Pristine Grace
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

  1. #1
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    The following is part three of a three-part article entitled Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New-Evangelicalism by David W. Cloud, copyright 1995, 1999. It was first published in O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 1, 1995.



    THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM




    It is God who commanded that His people separate from error and from those who teach and practice it; it is God who commanded that His people "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." When these and other aspects of old-time Evangelicalism were rejected, the power and blessing of God was removed.

    Even influential evangelical leaders have noted the spiritual decline of their own movement. Dr. Harold Lindsell, (1913-1998), who was vice-president of Fuller Theological Seminary and editor of Christianity Today, made this amazing statement at the 27th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in April 1969: "Evangelical Christianity is in spiritual jeopardy right now. Complacent, affluent, self-satisfied, we are lacking of great spiritual dynamic" (D.A. Waite, What's Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1969?).

    In 1979 Dr. Lindsell was even bolder:

    "I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelical has been so debased that it has lost its usefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelical represented those who were theologically orthodox and who held to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SO NEOEVANGELICALISM, THAT STARTED SO WELL AND PROMISED SO MUCH, WAS BEING ASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASING SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY" (Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319).

    By 1985, Lindsell had become even more forceful about the decline of evangelicalism:

    "Evangelicalism today is in a sad state of disarray. ... It is clear that evangelicalism is now broader and shallower, and is becoming more so. Evangelicalism's children are in the process of forsaking the faith of their fathers" (Christian News, Dec. 2, 1985).
    Another popular evangelical leader, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, gave a similar warning at the 1976 convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Washington D.C. He spoke on "The Watershed of the Evangelical World," which is the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture. Schaeffer observed: "What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger in number if significant numbers of those under the name of 'evangelical' no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?" (D.A. Waite, What's Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1976?).

    A 1996 Moody Press book entitled The Coming Evangelical Crisis documented the apostasy of Evangelicalism.
    "Although most of today's professing evangelicals would acknowledge that theology, in some sense of the word, does matter, a recent survey in Christianity Today revealed that this is more lip service than anything else. According to this survey ... theology, in any sense of the word, is really not all that important to the very people to whom it should matter most: those in the pew and in the pulpit. BOTH GROUPS LISTED THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS LAST IN TERMS OF PASTORAL PRIORITIES. ... WE ARE SADLY EXPERIENCING, ON A RATHER LARGE SCALE, A SUBJECTIVISM THAT BETRAYS ITS WEAKENED HOLD ON THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH and reality of Christianity by its neglect or even renunciation of its distinctive objective character. ... Men ... really wish to have a creedless Christianity. 'Creeds,' they shout, 'are divisive things; away with them!' ... Where does this leave us? An undogmatic Christianity is no Christianity at all" (Gary L.W. Johnson, "Does Theology Still Matter?" The Coming Evangelical Crisis, Moody Press, 1996, pp. 58,66,67).

    "... evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. ... THE THEOLOGICAL UNITY THAT ONCE MARKED THE MOVEMENT HAS GIVEN WAY TO A THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT MANY OF THE FOUNDERS OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM HAD REJECTED IN MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM. ... Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a greater crisis yet threatens" (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Evangelical What's in a Name?," The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 1996, pp. 32,33,36).
    These are sad testimonies. It is strange to note that these men, though they see the apostate confusion in modern evangelicalism, do not clearly see that this is the product of the rejection of biblical separation and absolutism. These leaders continue to reject and misrepresent Bible-believing Fundamentalism. This present evangelical generation is polluted with the modernism and ecumenism and Romanism and humanism and psychology and worldliness from which it has refused to separate. God is not mocked. A "little leaven leaventh the whole lump" and "evil communications corrupt good manners." A man, church, denomination, or movement cannot reject biblical separation and a zealous defense of the whole counsel of God without paying the consequence of apostasy.

    EVANGELICALISM'S APOSTASY IS SEEN IN ITS COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM

    Most popular evangelical men and organizations have strong and growing sympathies toward the Roman Catholic Church. (Our book Evangelicals and Rome contains extensive documentation of this.) Christianity Today, founded by Billy Graham and other New Evangelical leaders, now has three Roman Catholic editors. Evangelical publishers are busy putting out books sympathetic to Rome and calling for ecumenical relationships.

    As early as 1971 Fleming H. Revell published A Prejudiced Protestant Takes a New Look at the Catholic Church by James Hefley. The author is a graduate of the Southern Baptist Seminary in New Orleans and pastored a Baptist church for eight years. He describes how his prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church has dissolved in recent years because of the alleged changes in Catholicism since Vatican II. He praises "the increasing willingness of Catholics to join together in evangelism, Bible study, solving community problems, and ecumenical relations" (p. 122). He thinks it is great that Catholics have begun to work with Evangelical organizations such as Campus Crusade for Christ, Youth for Christ, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Wycliffe Bible Translators, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (pp. 118, 122, 123). In one chapter, Hefley describes in glowing terms his experience of visiting with Catholic leaders at the archdiocese headquarters in New Orleans. He calls the priests "father." He "felt a warmth" while attending a Catholic mass (p. 109).

    Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, which appeared in 1977, used two Roman Catholic historians as contributing editors. It is no wonder that Rome's butchery of Bible believers receives small thrift in this Evangelical publication, while Pope John Paul XXIII is praised as having "a deep but traditional piety"!

    In 1979, Tyndale House Publishers came out with Three Sisters by Michael Harper. This book called for ecumenical unity between Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Roman Catholics. The author stated, "It is my own conviction that a growing unity between the three forces in the Christian world is both desirable and possible" (p. 41).
    In 1984, Thomas Howard's book Evangelical Is Not Enough (Thomas Nelson Publisher) called for a movement toward liturgical, Catholic-style worship among Evangelicals. Howard, who was a professor at Gordon College for 15 years, is from a family of prominent Evangelicals. His father, Philip, was editor of the Sunday School Times; his brother David Howard was head of the World Evangelical Fellowship; and his sister Elizabeth married the famous missionary Jim Elliot, who was martyred by the Auca Indians in Ecuador. The year after the publication of Evangelical Is Not Enough, Thomas Howard converted to the Roman Catholic Church and left Gordon College to teach at Catholic seminaries in Boston. Other converts to Rome in recent years have testified that Howard's book assisted them in taking their journey. When asked about Howard's conversion to Catholicism, J.I. Packer gave the following amazing reply, "I don't think becoming a Catholic is anything like the tragedy of a person becoming a theological liberal and losing touch with objective authority altogether. Catholics are among the most loyal and viral brothers evangelicals can find these days" (J.I. Packer, Christianity Today, May 17, 1985). Thomas Howard’s sister also believes it is fine to be a Roman Catholic. On September 6, 1997, at the Expo Center in Waukesha, Wisconsin, Elliot spoke at a meeting sponsored by WVCY radio out of Milwaukee. During a Question/Answer session she was asked, "Can a person be Catholic and Christian in union?" to which Mrs. Elliot replied, "Yes, we can have unity in diversity; my brother [Thomas Howard] is a Catholic and a Christian." She was also asked, "Then is it acceptable to celebrate the [Catholic] Eucharist?" She replied, "Yes." This information was supplied to us by Steve Straub of Waukesha, Wisconsin, who attended the meeting.

    In 1985, InterVarsity Press stirred the ecumenical waters with A Tale of Two Churches by George Carey (who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury). Carey called for the "eventual reunion of the two streams [Protestantism and Roman Catholicism] of Western Christendom." The foreword to this book, subtitled "Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together," was written by J.I. Packer.

