The New Evangelical Philosophy
by Dr. DeWayne Nichols
Dewayne Nichols is the pastor of Liberty Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas.
“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.” (II John 9-11)
The book of II John was written by the Apostle John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to a Christian lady who had a question in her mind. She knew that her hospitality should be extended to God’s servants -- preachers, and evangelists, and so forth. But her question was, should her hospitality be extended to people who came along who claim to be Christian teachers, but who denied fundamental doctrines of the Bible? John answered her question in these verses.
First of all, he said,“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” Notice he uses the expression “the doctrine of Christ.” There is a body of doctrine that is so important and vital that the religion of Jesus Christ rests on this body of doctrine. So much so that he calls it the doctrine of Christ, or what we would call the fundamentals of the faith.
Let me illustrate. Do we have any football fans here? In football there are some things that are nice to have, but are not fundamental to the game. The game can be played without them. For example, it’s nice to have a bench over on the sideline for the players to sit on while they’re not in the game, but it’s not fundamental or necessary to the game. It’s nice to have a jug of water over there for the players to drink when they’re thirsty, but that’s not fundamental or essential. The game can be played without that.
But there are some things that you have to have if the game of football is going to be played. Those essentials are fundamental to the game. For example, you have to have a football. That’s fundamental -- the game can’t be played without that. You have to have something to use as an end zone, or a point that you go to beyond which you score. That’s fundamental. That’s what we mean by the fundamentals, those are the things that are absolutely necessary.
Now in the same way there are many things in the Bible that are true, and may even be important, but they’re not fundamental to the faith of Christianity. For example, take baptism. Baptism is important, but baptism is not fundamental to the faith. A person can be saved apart from baptism. But ladies and gentlemen, there are some doctrines that are set forth in the Word of God which are so important, so vital, and so essential, that the religion of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the basis of these doctrines. In other words, if these things were not true, a person could not even be saved. They are so vitally connected to the plan of salvation.
For example, you have to have an inspired Bible. That’s a fundamental. It’s from the Word of God that we get the plan of salvation. That’s how we learn how to be saved. Every person who’s ever been saved was saved because they heard the plan of salvation that comes from the Word of God. You’ve got to have an inspired Bible that is the final authority. That’s fundamental. Christianity rises and falls on that.
You have to have the doctrine that Jesus Christ is God Almighty in human flesh. That has to be because if He was to take hold of God with one hand and man with the other and bring man and God back together again, the only way He could do that is if He’s God in human flesh, the God-man. That’s fundamental Christianity. Christianity cannot stand without that doctrine.
The virgin birth of Christ is another fundamental doctrine. Then you have to have His blood atonement on Calvary’s cross -- that’s where our sin debt was paid. You can’t be saved apart from that. The bodily resurrection of Christ is fundamental. These things are essential. Christianity rises or falls on the basis of these doctrines that we call ‘the fundamentals’. It’s what John referred to here as ‘the doctrine of Christ’.
He said, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” If I understand that correctly, that means that a person who comes along claiming to be a religious teacher, claiming to be a Christian, but he denies and rejects the fundamental doctrines of the faith, it’s saying that he’s not even saved. He hath not God. He said, “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”
Then he gives us this commandment. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,...” What doctrine? The doctrine of Christ, the fundamentals of the faith. “...receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
I’m going to speak today on The New Evangelical Philosophy. The difference between a fundamentalist and a new evangelical is obedience to II John verses 10 and 11. He said, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,...” Somebody comes along claiming to be a preacher or Bible teacher, but denies fundamental doctrine. He denies that the Bible is the Word of God. He denies that Jesus is God in human flesh. He denies the virgin birth. He denies the blood atonement. He denies the bodily resurrection. He denies salvation by grace. He said if somebody comes along like that, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. The Fundamentalist seeks to obey this. The New Evangelical disobeys this. That’s the basic difference.
Let me say, first of all, that New Evangelicals are in most cases genuinely saved people. I say that because often when a preacher stands up and begins to expose error, Christians get the idea that that preacher is questioning the salvation of the people involved. I’m not doing that at all. Let me also say that many of the New Evangelical crowd on a personal level are fine Christians. Some of them far better Christians on a personal level than I am, and I’m first to admit that.
However, I also want to say that in some ways New Evangelicalism and it’s philosophy is the most dangerous trend that faces old-fashioned fundamentalists. Now I say that for two reasons. In the first place, many Christians have a hard time putting their finger on exactly what it is that’s wrong with New Evangelicalism. Because the New Evangelical is generally sound when it comes to the basic doctrines of the Bible, and generally a pretty good Christian on a personal level, and generally a likable sort of person basically, Fundamentalists often have a hard time figuring out exactly where the error lies. In fact, it’s often just a sort of a feeling that the Fundamentalist has that there’s something that’s not quite right, but we just can’t quite put a finger on it. For that reason the fundamentalist may even feel badly for having a negative attitude toward New Evangelicalism.
For example, a Modernist will come right out and deny that the Bible is the Word of God. You can see that that’s obviously wrong. The New Evangelical doesn’t come right out and deny the Bible. Because of that it’s often hard to pin down exactly what it is that makes the New Evangelical philosophy so dangerous. The most subtle and tricky error is the one which is so close to the truth, that it sounds almost like the truth, but is not.
Now if the New Evangelical came right out and said, “Yes, folks, we know the Modernists deny the Bible and laugh at the atonement of Christ and spit in the face of the Son of God, but we don’t care about that. We want to yoke together with them anyway.” If they said it like that, it would be so obviously wrong that nobody would fall for it. By the way, that is what they do, but they don’t word it like that. Rather, they use some Bible words and expressions, redefining those words and expressions and say something like this. “Now we need to have love and unity, so we should get together with these people even though they may not have all of their doctrine exactly correct.” You can see how much more tricky that is because it sounds Scriptural, but ladies and gentlemen, it’s not Scriptural. They’ve given a false definition to the words love and unity, which the Bible never gives to these words. It sounds good, and its sounds Scriptural, and it sounds like the truth. For that reason, it’s more tricky, and therefore it’s dangerous.
The second reason why the New Evangelical philosophy is dangerous is because, since it sounds so close to the truth, the message and philosophy attract backslidden Fundamentalists. Every preacher here can testify to this. When a member of a Fundamental church gets backslidden, he generally doesn’t go and join some cult or the Roman Catholics. He doesn’t go and join the Jehovah’s False Witnesses or the Mormons, but I’ll tell you what he does do. When a Fundamentalist gets backslidden, he usually heads out for the New Evangelical Church across town. He usually goes over and looks for the conservative Southern Baptist Church, or he looks for the Community Church, or some independent Baptist church that’s dropped their standards and convictions. In other words he’s looking for a place where he can live a worldly life comfortably without being in total and complete heresy. For these reasons New Evangelicalism is an extremely dangerous philosophy.
