Introduction

You don’t hear many sermons about HELL any more. However in this nation’s history a “Hell, Fire & Brimstone” played a key role in The Great Awakening. The sermon I am referring to is Jonathan Edwards Sinners In The Hand of An Angry God. The message was preached in Enfield, Connecticut July 8, 1741. This powerful message can be read at ..\GreatSermons\angry.htm.

For the most part “Hell, Fire & Brimstone” preaching so called, is a thing of the past, even within fundamental circles. The politically correct messages of this era steer around anything controversial. The do not address the issues of sin or God’s judgment on sin, but rather focus on love, unity, and grace. While these are perfectly good topics to preach on, if they are framed biblically, preachers need to follow the pattern of the Apostle Paul who wrote… “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts 20:27

With that in mind, I have decided it is time to preach to you on HELL. Hell is a very real place. And while it was not initially created by God for people but the sinning angels, it will be the abode of all nonbelievers for all of eternity.

Turn with me to Matthew 25:41 “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”

2 Peter 2:4-9 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:”

Psalms 9:17 makes it very clear that, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations (ywg gowy go’-ee = people) that forget God.”

Friends, you dare not ignore HELL!

Hell In the Old Testament

The word hell occurs thirty one times in the Old Testament. The first time the word hell is used in our King Jame Bible is Deuteronomy 32:22 “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.”

The Hebrew word commonly translated “hell” is sheol. In the Old Testmanet the word Hell (sheol) has two meanings. Sometimes it means the place where the bodies of the dead are laid (Psalm 6:5; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Isaiah 38:18,19). But it normally refers to the place where the soul and spirit went upon the death of a person. (Genesis 37:35; Psalm 9:17; 16:10; 30:3; 55:15; Proverbs 15:24; 23:14). The common Hebrew word for the grave is not sheol, but rbq qeber (keh’-ber). This word is used in such passages as Genesis 35:20; 50:5, etc.

Hell In the New Testament

The word HELL occurs twenty three times in the New Testament. The first time the word is used in the New Testament is in Matthew 5:22 “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

What Is Hell Like?

Hell is…

•  A place of punishment – Matthew 25:46 “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
   
• A place of banishment – 2 Thessalonians 1:9 “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”
   
• A place of fire & worms – Mark 9:42-48 “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
   
• A place darkness – Jude 1:13 “Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”
   
•  A place of torment – Revelation 20:10 “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
   
• A place of consciousness and feeling – Luke 16:23 “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”
   
• A place of thirst – Luke 16:24 “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”
   
• A place without hope of escape – Luke 16:26 “And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”
   
• A place of unfulfilled desires and unanswered prayers – Luke 16:27-31 “Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
   
• A place of weeping and gnashing of teeth – Matthew 25:30 “And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Hell’s no joke! Hell is a very real, and very horrible place! If you have not believed the Gospel and received Christ as your Savior, it will be your abode for all of eternity. Paul wrote that Christ is coming “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

Repent of your sins and call upon Christ to save you right now.

E-mail: FirstBaptistChurchOC@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION

We are going to address some of the highlights of evangelicalism. This topic is worthy of an entire college or seminary year, if not a major for a degree! It is crucial to stay on top of the issues involved, as the philosophy has taken American Christianity by storm. It has provided the basis for so many contemporary philosophies; the mega-church movement, church marketing movement, the replacement of doctrinal centered theology with feeling oriented psychology, from the singing of contemplative hymns to celebrative contemporary choruses. And it has impacted fundamentalism! We are going to start with a very brief history of the evangelical purpose; then move into the purposes of the church and see how the evangelical philosophies have impacted the church. You also need to understand that the conclusions I have reached have been the result of research AND observation! Some of this information I have documented, some I have obtained through conversations and observation.

I. CHANGE: A MINISTRY FOR ALL

• Change in Direction: Evangelical is a reaction against fundamentalism! You need to understand that basic foundation. This is not a group that was established from nothing, but itcame from within!
  
• Change in Separation: The traditional fundamentalist view was to separate from liberalism. However, the evangelical became very optimistic about reaching the liberal. Toleration and acceptance became the keys to fellowship. (Are we to separate from those who knowingly and willingly deny truth? Rom. 16:17; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Thes. 3:6)
  
• Change in Foundation: Evangelical holds a softer and less precise view of Bible doctrine, stressing the importance of love over truth. In short, one can love everybody without the common ground of Scripture; what is most important is to love one another. (We are to love one another; but what is true love? Phil. 1:9. Love is activated by knowledge and discernment – truth!)
  
• Change in Methodology: Evangelicalism utilizes the world’s means to attract the saved and unsaved alike. This consists, among other things, of music, plays, pep-talks, festivals, … instead of prayer, dependence on the Holy Spirit and dedication to the Christian life. They would also stress the need to work with non-evangelical in evangelistic efforts and social endeavors.
  
• Change of Standards: The Christian life is no longer emphasized by standards of holiness based on the absolutes of Scripture, but centers more on experiencing God,” similar to the early church mystics and, in reality, the Pentecostal Movement. This consummates in relativism, which is why many churches are changing traditional, accepted standards, e.g. removing any restriction for drinking alcohol, allowing worldly music, no dress standards, carnal types of entertainment, … “It may be sin to you, but it isn’t to me.”
• Change of Authority: Evangelical has embraced many of the views of the secular science community. Theistic evolution is now the accepted norm in many colleges and seminaries. A major shift that has been seen in churches is the use of psychology, utilized as a so-called science (which it is not!) In reality, when man’s discoveries have taken precedence over Scripture, man has become the measure, which is the true root of humanism, which is anthropocentric.
  
• Change in Reputation: Whereas the fundamentalist is seen as old-fashioned and anti-intellectual, the evangelical is enchanted with scholarship and intellectual respectability. For example, they feel as if they, through their rational approach to apologetics, can bring others – even educated liberals and atheists – to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through their understanding of the world, cults, evidences for the faith, … Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:17-31; Col. 2:8.
  
• Change in Emphasis: Social endeavors have an equal status with evangelism, if not greater. The necessity of meeting man’s physical, material and emotional needs have superseded the spiritual need. The fundamental emphasis for social work centers on the gospel and building the church; the social is merely coincidental, the spiritual is primary.

Summary

This gives you a brief background of the changes evangelicalism has brought. We are going to change direction now and move on to the ministry of the local church, and see how these factors impact ministry. Biblically, the church has three main responsibilities – worship, discipleship and evangelism. Of course, these have many sub-points which can be developed much further.

II. WORSHIP: A MINISTRY TO GOD

Explanation: We will address worship in the context of the local church service, and narrow it to a specific activity. When we speak of a “Worship Service,” we need to reflect on what worship includes. Surely praying, reading the Scriptures, preaching and teaching of Scripture and the offering are all acts of worship. However, few activities render themselves as naturally to worship as music does.

True Worship in Music

The word, proskuneo, means to kneel before One in reverence. It shows how the worshipper esteems and values the One worshipped, illus in Rev. 4:8-11.

John 4:21-24 shows that worship is based from the spirit within and in truth! There may well be an emotional element in our singing (based on “spirit” that is within us which relates to God. Our singing should be joyful and out of adoration, which are emotional responses to God’s greatness. We are not advocating a lifeless, droning monotone as worship, Psalm 95:1-3). However, we must base worship on truth, which must be the foundational to our feelings. The two are comrades; what we know about God should create an attitude of worship within us. Through worship, we correspond with the spiritual aspect of our being with truth!

There are New Testament Principles for Music

• It glorifies God but minimizes man, 1 Cor. 10:31, John 3:30.
• It is instructional, not merely emotional, Eph. 5:18-20, Col. 3:16, 1 Tim. 3:16.
• It conforms to righteousness, not carnality, Rom. 12:2, Col. 2:8.

Trendy Worship in Music

Contemplation (traditional, doctrine hymns) has been replaced by celebration (feeling centered choruses).

The focus is no longer on the Lord and doctrinal truth, but upon man and his feelings.

The accepted, traditional music which uplifted the spirit and mind towards God has been replaced by rock, country and rap beats which feed the flesh.

Pianos and organs have been replaced by electric guitars, bass guitars, drums and synthesizers.

In short, worship has become entertainment.

Summary

(Quote from The Young Evangelicals, p. 132.) At this early date, with this goal, we see some roots of the evangelical philosophy of music. Does it seem to hold true through the last 23 years?! In some churches, you cannot tell if the music is from Christians or the Rolling Stones! Yet this is how the evangelicals say they “worship God” – with music that is feeling centered, doctrinally empty, rock & roll driven, performance oriented noise, often accompanied by “worship leaders” – sounds like entertainment, not worship! Incidentally, this “feeling oriented” mentality fits in very well with the current evangelical trend of Christian psychology and self-esteem. Feelings are the most important area of our lives – right?

III. DISCIPLESHIP: A MINISTRY TO BELIEVERS

Explanation: Within the realm of ministry, the local church has varied responsibilities to each believer, involving a process we’ll call discipleship. The church, through discipleship, has a ministry for believers, and is often defined in a statement of purpose. For example, the purposes of a church may include a group of believers gathered together for worship, fellowship, evangelism, instruction, ministry, discipline, organization and observing the ordinances. These responsibilities are fulfilled in various ways and with various philosophies. In this point, I want to address one particular area that effects the underlying foundation of all church ministry; the ministry of instruction. Instruction in Bible doctrine is the foundation of everything the church does and in everything it teaches. In the evangelical trend, doctrine is under a vicious attack.

The Status of Theology in Evangelicalism

Explanation: I will be quoting several sources in this section to give an accurate picture of what conservative Evangelical are saying! Some evangelical have a credible view of Theology. For example, Carl F. H. Henry and Kenneth Kantzer produced three “marks” of evangelical authenticity: “1) belief in the gospel as set forth in Scripture. 2) commitment to the basic doctrines of the Bible as set forth in the Apostle’s Creed and other historic confessions, and 3) an acknowledgment of the Bible as the authoritative and final source of all doctrines.” However, there are requests to abandon the terms throughout evangelicalism. Theologically, this has resulted in:

• A change in God’s Justice: “Gone are substitutionary atonement and forensic (judicial) understandings of justification. God’s wrath, newly defined, ‘never means sending people to an eternal hell.’ The church is not the assembly of the redeemed but a fellowship poised to declare all sins forgiven.” Explanation: Evangelicalism stresses a gospel, but what kind of gospel? If hell is not an eternal place of torment, what are you saving the lost from, and to what? What grants them permission to say that the words of Mt. 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43-50; Rev. 20:11-15 are figurative, and not literal? Some now argue that hell will consummate either in annihilationism for the unsaved, or that ultimately all will be saved, after a type of Protestant purgatory. Of course, the fact of universalism is clear; are we here to declare that everybody’s sins are forgiven? Where is that in Scripture?
  
• A Change in God’s Person: God has been redefined by a “creative love Theism.” It “would include a new understanding of God as open and relational, and an affirmation of ‘a wideness of God’s mercy,’ which denies the Reformed doctrine of election, and a reconceptualization of God as ‘a mutual and interrelating Trinity, not as an all-determining and manipulative transcendent ego” (Spirit). CEC p. 34. In short, God is some type of loving, warm-fuzzy nice guy who understands you, who is not sovereign and governing all that is in the world. In my opinion God has become a supra-cosmic Santa Claus with this kind of Theology!
  
• A Change in God’s Redemptive plan: If God is only a loving God, and freely forgives all men automatically, and if there is no eternal condemnation for the sinner, there is no need of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Cross, the Resurrection, … thus there is no need for redemption, justification, propitiation, sanctification, or any other aspects that are essential to saving faith.
  
• A Change in Biblical Thought: The evangelical is engulfed in what is called the “hermeneutics of suspicion.” “The reader decides what is and is not true and authoritative in the biblical text by judging whether a text corresponds with what is taken to be the central thrust of the entire biblical narrative.” (CEC, p. 38). This has similarities of the old Neo-Orthodoxy view of Karl Barth, which stated that the Scriptures “became the Word of God” when they spoke to you personally. This is called existentialism, and it basically describes an encounter between God and man. Thus, man stands in the judgment of God’s Word to determine whether or not the Bible is the Word of God based upon your subjective experience. Thus, evangelical is changing the meaning of inspiration, inerrancy, authority, based upon what you believe the text is teaching.

Explanation: Traditionally, the true church held to a view known as sola Scriptura, meaning that Scripture alone was the Word of God that was inerrant, infallible, inspired and authoritative. If God said it, it was believed, trusted, preached and defended – the way that fundamental Baptists must strive to accomplish today! But attacks often come from within, which the Bible warns about e.g. 2 Peter 2. Martin Luther believed that the devil always attacked externally through unbelievers and scoffers and internally through false teachers! These false teachers “tear (the Bible) to pieces, scourge and crucify it, and subject it to all manner of torture until they stretch it sufficiently to apply to their heresy, meaning and whim.” Another side to this needs to be mentioned. In saying this, please don’t misunderstand what I mean. The knowledge of Biblical languages is very important, and we need to be developing our grasp of Greek and Hebrew. However, some have done this to such a degree that they have lost the meaning of the text due to their (over) exegesis! They talk smart and credible, but often miss the point of the passage, e.g. 1 Tim. 2:9f. A relative view of the Bible and thus Theology has replaced the absolute authority and objectivity of it. The results of this have been very devastating to the church!

The Shift of Ideology in Evangelicalism

• Experiential relationship with God. As we’ll see, a greater emphasis on “feelings” and very little on doctrinal truth. Scripture does not determine truth, but feelings can. It becomes a form of “evangelical mysticism.” Many current works in Christian bookstores stress this and teach you how to make it “work.”
• Feelings are preeminent to thought. It is more important to feel good than think well. This is clearly evident by the multitude of self-help and self-esteem books seen in Christian bookstores. Of course, this is where the therapeutic psychology supersedes biblical preaching in pulpits. Challenge: I would challenge you to go and visit a Christian bookstore (not on a Bible college campus!) and see how many self-help and self-esteem books you can find. Then, go and see the number of theological works you can find. Finally, go and count how many books you can find by earlier Christian leaders (Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, …) What do you think will be in 1st place? 2nd? 3rd? As fundamental, Bible believing Christians, we need to govern our feelings by our thoughts, not our thoughts by our feelings! We must return to the discipline of developing the mind through Scripture, Ps. 119.
• Relativism in conduct. There is a demarcation from biblical separation. The question is no longer “Is this right, and can I do this based upon Scripture?” but is instead “Is it right for me to do this?” I have heard evangelical say “Nothing is sin in and of itself.” Think about that statement! With it, anything can be justified! Which is why churches have become entertainment centers; instead of using prayer, preaching and dependence on the Lord to build a godly church, secular entertainment methods are being used to build worldly churches. How can this be? Nothing is wrong! You can tolerate about everything, anyone, …
• Change of ethical belief. Many in evangelical have changed their views on cultural norms on such issues of abortion, homosexuality, feminism, euthanasia, …
• Theological illiteracy. Churches are full of people who know nothing of doctrinal truth, how to apply Scripture to life situations, and are carried about with every wind of doctrine. Church attendance is not for learning Scriptural truth, but to get their weekly emotional charge from the pastor. They are established for great spiritual defeat!

Summary

These are a few meager examples which have effected evangelical. One can determine, however, the consummation of evangelical thought. A pastor cannot preach the Word of God and take any doctrinal stand because, in a mixed congregation, he cannot offend anybody. So he preaches shallow messages on the Christian life, self-esteem and how to deal with your problems. Since that will not create hunger for people to attend, entertainment must be used to draw and keep the people in. Thus celebrative music replaces contemplative hymns, drama presentations and musicals replace biblical preaching, and the church is marketed – man’s way, not God’s way! However, through it, one builds a crowd, but not a church; one can collect much money, but not teach the importance of sacrificial giving as an act of worship; one can make a name for oneself, but not a Name for the Lord!

IV. EVANGELISM: A MINISTRY TO THE WORLD

Explanation: We know the importance of world evangelism, cf. Matt. 28:18ff; Acts 1:8. However, it is to be accomplished by prayer, truth, purity, and dependence on the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, this is not necessarily so! In summary, evangelical has misdefined what the Gospel is (not clear on it’s content), has misdirected the results of it (easy believism, after salvation, go back to false church…), has misguided the proclamation of it (ecumenicalism and compromise of Biblical truth) and has rendered it inoperative (by marketing techniques and psychological endeavors, not by the Lord and His Word!).

Conclusion: Fundamentalism has made mistakes, and may continue to do so; that does not mean the movement is wrong – if it is based on Scripture! We need to be careful not to allow our faith to be a mechanical, non-emotional relationship, but a vibrant, active and joyful faith – based on truth. For those who are trying to re-claim evangelicalism back to the truth, they have not yet realized they are fighting the same battle the fundamentalist did for years. They may even belong in the fundamentalist camp – even though they do not know it yet, and would likely not admit it!! History does repeat itself!

SOME SUGGESTED READING

Armstrong, John H., ed. The Coming Evangelical Crisis. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996

Written by conservative evangelicals describing the negative changes taking place within their own ranks. Contributing authors include R. Kent Hughes, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul

Pickering, Ernest. Biblical Separation. Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press, 1979

A classic, fundamentalist work about “The Struggle for a Pure Church.”

The Tragedy of Compromise. Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1994

A fundamentalist’s view of “The Origin and impact of New Evangelicalism.”

Quebedeaux, Richard. The Worldly Evangelicals. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978

The Young Evangelicals. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1974

Written by an evangelical defining and defending the evangelical goals and philosophy.

Wells, David. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993

Written by a conservative evangelical describing the discount of truth within evangelicalism

I. INTRODUCTION

It is my belief that the miraculous sign and revelatory gifts given to the New Testament church ceased to function and had no purpose once the New Testament was completed. Throughout the centuries however, there have been people who have constantly tried to revive them. Such people used to be known as Pentecostals but now have taken on a new dimension called Charismatics. The newest dimension has come under new phenomena that even the old line Pentecostals do not accept but they are being billed as “revivals”. Before we get into the modern charismatic revivals it might be helpful to take a look at some history that is not too far afield from this happening today.

