Bro.Cloud on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary & New Evangelicalism

This is a cut and paste of Bro.Clouds article....what is your opinions of it.My Pastor and I are curious what everybody may think on this subject.We are SBC.
Here's the article as follows:
THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND NEW EVANGELICALISM

October 11, 2005 (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) -

On August 15, 2005, I visited the campus of Boyce College and
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and
spent about three hours walking around the campus, talking with
students, and examining the bookstore and the classroom textbooks.
This is the foremost seminary operated by the Southern Baptist
Convention, and though it is no longer the openly liberal institution
that it was in past decades, it remains New Evangelical to the core.

NEW EVANGELICALISM IS A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM

A hallmark of New Evangelicalism from its inception in the 1940s is a
repudiation of separatism. Billy Graham's "inclusive evangelism"
epitomizes this unscriptural and spiritually dangerous philosophy.
Graham has focused on "the positive proclamation of truth" without a
complementary negation of error that is required by Scripture and he
has completely repudiated doctrinal separation.

It was Harold Ockenga who claimed to have coined the term
"Neo-evangelicalism." Notice how he defined it: "Neo-evangelicalism
was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I
gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. ... The ringing call for A
REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND THE SUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT
received a hearty response from many evangelicals. ... We had no
intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis
attracted widespread support and exercised great influence.
Neo-evangelicalism ... was DIFFERENT FROM FUNDAMENTALISM IN ITS
REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and its determination to engage itself in
the theological dialogue of the day" (Harold J. Ockenga, foreword to
Harold Lindsell's book The Battle for the Bible).

The Southern Baptist Convention today, even in its most conservative
side, still repudiates fundamentalism and renounces separatism in the
clearest fashion.

Last year, Morris Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee,
warned against "separatism." In his June 2004 message "The
Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives," he said:

"There's a road wrongly taken by many on our left, the road of
liberalism. But there is also a road wrongly taken by many others on
our right side. It may not be as treacherous as the road of
liberalism, but it is just as disabling to the Convention. What is
this road? It is the road of separatism--an ecclesiastical
methodology that devalues cooperation in favor of hyper independence.
In the past, we have avoided this road as fervently as the road on
the left. If Southern Baptists steer too sharply toward the right, we
will end up on the road of separatism. SOUTHERN BAPTISTS HAVE NEVER
EMBRACED THE METHODOLOGIES OF SEPARATISM" (Morris Chapman, June 2004,
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/sbvoices/chapman2004.asp).

Chapman admitted precisely what we are warning about, that the
Southern Baptist Convention is New Evangelical to the core and has
renounced biblical separation.

The professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary are required
to sign a strict statement of faith that includes a statement on the
infallible inspiration of Scripture, but they are not required to
separate from liberalism. Verses such as Romans 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14;
and 2 Tim. 3:5 are ignored. Many of the professors are members of
liberal and ecumenical organizations such as the Evangelical
Theological Society (which allows its member to hold damnable errors
such as Open Theism, which denies the foreknowledge and omniscience
of God, claiming that He does not know the future perfectly) and the
extremely liberal Society of Biblical Literature. Southern professors
routinely speak at ecumenical forums and at theologically liberal
colleges and universities. Rather than plainly renouncing false
teachers as heretics and evil men after the fashion of the apostles
(e.g., Acts 13:10; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:16-18;
3:13; 2 Pet. 2:1-2; Jude 4; 1 John 2:18-19) and separating from them
in a biblical sense (e.g., Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Tim. 2:16; 3:5;
Titus 3:10-11), they desire to remain in friendly dialogue with them.

Consider Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Professor of Old Testament
Interpretation. He is an Associate Editor of the Mercer Dictionary of
the Bible (General Editor Watson E. Mills, Assoc. Editors Roger
Bullard, Joel Drinkard, Walter Harrelson, Edgar McKnight; Assistant
Editors, Rollin Armour, Edmon Rowell Jr., Richard Wilson. Mercer
University Press, 1991, August 1997 printing).

Mercer University, the publisher of this dictionary, is a thoroughly
liberal institution. R. Kirby Godsey, who has been at the helm of
this Southern Baptist-associated school for 26 years, denies,
reinterprets, or questions practically every doctrine of the
Christian faith. (See "Liberal SBC University President Godsey
Considering Retiring," Fundamental Baptist Information Service, March
1, 2004). In his book When We Talk about God ... Let's Be Honest
(Smyth & Helwys, 1996) Godsey claims that "the notion that God is the
all powerful, the high and mighty principal of heaven and earth
should be laid aside." That is wicked heresy of the highest degree
and a true Bible believer should have no part whatsoever with such a
wicked institution.