The one word that best summarizes the difference between the true Fundamentalist and the New Evangelical is the word separation, particularly ecclesiastical or religious separation, separation in church matters. Once in a while I hear people say, “Well, a person is a Fundamentalist if he believes the fundamentals of the faith.” But if that’s the only thing that it takes to be a Fundamentalist, then I know a lot of unsaved people that are Fundamentalists. I know unsaved people that believe that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus is God in human flesh. In fact, if the only thing required to make a person a Fundamentalist is to believe the fundamentals of the faith, then the devil is a fundamentalist, because the devil believes that the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus is the Son of God. There has to be some line of demarcation that runs deeper than simply believing the fundamentals of the faith. That line of demarcation is the line of separation.
Let me try to explain a little bit of the history of some doctrinal controversies, and show you where New Evangelicalism came from, and exactly what it is. In the mid to latter part of the 1800’s, the theological phenomenon that came to be called Modernism or religious liberalism became prominent in Europe, especially in Germany, and in the theological seminaries there. Now Modernism is on the extreme left of the theological spectrum.
Then in the latter part of the 1800’s, unconverted religious professors in Europe, especially Germany, began to reject orthodox, fundamental Christian doctrine. They began to say things like, “The Bible is not really the Word of God. It’s simply a record of man’s progression of ideas about God.” They began to say things like, “The Bible is only inspired in the sense that Shakespeare or somebody like that was inspired.” They began to say, “Jesus was a great teacher, but He was not truly God, at least not any more so than all other men are God.” They began to say things like this. “The Bible is a Book of religion, but you can’t depend on it in matters of science and history.” They began to say that there never was a real couple named Adam and Eve, that there was no world-wide flood, and that the miracles of the Bible are not true.
These men also began to deny the necessity of personal salvation by the regeneration of the individual, and say that all men contain a spark of divinity in their breast, and we simply need to fan that spark until it flames out and man reaches his potential. These unconverted, religious teachers and professors began to deny fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and that movement became known as Modernism, or religious liberalism.
Modernism became very popular among church leaders in Europe by about 1900. It spread much more easily in Europe than it did in America because much of Christianity in Europe was already apostate when it came along. Much of Europe had state churches which taught infant baptism as the entrance to church membership, so the churches in Europe were filled with unconverted people who had become church members as babies by virtue of their infant baptism. Because they were unconverted when modernism came along, they were ripe for it and fell for it right away. It did not make an inroad as quickly in America as in Europe, but it began to spread in America as well.
As this denial of fundamental doctrine began to spread in America, godly Christian leaders, who believed the Bible, and believed the fundamentals of the faith, began to oppose Modernism, and this resulted in what came to be known as the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. The term Fundamentalist began to be used frequently as a result of a set of books entitled The Fundamentals, which were written by Bible believers, men such as R. A. Torrey, A. T. Pierson, and others. These books expounded the fundamental doctrines of the Bible and also opposed error. I’ve got the set of books. I’ve read them from cover to cover. It wasn’t just a matter of the Fundamentalist expounding fundamental doctrine. Those men had clearly decided, “We’re going to oppose error, and we’re going to stand against those who deny the fundamentals of the Word of God.”
They began to oppose Modernism. Not only that, they began to oppose Roman Catholicism, Socialism and Communism. They opposed the cults, the Jehovah’s false witnesses, the Mormons, and all the rest of it. This set of books, The Fundamentals, was published over a five year period from 1910 to 1915, and with the backing of a wealthy Christian businessman, they were sent to thousands of Christian workers in the United States and several other countries. These books were mightily used of God in helping Christian workers to be sound in the faith.
As Modernism increased in popularity over the years in America, denominations, theological schools and so forth began to drift toward their ideals and philosophies and beliefs. As a result, many Bible believers began to separate from those old denominations and schools to found new Christian groups, new denominations, new schools, and new churches. These Bible believers were known as Fundamentalists or Evangelicals. Please understand that at this point in time, those two terms were used interchangeably. A Fundamentalist and Evangelical at that time referred to the same type of person. You have then on the extreme left of the theological spectrum, the Modernist, the fellow who said, “I am Christian,” but he denied fundamental doctrine. Maybe he denied that the Bible is the Word of God or that Jesus is the Son of God.
Then you had on the extreme right of the theological spectrum, the Fundamentalist, also called the Evangelical in those days. At the time the term Fundamentalist referred to somebody who believed the fundamentals of the faith, and also opposed error. In other words, the Fundamentalist said, “I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe the fundamentals, and I’m going to separate from and stand against the people who deny those fundamental doctrines.” At that time, about the 1920’s and 1930’s, you had basically two groups. The Fundamentalists, also called Evangelicals, and then the Modernists on the other end of the spectrum.
But in the late 1940’s and the early 1950’s another group came along which stood between these two groups. That third group is what became known as the New Evangelicals. The term New Evangelical began to be used frequently because it was used in 1948 by a preacher who preached a graduation address at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California. That preacher’s name was Harold Ockenga. He stood at the graduation ceremony of the Fuller Seminary in 1948, and said, “What we need is a new brand of Evangelicalism.” He called it New Evangelicalism.
In this graduation address, he affirmed the doctrinal position of Fundamentalism, but he repudiated the Fundamentalist practice of separation. In other words, this fellow said basically this. “Yes, we need to believe the fundamentals of the faith. Yes, we need to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Yes, we need to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We need to believe in the blood atonement, and the bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace. We need to believe all of these doctrinal positions that the fundamentalist believes. But on the other hand, we need to stop opposing the Modernist on the other end of the spectrum. We need to stand at the doctrinal position of the Fundamentalist, but we need to stop being so unkind and so mean. We need to stop opposing and separating from the Modernist, who rejects these fundamental doctrines.” From that time until now, New Evangelicals have had such influence upon Christianity that today the term Evangelical and the term New Evangelical are basically the same thing. It refers to the fellow who may believe the fundamentals of the faith, but he refuses to separate from those who do not hold to fundamental doctrines.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I say to you that I am still a Fundamentalist who believes in the Bible doctrine of separation. So prominent has been the influence of New Evangelical thought, and so pervasive has their influence been that I’m sure that right now well over 80% of Christian organizations that you can name are in that New Evangelical camp. I’m talking about the National Association of Evangelicals. I’m talking about the National Religious Broadcasters. I’m talking about Youth For Christ and Campus Crusade and World Vision. I’m talking about the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and yes, I’m talking about the Promise Keepers. All of these groups are New Evangelical in their philosophy. Practically every charismatic is New Evangelical. Every conservative Southern Baptist is New Evangelical in his philosophy.
There are some who have not gone New Evangelical as yet, but they’re moving in that direction. They’re promoting building bridges to the New Evangelicals. What we need today is not somebody who’s going to build a bridge to the New Evangelical, who’s supporting the Modernist. What we need is a group of preachers who’ll say, “I’m going to burn some bridges! I’m going to stand for right, and oppose error.” You call it Secondary Separation, or whatever you want to call it. It’s just a matter of common sense.
