need ofthe times, the REENGAGEMENT IN THETHEOLOGICAL DEBATE, THE RECAPTURE OFDENOMINATIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND THEREEXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMSSUCH AS THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, THEUNIVERSALITY OF THE FLOOD, GOD’S METHODOF CREATION, AND OTHERS.”36

Regardless of who coined the term “NewEvangelical” (Ockenga’s claim has been disputed), it iscertain that it described the new mood of positivism andnon-militancy that was spreading among evangelicalchurch leaders in that generation.Ockenga and the new generation of evangelicals, BillyGraham figuring most prominently, determined toabandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they wouldpursue dialogue, intellectualism, non-judgmentalism, andappeasement. They refused to leave the modernistpolluteddenominations, determining to change thingsfrom within rather than practice separation.The New Evangelical would dialogue with those whoteach error rather than reprove them plainly and avoidthem.The New Evangelical would meet the proud humanistand the haughty liberal on their own turf with humanscholarship rather than follow the humble path of beingcounted a fool for Christ’s sake by standing simply uponScripture and calling the sinner to the truth.New Evangelical leaders also determined to start a“rethinking process” whereby the old paths were to bereassessed in light of new goals, methods, and ideology.The church growth movement and the emerging churchare products of this.37

The Old EvangelicalismPrior to the onslaught of New Evangelicalism, the term“evangelical” referred to A STRICT “PROTESTANT”CHRISTIANITY. Generally speaking (and certainly incontrast to the mushy evangelicalism of our day), manyevangelicals of past generations were militant soldiers forChrist.The term “evangelical” can be traced to the Englishrevivals of John and Charles Wesleys and GeorgeWhitefield and even to the earliest days of the ProtestantReformation. In either case, evangelicalism of old wasdogmatic, forceful, and militant. It was old-fashionedProtestantism. Luther was excommunicated by the pope;John Wesley and George Whitefield were barred fromAnglican churches for their bold preaching. All of theProtestant denominations once identified Rome as theRevelation 17 whore of Babylon.Though we Baptists didn’t see eye to eye with them onmany important points, the old Protestants stoodmilitantly for what they believed. They were fightersrather than theological pacifists.This is exactly what the New Evangelical is not (except,as we will see, that he will sometimes fight for a fewissues that are popular within his circles).John Calvin was no New Evangelical when he said:“Popery is nothing else than a monster formed out of theinnumerable deceptions of Satan, and that which they38

call the Church is more confused than Babylon.” Thiswas typical of the position held by the old evangelicals.Martin Luther was no New Evangelical when inDecember 1520 he published two tracts in answer to theBull of Leo X, one of which was entitled, “Martin Lutheragainst the Execreable Bull of Anti-Christ.” He chargedthe Pope and his cardinals of acting “the undoubted partof the Anti-Christ of the Scriptures.”William Tyndale, the father of our English Bible, was noNew Evangelical when he identified the pope as theAntichrist in his treatise The Practice of Prelates as wellas in the preface to the 1534 edition of his NewTestament.William Latimer, an Anglican Greek scholar who lovedthe Word of God during the time of Tyndale, was no NewEvangelical when he said, “Do you not know that thePope is very Antichrist, whom the Scripture speaketh of?But beware what you say; for if you shall be perceived tobe of that opinion, it will cost you your life. I have beenan officer of his but I have given it up, and defy him andall his works” (Christopher Anderson, Annals of theEnglish Bible, I, pp. 35, 36). Latimer was burned at thestake by Queen Mary.In his 1893 work titled Union with Rome, ChristopherWordsworth, Anglican bishop of Lincoln, stated the viewthat prevailed among evangelical Protestants at that time,and it was not a New Evangelical position: “… wetremble at the sight, while we read the inscription,39

emblazoned in large letters, ‘Mystery, Babylon theGreat,’ written by the hand of St. John, guided by theHoly Spirit of God, on the forehead of the Church ofRome” (Wordsworth, Union with Rome, p. 62).David Otis Fuller, speaking of evangelicals of bygonedays, said: “Each man possessed the same fierceconviction--that all truth is absolute, never relative. Forthese men, truth was never a nose of wax to be twisted tosuit their system of dialectics or deceptive casuistry. Twotimes two made four. In mathematics, their supremeauthority was the multiplication table; in theology, theirabsolute authority was the Bible” (D.O. Fuller, Preface,Valiant for the Truth, New York: McGraw-Hill BookCompany, 1961, pp. ix, x).It is impossible to be a New Evangelical and hold“fierce” convictions! In fact, that is precisely what theyseem to lack, in spite of their protest to the contrary.Old Evangelicalism and Charles SpurgeonBaptist pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) isan example of what “evangelical” meant in generationspast.Spurgeon’s ministry was characterized by unhesitatingexposure of error. He stood uncompromisingly againstRoman Catholicism, for example. Consider this excerptfrom one of Spurgeon’s sermons, which demonstratesjust how much he was NOT a New Evangelical:40

“It is impossible but that the Church of Rome mustspread, WHEN WE WHO ARE THE WATCHDOGSOF THE FOLD ARE SILENT, AND OTHERS AREGENTLY AND SMOOTHLY TURFING THE ROAD,and making it as soft and smooth as possible, thatconverts may travel down to the nethermost hell ofPopery. We want John Knox back again. DO NOTTALK TO ME OF MILD AND GENTLE MEN, OFSOFT MANNERS AND SQUEAMISH WORDS, wewant the fiery Knox, and even though hisvehemence should ‘ding our pulpits into blads,’ itwere well if he did but rouse our hearts toaction” (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs.322-3).It is obvious that Charles Spurgeon was no NewEvangelical, but his description of the soft-manneredmen and silent watchdogs of his day fits today’s NewEvangelicals exactly.Spurgeon was not content to preach boldly against error;he also separated from it. Though misunderstood andmisrepresented even by his own brother and some of hisformer students, Spurgeon took the very unpopular standof separating from the Baptist Union of Britain becauseof the false doctrine that was being countenanced. Hewrote:“Complicity with error will take from the best of menthe power to enter any successful protest against it.It is our solemn conviction that where there can beno real spiritual communion there should be nopretense of fellowship. FELLOWSHIP WITHKNOWN AND VITAL ERROR IS PARTICIPATION INSIN. As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that errorhad become firmly established, I did not deliberate,but quitted the body at once. Since then my counselhas been ‘Come out from among them.’ I have feltthat no protest could be equal to that of distinct41

separation from known evil. That I might not stultifymy testimony I HAVE CUT MYSELF CLEAR OFTHOSE WHO ERR FROM THE FAITH, AND EVENFROM THOSE WHO ASSOCIATE WITH THEM.”This position is ridiculed today as “secondaryseparation,” but it is actually obedience to God’s Word (2Thess. 3:6) and it is the path of wisdom, because “evilcommunications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).Old Evangelicalism and James StewartAnother example of what old evangelicalism was is thelate evangelist James A. Stewart. He was used mightilyin revivals in Eastern Europe between the end of WorldWar II and the descent of the Communist Iron Curtain,and his sermons were characterized by uncompromisingdeclaration of Bible truth.Not only did he preach the gospel and the “positivetruths” of the Word of God, he also reproved error andcompromise in a very bold fashion.In sermons such as “Potpourri Evangelism,” Stewartwitnessed unhesitatingly against ecumenical evangelism,which was beginning to raise its head in his day.Consider a quotation from that sermon, first preached inthe 1940s (excerpted from James Stewart, Evangelism,Asheville, NC: Gospel Projects), and ask yourself howpopular James Stewart would be in evangelical circlestoday?“We must be more afraid of flattery from the camp ofthe enemy than persecution. Read the pages of42

Church history. Persecution never did the Church ofGod any harm, but compromise with the world hasalways robbed it of the power of its purity. ...“‘Potpourri Evangelism’ consists of two features:mixed evangelistic campaigns and mixedChristianity. By mixed evangelistic campaigns Imean the alliance of Modernistic and Evangelicalchurches together in an evangelistic effort. ...“When religion gets up a revival, it must have fromfive to twenty churches of heterogeneous creedsand sectarian bodies to go into a great union effort; itmust have a mammoth choir with great musicalinstruments, and many preachers and multipliedcommittees, and each committee headed by somebanker, judge, mayor, or millionaire’s wife. It signscards as a substitute for the broken-hearted cry ofscriptural repentance. It must count its converts bythe hundreds in a few days’ meeting. It mustapologize for natural depravity. ...“Human religion’s enterprises have an atmosphereof earthliness about them. It despises the day ofsmall things and scorns little humble people andlonely ways. It is eager to jump to the height ofprosperity. Its music has no pathos in it, its laughterlacks divine cheerfulness, its worship lackssupernatural love, its prayers bring down no hugeanswers, it works no miracles, calls forth no criticismfrom the world, and has no light of eternity in itseyes. It is a poor, sickly thing, born of the union ofthe heart of the world with the head of Christiantheology--a mongrel, bastard thing with abackslidden church for its mother and the world forits father. Oh, my dear brother and sister, neverforget that this unnatural monster will be destroyedat the coming-again of our Blessed Lord JesusChrist” (James A. Stewart, Pot-Pourri Evangelism,pp. 25-28).43

Countless other examples could be given to show thatevangelicalism of past generations involved contendingplainly for the faith and separating from error.When was the last time you read things like the above,which we have quoted from the pens of old-lineevangelicals, in Christianity Today magazine or preachedby Billy Graham or Charles Colson or Charles Swindollor Charles Stanley or Max Lucado or Greg Laurie orLuis Palau or John Maxwell or James Dobson or otherpopular evangelicals today?Sadly, today’s evangelicalism is almost 100% in thebusiness of upholding “potpourri evangelism” and“turfing the road of Roman Catholicism.” Even the mostconservative of Southern Baptist evangelicals do notspeak out boldly against the pope after the former fashionor against the ecumenical evangelism practiced by theirfellow evangelicals such as Billy and Franklin Grahamand Luis Palau.44

The Influence of NewEvangelicalismThe New Evangelical principles were popular and spreadrapidly to become the prominent doctrine amongevangelicals.New Evangelicalism was popularized through pleasingpersonalities. It has been promoted by such well-knownChristian leaders as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, HaroldLindsell, John R.W. Stott, Luis Palau, E.V. Hill, LeightonFord, Charles Stanley, Bill Hybels, Warren Wiersbe,Chuck Colson, Donald McGavran, Jack Van Impe, TonyCampolo, Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, DavidHocking, Charles Swindoll, Max Lucado, John Maxwell,Tony Evans, and a multitude of other men (and women).New Evangelicalism became the working principle oflarge interdenominational and parachurch organizationssuch as the National Association of Evangelicals,National Religious Broadcasters, Youth for Christ,Campus Crusade for Christ, Back to the Bible,InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, the EvangelicalAlliance of Britain, Lausanne Committee for WorldEvangelization, World Vision, Operation Mobilization,the Evangelical Foreign Mission Association, WorldEvangelical Fellowship, and the National Sunday SchoolAssociation, to name a few.New Evangelicalism has spread through educationalinstitutions such as Fuller Theological Seminary,45

Wheaton College, Gordon-Conwell, BIOLA, RegentCollege, Westminster, The Evangelical Divinity School,and Moody Bible Institute.New Evangelicalism has been broadcast throughpowerful print, radio, and television media. ChristianityToday, for example, was founded in 1956 to voice thenew philosophy. The magazine was distributed freely forthe first two years to ministers in the U.S.A., Canada,Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, and was alsosent freely to missionaries throughout the world.Large Christian publishers such as Eerdmans, Zondervan,InterVarsity Press, Tyndale House, Moody Press, ThomasNelson, Baker Book House, and Broadman, havepromoted the New Evangelical philosophy.New Evangelicalism has spread through largeconferences, such as the International Congress on WorldEvangelization (Lausanne, Switzerland, July 1974) andthe International Conference on Itinerant Evangelists atAmsterdam in 1983, 1986, and 1999.Because of the tremendous influence of these men andorganizations, New Evangelical thought has swept theglobe. Today it is no exaggeration to say that almostwithout exception those who call themselvesevangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms havebecome synonymous. Old-line evangelicals, with rareexceptions, have either aligned with the fundamentalistmovement or have capitulated to New Evangelicalism.46

For all practical purposes the evangelical movementtoday is the New Evangelical movement.“Part of the current confusion regarding NewEvangelicalism stems from the fact that there is nowlittle difference between evangelicalism and NewEvangelicalism. The principles of the original NewEvangelicalism have become so universallyaccepted by those who refer to themselves asevangelicals that any distinctions which might havebeen made years ago are all but lost. It is no doubttrue to state that ‘Ockenga’s designation of the newmovement as New or Neo-Evangelical wasabbreviated to Evangelical. ... Thus today we speakof this branch of conservative Christianity simply asthe Evangelical movement’” (Ernest Pickering, TheTragedy of Compromise, p. 96).47

The Characteristics of NewEvangelicalismThe following are important characteristics of NewEvangelicalism that will enable the Bible believer toidentify it. Not every New Evangelical will hold to everyone of these characteristics, but every New Evangelicalwill hold to most of them, particularly to the repudiationof separation, the love for positivism, a judge-notphilosophy, exalting love and unity above doctrine,pragmatism, pride of scholarship, an antifundamentalismattitude, and an overall mood of softnessand neutrality.Repudiation of SeparatismNew Evangelicalism is first and foremost characterizedby a repudiation of separatism. This was emphasized byHarold Ockenga:“The ringing call for A REPUDIATION OFSEPARATISM . . . received a hearty response frommany evangelicals. ... Neo-evangelicalism [is]different from fundamentalism in its REPUDIATIONOF SEPARATISM” (Harold J. Ockenga).The New Evangelical does not like separation andrefuses to allow it to play a significant role in his life andministry. This was what Harold Ockenga emphasized twotimes in his Fuller Seminary speech in 1948.48

Not every New Evangelical is as forthright as Ockenga inhis repudiation of separation. Some give lip service to itin theory, but it soon becomes apparent that they do notpractice it.Evangelicals do not separate from denominations that areinfiltrated with theological modernism, such as theUnited Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA,the American Baptist Convention, the Southern BaptistConvention, and the Anglican Church.The Billy Graham religion column gave the followingNew Evangelical advice to a Roman Catholic couplewho were disillusioned with their “church” and werethinking about leaving: “Don’t pull out of the church.Stay in it ... help your church” (Sun Telegram, Jan. 6,1973).Evangelicals practice ecumenical evangelism, which is ablatant rejection of biblical separation. Billy Graham hasworked hand-in-hand with Roman Catholics andtheological modernists since the 1950s, and yet he ispraised and exalted throughout the evangelical world.Graham’s 1957 New York City Crusade was sponsoredby the liberal Protestant Council and featured prominenttheological modernists. At a preparatory banquet held theprevious fall (September 17, 1956) at the HotelCommodore in New York, Graham stated that he wantedJews, Catholics, and Protestants to attend his meetingsand then go back to their own churches. This statementwas confirmed in the September 18 edition of the New49

York Evening Journal. The New York Crusade was thecatalyst for Graham’s break with fundamentalists such asBob Jones, Sr., founder of Bob Jones University, andJohn R. Rice of the Sword of the Lord.The Graham organization and the co-operating churchesin the 1957 San Francisco Crusade appointed Dr. CharlesFarrah to follow up the “converts” and to report on thesame. His findings were announced on December 16. Ofthe roughly 1,300 Catholics who came forward,PRACTICALLY ALL REMAINED CATHOLIC,CONTINUED TO PRAY TO MARY, GO TO MASS,AND CONFESS TO A PRIEST (Oakland Tribune, Wed.,Dec. 17, 1958).Graham has continued this practice throughout his careerand has turned many thousands of “converts” over to theRoman Catholic Church. David Cline, vice-chairman ofthe organizing committee of the 1984 Graham Crusade inVancouver, British Columbia, stated their policyregarding Catholic inquirers: “If Catholics step forwardthere will be no attempt to convert them and their nameswill be given to the Catholic church nearest theirhomes” (Vancouver Sun, October 5, 1984).Graham has affiliated with and endorsed hundreds ofrank modernists and Roman Catholic leaders. At the1957 New York crusade, Graham spent ten minuteseulogizing Dr. Jesse Baird, a well-known liberal andapostate, calling him a great servant of Christ. At the1957 San Francisco Crusade, Graham honored EpiscopalBishop James Pike, who blatantly denied the deity, virgin50

irth, miracles, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.Methodist Bishop Gerald Kennedy was chairman of the1963 Los Angeles Crusade, and Graham called him “oneof the ten greatest Christian preachers in America,” eventhough he denied practically every cardinal doctrine ofthe Christian faith. The first Sunday of that Crusade,Graham took several minutes to eulogize the modernistE. Stanley Jones, calling him “my good friend andtrusted advisor.” Graham’s 1997 autobiography is filledwith references to his friendship with apostates.The practice of ecumenical evangelism has spreadthroughout evangelicalism. Bill Bright, head of CampusCrusade, Luis Palau, Greg Laurie, and other prominentevangelicals have walked in Graham’s footsteps inecumenical evangelism.While reporting on Amsterdam ‘86, Dennis Costellaasked Luis Palau if he would cooperate with RomanCatholics. Palau replied that he certainly would andadmitted that it was being done. He went on to mentionspecific plans for more extensive Catholic involvementin future crusades (Foundation, Jul.-Aug. 1986). The1987 Palau crusade in New Zealand was reportedly “thefirst time the Catholic Church has ever backed a majorevangelical Christian mission” in that area. CatholicBishop Dennis Browne of Auckland accepted aninvitation to join the mission’s advisory board (ChallengeWeekly, April 18, 1986, reprinted in Australian Beacon,May 1986).51

Even the most conservative of evangelical SouthernBaptists support Graham’s ecumenical evangelism. TheSouthern Baptist Theological Seminary proudly hosts theBilly Graham School of Missions, Evangelism andChurch Growth. Southern Seminary has a course entitledChristian Life and Witness, which trains students incrusade counseling techniques. On May 3, 2001, theBaptist Press ran an article entitled “Hundreds ofSouthern Students Prepare for Graham Crusade.” R.Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Seminary and aprominent conservative SBC voice, served as chairmanof Graham’s crusade. Mohler told the Baptist Press,“Nothing else has brought together the kind of ethnic andracial and denominational inclusivity as is represented inthis crusade; nothing in my experience and nothing in therecent history of Louisville has brought together such agroup of committed Christians for one purpose.” To saythat all of the participants of Graham’s inclusiveevangelism crusades are “committed Christians” is torefuse to apply critical doctrinal standards.This is not to say that all of the Graham crusades includeRoman Catholics. If the ecumenical climate in a certaincity is not conducive for that broad of an ecumenicalumbrella, the Graham team will acquiesce. (See our freereport Billy Graham and Rome for extensivedocumentation of Graham’s practice.)Evangelicals speak at ecumenical meetings and thusaffiliate closely with heretics. For example, in 1997, DonArgue, the head of the National Association ofEvangelicals, spoke before the general assembly of the52

National Council of Churches. The extremelymodernistic National Council has sponsored such thingsas the Re-imagining Conference in Minneapolis inNovember 1993 where hundreds of women from variousmainline denominations applauded lesbianism andworshipped the goddess Sophia. Thousands of examplesof this type of ecumenical association could be givenfrom our own files.Evangelicals quote heretics with no warning to theirreaders.Consider, for example, well-known evangelical writerand conference speaker Warren Wiersbe. His practice ofquoting rank modernists non-critically was described asfollows by Jerry Huffman, editor of the CalvaryContender:“In a panel discussion at the April 1987 TennesseeTemple Bible conference, Wiersbe expressedgladness that Malcolm Muggeridge -- a liberalRoman Catholic -- ‘backed up’ one of Wiersbe’sviews. In a Dec. 1977 Moody Monthly article,Wiersbe endorsed writings by liberal authorsThielicke, Buttrick, and Kennedy. More recently hepraised books by other liberals such as Barclay,Trueblood, and Sockman” (Calvary Contender, July15, 1987).Consider Rick Warren of Purpose Driven Church fame.In keeping with his “judge not” philosophy, Warrenuncritically quotes from a wide variety of theologicalheretics, especially Roman Catholics such as MotherTeresa, Brother Lawrence (Carmelite monk), John Main(Benedictine monk), Madame Guyon, John of the Cross,53

and Henri Nouwen. Warren does not warn his readersthat these are dangerous false teachers who held to afalse gospel and worshipped a false christ. Mother Teresaand Nouwen believed that men can be saved apart frompersonal faith in Jesus Christ.Another example of this is Chuck Swindoll, who devotedan entire edition of his Insights for Living publication(April 1988) to uncritical promotion of the German Neoorthodoxtheologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Swindoll callsBonhoeffer “a saint bound for heaven.” But this “saint”promoted the “de-mythologizing” of Scripture, whichrefers to the heresy of denying the Bible’s inerrantinspiration. Cornelius Van Til documented Bonhoeffer’sdangerous theology in The Great Debate Today.WHAT THE BIBLE SAYSFirst, separation is not an optional part ofChristianity; it is not a “non-essential”; it is a divinecommandment (Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Cor. 6:14-17; 1 Tim.6:5; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:5; Titus 3:10; 2 John 7-11; Rev.18:4).Separation is not mean or unloving; it is obedience toGod.“mark them . . . avoid them” (Rom. 16:17)“be ye not unequally yoked together with” (2 Cor. 6:14)“have no fellowship with” (2 Cor. 6:14)“come out from among” (2 Cor. 6:17)“withdraw thyself” (1 Tim. 6:5)54

“shun” (2 Ti. 2:16)“purge oneself from” (2 Tim. 2:21)“from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5)“reject” (Titus 3:10)“receive them not into your house neither bid themGodspeed” (2 Jn. 10)Second, we are to separate even from brethren whoare walking in disobedience.“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of ourLord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves fromevery brother that walketh disorderly, and not afterthe tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6).In this context Paul referred to those who refused towork, but the principle applies to those who who aredisobedient and disorderly in other ways.Third, separation is a wall of protection againstspiritual danger.Failure to separate from error leaves one open to theinfluence of error.“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt goodmanners” (1 Cor. 15:33).The reason the gardener separates the vegetables fromweeds and bugs and the reason a shepherd separatessheep from wolves is to protect them. Likewise, a faithfuland godly preacher will seek to separate his flock fromspiritual dangers that are even more destructive thanpests and wolves.55

DialogueAnother characteristic of New Evangelicalism is that itsreplace of separation with dialogue.Since the last half of the 20th century, theologicaldialogue has become a prominent aspect of Christianity.A report issued in 1983 by the Center for Unity in Romelisted 119 official ongoing dialogues betweenrepresentatives of Anglican, Baptist, Disciples,Evangelical, Lutheran, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, OldCatholic, Oriental Orthodox, Pentecostal, Reformed,Roman Catholic, United, and World Council ofChurches.Dialogue has also become a major aspect ofevangelicalism. The late Harold Ockenga said that theNew Evangelicalism differs “from fundamentalism in itsrepudiation of separatism and its determination to engageitself in the theological dialogue of the day” (Ockenga,foreword to Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible).Dialogue between Evangelicals and CatholicsOn the side of the Roman Catholic Church, the SecondVatican Council, in its “Decree on Ecumenism,” calledfor “dialogue with our brethren” and said that “dialoguesand consultations ... are strongly recommended.”Evangelicals have responded to this call. Following are afew examples:56