    In 1990, Thomas Nelson published Evangelical Catholics: A Call for Christian Cooperation to Penetrate the Darkness with the Light of the Gospel by Keith Fournier, a Roman Catholic apologist. The foreword was written by Charles Colson. "But at root, those who are called of God, whether Catholic or Protestant, are part of the same Body. ... It's high time that all of us who are Christians come together regardless of the difference of our confessions and our traditions and make common cause to bring Christian values to bear in our society. When the barbarians are scaling the walls, there is no time for petty quarreling in the camp. Keith Fournier stands in the breach-truly orthodox in his adherence to Catholic doctrine and fully evangelical in his relationship to Christ and His creation. Keith's ministry is one of healing. ... I pray that his book will be a bridge across many of the historic divisions in the church that have weakened our stand in today's culture. ... We have much to forgive, much to relearn. But Evangelical Catholics can help us do both so we can band together against the rising tides of secularism which threaten to engulf us" (Chuck Colson, foreword, Evangelical Catholics, p. vi).
    In 1994, InterVarsity Press came out with the Handbook of Christian
    Apologetics by two Roman Catholic authors, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. Kreeft is a Catholic apologist who believes that Mary will ultimately conquer Satan and who believes that even Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists will probably go to Heaven. Tacelli is a Jesuit priest and a professor at Boston College. Why would InterVarsity choose Catholics to write such a book, or why would they publish such a book by Catholics? If asked about Catholic theology, InterVarsity leaders would doubtless reply that they do not agree with a large part of it. That being the case, why not have Bible-believing authors, or at least thorough-going Protestants, write a book on Christian apologetics? The answer is the ecumenical agenda of these "evangelical" organizations.

    Moody Press joined its voice to this theme in 1994 by publishing Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. The editor is John Armstrong (Wheaton graduate, Reformed pastor), and twelve other Evangelical leaders are contributors. Though far more cautious than the other books we have mentioned, the Moody Press volume completely ignores the Bible's command to mark and avoid doctrinal error. It ignores separation, which is the only sure hedge against the leaven of heresy. For example, Michael Horton concludes his chapter, "What Still Keeps Us Apart?" with these words: "I do not suggest that we should give up trying to seek visible unity, nor that we refuse to dialogue with Roman Catholic laypeople and theologians, many of whom may be our brothers and sisters" (p. 264). He should "suggest" that, though, because it is precisely what the Bible commands. The New Testament does not instruct Christians to seek "visible unity" with a blasphemous, unscriptural organization like Rome, nor does it instruct us to "dialogue" with those who hold a false gospel.

    The Evangelicals who wrote Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us have a false view of church history. They don't look upon Rome of the early centuries as apostate. They look upon it as a true church and they look upon many of its fathers, saints, and Popes as true Christians. Horton praises such men as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bernard, and Gregory the Great; yet all of these were unscriptural heretics. Rome would not exalt them as fathers and saints if they had stood unreservedly for the New Testament faith. All of these men were members of unscriptural churches that had rejected the apostolic faith once delivered to the saints.

    Horton speaks of the early history of the Roman Catholic Church in glowing terms. He says, "It was Rome that stood up to the Montanists, Manicheans, Donatists, Pelagians, Cathari, Albigensians, Arians, and Monophysites..." (p. 245). This is only partly true. Many of the "heretics" that Rome stood against were actually Bible believing Christians who refused to be moved from the truth. In his diligently researched book (The History of the Donatists, 1875), respected nineteenth-century Baptist historian David Benedict, working directly from ancient Latin texts, revealed that the Donatists were not the heretics that Rome made them out to be. The same is true for the Albigensians, the Cathari, and others that Horton mentions. Though there might have been heretics who were called Donatists and Albigensians, these people, in the main, were much closer to the Bible than Rome was. The term "Manichean" was also misused by Rome to slander many people. Though there were some who were known as Manicheans who held to strange and unscriptural doctrines, many who were labeled Manichean were not heretics but were falsely accused by Rome.

    Also in 1994, the Navigators' NavPress published A House United? Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A Winning Alliance for the 21st Century. The authors are Roman Catholic Keith Fournier and Evangelical William Watkins, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. The foreword is written by Pat Robertson. In 1991, Robertson invited Fournier to become executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice at Regent University. In the foreword to Fournier's book, Pat Robertson said that Catholics and Protestants "have a moral imperative to join together" to oppose cultural evils such as abortion, and he praised Fournier for his "deep dedication to helping to heal the divide" that "separated the Body of Christ." The back cover of A House United? has recommendations by seven men, including Terry Lindvall (President of Regent University), Ralph Reed (formerly Executive Director of the Christian Coalition), and Vinson Synan (Pentecostal chairman of the North American Renewal Service Committee). Synan sets the tone with his comments: "Keith Fournier is truly a twentieth-century apostle of unity for the Body of Christ. His background as an evangelical and charismatic Catholic has prepared him well to write A House United?-a book that adds light and grace to the current religious situation in America."
    In 1995, Baker Books encouraged the Evangelical-Roman Catholic alliance with the publication of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. Though the authors acknowledge vast differences between Evangelicals and Catholics, they conclude that these should not be a cause for separation. This statement from the book's foreword sets the tone for the whole: "Nevertheless, when all is said and done, evangelical Protestants and traditionalists, believing Roman Catholics have so many convictions and commitments in common that it would be foolish as well as wrong in the sight of the One whom we all claim as our Lord Jesus Christ to wrangle with each other in the face of the common enemy" (Foreword by Harold O.J. Brown, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 12).

    Also in 1995, Word Publishing came out with Evangelicals & Catholics Toward a Common Mission Together, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Contributors to the book include J.I. Packer (Regent College), Mark Noll (Wheaton College), and Avery Dulles (Jesuit priest and professor at Catholic University). Chuck Colson is the well-known and popular Evangelical leader who founded Prison Fellowship, and Richard Neuhaus is a convert to the Roman Catholic Church from Lutheranism. These are the two men most responsible for the controversial Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) statement that was released in 1994 and signed by 38 Evangelical and Catholic leaders. The back cover to Evangelicals & Catholics Together says: "This courageous book seeks a way to allow sectarian strife between the two groups to give way to a decision to work together to mend the fabric of values that has been relentlessly rent in the last thirty-five years. Here, both evangelical and Roman Catholic authors ask whether the time has come to present a united front against the onslaught of publicly sanctioned unbelief in the land."

    In 1996, Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft's book Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War was published by Ignatius Press. The book is absolutely packed with unscriptural heresies. Kreeft, who is very popular and influential in ecumenical circles, calls for all Christian denominations to join hands with Jews, Muslims, even with Hindus and Buddhists and other pagan religionists (including atheists and agnostics "if they are of good will and intellectual honesty"), to form a "jihad" against the forces of secularism. "Jihad," meaning "holy war," is a term used by Muslims to describe their willingness to fight unto death against the enemies of Allah. Kreeft's "ecumenical jihad" sounds very much like the fulfillment of the end-times religious whore of Revelation 17. Kreeft thinks the "culture war" "is about the salvation of the soul," "the continued biological survival of our species," and "is certainly about eternal life or eternal death" (pp. 20, 21). Kreeft thinks it is "very likely" that there is a "hidden Christ" in pagan religions, so that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., will be saved "through Christ and His grace" even though they do not consciously know or worship Jesus Christ (pp. 156, 157). Kreeft urges his readers to dedicate themselves "to the Immaculate Heart of Mary," because Mary "is the one who will win this war" and is the one "who triumphs over Satan" (p. 169). Kreeft believes that in Heaven "we will all be Catholics" (p. 163). He worships the wafer of the Catholic Mass "because it is Christ" (p. 162) and because God "hides behind the appearances of a little Wafer of bread" (p. 157). He thinks that God prefers to work through intermediaries of Mary and the saints and that "He wants us to pray through Mary, and not only directly" (p. 154).
    In 1997, InterVarsity Press published Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue. It was edited by James Cutsinger and contained articles by Harold O.J. Brown, Peter Kreeft, Richard Neuhaus, J.I. Packer, and others. The book is a collection of material from an ecumenical dialogue held at Rose Hill College, May 16-20, 1995. The objective of the dialogue was to answer the question: "How can Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians talk to each other so as together to speak with Christ's mind to the modern world?" (p. 8). The answer, of course, is that this is impossible among those who do not hold the same doctrines, nor even believe the same gospel. Paul did not seek to dialogue with those who corrupted the gospel; he rebuked them and announced God's curse upon them (Galatians 1). In doing so, he was not expressing hatred or bigotry; he was demonstrating love toward those who were in danger of being deceived by false teachers.

    Most of these books are published by major Evangelical publishers, and they illustrate the rapidly growing sympathy between Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church.