II. HISTORY OF PENTECOSTALISM

In the 2nd century a man named Montanus, from Phrygia, believed he was a prophet sent by God to reform Christianity through asceticism. His followers spoke in tongues, accompanied by ecstasy and trances, as well as uttering revelation. This seems to be one of the first recorded incidences of such phenomenon.

In 1517 Martin Luther tacked his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany, thus marking the beginning of the reformation movement. The reformation brought about the Protestant movement, as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. This encouraged many free thinkers.

About 1600, a man named George Fox, in England, became fed up with the Church of England. He began to teach that man could not understand the Bible unless he had an “inner light.” When his followers would meet together and pray for “the inner light,” they would sometimes begin to tremble with emotion, thus the world named them “Quakers,” but they called themselves “Friends.” They had no trained pastors, no pulpit, no singing, no instruments, but would sit and wait for the Spirit to move someone. If the Spirit moved someone, man or woman, they would get up and deliver a message. We bring that in here because it is a form of the Pentecostal and Charismatic practice.

In the late 17th century, the French Protestant Camisards were also known to have spoken in tongues. Ann Lee got her teachings from this group. (“Seminar on Pentecostalism” – by Wilson Ewin – page 38) Ann Lee (1736-1781) formed her own group which became known as the “Shakers,” because they trembled, wept, swooned and passed out. (“Counterfeit Revival” – by Hank Hanegraff)

In the early 1700’s John and Charles Wesley came on the scene in England. While in Oxford they formed a club known as the “Holy Club” because most of the students were very worldly. The students in the club lived very regular and according to METHOD, thus the worldly students called them Methodists. However, it was not until 1738 that both John and Charles Wesley got saved. The Wesleys taught that there was a second work of grace beyond the initial salvation decision. Some called it SANCTIFICATION, BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, or PERFECTIONISM (holiness). It was noted in a meeting in Bristol, England, in 1740 when a epidemic of laughter broke out that John Wesley attributed it to Satan. John Wesley referred to this as “enthusiasms.” At first there were no speaking in tongues involved.

Speaking in tongues and other sign gifts “occurred in the 1830’s under the ministry of Presbyterian, Edward Irving in London, in the services of Mother Ann Lee’s Shaker movement and among Joseph Smith’s Mormon followers in New York, Missouri, and Utah. The Pentecostals, however were the first to give doctrinal primacy to the practice.” (“Seminar on Pentecostalism” by Wilson Ewin – page 18)

In 1895 a man by the name of Benjamin Hardin Irwin started the FIRE BAPTIZED HOLINESS CHURCH in the state of Iowa. He taught that there were three experiences: (1) Salvation, (2) Sanctification, and (3) Baptism of the Spirit (tongues) or Baptism of Fire. (a third blessing).

In 1901, Charles Fox Parham, a former Methodist preacher, opened a school in Topeka, Kansas where he taught these three experiences. He had been an observer of Irwin. “In the early morning hours of the first day of the twentieth century, Charles Parham laid his hands on a young woman named Agnes Ozman, and she began to speak Chinese. When she tried to write, only Chinese characters would emerge from her pen.” (“Counterfeit Revival” by Hank Hanegraff – page 15)

Parham and others claimed to have preached in different languages, some even in foreign countries. Many went abroad intending to preach the gospel in other languages without learning them. “These Pentecostal claims were well known at the time. S.C. Todd of the Bible Missionary Society investigated eighteen Pentecostals who went to Japan, China and India, expecting to preach to the natives in those countries in their own tongue, and found that by their own admission in no single instance have they been able to do so.” (“Seminar on Pentecostalism” by Calvin Ewin – page 40)

It is my contention that if speaking in tongues was real today, missionaries would not have to learn a language to preach the gospel in a foreign land. If anyone had the gift of healing they would raise people from the dead. Neither is being done nor can be done because these gifts have ceased.

From 1904 to 1914 those who followed these men, debated the three points of salvation, sanctification and Holy Spirit Baptism. Some thought they could speak in tongues (Baptism of the Holy Spirit) without being sanctified. In other words you didn’t have to speak in tongues to prove you were saved. Out of this controversy came the Assembly of God which took the more mild approach. Others like the Apostolic Church believe you are not saved if you do not speak in tongues. These were all called PENTECOSTAL because they believed they were doing what they did at Pentecost.

In the early revivals of Edwards, Wesley and Finney there were various “automatisms” (automatic actions), including shouting and barking.

David du Plessis, a South African, converted in a South African Pentecostal church, known as the Apostolic Faith Mission, became a catalyst and spokesman for the new Pentecostal in the mid 1900’s. He became a leading figure in spreading the Pentecostal movement in the traditional churches.

Aimee Semple McPherson in the 1920’s and 1930″ lead many people in main line denominational churches into the Pentecostal experiences. In 1923 she organized the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

III. THE MODERN CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

About 1960, two Episcopalian priests began to speak in tongues, thus beginning a new movement that eventually became known as the CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT. Dennis Bennett an Episcopalian priest in Van Nuys California was one of them. This seems to mark the beginning of the “neo-pentecostalism” or later known as the “charismatic movement.” The Greek word “chrisma” means gifts.

In 1967 the Charismatic phenomenon became accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. It broke out in 1966 as a result of a weekend retreat at Duquesne University led by theology professors Ralph Keiffer and Bill Soty. One of the largest tongues speaking groups today is within the Catholic Church. “By 1973, the movement had spread so rapidly that thirty thousand Catholic Pentecostals gathered at Notre Dame for a national conference.” (“Seminar on Pentecostalism” by Wilson Ewin – page 22)

Today you will find Charismatics in every major denomination including Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians and even Baptists. It has done much for the ecumenical movement.

There is a new stir in Charismatic circles. John Wimber of Anaheim, California, is the international director of the Association of Vineyard Churches. One of their churches is in Toronto, Canada.

In 1994, Randy Clark, a Vineyard pastor from St. Louis, was preaching there when some phenomena took place. Physical manifestations such as holy laughter, shaking, animal noises, falling down slain in the Spirit, healing and others took place.

Randy Clark was introduced to the “laughing revival” by South African evangelist, Rodney Howard-Browne. Rodney Howard-Browne became well known in a meeting at Carpenter’s Home Church in Lakeland, Florida. There came an epidemic of “spiritual drunkenness.” (Spring of 1993)

Pastor John Arnott, of Toronto, invited Randy Clark to export these experiences to Toronto. (January 1994). In a short time 80% of the people were on the floor. This became known as the ‘TORONTO BLESSING.” Some lie on the floor and laugh hysterically while others giggle uncontrollably for hours. Some behave like animals, roar like lions, or soar around the room like eagles. There is also “sanctified dance” being done to the beat of supposed Christian rock music. Others are glued to the floor with “Holy Ghost Glue.” Rodney Howard-Browne said “One night I was preaching on hell, and (laughter) just hit the whole place. The more I told people what hell was like the more they laughed.” (September 1994, “The Baptist Challenge”) The Charisma 8/94 magazine stated “no one doubts that having vast numbers of people convulsed in laughter can make whatever is being said from the pulpit irrelevant.”

A side light to this was printed in the December, 12, 1997, Sword of the Lord. “More that 1,200 Catholics from as far away as California, Alaska and Japan jammed the Presentation Blessed Virgin Mary Catholic Church in Philadelphia in August to experience charismatic revival in a conference that featured Evangelist Rodney Howar-Browne, who told attendees: ‘People cannot believe that revival is in the Catholic Church.’ Catholics laughed hysterically after they were hit with what Howard-Browne refers to as ‘the joy of the Holy Ghost.'” According to a quote in the October, 1, 1997 “Calvary Contender, “Pope John Paul II has given his official blessing to the renewal but few cardinals or bishops have embraced it.”

In Toronto, they run revivals each week from Thursday through Sunday. So many people are attending that at least one airline offers discounts to those who want to fly to the nightly meetings. One a typical night there are from 500 to 1,000 in attendance with as much as 4,000 on a special day. In the past year 750,000 people have visited the revivals. Benny Hinn has also been a featured speaker there.

For some time John Wimber, the Vineyard Ministries founder, has questioned the “zoo anointing” as being Biblical. At the end of 1995 the Vineyard Churches separated themselves from the Toronto Church, believing they have gone too far. Todd Hunter, the national coordinator for AVC said “we will no longer have to answer for extra-Biblical phenomena in a way that violates our Biblical faith and conscience.”

While we know there were in the Apostolic period, miracles, healing, casting out demons, and speaking in tongues, there were no such things as being slain in the Spirit, laughing uncontrollably, or barking like a dog. In my opinion these things are being done by demons.

In 1991, Pastor David Yongi Cho, of the world’s largest church in Seoul, Korea, received a vision that there would be a revival in Pensacola, Florida. On Father’s Day, 1995, Pastor John Kilpatrick, of the Brownsville Assembly of God, in Pensacola, Florida, invited Evangelist Steve Hill to speak. Steve Hill received his impartation “on January 19, 1995, at 3:00 in the afternoon. He says he had to walk over 500 bodies on the floor to get to a London, England vicar for prayer.” ( “Pensacola Impartations-Apparitions by Joseph R Chambers).

Phenomenon such as uncontrolled shaking, trembling by sobbing, individuals collapsing and remaining unconscious for hours at a time, blue haziness in the building, apparitions of angels dancing in the auditorium, invisible currents pulling toward the front of the auditorium, bodies falling down, roaring like a lion, bowing down, lapse of memory, unable to do daily functions for a period of time, twitching of the face and muscles, and “fetal birthing” are all examples of this. Fetal birthing includes actions of child birth, only it is called birthing a revival. Leaders admit there was genuine pandemonium in the services.

Joseph Chambers, of Paw Creek Ministries in Charlotte, NC, who calls himself a “Classic Pentecostal,” says of these apparitions, “not one of them are recorded in the Holy Scripture.” This became known as the “PENSACOLA OUTPOURING.”

Pastor Kilpatrick himself said “an individual did not have to be saved in order to be part of the ‘manifestations’ of the Holy Spirit.” “He also mentioned that many people in the audience who experienced the supernatural manifestations were not even Christians.” (“Foundation” magazine – March-April 1997 – page 10)

SIX CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ALTERED STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Dr. Patrick Dixon in his book “Signs of Revival” lists six characteristics of an Altered State of Consciousness:

1. Alterations in thinking
2. Altered sense of time
3. Loss of control
4. Changes in emotional expression
5. Body image changes
6. Perceptual changes or hallucinations

The “laughing revival” is an altered state of consciousness.

A similar experience has taken place in Seattle, Washington called the “Seattle Revival Center.” In 1994, three pastors, Darrel Stott of Lake Boren Christian Center, Steve Richard of Freedom Life Foursquare, and Wayne Anderson of International Church traveled to Toronto and claimed they “got drunk in the Holy Spirit.”

Pastor Stott tells of his legs growing weak, falling on the floor, his legs flying in the air, laughing uncontrollably, feeling like a drunk, staggering, swinging around posts, shaking, furniture flying in the room, floor rolling, twitching, yelling, rolling down the halls, etc.. (“O Timothy” – #8, 1997 – page 2-4)

I believe these apparitions are demonic. At the Lausanne II Evangelical Conference in Manila in 1989, John Wimber testified of these supposed signs and wonders. “A member of the press panel from India refuted the claim that these miracles and signs must be from God. He said that the same charismatic-styled tongues, healings, miracles, signs and wonders are also found among the heathen religions of his native India.” (“Foundation” magazine – March-April, 1997 – page 13)

I am not quoting this word for word but Joseph R. Chambers, (calls himself a Classic Pentecostal of over 40 years) of Paw Creek Ministries in his video “The False Anointing” references Revelation 13:11 and says the Pensacola Outpouring is a false anointing. It gives emphasis to the Anti-Christ. “The False prophet doeth great wonders,” meaning he deceives by miracles. This is in preparation to cause people to worship the Anti-Christ. This False Prophet is already working, getting people ready for the Anti-Christ. It gets them to worship him. It is a counterfeit to the real thing. They are worshipping a Jesus that is not of the Bible. This anointing will prepare people to take the mark of the beast.

Music is a major factor in these supposed revivals. “One of the main songs at Pensacola is, ‘The River is Here.’…Even a clear Biblical title for our Heavenly Father or His Son is totally missing from the lyrics. It is a ‘New Age” type song that can be sung to a generic God. The mood of this song is hypnotic and literally sweeps the unsuspecting into a receptive mindset. People are readied to receive their ‘apparition’ by this kind of ‘Beatles’ music and sound.” (“Pensacola Impartations-Apparitions” by Joseph R. Chambers).

James Ryles, the pastor of Bill McCartney, founder of Promise Keepers received a vision of the Beatles group, in which they represented the music God was going to use to bring and end-time revival. “In the summer of 1989, I had a dream…And I remember the dream thinking to myself, wow – this is like the Beatles music was new. The Lord spoke to me and said, ‘What you saw in the Beatles – the gifting and that sound that they had – was from me. It did not belong to them. It belongeth to me. It was my purpose to bring forth through music a world-wide revival that would usher in the move of my spirit in bringing men and women to Christ.” (Joseph R Chambers quoting “Harvest Conference, Denver, Colorado, James Ryle, November 1990)

Lendal Cooley, from the Vineyard Ministries is their music director at Brownsville. The music is a mix of rock and mood music. Don Moheim in the “Pentecostal Evangel” said “there is something spooky about the music, it has power to impart.” (quote from video “Pensacola Impartations-Apparitions” by Joseph R. Chambers)

Joseph R. Chambers says of witnessing the music “It was full of hype and emotions, with a great majority of the audience jumping, dancing, etc. I don’t mean spiritual worship, but the exact same as a rock concert. These revival services, whether at Pensacola, Toronto, Canada, or a Rodney Howard-Brown laughing service, are exact copies of a rock concert with the same emotions, the same hysteria, the same dance, and the same trivializing of truth, righteousness, and the glory of God.” (“The False Anointing” by Joseph R. Chambers).

A group known as the Kansas City Prophets have done much to lend credence to these supposed revivals. There are several men all associated with a single church, formerly Kansas City Fellowship and now called Metro Vineyard Fellowship. Pastor Mike Bickle, is a leader in encouraging his flock to practice modern prophecy. Men from this group are often featured speakers at John Wimber’s international conference ministry. Their teachings have been spread by a book entitled “Some Said it Thundered” by David Pytches. While they claim to receive prophecy from God they are about one to three in accuracy. In that book it states “Anyone who has experience in helping to nurture ‘baby prophets’ realizes that they have difficulty in distinguishing the words that the Spirit speaks from those that come from their own hearts or even from evil sources. At first they make many mistakes.” (page 14) Some believe the movement is connected to the Latter Reign Movement of the forties and fifties. One of their staff members, Paul Cain, was associated with that movement.

Another interesting development is that only a few short years ago the Evangelical World believed in the “imminent rapture” before the Great Tribulation. In this supposed revival movement come the teaching of “Dominion Theology.”

“This new breed of prophets and spokesman are preparing for all out war to take the kingdom. Paul Cain says that there will be an army, called Joel’s Army and that God will equip them to perform His judgments.” (“Holy Laughter” by Joseph R. Chambers)

Another side issue that is not connected with these particular revivals is the teachings of Kenneth Hagin. He is practicing a manifestation which is called the “Serpent Spirit.” On October 12-24, 1997, he conducted a Holy Ghost meeting in Chesterfield, Mo. “On the third night he began to manifest this spirit with his tongue sticking out and wiggling like a serpent’s tongue. He also began to hiss. On Thursday night, as he began to hiss, many of the people began to slither down out of their seats feet first. Some of the people would hiss back at him.” (“Kenneth Hagin and the ‘Spirit of the Serpent’ – by Joseph R. Chambers)

In March of 1998, Pastor John Arnott from the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship led a laughing revival team to Paris, France. They led in a unity conference. “This came at the invitation of a former Anglican who now pastors a Reformed church. Before the meeting, Arnott stressed gathering as many denominations as possible for the event. The preparation committee included 12 leaders from Pentecostals, charismatics, and mainline Protestants and Catholics.” (Calvary Contender, July 1, 1998, Vol.XV, No. 3)

CONCLUSION

None of the manifestations that we have noted are recorded in the Bible anywhere as gifts of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe they are Biblical. Since they are not Biblical gifts and there is obviously a spirit power in these manifestations, it is my opinion that they must be of Satanic origin.

I also believe according to the scriptures that even the sign and revelatory gifts given to the Apostolic Church ceased with the completion of the New Testament Scriptures.

1 Cor 13:8-13 “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.“

The charismatic movement is based on the concept that there is a retention and reactivation of the early New Testament gifts, of which the gift of “tongues” occupies the major and primary emphasis.

While some charismatic leaders are attempting publicly to diminish the priority of this gift because of criticism received, Oral Roberts put it squarely on the line when h states, “People are saying tongues are the periphery. I say they are the mainstream.” While there may be some variation of emphasis within the three strains of the charismatic movement today, all three (Classic Pentecostalism, Neo-Pentecostalism and the Catholic Charismatics) have as their central core the common bon of “tongues.”

There are seven simple questions and answers to this controversial subject: (1) Were there tongues in the New Testament? (2) If this gift existed, what was its real nature (3) Who possessed this gift? (4) How important was this gift to the structure of New Testament Christianity? (5) What was the purpose of this gift? (6) How long did this gift last? Is this gift still in existence today? (7) If this gift has ceased what is the real need today? In the following outline, these seven questions will be answered from Scripture.

• 1. THE GIFT OF TONGUES WAS A SUPERNATURAL GIFT (I Corinthians 12:7-10, 12:28-30)

Tongues was one of several supernatural gifts given by Christ upon his ascension (I Corinthians 12:7-10, 12:28-30 with Ephesians 4:7-11).