From 1977 to 1984 Evangelical-Roman CatholicDialogue In Mission was conducted in Britain. John R.W.Stott was at the forefront, and one of Stott’s co-workers,Michael Harper (formerly assistant curate at All SoulsChurch where Stott is pastor), wrote the 1977 book,Three Sisters, which contends that the “Three Sisters” --Evangeline (the Evangelicals), Charisma (theCharismatics), and Roma (the Roman Catholic Church)-- are part of one family and should be reconciled.In 1986 Kenneth Kantzer called for dialogue with RomanCatholics.“How does all this affect the Evangelical? First, weshould continue to dialogue. To refuse to dialoguewould be to say two things no Evangelical wants tosay: (1) We are not interested in our Lord’s desire tohave a united church, and (2) We Evangelicals havenothing to learn from anyone” (Kantzer, “Church onthe Move,” Christianity Today, Nov. 7, 1986).This statement is predicated upon an unscriptural view of“the church” and Christian unity and the strange notionthat Bible believers should “learn” from heretics.In 1992, Chuck Colson, in his book The Body, called forcloser relationship with and dialogue betweenevangelicals and Catholics. Colson said, “...the body ofChrist, in all its diversity, is created with Baptist feet,charismatic hands, and Catholic ears--all with their eyeson Jesus” (World, Nov. 14, 1992). Colson is eitherignorant of the fact that there are false christs, falsegospels, and false spirits, or he ignores the fact. The Body57

was endorsed by many well-known evangelicals,including Carl Henry, J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson, BillHybels, and Jerry Falwell.In 1992, Catholic priest Thomas Welbers announced inthe Los Angeles diocese newsletter that a four-yeardialogue between InterVarsity Christian Fellowship andthe Catholic Campus Ministry had resulted in anagreement to seek “mutual understanding” and to“refrain from competition in seeking members” (BattleCry, October 1992).In 1994, Moody Press published Roman Catholicism:Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides andUnites Us. Thirteen evangelicals contributed. MichaelHorton concluded his chapter, “What Still Keeps UsApart?” with these words: “I do not suggest that weshould give up trying to seek visible unity, nor that werefuse to dialogue with Roman Catholic laypeople andtheologians, many of whom may be our brothers andsisters” (p. 264). He does not explain how someonecommitted to Rome’s false sacramental gospel could be aborn again child of God, nor does he explain whysomeone not committed to Rome’s gospel would in goodconscience remain a Roman Catholic.In 1997, InterVarsity Press published Reclaiming theGreat Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodoxin Dialogue. It was edited by James Cutsinger andcontained articles by Harold O.J. Brown, Peter Kreeft,Richard Neuhaus, J.I. Packer, and others. The book is acollection of material from an ecumenical dialogue held58

at Rose Hill College, May 16-20, 1995. The objective ofthe dialogue was to answer the question: “How canProtestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern OrthodoxChristians talk to each other so as together to speak withChrist’s mind to the modern world?” (p. 8).This is only the tip of the iceberg of evangelical-RomanCatholic dialogue.Dialogue between Evangelicals and ModernistsIn about 1976 Pentecostal David du Plessis becamechairman of dialogue with the World Council ofChurches’ Secretariat for the Promotion of ChristianUnity. Du Plessis was long at the forefront of promotingecumenical dialogue between Pentecostals, RomanCatholics, and liberal and evangelical Protestants. FullerTheological Seminary made du Plessis its “residentconsultant on ecumenical affairs.”In 1983, after attending the Sixth General Assembly ofthe World Council of Churches in Vancouver, someprominent evangelicals signed an open letter encouragingdialogue with the exceedingly liberal WCC. The signersincluded Richard Lovelace of Gordon-ConwellTheological Seminary and Arthur Glasser of FullerSeminary. The letter rebuked those who practiceseparation and said:“Is there not the possibility that evangelicals havenot only much to contribute but something to receivethrough ecumenical involvement? Do evangelicalsnot also have the obligation along with other59

Christians to seek to overcome the scandal of thedisunity and disobedience of the churches that theworld might believe (John 17:21)? Shouldevangelicals not seek to receive all who confessJesus Christ as Lord, even though they mayseriously disagree on theological issues apart fromthe core of the Gospel?”A three-day dialogue was held October 22-24, 1986, atFuller Theological Seminary, involving Pentecostals,Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and liberal Protestants. TheEcumenical Press Service said, “Although some camewith predetermined agenda, many came to listen andlearn” (Ecumenical Press Service, November 1-15,1986).In 1988, InterVarsity Press published EvangelicalEssentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. Theevangelical was John R.W. Stott and the liberal wasDavid Edwards, who rejects the fall of man and theatonement and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Stottsaid heretics such as this “do not forfeit the right to becalled Christians” (Iain Murray, Evangelical Essentials,p. 228). To the contrary, to deny the fall of man and theatonement of Christ is to deny the very gospel itself, andthere is no salvation apart from the biblical gospel.Dialogue between Evangelicals and MormonsEvangelicals have been dialoguing with Mormons sinceInterVarsity Press published “How Wide the Divide: AMormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” in 1997.This is a dialogue between Craig Blomberg of Denver60

Seminary and Stephen Robinson of Brigham YoungUniversity.In November 1998, Assemblies of God pastor DeanJackson presented Mormon leaders in Provo, Utah, with“a formal declaration of repentance for prejudice againstmembers of the Church of Latter Day Saints.” Thedocument was signed by more than 160 members ofJackson’s Canyon Assembly of God Church in Provo,and roughly 100 Mormon visitors were on hand toreceive the official apology (Charisma News Service,March 1, 2000, citing Deseret News of Salt Lake City).The declaration of repentance was also endorsed by theregional presbytery of the Assemblies of God.Standing Together Ministries was formed in 2001 in Utah“to build greater dialogue between EvangelicalChristians and Latter-day Saints.” Founder Greg Johnsonhas traveled extensively conducting public dialogueswith Mormon professor Robert Millet of Brigham YoungUniversity.An “EVENING OF FRIENDSHIP” was held in the SaltLake City Tabernacle on November 14, 2004, featuringEvangelicals who are calling for dialogue with Mormons.Ravi Zacharias was the main speaker. He was joined byRichard Mouw (president of Fuller Seminary), CraigHazen (a professor at Biola University), Greg Johnson(director of Standing Together Ministries), Joseph Tkach,Jr., (head of the World Wide Church of God), andMichael Card (Contemporary Christian musician).Roughly 7,000 attended the meeting, filling the61

Tabernacle to capacity. Fuller Seminary PresidentRichard Mouw apologized to the Mormons, making thefollowing amazing statements: “Let me state it clearly.We evangelicals have sinned against you. ... We havedemonized you.”Evangelical dialogue is witnessed in the way thepublishers and magazines print all sides of theologicaldebates while remaining “neutral.” InterVarsity Press, forexample, has printed books defending the infallibleinspiration of Scripture as well as books attacking it.Christianity Today has printed articles opposingecumenical relations with Rome and in support of it,articles warning of Karl Barth’s heresy and articlespromoting Karl Barth, etc.WHAT THE BIBLE SAYSFirst, the Bible does not instruct believers to dialoguewith false teachers and apostates, but rather to separatefrom them.See Romans 16:17-18; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 3:5; Titus3:10-11.Second, it is not dialogue that we see in the NewTestament, but preaching.“I charge thee therefore before God, and the LordJesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the deadat his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word;be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke,exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim.4:1-2).62

The Bible does not instruct believers to dialogue withfalse teachers but to preach the truth to them and torebuke their errors.Third, theological dialogue is built upon anunscriptural doctrine of Christian unity.See Characteristic # 4: “New Evangelicalism ischaracterized by exalting love and unity above doctrine.”Fourth, theological dialogue results in “toning downthe rhetoric,” in softening the plain charges of heresyand apostasy and unbelief, in quieting down warningsabout judgment.It is impossible to dialogue effectively without doingthis, but this is disobedience to the Scriptures.Greg Johnson of Standing Together Ministries in Utahsaid that we must “cease throwing our theological rocksand start loving as Christ commanded us.” This is hisdefinition of dialogue. Thus, speaking the truth aboutheresy is likened to “throwing rocks,” which ispotentially very hurtful, even deadly. Actually, preachingplainly against false christs and false gospels is a veryloving, compassionate thing. If a man is on his way tohell but is self-deceived into thinking that he is on hisway to heaven, it is an act of the greatest Christiancharity to tell him plainly that he is deceived.63

“Toning down the rhetoric” and softening the plaincharges of heresy and apostasy is precisely what theBible does not do and what the apostles and prophets didnot do and what Bible preachers today are not allowed todo.Paul called false teachers “dogs” and “evilworkers” (Phil. 3:2). Of those who pervert the gospel hesaid, “Let them be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, 9). He calledthem “evil men and seducers” (2 Tim. 3:13), “men ofcorrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim.3:8), “false apostles, deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13).He named the names of false teachers and called theirteaching “vain babblings” (2 Tim. 2:16, 17). He warnedabout “philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. 2:8). He spokeof their “cunning craftiness.” When Elymas tried to turnmen away from the gospel, Paul wasted no time withdialogue but said, “O full of all subtilty and all mischief,thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness,wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of theLord?” (Acts 13:10). Paul warned about false teacherswho would come into the churches, calling them“grievous wolves” (Acts 20:29) and labeling theirteaching “perverse things” (Acts 20:30). He warnedabout false christs, false spirits, false gospels (2 Cor.11:1-4). He labeled false teaching “doctrines of devils” (1Tim. 4:1) and said that those who deny the bodilyresurrect are “fools” (1 Cor. 15:35-36). In the PastoralEpistles Paul warned of false teachers and compromisersby name 10 times, and this is the example that the Spiritof God has left for the churches.64

Peter wasn’t much of a dialoguer, either. He was muchtoo plain-spoken about heresy. Of the false prophets inhis day and those he knew would come in the future, helabeled their heresies “damnable” and warned of their“swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). That would end a gooddialogue right there, but he wasn’t finished. He calledtheir ways “pernicious” and their words “feigned” andboldly declared that “their damnation slumbereth not” (2Pet. 2:3). He warned them of eternal hell (2 Pet. 2:4-9)and called them “presumptuous” and “selfwilled” (2 Pet.2:10). He likened them to “natural brute beasts, made tobe taken and destroyed” (2 Pet. 2:12) and exposed theirdeception (2 Pet. 2:13). Peter is in high gear now in hiszeal for the faith. Consider how he ended his little“dialogue” in 2 Peter 2:14-21. I don’t suppose that Peterwould get invited to very many ministerial associationmeetings or ecumenical dialogues today. He wouldn’t bepopular in Mark Driscoll’s Elephant Room. He might beinvited once, seeing that he is an apostle and was the firstpope and all, but I can assure you that he would not beinvited back!What about John, the Apostle of Love? How was hisdialoguing technique? Again, not too effective, becausehe spent too much time warning about antichrists (1 John2:18-19), calling them liars (1 John 2:22) and seducers (1John 2:26) and deceivers (2 John 7); saying that theydenied the Son (1 John 2:23) and that they don’t haveGod (2 John 9). He put too much of an emphasis upontrying the spirits (1 John 4:1-3). He even made all sortsof intolerant, exclusive claims, such as, “And we knowthat we are of God, and the whole world lieth in65

wickedness” (1 John 5:19). Just who did he think he was!Didn’t he know that we only see the truth “darklythrough a glass today?” John even forbade the believersto invite false teachers into their houses or to bid themGod speed (2 John 10-11). Those who obey thesecommands aren’t very popular in dialoguing circles!In this, the apostles were only following their Lord, whowas not big on soft-spoken, “let me listen carefully andmake sure I understand you,” give-and-take dialogue.But He was a great preacher! He scolded the Phariseespublicly because they perverted the way of truth andcorrupted the gospel of grace, calling them hypocrites,blind guides, fools and blind, serpents, generation ofvipers. And that was just one sermon! Even when hevisited in the homes of the Pharisees He didn’t try to besocially acceptable or avoid offending their self-esteem.He wasn’t concerned about being invited to speak at thenext big Pharisee convention. He spoke the truth in loveat all times and therefore offended them coming andgoing! They were so angry that they plotted His murder.Fifth, dialogue calls for “mutual respect,” but this isnot what we see in Scripture.Jesus did not show a lot of respect toward the Phariseeswho were leading people to hell through their worksgospel, false tradition, and religious hypocrisy.Paul did not show a lot of respect toward the hereticswho were pestering the early churches. How muchrespect did he show toward the following two fellows?66

“And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom isHymenaeus and Philetus” (2 Tim. 2:17). Didn’t Paulunderstand that such language would hurt these men’sfeelings and might even injure their self-esteem? Today,the ecumenical crowd would say, “Paul, how do youthink we are ever going to have a good dialogue if youpersist in talking like that? Don’t you understand theneed for Christian unity? Why are you so harsh andjudgmental and hateful? Do you think you have a corneron the truth?”Sixth, dialogue requires “listening, which at its bestincludes restating what the other is saying to hiscomplete satisfaction.”This ignores the fact that heretics lie and try to hide andshade and smokescreen their error.The Bible repeatedly warns about the subtlety and deceitof false teachers. Jesus referred to them as wolves insheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). Though they are wolves,they try to hide their appearance.Paul warned of “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13), of“false brethren” who work “privily” (Gal. 2:4), of their“cunning craftiness” (Eph. 4:14), of their habit of“speaking lies in hypocrisy” (1 Tim. 4:2), of those who“who creep into houses” (2 Tim. 3:6), of “seducers ...deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).Peter warned of “feigned words” (2 Pet. 2:2).67

Jude warned of “certain men crept in unawares” (Jude 4).Consider some modern fulfillments of these warnings:The example of Jehovah’s WitnessesEven the name of the organization was changed severaltimes in the attempt to escape its inglorious past and hideits true identity. Its many false prophecies have beenswept under the rug. Its early history has beenwhitewashed to hide the deception, chicanery, andimmorality of its leaders.The example of Seventh-day AdventismIt has modified its history, hiding the fact that earlyAdventists were anti-Trinitarian, hiding Ellen White’snervous disorder, hiding her false prophecies and her useof the “prophetic gift” to manipulate the everyday livesof her followers, even “prophesying” that Adventistwomen had to wear a certain type of dress, etc.It hides its heresy under a re-definition of theologicalterms. I have an SDA pamphlet entitled “Saved byGrace,” but it actually teaches salvation by grace pluslaw.It has tried to hide its identity when conductingevangelistic campaigns. I visited an SDA prophecyconference in Tennessee and the only way one wouldknow that it was sponsored by the SDA was the presenceof Ellen White’s literature.68

It often downplays its stranger doctrines, such as “thespirit of prophecy” (referring to Ellen White’s role as aprophetess) and Investigative Judgment. In the 1970s Itook some correspondence courses offered by theSeventh-day Adventists. In a course designed for thegeneral public, these things were glossed over; whereasin courses designed for Adventists, they werehighlighted.The example of the MormonsThe Mormons have whitewashed their early history,hiding the true character of Joseph Smith, his convictionin a court of law for deceiving people with a “peekstone” that he claimed could locate hidden treasure, hisadultery, his lies, his violence, his false claim that hecould read ancient languages, etc.The Mormons have gotten rid of inconvenient doctrines--such as that which said black people are inferior (theywere not allowed into the Mormon priesthood) andpolygamy --by means of new “prophecies.”The example of the Roman Catholic ChurchRome has re-written its history so that most Catholics donot know the truth about such things as the brutality andextent of the Inquisition, Rome’s persecution of the Jews,Rome’s curses against Bible believers, and the moralvileness and greed surrounding the papacy. It has also69

sometimes downplayed doctrines such as purgatory andindulgences and Mariolatry.Rome adapts itself to any given situation. Today it isbecoming more “evangelical” and more “charismatic” forecumenical purposes.Rome redefines terms, speaking of salvation by grace,for example, but meaning salvation through sacraments.Because of the deceptive nature of false teachers, it is notwise simply to ask them to state their doctrine and thenaccept what they say at face value, as dialogue requires.One must carefully, critically analyze what they say andbe willing to expose fraud, which makes a fruitfuldialogue impossible!Seventh, dialogue results in weakening of biblicalconvictions.The Bible warns, “Be not deceived: evil communicationscorrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).Close association with sin and error corrupts godlythinking and living. Just as a good apple cannot raise thestandard of a barrel of bad apples, a true Christian cannotraise the standard of an apostate or deeply compromisedchurch or fellowship or denomination. Contrariwise, it isthe man or woman of God that will always be corruptedby the wrong type of association.70

Look at Billy Graham. When he first began hisecumenical ventures, he claimed that he wanted to useecumenism to get the gospel to more people and thatliberals and Roman Catholics needed the gospel. Itwasn’t long, though, before his thinking had changedentirely and he was saying that liberals and RomanCatholics are fine like they are. In a May 30, 1997,interview with David Frost, Graham said:“I feel I belong to all the churches. I’M EQUALLY ATHOME IN AN ANGLICAN OR BAPTIST OR ABRETHREN ASSEMBLY OR A ROMAN CATHOLICCHURCH. ... And the bishops and archbishops andthe Pope are our friends” (David Frost, Billy Grahamin Conversation, pp. 68, 143). It is Graham who hasbeen converted by the dialogue process. Headmitted, “The ecumenical movement hasbroadened my viewpoint” (Curtis Mitchell, BillyGraham Saint or Sinner, p. 272).The same is true for Graham’s co-workers. When anevangelist said that he did not believe that Catholics aretrue Christians, Graham’s co-laborer “Grady” T.W.Wilson exclaimed that this is “absolutely wrong”; hecontinued”“...to say they are not Christians--man alive!Anybody that receives Jesus Christ as their Lordand Saviour is converted! They’re born again. Ibelieve the Pope is a converted man. I believe a lotof these wonderful Catholics are Christians” (WilliamMartin, A Prophet with Honor: The Billy GrahamStory, p. 461).Obviously, Wilson is not asking any hard questions aboutwhat a person means by believing in Jesus as “Lord andSaviour.”71

This same thing will happen with those who aredialoguing with Mormons. Do not Mormons also believeon Jesus as Lord and Saviour? Of course they do, butonly if we allow them to define these things by their ownheretical dictionary.The ecumenical crowd, which has been busy dialoguingfor half a century and more, has been so weakened thatthey can’t even speak out about salvation and say thatpagans need to be converted.When the Southern Baptist Convention published aprayer guide in 2000 calling upon Baptists to pray for theconversion of Hindus, ecumenical leaders in India roseup in alarm. Ipe Joseph, general secretary of the NationalCouncil of Churches in India, condemned the prayerguide and said, “We should find ecumenical space forfollowers of other faiths in salvation. ... Christians shouldstop thinking of Christianity as the religion amongreligions.” The general secretary of the Council ofBaptist Churches in North-East India, Pastor GulkhanPau, also condemned the Southern Baptist prayer guide.Pau said, “You preach your faith, but don’t play downothers. ... I am not going to condemn the Hindu or theMuslim for his faith.”For eleven years the Church of England conducted aformal dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church (theAnglican-Roman Catholic International Commission).The result was that the Church of England capitulated toCatholic doctrine, for “at no point was there any give in72

Roman doctrine” (Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided,p. 219). The dialogue concluded in 1981 and five yearslater the Final Report was approved by the GeneralSynod of the Church of England.“The Vatican delayed its response until 1991 andthen, instead of thankful consent, it required that theCatholic teaching--especially on the Eucharist (theMass)--be spelt out specifically. It wanted assurancethat there was agreement on ‘the propitiatory natureof the Eucharistic sacrifice’, applicable to the deadas well as the living; and ‘certitude that Christ ispresent ... substantially when “under the species ofbread and wine these earthly realities are changedinto the reality of his Body and Blood, Soul andDivinity”’. This confirmation was given from theAnglican side in Clarification of Certain Aspects ofthe Agreed Statements on Eucharist and Ministry(1994). The Anglicans assured the Vatican that thewords of the Final Statement -- already approved bySynod -- did indeed conform to the sense requiredby the official Roman teaching” (Murray,Evangelicalism Divided, p. 220).Eighth, the practice of dialogue is disobedience to Titus3:9-11.“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, andcontentions, and strivings about the law; for they areunprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick afterthe first and second admonition reject; knowing thathe that is such is subverted, and sinneth, beingcondemned of himself.”The command of God is not to dialogue with heretics butto reject them.73

A Love for PositivismNew Evangelicalism is characterized by a love forpositivism. It is a repudiation of the more “negative”aspects of biblical Christianity. It is committed to a“judge-not” philosophy. It dislikes doctrinal controversy.“The strategy of the New Evangelicalism is thepositive proclamation of the truth in distinction fromall errors without delving in personalities whichembrace the error. ... Instead of attack upon error,the New-Evangelicals proclaim the great historicdoctrines of Christianity” (Harold Ockenga).The chief danger of New Evangelicalism is not theerror that is preached but the truth that is neglected.The New Evangelical narrows down his message,focusing only on a portion of the whole counsel of God.Contrast Acts 20:27, where Paul stated his commitmentto the “whole counsel of God.”This means that much that the New Evangelical preachesand writes is scriptural and spiritually beneficial. TheNew Evangelical will say many good things aboutsalvation, Christian living, love for the Lord, marriage,child training, sanctification, the deity of Christ, heaven,even the infallibility of Scripture.For example, when Ravi Zacharias spoke at RobertSchuller’s Crystal Cathedral in April 2004, his messagewas largely a blessing. I read an online version of it, andhe preached on such things as love for Jesus in the74

Christian walk and a godly marriage, things which anyBible believer can say “amen” to.The problem was not what he said but what he didnot say and the context in which he said it. He failed towarn about Robert Schuller’s gross self-esteem heresy(i.e., teaching that sin is the loss of self-esteem). Hefailed to note that Schuller uses traditional theologicalterms while redefining them in a heretical sense. Hefailed to reprove and rebuke error in a plain manner asGod has commanded us to do. And he failed to separatefrom error. (In typical New Evangelical fashion, he alsoquoted a modernist, J.K. Chesterton, in an uncriticalfashion.)A New Evangelical speaker will preach against sinand error in generalities, but not plainly. He will saythat he is opposed to error and compromise, but he willnot define this plainly.The exceptions to this are what I call “politicallycorrect” or “safe” sins and errors, such as abortion.The New Evangelical will speak against this type ofthing because to do so is acceptable within evangelicalcircles today. Safe sins and errors are those that apreacher can warn about without offending most of hisordinary listeners.When faced with a requirement of coming out plainlyagainst error and naming the names of popular Christianleaders, though, he will refuse to take a stand and will,more likely, attack the one who is trying to force his hand75

or will lash out against “extreme fundamentalism” orsome such thing.Billy Graham is the king of positivism and nonjudgmentalism.His message has been described as “hard at the center butsoft at the edges.” He says his job is merely to preach thegospel, that he is not called to get involved in doctrinalcontroversies.In 1966 the United Church Observer, the officialperiodical of the ultra-liberal United Church of Canada(in 1997 Moderator Bill Phipps said Jesus Christ is notGod), asked Graham a series of questions. His answersdemonstrate his positive-only, non-judgmental style:Q. Do you believe that we who teach that Christ isthe word of God and that the Bible bears witness toGod's revelation in him -- but that the Bible is full ofparable, myth, allegory and is often quite unhistoricand inexact -- are ‘false teachers’?A. Refused to answer.Q. In your book you speak of ‘false prophets’. Yousay it is the ‘full-time effort of many intellectuals tocircumvent God’s plan’ and you make a quotationfrom Paul Tillich. Do you consider Paul Tillich a falseprophet?A. I HAVE MADE IT A PRACTICE NOT TO PASSJUDGMENT ON OTHER CLERGYMEN. I do notagree with many of Dr. Tillich's interpretations. Iheard one of the greatest liberal preachers of thiscentury in an emotional moment say: ‘If Paul Tillichis a Christian then I am not.’ I would not go that far!However, Dr. Tillich confused and misled many76

young clergymen in his attempt to make religionrelevant. His basic teaching was not in line with theNew Testament Kerygma. I would have to know aman much more thoroughly than I knew Dr. Tillich tocall him a ‘false prophet’. There is some evidencethat would indicate that during his last few months ofhis life he was changing considerably.Q. Do you think that churches such as The UnitedChurch of Canada and the great liberal churches ofthe United States that are active in the ecumenicalmovement and whose ministers study and respectthe work of Paul Tillich and other great modernteachers are ‘apostate’?A. I COULD NOT POSSIBLY PASS THIS TYPE OFJUDGMENT ON INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES ANDCLERGYMEN WITHIN THE UNITED CHURCH OFCANADA -- my knowledge of The United Church ofCanada is too inadequate, and my ability to makesuch discernment is too limited. My books andwritings are public knowledge but I love fellowshipand work with many Christians who don’t agree withme theologically in everything. As to my callingeveryone ‘apostate’ who reads and gets help fromTillich -- this is preposterous. There are too manyshades of theological opinion in a largedenomination to lump them all off as liberal, neoorthodox,conservative, fundamentalist, or whathave you!Q. In Canada some of the most ardent supportersof Billy Graham -- Toronto’s Peoples Church and Dr.Paul Smith for example -- are consistently hostileand carping critics of the United Church curriculumbeing taught in our homes, nearly 100% of churchschools and Bible classes. Does your organizationstand with us for a modern, enlightened, scholarlyattempt to explain to our people what ‘The Biblesays’? Or does it stand with those who describe usas ‘an apostate church spreading our unbelief’?A. OUR EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION IS NOTC O N C E R N E D T O PA S S J U D G M E N T - -77