    While most of these books acknowledge that there is doctrinal error in the Roman Catholic Church, they claim that Rome has changed for the better, that Roman Catholicism is not a cult, is not total apostasy. They speak of Rome's heresies in gentle, "understanding," scholarly tones rather than labeling them the blasphemies they really are. Let me give an example. In Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, John Armstrong says, "For centuries the magisterium had insisted that there was no salvation outside the church ... which meant, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. This sometimes caused a decidedly uncharitable response to Protestant evangelicals, who were considered lost outside of Rome and her sacramental system" (emphasis added). To describe Rome's fearful, bloody, centuries old persecution of Bible-believing Christians as "decidedly uncharitable" is New Evangelical insanity.

    Many of today's Evangelicals want to believe that Rome's official doctrinal position is not the real position of the so-called Evangelical Catholic today. These books (the one by Moody Press being the exception) call upon Evangelicals to lay aside the age-old divisions and to work hand-in-hand with Roman Catholicism in social, religious, and political causes.

    The cover jacket for A House United? quotes Pentecostal Vinson Synan's recommendation of the book: "Keith Fournier [a Catholic apologist] is truly a twentieth-century apostle of unity for the Body of Christ." This unscriptural unity in the so-called Body of Christ is one of the apostate keynotes of late twentieth-century Evangelicalism. It is obvious that NavPress, publisher of this book, and the Navigators organization that owns NavPress, have succumbed to the Evangelical-Roman Catholic juggernaut.

    EVANGELICALISM'S APOSTASY IS ALSO SEEN IN ITS QUESTIONING OF BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY

    The downgrade of the doctrine of biblical inspiration has been documented even by evangelicalism's own leaders.

    In 1976, Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, lifted his voice to warn of apostasy:
    "A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" (Carl F.H. Henry, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)
    Almost 25 years ago this leader warned of evangelical scholars who disowned or questioned biblical inerrancy. Henry even warned that some Evangelical scholars are deceitful in their use of biblical and traditional Christian terms. They use terms like "infallible," but they do not mean by this that they believe the Bible is without error.

    The same year that Dr. Henry warned of Evangelical graduates disowning inerrancy, Richard Quebedeaux, author of The Young Evangelicals and The Worldly Evangelicals, added the following details:
    "Most people outside the evangelical community itself are totally unaware of the profound changes that have occurred within evangelicalism during the last several years--in the movement's understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, in its social concerns, cultural attitudes and ecumenical posture, and in the nature of its emerging leadership. ... evangelical theologians have begun looking at the Bible with a scrutiny reflecting THEIR WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM ... The position--affirming that Scripture is inerrant or infallible in its teaching on matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in all its assertions concerning history and the cosmos--IS GRADUALLY BECOMING ASCENDANT AMONG THE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS. ... these new trends ... indicate that evangelical theology is becoming more centrist, more open to biblical criticism and more accepting of science and broad cultural analysis. ONE MIGHT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE NEW GENERATION OF EVANGELICALS IS CLOSER TO BONHOEFFER, BARTH AND BRUNNER THAN TO HODGE AND WARFIELD ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE" (Richard Quebedeaux, "The Evangelicals: New Trends and Tensions," Christianity and Crisis, Sept. 20, 1976, pp. 197-202).
    Another warning appeared a year later:
    "A SURPRISING ARRAY OF EQUALLY DEDICATED EVANGELICALS IS FORMING TO INSIST THAT ACCEPTANCE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF IN AN INERRANT BOOK. ... What has made it a new ball game today is the emergence of a new type of evangelical. These persons accept the cardinal doctrines of Christianity in their full and literal meaning but agree that the higher critics have a point: there are errors in Scripture, and some of its precepts must be recognized as being culturally and historically conditioned" (G. Aiken Taylor, "Is God as Good as His Word?" Christianity Today, Feb. 4, 1977).
    That same year Pastor Mark Buch of Vancouver, British Columbia, who was involved in the fundamentalist movement from the 1930s, gave this testimony to Evangelicalism's corruption:
    "[Evangelicalism] today has fallen away from the old faith and this is not the case of an exception among them, it is common and general. They no longer believe in the veracity, the verbal inspiration of the Holy Bible and they have gone a whoring after all sorts of innovations and foolishness in order to fill their churches..." (Buch, In Defence of the Authorized Version, 1977, p. 33).
    In his 1978 book, The Worldly Evangelicals, Richard Quebedeaux warned that many evangelical scholars are deceitful about their doctrinal heresies:
    "Prior to the 60s, virtually all the seminaries and colleges associated with the neo-evangelicals and their descendants adhered to the total inerrancy understanding of biblical authority (at least they did not vocally express opposition to it). But it is a well-known fact that A LARGE NUMBER, IF NOT MOST, OF THE COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES IN QUESTION NOW HAVE FACULTY WHO NO LONGER BELIEVE IN TOTAL INERRANCY, even in situations where their employers still require them to sign the traditional declaration that the Bible is 'verbally inspired,' 'inerrant,' 'infallible in the whole and in the part,' or to affirm in other clearly defined words the doctrine of inerrancy that was formulated by the Old Princeton school of theology and passed on to fundamentalism. SOME OF THESE FACULTY INTERPRET THE CRUCIAL CREEDAL CLAUSES IN A MANNER THE ORIGINAL FRAMERS WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED, OTHERS SIMPLY SIGN THE AFFIRMATION WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK" (Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, p. 30).
    We must not forget that these statements describe conditions 20 YEARS AGO and things are much worse now!

    The aforementioned Harold Lindsell published two volumes on the downgrade of the Bible in Evangelicalism, with particular focus on Fuller Seminary, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Lindsell's The Battle for the Bible was first published in 1976. The sequel, The Bible in the Balance, came out in 1979. This careful documentation by a man who was in the inner circle of evangelicalism's leadership for many decades leaves no doubt that the evangelical world of the last half of the twentieth century is leavened with apostasy.

    "MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).
    In 1984, well-known evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer published The Great Evangelical Disaster. The book's title describes the thesis. The cover jacket says, "In this explosive new book Dr. Francis Schaeffer exposes the rise of compromise and accommodation, and the tragic consequences of this, within the evangelical church." The issue that Schaeffer called "the watershed of Evangelicalism" is the inspiration and authority of the Bible. He testified, "Within evangelicalism there are a growing number who are modifying their views on the inerrancy of the Bible so that the full authority of Scripture is completely undercut" (The Great Evangelical Disaster, p. 44).

    A more recent exposure of the corruption of doctrine in the evangelical world is found in No Place for Truth: or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (1993) by David F. Wells, Professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Time magazine described Well's book as "a stinging indictment of evangelicalism's theological corruption." Though Wells is himself a committed New Evangelical, he properly identifies evangelicalism's chief problem as its repudiation of biblical separation and its accommodation with the world:
    "Fundamentalism always had an air of embattlement about it, of being an island in a sea of unremitting hostility. Evangelicalism has reacted against this sense of psychological isolation. It has lowered the barricades. It is open to the world. The great sin of fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow" (emphasis added) (David Wells, No Place for Truth, p. 129).
    Wells also made a telling statement that acknowledges precisely where the New Evangelical world is today:
    "But in between these far shores [Anglo-Catholicism and fundamentalism] lie the choppy waters that most evangelicals now ply with their boats, and here the winds of modernity blow with disconcerting force, fragmenting what it means to be evangelical. This is because evangelicals have allowed their confessional center to dissipate" (p. 128).
    In 1995, Dr. Carl Henry was continuing to warn about unbelief within evangelical circles: "Much of the same revolt against truth emerged during the recent theology conference of postliberal speakers sponsored jointly with Inter-Varsity at Wheaton College. NOT A SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE OF HISTORIC EVANGELICAL ORTHODOXY COMMITTED TO THE UNBROKEN AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE WAS FEATURED..." (Calvary Contender, July 1, 1995).

    Consider the following summary of the downgrade of the doctrine of inspiration by today's Evangelical leaders:
    "My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. Almost all of the literature which is produced in the evangelical world today falls into this category. In the October 1985 issue of Christianity Today, (the very popular and probably most influential voice of evangelicals in America), a symposium on Bible criticism was featured. The articles were written by scholars from several evangelical seminaries. Not one of the participants in that symposium in Christianity Today was prepared to reject higher criticism. All came to its defense. IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT ALL THE SCHOLARS FROM THE LEADING SEMINARIES IN THIS COUNTRY HELD TO A FORM OF HIGHER CRITICISM.