There are three major passages that deal with these gifts: Ephesians 4:7-10, Romans 12:3-8, and I Corinthians 12-14. The gifts can generally be divided into three major types based on the emphasis of these passages: (1) The Speaking Gifts (Ephesians 4:7-11), (2) The Service Gifts (Romans 12:3-8) and (3) The Sign Gifts (I Corinthians 12-14). The categorization of these gifts is not exclusively limited to each of these passages, but the main emphasis is clearly in accord with the designation listed. The divine origin of tongues is indicated in the five usages of this gift in the New Testament; four in Acts and the reference in I Corinthians 12-14.

• 2. THE GIFT OF TONGUES WAS A SELECTIVE GIFT

Tongues was bestowed by the Holy Spirit upon whomsoever He chose with the recipient having no active part whatsoever in its reception. (“…For to one is given by the Spirit the … to another the … 1 Corinthians 12:8).

Nowhere in the New Testament is anyone ever commanded to “seek” this gift. In I Corinthians 12 Paul compares the body of Christ to a human body. Not all the body is a tongue! Tongues advocates would reply that Paul said “forbid not to speak with tongues” (I Corinthians 14:39). Since tongues was a valid gift during a transitional age, believers were not to forbid its use within apostolic guidelines. But, contrary to what Charismatics claim, no conditions were ever listed for receiving this gift. Classical Pentecostalists believer that speaking in tongues is the “initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit.” The Scriptures declare, however, that every genuine believer experiences Spirit Baptism at conversion (I Corinthians 12:13). In Romans 8:9-11, the Spirit of God is declared to dwell in every believer, while Romans 8:15 states that the Spirit of God within the believer witnesses to the fact that he is a genuine child of God.

The gift of tongues was bestowed upon a few sovereignly selected recipients. Those who possessed this gift never had to learn how to use it or to practice its functions. When the Holy Spirit directed, they spoke fluently, without any instruction.

This usage differs vastly from the modem practice where individuals are instructed to “imitate certain others,” “to open their mouths wide,” “to let their minds go,” and “to babble whatever pops into their mind.” Such instruction is contrary to Matthew 22:37 where we are instructed to worship God with all our mind, and I Corinthians 14:15 where we are requested to pray with understanding. Believers who give up the use of their minds to outside powers are in danger of having that mind filled with unbiblical and satanic thoughts.

• 3. THE GIFT OF TONGUES WAS A SPEAKING GIFT

Tongues was not some unknown mystical heavenly language, but spoken foreign languages, previously “unknown” only to those who received the gift.

One of the important principles of biblical hermeneutics (interpretation) is the principle of first mention. Whenever a subject is mentioned for the first time, that usage is to be particularly noted, since it gives a clue to its usage and meaning throughout the remainder of Scripture. The first time tongues is mentioned in the New Testament, it is associated with spoken foreign languages, three times in Acts 2, it is specifically stated that those present heard the message in their own language-tongue (Acts 2:6,8,11).

Furthermore, it should be noted that the word “unknown” is in italics in the English version, meaning that the translators supplied this word. A final confirmation is that the Greek root words for “other tongues” in both Acts 2:4 and I Corinthians 14:21 are the same, indicating that the tongues spoken at Pentecost and the gift given to certain believers in Corinth were of a similar nature.

• 4. THE GIFT OF TONGUES WAS A SIGN GIFT

The only passage in Scripture where the purpose of tongues is declared is in I Corinthians 14:21, where it is plainly stated that tongues was given as a sign for unbelievers. In discussing the purpose, Paul refers to an Old Testament passage, Isaiah 28:11 (“For with stammering lips and another tongue will I speak to this people.”). The context of Isaiah 28 reveals that this passage deals with divine judgment upon the nation of Israel. Israel is pictured as a proud (28:1), rebellious, adulterous, drunken nation (28:7-8) which refused to hear the plain instruction of the Hebrew prophets in the Jews native tongue. Since they refused to hear the warning in their own language, God declared that he would send another nation whose tongue-language was unintelligible (unknown) to the Israelites, the tongue of the Assyrian conquerors! The unbelieving Jews refused to listen to both warnings: the Hebrew prophets in their own language and the foreign tongue of the Assyrians.

In I Corinthians 14, God indicated that he was going to give his chosen people another opportunity to prepare for coming judgment which had already been pronounced upon Jerusalem and the Hebrew nation for its rejection of the Messiah. Jews scattered across the face of the Roman Empire were given an extended opportunity to repent. The message of tongues was simple: tongues was given as a sign to the unbelieving Jew, a message designed to produce repentance in view of the impending national judgment. In 70 A.D. judgment fell upon Jerusalem under the hand of the despotic Roman emperor Nero, as the city was burned to the ground and left desolate.

• 5. THE GIFT OF TONGUES WAS A SHORT GIFT

Temporary in nature, its need ceased with judgment upon Jerusalem and the completion of the New Testament record. Tongues is never mentioned after Pauls letter of I Corinthians. Not once is it mentioned in anymore of Pauls epistles, Peters letters or Johns writings. Written just one year after I Corinthians, tongues receives no consideration in Pauls treatise on Christian gifts in Romans 12.

In I Corinthians 13:8-13, Paul states that “When that which is perfect is come” that which was in part would be “done away.” The charismatic claims that this refers to Christs second coming and since this had not yet occurred, the gift of tongues must still be in existence. Paul, however, reminds these believers, that this gift would cease upon the receiving of the “perfect”. The word “that” in I Corinthians 13:10 is in the neuter gender and thus cannot refer to Christ. Paul was referring to the perfect Word of God. With the completion of the book of Revelation, the inspired record was completed and thus there was no longer any need for the temporary gift of tongues.

• 6. THE GIFT OF TONGUES IS A SUPPLANTED GIFT

Tongues has been supplanted by the perfect permanent written Word of God. In II Timothy 3:16-17 Paul indicates that Gods written Word is sufficient for every need of life: for “doctrine” (teaching), NO NEW TEACHINGS ARE NEEDED; for “reproof (negative discipline); for “correction” (corrective discipline) and for “instruction in righteousness,” so that Gods man would be “perfect” (mature, complete, without deficiency), completely furnished “unto all good works”. Gods Word is sufficient to complete, to mature, to finish the work of transforming the believer into Christs image. No new revelations, visions, dreams of the Redeemer. Gods Word is sufficient. Therefore, tongues is an unnecessary gift for this age and has been supplanted by the perfect Word of God.

• 7. THE GIFT OF TONGUES IS A SIMULATED GIFT

Tongues having ceased, men can only attempt to imitate the real gift, which no longer exists. The great need today is for Spirit-filled believers (Ephesians 5:18). That filling comes simply as believers are emptied of sin and yielded to the Spirits control. The answer to the dilemma of lack of power in professing Christendom is not the counterfeit of Satan, but the control of the Spirit! Biblical Christianity desperately needs those kind of believers.

E-mail: FirstBaptistChurchOC@gmail.com

Introduction

Have you ever heard, or have even asked the question yourself, “How could a loving God ever send anybody to an eternal hell for any reason, no matter how bad they have been? I simply cannot see God doing that.” Sometimes, we have a problem accepting the doctrine of hell. The horrors of its reality trouble us, and presents a stark contrast with our understanding of Who and what God is. Because of the intellectual problems, we may have a problem accepting its reality.

Historically, those who believed and preached the Word of God taught that those who die in their sins apart from trusting Jesus Christ as Savior would suffer eternal punishment in hell. It seemed clear enough Biblically, it fit into a sound theological framework, and the gospel went forth from burdened, hard preaching pastors concerning sin, righteousness and eternal judgment.

Currently, however, there seems to be a change of opinion in many evangelical circles. Hell is questioned, argued, doubted and often, denied. Though this has been a view in liberalism and the cults for quite some time, the shift is relatively new in evangelical circles.

A few brief examples are certainly in order. Billy Graham stated, “The only thing I could say for sure is that hell means separation from God. We are separated from his (sic) light, from his (sic) fellowship. That is going to hell. When it comes to a literal fire, I don’t preach it because I’m not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be – not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.” (“A Christian in Winter,” Time, Nov. 15, 1993, p. 74). Kenneth Kantzer, former editor of Christianity Today, said “The Bible makes it clear that hell is real and it’s bad … but when Jesus spoke of flames … these are most likely figurative warnings.” (“Revisiting the abyss,” U. S. News and World Report, March 25, 1991, p. 63). Clark H. Pinnock, professor of Theology at McMaster Divinity College, asked in the Criswell Theological Review “How can Christianity possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness as to inflict everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? … A God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God.” (Ibid., p. 63). Thus, evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham, Kenneth Kantzer, Clark Pinnock, in addition to other well known evangelicals such as  John R. W. Stott, Philip Hughes and F. F. Bruce have at least questioned the reality of a literal hell as a place of fire and eternal torment.

This report will discuss three serious problems which arise about God and His Word if the doctrine of hell, including its literal flames and eternal torment, is denied. When a Biblical view of this magnitude is challenged, the impact it has on other doctrinal views are tremendous.

1. A Denial of Hell is a Reflection on God

Man by his fallen nature is a radically independent being, and the “spirit of the age” is for him to attempt to explain everything – even the things he does not understand. Man has a difficult time understanding the doctrine of eternal punishment, but instead of accepting it as Biblical truth, he rejects it because it does not match the image of God that he has formulated. In reality, man’s rationale is placed on a higher level of authority than God’s Word.

Observe first of all that a denial of hell is certainly a reflection on God’s holiness. We need to understand that eternal punishment is grounded on Who and what God is! Note the following examples concerning the attributes of God.

God is holy, and He cannot tolerate sin, Isa. 6:3; Hab. 1:13; Rev. 4:8. Lev. 19:2 states, “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.” This is an important attribute by which He is known! As a holy God, He can and does demand holiness from His volitional creatures, shown by His commands throughout Scripture. The entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the Cross of Calvary in the New Testament are to allow an individual the unmerited favor to stand in righteousness before Him.

When mankind fails, God is absolutely just when He demands punishment for sins. In Jn. 5:30, Jesus teaches “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” God’s judgment is always just, and the just punishment for sin is death. Death is primarily separation, and must be defined in three different realms.

First, there is physical death, in which the material (body) is separated from the immaterial (soul / spirit), cf. Gen. 3:19. This is what most people commonly think about when death is mentioned.

Second, there is spiritual death, which is illustrated by Paul through the use of a contrast in Eph. 2:1. By nature, man is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, separated from God’s fellowship, and he will remain so unless he is regenerated at salvation. Man cannot relate to God apart from salvation because he is spiritually dead. He cannot obey, know or love God anymore than a corpse could obey, know or love the surviving family members. There simply is no life.

Third, there is the second death, also called eternal death, consummated at the Lake of Fire, cf. Rev. 20:11-15. The second death is an eternal separation from God in a literal place with literal fire. Romans 6:23 says that death is the wage of sin! It may be appropriate to note here that God is truth, and He cannot lie, Heb. 6:18, and His Word is settled in Heaven forever, Psalm 119:89.

If one would deny a literal hell, he must conclude that death is not the penalty for sin, that man by nature is not spiritually dead, and that there is no eternal punishment for those who die in their sins. He must thus declare that God does tolerate sin, that He does not demand justice for sins, that there is no consequence for disobedience, and, most serious, that God is lying! I am not saying that those who deny a literal, eternal hell would accept these views, but it would be would seen to be the logical conclusion.

Observe secondly that the denial of hell is a reflection on His sovereignty. The sovereignty of God, as defined by the Puritan Confession of Faith stated, “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass.” Charles Ryrie states it simply “God is a Supreme Ruler” (Ryrie Study Bible, KJV, p. 1963). This is clearly stated in Scripture. His sovereignty is explained in 1 Chron. 29:11-12, “Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all.” Perhaps Romans 9:18-23 explains the sovereignty of God and the doctrine of Hell the most clearly: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed to say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory ” It is clear that some are fitted to dishonor and destruction!

When mankind does not understand how God could allow somebody to be consigned to eternal punishment, no matter what the reason, they are basically stating that God cannot be God! Because they don’t understand it, God would not or could not do it.

2. A Denial of Hell is a Renouncement of the Cross

First of all, a denial of hell it detracts from Jesus’ sufferings. As the cross of Jesus Christ is observed, several important Theological truths become evident. The cross provides justification, redemption, propitiation and remission of sins possible for those who believe, cf. Rom. 3:24-26. Ask yourself, “Why did Jesus go to Calvary?”

When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they knew that they would die, for God had warned them in Gen. 2:17, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” In Gen. 3, Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and they experienced death! They died spiritually immediately, for they recognized their sinful condition, and desired to hide from God. They began to die physically, though it would take a process of time, ” … for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” 3:19. Apart from the sacrifice provided by the LORD, they would have remained separated from Him forever! Rom. 6:23 tells us, “For the wages of sin is death …” Man, because of his sin, deserves complete death in each realm (physical, spiritual and eternal).

Jesus Christ came as a sacrifice for mankind, Mark 10:45, John 1:29. In Heb. 2:9, the writer informs us that Jesus “tasted death for every man.” He experienced the death everybody deserves!

In what ways did He taste death? He certainly died physically. First Cor. 15:3 states that ” Christ died for our sins according to the scripture ” Though there are many who deny His literal death, it can be easily shown. For example, the Roman centurion and soldiers declared Him dead (Mark 15:44-45; John 19:33-34), the women came to anoint a dead body (Mark 16:1), blood and water flowed from His side (John 19:34), and His disciples believed that He was actually dead; therefore, His resurrection surprised them (Mt. 28:17; Luke 24:37-53; John 20:3-9). Thus, He experienced physical death the way that all men will (except for those raptured), Heb. 9:27.

But in addition to the physical death, Jesus seems to have experienced spiritual death as well. In Mt. 27:46, Matthew writes “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, la ma sabach-tha ni? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It would seem that the Father, Who is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity,” Hab. 1:13, was in effect separating from the Son as the sins of the entire world were placed on Him. Though this was not a separation of Persons (there is only One God) there was a judicial separation between the Father and the Son. Walvoord states, “Christ was being judicially forsaken because He was bearing the sin of the world.” (Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord,

p. 118). Thus, when Jesus “tasted death for every man,” He experienced it completely. If He would have remained separated from the Father, He would have experienced eternal separation! However, that could not happen as the Father accepted the sacrifice of His Son, cf. Heb. 5:7-8. But if one states that there is no eternal separation for those who die in their sins, he is renouncing the complete sacrifice for sin that Jesus Christ offered.

A denial of Hell also discounts His sacrifice, as it would mean that Jesus was not required to “taste death for every man” because man’s spiritual death would not consummate in eternal death. What would be the benefits to mankind which were made available through His sacrifice?

Did He deliver us from physical death? Ultimately, yes. Though as Christians we may pass through the veil of death, we know that it is not permanent. At the Rapture, we will be resurrected, and raised incorruptible and immortal, cf. 1 Cor. 15. Death is not permanent, but temporary. The seal of this is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 15:55-57, Rom. 1:4.

Did He deliver us from spiritual death? Yes He did! When we trust in Jesus Christ for salvation, we are regenerated, or born again. At birth, by nature and our imputed sin, we are spiritually dead, Eph. 2:1. At salvation, we receive spiritual life, whereby we are no longer separated from God spiritually. We are spiritually alive and thus can know, love and obey God, which are things we could not do before salvation. We receive spiritual life, which will consummate in eternal life, which is fellowship with God and being in His presence forever, Rev. 21-22.

The purpose of the gospel is centered on the removal of guilt and punishment for our sins. The very term “salvation” comes from the word soteri, which means “deliverance.” What are we ultimately delivered from if it is not eternal condemnation? In John 5:28-29 we see Jesus’ teaching about the “resurrection of damnation.” The word “damnation” does not mean annihilation, but judgment. If that judgment is not eternal, the value of Jesus’ sacrifice is discounted!

Some people have asked, “How can the few hours of Jesus’ agony at Calvary be compared to eternal punishment in hell?” This question has merit and deserves consideration.

Time is of little importance in the spiritual realm. God is eternal, and everything is one eternal now! In His sight, there is simply the unfolding of His plan for the ages. Thus could Moses say “… from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God,” Ps. 90:2. It is not the time frame that counts with God, but the fact that His wrath was propitiated.

More important, the value of the sacrifice is of much greater significance than time. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only One Who could qualify as the sacrifice. He, as the “only begotten son,” John 3:16, and the One in Whom “… dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” Col. 2:9, has infinite value which would far surpass any other person or amount of time. First Peter 1:18-19 states, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

To summarize, the quality of Jesus Christ surpasses quantity in any other realm. The very King of Creation is the Redeemer of all who call upon Him for salvation!

3. A Denial of Hell is a Refutation of God’s Word

The King James Version of the Scriptures uses the word “hell” for three different Greek words. These need to be clarified.

First is the word tartaros. This word is translated hell only in 2 Peter 2:4, but it is actually a verb. The individuals referred to in this passage are not those who have rejected Jesus Christ as Savior, but are angels who had sinned and are now reserved for judgment. (Many believe these angels are the “sons of God” cohabiting with women in Gen. 6). Tartaros is not the hell we commonly think of in relation to unregenerate men.

The second word is Hades. This word is used ten times in the New Testament by Matthew (11:23; 16:18), Luke (10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31) and John (Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14). The clearest information we have about Hades is found in Luke 16:19-31. Please read this passage before you continue.

I believe that Luke 16 is an actual, historical account of the two individuals listed, not a story or parable. In this commentary, the Lord Jesus describes the condition of the unsaved rich man in Hades. We find that he was in torment, 16:23; he could recognize Abraham and Lazarus, 23; he could talk and listen to them, 24; his pain was intense from the flame, 24; there was an impassable gulf fixed between them, 26; he remembered his father and brothers, and wanted them to come to salvation so they would not be required to join him, 27-28.

When Jesus Christ died and rose again, He took the godly out of Hades, the place of Abraham’s bosom, and ushered them into the Father’s presence, cf. Eph. 4:7-10. In Rom. 8:34, Jesus is said to be at the Father’s right hand; 2 Cor. 5:8 teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord; Phil. 1:23 says that departure from this life is to be with Christ which is far better. Thus, the saints up to Jesus ascension are in His presence. However, Hades still remains for the ungodly!