Here’s a fellow who’s a shepherd, and there’s a wolf trying to devour his sheep. If he’s the right kind of shepherd, and he finds out that another shepherd down the road is feeding the wolf, and taking care of the wolf who’s trying to devour his sheep, he’s not going to think too highly of that bird either. And he’s probably going to be a little bit leery of the guy who is good buddies with the fellow who’s feeding the wolf, too.
I am a shepherd -- that’s what the word ‘pastor’ means. There are these wolves in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus called them, in the liberal seminaries, who are trying to devour our sheep, and destroy the people of God. You have those wolves in sheep’s clothing in the denominational seminaries, and in the denominational universities, but mark this down -- they could not continue to exist were it not for the conservative crowd, the New Evangelicals, who are paying their salaries.
Baylor University, a Southern Baptist university, for quite some time had a Mormon on their faculty. He could not have survived had it not been for conservative Southern Baptists in the New Evangelical camp, who believed the fundamentals of the faith, but were feeding the wolf. New Evangelicalism is the philosophy which says, “Yes, we believe the truth. We believe the fundamentals of the faith, but we need to stop separating from those who deny fundamental doctrines.” Now let me make six statements about New Evangelicals and their philosophy.
Statement #1. The point of difference between the Fundamentalist and the New Evangelical is the doctrine of separation, especially ecclesiastical separation. Say what you want, but we saw it from the book of II John. The Bible teaches that we are to separate from religious unbelief. A person comes along denying the doctrine of Christ, denying basic Bible doctrine. John said under inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we’re not to receive that person. In fact he said, “Don’t even say, ‘God, bless you’ to him. Don’t tell him you’re going to pray for him and all that lest you become a partaker of his evil deeds.” He didn’t say if somebody comes along claiming to be a religious teacher and denies fundamental doctrine, then have him come up on the platform and treat him like he’s a great Christian leader. He said, “Don’t receive him.”
That’s the basic difference between the true Fundamentalist and the New Evangelical. The Fundamentalist says, “I’m going to try to obey that. I’m not going to receive the pope and treat him like he’s some great Christian leader when he denies fundamental doctrine. I’m not going to receive the Modernistic crowd, the United Methodist preacher who denies the virgin birth. I’m not going to treat him like he’s a great Christian leader.” The Fundamentalist tries to obey what the Bible tells us to do in separating from those who deny the doctrine of Christ. But New Evangelicals have rejected the Biblical doctrine of separation and replaced it with the man-made philosophy of infiltration, which says, “Rather than coming out of the liberal denominations, stay in and try to change them.”
For example, Charles Haddon Spurgeon came out of the Baptist Union of London when it went over to Modernism in what came to be called the Down Grade Controversy. Some New Evangelicals of today have said that Charles Haddon Spurgeon was wrong to come out of the Baptist Union, that he should have stayed in the liberal Baptist Union and tried to change it from the inside. Folks, that may sound good, but it doesn’t work. And even if it did work, it is anti-Bible. We’re supposed to go by the Bible, not by some philosophy some fellow came up with just because it sounds good. The Bible says, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,...” The basic difference is separation.
Statement #2. The New Evangelical has repudiated the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity. In other words, New Evangelicals generally ignore the don’ts of the Bible for the sake of only emphasizing positives. I heard one of them some time ago. I even have some respect for this guy, but it just shows you what this philosophy will do to you. He said something like this. “Immature Christians are often against many things, but as the Christian matures and grows and becomes more spiritual, he gets to where he’s not as much against things, as he is for things.”
I thought, “Boy, God must be awfully unspiritual. He sure is against a lot of things.”
I heard another one say, “Folks, it’s not that I’m against these things. It’s that I’m for Jesus.” Yes, but I seem to recall a verse that says, “Ye that love the Lord, hate evil:...” (Psalm 97:10) If you’re for Jesus, you’re going to be against what Jesus is against. Many of these people have built entire religious empires on never touching on negatives. Bill Hybels at the Willow Creek Community Church has the philosophy, “So many people leave church feeling guilty.” He was a marketing expert. He went out and took a survey and asked people, “What is it about churches that you don’t like?” He put together the results of this survey, and then he established on purpose this church, if you want to call it a church. I’m not sure that’s what it is, but he established it on the basis of no pressure, no negatives, and ‘never is heard a discouraging word.’ What is Holy Ghost conviction besides pressure? That’s a bunch of foolishness. This kind of thing plays right into the hands of the devil’s crowd. It’s been going on for years.
I was reading a sermon by J. Frank Norris that he preached in 1935, when he took the Temple Baptist Church of Detroit out of what was then called the Northern Baptist Convention and is now called the American Baptist Convention. In that sermon J. Frank Norris had put together a statement setting forth the beliefs of the Temple Baptist Church in those days, and he had put a bunch of negatives in it. He was explaining in this sermon why he put these negatives in the statement of faith. He said, “A modernist will sign anything as long as it’s positive, exercising the old Roman Catholic concept of mental reservation. If you don’t put some negatives in it, you’re playing right into their hands.” I thought that was amazing coming out of the 1930’s.
My friend, if you’re going to follow the Bible, you have to deal with a lot of negatives. Did you ever hear of the Ten Commandments? If you’ll look at them, you’ll find that eight of them are set forth from a negative perspective. When God sets forth great doctrines in the Bible, He often does so by stating it first from a negative perspective before He deals with it from a positive perspective.
In II Peter 1:21 He sets forth the concept of the inspiration of the Scriptures. “For the prophecy came...” Here’s the negative. “...not in old time by the will of man:...” Then the positive. “...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” In John 1:13 He sets forth the concept of the new birth. He states it from a negative perspective. In fact, He gives three negatives before giving a positive. “Which were born,...” Here’s the negative. “...not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,...” Then the positive. “...but of God.” First Peter 3:21 talks about baptism, and He sets it forth from a negative perspective before dealing with it from a positive perspective. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...” Here’s the negative. “...(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,...” Then the positive. “...but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
Ladies and gentlemen, entire books of the Bible are built on this concept of stating first the negative, then the positive. In Romans, the first two and a half chapters deal with the negative, the doctrine of sin, before He turns to the positive and begins to deal with the doctrine of justification. But the New Evangelical has rejected the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity in order to preach only a positive message.
Statement #3. Because of their rejection of the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity, the thing that is wrong with the New Evangelical’s preaching most of the time isn’t what he says, but what he doesn’t say. This is why Fundamentalists get confused. A Fundamentalist hears a Chuck Swindoll, or a Billy Graham, or a James Dobson, or somebody like that, and thinks, “Well, I didn’t see anything unscriptural,” but still has a feeling that there was something that wasn’t quite right about it. By the way, you call that the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t what he said. It’s what he didn’t say. Do you understand that I could mislead you and lead you astray by telling you nothing but truth? When you go to court, did you ever notice the oath? You sware to tell the truth, the whole truth? Why is that?
Sometimes when I’m preaching this sermon, I’ll bring a bottle of a concoction that I’ve put together. I’ll call somebody up and ask them to drink it -- I don’t let them drink it, but I let them think they’re going to. I tell them what’s in it. There’s water, chocolate syrup, and sugar in here. Drink it. I’ll stop them before they drink it. Because if they drink it, it would make them sick, maybe kill them. Not because I didn’t tell them the truth. Everything I said was the truth. All of those ingredients were in there. It’s what I didn’t say. I didn’t tell them there is also rat poison in it.
You can tell the truth, and yet mislead somebody because you don’t tell the whole truth. The problem with the New Evangelicals preaching most of the time isn’t what he says. It’s what he doesn’t say. He tells the truth, but he doesn’t tell the whole truth, because he’s rejected the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity.
Statement #4. If the New Evangelical opposes error at all, it will usually be in very general terms, not specifics. They’ll never call a name. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not hard to get along with. I don’t believe in what some Fundamentalists do, attacking everybody because they don’t tie their shoes the same way you do. I’m talking about when it comes to Fundamental doctrine, the Bible teaches that we’re supposed to expose error and contend for the faith. Check your Bible out. They did some name calling. Paul said, “You better look out for that Alexander fellow. Just so you’ll know which one I’m talking about, it’s the coppersmith.” You’re not going to hear the New Evangelical calling Robert Schuler’s name, but his name needs to be called.
Statement #5. As a smoke screen to cover their compromise, the New Evangelical will use pious sounding words and phrases, most of which are not even in the Bible. They make virtues out of things the Bible doesn’t even say anything about, and demonize what the Bible does say. They do it by using buzz words.
For example, if you preach Bible standards and Bible convictions, they call you a legalist. Could somebody show me where that is? I understand there is a concept of legalism in the Bible, but what they call legalism is not real legalism anyway.
Here’s a word for you, tolerance. I looked through my Bible. I just can’t find it. In fact, the fellows in the Bible are a lot more intolerant than I am. I never have taken false prophets down to the brook and chopped their heads off like Elijah did. I never had somebody come to me and say, “Will you baptize me?” and answer them like John the Baptist. “You bunch of snakes, you get out here and show me some fruits meet for repentance.” I’ve never done what Jesus did and go into the house of God and make a whip and drive people out. They needed to be around today so the New Evangelicals could teach them the virtues of tolerance!
Here’s one for you, unconditional love. Let me tell you something. If God practiced the New Evangelical concept of unconditional love, everybody would go to Heaven whether they’re saved or not. That’s what they tell them. Yes, God loves you, but if you don’t trust Jesus Christ as Saviour, you’ll go to Hell. There is a condition in there. But the New Evangelical, in order to cover his compromise has to use these pious sounding words and phrases to make his own position look tenable.
Statement #6. The longer a person remains a new evangelical, the further he departs from the Bible position. I heard a tape some time ago, I saw it on a film strip actually of Billy Graham preaching in the early 1950’s. The sermon Billy Graham preached on that film would have been welcome in this pulpit.
I can remember when the city-wide evangelist of Fundamentalists was Jack Van Impe, the Walking Bible. Jack Van Impe was so much a part of Fundamentalism that he preached at Pastor’s School. I sometimes want to write him a letter and ask, “Dr. Van Impe, all those verses you used to quote on separation, are those not in the Bible anymore?” I’m not hard to get along with. I still supported Jack Van Impe after some friends of mine were making fun of me for supporting him. But I just don’t take somebody’s word that a guy is gone. I wrote and asked him because I heard he had gone charismatic. He said that he didn’t, so I took his word for it. They said, “He’s still sound on the fundamentals.” I took his word for it. But several years ago I turned on my television set one night, and heard him talking about the pope. He called him a great man of God. That sort of ended my support of him. What is it that would cause a fellow to go from preaching in Pastor’s School twenty years ago or so, to now calling the pope one of the great men of God of this generation. Because ladies and gentlemen, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” (I Corinthians 15:33)
The longer a person remains in the New Evangelical crowd, the further he departs from the Bible position. Remember, you have these groups. On the extreme left of the theological spectrum is the Modernist, the theological liberal. He claims to be a Christian, but denies the doctrine of Christ, the fundamental doctrines on which Christianity stands. Again if I understand verse nine of II John, it means he’s not even saved -- he hath not God.
On the extreme right you have the Fundamentalist. The Fundamentalist is the fellow who holds to the fundamentals of the faith, and also opposes error, and separates from those who reject fundamentals of the faith. In other words, he tries to obey verses 10 and 11 of II John. Then you have, and by far the most numerous crowd in Christianity today in the middle, the New Evangelical who says, “Well, I believe the fundamentals, but they’re really not worth fighting over. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, but I’m not going to contend for the faith like it tells me to.” So he refuses to separate from the modernistic crowd. In refusing to separate from him, he ultimately ends up supporting him and even promoting him.
Now preachers, especially you fellows in college training, why don’t you just decide that you’re going to line up right over here with the Fundamentalists and take your stand. Let the heathen rage. Let them say, “You’re unloving.” Don’t misunderstand. I think in some cases they may have a point about some of us being unloving. We need to have love, but love is first supposed to be directed toward the Lord, and Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) Our love for God is demonstrated, not by our willingness to hook up with the fellow who spits in the face of Jesus Christ. Our love for God is demonstrated by obedience to the Word of God, including II John verses 10 and 11.
I heard Harold Sightler read this, and it stuck with me. He said, “I’m part of the fellowship of the unashamed. I’ve got the Holy Ghost power. The die has been cast. I’ve stepped over the line. The decision has been made. I’m a disciple of His. I’ll not look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still. My past is redeemed. My present makes sense. My future is secure. I’m finished and done with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, pained vision, worldly talking, cheap giving, and dwarfed goals. I no longer need pre-eminence, prosperity, position, promotion, plaudits, or popularity. I don’t have to be first, top, recognized, praised, regarded, or rewarded. I live by faith. I lean on His presence. I walk by patience. I’m uplifted by prayer. I labor by power. My faith is fixed. My gait is fast. My goal is Heaven. My road is narrow. My way is rough. My companions are few. My Guide is reliable. My mission is clear. I can’t be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned away, turned back, diluted, or delayed. I’ll not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of the adversary, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity. I won’t give up, shut up, or let up until I’ve stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and preached up for the cause of Christ. I’m a disciple of Jesus. I must go till He comes, give till I drop, preach till all know, and work till He stops me. When He comes for His own, He’ll have no problem recognizing me. My title will be clear. I’m on His side.”
I hope that you, especially you who are training to preach, will get on His side, too.
The book of II John was written by the Apostle John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to a Christian lady who had a question in her mind. She knew that her hospitality should be extended to God’s servants -- preachers, and evangelists, and so forth. But her question was, should her hospitality be extended to people who came along who claim to be Christian teachers, but who denied fundamental doctrines of the Bible? John answered her question in these verses.
First of all, he said,“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” Notice he uses the expression “the doctrine of Christ.” There is a body of doctrine that is so important and vital that the religion of Jesus Christ rests on this body of doctrine. So much so that he calls it the doctrine of Christ, or what we would call the fundamentals of the faith.
Let me illustrate. Do we have any football fans here? In football there are some things that are nice to have, but are not fundamental to the game. The game can be played without them. For example, it’s nice to have a bench over on the sideline for the players to sit on while they’re not in the game, but it’s not fundamental or necessary to the game. It’s nice to have a jug of water over there for the players to drink when they’re thirsty, but that’s not fundamental or essential. The game can be played without that.
But there are some things that you have to have if the game of football is going to be played. Those essentials are fundamental to the game. For example, you have to have a football. That’s fundamental -- the game can’t be played without that. You have to have something to use as an end zone, or a point that you go to beyond which you score. That’s fundamental. That’s what we mean by the fundamentals, those are the things that are absolutely necessary.
Now in the same way there are many things in the Bible that are true, and may even be important, but they’re not fundamental to the faith of Christianity. For example, take baptism. Baptism is important, but baptism is not fundamental to the faith. A person can be saved apart from baptism. But ladies and gentlemen, there are some doctrines that are set forth in the Word of God which are so important, so vital, and so essential, that the religion of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the basis of these doctrines. In other words, if these things were not true, a person could not even be saved. They are so vitally connected to the plan of salvation.
For example, you have to have an inspired Bible. That’s a fundamental. It’s from the Word of God that we get the plan of salvation. That’s how we learn how to be saved. Every person who’s ever been saved was saved because they heard the plan of salvation that comes from the Word of God. You’ve got to have an inspired Bible that is the final authority. That’s fundamental. Christianity rises and falls on that.
You have to have the doctrine that Jesus Christ is God Almighty in human flesh. That has to be because if He was to take hold of God with one hand and man with the other and bring man and God back together again, the only way He could do that is if He’s God in human flesh, the God-man. That’s fundamental Christianity. Christianity cannot stand without that doctrine.
The virgin birth of Christ is another fundamental doctrine. Then you have to have His blood atonement on Calvary’s cross -- that’s where our sin debt was paid. You can’t be saved apart from that. The bodily resurrection of Christ is fundamental. These things are essential. Christianity rises or falls on the basis of these doctrines that we call ‘the fundamentals’. It’s what John referred to here as ‘the doctrine of Christ’.
He said, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” If I understand that correctly, that means that a person who comes along claiming to be a religious teacher, claiming to be a Christian, but he denies and rejects the fundamental doctrines of the faith, it’s saying that he’s not even saved. He hath not God. He said, “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”
Then he gives us this commandment. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,...” What doctrine? The doctrine of Christ, the fundamentals of the faith. “...receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
I’m going to speak today on The New Evangelical Philosophy. The difference between a fundamentalist and a new evangelical is obedience to II John verses 10 and 11. He said, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,...” Somebody comes along claiming to be a preacher or Bible teacher, but denies fundamental doctrine. He denies that the Bible is the Word of God. He denies that Jesus is God in human flesh. He denies the virgin birth. He denies the blood atonement. He denies the bodily resurrection. He denies salvation by grace. He said if somebody comes along like that, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. The Fundamentalist seeks to obey this. The New Evangelical disobeys this. That’s the basic difference.
Let me say, first of all, that New Evangelicals are in most cases genuinely saved people. I say that because often when a preacher stands up and begins to expose error, Christians get the idea that that preacher is questioning the salvation of the people involved. I’m not doing that at all. Let me also say that many of the New Evangelical crowd on a personal level are fine Christians. Some of them far better Christians on a personal level than I am, and I’m first to admit that.
However, I also want to say that in some ways New Evangelicalism and it’s philosophy is the most dangerous trend that faces old-fashioned fundamentalists. Now I say that for two reasons. In the first place, many Christians have a hard time putting their finger on exactly what it is that’s wrong with New Evangelicalism. Because the New Evangelical is generally sound when it comes to the basic doctrines of the Bible, and generally a pretty good Christian on a personal level, and generally a likable sort of person basically, Fundamentalists often have a hard time figuring out exactly where the error lies. In fact, it’s often just a sort of a feeling that the Fundamentalist has that there’s something that’s not quite right, but we just can’t quite put a finger on it. For that reason the fundamentalist may even feel badly for having a negative attitude toward New Evangelicalism.
For example, a Modernist will come right out and deny that the Bible is the Word of God. You can see that that’s obviously wrong. The New Evangelical doesn’t come right out and deny the Bible. Because of that it’s often hard to pin down exactly what it is that makes the New Evangelical philosophy so dangerous. The most subtle and tricky error is the one which is so close to the truth, that it sounds almost like the truth, but is not.
Now if the New Evangelical came right out and said, “Yes, folks, we know the Modernists deny the Bible and laugh at the atonement of Christ and spit in the face of the Son of God, but we don’t care about that. We want to yoke together with them anyway.” If they said it like that, it would be so obviously wrong that nobody would fall for it. By the way, that is what they do, but they don’t word it like that. Rather, they use some Bible words and expressions, redefining those words and expressions and say something like this. “Now we need to have love and unity, so we should get together with these people even though they may not have all of their doctrine exactly correct.” You can see how much more tricky that is because it sounds Scriptural, but ladies and gentlemen, it’s not Scriptural. They’ve given a false definition to the words love and unity, which the Bible never gives to these words. It sounds good, and its sounds Scriptural, and it sounds like the truth. For that reason, it’s more tricky, and therefore it’s dangerous.
The second reason why the New Evangelical philosophy is dangerous is because, since it sounds so close to the truth, the message and philosophy attract backslidden Fundamentalists. Every preacher here can testify to this. When a member of a Fundamental church gets backslidden, he generally doesn’t go and join some cult or the Roman Catholics. He doesn’t go and join the Jehovah’s False Witnesses or the Mormons, but I’ll tell you what he does do. When a Fundamentalist gets backslidden, he usually heads out for the New Evangelical Church across town. He usually goes over and looks for the conservative Southern Baptist Church, or he looks for the Community Church, or some independent Baptist church that’s dropped their standards and convictions. In other words he’s looking for a place where he can live a worldly life comfortably without being in total and complete heresy. For these reasons New Evangelicalism is an extremely dangerous philosophy.
The one word that best summarizes the difference between the true Fundamentalist and the New Evangelical is the word separation, particularly ecclesiastical or religious separation, separation in church matters. Once in a while I hear people say, “Well, a person is a Fundamentalist if he believes the fundamentals of the faith.” But if that’s the only thing that it takes to be a Fundamentalist, then I know a lot of unsaved people that are Fundamentalists. I know unsaved people that believe that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus is God in human flesh. In fact, if the only thing required to make a person a Fundamentalist is to believe the fundamentals of the faith, then the devil is a fundamentalist, because the devil believes that the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus is the Son of God. There has to be some line of demarcation that runs deeper than simply believing the fundamentals of the faith. That line of demarcation is the line of separation.
Let me try to explain a little bit of the history of some doctrinal controversies, and show you where New Evangelicalism came from, and exactly what it is. In the mid to latter part of the 1800’s, the theological phenomenon that came to be called Modernism or religious liberalism became prominent in Europe, especially in Germany, and in the theological seminaries there. Now Modernism is on the extreme left of the theological spectrum.
Then in the latter part of the 1800’s, unconverted religious professors in Europe, especially Germany, began to reject orthodox, fundamental Christian doctrine. They began to say things like, “The Bible is not really the Word of God. It’s simply a record of man’s progression of ideas about God.” They began to say things like, “The Bible is only inspired in the sense that Shakespeare or somebody like that was inspired.” They began to say, “Jesus was a great teacher, but He was not truly God, at least not any more so than all other men are God.” They began to say things like this. “The Bible is a Book of religion, but you can’t depend on it in matters of science and history.” They began to say that there never was a real couple named Adam and Eve, that there was no world-wide flood, and that the miracles of the Bible are not true.
These men also began to deny the necessity of personal salvation by the regeneration of the individual, and say that all men contain a spark of divinity in their breast, and we simply need to fan that spark until it flames out and man reaches his potential. These unconverted, religious teachers and professors began to deny fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and that movement became known as Modernism, or religious liberalism.
Modernism became very popular among church leaders in Europe by about 1900. It spread much more easily in Europe than it did in America because much of Christianity in Europe was already apostate when it came along. Much of Europe had state churches which taught infant baptism as the entrance to church membership, so the churches in Europe were filled with unconverted people who had become church members as babies by virtue of their infant baptism. Because they were unconverted when modernism came along, they were ripe for it and fell for it right away. It did not make an inroad as quickly in America as in Europe, but it began to spread in America as well.
As this denial of fundamental doctrine began to spread in America, godly Christian leaders, who believed the Bible, and believed the fundamentals of the faith, began to oppose Modernism, and this resulted in what came to be known as the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. The term Fundamentalist began to be used frequently as a result of a set of books entitled The Fundamentals, which were written by Bible believers, men such as R. A. Torrey, A. T. Pierson, and others. These books expounded the fundamental doctrines of the Bible and also opposed error. I’ve got the set of books. I’ve read them from cover to cover. It wasn’t just a matter of the Fundamentalist expounding fundamental doctrine. Those men had clearly decided, “We’re going to oppose error, and we’re going to stand against those who deny the fundamentals of the Word of God.”
They began to oppose Modernism. Not only that, they began to oppose Roman Catholicism, Socialism and Communism. They opposed the cults, the Jehovah’s false witnesses, the Mormons, and all the rest of it. This set of books, The Fundamentals, was published over a five year period from 1910 to 1915, and with the backing of a wealthy Christian businessman, they were sent to thousands of Christian workers in the United States and several other countries. These books were mightily used of God in helping Christian workers to be sound in the faith.
As Modernism increased in popularity over the years in America, denominations, theological schools and so forth began to drift toward their ideals and philosophies and beliefs. As a result, many Bible believers began to separate from those old denominations and schools to found new Christian groups, new denominations, new schools, and new churches. These Bible believers were known as Fundamentalists or Evangelicals. Please understand that at this point in time, those two terms were used interchangeably. A Fundamentalist and Evangelical at that time referred to the same type of person. You have then on the extreme left of the theological spectrum, the Modernist, the fellow who said, “I am Christian,” but he denied fundamental doctrine. Maybe he denied that the Bible is the Word of God or that Jesus is the Son of God.
Then you had on the extreme right of the theological spectrum, the Fundamentalist, also called the Evangelical in those days. At the time the term Fundamentalist referred to somebody who believed the fundamentals of the faith, and also opposed error. In other words, the Fundamentalist said, “I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe the fundamentals, and I’m going to separate from and stand against the people who deny those fundamental doctrines.” At that time, about the 1920’s and 1930’s, you had basically two groups. The Fundamentalists, also called Evangelicals, and then the Modernists on the other end of the spectrum.
But in the late 1940’s and the early 1950’s another group came along which stood between these two groups. That third group is what became known as the New Evangelicals. The term New Evangelical began to be used frequently because it was used in 1948 by a preacher who preached a graduation address at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California. That preacher’s name was Harold Ockenga. He stood at the graduation ceremony of the Fuller Seminary in 1948, and said, “What we need is a new brand of Evangelicalism.” He called it New Evangelicalism.
In this graduation address, he affirmed the doctrinal position of Fundamentalism, but he repudiated the Fundamentalist practice of separation. In other words, this fellow said basically this. “Yes, we need to believe the fundamentals of the faith. Yes, we need to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Yes, we need to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We need to believe in the blood atonement, and the bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace. We need to believe all of these doctrinal positions that the fundamentalist believes. But on the other hand, we need to stop opposing the Modernist on the other end of the spectrum. We need to stand at the doctrinal position of the Fundamentalist, but we need to stop being so unkind and so mean. We need to stop opposing and separating from the Modernist, who rejects these fundamental doctrines.” From that time until now, New Evangelicals have had such influence upon Christianity that today the term Evangelical and the term New Evangelical are basically the same thing. It refers to the fellow who may believe the fundamentals of the faith, but he refuses to separate from those who do not hold to fundamental doctrines.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I say to you that I am still a Fundamentalist who believes in the Bible doctrine of separation. So prominent has been the influence of New Evangelical thought, and so pervasive has their influence been that I’m sure that right now well over 80% of Christian organizations that you can name are in that New Evangelical camp. I’m talking about the National Association of Evangelicals. I’m talking about the National Religious Broadcasters. I’m talking about Youth For Christ and Campus Crusade and World Vision. I’m talking about the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and yes, I’m talking about the Promise Keepers. All of these groups are New Evangelical in their philosophy. Practically every charismatic is New Evangelical. Every conservative Southern Baptist is New Evangelical in his philosophy.
There are some who have not gone New Evangelical as yet, but they’re moving in that direction. They’re promoting building bridges to the New Evangelicals. What we need today is not somebody who’s going to build a bridge to the New Evangelical, who’s supporting the Modernist. What we need is a group of preachers who’ll say, “I’m going to burn some bridges! I’m going to stand for right, and oppose error.” You call it Secondary Separation, or whatever you want to call it. It’s just a matter of common sense.
Here’s a fellow who’s a shepherd, and there’s a wolf trying to devour his sheep. If he’s the right kind of shepherd, and he finds out that another shepherd down the road is feeding the wolf, and taking care of the wolf who’s trying to devour his sheep, he’s not going to think too highly of that bird either. And he’s probably going to be a little bit leery of the guy who is good buddies with the fellow who’s feeding the wolf, too.
I am a shepherd -- that’s what the word ‘pastor’ means. There are these wolves in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus called them, in the liberal seminaries, who are trying to devour our sheep, and destroy the people of God. You have those wolves in sheep’s clothing in the denominational seminaries, and in the denominational universities, but mark this down -- they could not continue to exist were it not for the conservative crowd, the New Evangelicals, who are paying their salaries.
Baylor University, a Southern Baptist university, for quite some time had a Mormon on their faculty. He could not have survived had it not been for conservative Southern Baptists in the New Evangelical camp, who believed the fundamentals of the faith, but were feeding the wolf. New Evangelicalism is the philosophy which says, “Yes, we believe the truth. We believe the fundamentals of the faith, but we need to stop separating from those who deny fundamental doctrines.” Now let me make six statements about New Evangelicals and their philosophy.
Statement #1. The point of difference between the Fundamentalist and the New Evangelical is the doctrine of separation, especially ecclesiastical separation. Say what you want, but we saw it from the book of II John. The Bible teaches that we are to separate from religious unbelief. A person comes along denying the doctrine of Christ, denying basic Bible doctrine. John said under inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we’re not to receive that person. In fact he said, “Don’t even say, ‘God, bless you’ to him. Don’t tell him you’re going to pray for him and all that lest you become a partaker of his evil deeds.” He didn’t say if somebody comes along claiming to be a religious teacher and denies fundamental doctrine, then have him come up on the platform and treat him like he’s a great Christian leader. He said, “Don’t receive him.”
That’s the basic difference between the true Fundamentalist and the New Evangelical. The Fundamentalist says, “I’m going to try to obey that. I’m not going to receive the pope and treat him like he’s some great Christian leader when he denies fundamental doctrine. I’m not going to receive the Modernistic crowd, the United Methodist preacher who denies the virgin birth. I’m not going to treat him like he’s a great Christian leader.” The Fundamentalist tries to obey what the Bible tells us to do in separating from those who deny the doctrine of Christ. But New Evangelicals have rejected the Biblical doctrine of separation and replaced it with the man-made philosophy of infiltration, which says, “Rather than coming out of the liberal denominations, stay in and try to change them.”
For example, Charles Haddon Spurgeon came out of the Baptist Union of London when it went over to Modernism in what came to be called the Down Grade Controversy. Some New Evangelicals of today have said that Charles Haddon Spurgeon was wrong to come out of the Baptist Union, that he should have stayed in the liberal Baptist Union and tried to change it from the inside. Folks, that may sound good, but it doesn’t work. And even if it did work, it is anti-Bible. We’re supposed to go by the Bible, not by some philosophy some fellow came up with just because it sounds good. The Bible says, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,...” The basic difference is separation.
Statement #2. The New Evangelical has repudiated the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity. In other words, New Evangelicals generally ignore the don’ts of the Bible for the sake of only emphasizing positives. I heard one of them some time ago. I even have some respect for this guy, but it just shows you what this philosophy will do to you. He said something like this. “Immature Christians are often against many things, but as the Christian matures and grows and becomes more spiritual, he gets to where he’s not as much against things, as he is for things.”
I thought, “Boy, God must be awfully unspiritual. He sure is against a lot of things.”
I heard another one say, “Folks, it’s not that I’m against these things. It’s that I’m for Jesus.” Yes, but I seem to recall a verse that says, “Ye that love the Lord, hate evil:...” (Psalm 97:10) If you’re for Jesus, you’re going to be against what Jesus is against. Many of these people have built entire religious empires on never touching on negatives. Bill Hybels at the Willow Creek Community Church has the philosophy, “So many people leave church feeling guilty.” He was a marketing expert. He went out and took a survey and asked people, “What is it about churches that you don’t like?” He put together the results of this survey, and then he established on purpose this church, if you want to call it a church. I’m not sure that’s what it is, but he established it on the basis of no pressure, no negatives, and ‘never is heard a discouraging word.’ What is Holy Ghost conviction besides pressure? That’s a bunch of foolishness. This kind of thing plays right into the hands of the devil’s crowd. It’s been going on for years.
I was reading a sermon by J. Frank Norris that he preached in 1935, when he took the Temple Baptist Church of Detroit out of what was then called the Northern Baptist Convention and is now called the American Baptist Convention. In that sermon J. Frank Norris had put together a statement setting forth the beliefs of the Temple Baptist Church in those days, and he had put a bunch of negatives in it. He was explaining in this sermon why he put these negatives in the statement of faith. He said, “A modernist will sign anything as long as it’s positive, exercising the old Roman Catholic concept of mental reservation. If you don’t put some negatives in it, you’re playing right into their hands.” I thought that was amazing coming out of the 1930’s.
My friend, if you’re going to follow the Bible, you have to deal with a lot of negatives. Did you ever hear of the Ten Commandments? If you’ll look at them, you’ll find that eight of them are set forth from a negative perspective. When God sets forth great doctrines in the Bible, He often does so by stating it first from a negative perspective before He deals with it from a positive perspective.
In II Peter 1:21 He sets forth the concept of the inspiration of the Scriptures. “For the prophecy came...” Here’s the negative. “...not in old time by the will of man:...” Then the positive. “...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” In John 1:13 He sets forth the concept of the new birth. He states it from a negative perspective. In fact, He gives three negatives before giving a positive. “Which were born,...” Here’s the negative. “...not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,...” Then the positive. “...but of God.” First Peter 3:21 talks about baptism, and He sets it forth from a negative perspective before dealing with it from a positive perspective. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...” Here’s the negative. “...(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,...” Then the positive. “...but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
Ladies and gentlemen, entire books of the Bible are built on this concept of stating first the negative, then the positive. In Romans, the first two and a half chapters deal with the negative, the doctrine of sin, before He turns to the positive and begins to deal with the doctrine of justification. But the New Evangelical has rejected the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity in order to preach only a positive message.
Statement #3. Because of their rejection of the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity, the thing that is wrong with the New Evangelical’s preaching most of the time isn’t what he says, but what he doesn’t say. This is why Fundamentalists get confused. A Fundamentalist hears a Chuck Swindoll, or a Billy Graham, or a James Dobson, or somebody like that, and thinks, “Well, I didn’t see anything unscriptural,” but still has a feeling that there was something that wasn’t quite right about it. By the way, you call that the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t what he said. It’s what he didn’t say. Do you understand that I could mislead you and lead you astray by telling you nothing but truth? When you go to court, did you ever notice the oath? You sware to tell the truth, the whole truth? Why is that?
Sometimes when I’m preaching this sermon, I’ll bring a bottle of a concoction that I’ve put together. I’ll call somebody up and ask them to drink it -- I don’t let them drink it, but I let them think they’re going to. I tell them what’s in it. There’s water, chocolate syrup, and sugar in here. Drink it. I’ll stop them before they drink it. Because if they drink it, it would make them sick, maybe kill them. Not because I didn’t tell them the truth. Everything I said was the truth. All of those ingredients were in there. It’s what I didn’t say. I didn’t tell them there is also rat poison in it.
You can tell the truth, and yet mislead somebody because you don’t tell the whole truth. The problem with the New Evangelicals preaching most of the time isn’t what he says. It’s what he doesn’t say. He tells the truth, but he doesn’t tell the whole truth, because he’s rejected the negative aspects of Biblical Christianity.
Statement #4. If the New Evangelical opposes error at all, it will usually be in very general terms, not specifics. They’ll never call a name. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not hard to get along with. I don’t believe in what some Fundamentalists do, attacking everybody because they don’t tie their shoes the same way you do. I’m talking about when it comes to Fundamental doctrine, the Bible teaches that we’re supposed to expose error and contend for the faith. Check your Bible out. They did some name calling. Paul said, “You better look out for that Alexander fellow. Just so you’ll know which one I’m talking about, it’s the coppersmith.” You’re not going to hear the New Evangelical calling Robert Schuler’s name, but his name needs to be called.
Statement #5. As a smoke screen to cover their compromise, the New Evangelical will use pious sounding words and phrases, most of which are not even in the Bible. They make virtues out of things the Bible doesn’t even say anything about, and demonize what the Bible does say. They do it by using buzz words.
For example, if you preach Bible standards and Bible convictions, they call you a legalist. Could somebody show me where that is? I understand there is a concept of legalism in the Bible, but what they call legalism is not real legalism anyway.
Here’s a word for you, tolerance. I looked through my Bible. I just can’t find it. In fact, the fellows in the Bible are a lot more intolerant than I am. I never have taken false prophets down to the brook and chopped their heads off like Elijah did. I never had somebody come to me and say, “Will you baptize me?” and answer them like John the Baptist. “You bunch of snakes, you get out here and show me some fruits meet for repentance.” I’ve never done what Jesus did and go into the house of God and make a whip and drive people out. They needed to be around today so the New Evangelicals could teach them the virtues of tolerance!
Here’s one for you, unconditional love. Let me tell you something. If God practiced the New Evangelical concept of unconditional love, everybody would go to Heaven whether they’re saved or not. That’s what they tell them. Yes, God loves you, but if you don’t trust Jesus Christ as Saviour, you’ll go to Hell. There is a condition in there. But the New Evangelical, in order to cover his compromise has to use these pious sounding words and phrases to make his own position look tenable.
Statement #6. The longer a person remains a new evangelical, the further he departs from the Bible position. I heard a tape some time ago, I saw it on a film strip actually of Billy Graham preaching in the early 1950’s. The sermon Billy Graham preached on that film would have been welcome in this pulpit.
I can remember when the city-wide evangelist of Fundamentalists was Jack Van Impe, the Walking Bible. Jack Van Impe was so much a part of Fundamentalism that he preached at Pastor’s School. I sometimes want to write him a letter and ask, “Dr. Van Impe, all those verses you used to quote on separation, are those not in the Bible anymore?” I’m not hard to get along with. I still supported Jack Van Impe after some friends of mine were making fun of me for supporting him. But I just don’t take somebody’s word that a guy is gone. I wrote and asked him because I heard he had gone charismatic. He said that he didn’t, so I took his word for it. They said, “He’s still sound on the fundamentals.” I took his word for it. But several years ago I turned on my television set one night, and heard him talking about the pope. He called him a great man of God. That sort of ended my support of him. What is it that would cause a fellow to go from preaching in Pastor’s School twenty years ago or so, to now calling the pope one of the great men of God of this generation. Because ladies and gentlemen, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” (I Corinthians 15:33)
The longer a person remains in the New Evangelical crowd, the further he departs from the Bible position. Remember, you have these groups. On the extreme left of the theological spectrum is the Modernist, the theological liberal. He claims to be a Christian, but denies the doctrine of Christ, the fundamental doctrines on which Christianity stands. Again if I understand verse nine of II John, it means he’s not even saved -- he hath not God.
On the extreme right you have the Fundamentalist. The Fundamentalist is the fellow who holds to the fundamentals of the faith, and also opposes error, and separates from those who reject fundamentals of the faith. In other words, he tries to obey verses 10 and 11 of II John. Then you have, and by far the most numerous crowd in Christianity today in the middle, the New Evangelical who says, “Well, I believe the fundamentals, but they’re really not worth fighting over. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, but I’m not going to contend for the faith like it tells me to.” So he refuses to separate from the modernistic crowd. In refusing to separate from him, he ultimately ends up supporting him and even promoting him.
Now preachers, especially you fellows in college training, why don’t you just decide that you’re going to line up right over here with the Fundamentalists and take your stand. Let the heathen rage. Let them say, “You’re unloving.” Don’t misunderstand. I think in some cases they may have a point about some of us being unloving. We need to have love, but love is first supposed to be directed toward the Lord, and Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) Our love for God is demonstrated, not by our willingness to hook up with the fellow who spits in the face of Jesus Christ. Our love for God is demonstrated by obedience to the Word of God, including II John verses 10 and 11.
I heard Harold Sightler read this, and it stuck with me. He said, “I’m part of the fellowship of the unashamed. I’ve got the Holy Ghost power. The die has been cast. I’ve stepped over the line. The decision has been made. I’m a disciple of His. I’ll not look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still. My past is redeemed. My present makes sense. My future is secure. I’m finished and done with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, pained vision, worldly talking, cheap giving, and dwarfed goals. I no longer need pre-eminence, prosperity, position, promotion, plaudits, or popularity. I don’t have to be first, top, recognized, praised, regarded, or rewarded. I live by faith. I lean on His presence. I walk by patience. I’m uplifted by prayer. I labor by power. My faith is fixed. My gait is fast. My goal is Heaven. My road is narrow. My way is rough. My companions are few. My Guide is reliable. My mission is clear. I can’t be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned away, turned back, diluted, or delayed. I’ll not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of the adversary, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity. I won’t give up, shut up, or let up until I’ve stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and preached up for the cause of Christ. I’m a disciple of Jesus. I must go till He comes, give till I drop, preach till all know, and work till He stops me. When He comes for His own, He’ll have no problem recognizing me. My title will be clear. I’m on His side.”
I hope that you, especially you who are training to preach, will get on His side, too.