FAV O R A B L E O R A D V E R S E - - O N A N YPARTICULAR DENOMINATION. WE DO NOTINTEND TO GET INVOLVED IN THE VARIOUSDIVISIONS WITHIN THE CHURCH. We are simpleGospel preachers, not scholarly theologians --though several of our team members have theirearned doctorates. We feel that our calling is that ofspecialists -- winning people to a personalcommitment to Jesus Christ! We do not intend toallow ourselves to become bogged down in themany religious crosscurrents.Q. Do you think a literal belief in the Virgin birth --not just as a symbol of the incarnation or of Christ’sdivinity -- as an historic event is necessary forpersonal salvation?A. While I most certainly believe that Jesus Christwas born of a virgin, I do not find anywhere in theNew Testament that this particular belief isnecessary for personal salvation...Q. Do you reject those theories of evolution thatsuggest man may have descended (or ascended)from lower forms of life?A. Yes. As modern scientific research increasinglyshows, variation and adaptation take place withinthe species which are genetically closedcommunities. HOWEVER, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IFDIFFERENCES AT THIS POINT REALLY MAKETOO MUCH SENSE. If man came through a longevolutionary process, he really did not become a‘man’ until God breathed into his nostrils and hebecame a living soul... The Bible does not tell usexactly how God created man. There is no usespeculating any further...Q. Do you accept the theories and evidence of thescientists that man has lived on earth for hundredsof thousands of years?A. Since modern scientists vary in their estimates ofthe period of man's existence on earth from ten78

thousand to hundreds of thousands of years, which‘evidence’ is to be believed? I seriously doubt if anyresponsible thinker could satisfactorily answer thisquestion. I DON’T SEE THAT THE AGE OF THEEARTH HAS A GREAT BEARING ON ONE'SFAITH. FOR A CHRISTIAN TO AGREE ORDISAGREE WITH A SCIENTIST DOESN’T MAKEHIM ANY MORE OR LESS A CHRISTIAN (“BillyGraham Answers 26 Provocative Questions,” UnitedChurch Observer, July 1, 1966).This is pure New Evangelicalism. The New Evangelicalwill preach against error in general terms but rarely willhe do it plainly and specifically. When questioneddirectly by either side, he tends to fudge and dodge. He isnot religious politician rather than a prophet.No one is better at this than Billy Graham, which is whyhe has been called “Mr. Facing Two Ways.” He is forcreation but he doesn’t think evolution is deadly; he is fora young earth and an old earth; he is for the liberalposition and for the evangelical position; he is for thevirgin birth but he doesn’t worry about those who deny it.He doesn’t pray to Mary but he doesn’t oppose thosewho do. He is for everything and therefore againstnothing.When Graham held a crusade in wicked Las Vegas, theinfamous gambling/fornicating haven, he said: “I did notcome here to condemn Las Vegas; I came here to preachthe gospel” (Christianity Today, Feb. 24, 1978). But thegospel begins with the bad news of God’s condemnationof our sin before it gets to the good news of forgivenessthrough Jesus Christ. We are commanded not only to79

have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,but “rather to reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).Graham’s refusal to preach anything beyond the mostbasic points of the gospel (and even that is questionable)is why he is acceptable both to Roman Catholics andModernists. Charles Dullea, Superior of the PontificalBiblical Institute in Rome, made the followingobservation:“Because he is preaching basic Christianity, he doesnot enter into matters which today divide Christians.He does not touch on Sacraments or Church in anydetail. ... The Catholic will hear no slighting of hisChurch’s teaching authority, nor of Papal orEpiscopal Prerogatives, no word against the mass orsacraments or Catholic practices. GRAHAM HASNO TIME FOR THAT; he is preaching only Christand a personal commitment to Him. The Catholic, inmy opinion will hear little, if anything, he cannotagree with” (Dullea, “A Catholic Looks at BillyGraham,” Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Jan. 1972).The Church Growth and megachurch philosophy isanother example of New Evangelicalism’s nonjudgmentalism.Consider this description of church growth guru C. PeterWagner:“Wagner makes negative assessments aboutnobody; he has made a career out of finding what isgood and affirming it without asking criticalquestions” (Christianity Today, Aug. 8, 1986).80

The preaching at Willow Creek, the megachurch pastoredby Bill Hybels, is described in this way: “There is no fireand brimstone here. No Bible-thumping. Just practical,witty messages.”Robert Schuller, who has influenced multitudes throughhis Church Growth Institutes, epitomizes the NewEvangelical positive-only philosophy. He says,“Essentially, if Christianity is to succeed in the nextmillennium, it must cease to be a negative religion andmust become positive” (Schuller, Self-Esteem the NewReformation, p. 104).This New Evangelical judge-not philosophy permeatesContemporary Christian Music.Consider the following statements against old-fashionedpreaching, which could be multiplied:Steven Curtis Chapman says he tries to communicate aBiblical world view in a way that WILL NOT BE“ABRASIVELY PREACHY” (Huntsville Times, Oct. 30,1994). He says his quest for relevance has shown that thebest way to communicate his faith is “not to preach fireand brimstone.”An ad for “Fuel on the Fire” by Morgan Cryar says thesong is “a good pop/rock sound for the teenage audience”because the “songs deal with youth issues and situationsWITHOUT BEING PREACHY.”81

The lyrics to Donna Summer’s music is described asbeing “UNPREACHILY AS POSSIBLE, the approachmost likely to win the attention of an intelligent non-Christian audience” (Contemporary Christian MusicMagazine, Oct. 1984, p. 40).Randy Stonehill says: “I DON’T WANT TO PREACHAT PEOPLE. What I want to do is communicate the truthin the most compelling, fresh, and challenging way Ican” (“Kicking Around with Uncle Rand,” ChristianMusic Review, April 1991).Michael W. Smith says, “MY SONGS ARE NOTPREACHY -- at all” (Michael McCall, ContemporaryChristian, June 1986, p. 19). Smith described his nonjudgmentalphilosophy in an interview in the May 1998issue of CCM Magazine.In reviewing Steve Taylor’s music, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted that “THERE IS LITTLEPREACHING IN HIS SONGS” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Oct. 11, 1984). Taylor admits that peoplelike his concerts because there is no preaching: “Ourconcerts attract people because THEY KNOW THEYW O N ' T B E P R E A C H Y o r i n s u l t t h e i rintelligence” (Peters Brothers, What About ChristianRock, p. 138). Taylor was quoted as saying: “I DON’TTHINK PEOPLE REALLY LIKE TO BE PREACHEDAT. ... I THINK IT’S INSULTING TO PEOPLE’SINTELLIGENCE TO PREACH AT THEM. No one likesto be told what to believe” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer,Oct. 11, 1984).82

P.O.D. (Payable on Death), a hard rock group fromCalifornia, also subscribes to the positive-onlyphilosophy: An interviewer with Pollstar observed:“While THEY DON’T PREACH or try to ram theirspirituality down anyone’s throat, they hope that theirPOSITIVE MESSAGE will have an influence on rockfans” (Pollstar, March 20, 2000).The Chinese CCM group For You advertises their musicas “SPIRITUAL BUT NOT PREACHY” (The StraitsTimes, Singapore, May 18, 2001).Jason Wade of Lifehouse says, “I think we have apositive message of hope. WE’RE NOT TRYING TOBLATANTLY PREACH. It all comes down tolove” (David Wild, “The Rock & Roll Gospel accordingto Lifehouse,” Rolling Stone magazine, June 7, 2001,http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=13983&cf=13773270).WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THE POSITIVEEMPHASISFirst, the prophets of old were not positive-focus NewEvangelicals.Consider Enoch’s sermon:“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam,prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lordcometh with ten thousands of his saints, to executejudgment upon all, and to convince all that are83

ungodly among them of all their ungodly deedswhich they have ungodly committed, and of all theirhard speeches which ungodly sinners have spokenagainst him” (Jude 14-15).There was nothing New Evangelical about old Enoch.Second, the Lord Jesus Christ was not a positive-focusNew Evangelical.Christ preached more about hell than heaven (i.e., Mark9:42-48) and forcefully rebuked error (Mat. 23:13-33).Third, it is also obvious that the apostles were notpositive-focus New Evangelicals.Paul was constantly involved in doctrinal controversiesand was brutally plain about the danger of heresy. As wehave seen, he called false teachers “dogs” and “evilworkers” (Phil. 3:2). Of those who pervert the gospel hesaid, “Let them be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, 9). He calledfalse teachers “evil men and seducers” (2 Tim. 3:13),“men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning thefaith” (2 Tim. 3:8), “false apostles, deceitful workers” (2Cor. 11:13). He warned about false christs, false spirits,false gospels (2 Cor. 11:1-4). He labeled false teaching“doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1). In the Pastoral EpistlesPaul warned of false teachers and compromisers by name10 times.Peter was also plain spoken about heresy. Roughly twothirds of his second epistle is dedicated to warning aboutfalse teachers. He labeled their heresies “damnable” and84

warned of their “swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). He calledtheir ways “pernicious”; said their words were “feigned”;and boldly declared that “their damnation slumberethnot” (2 Pet. 2:3). He warned them of eternal hell (2 Pet.2:4-9) and called them “presumptuous” and“selfwilled” (2 Pet. 2:10). He likened them to “naturalbrute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed” (2 Pet.2:12) and exposed their deception (2 Pet. 2:13).John, “the apostle of love,” was also busy warning aboutantichrists (1 John 2:18-19), calling them liars (1 John2:22) and seducers (1 John 2:26) and deceivers (2 John7); saying that they deny the Son (1 John 2:23) and thatthey don’t have God (2 John 9). He put great emphasisupon testing the spirits (1 John 4:1-3). John even forbadethe believers to allow the false teachers into their housesor to bid them God speed (2 John 10-11).Fourth, biblical preaching is not positive-focus NewEvangelicalism.Biblical preaching is both “negative” and positive, andthe preacher’s job is to preach the whole Word (2Timothy 4:2). We are to preach all things whatsoeverChrist has taught (Mat. 28:20). We are to speak the wholecounsel of God (Acts 20:27). Biblical preaching alwayshas a strong element of warning and plain correction.Fifth, biblical Christianity is not positive-focus NewEvangelicalism.85

God commands every Christian to reprove (Eph. 5:11).He commands every Christian to contend for the faith(Jude 3). And He commands every Christian to separatefrom error (Rom. 16:17).WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT JUDGINGFirst, the Bible requires that we judge everything by thedivine standard (“prove all things,” 1 Thess. 5:21).(1) We are to judge righteous judgment (Jn. 7:24).(2) We are to judge all things (1 Cor. 2:15-16).(3) We are to judge sin in the church (1 Cor. 5:3, 12).(4) We are to judge matters between the brethren (1 Cor.6:5).(5) We are to judge preaching (1 Cor. 14:29).(6) We are to judge those who preach false gospels, falsechrists, and false spirits (2 Cor. 11:1-4).(7) We are to judge the works of darkness (Eph. 5:11).(8) We are to judge false prophets and false apostles (2Pet. 2; 1 John 4:1; Jude; Rev. 2:2).Second, we are not to judge hypocritically (Mat. 7:1-5).In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus did not condemn alljudging; He condemned hypocritical judging (“Thouhypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out ofthy brother's eye,” Mat. 7:5).That Christ does not condemn all judging is evident fromthe very context. In the same sermon He warned about86

false teachers (Mat. 7:15-17) and false brethren (Mat.7:21-23). It is impossible to beware of false prophets andfalse brethren without judging doctrine and practice byGod’s Word.That Christ was not condemning all judging is alsoevident by comparing Scripture with Scripture. We haveseen that other passages require judging.Third, we are not to judge in matters of liberty.“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not todoubtful disputations. For one believeth that he mayeat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not;and let not him which eateth not judge him thateateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou thatjudgest another man's servant? to his own masterhe standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: forGod is able to make him stand. One man esteemethone day above another: another esteemeth everyday alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in hisown mind” (Romans 14:1-5).Romans 14 is talking about judging things on which theBible is silent, such as diet (Rom. 14:2-3) and holy days(Rom. 14:5-6). There are no laws in the New Testamentabout diet and holy days. In such things there is personalliberty and the believer is not to judge others on the basisof his own conscience.Romans 14 is not saying that some things in the Bible areof “secondary” importance and therefore should not bematters of judgment. Paul is not speaking of thingsclearly taught in the Bible, but of things not taught in the87

Bible. If something is taught in the Bible, the believer isobligated to follow it and to judge on that basis.Fourth, we are not to judge in an evil way.“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He thatspeaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother,speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but ifthou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, buta judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to saveand to destroy: who art thou that judgestanother?” (James 4:11-12).The meaning of this passage is defined in the context.The judging here refers to speaking evil (Jam. 4:11).Proper judging, on the other hand, is to speak the truth inlove. The truth is not evil and speaking the truth in loveis not evil. The type of judging condemned by James isjudging in the sense of tearing down, tale bearing, andslander. It is judging with an evil intent. When one judgessin and error scripturally, it is never with a desire to hurtpeople. The Pharisees judged Jesus in this evil manner(Jn. 7:52). The false teachers at Galatia and Corinthjudged Paul in this manner, trying to tear him down inthe eyes of the churches (2 Cor. 10:10).To judge in an evil way is also to judge in a way that iscontrary to the law of God (Jam. 4:12). This refers tojudging others by human standards rather than divine,thus setting oneself up as the lawgiver. The Pharisees didthis when they judged Jesus by their traditions (Mat.15:1-3). On the other hand, when a believer judges thingsby God’s Word in a godly and compassionate manner, heis not exercising his own judgment; he is judging God’s88

judgment. When, for example, I say that it is wrong for awoman to be a pastor, this is not my judgment; it is God’s(1 Tim. 2:12). This is not evil judgment.New Evangelicalism’s judge-not, focus-on-the-positivephilosophy has permeated evangelical Christianity today,but it is not Scriptural.Exalting Love and Unity above DoctrineNew Evangelicalism is characterized by the exalting oflove and unity above doctrine.Billy Graham said, “The one badge of Christiandiscipleship is not orthodoxy, but love” (quoted from IainMurray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 33).Edward Carnell, second president of Fuller TheologicalSeminary, said: “Jesus names love, not defense ofdoctrine, as the sign of a true disciple” (quoted from IainMurray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 33).In an article calling for ecumenical evangelism, TedHaggard (then pastor of New Life Church, ColoradoSprings, and head of the National Association ofEvangelicals) likened doctrinal convictions to differentflavors of ice cream.“I love all kinds of ice cream. Sometimes I wantvanilla with caramel topping, whipped cream, lots ofnuts and a cherry. Other times I want Rocky Road,banana or chocolate chip. That’s why I love Baskin-Robbins ice cream stores. … In Colorado Springs,Colorado, where I am a pastor, we enjoy 90 flavors89

of churches. ... I am saying that we need toappreciate the respected interpretations of Scripturethat exist in the many Christian denominations. ...Have you erected any fences between your churchand the congregation down the street? have youjudged other Christian groups in your heart, oropenly criticized them? I believe the Holy Spirit iscalling us to move our fences and demonstrate to awatching world that we are united” (Ted Haggard,“We Can Win Our Cities ... Together,” Charisma, July1995).Jack Van Impe said:“The Holy Spirit declares in Ephesians 4:3 we are to‘endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bondof peace.’ I wasn’t doing that. I was dividing theChristians. God comes into the heart of Catholics,and Lutherans, and Baptists, and Pentecostals, andwith God in us, we can fellowship with oneanother” (Van Impe’s television program, July 23,1995).Joseph Stowell (president of Moody Bible Institute),speaking at the National Association of Evangelicalsconference in March 1996, said:“God never intended that our differences woulddivide us. If you belong to Christ you are lifted abovethe differences, and all else becomes secondary.Promise Keepers Clergy Conference in Atlantashowed the unity that is possible. We must repent ofour attitudes as I did in Atlanta. I went to a man whoheld different doctrines than I held andapologized. ... Revival happens when God’s peoplenetwork together.”WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT DOCTRINE90

It is impossible to treat doctrine like the Bible requireswhile also following the ecumenical philosophydescribed in the previous examples.We are saved by believing from the heart the rightdoctrine of the gospel (Rom. 6:17). This shows why wecannot accept someone as a genuine Christian if they arecommitted to a false gospel, such as Rome’ssacramentalism. We must ask hard questions about thedoctrine of salvation to make sure that it is scriptural, andsuch a practice is anathema to the ecumenical program.We are to separate from those who teach false doctrine.“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which causedivisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yehave learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).We must be careful of every wind of false doctrine.“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to andfro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by thesleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they liein wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14).No false doctrine is to be allowed. “As I besought thee toabide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, thatthou mightest charge some that they teach no otherdoctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3).The preacher is to take heed to the doctrine. “Take heedunto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: forin doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them thathear them” (1 Tim. 4:16).91

The Bible is given for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16) and is tobe preached with doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2).The preacher must use doctrine to edify and protect thechurch. “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath beentaught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both toexhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9).We abide in Christ by sound doctrine. “But the anointingwhich ye have received of him abideth in you, and yeneed not that any man teach you: but as the sameanointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and isno lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide inhim” (1 Jn. 2:27).WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT CHRISTIANLOVEThough the ecumenist talks much about love, he isconfused both about the definition and the direction oftrue Christian love.Ecumenists are confused about the definition of love.Biblical love is obedience to God and His Word, notgushy emotion, not broadmindedness, not toleration oferror.“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man loveme, he will keep my words: and my Father will lovehim, and we will come unto him, and make ourabode with him” (Jn. 14:23).92

“For this is the love of God, that we keep hiscommandments: and his commandments are notgrievous” (1 John 5:3).Biblical love is associated with knowledge and judgment.“And this I pray, that your love may abound yet moreand more in knowledge and in all judgment; that yemay approve things that are excellent; that ye maybe sincere and without offence till the day ofChrist” (Phil. 1:9-10).Biblical love is never divorced from strict application ofGod’s Word, from keen spiritual judgment based onGod’s Word. Biblical love is not non-judgmentalism.Biblical love is associated with rebuking sin and error.The Lord Jesus, who is Love Incarnate, “looked roundabout on them with anger, being grieved for the hardnessof their hearts” (Mk. 3:5). He rebuked the Phariseessharply, even fiercely (Mat. 23). He called Peter a devil(Mat. 16:23) and upbraided the disciples “with theirunbelief and hardness of heart” (Mk. 16:14).The apostle Paul called false teachers “dogs” and “evilworkers” (Phil. 3:2), “evil men and seducers” (2 Tim.3:13), “men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning thefaith” (2 Tim. 3:8). Of those who pervert the gospel hesaid, “Let them be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, 9).None of this is contrary to Christian love.93

Ecumenists are also confused about the direction oflove.The first direction of love must be toward God. “Jesussaid unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with allthy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment” (Mat.22:37-38).I must love God enough to take a stand for His Word, tofear God more than I fear man.We agree with Charles Haddon Spurgeon when he said:“On all hands we hear cries for unity in this, andunity in that; but to our mind the main need of thisage is not compromise, but conscientiousness. ‘Firstpure, then peaceable.’ It is easy to cry ‘aconfederacy,’ but that union which is not based uponthe truth of God is rather a conspiracy than acommunion. Charity by all means; but honesty also.LOVE, OF COURSE, BUT LOVE TO GOD ASWELL AS LOVE TO MEN, AND LOVE OF TRUTHAS WELL AS LOVE OF UNION. It is exceedinglydifficult in these times to preserve one’s fidelitybefore God and one’s fraternity among men. Shouldnot the former be preferred to the latter if bothcannot be maintained? We think so” (Spurgeon,“The Down Grade - Second Article,” The Sword andthe Trowel, April 1887, Notes, p. 16).The second direction of love must be toward those whoare in spiritual danger. The Lord Jesus instructed Peter to“feed my sheep” John 21:16-17. I need to love the Lord’ssheep more than I love the wolves.94

In conclusion of our study on love, we quote from thewords of James Henley Thornwell, a staunch Old SchoolPresbyterian preacher who fought against theologicalmodernism in the 19th century. The sixth president ofSouth Carolina College (today the University of SouthCarolina), Thornwell was weary with the “INBETWEENITES” of his day who said they loved thetruth but were soft in their stance and refused to boldlywithstand heresy. Note his powerful words and hisunderstanding of genuine biblical love:“To employ soft words and honeyed phrases indiscussing questions of everlasting importance; todeal with errors that strike at the foundations of allhuman hope as if they were harmless and venialmistakes; to bless where God disapproves, and tomake apologies where He calls us to stand up likemen and assert, though it may be the aptest methodof securing popular applause in a sophistical age, iscruelty to man and treachery to Heaven. Those whoon such subjects attach more importance to therules of courtesy than they do to the measures oftruth do not defend the citadel, but betray it into thehands of its enemies. LOVE FOR CHRIST, ANDFOR THE SOULS FOR WHOM HE DIED, WILL BETHE EXACT MEASURE OF OUR ZEAL INEXPOSING THE DANGERS BY WHICH MEN’SSOULS ARE ENSNARED” (quoted in a sermon byGeorge Sayles Bishop, author of The Doctrines ofGrace and Kindred Themes, 1910).WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT CHRISTIANUNITYThe New Testament does speak of Christian unity but notin accordance with the doctrine that we find in today’sevangelical ecumenicism.95

John 17:21“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me,and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: thatthe world may believe that thou hast sent me.”The modern ecumenical movement, in all of its aspects,including liberal and evangelical, has taken John 17:11 asone of its theme verses, claiming that the unity for whichChrist prayed is a unity of professing Christians thatdownplays biblical doctrine, but the context of John 17destroys this myth.In John 17, Jesus is referring to those who are saved(Jn. 17:3). John 17 is not a unity of regenerate believerswith those who are nominal or who follow a false gospel.In John 17, Jesus is referring to those who keep HisWord; it is a unity in truth (Jn. 17:6, 17). It is not aunity that ignores doctrinal differences for the sake of anenlarged fellowship. It is not an ecumenical “unity indiversity.” Nowhere does the New Testament teach thatdoctrine is to be sacrificed, or even downplayed, for thesake of unity.In John 17, Jesus is referring to those who not of theworld (Jn. 17:14, 16). By contrast, the ecumenicalmovement is not separated from the world. Billy Grahamis praised by the world and frequently voted the mostfavorite man in America. In 1989, Graham was evenawarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame! His staris near those honoring Wayne Newton and John Travolta.96