It is important to realize that Hades is not the final abode for the unregenerate dead. Like tartaros, it is a temporary place of consignment until the Day of Judgment at the Great White Throne.

The third word is Geenna. This word is used twelve times in the New Testament by Matthew (5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33), Mark (9:43, 45, 47), Luke (12:5) and James (3:6).

A description of Geenna is revealing. Six of the references listed refer to fire, and eleven of the twelve are the recorded words of Jesus Christ! But where did the meaning of Geenna originate?

There is a valley located southeast of Jerusalem called the Valley of Hinnom, cf. Josh. 15:18, 18:16; 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31-32; 19:1-6; 32:35. As you read these references, especially in Jeremiah, you learn that the Valley of Hinnom was the place where the apostate nation Israel sacrificed their children to the pagan god Molech, by burning them in the arms of the idol.

After these abominations had ceased, the Jews used the valley to dispose of dead criminals and animals, as well as their rubbish. To consume the valley’s contents, a fire burned continuously, which became known as the “Geenna of Fire.” To be in the Geenna of Fire would be excruciating, and the torments of it unimaginable. The refuse would attract worms, much as a garbage dump would today. The Lord Jesus explains this in Mark 9:42-50, “… Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Thus, the Lord Jesus used this well known cultural truth to teach about this horrible place of eternal torment. Geenna also fits the description of the Lake of Fire mentioned in Rev. 20:15, which is the final abode for the unbelieving dead.

Geenna is the place that would be ultimately denied as we discuss a literal, eternal torment for the unsaved. But as we have seen, it describes a literal place.

The Bible also teaches that there will be literal people going there! Rev. 20:13 speaks of “every man” being judged “according to their works.” This judgment is not to determine if they are saved, but to establish their degree of punishment in Geenna. The residents there are further described in Rev. 21:8 and 22:15.

There is also a literal eternity. The punishment is described in Dan. 12:2 as “everlasting contempt,” as “everlasting fire” in Matt. 25:41, as “everlasting punishment” in Matt. 25:46

as the “resurrection of damnation” in John 5:29 and as “the second death” in Rev. 20:14.

It is important to notice that there is absolutely nothing in any of the passages listed or the terms used which would indicate that hell is imaginary, temporary or figurative. It is the exact opposite. Some declare that the phrase “second death” means that the unsaved will at some point in time be annihilated, but the terms used above indicate that it is eternal. In addition, it can be demonstrated that it is eternal. In Rev. 19:20, we find the beast and false prophet are the first residents to be cast into the Lake of Fire. In Rev. 20:10, after a period of one thousand years, the devil is also cast into the lake of Fire “where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.” If these terms cannot be taken literally at face value, can we accept these terms as they relate to eternal life, or our eternal fellowship in heaven?

There are other issues that relate to this denial of hell, such as the immortality of man, the

effects of the Gospel, the inspiration and credibility of Scripture, … We must choose whether we will accept the claims of modern evangelical opinion or the clear teachings of the Word of God.

There is a means to escape the eternal condemnation that all men deserve. You can believe that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, died on the cross for your sins, that He rose again, and now offers His sacrifice to you as a gift which needs to be received by faith. If you have not trusted Jesus Christ as Savior, you can pray the following prayer. “Heavenly Father, I realize that I am a sinner, and cannot save myself. I believe that Jesus Christ, Your Son, died on the cross for my sins, and that He rose again. I would like to have my sins forgiven through Him, and want Him to be my Savior. I commit this to you now in Jesus’ Name, amen.”

If you truly meant what you have just prayed, you can rejoice that you are a child of God, and will not have to face eternal condemnation. That is God’s promise to you! Jesus said “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life,” John 5:24.

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death,” Rev. 21:8. The Lake of Fire is literal, it is real, and it is eternal!

[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 5, 1995. Permission is given for free distribution of this material, but not for resale. All rights are reserved by the author. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (360) 675-8311. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.]

Introduction

Some have concocted a position that Fundamentalism historically was not militant or separatist, but was merely a belief in “the five fundamentals.” That this is a serious perversion of history is clear from the following facts.

We must note at the outset of these considerations that Fundamentalism has never been a monolithic movement. It has never had one definition only. It has taken many different forms. There have always been those who have worn the Fundamentalist label who have shied away from the heat of the battle, who have refused to obey the Word of God and separate from error. Describing Fundamentalism is like the ant describing the elephant; one’s description depends somewhat upon one’s perspective. Even so, to claim that Fundamentalism was NOT characterized by militancy for truth, to claim that fighting and separating have NOT been a significant aspect of historic Fundamentalism, is to fly in the face of history. It is this gross error that we set out to disprove.

1. That Historic Fundamentalism Was More Than The Affirmation Of “The Five Fundamentals” Is Admitted By Its Historians.

George Marsden gives this overview: “By the 1930s, then it became painfully clear that reform from within could not prevent the spread of modernism in major northern denominations, more and more fundamentalists began to make separation from America’s major denominations an article of faith. Although most who supported fundamentalism in the 1920s still remained in their denominations, many Baptist dispensationalists and a few influential Presbyterians were demanding separatism” (Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 7).

George Dollar, one of the few historians of the Fundamentalist movement to write from the standpoint of a genuine Fundamentalist, gives this definition: “Historic fundamentalism is the literal interpretation of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-biblical affirmations and attitudes” (Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 1973).

Dollar divides Fundamentalism into three periods. From 1875-1900 conservative leaders raised the banner against Modernism within the denominations. From 1900-1935 these struggles resulted in men leaving their denominations to form separate churches and groups. “They were the architects of ecclesiastical separation.” From 1935-1983 the second generation Fundamentalists continued the battle from outside of the mainline denominations and also had the New Evangelical movement to contend with. It is plain that this historian, who has given a significant portion of his life to the examination of these matters, identifies historic Fundamentalism with earnest militancy and biblical separation.

David O. Beale, who has written one of the most thorough histories of Fundamentalism from a Fundamentalist perspective in print, gives this definition: “The essence of Fundamentalism … is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures. … The present study reveals that pre-1930 Fundamentalism was nonconformist, while post-1930 Fundamentalism has been separatist” (Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Bob Jones University Press, 1986, p. 5).

I give one more illustration of the definition given to Fundamentalism by its historians. Again we use a Fundamentalist author. John Ashbrook has deep roots in the Fundamentalist movement. His father, William, was brought to trial by the Presbyterian denomination because of his stand against Modernism. After his separation from Presbyterianism, William Ashbrook established an independent Fundamentalist church. He wrote one of the most incisive books on New Evangelicalism entitled Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism. The first edition of this work appeared in 1958. His son, John, after a period of toying with New Evangelicalism as a young man, became a solid Fundamentalist leader in his own right. His book New Neutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise is, in this author’s opinion, the best book in print on the subject of New Evangelicalism. In looking back over the Fundamentalist movement since the 1930s, how does John Ashbrook define Fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is the militant belief and proclamation of the basic doctrines of Christianity leading to a Scriptural separation from those who reject them (Ashbrook, Axioms of Separation, nd., p. 10).

Those today who deny the militancy and separation of historic Fundamentalism are trying to rewrite history. Instead of admitting that they are NOT old-line Fundamentalists, that indeed they have repudiated biblical Fundamentalism, have compromised the Word of God and adopted New Evangelicalism, these revisionists are trying to redefine Fundamentalism to fit their backslidden condition.

2. That Historic Fundamentalism Was More Than The Affirmation Of “The Five Fundamentals” Is Proven By The Fact Of New Evangelicalism.

If it were true that historical Fundamentalism was a mere exaltation of “the five fundamentals,” the New Evangelical movement of the 1940s would have made no sense at all. New Evangelicalism has always held to “the five fundamentals.” In fact, as we have seen, one of the fathers of New Evangelicalism has noted that there at least several dozen fundamentals! The keynote of New Evangelicalism was the repudiation of the separatism and other negative aspects of old-line Fundamentalism.

In his history of Fuller Theological Seminary, Reforming Fundamentalism, historian George M. Marsden makes it plain that Fuller’s early leaders were consciously rejecting the negative aspects of old-line Fundamentalism. The title of Marsden’s book itself is evidence of the militant character of historic Fundamentalism. It is clear to honest historians that the Fundamentalism fifty years ago was characterized by MILITANCY, by a willingness to deal with the NEGATIVES, and by SEPARATION, and it was this fact that brought about the New Evangelical movement.

Marion Reynolds, director of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association in Los Osos, California, has a rich heritage in the Fundamentalist movement. His father was an early Fundamentalist leader and Marion himself has been in the forefront of Fundamentalism for at least forty years. This man knows the true history of American Fundamentalism inside out. In replying to the charge by Jack Van Impe that today’s Fundamentalist leaders have left their heritage and that Fundamentalism of old was not a militant confrontation with error but more a positive affirmation of the doctrinal heart of Christianity, Reynolds gives the following overview of Fundamentalism’s history:

“(1) The first generation fundamentalists were battling unbelief in their own denominations BEFORE the liberals had gained control. Separation from disobedient brethren was not the issue as it was later to become. (2) Along with the love and appreciation the first generation fundamentalists showed to each other as they stood shoulder-to-shoulder against a common foe, there were plenty of tears, heartaches, trials, misunderstandings and disappointments as some fundamentantalists weakened in the heat of the conflict and opted for `more love’ rather than continued confrontation. First generation fundamentalists fought a valiant battle but they did not labor in the `ideal situation’ which Dr. Van Impe imagines it to be. (3) After some 30 years of the historic struggle between first generation fundamentalists and liberalism within the denominations, true fundamentalists, recognizing that the liberals could not be removed, obeyed the command of the Lord to `come out and be separate’ (2 Cor. 6:14-18). As a result, new churches and denominations were established and fundamentalism was used of God to preserve the purity of the Word and the Gospel. (4) It was in the early 1940’s that a further separation occurred and the evangelical movement was born. It was at the time that the very same spirit and attitude now being advocated by Dr. Van Impe was the moving force in the launching of the evangelical movement. From that time forward the continuing battle between fundamentalism and liberalism has been complicated by this third movement, evangelicalism, which took an in- between, compromised position. Claiming to hold to the fundamentalist position doctrinally, evangelicalism advocated a `more positive position’ and a `broader fellowship.’ A major issue then, as it is today, revolves around the question of how to treat brothers who walk disorderly and whether or not it constitutes `disorderliness’ for a brother to remain in fellowship with those who deny the Fundamentals of the Faith. True fundamentalists believe that all brethren who fellowship with false teachers are definitely disobedient and are walking disorderly. Therefore, the command to separate from such disobedient brethren is no less important to obey than God’s command to separate from false teachers” (M.H. Reynolds, Jr., “Heart Disease in Christ’s Body: Fundamentalism … Is It Sidetracked?” Los Osos: Fundamental Evangelistic Assocation, nd.).

3. That Historic Fundamentalism Was More Than The Affirmation Of “The Five Fundamentals” Is Acknowledged By Historic Fundamentalist Organizations And Publications.

Consider The Fundamentalist, published by J. Frank Norris, a powerful Fundamental Baptist leader of Texas. Independent Baptist historian George Dollar describes Norris’s The Fundamentalist in this way: “The Fundamentalist alarmed and alerted … Reading the 1920-1930 back issues of The Fundamentalist, one can almost see the smoke and hear the battle cries of those times” (Dollar, The Fight for Fundamentalism, published by the author, 1983, p. 3).

Norris’s paper is representative of that entire generation of Fundamentalism in that it was a generation noted for its bold militancy for the truth.

An accurate definition of Fundamentalism was given by the World Congress of Fundamentalists, which met in 1976 in Usher Hall, Edinburgh, Scotland:

• A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who–

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible.
2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.
3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible.
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith: The doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; the resurrection of the saints to life eternal; the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death; the fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ.
5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature.
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth.
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

The World Congress of Fundamentalists summarized their definition in this way: “Fundamentalism is militant orthodoxy set on fire with soulwinning zeal.”

As we noted at the beginning of this study, many varying definitions of Fundamentalism have been given through the years, and the truth of the matter is that Fundamentalism has taken a great variety of forms. As a movement it has been largely interdenominational, yet many independent, separatist churches, such as independent Baptists and independent Bible churches, have accepted the label. Regardless of this variety, though, one of the chief hallmarks of Fundamentalism–its very essence, if you will–has always been a MILITANCY for the Faith of the Word of God. Anyone who is not truly militant in standing for the Truth has no title to biblical Fundamentalism.

We close with the words of G. Archer Weniger, who showed the fallicy of the view that Fundamentalism is merely a concern for “the five fundamentals”–

“The five fundamentals have only to do with the Presbyterian aspect of the struggle with modernism. … The bulk of Fundamentalism, especially the Baptists of every stripe who composed the majority by far, never accepted the five fundamentals alone. The World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, founded in 1919, had at least a dozen main doctrines highlighted. The same was true of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, which originated in 1920. A true Fundamentalist would under no circumstances restrict his doctrinal position to five fundamentals. Even Dr. Carl F.H.

Henry, a New Evangelical theologian, listed at least several dozen doctrines essential to the Faith. The only advantage of reducing the Faith down to five is to make possible a wider inclusion of religionists, who might be way off in heresy on other specific doctrines. It is much easier to have large numbers of adherents with the lowest common denominator in doctrine” (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in Calvary Contender, April 15, 1994).

[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 2, 1995. Permission is given for free distribution of this material, but not for resale or for use in fundraising. All rights are reserved by the author. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143. The phone number is (360) 675-8311. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.]

INTRODUCTION

In the last issue of O Timothy we featured an article on the history and nature of New Evangelicalism. I am convinced that few errors are as destructive to Fundamental, Bible-believing churches as this one. When people leave our churches, where do they go? Do they join the Roman Catholic church? Do they join a modernistic Protestant church, such as the United Methodist or the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. or the United Church of Canada? Do they join a cult? Very seldom. No, most people who leave Fundamental, Bible-believing churches join the easy-going New Evangelical church down the street or across town.

It is therefore crucial that we understand the nature of New Evangelicalism. Last month we traced the history of New Evangelicalism and gave the classic, historic definition thereof. In this issue I want to detail what I believe to be the very heart and soul of New Evangelicalism. I want to give a practical definition of New Evangelicalism which can be understood and used by the members of independent Baptist and other Fundamental, Bible-believing congregations.

PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE

The following definition comes from many years of dealing with and studying New Evangelicalism. When we arrived in South Asia in 1979 to begin our missionary work, I was very ignorant of the nature of New Evangelicalism. Little did I know that I was soon to have a crash course in the subject. In my ignorance and inexperience, I was under the impression that New Evangelicalism was merely a United States phenomenon and that believers in other parts of the world, though they might be aligned with New Evangelical type organizations, would not necessarily be infected with compromise and error. How wrong I was!

During our first year in Nepal, I was invited by the national Campus Crusade for Christ people to preach at an underground evangelistic meeting, which I did. (Gospel work was illegal at that time in Nepal.) Using the book of Romans as an outline, I preached the Gospel, beginning with man’s sin and God’s holiness and judgment, and ending with God’s love and grace through Jesus Christ. I started where Paul started and ended where he ended. After the service, the leaders took me aside and told me that my preaching was “too negative.” This was to be expected, I suppose, considering the fact that Campus Crusade’s Four Spiritual Laws starts on a positive note with “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This was the first time, though, I had direct dealings with those who had consciously rejected the negatives of biblical Christianity and who strived always to put a positive spin on everything, and I was shocked at their blatant disregard for Scripture. We discussed the fact that the Apostles approached men in a very negative manner, dealing first with man’s sin and God’s holiness before speaking of God’s love and mercy, but they were unmoved in their philosophy that it is “too negative” to preach like this today. Nothing I could show them from the Word of God seemed to have any impact whatsoever upon them.

After a few months I was invited by the leaders of the Nepal Christian Fellowship (the head of which, at that time, was also the head of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nepal) to speak at some home Bible studies. I chose the topic of biblical separation, and it turned out to be a hot item! Knowing that the Jesuits had a strong foothold in that area and that some of the non-Catholic believers had close fellowship with them, I detailed the apostasy of Roman Catholicism and explained what the Bible says about separation from error. The response was quick and severe! When I closed my Bible, a female missionary who was working with an ecumenical organization called United Mission to Nepal and who taught in a girl’s school, stood and loudly proclaimed, “You’re not going to tell me I can’t fellowship with my Roman Catholic friends! I attend mass with them and they attend church with me and I don’t see anything wrong with it!” Though I was scheduled to teach at a series of Bible studies, that first one became my last.

After this I was invited by the same Fellowship to speak to a group of Nepali pastors. I was told that they had no Bible education and needed any help I could give them. They came to the capitol city from various parts of Nepal for these meetings, and I decided to use the book of Titus as an outline, dealing with some of the practical matters of church life. It seemed to be an ideal place to start. Titus was instructed by the Apostle in how to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). This was precisely what was needed in Nepal. There were a number of small, struggling house churches which did not have proper organization or instruction. I started where Paul started in chapter one, with God’s standards for church leaders and with how to deal with heretics (verses 6-16). My “negative” preaching proved, once again, to be a hot topic!

One of the men who had attended the meeting was from eastern Nepal, and was considered the chief pastor among a number of house churches scattered across that entire region. He was one of the most enthusiastic in telling me that my teaching was just wonderful. After each session he would approach me and shake my hand cheerfully and tell me what a help these meetings were to him. I was encouraged. My ministry was appreciated! My gifts were recognized! I was getting through!

How deceived I was! I soon learned that this man, this very man, was living in total disobedience to the things we were looking at from God’s Word. He had three wives. Not two, but three! He was living with the youngest one (what a coincidence, huh?) at his main church compound in a town near the Indian border, and the two older wives were living with their children on two other farms he owned in that region. He visited them from time to time. He also, I learned, had a poor testimony in regard to certain matters having to do with money and properties.

When I confronted him with this matter and warned him that he was not qualified to be a pastor, he was very discouraged. The next session he stood and addressed the group of men, detailing a vision he had from God, supposedly, in which God commanded him to “preach to my sheep.” I explained that he could preach and serve the Lord in certain ways, but that he was not qualified to be a pastor and that God would not contradict His Word by a vision. He refused to listen, and the Campus Crusade leader and others encouraged the man NOT to quit the pastorate! They stayed up with him much of that night speaking to him and encouraging him NOT to obey the clear teaching of the Word of God.