    "These men claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time they adopt higher critical methods in the explanation of the Scriptures. This has become so common in evangelical circles that IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN EVANGELICAL PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS OF OUR LAND AND ABROAD WHO STILL HOLDS UNCOMPROMISINGLY TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. The insidious danger is that higher criticism is promoted by those who claim to believe in infallible inspiration" (Herman Hanko, The Battle for the Bible, pp. 2,3). [Hanko's book should not be confused with Harold Lindsell's book by that same name.]
    The author of the above critique is a professor at the Protestant Reformed Seminary, Grandville, Michigan.

    LET ME GIVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF THIS OF THE HUNDREDS THAT I COULD GIVE FROM MY FILES.
    CHARLES SCALISE is affiliated with Fuller Seminary. He is associate professor of church history and academic director of Fuller Theological Seminary in Seattle's M. Div. program. In his book From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics (InterVarsity Press, 1996), Scalise argues for accepting the conclusions of biblical criticism while at the same time accepting the Bible as the "canonical Word of God." He proposes the "canonical approach" of Yale Professor Brevard Childs who follows Karl Barth. Scalise uncritically describes how "the 'postcritical' hermeneutics of Karl Barth assists Childs in charting his way across 'the desert of criticism'" (p. 44). It is true that modern biblical criticism is a desert, but instead of rejecting biblical criticism as the unbelieving heresy that it is, the modern Evangelical scholar tries to reconcile it with a way to allow the Bible to remain authoritative in some sense. In the first chapter of his book, Scalise plainly and unhesitatingly rejects the "facts-of-revelation" approach to Scripture that accepts the Bible as the historically accurate record of God's infallible revelation (pp. 28-31). Scalise does not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch under divine inspiration or that the Old Testament record of miracles is accurate. He believes the Pentateuch was written by unknown editors centuries later (p. 56). He believes the Bible's accounts of miraculous events are exaggerated. For example, he believes that the Egyptian chariots pursuing Israel got "stuck in the mud" (p. 39) rather than being overwhelmed by God's miraculous dividing and undividing of the waters. He agrees with Karl Barth that the book of Numbers contains both "history" and "storylike saga" (p. 49). He believes portions of Amos were added by an unknown editor (p. 56). He believes that to view the Bible as historical is dangerous (p. 79). He does not believe the Psalms are historical writings (p. 78). He does not believe that the Apostle Paul wrote the book of Ephesians nor that it was originally addressed to the church at Ephesus, and he doesn't believe it matters (p. 58). Scalise wants to allow the Catholic apocrpyhal books to be accepted as canonical (pp. 60,61). He commends an approach to biblical canon which has "a firm center and blurred edges" (p. 60). Scalise says, "The Bible is the Word of God because God speaks through it" (p. 22). That is a false, subjective Barthian view of Scripture. In fact, the Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God, regardless of whether man feels that God is speaking through it. Scalise claims that comparisons of the Trinity to the self by theologians like Karl Rahner and comparisons of the Trinity to community by theologians like Leonard Hodgson and Jurgen Moltmann "are within the channel of orthodoxy" (p. 103). He does not like the "negative view of tradition" that comes from the Protestant Reformation, and he believes the Protestants and Catholics simply misunderstood one another (p. 73). He believes it is possible to reconcile the differences by requiring that the Bible be interpreted within the context of church tradition (p. 74). In fact, if the Bible must be interpreted by tradition, the tradition becomes the superior authority. In the preface to his book, Scalise notes that he was guided into his critical views of the Bible during studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Tubingen in Germany.

    Be careful about labels in this confused hour. The term "evangelical" is meaningless. It can refer to a Modernist or a Roman Catholic or a drunk-in-the-spirit Charismatic or a Psychobabbler who believes the key to mental health is the recovery of hidden memories. I don't care what label a man bears, if he denies the perfect inspiration of Scripture he is a heretic and an apostate (both of these are biblical terms) and God's people should treat him as the dangerous false teacher that he is. The Bible is the foundation for everything in the Christian life and faith, and if the Bible is not infallible, Jesus Christ and the Apostles were either deceived or were liars and we are foolish people to follow them.

    I repeat that Charles Scalise is only one of hundreds of examples we could give of evangelical scholars who deny the infallibility of Holy Scripture. Today's evangelicals are polluted with the Modernism from which they have refused to separate. A little leaven has indeed leavened the whole lump. (Remember these sad facts the next time you hear about how "thoroughly evangelical" certain modern Bible translators are. Being "thorough evangelical" today does not indicate that an individual even accepts the Bible as the infallible Word of God.)

    EVANGELICALISM'S APOSTASY IS SEEN IN ITS REPUDIATION OF BIBLICAL HOLINESS

    Evangelicalism's apostasy is seen not only in its relationship with Rome and its downgrade of biblical inspiration, it is also seen in its repudiation of biblical holiness. It has broken down the walls of ecclesiastical separation as well as separation from the world. The old fundamentalism was staunchly and boldly opposed to worldliness. The New Evangelical crowd has rejected and redefined this. The result has been incredible to behold. R-rated and PG-13 movies are given positive reviews in evangelical publications. Evangelical music groups look and sound exactly like the world. Many evangelical Bible College campuses have the look and feel of secular colleges. The students wear the same clothes (or lack of clothes) as the world; they drink the same liquor; they dance to the same music; they celebrate the same worldly events; they care about the same worldly concerns. Richard Quebedeaux documented this more than 20 years ago in his book, The Worldly Evangelicals.
    "The Gallup Poll is correct in asserting that born-again Christians 'believe in a strict moral code.' But that strictness has been considerably modified during the last few years ... the monthly question and answer column (patterned after 'Dear Abby') in Campus Life, Youth for Christ's magazine, gives the impression that more born-again high school age couples are having INTERCOURSE than is generally supposed. Among evangelical young people, MASTURBATION is now often seen as a gift from God. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE are becoming more frequent and acceptable among evangelicals of all ages, even in some of their more conservative churches. This new tolerant attitude toward divorce has been greatly facilitated both by the publication of positive articles and books on the problem by evangelical authors and by the growth of ministry to singles in evangelical churches. ... Some evangelical women are taking advantage of ABORTION on demand. Many younger evangelicals occasionally use PROFANITY in their speech and writing (though they are generally careful to avoid traditional profanity against the deity). Some of the recent evangelical sex-technique books assume that their readers peruse and view PORNOGRAPHY on occasion, and they do. Finally, in 1976 there emerged a fellowship and information organization for practicing evangelical LESBIANS AND GAY MEN and their sympathizers. There is probably just as high a percentage of gays in the evangelical movement as in the wider society. Some of them are now coming out of the closet, distributing well-articulated literature, and demanding to be recognized and affirmed by the evangelical community at large" (Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, 1978, pp. 16,17).
    Describing this moral apostasy in The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer said:
    "How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. The last sixty years have given birth to a moral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly we must say that the evangelical world has been part of the disaster. ... WITH TEARS WE MUST SAY THAT ... A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCED BY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE" (Schaeffer, p. 141).
    The rejection of biblical holiness is particularly evident on the campuses of Evangelical colleges and seminaries. This was observed by James Hunter in his book Evangelicalism The Coming Generation (1987). He documents "the evolution of behavioral standards for students at these colleges" -
    "What has happened at Wheaton College, Gordon College, and Westmont College is typical of most of the colleges in this subculture. From the time of their founding to the mid-1960s, the college rules unapologetically prohibited 'profaning the Sabbath,' 'profane or obscene language or behavior,' playing billiards, playing cards and gambling, using intoxicating liquors or tobacco, theater and movie attendance, and any form of dancing--both on- and off-campus" (Hunter, p. 169).
    Hunter goes on to observe that these rules have largely been dropped, and the worldliness on Evangelical college campuses has increased significantly in the twelve years since his book was published.