The ecumenical movement today is characterized by arock & roll type of Christianity that does not believe inseparation from the world, and the world responds withawards and accolades rather than persecution.In John 17, Jesus is referring to a unity of the Spiritnot a man-made unity (John 17:1). John 17 is a prayerdirected to God the Father, not a commandment directedto men.Ephesians 4:3-6“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in thebond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit,even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God andFather of all, who is above all, and through all, andin you all.”This is another key passage on Christian unity, but whenwe examine it carefully we find that it actually condemnsecumenism.Ephesians 4:3-6 is a unity of the Spirit (v. 3). It is not amanmade unity. It is a unity of those who are regeneratedby and led by the Spirit of God. There is no unitybetween those who are true born again Christians andthose who are nominal or sacramental. While attendingecumenical conferences with press credentials over theyears, I have asked many attendees when they were bornagain, and oftentimes they have not been able to give aScriptural answer.97

Ephesians 4:3-6 is a unity of the one faith (v. 5). Thisrefers to the faith once delivered to the apostles andprophets and inscripturated in the New Testament.Note that “the faith” is not divided into cardinal andsecondary issues after an ecumenical fashion. InMatthew 23:23 the Lord Jesus taught that while noteverything in Scripture is of equal importance,everything has some importance. Nothing clearly taughtin Scripture is to be despised and set aside for thepurpose of unity.In 1 Timothy 6:14, Paul taught Timothy to keep theapostolic doctrine “without spot” until the return ofChrist. Spots are small, seemingly insignificant things.Thus, Paul was teaching Timothy to value everything inScripture. The theme of 1 Timothy is practical churchtruth (1 Tim. 3:15). It deals with church government (1Tim. 3), the woman’s role in church work (1 Tim. 2), carefor widows (1 Tim. 5), supporting pastors, discipline, etc.These are precisely the kinds of things that are typicallyignored in ecumenical ventures, because they areconsidered of secondary importance; yet Paul taughtTimothy to keep all of these things without spot.Ephesians 4:3-6 is a unity that has as its basic unit thelocal church. The command in Ephesians 4 is addressedto the church at Ephesus (Eph. 1:1). It was not addressedto some worldwide body of believers. It is possible topractice biblical unity within the assembly becausedoctrine and righteousness can be legislated andpreserved there. Outside of the assembly, there is no98

iblical discipline or authority, and when Christiansattempt to practice interdenominational and parachurchunity, there is always compromise. I am not responsibleto maintain a unity of spirit with every professingbeliever in the world, but with the believers in myassembly. The Bible says we are to glorify God “withone mind and one mouth” (Rom. 15:6). That certainly isnot a description of ecumenism! This is only possible inthe assembly, where believers can be united together indoctrine and spirit and purpose in a way that isimpossible apart from the assembly.Philippians 1:27“Only let your conversation be as it becometh thegospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you,or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that yestand fast in one spirit, with one mind strivingtogether for the faith of the gospel.”This is another key verse on Christian unity, but considerthe following observations from the context which refutethe ecumenical approach:Biblical unity is practiced particularly in the localassembly. Paul’s instruction was addressed to the churchat Philippi. True Christian unity is not a parachurch orinterdenominational issue.Biblical unity means having one mind, not a “unity indiversity.” Compare the following:“Now the God of patience and consolation grant youto be likeminded one toward another according to99

Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and onemouth glorify God, even the Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:5-6).“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of ourLord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing,and that there be no divisions among you; but thatye be perfectly joined together in the same mind andin the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).Biblical unity means total commitment to the onefaith. The New Testament faith is not many separatedoctrines but one unified body of truth. There are no“secondary” doctrines that we can ignore for the sake ofChristian unity. Not every doctrine is of equalimportance, but every doctrine has some importance.The choice is between a “limited fellowship or a limitedmessage.” If one is faithful to the New Testament faith, itis impossible to have a wide fellowship, particularly inthe midst of end-time apostasy, and if one is committedto a wide fellowship he must limit his message tosomething less than the whole counsel of God.(See the report “A Limited Message or a LimitedFellowship” at the Way of Life web site --www.wayoflife.org.)PragmatismNew Evangelicalism is characterized by a pragmaticapproach to the ministry.100

“We want to retrieve Christianity from a mere eddy ofthe main stream into the full current of modernlife” (Harold Ockenga).Pragmatism is to aim at achieving some human objectiverather than simply being faithful to God’s Word andletting “the chips fall where they may.”Following are examples of the pragmatic objectives thatNew Evangelicals aim for:Aiming to influence the world for Christ. This is the goalof Graham’s ecumenical crusades. It is the stated aim ofChristian rockers and rappers. It is the aim of the churchgrowth principles. A world of compromise anddisobedience is excused today for evangelism’s sake.Aiming to influence liberal denominations. This was oneof the original goals of New Evangelicalism. HaroldOckenga said he wanted to recapture the denominationalleadership. This is the reason evangelicals give forstaying within liberal denominations rather thanseparating from them.Aiming to influence the nation. This was the goal of JerryFalwell’s Moral Majority and The Faith and ValuesCoalition. It is the goal of the BBFI in the Philippines aswell as that of a political movement in Australia led bythe Hills Christian Life Centre in Sydney.Aiming to build a big church. In 1986 Carl Henrywarned, “Numerical bigness has become an infectiousepidemic” (Confessions of a Theologian, p. 387). This101

explains the amazing popularity of visibly successfulpastors such as Bill Hybels and Rick Warren.This type of pragmatism has also characterized a largesegment of the fundamental Baptist church movement. Inthe 1970s, the goal of building a big church was achievedby creating an exciting atmosphere with “special days,”aggressive promotional campaigns, large bus ministries,stirring but typically shallow motivational preaching, andsuch. This was what I was taught at Tennessee Temple inthe mid-1970s and it was what was modeled at HighlandPark Baptist Church. The men that were exalted weremen that had built big churches, men who were“successful” by the standard of big numbers. Things thatdid not fit into the objective -- such as solid Bibleteaching, plain refutation of error that includes namingthe names of influential false teachers, and an emphasison ecclesiastical separation -- were omitted ordownplayed, because it caused controversy and didn’t“build a church.”It is not a dramatic shift to move from this type ofIndependent Baptist pragmatism to that of Rick Warrenand Bill Hybels. The goal remains the same, which is abig ministry, but the methods have changed. Instead ofpromotionalism, they use contemporary worship musicand the lowering of standards and the watering down ofthe preaching to draw the crowd. In neither case is thepreeminent goal to obey the Scriptures and be committedto the whole counsel of God at all cost.WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS102

First, we are commanded to have only one goal, andthat is to obey God’s Word. “Let us hear the conclusionof the whole matter: Fear God, and keep hiscommandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecc.12:13).Second, we are to keep all things that Christ hascommanded. “Teaching them to observe all thingswhatsoever I have commanded you...” (Mat. 28:20).Third, we are to respect the whole counsel of God (Acts20:27) and to keep God’s Word “without spot,” whichrefers to seemingly small and inconsequential things (1Tim. 6:13-14).Fourth, when King Saul obeyed only part of God’scommand, he was severely rebuked “And Samuel said,Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings andsacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold,to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than thefat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, andstubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thouhast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejectedthee from being king” (1 Samuel 15:22-23).What about 1 Corinthians 9:22?“To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain theweak: I am made all things to all men, that I might byall means save some.”103

The “rock & roll Christian” crowd uses this verse tosupport its philosophy of being a rapper to reach therappers and a skate boarder to reach the skate boardersand a beach bum to reach the beach bums. However,when we examine the context and compare Scripturewith Scripture, we find that Paul did not mean anythinglike this. Let’s look at the immediate context and then themore remote context:In 1 Corinthians 9:21 Paul says, “To them that arewithout law, as without law, (being not without law toGod, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain themthat are without law.” Thus, he explains that he is alwaysunder the law to Christ and he is never free to do thingsthat would be contrary to the Scriptures. For example,Paul would not adopt long hair in order to reach theheathen, because Christ’s law says long hair is a shame(1 Cor. 11:14).And in 1 Corinthians 9:27 he says, “But I keep under mybody, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means,when I have preached to others, I myself should be acastaway.” Thus Paul was always biblically strict and hedid not allow anything into his life and ministry thatwould result in spiritual carelessness and the possibilityof becoming shipwrecked.In Galatians 5:13 he says, “For, brethren, ye have beencalled unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasionto the flesh, but by love serve one another.” Thus Paul’sliberty was not the liberty to serve the flesh in any sense.One of the first fleshly things that God dealt with me104

about after I was saved in 1973 was rock & roll. In myestimation, it is one of the most powerful fleshly thingsin society today. Steven Tyler of Aerosmith testified thatrock music “is the strongest drug in the world” (RockBeat, Spring 1987, p. 23), and LSD guru Timothy Learyadded his amen to that, admitting, “I’ve been STONEDON THE MUSIC many times.” My own experience withrock & roll before I was converted agrees with thesetestimonies, and I am confident that those who believerock & roll can be used properly in the service of a holyGod are deceived.Paul also taught that believers are to “abstain from allappearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). This is the strictestform of separation, and Paul would not have doneanything contrary to this in his own life and ministry.Paul is definitely not providing a defense for thecontemporary Christian rock & roll philosophy and thereis no possibility that he would have adopted such alifestyle. Jeremiah warned, “Learn not the way of theheathen” (Jer. 10:2), and Paul would certainly not havetattooed himself and grown his hair long and adoptedpagan music and dress and posture in order to reach thepagans.IntellectualismNew Evangelicalism is characterized by the desire forintellectual respectability and by pride of scholarship.105

Billy Graham, speaking at the annual convention of theNational Association of Evangelicals in 1971, said: “Ibelieve that Christianity Today has played a major role ingiving evangelicals that INTELLECTUALRESPECTABILITY and initiative that was so drasticallyneeded 29 years ago.”Fuller Theological Seminary was at the forefront of “thebid to capture the theological leadership inAmerica” (letter from Edward Carnell to HaroldOckenga, unpublished, Dec. 30, 1957; cited by IainMurray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 174).John R.W. Stott said: “For 50 years and more, I haveurged that authentic evangelical Christians are notfundamentalists. Fundamentalists tend to be ANTI-INTELLECTUAL...” (Stott, Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, 1988, p. 90).The younger evangelicals in the Church of England, whohave been influenced deeply by Stott, are on a “quest forRESPECTABLE THEOLOGY” (Iain Murray,Evangelicalism Divided, p. 175).In 1994, Wheaton College professor Mark Noll publishedThe Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, warning of the“scandal” of “ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM.”WHAT THE BIBLE SAYSFirst, God warns against intellectual pride.106

“When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but withthe lowly is wisdom” (Prov. 11:2).“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that notmany wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, notmany noble, are called: But God hath chosen thefoolish things of the world to confound the wise; andGod hath chosen the weak things of the world toconfound the things which are mighty; and basethings of the world, and things which are despised,hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, tobring to nought things that are: That no flesh shouldglory in his presence” (1 Cor. 1:26-29).Apostasy usually begins among the “intellectuals.” Thisis what brought the downfall of Harvard University in theearly 19th century. In their zeal for intellectualrespectability, they hired a Unitarian renowned for hisscholarship to head up the school, ignoring his heresies.The Bible believer is not anti-intellectual in the sense ofbeing anti-learning and education, but he understands thedangers inherent in human scholarship because of man’sfallen nature, and he is opposed to humanisticscholarship that is divorced from and antagonistic toGod’s Word.Second, consider how Jesus was treated by the religiousintellectuals.“And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth thisman letters, having never learned” (Jn. 7:15).And consider His warning:107

“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well ofyou! for so did their fathers to the falseprophets” (Lk. 6:26).Third, consider how the apostles were treated by thesesame religious intellectuals.“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter andJohn, and perceived that they were unlearned andignorant men, they marvelled; and they tookknowledge of them, that they had been withJesus” (Acts 4:13).Fourth, consider the requirement for church leaders.God does not require intellectualism and degrees inhigher learning (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). God’s people are, forthe most part, common; they don’t need intellectualism;they need simple and practical Bible truth. The truth hasa basic simplicity that the common man can understand.“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee,O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thouhast hid these things from the wise and prudent, andhast revealed them unto babes” (Mat. 11:25).It is the devil who complicates things.“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpentbeguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your mindsshould be corrupted from the simplicity that is inChrist” (2 Cor. 11:3).Fifth, Paul refused to preach the truth in an“intellectual” manner.108

“And my speech and my preaching was not withenticing words of man’s wisdom, but indemonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor.2:4).Sixth, the truth is narrow and unacceptable to theunsaved (“narrow is the way” Mat. 7:14). See also John15:19; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; 5:19. The truth can never be madeacceptable in this present world apart from the miracleworking,humbling power of the Holy Spirit in men’shearts. To gain intellectual respectability requires deepspiritual compromise.Seventh, the New Evangelical approach to scholarshiphas corrupted those who have pursued it.“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt goodmanners” (1 Cor. 15:33).To gain scholarly credentials that will impress the worldrequires sitting at the feet of and affiliating closely withunbelievers and apostates, which is an exceedinglydangerous thing.Consider the example of New Evangelicals in the UnitedStates.Within ten short years from its inception, NewEvangelicalism was deeply infiltrated with skepticism inregard to biblical infallibility. Consider the testimony ofHarold Lindsell:“Forty years ago the term evangelical representedthose who were theologically orthodox and who held109

to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ...WITHIN A DECADE OR SONEOEVANGELICALISM . . . WAS BEINGASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASINGSKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICALINFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY” (Harold Lindsell,The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319)“In or about 1962 it became apparent that therewere already some at Fuller Theological Seminarywho no longer believed in the inerrancy of the Bible,among both the faculty and the boardmembers” (Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible,p. 106).David Hubbard, who became president of FullerSeminary in 1963, mockingly referred to the doctrine ofthe inerrancy of Scripture as “the gas-balloon theory oftheology; one leak and the whole Bible comes down.” Hehad been influenced by his theological education at thefeet of skeptics in Germany.Consider the example of New Evangelicals in the UnitedKingdom.The intellectual approach was adopted by InterVarsityFellowship (IVF) within the Church of Englandbeginning in the late 1950s. By the 1980s, they boastedthat there were “fully thirty competent theologians whowere from the evangelical stable” (John Wenham,Autobiography, p. 217). The problem is that these“competent evangelical theologians” were deeplyaffected by a rationalistic approach to biblicalinfallibility. The definition of “evangelical” had changedgreatly. Consider three examples:110

F.F. Bruce led the way for IVF when he was appointed tothe Rylands Chair of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis inthe University of Manchester in 1959. Bruce continued tosign the IVF doctrinal statement, claiming to accept “theDivine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture, asoriginally given, and its supreme authority in all mattersof faith and conduct.” But Bruce did not believe this. Inhis autobiography he testified:“Occasionally, when I have expounded the meaningof some biblical passage in a particular way, I havebeen asked, ‘But how does that square withinspiration?’ But inspiration is not a concept of whichI have a clear understanding before I come to thestudy of the text, so that I know in advance whatlimits are placed on the meaning of the text by therequirement of inspiration” (Bruce, In Retrospect, p.311).Iain Murray observes:“There has to be real doubt over his [F.F. Bruce’s]position on Scripture in view of statements in hisautobiography. He regrets evangelical intolerance ofthe Barthian position. Of his continued assent to theIVF’s doctrinal basis he writes: ‘I have been signingthe latter basis annually as a Vice-President of theIVF/UCCF for a long time now, but no one imposesits terms on me as a test of orthodoxy’ (InRetrospect, pp. 187-8, 310)” (Murray, EvangelicalismDivided, p. 181).James Dunn is another New Evangelical who attainedscholarly notoriety in Britain. But as he sat at the feet ofskeptics and affiliated closely with them for the manyyears that were required to become a “scholar,” hisevangelicalism had become liberalism. Consider the111

following summary of his speech before the AnglicanEvangelical Assembly in London in 1981.“He argued that because some of its [the Bible’s]teaching was once true does not necessarily followthat it is true for all time. Further, the Holy Spirit maygive a text a meaning for us now which was not theoriginal meaning ... Simply to be found by ‘the letter’is ‘Pharisaic legalism’, and when evangelicalsattribute to Scripture the authority which belongsonly to God they are guilty of ‘bibliolatry’” (Murray,Evangelicalism Divided, p. 182).The Tyndale Fellowship in England was founded as anassociation of evangelicals committed to the infallibleinspiration of Scripture. The group still claims the term“evangelical” but the term has lost its original meaningand has expanded to include theological liberalism.“In the early days of the Tyndale Fellowship, thelines seemed fairly clearly drawn between those whomight be regarded as evangelicals and those whomight not. ... A survey of the contemporary situationshows that matters have for some time stoodotherwise. ... Members of the Tyndale Fellowship willin fact divide over many, perhaps all, of the issueswhich were once regarded as touchstones oforthodoxy. Evangelical theological colleges, too,embrace the same diversity” (R.T. France,Evangelical Anglicans, p. 38).The pride of intellect is a very dangerous slippery slope.Anti-FundamentalismNew Evangelicalism is characterized by an attitude ofanti-fundamentalism. In practice, it focuses more on the112

alleged errors of fundamentalism than the errors ofmodernism and Romanism and ecumenism.While the New Evangelical speaks of the error oftheological modernists and Roman Catholics in gentleterms, he can get truly agitated when the subject turns tofundamentalism. For the fundamentalist he reserveschoice terms such as legalist, Pharisee, obscurantist,mean-spirited hatemonger, ignoramus, and extremist.Edward Carnell, the second president of FullerTheological Seminary, wrote in defense of the inerrancyof Scripture and other cardinal doctrines of the Christianfaith, but he aimed his biggest guns not at the modernistswho denied these doctrines but at the fundamentalistswho called for separation from them. He wrote articlesfor the liberal Christian Century magazine entitled“Beyond Fundamentalist Theology” and “Orthodoxy:Cultic vs. Classical.” It was fundamentalism rather thanmodernism that was labeled cultic.When Billy Graham looked back on the founding ofChristianity Today, he said, “We were convinced that themagazine would be useless if it had the old, extremefundamentalist stamp on it” (“In the Beginning: BillyGraham Recounts the Origins of Christianity Today,”Christianity Today, July 17, 1981).John Stott pulled no punches when he definedfundamentalism as follows: “...anti-intellectualism; anaïve, almost superstitious reverence for the KJV; acultural imprisonment; racial prejudice; extreme right113

wing political concerns” (Stott, Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, 1988, pp. 90-91).When many Bible believers reacted strongly inopposition to the March 1994 “Evangelicals andCatholics Together” document (ECT), J.I. Packer, asigner of the document, used the occasion to spew out hisanti-fundamentalist rhetoric.“I was surprised at the violence of initial negativeProtestant reaction. ... fear clouds the mind andgenerates defensive responses that drive wisdomout of the window. ... I ought to have anticipated thatsome Protestants would say bleak, skewed, fearful,and fear-driven things about this document” (“Why ISigned It,” Christianity Today, Dec. 12, 1994).There was no violence, of course, against Packer or theother signers of ECT; and Packer had no evidence thatthose who spoke out against ECT were driven by fear. Hecould not see into their hearts, so it was not possible tomake such a judgment. It is more likely that they wereconcerned for the truth and motivated by their love forGod and His Word and cause.Of course, even fear can be a proper motive in the battlefor the truth. Was Paul unwise when he said that hefeared for the Corinthian church because of its toleranceof error (2 Cor. 11:1-4)?Francis Schaeffer spoke of “the unattractiveness of coldfundamentalism” (Letters of Francis Schaeffer, 1985, p.72).114

Monroe Parker gave the following testimony about Dr.John Walvoord and Dallas Seminary.“Some years ago a friend of mine told me that hehad gone up to Dr. Walvoord, the president of DallasSeminary, after a meeting where Walvoord hadspoken. He asked, ‘Where does Dallas Seminarystand in the warfare between the Fundamentalistsand the New Evangelicals?’ According to my friend,Dr. Walvoord’s reply was, ‘We are definitely in theconservative camp at Dallas, but we are not FightingFundamentalists” (Parker, Through Sunshine andShadows, 1987, p. 108).Consider a few quotes from the letters and e-mails I havereceived because of my fundamentalist preaching:“You are like the hypocrites that Jesus said he wouldvomit out of his mouth because you take comfort inhate instead of love, negativism instead of positivecommentary, fascism instead of freedom.”“Fundamentalist are the most vindictive andjudgmental and nasty people in the world ... topeople of my belief! AND YOU KNOW IT!!!”“YOU need to repent and change your ways buddy.You should try reading the WORD sometime. It willchange your life. Your website is full of arroganceand ignorance.”“The ‘fundamentalist’ movement is slowly dyinglargely because of asinine ideas such as this. [He isreferring to a warning about the strong RomanCatholic element at Regent University.] ... Anotherreason ‘fundamentalism’ is dying is because of antiintellectualism.”“How about you stop criticising and pull the log outof your own eye before you try and find the speck in115

someone elses. Division is the Devil’s biggest tooland he would be happy you are fueling his mission.”“Just because people do not have your narrowminded legalistic view on Scripture does not meanthat people are not Christians. ... I writecontemporary praise music, music that is used inchurches in worship of God. It’s not for your approvalor anyone else no matter what denomination or offthe wall sect of a denomination they are.”“The reason I am writing to you is because I wouldlike to caution you (though I doubt you ever listen toanyone other than yourself) against the type ofextremism that I constantly see on your web site. Ido not disagree with most of what you say; however,I believe that you have become so blinded by yourself-righteousness that you are being used of thedevil for his own purposes.”“You, sir, are a legalist that the Pharisees wouldhave been mighty proud of.”I could fill up hundreds of pages with this type of slanderthat has been directed at me personally by completestrangers.After evangelical leader Stephen Olford delivered astrong sermon on the authority of Scriptures atAmsterdam ’86, Dennis Costella of Foundationmagazine had an opportunity to interview him.Costella asked, “You emphasized in your message thedangers of liberalism and how it could ruin the evangelistand his ministry. What is this conference doing to instructthe evangelist as to how to identify liberalism and theliberal so that upon his return home he will be able toavoid the same?”116

Olford replied: “That’s the wrong spirit—avoid theliberal! I love to be with liberals, especially if they arewilling to be taught, much more than with hard-boiledfundamentalists who have all the answers. ...Evangelicals should seek to build bridges” (Costella,“Amsterdam ’86: Using Evangelism to PromoteEcumenism,” Foundation magazine, Jul.-Aug. 1986).This is pure New Evangelicalism. It appears to bezealous for the truth, but in practice it turns its fiercestguns upon fundamentalist Bible believers.WHAT THE BIBLE SAYSFirst, even the very strongest believer is but a sinnersaved by grace (Rom. 7:18).We hold the treasure in earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). Allmen, including those who are zealous for the faith andfor separation, are weak and have foibles. The believer’sstand for the truth will always be imperfect. ConsiderNoah, who stood boldly for righteousness in hisgeneration, but who also got drunk and thereby broughtshame upon his family. Consider David, who esteemedall of God’s precepts concerning all things to be right andhated every false way (Psa. 119:128), which is certainly afundamentalist’s testimony, but who also committedadultery and murder and numbered Israel in hisbackslidden pride. Consider Peter, who stood forrighteousness in his generation and was zealous for thetruth and warned boldly of damnable heresies (2 Pet. 2),117

ut who also cursed and denied the Lord and played thehypocrite (Gal. 2:11-14).Second, spirituality and carnality is a personal matter,not a positional one.There are carnal and ungracious New Evangelicals andcarnal and ungracious fundamentalists. Of the thousandsof New Evangelicals who have written to me through theyears, most have treated me with a complete lack ofChristian grace.Third, it is not wise to judge a movement by the failuresof individuals.We agree with Rolland McCune’s statement: “It is truethat some fundamentalists have said unkind things, butfundamentalism is not unkind. It is true that somefundamentalists were intemperate, but fundamentalism isnot a free-for-all. Some fundamentalists may have beenvindictive, but fundamentalism is notvengeful” (Fundamentalism in the 1980s and 1990s).Fourth, New Evangelicals who treat fundamentalists sosharply, do not level the same harsh criticisms at trueheretics.In a letter to the Sword of the Lord in July 27, 1956,Chester Tulga, who had often born the brunt of the NewEvangelical’s barbed tongue, “brilliantly exposed theevangelical’s duplicity of ‘condemning fundamentalismby the disreputable device of caricature’ while handling118

the liberals ‘very respectfully and objectively--nowisecracks, no sneers, no generalizations that reflectupon the men in any way’” (Bob Whitmore, The Enigmaof Chester Tulga, 1997).Fifth, New Evangelicals constantly judge the motives ofthe fundamentalist.He labels the fundamentalist mean-spirited, ungracious,fear-driven, jealous, and unloving, yet it is impossible toknow the motives of another man’s heart. In this, theNew Evangelical is more truly “judgmental” than thefundamentalist he criticizes.Sixth, correction and strong preaching against sin anderror always seem to be harsh and unkind to those whorefuse to repent.We see this from the beginning to the end of the Bible.One preacher wisely advised, “If Bible preaching rubsyour fur the wrong way, turn the cat around!”Cain was lovingly warned by God, but he ignored thewarning and murdered his brother (Gen. 4:6-7). WhenGod pronounced judgment, Cain complained bitterly(Gen. 4:13-14).Israel complained about her prophets and demanded thatthey preach “smooth things” (Is. 30:10).The Jews of Jesus’ day who rejected His preaching saidHe was preaching “hard sayings” (Jn. 6:60, 66).119