I was not again invited to speak at Evangelical meetings in Nepal. I had only been there a year or so and already my career as a popular ecumenical speaker was finished. Praise the Lord for His mercy and kindness to an ignorant young missionary! I learned that if you stand strictly upon the Word of God you will be “too negative” for the New Evangelical crowd.

A REPUDIATION OF THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY

Since that time I have studied New Evangelicalism intensely. I learned that it is the predominant form of Christianity today apart from Romanism, Modernism, and the Cults, and I have wanted to understand it.

I have found that the heart of New Evangelicalism is this: It is a repudiation of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity.

This is what confuses so many people. They hear a Chuck Colson or a Chuck Swindoll or a Billy Graham or a Luis Palau or a Jack Van Impe, and they proclaim, “Everything he said was good; I didn’t hear anything unscriptural.” That is often correct. The chief problem with New Evangelicalism is not so much what it preaches that is wrong but what it refuses to preach that is right!

The New Evangelical will NOT preach plainly against sin. He will NOT practice separation. He will NOT identify and expose false teachers. He has repudiated this type of negativism, in spite of the fact that it is plainly a part of the whole counsel of God. Consider some examples of this. We will begin with statements by Billy Graham, one of the fathers of New Evangelicalism:

“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders–people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition–has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction” (Billy Graham, “I Can’t Play God Any More,” McCall’s magazine, Jan. 1978).

Note the word “tolerant.” This is a keynote of New Evangelicalism. My friends, it is utterly impossible to be tolerant in the sense that Graham is speaking and be faithful to the Word of God. God is not tolerant of sin or error. How can His preachers think they can be tolerant of such and be pleasing to Him? It is confusion.

“Q. In your book you speak of `false prophets.’ You say it is the `full-time effort of many intellectuals to circumvent God’s plan’ and you make a quotation from Paul Tillich. Do you consider Paul Tillich a false prophet?”

“A. I have made it a practice not to pass judgment on other clergymen.”

“Q. Do you think that churches such as The United Church of Canada and the great liberal churches of the United States that are active in the ecumenical movement … are `apostate’?”

“A. I could not possibly pass this type of judgment on individual churches and clergymen within The United Church of Canada … Our Evangelistic Association is not concerned to pass judgment–favorable or adverse–on any particular denomination” (“Billy Graham Answers 26 Provocative Questions,” United Church Observer, July 1, 1966).

In this interview we note another standard New Evangelical characteristic. The New Evangelical will warn of false teaching in a very general sense, but he refuses to identify false teachers plainly. The New Evangelical’s hearers therefore are not protected in any specific manner from error. They are not told exactly what the error is or who teaches it. Further, the New Evangelical will fellowship with and quote false teachers indiscriminately and thereby send signals that the false teachers are genuine brethren in Christ.

“Quite frankly, my Brother, I wish some of the brethren would take off their boxing gloves and pick up a towel. Perhaps if people began to wash one another’s feet, there might be more love and unity” (Warren Wiersbe, letter to D.W. Cloud, May 23, 1986).

I had written to Dr. Wiersbe and asked him why he was associated with Christianity Today (he was an associate editor at the time) and other New Evangelical organizations, why he refused to speak plainly against such things as Romanism and Modernism. He replied with the above comment. Of course, we do need to remove our boxing gloves if we are fighting merely for self interest or for some pet peeve that is not a part of the Word of God, or if we are striving merely out of a carnal love for quarreling, if we are merely a problem maker wherever we go. But Wiersbe’s advice was given in the context of contending for the faith, and if ever there were a day in which God’s men need to put on the gloves and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints it is today!

“That’s the wrong spirit–AVOID the liberal! I love to be with liberals, especially if they are willing to be taught, much more than with hard-boiled Fundamentalists who have all the answers. … Evangelicals should seek to build bridges” (Stephen Olford, cited by Dennis Costella, “Amsterdam ’86: Using Evangelism to Promote Ecumenism,” Foundation, July-August 1986).

Dennis Costella of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association attended the Billy Graham Amsterdam ’86 conference with press credentials and heard Stephen Olford speak. Costella noted that Olford delivered a strong message on the authority of Scripture and had mentioned the danger of Modernism and had warned the preachers in a general way to beware of it. Later, when Costella had opportunity to interview Olford, he asked this question, “You emphasized in your message the dangers of liberalism and how it could ruin the evangelist and his ministry. What is this conference doing to instruct the evangelist as to how to identify liberalism and the liberal so that upon his return home, he will be able to avoid the same?” Olford replied with the comment in the previous paragraph. Again we see the New Evangelical trait of refusing to be specific about error. They will warn of false teaching in general but will refuse to deal with false teaching according to the Word of God. The truth is that the New Evangelical is far more concerned about Fundamentalism than he is about Modernism or Romanism or any other form of apostasy.

“At Fuller we are characterized by balance in that we are an institution of `both-and’ rather than `either-or.’ We seek to be both Evangelical and ecumenical …” (David Allan Hubbard, President, Fuller Theological Seminary (Christianity Today, Feb. 3, 1989, p. 71).

What doublespeak! A “both-and” Christianity is as unscriptural as it possibly can be, yet this is what the New Evangelical strives for and glories in.

“Bill Hybels [pastor of the 12,000-member Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago] took a survey and found that people always left church feeling guilty (the Christian message was too negative with `sin,’ etc.). Hybels’ solution was to `program our Sunday morning service to non- believers … By this means, Hybels hoped the newcomers would `feel welcome, unthreatened, and entertained'” (The BDM Letter, Oct. 1992).

This is the New Evangelical positive approach at your service. Many New Evangelicals will not go as far as Hybels does in giving the unsaved what they want, but the philosophy behind this is definitely New Evangelical.

Hybels is VERY popular in Evangelical circles.

“I’m not a charismatic. However, I don’t feel it’s my calling to shoot great volleys of theological artillery at my charismatic brothers and sisters. … More than ever we need grace-awakened ministers who free rather than bind: Life beyond the letter of Scripture … absence of dogmatic Bible-bashing” (Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening, pp. 188,233).

The dogmatic Bible-bashing so despised by Charles Swindoll is exactly the ministry of the Word of God exercised and enjoined by the Apostles. Consider Peter’s message in 2 Peter 2. It would be difficult to use language harsher or plainer than this to describe false teachers. A “grace-awakened” minister by Swindoll’s definition is one who is tolerant of error and who emphasizes the positive in every situation. This is not how Paul acted. In the Pastoral Epistles alone he identifies false teachers and compromisers 10 times (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:17; 3:8; 4:10,14).

The Apostles were NOT New Evangelicals. Regarding false teachers, they gave the following instruction: (1) Mark and avoid them (Rom. 16:17,18). (2) Come out from among them (2 Cor. 6:14-18). (3) Shun their babblings (2 Tim. 2:16,17). (4) Turn away from them (2 Tim. 3:5). (5) Reject them (Tit. 3:10). (6) Do not receive them nor bid them God speed (2 Jn. 10-11).

“LUIS PALAU’S form of worship presents such a broad Christian message that it appeals to Protestants and Catholics alike … [Palau] carefully avoids the controversial differences between Catholics and Protestants” (The Arizona Republic, Oct. 31, 1992).

This is a good description of New Evangelicalism. It presents a “broad” Christian message and carefully avoids controversial matters. It is interesting that this discerning description is given by the secular press.

“MALIBU – … it was a week in which Christianity came with top-notch food served by waiters, bikini-clad girls, water skiing, immaculate facilities, games galore, rock music, new friends, affection and some of the most glorious scenery in Creation.

“One hundred miles north of Vancouver … the Malibu Club brings in about 4,000 teenagers each summer.

“Malibu teaches the teens that Christianity can be a blast.

“`It’s just they make God, like, really fun,’ said Crystal Primrose, 15, from North Vancouver.

“A casually dressed club director, John McNichol, led the final night’s session in which he asked kids to make a commitment to Jesus. He told the teens they have doubts about whether they’d still have fun if they became Christian and about what their friends might think if they converted. `But don’t worry. God is like the king of fun,’ said McNichol, who earlier in the day dressed up as James Bond for a comedy skit” (Report on YOUNG LIFE’S Malabu, The Spectator, Hamilton, Ontario, Sat., Oct. 1, 1994).

Fun Christianity. That is New Evangelicalism. The New Evangelical’s God is not the awesomely holy God of Scripture, the God who requires repentance, the God who is to be served in “reverence and godly fear,” the God who requires the crucified life; he is the king of fun. If someone protests that this is not the case, I challenge that one to observe any New Evangelical youth ministry. You will quickly see that we know whereof we speak.

“Wagner makes negative assessments about nobody. He has made a career out of finding what is good in growing churches, and affirming it without asking many critical questions” (Tim Stafford, “Testing the Wine from John Wimber’s Vineyard,” Christianity Today, August 8, 1986, p.18).

Fuller Seminary professor C. Peter Wagner is a popular church growth proponent in Evangelical circles. This description of his ministry illustrates what we are saying about New Evangelicalism. It has a conscious goal of being positive, even to the degree of ignoring or downplaying error.

Thus we see that the foremost trait of New Evangelicalism is its repudiation of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity. If the preacher you listen to avoids such things as Hell, Judgment, and Separation; if he never pointedly identifies apostasy, speaking of error on in the most general terms; if he studiously avoids being controversial; if he speaks more of self-esteem than self-denial, you are probably listening to a New Evangelical preacher.

A MOOD OF NEUTRALISM

Another way of identifying New Evangelicalism is its mood of neutralism. New Evangelicalism is a philosophy, but it is also a mood. In his discerning book on Evangelicalism, subtitled The New Neutralism, John Ashbrook notes: “[New Evangelicalism] might more properly be labeled The New Neutralism. It seeks neutral ground, being neither fish nor fowl, neither right nor left, neither for nor against–it stands between!” (p. 2).

New Evangelicalism can be identified by the following terms: Soft, cautious, hesitant, tolerant, pragmatic, accommodating, flexible, non- controversial, non-offensive, non-passionate, non-dogmatic.

Whenever you encounter churches and preachers who are characterized by these terms, you have encountered New Evangelicalism. Contrast Bible Christianity, which is characterized by other terms: Strong, bold, fearless, dogmatic, plain, intolerant and unaccommodating (of sin and error), inflexible (in regard to the truth), controversial, offensive (to those who are disobedient to God), passionate.

While the battle between Truth and Error rages, New Evangelicalism tries to sit on the sidelines.

Beware of New Evangelicalism. It is a great error, and to adopt it is to enter a downward path which often leads to increasing blindness. Behold Billy Graham, who, in the early days of his ministry preached against Romanism, Communism, and Modernism, today sees no great problem with any of these, today calls the pope a great evangelist and a friend of the saints. Behold Jack Van Impe, who only two decades ago preached in Fundamental circles, today holds forth the pope of Rome as a defender of the faith! Behold James Robison, who only a few years ago lifted his voice boldly against apostasy, today thinks the pope is a saved man and a great example of morality.

“The New Evangelical advocates toleration of error. It is following the downward path of accommodation to error, cooperation with error, contamination by error, and ultimate capitulation to error” (Charles Woodbridge).

“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).

“But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:16).

“The truth is being lost in our churches, not by those who teach errors, but by the men who don’t care. They sit indifferently as though they weren’t involved, as though they could be noble gentlemen by being above all such struggling. They don’t realize that all we need to do to lose the truth is nothing. Then there are those who throw the dirt of slander at the finest fighters. They’ll have to face God for that” (Christian News, June 22, 1992).

“The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest sort. It is an insidious attack upon the Word of God.” –Dr. Charles Woodridge

“When we bow before God we never know what may come of it. We are in the presence of a greatness which gives to our slightest acts an infinite significance; and though our prayers may not live in the thought and memory of mankind, they always have effects which stretch out into eternity.” –R.W. Dale

“Those who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in their teachings, are guilty of lending credibility to their heresies, and will be held accountable to God for the souls that are destroyed as a result.” –Al Dager

“From the Liberality which says that everybody is right; from the Charity which forbids to say that anybody is wrong; from the Peace which is bought at the expense of Truth; may the good Lord deliver us.” –J.C. Ryle

“To seek unity with false prophets without challenging their errors leaves one’s own beliefs open to questions. Those who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in their teachings, are guilty of lending credibility to their heresies, and will be held accountable to God for the souls that are destroyed as a result. It’s up to those that know the truth to defend the church against false teachers whatever the cost to unity or to personal benefit.” –Al Dager

“On all hands we hear cries for unity in this and unity in that; but in our mind the main need of this age is not compromise but conscientiousness. `First pure, then peaceable…’ It is easy to cry, `A confederacy,’ but that union that is not based on the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion. Charity by all means: but honesty also. Love of course, but love to God as well as love to men, and love of truth as well as love of union. It is exceedingly difficult in these times to preserve one’s fidelity before God and one’s fraternity among men. Should not the former be preferred to the latter if both cannot be maintained? We think so.” –C.H. Spurgeon

[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 1, 1995. Permission is given for free distribution of this material, but not for resale. All rights are reserved by the author. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.] Copyright 1995 [Way of Life Literature, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, WA 98277.(360) 675-8311.]

NEW EVANGELICALISM: ITS HISTORY

“The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest sort. It is an insidious attack upon the Word of God.” –Dr. Charles Woodridge

I am convinced that few errors are as destructive to Fundamental, Bible- believing churches as New Evangelicalism. When people leave our churches, where do they go? Do they join the Roman Catholic church? Do they join a modernistic Protestant church, such as the United Methodist or the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. or the United Church of Canada? Do they join a cult? Very seldom. No, most people who leave Fundamental, Bible-believing churches join the easy-going New Evangelical church down the street or across town.

Few false philosophies more directly pull at members of Fundamental Baptist churches than New Evangelicalism. Church members are confronted with it on every hand–through popular radio and television preachers, at the local ecumenical bookstore, through members of Evangelical churches, through evangelistic crusades, through political activity.

It is therefore crucial that we understand the nature of New Evangelicalism.

We are concerned that a great many of the members of good churches do not have a clear understanding of exactly what New Evangelicalism is, nor of the history of the doctrinal battles which have been fought to preserve the Truth in the past 100 years.

To be ignorant of the insidious nature of New Evangelicalism is to be unprepared to identify and resist it. In this first section of we define New Evangelicalism in the context of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies of the first half of this century.

THE FUNDAMENTALIST-MODERNIST CONTROVERSIES

The term “Fundamentalism” has come to mean any number of things and is commonly used in a derogatory and slanderous way by those who do not believe the Scriptures. It is used to describe all sorts of extremism– terrorist Muslims, snake-handlers, the demonically-possessed Jim Jones who caused the mass suicide of his followers, the racist Ayrian Nations.

In a historical Christian context, Fundamentalism arose out of the doctrinal controversies which embroiled American churches at the turn of the century when modernism began to take root in seminaries and Bible colleges and in leadership positions in the denominations.

Fundamentalism is a North American church phenomena, but it arose because of theological problems which originated in Europe.

Modernism (or Liberalism) had its origin in Europe, particularly in Germany, in the 19th century and was merely the rationalistic thinking of that time applied to Christianity. It was the dawn of the “scientific era”; many men felt they were on the verge of discovering the secrets of the universe and solving the problems of mankind. Anti-Christian thinkers such as Darwin, Hegel, and Marx led the movement to dethrone God and place Man in His place. Unregenerate “Christian” professors in European Bible seminaries had already rejected the Word of God, so they gladly accepted the humanistic thinking of the day and set out to apply evolutionary philosophies to the Bible and Christianity. The result was tragic: The Bible was considered simply another human book, inspired only in the sense that Shakespeare’s writings were “inspired.” Jesus Christ was considered a mere man–good and influential–but a mere man nonetheless.

Modernists taught that the Bible did not come to us by direct revelation from God through the Holy Spirit’s ministry to holy men of old, but came, rather, as a purely human evolutionary process. Supposedly, as men’s ideas about God became more sophisticated, the writers of the Bible drew an increasingly more sophisticated picture of God, until we come to the supposed higher theological ideas of the New Testament. Modernists do not believe the Bible’s historical accounts are accurate and do not believe the miracles actually happened. They do not believe there actually was an Adam and an Eve, a Garden of Eden, a worldwide Flood, nor do they believe the miracles recorded in Exodus and other parts of the O.T. happened as recorded, but believe these are religious myths much like the Hindu stories. According to Modernism, the first five books of the Bible were not written by the historical Moses as He received it as Revelation from the hand of God, but were not assembled together in their present state until the time of Israel’s kings. Many Modernists do not believe in that Christ was virgin-born, nor that He is truly God, nor that He actually rose from the dead, etc. They do not believe that the Gospel accounts of His life are factual, and they assume that we do not have an accurate idea of what Jesus Christ was truly like.

An example of Modernism is found in the writings of the men who translated the Revised Standard Version of 1951. This corrupted version was produced by apostates. Consider a few excerpts from their books:

“Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book. … Even on Christian soil it has sometimes been held that the books of the Bible were practically dictated to the writers through the Holy Spirit. … I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN POSITION. If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility. … The true Christian position is the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelation” (Clarence T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity).

“The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was CAPABLE OF MANY EXPLANATIONS. THE VERY LAST ONE THAT WOULD BE CREDIBLE TO A MODERN MAN WOULD BE THE EXPLANATION OF A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY” (Ibid., Craig).

“The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable” (Julius Brewer, The Literature of the Old Testament).

“The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some of the Old Testament prophecies” (James Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament).

“One cannot of course place John on the same level with the synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke] as A HISTORICAL SOURCE” (William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity).

“He [Jesus Christ] was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the oriental world” (Henry F.

Cadbury, Jesus, What Manner of Man?).

“As to the miraculous, one can hardly doubt that time and tradition would heighten this element in the story of Jesus” (Ibid., Cadbury).