    In 1996, the moral apostasy of today's evangelicalism was affirmed by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in the Cambridge Declaration. The declaration, signed by 80 theologians and church leaders, was released on April 20, 1996, at the end of a four-day conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The signers included James Montgomery Boice, J.A.O. Preus III, David Wells, Albert Mohler, and Michael Horton, and represented Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Congregational, and Independent denominations.
    "Today the light of Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that THE WORD 'EVANGELICAL' HAS BECOME SO INCLUSIVE AS TO HAVE LOST ITS MEANING. ... As Biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and its doctrines have lost their saliency, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY EMPTIED OF ITS INTEGRITY, MORAL AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION. ... As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. THE RESULT IS A LOSS OF ABSOLUTE VALUES, PERMISSIVE INDIVIDUALISM, AND A SUBSTITUTION OF WHOLENESS FOR HOLINESS, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope" (The Cambridge Declaration, 1996).
    Warnings such as these have been largely ignored by the evangelical world.

    EVANGELICALISM'S APOSTASY IS ALSO SEEN IN ITS ACCEPTANCE OF HERETICS

    Evangelicalism's apostasy is also seen in its acceptance of heretics. We could give dozens of examples, but I will mention three to illustrate the point: C.S. Lewis, Bruce Metzger, and Robert Schuller.
    Evangelicalism's acceptance of C.S. LEWIS is well known. According to a Christianity Today reader's poll in 1998, Lewis was rated the most influential writer. Though Lewis died in 1963, sales of his books have risen to two million a year. In an article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lewis's birth, J.I. Packer called him "our patron saint." Christianity Today said Lewis "has come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism" ("Still Surprised by Lewis," Christianity Today, Sept. 7, 1998). Wheaton College sponsored a lecture series on C.S. Lewis, and Eerdmans published "The Pilgrim's Guide" to C.S. Lewis.

    Was C.S. Lewis a strong Bible believer? By no means. Christianity Today noted that he was "a man whose theology had decidedly unevangelical elements" (Ibid.). Lewis was turning to the Catholic Church before his death. He believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins regularly to a priest. He received the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16, 1963. Lewis also rejected the doctrine of bodily resurrection (Biblical Discernment Ministries Letter, Sept.-Oct. 1996) and believed there is salvation in pagan religions. Lewis denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He denied the biblical doctrine of an eternal fiery hell, claiming, instead, that hell is a state of mind: "And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind--is, in the end, Hell" (Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65).

    In 1993, Christianity Today explained why C.S. Lewis is so popular among evangelicals. Among the reasons given for his popularity was the following "Lewis's ... concentration on the main doctrines of the church coincided with evangelicals' concern to avoid ecclesiastical separatism" (Christianity Today, Oct. 25, 1993). CT admits that C.S. Lewis is popular to evangelicals today because, like them, he despised biblical separation.
    Another unscriptural heretic who is popular with evangelicals is BRUCE METZGER. The February 8, 1999, issue of Christianity Today contains an editorial by Michael Maudlin, Managing Editor, entitled "Inside CT." Maudlin's editorial boasts that "never before in the twentieth century has the church amassed so many highly skilled, believing scholars to illumine our Scriptures, our theology, our traditions, our church work." Who are these "believing scholars"? He mentions five of them: Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and D.A. Carson.

    Maudlin's definition of "believing" is strange. Take Metzger, for example. He is a Princeton Theological Seminary professor, an editor of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, and the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The Revised Standard Version was soundly condemned for its modernism when it first appeared in 1952. Today its chief editor sometimes is invited to speak at evangelical forums. The RSV hasn't changed, but evangelicalism certainly has! Metzger was the chairman for the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible and wrote the introductions to each book in this butchered version of the Scriptures. In these, Metzger questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter, and in many other ways reveals his liberal, unbelieving heart. Consider three examples:
    Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses." (Metzger's introduction to Exodus).

    Exodus: "As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books" (Metzger's introduction to Exodus).

    Deuteronomy: "It's compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses' time" (Metzger's introduction to Deuteronomy).
    These statements are not "believing" statements. They are outright lies and heresy. Bruce Metzger is an unbelieving heretic. The Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles told us that the Pentateuch was written by the historical Moses (who is mentioned 843 times in the Bible). It is not a compilation that gradually took shape over many centuries.

    We know that Moses wrote the Pentateuch for the following simple reasons:

    1. The books themselves claim to have been written by Moses (Ex. 24:4,7; 34:27-28; Nu. 33:2; De. 1:1-5; 4:4-5; 31:9-12,24-26). If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the Bible is an absolute lie from its beginning.

    2. Other O.T. books claim Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Jos. 1:7; 8:30-35; Ju. 3:4; 1 Ki. 2:3; 2 Ki. 14:6; 22:8-11; 23:21-25; Ezr. 3:2; Ne. 8:1; 9:14; Da. 9:11; Mal. 4:4). If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, all of these writers were either deluded or were lying. Either way, we are left with a hopelessly undependable book which is not the blessed Word of God.

    3. The New Testament claims Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Moses is mentioned 80 times in the New Testament (Mk. 12:26; Lk. 16:29-31; 24:27 [Moses' writings are called Scripture]; 24:44; Jn. 1:17; 5:45-47; 8:5; Ac. 15:21; 2 Co. 3:15).

    The Lord Jesus Christ quoted from every part of the Pentateuch: Genesis (Mt. 19:4-6; 24:37-39); Exodus (Mk. 12:26 citing Ex. 3:6); Leviticus (Mt. 8:4 citing Lev. 14:1-32); Numbers (Jn. 3:14-15 citing Num. 21:8,9 and Jn. 6:31-32 citing Num. 11:6-9); Deuteronomy (Mk. 10:4-5 citing Deut. 24:1).

    Metzger's heresy is further evident in the notes to the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973). Metzger co-edited this volume with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman Catholic authority. It was given an imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts. Metzger wrote many of the rationalistic notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. The notes claim that the Pentateuch is "a matrix of myth, legend, and history" that "took shape over a long period of time" and is "not to be read as history." The worldwide flood of Noah's day is said to be a mere "tradition" based on "heightened versions of local inundations." The book of Job is called an "ancient folktale." The book of Isaiah is said to have been written by at least three men. The stories of Elijah and Elisha contain "legendary elements." Jonah is called a "popular legend." The Gospels gradually took shape after the deaths of the Apostles. Peter probably did not write the book of 2 Peter.

    These statements are unbelieving lies. The Pentateuch was written by the hand of God and Moses and completed during the 40 years of wilderness wandering hundreds of years before Samuel and the kings. The Old Testament did not arise gradually from a matrix of myth and history, but is inspired revelation delivered to holy men of old by Almighty God. The Jews were a "people of the book" from the beginning. The Jewish nation did not form the Bible; the Bible formed the Jewish nation! Jesus Christ affirmed the historicity of Jonah. The historicity of Job is affirmed by Ezekiel (14:14, 20) and James (5:11).

    In his "Introduction to the New Testament" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, Metzger completely ignores the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and claims that the Gospels are composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The Bible says nothing about this, but Jesus Christ plainly tells us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:7-15). The Gospels are divine revelation, not some happenstance editing of oral tradition.

    Christianity Today calls Bruce Metzger a "believing scholar." In reality, he is an unbelieving heretic, and the fact that so many evangelical leaders recommend his writings is a testimony to the apostasy of evangelicalism today.
    The relationship of evangelical leaders with false teacher ROBERT SCHULLER is another example of how evangelicalism today accepts heretics. Schuller reinterprets the doctrines of the Word of God to conform to his self-esteem philosophy. His Christ is a Jesus who provides men with self-esteem. His gospel is the replacement of negative self-concepts with positive ones. To Schuller, sin is merely the lack of self-esteem. To Schuller, the greatest evil is to call men sinners in a biblical fashion and thereby injure their self-esteem. Schuller is a universalist who believes that all people are the children of God. His goal is to help each person understand and enjoy this "fact."

    Schuller's false teaching is an extremely serious matter in light of his wide influence. His was the most popular religion television broadcast in America for many years. His books sell by the millions. He appears with presidents. His self-esteem Christianity has been adopted by multitudes. His followers believe they are Christians; they attend churches; but in reality they worship a false christ and follow a false gospel. Robert Schuller and his mentor, the late Norman Vincent Peale, are two of the chief culprits in promoting the self esteem heresy.