If the following words from the Bible were preachedtoday in a New Evangelical setting, the speakers woulddoubtless be judged as hateful and mean-spirited.Enoch: “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands ofhis saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convinceall that are ungodly among them of all their ungodlydeeds which they have ungodly committed, and of alltheir hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spokenagainst him” (Jude 14-15).Samuel: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, andstubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thouhast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejectedthee from being king” (1 Sam. 15:22-23).Isaiah: “Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, aseed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they haveforsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One ofIsrael unto anger, they are gone away backward. Whyshould ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more andmore: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is nosoundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifyingsores: they have not been closed, neither bound up,neither mollified with ointment” (Isaiah 1:4-6).Jeremiah: “Mine heart within me is broken because ofthe prophets; all my bones shake; I am like a drunkenman, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, becauseof the LORD, and because of the words of his holiness.120

For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearingthe land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wildernessare dried up, and their course is evil, and their force isnot right. For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, inmy house have I found their wickedness, saith theLORD” (Jer. 23:9-11).Almighty God: “Son of man, I send thee to the childrenof Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled againstme: they and their fathers have transgressed against me,even unto this very day. For they are impudent childrenand stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shaltsay unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD. ... Now is theend come upon thee, and I will send mine anger uponthee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and willrecompense upon thee all thine abominations. And mineeye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but Iwill recompense thy ways upon thee, and thineabominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shallknow that I am the LORD.” (Ezek. 1:3-4; 7:3-4).Jesus: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, andwhen he is made, ye make him twofold more the child ofhell than yourselves” (Mat. 23:15).Paul: “O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child ofthe devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou notcease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts13:10).121

Peter: “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to betaken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that theyunderstand not; and shall utterly perish in their owncorruption” (2 Pet. 2:12).John: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in thedoctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in thedoctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. Ifthere come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker ofhis evil deeds” (2 John 9-11).Inconsistency and ContradictionNew Evangelicalism is characterized by inconsistencyand contradiction.New Evangelicals say that they love the truth and willmake bold statements for the truth at times, but theyoften undermine this profession by their actions and bytheir contradictory statements.Consider some examples:Billy Graham is the king of inconsistency andcontradiction. This is why he has been called “Mr. FacingTwo Ways.”Graham says that he loves the gospel of the grace ofChrist alone and he preaches the gospel, but he turns his122

converts over to churches that preach a sacramentalworks gospel.Graham says that to be a true Christian one must be bornagain, but he fellowships closely with and speaks highlyof modernists and Roman Catholics and others who donot believe in the new birth as Graham preaches it.Graham says that he loves the old doctrines such as thevirgin birth of Christ, but he has often praised men whodeny these doctrines.At the preparation for the 1978 Crusade in Toronto,Graham spoke at the Royal York Hotel on March 16,1978. On one hand, he said we need to call the churchesback to “biblical authority,” but in the same message hesaid, “Lutherans, Anglicans and Catholics are membersof the body of Christ,” and, “We communicate the Bibleby our unity; I believe in ecumenicity.” It is blatantinconsistently and a gross contradiction to speak ofbiblical authority while also accepting heresy andheretics as expressions of genuine Christianity.James Packer is another example of this. Like Graham,Packer was “Mr. Facing Two Ways.”He displayed New Evangelical contradiction in regard totheological modernism. Packer wrote the preface to areprint of W.H. Griffith Thomas’ The Principles ofTheology (1977) and praised Thomas for treating liberaland Romanized Anglicans as “benighted” and for callingthem to “true Christianity identity.” Thus, on the one123

hand Packer praised the old style of evangelicalism thatkept itself separate from and refused to accept themodernism within the Church of England. On the otherhand, Packer was at the forefront of redefining theevangelical’s role within Anglicanism, moving it out ofthe “ghetto mentality,” and accepting modernists andAnglo-Catholics as fellow Christians in the 1960s and1970s. In 1976, for example, Packer was a signatory toChristian Believing, a publication of the Church ofEngland’s Commission on Christian Doctrine, which saidin its introductory statement that competing andconflicting theologies are desirable and that to attempt toforce all Anglicans to believe the same thing would “bedisastrous to the health of the church.” In 1981, Packerwrote “A Kind of Noah’s Ark? The AnglicanCommitment to Comprehensiveness,” in which he statedthat he sees real benefit in “accepting Anglicanism’spresent doctrinal plurality” (p. 217).Packer also displayed New Evangelical contradiction inregard to Roman Catholicism. On the one hand, he madestrong statements about justification by faith alone andother Protestant doctrines and said he could never jointhe Catholic Church; but on the other hand, he was at theforefront of the Evangelicals and Catholics Togethermovement, both in the United States and in Ireland. If hesaw no contradiction in this, many others do.John Stott is another example of the contradiction andinconsistency that is integral to New Evangelicalism.Stott, an Anglican leader in England, told the Amsterdam2000 conference that “ignorance of Scripture is124

ignorance of Christ” and lamented that “there is growthwithout depth” and “superficiality is everywhere.” At thesame time he said, “We evangelicals tend to be overlydogmatic.” This is the inconsistent and contradictoryposition exemplified in one sermon. It is impossible totake Bible doctrine seriously without being dogmatic!Stott knew, of course, that ecumenism requires asoftening of doctrinal dogmaticism, and he was at theforefront of this compromise. Therefore, out of one sideof his mouth, he spoke about being strong for theScriptures, but out of the other side he warned againstdogmatism.The previously given example of Stephen Olfordexemplifies this. Olford delivered a strong sermon on theauthority of Scriptures at Amsterdam ’86, but whenDennis Costella of Foundation magazine had anopportunity to interview him the next day and asked himwhat the conference was doing to instruct evangelists onhow to avoid liberalism, Olford made an amazing aboutface and said: “That’s the wrong spirit—avoid theliberal! I love to be with liberals, especially if they arewilling to be taught, much more than with hard-boiledfundamentalists who have all the answers. ...Evangelicals should seek to build bridges” (Costella,“Amsterdam ’86: Using Evangelism to PromoteEcumenism,” Foundation magazine, Jul.-Aug. 1986).To preach that liberals are dangerous and to turn rightaround and say that we should build bridges to them andto attack biblical fundamentals who love God’s Word is agross contradiction.125

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYSFirst, we are taught to judge men by what they do andnot only by what they say.The Lord Jesus warned that many will say “Lord, Lord”and will do many wonderful works but will be false(Mat. 7:21-23). By using this example I am not sayingthat every New Evangelical who is inconsistent after thefashion of the aforementioned examples is a falseChristian. I am merely saying that we are to be verycareful about accepting men at face value.Second, the Bible warns that two cannot walk togetherunless they agree (Amos 3:3).When the New Evangelical says he loves the truth butwalks in fellowship with those who deny it, he is tellingus by his actions that he is in agreement with such men ata fundamental level.Essentials and Non-essentialsNew Evangelicalism is also characterized by the divisionof biblical truth into categories of essential and nonessential.New Evangelicals divide doctrine into “cardinal” and“secondary” categories and the “secondary” can beoverlooked for the sake of unity.126

In Grace Awaking, Chuck Swindoll says:“My encouragement for you today is that each oneof us pursue what unites us with others rather thanthe few things that separate us. ... There was a timein my life when I had answers to questions no onewas asking. I had a position that life was so rigid Iwould fight for every jot and tittle. I mean, I couldn’tlist enough things that I’d die for. The older I get, theshorter that list gets, frankly” (Grace Awakening, p.189).Even Iain Murray, who understands the errors of NewEvangelicalism in general, falls into this trap.Condemning fundamentalism in America he stated, “Inits tendency to add stipulations not foundational toChristian believing, fundamentalism was prone to makethe boundaries of Christ’s kingdom too small” (IainMurray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 298).Thus, only those things “foundational to Christianbelieving” are to accepted as dividing issues.WHAT THE BIBLE SAYSFirst, this doctrine is refuted by Christ’s teaching.It is refuted in Matthew 23:23, where Christ taught thatwhile not everything in the Bible is of equal importanceeverything has some importance and nothing is to bedespised or neglected. “Woe unto you, scribes andPharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and aniseand cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of127

the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye tohave done, and not to leave the other undone.”It is also refuted in Matthew 28:20, where Christ taughtthat the churches are to teach the believers to observeALL THINGS whatsoever He has commanded. It isimpossible to produce disciples who revere and obeyeverything Christ has taught while at the same timepromoting the New Evangelical philosophy that somethings are “non-essentials.”Second, this is refuted by Paul’s example and teaching.He preached the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).He taught Timothy to value all doctrine and not to allowANY false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3).He further taught Timothy to keep doctrine “withoutspot” (1 Tim. 6:13-14). As discussed previously, spotsrefer to the small things, the seemingly insignificantthings. The context of Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy6:14 is an epistle that has as its theme church truth (1Tim. 3:15). In this epistle, we find instruction about suchthings as pastoral standards (1 Tim. 3), deacons (1 Tim.3), the restriction upon the woman’s work in the church(1 Tim. 2); care for widows (1 Tim. 5), and discipline (1Tim. 5). These are the very kinds of things that aretypically considered of secondary importance by NewEvangelicals.128

Third, we must understand that not all heresies are ofequal weight as far as destructiveness, but all heresiesare to be opposed.A heresy is a doctrinal error. The word describes the selfwillthat characterizes such sin. A “heretic” is one whoexercises his own will over the Word of God and choosesan error over the truth. The error can be as serious asdenying the deity of Christ or as seemingly slight asallowing a woman to usurp authority over men.There are “damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1), which areheresies that affect eternal salvation. To accept adamnable heresy is to bring upon oneself eternaldamnation. The damnable heresy described by Peter wasthat of denying the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Johnalso described the doctrine of Christ as an essentialdoctrine (2 John 9). We see in other passages thatdamnable heresies are particularly related to the personof Christ, to the gospel, and to the Holy Spirit and thus tothe person and nature of God, including such doctrines asthe Trinity (2 Cor. 11:4).There are also less destructive heresies.“For there must be also heresies among you, thatthey which are approved may be made manifestamong you. When ye come together therefore intoone place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For ineating every one taketh before other his own supper:and one is hungry, and another is drunken” (1 Cor.11:19-21).129

In this passage Paul was referring to errors in the churchat Corinth, and in the immediate context he describeserrors relating to the Lord’s Supper.That not all heresies have the same consequence does notmean that some heresies are to be ignored. Every wind offalse doctrine is to be refused (Eph. 4:14).David Nettleton refuted the New Evangelicalphilosophy in “A Limited Message or a LimitedFellowship,” which describes his experiences in aninterdenominational youth ministry in the 1950s.Consider an excerpt from this message:This message, like many, is born out of anexperience. It may be some others are goingthrough similar experiences. Therefore, let merecount the one which brought this message to light.I was brought up as a Presbyterian. I was saved at acollege which was interdenominational in studentbody, but was managed by the Church of theBrethren. From there I went to a seminary which wasnot a denominational school, and from there toanother seminary which was United Presbyterian. Ientered the Baptist pastorate with no Baptist trainingexcept that which came from reading of theScriptures.A few years later I was drawn into aninterdenominational youth movement and was giventhe leadership of a local Saturday night rally. Icooperated with any who were evangelical,regardless of their associations. I was advised bytop leaders in the movement to seek the names ofoutstanding modernists for my advisory committee. Ididn't do that. But I did follow advice which led me tosend to all converts back to the churches of their130

choice, churches I knew to be liberal in some cases.This greatly troubled my conscience and I prayedand thought about it.Another problem connected with this work was thefailure on my part to instruct any converts on thematter of Christian baptism, which in the Scripturesis the first test of obedience. I felt that I should dothis inasmuch as Peter and Paul did it. But howcould it be done when on the committee of the workthere were close friends who did not believe it? Bysuch an association I had definitely stripped mymessage and my ministry of important Bible truthswhich many called ‘nonessentials.’In the follow-up work it was not convenient to speakof eternal security in the presence of Christianworkers who hated the name of the doctrine. Thusthe ministry was pared down to the gospel, just as ifthere was nothing in the Great Commission aboutbaptizing converts and indoctrinating them. I hadfound the least common denominator and I wasstaying by it. But my conscience had no rest.Then it was that Acts 20:27 came to meansomething to me. The great apostle had neverallowed himself to be drawn into anything whichwould limit his message. He could say with a cleanconscience, ‘I am pure from the blood of all men. ForI have not shunned to declare unto you all thecounsel of God.’ Why cannot many say that today?In my case, and in many other cases, it was due to adesire to teach a larger audience and to work with alarger group of Christians.Many have been carried away from full obedienceby a noble-sounding motto which has been appliedto Christian work. ‘In essentials unity, innonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.’ Somethings are not essential to salvation but they areessential to full obedience, and the Christian has noliberty under God to sort out the Scriptures intoessentials and nonessentials! It is our duty to131

declare the whole counsel of God, and to do itwherever we are.Today we are choosing between two alternatives. ALIMITED MESSAGE OR A LIMITED FELLOWSHIP.If we preach all of the Bible truths, there are manyplaces where we will never be invited. If we joinhands with the crowds, there will be limiting of themessage of the Bible. Bear this in mind--it is theBaptist who lays aside the most! It is thefundamental Baptist who makes the concessions!Think this through and you will find it to be true. Webelieve in believer's baptism. We believe inseparation. We preach eternal security. We believein the imminent coming of Christ. We consider it anact of obedience to reprove unbelief in religiouscircles. The Sadducee and the Pharisee are to belabeled. But according to a present philosophy wemust lay these things aside for the sake of a largersphere of service.Which is more important, full obedience or a largersphere of service? And yet I do not fully believethese are the only two alternatives. It is our first dutyto be fully obedient to God in all things, and then towait upon Him for the places of service. It may bethat we will be limited, and it may be that we will not.Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not travel as widelyas some men of his day, but his sermons havetraveled as far as the sermons of most men (DavidNettleton, “A Limited Message or a LimitedFellowship,” GARBC).A Social-Justice EmphasisNew Evangelicalism is characterized by exalting socialpoliticalactivity to the same level as the GreatCommission.“THE SUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENTreceived a hearty response from many evangelicals.… IT HAD A NEW EMPHASIS UPON THE132

APPLICATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THESOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMICAREAS OF LIFE.” (Harold Ockenga).New Evangelicals begin by trying to emphasize BOTHgospel work and social-political work.“Both the gospel and its social implications, BOTHpersonal conversion and social action, are involvedin the mission of the church” (David Hubbard,President, Fuller Seminary, AP, Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, May 15, 1971).“…we affirm that evangelism and socio-politicalinvolvement are BOTH part of our Christianduty” (International Congress on WorldEvangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, July 1974).Over time this BOTH evangelism AND social workposition tends to deteriorate until the socio-justice worktakes a life of its own and becomes legitimate evenwithout gospel preaching, and eventually it crowds outevangelism.Consider a statement on social action adopted in 1966 bythe Evangelical Foreign Missions Association (an arm ofthe NAE): “…evangelical social action will include,WHENEVER POSSIBLE, a verbal witness to JesusChrist . . . we urge all evangelicals to stand openly andfirmly for racial equality, human freedom and all formsof social justice throughout the world.”Thus, the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association waswilling to do social-justice work even if evangelism wasnot “possible.”133

World Vision’s web site states: “In all World Visionprojects, staff are ready to give a reason for their hope …whenever appropriate and desired by the community. Inmany countries where we work, formal publicevangelism is forbidden by government policy and werespect this” (World Vision web site).Glenda Moore, a nurse who works with the Church ofNazarene, described their efforts assisting earthquakevictims in India in 2001 as follows: “We know it’s not aChristian area, and we are sensitive NOT to spread thegospel” (Christianity Today, April 23, 2001).The Moral Majority and the more recent Faith and ValuesCoalition, founded by Jerry Falwell, were socio-politicalendeavors that did not include the preaching of thegospel of Jesus Christ. Falwell and those who joinedhands with him accepted that it is perfectly legitimate totry to bring about social-political change in Americaapart from gospel preaching and church planting, and inassociation with Romanists and others who preach adifferent gospel.WHAT THE BIBLE SAYSFirst, the Lord’s Great Commission mentions nothingabout social-political action (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15;Lk. 24:44-48; Jn. 20:21; Acts 1:8).The Great Commission is preaching the gospel to everyindividual in every nation, baptizing those that believe,and establishing churches to disciple them.134

Second, we can see how the apostles interpretedChrist’s commission by examining their ministries inActs and the Epistles.There we see that the apostles did not involve themselvesin social-political action, but gave themselves exclusivelyto the preaching of the Gospel (Acts 8:4). The book ofActs is a record of gospel preaching and church planting,and the only social work that was carried out was that oftaking care of needy believers during a famine (Acts11:27-30). The apostles and early churches did not try tochange the moral character of the Roman Empire throughpolitical activity or carry on grand social projects. Insteadthey dedicated their earthly lives to getting at the heart ofman’s problem, and that is his estrangement from Godand his need of regeneration.Third, if the churches turn aside to socio-politicalendeavors, the essential work of the Great Commissionis neglected.Unsaved men have established grand social endeavorssuch as the International Red Cross, and have foundedgrand political schemes such as the democraticrepublican form of government; but only the saved canpreach the gospel of spiritual redemption. For churchesto turn aside from the essential work of the GreatCommission to pursue socio-political projects is like aman sent by the governor to deliver a pardon to acondemned prisoner, who is stricken with compassion atthe man’s physical needs and sets about to make his135

prison room more comfortable while forgetting to deliverthe pardon which will deliver the man out of the prison.Fourth, the reason that the apostles and first churcheswere so diligent in preaching the gospel and fulfillingthe Great Commission was their conviction that thereturn of Jesus Christ was imminent (Matt. 25:1-13,“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor thehour wherein the Son of man cometh”).This same motivation keeps churches today committed tothe Great Commission instead of turning aside to worldlyprojects. It is unregenerate false teachers who “mindearthly things” (Phil. 3:18-21), because they look at lifefrom a natural perspective rather than a biblical one.Spiritual PacifismNew Evangelicalism is characterized by a mood ofsoftness, a desire for a less strict approach to Christianity,a weariness with fighting, a neutrality toward spiritualwarfare.New Evangelicalism is a subtle thing. At its heart it ismerely a mood, an attitude, a tendency, a direction.In 1958 William Ashbrook wrote Evangelicalism: TheNew Neutralism, which began with the followingwarning:“One of the youngest members of Christendom’sfold is called The New Evangelicalism. It might moreproperly be labeled THE NEW NEUTRALISM. This136

new ‘Evangelicalism’ boasts too much pride, andhas imbibed too much of the world's culture to sharethe reproach of fundamentalism. It still has enoughfaith and too much understanding of the Bible toappear in the togs of modernism. IT SEEKSNEUTRAL GROUND, being neither fish nor fowl,neither right nor left, neither for nor against--it standsbetween!”In A History of Fundamentalism in America, Dr. GeorgeDollar observed:“It has become a favorite pastime of new-evangelicalw r i t e r s , w h o k n o w s o l i t t l e o f h i s t o r i cfundamentalism, to call it offensive names, as if tobury it by opprobrium. The real danger is not strongfundamentalism but A SOFT AND EFFEMINATECHRISTIANITY--exotic but cowardly. It is sad thatthese men would not heed the warning of W.B Rileyabout the menace of ‘MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROADISM’” (Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism inAmerica, 1973, p. 208).At its inception, particularly, New Evangelicalism can bedifficult to detect. It does not necessarily start with a zealfor dialogue or some of the other things we have lookedat. New Evangelicalism begins with a changing mood, anew attitude that dislikes a strict approach to the thingsof God.Since it is the tendency of any church or movement togrow weaker and softer rather than stronger it isnecessary to guard carefully against this “new mood.” AsEvangelist John Van Gelderen observed, “If you comparemodern fundamentalism to modern new-evangelicalism,there is still a gap. But if you compare modernfundamentalism to early new-evangelicalism, the137

similarities are alarming” (Preach the Word, Jan.-Mar.1998).Wayne Van Gelderen, Sr., who wrote about “A NEWSOFTNESS WITHIN FUNDAMENTALISM,” said:“In the 50s and 60s, the Conservative Baptists werethe Fundamentalists--the Separatists amongBaptists in the North. They had fought a noble battle,but finally had to come out of the old NorthernBaptist Convention in the 60s. Soon after theseparation and the formation of the CBA, therebegan to emerge a strange spirit. Many began tofeel that we needed to be more ‘Christian,’ morepractical, more communicative, MORE GENTLE inour stand for God. The terms ‘SOFT CORE’ and‘hard core’ were used to describe the two camps thatemerged. The soft policy was to be practical at theexpense of being righteous. The results sought forwere more important than the means. Thesecompromisers believed that part of the movementwas too hard. Over 400 churches left in a division inthe 60s. These real fundamentalist churchesblossomed and multiplied in the 70s. Now, in the90s, some of us see a reenactment of the past.There is a new emphasis on methodology and P.R.to grow churches. This new methodology is marketorientedand geared to please the people. NOTOFFENDING IS THE CARDINAL VIRTUE. Personalseparation and holiness are pushed back into thedark ages. In spite of greatly increased open sin,THE CONDEMNATION IS SOFTENED. ... In everygeneration our battles must be refought. Thegeneration that does not follow the old paths will dieas did evangelicalism in England” (CalvaryContender, May 1, 1995).WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS138

First, Christianity that is not strict is not biblical. It isstrict in doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3) and strict in Christianliving (Eph. 5:11).It contends earnestly for the faith (Jude 3) and isuncompromising, dogmatic, and resolute. Simply openthe New Testament to any page and begin reading, and itwill not be long before this will be evident.Second, strictness and zeal for the truth does not meanunloving and uncompassionate.Jesus was strictness Personified and was also love andcompassion Personified. To the woman caught inadultery He said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sinno more” (Jn. 8:11). What great mercy and yet what greatstrictness, as well!Paul demonstrated the same combination. He was strictand unbending about doctrine and practice, but he wastender “even as a nurse cherisheth her children” (1 Thess.2:7).139