Note the following blatant theologically liberal statements found in
the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible:

Moses -- "Yet, this central position in Israelite history and
tradition dos not mean that the historical Moses is near. The advent
of modern biblical scholarship--which has recognized that the
biblical material is not strictly history, biography or
autobiography, but an inspired, creative, and interpretative
combination of traditions--has spawned the quests for the people who
figured prominently in the biblical story. As a result, the
historical Moses proves as elusive as the historical Jesus."

Babel - "As with the other stories found in Gen 1-11, the historical
character of the Babel narrative is the subject of frequent debate.
Many scholars believe the story is mythological. However, to dwell
upon the historicity issue is to miss the point of the author. One
should ask instead why the story is included in the Bible. What does
the author want to say?"

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary tells us that they do not agree
with these liberal statements or with the heresies promoted at Mercer
University, but they allow their professors to join hands in the most
intimate fellowship with such institutions and even co-author books
with those who do hold these damnable views (see 2 Pet. 2:1,
"damnable heresies").

The Southern Baptist Convention's own state colleges and universities
are filled with theological modernism, and there is no plain
separation on the part of the national seminaries from the SBC state
institutions. By the very nature of the denominational system, such
separation could not be practiced. One is required to come out of the
biblically compromised denominational system in order to be fully
obedient to God's Word.

SOUTHERN SEMINARY'S NEW EVANGELICALISM IS EVIDENT BY ITS ROCK & ROLL
CHRISTIANITY

Rock & Roll Christianity is evident on every hand at Southern
Seminary, by the manner of dress (though it is more modest than at
most SBC colleges and universities) and by the wide variety of
Contemporary Christian Music for sale in the bookstore. Rock & Roll
Christianity within the student body at Southern Seminary is merely a
reflection of the Southern Baptist congregations that the students
represent. Not one in 100 of these congregations preach plainly
against social evils such as rock & roll and country-western and rap
music and ungodly Hollywood movies and television programs; not one
in 100 maintain a modest dress standard for church workers or warn
parents against such spiritual dangers as the state-operated public
school system; not one in 100 require clear evidence of repentance of
potential church members or practice church discipline; not one in
100 preach against the Rick Warren style church growth methods that
lower the standards of the church to accommodate the unsaved. (Rick
Warren's unscriptural Church Growth principles are proudly on display
at Southern Seminary through the prominent display of his materials
in the bookstore and their use in the classroom, and no warning
whatsoever is given to students or visitors who purchase his
materials.)

SOUTHERN SEMINARY'S NEW EVANGELICALISM IS EVIDENT BY ITS NON-CRITICAL
PRAISE OF BILLY GRAHAM

Southern Seminary proudly hosts the Billy Graham School of Missions
Evangelism and Church Growth. The school thus gives its full
endorsement to the unscriptural and extremely dangerous Billy Graham
ecumenical evangelism. Southern Seminary has a course entitled
Christian Life and Witness, which trains students in crusade
counseling techniques. On May 3, 2001, the Baptist Press ran an
article entitled "Hundreds of Southern Students Prepare for Graham
Crusade." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Seminary,
served as the chairman of Graham's crusade. He told the Baptist
Press, "Nothing else has brought together the kind of ethnic and
racial and DENOMINATIONAL INCLUSIVITY as is represented in this
crusade; nothing in my experience and nothing in the recent history
of Louisville has brought together such a group of committed
Christians for one purpose" [emphasis added].

We would ask Mohler why he doesn't sound a warning about the fact
that Billy Graham has turned thousands of seekers over to Roman
Catholic and liberal Protestant churches or the fact that Billy
Graham has exalted Roman Popes as a genuine Christians even though
they are wholly committed to a false gospel, to name only two of the
serious errors of this popular ministry?

Dr. Graham has sent multiplied thousands of converts back to Roman
Catholic and modernistic Protestant churches to be devoured by wolves
in sheep's clothing (see Christ's warning in Matthew 7:15-20). We
have carefully and extensively documented this in our book
Evangelicals and Rome. Here are three examples of Graham's practice:

1984 - Vancouver, British Columbia crusade vice-chairman David Cline
stated: "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).

