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

[Steven Yeadon]

I have been lurking on other Christian boards and groups, and I am shocked by what I saw. Biblical illiteracy, pop psychology, emotionalism, crazy antics being called signs and wonders, belief every strong emotion or dream or deja-vu is an omen from God or prophecy, and so much more crazier stuff are being promoted and taken for granted by seemingly almost everyone.

I thank God for the Baptist Board that I have found an oasis from the madness. As crazy as that sounds considering our arguments - I mean that in a friendly way.

Two apologists I follow are confident we are in the Great Apostasy warned of in the Olivet Discourse and the New Testament end times passages.

The saddest part for me is to see so many men I admire and whose writings I enjoy, are saying nothing in this time. The church in the Western World is imploding under the weight of deceivers, who are often out for fame and profit. I cannot believe what I am seeing in that so many men of stature in evangelical Christianity are either silent or trying to connect with blatant false teachers.

Thank God for people like John MacArthur and Chris Rosebrough, though they are not Baptists. Satan should not win with a whisper.

What do you all think?

I approach this from my own independent fundamental baptist perspective, but I thought the issue cut across all Baptist denominations. It seems we are increasingly isolated as bible-centered conservative theologians.

 

[HatedByAll]

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

 

[xlsdraw]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

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

Wow, I am shocked at the absurdity.

 

[Reformed1689]

Wow, I am shocked at the absurdity.

They were shocked I challenged them on it...

 

[InTheLight]

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

I have been lurking on other Christian boards and groups, and I am shocked by what I saw. Biblical illiteracy, pop psychology, emotionalism, crazy antics being called signs and wonders, belief every strong emotion or dream or deja-vu is an omen from God or prophecy, and so much more crazier stuff are being promoted and taken for granted by seemingly almost everyone.

I thank God for the Baptist Board that I have found an oasis from the madness. As crazy as that sounds considering our arguments - I mean that in a friendly way.

Two apologists I follow are confident we are in the Great Apostasy warned of in the Olivet Discourse and the New Testament end times passages.

The saddest part for me is to see so many men I admire and whose writings I enjoy, are saying nothing in this time. The church in the Western World is imploding under the weight of deceivers, who are often out for fame and profit. I cannot believe what I am seeing in that so many men of stature in evangelical Christianity are either silent or trying to connect with blatant false teachers.

Thank God for people like John MacArthur and Chris Rosebrough, though they are not Baptists. Satan should not win with a whisper.

What do you all think?

I approach this from my own independent fundamental baptist perspective, but I thought the issue cut across all Baptist denominations. It seems we are increasingly isolated as bible-centered conservative theologians.

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!

 

[John of Japan]

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

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

IMO, theology (Cal/Arm, Disp/Cov) is irrelevant to this argument.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[kyredneck]

the Great Apostasy warned of in the Olivet Discourse

….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

What do you all think?

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

 

[Wesley Briggman]

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??

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[John of Japan]

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).