The Fruit of of New Evangelicalism“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a littleleaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6).“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt goodmanners” (1 Cor. 15:33).“The New Evangelicalism advocates TOLERATIONof error. It is following the downward path ofACCOMMODATION to error, COOPERATION witherror, CONTAMINATION by error, and ultimateCAPITULATION to error!” (Charles Woodbridge,The New Evangelicalism, 1969, pp. 9, 15; Dr.Woodbridge was a professor at Fuller TheologicalSeminary in its early days, a founding member of theNational Association of Evangelicals, and a friend ofmen such as Harold Ockenga and Carl Henry, buthe rejected the New Evangelicalism and spent therest of his life warning of its dangers.).Since New Evangelicals have refused to separate fromerror it is no surprise that doctrinal and moral corruptionhas permeated the movement.Note that the downward path does not begin withecumenical associations or with denying the infallibilityof Scripture. It begins with a simple attitude of tolerationof error. It begins with the preacher deciding he doesn’twant to do a lot of fighting against false doctrine. He isopposed to false doctrine, but he simply wants to have amore positive emphasis in his ministry.That “little” compromise with the truth; that “little”disobedience toward his preaching commission (e.g., 2140

Tim. 4:1-4; Titus 2:11-15; Eph. 5:11; Jude 3) leads tosome very large changes as he follows this path to itsultimate conclusion. And if it doesn’t produce the fruit ofserious error in his own lifetime, it inevitably does in thatof his children and grandchildren.This downward path is true for individuals, for churches,and for organizations, associations, and denominations.Each passing decade witnesses more plainly to the truthof Dr. Woodbridge’s warning. Toleration of error leads toaccommodation, cooperation, contamination, andultimate capitulation.This describes the history of New Evangelicalismprecisely.The Witness of EvangelicalsEvangelicals themselves have witnessed to the apostasyof evangelicalism.Harold Lindsell, who was vice-president of FullerSeminary and editor of Christianity Today, said:“Evangelicalism today is in a sad state of disarray. ...It is clear that evangelicalism is now broader andshallower, and is becoming more so.Evangelicalism’s children are in the process offorsaking the faith of their fathers” (Lindsell, ChristianNews, Dec. 2, 1985).Francis Schaeffer, speaking at the 1976 NationalAssociation of Evangelicals convention, said:141

“What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to getlarger and larger in number if significant numbers ofthose under the name of ‘evangelical’ no longer holdt o t h a t w h i c h m a k e s e v a n g e l i c a l i s mevangelical?” (Schaeffer, “The Watershed of theEvangelical World: Biblical Inspiration”).A 1996 Moody Press book entitled The ComingEvangelical Crisis documented the apostasy ofevangelicalism as follows:“... evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam ofdiverse and often theologically ill-defined groups,institutions, and traditions. ... THE THEOLOGICALUNITY THAT ONCE MARKED THE MOVEMENTHAS GIVEN WAY TO A THEOLOGICALPLURALISM THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT MANYOF THE FOUNDERS OF MODERNEVANGELICALISM HAD REJECTED IN MAINLINEPROTESTANTISM. ... Evangelicalism is not healthyin conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theologicaldefenses have been let down, and the infusion ofrevisionist theologies has affected large segments ofevangelicalism. Much damage has already beendone, but a greater crisis yet threatens” (R. AlbertMohler, Jr., “Evangelical What’s in a Name?” TheComing Evangelical Crisis, 1996, pp. 32, 33, 36).SOME SPECIFIC AREAS OF APOSTASYApostasy in DoctrineEvangelicalism’s apostasy is seen in the questioning ofbiblical infallibility.Nowhere in the Bible do we find even a hint of an ideathat the Scripture is anything but infallibly inspired.142

JESUS CHRIST: “…the scripture cannot bebroken” (John 10:35)APOSTLE PAUL: “All scripture is given by inspirationof God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, forcorrection, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy3:16)APOSTLE PETER: “For the prophecy came not in oldtime by the will of man: but holy men of God spake asthey were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).To question the infallible inspiration of Scripture is to flyin the face of these testimonies, but this spirit of unbeliefhas permeated today’s evangelicalism.CONSIDER SOME GENERAL STATEMENTS OF THISSAD FACT:The testimony of Frank Gaebelein in 1960: “...we mustnot blink at the evidence that there is a strong currentamong some evangelicals, a subtle erosion of thedoctrine of the infallibility of the Scripture that is highlyillogical as well as dangerous” (Christianity Today, May9, 1960, p. 647).The testimony of Carl Henry, 1976: “A GROWINGVANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OFEVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLDDOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICALDIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWNINERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently143

y evangelical faculties. … Some retain the term andreassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretchthe term’s meaning” (Carl F.H. Henry, pastor senioreditor of Christianity Today, “Conflict Over BiblicalInerrancy,” Christianity Today, May 7, 1976).In 1976, Richard Quebedeaux added the followingdetails:“Most people outside the evangelical communityitself are totally unaware of the profound changesthat have occurred within evangelicalism during thelast several years--in the movement’s understandingof the inspiration and authority of Scripture, in itssocial concerns, cultural attitudes and ecumenicalposture, and in the nature of its emergingleadership. ... evangelical theologians have begunlooking at the Bible with a scrutiny reflecting THEIRW I D E S P R E A D A C C E P TA N C E O F T H EPRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL AND LITERARYCRITICISM ... The position--affirming that Scriptureis inerrant or infallible in its teaching on matters offaith and conduct but not necessarily in all itsassertions concerning history and the cosmos--ISGRADUALLY BECOMING ASCENDANT AMONGTHE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED EVANGELICALTHEOLOGIANS. ... these new trends ... indicate thatevangelical theology is becoming more centrist,more open to biblical criticism and more accepting ofscience and broad cultural analysis. ONE MIGHTEVEN SUGGEST THAT THE NEW GENERATIONOF EVANGELICALS IS CLOSER TOBONHOEFFER, BARTH AND BRUNNER THAN TOHODGE AND WARFIELD ON THE INSPIRATIONAND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE” (RichardQuebedeaux, “The Evangelicals: New Trends andTensions,” Christianity and Crisis, Sept. 20, 1976,pp. 197-202).144

In the 1970s Harold Lindsell published two volumes onthe downgrade of the Bible in evangelicalism, withparticular focus on Fuller Seminary, the Southern BaptistConvention, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.The Battle for the Bible appeared in 1976, and the sequel,The Bible in the Balance, came out in 1979. This carefuldocumentation by a man who was in the inner circle ofevangelicalism for decades, leaves no doubt that it isdeeply leavened with apostasy.“MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS ANDINDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO ANINFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEENEMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEWTHAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. Thismovement away from the historic standpoint hasbeen most noticeable among those often labeledneo-evangelicals. This change of position withrespect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespreadand has occurred in evangelical denominations,Christian colleges, theological seminaries,publishing houses, and learned societies” (HaroldLindsell, former vice-president and professor FullerTheological Seminary and Editor Emeritus ofChristianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p.20).“I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelicalhas been so debased that it has lost itsusefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelicalrepresented those who were theologically orthodoxand who held to biblical inerrancy as one of thedistinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SONEOEVANGELICALISM . . . WAS BEINGASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASINGSKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICALINFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY” (Harold Lindsell,The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319).145

In his 1978 book, The Worldly Evangelicals, RichardQuebedeaux warned that many evangelical scholars aredeceitful about their doctrinal heresies:“Prior to the 60s, virtually all the seminaries andcolleges associated with the neo-evangelicals andtheir descendants adhered to the total inerrancyunderstanding of biblical authority (at least they didnot vocally express opposition to it). But it is a wellknownfact that A LARGE NUMBER, IF NOT MOST,OF THE COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES INQUESTION NOW HAVE FACULTY WHO NOLONGER BELIEVE IN TOTAL INERRANCY, even insituations where their employers still require them tosign the traditional declaration that the Bible is‘verbally inspired,’ ‘inerrant,’ ‘infallible in the wholeand in the part,’ or to affirm in other clearly definedwords the doctrine of inerrancy that was formulatedby the Old Princeton school of theology and passedon to fundamentalism. SOME OF THESE FACULTYINTERPRET THE CRUCIAL CREEDAL CLAUSESIN A MANNER THE ORIGINAL FRAMERS WOULDNEVER HAVE ALLOWED, OTHERS SIMPLY SIGNTHE AFFIRMATION WITH TONGUE INCHEEK” (Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, p.30).Consider the warning that Francis Schaeffer gave notlong before he died:“WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE AGROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYINGTHEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THEBIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OFSCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. …Accommodation, accommodation. How the mindsetof accommodation grows and expands. . . . Withtears we must say that largely it is not there and thatA LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICALWORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCED BY THEWORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE” (Francis146

Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, pp.44,141).In 1985, the following summary of the downgrade of thedoctrine of inspiration within evangelicalism was givenby Herman Hanko:“My main concern is with those who profess tobelieve that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by,what I can only call surreptitious and deviousmeans, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, aposition that is taken widely in the evangelical world.Almost all of the literature which is produced in theevangelical world today falls into this category. In theOctober 1985 issue of Christianity Today, (the verypopular and probably most influential voice ofevangelicals in America), a symposium on Biblecriticism was featured. The articles were written byscholars from several evangelical seminaries. Notone of the participants in that symposium inChristianity Today was prepared to reject highercriticism. All came to its defense. IT BECAMEEVIDENT THAT ALL THE SCHOLARS FROM THELEADING SEMINARIES IN THIS COUNTRY HELDTO A FORM OF HIGHER CRITICISM. These menclaim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Atthe same time they adopt higher critical methods inthe explanation of the Scriptures. This has becomeso common in evangelical circles that IT ISALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND ANE V A N G E L I C A L P R O F E S S O R I N T H ETHEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS OF OUR LAND ANDA B R O A D W H O S T I L L H O L D SUNCOMPROMISINGLY TO THE DOCTRINE OFTHE INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION OF THESCRIPTURES. The insidious danger is that highercriticism is promoted by those who claim to believein infallible inspiration” (Herman Hanko, The Battlefor the Bible, pp. 2, 3; Hanko’s book should not beconfused with Harold Lindsell’s book by that samename; Hanko is a professor at the ProtestantReformed Seminary, Grandville, Michigan).147

Another exposure of the corruption of doctrine inEvangelicalism appeared in No Place for Truth: orWhatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? by DavidF. Wells, a professor at Gordon-Conwell TheologicalSeminary. Time magazine described Well’s book as “astinging indictment of evangelicalism’s theologicalcorruption.” Though Wells is himself a committed NewEvangelical, he correctly identifies evangelicalism’schief problem as its repudiation of biblical separation andits accommodation with the world:“Fundamentalism always had an air of embattlementabout it, of being an island in a sea of unremittinghostility. Evangelicalism has reacted against thissense of psychological isolation. It has lowered thebarricades. It is open to the world. The great sin offundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin inevangelicalism is to be narrow” (David Wells, NoPlace for Truth, p. 129).Wells also made a telling statement that acknowledgesprecisely where the New Evangelical world is today:“But in between these far shores [Anglo-Catholicismand fundamentalism] lie the choppy waters that mostevangelicals now ply with their boats, and here thewinds of modernity blow with disconcerting force,fragmenting what it means to be evangelical. This isbecause evangelicals have allowed theirconfessional center to dissipate” (p. 128).The following is the frightful description of a theologyconference sponsored jointly with Inter-Varsity atWheaton College in 1995: “NOT A SINGLEREPRESENTATIVE OF HISTORIC EVANGELICALORTHODOXY COMMITTED TO THE UNBROKEN148

AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE WASFEATURED...” (Calvary Contender, July 1, 1995).In 1997, Oliver Barclay in England wrote:“Theological study has been highly rationalist, andthis has produced a tradition of believing only whatcan be rationally justified. Evangelicals working inthis milieu have followed the tradition and argued fora conservative position on exclusively rationalgrounds. ... No university in Britain would now boastthat for them ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning ofwisdom’. ... We cannot continue to teach theologythrough a rationalist methodology and expect toproduce anything other than liberalevangelicals” (Barclay, Evangelicalism in Britain:1935-1995: A Personal Sketch, pp. 128-9, 131).Carl Trueman of the University of Aberdeen wrote in1998:“One need only look at many of the works emergingfrom contemporary evangelical scholars to find thatthe notion of scriptural authority as understood inany of its classical, orthodox ways has in generalbeen replaced either by the concepts of neoorthodoxyor simply by silence on the most pricklyissues. The enemies are too often Charles Hodge,B.B. Warfield and Carl Henry” (“The ImpendingEvangelical Crisis,” Evangelicals Now, Feb. 1998).In 1999 John Wenham, one of the founders of theTyndale Fellowship which had the objective of launchingevangelicals into the theological departments of liberalBritish universities, admitted that “conservatives hadlargely abandoned their role as an opposition to thecurrent liberal criticism of the Bible and had become part149

of the establishment” (Wenham, Facing Hell: AnAutobiography 1913-1996, p. 140).In 2000, Iain Murray, a founding trustee of the Bannerof Truth Trust in Scotland, published a stingingindictment of the downgrade of evangelical theology inEvangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change inthe Years 1950 to 2000. Murray demonstrates that “thenew policy involved concessions which seriouslyweakened biblical Christianity.” He traces the changeswithin evangelicalism in Britain since the emergence ofthe Billy Graham approach and documents the downwardtheological spiral that has resulted by the takeover ofNew Evangelicalism.SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THE DOWNGRADEOF DOCTRINE WITHIN EVANGELICALISM:BERNARD RAMM (1916-1992) was Director ofGraduate Studies in Religion at Baylor University andlater was Professor of Systematic Theology and ChristianApologetics at California Baptist Theological Seminary.Ramm’s 1955 book The Christian View of Science andScripture was reprinted by Moody Press and approved byFuller Seminary professors Edward J. Carnell and WilburSmith, as well as by Elving Anderson of Bethel College.Ramm claimed that the Bible is only inerrantly inspiredin some matters and that it contains mistakes in areassuch as science and history. He said, “Whatever in theScripture is in direct reference to natural things is mostlikely in terms of the prevailing cultural concepts.” Heaccepted theistic evolution, denied that the Noahic flood150

was worldwide, explained many of the Exodus miraclesin a naturalistic manner, denied that the sun stood still inJoshua’s day, etc.HAROLD BASS, BETHEL SEMINARY. “Many of usadmit that the Bible unquestionably contains factualerrors ... but we still maintain that it is inerrant in divinepurpose. The secret is to try to understand the context ofthe language and the logic used in writing the Bible” (Dr.Harold Bass, quoted by Jim Huffman, “ConservativeView of Theology Is Changing,” Minneapolis Tribune,Jan. 22, 1966).PAUL JEWETT of Fuller Seminary, in Man as Male andFemale (Eerdmans, 1975), said: “Genesis 1 is not aliteral piece of scientific reporting, but a narrative whichillumines the ultimate meaning of Man’s existence. …religious myth or saga, biblical allegory” (pp. 122, 123).DONALD BLOESCH, in the book Holy Scripture(InterVarsity Press, 1994), said: “The Fundamentalist’sidea that inspiration entails inerrancy in history andscience as well as in doctrine is not claimed by the Bible.… Fundamentalism espouses a static theory ofinspiration. God’s Word cannot be encapsulated in eitherlegal codes or clerical pronouncements. Inspiration is anevent in which God acts and speaks” (p. 97).CHARLES SCALISE is associate professor of churchhistory and academic director of Fuller TheologicalSeminary in Seattle’s M. Div. program. In his book FromScripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into151

Hermeneutics (InterVarsity Press, 1996), Scalise arguesfor the schizophrenic position of accepting theconclusions of biblical criticism while at the same timeholding the Bible as the “canonical Word of God.” Heproposes the “canonical approach” of Yale ProfessorBrevard Childs who follows Karl Barth. Scaliseuncritically describes how “the ‘postcritical’hermeneutics of Karl Barth assists Childs in charting hisway across ‘the desert of criticism’” (p. 44).It is true that modern biblical criticism is a desert, butinstead of rejecting it as the unbelieving heresy that it isthe modern evangelical scholar tries to accept itsconclusions while also attempting to hold the Bible asauthoritative in some sense. In the first chapter of hisbook, Scalise plainly and unhesitatingly rejects the“facts-of-revelation” approach to Scripture that acceptsthe Bible as the historically accurate record of God’sinfallible revelation (pp. 28-31).Scalise does not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuchunder divine inspiration or that the Old Testament recordof miracles is accurate. He believes the Pentateuch wasredacted by unknown editors centuries later (p. 56). Hebelieves the Bible’s account of miraculous events isexaggerated. For example, he believes that the Egyptianchariots pursuing Israel merely got “stuck in the mud” (p.39). He agrees with Karl Barth that the book of Numberscontains both “history” and “storylike saga” (p. 49). Hebelieves portions of Amos were added by an unknowneditor (p. 56). He thinks that viewing the Bible asentirely historical is dangerous (p. 79). He does not152

elieve the apostle Paul wrote the book of Ephesians northat it was originally addressed to the church at Ephesus(p. 58). Scalise wants the Catholic apocryphal books tobe accepted as canonical (pp. 60, 61). He commends anapproach to the biblical canon that has “a firm center andblurred edges” (p. 60).Scalise says, “The Bible is the Word of God because Godspeaks through it” (p. 22). That is a false, subjectiveBarthian view of Scripture. In fact, the Bible is the Wordof God because it is the Word of God, regardless ofwhether man feels that God is speaking through it.Scalise claims that comparisons of the Trinity to the selfby theologians like Karl Rahner and comparisons of theTrinity to community by theologians like LeonardHodgson and Jurgen Moltmann “are within the channelof orthodoxy” (p. 103).He does not like the “negative view of tradition” thatcomes from the Protestant Reformation, and he believesthe Protestants and Catholics simply misunderstood oneanother (p. 73). He believes it is possible to reconcile thedifferences by requiring that the Bible be interpretedwithin the context of church tradition (p. 74). In fact, ifthe Bible must be interpreted by tradition, the traditionbecomes the superior authority.In the preface to his book, Scalise notes that he wasguided into his critical views of the Bible during studiesat Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and atTubingen in Germany.153

How New Evangelicals Undermine the Doctrine ofDivine InspirationThe following are some of the ways in which NewEvangelicals undermine the doctrine of divineinspiration:First, inspiration is undermined by distinguishingbetween its divine and human aspects.This is a distinction that the Lord Jesus and the apostlesdid not make. Jesus used “the law of Moses” and “thelaw of God” as synonyms. Paul said the Scriptures werewritten by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16). He did notfocus on the human element in Scripture, only on thedivine. Peter said it was the Holy Spirit who spakethrough the prophets (1 Pet. 1:10-11) and who movedthem as they spoke (2 Pet. 1:21). The emphasis is alwayson the divine aspect of Scripture.Second, inspiration is undermined by dividing thecultural and scientific aspects of Scripture from thetheological.On this note Iain Murray asks an important question: “Ifthe Bible is only partly inspired and partly trustworthy,who is to determine which part is the authentic Word ofGod? ... no one has ever shown where a line can besafely drawn. The imagined line is constantly movingand that because, in the end, no such divisions aretenable ...The only alternatives are an acceptance of the154

truthfulness of all Scripture or a questioning of thewhole” (Evangelicalism Divided, pp. 200, 201).Third, inspiration is undermined by the claim that God’sthoughts are too great to be contained infallibly in a bookwritten in human words.Yet human language was created by God and theindividual words of Scripture were chosen by God; theScripture therefore contains the deep things of God andthe very mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:9-16).Fourth, inspiration is undermined by the claim that to bebound by the letter of the Scripture is legalism andbibliolatry.Yet Jesus taught us to revere the very words and letters ofScripture (Mat. 4:4; 5:18). The Bible believer does notworship the Scripture; he worships the God of theScripture; but he understands that God has revealedHimself infallibly therein. It is God who has exalted theScripture, having magnified His word above all his name(Psalm 138:2). It is the devil who has always questionedGod’s Word (Gen. 3:1), and those who question theinerrancy of the Bible today are of the devil.What about 2 Corinthians 3:6?“Who also hath made us able ministers of the newtestament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for theletter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”155

What does Paul mean when he says that “the letterkilleth”? The ecumenical crowd uses this verse to supporttheir principle that we should not be too strict in biblicalmatters, but this is not what Paul is saying. ElsewherePaul teaches that we should be very strict and shouldbelieve and obey everything in the New Testament faith(i.e., Eph. 5:11; 1 Thess. 5:22; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:13-14; Titus2:11-15).When Paul says the “letter killeth,” he is referring to theLaw of Moses. In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul is contrasting theLaw of Moses with the New Testament faith and issaying that we are not ministers of the old law but of thenew; we are not preaching the Law of Moses but theGospel of Christ; we are not following the Law of Mosesbut the law of the Spirit.The reason the Law of Moses kills is that its purpose is toreveal man’s sin and guilt (Rom. 3:19-20). In 2Corinthians 3, Paul was warning against the Judaizerswho tried to mingle the grace of Christ with the Law. SeeActs 15 and Galatians 1:6-9; 2:16-21; 3:1-3, 19-26.Fifth, inspiration is undermined by the claim that theBible can be inspired in whole but still contain error.This strange position was taken by Fuller TheologicalSeminary when it changed its doctrinal statement in1972. The original statement said that the Bible is“plenarily inspired and free from all error in the wholeand in the part.” The new statement eliminated “freefrom all error in the whole and in the part,” thus leaving156

oom for the heretical view that the Bible contains errors,a view held by the dean of the Seminary, Daniel Fuller,and the President, David Hubbard, and by many Fullerprofessors.Yet the Lord Jesus taught that Scripture cannot be broken(Jn. 10:35). This means that it is unassailable andperfectly and wholly authoritative. It stands or fallstogether.Sixth, inspiration is undermined by distinguishingbetween “infallible” and “inerrant.”David Bebbington of Stirling University proposes thatIVF’s statement on Scripture “affirmed not the inerrancyof the Bible but the infallibility of Holy Scripture, asoriginally given” (Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, p.259).This is a ridiculous position, because an infallible Bibleis an inerrant Bible!Seventh, inspiration is undermined by exalting theauthority of Christ above the authority of the Bible.In fact, we know nothing of Christ except that which istaught in the Bible. The authority of the Bible and theauthority of Christ stand or fall together. Jesus pointed tothe Scripture as the authoritative witness to Himself (Jn.5:39; Lk. 24:44); He never as much as hinted that theScripture is less than 100% authoritative. He upheld theauthority of every word (Mat. 4:4; Lk. 4:4) and even of157

the jots and tittles (Mat. 5:18). He said the “Scripturecannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35), meaning that it is whollyauthoritative and cannot be divided. It stands or fallstogether. The apostles taught the same thing (2 Tim.3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). For them, the very gospel itselfstood or fell on the authority of the Scripture (1 Cor.15:3-4).Eighth, inspiration is undermined by exaltingintellectualism above the infallibility of Scripture.Mark Noll claims that “keen preoccupation with thedoctrine of biblical inerrancy” must be given up “so thelife of the mind may have a chance” (Scandal of theEvangelical Mind, pp. 243-4).In fact, the infallibility of Scripture is the position thatwas taught by Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, andthe life, and the truth is never in contradiction to genuineintellectualism, only to phony humanistic intellectualism.Ninth, inspiration is undermined by claiming that thedoctrine of verbal inspiration was a product of 19thcentury Presbyterians, especially Charles Hodge andB.B. Warfield.In fact, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture wastaught by Jesus Christ and the apostles in the first centuryand it has been held by God’s people throughout thechurch age. The Doctrinal Confessions of the 16th to18th centuries demonstrate this.158

Richard Hooker, in the late 16th century, wrote that theauthors of Scripture “neither spoke nor wrote one wordof their own: but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spiritput it into their mouths” (cited from Iain Murray,Evangelicalism Divided, p. 194).The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648, stated: “TheOld Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament inGreek . . . being immediately inspired by God, and by hissingular care and providence kept pure in all ages, aretherefore authentical; so as in all controversies ofreligion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.” JohnOwen, English Puritan leader, stated in about 1670: “Butyet we affirm, that the whole Word of God, in every letterand tittle, as given from him by inspiration, is preservedwithout corruption” (Works, XVI, p. 301).Francis Turretin, professor of theology at Geneva andprominent Reformed Protestant leader, stated in 1674:“Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated andinspired each and every word to these inspired men,would not take care of their entire preservation” (FrancisTurretin, Institutio Theologicae Elencticae).The Protestant Confession of Faith, London, 1679, whichwas a Baptist confession, stated: “And by the holyscriptures we understand, the canonical books of the oldand new testament, as they are now translated into ourEnglish mother-tongue, of which there hath never beenany doubt of their verity and authority, in the protestantchurches of Christ to this day.”159

