April 3, 1996 (David W. Cloud, copyright 1997, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - At the mid-point of this century, Evangelicalism, which had previously described a zealous Protestantism (but never more than that), took a different turn. Described as a "New Evangelicalism," many well-known Christian leaders such as Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Harold Lindsell, and Billy Graham, and many schools (Wheaton, Fuller, etc.) and publications (Christianity Today, etc.) denounced biblical separation and biblical absolutism and determined to practice infiltration and dialogue and inclusivism. They thought the old Fundamentalists were too negative, and they determined to approach theology and the ministry in a more positive manner. They also allowed for some rethinking or reexamination of certain points of the old Evangelical theology. They did not desire to be so boxed in. Ockenga described this new evangelicalism in an address he gave in 1948. "While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. THE RINGING CALL FOR A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals" (emphasis added) (Ockenga, Foreword to The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell, p. 11). The Bible warns that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and since the 1950s, Evangelicalism has been on a downhill slide.

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

THE CONDITION OF EVANGELICALISM TODAY

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were not made by Fundamentalists; they were made by key Evangelical leaders.

"A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" (Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"Most people outside the evangelical community itself are totally unaware of the profound changes that have occurred within evangelicalism during the last several years--in the movement's understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, in its social concerns, cultural attitudes and ecumenical posture, and in the nature of its emerging leadership. ... evangelical theologians have begun looking at the Bible with a scrutiny reflecting THEIR WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM ... The position--affirming that Scripture is inerrant or infallible in its teaching on matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in all its assertions concerning history and the cosmos--IS GRADUALLY BECOMING ASCENDANT AMONG THE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS. ... these new trends ... indicate that evangelical theology is becoming more centrist, more open to biblical criticism and more accepting of science and broad cultural analysis. ONE MIGHT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE NEW GENERATION OF EVANGELICALS IS CLOSER TO BONHOEFFER, BARTH AND BRUNNER THAN TO HODGE AND WARFIELD ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE" (Richard Quebedeaux, author of The Young Evangelicals and The Worldly Evangelicals, "The Evangelicals: New Trends and Tensions," Christianity and Crisis, Sept. 20, 1976, pp. 197-202).

"A SURPRISING ARRAY OF EQUALLY DEDICATED EVANGELICALS IS FORMING TO INSIST THAT ACCEPTANCE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF IN AN INERRANT BOOK. ... What has made it a new ball game today is the emergence of a new type of evangelical. These persons accept the cardinal doctrines of Christianity in their full and literal meaning but agree that the higher critics have a point: there are errors in Scripture, and some of its precepts must be recognized as being culturally and historically conditioned" (G. Aiken Taylor, "Is God as Good as His Word?" Christianity Today, Feb. 4, 1977).

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

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

"Accommodation, accommodation. How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. The last sixty yeas have given birth to a moral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly we must say that the evangelical world has been part of the disaster. More than this, the evangelical response itself has been a disaster. Where is the clear voice speaking to the crucial issues of the day with distinctively biblical, Christian answers? With tears we must say that largely it is not there and that A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCED BY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 141).

"My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call, surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. ALMOST ALL OF THE LITERATURE WHICH IS PRODUCED IN THE EVANGELICAL WORLD TODAY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY. In the October 1985 issue of Christianity Today, a symposium on Bible criticism was featured. The articles were written by scholars from several evangelical seminaries. NOT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT SYMPOSIUM IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY WAS PREPARED TO REJECT HIGHER CRITICISM. All came to its defense. It became evident that all the scholars from the leading seminaries in this country held to a form of higher criticism. These men claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time they adopt higher critical methods in the explanation of the Scriptures. This has become so common in evangelical circles that it is almost impossible to find an evangelical professor in the theological schools of our land and abroad who still holds uncompromisingly to the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. The insidious danger is that higher criticism is promoted by those who claim to believe in infallible inspiration" (Herman Hanko, Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, The Battle for the Bible, 1993, pp. 2,3).

