Back to the Way of Life Home Page
Charts - Verses - About this Encyclopedia - Features of this Encyclopedia
Bibliography - Abbreviations Used - NOTICE
Please visit the main Encyclopedia Page

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

-F-

FABLE. In the O.T., "fable" refers to a fictitious story (Ju. 9:7-15; 2 Ki. 14:9). In the N.T., "fable" refers to false teachings (1 Ti. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Ti. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pe. 1:16). There are many fables which have been taught as doctrine through the centuries. Roman Catholicism is full of fables: Mary as the Queen of Heaven, the Papacy, the Roman Catholic Priesthood, Purgatory, the Mass. The cults teach many fables: Joseph Smith and his golden plates, Mary Baker Eddy and her mind- science doctrines, Ellen G. White and the doctrine of Investigative Judgment. Modernism is also full of fables--man and the Bible evolved, Jesus Christ was not virgin born, there were three or more Isaiahs, the Pentateuch was written late in Israel's history, the Gospels were not written during the lives of the Apostles. There are many fables commonly believed in the area of Bible versions. For example, the Westcott-Hort theories are fables. In fact, practically the entire field of modern textual criticism is a fable. All of these are wicked and dangerous fables. [See Adam, Apostasy, Apostate, Bible, Bible Verisons, Christian Science, Church, Doctrine, Ecumenical Movement, False Teaching, Foolish Questions, Fundamentalism, Heresy, Inspiration, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jonah, Mormon, Prophecy, Revelation, Roman Catholic Church, Separation, Seventh- day Adventism, Timothy, Unity, Westcott-Hort.]

FEAR OF GOD. That fear, reverence, awe, and esteem for God's holiness and power, which results in obedience and service and carefulness (Ge. 20:11; De. 6:2,13,24; Pr. 1:7; 8:13; Ps. 33:8; 34:9; 36:1; Ac. 10:2; 13:26; Ro. 3:18; 2 Co. 7:1; Col. 3:22; 1 Pe. 1:17; 2:17; Re. 14:7). To fear God is to glorify and worship Him as the eternal creator (Re. 14:7). The fear of the Lord (1) is the beginning of knowledge (Pr. 1:7); (2) is to hate evil (Pr. 8:13); (3) prolongeth days (Pr. 10:27); is strong confidence (Pr. 14:26); is a fountain of life (Pr. 14:27); is riches and honor and life (Pr. 22:4). The root problem with the wicked is that they do not fear God (Ps. 36:1; Ro. 3:18). Some deny that actual fear is intended by this term, but there is a genuine fear that man must have for God (Ex. 20:18-21; De. 2:25; 1 Sa. 11:6-7; 2 Ch. 17:10; 20:29; Is. 2:10,19,21; Jon. 1:16; Mt. 10:28; Lk. 12:5; 2 Co. 5:11; Ph. 2:12; He. 12:26-29; Jude 3). God is kind, loving, and merciful, but He is also fearfully holy, being described as a consuming fire. Godly fear is a proper and wise motivation for salvation and for Christian service.

FOOLISH QUESTIONS. The Bible warns about "foolish questions" (2 Ti. 2:23; Tit. 3:9). The Bible also says proper questions should be patiently answered from the Word of God (2 Ti. 2:24-26). How can we know if a question is foolish? Following are some characteristics of the foolish question: (1) A foolish question is a question which produces strife and contention. 2 Ti. 2:23 says foolish questions "gender strifes." Tit. 3:9 connects foolish questions with "contentions and strivings." When someone is not sincere but only wants to argue against the Word of God and to stir up strife and debate, the Christian is not to enter into such discussions. (2) A foolish question is a question which seeks to corrupt the Gospel. The Bible further defines foolish questions with "strivings about the law" (Tit. 3:9). The law was given to lead men to the grace of Jesus Christ (Ro. 3:19-25; Ga. 3:1-14). It was not given to be a rule of life for the Christian; it was not given so that the Christian could obey it and thereby perfect his salvation. When men corrupt the gospel and seek to bring converts back under the bondage of the law in any form, they should not be allowed to teach their doctrine or to ask their foolish questions (1 Ti. 1:3-11). (3) A foolish question is a question which is connected with heresy (Tit. 3:9-11). In Titus 3 the foolish questions are mentioned in connection with the heretic. This is someone who is self-willed and who rejects sound doctrine in favor of his own perversions of the truth. He is not content with the plain teaching of Scripture. Questions which arise from such a context are not sincere, but are asked in an attempt to produce questions and doubt in the mind of the hearers. Such questions should not be entertained. A foolish question is one which is used in an attempt to to overthrow plain Bible teaching, such as questions about the Trinity, or Resurrection, or Inspiration, or Hell. It is good to ask questions, but it is evil to entertain questions which deny Bible truth. If the Bible says Jesus is God, who are we to ask how it was possible for this to be? If the Bible says unbelievers will suffer conscious eternal torment in fire, which it does, we must not worry about how that could be possible, or whether or not that this could be a just punishment. If the Bible claims to be the perfect Word of God, who are we to question how that could be possible? God's part is to Proclaim Truth; man's part is to believe his Creator. Our questions must be controlled by the Bible, not the Bible by our questions. [See Apostasy, Bible, Doctrine, Fable, False Prophet, False Teaching, Heresy, Inspiration, Separation, Timothy.]