These quotes could be multiplied, because thisrepresented the consensus of Protestant and Baptistchurches until they were weakened by theologicalmodernism in the 19th and 20th centuries. The NewEvangelicals who are questioning the inerrant inspirationof Scripture are only imitating their modernist associates.Tenth, inspiration is undermined by retaining thedoctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture while allowing thisdoctrine to be undermined by historic criticism.For example, D.A. Carson co-edited the book Scriptureand Truth with John Woodbridge, calling for a strongdoctrine of inspiration; yet Carson encourages the use ofform criticism of the Gospels and claims that we onlyhave the “ideas” of Jesus and not His very words (AnIntroduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson,Douglas Moo, Leon Morris, p. 44). Carson buys into theliberal idea that “there was indeed a period of mainly oraltransmission of the gospel materials; much of it wasprobably in small units; there probably was a tendencyfor this material to take on certain standard forms; andthe early church has undoubtedly influenced the way inwhich this material was handed down” (An Introductionto the New Testament, pp. 23, 24). These ideas weredeveloped by men who do not believe in divineinspiration, and upon their very face these theories are adenial of inspiration, yet Carson is accepted as anevangelical scholar who defends divine inspiration.Apostasy in Ecumenism160

Evangelicalism’s apostasy is also seen in its ecumenism.The prime example of this is Billy Graham and otherevangelical evangelists and organizations that yoketogether with Roman Catholicism, modernistic Protestantdenominations, etc.Billy Graham and Rome“It would be difficult to overestimate BillyGraham’s importance in the last 50 years ofevangelicalism. ... Graham personally embodiedmost of the characteristics of resurgentevangelicalism. ... de-emphasizing doctrinal anddenominational differences that often dividedChristians” (Christianity Today, “Can EvangelicalismSurvive Its Success?” Oct. 5, 1992).Consider a few examples of Graham’s long and noncriticalrelationship with the Roman Catholic Church.The silence of evangelicalism in the face of this greaterror and compromise is astonishing.1944 – Graham’s uncritical relationship with Romebegan very early in his ministry. In his autobiographyGraham gives an account of how he first met theinfluential Catholic bishop Fulton Sheen when he wasstill a relatively unknown evangelist with Youth forChrist. In 1944, Graham was traveling on a train fromWashington to New York and was just drifting off tosleep when Sheen knocked on the sleeping compartmentdoor and asked to “come in for a chat and aprayer” (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 692). Graham says:“We talked about our ministries and our common161

commitment to evangelism, and I told him how grateful Iwas for his ministry and his focus on Christ. … Wetalked further and we prayed; and by the time he left, Ifelt as if I had known him all my life.”The fact is that Sheen had no commitment to biblicalevangelism. He preached Rome’s false sacramentalgospel, and in his autobiography, which was dedicated toMary, he stated that he had put his trust in Mary to gethim into heaven.“When I was ordained, I took a resolution to offer theHoly Sacrifice of the Eucharist every Saturday to theBlessed Mother ... All this makes me very certainthat when I go before the Judgment Seat of Christ,He will say to me in His Mercy: ‘I heard My Motherspeak of you’” (Fulton Sheen, Treasure in Clay, p.317).1956 -- Graham said: “We’ll send them to their ownchurches--Roman Catholic, Protestant or Jewish” (NewYork Evening Journal, Sept. 18, 1956).1958 – A follow-up of Graham’s San Francisco crusadereported that of the 1,300 Catholics who came forward,“practically all remained Catholic, continued to pray toMary, go to Mass, and confess to a priest” (OaklandTribune, Dec. 17, 1958)1962 – Sao Paulo Brazil, a Catholic bishop stood besideGraham and blessed inquirers who came forward inresponse to his preaching.162

1963 – Upon the death of Pope John XXIII, Grahamsaid: “I admire Pope John tremendously. I felt he broughta new era to the world. It is my hope that the Cardinalselect a new Pope who will follow the same line as John.It would be a great tragedy if they chose a man whoreacted against John, who re-erected the walls.”1967 – Graham was awarded an honorary degree fromRoman Catholic Belmont Abbey College. In hisacceptance speech, he said: “The gospel that built thisschool and the gospel that brings me here tonight is stillthe way to salvation” (Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, NC,Nov. 22, 1967).1973 -- In Milwaukee on October 21, 1973, Graham said,“This past week I preached in a great Catholic Cathedrala funeral sermon for a close friend of mind who was aCatholic [publisher James Strohn Copley], and they hadseveral bishops and archbishops to participate, and as Isat there going through THE FUNERAL MASS THATWAS A VERY BEAUTIFUL THING ANDCERTAINLY STRAIGHT AND CLEAR IN THEGOSPEL, I believe, there was a wonderful little priestthat would tell me when to stand and when to kneel andwhat to do.” (Billy Graham, Church League of America,p. 84).1978 -- In October Graham held a crusade in CatholicPoland. Upon being met at the airport by BishopWladyslaw Miziolek, chairman of the Committee onEcumenism of the Polish Catholic Church, Graham saidthat this adventure represented a new spirit of163

cooperation that was a constructive example forChristians in other nations (John Pollock, Billy Graham,p. 308). Four of the rallies were held in Catholicchurches, with priests participating on the platform withGraham. Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, soon to be Pope JohnPaul II, had offered his 700-year-old St. Anne’s Churchin Cracow, but just before Graham’s arrival in Poland,Wojtyla was unexpectedly called away to the conclave inRome to meet with the College of Cardinals, and a fewdays later he was elected Pope. While in Poland Grahamvisited the Marian shrine of Jasna Gora (featuring an iconof the Black Madonna) in Czestochowa. A picture inDecision magazine for February 1979 showed Grahamwelcoming pilgrims to the shrine. In the minds of hisCatholic observers, this strange visit put Graham’s stampof approval upon the idolatrous Catholic Mary venerationthat is featured at this influential shrine. In his bookCrossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul IItestified that his personal devotion to Mary wasdeveloped at Marian sites such as Jasna Gora (p. 220).1979 – A special Catholic mass was conducted followingGraham’s crusade in Milwaukee as part of the follow-upfor the 3,500 Catholics who came forward during themeetings and whose names were turned over to Catholicchurches.1979 – Upon Bishop Fulton Sheen’s death Graham said:“He broke down walls of prejudice between Catholicsand Protestants ... I mourn his death and look forward toour reunion in heaven.” Yet Sheen had stated that hishope for eternity was in Mary.164

1982 – One hundred priests and Catholic laity weretrained to follow-up Graham’s crusade in Boston.1984 – Vancouver, British Columbia, crusade vicechairmanDavid Cline stated: “If Catholics step forwardthere will be no attempt to convert them and their nameswill be given to the Catholic church nearest theirhomes” (Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1984).1987 – A priest and a nun were among the supervisors ofthe counselors for the Denver crusade; from one servicealone 500 cards of individuals were referred to St.Thomas More Roman Catholic Church.1989 – The names of 2,100 Catholics who came forwardduring Graham’s London crusades were turned over toCatholic churches.1992 – Catholic Churches supplied a large percentage ofthe counselors for the Portland, Oregon, crusade.1997 -- Graham was so corrupted by his ecumenicalalliances that he stated in an interview with David Frost:“I feel I belong to all the churches. I’m equally at homein an Anglican or Baptist or a Brethren assembly or aRoman Catholic church. ... Today we have almost 100percent Catholic support in this country. That was nottrue twenty years ago. And the bishops and archbishopsand the Pope are our friends” (David Frost, Billy Grahamin Conversation, May 30, 1997, pp. 68, 143).165

Evangelicals and Catholics TogetherIn March 1994 a 25-page document was publishedentitled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: TheChristian Mission in the Third Millennium. Called ECTfor short, the document represents the ecumenicalclimate created by the New Evangelicalism.ETC was prepared by 15 evangelicals and Catholics andsigned by 25 others, including Chuck Colson, PatRobertson, J.I. Packer, John White (president of GenevaCollege and former president of the National Associationof Evangelicals), Bill Bright (founder of CampusCrusade), Kent Hill (Eastern Nazarene College), OsGuiness, Mark Noll (Wheaton College), and ThomasOden (Drew University). ECT was signed by twoCatholic archbishops, William Murphy of Boston andFrancis Stafford of Denver, and a Catholic cardinal, JohnO’Connor.Richard Land and Larry Lewis of the Southern BaptistConvention signed the document; in fact, they wereinvolved in its development from the inception of theproject. But in 1995 they were forced to retract theirsignatures. They expressed regret to Chuck Colson forhaving to withdraw their signatures but saw this as theonly way to eliminate the confusion and perception thattheir agencies had endorsed ECT (Indiana Baptist, April18, 1995). “Much of the criticism of ECT came fromHispanic So. Baptist leaders who feared Catholic leaderswould use it to thwart mission efforts amongCatholics” (Calvary Contender, May 15, 1995).166

Pope John Paul II is quoted twice in the ECT document.The first time appears in the second paragraph, citing thePope’s belief that the Third Millennium could be “aspringtime of world missions.” There is no warning thatthe Pope preached a false gospel and that his “mission”therefore was not the same as that of Bible-believingchurches.Consider some excerpts from Evangelicals and CatholicsTogether:“We together pray for the fulfillment of the prayer ofOur Lord: ‘May they all be one; as you, Father, are inme, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that theone, may believe that you sent me.’ (John 17) Wetogether, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess oursins against the unity that Christ intends for all hisdisciples.”“The one Christ and one mission includes manyother Christians, notably the Eastern Orthodox andthose Protestants not commonly identified asEvangelical. All Christians are encompassed in theprayer, ‘May they all be one.’”“As Evangelicals and Catholics, we dare not byneedless and loveless conflict between ourselvesgive aid and comfort to the enemies of the cause ofChrist.”“All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior arebrothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals andCatholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. ... Thereis one church because there is one Christ and thechurch is his body. However difficult the way, werecognize that we are called by God to a fullerrealization of our unity in the body of Christ.”167

“In the exercise of these public responsibilities therehas been in recent years a growing convergenceand cooperation between Evangelicals andCatholics. We thank God for the discovery of oneanother in contending for a common cause. Muchmore important, we thank God for the discovery ofone another as brothers and sisters in Christ.”“We condemn the practice of recruiting people fromanother community for purposes of denominationalor institutional aggrandizement. ... in view of thelarge number of non-Christians in the world and theenormous challenge of our common evangelistictask, it is neither theologically legitimate nor aprudent use of resources for one Christiancommunity to proselytize among active adherents ofanother Christian community.”“As is evident in the two thousand year history of thechurch, and in our contemporary experience, thereare different ways of being Christian...”Though some evangelicals disagreed with ECT and someeven made public statements renouncing it, they refusedto separate from the signers.Dallas Seminary released the following statement inJanuary 1995: “Though Dallas Seminary affirms areas ofagreement in the moral and social arenas, we stronglyquestion whether Evangelicals and Catholics can ever'unite on the great truths of the faith.’ However, we willmaintain fellowship with those Evangelicals who didsign the document” (Dallas Morning News, May 20,1995).That same month John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and D.James Kennedy criticized ECT in a televised programcalled “Irreconcilable Differences,” but they “took care168

to present the motives of Packer and Colson in the bestpossible light and to express their distress over thedivision which had emerged among them” (Iain Murray,Evangelicalism Divided, p. 224).This illustrates the soft New Evangelical mindset thatdoes not allow for clear condemnation of and separationfrom disobedience.On the other hand when some evangelicals werecompromising the truth by remaining in fellowship withmodernists in the Baptist Union, Charles Spurgeonunderstood that he needed to separate not only from themodernists but also from the fence-straddlers. He said,“That I might not stultify my testimony, I have cutmyself clear of those who err from the faith, and evenfrom those who associate with them.”This is not some sort of “second degree separation”; it iswisdom and obedience, for the Scripture warns that “evilcommunications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33)and “a little leaven leaventh the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9).In October 1997 a follow-up document called“Evangelicals and Catholics Together II: The Gift ofSalvation” was published. It appeared for the first time inChristianity Today, December 8, 1997, and is calledECT II for short.Signers included Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, MaxLucado, Bob Seiple (World Vision), and Bill Bright.169

Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School at theSouthern Baptist-supported Samford University, wrotethe introduction that accompanied the publication of thedocument in Christianity Today. He said:“The Gift of Salvation has been made possible by amajor realignment in ecumenical discourse: thecoalescence of believing Roman Catholics andfaithful evangelicals who both affirm the substanceof historic Christian orthodoxy against the ideologyof theological pluralism that marks much mainlineProtestant thought as well as avant-garde Catholictheology. Thus, for all our differences, Biblebelievingevangelicals stand much closer to CardinalJoseph Ratzinger than to Bishop JohnSpong!" (George, “Evangelicals and CatholicsTogether: A New Initiative,” Christianity Today, Dec.8, 1997, p. 34).In response, we say that a true Bible believer does notstand close either to a Catholic cardinal or to atheological modernist. Neither of these are friends of thegospel. To pretend that a Roman Catholic can be faithfulto his “church” while at the same time affirming thebiblical doctrine of justification, that salvation is by faithalone through grace alone by the atonement of Christalone without works or sacraments, is unbelievableblindness.Consider some excerpts from ECT II.“...we affirm the binding authority of Holy Scripture,God’s inspired word; and we acknowledge theApostles' and Nicene creeds as faithful witnesses tothat Word.”170

“We agree that justification is not earned by anygood works or merits of our own; it is entirely God'sgift, conferred through the Father's sheergraciousness, out of the love that he bears us in hisSon, who suffered on our behalf and rose from thedead for our justification. Jesus was 'put to death foro u r t r e s p a s s e s a n d r a i s e d f o r o u rjustification' (Romans 4:25). In justification, God, onthe basis of Christ's righteousness alone, declaresus to be no longer his rebellious enemies but hisforgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it isso.”“The New Testament makes it clear that the gift ofjustification is received through faith.”“We understand that what we here affirm is inagreement with what the Reformation traditionshave meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).”“Sanctification is not fully accomplished at thebeginning of our life in Christ, but is progressivelyfurthered as we struggle, with God's grace and help,against adversity and temptation. In this struggle weare assured that Christ's grace will be sufficient forus, enabling us to persevere to the end. When wefail, we can still turn to God in humble repentanceand confidently ask for, and receive, his forgiveness.We may therefore have assured hope for the eternallife promised to us in Christ. As we have shared inhis sufferings, we will share in his final glory. 'Weshall be like him, for we shall see him as he is’ (1John 3:2). While we dare not presume upon thegrace of God, the promise of God in Christ is utterlyreliable, and faith in that promise overcomes anxietyabout our eternal future.”“In obedience to the Great Commission of our Lord,we commit ourselves to evangelizing everyone. Wemust share the fullness of God's saving truth with all,including members of our several communities.Evangelicals must speak the gospel to Catholics andCatholics to Evangelicals.”171

In refutation of ECT II we offer the following thoughts:First, ECT II is an INSUFFICIENT statement. Rome hasalways admitted that salvation is a gift of God’s grace inJesus Christ, that it comes only through the Lord JesusChrist, that it comes through faith, and that God’s graceis sufficient for salvation. Rome agrees with all of that. Ithas brought God’s curse upon itself, though (Galatians1:7), by going beyond this and claiming that salvation isdistributed through its sacraments and priesthood.ECT II is also insufficient because it fails to state that thesalvation of the soul has nothing whatsoever to do withsacraments. To have been meaningful, the statementwould have said that justification is by God’s grace alonethrough the atonement of Christ alone through faithalone, WITHOUT WORKS OR BAPTISM OR OTHERSACRAMENTS OR CHURCH OR PRIESTHOOD.ECT II is also insufficient because it fails to expose themanifold ways in which Rome has denied the gospel. Tohave been meaningful, the statement would have notedwithout hesitation that Rome has perverted and deniedthe gospel of the grace of Christ not only by its definitionof the gospel but also by its sacramental system; by itsdoctrine of baptismal regeneration; by exalting its priests,popes, saints, and Mary as alleged mediators betweenChrist and men; by its doctrine of purgatory, etc.Second, ECT II is a MEANINGLESS statement. TheRoman Catholic signers cannot speak for Rome, and theyadmit that they do not do so. Roman Catholic doctrine is172

formally defined by its popes, doctors, and councils. It isnot for individual Catholics to decide what they willbelieve and what they will not believe. The signing ofsuch a statement by 15 Catholic theologians, even if itwere a truly sound and sufficient statement of biblicaljustification, does absolutely nothing other than cloud theissue of the gospel in the minds of gullible people.Third, ECT II is a DECEPTIVE statement. Theconcluding paragraph claims that the Catholic signers are“conscientiously faithful to the teaching of the CatholicChurch.” That is a blatant lie, and I will not hedge myterms. Rome unequivocally denies that justification is bygrace alone through faith alone without works orsacraments. Rome unequivocally condemns those whoteach that justification is by grace alone through faithalone without works or sacraments. The Catholic signersare well aware of this. Therefore it is patently impossiblefor a faithful Catholic to understand justification “inagreement with what the Reformation traditions havemeant by faith alone (sola fide).”If these Catholic theologians really believe that salvationis by grace alone through faith alone without works orsacraments, if they really believe that justification wasdefined properly by the Reformers, they must publiclyrepudiate Rome’s false gospel. They must renounce theCouncil of Trent and the Second Vatican Council. Theymust separate themselves from an institution that iscommitted to a false gospel and that has cursed andtormented and murdered Bible-believing saints throughthe centuries.173

Consider some of the ways that Rome denies salvationby grace alone.First, it denies this by the pronouncements of its officialcouncils.It was denied by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), thedeclarations of which are still in force. At Trent theRoman Catholic Church formally condemned the gospelof faith alone and grace alone. Consider the followingdeclarations of Trent:“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing elsethan confidence in divine mercy, which remits sinsfor Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alonethat justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (SixthSession, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon12).“If anyone says that the justice received is notpreserved and also not increased before Godthrough good works, but that those works are merelythe fruits and signs of justification obtained, but notthe cause of its increase, LET HIM BEANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons ConcerningJustification, Canon 24).It was denied by the Second Vatican Council. In its mostformal and authoritative statements since Trent, Romehas continued to deny that salvation is by grace alonethrough Christ's atonement alone through faith alonewithout works or sacraments. Consider the followingstatements of Vatican II, which was called by Pope JohnPaul XXIII and attended by more than 2,400 Catholicbishops--174

“FOR IT IS THE LITURGY THROUGH WHICH,ESPECIALLY IN THE DIVINE SACRIFICE OF THEEUCHARIST, ‘THE WORK OF OUR REDEMPTIONIS ACCOMPLISHED,’ and it is through the liturgy,especially, that the faithful are enabled to express intheir lives and manifest to others the mystery ofChrist and the real nature of the trueChurch" (Vatican II, Constitution on the SacredLiturgy, “Introduction,” para. 2).“... [Christ] also willed that THE WORK OFSALVATION WHICH THEY PREACHED SHOULDBE SET IN TRAIN THROUGH THE SACRIFICEAND SACRAMENTS, around which the entireliturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptismmen are grafted into the paschal mystery ofChrist. ... They receive the spirit of adoption assons” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).“FROM THE MOST ANCIENT TIMES IN THECHURCH GOOD WORKS WERE ALSO OFFEREDTO GOD FOR THE SALVATION OF SINNERS,particularly the works which human weakness findshard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for thefaith and for God's law were thought to be veryvaluable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to behelped by their merits to obtain a more speedyreconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayersand good works of holy people were regarded as ofsuch great value that it could be asserted that thepenitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed withthe help of the entire Christian people” (Vatican II,“Apostolic Constitution on the Revision ofIndulgences,” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).Second, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of baptismal regeneration.175

The New Catholic Catechism (1994) dogmaticallydeclares: “The Church does not know of any means otherthan Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission shehas received from the Lord to see that all who can bebaptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God hasbound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism...” (1257).Third, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of the mass, by claiming that in the mass “thesacrifice of the cross is perpetuated” and “the work ofour redemption is carried out” (Vatican II, Constitutionon the Sacred Liturgy).Fourth, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of the sacraments:“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments ofthe New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... Thefruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoptionmakes the faithful partakers in the divine nature byuniting them in a living union with the only Son, theSaviour” (New Catholic Catechism, 1129).Fifth, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of purgatory, claiming that “the doctrine ofpurgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guiltof sin has been taken away, punishment for it or theconsequences of it may remain to be expiated orcleansed” (Vatican II, Constitution on the SacredLiturgy).176

Sixth, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of the papacy:“For ‘God’s only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure forthe militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter,the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who areChrist’s vicars on earth, SO THAT THEY MAYDISTRIBUTE IT TO THE FAITHFUL FOR THEIRSALVATION’” (ellipsis are in the original) (Vatican II,“Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” ApostolicConstitution on the Revision of Indulgences, Chap. 4, 7,p. 80).Seventh, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itspriesthood:“The purpose then for which priests are consecrated byGod through the ministry of the bishop is that theyshould be made sharers in a special way in Christ’spriesthood and, by carrying out sacred functions, act ashis ministers who through his Spirit continually exerciseshis priestly function for our benefit in the liturgy. ByBaptism priests introduce men into the People of God; bythe sacrament of Penance THEY RECONCILESINNERS WITH GOD AND THE CHURCH; by theAnointing of the sick they relieve those who are ill; andespecially by the celebration of Mass they offer Christ'ssacrifice sacramentally” (Vatican II, Decree on theMinistry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, I, 5, p. 781).Eighth, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of Mary:177

“... Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside THISSAVING OFFICE but by her manifold intercessionCONTINUES TO BRING US GIFTS OF ETERNALSALVATION. ... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invokedin the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper,Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (New Catholic Catechism,969).Ninth, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of the saints:“Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets thecontrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciouslypurified of the punishments for sin” (New CatholicCatechism, 1475).Tenth, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of forgiveness through the church:“There is no offense, however serious, that the Churchcannot forgive. ... Christ who died for all men desires thatin his Church the gates of forgiveness should always beopen to anyone who turns away from sin” (New CatholicCatechism, 982).Eleventh, Rome denies justification by grace alone by itsdoctrine of indulgences:“An indulgence is a remission before God of thetemporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has alreadybeen forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly178

disposed gains under certain prescribed conditionsthrough the action of the Church which, as the ministerof redemption, dispenses and applies with authority thetreasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. ...Indulgences may be applied to the living or thedead” (New Catholic Catechism, 1471).In 1998 a revision of ECT literature was published inIreland as a booklet and signed by 130 Catholics andProtestants. Entitled Evangelicals and Catholics Togetherin Ireland: A Call to Christians in Ireland it stated:“...a billion Roman Catholics and more than 300million evangelical Protestants represent world-widethe two most rapidly growing Christian communities.Yet in many countries, including our own, thescandal of conflict between them obscures thescandal of the cross (1 Cor. 1:23), thus crippling theone mission of the one Christ.”The publication of ECT in Ireland was on the occasion ofa visit by J.I. Packer. Joining Packer in speaking at thelaunch of the booklet was Roman Catholic priest PatCollins.Evangelical Publishers and RomeThe apostasy of evangelicalism is evident in the booksthat have been published in the last three decades that aresympathetic to Rome.1971 – A Prejudiced Protestant Takes a New Look at theCatholic Church by James Hefley (Fleming H. Revell).The author is a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological179