“A psychology of God, IF that is what Jesus was, is not available” (Ibid., Cadbury).

“According to the ENTHUSIASTIC TRADITIONS which had come down through the FOLKLORE of the people of Israel, Methuselah lived 969 years” (Walter Russell Bowie, Great Men of the Bible).

“The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell” (Ibid., Bowie).

“WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL [JOHN] FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN ITS RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS” (Willard L. Sperry, Rebuilding Our World).

“This phrase [`Thus saith the Lord’] is an almost unfailing mark of SPURIOUSNESS” (William A. Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel).

“Only bigotry could bring us to deny an EQUAL VALIDITY WITH THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL in the religious vision of men such as Zoraster or Ikhnaton or, on a lower level, the unnamed thinkers of ancient Babylonia” (Ibid., Irwin).

“The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon the soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY” (Fleming James, The Beginnings of Our Religion).

“What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW” (Ibid., James).

“We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do” (Millar Burrows, Outline of Biblical Theology).

A more recent illustration of Modernism comes from the pen of John Shelby Spong, a bishop in the Episcopal Church in America:

“Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not literally true? The answer is a simple and direct `Yes.’ Of course these narratives are not literally true. Stars do not wander, angels do not sing, virgins do not give birth, magi do not travel to a distant land to present gifts to a baby, and shepherds do not go in search of a newborn savior. … To talk of a Father God who has a divine-human son by a virgin woman is a mythology that our generation would never have created, and obviously, could not use. To speak of a Father God so enraged by human evil that he requires propitiation for our sins that we cannot pay and thus demands the death of the divine-human son as a guilt offering is a ludicrous idea to our century. The sacrificial concept that focuses on the saving blood of Jesus that somehow washes me clean, so popular in Evangelical and Fundamentalist circles, is by and large repugnant to us today” (John Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Harper, 1991, pp. 215,234).

It is shocking to see how these supposed Christian scholars deny the Holy Scriptures. Modernism flies under many flags, and not all Modernists are as bold and plain speaking as Bishop Spong, but all deny the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture and question the miraculous.

It is important to remember that all of this was prophesied by the Holy Spirit. The Lord’s Apostles warned that many unregenerate false teachers would creep into the churches and would deceive many, and in fact, such false teachers were already active during the times of the Apostles. See Ma. 7:15-23; 24:5,24; Ac. 20:28-30; Ro. 16:17-28; 2 Co. 11:1-20; Ga. 2:4; Ph. 3:1,2; 3:18-19; Co. 2:4-8; 1 Ti. 1:19-20; 4:1-3; 6:20-21; 2 Ti. 2:14- 21; 3:1-13; 4:1-4; Tit. 1:10-16; 3:9-11; 2 Pe. 2:1-22: 3:1- 18; 1 Jo. 2:18- 19; 4:1-6; 2 Jo. 7-11; Ju. 3-19; Re. 2:2,6, Re. 2:14-15; Re. 2:20-23; Re. 3:15-17; Re. 17.

Modernism quickly increased in popularity, especially from the middle to the end of the 19th century, and by the early 1900s had became the predominant theology among Christian leaders in Germany and most other parts of Europe and had been introduced to American denominations through men who studied in prestigious (though apostate) European seminaries and through European professors who visited American schools and churches.

Though there were some who resisted Modernism in Europe, it more easily spread there than in America because of the fact that the majority of Christianity in Europe was already apostate when Modernism arose. Apart from Roman Catholicism, Protestant state churches were the predominant forms of Christianity in Europe, and since most of these groups taught infant baptism and were very ritualistic, they had become filled with unregenerate members and spiritual death long before the end of the 19th century. They had no power to resist Modernism, and the comparatively few independent churches in Europe were not influential enough to cause much of an uproar against the Modernistic teaching.

FUNDAMENTALISM

The situation was different in America. There were no state-controlled and affiliated denominations in the U.S., and America had been blessed with some powerful revival movements in the 1800s and the early 1900s. Christianity in the U.S. was therefore much livelier than in Europe. As Modernism began gaining adherents in U.S. denominations, Christian leaders who were saved and who believed the Bible began to take a stand against it. The battle that followed was called The Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy.

The name “Fundamentalist” was popularized by a series of books which were written by Bible-believing men for the purpose of expounding the Fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, of the Bible. Published over a five-year period from 1910-1915, the series, titled The Fundamentals, was composed of 90 articles written by 64 authors. With the financial backing of a wealthy Christian businessman, hundreds of thousands of copies of The Fundamentals were distributed to Christian workers in the United States and 21 foreign countries. The articles defended the perfect inspiration of the Bible, justification by faith, the new birth, the deity, virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and other Bible truths. They dealt not only with the heresy of Modernism, but of Romanism, Socialism, and the Cults.

Some have attempted define Fundamentalism as is only a concern for “the five fundamentals of the faith.” G. Archer Weniger shows the falicy of this view:

“The five fundamentals have only to do with the Presbyterian aspect of the struggle with modernism. … The bulk of Fundamentalism, especially the Baptists of every stripe who composed the majority by far, never accepted the five fundamentals alone. The World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, founded in 1919, had at least a dozen main doctrines highlighted. The same was true of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, which originated in 1920. A true Fundamentalist would under no circumstances restrict his doctrinal position to five fundamentals. Even Dr. Carl F.H. Henry, a New Evangelical theologian, listed at least several dozen doctrines essential to the Faith. The only advantage of reducing the Faith down to five is to make possible a wider inclusion of religionists, who might be way off in heresy on other specific doctrines. It is much easier to have large numbers of adherents with the lowest common denominator in doctrine” (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in Calvary Contender, Apr. 15, 1994).

An accurate definition of Fundamentalism was given by the World Congresses of Fundamentalists:

• A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who–
  

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible.
2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.
3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible.
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith: The doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; the resurrection of the saints to life eternal; the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death; the fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ.
5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature.
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth.
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

Many varying definitions of Fundamentalism have been given through the years, and the truth of the matter is that Fundamentalism has taken a great variety of forms. As a movement it has been largely interdenominational, yet many independent, separatist churches, such as independent Baptists and independent Bible churches, have accepted the label. Regardless of this variety, though, one of the chief hallmarks of Fundamentalism–its very essense, if you will–has always been a MILITANCY for the Faith of the Word of God. Anyone who is not truly militant in standing for the Truth has no title to biblical Fundamentalism.

The battle grew hotter as the years passed and as Modernistic thinking increased in popularity in American denominations, theological schools, and Christian organizations. Many Bible-believers, realizing that liberalism, having become rooted, could not be effectively resisted (1 Co. 5:6; Ga. 5:9), separated themselves from those groups which were giving Modernism a home. They formed new churches, denominations, and organizations.

EVANGELICALISM

Evangelicalism of the 1990s is a different creature than that of the 1940s and earlier. Fifty years ago the term “Evangelical” was a word which referred to strong, Bible-believing Christianity. Though the term “Evangelical,” like Fundamentalism, has never had an established definition, as a rule it had traditionally described Protestants who were stridently anti-Roman Catholic and who preached the new birth. For the most part, the Evangelicals of Europe and North America a generation ago were stalwart soldiers for Christ.

Some trace the term “Evangelical” to the English revivals of the Wesleys and Whitefield. Others trace it back further to the earliest days of the Protestant Reformation. In either case, we can see that Evangelicalism of old was dogmatic and militant. It was old fashioned Protestanism. Luther was excommunicated by the Pope; John Wesley was barred from Anglican churches. Anyone familiar with the old Lutheran and Methodist creeds can understand why this was the case. Those men, though we Baptists don’t see eye to eye with them on many important points, definitely stood militantly for what they believed to be the truth. Not only did these Evangelical Protestants define what they believed the Bible taught, but they defined it in contradiction to error. This is exactly what the New Evangelical refuses to do.

• Consider examples of this from the Methodist Articles of Religion:

“Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. … The Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”

“…the sacrifice of masses in the which it is commonly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit.”

David Otis Fuller, speaking of these Evangelical soldiers of bygone days, said,

“Each man possessed the same fierce conviction–that all truth is absolute, never relative. For these men, truth was never a nose of wax to be twisted to suit their system of dialectics or deceptive casuistry. Two times two made four. In mathematics, their supreme authority was the multiplication table; in theology, their absolute authority was the Bible” (D.O. Fuller, Preface, Valiant for the Truth, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961, pp. ix,x).

Baptist C.H. Spurgeon is another example of what “Evangelical” meant in generations past. Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s ministry was characterized by faithfulness to the truth, holiness of life, a pure gospel of grace, and unhesitating exposure of error. Though slandered, hated, and misunderstood, Spurgeon did not draw back from separating from the Baptist Union of Britain because of the false doctrine which was being countenanced. He also stood unhesitatingly against Roman Catholicism. Consider this excerpt from one of Spurgeon’s sermons:

“It is impossible but that the Church of Rome must spread, when we who are the watchdogs of the fold are silent, and others are gently and smoothly turfing the road, and making it as soft and smooth as possible, that converts may travel down to the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John Knox back again. Do not talk to me of mild and gentle men, of soft manners and squeamish words, we want the fiery Knox, and even though his vehemence should `ding our pulpits into blads,’ it were well if he did but rouse our hearts to action” (Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs. 322-3).

When was the last time you read something like that in Christianity Today!

Old Spurgeon hit the nail on the head. Sadly, today’s Evangelicalism is indeed in the business of turfing the road of Romanism to make it smooth for those traveling thereon to Hell.

Many other examples could be given to show that Evangelicalism of past generations involved contending for the faith. Evangelical warriors of a bygone age did not fail to label Rome “that old harlot, drunk with the blood of the martyrs” and would have considered it unthinkable to have fellowship with Romanism or Modernism or with any other form of apostasy.

THE NEW EVANGELICALISM

It was at this point that there came yet another division–that of New Evangelicalism. When godly men began to separate completely from Modernism and to refuse to have anything to do with those churches and institutions which were protecting the Modernists, there were many who claimed to be Evangelical Bible believers yet did not agree with the principle of separation. Until that time the term “Evangelical” generally referred to those who preached the necessity of the new birth through faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ and who stood firmly for the pure doctrine of the Scriptures. Evangelical had referred, in other words, to obedient, Bible- believing Christians. Now there arose those who claimed the title “Evangelical” but who refused to obey some of the teachings of Scripture.

• These began to be called “New Evangelical”.

Sadly, therefore, Evangelicalism is no longer a term for the stalwart defense of the Word of God. A generation of Evangelicals has arisen that, though rich in all manner of worldly benefits, has abandoned the spiritual zeal of their forefathers. Blindly following their compromised leaders, Evangelicals of this generation have removed the landmarks and knocked down the fences which were carefully set up by their wise forebears. With the rise to prominence of Billy Graham, another kind of Evangelicalism emerged.

The term “New Evangelicalism” was coined by the late Harold Ockenga to define a new type of Evangelicalism and to distinguish it from those who had heretofore bore that label. Ockenga has had a phenomenal influence upon today’s Evangelicalism. He was the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today. In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the position of New Evangelicalism:

“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of Fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. — It differed from Fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.”

Ockenga and the new generation of Evangelicals, Billy Graham figuring most prominently, determined to abandon a militant Bible stance. Ockenga contended that Evangelicals should practice infiltration rather than separation, meaning they should stay in the apostate denominations and organizations and try to change them from within rather than separate from them and serve God in pure churches and organizations. He contended that Evangelicals should practice dialogue rather than exhortation, that they should not be negative in their message by rebuking and warning false teachers publicly, but should attempt to change the false teachers through dialogue. He taught that Evangelicals should reexamine their idea of worldliness and not be as strict about separating from worldly evils as Bible-believing Christians had been in earlier days.

Ockenga decided that Evangelicals should consider the possibility that modern science was right in some areas where it disagreed with the Bible. The prime example of this was in the origin of the world. Ockenga did not think Christians should so easily ignore the teaching of evolution as separatists were accustomed to do. He taught that there could be a synthesis between modern science and the Bible, and it is this New Evangelical principle that led to such strange ideas as theistic evolution.

Ockenga also believed that Christians should aim to meet Modernists and the men of the world on their own scholastic level and therefore contended that Christian leaders should be as well educated in the social sciences and liberal arts as unregenerate scholars and as well-versed in Bible criticism as the Modernists. The idea was that the Christian leader should seek to influence men through human wisdom and scholarship rather than purely though the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word of God as we see in the ministries of the Apostles.

God says, “Walk ye in the old paths,” but the New Evangelical reassesses the old paths. God says, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” but the New Evangelical has removed them one by one. God says, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” but the New Evangelical reasons that such fellowship is necessary. God says, “A little leaven leaventh the whole lump,” but the New Evangelical thinks he can reform the already leavened lump. God says “evil communications corrupt good manners,” but the New Evangelical thinks good manners can uplift evil communications. God says, “I resist the proud but give grace to the humble,” but the New Evangelical thinks the way to reach the world is by meeting them on their own proud territory, matching them scholarly degree with degree.

The result of this new thinking has been dramatic. Within a mere fifty years, Evangelicalism has lost all semblance of its past purity, power, and glory. New Evangelicalism is blind and naked, but is not aware of it. In fact, New Evangelicalism glories in its new-found acceptance by the world and apostate Christendom, its vast material wealth, its satellites and transmitters, its worldwide television and radio networks, its vast publishing enterprises, its massive conferences.

It is God who has commanded that His people separate from error and from those who teach and practice it; it is God who has commanded that His people “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.” And when these and other aspects of old-time Evangelicalism were rejected, the power and blessing of God was removed just as it was from Samson of old when he broke his Nazarite vow.

Even key Evangelical leaders have noted the spiritual decline of their movement. Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today, made this amazing statement at the 27th annual conention of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in Apr. 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?). 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).

At the 1976 convention of the NAE in Washington D.C., Francis Schaeffer spoke on “The Watershed of the Evangelical World,” which is the perfect 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?).

The Evangelical world has ignored the concerns of those who have lifted a voice of warning.

New Evangelical thought has been adopted by such well-known Christian leaders as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Harold Lindsell, John R.W. Stott, Luis Palau, E.V. Hill, Leighton Ford, Charles Stanley, Bill Hybels, Warren Wiersbe, Chuck Colson, Donald McGavran, Tony Campolo, Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, David Hocking, Charles Swindoll, and a multitude of other men. Through publications such as Christianity Today and Moody Monthly, and through publishing houses such as InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, Tyndale House Publishers, Moody Press, and Thomas Nelson–to name but a few–New Evangelical thinking was broadcast across the world. In addition to the powerful influence of the printed page, compromised New Evangelical teaching was promoted by institutions such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, BIOLA, the Lausanne Conference for World Evangelism (LCWE), the National Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Fellowship, National Religious Broadcasters, Radio Bible Class, Youth for Christ, Back to the Bible, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, World Vision, Operation Mobilization, and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. There have also been countless conferences which have been organized with the main purpose of promoting New Evangelical thought. Two of the largest and most influential were Amsterdam ’83 and Amsterdam ’86 which were sponsored by Billy Graham Ministries and were attended by thousands of preachers from across the world.

Because of the tremendous influence of these men and organizations, New Evangelical thought has swept the world. Today it is no exaggeration to say that almost without exception those who call themselves Evangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line Evangelicals, except for rare exceptions, have either aligned with the Fundamental movement or have adopted New Evangelicalism.

Independent Baptists have historically been separatists and have therefore identified with Fundamentalism–though most Fundamental Baptists reject the interdenominationalism and nonchalantness toward ecclesiology of the Fundamentalist movement as a whole. Today, sadly, there is growing sympathy on the part of many supposed Fundamental Baptists with New Evangelicalism.

Beware of New Evangelicalism. To join hands with New Evangelicalism is to join hands with apostasy and is to turn one’s back on biblical Christianity.

NEW EVANGELICALISM: ITS HEART

In the previous section we traced the history of New Evangelicalism and gave the classic, historic definition thereof. In this section I want to detail what I believe to be the very heart and soul of New Evangelicalism. I want to give a practical definition of New Evangelicalism which can be understood and used by the members of independent Baptist and other Fundamental, Bible-believing congregations.

• PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE

The following definition comes from many years of dealing with and studying New Evangelicalism. When we arrived in South Asia in 1979 to begin our missionary work, I was very ignorant of the nature of New Evangelicalism. Little did I know that I was soon to have a crash course in the subject. In my ignorance and inexperience, I was under the impression that New Evangelicalism was merely a United States phenomenon and that believers in other parts of the world, though they might be aligned with New Evangelical type organizations, would not necessarily be infected with compromise and error. How wrong I was!

During our first year in Nepal, I was invited by the national Campus Crusade for Christ people to preach at an underground evangelistic meeting, which I did. (Gospel work was illegal at that time in Nepal.) Using the book of Romans as an outline, I preached the Gospel, beginning with man’s sin and God’s holiness and judgment, and ending with God’s love and grace through Jesus Christ. I started where Paul started and ended where he ended. After the service, the leaders took me aside and told me that my preaching was “too negative.” This was to be expected, I suppose, considering the fact that Campus Crusade’s Four Spiritual Laws starts on a positive note with “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This was the first time, though, I had direct dealings with those who had consciously rejected the negatives of biblical Christianity and who strived always to put a positive spin on everything, and I was shocked at their blatant disregard for Scripture. We discussed the fact that the Apostles approached men in a very negative manner, dealing first with man’s sin and God’s holiness before speaking of God’s love and mercy, but they were unmoved in their philosophy that it is “too negative” to preach like this today. Nothing I could show them from the Word of God seemed to have any impact whatsoever upon them.

After a few months I was invited by the leaders of the Nepal Christian Fellowship (the head of which, at that time, was also the head of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nepal) to speak at some home Bible studies. I chose the topic of biblical separation, and it turned out to be a hot item! Knowing that the Jesuits had a strong foothold in that area and that some of the non-Catholic believers had close fellowship with them, I detailed the apostasy of Roman Catholicism and explained what the Bible says about separation from error. The response was quick and severe! When I closed my Bible, a female missionary who was working with an ecumenical organization called United Mission to Nepal and who taught in a girl’s school, stood and loudly proclaimed, “You’re not going to tell me I can’t fellowship with my Roman Catholic friends! I attend mass with them and they attend church with me and I don’t see anything wrong with it!” Though I was scheduled to teach at a series of Bible studies, that first one became my last.