    In spite of Schuller's rejection of the Word of God and his vast unscriptural influence in our society, large numbers of evangelical leaders promote him and work hand-in-hand with him.

    Some will query, "Is Schuller really a Modernist or a heretic?" Consider some excerpts from Schuller's book Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, published by Word Books in 1982:
    "THE CORE OF ORIGINAL SIN, THEN IS LOT--LACK OF TRUST. OR, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AN INNATE INABILITY TO ADEQUATELY VALUE OURSELVES. LABEL IT A 'NEGATIVE SELF-IMAGE,' BUT DO NOT SAY THAT THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE HUMAN SOUL IS WICKEDNESS. ... POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HOLD TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY, BUT TO HUMAN INABILITY. I am humanly unable to correct my negative self-image until I encounter a life-changing experience with non-judgmental love bestowed upon me by a Person whom I admire so much that to be unconditionally accepted by him is to be born again" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 67).
    ______________________

    "Classical theology defines sin as 'rebellion against God.' The answer is not incorrect as much as it is shallow and insulting to the human being. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity even if he or she is a 'rebellious sinner'" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 65).
    ______________________

    "Any analysis of 'sin' or 'evil' or 'demonic influence' or 'negative thinking' or 'systemic evil' or 'antisocial behavior' that fails to see the lack of self-dignity as the core of the problem will prove to be too shallow. ... TO BE BORN AGAIN MEANS THAT WE MUST BE CHANGED FROM A NEGATIVE TO A POSITIVE SELF-IMAGE--from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 68).
    ______________________

    "The classical error of historical Christianity is that we have never started with the value of the person. Rather, we have started from the 'unworthiness of the sinner,' and that starting point has set the stage for the glorification of human shame in Christian theology" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 162).
    ______________________

    "Many sincere students within the larger body of believers are turned off by a theology that offers nothing more than a classical heaven and hell proposition. The alternative theology of mission focuses on peace, brotherhood, and economic equality. And the tension between these two theologies of mission is strong in the church today. Somehow a strong fresh theology of mission must be articulated that will allow sincere followers of both points of view to merge mind, motive, method, and message. ... We are born to soar. We are children of God. ... THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD OFFERS A DEEP SPIRITUAL CURE FOR THE INFERIORITY COMPLEX AND LAYS THE FIRM FOUNDATION FOR A SOLID SPIRITUAL SELF-ESTEEM" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 60).
    ______________________

    "Essentially, if Christianity is to succeed in the next millennium, it must cease to be a negative religion and must become positive" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 104).
    ______________________

    "What do I mean by sin? Answer: Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of his children of their right to divine dignity. ... I can offer still another answer: 'SIN IS ANY ACT OR THOUGHT THAT ROBS MYSELF OR ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OF HIS OR HER SELF-ESTEEM'" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 14).
    ______________________

    "And what is 'hell'? It is the loss of pride that naturally follows separation from God--the ultimate and unfailing source of our soul's sense of self-respect. 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' was Christ's encounter with hell. In that 'hellish' death our Lord experienced the ultimate horror--humiliation, shame, and loss of pride as a human being. A person is in hell when he has lost his self-esteem. Can you imagine any condition more tragic than to live life and eternity in shame?" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 14-15,93).
    ______________________

    "The Cross sanctifies the ego trip. For the Cross protected our Lord's perfect self-esteem from turning into sinful pride" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 75).
    ______________________

    "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 those who used their religious authority to generate guilt and caused people to lose their ability to taste and enjoy their right to dignity..." (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 100,126).
    ______________________

    "Labels such as, 'evangelical,' 'fundamental,' 'charismatic,' 'liberal' contribute to polarization and produce a climate of implied or outspoken distrust. Respectful dialogue becomes virtually impossible. What we desperately need to offset this disunity and distrust is a new and cleansing theology of communication" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 27).
    ______________________

    "I FOUND MYSELF IMMEDIATELY ATTRACTED TO POPE JOHN PAUL II when, upon his election to the Papacy, his published speeches invariably called attention to the need for recognizing the dignity of the human being as a child of God" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 17).
    ______________________

    "Roman Catholics utter their Papal edicts, Protestants quote their Bible, Fundamentalists declare their orthodox theological dogmas, and we are all expected to renounce private reflection and peacefully acquiesce to these pronouncements. And THE RESULT IS THAT THE DIGNITY OF THE PERSON IS VIOLATED BY SUCH OPPRESSIVE, INTELLIGENCE-SMOTHERING FORMS OF COMMUNICATION.

    "One classical role of the pulpit in Protestantism has been to 'PREACH SERMONS' which imply indoctrination more than education. Within this form of communication, THERE IS AN INHERENT, INTRINSIC INCLINATION TO INTIMIDATE, MANIPULATE AND, HENCE, OFFEND THE PERSON'S MOST PRIZED QUALITY OF HUMANNESS--HIS DIGNITY.

    "In a theology that starts with an uncompromising respect for each person's pride and dignity, I HAVE NO RIGHT TO EVER PREACH A SERMON OR WRITE AN ARTICLE THAT WOULD OFFEND THE SELF-RESPECT AND VIOLATE THE SELF-DIGNITY OF A LISTENER OR READER. Any minister, religious leader, writer, or reporter who stoops to a style, a strategy, a substance, or a spirit that fails to show respect for his or her audience is committing an insulting sin. Every human being must be treated with respect; self-esteem is his sacred right.

    "The tragedy of Christendom today is the existence of entire congregations of church members who are dominated by emotionally deprived or emotionally under-developed persons. These congregations have been accurately labeled 'God's Frozen People.' ... And they do this by exercising narrow authoritarianism in doctrines and practices and by sowing seeds of suspicion and dissension in the religious community. ... By contrast, strong persons--self-assured personalities, whose egos find their nourishment in a self-esteem-generating personal relationship with Jesus Christ--dare to face contrary opinions, diverse interpretations, and deviations of theology without becoming disrespectful, judgmental, or accusatory" (Schuller, Self Esteem, pp. 153-154).
    Schuller contends that the most destructive thing that can be done to a person is to call him a sinner. In an article in Christianity Today, October 5, 1984, Schuller said, "I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition."

    In light of Schuller's blatant denial of the Word of God, his false gospel, and his radical ecumenism, it is amazing to see evangelical leaders fellowshipping with him, but the record is clear. Schuller's book Self-Esteem was endorsed by men such as Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College, David Hubbard, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and Kenneth Chafin of the Southern Baptist Convention.
    Two years after Schuller published Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, the editors of Christianity Today examined his theology and, amazingly, concluded that he is not a heretic. Consider an excerpt from an August 10, 1984, Christianity Today article by Kenneth Kantzer and Paul Fromer:
    "He believes all the 'fundamental' doctrines of traditional fundamentalism. He adheres to every line of the Apostles' Creed with a tenacity born of deep conviction. ... he avowed belief in a literal hell. He was not sure about its location, and the fire is to be understood figuratively..."
    This is remarkable. It is no surprise that when Robert Schuller is questioned about his theology, he says he believes the fundamental doctrines of the Faith. Most heretics do. What Schuller will not admit is that he redefines the terminology of the Faith to produce an entirely different, and false, theology. We do not need a personal interview to clarify the man's blatant apostasy! He has plainly stated it in his books.

    Schuller says he believes in salvation by grace, but what he actually believes is that salvation means being rescued from poor self-esteem. He says he believes in Hell; but his hell is the loss of self-esteem, not a place of fiery eternal torment. He says he believes in sin; but he defines sin not as willful rebellion against God and His law, but the loss of self-esteem. He says he believes in Jesus Christ; but his positive-only, "Self-Esteem Incarnate" Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. He says he believes in the cross of Christ, but he believes the cross merely "sanctified the ego trip" rather than provided blood atonement for man's sin. Schuller says he believes everything in the Bible. That is not true. What he believes about the Bible is actually a redefined, twisted view of it. His repentance is not Bible repentance; his new birth is not Bible regeneration; his Hell, his Heaven, his Jesus, his cross, his salvation is not that of the Bible. The man is an arch-heretic, a blasphemer. He has never retracted or repented of the views promoted in his book Self-Esteem.