Seminary in New Orleans and a Baptist pastor. Hedescribes how his prejudice against the Roman CatholicChurch has dissolved because of the alleged changes inCatholicism since Vatican II.1977 – The Handbook to the History of Christianity(Eerdman’s) used two Roman Catholic historians ascontributing editors. Rome’s persecution against Biblebelievers is slighted while Pope John XXIII is praised ashaving “a deep but traditional piety.”1979 – Three Sisters by Michael Harper (Tyndale HousePublishers) called for ecumenical unity betweenevangelicals, charismatics, and Roman Catholics. Theauthor stated, “It is my own conviction that a growingunity between the three forces in the Christian world isboth desirable and possible”1984 – In Evangelical Is Not Enough Thomas Howard(Thomas Nelson Publisher) called for a movementtoward liturgical, Catholic-style worship amongevangelicals. Howard, who was a professor at GordonCollege for 15 years, is from a family of prominentevangelicals. His father, Philip, was editor of the SundaySchool Times; his brother David was head of the WorldEvangelical Fellowship; and his sister is the famousmissionary/writer Elizabeth Elliot. The year after thepublication of Evangelical Is Not Enough ThomasHoward converted to the Roman Catholic Church andleft Gordon College to teach at Catholic seminaries inBoston. Other converts to Rome in recent years have180

testified that Howard’s book assisted them in theirjourney.1985 – In A Tale of Two Churches George Carey(InterVarsity Press) (who later became the Archbishop ofCanterbury) called for the “eventual reunion of the twostreams [Protestantism and Roman Catholicism] ofWestern Christendom.” The foreword to this book,subtitled Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together, waswritten by J.I. Packer.1990 – Evangelical Catholics: A Call for ChristianCooperation to Penetrate the Darkness with the Light ofthe Gospel (Thomas Nelson) was written by KeithFournier, a Roman Catholic. In the foreword CharlesColson said. “But at root, those who are called of God,whether Catholic or Protestant, ARE PART OF THESAME BODY. … It’s high time that all of us who areChristians come together regardless of the difference ofour confessions and our traditions and make commoncause to bring Christian values to bear in our society.”1994 – The authors of Handbook of ChristianApologetics (InterVarsity Press) are Roman Catholics.Peter Kreeft is a Catholic apologist who believes thatMary will ultimately conquer Satan and that evenMuslims, Hindus, and Buddhists will probably go toHeaven. Ronald Tacelli is a Jesuit priest and a professorat Boston College.1994 – Roman Catholicism: Evangelical ProtestantsAnalyze What Divides and Unites Us (Moody Press). The181

editor is John Armstrong (Wheaton graduate, Reformedpastor), and twelve other evangelical leaders arecontributors. Though more cautious than the other bookswe have mentioned, the Moody Press volume completelyignores the Bible’s command to mark and avoid doctrinalerror. It ignores separation, which is the only sure hedgeagainst the leaven of heresy. For example, MichaelHorton concludes his chapter, “What Still Keeps UsApart?” with these words: “I do not suggest that weshould give up trying to seek visible unity, nor that werefuse to dialogue with Roman Catholic laypeople andtheologians, many of whom may be our brothers andsisters” (p. 264).1994 – A House United? Evangelicals and CatholicsTogether: A Winning Alliance for the 21st Century(Navigators’ NavPress) is co-authored by RomanCatholic Keith Fournier and evangelical WilliamWatkins, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. Theforeword is written by Pat Robertson. In 1991, Robertsoninvited Fournier to become executive director of theAmerican Center for Law and Justice at RegentUniversity. In the foreword to Fournier’s book Robertsonsaid that Catholics and Protestants “have a moralimperative to join together” to oppose cultural evils suchas abortion, and he praised Fournier for his “deepdedication to helping to heal the divide” that “separatedthe Body of Christ.”1995 – Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreementsand Differences by Norman Geisler and RalphMacKenzie (Baker Books). Though the authors182

acknowledge vast differences between evangelicals andCatholics, they conclude that these should not be a causefor separation. This statement from the book’s forewordsets the tone for the whole: “Nevertheless, when all issaid and done, evangelical Protestants and traditionalists,believing Roman Catholics have so many convictionsand commitments in common that it would be foolish aswell as wrong in the sight of the One whom we all claimas our Lord Jesus Christ to wrangle with each other in theface of the common enemy” (Foreword by Harold O.J.Brown, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, p. 12).1995 – Evangelicals & Catholics toward a CommonMission Together was edited by Charles Colson andRichard John Neuhaus (Word Publishing). Contributorsinclude J.I. Packer (Regent College), Mark Noll(Wheaton College), and Avery Dulles (Jesuit priest andprofessor at Catholic University).1997 – Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals,Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue (InterVarsity Press).While most of these books acknowledge that there isdoctrinal error in the Roman Catholic Church, they claimthat Rome has changed for the better, that RomanCatholicism is not a cult and is not total apostasy. Theyspeak of Rome’s heresies in gentle, “understanding,”scholarly tones rather than labeling them the blasphemiesthey really are. There is no call for separation.Apostasy in Christian Living183

Describing the moral apostasy of evangelicalism in TheGreat Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer said:“How the mindset of accommodation grows andexpands. The last sixty years have given birth to amoral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly wemust say that the evangelical world has been part ofthe disaster. ... WITH TEARS WE MUST SAYT H AT . . . A L A R G E S E G M E N T O F T H EEVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCEDBY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENTAGE” (Schaeffer, 1983, p. 141).Consider the testimony of David F. Wells, professor ofHistorical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-ConwellTheological Seminary:“EVANGELICALISM HAS … LOWERED THEB A R R I C A D E S . I T I S O P E N T O T H EWORLD” (Wells, No Place for the Truth or WhateverHappened to Evangelical Theology? 1994, p. 128).Evangelical music groups look and sound exactly like theworld.Most evangelical Bible College campuses have the lookand feel of secular colleges. There is the same lack ofmodesty. There is drinking, rock music, dancing, etc.In 1978, Richard Quebedeux wrote The WorldlyEvangelicals, documenting the dramatic changes thatwere already occurring within evangelicalism a merethirty years after the onslaught of the spirit of “Newism.”He observed that “the wider culture has had a profoundimpact on the evangelical movement as a whole” (TheWorldly Evangelicals, 1978, p. 115). Though184

Quebedeaux didn’t make the connection, this is a directresult of the repudiation of separation. He said:“In the course of establishing their respectability inthe eyes of the wider society, the evangelicals havebecome harder and harder to distinguish from otherpeople. Upward social mobility has made the oldrevivalistic taboos dysfunctional. ... the COCKTAILSbecame increasingly difficult to refuse. Evangelicalyoung people LEARNED HOW TO DANCE ANDOPENLY ‘GROOVED’ ON ROCK MUSIC. ... Andevangelical magazines and newspapers beganREVIEWING PLAYS AND MOVIES. ... The GallupPoll is correct in asserting that born-again Christians‘believe in a strict moral code.’ BUT THATSTRICTNESS HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLYMODIFIED DURING THE LAST FEW YEARS …DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE are becoming morefrequent and acceptable among evangelicals of allages, even in some of their more conservativechurches. … Some evangelical women are takingadvantage of ABORTION on demand. Many youngerevangelicals occasionally use PROFANITY in theirspeech and writing . . . Some of the recentevangelical sex-technique books assume that theirreaders peruse and view PORNOGRAPHY onoccasion, and they do. Finally, in 1976 thereemerged a fellowship and information organizationfor practicing evangelical LESBIANS AND GAY MENand their sympathizers. There is probably just ashigh a percentage of gays in the evangelicalmovement as in the wider society. Some of them arenow coming out of the closet, distributing wellarticulatedliterature, and demanding to berecognized and affirmed by the evangelicalcommunity at large. ... It is profoundly significant thatevangelicals, even the more conservative amongthem, have ACCEPTED THE ROCK MODE. Thisacceptance, obviously, indicates a further chapter inthe death of self-denial and world rejection amongthem. ... When young people were converted in theJesus movement, many of them simply did not giveup their former habits, practices, and cultural185

attitudes--DRINKING, SMOKING, ANDCHARACTERISTIC DRESS AND LANGUAGE. ...Young evangelicals drink, but so do conservativeevangelicals like Hal Lindsey and John WarwickMontgomery (who is a member of the InternationalWine and Food Society). ... But EVEN MARIJUANA,now virtually legal in some areas of the UnitedStates, is not as forbidden among youngevangelicals as it once was. A few of them,particularly the intellectuals, do smoke it onoccasion...” (The Worldly Evangelicals, pp. 14, 16,17, 118, 119).When light associates with darkness, when truthassociates with error, the result is always the corruptionof light and truth. “Be not deceived: evil communicationscorrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33), and, “A littleleaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9).Quebedeaux described this trend among evangelicals:“In the present ‘identity confusion’ amongevangelicals, MANY ARE IN TRANSITION, movingfrom one stance to another (GENERALLY FROMRIGHT TO CENTER OR LEFT)” (The WorldlyEvangelicals, p. 27).Over the three decades since Quebedeaux published TheWorldly Evangelicals, the apostasy within evangelicalismhas continued to spread and exercise its corrupt leaven.Apostasy in Acceptance of HereticsWe will give three examples of this:C.S. LewisLewis has been totally accepted by evangelicals.186

According to a Christianity Today reader’s poll in 1998,Lewis was rated the most influential writer.In an article commemorating the 100th anniversary ofLewis’s birth, J.I. Packer called him “our patron saint.”Christianity Today said Lewis “has come to be theAquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporaryEvangelicalism” (“Still Surprised by Lewis,” ChristianityToday, Sept. 7, 1998).Wheaton College sponsored a lecture series on C.S.Lewis, and Eerdmans published “The Pilgrim’s Guide”to C.S. Lewis.Lewis’s HeresiesEven Christianity Today admitted that Lewis was “a manwhose theology had decidedly unevangelicalelements” (CT, Sept. 7, 1998).Lewis confessed his sins regularly to a priest and wasgiven the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16,1963 (Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C.S.Lewis: A Biography, 1974, pp. 198, 301). Lewis deniedthe total depravity of man and the substitutionary bloodatonement of Christ. ). D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warnedthat C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation andwas an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view ofthe atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). Lewisbelieved in theistic evolution and rejected the infallible187

inspiration of Scripture. In a letter to the editor ofChristianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. WesleyShrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania,warned that “C.S. Lewis ... would never embrace the(literal-infallible) view of the Bible” (F.B.F. NewsBulletin, Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, March 4,1984).Lewis taught that hell is a state of mind: “And every stateof mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creaturewithin the dungeon of its own mind--is, in the end,Hell” (Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65).Lewis never gave up his unholy fascination withpaganism. On a visit to Greece with his wife in 1960,Lewis made the following strange, unbiblical statement:“I had some ado to prevent Joy (and myself) fromlapsing into paganism in Attica! AT DAPHNI IT WASHARD NOT TO PRAY TO APOLLO THE HEALER.BUT SOMEHOW ONE DIDN’T FEEL IT WOULDHAVE BEEN VERY WRONG--WOULD HAVE ONLYBEEN ADDRESSING CHRIST SUB SPECIEAPOLLONIUS” (C.S. Lewis to Chad Walsh, May 23,1960, cited from George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S.Lewis, 1994, p. 378).What a blasphemous statement! Christ is not worshippedunder the image of pagan gods. And we must rememberthat this was written at the end of Lewis’ life, and longafter his “conversion” to Christ.Lewis claimed that followers of pagan religions can besaved without personal faith in Jesus Christ:188

“But the truth is God has not told us what Hisarrangements about the other people are. ... Thereare people who do not accept the full Christiandoctrine about Christ but who are so stronglyattracted by Him that they are His in a much deepersense than they themselves understand. There arepeople in other religions who are being led by God’ssecret influence to concentrate on those parts oftheir religion which are in agreement withChristianity, and who thus belong to Christ withoutknowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will maybe led to concentrate more and more on theBuddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in thebackground (though he might still say he believed)the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of thegood Pagans long before Christ’s birth may havebeen in this position” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity,HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, pp. 64, 208,209).The fact that C.S. Lewis is an undisputed hero of modernevangelicalism is evidence of its spiritual apostasy.Bruce MetzgerConsider Bruce Metzger, one of the most preeminenttextual critics. He is another example of the acceptanceof heretics by today’s evangelicalsThe February 8, 1999, issue of Christianity Todaycontains an editorial by Michael Maudlin, ManagingEditor, in which he lists Metzger as one of five“believing scholars” that “illumine our Scriptures, ourtheology, our traditions, our church work.” (The otherfour are Craig Blomberg, Edwin Yamauchi, BenWitherington III, and D.A. Carson.)189

Metzger’s HeresiesIn fact, Bruce Metzger boldly denied the supernaturalinspiration of much of the Scripture.His heresy was evident in the notes to the NEWOXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE RSV (1973). Metzger,who co-edited this volume with Herbert May, wrotemany of the rationalistic notes in this volume and put hiseditorial stamp of approval on the rest. Following aresome examples of the unbelief that permeates this work:* The Pentateuch is “a matrix of myth, legend, andhistory” that “took shape over a long period of time” andis “not to be read as history.”* Moses didn’t write most of the Pentateuch.* The worldwide flood of Noah’s day is a mere“tradition” based on “heightened versions of localinundations.”* The book of Job is an “ancient folktale.”* The book of Isaiah was written by at least three men.* The stories of Elijah and Elisha contain “legendaryelements.”* Jonah is a “popular legend.”* The four Gospels gradually took shape after the deathsof the apostles.* Peter probably did not write the book of 2 Peter.These statements are unbelieving lies. The Pentateuchwas written by the hand of God and Moses andcompleted during the 40 years of wilderness wandering190

hundreds of years before Samuel and the kings. The LordJesus called it the Law of Moses. The Old Testament didnot arise gradually from a matrix of myth and history, butis divinely inspired revelation delivered to holy men ofold by Almighty God (2 Pet. 1:19-21). The Jews were a“people of the book” from the beginning. The Jewishnation did not form the Bible; the Bible formed theJewish nation! Jesus Christ affirmed the historicity ofJonah. The historicity of Job is affirmed both by Ezekiel(14:14, 20) and by James (5:11).Robert SchullerSchuller is another example of the broad acceptance ofheretics by today’s evangelicals.Billy Graham has frequently appeared with and praisedSchuller. In 1983 Schuller sat in the front row ofdistinguished guests invited to honor Graham’s 65thbirthday. In 1986 Schuller was invited by Graham tospeak at the International Conference for ItinerantEvangelists in Amsterdam. Schuller was featured on theplatform of Graham’s Atlanta Crusade in 1994.On April 29, 1980, Robert Schuller appeared at theWashington for Jesus Rally with popular evangelical andcharismatic leaders Bill Bright, D. James Kennedy,James Robison, Jim Bakker, Rex Humbard, PatRobertson, Pat Boone, Nicky Cruz, David du Plessis,Demos Shakarian, Thomas Zimmerman (Assemblies ofGod), and Jerry Falwell.191

Southern Baptist leader W.A. Criswell endorsedSchuller’s ministry in 1981 in an ad in ChristianityToday’s Leadership magazine. He said, “I know Dr.Schuller personally. He’s my good friend. I’ve spoken onhis platform. I’m well acquainted with his ministry. Ifyou want to develop fruitful evangelism in your church;if you want your laity to experience positive motivationand ministry fulfilling training, then I know, without adoubt, that you will greatly benefit from the RobertSchuller Film Workshop.”Popular author and teacher R.C. Sproul, president ofLigonier Ministries, has spoken at Robert Schuller’sCrystal Cathedral on numerous occasions. He spoke atSchuller’s church in September 21, 1984, and again onOctober 26, 1986.A wide range of evangelical leaders joined hands withRobert Schuller and other heretics at Congress ‘88,August 4-7, 1988, in Chicago. Catholic priest Alvin Illigwas one of the leaders, and the Catholic Archbishop ofChicago, Joseph Bernardin, brought the opening address.At the piano for the opening night services was LarryShakley, minister of music at Willow Creek CommunityChurch and band director for Moody Bible Institute’sFriday Night Sing. Speakers included Charles Colson,Bill Bright, Jack Wyrtzen, Jay Kessler, and SouthernBaptist Robert Hamblin. Representatives from theNavigators, Jews for Jesus, Pioneer Clubs, MoodyMonthly magazine, and General Baptists deliveredworkshops.192

In August 1991, World Vision co-sponsored an InterfaithRally in St. Louis, Missouri, which was addressed byRobert Schuller.Christianity Today has frequently carried advertisementspromoting Robert Schuller. Each year CT publishes adsfor Schuller’s Institute for Successful Church Leadership.In 1984, the editors of Christianity Today examinedSchuller and concluded that he is “not a heretic.”“He believes all the ‘fundamental’ doctrines oftraditional fundamentalism. He adheres to every lineof the Apostles’ Creed with a tenacity born of deepconviction. ... he avowed belief in a literal hell. Hewas not sure about its location, and the fire is to beunderstood figuratively...” (Christianity Today, Aug.10, 1984).InterVarsity Christian Fellowship president StephenHayner joined Schuller in January 1994, to participate inthe Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership.In December 1994, Schuller joined hands with a widerange of popular evangelical leaders at Bill Bright’s(Campus Crusade for Christ) Fast for Revivalconference. Among those attending were Charles Colson,E.V. Hill, Jack Hayford, James Dobson, W.A. Criswell,Charles Stanley, Paul Crouch, Luis Palau, Bill Gothard,Pat Robertson, Jay Arthur, and Larry Burkett.Many of the Promise Keepers speakers and leaders areassociated with Schuller. For example, John Maxwell,Jack Hayford, and Randy Phillips were among thekeynote speakers at the Men’s Conference ‘95 (March193

2-4, 1995) held at Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral. Schulleralso spoke at the conference.Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church nearChicago credits Schuller as an inspiration for his work,has promoted Schuller in various ads in ChristianityToday, and is a frequent speaker at meetings organizedby Schuller.Schuller’s HeresiesConsider some excerpts from Schuller’s writings thatdemonstrate his heretical doctrine:“BUT DO NOT SAY THAT THE CENTRAL COREOF THE HUMAN SOUL IS WICKEDNESS. ...POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HOLD TOHUMAN DEPRAVITY, BUT TO HUMANINABILITY” (Schuller, Self-Esteem: the NewReformation, Word Books, 1982, p. 67).“TO BE BORN AGAIN MEANS THAT WE MUST BECHANGED FROM A NEGATIVE TO A POSITIVESELF-IMAGE—from inferiority to self-esteem, fromfear to love, from doubt to trust” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 68).“‘SIN IS ANY ACT OR THOUGHT THAT ROBSMYSELF OR ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OF HISOR HER SELF-ESTEEM’” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p.14).“A PERSON IS IN HELL WHEN HE HAS LOST HISSELF-ESTEEM. Can you imagine any conditionmore tragic than to live life and eternity inshame?” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 14-15).194

“CHRIST is the Ideal One, for he WAS SELF-ESTEEM INCARNATE” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p.135).“JESUS NEVER CALLED A PERSON A SINNER. ...Rather he reserved his righteous rebuke for thosewho used their religious authority to generate guiltand caused people to lose their ability to taste andenjoy their right to dignity...” (Schuller, Self-Esteem,pp. 100,126).“In a theology that starts with an uncompromisingrespect for each person’s pride and dignity, I HAVENO RIGHT TO EVER PREACH A SERMON ORWRITE AN ARTICLE THAT WOULD OFFEND THESELF-RESPECT AND VIOLATE THE SELF-DIGNITY OF A LISTENER OR READER” (Schuller,Self-Esteem, p. 153).“I DON’T THINK ANYTHING HAS BEEN DONE INTHE NAME OF CHRIST AND UNDER THEBANNER OF CHRISTIANITY THAT HAS PROVENMORE DESTRUCTIVE TO HUMANPERSONALITY and, hence, counterproductive tothe evangelism enterprise than the often crude,uncouth, and unchristian strategy of ATTEMPTINGTO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THEIR LOST ANDSINFUL CONDITION” (Schuller, Christianity Today,October 5, 1984).By associating with and promoting heretics such asRobert Schuller, C.S. Lewis, and Bruce Metzger,evangelicals demonstrate their deep spiritualcompromise. The Bible says that if one associates withevil and does not speak against it, he becomes a partnerto it.“Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul:he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not” (Prov.29:24).195

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works ofdarkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).“Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partakerof other men's sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22).“If there come any unto you, and bring not thisdoctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bidhim God speed: For he that biddeth him God speedis partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11).“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying,Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakersof her sins, and that ye receive not of herplagues” (Rev. 18:4).196

ConclusionNew Evangelicalism is a fulfillment of 2 Timothy 4:3-4.“For the time will come when they will not enduresound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall theyheap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;and they shall turn away their ears from the truth,and shall be turned unto fables.”The New Evangelical generation’s ears are itching for anew type of Christianity; it wants something differentfrom the old separatist approach. And the NewEvangelical preacher is ready and willing to scratchitching ears with a new philosophy.New Evangelicalism is not a denomination or a group. Itis a MOOD of compromise. It is an ATTITUDE ofpositivism and non-judgmentalism.Beware of the danger of gradualism or incrementalism.New Evangelicalism itself is not apostasy; it is a firststep toward apostasy. Compromise is a slippery slope. Itis a downward path. “A little leaven leaventh the wholelump” (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9).Once we start to compromise the truth, we begin a slidethat has no end and that has dire implications for the nextgeneration.Let us take heed to the wise warning given by Dr.Charles Woodbridge, former professor at Fuller197

Theological Seminary and a founding member of theNational Association of Evangelicals:“The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moralcompromise of the deadliest sort. It is an insidiousattack upon the Word of God. ... The NewEvangelicalism advocates TOLERATION of error. Itis following the downward path ofACCOMMODATION to error, COOPERATION witherror, CONTAMINATION by error, and ultimateCAPITULATION to error!” (Woodbridge, The NewEvangelicalism, 1969, p. 15).The road from New Evangelicalism to apostasy is rapid.Let us not forget the testimony of Harold Lindsell, one ofthe founding fathers of New Evangelicalism:“I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelicalhas been so debased that it has lost itsusefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelicalrepresented those who were theologically orthodoxand who held to biblical inerrancy as one of thedistinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SONEOEVANGELICALISM . . . WAS BEINGASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASINGSKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICALINFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY” (Lindsell, TheBible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319).The New Evangelical philosophy is spreading rapidlyamong today’s fundamentalists and it will produce thesame apostasy.Fundamentalists are renouncing separation. A leader ofthe GARBC in recent years said separation is not a wallbut a picket fence. Fundamentalists are adopting a newmood of POSITIVISM and NEUTRALISM. The198

preaching is becoming less forthright with each passingdecade. Plain preaching AGAINST things seemsincreasingly strange and wrong.God says, “Walk ye in the old paths,” but the NewEvangelical reassesses the old paths. God says, “Removenot the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set,”but the New Evangelical removes them one by one. Godsays, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works ofdarkness,” but the New Evangelical reasons that suchfellowship is necessary. God says, “A little leavenleaventh the whole lump,” but the New Evangelicalthinks he can reform the already leavened lump. Godsays, “Evil communications corrupt good manners,” butthe New Evangelical thinks good manners can uplift evilcommunications. God says, “I resist the proud but givegrace to the humble,” but the New Evangelical thinks theway to reach the world is by meeting them on their ownproud territory. God says, “The prudent man looketh wellto his going” (Proverbs 14:15), but the New Evangelicalbelieves that instead of asking critical questions weshould accept our fellow Christians as brethrenregardless of the definition of their gospel or the detailsof their doctrine.Dear Christian friends, beware of New Evangelicalism!199

New Evangelicalism: Its History, Characteristics,and FruitCopyright 2006 by David W. CloudThis edition February 2012ISBN 1-58318-100-8Published by Way of Life LiteraturePO Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061866-295-4143 (toll free) - fbns@wayoflife.orgwww.wayoflife.orgCanada: Bethel Baptist Church4212 Campbell St. N., London Ont. N6P 1A6519-652-2619 (voice) - 519-652-0056 (fax)info@bethelbaptist.caPrinted in Canada byBethel Baptist Print Ministry200