After this I was invited by the same Fellowship to speak to a group of Nepali pastors. I was told that they had no Bible education and needed any help I could give them. They came to the capitol city from various parts of Nepal for these meetings, and I decided to use the book of Titus as an outline, dealing with some of the practical matters of church life. It seemed to be an ideal place to start. Titus was instructed by the Apostle in how to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). This was precisely what was needed in Nepal. There were a number of small, struggling house churches which did not have proper organization or instruction. I started where Paul started in chapter one, with God’s standards for church leaders and with how to deal with heretics (verses 6-16). My “negative” preaching proved, once again, to be a hot topic!

One of the men who had attended the meeting was from eastern Nepal, and was considered the chief pastor among a number of house churches scattered across that entire region. He was one of the most enthusiastic in telling me that my teaching was just wonderful. After each session he would approach me and shake my hand cheerfully and tell me what a help these meetings were to him. I was encouraged. My ministry was appreciated! My gifts were recognized! I was getting through!

How deceived I was! I soon learned that this man, this very man, was living in total disobedience to the things we were looking at from God’s Word. He had three wives. Not two, but three! He was living with the youngest one (what a coincidence, huh?) at his main church compound in a town near the Indian border, and the two older wives were living with their children on two other farms he owned in that region. He visited them from time to time. He also, I learned, had a poor testimony in regard to certain matters having to do with money and properties.

When I confronted him with this matter and warned him that he was not qualified to be a pastor, he was very discouraged. The next session he stood and addressed the group of men, detailing a vision he had from God, supposedly, in which God commanded him to “preach to my sheep.” I explained that he could preach and serve the Lord in certain ways, but that he was not qualified to be a pastor and that God would not contradict His Word by a vision. He refused to listen, and the Campus Crusade leader and others encouraged the man NOT to quit the pastorate! They stayed up with him much of that night speaking to him and encouraging him NOT to obey the clear teaching of the Word of God.

I was not again invited to speak at Evangelical meetings in Nepal. I had only been there a year or so and already my career as a popular ecumenical speaker was finished. Praise the Lord for His mercy and kindness to an ignorant young missionary! I learned that if you stand strictly upon the Word of God you will be “too negative” for the New Evangelical crowd.

A REPUDIATION OF THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY

Since that time I have studied New Evangelicalism intensely. I learned that it is the predominant form of Christianity today apart from Romanism, Modernism, and the Cults, and I have wanted to understand it.

I have found that the heart of New Evangelicalism is this: It is a repudiation of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity.

This is what confuses so many people. They hear a Chuck Colson or a Chuck Swindoll or a Billy Graham or a Luis Palau or a Jack Van Impe, and they proclaim, “Everything he said was good; I didn’t hear anything unscriptural.” That is often correct. The chief problem with New Evangelicalism is not so much what it preaches that is wrong but what it refuses to preach that is right!

The New Evangelical will NOT preach plainly against sin. He will NOT practice separation. He will NOT identify and expose false teachers. He has repudiated this type of negativism, in spite of the fact that it is plainly a part of the whole counsel of God. Consider some examples of this. We will begin with statements by Billy Graham, one of the fathers of New Evangelicalism:

“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders–people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition–has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction” (Billy Graham, “I Can’t Play God Any More,” McCall’s magazine, Jan. 1978).

Note the word “tolerant.” This is a keynote of New Evangelicalism. My friends, it is utterly impossible to be tolerant in the sense that Graham is speaking and be faithful to the Word of God. God is not tolerant of sin or error. How can His preachers think they can be tolerant of such and be pleasing to Him? It is confusion.

“Q. In your book you speak of `false prophets.’ You say it is the `full- time effort of many intellectuals to circumvent God’s plan’ and you make a quotation from Paul Tillich. Do you consider Paul Tillich a false prophet?”

“A. I have made it a practice not to pass judgment on other clergymen.”

“Q. Do you think that churches such as The United Church of Canada and the great liberal churches of the United States that are active in the ecumenical movement … are `apostate’?”

“A. I could not possibly pass this type of judgment on individual churches and clergymen within The United Church of Canada … Our Evangelistic Association is not concerned to pass judgment–favorable or adverse–on any particular denomination” (“Billy Graham Answers 26 Provocative Questions,” United Church Observer, July 1, 1966).

• In this interview we note another standard New Evangelical characteristic.

The New Evangelical will warn of false teaching in a very general sense, but he refuses to identify false teachers plainly. The New Evangelical’s hearers therefore are not protected in any specific manner from error. They are not told exactly what the error is or who teaches it. Further, the New Evangelical will fellowship with and quote false teachers indiscriminately and thereby send signals that the false teachers are genuine brethren in Christ.

“Quite frankly, my Brother, I wish some of the brethren would take off their boxing gloves and pick up a towel. Perhaps if people began to wash one another’s feet, there might be more love and unity” (Warren Wiersbe, letter to D.W. Cloud, May 23, 1986).

I had written to Dr. Wiersbe and asked him why he was associated with Christianity Today (he was an associate editor at the time) and other New Evangelical organizations, why he refused to speak plainly against such things as Romanism and Modernism. He replied with the above comment. Of course, we do need to remove our boxing gloves if we are fighting merely for self interest or for some pet peeve that is not a part of the Word of God, or if we are striving merely out of a carnal love for quarreling, if we are merely a problem maker wherever we go. But Wiersbe’s advice was given in the context of contending for the faith, and if ever there were a day in which God’s men need to put on the gloves and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints it is today!

“That’s the wrong spirit–AVOID the liberal! I love to be with liberals, especially if they are willing to be taught, much more than with hard- boiled Fundamentalists who have all the answers. … Evangelicals should seek to build bridges” (Stephen Olford, cited by Dennis Costella, “Amsterdam ’86: Using Evangelism to Promote Ecumenism,” Foundation, July- August 1986).

Dennis Costella of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association attended the Billy Graham Amsterdam ’86 conference with press credentials and heard Stephen Olford speak. Costella noted that Olford delivered a strong message on the authority of Scripture and had mentioned the danger of Modernism and had warned the preachers in a general way to beware of it. Later, when Costella had opportunity to interview Olford, he asked this question, “You emphasized in your message the dangers of liberalism and how it could ruin the evangelist and his ministry. What is this conference doing to instruct the evangelist as to how to identify liberalism and the liberal so that upon his return home, he will be able to avoid the same?” Olford replied with the comment in the previous paragraph. Again we see the New Evangelical trait of refusing to be specific about error. They will warn of false teaching in general but will refuse to deal with false teaching according to the Word of God. The truth is that the New Evangelical is far more concerned about Fundamentalism than he is about Modernism or Romanism or any other form of apostasy.

“At Fuller we are characterized by balance in that we are an institution of `both-and’ rather than `either-or.’ We seek to be both Evangelical and ecumenical …” (David Allan Hubbard, President, Fuller Theological Seminary (Christianity Today, Feb. 3, 1989, p. 71).

What doublespeak! A “both-and” Christianity is as unscriptural as it possibly can be, yet this is what the New Evangelical strives for and glories in.

Bill Hybels [pastor of the 12,000-member Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago] took a survey and found that people always left church feeling guilty (the Christian message was too negative with `sin,’ etc.). Hybels’ solution was to `program our Sunday morning service to non-believers … By this means, Hybels hoped the newcomers would `feel welcome, unthreatened, and entertained’ (The BDM Letter, Oct. 1992).

This is the New Evangelical positive approach at your service. Many New Evangelicals will not go as far as Hybels does in giving the unsaved what they want, but the philosophy behind this is definitely New Evangelical.

Hybels is VERY popular in Evangelical circles.

“I’m not a charismatic. However, I don’t feel it’s my calling to shoot great volleys of theological artillery at my charismatic brothers and sisters. … More than ever we need grace-awakened ministers who free rather than bind: Life beyond the letter of Scripture … absence of dogmatic Bible-bashing” (Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening, pp. 188,233).

The dogmatic Bible-bashing so despised by Charles Swindoll is exactly the ministry of the Word of God exercised and enjoined by the Apostles. Consider Peter’s message in 2 Peter 2. It would be difficult to use language harsher or plainer than this to describe false teachers. A “grace- awakened” minister by Swindoll’s definition is one who is tolerant of error and who emphasizes the positive in every situation. This is not how Paul acted. In the Pastoral Epistles alone he identifies false teachers and compromisers 10 times (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:17; 3:8; 4:10,14).

The Apostles were NOT New Evangelicals. Regarding false teachers, they gave the following instruction: (1) Mark and avoid them (Rom. 16:17,18). (2) Come out from among them (2 Cor. 6:14-18). (3) Shun their babblings (2 Tim. 2:16,17). (4) Turn away from them (2 Tim. 3:5). (5) Reject them (Tit. 3:10). (6) Do not receive them nor bid them God speed (2 Jn. 10-11).

“LUIS PALAU’S form of worship presents such a broad Christian message that it appeals to Protestants and Catholics alike … [Palau] carefully avoids the controversial differences between Catholics and Protestants” (The Arizona Republic, Oct. 31, 1992).

This is a good description of New Evangelicalism. It presents a “broad” Christian message and carefully avoids controversial matters. It is interesting that this discerning description is given by the secular press.

“MALIBU – … it was a week in which Christianity came with top-notch food served by waiters, bikini-clad girls, water skiing, immaculate facilities, games galore, rock music, new friends, affection and some of the most glorious scenery in Creation.

“One hundred miles north of Vancouver … the Malibu Club brings in about 4,000 teenagers each summer.

“Malibu teaches the teens that Christianity can be a blast.

“‘It’s just they make God, like, really fun,’ said Crystal Primrose, 15, from North Vancouver.

“A casually dressed club director, John McNichol, led the final night’s session in which he asked kids to make a commitment to Jesus. He told the teens they have doubts about whether they’d still have fun if they became Christian and about what their friends might think if they converted. `But don’t worry. God is like the king of fun,’ said McNichol, who earlier in the day dressed up as James Bond for a comedy skit” (Report on YOUNG LIFE’S Malabu, The Spectator, Hamilton, Ontario, Sat., Oct. 1, 1994).

Fun Christianity. That is New Evangelicalism. The New Evangelical’s God is not the awesomely holy God of Scripture, the God who requires repentance, the God who is to be served in “reverence and godly fear,” the God who requires the crucified life; he is the king of fun. If someone protests that this is not the case, I challenge that one to observe any New Evangelical youth ministry. You will quickly see that we know whereof we speak.

“Wagner makes negative assessments about nobody. He has made a career out of finding what is good in growing churches, and affirming it without asking many critical questions” (Tim Stafford, “Testing the Wine from John Wimber’s Vineyard,” Christianity Today, August 8, 1986, p. 18).

Fuller Seminary professor C. Peter Wagner is a popular church growth proponent in Evangelical circles. This description of his ministry illustrates what we are saying about New Evangelicalism. It has a conscious goal of being positive, even to the degree of ignoring or downplaying error.

Thus we see that the foremost trait of New Evangelicalism is its repudiation of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity. If the preacher you listen to avoids such things as Hell, Judgment, and Separation; if he never pointedly identifies apostasy, speaking of error on in the most general terms; if he studiously avoids being controversial; if he speaks more of self-esteem than self-denial, you are probably listening to a New Evangelical preacher.

A MOOD OF NEUTRALISM

Another way of identifying New Evangelicalism is its mood of neutralism. New Evangelicalism is a philosophy, but it is also a mood. In his discerning book on Evangelicalism, subtitled The New Neutralism, John Ashbrook notes: “[New Evangelicalism] might more properly be labeled The New Neutralism. It seeks neutral ground, being neither fish nor fowl, neither right nor left, neither for nor against–it stands between!” (p. 2).

New Evangelicalism can be identified by the following terms: Soft, cautious, hesitant, tolerant, pragmatic, accommodating, flexible, non- controversial, non-offensive, non-passionate, non-dogmatic.

Whenever you encounter churches and preachers who are characterized by these terms, you have encountered New Evangelicalism.

Contrast Bible Christianity, which is characterized by other terms: Strong, bold, fearless, dogmatic, plain, intolerant and unaccommodating (of sin and error), inflexible (in regard to the truth), controversial, offensive (to those who are disobedient to God), passionate.

While the battle between Truth and Error rages, New Evangelicalism tries to sit on the sidelines.

Beware of New Evangelicalism. It is a great error, and to adopt it is to enter a downward path which often leads to increasing blindness. Behold Billy Graham, who, in the early days of his ministry preached against Romanism, Communism, and Modernism, today sees no great problem with any of these, today calls the pope a great evangelist and a friend of the saints. Behold Jack Van Impe, who only two decades ago preached in Fundamental circles today holds forth the pope of Rome as a defender of the faith! Behold James Robison, who only a few years ago lifted his voice boldly against apostasy, today thinks the pope is a saved man and a great example of morality.

“The New Evangelical advocates toleration of error. It is following the downward path of accommodation to error, cooperation with error, contamination by error, and ultimate capitulation to error” (Charles Woodbridge).

“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).

“But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:16).

“The truth is being lost in our churches, not by those who teach errors, but by the men who don’t care. They sit indifferently as though they weren’t involved, as though they could be noble gentlemen by being above all such struggling. They don’t realize that all we need to do to lose the truth is nothing. Then there are those who throw the dirt of slander at the finest fighters. They’ll have to face God for that” (Christian News, June 22, 1992).

“Those who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in their teachings, are guilty of lending credibility to their heresies, and will be held accountable to God for the souls that are destroyed as a result.” –Al Dager

“From the Liberality which says that everybody is right; from the Charity which forbids to say that anybody is wrong; from the Peace which is bought at the expense of Truth; may the good Lord deliver us.” –J.C. Ryle

“On all hands we hear cries for unity in this and unity in that; but in our mind the main need of this age is not compromise but conscientiousness. `First pure, then peaceable…’ It is easy to cry, `A confederacy,’ but that union that is not based on the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion. Charity by all means: but honesty also. Love of course, but love to God as well as love to men, and love of truth as well as love of union. It is exceedingly difficult in these times to preserve one’s fidelity before God and one’s fraternity among men. Should not the former be preferred to the latter if both cannot be maintained? We think so.” –C.H. Spurgeon

“To seek unity with false prophets without challenging their errors leaves one’s own beliefs open to questions. Those who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in their teachings, are guilty of lending credibility to their heresies, and will be held accountable to God for the souls that are destroyed as a result. It’s up to those that know the truth to defend the church against false teachers whatever the cost to unity or to personal benefit.” –Al Dager

Introduction

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) met in Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 35, 1996, for their 54th Annual Convention. The theme was Reaching America: One Voice in Unity. (Next year’s convention will be held in Orlando, Florida, March 46, 1997.)

NAE’s president, Dr. Donald Argue, declared, “This may be one of the most historic meetings in the history of the NAE.” One can easily agree with Argue’s statement, for the evidence of radical changes were on every hand. NAE leaders admit they are moving into the “mainstream of religion” in America as they turn to social action and attempt to salvage neighborhoods and cities.

At a press conference a discerning reporter responded to this new emphasis on social action by saying, “You are not just going mainstream; you are moving into the mainline denominational position.” (She referred to the position of the National Council of Churches’ [NCC] mainline denominations and their commitment to social action.)

Speakers at this year’s convention included —

Dr. John Allan Knight, general superintendent, Church of the Nazarene; Jill Briscoe, author end speaker; Dr. Joseph M. Stowell, president, Moody Bible Institute; Bishop Gilbert E. Patterson, pastor, Temple of Deliverance, Memphis, Tennessee; Luis Palau, evangelist, Dr. Leith Anderson, pastor, Wooddale Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota; John Corts, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; and Bill McCartney, founder of Promise Keepers.

Two individuals served as the convention “worship leaders.” One was Larry Bach, from North Central Bible College (an Assembly of God school), the other was Timothy J. Mercaldo, Gateway Cathedral, Staten Island, New York. North Central’s Concert Chorale and Northwestern’s College Choir were featured during the evening sessions.

Convention Program Coordinator Dr. Joseph E. Jackson said, “Only in unity can we overcome the forces of darkness. The NAE’s diversity should be used positively so the Association can stand at the forefront of a time of great opportunity.” Jackson, who is a member of the Church of God, serves as treasurer of the NAE.

The Sunday morning worship service (March 3) induced a message by Dr. John Allan Knight, Church of the Nazarene. He used Romans 1:14-16 as his text, speaking on Our Stewardship of the Gospel. Pointing out that Paul had been compelled to share the Gospel, Knight added that “Evangelicals must likewise be willing to serve and sacrifice to reach America. Let’s minimize our differences and maximize our commonalties.”

At the conclusion of the sermon, the Rev. Caroline Michael, Advent Christian Church, raised her hand over the group as she pronounced the benediction. She also serves as a member of the NAE’s Women’s Commission.

The Annual World Relief Luncheon was held on Sunday, March 3, and Dr. Art Gay, World Relief president, gave an update on their work. (World Relief is a subsidiary of the NAE.) Its unrestricted income for 1995 was more than $24 million. It was announced that Dr. Paul Toms was the recipient of World Relief’s 17th Annual Helping Hands Award. Toms, a former NAE president, served as World Relief’s board president for fourteen years. He will now be minister-at-large for World Relief. Dr. John White, president of Geneva College, a signer of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, presented the award to Dr. Toms.

Palmer Yngsdal, Executive Director, Greater Minneapolis Association of Evangelicals, at the Sunday evening service welcomed the group to Minneapolis. It is the NAE’s largest state organization, with 70 staff members involved in a variety of ministries.

Dr. David Rambo, NAE chairman, made some remarks concerning changes taking place in Evangelical circles, adding, “even the Presbyterians are lubricating their elbows”-that referred to the practice common to people in Pentecostal/Charismatic groups lifting hands to signify praise to God. Rambo also added that “Jesus prayed that we be one. What could it be if all the children of God could unite?”

Dr. Robert P. Dugan Jr., vice president, Office of Governmental Affairs, Washington, D.C., spoke positively concerning the Religious Freedom Amendment and the NAE’s Statement of Conscience.

The James DeForest Murch Award was given to Dr. Carl F.H. Henry. Though unable to attend in person, Henry via tape mentioned his association with Murch. Dr. George K. Brushaber, president of Bethel Seminary, accepting the award for Dr. Henry, said, “Both Dr. Henry and myself are glad to see the NAE emphasis on oneness of denominations.”

Before Jill Briscoe brought the Sunday evening message, Diana Gee, chairman of the NAE’s Women’s Commission led in prayer. Dr. Art Gay, World Relief president, introduced Mrs. Briscoe. She serves as vice president of World Relief. In her message she used the subject of “trees,” based on Psalm 137, where the children of Israel hung their harps on the willow trees. “The Wimp Tree is when we keep silent and hang our testimony there, while the Gripe Tree is one that includes our complaints,” Briscoe said. “The Grudge Tree is there because we won’t forgive. Like the man who said, ‘For thirty years my wife wrote with a pencil, but she never used the eraser.”‘ Other trees Mrs. Briscoe mentioned were the Gloom Tree and the Grief Tree.

On March 4, Timothy J. Mercaldo led the worship while seated at the piano. A video prepared by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) on Celebrate Jesus-2000 was shown. SBC’s goal is to “share Christ with everyone by the year 2000.” (Later on, a pastor referred to this video and forcefully declared over the microphone, “The Southern Baptist Convention need not think I am going to join them in their program. I’m not a Baptist!” The spirit of unity and oneness was suddenly broken!!)

Upon being introduced by Dr. Leonard Hofman, Christian Reformed Church and chairman elect of the NAE, Dr. Joseph Stowell responded that “it is a delight to be with you.” He asked if Christians had eroded the cause of eternity by alienating people who need to know Christ. Stowell said “Christ never wants the church to have an angry face. Christ’s face is the face of compassion.” He told of those who are reaching their communities with social action projects such as free legal services and food pantries. Stowell reminded everyone, “It’s hard to argue with lives that are well-lived.”

A business meeting followed the Bible study hour, and Dr. David Rambo, president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, gave his farewell address as the NAE’s outgoing chairman. “Fifty years ago, Evangelicals were a small, divided, sometimes contentious band. Theological liberalism had so impacted the Church in the first half of this century that Evangelicals were left fighting for their lives. Our only hope of survival was to unite,” Rambo said. He added, “Today the Evangelical movement has grown from weakness and disunity to the dominant face in American and World Christianity.”

Rambo challenged his listeners “to gain further attention from the large number of parachurch communities, most of whom have little or no affiliation with the NAE. The NAE has been the only body that proposes to speak for Evangelicals and now stands at a place of growing possibility for unity and influence.”

The Nominating Committee brought in its report, and the body voted on the individuals suggested) by that committee. Those elected to serve with president Donald Argue, Assembly of God, are: Leonard Hofman, Christian Reformed Church; Lamar Vest, Church of God; Ed Foggs, Church of God; Ed Davis, Evangelical Presbyterian; end Joseph Jackson, Church of God. We note that four of these six officers, including Dr. Argue, are from the Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations.

NAE released An Evangelical Manifesto: A Strategic Plan for the Dawn of the 21st Century. The Manifesto, prepared by Dr. Richard Chase, former president of Wheaton College, presents a call to the whole body of Christ in the U.S.A. and the commitment of the NAE to that call. Its action centers around five areas: prayer, repentance and reform, unity and cooperation, evangelism, and cultural impact.

Included in this document is an urging of “Evangelicals in a demonstration of love, to work alongside others who may not necessarily have an evangelical identity on various specific issues.” The statement concludes, “Our faithful witness will result in revival, reconciliation and renewal.” The NAE leaders would like this four-page statement to become public information and to be used by other groups.

A second paper that was presented and later approved was entitled, Statement of Conscience of the NAE Concerning Worldwide Religious Persecution. The president of the NAE, Dr. Argue, declared this to be the most important document ever passed by the NAE-even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops supported the statement. One can easily understand the Roman Catholic support because a part in it criticizes those in other countries who “refuse to permit Vatican appointments of Catholic Bishops and those political leaders who refuse to allow Bishops to appoint local priests.”

The NAE announced the Episcopal Church had endorsed the document and that other church bodies are expected to follow that suit. NAE leaders regretted that the National Council of Churches refused to endorse the Statement of Conscience.

Dr. Argue, NAE president, had a private 35minute conference with President Bill Clinton in the Oval Office regarding the NAE’s Statement of Conscience. The document calls upon the President to initiate a new public diplomacy commitment that openly condemns religious persecution. Argue also invited President Clinton to come to this NAE Convention to speak to this issue. Dr. Argue told the press, “We are disappointed that President Clinton chose not to accept our invitation to come to our convention and address how his Administration intends to curtail the worldwide persecution of Christians and others.” Argue also wants the Most Favored Nation status removed from those countries that are violators.

The press members were informed by Dr. Argue that President Clinton had given a copy of his State of the Union Address for the NAE president to critique. Argue admitted the suggestions he made to Clinton were, for the most part, ignored.

This reporter asked Dr. Argue at his press conference if he would consider the proposed plan of Dr. Konrad Raiser, World Council of Churches (WCC) General Secretary, that the WCC reach out to embrace both Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Argue said he had received no direct contact from the WCC, but had established a relationship with Joan Brown Campbell, NCC general secretary. He said the initial meeting with Campbell came at their audience with Pope John Paul 11 while the Pope was in the U.S.A. Argue had also visited the NCC headquarters and Joan Brown Campbell had made a courtesy visit to the NAE offices. He added, “We have a mutual respect for one another and will be getting together later on.”

Dr. Argue was asked about the NAE’s financial difficulties and accompanying resultant downsizing of staff in light of the NAE ending the previous year in the black. Argue replied that the financial stress came because of increased expenses, but a large estate had recently been received which would be used to bring them out of the red ink. He said, “Funding will follow vision.” (At a general session, nineteen denominations were recognized for their per capita giving to the NAE. Some of the nineteen groups honored with the “Open Hand Award” were the Conservative Baptist Association, the Evangelical Free Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, and the Wesleyan Church.)

Argue announced that the NAE has obtained free time on 1,300 radio stations. The NAE will use these spots to give updates on “revival and renewal.”

Others present along with Dr. Argue at the 45 minute meeting with Pope John Paul II (when he visited the U.S. A.) were Bill Bright, Charles Colson, and Pat Robertson. This meeting was hosted and arranged by John Cardinal O’Connor and Bill Cardinal Keeler. Father Jeffrey Grohs of the U.S. Office of Catholics was the NAE’s guest at this Convention in Minneapolis and was recognized publicly at a general assembly meeting.

The NAE changed its format at this year’s convention, actually doing what both the National and World Councils of Churches have done for years. The entire group was divided into small “discussion tracks” with five options given: denomination, missions, education, pastor, and family. Moderators were already chosen and assigned, as well as the subjects to be discussed. The discussion focused around “culture.” Among the questions considered by the five groups were: Do you consider culture to be a friend or enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What is your theology of culture? To what extent can a church plan its ministry to reach the culture without destroying the unity of the church? What are some developments within our culture that we can utilize to further the Gospel? (The family track responded, “Culture must be considered a friend of the Gospel.” The missions track declared, “Utilize rock music, sports, and technology.”

The smaller groups then gathered together in a general assembly for a concluding panel discussion. A panel of experts provided responses as the discussion leaders gave summation reports. NAE vice president David L. Melvin explained, “We can explore and seek strategies together rather than allowing traditional segmentation to tax our endeavors. The potential of this new forum is greater than the relative uncomfortableness of its novelty.”

The final day of this year’s convention began with a Global Briefing Breakfast sponsored by World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF). WEF represents 150 million Evangelicals worldwide through its national fellowships. (It is possible to be a member of the apostate World Council of Churches and the WEF at the same time!!) John Corts, president and chief operating officer of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, was the speaker at this breakfast.

Next year WEF’s Tenth General Assembly is scheduled for May 6-15, 1997, in Vancouver. More than 600 evangelical fellowship representatives are expected to attend. Among the confirmed speakers are Luis Palau, Ravi Zacharias, Peter Kuzmic, and Brian Stiller, executive director of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

The speaker at the Social Action Luncheon was Dr. Leith C. Anderson, Wooddale Church, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. He defined culture as “a patterned way in which persons relate to one another. We must connect with our culture. Some look on culture as an enemy and become separated and isolationists. We need to read the culture because Sunday services are not the building tool for a church. It is seminars and small groups that produce. I have changed our traditional service to the early morning one, and then at 11:15 we lock the organ, dress informally, and have praise choruses instead of hymns.” As an example of change in the ’90s, Anderson added, “The Worldwide Church of God (Herbert Armstrong’s group) is now an Evangelical group and no longer a cult.”

When all five discussion tacks came together that afternoon, Anderson spoke briefly on Preaching to the Contemporary Minds. His counsel included, “Don’t communicate deductively, but inductively. Tell lots of stories. Leave the decision in the mind of the listener.”

Anderson went on to add, “There’s a mushrooming ecumenism in America with the ProLife Movement and Promise Keepers. These are reshaping the face of America and this is the way to go-use relationships.”

Someone asked Dr. Anderson as to the procedure used by their church in starting another church. After first checking to see if the television cameras were off, so it would not be recorded, he said, “Our church is a member of the Baptist General Conference, but we are presently starting a church in union with the Christian Reformed denomination!” It would appear that Dr. Anderson, a graduate of Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, has embraced an ecumenicity encouraged in both institutions.

Dr. Joseph Stowell, president of Moody, again led the Bible study hour on Tuesday. He spoke from John 17, “That they may be one.” Stowell said, “Christ’s prayer is up against all opposition. We have divisions among us. There are differences and regional preferences and class. God never intended that our differences would divide us. We belong to Christ so our mission and purpose are the same. If you belong to Christ you are lifted above the differences, and all else becomes secondary. Promise Keepers Clergy Conference in Atlanta showed the unity that is possible. We must be liberated so we have the capacity to work together.”

He added, ‘We must repent of our attitudes as I did in Atlanta. I went to a man who held different doctrines than I held and apologized because I never cared about him. Our differences are not that big, and we must realize this is what will build trust. Revival happens when God’s people network together. The world shall know we are one by our love.”

Listening to Dr. Stowell speaking on the NAE platform with words of commendation for these New Evangelicals, and knowing he is serving on the NAE’s Education Commission, there came to this reporter’s mind something Dr. Stowell’s father had written back in 1972. His father at that time issued a communication to the churches in the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC), which he then served as its national representative. Dr. Stowell Sr. wrote, “The historic stand of our Association has been (and is) to hold full-orbed separation as the Bible teaches. By this we mean not only separation from apostates and unbelievers, but separation from believers who walk disorderly (Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 11-15). This is the basis for our stand against such compromises as ecumenical evangelism and those who practice it, even though they may be true believers.”

Dr. Stowell Sr. added, “BE ON GUARD. At this very moment there is a strong thrust by a segment of Fundamentalism which is rejecting fullorbed Biblical separation and is pleading only separation from unbelievers. This plays right into the hand of the new evangelical camp and holds a position not far removed from the National Association of Evangelicals. I raise a warning flag to our churches and pastors. We came into being a completely separated entity and broke fellowship in service with those who would not break fellowship with unbelievers. This is a critical issue.”

The warning forcefully given by Dr. Stowell Sr. has not been heeded by his son, who associates with, supports, and commends such men as Dr. Luis Palau, an ecumenical evangelist. Dr. Stowell Jr. is serving in a leadership capacity for Palau’s Chicago Crusade in 1996.

After being introduced, Dr. Luis Palau, president of Luis Palau Evangelistic Association, at this NAE convention in Minneapolis publicly commended the president of Moody Bible Institute, Dr. Joseph Stowell Jr. Palau, who it is said has spoken face-to-face to eleven million people in 63 nations, spoke on History Past and Present. He challenged convention attendees to “practice our oneness in spite of the pressure of denominations. Promise Keepers is the touch of God with its message of reconciliation,” Palau declared.

Palau made some major proposals for the NAE. He said the NAE is “the umbrella to use to work together, to stay together, and to be revitalized.” He suggested the NAE put businessmen instead of ministers on its board of directors, organize the NAE in every city, invite minorities to take their place at the table in a big way, bring in the younger generation, and work together to capture the cities for Jesus. He mentioned that 1,600 churches in the Chicago area are participating in his giant crusade. (While the Roman Catholic diocese has not of fully endorsed the Chicago Crusade, individual Roman Catholic priests are involved in leadership roles.)

This convention made certain changes in the NAE statement of faith. “Man” was changed to “people” so the statement would be “politically correct.” However, the NAE statement on the Bible includes “inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” Not unexpectedly, no effort was made to add the word “inerrancy,” which means “without error” to this statement on the Word of God. Back in 1972, at the NAE convention in St. Louis, Dr. Hudson Armerding, then president of the NAE, spoke out against those in the NAE who were rejecting inerrancy.

This year, Fuller Theological Seminary had one of the only 35 display booths in Minneapolis. One literature item that this school handed out at its display explains why Fuller removed inerrancy from its doctrinal statement. This New Evangelical school on the West Coast said, ‘Where inerrancy refers to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the churches through the Biblical writers we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate. A danger is that it implies a precision alien to the minds of the Bible writers and their own use of the Scriptures and it leads those who think there is one proven error in the Bible (however minor), to regard its whole teaching as subject to doubt.”

This reporter would emphasize that Fuller Theological Seminary leaders, along with other New Evangelicals, appear to ignore the fact that either the Bible includes error or it does not. Fuller Seminary, founded by the late Dr. Charles E. Fuller, has embraced and forthrightly teaches the higher critical view taught in apostate schools everywhere. (In 1995 Fuller Seminary hosted a meeting of the World Council of Churches, with the president of Fuller welcoming the apostate leadership of the WCC to his institution.)

At the NAE’s 54th annual banquet, Bill McCartney, founder of Promise Keepers, was given the NAE’s Lay Person of the Year Award. The NAE explained that this award is presented annually to someone who demonstrates leadership in Evangelical activity and thought.

At this same banquet, Dr. Billy Graham was recognized with the NAE’s Lifetime Achievement Award. John Corts, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association president, accepted the award for Dr. Graham. Graham addressed the convention via video.

The final activity of this year’s convention was the passing of the gavel from the outgoing NAE chairman (David L. Rambo) to the new chairman (Dr. Leonard I. Hofman).

Some Observations

1. In the 1992 book published by the NAE, written by Arthur H. Matthew’s, entitled Standing Up, Standing Together, the record of the NAE’s birth is given. A challenge was issued by the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) back in 1942 to have only one organization instead of two. The ACCC, which had been organized in 1941, stood (and continues to stand) for complete separation from the liberal, apostate Federal Council of Churches (now the National Council of Churches). Such complete separation was rejected by the NAE leaders. J. Elwin Wright declared, “We should be able to at least shake hands over the tops of the fences.” Stephen Paine (president of Houghton College) said, “The feeling of the NAE men has been that our organization was not founded to fight anybody.” Lewis Sperry Chafer of Dallas Seminary observed, “I believe our first obligation is in the line of positive proclamation of God’s truth rather than a negative objection against some specific enemy.”

Fiftyfour years later it is evident that the NAE and NCC are working together. The NAE has moved from “shaking hands over the tops of fences” to being in the same camp. An inclusive position, such as that of the NAE, can only lead to more and more identification and compromise.

2. Dr. Donald Argue, NAE president, is moving his organization at a rapid pace toward the paths of the mainline denominations. His association with Joan Brown Campbell, NCC leader, reveals the direction he is taking. In his book, Claiming the Center: Churches and Conflicting Worldviews, Jack Rogers wrote about holding the middle position: “There is a necessary role in our culture for mainstream denominations if they will claim the center, ecclesiastically, intellectually, and morally. Most people are struggling to find the center. They want to be rooted in a stable tradition but they need support in coping with modernity. They are neither fundamentalists nor liberals. They are somewhere in the middle. And that is where a mainstream church should be.”

3. The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) refused to invite President Bill Clinton to speak at their convention. However, Dr. Argue invited President Clinton to come to Minneapolis to speak to the NAE. The issues NRB raises about President Clinton’s position regarding abortion, homosexuality, and affirmative action have not changed. These apparently did not hinder the NAE leaders from extending an invitation for President Clinton to speak at their meeting.

4. The NAE Convention recognized official visitors from NCC churches including two men and one woman, all three being pastors from American Baptist Convention churches. Father Jeffrey Grohs, U.S. Office of Catholics, as previously mentioned, along with one individual from an Ecumenical Institute were also recognized from the NAE platform.

5. The NAE represents 42,500 churches from 47 member denominations, and individual congregations from an additional 26 denominations, as well as several hundred independent churches. Their membership includes 245 parachurch ministries and educational institutions. Thus the NAE would claim to represent over 27 million people. The largest constituency in the NAE comes from Pentecostal/Charismatic groups.

6. While its motto is “Cooperation Without Compromise,” the NAE practices just the opposite. One can be in the NAE and the NCC at the same time.

7. A defender of the position held by the NAE recently wrote to this reporter: “We would rather come together on issues that unite us, than let some of our differences separate us.” In his defense this individual overlooked the many passages of Scripture that forbid fellowship with unbelievers and those who err from the Faith. For example, Ephesians 5:11 is skill in the Bible and it still enjoins true believers to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Information About The American Council of Christian Churches

The American Council of Christian Churches is a Fundamentalist multidenominational organization whose purposes are to provide information, encouragement, and assistance to Bible-believing churches, fellowships, and individuals; to preserve our Christian heritage through exposure of, opposition to, and separation from doctrinal impurity and compromise in current religious trends and movements; to protect churches from religious and political restrictions, subtle or obvious, that would hinder their ministries for Christ; and to promote obedience to the inerrant Word of God.

The American Council of Christian Churches
P.O. BOX 19
Wallingford, PA 19086-0019