"At one extreme are those who have recoiled into Anglo-Catholicism in reaction to pietistic subjectivism; at the other are those who have taken their stand on the verities of old-time Fundamentalism as a way of rejecting evangelical softness. BUT IN BETWEEN THESE FAR SHORES LIE THE CHOPPY WATERS THAT MOST EVANGELICALS NOW PLY WITH THEIR BOATS, AND HERE THE WINDS OF MODERNITY BLOW WITH DISCONCERTING FORCE, FRAGMENTING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE EVANGELICAL. THIS IS BECAUSE EVANGELICALS HAVE ALLOWED THEIR CONFESSIONAL CENTER TO DISSSIPATE. ... Fundamentalism always had an air of embattlement about it, of being an island in a sea of unremitting hostility. Evangelicalism has reacted against this sense of psychological isolation. It has lowered the barricades. It is open to the world. The great sin of Fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow" (David F. Wells, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, No Place for the Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?, 1994, pp. 128,129).

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

"... evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. ... THE THEOLOGICAL UNITY THAT ONCE MARKED THE MOVEMENT HAS GIVEN WAY TO A THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT MANY OF THE FOUNDERS OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM HAD REJECTED IN MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM. ... Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a greater crisis yet threatens" (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Evangelical What's in a Name?," The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 1996, pp. 32,33,36).

---

These are sad testimonies. It is strange to note that these men (Hanko excepted), though they see the apostate confusion which has resulted in modern Evangelicalism, do not clearly see that this is the product of the rejection of biblical separation and absolutism. These leaders (Hanko excepted) continue to reject and misrepresent Bible-believing Fundamentalism. This present Evangelical generation is polluted with the Modernism and Ecumenism and Romanism and Humanism and Psychology and Worldliness from which it has refused to separate. God is not mocked. A "little leaven leaventh the whole lump" and "evil communications corrupt good manners." A man, church, denomination, or movement cannot reject biblical separation and a zealous defense of the whole counsel of God without paying the consequence of apostasy.

FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS ARE MORE THAN EVANGELICALS

Let me close by saying that I am not an Evangelical in its common usage today. As noted earlier, Evangelicalism earlier in this century described a zealous Protestantism. It was often used in Europe to refer to the Reformation-era Protestants. While I praise the Lord for every person who knows Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior in the truth, regardless of what label he wears, and while I have many friends in Christ who are not Baptists, I am a fundamental Baptist by conviction and I have been for almost a quarter of a century. Bible-believing fundamental Baptists are more than Protestants; they are more than Evangelical; they are more than Fundamentalists. They did not come out of Rome. They trace their heritage not through the Protestant Reformation but through separated New Testament churches which were persecuted by Rome and even by many of the Protestant denominations. They find nothing in Rome to emulate and they reject it as a totally apostate system. They seek to found themselves strictly according to the apostolic New Testament pattern in everything, including the ordinances and ecclesiology.

It is sad to see Evangelical Protestants going the way of New Evangelical apostasy, but it is even sadder for us to see those who claim to be fundamental Baptists following the same spirit. Beware, friends, of the spirit of these apostate end-times. It is a spirit of unity in diversity, of love above doctrine, of neutrality and positivism. It is the spirit motivating the great end-times unity movement. It is a fulfillment of prophecy, being the present manifestation of the "mystery of iniquity" which the Apostle warned of in 2 Thessalonians 2:7.

The way of victory is to draw near to the Lord Jesus Christ day by day and to love His Word explicitly. The Word of God is the victory. It is impossible to participate in the ecumenical movement and obey Jude 3, for example. He who earnestly contends for the faith once delivered to the saints will never get along well with the ecumenical crowd. That is a promise!

David Cloud dcloud@wayoflife.org http://www.wayoflife.org/ 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277

See "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New Evangelicalism."