    The watchdogs at Christianity Today are blind and dumb, and this exemplifies the condition of Evangelical theologians in general. Consider a brief survey of other evangelical leaders who accept Schuller as a genuine brother in Christ:

    Billy Graham has frequently appeared with and praised Schuller. In 1983, Schuller sat in the front row of distinguished guests invited to honor Graham's 65th birthday. In 1986, Schuller was invited by Graham to speak at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam. Other featured speakers included many of today's most prominent evangelical leaders, including Bill Bright, Leighton Ford, and Luis Palau. Schuller was featured on the platform of Graham's Atlanta Crusade in 1994.

    Southern Baptist leader W.A. Criswell endorsed Schuller's ministry in 1981 in an ad in Christianity Today's Leadership magazine. He said, "I know Dr. Schuller personally. He's my good friend. I've spoken on his platform. I'm well acquainted with his ministry. If you want to develop fruitful evangelism in your church; if you want your laity to experience positive motivation and ministry fulfilling training, then I know, without a doubt, that you will greatly benefit from the Robert Schuller Film Workshop." A year before that, Criswell also endorsed a book by Schuller's mentor, self-esteem theologian Norman Vincent Peale.

    On April 29, 1980, Robert Schuller appeared with popular evangelical and charismatic leaders Bill Bright, D. James Kennedy, James Robison, Jim Bakker, Rex Humbard, Pat Robertson, Pat Boone, Nicky Cruz, David du Plessis, Demos Shakarian, and Thomas Zimmerman (Assemblies of God) at the Washington for Jesus Rally. Joining them was independent Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell.
    Popular author and teacher R.C. Sproul, president of Ligonier Ministries, has spoken at Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral on numerous occasions. He spoke at Schuller's church in September 21, 1984, then at John MacArthur's church three days later. Again, Sproul spoke at Schuller's church in October 26, 1986, and then at MacArthur's church on October 29. This reveals the importance of practicing biblical separation. To our knowledge, John MacArthur has not personally promoted Schuller, but he has men in to speak at his church who are so spiritually blind that they work hand-in-hand with a heretic like Robert Schuller. This is a great confusion. Some would label this "second degree separation," but that is nonsense. To separate from a man such as Sproul who is disobeying the clear commands of the Word of God to mark and avoid false teaching is not some secondary separation. It is wisdom and it is obedience. At the end of Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians he warns: "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14). The immediate context deals with those who refuse to work, but the general application is to everything that was taught in the epistle and in other epistles as well. If we are to separate ourselves from a Christian brother who refuses to work, how much more must we separate from one who muddies the Gospel by fellowshipping with modernistic heretics and Romanists, etc.?

    In October 1986, Schuller was on the council to host the Fourth Triennial Convention of the Asia Missions Association. Other men involved in this were evangelical leaders Donald McGavran, Ralph Winter, David Howard, Dale Kietzman of the World Literature Crusade, Edward Dayton of World Vision, Peter Deyneka of the Slavic Gospel Mission, Jack Frizen of the IFMA, and Wade Coggins of the EFMA.

    In 1987 a survey was conducted by the National Association of Christian Psychotherapists and Counselors as to which television ministry is "the most effective in applying biblical principles to people's problems." Robert Schuller's Hour of Power came out on top. James Dobson, president of the organization, commented: "He's not dogmatic. His message is clear and deals mainly with cognitive reconditioning. Yet, he uses the Bible as his source. He comes across more as a therapist then a minister, yet his message is still very Christian in nature." Dobson has used Schuller's endorsements in his ads (Calvary Contender, August 15, 1987).

    A wide range of evangelical leaders joined hands with Robert Schuller and other heretics at Congress '88, August 4-7, 1988, in Chicago. Allegedly a congress on evangelism, it was actually a congress on ecumenical compromise and end-times apostasy. Catholic priest Alvin Illig was one of the leaders, and the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Bernardin, brought the opening address. At the piano for the opening night services was Larry Shakley, minister of music at Willow Creek Community Church and band director for Moody Bible Institute's Friday Night Sing. Speakers included Charles Colson, Bill Bright, Jack Wyrtzen, Jay Kessler, and Southern Baptist Robert Hamblin. Representatives from the Navigators, Jews for Jesus, Pioneer Clubs, Moody Monthly magazine, and General Baptists delivered workshops.

    In August 1991, World Vision co-sponsored an Interfaith Rally in St. Louis, Missouri, which was addressed by Robert Schuller.

    Tony Campolo has frequently recommended Robert Schuller and has spoken with him on various platforms. In his book Partly Right, Campolo said: "Schuller affirms our divinity, yet does not deny our humanity ... isn't that what the gospel is? Isn't God's message to sinful humanity that He sees in each of us a divine nature of such worth that He sacrificed His own Son."

    Christianity Today, which should be titled New Evangelicalism Today, has frequently carried advertisements promoting Robert Schuller. Each year CT publishes ads for Schuller's Institute for Successful Church Leadership. This is one more evidence that popular evangelicalism today is not concerned about the truth. Doctrine is merely a game with these men. They will debate doctrine, but they will not separate on the basis of doctrine and they will not mark the heretics who promote false doctrine.

    InterVarsity Christian Fellowship president Stephen Hayner joined Schuller in January 1994, to participate in the Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership.

    In December 1994, Schuller joined hands with a wide range of popular evangelical leaders at Bill Bright's (Campus Crusade for Christ) Fast for Revival conference. 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.

    In February 1996, Robert Schuller was featured at Jerusalem Celebration 2000. Joining him for this meeting was Paul Yonggi Cho, Jack Hayford, C. Peter Wagner, among others.

    Sun Myung Moon has relationships
    with many prominent evangelical
    leaders, even though he has declared
    himself the messiah who has
    succeeded where Jesus failed

    In September 1996, Beverly LaHaye and Ralph Reed joined Robert Schuller for a Christian Coalition conference in Washington D.C., sponsored by cult-leader "Rev." Sun Myung Moon.

    Many of the Promise Keepers speakers and leaders are connected with Schuller. For example, John Maxwell, Jack Hayford, and Randy Phillips were among the keynote speakers at the Men's Conference '95 (March 2-4, 1995) held at Schuller's Crystal Cathedral. Schuller also spoke at the conference.

    Bill Hybels of the Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago credits Schuller as an inspiration for his work, has promoted Schuller in various ads in Christianity Today, and is a frequent speaker at meetings organized by Schuller. For example, in 1996 Hybels was on the staff of Schuller's annual Institute for Successful Church Leadership. Hybels is one of the chief promoters of churches that cater to the desires of the people. He started his church by taking a survey of the community and building a "church" which would satisfy what the people wanted. A Chicago sociologist said Hybels preaches a very upbeat message--"salvationist message, but the idea is not so much being saved from the fires of hell. Rather, it's being saved from meaninglessness and aimlessness in this life. It's more of a soft-sell." Hybels' church does not have conventional worship. It has no altar, no choir, organ, hymnals, or songbooks. Its music ranges from rock to jazz to country to classical. It is no wonder that Hybels would love Robert Schuller and his self-esteem message. The stranger fact is that Hybels is frequently recommended by and speaks with those who claim to be Bible based. He spoke at Dallas Seminary's 1989 Pastors Conference, for example. Hybels has also spoken at Moody Bible Institute's Founder's Week and has taught his philosophy of church growth as a faculty member of MBI's graduate school.

    Schuller's 1996 autobiography, My Soul's Adventure with God, was endorsed by Paul Crouch, Jack Hayford, John Wimber, and popular Southern Baptist leader W.A. Criswell.

    The fact that so many "evangelical" leaders treat Schuller as a brother in Christ is evidence of the spiritual blindness and apostasy of evangelicalism today. Christ warns us not to follow blind leaders. "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (Matthew 15:14).

