Featured Is It Me or do Few Evangelical Church Leaders Call Out False Teaching?

There is one preacher at a small town Church I found searching for religious programming one Sunday Morning when programming the Tivo. He does call them out, or at least he does not ignore them. For example here is one of his programs. Around 36:30 he mentions one prosperity preacher who is coming to preach close enough to his area that some of his congregation may be tempted to make the trip.

cms-production-api.monkcms.com/Clients/embed_video_preview.php?moduleRecordId=7247933&CMSCODE=EKK

 

Our pastor doesn't have a PC bone in his body. He just started his 50th year pastoring our church and the numerous other ministries the Lord has ordained that reach across the earth. He has never feared the evil Johnson amendment and the many attacks that have been levied against the ministries. The Lord fights for the faithful.

 

There is another board I am on that a person claimed they were literally transported in time back to the crucifixion.

 

Go back to 1957, the year Billy Graham held his New York Crusade, for which the backers included out and out liberals who denied the deity of Christ and other key doctrines. With that came a permanently break between fundamentalism and what evangelicals called "New Evangelicalism." Those who took a stand against this new form of ecumenism were labeled unfair, anti-soul winning, bitter, radical, and so forth. (I've read the actual letters in the Wheaton archives.)

The Zondervan brothers broke off their lifelong friendship with John R. Rice. (I have a jpeg of their letter.) Billy Graham resigned from the cooperating board of the Sword of the Lord. He was not fired. He separated from the fundamentalists, not they from him. (Again, I have on file the actual correspondence between Graham and Rice.) Fundamentalists were ostracized from many organizations.

The result of this break is what we see now. The typical evangelical leader will not take a stand against theological liberalism or other errors because that is the route that modern evangelicalism chose in 1957: cooperate with theological error rather than rebuke it.

The exceptions to this general evangelical trend, such as Dr. John MacArthur, usually have a fundamentalist connection. I don't know what he would call himself nowadays, but years ago when my uncles visited Dr. Mac, he told them he was a fundamentalist. I've also heard leading SBC men claim fundamentalism in private.

 

They were shocked I challenged them on it...

 

Have I told you about my dream about déjà vu before?

 

he is a Calvinist, "leaky Dispy", per his own words!

 

I think that many today do not want to rock the Christian boat, as they see unity to be even over sound doctrine, but thank God for those sucha s Dr Mac, waletr martin, John Ackerberg, and others who have fought the good fight!

 

IMO, theology (Cal/Arm, Disp/Cov) is irrelevant to this argument. In 1957 and after, the most vocal opponent of Graham's defection was his father-in-law, Presbyterian retired missionary L. Nelson Bell. On the other side opposing Graham was Bible Presbyterian founder Carl McIntire.

 

Agreed, it is easy to get caught up in those debates. They are IMPORTANT, yes, but there are other issues as well as you have pointed out.

 

I agree with you here, was just addressing on your question on where Dr mac saw himself theology wise!

 

Thank you anyway, but my question was on whether he would call himself a fundamentalist nowadays or not. I knew his other theological positions.

 

….that particular 'apostacy' is long over and done with:

9 Then shall they deliver you up unto tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all the nations for my name`s sake.
10 And then shall many stumble, and shall deliver up one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Mt 24

...but certainly not the only 'apostasy' to ever occur:

9 That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecc 1

2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel:
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Ro 11

19 Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness 2 Tim 2

 

We claim since our founding fathers were Christians(?), we are a Christian nation.
We pride ourselves on having religious freedom. Therefore, all religions start on equal footing.
However, that flies in the face of the first commandment: Exo 20:3 KJV - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

A sentence in the preamble to the DOI states: "We (Christians or heathens?) hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator (if they are referring to God, we have a problem. If they are not referring to God, we still have a problem!) with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

As far as I know, there is no Biblical basses for endowments or any of these self-evident truths or unalienable rights.

I do not believe the "life" referred to had in view abortion or liberty was freedom from the penalty of sin, etc. I believe life referred to physical life and liberty referred to civil liberty.

With these false "truths", "endowments" and "unalienable rights" as our statement of faith, is it any wonder that with the passage of time and the influence of modern communications, Satan is winning the day??

 

Since he and us would hold to the Fundamentals of the faith, would we not all be that in a sense?

 

Not true historically. If this were true, men like Billy Graham and Francis Schaeffer would be fundamentalists. However, both of them categorically rejected fundamentalism, along with many other notable New Evangelicals.

 

What would be the reason for their rejection? would it be mainly based upon the so called separation policy?

 

They felt fundamentalists were (1) narrow minded, especially in personal standards, (2) uncooperative, especially when it came to cooperating with liberals (thus ecclesiastical separation), (3) not active in social issues (debatable).