1987 - A priest and a nun were among the supervisors of the
counselors for the Denver crusade; from one service alone 500 cards
of individuals were referred to St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church
(Wilson Ewin, Evangelism: The Trojan Horse of the 1990's).

1989 - 2,100 Catholics that came forward during Graham's London
crusade were referred to Catholic churches (John Ashbrook, New
Neutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise, 1992).

If turning seekers over to Roman Catholic and modernistic churches is
not cause for alarm by those who claim to be evangelical Bible
believers, nothing is.

By honoring Billy Graham as it has, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary is a partaker in his evil deeds in ignoring the importance
of Bible doctrine as the sole authority for faith and practice (1
Tim. 1:3) and as the standard for separation (Rom. 16:17) and in
breaking down the walls of biblical separation between true and false
Christians.

It is impossible in this day and time to have "denominational
inclusivity" without compromising and disobeying the Word of God. Has
God not commanded that we not allow "any other doctrine" (1 Tim.
1:3)? It is impossible to be that strict about doctrine and at the
same time to practice any sort of denominational inclusivity after
the fashion of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's honor toward Graham is proof
positive of its New Evangelical stance. Southern Seminary honors
Billy Graham because it is likeminded with him and follows the same
compromising New Evangelical philosophy. "Can two walk together,
except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).

SOUTHERN SEMINARY'S NEW EVANGELICALISM IS EVIDENT BY ITS NON-CRITICAL
PROMOTION OF THE WRITINGS OF FALSE TEACHERS

Southern Seminary's New Evangelicalism is also evident in that its
bookstore contains many books by theological heretics and there is no
warning given anywhere. The New Evangelical will claim that he does
not agree with heresies taught by men such as C.S. Lewis or F.F.
Bruce or Kurt Aland or Bruce Metzger, but he also will not plainly
renounce such men or separate plainly from them. The New Evangelical
will quote freely and non-critically from heretics without warning
his readers or hearers that such men are not theologically and
spiritually safe.

Consider C.S. Lewis, for example. Many of his books are on sale at
Southern Seminary's bookstore. 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). That type of heresy is not peripheral but strikes at
the very heart of biblical Christianity. Lewis believed in theistic
evolution and taught that hell is a state of mind. 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."

Consider also the writings of F.F. Bruce, which are for sale in the
Southern Seminary bookstore. A reviewer of Bruce's book Paul: Apostle
of the Heart Set Free (which was on sale at Southern Seminary's
bookstore) observed: "There is a noticeable lack of any detailed
consideration of such doctrines as the atonement, election, scripture
and apostolic authority. He presents Paul's teaching as the
developing thought of an apostle, formed out of his exceptional
experience of Christ, rather than as the inspired truth of God.
Whilst for the most part reaching conservative conclusions, he
appears to proceed on largely liberal assumptions" (John Wenham,
Autobiography, pp. 195-6; cited by Iain Murray, Evangelicalism
Divided, p. 181). A popular commentary series edited by F.F. Bruce
and William Barclay is full of modernistic error and
historical-critical mumbo-jumbo. In the volume dealing with Daniel
and Revelation, Bruce and Barclay claim the book of Daniel was
written AFTER the fulfillment of the events prophesied therein. In
the same volume, we are told that we cannot know who authored the
book of Daniel (though Jesus Christ said Daniel wrote it). The volume
on 1 and 2 Timothy claims that an unknown author wrote these letters
in Paul's name. The volume on Isaiah claims there were three authors
of Isaiah. The Lord Jesus Christ quoted from both major sections of
Isaiah and attributed the entire book to the ONE historical prophet,
but the commentary series edited by Bruce and Barclay make Christ a
liar by claiming there were three Isaiahs!

Consider the writings of Kurt Aland, which are for sale in the
Southern Seminary bookstore. Aland, a prominent textual critic who
died in 1994, rejected verbal inspiration. "This idea of verbal
inspiration (i.e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the
text), which the orthodoxy of both Protestant traditions maintained
so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus with all of its
errors, including textual modifications of an obviously secondary
character (as we recognize them today)" (Aland, The Problem of the
New Testament Canon, 1962, pp. 6, 7). As a contributor (with Allen
Wikgren, Bruce Metzger, and Matthew Black, Aland's fellow editors of
the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament) to the 1982 revised
edition of Peake's Commentary, Aland put his stamp of approval upon
its modernistic theology, which claimed, for example, that the Old
Testament contains myths and the Gospels were the product of
uncertain naturalistic processes. Aland even taught that the canon of
Scripture is yet unsettled.