    THE LAST DAYS CHARACTERIZED BY APOSTASY

    The fact that the walls between truth and error are being torn down in one generation, though grievous, should not surprise us. Did the Apostles not foretell of apostasy, compromise, spiritual decline, doctrinal confusion, and religious duplicity? Note passages such as Matthew 7:15-23; 24:3-5,11,24; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, 11-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-6; 2 Timothy 3-4; 2 Peter 2-3; 1 John 2:18-24; 4:1-3; Jude; and Revelation 13 and 17. According to these prophecies the course of the church age is characterized by deepening religious apostasy and a false unity which will grow throughout the age and will come into full blossom just prior to Christ's return in power and glory.

    This is exactly what has happened during the past 1900 years of church history, yet this present generation has witnessed a tremendous increase in the pace of the apostasy. Not only are the Protestant denominations moving back toward the Roman fold, but also those who had not before affiliated with Rome's deep error are being enticed by her ecumenical overtures.

    The Last Days apostasy is like a river flowing toward Rome. Those who do not resist the flow and paddle up stream will be swept away. Evidence of this is contained throughout this report.

    The apostasy is also like a strong wind. In the Northwest, where we lived for many years, powerful winds sweep in off the Pacific ocean during the winter season. We lived on an island and our house was located a mile from the west shore. We learned that unless you stake a newly planted tree, it will be bent by the winds and will remain bent and crooked. That is similar to what happens if a Christian does not actively resist and separate from the spirit of error.

    Behold Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, Jack Van Impe, James Robison, Pat Robertson, and a myriad of other so-called Evangelical leaders who have played footsie with Roman Catholicism through ecumenical activities and have become sympathetic with Rome and blinded to the horror of its blasphemous errors. They admit that Roman Catholicism teaches error, but they do not have heartfelt convictions about the blasphemous character of those errors.
    "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Corinthians 15:33).
    Rome hasn't changed, but Evangelicalism certainly has.

    [The previous material is part three of a three-part article entitled "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New-Evangelicalism," by David W. Cloud, copyright 1995, 1999. It was first published in O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 1, 1995.]

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bromley, KY
    Posts
    248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Scott,

    The sad thing is that men like David Cloud may post his anti-evangelical banner but he would rather fly his KJV-only banner with his Arminian gospel. These guys stink worse than the liberals and other heretics they criticize. What makes them more dangerous is that they claim to be "bible believers" and "fundamentalists" while the whole time undercutting the precious Gospel with their free willism. Many of them are more concerned about the King James Version than they are about searching the Scriptures and learning the true God and of the truth of redemption in Christ.

    ~Anthony
    Anthony Lawson, sinner saved by imputed righteousness

  3. #3
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Oh...

    That's good to know!

    Who is David Cloud anyway?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    499
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobias Crisp
    Scott,

    The sad thing is that men like David Cloud may post his anti-evangelical banner but he would rather fly his KJV-only banner with his Arminian gospel. These guys stink worse than the liberals and other heretics they criticize. What makes them more dangerous is that they claim to be "bible believers" and "fundamentalists" while the whole time undercutting the precious Gospel with their free willism. Many of them are more concerned about the King James Version than they are about searching the Scriptures and learning the true God and of the truth of redemption in Christ.

    ~Anthony
    Hi Tony. Right on!!!
    I have led many away from the archaic and outdated inaccurate KJV and do you think that bible will ever be relegated to the "shelf" as a relic of the past instead of being read as Gospel truth. I did start a topic on this earlier [link at bottome] as I think it is really important when debating the doctrines of the Bible, to have as accurate rendering of passages as is possible. I prefer to read greek/hebrew english interlinears sometimes and to tell the truth, it is not much more difficult to read than many simpler word for word or paraphrased Bible.

    Here is one such site I use a lot and I was wondering if someone here knew how to copy and paste from a PDF document to a Word document as I have to print this out, then type it out to Wordpad in order to work on it using lexions/concordances to render it into to regular paragraphs? [I am using this for a lot of the OT also]

    http://www.scripture4all.org/index.htm
    What say ye?
    Steve

    http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=2897

    Colossians chapter 2 (TEV)
    8 See to it, then, that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by human beings and from the ruling spirits of the universe, and not from Christ. 9 For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity, 10 and you have been given full life in union with him. He is supreme over every spiritual ruler and authority.


    Here we have another paraphrase perversion of yours, Today's English Version. It does not say "ruling spirits of the universe", rather "in accordance with the elementary principles of the world". These elementary principles of the world being men's innate conditionalistic notions.
    "full content of divine nature lives in Christ" is literally "in him is permanently dwelling all the fullness of the Godhead bodily".
    "There are Signs of a new upsurge of interest in the Study of Scriptures: a New Readiness to Test Traditions, Search the Scriptures and Rightly Divide the Word "I am the WAY the TRUTH the LIFE and the RESURRECTION and no man can come to the FATHER but by ME"

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bromley, KY
    Posts
    248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugly_Gaunt_Cow
    Who is David Cloud anyway?
    He is a dispensational, KJV-only, eternal security arminian, landmark baptist. How's that for a mouth full.
    Anthony Lawson, sinner saved by imputed righteousness

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bromley, KY
    Posts
    248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Steve,

    I used to be one of those types that got bent out of shape if you used anythng but a KJV. If anything I would more lean in the direction of a "traditional" text form position over a KJV or even a strict "majority" text view. I have yet to be convinced of the modern eclectic views of textual criticism. Bottom line is that these issues are a distraction to the weighter matters of the Gospel.

    ~Anthony
    Anthony Lawson, sinner saved by imputed righteousness

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    499
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobias Crisp
    Steve,

    I used to be one of those types that got bent out of shape if you used anythng but a KJV. If anything I would more lean in the direction of a "traditional" text form position over a KJV or even a strict "majority" text view. I have yet to be convinced of the modern eclectic views of textual criticism. Bottom line is that these issues are a distraction to the weighter matters of the Gospel.

    ~Anthony
    I Agree.
    Not to get off topic here, but I was hoping you or others could answer the other question I put up concerning PDF to Wordpad copy and paste.
    Perhpaps there is a way to show it as HTML?

    Here is one such site I use a lot and I was wondering if someone here knew how to copy and paste from a PDF document to a Word document as I have to print this out, then type it out to Wordpad in order to render it into to regular paragraphs.[I am using this for a lot of the OT also]
    http://www.scripture4all.org/index.htm
    "There are Signs of a new upsurge of interest in the Study of Scriptures: a New Readiness to Test Traditions, Search the Scriptures and Rightly Divide the Word "I am the WAY the TRUTH the LIFE and the RESURRECTION and no man can come to the FATHER but by ME"

  8. #8
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobias Crisp
    He is a dispensational, KJV-only, eternal security arminian, landmark baptist. How's that for a mouth full.
    His article started popping up in my email one day. Hence this article.

    I guess I should be more discriminating.

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    A few months ago, I attended my first "theatre" presentation at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA. It was an exposition of the 'Creation' teaching of the scriptures. I did it because I wanted to witness first hand what typically went on there. It was one of the most heretical presentations I have ever witnessed, though 'critics' would no doubt rate it as the ultimate in theater. The Cathedral is a bastion of false doctrine. The presentation of Jesus in all of their icons outdoors is blasphemy at the least.

    Why do we tolerate ANY idol worship of the doctrines of Arminians? I can't understand this. Those who profess 'Calvinism' rush into an ecumenism that cannot wait to embrace free-willism as 'within orthodoxy'. When are those who love Jesus and the Christian faith going to stand up to this compromise of the gospel?
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  10. #10
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    What's the Crystal Cathedral?

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    The Crystal Cathedral is the massive building in which the apostate Robert Schuller, the ultimate 'christianese' humanist, teaches.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby
    The Crystal Cathedral is the massive building in which the apostate Robert Schuller, the ultimate 'christianese' humanist, teaches.

    WHo cleans the windows there Bob? One could make a fortune!!!!! It is sad the RS is part of the denomination I belong to. I have argued for his dismissal, but to no avail.
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

    I'm glad that I don't clean the glass panels as that would be an accident waiting to happen!

    Well, the RCA must consider Process Theism and Encounter Theology as acceptable alternatives 'within orthodoxy'. I never saw or heard anything that more clearly and unashamedly taught both.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

Similar Threads

  1. Church Sign
    By CarolK in forum Churchianity Archive
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-30-06, 02:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •