Dividing Truth Into Essentials and Non-Essentials

Republished July 21, 2010 (first published October 22, 2009) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)-

New Evangelicals have long divided doctrine into “cardinal” and “secondary” categories, and the “secondary,” we are told, can be overlooked for the sake of unity.

In
Grace Awaking, Chuck Swindoll says, “My encouragement for you today is that each one of us pursue what unites us with others rather than the few things that separate us. ... There was a time in my life when I had answers to questions no one was asking. I had a position that life was so rigid I would fight for every jot and tittle. I mean, I couldn’t list enough things that I’d die for. The older I get, the shorter that list gets, frankly” (Grace Awakening, p. 189).

Even the most conservative evangelicals, such as Iain Murray, fall into this trap. Condemning fundamentalism in America Murray stated, “In its tendency to add stipulations not foundational to Christian believing, fundamentalism was prone to make the boundaries of Christ’s kingdom too small” (Iain Murray,
Evangelicalism Divided, p. 298).

This is the working philosophy of Southern Baptists. Consider the book
Building Bridges (Convention Press, 2007). It was written by David Dockery and Timothy George and prefaced by Thom Rainer, three prominent Southern Baptist leaders.

“Though I may disagree with some on secondary and tertiary issues, I will not let those points of disagreement tear down bridges of relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ. ... We need a new spirit of mutual respect and humility to serve together with those with whom we have differences of conviction and opinion. It is possible to hold hands with brothers and sisters who disagree on secondary and tertiary matters of theology...” (pp. 11, 34).

Read More...

From Southern Baptist to Goddess Worship: Sue Monk Kidd

sue+monk+kidd
Republished July 1, 2010 (first published July 15, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

For more information about Sue Monk Kidd and contemplative spirituality, we recommend our book on Contemplative Mysticism and our book and DVD set on the Emerging Church. Both are available in our bookstore.


Sue Monk Kidd is a very popular writer. Her first two novels,
The Secret Life of Bees (2002) and The Mermaid Chair (2005), have sold more than 6 million copies and the first one is being produced as a movie. She has also written two popular books on contemplative spirituality: God’s Joyful Surprise (1988) and When the Heart Waits (1990).

She is quoted by evangelicals such as David Jeremiah (
Life Wide Open), Beth Moore (When Godly People Do Ungodly Things), and Richard Foster (Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home). Kidd’s endorsement is printed on the back of Dallas Willard’s book The Spirit of the Disciplines. She wrote the foreword to the 2006 edition of Henri Nouwen’s With Open Hands and the introduction to Thomas Merton’s New Seeds of Contemplation.

It is “contemplative spirituality” that changed Kidd’s life, and her experience is a loud warning about flirting with Catholic mysticism.

Read More...

I'm With Fido

dog-nose
June 23, 2010 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is published with permission of Pastor Buddy Smith of Malanda, Queensland . It is something that he wrote to a friend about the recent Independent Baptist Friends International Conference and its emphasis on uniting all Independent Baptists:

_________________________


Dear Brother ___________  
 
Regarding the IBFI conference and website, there is no doubt in my mind that you know more about it than I, simply because of your personal acquaintance with Bro. Sexton. My observations from a distance are as follows:
 
I) I understand and agree that Bro. Sexton is not attempting to start a new denomination. He has no doubt invested an enormous amount of time, manpower, and effort into hosting this conference. I expect he hopes to accomplish many good things out of it.
 
II) I appreciate him using the best speakers he could find to promote his efforts to unify the diversity that exists among Baptists. From his statements I gather he seriously believes that all Independent Baptists can and should see each other as friends and work together.

Read More...

Richard Foster: Evangelicalism's Mystical Sparkplug

Richard-Foster
Republished June 10, 2010 (first published October 8, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -


The following is excerpted from our book
Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond, which is available from Way of Life Literature.
___________________

Richard Foster’s writings have been at the forefront of the contemplative movement since the 1970s. No one has done more than this man to spread contemplative mysticism throughout Protestant and Baptist churches.

Foster’s book
Celebration of Discipline, which has sold more than two and a half million copies, was selected by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the 20th century. (For this review I obtained multiple editions of Celebration of Discipline, plus three other books by Foster.)

The Quaker Connection

He grew up among the Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends), was trained at George Fox College, has pastored Quaker churches, and has taught theology at Friends University in Wichita, Kansas, and at George Fox. One website calls him “perhaps the best known Quaker in the world today.”

Read More...

New Evangelical Fundamentalists

Updated and enlarged May 20, 2010 (first published February 12, 1997) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

Finney
One of the root problems with New Evangelicalism is what it refuses to preach. It aims to be positive. It is willing to narrow down its message. This causes many to be deceived by New Evangelicals (the vast majority of evangelicals today have adopted the New Evangelical philosophy). They hear or read a popular evangelical and say, "My, how he teaches the Bible so wonderfully; I don't see anything wrong with him." They don’t understand that the problem with the New Evangelical's teaching is not so much what he says that is wrong, but what he refuses to say that is right. It’s not so much the error that he preaches but the truth that he neglects. He refuses to proclaim the whole counsel of God. He will not deal with many of the negative aspects of the Word of God, such as ecclesiastical separation and plain rebuke of apostasy. He will not identify false teachers and call upon God’s people to avoid them.

This philosophy is finding its way into churches which claim to be fundamentalist. The preacher steers clear of many controversial things, and when he does deal with something that is unpopular he has an almost apologetic demeanor.

Charles Finney noted this tendency in his day: "Ministers generally avoid preaching what the people before them will understand as addressed to them. They will preach to them about other people, and the sins of others, instead of addressing them and saying, 'You are guilty of these sins.' They often preach ABOUT sinners instead of preaching TO them. They studiously avoid being personal, in the sense of making the impression on anyone that he is the man."
Read More...

In Essentials Unity

March 18, 2010 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The New Evangelical philosophy is often stated by the dictum, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity,” (commonly attributed to Augustine, but actually first stated by the 17th-century Lutheran Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin).

This became the rallying cry of the Moravians, who did many good things but refused to reject the heresy of infant baptism and promoted unity above the absolute truth of God’s Word. The same dictum has been heartily adopted by modern New Evangelicals. They might stand for ten or twenty or thirty “cardinals,” but they refuse to make an issue of the WHOLE counsel of God.

Read More...

New Evangelicalism - Its History, Characteristics and Fruit

Updated March 11, 2010 (first published January 1995) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following was first published in 1995 under the title of
Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New-Evangelicalism.

I am convinced that few errors are as destructive to fundamentalist 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, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., or the United Church of Canada? Do they join a cult such as the Mormons? That seldom occurs. Most that leave fundamentalist Bible-believing churches join the positive-thinking, easy-going New Evangelical church down the street or across town.
Read More...

Billy Graham's Sad Disobedience to the Word of God

Republished December 16, 2009 (first published in February 1997) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

“And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

Screen shot 2009-12-16 at 6.47.26 AM
I have been warning about Billy Graham’s compromise for decades, and it is a very difficult thing to do. He is one of the most popular men in the world. He is universally acclaimed as a wonderful Christian and a great evangelist. When you say something critical of Billy Graham, many people consider it equal to blasphemy against Almighty God!

The Lord knows, if I thought I could fulfill my obligations before God as a preacher of His Word and still keep my mouth shut about the Billy Grahams of our day, I would do it in a heartbeat! I am convinced that this is not possible, though, and by God’s grace I would rather please Him than man.

In February 1997, I published an article in
O Timothy magazine about Jerry Falwell’s support of Billy Graham. We noted that a watershed of sorts had occurred at Falwell’s Liberty University, in that the 1997 commencement speaker was Dr. Billy Graham, the foremost spokesman for the New Evangelical movement. The announcement in the National Liberty Journal stated:

“It is befitting that Dr. Graham will speak at Liberty’s 1997 Commencement, since his grandson, William Franklin (Will) Graham IV, will be among the graduating seniors. (Another grandson, Roy Graham, is a freshman at Liberty.) ... Dr. Falwell said, ‘This will be Dr. Graham’s first visit to Liberty. THIS COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS WILL NO DOUBT BE REMEMBERED HISTORICALLY IN THE NEXT CENTURY AS ONE OF LIBERTY’S HIGH DAYS. I am grateful that Dr. Graham is taking time from his busy schedule to grace us with his presence” (emphasis added) (National Liberty Journal, December 1996, pp. 1, 17). Read More...

Why the New Evangelical Principle is Dangerous

November 17, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)

unityms
Some of the New Evangelical ministries do a lot of good, and for this reason fundamentalists are enticed to associate with them. For example, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research do a fantastic job of defending the literal Genesis account of creation and defending this against Darwinian evolution. Ken Ham’s Creation Museum is a masterpiece of biblical apologetics. Ray Comfort does a tremendous job in apologetics and personal evangelism. I truly and fervently thank the Lord for what these men are doing for the cause of Christ ....... as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn’t go far enough, and the part that is lacking is very serious.

What is the problem? Why don’t we jump on their bandwagon, join hands, and do these wonderful works together? (I am not saying that we won’t use some of their materials; I am talking about joining hands together for ministry.)

Read More...

Dividing Truth Into Essentials and Non-Essentials

October 22, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

New Evangelicals have long divided doctrine into “cardinal” and “secondary” categories, and the “secondary,” we are told, can be overlooked for the sake of unity.

In
Grace Awaking, Chuck Swindoll says, “My encouragement for you today is that each one of us pursue what unites us with others rather than the few things that separate us. ... There was a time in my life when I had answers to questions no one was asking. I had a position that life was so rigid I would fight for every jot and tittle. I mean, I couldn’t list enough things that I’d die for. The older I get, the shorter that list gets, frankly” (Grace Awakening, p. 189).

Even the most conservative evangelicals, such as Iain Murray, fall into this trap. Condemning Fundamentalism in America Murray stated, “In its tendency to add stipulations not foundational to Christian believing, fundamentalism was prone to make the boundaries of Christ’s kingdom too small” (Iain Murray,
Evangelicalism Divided, p. 298).

This is becoming the working philosophy of Independent Baptists. In the book
Thinking Outside the Book, Charles Keen says,

“I’m a slow learner, but I finally realized that not all truth is of equal value. Some truths I differ from others and divide over even die for (as least I should). With others, I might be uncomfortable with how they are handled by my brethren, but I can still fellowship with them either personally or in some cases, ecclesiastically. We need to develop some ‘ecumenicalism within the parameters of fundamentalism.’ ... Let’s decide who the enemies of the cross are and divide from them. Then let’s decide who the friends of grace are and tolerate them. We don’t have to unite but we do need unity” (p. 81).

Read More...

The Heart of New Evangelicalism

September 29, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

I am convinced that few errors are as destructive to fundamentalist, 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? Do they join a cult like the Mormons? No, most people who leave staunch Bible-believing churches join the easy-going New Evangelical church down the street or across town.

page4_46

It is therefore crucial that we understand the nature of New Evangelicalism. Elsewhere we have traced the history of New Evangelicalism and given an extensive definition thereof. (See the book New Evangelicalism: Its History, Characteristics, and Fruit, which is available from Way of Life Literature.)

In this article I want to describe what I believe to be the very heart and soul of New Evangelicalism. I want to give a practical definition of New Evangelicalism that can be understood and used by the members of independent Baptist and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing congregations to protect themselves and their children from this error.
Read More...

FRANKLIN GRAHAM: MINISTER OF CHRIST OR PRIEST OF BAAL?

RTRTourPoster

September 9, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following report is by Pastor Ralph Ovadal, Pilgrims Covenant Church, Monroe, Wisconsin, http://www.pccmonroe.org/neo-evangelicalism/2009.08.14.htm.

"And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them." 1 Kings 18:28

Less than a week ago, as I am writing this article, I, and members of our Pilgrims Covenant Church, spent over five hours "without the camp" preaching the gospel of Christ and bearing biblical witness against a carnal monstrosity called "Rock the River." This event was one of four staged in Mississippi River cities by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. As of now, approximately 90,000 young people have been "ministered" to at the three Rock the River events that have already taken place.

Read More...

THE CREEPING KUDZU OF COMPROMISE

Reprinted August 11, 2009 (first published February 14, 1998) (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org) -

kudzu_field_vert12
The following discerning message by Jack Stephens is from the Ohio Bible Fellowship (OBF) Visitor (3865 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43214-3797, 614-262-2006). We do not agree with the OBF in some matters, church polity and the Bible text issue among others, but we do appreciate their willingness to take a bold and unpopular stand against the all-pervasive new evangelical spirit. Pastor Stephens demonstrates a clear understanding of a damnable phenomenon that is occurring widely among fundamentalist churches, including fundamental Baptists.

THE CREEPING KUDZU OF COMPROMISE
By Jack Stephens

A few decades ago, an Oriental creeping vine called "kudzu" was introduced into the Southeast of our country for the purpose of providing ground cover and erosion control. Any Southerner can tell you the result. This vine gradually encroached on the land and, where it was not constantly kept in check, it choked out all other plant life, climbing utility poles and following the connecting lines to span roadways and other obstacles in its steady onslaught to take over every inch of available land. In short, from its innocent beginnings, it has become a bane and a pest to the land.
Read More...

HAROLD OCKENGA AND THE NEW EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT HE FOUNDED

July 7, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is a review of the book
The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism by Garth M. Rosell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Rosell is the son of Merv Rosell, an evangelist who associated with Ockenga, Graham, and other leaders of the New Evangelical movement.

OCKENGA WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE NEW EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT AND ENUNCIATED THAT MOVEMENT’S REJECTION OF SEPARATION

Harold Ockenga (1905-85) was possibly the most influential evangelical leader of the 20th century. He was pastor of the prominent Park Street Church in Boston, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and first president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of
Christianity Today.

In the 1950s Ockenga helped found the New Evangelical movement that rejected separatism and aimed at a more positive and pragmatic philosophy as opposed to the negativism and isolation of fundamentalism.

In a speech he gave in 1947 at the founding of Fuller Seminary, Ockenga said:

“We repudiate the ‘Come-outist’ movement which brands all Denominations as apostate. We expect to be positive in our emphasis, except where error so exists that it is necessary for us to point it out in order to declare the truth. The positive emphasis will be on the broad doctrinal basis of a low Calvinism” (p. 176).
Read More...

C.S. LEWIS’S THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE IS A SILLY FAIRY TALE

Republished May 5, 2009 (first published January 16, 2006) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

C.S. Lewis’s fantasy, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, made its appearance as a feature Hollywood movie on December 9, 2005, and took in $187 million worldwide in the first ten days.

There is much hubbub about the movie in evangelical circles. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Seminary, is typical in his claim that Lewis’s fiction “stands as a powerful story with clear allusions to the person and work of Christ, to the reality of human sin, to humanity’s desperate need for redemption and to God’s ultimate victory in Christ” (“Aslan Is on the Move,” Baptist Press, Dec. 10).

I could not disagree more strongly. Though I have not seen the movie, I have read the book, and it is nothing more than a silly fairy tale.
Read More...

IS GOD GIVING DREAMS AND VISIONS TODAY?

March 10, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The SharperIron blog ran a post on January 7, 2009, entitled “Dreams and Visions: Confessions of a Soft Cessationist” by Steve Davis. SharperIron is a forum for “younger fundamentalists” who are, in my opinion, moving rapidly in the direction of New Evangelicalism (e.g., Davis is a graduate of The Evangelical Divinity School).

The post begins as follows:

“Recently, I had a conversation with a Muslim-background Christian. He shared the story of his childhood in a Muslim village in a North African country. There were no Christians, there were no Bibles, there was no testimony to the gospel, and there had been no missionaries. He had a dream in which Jesus spoke to him and told him that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The dream did not lead to an immediate salvation response, but it led him to acquire a New Testament, and he began a journey that eventually led to his conversion and transformation. What would you say to this man?
Read More...

DANGERS ON CHRISTIAN RADIO

Updated March 5, 2009 (first published September 16, 2002) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

There are many spiritual dangers involved in listening to syndicated Christian radio today. While there many things that are scriptural and helpful, the truth is intermingled indiscriminately with error. And most listeners are not equipped to discern the one from the other.

Recently a pastor friend in Michigan told me that many years ago the church members who listened to Christian radio were his strongest members, but today those who listen the most to Christian radio are among the weakest members and cause the most trouble. The difference lies in the content of the radio broadcasts. In the past, there were many strong Bible preachers on the radio who proclaimed the Word of God plainly and without compromise, but that is no longer the case.

Today the Christian radio airwaves are filled with smooth-sounding professionalism and slick compromise that largely turns a blind eye to apostasy and heresy.

On a preaching trip in 2002, I spent two days listening to nationally syndicated Christian radio programs with the objective of analyzing the content.

Following are a few examples of the subtle dangers that lurk in Christian radio:

BACK TO THE BIBLE on September 11, 2002, talked about Ninevah’s repentance and rightly observed that true repentance produces a changed life. But there was no Jonah-like preaching by the Back to the Bible speaker. In other words, they talk about repentance but did not plainly preach repentance to their listeners. This is so typical. THE CHIEF ERROR OF NEW EVANGELICALISM IS NOT THE ERROR THAT IT PREACHES, BUT THE TRUTH THAT IT NEGLECTS TO PREACH. Read More...

DANGERS IN CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES

nooma_flame
Updated March 4, 2009 (first published August 14, 2007) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)-

Never have Christian books been so readily available to the average Christian and never has the spiritual danger associated with such books been so great. Sadly, the average member of a Bible-believing church does not know how to protect himself and his family from these dangers.

The following three crucial Bible truths can protect the child of God in these end times:

FIRST, THE LAST DAYS ARE CHARACTERIZED BY APOSTASY, NOT REVIVAL. Thus it is not surprising that we are confronted today with a vast amount of heresy and spiritual compromise. If ever there were a time when God’s people need to be knowledgeable and cautious it is today. “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. ... For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 3:13; 4:3-4).

SECOND, GOD WARNS HIS PEOPLE TO TEST EVERYTHING BY THE SCRIPTURES. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
The video above is available for ordering here:
Read More...

THE SHACK'S COOL GOD

March 3, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

william-paul-young-shackover
“The Shack” has held first place on the New York Times bestseller list for Paperback Trade Fiction for nine months, is number seven at Amazon, and number six at Barnes & Noble. As of January 2009, it had sold five million copies. It is being translated into 30 languages, and a motion picture is in the works.

Though its author, William Paul Young, is not a member of a church and is even reticent to call himself a Christian, and though its doctrine of God is grossly heretical, the novel is being touted as a helpful Christian book.

“The Shack” has been endorsed by Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, CCM artist Michael W. Smith, Eugene Peterson (Regent College professor and author of “The Message”), Mark Batterson (senior pastor of National Community Church in Washington, D.C.), Wayne Jacobson, author of
So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore,” Gayle Erwin of Calvary Chapel, James Ryle of the Vineyard churches, Greg Albrecht, editor of “Plain Truth” magazine, among many others. Read More...

EMERGENTS and EVANGELICALS TOGETHER

A video report from the National Pastors Convention held this week in San Diego. A major written report will be out next week.

BEWARE OF “TWILIGHT SAGA”

January 19, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

The following is adapted from the report “Occultic Twilight Movie Praised by Christian Groups” by Caryl Matrisciana:
 
The Twilight Saga is a series of novels by Stephenie Meyer describing an illicit romance between a teenage girl and a vampire.
 
The four books have sold more than 17 million copies, been translated into 20 languages, and spun off a new movie that grossed $70 million in its first week.
 
Twilight has become a pop culture phenomenon hotter than Pottermania, promoting midnight release parties and vampire proms, obsessed fans called Twi-hards, and spawning more than 350 fan sites online that claim more than 100 million hits.

Read More...

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY SAYS ANTI-CATHOLIC SPEECH IS UNCHARITABLE AND HARMFUL

January 15, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)
 
The spiritually-dangerous nature of Focus on the Family (FOF) was evident in a reply that was given to a Christian who wrote to them about having Anne Rice, the Roman Catholic author of occultic horror novels, on the Focus radio program. In a reply dated December 3, 2008, Timothy Masters wrote the following for Focus on the Family:
 

Anne_Rice_2
“Your quotations from the canons of the Council of Trent, though perfectly legitimate as regards the theological aspects of this issue, fail to take account of the fact that, from a strictly evangelical perspective, a saving relationship with Jesus Christ is an intensely personal and individual matter.  In the final analysis, it’s not a question of church membership or doctrinal orientation. ...  It’s arguable that many individual Roman Catholics--Anne Rice included--have a very real and lively faith in the Lord Jesus. ... It’s worth adding that anti-Catholic sentiments like those you’ve expressed are more than just uncharitable and un-Christlike. They’re also harmful to the richness of your own Christian experience.  ...  To dismiss the Roman Catholic Church wholesale is to obliterate the first fifteen centuries of Christian history. It’s to deprive ourselves of the contributions of such great leaders and thinkers as ... Francis of Assisi, and Thomas Aquinas. You may be willing to throw treasures like these out the window, but we aren’t.”
 
This statement reflects gross ignorance both of the Bible and of church history. The Bible plainly teaches that it is impossible to be saved apart from the one true gospel of the grace of Christ (Galatians 1:8-9). Since the Roman Catholic Church teaches a false gospel of sacramentalism (e.g., the Council of Trent, which has never been rescinded, cursed those who say that salvation is by God’s grace alone), it is impossible to be saved if one believes what Rome teaches. The Bible warns of false christs, false gospels, and false spirits (2 Corinthians 11:1-4). Rome’s christ is a consecrated wafer. Its gospel is the sacraments. Its spirit is one that leads men to pray to a mythical Mary. As for Francis of Assisi and Thomas Aquinas, they worshipped Rome’s false christ, held to its false gospel, and followed its false spirit.
 
Focus on the Family may be willing to follow in their footsteps, but we thank God for the light He has shined into our formerly-darkened hearts to give us the spiritual wisdom to follow the path of truth rather than that of popular error. We don’t reject the first 1,500 years of church history, but the New Testament prophesies two streams of “churches,” the false and the true, and we thank God that He has shown us the difference.

(photo above: Anne Rice with rosary. Rice recently returned to her Roman Catholic roots, and has been embraced by James Dobson as an authentic Christian.)

THE EMERGING CHURCH LOVES TO DRINK


December 2, 2008 (first published August 13, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is excerpted from our new book
WHAT IS THE EMERGING CHURCH? This is a thorough examination of the emerging church, a name that describes a new approach to missions and church life among some “evangelicals” for these present times. Nothing has made us more conscious of the vicious battle that is raging for the very life and soul of Bible-believing churches than the research into the emergent church. It is frightful, because so many are falling into devil’s trap and so many more will doubtless fall in the coming days. At the same time, it is exciting, because it reminds us that the hour is very, very late and we need to be busy in the Lord’s service and always “looking up.” I have made a great effort to understand the emerging church. In the past several months I have read more than 80 books and a great many articles by emerging church leaders and their teachers. In reality, the emerging church is simply the latest heresy within the broad tent of evangelicalism. When the “new evangelicalism” swept onto the scene in the late 1940s with its bold repudiation of “separatism” and its emphasis on dialogue with heretics, the door was left open for every sort of heresy to infiltrate the “evangelical” fold, and that is precisely what has happened. The Bible does not warn in vain, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33).

OUTLINE:
I. What Is the Emerging Church?
II. A Great Blending and Merging. It is difficult to draw a strict line between the two streams of the emerging church, because there is a blending and merging going on that will cause all lines to be blurred eventually.
III. The Liberal Emerging Church and Its Errors.
IV. The Conservative Emerging Church and Its Errors.
V. Cain the First Emerging Church Worshiper.
VI. Charles Spurgeon Exposed the Emerging Church.
VII. Index.

489 pages. $19.95

This book is available from Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143 (toll free), www.wayoflife.org (online catalog), fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail).
____________________

Having read about 80 books by emergent church writers over the last several months, I have been impressed with the fact that they love to drink.

The book
Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives, for example, contains probably a dozen references to the joys of drinking. The contributors are Karen Ward, Mark Driscoll, John Burke, Dan Kimball, and Doug Pagitt. They meet in bars and taverns for theological discussions. They exchange beer-making techniques.

Some members of Spirit Garage meet in an Irish bar in downtown Minneapolis on Wednesday for a weekly Theology Pub, a mix of biblical discussion and beer (“Hip New Churches Pray to a Different Drummer,”
New York Times, Feb. 18, 2004).

Mars Hill Church in Seattle sets up a “champagne bar” at their New Year’s Eve parties and attendees are reminded to bring their IDs so they can enjoy the bubbly. Mars Hill also has “beer-brewing lessons” for men.

Riverview Community Church in Holt, Michigan, has a RiverBrew night featuring homebrewed beer and religious discussion. Ministry leader Brett Maxwell says: “It’s intimidating for someone to walk into a church having never been there. But if a friend invites them to go hang out, have a brew or two, and hang out with some of the guys from church, that’s a much less intimidating environment” (“Holt Ministry Celebrates Its Love of God and Beer,”
Lansing State Journal, Feb. 29, 2008). When asked what Jesus would drink, Maxwell replies, “I believe he would sit down with people in the bar, and he would drink what they were drinking, and he would be happy to do that.”

The Journey in St. Louis, Missouri, hosts a “Theology at the Bottleworks” where participants “grab a beer and discuss political or spiritual topics, such as the role of women in society, the legal system, or animal rights” (“Brewing Battle Missouri Baptists frown on beer as evangelistic hook,”
Christianity Today, June 29, 2007).

Jim West has written “Drinking with Calvin and Luther” to promote the idea that alcoholic beverages are a gift from God, something not only to be allowed but celebrated. He says, “They reveled in it as a gift of God.”

Phyllis Tickle leads a regular Beer and Bible gathering at Kudzu’s in Memphis, Tennessee. Tickle says this type of thing is “exactly where religion is going right now” (“Seeking Spirituality Outside of Churches,”
Memphis Online, Sept. 8, 2008). Participant Doug Hardin said that he was raised Baptist but left it 30 years ago and that he “wouldn’t be comfortable joining a church Bible study.” Another participant says that he likes the pub approach, because “we don't have to do religion the way we’ve always done it.”

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

It is true that some of the Protestant Reformers drank alcoholic beverages, but they are not our authority. They also “baptized” babies and drowned Baptists!

It is true that there are instances in the Old Testament in which God allowed His people Israel to drink alcoholic wine, but there are many things in the O.T. that we do not practice today.

I believe that Christians today should not drink alcoholic beverages for the following three reasons, among others, and I am convinced that these are universally applicable:

1. THE BIBLE WARNS THAT WINE AND STRONG DRINK IS A MOCKER AND DECEIVES MEN. “
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).

To say that alcoholic beverages can be consumed in moderation sounds reasonable, but very few drunks have ever set out to become a drunk. It is an irrefutable fact that a man that does not drink at all will never get drunk and will never become a drunkard.

All of the emerging church drinkers admit that the Bible forbids drunkenness, but all of their talk about the delights of drinking and beer making, of “a Guinness” and “a round of imperial pints,” makes me wonder if they don’t sometimes get a bit tipsy at their drinking confabs, not to say drunk! How inebriated does one have to be to be drunk? Do emerging churches ever need to appoint “designated drivers”?

I doubt Noah planned to get drunk and to cause so much trouble for his grandson, trouble that has abiding consequences to this day -- but wine is a mocker. My maternal grandfather drank before he got saved and when my godly grandmother married him she made him promise that he would never touch a drop of liquor, and that is a promise which he made. But one day he and another carpenter were working on a house and the other carpenter talked my grandfather into having just a sip “to cool the tongue.” They both got roaring drunk and ended up in jail, and my granddad was a deacon in a Baptist church! He was deeply repentant and was restored and never drank another drop as far as anyone knows, but it was a powerful reminder to him that wine is a mocker.

Alcohol has the ability to deceive and corrupt. One can never know if he will control it or it will control him. The instruction in the book of Proverbs 20:1 tells me that the wise man leaves it entirely alone.

The following is a wise statement from
John G. Paton: Missionary to the New Hebrides, 1891:

“From observation, at an early age I became convinced that mere Temperance Societies were a failure, and that Total Abstinence, by the grace of God, was the only sure preventive as well as remedy. What was temperance in one man was drunkenness in another; and all the drunkards came, not from those who practised total abstinence, but from those who practised or tried to practise temperance. I had seen temperance men drinking wine in the presence of others who drank to excess, and never could see how they felt themselves clear of blame; and I had known Ministers and others, once strong temperance advocates, fall through this so-called moderation, and become drunkards. Therefore it has all my life appeared to me beyond dispute, in reference to intoxicants of every kind, that the only rational temperance is Total Abstinence from them as beverages, and the use of them exclusively as drugs, and then only with extreme caution, as they are deceptive and deleterious poisons of the most debasing and demoralizing kind.”

Consider, too, the following testimony that a reader sent to me on this subject:

“Brothers and sisters in Christ, I have firsthand knowledge of what drinking just one drink can do to a family. My dad at age 15 was put on a horse behind a neighbor man, rode into the nearby town and took his first drink. From that day forth he was hooked and became an almost lifelong alcoholic. The suffering that our family went/is going through is unspeakable. Dad accepted Christ at age 62, and became a teetotaler. He could not stand for his alcoholic friends to stop by and offer him a drink as they always had in the past. Because of his alcoholism and verbal abuse of my little sister, she will never recover. It has affected our family in a terribly adverse way all of the years. My sincere recommendation is NEVER TOUCH IT, for you know not what the first drink of it will do. It is sort of like the first temptation to take the first bite out of the apple in the garden. Millions of homes are broken and destroyed, souls in hell, and in torment here on earth, as a result of alcohol.”

Can the emergents guarantee that they and their drinking buddies will never get even a little drunk? Can they guarantee that they will not tempt someone to become an alcoholic? No, they cannot, because “wine is a mocker.”

2. THE BIBLE INSTRUCTS THE BELIEVER NOT TO GIVE OFFENSE IN ANYTHING. “
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be save” (1 Cor. 10:32-33).

I personally quit smoking a few months after I was saved and it was not because I thought it was wrong at that time or because I was concerned about my health; it was because I knew that it could offend others. I wanted my testimony to be pure of offence so that God would use me and I would have eternal fruit for my service for the Lord. I didn’t want to be witnessing to someone and have them possibly ignore me or be distracted because they saw a pack of cigarettes in my pocket.

If that is true for smoking, and it is, then it is even truer for drinking alcoholic beverages. It is a fact that many unbelievers think that a believer should not drink. They have higher standards for Christians than some Christians have for themselves. Consider Utah, where even unregenerate Mormons believe it is wrong to drink alcoholic beverages! How would Mormons look upon non-Mormon Christians who drink?

Even the possibility that someone would be offended because of my drinking should be sufficient for the believer to put it out of his life, and that possibility is very great in modern society. Paul was willing to stop eating meat entirely in this present world if he thought someone would be offended and his testimony hurt (1 Cor. 8:13), and eating meat is a perfectly legitimate activity. How much more should a believer be willing to give up alcoholic beverages, which are highly questionable at best and have the potential in themselves to cause harm (which meat does not)!

3. THE BIBLE COMMANDS THE BELIEVER TO ABSTAIN FROM ALL APPEARANCE OF EVIL (1 Thess. 5:22).

That is a far reaching exhortation. Alcoholic beverages are a great evil and curse in modern society. Consider the automobile wrecks, the disease, the adulteries, the lewdness, the divorces, the neglected children, the abused wives, the waste of money, the gambling, the blasphemy, the pure foolishness. Look at the beer and liquor ads, how they always flaunt sensuality and irresponsibility. In January 2005 the Royal College of Physicians in England warned that Britain is suffering from an epidemic of alcohol-related problems that is fuelling violence and illness throughout the country (
The Telegraph, Jan. 3, 2005). The same epidemic is raging throughout the world.

If anything has the appearance of evil today, it is alcoholic beverages, and the Bible does not merely suggest that we abstain from all appearance of evil; it commands us to do so!

It is also important to understand that there is a dramatic difference between the alcoholic content of wine today and that of Bible times. The following quotes by Norman Geisler and Robert Stein are from
Focus in Missions, September 1986:

“Many wine-drinking Christians today mistakenly assume that what the New Testament meant by wine is identical to wine used today. This, however, is false. In fact, today’s wine is by biblical definition strong drink, and hence is forbidden in the Bible. ... Even ancient pagans did not drink what some Christians drink today” (Geisler).

“To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis today, by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine (the biblical ratio) a person would have to drink over twenty-two glasses” (Stein).

As for the idea that Jesus made and drank alcoholic wine, I would point the reader to the following article by the late Bruce Lackey --
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/didjesus.htm.

____________________

The previous is excerpted from our new book
What Is the Emerging Church? This is available from Way of Life Literature. If it is not yet available through the online catalog, it can be ordered by phone or e-mail with a credit card.

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And pleaɳe be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]

RICHARD FOSTER: EVANGELICALISM’S MYSTICAL SPARKPLUG

RICHARD FOSTER: EVANGELICALISM’S MYSTICAL SPARKPLUG

October 8, 2008 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is excerpted from our new book
Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond, which is available from Way of Life Literature. If it is not yet available through the online catalog, it can be ordered by phone or e-mail with a credit card.
___________________

Richard Foster’s writings have been at the forefront of the contemplative movement since the 1970s. No one has done more than this man to spread contemplative mysticism throughout Protestant and Baptist churches XE "Foster, Richard" \b .

Foster’s book
Celebration of Discipline, which has sold more than two and a half million copies, was selected by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the 20th century. (For this review I obtained multiple editions of Celebration of Discipline, plus three other books by Foster.)

richardfosterlrg


The Quaker Connection

He grew up among the Quakers XE "Quaker" (the Religious Society of Friends), was trained at George Fox College, has pastored Quaker churches, and has taught theology at Friends University in Wichita, Kansas, and at George Fox. One website calls him “perhaps the best known Quaker in the world today.”

The Quaker connection is important, because one of their peculiar doctrines is direct revelation via an “inner light.” XE "Inner Light" This is defined in a variety of ways, since Quakerism is very individualistic and non-creedal, but it refers to a divine presence and guidance in every man. There is an emphasis on being still and silent and passive in order to receive guidance from the inner light. Other terms for it are “light of God,” “light of Christ,” “inward light,” “the light,” “light within,” “Christ within,” and “spirit of Christ.”

George Fox XE "Fox, George" used the expression “that of God in everyone.” In his journal Fox said, “I was glad that I was commanded to turn people to that inward light, spirit, and grace, by which all might know their salvation, and their way to God; even that divine Spirit which would lead them into all Truth, and which I infallibly knew would never deceive any” (
The Journal of George Fox, revised by John Nickalls, 1952, p. 35).

Another prominent Quaker, Robert Barclay XE "Barclay, Robert" , called this “the light of the heart” and said “there is an evangelical and saving Light and grace in all.”

Isaac Pennington said, “There is that near you which will guide you; Oh wait for it, and be sure ye keep to it.”

The inner light teaching is said to be based on John 1:9 -- “
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” Yet this verse does not say that there is a divine light in every man. It merely says that Christ gives light to every man. The epistle of Romans tells us more about this. There is the light of creation (Romans 1:20), the light of conscience (Romans 2:14-16), and the light of the Scripture (Romans 3:2). When men respond to the light that they have, they are given more light (Acts 17:26-27).

Because of the fall, man’s heart is darkened and foolish (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18).

The inner light teaching was exalted above reliance on the Bible. Martin Meeker says, “... the early Quakers’ reliance on the Bible as a source of spiritual knowledge and inspiration was secondary to their belief in the Inner Light as the primary path to salvation and communication with God” (
The Doctrine of the Inner Light).

George Fox would say to his listeners:

“You will say, Christ saith this and the Apostles say this, but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?”

Fox claimed that he received the doctrine of the inner light without help from the Scriptures (
The Journal of George Fox, revised by John Nickalls, 1952, pp. 33-35).

This is an unscriptural and very dangerous position that opens the door for every sort of heresy. The Scripture is able to make the man of God
perfect; obviously, then, nothing more is needed (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The early Quakers misinterpreted 2 Corinthians 3:6, claiming that the “letter” referred to the Scripture in general.

“Along these lines, we might note that early Quakers tended to give an expansive reading of 2 Cor. 3:6, which states that God has made us ‘ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.’ This verse, if ‘letter’ is taken to mean ‘Scripture,’ obviously places strong limits on the use of Scripture while extending preference to Spirit, at the very least. One thus is not surprised that it is a favorite of early Quakers, appearing as an allusion in the postscript of the Letter from the Elders of Balby, cherished by many contemporary Friends” (Stephen Angell, “Opening the Scriptures, Then and Now,” QUEST, Fall-Winter 2007-2008).

If the “letter” of 2 Corinthians 3:6 refers to the Scripture in general, it would mean that Paul was exalting “the Spirit” above the Scripture. It would mean that the Scripture is not the sole authority for faith and practice, but it is only one authority and that men are free to follow their inner lights.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the passage. In truth, 2 Corinthians 3 contrasts the Law of Moses with the Gospel of Grace, the Old Covenant with the New.

2 Corinthians 3:7 leaves no doubt about this, which tells us that the “letter” that killeth is “
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones.” That refers, of course, to the Law of Moses given on Mt. Sinai. It was a covenant of death because it requires of fallen sinners what they cannot perform, which is perfect holiness. It was not given to provide a way of salvation but to show men their sinful, lost condition (Romans 3:19-20).

To interpret the “letter” of 2 Corinthians 3:6 as a reference to the Scripture in general also contradicts the fact that verse 11 says the “letter” has been “done away.” Obviously the Scripture has not been done away with, but the Law of Moses has. Its purpose was to act as a “schoolmaster” to lead men to Christ and once it performs that glorious function its work is finished (Galatians 3:24-25).

It is easy to see how the Quaker philosophy paved the way for Foster to accept Catholic mysticism. It did this by its emphasis on an “inner light” and its tendency not to judge things in an exacting manner with the Bible.

Other Quakers have followed the same path, and some, like Mary Conrow Coelho XE "Coelho, Mary" , have followed it all the way to the New Age XE "New Age" . Conrow believes in evolution XE "Evolution" , the oneness of the universe, and the unity of man with God, and she traces her New Age mysticism to deep third generation Quaker roots and its inner light teaching:

“The adults in our Quaker community spoke often of the Inner Light, the seed of God, the indwelling Christ. [Thomas Kelly] XE "Kelly, Thomas" said, ‘It is a Light within, a dynamic center, a creative Life that presses to birth within us’” (“Of Leadings and the Inner Light: Quakerism and the New Cosmology,” http://www.thegreatstory.org/QuakerMetarelig.html).

(Richard Foster quotes Thomas Kelly favorably and frequently in his books, and the
Renovarè Spiritual Formation Bible quotes Kelly as saying: “Deep within us all there is an amazing inner sanctuary of the soul, a holy place, a Divine Center.”)

From its inception Quakerism was a heretical movement that downplayed the Bible and exalted personal revelation, and Foster is a product of that heresy even though he is on the “evangelical” side of Quakerism.

In this light it is not surprising to find him promoting Roman Catholic mystics who exalted their tradition and mystical revelations above the Scripture.

Salvation Not Clear

One thing that is glaring in its absence from Foster’s books on spiritual living is a clear biblical testimony of salvation and a clear exhortation for his readers to be born again.

When he does mention salvation XE "Salvation" , he speaks of it in a confused manner.

He says, for example, that reconciliation has already been achieved in Christ.

“In some mysterious way, through shedding his blood Jesus took into himself all the evil and all the hostility of all the ages and redeemed it. He reconciled us to God, restoring the infinitely valuable personal relationship that had been shattered by sin” (Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 42).

This is not true. Though the redemption price has been paid, sinners are not reconciled until they individually put their faith in the gospel (John 3:16, 18, 36).

Foster also speaks of salvation as a process.

“One more thing is needed, namely, our response of repentance--not just once but again and again. Martin Luther declares that the life of the Christian should be one of daily repentance” (Prayer, p. 42).

We must understand that the previous statement is made in the context of a discussion of salvation. Foster makes no clear distinction between the one repentance for salvation (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9) and continual repentance for sanctification (2 Cor. 12:21). Foster’s statement describes either universalism or sacramentalism, but it is not the once-for-all new birth doctrine of the New Testament.

Further, Foster describes salvation in terms of an emotional experience and in association with baptism. In
Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, Foster tells of a non-Christian who attended one of his contemplative seminars. Part way through the course the following event transpired.

“Throughout the weekend the Spirit of God rested tenderly upon the entire group, so much so that on Sunday afternoon this same gentleman asked quietly, ‘Would you pray for me that I might know Jesus the way you know Jesus?’ What were we to do? None of the normal responses seemed appropriate. We waited in silence. Finally one young man stood up and gently placed his hands on the man’s shoulders. I have never forgotten his prayer. I felt like taking off my shoes--we were on holy ground. Strange as it may seem, he prayed a commercial. He described a popular advertisement of the day for NesTea in which different people, sweltering from the summer sun, would fall into a swimming pool with a thirst-quenching sense of ‘ahhh!’ on their faces. He then invited this man to fall into the arms of Jesus in the same way. The gentleman suddenly began to weep, heaving deep sighs of sorrow and grief. We watched in reverent wonder as he received the gift of saving faith. It was a tender, grace-filled moment. Later he shared with us how the prayer touched a deep center in his past relating to his baptism as a child” (pp. 48, 49).

While it is true that the Bible describes salvation in terms of drinking and eating of Jesus, the scene described by Foster is confusing at best. What was this man trusting? What was he receiving? He mentions his infant baptism. Had he come to believe that his baptism had brought him into a saving relationship with God that he was only now learning to enjoy? What
Jesus was he trusting? What gospel? What was the nature of his faith? The Bible warns that the devils believe in God. Only a certain kind of faith is saving faith. Foster doesn’t clarify any of this. His doctrine of salvation is exceedingly murky at best. When the unbeliever asked the group to pray for him, why didn’t they share with him the gospel? They didn’t need to pray about what to say. They didn’t need to hesitate. Jesus has already commanded us to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Why did they preach a NesTea commercial rather than the gospel?

And while we are talking about Richard Foster and the gospel, if he believes the true gospel of the grace of Christ without works, why does he constantly and uninhibitedly promote Catholic mystics who hold to a sacramental gospel? If he doesn’t believe Rome’s gospel of process salvation, why does he never warn about it plainly?

Personal salvation is foundational to prayer and Christian living. It is criminal to write books on these subjects for broad public consumption and not make salvation absolutely clear.

Roman Catholic Mysticism

Foster advocates Roman Catholic mysticism with absolutely no qualms, building his contemplative practices unequivocally upon this heretical foundation.

He recommends Ignatius of Loyola, Francis of Assisi, Benedict of Nursia, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Genoa, Julian of Norwich, Brother Lawrence, Dominic, Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, the anonymous author of
The Cloud of Unknowing, Madame Guyon, Thomas à Kempis, Catherine Doherty, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard of Bingen, Francis de Sales, Alphonsus de Liguori, Bernard of Clairvaux, John Henry Newman, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, G.K. Chesterton, Andrè Louf, Henri Nouwen, Dorothy Day, Karl Rahner, John Main, Mother Teresa, Thomas Merton, Brennan Manning, John Michael Talbot, and many others.

Foster’s recommendation of these Roman Catholic mystics is not half-hearted. In the introduction to the 1998 edition of
Celebration of Discipline, he says that they taught him spiritual depth and substance (pp. xiii, xiv), and he calls them “Devotional Masters of the Christian faith.” Of the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, XE "Ignatius of Loyola" Foster says, “... it is a school of prayer for all of us” (Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 59).

There is no warning of the fact that these mystics trusted in a works gospel, venerated Mary, worshipped Christ as a piece of consecrated bread, believed in purgatory, and scores of other heresies. (For extensive documentation of this see the chapters “A Description of Catholic Monastic Asceticism” and “A Biographical Catalog of Contemplative Mystics.”)

Bible Not Sole Authority

Like his Roman Catholic friends, Foster’s foundational error is in not exalting the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice. XE "Bible as Sole Authority" Nowhere in
Celebration of Discipline or Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home does he instruct his readers that the Bible alone is God’s infallible revelation and that everything must be carefully tested by it. This should be the very starting point for books on Christian spirituality and worship, but it is glaring in its absence. Foster encourages his readers to find revelation beyond Scripture through meditation, dreams, and personal prophecies.

Foster describes how Francis of Assisi found spiritual guidance. When he was puzzled as to whether he should devote himself exclusively to contemplative practices or also to engage in preaching missions (which is plainly answered in Scripture), he sent word to two “trusted friends” and accepted their replies as the very will of God. Foster says that Francis “was seeking a method that would open the gates of heaven to reveal the mind of Christ, and he took it as such” (Foster,
Celebration of Discipline, 1978, pp. 154, 155). Nowhere does Foster chide Francis of Assisi for depending on the word of man rather than the Scripture.

Neo-Orthodox Approach to Scripture

Foster’s approach to Scripture is a neo-orthodox, XE "Neo-Orthodoxy" existentialist one. It is not by accident that he quotes Dietrich Bonhoeffer frequently and non-critically. (He also quotes the other two fathers of neo-orthodoxy, Karl Barth XE "Barth, Karl" and Emil Brunner XE "Brunner, Emil" .)

“This is not a time for technical word studies, or analysis, or even the gathering of material to share with others. ... Dietrich Bonhoeffer XE "Bonhoeffer, Dietrich" said, ‘... just as you do not analyze the words of someone you love, but accept them as they are said to you, accept the Word of Scripture and ponder it in your heart, as Mary did. That is all. That is meditation’” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 26).

Yet the Bible is not merely a love letter. It is much more. It is the infallible Word of God, and we are commanded to “analyze” it. “
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries exposes the error of Foster’s approach:

The idea expressed above by Bonhoeffer of accepting Scripture subjectively as spoken to you is completely in line with the flawed view of the text of the Holy Scripture spread by neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth. In neo-orthodoxy the Scripture only becomes the Word of God when the Holy Spirit illuminates it. We can sum up this wrong idea this way: ‘The Bible is a divine mailbox in which we receive letters from Heaven.’ But no, it isn’t. The Bible itself--in full--is the letter, the message, from God.

In his book
Reckless Faith Dr. John MacArthur hits the target dead on as he shows why neo-orthodoxy is a perfect fit for contemplative mysticism as well as why it’s a necessity for it to flourish:

‘Neo-orthodoxy is the term used to identify an existentialist variety of Christianity. Because it denies the essential objective basis of truth--the absolute truth and authority of Scripture--neo-orthodoxy must be understood as pseudo-Christianity. ... Neo-orthodoxy’s attitude toward Scripture is a microcosm of the entire existentialist philosophy: the Bible itself is not objectively the Word of God, but it becomes the Word of God when it speaks to me individually. ...

‘Thus while neo-orthodox theologians often sound as if they are affirming traditional beliefs, ... they relegate all theology to the realm of subjective relativism. ... Mysticism is perfectly suited for religious existentialism; indeed, it is the inevitable consequence. The mystic disdains rational understanding and seeks truth instead through the feelings, the imagination, personal visions, inner voices, private illumination, or other purely subjective means’ (MacArthur, Reckless Faith) (Ken Silva, “Contemplative Mysticism in the Southern Baptist Convention,” April 30, 2008, http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/04/contemplative_m.html).

Instead of seeing the Scripture as divinely inspired and profitable in every part as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, and therefore studying it diligently in order to rightly divide it as 2 Timothy 2:15 commands, neo-orthodoxy sees the Scripture as inspired only as it speaks to me experientially through a mystical approach.

Foster’s School of Contemplative Mysticism

Foster invites his readers to “enroll as apprentices in the school of contemplative prayer” (
Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 13), promoting thoughtless centering prayer, visualization, guided imagery, the repetition of mantras, silence, walking the labyrinth, even out of body experiences.

Foster says, “Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it XE "Meditation, Silent" ” (
Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 15).

Apparently Foster got some criticism for this statement, because in the next edition of
Celebration of Discipline he omitted it and tried to contrast Eastern meditation with Christian meditation with the following words:

“Eastern meditation is an attempt to empty the mind; Christian meditation is an attempt to fill the mind. The two ideas are quite different” (Celebration of Discipline, 1988, p. 20).

This sounds nice and tidy, but it contradicts the practice of Catholic contemplation. In reality, both Eastern meditation and Catholic meditation are an attempt to empty the mind in order to arrive at a transcendental experience. Consider the following quotes from the mystics that Foster heartily recommends:

Thomas Merton: “... the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. IT IS WORDLESS. IT IS BEYOND WORDS, AND IT IS BEYOND SPEECH, and it is BEYOND CONCEPT” (The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, 1975 edition, p. 308).

The Cloud of Unknowing: “I URGE YOU TO DISMISS EVERY CLEVER OR SUBTLE THOUGHT no matter how holy or valuable. Cover it with a thick cloud of forgetting because in this life only love can touch God as He is in Himself, never knowledge” (chapter 8).

John Main: “Recite your prayer-phrase [mantra] and gently listen to it as you say it. DO NOT THINK ABOUT ANYTHING. As thoughts come, simply keep returning to your prayer-phrase. In this way, one places everything aside” (The Teaching of Dom John Main: How to Meditate, Meditation Group of Saint Patrick’s Basilica, Ottawa, Canada).

Teresa of Avila: “All that the soul has to do at these times of quiet is merely to be calm and MAKE NO NOISE. BY NOISE I MEAN WORKING WITH THE INTELLECT to find great numbers of words and reflections with which to thank God. ... in these periods of quiet, the soul should repose in its calm, and learning should be put on one side” (The Life of Saint Teresa of Avila by Herself, chap. 15, pp. 106, 107, 108).

Foster’s attempt to set Catholic contemplation apart from pagan mysticism cannot be sustained.

Foster encourages his readers to go deep into their inner world of silence XE "Meditation, Silent" and explore it:

“[W]e must be willing to go down into the recreating silences, into the inner world of contemplation. In their writings, all of the masters of meditation strive to awaken us to the fact that the universe is much larger than we know, that there are vast unexplored inner regions that are just as real as the physical world we know so well. They tell us of exciting possibilities for new life and freedom. They call us to the adventure, to be pioneers in this frontier of the Spirit” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 13).

Amazingly, he says that these practices are not only for believers but also for unbelievers.

“We need not be well advanced in matters of theology to practice the Disciplines. Recent converts--for that matter people who have yet to turn their lives over to Jesus Christ--can and should practice them” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 2).

Since the contemplative practices are supposed to enable the practitioner to commune with Christ within himself, how could an unsaved person “practice them”? This is evidence of Foster’s Quaker belief in an “inner light” in every man.

Some might protest that I have only focused on the more controversial parts of Foster’s teaching and have ignored the truth contained therein. I will admit that Foster’s books contain some true insights about traditional biblical prayer that in another context could be helpful, but this is ruined by his promotion of Catholic mysticism, Jungian dream interpretation, healing of memories, and other heresies. Anyone that uses his writings is in imminent danger of being snared by error.

And though he does give many lessons about traditional biblical prayer, he considers this a shallow level of Christian living. To reach the truly “deep” levels, he urges believers to aspire to move beyond normal conversational prayer. He quotes C.S. Lewis XE "Lewis, C.S." :

“I still think the prayer without words is the best--if one can really achieve it. ... [But to] pray successfully without words one needs to be ‘at the top of one’s form’” (Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 156).

In reality, contemplative practices are beyond the bounds of Scripture and are completely “off the deep end.”

Visualization

Foster encourages the exceedingly dangerous practice of guided imagery and visualization: XE "Visualization"

“The inner world of meditation is most easily entered through the door of the imagination. We fail to today to appreciate its tremendous power. The imagination is stronger that the conceptual thought and stronger than the will. ... In his autobiography C. G. Jung XE "Jung, Carl" describes how difficult it was for him to humble himself and once again play imagination games of a child, and the value of that experience. Just as children need to learn to think logically, adults need to REDISCOVER THE MAGICAL REALITY OF THE IMAGINATION. ...

“Ignatius of Loyola XE "Ignatius of Loyola" in his
Spiritual Exercises constantly encouraged his readers to VISUALIZE THE GOSPEL STORIES. Every contemplation he gave was designed to open the imagination. He even included a meditation entitled ‘application of the senses,’ which is an attempt to help us utilize all five senses as we picture the Gospel events. His thin volume of meditation exercises with its stress on the imagination had tremendous impact for good upon the sixteenth century.’ ...

“Take a single event like the resurrection, or a parable, or a few verses, or even a single word and allow it to take root in you. Seek to live the experience, remembering the encouragement of Ignatius of Loyola to apply all our senses to our task. ... As you enter the story, not as a passive observer but as an active participant, remember that since Jesus lives in the Eternal Now and is not bound by time, this event in the past is a living present-tense experience for Him. Hence, YOU CAN ACTUALLY ENCOUNTER THE LIVING CHRIST IN THE EVENT, BE ADDRESSED BY HIS VOICE AND BE TOUCHED BY HIS HEALING POWER. It can be more than an exercise of the imagination; IT CAN BE A GENUINE CONFRONTATION” (
Celebration of Discipline, 1978, pp. 22, 23, 26).

Note that Foster recommends Carl Jung, who followed a demonic spirit guide, as well as Ignatius of Loyola, who founded an organization dedicated to blind obedience to the pope at the very height of the murderous Inquisition. The “spirit realm” to which these men connected through meditative practices was the realm of darkness.

Foster recommends Loyola’s practice of visualizing a personal encounter with Jesus, which is presumptuous foolishness. We don’t even know what Jesus looks like and we are not supposed to. Faith is simply believing God’s Word (Romans 10:17). Faith is not putting oneself into the biblical account and letting one’s imagination run wild.

(For more about visualization and the Ignatian
Spiritual Exercises see “Ignatius of Loyola” in the chapter “A Biographical Catalog of Contemplative Mystics.”)

Interpretation of Dreams

Foster promotes the interpretation of dreams XE "Dream Interpretation" , which is not surprising in light of his recommendation of Carl Jung.

“In learning to meditate, one good place to begin is with our dreams, since it involves little more than paying attention to something we are already doing. ... If we are convinced that DREAMS CAN BE A KEY TO UNLOCKING THE DOOR TO THE INNER WORLD, we can do three practical things. First, we can specifically pray, inviting God to inform us through our dreams. ... Second, we should begin to record our dreams. ... That leads to the third consideration--how to interpret dreams. The best way to discover the meaning of dreams is to ask. ‘You do not have, because you do not ask’ (Jas. 4:2). ... Benedict Pererius XE "Pererius, Benedict" , a sixteenth-century Jesuit XE "Jesuit" , suggested that the best interpreter of dreams is the ‘...person with plenty of experience in the world and the affairs of humanity, with a wide interest in everything human, and who is open to the voice of God’” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, pp. 23, 24).

Though God did speak from time to time to the prophets of old in dreams, the New Testament does not encourage God’s people to seek revelation in dreams nor does it instruct us in how to interpret dreams. Foster takes James 4:2 out of context applying it to the interpretation of dreams, though it has nothing to do with such a thing. He quotes a Jesuit heretic who held a false gospel of sacramentalism. The fact is that we do not need dream revelations for we have the perfect and sufficient “voice of God” in the Scriptures. It is “
a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed” (2 Peter 1:19).

Dream interpretation is one of the things that led Sue Monk Kidd astray as she pursued the contemplative path. She came to believe that God was speaking to her through weird dreams, and those dreams led to self-deification and goddess worship! (See “Sue Monk Kid” in the chapter “Biographical Catalog of Contemplative Mystics.”)

Communing Face to Face with God in Outer Space

Foster even urges the contemplative practitioner to commune face to face with God the Father.

“A fourth form of meditation has as its objective to bring you into a deep inner communion with the Father where you look at Him and He looks at you” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 27).

Foster says that this amazing feat can be accomplished via visualized XE "Visualization" XE "Imagination" \t "
See Visualization" out of body experiences XE "Out of body experience" \t "See Astral Projection" XE "Astral Projection" .

“In your imagination, picture yourself walking along a lovely forest path. ... When you are able to experience the scene with all your senses, the path breaks out onto a lovely grassy knoll. Walk out into the lush large meadow encircled by stately pines. After exploring the meadow for a time, lie down on your back looking up at blue sky and white clouds. IN YOUR IMAGINATION ALLOW YOUR SPIRITUAL BODY, SHINING WITH LIGHT, TO RISE OUT OF YOUR PHYSICAL BODY. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily. IMAGINE YOUR SPIRITUAL SELF, ALIVE AND VIBRANT, RISING UP THROUGH THE CLOUDS AND INTO THE STRATOSPHERE. Observe your physical body, the knoll, and the forest shrink as you leave the earth. Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal Creator. Rest in His presence. Listen quietly, anticipating the unanticipated. NOTE CAREFULLY ANY INSTRUCTION GIVEN ... Do not be disappointed if no words come; like good friends, you are silently enjoying the company of each other. When it is time for you to leave, audibly thank the Lord for His goodness and return to the meadow. Walk joyfully back along the path until you return home FULL OF NEW LIFE AND ENERGY” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, pp. 27, 28).

Foster thus claims that the believer can go into outer space and receive direct revelation from Almighty God! Who needs the Bible and who needs faith when we can actually meet Christ in the center of our being, talk face to face with God the Father, and have personal revelations from Almighty God?

(The previous passage was dropped out of subsequent editions of
Celebration of Discipline, but to my knowledge Foster has never renounced the practice. My e-mail to him about this was not answered.)

This technique is occultic. It is exactly what I was taught by Hindu gurus in the early 1970s.

In
Out on a Limb New Ager Shirley MacLaine describes an out of body journey to the moon that follows the same playbook!

Consider the following description of what Brian Flynn was taught when he was training to be a psychic before his conversion to Jesus Christ:

“Carolyn then instructed us to lie on the floor, close our eyes and imagine we were lying in a field of wildflowers on a beautiful summer’s day. The wind was calm, and the smell of flowers awakened our senses. As we were lying in the field, she asked us to now leave our bodies and look down upon ourselves. Carolyn then guided us to raise our souls to the heavens and to leave our earthly bodies behind. When we reached what we believed to be the outer edges of the universe she told us to ask for a message from the universe and what we needed to know at this time. ‘Listen to the voice inside you. Ask what it is you need to know to help you release the burdens you carry,’ she said softly” (Flynn, Running against the Wind, 2005, p. 50).

There is no significant difference between the psychic practice and Foster’s so-called contemplative practice. When we go outside the realm of the Bible we put ourselves in the way of spiritual harm and deception.

Other Occultic Practices

Foster recommends other occultic practices.

One is
channeling the light of Christ through visualization. Consider his description of how he taught visualizing prayer to a little boy:

“Imagination opens the door to faith. If we can ‘see’ in our mind’s eye a shattered marriage whole or a sick person well, it is only a short step to believing that it will be so. ... I was once called to a home to pray for a seriously ill baby girl. Her four-year-old brother was in the room and so I told him I needed his help to pray for his baby sister. ... He climbed up into the chair beside me. ‘Let’s play a little game,’ I said. ‘Since we know that Jesus is always with us, let’s imagine that He is sitting over in the chair across from us. He is waiting patiently for us to center our attention on Him. When we see Him, we start thinking more about His love than how sick Julie is. He smiles, gets up, and comes over to us. Then let’s both put our hands on Julie and when we do, Jesus will put His hands on top of ours. WE’LL WATCH AND IMAGINE THAT THE LIGHT FROM JESUS IS FLOWING RIGHT INTO YOUR LITTLE SISTER AND MAKING HER WELL. Let’s pretend that the light of Christ fights with the bad germs until they are all gone. Okay!’ Seriously the little one nodded. Together we prayed in this childlike way and then thanked the Lord that what we ‘saw’ was the way it was going to be” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 37).

This is not biblical prayer; it is occultism. Mind Science practitioners and New Agers have promoted this type of thing for a century.

Biblical prayer is not the attempt to accomplish something through the power of our minds. It is talking to God and asking Him to accomplish things. There is a vast difference between these two practices, as vast as the difference between God and the Devil.

Foster recommends that parents pray for their sleeping children after this fashion:

“Imagine the light of Christ flowing through your hands and healing every emotional trauma and hurt feeling your child experienced that day. Fill him or her with the peace and joy of the Lord. In sleep the child is very receptive to prayer since the conscious mind which tends to erect barriers to God’s gentle influence is relaxed” (Celebration of Discipline, p. 39).

There is not the hint of support in Scripture for this practice. To attempt to bypass “the conscious mind” is occultism.

Foster’s descent into occultism is further evident by his recommendation of “
flash prayers XE "Prayer, Flash" ” and “swish prayers XE "Prayer, Swish" ”:

“Flashing hard and straight prayers at people is a great thrill and can bring interesting results. I have tried it, inwardly asking the joy of the Lord and a deeper awareness of His presence to rise up within every person I meet. Sometimes people reveal no response, but other times they turn and smile as if addressed. In a bus or plane we can fancy Jesus walking down the aisles touching people on the shoulder and saying, ‘I love you...’ Frank Laubach has suggested that if thousands of us would experiment with ‘swishing prayers’ at everyone we meet and would share the results, we could learn a great deal about how to pray for others. ... ‘Units of prayer combined, like drops of water, make an ocean which defies resistance’” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 39).

This depicts prayer as an occultic entity rather than a simple communication addressed to God.

Foster also recommends a practice called “
palms up, palms down.” The practitioner is instructed first to hold his palms down in order to “release” his worries and concerns, such as anger, lack of finances, or fear of an upcoming event.

“Whatever it is that weighs on your mind or is a concern to you, just say, ‘palms down.’ Release it. YOU MAY EVEN FEEL A CERTAIN SENSE OF RELEASE IN YOUR HANDS” (Celebration of Discipline, 1998, p. 31).

Then the practitioner is to turn his palms up in order to “receive from the Lord.”

“Perhaps you will pray silently: ‘Lord, I would like to receive your divine love for John, your peace about the dentist appointment, your patience, your joy.’ Whatever you need, you say, ‘palms up.’”

There is not a hint of support for such a thing in Scripture, but this practice is found in New Age and pagan religions.

Palms up, palms down is used in walking the labyrinth (http://www.lessons4living.com/three_fold_path.htm).

It is used in Nia Technique to channel energy fields (http://www.nianow.com/teachers/continuingedu/sharingthejoy/0606/t_tip.html).

It is used in Tai Chi to manipulate the flow of the occultic chi energy (http://groups.ku.edu/~kungfu/instructions/instructions.htm).

Sufi dervishes hold one palm up and one palm down while whirling in order to channel their mystical experiences. I have observed this in Turkey.
Union with God

Foster has adopted the contemplative doctrine of union with God. XE "Union with God" To the question, “What is the goal of Contemplative Prayer?” Foster answers:

“To this question the old writers answer with one voice: UNION WITH GOD. ... Bonaventure XE "Bonaventure" , a follower of Saint Francis XE "Francis of Assisi" , says that our final goal is ‘union with God,’ which is A PURE RELATIONSHIP WHERE WE SEE ‘NOTHING’” (Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, 1992, p. 159).

The “old writers” are old Catholic writers, but the Bible nowhere describes or encourages such a practice. The believer’s
complete relationship with God is an accomplished fact in Christ.

“As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:6-10).

We receive Christ by faith in the gospel, and Paul says that we are to walk in Him in the same way. It is a walk of faith. We walk “
from faith to faith” (Romans 1:17). God gives the believer many wonderful “experiences” along the way, but we are not to seek after experiences; we are to be content with knowing Christ by faith.

The believer is complete in Christ and his “union” with Christ, is an accomplished fact. It is not something we have to pursue through mysticism.

Further, the believer’s relationship with Christ in this world is not an experience of “seeing nothing.” It is, rather, an experience of knowing the Saviour through faith in His written Word and through the power of the indwelling Spirit. It is an objective, mindful experience. As former Catholic priest Richard Bennett says, “Seeing ‘nothing’ [is] just an Evangelical rehashing of Catholic irrational superstitious myth.”

Promoting Heretics

God’s Word commands us to mark and avoid those who cause divisions contrary to the apostolic faith (Romans 16:17), but Foster ignores this and draws his material from a bewildering assortment of heretics.

The following are just a few of the many examples we could give of the man’s disturbing, dangerous, and unbiblical habit of quoting heretics in the most recommending manner.

For a starter, as we have noted, he asks his readers to join hands with Catholic “saints” and mystics (all of whom are committed to a gospel of works and many of whom are pantheists, panentheists, and universalists). (See the chapter “A Biographical Catalog of Contemplative Mystics” for studies on Francis of Assisi, Benedict of Nursia, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Catherine of Genoa, Julian of Norwich, Brother Lawrence, Dominic, Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, Madame Guyon, Thomas à Kempis, Meister Eckhart, Hildegard of Bingen, Bernard of Clairvaux, Karl Rahner, John Main, Mother Teresa, Thomas Merton, Brennan Manning, John Michael Talbot, and others cited by Foster.)

Foster quotes
ALPHONSUS DE LIGUORI XE "De Liguori, Alphonsus" (he spells his name Luguori) at least three times in Celebration of Discipline (1978, pp. 132-134). Liguori was one of the greatest worshippers of Mary XE "Mary" the Roman Catholic Church has ever produced. His book The Glories of Mary (1750) is a simply blasphemous. Note the following quotations:

“... though the sinner does not himself merit the graces which he asks, yet he receives them, because this Blessed Virgin asks and obtains them from God, ON ACCOUNT OF HER OWN MERITS” (The Glories of Mary, edited by Eugene Grimm, Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931, p. 73).

“IT WAS THEN BY THIS GREAT OFFERING OF MARY THAT WE WERE BORN TO THE LIFE OF GRACE; WE ARE THEREFORE HER VERY DEAR CHILDREN, SINCE WE COST HER SO GREAT SUFFERING” (p. 59).

“This was revealed by our Blessed Lady herself to St. Bridget, saying, ‘I am the Queen of heaven and the Mother of Mercy; I AM THE JOY OF THE JUST, AND THE DOOR THROUGH WHICH SINNERS ARE BROUGHT TO GOD” (p. 43).

“Let us, then, have recourse, and always have recourse, to this most sweet Queen, IF WE WOULD BE CERTAIN OF SALVATION ... LET US REMEMBER THAT IT IS IN ORDER TO SAVE THE GREATEST AND MOST ABANDONED SINNERS, who recommend themselves to her, that Mary is made the Queen of Mercy” (pp. 43,44).

Foster heavily promotes the Catholic Trappist monk
THOMAS MERTON XE "Merton, Thomas" , recommending many of his books and quoting from him frequently, at least 15 times in Celebration of Discipline, not giving the slightest warning about the man. Foster says that Merton “has done more than any other twentieth century figure to make the life of prayer widely known and understood” (Spiritual Classics, pp. 17, 21). He calls Merton’s Contemplative Prayer “a must book” and What Is Contemplation “an excellent introduction to contemplative prayer for everyone.” In Meditative Prayer, Foster gushes that “Merton continues to inspire countless men and women.” Foster includes an entire chapter by Merton in his book Spiritual Classics.

Foster does not tell his readers that Merton was at the forefront of interfaith dialogue, that he claimed to be both a Buddhist and a Catholic, that he had powerful mystical experiences while meditating before Buddha idols, and that he was a universalist. Nowhere did Merton say that Buddhists and Hindus and Sufis worship false gods or that they are hell-bound because they do not believe in Jesus. When writing about Zen Buddhists, Merton always assumed that they were communing with the same “ground of Being” that he had found through Catholic monasticism.

Foster recommends the universalist mystic
MEISTER ECKHART XE "Eckhart, Meister" , quoting him at least two times in various editions of Celebration of Discipline and saying, “Today Eckhart is widely read and appreciated, not so much for his theological opinions as for his vision of God” (Spiritual Classics, p. 206). How can Eckhart have had a proper vision of God when he believed that God is everything and that man is divinity?

Foster recommends the universalist
DOROTHY DAY XE "Day, Dorothy" . He has an entire chapter by and about her in his book Spiritual Classics. Day wrote:

“Going to the people is the purest and best act in Christian tradition and revolutionary tradition [she is referring to Marxism] and is the beginning of world brotherhood. Never to be severed from the people, to set out always from the point of view of serving the people, not serving the interests of a small group or oneself. ... It is almost another way of saying that we must and will FIND CHRIST IN EACH AND EVERY MAN, when we look on them as brothers” (Dorothy Day, The Long Loneliness).

Foster promotes
KARL RAHNER XE "Rahner, Karl" . There is a chapter by him in Spiritual Classics. Yet he believed in evolution and in salvation apart from faith in Christ. He spoke of the “anonymous Christian,” referring to an individual who unconsciously responds to God’s grace operating in the world, though he might even reject the gospel.

Foster promotes Benedictine priest
JOHN MAIN XE "Main, John" , saying that he “understood well the value of both silence and solitude” and he “rediscovered meditation while living in the Far East” (Spiritual Classics, p. 155). Indeed, he did. Main learned meditation from a Hindu guru! Main combined Catholic contemplative practices with yoga and in 1975 began founding meditation groups in Catholic monasteries based on this syncretism.

Foster recommends
HILDEGARD OF BINGEN XE "Hildegard of Bingen" . There is an entire chapter by her in Spiritual Classics. She had wild-eyed visions and wrote as the direct mouthpiece of God, yet her prophecies taught Catholic heresies, including the veneration of Mary. One of her songs was entitled “Praise for the Mother.”

Foster recommends
AGNES SANFORD XE "Sanford, Agnes" , saying, “I have discovered her to be an extremely wise and skillful counselor in these matters” and calls her book The Healing Gifts of the Spirit “an excellent resource” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 136, footnote 1). Foster includes an entire chapter by Sanford in his book Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home and another chapter by her in Spiritual Disciplines. Sanford delved deeply into New Thought, Jungian psychology, and other dangerous fields. She said that she got her doctrine that there is a “spiritual body” within the physical body from New Thought teacher Emmet Fox XE "Fox, Emmet" (Sealed Orders, p. 115), who also believed that man is God. Sanford was a universalist and the founder of the dangerous field of healing of memories. She taught healing XE "Healing" through meditation, visualization XE "Visualization" , and positive confession. She said that if she spilled hot oil on her hand in the kitchen, she would confess: “I’m boss inside of me. And what I say goes. I say that my skin shall not be affected by that boiling fat, and that’s all there is to it. I see my skin well, perfect and whole, and I say it’s to be so” (The Healing Light, p. 65). (For more about Sanford see the report “Agnes Sanford” at the Way of Life web site.)

Foster recommends
MARTIN MARTY XE "Marty, Martin" , who wrote the foreword to Streams of Living Water. Yet Marty is a relativist and a modernist who denies the divine inspiration of the Bible and eternal judgment in hell. Marty supports abortion and the ordination of homosexuals, and in an interview with Playboy in 1974 he recommended adultery in some situations.

Foster quotes
HARVEY COX XE "Cox, Harvey" , who repudiates the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith and has described himself as a fellow traveler of the Hare Krishna movement.

Foster also quotes sympathetically and non-critically from the psychoanalyst
CARL JUNG XE "Jung, Carl" who rejected the Bible as mythical and communicated intimately throughout his life with a spirit guide.

Foster even recommends New Age mystics. He quotes MARTIN BUBER XE "Buber, Martin" , who rejected the God of the Bible and the fall of man and believed that God is found through interaction with human society and non-doctrinal mysticism. Buber believed that the Bible is largely mythical.

Foster quotes
ELIZABETH O’CONNOR XE "O'Connor, Elizabeth" , who was a universalist and praised the Hindu guru Krishnamurti. O’Connor believed that Christ has saved all of mankind and is creating a new world through social-justice action. There is no need for individuals to be saved; they are already children of God and merely need to find God’s will for their lives and see “the divine life throbbing in the whole of the world” (O’Connor, “Each of Us Has Something Grand to Do,” Faith At Work magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1979).

Foster recommends the writings of
DAG HAMMARSKJÖLD XE "Hammarskjöld, Dag" (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 62; Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 33; Spiritual Classics, p. 156, 251-260). He was a universalist who built the UN Chapel XE "United Nations" XE "United Nations Chapel" XE "New Age" in 1952 as a New Age meditation center. There is a six-and-a-half ton block of iron ore in the center of the room, the polished top of which is lit by a single beam of light from the ceiling. The light depicts “divine wisdom,” and the block depicts an empty altar representing “God worshipped in many forms” (http://www.aquaac.org/un/sprtatun.html). The iron ore also represents the metal from which weapons are made and the New Age hope that through the power of meditation world peace can be achieved XE "Disarmament" . Hammarskjöld said, “... we thought we could bless by our thoughts the very material out of which arms are made.”

Foster recommends
PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN XE "Teilhard, Pierre" . He includes a chapter by him in Spiritual Disciplines. Teilhard taught that God is the consciousness of the universe, that everything is one, and that everything is evolving in greater and greater enlightenment toward an ultimate point of perfection. He called this perfection CHRIST and THE OMEGA POINT. Teilhard spoke much of Christ, but his christ is not the Christ of the Bible XE "Omega Point" . For this reason, Teilhard is a favorite with New Agers.

Foster also recommends the writings of pagan mystics
LAO-TSE XE "Lao-tse" of China (founder of Taoism XE "Taoism" ) and ZARATHUSTRA XE "Zarathustra" of Persia (founder of Zoroastrianism XE "Zoroastrian" ) (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 62).

These are only some of the heretics that Foster quotes and recommends in his books!

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

Renovarè: Foster’s ecumenical program

In 1988 Foster founded
RENOVARÈ XE "Renovarè" (pronounced ren-o-var-ay), which is Latin, meaning “to make new spiritually.” This is an ecumenical organization that promotes spiritual renewal through contemplative exercises, charismatic practices, and other things.

Renovarè’s
ecumenical thrust XE "Ecumenism" is radical. Its objective is “to work for the renewal of the Church of Jesus Christ in all her multifaceted expressions.” Its slogan is “Christian in commitment, international in scope, ecumenical in breadth.” Renovarè’s ministry team represents men and women “from Mennonite to Methodist, Roman Catholic to Church of God in Christ, Assembly of God to American Baptist.”

Foster describes the breadth his ecumenical vision in these words:

“God is gathering his people once again, creating of them an all-inclusive community of loving persons with Jesus Christ as the community’s prime sustainer and most glorious inhabitant. This community is breaking forth in multiplied ways and varied forms. ...

“I see a Catholic monk from the hills of Kentucky standing alongside a Baptist evangelist from the streets of Los Angeles and together offering up a sacrifice of praise. I see a people” (
Streams of Living Water, 2001, p. 274).

In his book
Streams of Living Water Foster “celebrates the great traditions of the Christian faith.” These are contemplative, holiness, charismatic, social justice, evangelical, and incarnational, claiming that all are “true streams flowing from the fountain of Jesus Christ.” In emerging church fashion, he believes that these “traditions,” which represent diverse and contradictory doctrines and practices, are “complementary” and needed.

At the October 1991 Renovarè meeting in Pasadena, California, Foster praised Pope John Paul II XE "John Paul II" and called for unity in the Body of Christ” (
CIB Bulletin, December 1991).

In Renovarè Foster works closely with
Dallas Willard XE "Willard, Dallas" . Willard attended Foster’s Quaker church in the 1970s, and today he is one of Renovarè’s Ministry Team members. The Renovarè web site in March 2008 advertised an upcoming “conversation” between Willard and Foster.

Willard says that “it is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved” (“Apologetics in Action,”
Cutting Edge magazine, winter 2001, vol. 5 no. 1, Vineyard USA, http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=14).

Anti-Dispensationalism/Kingdom Gospel

Foster calls Dispensationalism a “heresy” XE "Anti-Dispensationalism" (
Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 46, footnote). Thus, he believes that Christians are building the kingdom of God today and that Christ’s coming is not imminent.

Dallas Willard believes the same thing. In his book
The Divine Conspiracy he preaches a “kingdom gospel” that downplays the centrality of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. (He calls it a “theory.”) The apostle Paul said that if anyone preaches a different gospel than the one given to him by God he is accursed (Galatians 1:6-9). Paul’s gospel is plainly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and it is not a kingdom gospel. It is the gospel of personal salvation through faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

We have refuted the kingdom gospel error in
What Is the Emerging Church, which is available from Way of Life Literature.

Accepting the Catholic Mass

Foster allows for Rome’s abominable doctrine that the consecrated wafer of the Mass is actually the body of Christ
. XE "Mass" He says it doesn’t matter to him what one believes about the “eucharist”:

“Christian people of honest heart have long differed over how the life of Christ is mediated to us through the Communion feast. Complicated words are used to make important distinctions: transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorial, and the like. ... I have no desire to unsettle the convictions of any person, irrespective of the tradition by which he or she is able to enter fully into the Communion service” (Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 112).

Foster’s position sounds sympathetic and kind, but it is blantant disobedience to God’s Word, which commands us to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The apostle Paul received directly from the Lord the teaching that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial (1 Cor. 11:23-25). Christ is not “mediated” through the Lord’s Supper in any sense, and we are not authorized to allow heresies and private doctrines not supported by Scripture. Foster refuses to exercise this obligation. He is willing to allow his Catholic readers to believe that a piece of bread becomes Christ through priestly hocus pocus and that it is perfectly acceptable to pray to this piece of bread and to venerate it as Jesus, which is what all of his Catholic mystic friends do.

The Pentecostal-Charismatic Connection

Foster is closely associated with the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. He believes this movement has wonderful and important things to offer to the “body of Christ” and he accepts some of the most radical charismatic practices, including spirit slaying, holy laughter, and spiritual drunkenness. He calls these things the “prayer of the heart” but they are actually doctrines of devils.

“Another expression of the Prayer of the Heart XE "Spirit Slaying" is what is sometimes referred to as ‘resting in the Spirit.’ It is the experience of being taken up by the Spirit’s power in such a way that the individual loses consciousness for a time. Some enter a trancelike state; others lie quietly on the ground or floor. ...

“‘Holy laughter’ is still another expression of the Prayer of the Heart. The joy of the Spirit seems to simply well up within a person until there is a bursting forth into high, holy, hilarious laughter XE "Holy Laughter" . It sometimes is given to the individual in personal prayer, but more frequently it comes upon the gathered community. That is as it should be, for laughter is, after all, a communal experience. To the uninitiated it might appear that these people are drunk, and so they are--with the Spirit” (
Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, pp. 138, 139).

See the book
The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movements: History and Error for a biblical refutation of these practices. This is available from Way of Life Literature.

Healing of Memories

Foster believes in the heresy of the “healing of memories,” XE "Healing of Memories" which he doubtless learned from the aforementioned Agnes Sanford XE "Sanford, Agnes" .

“My first experience was with a man who had lived in constant fear and bitterness for twenty-eight years. He would wake up at night, screaming and in a cold sweat. He lived in constant depression, so much so that his wife said that he had not laughed for many years.

“He told me the story of what had happened those many years before that had caused such a deep sadness to hang over him. He was in Italy during the Second World War and was in charge of a mission of thirty-three men. They became trapped by enemy gunfire. With deep sorrow in his eyes, this man related how he had prayed desperately that God would get them out of that mess. It was not to be. He had to send his men out two by two and watch them get killed. Finally in the early hours of the morning he was able to escape with six men--four seriously wounded. He had only a flesh wound. He told me that the experience turned him into an atheist. Certainly, his heart was filled with rage, bitterness, and guilt.

“I said, ‘Don’t you know that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who lives in the eternal now, can enter that old painful memory and heal it so that it will no longer control you?’ He did not know this was possible. I asked if he would mind if I prayed for him--NEVER MIND THAT HE WAS AN ATHEIST; I would have faith for him. He nodded his consent. Sitting beside him with my hand on his shoulder, I invited the Lord Jesus to go back those twenty-eight years and walk through that day with THIS GOOD MAN. ‘Please, Lord,’ I asked, ‘draw out the hurt and the hate and the sorrow and set him free.’ Clmost as an afterthought I asked for peaceful sleep to be one of the evidences of this healing work, for he had not slept well for all those years. ‘Amen.’

“The next week he came up to me with a sparkle in his eyes and a brightness on his face I had never seen before. ‘Every night I have slept soundly, and each morning I have awakened with a hymn on my mind. And I am happy ... happy for the first time in twenty-eight years.’ His wife concurred that it was so. That was many years ago, and the wonderful thing is that although this man has had the normal ups and downs of life since then, the old sorrows have never returned. He was totally and instantaneously healed” (
Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 205).

The bottom line is that this experience is strictly and profoundly unscriptural. There is not a hint of such a thing taught in the Bible.

Some are impressed with the results of such practices, but if the only standard for the truth of a practice is its effectiveness, then we are left with no certain standard, because the devil can imitate many “spiritual” things. Psychics and psychoanalysists have produced the same results that Foster achieved with his “healing of memory prayer.” Note that he does not say that the man was scripturally born again through this experience. He just became happy, and the manipulation of the emotions is easily within the realm of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Foster’s Interfaith Activities

Foster is involved in the LIVING SPIRITUAL TEACHERS PROJECT XE "Living Spiritual Teachers Project" , a group that associates together Roman Catholics, liberal Protestants, Zen Buddhist XE "Buddhism" monks and nuns, universalists, occultists, and New Agers XE "New Age" . Members include the Dalai Lama, who claims to be the reincarnation of an advanced spiritual entity; Marianne Williamson, promoter of the occultic A Course in Miracles; Marcus Borg, who believes that Jesus was not virgin born and did not rise from the grave; Catholic nun Joan Chittister XE "Chittister, Joan" , who says we must become “in tune with the cosmic voice of God”; Andrew Harvey, who says that men need to “claim their divine humanity”; Matthew Fox, who believes there are many paths to God; Alan Jones, who calls the gospel of the cross a vile doctrine and says there is no absolute authority; and Desmond Tutu, who says, “... because everybody is a God-carrier, all are brothers and sisters.”

God’s Word unequivocally reproves Foster’s activity with the commandment, “
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Conclusion

Richard Foster believes he is promoting a true spiritual revival within Christianity, but he is the blind leading the blind. His writings are an exceedingly dangerous mixture of truth and error. Pastors and teachers need to warn their people to stay away from him, for “
a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9).
__________________

This report is excerpted from our new book
Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond, which is available from Way of Life Literature. If it is not yet available through the online catalog, it can be ordered by phone or e-mail with a credit card.

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]

FRANKLIN GRAHAM'S UNSCRIPTURAL ECUMENISM

FRANKLIN GRAHAM'S UNSCRIPTURAL ECUMENISM

Republished October 6, 2008 (first published February 26, 1998) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

Franklin Graham is following closely in his famous father’s footsteps, which, sadly, have led further from the Bible with each passing decade. In 1996 Franklin was named the first vice-chairman of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. This was a new position with direct succession to become chairman when Billy Graham became incapacitated. Of course, this has now occurred.

Franklin Graham told the
Indianapolis Star that his father’s ecumenical alliance with the Catholic Church and all other denominations “was one of the smartest things his father ever did” (“Keeping it simple, safe keeps Graham on high,” The Indianapolis Star, Thurs., June 3, 1999, p. H2).

He said: “In the early years, up in Boston, the Catholic church got behind my father’s crusade. That was a first. It took back many Protestants. They didn’t know how to handle it. But it set the example. ‘If Billy Graham is willing to work with everybody, then maybe we should too’” (
The Indianapolis Star, June 3, 1999).

Franklin Graham’s ecumenical direction is evident from the various forums he frequents, the same ones attended by his father. In 1997, for example, he spoke at the National Religious Broadcasters in January, at Moody Bible Institute's Founder's Week in February, and at a Promise Keepers conference in Birmingham, Alabama, in May. That was at a time when one of the directors of Promise Keepers was a Roman Catholic.

Franklin’s 1998 crusade in Adelaide, Australia, left no question about his direction. Present at the media launch for the crusade were Catholic Archbishop Leonard Faulkner and Anglican Archbishop Ian George. The
Festival South Australia News said, “The Archbishops agreed that Festival SA with Franklin Graham next January would be the greatest event the churches have seen in this State’s history.” Almost 400 churches registered for Graham’s Christian Life & Witness Course which was conducted in preparation for the crusade. Twenty-three denominations were represented. The churches included 49 Roman Catholic (false grace plus works gospel), 82 Uniting Church (ultra liberal), 30 Churches of Christ (baptismal regeneration), 25 Anglican (mostly liberal), 1 Greek Orthodox (sacramental gospel), and 3 Seventh-day Adventist (Ellen White is a prophetess, death is only sleep, and punishment in hell is not eternal).

These churches, taken as a whole, represent a hodgepodge of apostasy and doctrinal error. God plainly forbids His people to yoke together with such confusion. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11).

The Uniting Church in Australia is very modernistic and apostate. The Uniting Church in Paddington, Australia, for example, recently placed a 12-foot-square banner over its entrance declaring that the church is a SAFE PLACE for homosexuals, a place they are accepted and can be open “about their sexuality” (
Australian Beacon, Feb. 1998, p. 2). The Paddington Uniting Church’s pastor, Rod Pattenden, told the media, "We want to let gays and lesbians know that they are very welcome in this parish." He said that at least one-third of Paddington’s Eastside Parish is made up of homosexuals.

The Roman Catholic Church is a false “church” with a false gospel (grace plus works, faith plus sacraments), a false authority (the Bible plus Catholic tradition), and a false head (the pope). The New Catholic Catechism says: “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (1129). Our book
Evangelicals and Rome reviews Catholic heresies which were reaffirmed by the Vatican II Council and the New Catholic Catechism.

Those who responded to the Gospel invitation at the Franklin Graham crusade were sent to the aforementioned sponsoring churches for "discipleship." Thus we again have the strange sight of a supposed shepherd happily and willfully giving his sheep into the hands of wolves. This is the most spiritually-doctrinally confused hour which the world has ever seen.

The Vice-Chairman for the Franklin Graham Festival in Lubbock, Texas, April 28-30, 2000, was Paul Key, evangelism director for the Catholic Diocese of Lubbock. At least three of the local leaders for the “festival” are Charismatics. The Chairman was Rick Canup, an elder at Trinity Church, a charismatic congregation which formerly had ties with the Assemblies of God. The pastor of this church, Gary Kirksey, was also on the Executive Committee. Pastor Jackie White of the Charismatic Church on the Rock was another of the Vice-Chairmen (E.L. Bynum, “Franklin Graham Festival,”
Plains Baptist Challenger, April 2000, p. 1). Paul Key was a Presbyterian minister for 18 years before converting to Catholicism. He has written a book entitled “95 Reasons for Becoming and Remaining a Catholic.”

Roman Catholics participated in Franklin Graham Festivals in Corpus Christi, Texas, in 2005, and in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 2004 (“Central Canada 2006 Franklin Graham Festival Background and Pastoral Notes for Catholic Clergy and Workers,” by Luis Melo, Director of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs, Archdiocese of Saint Boniface, n.d.).

Many Roman Catholics were trained as counsellors for the Franklin Graham Festival in Baltimore, Maryland, July 7-9, 2006. Catholic priest Erik Arnold of the Church of the Crucifixion in Glen Burnie, Maryland, led the team of 225 Catholics who participated in the crusade. He said, “It was a great opportunity for the Christian churches to show their unity in leading people to Christ” (“Catholic Counselors Attend Billy Graham Festival,”
The Catholic Review, July 12, 2006). The Graham organization delivered the names of 300 people to the Roman Catholics for “follow up,” and these received a letter from Cardinal William Keller “encouraging them in their faith and inviting them to get involved in the church.” They will be taught, among a multitude of other heresies, that it is acceptable to pray to Mary. In fact, some of the counsellors are from the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen in Baltimore.

Roman Catholics also participated in the Franklin Graham Festival in Winnipeg, Canada, in October 2006. The previous year the Graham team approached the Catholic bishops in Winnipeg soliciting their support and involvement (“Central Canada 2006 Franklin Graham Festival Background and Pastoral Notes for Catholic Clergy and Workers,” by Luis Melo, Director of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs, Archdiocese of Saint Boniface, n.d.). In response, each archdiocese in central Canada had official representation on the Festival Executive Committee, and various parishes provided workers to be trained as counsellors and to provide follow up. The Catholics were told: “Following in the footsteps of his father, Franklin Graham will present basic Christianity. The Catholic will hear no slighting of the Church's teaching on Mary or authority, nor of papal or Episcopal prerogative; no word against the Mass/Divine Liturgy or sacraments, nor of Catholic practices or customs” (Ibid.).

In an interview with Katie Couric on NBC television on April 2, 2005, Franklin Graham praised the late Pope John Paul II and claimed that they preach the same gospel. Graham said: “We disagree on a lot of doctrinal issues and I guess those disagreements will always be there. At the same time we did agree on the fundamentals that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God who came to this earth to die for our sins and when he died on that cross and shed his blood he took the sins of the world with him on the cross; and if we confess our sins and repent and by faith receive Christ into our hearts God will forgive us and cleanse us. These are fundamentals of the faith we agreed on and support and we appreciate this man and the stand he has taken on so many of these moral issues.”

We are glad that Franklin believes and preaches the gospel described in this testimony (apart from the “receiving Christ into the heart” part, which is not scriptural), but he seriously misrepresented the Pope’s gospel. The late Pope believed that the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through Christ alone by faith alone is heresy (the anathemas of the Council of Trent against the gospel of grace alone have never been rescinded). He believed that the sacraments are a necessary part of salvation, beginning with baptism, whereby one is born again, continuing in Confirmation, whereby one receives the Holy Spirit. Speaking at the confirmation of 800 young people at Turin, Italy, Sept. 2, 1988, Pope John Paul II said: “Jesus comes close to us; he enters our history precisely by means of these concrete, visible sacramental signs. ... Confirmation is your personal Pentecost. Today you receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, who on the day of Pentecost was sent by the risen Lord upon the Apostles. Every baptized person as a believer needs to receive the moment and mystery of Pentecost; it completes and perfects the gift of Baptism” (
L’osservatore Romano, N. 38, Sept. 19, 1988, p. 16). Nine days later, speaking in Harare, John Paul II said to the crowd gathered in Borrowdale Park: “You have thus become a new people, reborn in the Sacrament of Baptism, nourished by the Holy Eucharist, living in loving communion with God and with one another with the Successor of Peter and the Catholic Church throughout the world” (Ibid., p. 2).

In an April 5, 2005, appearance on
Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News television network, Franklin Graham was asked the following question by Sean Hannity (who is Roman Catholic): “Let me ask you this, what are some of the disagreements -- we only have 30 seconds this segment -- between, say, Catholicism and evangelical Christians? Or is it just more that you agree on than disagree on?” Graham replied: “Well, there are a lot of doctrinal issues that we disagree on. But the things that we do agree on are the cross, that Jesus Christ was the son of the living God who went to the cross, took our sins, died on that cross, was buried on the third day, according to the scriptures, rose again. And this is the essence. This is what we agree on and we can work together on and can build on.”

It is commendable for Graham to preach the Gospel on television, and I understand that he had limited time (although his time on the show did not end with that segment) and wanted to focus on the Gospel; but that does not excuse the fact that his reply was artful, erroneous, and dangerous. It was artful in that he refused to state any of Rome’s serious doctrinal heresies. It was erroneous because he said the Roman Catholic Church believes in the cross and salvation the same way that “evangelicals” do, which it certainly does not. This erroneous statement would have given Graham’s Roman Catholic listeners a false sense of security in their faith-works-sacraments gospel. Graham’s statement was dangerous because he said that evangelicals and Catholics need to work together and build on their agreements, whereas the Bible commands God’s people to separate from heresy and apostasy (e.g., Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 3:5) and an unscriptural unity plays more into the hands of the antichrist than Christ.

Franklin Graham not only praised the late Pope, he attended the coronation of the new one. Speaking on
Larry King Live, April 2, 2005, Billy Graham said: “I don’t have the physical strength to go, and I have been invited. I was invited about six or seven months ago by the Vatican ahead of time. And they’ve asked that I come. So I’m asking my daughter, Anne Lotz, to go [to Pope John Paul II’s funeral]. ... And then my son, Franklin, will be going to the enthronement of the new Pope [Benedict XVI].”

More than any other one man, Billy Graham paved the way for the widespread acceptance of a Catholic Pope by Protestants and Baptists. Graham’s groundbreaking ecumenical evangelism, which downplayed doctrine and exalted experiential religious unity, stretches back more than half a century.

Though bolder than his famous father in some respects, Franklin is walking in this same disobedient path in the ecumenical realm.

For more information see the following:

“Billy Graham’s Disobedience to the Word of God” - http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns15.html

“Billy Graham and Rome” - http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/grahamrome1.htm

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]

BILLY GRAHAM’S SAD DISOBEDIENCE TO THE WORD OF GOD

BILLY GRAHAM’S SAD DISOBEDIENCE TO THE WORD OF GOD

Updated and enlarged September 8, 2008 (first published in February 1997) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

“And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

I have been warning about Billy Graham’s compromise for decades, and it is a very difficult thing to do. He is one of the most popular men in the world. He is universally acclaimed as a wonderful Christian and a great evangelist. When you say something critical of Billy Graham, many people consider it equal to blasphemy against Almighty God!

The Lord knows, if I thought I could fulfill my obligations before God as a preacher of His Word and still keep my mouth shut about the Billy Grahams of our day, I would do it in a heartbeat! I am convinced that this is not possible, though, and by God’s grace I would rather please Him than man.

In February 1997, I published an article in
O Timothy magazine about Jerry Falwell’s support of Billy Graham. We noted that a watershed of sorts had occurred at Falwell’s Liberty University, in that the 1997 commencement speaker was Dr. Billy Graham, the foremost spokesman for the New Evangelical movement. The announcement in the National Liberty Journal stated:

“It is befitting that Dr. Graham will speak at Liberty’s 1997 Commencement, since his grandson, William Franklin (Will) Graham IV, will be among the graduating seniors. (Another grandson, Roy Graham, is a freshman at Liberty.) ... Dr. Falwell said, ‘This will be Dr. Graham’s first visit to Liberty. THIS COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS WILL NO DOUBT BE REMEMBERED HISTORICALLY IN THE NEXT CENTURY AS ONE OF LIBERTY’S HIGH DAYS. I am grateful that Dr. Graham is taking time from his busy schedule to grace us with his presence” (emphasis added) (National Liberty Journal, December 1996, pp. 1, 17).

The
National Liberty Journal did not give one word of warning about Graham breaking down the walls of biblical separation between sound churches and apostate churches in this generation. There was not one word of warning about Graham sending thousands of converts back into Roman Catholic and modernistic churches that preach false gospels.

Independent Baptist preachers who are affiliate with Liberty University are leading fundamental Baptists right into the arms of the devil’s ecumenical movement.

In the February 1997
O Timothy article, I agreed with the National Liberty Journal that it was befitting for Graham to speak at Liberty University, because though Dr. Falwell and his church and school claim to be fundamental Baptists, for many years they had been sliding into the New Evangelical camp and today they are firmly entrenched in that unscriptural position. To openly praise and support Billy Graham is irrefutable evidence of this.

The February 1997 article was also published via the Fundamental Baptist Information Service by e-mail over the Internet, and in turn it was sent out to a Baptist news group. Many of the responses we received from that public posting were very negative. In reading these, I was impressed anew at the ignorance that is rampant even in the staunchest Bible-believing circles. Many of those who responded were completely ignorant of the fact that Billy Graham has sent multitudes of converts back to the Roman Catholic Church or that he praises Christ-denying Modernists. These things were not done in the dark, yet many Christians are entirely ignorant of them.

A chief cause for this ignorance is cowardice in the pulpits. Too many Christian “ministers” are belly-serving cowards. It is as simple as that. Their goal is to go with the flow and to make people feel good about themselves and to continue to draw a paycheck and pad their retirement fund rather than to preach the truth regardless of the cost. The Bible describes these men as “dumb dogs” (Isaiah 56:10). What good is a watchdog that will not bark? If ever there were an hour in which preachers need to lift the voice against the error that is on every side, it is today, but what we have for the most part are dumb dogs.

In the article on Falwell supporting Graham, we mentioned a number of things of which Dr. Graham is guilty. Following is the documentation to each of these charges.

BILLY GRAHAM HAS TURNED THOUSANDS OF CONVERTS OVER TO APOSTATE CHURCHES

The evidence for this is overwhelming. We have documented it extensively in our 354-page book
Evangelicals and Rome (Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061).

As early as Sept. 21, 1957, Graham said in an interview with the
San Francisco News, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.”

In his autobiography
Just As I Am, Graham made the following statements:

“He [Willis Haymaker, Graham’s front man] would also call on the local Catholic bishop or other clerics to acquaint them with Crusade plans and invite them to the meetings; they would usually appoint a priest to attend and report back. This was years before Vatican II’s openness to Protestants, but WE WERE CONCERNED TO LET THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS SEE THAT MY GOAL WAS NOT TO GET PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR CHURCH; rather, I wanted them to commit their lives to Christ” (Page 163).

In 1983,
The Florida Catholic (Sept. 2, 1983) reported of the Orlando crusade: “Names of Catholics who had made decisions for Christ were provided at that meeting by Rick Marshall of the Graham organization.” The report said the names of 600 people had been turned over to the Catholic Church.

In 1984, at the Vancouver, British Columbia crusade, the vice-chairman of the organizing committee, David Cline of Bringhouse United Church, said, “If Catholics step forward THERE WILL BE NO ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THEM and their names will be given to the Catholic church nearest their homes” (
Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1984).

In 1987 a Catholic priest, Donald Willette of St. Jude’s Church, was a supervisor of the counselors for the Denver crusade. Willette reported that from one service alone 500 cards of individuals were referred to St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church in Englewood, a suburb of Denver (Wilson Ewin,
Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990s).

In 1989, Michael Seed, Ecumenical Advisor to (Catholic) Cardinal Hume, said of Graham’s London crusade: “Those who come forward for counseling during a Mission evening in June, if they are Roman Catholic, will be directed to a Roman Catholic ‘nurture-group’ under Roman Catholic counselors in their home area” (John Ashbrook,
New Neutralism II, p. 35).

In 1992, the Catholic archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, had set a goal to supply many of counselors needed for the Graham crusade. All Catholics responding to the altar call were channeled to Catholic churches.

Billy Graham’s crusade in Cincinnati, Ohio, June 27-30, 2002, included full participation of the Roman Catholic Church. In preparation for the crusade, five Catholic parishes -- Our Lady of Lourdes in Westwood, Our Lady of the Rosary in Greenhills, Our Lady of the Rosary and Guardian Angels in Cincinnati, and Trinity Center in Dayton -- presented week-long courses to prepare Catholic counselors to deal with those who came forward in response to Graham’s invitations. According to Curtis Kneblik, assistant director of evangelization for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Dayton, invitations were sent out to 9,000 Catholics to request their participation in this training, and hundreds responded. Priest Charles Bowes told his parish that the Graham mission was a “golden opportunity to evangelize Catholics and to help our parish…” (
The Catholic Telegraph, May 10, 2002).

When Catholic leaders refer to “evangelizing Catholics,” they do not mean what Bible believers mean, that such Catholics are unsaved and on their way to hell. They believe, rather, that the Catholics who go forward at the Graham crusade already have Christ through their infant baptism and that that they merely need to be brought into a more active sacramental relationship with the Catholic Church. When Catholics hear of “receiving Christ,” they do not think in terms of receiving Christ once-for-all through faith in His blood. They think, rather, in terms of Catholic doctrine, which teaches that they receive Christ continually in the sacraments, such as the mass and confession, yet they can never be assured of eternal life because the Catholic gospel is a mixture of faith plus works. Kneblik admitted this when he said: “We have an altar call every Sunday. Christ is truly present (in the Eucharist). We have to stand up and walk toward Him like they did on that field” (
The Catholic Telegraph, July 12, 2002).

This is the false christ of the mass. The Catholics who went forward in the Graham crusade were subsequently invited to join a Catholic study group in their area. The strong Catholic participation was not mentioned in the official Billy Graham material on the crusade, but the information can be found at the Roman Catholic diocese web site.

Graham’s June 1996 crusade in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, brought the participation of 119 Catholic parishes and 269 Lutheran congregations (
Christianity Today, July 15, 1996). This represented 53 percent of the Catholic parishes. This is a dramatic change from the 1973 Minneapolis crusade, when no Catholic churches and only a few Lutheran churches participated. Archbishop Harry Flynn, head of the archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, urged priests to become involved in the crusade “in an effort to reach alienated Catholics” (Morphew Clark, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Jan. 13, 1996). Priest Robert Schwartz of the St. John Neumann Catholic parish told reporters that about 60 members of his parish had been trained to counsel those who came forward during the crusade.

In 1997, Graham said that nearly all of his crusades were supported by Roman Catholic churches. He said this in an interview with
New Man magazine, published at that time by Promise Keepers. Following is his statement on Catholicism:

“Early on in my life, I didn’t know much about Catholics. But through the years I have made many friends within the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, when we hold a crusade in a city now, nearly all the Roman Catholic churches support it. And when we went to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., for the crusade [last year], we saw St. Paul, which is largely Catholic, and Minneapolis, which is largely Lutheran, both supporting the crusade. That wouldn’t have happened 25 years ago” (“Billy Graham in His Own Words: What the Evangelist Has Learned from a Lifetime of Ministry to the World,”
New Man, March-April 1997, pp. 32, 33).

The Billy Graham organizational committee preparing for the November 2004 crusade in Los Angeles, California, promised the Roman Catholic archdiocese that Catholics will not be “proselytized.” A letter from Cardinal Roger Mahony, dated October 6, 2004, and posted at the archdiocese web site, stated: “When the Crusade was held in other locations, many Catholics responded to Dr. Graham’s message and came forward for Christ. Crusade officials expect the same for the Los Angeles area. These officials have assured me that, IN KEEPING WITH DR. GRAHAM’S BELIEF AND POLICY, THERE WILL BE NO PROSELYTIZING, AND THAT ANYONE IDENTIFYING HIM OR HERSELF AS CATHOLIC WILL BE REFERRED TO US for reintegration into the life of the Catholic Church. We must be ready to welcome them.” Roman Catholic actor Jim Caviezel was featured on the platform at the second night of the Billy Graham Los Angeles Crusade, which lasted from Nov. 18-21. Caviezel starred as “Jesus” in Mel Gibson’s
The Passion of the Christ. He says he prayed to St. Genesius of Arles and St. Anthony of Padua for help in his acting career. He has visited Medjugorje to witness the site where Mary allegedly appeared to six young people. Caviezel said, “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.” Caviezel prayed the Rosary to Mary every day during the filming. Is it that Graham believes Caviezel’s gospel, or is it that Caviezel believes Graham’s gospel, or is it that the biblical truth that two must be agreed before they walk together is no longer in force today? What confusion and open disobedience!

This is just the tip of the iceberg. For many decades, Billy Graham has turned large numbers of his converts over to the hands of wolves in sheep’s clothing such as Catholic priests and modernistic Protestant pastors.

FRANKLIN GRAHAM is continuing in his father’s footsteps. He told the Indianapolis Star that his father’s ecumenical alliance with the Catholic Church and all other denominations “was one of the smartest things his father ever did” (“Keeping it simple, safe keeps Graham on high,” The Indianapolis Star, Thurs., June 3, 1999, p. H2).

Franklin said: “In the early years, up in Boston, the Catholic church got behind my father’s crusade. That was a first. It took back many Protestants. They didn’t know how to handle it. But it set the example. ‘If Billy Graham is willing to work with everybody, then maybe we should too’” (
The Indianapolis Star, June 3, 1999).

Franklin’s 1998 crusade in Adelaide, Australia, left no question about his direction. Present at the media launch for the crusade were Catholic Archbishop Leonard Faulkner and Anglican Archbishop Ian George. The
Festival South Australia News said, “The Archbishops agreed that Festival SA with Franklin Graham next January would be the greatest event the churches have seen in this State’s history.” Almost 400 churches registered for Graham’s Christian Life & Witness Course which was conducted in preparation for the crusade. Twenty-three denominations were represented. The churches included 49 Roman Catholic (false grace plus works gospel), 82 Uniting Church (ultra liberal), 30 Churches of Christ (baptismal regeneration), 25 Anglican (mostly liberal), 1 Greek Orthodox (sacramental gospel), and 3 Seventh-day Adventist (Ellen White is a prophetess, death is only sleep, and punishment in hell is not eternal).

Those who responded to the Gospel invitation at the crusade were sent to the aforementioned sponsoring churches for "discipleship." Thus we again have the strange sight of a supposed shepherd happily and willfully giving his sheep into the hands of wolves. This is the most spiritually-doctrinally confused hour which the world has ever seen.

The Vice-Chairman for the Franklin Graham Festival in Lubbock, Texas, April 28-30, 2000, was Paul Key, evangelism director for the Catholic Diocese of Lubbock. Key was a Presbyterian minister for 18 years before converting to Catholicism. He has written a book entitled “95 Reasons for Becoming and Remaining a Catholic.”

Roman Catholics participated in Franklin Graham Festivals in Corpus Christi, Texas, in 2005, and in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 2004 (“Central Canada 2006 Franklin Graham Festival Background and Pastoral Notes for Catholic Clergy and Workers,” by Luis Melo, Director of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs, Archdiocese of Saint Boniface, n.d.).

Many Roman Catholics were trained as counsellors for the Franklin Graham Festival in Baltimore, Maryland, July 7-9, 2006. Catholic priest Erik Arnold of the Church of the Crucifixion in Glen Burnie, Maryland, led the team of 225 Catholics who participated in the crusade. He said, “It was a great opportunity for the Christian churches to show their unity in leading people to Christ” (“Catholic Counselors Attend Billy Graham Festival,”
The Catholic Review, July 12, 2006). The Graham organization delivered the names of 300 people to the Roman Catholics for “follow up,” and these received a letter from Cardinal William Keller “encouraging them in their faith and inviting them to get involved in the church.” They will be taught, among a multitude of other heresies, that it is acceptable to pray to Mary. In fact, some of the counsellors are from the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen in Baltimore.

Roman Catholics also participated in the Franklin Graham Festival in Winnipeg, Canada, in October 2006. The previous year the Graham team approached the Catholic bishops in Winnipeg soliciting their support and involvement (“Central Canada 2006 Franklin Graham Festival Background and Pastoral Notes for Catholic Clergy and Workers,” by Luis Melo, Director of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs, Archdiocese of Saint Boniface, n.d.). In response, each archdiocese in central Canada had official representation on the Festival Executive Committee, and various parishes provided workers to be trained as counsellors and to provide follow up. The Catholics were told: “Following in the footsteps of his father, Franklin Graham will present basic Christianity. The Catholic will hear no slighting of the Church's teaching on Mary or authority, nor of papal or Episcopal prerogative; no word against the Mass/Divine Liturgy or sacraments, nor of Catholic practices or customs” (Ibid.).

BILLY GRAHAM ACCEPTS DEGREES FROM CATHOLIC COLLEGES AND SAYS THE CATHOLIC GOSPEL IS THE SAME AS HIS OWN

On Nov. 21, 1967, an honorary degree was conferred on Graham by the Catholic priests who run Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, during an Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue.
The Gastonia Gazette reported:

“After receiving the honorary degree of doctor of humane letters (D.H.L.) from the Abbey, Graham noted the significance of the occasion--’a time when Protestants and Catholics could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas 10 years ago they could not,’ he said.

“The evangelist’s first sermon at a Catholic institution was at the Abbey, in 1963, and his return Tuesday was the climax to this week’s Institute for Ecumenic Dialogue, a program sponsored in part by the Abbey and designed to promote understanding among Catholic and Protestant clergymen of the Gaston-Mecklenburg area.

“Graham, freshly returned from his Japanese Crusade, said he ‘knew of no greater honor a North Carolina preacher, reared just a few miles from here, could have than to be presented with this degree. I’m not sure but what this could start me being called “Father Graham,”’ he facetiously added.

“Graham said... ‘Finally, the way of salvation has not changed. I know how the ending of the book will be. THE GOSPEL THAT BUILT THIS SCHOOL AND THE GOSPEL THAT BRINGS ME HERE TONIGHT IS STILL THE WAY TO SALVATION” (“Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree,” Paul Smith,
Gazette staff reporter, The Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, North Carolina, Nov. 22, 1967).

This is simply amazing. Does Billy Graham really believe that the sacramental grace-works gospel that built Belmont Abbey is the way of salvation? If so, why does Graham preach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone without works or sacraments? Why does he remain a Baptist rather than joining the Catholic Church? On the other hand, if Graham does not believe Rome’s gospel is true, why did he say what he does? Why does he fellowship with Rome? The evangelist tries to have it both ways, but it is impossible. This is why Graham has been called “Mr. Facing Both Ways”!

BILLY GRAHAM INVITES CATHOLIC BISHOPS ONTO HIS PLATFORM TO BLESS THOSE WHO COME FORWARD AT HIS INVITATIONS

The Roman Catholic bishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, stood beside Graham during his 1963 crusade in that city, and blessed those who came forward at the invitation. Graham said this illustrated that “something tremendous, an awakening of reform and revival within Christianity” was happening (
Daily Journal, International Falls, Minnesota, Oct. 29, 1963, cited by the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1963).

BILLY GRAHAM WELCOMED CATHOLICS TO THE BLACK MADONNA IN POLAND

On his trip to Poland in 1979 Graham stood in front of the shrine of the Black Madonna of Jasna Gora in Czestochowa and greeted the Catholic worshippers who were there to venerate Rome’s false Mary as Queen of Heaven. A photograph of this was published in the February 1979 issue of
Decision magazine, a copy of which I obtained a few years ago from the Graham Center at Wheaton College. By preaching in the Catholic churches in Poland and by visiting that nation’s major Mary shrine and not plainly telling the people that the Roman Catholic gospel is false and by pretending that the Catholic prelates and priests are fellow believers, Graham confused multitudes of people about the nature of the very gospel itself.

BILLY GRAHAM SAYS HIS GOAL IS NOT TO LEAD ROMAN CATHOLICS OUT OF CATHOLICISM

In his 1997 autobiography,
Just As I Am, Graham said his goal was not to lead people out of Roman Catholicism: “MY GOAL, I ALWAYS MADE CLEAR, WAS NOT TO PREACH AGAINST CATHOLIC BELIEFS OR TO PROSELYTIZE PEOPLE who were already committed to Christ within the Catholic Church. Rather, it was to proclaim the gospel to all those who had never truly committed their lives to Christ” (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 357).

BILLY GRAHAM THINKS THE POPE IS AN EVANGELIST AND MORAL LEADER

In 1979 Graham called Pope John Paul II “the moral leader of the world” (Religious News Service, Sept. 27, 1979). He also said that John Paul II “is almost an evangelist because he calls to people to turn to Christ, to turn to Christianity” (
The Star, June 26, 1979, reprinted in the Australian Beacon, August 1979, p. 1). In an interview with The Saturday Evening Post (Jan-Feb. 1980), Graham described the visit of John Paul II to America with these words: “The pope came as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist ... The pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age--by pointing people to Christ.” In a lengthy article about the Pope in 1980, Graham praised the Pope as a “bridge builder” and said: “Pope John Paul II has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of the century” (Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980). After visiting the Pope in 1981, Graham said, “We had a spiritual time” (Christianity Today, Feb. 6, 1981, p. 88). Graham made the following statement about the Pope’s address in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1983: “I’ll tell you--that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I’ve ever heard. It was tremendous” (Foundation magazine, Vol. V, Issue 5, 1984).

BILLY GRAHAM SAYS HE IS VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE VATICAN AND AGREED WITH THE LATE POPE ON ALMOST EVERYTHING

In a January 1997 interview on
Larry King Live, Graham said that he has wonderful fellowship with Rome, is comfortable with the Vatican, and agrees with the Pope on almost everything.

KING: What do you think of the other [churches] ... like Mormonism? Catholicism? Other faiths within the Christian concept?

GRAHAM: Oh, I think I have a wonderful fellowship with all of them.

KING: You’re comfortable with Salt Lake City. You’re comfortable with the Vatican?

GRAHAM: I am very comfortable with the Vatican. I have been to see the Pope several times. In fact, the night — the day that he was inaugurated, made Pope, I was preaching in his cathedral in Krakow. I was his guest ... [and] when he was over here ... in Columbia, South Carolina ... he invited me on the platform to speak with him. I would give one talk, and he would give the other ... but I was two-thirds of the way to China...

KING: You like this Pope?

GRAHAM: I like him very much. ... He and I agree on almost everything.

BILLY GRAHAM BELIEVES THE LATE POPE JOHN PAUL II SURELY WENT TO HEAVEN

On
Larry King Live aired April 2, 2005, Billy Graham said the late Pope was “the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world in the last 100 years.” When Larry King asked, “There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?” Graham replied: “Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don't think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope -- I think he’s with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.” This is a most amazing statement by the man who is considered the world’s foremost evangelist. Graham expresses less than certainty about his own salvation but complete certainty about the Pope’s, even though he preached a false gospel of grace mixed with works and sacraments and put his trust in Mary as his intercessor. Graham should know that John Paul II did not believe in the cross in any scriptural sense. Rather he believed in the cross PLUS baptism PLUS the mass PLUS confession to a priest PLUS the saints, and above all PLUS Mary. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6). “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal. 1:6).

BILLY GRAHAM SAYS HE IS EQUALLY AT HOME IN ALL CHURCHES

In a May 30, 1997, interview, Graham told David Frost: “I feel I belong to all the churches. I’M EQUALLY AT HOME IN AN ANGLICAN OR BAPTIST OR A BRETHREN ASSEMBLY OR A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. ... Today we have almost 100 percent Catholic support in this country. That was not true twenty years ago. And the bishops and archbishops and the Pope are our friends” (David Frost,
Billy Graham in Conversation, pp. 68, 143).

BILLY GRAHAM SAYS THAT BAPTISM IS NOT HIS CONCERN

Billy Graham conducted a crusade in St. Louis, Missouri, in October 1999. In an interview with the press, Graham said that baptism is not his concern and not his business. The following is his statement: “Baptism is very important because Jesus taught that we are to believe and to be baptized. But that is up to the individual and the church that they feel led to go to. The churches have different teachings on that. I know that in the Lutheran or the Episcopal or Catholic Church it is a very strong point, and in the Baptist church. But there are some churches that would not insist on baptism. So, I GIVE THEM THE FREEDOM TO TEACH WHAT THEY WANT. I am not a professor. I am not a theologian. I’m a simple proclaimer. … I’m announcing the news that God loves you and that you can be forgiven of your sins. And you can go to heaven. My job from God is not to do all these other things. … I am not a pastor of a church. That’s not my responsibility. MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERYONE AND LET THEM CHOOSE THEIR OWN CHURCH, WHETHER IT IS CATHOLIC OR PROTESTANT OR ORTHODOX OR WHATEVER IT IS” (Billy Graham, interview with Patricia Rice,
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 10, 1999).

This is a strange statement in light of the explicit command by the Lord Jesus Christ: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

Billy Graham is called an evangelist. The prime example of an evangelist in the New Testament is Philip, and Philip baptized his converts!

“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36-38).

BILLY GRAHAM SAYS PEOPLE IN OTHER RELIGIONS CAN BE SAVED

In an interview with
McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said: “I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost—were going to hell—if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God—through nature, for instance—and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ‘yes’ to God.”

Though Graham later tried to stem the controversy brought about by his comments, he continued to allow for the possibility that the unsaved in other religions might not go to hell if they respond to natural light.

In 1985, Graham affirmed his belief that those outside of Christ might be saved. Los Angeles reporter David Colker asked Graham: “What about people of other faiths who live"good lives but don’t profess a belief in Christ?” Graham replied, “I’m going to leave that to the Lord. He’ll decide that” (
Los Angeles Herald Examiner, July 22, 1985). While this answer might appear reasonable to those who do not know the Bible, in reality it is a great compromise of the truth. God has already decided what will happen to those who die outside of faith in Jesus Christ. The book of Ephesians describes the condition of such as “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). That is why Christ must be preached. Men without a saving knowledge of Christ are condemned already (John 3:18). There is no mystery or question about this matter, because the Bible has plainly spoken.

In 1993, Graham repeated this philosophy in an interview with David Frost. “And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they’re in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. … I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don’t know” (
The Charlotte Observer, Feb. 16, 1993).

In his interview with Robert Schuller in May 1997, Graham again said that he believes people in other religions can be saved without consciously believing in Jesus Christ.

SCHULLER: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

GRAHAM: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, WHETHER THEY COME FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD, OR THE BUDDHIST WORLD, OR THE CHRISTIAN WORLD OR THE NON-BELIEVING WORLD, THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN CALLED BY GOD. THEY MAY NOT EVEN KNOW THE NAME OF JESUS but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

SCHULLER: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

GRAHAM: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN A BIBLE OR HEARD ABOUT A BIBLE, AND NEVER HEARD OF JESUS, BUT THEY'VE BELIEVED IN THEIR HEARTS THAT THERE WAS A GOD, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

SCHULLER: [trips over his tongue for a moment, his face beaming, then says] I I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

GRAHAM: There is. There definitely is (Television interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller, broadcast in southern California on Saturday, May 31, 1997).

BILLY GRAHAM THINKS A MIRACLE HAPPENS IN INFANT BAPTISM

In a 1961 interview with the
Lutheran Standard of the liberal American Lutheran Church, Graham testified that all of his children except the youngest were baptized as infants (Graham grew up as a Presbyterian and his wife was a Presbyterian). Graham then made the following amazing statement:

“I have some difficulty in accepting the indiscriminate baptism of infants without a careful regard as to whether the parents have any intention of fulfilling the promise they make. But I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian Truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the miracles of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian, through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me” (Graham, interview with Wilfred Bockelman, associate editor of the Lutheran Standard, American Lutheran Church, Lutheran Standard, October 10, 1961).

BILLY GRAHAM DOES NOT BELIEVE HELL IS A PLACE OF LITERAL FIERY TORMENT

Billy Graham was questioning the literal fire of hell as far back as 1951. During his crusade in Greensboro, North Carolina, from Oct. 14 to Nov. 18, 1951, Graham made the following statement:

“I know that God has a fire which burns but does not consume; one example is the fire of the burning bush which Moses saw. I know also, however, that in many places throughout the Bible, the term ‘fire’ is used figuratively to connote great punishment or suffering. The Bible speaks of fire set by the tongue” (Graham, cited by Margaret Moffett Banks, “Crusader: Graham saved souls, made headlines,” News & Record, Greensboro, North Carolina, March 15, 1999).

The author of this secular newspaper article noted that Graham “stopped short of describing a literal Hell, where tormented souls burn for eternity.”

The
Orlando (Florida) Sentinel for April 10, 1983, asked Billy Graham: “Surveys tell us that 85% of Americans believe in heaven, but only 65% believe in hell. Why do you think so many Americans don’t accept the concept of hell?” He replied: “I think that hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched.”

In his 1983 “Affirmations” for evangelists, Graham said the fire of hell could be symbolic:

“Jesus used three words to describe hell. ... The third word that He used is ‘fire.’ Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ... I’ve often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched” (A Biblical Standard for Evangelists, Billy Graham, A commentary on the 15 Affirmations made by participants at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July, 1983, Worldwide Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 45-47).

In
Time magazine, November 15, 1993, Graham said: “The only thing I could say for sure is that hell means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to be 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.”

BILLY GRAHAM PRAISES CHRIST-DENYING MODERNISTS

Graham’s close affiliation with unbelieving false teachers has been documented for 50 years. There were 120 Modernists on his New York Crusade committee in 1957. One of those was HENRY VAN DUSEN, president of the extremely liberal Union Theological Seminary. Van Dusen denied Christ’s virgin birth. In his book
Liberal Theology, he stated that Jesus is not God. Van Dusen and his wife later committed suicide together.

Another Modernist exalted by Graham during the 1957 New York Crusade was JOHN SUTHERLAND BONNELL, pastor of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. Bonnell was on the executive committee and was honored by Graham on the platform during the meetings. Bonnell had also participated in Graham’s Scotland crusade in 1955. Graham mentions Bonnell twice in a strictly positive manner in his 1997 biography,
Just As I Am. In an article in Look magazine (March 23, 1954) Bonnell had stated that he and most other Presbyterian ministers did not believe in the virgin birth or bodily resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, a real heaven and hell, etc. This unbelieving wolf in sheep’s clothing said that he and most other Presbyterians “do not conceive of heaven as a place with gates of pearl and streets of gold. Nor do they think of hell as a place where the souls of condemned are punished in fire and brimstone.”

In his 1959 San Francisco Crusade, Graham honored the notorious liberal BISHOP JAMES A. PIKE by having him lead in prayer. Graham had attended Pike’s consecration at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral on May 15, 1958 (William Stringfellow and Anthony Towne,
The Death and Life of Bishop Pike, p. 306). Pike would also have been involved in Graham’s 1957 New York Crusade, as he was the dean of the extremely modernistic Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York from 1952 to 1958. Yet Pike was a rank, unbelieving Modernist, a drunkard, an adulterer. He denied the Trinity and refused to state the traditional benediction, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen!” He abbreviated this to “In the name of God, Amen!” Three times Pike was brought up on heresy charges in the Episcopal Church. In an article in Look magazine Pike stated that he did not believe the fundamentals of the faith. In a pastoral letter that was to be read in all the Episcopal Churches of his diocese, Pike stated that “religious myth is one of the avenues of faith and has an important place in the communication of the Gospel.” He spoke of the “myth of the Garden of Eden.” He said, “The virgin birth... is a myth which churchmen should be free to accept or reject.” In an article in Christian Century, Dec. 21, 1960, Pike declared that he no longer believed the doctrines stated in the Apostles’ Creed. The same month that article appeared Graham again joined Pike at his Grace Cathedral for a Christian Men’s Assembly sponsored by the National Council of Churches. Three times Pike was picked up by San Francisco police while he was wandering around in a drunken, confused state late at night. He spent four years in intensive psychoanalysis. Pike was twice divorced, thrice married, and had at least three mistresses. One of his mistresses committed suicide; one of his daughters attempted suicide. His eldest son committed suicide in 1966 at age 20 (associated with his homosexuality), and Pike got deeply involved in the occult in an attempt to communicate with the deceased. Three years later Pike died from a 70-foot fall in a remote canyon in the Israeli desert near the Dead Sea. His maggot infested body was found five days later. The 56-year-old theologian had gotten lost in the desert while on an extended honeymoon with his 31-year-old third wife (and long time mistress). A biography about Pike noted that “never before in the history of the Episcopal Church had a Solemn Requiem Mass been offered for a bishop in the presence of three surviving wives” (The Death and Life of Bishop Pike, p. 202).

In Graham’s 1963 Los Angeles Crusade, Methodist Bishop GERALD KENNEDY was chairman of the crusade committee. On August 21, 1963, Graham praised Kennedy as “one of the ten greatest Christian preachers in America.” Yet, Kennedy has denied just about every one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. In his book
God’s Good News, Kennedy said, “I believe the testimony of the New Testament taken as a whole is against the doctrine of the deity of Christ” (p. 125). Kennedy’s printed endorsement is found on the jacket of NELS FERRE’S book, The Sun and the Umbrella. In this book Ferre denied practically every doctrine of the Word of God. He said, “Jesus never was nor became God.” He calls the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence “the grand myth which at its heart is idolatry.” In Ferre’s book The Christian Understanding of God, he said, “We have no way of knowing, even, that Jesus was sinless.” He denies the virgin birth of Christ and replaces it with his blasphemous theory that Jesus may have been the son of a German soldier. Yet, Graham’s campaign chairman, Gerald Kennedy, endorsed Ferre and his blasphemies.

In Los Angeles Graham also praised E. STANLEY JONES, liberal missionary to India. Jones denied the virgin birth, the Trinity, the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture, and many other doctrines of the faith.

At a National Council of Churches meeting in 1966, Graham praised BISHOP LESLIE NEWBIGEN of South India. Newbigen was a universalist and a syncretist who believed that there is salvation in non-Christian religions. In his book The Open Secret, Newbigen claimed that the church is not “the exclusive possessor of salvation.”

In 1974, Graham featured MALCOLM MUGGERIDGE at the Congress on World Evangelization, yet Muggeridge disbelieved the Bible and New Testament Christianity. In his book
Jesus Rediscovered, Muggeridge stated that it is “beyond credibility” to imagine that God had a virgin-born son who died and rose from the dead.

In his biography, Graham praises KARL BARTH as “the great theologian” and states: “In spite of our theological differences, we remained good friends” (Graham,
Just As I Am, p. 694). Graham does not warn his readers that Barth denied the New Testament faith. He refused to believe the virgin birth. He rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. Barth was also a wicked adulterer who kept a mistress in his house in the very presence of his wife, Nelly (Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, translated by John Bowden, pp. 158,164,185-86).

Another of the many false teachers praised in Graham’s biography is MICHAEL RAMSEY, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Graham calls him “a giant of a man” and says, “We were friends for many years” (
Just As I Am, p. 694). Graham fails to warn his readers that Ramsey was an unbeliever who denied the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. In the London Daily Mail for Feb. 10, 1961, Ramsey said: “Heaven is not a place for Christians only. I expect to see many present day atheists there.” In 1966, Ramsey had an audience with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican. He addressed the Pope as “Your holiness” and expressed his desire for closer unity with Rome. As Ramsey and the other Anglican clergy were departing they bowed and kissed the Pope’s ring. Speaking about this papal visit a year later, Ramsey testified that he and the Pope walked arm and arm out in St. Peter’s Basilica and dedicated themselves to the task of unifying “all Christendom and all the churches of all the world into one church” (Ramsey, cited by M.L. Moser, Ecumenicalism Under the Spotlight, pp. 22-23). In 1972, while preaching at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhatten, Ramsey said: “I can foresee the day when all Christians might accept the Pope as the presiding Bishop.”

Graham’s attitude toward modernists is evident in his pleasant relationship with the WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES. He has attended all but two of the WCC’s General Assemblies. Consider the following statements taken from the telegram sent in 1983 by Graham to PHILIP POTTER, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. Dr. Graham did not appear at the WCC Sixth Assembly in 1983 because of prior engagements: “Dear Philip: Your gracious and generous invitation to speak twice in Vancouver was deeply appreciated. ... I have tried to juggle my schedule but it is just too heavy at this late date for me to make the drastic changes that would be necessary for me to be in Vancouver. This will be only the second general assembly of the WCC that I have had to miss. I will certainly miss seeing you and many other old friends and fellowshipping with those from all over the world...” (
Foundation, Vol. IV, Issue IV, Los Osos, Calif.: Fundamental Evangelistic Association, 1983). We should note here that Philip Potter is an apostate Christian leader. He does not believe that those in non-Christian religions are lost and he has advocated violent communist movements!

These are merely a few of the hundreds of examples that could be given of Graham’s habit of yoking together with and honoring wicked, Bible-denying, Christ-denying modernists.

BILLY GRAHAM HAS PROMOTED PRACTICALLY EVERY PERVERTED BIBLE VERSION TO APPEAR IN THE LAST FOUR DECADES

In 1952 Billy Graham accepted a copy of the modernistic REVISED STANDARD VERSION and told a crowd of 20,000 people: “These scholars have probably given us the most nearly perfect translation in English. While there may be room for disagreement in certain areas of the translation, yet this new version should supplement the King James Version and make Bible reading a habit throughout America” (Graham, cited by Perry Rockwood,
God’s Inspired Preserved Bible, Halifax, N.S.: People’s Gospel Hour, nd., p. 15).

Graham’s endorsement of the Revised Standard Version foreshadowed Evangelicalism’s capitulation to the endless stream of modern versions. Graham has endorsed practically every new version to appear on the scene, no matter how flippant and unfaithful.

In his autobiography, modernist Bible paraphraser J.B. PHILLIPS (1906-1982) stated that Billy Graham spoke highly of his work as early as 1952: “I think it was in 1952 that I received a visit from Dr. Billy Graham with his charming and intelligent wife. ‘I want to thank you, Dr. Phillips,’ he began, ‘for Letters to Young Churches’” (J.B. Phillips,
The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 116). Phillips taught a form of universalism and the Fatherhood of God, denied hell fire and the existence of Satan and demons, denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture, claimed that Jesus conformed His teaching to the ignorance of His day, was a skeptic in regard to supernatural miracles, and believed that Christ’s ascension was a parable.

Graham almost single-handedly rescued the LIVING BIBLE from oblivion. “The Living Bible might be called ‘The Billy Graham Bible,’ for it was he who made it the success that it is. According to
Time magazine, July 24, 1972, Billy Graham ordered 50,000 copies of the Epistles, and a short time later ordered some 450,000 more, and still later ordered 600,000 special paperback versions for his autumn television crusade in 1972. From that time on, orders began to pour in” (M.L. Moser, Jr., The Case Against the Living Bible, Little Rock: Challenge Press, p. 9). That was only the beginning of Graham’s love affair with the Living Bible. At Amsterdam ‘86, Graham allowed Living Bibles International to distribute free copies of the Living Bible in 40 different languages to the 8,000 evangelists in attendance (Light of Life, Bombay, India, Sept. 1986, p. 23). Graham distributed 10,000 copies of the Living Bible to people who attended his Mission England Crusade (Australian Beacon, No. 241, Aug. 1986). In 1987, Graham appeared in television ads for The Book, a condensed version of the Living Bible. He said it “reads like a novel.” In an ad that appeared in a 1991 issue of Charisma magazine, Graham said: “I read The Living Bible because in this book I have read the age-abiding truths of the scriptures with renewed interest and inspiration. The Living Bible communicates the message of Christ to our generation” (Charisma, March 1991, p. 98).

Billy Graham is also one of the men who first helped make the perverted GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN (Today’s English Version) popular by distributing it through his Association. Graham “called it an excellent translation over nationwide television from his campaign in Anaheim, California.” It was then distributed by the Grason Company of Minneapolis, the distributors of Billy Graham materials (M.L. Moser, Jr.,
The Devil’s Masterpiece, Little Rock: Challenge Press, 1970, p. 80). The Good News for Modern Man replaces the word “blood” with “death” in speaking of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and corrupted practically every passage dealing with Christ’s deity. The translator of the Good News for Modern Man, Robert Bratcher, does not believe that Jesus Christ is God.

Graham printed his own edition of Eugene Peterson’s THE MESSAGE. It is called a “translational-paraphrase” and is said to “unfold like a gripping novel.” In fact, it IS a novel! It even uses the term “as above, so below,” which is a New Age expression for the unity of God and man, Heaven and earth. In the book
As Above, So Below, the editors of the New Age Journal say: “This maxim implies that the transcendent God beyond the physical universe and the immanent God within ourselves are one. Heaven and Earth, spirit and matter, the invisible and the visible worlds form a unity to which we are intimately linked” (quoted from Warren Smith, Deceived on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church, 2004).

GRAHAM SAYS THE VIRGIN BIRTH NOT A NECESSARY PART OF CHRISTIAN FAITH

In an interview with a United Church of Canada publication in 1966, Graham gave the following reply to a question about the virgin birth of Christ:

Q. Do you think a literal belief in the Virgin birth--not just as a symbol of the incarnation or of Christ’s divinity--as an historic event is necessary for personal salvation?
A. While I most certainly believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, I do not find anywhere in the New Testament that this particular belief is necessary for personal salvation (“Billy Graham Answers 26 Provocative Questions,”
United Church of Observer, July 1, 1966).

In his zeal to appease the apostates in the United Church of Christ (its current moderator, Bill Phipps, denies that Jesus Christ is God), Graham tells an absolute lie. How would it be possible for a saved person to deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? If Jesus Christ were not virgin born, he was a sinner; and if he were a sinner, he could not have died for our sins. Further, if Christ were a sinner and if He were not virgin born, He was a liar for making such claims and the Bible that records those claims is a blatant and wicked lie, and the Bible-believing Christian is a deceived and foolish person whose faith has no authoritative foundation. Therefore, apart from the virgin birth there is no Gospel and no Salvation and no authoritative Bible. Billy Graham is dead wrong. The virgin birth of Christ is “fatal” doctrine, meaning it is crucial for salvation. The entire Gospel stands or falls on the virgin birth.

GRAHAM SAYS THEISTIC EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE

Graham said in 1966, “How you believe doesn’t affect the doctrine. Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and blowed and created a man just like that” (“Cooperative Evangelism at Harringay,”
United Church Observer, July 1966).

GRAHAM REFUSES TO DEFEND THE BIBLE AS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD

Newsweek magazine, April 26, 1982, examined the debate on the issue of biblical infallibility. The article noted that Billy Graham is not on the side of inerrancy. “Billy Graham, for one, clearly is not. ‘I believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God,’ Graham says, ‘but I don’t use the word ‘inerrant’ because it’s become a brittle divisive word.’” Graham avoids controversy at any cost. He knows that Modernists and unbelieving Evangelicals are willing to call the Bible “authoritative and inspired” even while denying that it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. Graham aligns himself with this unbelieving camp. If the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, who can dogmatically determine which part is and which part is not inerrant! If the Bible is not inerrant, it is not authoritative.

GRAHAM AGREES WITH HERETIC ROBERT SCHULLER’S FALSE DEFINITIONS OF THE GOSPEL

Graham spoke at Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral in 1985, and the two men came up with a joint definition of “born again” as “a decision to stop carrying your own luggage” (Paul Harvey’s report, July 15, 1985). Schuller is false teacher who preaches a false gospel. He uses biblical terms but gives them unbiblical definitions. He says born again is “to
be changed from a negative to a positive self-image--from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust” (Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 68). In an article in Christianity Today, October 5, 1984, Schuller said, “I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.” In spite of Schuller’s unbelief and false gospel, Graham has repeatedly honored him. In 1983, Schuller sat in the front row of distinguished guests invited to honor Graham’s 65th birthday. In 1986, Schuller was invited by Graham to speak at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam. Schuller was featured on the platform of Graham’s Atlanta Crusade in 1994.

GRAHAM SAYS THEOLOGY NO LONGER MEANS ANYTHING TO HIM

As the year 1988 closed, Graham told U.S. News & World Report that theology no longer meant anything to him: “World travel and getting to know clergy of all denominations has helped mold me into an ecumenical being. We’re separated by theology and, in some instances, culture and race, but all that means nothing to me any more” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 19, 1988).

GRAHAM DOES NOT EMPHASIZE SALVATION THROUGH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

A letter from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in 1968 that I have in my files made the following amazing statement:

“Mr. Graham believes that we are saved through the blood of Christ, however, this aspect of Christian doctrine he does not emphasize in his messages. This is the duty and prerogative of the pastors” (Rev. W.H. Martindale, Spiritual Counselor, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, letter, Feb. 29, 1968).

See also “Billy Graham and Rome” at the Evangelical section of the End Times Apostasy Database at the Way of Life web site -- http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/grahamrome1.htm

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]

BEWARE OF “THE RAGAMUFFIN GOSPEL”

BEWARE OF “THE RAGAMUFFIN GOSPEL

Updated and enlarged September 6, 2007 (first published August 30, 2004) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

A book called “The Ragamuffin Gospel,” first published in 1990, continues to have a polluting effect upon individuals and churches.

This book first came to my attention as I was researching contemporary Christian music in 1998 in preparation for the publication of
Contemporary Christian Music Under the Spotlight. Some of the most influential CCM musicians are mightily impressed with The Ragamuffin Gospel. Notable among these are Michael W. Smith (who wrote the foreword to The Ragamuffin Gospel), Michael Card (who named his oldest son after the author of The Ragamuffin Gospel), and the late Rich Mullins (who formed the Ragamuffin Band).

The author of
The Ragamuffin Gospel is Brennan Manning. Although he is a Roman Catholic, the book is published by Multnomah Press, the printing arm of Multnomah College of the Bible, an alleged evangelical institution.

In spite of his gross heresies, Manning has been well-received into evangelical circles.

His books have been recommended by Philip Yancey, Eugene Peterson, Larry Crabb, Michael Card, Michael W. Smith, the members of U2, and many others.

He is scheduled to speak at the Life Impact 2006 Christian & Missionary Alliance conference in July 2007. He spoke at the Northwest Regional Pastors Event at the Vineyard Church in Vancouver, B.C., in 2004.

Christianity Today has promoted Manning and in an October 6, 2005 interview called “The Ragamuffin Gospel” a “spiritual classic.” After they published the article “A Coward Who Stayed to Help,” which was Manning’s story of his alleged heroics helping victims during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, five days later they had to publish a correction stating that Manning had admitted that he had made up the story. In a voice message to Christianity Today he blithely said, “The essential truth: I lied” (“Brennan Manning, Featured Speaker” James Sundquist, June 24, 2007).

In the last two decades Manning has published a dozen or more popular books in addition to
The Ragamuffin Gospel, including Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging (Navpress, 1994), The Signature of Jesus (Multnomah, 1996), The Boy Who Cried Abba: A Parable of Trust and Acceptance (1998, 2001), Reflections for Ragamuffins (1998), A Ruthless Trust: The Ragamuffin’s Path to God (2000), The Wisdom of Tenderness (2002), The Journey of the Prodigal (2002), The Wisdom of Tenderness: What Happens When God’s Fierce Mercy Transforms Our Lives (2002), The Rabbi’s Heartbeat (Navpress, 2003), Posers, Fakers, and Wannabes: Unmasking the Real You (Navpress, 2003), A Glimpse of Jesus: The Stranger to Self-Hatred (2003), Above All: He Took the Fall and Thought of Me (2003), Lion and Lamb: The Relentless Tenderness of Jesus (Revell, 2004).

MANNING’S FALSE GOSPEL

Manning’s web site features his biography. What is glaringly absent is any scriptural testimony of salvation. Instead, we find the following statement:

“In February 1956, while Brennan was meditating on the Stations of the Cross, a powerful experience of the personal love of Jesus Christ sealed the call of God on his life.”

There is no repentance, no rejection of false gospels, no Scriptural new birth, merely a “sealing” of that which began at his infant baptism. Manning went on to become a Franciscan priest and though he is no longer active he continues to attend and promote the blasphemous Catholic mass. When he is in his home in New Orleans he attends the morning daily mass at the Holy Spirit Catholic Church.

Manning preaches a false antinomian, psychology-influenced gospel, meaning he believes a person can be saved and continue to live in the grossest sin without repentance. Following Rome’s pattern, Manning’s gospel glosses over the basis for salvation, which is the blood and death of Jesus Christ (even while giving it lip service), and ignores the necessity of the new birth. Manning uses biblical terms but he redefines them, giving them unbiblical meanings. His writings are filled with half truths and statements of truth followed by contradictions to those statements.

Manning continually quotes from and unquestioningly affirms the writings of false teachers such as Paul Tillich (an adulterous neo-orthodox theologian), Carl Jung (who wrote under the guidance of a demon and who considered Christianity a myth), Beatrice Bruteau (a proponent of the new age “I am god” heresy), Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, Teresa of Avila, and Francis MacNutt (Roman Catholics), Pierre Teilhard de chardin (mystic), Morton Kelsey (a disciple of Agnes Sanford), Thomas Aquinas and “St.” Augustine (fathers of the Catholic Church), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a father of Neo Orthodoxy).

Manning says, “To evangelize a person is to say to him or her: you, too, are loved by God in the Lord Jesus”(
The Ragamuffin Gospel, 2nd edition, 2000, p. 120). This is not the gospel and it is not scriptural evangelism. While it is certainly true that God loves sinners that is only a part of the matter; God is also holy and will judge every infraction of His law. The biblical gospel begins with the bad news of man’s fallen condition and his guilt and only when the sinner acknowledges this and repents and puts his trust exclusively in Jesus Christ can he experience God’s love in a saving manner (Romans 3:21 - 4:25).

Manning says, “God is a kooky God who can scarcely bear to be without us” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 165). It is blasphemous to describe God as “kooky.” And if His love means He can “scarcely bear to be without us,” what is eternal Hell all about? Jesus frequently warned about Hell, and warned, in fact, that most sinners will go there. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

Writing about the woman in John 8 who was caught in adultery, Manning says that Jesus “didn’t demand a firm purpose of amendment” and “didn’t seem too concerned that she might dash back into the arms of her lover” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, 1990, p. 167). To the contrary, Jesus commanded her, “Go, and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11). Similarly, after Jesus healed the crippled man in John 5 He instructed him, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (Jn. 5:14).

Manning mentions in particular some people that he has met: a female prostitute, a woman who had an abortion, and a male homosexual (
Ragamuffin, pp. 32-33). He claims that all of these are saved even though they justify their sin and have no intention of turning from it. The apostle Paul addressed Manning’s error in 1 Corinthians 6:9-13:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such WERE some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

The church members at Corinth had lived in all sorts of wicked lives before they were saved, but after they believed on Christ they were changed, and Paul warned them about going back to the old life. He warned them, in particular, about fornication. The gospel of Christ teaches that sinners are saved by God’s grace without works, but it also teaches that those who are saved are saved “unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

The apostle John taught: “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. HE THAT SAITH, I KNOW HIM, AND KEEPETH NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IS A LIAR, AND THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM” (1 John 2:3-4).

Manning says: “Something is radically wrong when the local church rejects a person accepted by Jesus: when a harsh, judgmental and unforgiving sentence is passed on homosexuals; when a divorcee is denied communion; when the child of a prostitute is refused baptism; when an unlaicized priest is forbidden the sacraments” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 30).

There is a world of confusion and doctrinal error in this one statement. First, the Scriptures instruct churches to reject those who claim to be saved but who live in gross sin (1 Corinthians 5). Second, Manning assumes that judging things by God’s Word is “harsh” and “unforgiving” but this certainly does not have to be the case. Believers are instructed by God to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bible says, “... he that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Cor. 2:15). Third, Manning claims that forgiveness should be given whether or not there is repentance on the part of the sinner, but the Bible says there is no forgiveness without repentance (Lk. 13:3, 5; Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; 2 Cor. 7:9-10; 2 Pet. 3:9). Jesus said, “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and IF HE REPENT, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3). Fourth, Manning claims that God accepts the homosexual whether or not he repents and changes, but the Bible says the sinner must repent and those who are truly saved are changed. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Fifth, Manning teaches the heresy of infant baptism, whereas the Bible says baptism is for believers only (Mk. 16:15). Sixth, Manning defends the Catholic priesthood, whereas the New Testament says every believer is a priest in Christ (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Seventh, Manning defends the unscriptural Catholic sacraments even though they have no support in the Scripture.

Manning even claims that those who take the mark of the Beast will be saved. “And he [Christ] will say to us: ‘Vile beings, you who are in the image of the beast and bear his mark, but come all the same, you as well’” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 21). To the contrary, the book of Revelation plainly states that all who take the mark of the Beast will suffer in Hell. “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name” (Rev. 14:9-11).

PROMOTING EASTERN MEDITATION

Manning is one of the many writers today in “evangelical” circles promoting eastern-style meditation. In
The Ragamuffin Gospel he encourages the use of mantras and emptying the mind. He instructs Christians to repeat an eight-word mantra (“The Lord is my Shepherd, I lack nothing”) for 10 minutes. He says:

“The first step toward rejuvenation begins with accepting where you are and exposing your poverty, frailty, and emptiness to the love that is everything. Don’t try to feel anything, think anything, or do anything ... Don’t force prayer. Simply relax in the presence of the God you half believe in and ask for a touch of folly” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 196).

This is as close as Manning comes to describing how to receive the gospel, and it is unscriptural. The Bible does not invite the sinner to relax in the presence of God and half believe, but to repent and to believe fully from the heart. The model for our faith is Abraham, who was not weak in faith (Rom. 4:19) and who “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief” (Rom. 4:20). Manning suggests that the sinner does not need to think anything. To the contrary, the Bible says he must believe the gospel, which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4). If one would be saved, there is a lot to think about!

Manning promotes visualization, instructing people to visualize what Jesus might have looked like (p. 197). This is vain idolatry. No man knows what Jesus looked like, and if I visualize what I THINK He looked like I am creating my own idol.

Manning promotes silent meditation. He once spent six months in isolation in a cave in Spain. He meditates in silence each day. He spends eight days a year at a Jesuit retreat center in Colorado during which he speaks only 45 minutes each day. His primary spiritual director is a Dominican nun.

In his book
Abba’s Child, Manning recommends the writings of Beatrice Bruteau. She is the founder of The School for Contemplation and believes that God is within every human being. She says that each person can say, “I AM,” which is a name for Almighty God.

The meditation promoted by Manning is pure Hinduism. I practiced it as a member of the Self-Realization Fellowship Society prior to my salvation, and I know people who have become demon possessed by practicing it.

It is no surprise that Manning is popular in evangelical circles, in light of the popularity of Roman Catholic meditative prayer techniques.

On a research visit in February 2000 to the Golden Gate Theological Seminary in San Francisco, a Southern Baptist school, I found that most of the required reading materials for the course on “Classics of Church Devotion” are books by Roman Catholic authors. These included
Spiritual Exercises by Ignatius of Loyola (founder of the Jesuits), The Cloud of Unknowing (by an unknown 14th century Catholic monk), New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton (a Catholic convert from Anglicanism), Confessions of Saint Augustine (one of the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church), The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis, Selected Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, and The Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila (the latter two are Catholic “saints”).

On a research visit to the Vineyard Church in Anaheim, Calif., on August 31, 2003, the message was on contemplative prayer. The speaker described this as “gazing at length on something” and as “lying back and floating in the river of God’s peace.” He quoted St. John of the Cross, “It is in silence that we hear him.” The Vineyard speaker recommended the writings of the late Thomas Merton, a Catholic priest who converted from the Anglican Church and whose writings are influential in the “centering prayer” movement. Merton spent the last 27 years of his life in a Trappist monastery devoted to Mary (Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani in Kentucky) and promoted the integration of pagan practices such as Zen Buddhism and Christianity. The titles of some of his books were “Zen and the Birds of the Appetite,” “The Way of Chuang Tzu,” and “Mystics and the Zen Masters.” For three years, Merton lived as a complete hermit.

Brennan Manning also recommends Merton’s writings. In
Signature of Jesus, Manning gives this quote from William Shannon: “During a conference on contemplative prayer, the question was put to Thomas Merton: ‘How can we best help people to attain union with God?’ His answer was very clear: ‘We must tell them that they are already united with God.’ Contemplative prayer is nothing other than coming into consciousness of what is already there.”

MANNING’S ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM

In light of Manning’s attitude toward a strict fundamentalist approach to Scripture it is no wonder that the Contemporary Christian Music crowd and the New Evangelicals love him so. Surely they recognize the voice of one of their own in the following statements.

Manning warns about “academicians who would imprison Jesus in the ivory tower of exegesis” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 14). Thus after the fashion of the theological modernist Manning puts Jesus over against the Bible, ignoring the fact that we know nothing about Jesus apart from the Bible. And Manning despises doctrinal dogmatism, ignoring the obvious fact that any definition of who Jesus is and what He did is based on biblical exegesis and is doctrinal.

Manning warns about “the Bible thumper” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 36).

Manning says we should “listen to people in other denominations and religions” and we shouldn’t “find demons in those with whom we disagree” (
The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 65).

In typical ecumenical, New Evangelical fashion, Manning warns against being “either-or” and opts rather for the mythical “both-and.” He says: “If we are open, we rarely resort to either-or, either creation or evolution, liberty or law, sacred or secular, Beethoven or Madonna. We focus on both-and, fully aware that God’s truth cannot be imprisoned in a small definition…. But the open mind realizes that reality, truth, and Jesus Christ are incredibly open-ended” (p. 65).

It is obvious that Manning has a different religion from that of the Lord’s apostles, who were incredibly dogmatic. The apostle John, for example, said: “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19). From the perspective of the mushy, can’t-be-pinned-down-on-anything Christianity of Brennan Manning, 1 John 5:19 is incredibly narrow-minded and wrong headed, but I will gladly take my stand with the Lord’s apostles.

Note, too, Mannings’ openness to the most extreme forms of worldliness, as exemplified by Madonna, “The Material Girl.”

MANNING AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Manning identifies “homophobia” as “among the most serious and vexing moral issues of this generation” (
Abba’s Child).

A phobia is an unreasonable fear of something, in this case, homosexuality. Thus, Manning would have us believe that those who reject homosexuals and who do not want them to influence society, who oppose their parades and “marriages,” have some sort of psychological illness. In fact, according to Manning, one of the most serious moral issues of our day is the rejection of homosexuality in the part of Bible believers.

To be consistent, Manning must lump Paul into the “homophobic” camp, because he strongly condemned homosexuality.

Paul on homosexuality: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1:26-27).

Multnomah Press has been confronted by Bible believers in regard to the doctrinal errors of Brennan Manning and his book, but they continue to publish it to this day. (On the other hand, Multnomah has dropped Dave Hunt’s masterly book “What Love Is This” bowing under the vicious onslaught by Calvinists who have pretended that Hunt is unqualified to write on the subject and that he did not get his facts right. In the third edition of “What Love Is This” Hunt has proven conclusively that he has not taken quotes out of context and has indeed gotten his facts right.)

Beware of
The Ragamuffin Gospel. It is “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6). The true gospel is a “glorious gospel” (1 Tim. 1:11); and though it is a gospel of grace for sinners, there is nothing ragamuffin about it.

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 24th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org ]

A SECOND PAGAN INVASION INTO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

A SECOND PAGAN INVASION INTO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

August 28, 2008 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is based on material from our new book
Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond, which is available from Way of Life Literature.
______________________

The first invasion of paganism into the Roman Catholic Church was in the early centuries of its formation, during the half millennium following the death of the apostles. Roman Catholicism has always represented a syncretization of Christianity with paganism. There is no biblical authority for the papacy, Mariolatry, purgatory, the veneration of saints, holy relics, holy water, and such. These doctrines and practices were borrowed from pagan religion and “Christianized.” On a visit to Rome the informed and alert individual sees evidence of this on every hand. (See “In the Footsteps of Bible Translators,” Part IV, http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/in-thefootsteps-bibletrans/index.html.)

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church has been experiencing a fresh invasion of paganism. This Council declared:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men” (
Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Oct. 28, 1965).

This statement says that there are things true and holy in pagan religions. In fact, it appears to say that God has already reconciled them to himself through Christ. Catholics are thus encouraged to dialogue with, collaborate with, and to “preserve and promote the good things ... found among these men.”

This opened the door for the current interfaith dialogue that has resulted not in the Catholicization of paganism but in the further paganization of Catholicism.

The call for interfaith dialogue has been repeated forcefully by every pope since Paul VI.

In 1985 Pope John Paul II said:

“[I wish] to do everything possible to cooperate with other believers in preserving all that is good in their religions and culture. ... The church of Jesus Christ in this age experiences a profound need to enter into contact and dialogue with all these religions. ... All Christians must, therefore, be committed to dialogue with the believers of all religions, so that mutual understanding and collaboration may grow, so that moral values may be strengthened, so that God may be praised in all creation” (John Paul II, quoted by Bob Spencer, “The Challenge of Contextualization,” Faith for the Family, May-June 1985, p. 11).

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to representatives of the Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue (FIIRD), said:

“I repeat with insistence, research and interreligious and intercultural dialogue are not an option but a vital necessity for our time. ... The people of today expect from us a message of concord and serenity. ... They have the right to expect from us a strong sign of a renewed understanding and reinforced cooperation” (Zenit, Feb. 1, 2007).

CATHOLIC CONTEMPLATION A BRIDGE TO PAGANISM

One of the segments of the Roman Catholic Church that has responded in a big way to the call for interfaith dialogue is the Catholic monastic orders (Trappist, Benedictine, Franciscan, etc.). Since the 1970s they have developed intimate ties with their counterparts in pagan religions, and they have discovered that contemplative mysticism is an effective bridge for interfaith unity.

Tilden Edwards observed that mysticism is “THE WESTERN BRIDGE TO FAR EASTERN SPIRITUALITY” (
Spiritual Friend, 1980, pp. 18, 19).

The
MONASTIC INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE (MID) is sponsored by the Benedictine and Cistercian monasteries of North America. Founded in 1977, it is “committed to fostering interreligious and intermonastic dialogue AT THE LEVEL OF SPIRITUAL PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE.” This means that they are using contemplative practices, yoga, Zen, and Sufism to promote interfaith unity and to help create a new world. The MID works in association with the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. Consider one of the objectives of the MID:

“The methods of concentration used in other religious traditions can be useful for removing obstacles to a deep contact with God. They can give a better understanding of the oneness of Christ as expressed in the various traditions and CONTRIBUTE TO THE FORMATION OF A NEW WORLD RELIGIOUS CULTURE. They can also be helpful in the development of certain potencies in the individual, for THERE ARE SOME ZEN-HINDU-SUFI-ETC. DIMENSIONS IN EACH HEART” (Mary L. O’Hara, “Report on Monastic Meeting at Petersham,” MID Bulletin 1, October 1977).

In January 2008 the MID web site featured Paulist priest Thomas Ryan’s book
Interreligious Prayer: A Christian Guide. It contains “resources from eight religions that might be used in varying kinds of interreligious services.” The religions are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Baha’i, and Native American. A review of the book at the MID web site says:

“It is as one human family ... that we are called to live in harmony and to bring about justice and peace in our one world; and, as the author points out, FINDING ONE ANOTHER IN GOD IN PRAYER ‘is the shortest way between humans’” (Katherine Howard, “Book Review: Can We Pray Together,” MID Bulletin 80, January 2008).

The Monastic Interreligious Dialogue is associated with the
NORTH AMERICAN BOARD FOR EAST-WEST DIALOGUE (NABEWD). At its first meeting in January 1978 at a monastery in Clyde, Missouri, Robert Muller, a New Age leader at the United Nations, was selected as the organization’s advisor (Pascaline Coff, “Bridging Millennia through Dialogue,” MID Bulletin 71, Sept. 2003). Muller believes in the divinity of all men.

Beginning in 1982 the NABEWD has sponsored exchanges between Catholic and Buddhist monks and nuns. The Buddhists visit Catholic monasteries in North America, while the Catholics visit Buddhist monasteries in Asia. This was done with the approval of the Dalai Lama, who was approached in 1981 while he was participating in a Buddhist-Catholic interfaith symposium at the Naropa Buddhist Institute in Boulder, Colorado. When the Catholics asked the Dalai Lama if he and his monks would be willing to participate, he replied, “Yes, but I have no money” (Pascaline Coff, Ibid.). The Catholics volunteered to pay the expenses, and the exchanges began the following year.

Consider
ST. JOSEPH’S ABBEY in Spencer, Massachusetts. Thomas Keating was elected abbot in 1961, and the centering prayer movement began there a decade later. Trappist monk William Meninger found a “dusty copy” of The Cloud of Unknowing, which teaches thoughtless meditation, and he and Keating and Basil Pennington began developing a system of contemplation based on that as well as the writings of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila.

Observing that this type of Catholic contemplation is very similar to that of Buddhist and Hindu mystics, they invited pagan meditation masters, including Zen Buddhist Roshi Sasaki, to teach at some of the retreats.

By 2004, St. Joseph’s had become a full fledged Zen center. This was the fruit of interfaith contemplative dialogue. In April of that year Jesuit Robert Kennedy installed Trappist monk Kevin Hunt as the first American Trappist instructor of Zen (
National Catholic Reporter, July 16, 2004).

“Under the ‘protection’ of a Buddha statue and filing in to the cadence of a Japanese drum, the procession reached the Abbey’s Chapter Room. There the installment was made: after the imposition of hands whereby Kennedy made Hunt his successor, the latter received the ‘Robe of Liberation’ -- a black Japanese kimono -- and his teaching staff.

“Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, General Superior of the Jesuits, wrote a letter praising Hunt’s achievement as ‘one that we can all celebrate in thanksgiving to God.’ According to Kolvenbach, it is through Zen meditation that Catholics can become aware of the loving presence of God. HUNT PREDICTS THAT BUDDHISM WILL CHANGE CATHOLICISM” (http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A082rcTrapistZen.htm).

Consider
THE SNOWMASS CONFERENCE at St. Benedict’s Monastery in Snowmass, Colorado. This organization, led by Trappist priest Thomas Keating, sponsored contemplative interfaith conferences for 20 years. They met “to meditate together in silence and to share our personal spiritual journeys.”

At the conclusion of the dialogues they published a book entitled
The Common Heart as an expression of their conviction that the things that unite them are greater than the things that divide. Contributors included Keating, Roshi Bernie Glassman (Zen), Swimi Atmarupananda (Hindu), Ibrahim Gamard (Islam), Pema Chodron (Buddhism), Netanel Miles-Yepes (Sufi), and Rabbi Henoch Dov Hoffman (Judaisim). The foreword to the book was written by New Ager Ken Wilber.

Keating and the Snowmass Conference published eight “Guidelines for Interreligious Understanding,” including the following.

* The world religions bear witness to the experience of Ultimate reality to which they give various names: Brahman, Allah, Absolute, God, Great Spirit.

* Ultimate Reality cannot be limited to any name or concept.

* The potential for human wholeness--or in other frames of reference, enlightenment, salvation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana--is present in every human person.

This is blatant universalism, and it is fruit of contemplative spirituality and interfaith dialogue.

ROMAN CATHOLICS BECOMING HINDUS AND BUDDHISTS

In recent decades many Catholic priests have become Hindus and Buddhists, while remaining Catholics.

On one of our trips to Rome we met a priest named Patrick at the Santa Maria Minerva Church. In a video recorded interview Brian Snider asked him, “Do you have to be Roman Catholic to go to heaven?”

To this, Patrick, who is from India, answered: “I can remain a Hindu and go to heaven. I AM ALSO A HINDU. You can be a Hindu living a good life and go to heaven and a Christian living a good life and go to heaven and a Muslim living a good life and go to heaven.”

The very influential Trappist monk
THOMAS MERTON was “a strong builder of bridges between East and West” (Twentieth-Century Mystics, p. 39). He was a student of Zen master Daisetsu Suzuki and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. In fact, Merton claimed to be both a Buddhist and a Christian. The titles of his books include Zen and the Birds of the Appetite and Mystics and the Zen Masters. He said: “I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. The future of Zen is in the West. I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can” (David Steindl-Rast, “Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last Days in the West,” Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969, http://www.gratefulness.org/readings/dsr_merton_recol2.htm).

JULES MONCHANIN and HENRI LE SAUX, Benedictine priests, founded a Hindu-Christian ashram in India called Shantivanam (Forest of Peace). They took the names of Hindu holy men, with le Saux calling himself Swami Abhishiktananda (bliss of the anointed one). He stayed in Hindu ashrams and learned from Hindu gurus, going barefoot, wearing an orange robe, and practicing vegetarianism. In 1968 le Saux became a hermit in the Himalayas, living there until his death in 1973.

The Shantivanam Ashram was subsequently led by
ALAN GRIFFITHS (1906-93). He called himself Swami Dayananda (bliss of compassion). Through his books and lecture tours Griffiths had a large influence in promoting the interfaith philosophy in Roman Catholic monasteries in America, England, Australia, and Germany. He eventually came to believe in the reality of goddess worship.

WAYNE TEASDALE (1945-2004) was a Roman Catholic lay monk. As a student in a Catholic college in Massachusetts, he began visiting St. Joseph’s Abbey near Spencer and came under the direction of Thomas Keating. This led him into an intimate association with pagan religions and the adoption of Hinduism. Teasdale visited Shantivanam Ashram and lived in a nearby Hindu ashram for two years, following in Bede Griffiths’ footsteps. In 1989 he became a “Christian” sanyassa or a Hindu monk. Teasdale was deeply involved in interfaith activities, believing that what the religions hold in common can be the basis for creating a new world, which he called the “Interspiritual Age” -- a “global culture based on common spiritual values.” He believed that mystics of all religions are in touch with the same God. He helped found the Interspiritual Dialogue in Action (ISDnA), one of the many New Age organizations affiliated with the United Nations. (Its NGO sponsor is the National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union.) It is committed “to actively serve in the evolution of human consciousness and global transformation.”

WILLIGIS JAGER, a well-known German Benedictine priest who has published contemplative books in German and English, spent six years studying Zen Buddhism under Yamada Koun Roshi. (Roshi is the title of a Zen master.) In 1981 he was authorized as a Zen teacher and took the name Ko-un Roshi. He moved back to Germany and began teaching Zen at the Munsterschwarzach Abbey, drawing as many as 150 people a day.

Benedictine monk
JOHN MAIN, who is a pioneer in the field of contemplative spirituality, studied under a Hindu guru. Main combined Catholic contemplative practices with yoga and in 1975 began founding meditation groups in Catholic monasteries on this principle. These spread outside of the Catholic Church and grew into an ecumenical network called the World Community for Christian Meditation (WCCM).

ANTHONY DE MELLO, an Indian Jesuit priest, readily admitted to borrowing from Buddhist Zen masters and Hindu gurus. He suggested chanting the Hindu word “om” (p. 49) and even instructed his students to communicate with inanimate objects:

“Choose some object that you use frequently: a pen, a cup ... Now gently place the object in front of you or on your lap and speak to it. Begin by asking it questions about itself, its life, its origins, its future. And listen while it unfolds to you the secret of its being and of its destiny. Listen while it explains to you what existence means to it. Your object has some hidden wisdom to reveal to you about yourself. Ask for this and listen to what it has to say. There is something that you can give this object. What is it? What does it want from you?” (p. 55).

Paulist priest
THOMAS RYAN took a sabbatical in India in 1991 and was initiated in yoga and Buddhist meditation. Today he is a certified teacher of Kripalu yoga. In his book Prayer of Heart and Body: Meditation and Yoga as Christian Spiritual Practice (1995) and his DVD Yoga Prayer (2004) he combines Catholic contemplative practices with Hindu yoga.

MISCELLANEOUS OTHER EXAMPLES

In 2003 Loyola University, a Jesuit school, invited Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh to instruct its students on the practice of meditation. He spoke to a capacity crowd of 5,000 at the university stadium as well as to the annual freshman convocation. “The Buddhist encouraged his rapt audiences to the daily practice of meditation and breathing exercises as a means to eliminate all passionate emotions and thus achieve peace and compassion. He received standing ovations at both events” (“Practicing Peace,”
National Catholic Reporter, September 12, 2003).

In May 2003 a group of nuns held a retreat at the His Lai Buddhist Temple in Hacienda Heights, California. The altar for the Mass was set up in front of a Buddha idol.

Catholic priest Saju George of India performs Hindu dances called Bharatanatyam, which are usually performed in Hindu temples as an offering to idols (
National Catholic Reporter, March 29, 2005).

In October 1975, at a ceremony marking the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa and her nuns prayed before a Buddha (
La Contre Reforme Catholique, November 2003, http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A067rcMadreTeresaBudha.htm).

Sister Nirmala, who took over as head of the Missionaries of Charity after Mother Teresa, prays to Hindu gods. The following is from
The Deccan Herald, an Indian newspaper:

“Sister Nirmala was today elected to succeed Mother Teresa. … A former Hindu, Sister Nirmala (63) was baptised in 1958. ... A calm and composed Sister Nirmala said ‘it is a big responsibility. Looking at myself I feel afraid whether I will be able to bear the responsibility but looking at god I think I can.’ … Sister Nirmala’s parents, high-caste Hindu Brahmins, did not oppose her joining the Missionaries of Charity. The relatives said that during trips to Kathmandu Sister Nirmala often visited Lord Pashupatinath temple, a sacred Hindu shrine which non-Hindus are not allowed to enter. She would offer prayers from the gate of the temple. ‘She told us that all gods were equal and worshipped them equally,’ said Ms Nina Joshi, Sister Nirmala’s niece” (The Deccan Herald, March 14, 1997, cited from News from the Front Newsletter, Take Heed Ministries, Belfast, N. Ireland, October 1997).

Pope John Paul II received a Hindu tika (tilaka) when he arrived to say Mass in New Delhi, India (
L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 2, 1986).

St. Ambrose Catholic Church in Buffalo, New York, has a stained glass window that celebrates the Second Vatican Council. It depicts pagan deities (Horus the son of Isis, the Hindu god Shiva, and Buddha) together with Moses and Jesus and Mohammed.

In 1997 the Catholic Archbishop of Mumbai, India, lit a lamp in front of the Hindu idol Ganesh at the inauguration of an international seminar on Hindu-Christian cosmology and anthropology (
The Indian Express, Bangalore, Oct. 6, 1997).

In May 2004 a Hindu ritual was performed at Fatima. The Hindus placed flowers before the statue of Mary inside the Chapel of the Apparitions, danced and chanted, and a Hindu priest said a prayer. The Hindus placed a shawl covered with verses from the
Bhagavad Gita on both the Rector of Fatima and the Bishop of Fatima (Frontpage, Portugal’s Weekend Newspaper in English, May 22, 2004).

CONCLUSION

Preparations are proceeding with great rapidity for the formation of the one-world religion of Revelation 17.

At a time when Catholicism is becoming increasingly pagan, evangelicals are becoming increasingly Catholic!

Since the publication of
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics Together in 1994, the pace of ecumenism has increased dramatically. Only a very tiny percentage of evangelicals take a clear stand today against the Roman Catholic Church as a heretical institution. The protest has gone out of Protestantism, and the Baptists are not in much better shape. (See the book Evangelicals and Rome, which is available from Way of Life Literature.)

Through the powerful ecumenical glues of Contemporary Christian Music and Contemplative Mysticism, charismatics and evangelicals are being drawn ever closer to Rome.
________________

This article is based on material from our new book
Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond, which is available from Way of Life Literature.

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]


DIALOGUE OR SEPARATION?

DIALOGUE OR SEPARATION?

Updated August 25, 2008 (first published January 24, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is excerpted from
New Evangelicalism: Its History, Characteristics, and Fruit (2006, Way of Life Literature):

______________________________

NEW EVANGELICALISM: ITS HISTORY, CHARACTERISTICS, AND FRUIT (D.W. Cloud). Few subjects are more important for fundamentalist churches than this. Most people that leave fundamentalist churches do not join the Roman Catholic Church or the Mormons or a liberal Protestant denomination; most go the way of the positive-thinking, easy-going New Evangelicalism. Church members are confronted with New Evangelical philosophy on every hand--through popular Christian television preachers and nationally syndicated radio personalities, at the local ecumenical bookstore, through members of other churches, through ecumenical evangelistic crusades, through political activity, and through interdenominational organizations such as Promise Keepers. To be ignorant of the insidious and pervasive nature of New Evangelicalism is to be unprepared to identify and resist it, yet, large numbers of fundamentalists know little or nothing about it. When a fundamental Baptist evangelist asked the students of a well-known independent Baptist Bible College to raise their hands if they could define New Evangelicalism, only two could respond. Hosea 4:6 warns, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge…” This book documents THE HISTORY AND SPREAD of New Evangelicalism since the 1950s and describes THE PRINCIPLES of New Evangelicalism in a very practical manner so that church members can understand what it is. These principles include the following: New Evangelicalism is characterized by a repudiation of separation, by a love for positivism and by a repudiation of the more negative aspects of biblical Christianity, by a judge-not philosophy, by a dislike of doctrinal controversy, by exalting love and unity above doctrine, by a desire for intellectual respectability, by pride of scholarship, by an attitude of anti-fundamentalism, by the division of biblical truth into categories of important and not important, and by a general mood of softness and tolerance, of a desire for a less strict Christianity, and of a weariness with theological fighting. The book also describes the apostate fruit of New Evangelicalism, which is admitted even by key Evangelical leaders. Its apostasy is seen in the questioning of biblical infallibility, in its ecumenicalism, in a dramatic downgrade in Christian morality, and in its acceptance of and tolerance toward heretics. 153 pages. Illustrated. $5.95.

Order by phone or via the newly designed online catalog at the Way of Life web site -- 866-295-4143, http://wayoflife.org

_______________________

“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position” (John Ashbrook,
The New Neutralism II, 1992, p. 7).

Since the last half of the 20th century, theological dialogue has become a prominent aspect of Christianity. A report issued in 1983 by the Center for Unity in Rome listed 119 official ongoing dialogues between representatives of Anglican, Baptist, Disciples, Evangelical, Lutheran, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Pentecostal, Reformed, Roman Catholic, United, and World Council of Churches.

Dialogue has also become a major aspect of evangelicalism. The late Harold Ockenga, who claimed to have coined the term “neo-evangelical” for a speech delivered in 1948, said that the new evangelicalism differs “from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s
The Battle for the Bible).

Ockenga was very influential. He was the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and first president of Fuller Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College, on the board of directors for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and one-time editor of
Christianity Today.

The new evangelical philosophy, which was just blossoming in the late 1940s, has spread throughout the evangelical world in the decades since.

There is dialogue between EVANGELICALS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS.

On the side of the Roman Catholic Church, the Second Vatican Council, in its “Decree on Ecumenism,” called for “dialogue with our brethren” and said that “dialogues and consultations ... are strongly recommended.”

Evangelicals have responded to this call. Following are a few examples:

From 1977 to 1984 Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue In Mission was conducted in Britain. John R.W. Stott was at the forefront, and one of Stott’s co-workers, Michael Harper (formerly assistant curate at All Souls Church where Stott is pastor), wrote the 1977 book,
Three Sisters, which contends that the “Three Sisters” -- Evangeline (the Evangelicals), Charisma (the Charismatics), and Roma (the Roman Catholic Church) -- are part of one family and should be reconciled.

In 1992, Chuck Colson, in his book
The Body, called for closer relationship with and dialogue between evangelicals and Catholics. Colson said, “...the body of Christ, in all its diversity, is created with Baptist feet, charismatic hands, and Catholic ears--all with their eyes on Jesus” (World, Nov. 14, 1992). [Colson is either ignorant of the fact that there are false christs, false gospels, and false spirits, or he ignores the fact.] The Body was endorsed by many well-known Evangelicals, including Carl Henry, J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson, Bill Hybels, and Jerry Falwell.

In 1992, Catholic priest Thomas Welbers announced in the Los Angeles diocese paper that a four-year dialogue between InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and the Catholic Campus Ministry had resulted in an agreement to seek “mutual understanding” and to “refrain from competition in seeking members” (
Battle Cry, October 1992).

In 1994, Moody Press published
Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. Thirteen Evangelicals contributed. Michael Horton concluded his chapter, “What Still Keeps Us Apart?” with these words: “I do not suggest that we should give up trying to seek visible unity, nor that we refuse to dialogue with Roman Catholic laypeople and theologians, many of whom may be our brothers and sisters” (p. 264). He does not explain how someone committed to Rome’s false sacramental gospel could be a born again child of God.

In 1997, InterVarsity Press published
Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue. It was edited by James Cutsinger and contained articles by Harold O.J. Brown, Peter Kreeft, Richard Neuhaus, J.I. Packer, and others. The book is a collection of material from an ecumenical dialogue held at Rose Hill College, May 16-20, 1995. The objective of the dialogue was to answer the question: “How can Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians talk to each other so as together to speak with Christ’s mind to the modern world?” (p. 8).

There is also dialogue between EVANGELICALS AND MODERNISTS.

In about 1976, Pentecostal David du Plessis became chairman of dialogues with the World Council of Churches’ Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity. Du Plessis was long at the forefront of promoting ecumenical dialogue between Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, and liberal and evangelical Protestants. Fuller Theological Seminary made du Plessis its “resident consultant on ecumenical affairs.”

In 1983, after attending the Sixth General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver, some prominent evangelicals signed an open letter encouraging dialogue with the exceedingly liberal WCC. The signers included Richard Lovelace of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Arthur Glasser of Fuller Seminary. The letter rebuked those who practice separation and said:

“Is there not the possibility that evangelicals have not only much to contribute but something to receive through ecumenical involvement? Do evangelicals not also have the obligation along with other Christians to seek to overcome the scandal of the disunity and disobedience of the churches that the world might believe (John 17:21)? Should evangelicals not seek to receive all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord, even though they may seriously disagree on theological issues apart from the core of the Gospel?”

A three-day dialogue was held October 22-24, 1986, at Fuller Theological Seminary, involving Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and liberal Protestants. The Ecumenical Press Service said, “Although some came with predetermined agenda, many came to listen and learn” (Ecumenical Press Service, November 1-15, 1986).

In 1988, InterVarsity Press published
Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. The Evangelical was John R.W. Stott and the liberal was David Edwards, who rejects the fall of man and the atonement and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Stott said heretics such as this “do not forfeit the right to be called Christians” (Iain Murray, Evangelical Essentials, p. 228). To the contrary, to deny the fall of man and the atonement of Christ is to deny the very gospel itself, and there is no salvation apart from the biblical gospel.

There is even dialogue between EVANGELICALS AND MORMONS.

Evangelicals have been dialoguing with Mormons since InterVarsity Press published “How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” in 1997. This is a dialogue between Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary and Stephen Robinson of Brigham Young University.

In November 1998, Assemblies of God pastor Dean Jackson presented Mormon leaders in Provo, Utah, with “a formal declaration of repentance for prejudice against members of the Church of Latter Day Saints.” The document was signed by more than 160 members of Jackson’s Canyon Assembly of God Church in Provo, and roughly 100 Mormon visitors were on hand to receive the official apology (Charisma News Service, March 1, 2000, citing
Deseret News of Salt Lake City). The declaration of repentance was also endorsed by the regional presbytery of the Assemblies of God.

Standing Together Ministries was formed in 2001 in Utah “to build greater dialogue between Evangelical Christians and Latter-day Saints.” Founder Greg Johnson has traveled extensively conducting public dialogues with Mormon professor Robert Millet of Brigham Young University.

An “EVENING OF FRIENDSHIP” was held in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle on November 14, 2004, featuring Evangelicals who are calling for dialogue with Mormons. Ravi Zacharias was the main speaker. He was joined by Richard Mouw (president of Fuller Seminary), Craig Hazen (a professor at Biola University), Greg Johnson (director of Standing Together Ministries), Joseph Tkach, Jr., (head of the World Wide Church of God), and Michael Card (Contemporary Christian musician). Roughly 7,000 attended the meeting, filling the Tabernacle to capacity. Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw apologized to the Mormons, making the following amazing statements: “Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you. ... We have demonized you.”

Evangelical dialogue is witnessed in the way the publishers and magazines print all sides of theological debates while remaining “neutral.” InterVarsity Press, for example, has printed books defending the infallible inspiration of Scripture and books attacking it.
Christianity Today has printed articles opposing ecumenical relations with Rome and in support of it, articles warning of Karl Barth’s heresy and promoting Karl Barth, etc.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE :

FIRST, THE BIBLE DOES NOT INSTRUCT BELIEVERS TO DIALOGUE WITH FALSE TEACHERS AND APOSTATES, BUT RATHER TO SEPARATE FROM THEM. See Romans 16:17-18; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 3:5; Titus 3:10-11.

SECOND, IT IS NOT DIALOGUE THAT WE SEE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, BUT PREACHING. The Bible does not instruct believers to dialogue with false teachers but to preach the truth to them and to rebuke their errors. “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:1-2).

THIRD, THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE IS BUILT UPON AN UNSCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY. See Characteristic #4: “New Evangelicalism is characterized by exalting love and unity above doctrine” in the book New Evangelicalism: Its History, Characteristics, and Fruit.

FOURTH, THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE RESULTS IN “TONING DOWN THE RHETORIC,” IN SOFTENING THE PLAIN CHARGES OF HERESY AND APOSTASY AND UNBELIEF, IN QUIETING DOWN THE WARNINGS ABOUT JUDGMENT. It is impossible to dialogue without doing this, but this is contrary to the Scriptures.

Greg Johnson of Standing Together Ministries in Utah said that we must “cease throwing our theological rocks and start loving as Christ commanded us.” This is his definition of dialogue. Thus, speaking the truth about heresy is likened to “throwing rocks,” which is potentially very hurtful, even deadly. Actually, preaching plainly against false christs and false gospels is a very loving, compassionate thing. If a man is on his way to hell but is self-deceived into thinking that he is on his way to heaven, it is an act of the greatest Christian charity to tell him plainly that he is deceived.

“Toning down the rhetoric” and softening the plain charges of heresy and apostasy is precisely what the Bible does not do and what the apostles and prophets did not do and what Bible preachers today are not allowed to do.

Paul called false teachers “dogs” and “evil workers” (Phil. 3:2). Of those who pervert the gospel he said, “Let them be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, 9). He called them “evil men and seducers” (2 Tim. 3:13), “men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim. 3:8), “false apostles, deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13). He named the names of false teachers and called their teaching “vain babblings” (2 Tim. 2:16, 17). He warned about “philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. 2:8). He spoke of their “cunning craftiness.” When Elymas tried to turn men away from the gospel, Paul wasted no time with dialogue but said, “O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10). He warned about false teachers who would come into the churches, calling them “grievous wolves” (Acts 20:29) and their teaching “perverse things” (Acts 20:30). Those who denied the bodily resurrection are called “fools” (1 Cor. 15:35-36). He warned about false christs, false spirits, false gospels (2 Cor. 11:1-4). He labeled false teaching “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1). In the Pastoral Epistles Paul warned of false teachers and compromisers by name 10 times, and this is the example that the Spirit of God has left for the churches.

Peter wasn’t much of a dialoguer, either. He was much too plain spoken about heresy. Of the false prophets in his day and those he knew would come in the future, he labeled their heresies “damnable” and warned of their “swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). That would end a good dialogue right there, but he wasn’t finished. He called their ways “pernicious” and their words “feigned” and boldly declared that “their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Pet. 2:3). He warned them of eternal hell (2 Pet. 2:4-9) and called them “presumptuous” and “selfwilled” (2 Pet. 2:10). He likened them to “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed” (2 Pet. 2:12) and exposed their deception (2 Pet. 2:13). Peter is in high gear now. Consider how he ended his little “dialogue” in 2 Peter 2:14-21. I don’t suppose that Peter would get invited to too many ministerial association meetings or ecumenical dialogues today. He might be invited once, seeing that he is an apostle and the first pope and all, but I can assure you that he would not be invited back!

But what about John, the Apostle of Love? How was his dialoguing technique? Again, not too effective, because he was too often warning about antichrists (1 John 2:18-19), calling them liars (1 John 2:22) and seducers (1 John 2:26) and deceivers (2 John 7); saying that they denied the Son (1 John 2:23) and that they don’t have God (2 John 9). He put too much of an emphasis upon trying the spirits (1 John 4:1-3). He even made all sorts of exclusive claims, such as, “
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19). Just who did he think he was! John even forbade the believers to allow the false teachers into their houses or to bid them God speed (2 John 10-11). It is not possible to maintain a good dialogue when you do such things.

In this, the apostles were only following their Lord, who was not big on soft-spoken, “let me listen carefully and make sure I understand you,” give-and-take dialogue; but He was a great preacher. He scalded the Pharisees because they perverted the way of truth and corrupted the gospel of grace, calling them hypocrites, blind guides, fools and blind, serpents, generation of vipers. And that was just one sermon! Even when he visited in the homes of the Pharisees He didn’t try to be socially acceptable or avoid offending their self-esteem. He wasn’t concerned about being invited to speak at the next big Pharisee convention. He spoke the truth in love at all times and therefore offended them coming and going! They were so angry that they plotted His murder.

FIFTH, DIALOGUE CALLS FOR “MUTUAL RESPECT,” BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SEE IN SCRIPTURE. Jesus did not show a lot of respect toward the Pharisees who were leading people to hell through their works gospel. Paul did not show a lot of respect toward the heretics who were bothering the early churches. How much respect did he show toward the following two fellows? “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus” (2 Tim. 2:17). Didn’t Paul understand that such language would hurt these men’s feelings and might even injure their self-esteem? Today, the ecumenical crowd would say, “Paul, how do you think we are ever going to have a good dialogue if you persist in talking like that? Don’t you understand the need for Christian unity? Why are you so harsh and judgmental?”

SIXTH, DIALOGUE REQUIRES “LISTENING, WHICH AT ITS BEST INCLUDES RESTATING WHAT THE OTHER IS SAYING TO HIS COMPLETE SATISFACTION.” This ignores the fact that heretics lie and try to hide and shade their error. The Bible repeatedly warns about the subtilty and deceit of false teachers. Jesus referred to them as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). Though they are wolves, they hide their appearance. Paul warned of “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13), of “false brethren” who work “privily” (Gal. 2:4), of their “cunning craftiness” (Eph. 4:14), of their habit of “speaking lies in hypocrisy” (1 Tim. 4:2), of those who “who creep into houses” (2 Tim. 3:6), of “seducers ... deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Peter warned of “feigned words” (2 Pet. 2:2). Jude warned of “certain men crept in unawares” (Jude 4).

Consider some modern fulfillments of these warnings:

The example of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Even the name of the organization has changed several times in its attempt to escape its past and hide its identity. Its many false prophecies have been swept under the rug. Its early history has been whitewashed to hide the deception, chicanery, and immorality of its leaders.

The example of Seventh-day Adventism

It has modified its history, hiding the fact that early Adventists were anti-Trinitarian, hiding Ellen White’s nervous disorder, hiding her false prophecies and her use of the “prophetic gift” to manipulate the everyday lives of her followers, even “prophesying” that Adventist women had to wear a certain type of dress, etc.

It hides its heresy under a re-definition of theological terms. I have an SDA pamphlet entitled “Saved by Grace,” but it actually teaches salvation by grace
plus law.

It has tried to hide its identity when conducting evangelistic campaigns. I visited an SDA prophecy conference in Tennessee and the only way one would know that it was sponsored by the SDA was the presence of Ellen White’s literature.

It often downplays its stranger doctrines, such as “the spirit of prophecy” (Ellen White’s role as a prophetess) and Investigative Judgment. In the 1970s I took some correspondence courses offered by the Seventh-day Adventists. In a course designed for the general public, these things were glossed over; whereas in courses designed for Adventists, they were highlighted.

The example of the Mormons

The Mormons have whitewashed their early history, hiding the true character of Joseph Smith, his conviction in a court of law for deceiving people with a “peek stone” that he claimed could locate hidden treasure, his adultery, his violence, his false claim that he could read ancient languages, etc.

The Mormons have gotten rid of inconvenient doctrines --such as that which said black people are inferior (they were not allowed into the Mormon priesthood) and polygamy --by means of new “prophecies.”

The example of the Roman Catholic Church

Rome has re-written its history so that most Catholics do not know the truth about such things as the brutality and extent of the Inquisition, Rome’s persecution of the Jews, Rome’s curses against Bible believers, and the moral vileness and greed surrounding the papacy. It has also downplayed doctrines such as purgatory and indulgences and Mariolatry.

Rome adapts itself to any given situation. Today it is becoming more “evangelical” and more “charismatic” for ecumenical purposes.

Rome redefines terms, speaking of salvation by grace, for example, but meaning salvation through sacraments.

Because of the deceptive nature of false teachers, it is not wise simply to ask them to state their doctrine and then accept what they are saying at face value, as dialogue requires. One must analyze what they are saying carefully and be willing to expose fraud, which makes a fruitful dialogue impossible!

SEVENTH, DIALOGUE RESULTS IN WEAKENING OF BIBLICAL CONVICTIONS. The Bible warns, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). Close association with sin and error corrupts godly thinking and living. Just as a good apple cannot raise the standard of a barrel of bad apples, a true Christian cannot raise the standard of an apostate or deeply compromised church or association. Contrariwise, it is the man or woman of God that will always be corrupted.

Look at Billy Graham. When he first began his ecumenical ventures, he claimed that he wanted to use ecumenism to get the gospel to more people and that the liberals and Roman Catholics needed the gospel. It wasn’t long before his thinking had changed entirely and was saying that the liberals and Roman Catholics are fine like they are. In a May 30, 1997, interview with David Frost, Graham said: “I feel I belong to all the churches. I’M EQUALLY AT HOME IN AN ANGLICAN OR BAPTIST OR A BRETHREN ASSEMBLY OR A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. ... And the bishops and archbishops and the Pope are our friends” (David Frost,
Billy Graham in Conversation, pp. 68, 143). It is Graham who has been converted by the dialogue process. He admitted, “The ecumenical movement has broadened my viewpoint” (Curtis Mitchell, Billy Graham Saint or Sinner, p. 272).

The same is true for Graham’s co-workers. When an evangelist said that he did not believe that Catholics are true Christians, Graham’s co-laborer “Grady” Wilson exclaimed that this is “absolutely wrong”; he continued, “...to say they are not Christians--man alive! Anybody that receives Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour is converted! They’re born again. I believe the Pope is a converted man. I believe a lot of these wonderful Catholics are Christians” (William Martin, A
Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story, p. 461). Obviously, Wilson is not asking any hard questions about what a person means by believing in Jesus as “Lord and Saviour.”

This same thing will happen with those who are dialoguing with Mormons. Do not Mormons also believe on Jesus as Lord and Saviour? Of course they do, but only if we allow them to define these things by their own heretical dictionary

The ecumenical crowd, which has been busy dialoguing for half a century and more, has been so weakened that they can’t even speak out about salvation and say that pagans need to be converted. When the Southern Baptist Convention published a prayer guide in 2000 calling upon Baptists to pray for the conversion of Hindus, ecumenical leaders in India rose up in alarm. Ipe Joseph, general secretary of the National Council of Churches in India, condemned the prayer guide and said, “We should find ecumenical space for followers of other faiths in salvation. ... Christians should stop thinking of Christianity as the religion among religions.” The general secretary of the Council of Baptist Churches in North-East India, Pastor Gulkhan Pau, also condemned the Southern Baptist prayer guide. Pau said, “You preach your faith, but don’t play down others. ... I am not going to condemn the Hindu or the Muslim for his faith.”

For eleven years the Church of England conducted a formal dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church (the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission); the result was that the Church of England capitulated to Catholic doctrine, for “at no point was there any give in Roman doctrine” (Iain Murray,
Evangelicalism Divided, p. 219). The dialogue concluded in 1981 and five years later the Final Report was approved by the General Synod of the Church of England.

“The Vatican delayed its response until 1991 and then, instead of thankful consent, it required that the Catholic teaching--especially on the Eucharist (the Mass)--be spelt out specifically. It wanted assurance that there was agreement on ‘the propitiatory nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice’, applicable to the dead as well as the living; and ‘certitude that Christ is present ... substantially when “under the species of bread and wine these earthly realities are changed into the reality of his Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity”’. This confirmation was given from the Anglican side in
Clarification of Certain Aspects of the Agreed Statements on Eucharist and Ministry (1994). The Anglicans assured the Vatican that the words of the Final Statement -- already approved by Synod -- did indeed conform to the sense required by the official Roman teaching” (Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 220).

Eighth, dialogue ignores Titus 3:9-11 -- “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”

The command of God is not to dialogue with heretics but to reject them.
______________________________

NEW EVANGELICALISM: ITS HISTORY, CHARACTERISTICS, AND FRUIT (D.W. Cloud). Few subjects are more important for fundamentalist churches than this. Most people that leave fundamentalist churches do not join the Roman Catholic Church or the Mormons or a liberal Protestant denomination; most go the way of the positive-thinking, easy-going New Evangelicalism. Church members are confronted with New Evangelical philosophy on every hand--through popular Christian television preachers and nationally syndicated radio personalities, at the local ecumenical bookstore, through members of other churches, through ecumenical evangelistic crusades, through political activity, and through interdenominational organizations such as Promise Keepers. To be ignorant of the insidious and pervasive nature of New Evangelicalism is to be unprepared to identify and resist it, yet, large numbers of fundamentalists know little or nothing about it. When a fundamental Baptist evangelist asked the students of a well-known independent Baptist Bible College to raise their hands if they could define New Evangelicalism, only two could respond. Hosea 4:6 warns, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge…” This book documents THE HISTORY AND SPREAD of New Evangelicalism since the 1950s and describes THE PRINCIPLES of New Evangelicalism in a very practical manner so that church members can understand what it is. These principles include the following: New Evangelicalism is characterized by a repudiation of separation, by a love for positivism and by a repudiation of the more negative aspects of biblical Christianity, by a judge-not philosophy, by a dislike of doctrinal controversy, by exalting love and unity above doctrine, by a desire for intellectual respectability, by pride of scholarship, by an attitude of anti-fundamentalism, by the division of biblical truth into categories of important and not important, and by a general mood of softness and tolerance, of a desire for a less strict Christianity, and of a weariness with theological fighting. The book also describes the apostate fruit of New Evangelicalism, which is admitted even by key Evangelical leaders. Its apostasy is seen in the questioning of biblical infallibility, in its ecumenicalism, in a dramatic downgrade in Christian morality, and in its acceptance of and tolerance toward heretics. 153 pages. Illustrated. $5.95.

Order by phone or via the newly designed online catalog at the Way of Life web site -- 866-295-4143, http://wayoflife.org


[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http:/wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]

C.S. LEWIS AND EVANGELICALS TODAY

C.S. LEWIS AND EVANGELICALS TODAY

Updated and enlarged August 12, 2008 (first published July 1, 2000) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The late British author C.S. (Clive Staples) Lewis (1898-1963), who was known as Jack, is extremely popular with evangelicals today. Most Christian bookstores feature the writings of Lewis without a word of warning.

A
Christianity Today reader’s poll in 1998 rated Lewis the most influential evangelical writer. The December 2005 edition of Christianity Today features C.S. Lewis on the cover and almost every article is devoted to the man, including the effusive cover story entitled, “C.S. Lewis Superstar.” In an article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lewis’s birth, J.I. Packer called him “our patron saint” and said that Lewis ”has come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism” (“Still Surprised by Lewis,” Christianity Today, Sept. 7, 1998).

Though Lewis died in 1963, sales of his books had risen to two million a year by 1977 and have increased 125% since 2001.

In its April 23, 2001, issue,
Christianity Today again praised C.S. Lewis in an article titled “Myth Matters.” Lewis, called “the 20th century’s greatest Christian apologist,” wrote several mythical works, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christianity Today recommends in the most glowing terms, claiming that “Christ came not to put an end to myth but to take all that is most essential in the myth up into himself and make it real.” I don’t know what to say to this except that it is complete nonsense. In his Chronicles, Lewis depicts Jesus Christ as a lion named Aslan who is slain on a stone table. Christianity Today says, “In Aslan, Christ is made tangible, knowable, real.” As if we can know Jesus Christ best through a fable that is vaguely and inaccurately based on biblical themes and intermingled with paganism.

WAS C.S. LEWIS A STRONG BIBLE BELIEVER?

Was C.S. Lewis a strong Bible believer? By no means, as even Christianity Today admits. “Clive Staples Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. He smoked cigarettes and a pipe, and he regularly visited pubs to drink beer with friends. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration” (“C.S. Lewis Superstar,” Christianity Today, Dec. 2005).

Lewis believed in prayers for the dead. In
Letters to Malcolm, he wrote, “Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden” (p. 109). He believed in purgatory. In Letters to Malcolm, he wrote” “I believe in Purgatory. ... The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s Dream. There if I remember rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer ‘with its darkness to affront that light’. ... Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they?” (pp. 110-111). Lewis confessed his sins regularly to a priest and was given the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16, 1963 (Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C.S. Lewis: A Biography, 1974, pp. 198, 301). Lewis denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He taught that hell is a state of mind: “And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind--is, in the end, Hell” (Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65). D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis ... would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible” (F.B.F. News Bulletin, Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, March 4, 1984).

Lewis lived for 30 years with Janie Moore, a woman 25 years his senior to whom he was not married. The relationship with the married woman began when Lewis was still a student at Oxford. Moore was separated from her husband. Lewis confessed to his brother Arthur that he was in love with Mrs. Moore, the mother of one of his friends who was killed in World War I. The relationship was definitely sexual in nature. See Alan Jacobs,
The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis, pp. 82, 94. At age 58, Lewis married Joy Gresham, an American woman who pursued a relationship with Lewis even while she was still married to another man. According to two of Lewis’s friends, Gresham’s husband divorced her on the grounds of desertion (Roger Lancelyn Green & Walter Hooper, Light on C.S. Lewis), though he, in turn, married Joy’s cousin.

In the book
A Severe Mercy by Sheldon VanAuken, a personal letter is reproduced on page 191 in which Lewis suggests to VanAuken that upon his next visit to England that the two of them “must have some good, long talks together and perhaps we shall both get high.” We have no way to know exactly what this means, but we do know that Lewis drank beer, wine, and whiskey on a daily basis.

Lewis never gave up his unholy fascination with paganism. On a visit to Greece with his wife in 1960, Lewis made the following strange, unbiblical statement:

“I had some ado to prevent Joy (and myself) from lapsing into paganism in Attica! AT DAPHNI IT WAS HARD NOT TO PRAY TO APOLLO THE HEALER. BUT SOMEHOW ONE DIDN’T FEEL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY WRONG--WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ADDRESSING CHRIST
SUB SPECIE APOLLONIUS” (C.S. Lewis to Chad Walsh, May 23, 1960, cited from George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, 1994, p. 378).

What a blasphemous statement! Christ is not worshipped under the image of pagan gods. And we must remember that this was written at the end of Lewis’ life, and long after his “conversion” to Christ.

Lewis claimed that followers of pagan religions can be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ: “But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. ... There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position” (C.S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, pp. 64, 208, 209).

Lewis believed that Jonah and Job were not historical books. In his article “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” Lewis said: “... Jonah, a tale with as few even pretended historical attachments as Job, grotesque in incident and surely not without a distinct, though of course edifying, vein of typically Jewish humor” (“Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,”
Christian Reflections, edited by Walter Hooper, Eerdmans).

LEWIS NEVER GAVE A CLEAR BIBLICAL TESTIMONY OF THE NEW BIRTH AND SAID THAT FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS UNNECESSARY

C.S. Lewis went to some length to describe his views of salvation in
Mere Christianity and in his spiritual autobiography, Surprised by Joy. In neither book did he give a clear biblical testimony of the new birth.

As for faith in the blood of Christ, Lewis said that it is not an essential part of Christianity. He taught that it does not matter how one defines the atonement, and he himself did not believe in the substitutionary blood atonement. In
Mere Christianity he made the following statement:

“You can say that Christ died for our sins. You may say that the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done. You may say that we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. You may say that Christ has defeated death. They are all true. IF ANY OF THEM DO NOT APPEAL TO YOU, LEAVE IT ALONE AND GET ON WITH THE FORMULA THAT DOES. And, whatever you do, do not start quarrelling with other people because they use a different formula from years” (
Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, p. 182).

This is rank heresy. Lewis wrongly claimed that it does not matter if a person believes that he is washed in Christ’s blood, that this is a mere “formula” that can be accepted or rejected at one’s pleasure. He said that it is just as well to believe that “the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done.” That is a bloodless salvation through Christ’s life rather than through His Cross, which, according to the Bible is no salvation at all. The “blood” is mentioned more than 90 times in the New Testament, and that is no accident. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). If Jesus had lived a perfect life in our place and died a bloodless death in our place, we would not be saved.

Lewis said, “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. ... Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all of this are, in my view, quite secondary...” (
Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, pp. 54, 55, 56).

This is unscriptural teaching. God has revealed exactly what Christ did and what the atonement means. It is not a matter of theorizing or believing one “formula” over against another. The Bible says our salvation is a matter of a propitiation, a ransom, whereby our sins were washed away by Christ’s bloody death, which was offered as a payment to satisfy God’s holy Law.

Lewis never mentions the doctrine of propitiation, but propitiation was a necessary part of our salvation and the propitiation was made by blood. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3:25). Propitiation means satisfaction; covering; the fulfillment of a demand. It refers to God’s estimation of Christ’s sacrifice. God is fully satisfied by what Jesus Christ did on the Cross. The penalty for His broken law by man’s sin has been fully satisfied (Rom. 3:24-25; 1 Jn. 2:2; Heb. 2:17; Isa. 5:11). The Greek word translated “propitiation” in Rom. 3:25 is also translated “mercy seat” in Heb. 9:5. The mercy seat perfectly covered the law which was contained in the Ark (Ex. 25:17, 21). This symbolizes propitiation--Christ covering the demands of God’s law. That it is the blood of Christ which satisfied this demand and put away our sins was depicted on the Day of Atonement when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat by the high priest (Lev. 16:11-17).

Through Christ’s blood we have eternal redemption. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12).

Through Christ’s blood we can enter into the presence of God. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19).

This is not a theory or a formula. It is the Word of God, and if one does not like it or believe it, he cannot be saved.

In
Mere Christianity, Lewis claims that the Christ-life is spread to men through baptism, belief, and the Lord’s Supper. This is a false gospel of faith plus works. He says, “There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names--Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper. ... I am not saying anything about which of these things is the most essential. My Methodist friend would like me to say more about belief and less (in proportion) about the other two. But I am not going into that” (Mere Christianity, p. 61). [Note that he includes the Catholic Mass in his list of the various names by which holy communion are known, failing to acknowledge to his readers that the Mass is an entirely different thing than the simple Lord’s Supper of the New Testament.]

It is not a Methodist we should listen to but the Bible itself, and the Bible says that salvation is by the grace of Christ alone through faith in Christ alone without works, that works are important but they follow after salvation and are the product of salvation rather than the means of it. The difference between saying that salvation is by faith without works and that works follow and saying that salvation is by faith with works or faith plus works is the difference between a true gospel and a false one. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3-4). “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10).

I have read several of C.S. Lewis’s books and dozens of his articles and several biographies about him, and I have never seen a clear teaching on the new birth or a clear biblical testimony that he was born again. This should be cause for the deepest concern.

WHY IS LEWIS SO POPULAR WITH EVANGELICALS TODAY?

In light of his lack of clear scriptural salvation testimony, his heresies, his worldliness, and the massive pagan influences in his work, why are evangelicals today so enamored with C.S. Lewis? I believe the following are some of the chief reasons:

FIRST, NEW EVANGELICALS LOVE C.S. LEWIS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHARACTERIZED BY A PRIDE OF INTELLECT AND LEWIS WAS DEFINITELY AN INTELLECTUAL. He had almost a photographic memory and had a triple first at Oxford in Philosophy, Classics, and English. He was one of the greatest experts of that day in English literature and occupied the first Chair in Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University. Since New Evangelicals almost worship intellectualism (a spirit that the late David Otis Fuller called “scholarolatry”), it is no surprise that they would look upon the famous intellectual C.S. Lewis as a patron saint.

SECOND, NEW EVANGELICALS LOVE C.S. LEWIS BECAUSE OF HIS ECUMENICAL THINKING AND HIS REFUSAL TO PRACTICE SEPARATION. This has been admitted by Christianity Today. “Lewis’s … concentration on the main doctrines of the church coincided with evangelicals’ concern to avoid ecclesiastical separatism” (Christianity Today, Oct. 25, 1993). CT therefore admits that C.S. Lewis is popular to Evangelicals today because, like them, he despised biblical separation.

C.S. Lewis was, in fact, very ecumenical. The following is an overview of his ecumenical philosophy and his influence on present-day ecumenical movement:

“Lewis was firmly ecumenical, though he distanced himself from outright liberalism. In his preface to
Mere Christianity, Lewis states that his aim is to present ‘an agreed, or common, or central or mere Christianity.’ So he aims to concentrate on the doctrines that he believes are common to all forms of Christianity--including Roman Catholicism. It is no surprise that he submitted parts of the book to four clergymen for criticism--an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic! He hopes that the book will make it clear why all Christians ‘ought to be reunited,’ but warns that it should not be seen as an alternative to the creeds of existing denominations. He likens the ‘mere Christianity’ that he describes in the book to a hall from which various rooms lead off. These rooms are the various Christian traditions. And just as when you enter a house you do not stay in the hall but enter a room, so when you become a Christian you should join a particular Christian tradition. Lewis believes that it is not too important which room you enter. It will be right for some to enter the door marked ‘Roman Catholicism’ as it will for others to enter other doors. Whichever room you enter, says Lewis, the important thing is that you be convinced that it is the right one for you. And, he says, ‘When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors.’

“Mention should also be made of Lewis’ views of the sacraments. The sacraments ‘spread the Christ life to us’ (
Mere Christianity, book 2, chapter 5). In his Letters to Malcolm Lewis states that he does not want to ‘unsettle in the mind of any Christian, whatever his denomination, the concepts--for him traditional--by which he finds it profitable to represent to himself what is happening when he receives the bread and wine’ of the Lord’s Supper. What happens in the Lord’s Supper is a mystery, and so the Roman Catholic conception of the bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial (Letters to Malcolm, chapter 19). ...

“This enigma of C.S. Lewis was no more than a slight bemusement to me until recently three things changed my bemusement into bewilderment.

“In March 1994 the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement produced its first document. This was a programatic document entitled
Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. It was rightly said at the time that this document represented ‘a betrayal of the Reformation.’ I saw no connection between this and C.S. Lewis until a couple of years later when the symposium Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Working Towards a Common Mission was published. In his contribution to the book, Charles Colson--the Evangelical ‘prime mover’ behind ECT--tells us that C.S. Lewis was a major influence which led him to form the movement (Billy Graham was another!). In fact Colson says that Evangelicals and Catholics Together seeks to continue the legacy of C.S. Lewis by focusing on the core beliefs of all true Christians (Common Mission, p. 36). The enigma took on a more foreboding aspect.

“The enigma darkened further when just last year (after becoming connected to the Internet at the end of 1996) I discovered, quite by accident, that C.S. Lewis is just as popular amongst Roman Catholics as he is amongst Evangelicals. Perhaps I should have known this already, but it had never struck me before.

“The third shock came last autumn when I read that
Christianity Today--reputed to be the leading evangelical magazine in the USA--had conducted a poll amongst its readers to discover whom they considered the most influential theological writers of the twentieth century. You will have already guessed that C.S. Lewis came out on top!

“After these three things it came as no surprise to me this year to find that C.S. Lewis has exerted a major influence on the
Alpha course, and that it quotes or refers to him almost ad nauseum. Could not the Alpha course be renamed the ‘Mere Christianity’ course? ...

“In conclusion, I offer the following reflection. If it is true to say that ‘you are what you eat,’ then it is also true to say that ‘a Christian is what he hears and reads’ since this is how he gets his spiritual food. Thus
if Christians are brought up on a diet of C.S. Lewis, it should not surprise us to find they are seeking ‘to continue the legacy of C.S. Lewis.’ The apostle Paul said, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump’ (Gal. 5:9--the whole passage is relevant to the present context); thus IF EVANGELICALS READ AND APPLAUD SUCH BOOKS AS MERE CHRISTIANITY IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE IF WE FIND THEM ‘WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON MISSION’ WITH THE ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL. THE YOUNG CHRISTIAN SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT HE READS, AND THOSE IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY (PASTORS, TEACHERS, PARENTS) SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT THEY RECOMMEND OTHERS TO READ” (Dr. Tony Baxter, “The Enigma of C.S. Lewis,” CRN Journal, Winter 1998, Christian Research Network, Colchester, United Kingdom, p. 30; Baxter works for the Protestant Truth Society as a Wycliffe Preacher).

In April 1998, Mormon professor Robert Millet spoke at Wheaton College on the topic of C.S. Lewis. In a recent issue of
Christianity Today, Millet, dean of Brigham Young University, is quoted as saying that C.S. Lewis “is so well received by Latter-day Saints [Mormons] because of his broad and inclusive vision of Christianity” (John W. Kennedy, “Southern Baptists Take Up the Mormon Challenge,” Christianity Today, June 15, 1998, p. 30).

THIRD, NEW EVANGELICALS LOVE C.S. LEWIS BECAUSE OF THEIR SHARED FASCINATION FOR OR AND SYMPATHY WITH ROME. Today’s evangelicals have given us “Evangelicals and Rome Together” and even those who do not go that far usually speak of Rome’s errors in soft, congenial terms rather than labeling it the blasphemous, antichrist institution that it is and that Protestants and Baptists of old plainly called it. As we have seen, C.S. Lewis considered the Roman Catholic Church one of the acceptable “rooms” in the house of Christianity and longed for unity between Protestantism and Romanism. Lewis believed in prayers to the dead and purgatory.

Some of Lewis’s closest friends were Roman Catholics. J.R. Tolkien of
Lord of the Rings fame is one example. Tolkien and Lewis were very close and spent countless hours together. Lewis credited Tolkien with having a large role in his “conversion.” Lewis was also heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton. When asked what Christian writers had helped him, Lewis remarked in 1963, six months before he died, “The contemporary book that has helped me the most is Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man” (God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, 1970, p. 260).

Lewis carried on a warm correspondence in Latin with Catholic priest Don Giovanni Calabria of Italy over their shared “concern for the reunification of the Christian churches” (
The Narnian, Alan Jacobs, pp. 249, 250). Calabria was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1988.

In 1943, Lewis gave a talk on “Christian Apologetics” for a group of priests in Wales (
The Narnian, p. 229).

From the 1940s to the end of his life, Lewis’s spiritual advisor was a Catholic priest named Walter Adams (
The Narnian, p. 224). It was to this priest that Lewis confessed his sins.

Roman Catholics love C.S. Lewis as much as evangelicals. His books are typically found in Catholic bookstores. Michael Coren, a Roman Catholic, wrote a biography of Lewis entitled “C.S. Lewis: The Man Who Created Narnia.” The Catholic news agency Zenit asked Coren, “What do Catholics need to know about C.S. Lewis?” He replied: “They should know he wasn’t a Catholic, but that doesn't mean he wouldn’t have become one eventually. G. K. Chesterton became a Catholic in 1922 but had really been one for 20 years. ... Lewis was born in Belfast, in sectarian Northern Ireland, so he was raised anti-Catholic like most Protestant children there. He was a man of his background but HIS VIEWS WERE VERY CATHOLIC: HE BELIEVED IN PURGATORY, BELIEVED IN THE SACRAMENTS, WENT TO CONFESSION” (“The Subtle Magic of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia: Michael Coren’s Perspective as the New Movie Looms,” Zenit, Dec. 7, 2005).

Peter Kreeft, a convert to Rome from the Dutch Reformed denomination, says C.S. Lewis was one of the “many strands of the rope that hauled me aboard the ark”:

“Even C. S. Lewis, the darling of Protestant Evangelicals, ‘smelled’ Catholic most of the time. ... Lewis is the only author I ever have read whom I thought I could completely trust and completely understand. But he believed in Purgatory, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and not Total Depravity. He was no Calvinist. In fact, he was a medieval” (“Hauled Aboard the Ark,” http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm).

Kreeft is right. Evangelicalism’s love affair with C.S. Lewis is evidence of its deep spiritual compromise and lack of sound doctrinal discernment.

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6)

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

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 12 Tim. 3:5)

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17)

[See also “C.S. Lewis’ ‘The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe’ Is a Silly Fairy Tale” at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/cslewis-lion-witch-wardrobe.html ]

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]

BEWARE OF BRIAN MCLAREN

BEWARE OF BRIAN MCLAREN

Enlarged August 11, 2008 (first published January 26, 2006) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

As the most prominent voice in the emerging church, Brian McLaren represents the philosophy of the movement. He claims that truth is a shifting thing, exalts doubt as highly as faith, and rejects the infallible inspiration of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the eternal punishment of hell fire.

A REVIEW OF “A NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN”

McLaren’s book “A New Kind of Christian: a Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey” won a
Christianity Today Award of Merit in 2002 and has found a wide and approving audience in “evangelical” circles.

“A New Kind of Christian” presents theological liberalism in the guise of a wiser, kinder, gentler type of Christianity called “Postmodern.” The semi-fictional account is about an evangelical pastor who has a crisis of faith and submits himself to the guidance of a liberal Episcopalian who is a graduate of Princeton Divinity School and a former Presbyterian pastor. This Postmodern guide, who is named “Dr. Neil Oliver,” is called “Neo” by his friends. Neo resigned the pastorate because he was too liberal for his denomination and is teaching high school when we meet him in McLaren’s book.

The book recounts the evangelical pastor’s journey from a position of faith in the Bible as the absolute standard for truth, a position in which doctrine is either right or wrong, scriptural or unscriptural, to a pliable position in which “faith is more about a way of life than a system of belief, where being authentically good is more important than being doctrinally right” (from the back cover of “A New Kind of Christian”).

Gary E. Gilly hit the nail on the head in his review of “A New Kind of Christian” by observing: “More specifically, McLaren rejects absolute truth, authority, theology, objectivity, certainty and clarity. He embraces relativism, inclusivism, deconstructionism, stories (to replace truth), creative interpretation of Scripture, neo-orthodoxy, and tolerance.”

As the evangelical pastor in “A New Kind of Christian” begins his sad journey into theological liberalism (which he wants to call “postmodern”) he describes himself in these words:

“I feel like a fundamentalist who’s losing his grip--whose fundamentals are cracking and fraying and falling apart and slipping through my fingers. It’s like I thought I was building my house on rock, but it turned out to be ice, and now global warming his hit, and the ice is melting and everything is crumbling” (p. 22).

When he first begins talking with “Neo,” the evangelical pastor admits that he is afraid that Neo’s ideas are corrupting him and turning him into a heretic (p. 26), but he quenches the fear and proceeds down the path of error.

Instead of opening his Bible and seeking the face of God alone and finding out what God has to say in His Word and re-orienting himself to the eternal Word of God, instead of confiding in a man of God who believes the Bible, this evangelical pastor turns, in his hour of doubt, to a clever unbeliever and is led into the deepest error.

This is exactly what is happening to men and women throughout the evangelical world, because they have been brainwashed to think that separation from false doctrine is mean-spirited and that a “positive, non-judgmental” approach to Christianity is preferable. As a consequence, evangelicalism, over the past 50 years, has been infiltrated with every sort of heresy.

A visit to a typical evangelical bookstore is evidence of this. On the shelves of such a bookstore you will find Chuck Colson’s radical ecumenism, Robert Schuller’s Self-esteemism, C.S. Lewis’s Anglo-Catholicism, and all sorts of Psycho-heresy. You will find Mother Teresa exalted as a model Christian, even though she was committed to a false gospel and thought Jesus was a Catholic wafer and believed that Hindus go to heaven if they believe sincerely in their gods. You will find books by Bruce Metzger, who believes that Jonah is “popular legend” and Job is an “ancient folktale,” and books by Kurt Aland, who rejected the infallibility of Scripture and claimed that even the canon of Scripture is yet unsettled. You will find Greek New Testaments edited by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini. You will find books by men who claim that Matthew and Mark and Luke didn’t write their Gospels directly by divine inspiration but that they used various mythical sources such as a “Q” document. You will find histories that present the Roman Catholic Church as an authentic form of Christianity. You will find heretical “church fathers” such as Augustine and Origen exalted as men of God. You will find books by charismatics who believe that the Holy Spirit knocks believers onto the floor and glues them there and that the supernatural gift of tongues is a talent that can be learned. And we have only begun to describe the dangers that are found in a typical evangelical Christian bookstore today.

It is New Evangelicalism that has created the climate whereby the average Christian does not have a mindset of being on the constant outlook for heresy and of carefully testing everything by Scripture. It has created a gullible generation.

Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian” is a dangerous book that ridicules a staunchly biblical, fundamentalist position on every hand. It slanderously describes such a position as Phariseeism and likens it to medieval Roman Catholicism. In the very beginning of the book, the Postmodern guide Neo says: “I don’t dislike fundamentalists, taken individually--they tend to be pretty nice folks. Get them together in a group though, and I get nervous. I start to twitch and break out in a rash” (p. 9).

That is the best thing the book has to say about those who hold a strict Biblicist stance, whereas theological liberals and Romanists are depicted in a much more sympathetic light.

Though purporting to represent a more intellectual approach to Christianity, the book is filled with strawman arguments, shallow reasoning, and Scripture taken wildly out of context.

It teaches that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God and that all doctrines and theologies are non-absolute, that we need to approach the Bible “on less defined terms” (p. 56). It teaches that the Bible alone should not be our authority, but that the Bible should be one of many authorities, such as tradition, reason, exemplary people and institutions one has come to trust, and spiritual experience (pp. 54, 55). It teaches that it is wrong and Pharisaical to look upon the Bible as “God’s encyclopedia, God’s rule book, God’s answer book” (p. 52). It teaches that the authority of the Bible is not in the text itself but in a mystical level above and beyond the text (p. 51).

It teaches that Christians should not try to judge right from wrong in an absolute sense because all of our understanding of the Bible is colored and conditioned by extra-biblical things such as one’s time and culture. It teaches that the postmodern Christian is one who “relativizes your own modern viewpoint,” thus understanding that everything he believes about the Bible and Christianity is only relative and uncertain (p. 35). It teaches that there is no such thing as “the Christian worldview,” that every doctrinal position, “no matter how resplendent with biblical quotations--can claim to be the ultimate Christian worldview, because every model is at the least limited by the limitations of the contemporary human mind, not to mention the ‘taste in universes’ of that particular age” (pp. 36, 37).

It teaches that ecumenism is good and that all “denominations,” including Roman Catholicism, can contribute to a proper form of Christianity. We are informed that “there are good Catholics, good Greek Orthodox, good Pentecostals, and good Episcopalians” (p. 73). It teaches that labels such as Catholic, Protestant, liberal, and evangelical “are about to become inconsequential” in a postmodern Christianity (p. 41). It teaches that mystical Catholic practices are authentic and desirable (p. 58).

It teaches that people should not ask pastors questions such as, “Do you believe in inerrancy?” or “What’s your position on homosexuality?” because to make them answer such questions is to “cheapen” them and to make them sell themselves (p. 61).

It teaches that the real issue for Jesus is “goodness, not just rightness” (p. 61), as if goodness and righteousness and truth are in some sort of conflict.

“A New Kind of Christian” teaches that Jesus’ objective was “holistic reconciliation.”

“I think what Jesus was about ... was a global, public movement or revolution to bring holistic reconciliation, a reconnection with God, with others, with ourselves, with our environment” (p. 73).

Here the author is not referring to what Jesus will do when He returns to establish His kingdom but what he is allegedly doing today. He claims the proper objective of churches is not merely the salvation of souls but the renewal of the world and saving the planet from destruction (p. 83).

It teaches that it is right for Christians to use pagan practices such as the Native American sweat lodge, peace pipe, dance, dream catcher, and smoke (pp. 26, 74-78). Apparently McLaren thinks that God’s warning, “
Learn not the way of the heathen,” (Jer. 10:2), is no longer in effect.

It teaches that unbelievers and pagans can possibly be saved without personal faith in Christ (p. 92).

QUOTES FROM OTHER BOOKS AND ARTICLES BY MCLAREN

In
A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren says the Bible is “not a look-it-up encyclopedia of timeless moral truths, but the unfolding narrative of God at work...” (p. 190). He compliments the Anglicans because to them the Bible is a factor in their thinking “but it is never sola--never the only factor. Rather Scripture is always in dialogue with tradition, reason, and experience” (p. 235).

McLaren’s doctrine of salvation is as murky as any I have ever read. He says:

“I DON’T THINK WE’VE GOT THE GOSPEL RIGHT YET. What does it mean to be ‘saved’? When I read the Bible, I don’t see it meaning, ‘I’m going to heaven after I die.’ Before modern evangelicalism nobody accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or walked down an aisle, or said the sinner’s prayer. I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (“The Emergent Mystique,” Christianity Today, Nov. 2004, p. 40).

McLaren doesn’t think we have the gospel right yet, but two thousand years ago the Lord Jesus commanded, “
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). It is a little late to be trying to get the gospel right, isn’t it!

In
A New Kind of Christian, McLaren has his postmodern hero say that he rejects the idea that the gospel is about getting individual souls into heaven because this “smacked of selfishness” and was unacceptable to postmodern thinking (pp. 82, 83).

McLaren identifies with Anabaptists because they (allegedly) teach that “one becomes a Christian through an event, process, or both, in which one identifies with Jesus, his mission, and his followers” (
A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 229). Though Christ described salvation as a birth (John 3), McLaren thinks it might be more a process than an event.

McLaren has “a strong conviction that THE EXCLUSIVE, HELL-ORIENTED GOSPEL IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD” (
A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 120, f. 48).

McLaren says the emerging approach is “less rigid, more generous” (
A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 190), and it is “conversational, never attempting to be the last word, and thus silence other voices” (p. 169). He says it “doesn’t claim too much; it admits it walks with a limp” (p. 171). He says, “To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall” (p. 293). He likens doctrinal dogmatism to smoking cigarettes, saying that “it is a hard-to-break Protestant habit that is hazardous to spiritual health” (p. 217).

In his books
The Secret Message of Jesus and Everything Must Change, McLaren says that “the essential message of Jesus” is the kingdom of God, and this is “not just a message about Jesus that focused on the afterlife, but rather the core message of Jesus that focused on personal, SOCIAL, AND GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION IN THIS LIFE” (Everything Must Change, p. 22). He says that THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS “ABOUT CHANGING THIS WORLD” (p. 23).

McLaren mocks the “fundamentalist expectations” of a literal second coming of Christ with its attendant judgments on the world and assumes that the world will go on like it is for hundreds of thousands of years (
A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 305). He calls the literal, imminent return of Christ “pop-Evangelical eschatology” (Generous Orthodoxy, p. 267) and the “eschatology of abandonment” (interview with Planet Preterist, Jan. 30, 2005, http://planetpreterist.com/news-2774.html).

McLaren says that the book of Revelation is not a “book about the distant future” but is “a way of talking about the challenges of the immediate present” (
The Secret Message of Jesus, 2007, p. 176). He says that phrases such as “the moon will turn to blood” “are no more to be taken literally than phrases we might read in the paper today” (The Secret Message, p. 178).

McLaren epitomizes the emerging church’s radical ecumenism by calling himself “evangelical, post-protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, Methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, emergent” (
A Generous Orthodoxy, subtitle to the book).

The fact that these various doctrinal positions are contradictory and non-reconcilable does not bother the man one iota. He is fully committed to “orthoparadoxy,” being convinced that he can hold contradictions in harmony.

In June 2006 McLaren joined the blasphemous Marcus Borg of the Jesus Seminar, who boldly denies the Jesus of the Bible, at the Center for Spiritual Development in Portland, Oregon. The center promotes New Age and occultic practices such as Yoga, Sufism, Tai Chi, Enneagram, and Reiki. The Episcopalian heretic John Shelby Spong has also spoken at this Center.

McLaren wrote a glowing recommendation of Alan Jones’ book
Reimagining Christianity. Jones calls the gospel of the cross a vile doctrine, claims that there is no objective authority, and says that Hindus and Buddhists are God’s people:

“But another ancient strand of Christianity teaches that we are all caught up in the Divine Mystery we call God, that the Spirit is in everyone, and that there are depths of interpretation yet to be plumbed. ... At the cathedral [Grace Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco] we ‘break the bread’ for those who follow the path of the Buddha and walk the way of the Hindus” (Reimagining Christianity, 2005, p. 89).

Of this book McLaren says:

“It used to be that Christian institutions and systems of dogma sustained the spiritual life of Christians. Increasingly, spirituality itself is what sustains everything else. Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply” (endorsement on back cover).

McLaren says, “I DON’T THINK IT’S OUR BUSINESS TO PROGNOSTICATE THE ETERNAL DESTINIES OF ANYONE ELSE” (p. 92) and offers a quote from a C.S. Lewis’s novel as his authority. In this novel Lewis’s character was a soldier who served a false god named Tash all his life, but he was accepted nonetheless by Aslan, who represents Christ.

“Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me. ... Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.”

According to C.S. Lewis, who is deeply loved by all branches of the emerging church, an individual might be saved even if he follows a false religion in this life and makes no personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

McLaren said that the Indian Hindu leader Gandhi “sought to follow the way of Christ without identifying himself as a Christian” (
A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 189).

McLaren teaches that there is much good in pagan religions, that they have been a good thing for the world.

“My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. ... I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. ... They aren’t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind...” (pp. 62, 63).

The man needs to spend a few years living in India or Nepal to see how the Hindu religion has corrupted and debased the people, how it has turned women into chattel, cows and snakes into gods, certain classes of people into untouchables, and human life in general into something of little value, how it has encouraged pride and self-centeredness and corruption at every level of society and has discouraged humility and compassion. Or maybe he should spend a few years in an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to see what the Muslim religion has done to people. Are they better off because they can change their religion only on the pain of death and because a woman has no real rights and because she can be killed just because she does something that the male members of the family consider unacceptable?

McLaren says that Buddhism is not the enemy of the gospel, but how can a religion that teaches that Jesus Christ is not God and not the only Saviour of the world NOT be an enemy of the gospel? He says the Muslim religion is not the enemy of the gospel, but how can a religion that teaches that Jesus was not God and did not die for our sins and that forbids its members to convert to the Christ of the Bible NOT be an enemy of the gospel?

In a podcast interview in January 2006 with Leif Hansen, McLaren said that if the doctrine of hell is true then the Christ’s message and cross is “false advertising.” He said that since Christ taught that God’s kingdom doesn’t come through violence and coercion, this would be contrary to the judgment of hell. He also said if hell is true then people can legitimately question God’s goodness.

This interview is truly amazing in a fearful way. Hansen says that he doubts God’s very existence and even casts a profanity at Jesus. And yet the two of them ramble on in a very knowing sort of way, mocking fundamentalists and Calvinists and anyone else who won’t accept the emerging church’s unbelief. It is a great warning that if you reject the truth you are walking in utter darkness.

McLaren says:

“Does it make sense for a good being to create creatures who will experience infinite torture, infinite time, infinite--you know, never be numbed in their consciousness? I mean, how would you even create a universe where that sort of thing could happen? It just sounds--It really raises some questions about the goodness of God. ...

“The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you--Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive. And there’s a certain sense that, A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE ATONEMENT PRESENTS A GOD WHO IS INCAPABLE OF FORGIVING. UNLESS HE KICKS SOMEBODY ELSE. ...

“... one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then--I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary--but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, THE DOCTRINE OF HELL BASICALLY SAYS, NO, THAT THAT’S NOT REALLY TRUE. THAT IN THE END, GOD GETS HIS WAY THROUGH COERCION AND VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION AND DOMINATION, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God” (McLaren, http://www.understandthetimes.org/mclarentrans.shtml and http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/01/brian_mclaren_p.html).

Hansen replies as follows:

“Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soap box there and you know--Because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples that you could give that show why THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF HELL COMPLETELY FALLS IN THE FACE OF--IT’S JUST ANTITHETICAL TO THE CROSS. But the way you put it there, I love that. It’s false advertising. And here, Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Forgive seven times seventy. Return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell, it’s like, well, do that for a short amount of time. Because eventually, God’s going to get them.”

McLaren also said:

“The church has been preoccupied with the question, ‘What happens to your soul after you die?’ AS IF THE REASON FOR JESUS COMING CAN BE SUMMED UP IN, ‘JESUS IS TRYING TO HELP GET MORE SOULS INTO HEAVEN, AS OPPOSED TO HELL, AFTER THEY DIE.’ I JUST THINK A FAIR READING OF THE GOSPELS BLOWS THAT OUT OF THE WATER. I don’t think that the entire message and life of Jesus can be boiled down to that bottom line” (“The Emerging Church,” Part Two, Religion & Ethics, July 15, 2005, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week846/cover.html).

In the same interview McLaren said that the traditional doctrine of substitutionary atonement makes God into a strange monster that wants to kill his own son and needs to be restrained. He also says the substitutionary atonement detracts from social justice issues. He even blasphemously mocks the atonement by saying that if it is true it would mean that God can’t forgive one person unless he “kicks someone else.” Consider this very foolish statement.

“What’s so bad about sin? Now, I can just imagine some people quoting--See, McLaren doesn’t think sin is a problem. I take sin really, seriously. But here’s the problem, If I were to make this sort of analogy or parable. When I had little children, if one of my little children--Let’s say my son Brett, was beating up on his little brother, Trevor. Now, Trevor is bigger. But back then--What was the problem? Was the problem that I don’t want my younger son to get hurt and I don’t want my older son to be a bully. I want my older son to be a good person. I want my younger son to be a good person. I want them to have a great relationship. Then the problem of sin is what it does to my family and what it does to my boys, you know. That’s the problem with sin.

“But what we’ve created is, the problem of sin is that I am so angry at my son Brett for beating up his younger brother, I’m going to kill him. So now the problem we’ve got to solve is how to keep me from killing my son. Does that make sense?

“And so now it seems to me the entire Christian theology has shifted so now the problem is, how can we keep me from killing Brett? And I don’t think that’s the kind of God that we serve. I think the problem is God wants His children to get along with each other. He wants them to be good people. Because He’s good. And His vision for creation is that they’ll love each other and be good to each other and enjoy each other and have a lot of fun together. ...

“We have a vision that the real problem is God wants to kill us all. And we’ve got to somehow solve that problem. And what that does to me, Leif, that is so significant, is that it then minimizes the concern about injustice between human beings. That becomes a peripheral concern. But what if that’s God’s real concern, from beginning to end, see? ...

“The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you--Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else” (McLaren, http://www.understandthetimes.org/mclarentrans.shtml and http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/01/brian_mclaren_p.html).

What McLaren ignores is God’s holiness and justice. God is not just a father like a human father. He is a holy and just God who has given man His righteous Law. That Law, having been broken, must be satisfied. The wages of sin is death. Without the shedding of blood is no remission. And to provide the atonement, God hasn’t “kicked” anyone but Himself!

On the issue of homosexuality, McLaren says:

“Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. ... We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn. ... Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements” (“Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question,” Jan. 23, 2006, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html).