Consider also the writings of Bruce Metzger, which are prominently on
sale in the Southern Seminary bookstore. At least three of Metzger's
books were on sale, The Text of the New Testament, The Canon of the
New Testament, and Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of
Revelation (something which Metzger is not guilty of!). The school
also uses the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, which is
edited by Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, and other theological liberals.
Metzger, one of the most influential textual critics alive today, is
a radical ecumenist who has met with Roman Popes at least three
times. Metzger's radical modernism in relation to the Scripture is
evident in the notes to the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, which he
co-edited with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford
Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the
Bible to be approved by the Roman Catholic Church. It was given an
imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston. In this
volume, Metzger and May claim the Old Testament contains "a matrix of
myth, legend, and history," deny the worldwide flood, call Job an
"ancient folktale," claim there are two authors of Isaiah, call Jonah
a "popular legend," and otherwise wickedly attack the divine
inspiration of Holy Scripture contrary to the example of the Lord
Jesus Christ and His apostles.

NEW EVANGELICALISM LEADS TO CAPITULATION

The Bible gives unequivocal warnings about affiliating with error:

"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).

Dr. Charles Woodbridge was a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary
in its early days, a founding member of the National Association of
Evangelicals, and an associate of men such as Harold Ockenga and Carl
Henry, but he rejected the New Evangelical philosophy and spent the
rest of his life warning of its dangers. He made the following
important observation:

"The New Evangelicalism advocates TOLERATION of error. It is
following the downward path of ACCOMMODATION to error, COOPERATION
with error, CONTAMINATION by error, and ultimate CAPITULATION to
error!" (Charles Woodbridge, The New Evangelicalism, 1969, pp. 9, 15).

May the Lord grant an ear to heed this wise warning!

(For a more extensive study of the history, doctrine, influence, and
fruit of New Evangelicalism see "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New
Evangelicalism" at the Way of Life Literature web site --
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fundamen1.htm.)

 

While I know that much of what Bro.Cloud has to say is controversial,I find that not too many people (including some here on the B.B.) will go toe to toe with him on a debate. After reading the above responses I find that most of you simply object to what he has to say simply because he doesn't support the SBC.I haven't noticed anyone refuting his assertions in regards to the seminaries apparent New Evangelical leanings nor their endorsement or support of Dr.Graham inspite of his well-documented compromises. I'm NOT saying I agree with everything Bro.Cloud says or does but I have been blessed and informed by much of what he writes and reports on.ANY critique of the article quoted above should be centered on the charges and assertions he makes in order to be fair and balanced.Remember....I go to an SBC church right now although my background was IFB in years past.I believe I am where the Lord wants me at this time in my life but I try to be objective in what I believe and what I do.Would anyone like to REFUTE what Cloud says about SBTS based on facts....and not sentiments?Is Cloud lying about the things he said about SBTS? That's what I wanted to know......I'm trying to stay objective......and faithful to the Lord(that's MOST important)...thanks.

Greg Perry Sr.

 

Paul33....engaging our culture is one thing....we should carry the pure Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ out into this lost world.....but CAVING IN to it,inviting it in and letting it dominate our churches and our "worship" is quite another.We'll never "win" this world by becoming more like it.We won't purify it...it will pollute US.

Greg Perry Sr.

 

atestring....I hardly think you are qualified to judge whether Bro.Cloud is or isn't saved.He gives a clear testimony of trusting Christ as his personal Saviour as well as years as a preacher of the Gospel and a teacher of sound Biblical Doctrine.That's good enough for me to gladly call him Brother.Methinks you have let your anti-Cloud bias control your typing fingers.I'll pray for you brother.

Greg Perry Sr.

 

Atestring...still...the point was you shouldn't judge the guys salvation...he IS a brother in Christ whether you wish to think so or not.As to his teaching of sound doctrine,I am a subscriber to FBIS and have spent a good bit of time looking through his website,wayoflife.org .There is much good info and strong teaching on there.I try to be objective and as such I don't agree 100% with ANYBODY (except the Lord..as much as I know to do so).David Cloud has a ministry that exists to warn and inform Bible Believers about the issues of our day,truth,and error as he sees it.It isn't perfect...but it isn't bad either.If he says something you don't like...that's ok.That's just the way it is.

Greg Sr.