In December 2006, McLaren spoke at the Open Door Community Church in Sherwood, Arkansas. The church’s web site says:

“The leadership at Open Door Community Churches are excited to see gay and non-gay Christians worshiping together as one. We believe that gay and non-gay Christians can and should come to the table of the Lord together, side by side, without labels. We believe that as these two historically separate communities join together at the cross of Jesus Christ a healing and a new understanding of oneness in Christ occurs in both groups. We are part of a growing revival of grace-filled Christians transcending either the terms ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’ Above all things, we are a GRACE CHURCH! We are a family embracing the full spectrum of race, age, gender, family status, sexual orientation, economic status and denominational background.”

On his own web site McLaren even recommends the writings of New Ager Ken Wilber.

Roger Oakland remarks:

“Ken Wilber was raised in a conservative Christian church, but at some point he left that faith and is now a major proponent of Buddhist mysticism. His book that Bell recommends, A Brief History of Everything, is published by Shambhala Publications, named after the term, which in Buddhism means the mystical abode of spirit beings. ... Wilber is perhaps best known for what he calls integral theory. On his website, he has a chart called the Integral Life Practice Matrix, which lists several activities one can practice ‘to authentically exercise all aspects or dimensions of your own being-in-the-world’ Here are a few of these spiritual activities that Wilber promotes: yoga, Zen, centering prayer, kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), TM, tantra (Hindu-based sexuality), and kundalini yoga. ... A Brief History of Everything discusses these practices (in a favorable light) as well. For Rob Bell to say that Wilber’s book is ‘mind-blowing’ and readers should spend three months in it leaves no room for doubt regarding Rob Bell’s spiritual sympathies. What is alarming is that so many Christian venues, such as Christian junior high and high schools, are using Velvet Elvis and the Noomas” (Faith Undone, p. 110).

In
Up from Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution (1981, 2004), Ken Wilber calls the Garden of Eden a fable” and the biblical view of history “amusing” (pp. xix, 3). He describes his “perennial philosophy” as follows:

“... it is true that there is some sort of Infinite, some type of Absolute Godhead, but it cannot properly be conceived as a colossal Being, a great Daddy, or a big Creator set apart from its creations, from things and events and human beings themselves. Rather, it is best conceived (metaphorically) as the ground or suchness or condition of all things and events. It is not a Big Thing set apart from finite things, but rather the reality or suchness or ground of all things. ... the perennial philosophy declares that the absolute is One, Whole, and Undivided” (p. 6).

CONCLUSION

Beware of Brian McLaren and the emerging church!

A good test is to ask Christian leaders what they think of this man. Assuming they are familiar with his writings, if they fudge and hedge, refusing to come right out and mark him as a dangerous heretic, they are heretics themselves or at least well down the road of serious compromise!

WHAT CHARLES SPURGEON SAID ABOUT THE EMERGING CHURCH

The emerging church represented by Brian McLaren is not as new as it appears to be. It was already raising its ugly head in the late 19th century, because Charles Spurgeon described it perfectly in his comments on James 5:19-20. He called it “modern thought.” He also described the tolerant attitude of modern evangelicalism that puts up with emerging church type heresies. Spurgeon called this “latitudinarianism.”

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).

“It was not merely that he fell into a mistake upon some lesser matter which might be compared to the fringe of the gospel, but he erred in some vital doctrine--he departed from the faith in its fundamentals. There are some truths which must be believed, they are essential to salvation, and if not heartily accepted the soul will be ruined. This man had been professedly orthodox, but he turned aside from the truth on an essential point Now, in those days the saints did not say: ‘We must be largely charitable, and leave this brother to his own opinion; he sees truth from a different standpoint, and has a rather different way of putting it, but his opinions are as good as our own, and we must not say that he is in error.’

“That is at present the fashionable way of trifling with divine truth, and making things pleasant all round. Thus the gospel is debased and another gospel propagated. I should like to ask modern broad churchmen whether there is any doctrine of any sort for which it would be worth a man’s while to burn or to lie in prison. I do not believe they could give me an answer, for if their latitudinarianism be correct, the martyrs were fools of the first magnitude.

“From what I see of their writings and their teachings, it appears to me that the modern thinkers treat the whole compass of revealed truth with entire indifference; and, though perhaps they may feel sorry that wilder spirits should go too far in free-thinking, and though they had rather they would be more moderate, yet, upon the whole, so large is their liberality, that they are not sure enough of anything to be able to condemn the reverse of it as a deadly error. To them black and white are terms which may be applied to the same colour, as you view it from different standpoints. Yea and nay are equally true in their esteem. Their theology shifts like the Goodwin Sands, and they regard all firmness as so much bigotry. Errors and truths are equally comprehensible within the circle of their charity.

“It was not in this way that the apostles regarded error. They did not prescribe large-hearted charity towards falsehood, or hold up the errorist as a man of deep thought, whose views were ‘refreshingly original’; far less did they utter some wicked nonsense about the probability of their having more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds. They did not believe in justification by doubting, as our Neologians do; they set about the conversion of the erring brother; they treated him as a person who needed conversion: and viewed him as a man who, if he were not converted, would suffer the death of his soul, and be covered with a multitude of sins. They were not such easy-going people as our cultured friends of the school of ‘modern thought,’ who have learned at last that the deity of Christ may be denied, the work of the Holy Spirit ignored, the inspiration of scripture rejected, the atonement disbelieved, and regeneration dispensed with, and yet the man who does all this may be as good a Christian as the most devout believer!

“O God, deliver us from this deceitful infidelity, which while it does damage to the erring man, and often prevents his being reclaimed, does yet more mischief to our own hearts by teaching us that truth is unimportant, and falsehood a trifle, and so destroys our allegiance to the God of truth, and makes us traitors instead of loyal subjects to the King of kings” (C.H. Spurgeon, “Restoring Those Who Have Erred,”
Words of Counsel for Christian Workers, pp. 139-142).

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]

EVANGELICALS TURNING TO CATHOLIC “SPIRITUALITY”

EVANGELICALS TURNING TO CATHOLIC “SPIRITUALITY”

Updated and enlarged July 30, 2008 (first published January 4, 2001) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

Everywhere we look evangelicals are turning to Roman Catholic styles of contemplative spirituality (which in many cases were borrowed from pagan sources), such as ritualistic rote prayers, chanting, meditation, mindless centering prayer, the use of prayer beads, the Stations of the Cross,
lectio divina, labyrinths, and “the daily office.”

The cover story for the February 2008 issue of
Christianity Today was “The Future Lies in the Past,” and it describes the “lost secrets of the ancient church” that are being rediscovered by evangelicals. The ancient church in question happens to be the Roman Catholic, beginning with the so-called “church fathers” of the early centuries.

The article observes that many young evangelicals dislike both “traditional” Christianity” and the seeker sensitive churches. Traditional Christianity is described as too focused on “being right,” too much into “Bible studies” and “apologetics materials.” Instead, the young evangelicals are lusting after “a renewed encounter with a God” that goes beyond “doctrinal definitions.” This, of course, is a perfect definition of mysticism. It refers to experiencing God beyond the boundaries of Scripture.

Christianity Today recommends that evangelicals “stop debating” and just “embody Christianity.” Toward this end they should “embrace symbols and sacraments” and dialogue with “Catholicism and Orthodoxy”; they should “break out the candles and incense” and pray the “lectio divina” and learn the Catholic” ascetic disciplines” from “practicing monks and nuns.”

Christianity Today says that this “search for historic roots” will lead “to a deepening ecumenical conversation, and a recognition by evangelicals that the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are fellow Christians with much to teach us.”

This is a no holds barred invitation to Catholic mysticism, and it will not lead to light but to the same darkness that has characterized Rome throughout its history, and it will lead beyond Rome to the paganism from which Rome originally borrowed its “contemplative practices.”

The January 2001 issue of
Christianity Today contained a lengthy description by Mennonite pastor Arthur Boers of his visit to four ecumenical religious communities—Taize, Lindisfarne, Iona, and Northumbria--and HIS INCREASING LOVE FOR LITURGICAL PRACTICES. Boers testifies: “About two decades ago, on a whim, I bought a discontinued book by a famous Catholic priest. As a convinced evangelical Anabaptist, I was skeptical. But I was also curious. As it turned out, this book became the starting point in my recovery of a fuller prayer life through the daily office.”

THE TAIZE APPROACH

The mystical movement is strongly influenced by Taizè (pronounced teh-zay). This is a religious community that was formed in southeastern France during World War II by Roger Schutz, a Swiss Protestant pastor who went by the name of “Brother Roger” and who led the community until his death in 2005. Its goal is to work for world peace and ecumenical unity.

The Taizé monastic order includes some 100 allegedly “celibate brothers” from different countries and denominations, including Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed.

While the Taizé community itself is very small, the Taizé philosophy has influenced churches throughout the world. Tens of thousands of congregations in the U.S. and elsewhere hold Taizé prayer services and sing Taizé songs.

Taizé is a major force for non-doctrinal ecumenism. Each year tens of thousands of people make a pilgrimage to Taizé. These include Protestants, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, and others. The Roman Catholic connection is very strong. Schutz participated in the Second Vatican Council, and Pope John Paul II visited Taize in October 1986. In 2006, at John Paul II’s funeral, Schutz was given Eucharistic communion by the hands of Joseph Ratzinger, who a few days later became Pope Benedict XVI. Since Schutz’s death (he was stabbed to death by a deranged woman during a Taizé service), the organization has been led by a Roman Catholic priest named Alois Loeser.

The Taizé services are non-dogmatic and non-authoritative. There is no preaching. “It does not dictate what people must believe. No confessions of faith are required. No sermons are given. No emotional, evangelical-style testimonials are expected. Clergy are not required.” Schutz described the philosophy of Taizé as, “Searching together--not wanting to become spiritual masters who impose; God never imposes. We want to love and listen, we want simplicity” (“Taizé,”
Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Sept. 20, 2002).

Taizé’s non-doctrinal ecumenical Christianity is fueled by mysticism. A “shadowy medieval” atmosphere is created with the use of such things as candles, icons, and incense (
Vancouver Sun, April 14, 2000). The goal is to bring the “worshipper” into a meditative state, “to a place beyond words, a place of just being.” There is a lot of repetition, with “one-line Taizé harmonies repeated up to 15 times each.”

Schutz taught that truth is found through mysticism. In 1995 he told a group of 100,000 young people in Paris, “We have come here to search, or to go on searching through silence and prayer, to get in touch with our inner life” (Brother Roger, 90, Dies,”
New York Times, Aug. 18, 2005).

Taize is heavily involved in the same social-justice issues that are popular with youth today in secular society (e.g., environmentalism, AIDS).

The Taizé philosophy is spreading quickly throughout evangelicalism.

A DESCRIPTION OF ONE OF THE CONTEMPLATIVE PRACTICES

To illustrate how unscriptural and spiritually dangerous the contemplative practices are we will look at the most popular one called Centering Prayer.

Centering prayer is also called centering down. It involves quieting the mind and emptying it of conscious thoughts about God with the objective of entering into a non-verbal experiential communion with God in the center of one’s being and thereby achieving direct revelation from God.

Thomas Merton, one of the modern fathers of centering prayer, claims that “the simplest way to come into contact with the living God is to go to one’s center and from there pass into God” (
Finding Grace at the Center, p. 28).

Here is how he describes it:

“Then we move in faith to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, dwelling in creative love in the depths of our being. This is the whole essence of the prayer. ... All the rest of the method is simply a means to enable us to abide quietly in this center, and to allow our whole being to share in this refreshing contact with its Source” (
Finding Grace at the Center, 2002, p. 32).

“... savor the silence, the Presence...” (p. 35).

“As soon as we move in love to God present in our depths, we are there ... we simply want to remain there and be what we are” (p. 39).

“We might think of it as if the Lord Himself, present in our depths, were quietly repeating His own name, evoking His presence and very gently summoning us to an attentive response. We are quite passive. We let it happen” (p. 39).

“... to enter into our Christ-being in the depths” (p. 42).

“... we want immediate contact with God Himself, and not some thought, image, or vision of him...” (p. 42).

“... open yourself interiorly to the mystery of God’s enveloping presence” (p. 48).

“... interior silence is the proximate goal of this prayer” (p. 52).

“... our theme is the center, that is, the place of meeting of the human spirit and the divine Spirit” (p. 80).

The practice is called “this union, this face-to-face encounter” (p. 15), “passive meditation” (p. 20), “a fourth state of consciousness” (p. 34), “savoring the silence” (p. 35), “this nothing” (p. 49), “the deep waters of silence” (p. 52), “deep tranquility” (p. 54).

The practice of centering prayer requires entering into a non-thinking mode. Basil Pennington said: “In a meditation like Centering Prayer, you leave the rational mind and emotions behind, open yourself to rest in the Divine. St. Thomas Aquinas says, ‘Where the mind leaves off, the heart goes beyond’” (interview with Mary NurrieStearns published on the Personal Transformation website, http://www.personaltransformation.com/Pennington.html).

In
The Signature of Jesus, Brennan Manning says centering prayer requires three steps.

The first step is to quiet down and “stop thinking about God” (p. 212).

The second step is to choose a “sacred word” and “without moving your lips, repeat the word inwardly, slowly, and often” (p. 218). The word might be “love” or “God” or something else. This is to be done until the mind is dwelling upon that one word without distraction and is carried by that practice into a non-thinking communion with God at the center of one’s being. The mantra is the key to entering the non-thinking mode. Ray Yungen explains:

“When a word or phrase is repeated over and over, after just a few repetitions, those words lose their meaning and become just sounds. ... After three or four times, the word can begin to lose its meaning, and if this repeating of words were continued, normal thought processes could be blocked, making it possible to enter an altered state of consciousness because of hypnotic effect that begins to take place. It really makes no difference whether the words are ‘You are my God’ or ‘I am calm,’ the results are the same” (
A Time of Departing, p. 150).

The mantra, or repetition of a word, produces a mindless hypnotic state. The actual meaning of the word quickly becomes lost to the mind, and that is the objective. The mantra allows the practitioner to put aside thinking in order to reach an altered state of consciousness called “the silence place” in which one allegedly experiences God directly.

Practitioners of eastern religions recognize the power of the mantra in entering this state. Deepak Chopra, for example, says:

“A mantra ... has little or no meaning to distract us. Therefore it is an easier vehicle for going inward than prayer or verbal contemplation” (
How to Know God, p. 94).

Amazingly, Chopra, who is a New Age Hindu who believes in the divinity of man, recommends the ancient Catholic contemplative manual
The Cloud of Unknowing. He considers the centering prayer techniques to be the same as Hindu yoga.

“There is no doubt that people resist the whole notion of God being an inner phenomenon. ... Yet its importance is stated eloquently in the medieval document known as ‘The Cloud of Unknowing,’ written anonymously in the fourteenth century. ... The writer informs us that ANY THOUGHT IN THE MIND SEPARATES US FROM GOD, because thought sheds light on its object. ... Even though the cloud of unknowing baffles us, it is actually closer to God than even a thought about God and his marvelous creation. We are advised to go into a ‘cloud of forgetting’ about anything other than the silence of the inner world. For centuries this document has seemed utterly mystical, but it makes perfect sense once we realize that THE RESTFUL AWARENESS RESPONSE, WHICH CONTAINS NO THOUGHTS, is being advocated. ...

“We aren’t talking about the silence of an empty mind ... But the thought takes place against a background and nonthought. Our writer equates it with KNOWING SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE STUDIED. The mind is full of a kind of knowing that could speak to us about anything, yet it has no words; therefore we seek this knowingness in the background” (Chopra,
How to Know God, 2000, pp. 94, 95, 98).

In this same book, Chopra says, “I believe that God has to be known by looking in the mirror” (p. 9). Thus Chopra is describing meditative methods whereby the individual can allegedly come into contact with his “higher self” or divinity, yet he is using Catholic mysticism to get there! And the same manual,
The Cloud of Unknowing, is one of the most popular manuals among contemplative evangelicals. Chopra says that mantra-induced mind-emptying centering prayer techniques result in non-verbal revelation.

This is a loud warning to those who have ears to hear.

Richard Foster says repetitious prayers such as “breath prayers” “BIND THE MIND” (
Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 124).

Tricia Rhodes, in her book
The Soul at Rest, which is “a step-by-step journey of learning contemplative prayer, suggests:

“Make every effort to stop the flow of talking going on within you--to slow it down until it comes to a halt” (The Soul at Rest, 1996, p. 28).

The third step is to return one’s mind to the sacred word when distractions come. Manning suggests ending the session by quoting the Lord’s Prayer in a rote manner. He recommends two 20-minute centering sessions per day.

The result of centering prayer is supposed to be mystical knowledge obtained through communion with God in one’s being.

“For in this darkness we experience an intuitive understanding of everything material and spiritual without giving special attention to anything in particular” (
The Cloud of Unknowing, chapter 68).

“To know God in this way is to perceive a new dimension to all reality” (
Finding Grace at the Center, p. 60).

“... we learn that our willingness to listen in silence opens up a quiet space in which we can hear His voice, a voice that longs to speak and offer us guidance for our next step” (Ruth Barton, “Beyond Words,”
Discipleship Journal, Sept-Oct. 1999).

CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES

Christian and secular bookstores have begun carrying many books promoting “this pre-Reformation form of spirituality.” These include
The Cloister Walk, Book of Hours, The Soul Aflame, Evensong, A Book of Daily Prayer, The Divine Hours, and The Prayer Book of the Medieval Era. There are books by an assortment of Catholic “saints” and mystics, including GREGORY OF SINAI and JOHN OF THE CROSS (early desert monastics who believed salvation is by works), TERESA OF AVILA (who had visions of Mary), JULIAN OF NORWICH (who walled herself off from society for 20 years in a tiny cell), IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA (the founder of the Jesuits who were at the forefront of the brutal Counter-Reformation Inquisition), AUGUSTINE (who claimed that baptism takes away an infant’s sin and claimed that Mary did not commit sin), MADAME GUYON (who experienced what she thought was union with the essence of God), THOMAS MERTON (a Catholic Trappist monk who called himself a Buddhist and died in Thailand on a pilgrimage to Buddhist shrines), BASIL PENNINGTON (who taught that man shares God’s divine nature), THOMAS KEATING (who promotes occultic kundalini yoga), John Michael Talbot (who prays to Mary and calls Buddhist and Hindu gurus “our brothers and sisters”), and HENRI NOUWEN (who taught that all people can be saved “whether they know Jesus or not”). You will also find The Cloud of Unknowing, which was written by an unknown 14th century Catholic monk who taught that the meditation practitioner can find union with God by emptying the mind of thoughts.

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

Contemplative practices have infiltrated the Southern Baptist Convention at every level.

Contemplative mysticism has spread to its
seminaries. On a visit to Golden Gate Theological Seminary in February 2000, I noticed that most of the required reading for the course on “Classics of Church Devotion” are books by Roman Catholic authors: Spiritual Exercises by Ignatius of Loyola, The Cloud of Unknowing by an unknown 14th century Catholic monk, New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton, Confessions of Saint Augustine, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis, Selected Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, and The Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila.

Contemplative mysticism is promoted by influential pastors. Consider
RICK WARREN of Saddleback Church, who is doubtless the most influential of all Southern Baptist pastors. He frequently quotes from Roman Catholics to promote meditation, centering prayer, and other forms of contemplative spirituality. In The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life, Warren advises his readers to “practice his presence” as per Brother Lawrence (of the Roman Catholic Carmelite Order) and to use “breath prayers” as per the Benedictine monks. Warren quotes from John Main (Catholic monk who believes that Christ “is not limited to Jesus of Nazareth, but remains among us in the monastic leaders, the sick, the guest, the poor”); Madame Guyon (a Roman Catholic who taught that prayer does not involve thinking); John of the Cross (who believed the mountains and forests are God); and Gary Thomas (who defines Centering Prayer as “a contemplative act in which you don’t do anything”). Warren quotes from Mother Teresa and Henri Nouwen, who believed that men can be saved apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ. Nowhere does Warren warn his readers that these were dangerous false teachers.

Warren recommends mystic Richard Foster (
The Purpose Driven Church, pp. 126-127) and states that the contemplative movement will help bring the church into “full maturity” and that it “has had a valid message.”

Richard Foster builds his contemplative practices unequivocally upon ancient Catholic monasticism. Foster recommends Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, Augustine, Julian of Norwich, Brother Lawrence, Dominic, John of the Cross, the anonymous author of
The Cloud of Unknowing, Madame Guyon, Thomas à Kempis, Catherine Doherty, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus de Liguori, Bernard of Blairvaux, Nenri Nouwen, John Main, Thomas Merton, John Michael Talbot, and others. There is no warning of the fact that these Catholic mystics trusted in a works gospel, venerated Mary, worshipped Christ as a piece of consecrated bread, believed in purgatory, and scores of other heresies.

Contemplative mysticism is also promoted by state associations affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

The
Grand Valley Baptist Association of Grand Junction, Colorado, has the following contemplative books on its recommended list: Prayerwalking by Steven Hawthorne and Graham Kendrick, The Celtic Way of Evangelism by George Hunter, and Red Moon Rising by Peter Greig and Dave Roberts. Greig, the founder of the 24/7 prayer movement, is a strong promoter of Roman Catholic contemplative practices.

SpiritLines Newsletter, a publication of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, unabashedly promotes Roman Catholic mysticism. The newsletter is the voice of the BSCNC’s Office of Prayer for Evangelization & Spiritual Awakening, which is led by Windy Minton Edwards (a “Spiritual Formation Coach”). Consider the themes of recent issues: November 2007, Christian Meditation; September and October 2007, Spiritual Retreats; March 2007, Silence. The May 2008 issue recommended With Open Hands by Henri Nouwen, Spiritual Direction and Meditation by Thomas Merton, Call to the Center by Basil Pennington, Beginning Contemplative Prayer by Kathryn Hermes, and other materials by Roman Catholic contemplatives.

The January 2008 issue of
SpiritLines recommended a “Five-Day Intensive Centering Prayer Retreat” at St. Francis Springs Prayer Center, Stoneville, NC. Retreat Leaders were Joan Ricci Hurst and Paul Supina. Hurst is on the staff of Contemplative Outreach, an organization committed to the philosophy of Catholic monk and interfaith guru Thomas Keating.
SpiritLines also recommended “The Gathering Pilgrimage” at Living Waters Catholic Reflection Center, Maggie Valley, NC. This June 2008 retreat was led by Liz Ward and promoted a wide variety of Catholic contemplative practices. Ward was formerly on the board of the Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation, which was founded by an Episcopal priest named Tilden Edwards. He was deeply involved in interfaith dialogue and was particularly drawn to Buddhism. He even said that Jesus and Buddha were good friends (“Jesus and Buddha Good Friends,” Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation Newsletter, winter 2000).

In the book
Spiritual Friend (1980), Edwards said that the contemplative prayer movement is “THE WESTERN BRIDGE TO FAR EASTERN SPIRITUALITY” (p. 18).

That is exactly right, and many Southern Baptists are walking on that bridge.

GENERAL BAPTISTS

The Regular Baptists (GARBC) are also strolling on the contemplative bridge. Lighthouse Trails reports that contemplative teachers Jennifer Kennedy Dean and Larry McKain are scheduled to speak at the General Baptist Mission and Ministry Summit, July 28-30, 2008. Dean’s book
Heart’s Cry: Principles of Prayer promotes silent contemplative practices and visualization. She says that this creates the setting “in which God can reveal to us His secrets” (p. 128). McKain is the founder and Executive Director of New Church Specialties, which is associated with New Church University. “The University is using books by an array of contemplative and or/ emerging authors to train these leaders. Some of these are: Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, Steven Covey, leadership guru John Maxwell, mystic proponent Jim Collins, contemplative/emerging proponent Rick Warren, and New Age meditation proponent Ken Blanchard” (“Is General Baptist Ministries Going Toward Contemplative,” Lighthouse Trails, July 11, 2008).

The General Baptist Mission’s web site encourages churches to seek “renewal and refocus through New Church University training.” Lighthouse Trails reports:

“[We] spoke with General Baptist Ministries director, Dr. Steven Gray, and we asked him to describe the relationship between New Church Specialties and GBM. He told us that a ‘partnership’ between the two organizations had been formed. He did state that even though the New Church University is using McLaren and Sweet’s books, the General Baptist Ministries is not. But he did acknowledge that GBM is recommending books by Richard Foster and Dallas Willard. ...

“While GBM may not currently be using the recommended teachings of Leonard Sweet in their training, the General Baptist partnership with McKain and the University gives a green light to GBM churches to explore Sweet's and Blanchard’s materials. It is Leonard Sweet who has stated that ‘the power of small groups is in their ability to develop the discipline to get people in
-phase with the Christ consciousness and connected with one another’ (p. 147). So one can only wonder, is this Christ consciousness what some General Baptists will ultimately find? If they turn to Sweet, the answer is yes. We pray and hope that General Baptist Ministries will reconsider their partnership with New Church Specialties and also their affinity with Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, and other contemplatives. Otherwise they may end up with a kind of thinking that brought Ken Blanchard to say: ‘Buddha points to the path and invites us to begin our journey to enlightenment. I ... invite you to begin your journey to enlightened work’ (What Would Buddha Do at Work) or Richard Foster to say, ‘We should all without shame enroll in the school of contemplative prayer’ (Celebration of Discipline, p. 13).”

VINEYARD CHURCHES

On August 31, 2003, I made a research visit to the Vineyard Fellowship in Anaheim, California, and the speaker, a Vineyard pastor, preached a message on contemplative prayer. He described it as “gazing at length on something” and as “coming into the presence of God and resting in the presence of God,” as lying back and floating “in the river of God’s peace.” The speaker described sitting on a couch “in the manifest presence of Jesus.” He quoted St. John of the Cross, “It is in silence that we hear him.” He recommended the writings of Thomas Merton, who promoted the integration of Zen Buddhism with Christianity. The Vineyard speaker described personal revelations that he has allegedly received from God, claiming that on one occasion Jesus said to him, “Come away, my beloved,” and he obeyed by staying in a monastery. He used several Catholic “saints” as examples of the benefit of contemplative prayer, and there was no warning whatsoever about their false gospel, their blasphemous prayers to Mary, or any other error. In fact, he recommended that his listeners “read the lives of the saints.” He mentioned St. Catherine of Siena and said that Christ appeared to her and placed a ring on her finger signifying her marriage to Him, thus giving credence to this fable. He mentioned “St. Anthony,” one of the fathers of the deeply unscriptural Catholic monasticism. Anthony spent 20 years in isolation, and after that, according to the Vineyard pastor, the “saint’s” ministry was characterized by “signs and wonders.”

CHRISTIAN ROCK FESTIVALS

One of the seminars advertised for the annual Cornerstone Festival in Bushnell, Illinois, June 30 - July 3, 2005, was “Pilgrimage: Creativity & Contemplative Prayer” led by Debra Strahan. The official program said: “Debra will be speaking daily at the Prayer Tent on traditional methods of prayer and the part creativity and art expression plays in breathing life into worship. She will speak on
Lectio Divina, or praying the Scriptures, with an accompanying workshop using beads as a tool for concentration. Also there will be direction in processing and meditating on the installation pieces in the Pilgrimage.”

BILL HYBELS AND WILLOW CREEK COMMUNITY CHURCH

Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek Community Church have jumped onboard the mystical bandwagon, and Willow Creek is not only one megachurch that is located west of Chicago; it is also a network of more than 12,000 churches that hold the same philosophy. The fall 2007 issue of
Willow magazine featured “Rediscovering Spiritual Formation” by Keri Wyatt Kent. It is a glowing recommendation for mystical practices, including monastic communities. She cites Richard Foster and other contemplative mystics. While noting that some conservatives are suspect of the new mysticism, she says that the practices have largely become mainstream.

Willow Creek’s Leadership Summit in August 2006 introduced Jim Collins to the 70,000 participating Christian leaders. Since 1982 he has been a disciple of New Ager Michael Ray. That year Collins took Ray’s
Creativity in Business course, which “takes much of its inspiration from Eastern philosophy, mysticism and meditation techniques” and promotes tapping into one’s inner wisdom. It describes an “inner person” called “your wisdom keeper or spirit guide” that “can be with you in life” (“Willow Creek Leadership Summit Starts Today,” Lighthouse Trails, Aug. 10, 2006). Collins wrote the foreword to Ray’s 2005 book The Highest Goal: The Secret that Sustains You in Every Minute, which claims that man is divine and recommends Hindu mind emptying meditation. The book quotes Hindu gurus Ram Dass, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Swami Shantananda. Yet Collins calls it “the distillation of years of accumulate wisdom from a great teacher.” Following is a quote from the book:

“I attended a meditation-intensive day at an ashram [Hindu spiritual center] to support a friend. As I sat in meditation in what was for me an unfamiliar environment, I suddenly felt and saw a bolt of lightning shoot up from the base of my spine out the top of my head. It forced me to recognize something great within me ... this awareness of my own divinity” (Michael Ray,
The Highest Goal, p. 28; the foreword is by Jim Collins; quoted from “Willowcreek Leadership Summit Starts Today,” Aug, 10, 2006, Lighthouse Trails).

Again we are reminded that the evangelical-emerging church contemplative movement has intimate and growing ties with the New Age.

CHUCK SWINDOLL

The very influential Chuck Swindoll is also centering down. In his book
So, You Want to Be Like Christ? he promotes contemplative practices, favorably citing Richard Foster, Henri Nouwen, and Dallas Willard. He calls Foster’s work Celebration of Discipline “meaningful” and has an entire chapter on “Silence and Solitude.” There is no warning that Foster builds his contemplative practice upon Catholic monasticism, with its false sacramental gospel, veneration of Mary and the Host, purgatory, outrageous ascetism, extra-scriptural revelations, etc.

Dave and Deborah Dombrowski of Lighthouse Trails describe their efforts to warn Swindoll:

“In September 2005, we were informed that Chuck Swindoll was favorably quoting Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster on his
Insight For Living program. We contacted Insight for Living and spoke with Pastor Graham Lyons. We shared our concerns, then later sent A Time of Departing [by Ray Yungen] to him and also a copy to Chuck Swindoll. In a letter dated 10/3/05 from Pastor Lyons, we were told, ‘With his schedule I doubt he will read it.’ We are sorry that Chuck Swindoll has time to read Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster but no time to read A Time of Departing, especially in light of the fact that thousands of people will read Chuck Swindoll’s book, listen to his broadcasts and now believe that the contemplative authors are acceptable and good. Incidentally, Swindoll quoted these men, not just a few times, but many times throughout the book.”

DAVID JEREMIAH

David Jeremiah, in his 2003 book
Life Wide Open: Unleashing the Power of a Passionate Life, quotes many mystics favorably, including Sue Monk Kidd (goddess worshipper), Peter Senge (Buddhist), and Catholic “saint” John of the Cross.

Seven years before Jeremiah quoted favorably from Kidd, she published
The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, describing her journey from a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher to a goddess worshipper via the path of contemplative prayer.

“As I grounded myself in feminine spiritual experience, that fall I was initiated into my body in a deeper way. I came to know myself as an embodiment of Goddess. ... The day of my awakening was the day I saw and knew I saw all things in God, and God in all things” (
The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, 2002 edition, p. 161, 163).

Lighthouse Trails reports: “Jeremiah’s church, Shadow Mountain, encourages their men to become involved with contemplative spirituality. Currently, Pastor John Gillette of Shadow Mountain encourages the use of Richard Foster’s book,
Celebration of Discipline. In 2006 Jeremiah signed on with Ken Blanchard and Laurie Beth Jones in the Lead Like Jesus conference. Jeremiah’s 2006 book, Captured by Grace, discusses Henri Nouwen and includes endorsement by Ken Blanchard” (“David Jeremiah Quotes New Ager,” Lighthouse Trails, Nov. 19, 2007).

PRAIRIE BIBLE INSTITUTE

“In
Mosaic (a Prairie student run paper that shows how the students at Prairie have been very affected by contemplative/emerging spiritualities) in a December 2006 article titled ‘The Arrogance of the Evangelical Church,’ Morgan Mosselman (listed as the Commissioner of Spiritual Life and officer of the Prairie Student Union in the 2005-2006 Chapel handbook) suggests we can ‘learn from our Catholic friends’ in t