FORNICATION. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman; adultery; incest; a forsaking of the true God and worshipping of idols (Webster). The Bible uses this term as a general description for immorality (Mt. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Ac. 15:20,29; 21:15; Ro. 1:29; 1 Co. 5:1; 6:18; 7:2; 2 Co. 12:21; Ga. 5:19; Ep. 5:3; Co. 3:5; 1 Th. 4:3; Re. 9:21). Like adultery, fornication is also used in a spiritual sense to describe turning from God to serve false gods (Eze. 16:29-34; Re. 2:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2). The Greek word translated fornication is porneia, from which the English word "pornographic" is derived. [See Adultery, Concupiscence, Divorce, Idolatry, Lascivious, Lust, Modesty, Nakedness, Sodomy.]

FUNDAMENTALISM. The term "fundamentalism" has come to mean any number of things and is usually used in a derogatory and slanderous way toward Bible-believers by those who do not believe the Scriptures. It is also used to describe all sorts of extremists, such as the churches in the southeastern part of the United States which believe handling snakes is a necessary part of worship, or the demonically-possessed Jim Jones who caused the mass suicide of his followers several years ago, or the radical racist groups in America, such as the Ayrian Nations which are trying to create a White-only territory in the northwestern U.S.

Modernism

Historically, though, fundamentalism arose out of the doctrinal controversy which came into churches in America at the turn of the century when modernism began to take root in the various denominations.

Fundamentalism is an American church phenomena, but it arose because of theological problems which came from Europe. Modernism (or liberalism or neo-orthodoxy as it has come to be called) had its origin in Europe, particularly in Germany, in the 19th century and was merely the rationalistic thinking of that time applied to Christianity. It was the dawn of the "scientific era"; many men felt they were on the verge of discovering the secrets of the universe and solving the problems of mankind.

Anti-Christian thinkers such as Darwin, Hegel, and Marx led the movement to dethrone God and place Man in His place. Unregenerate "Christian" professors in European Bible seminaries had already rejected the Word of God, so they gladly accepted the humanistic thinking of the day and set out to apply philosophies such as evolution to the Bible and Christianity. The result was tragic: The Bible was considered simply another human book, inspired only in the sense that Shakespeare's writings were "inspired." Jesus Christ was considered a mere man--good and influential--but a mere man nonetheless.

Modernists taught that the Bible did not come to us by direct revelation from God through the Holy Spirit's work in holy men of old, but came to us, rather, through a human evolutionary process. Supposedly, as men's ideas about God became more sophisticated, the writers of the Bible drew an increasingly more sophisticated picture of God, until we come to the supposed higher theological ideas of the N.T. Modernists do not believe the Bible's historical accounts are accurate and do not believe the miracles actually happened. They do not believe there actually was an Adam and an Eve, a Garden of Eden, a worldwide Flood, nor do they believe the miracles recorded in Exodus and other parts of the O.T. happened as recorded, but believe these are religious myths much like the Hindu stories. According to modernism, the first five books of the Bible were not written by the historical Moses who received Revelation from the hand of God. The modernist believes the Pentateuch was not assembled together in its present state until the time of Israel's kings. Many Modernists do not believe in the Virgin Birth, Deity, or Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They do not believe that the Gospel accounts of His life are factual and assume that we do not today have an accurate idea of what Jesus Christ was truly like.

An example of modernism is found in the writings of the men who translated the Revised Standard Version of 1951. This corrupted version was produced by apostates. Consider a few excerpts from their books:

"The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable" (Julius Brewer, The Literature of the O.T.).

"The writers of the N.T. made mistakes in interpreting some of the O.T. prophecies" (James Moffatt, The Approach to the N.T.).

One cannot of course place John on the same level with the synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke] as A HISTORICAL SOURCE" (William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity).

"He [Jesus Christ] was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the oriental world" (Henry F. Cadbury, Jesus, What Manner of Man?).

"As to the miraculous, one can hardly doubt that time and tradition would heighten this element in the story of Jesus" (Ibid., Cadbury).

"A psychology of God, IF that is what Jesus was, is not available" (Ibid., Cadbury).

"According to the ENTHUSIASTIC TRADITIONS which had come down through the FOLKLORE of the people of Israel, Methuselah lived 969 years" (Walter R. Bowie, Great Men of the Bible).

"The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell" (Ibid., Bowie).

"Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book. ... Even on Christian soil it has sometimes been held that the books of the Bible were practically dictated to the writers through the Holy Spirit. ... I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN POSITION. If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility. ... The true Christian position is the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelation" (Clarence T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity).

"The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was capable of many explanations. The very last one that would be credible to a modern man would be the explanation of a physical resurrection of the body" (Ibid., Craig).

"We do not press that gospel [John] for too great verbal accuracy in its record of the sayings of Jesus" (Willard L. Sperry, Rebuilding Our World).

"This phrase [`Thus saith the Lord'] is an almost unfailing mark of SPURIOUSNESS" (William A. Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel).

"Only bigotry could bring us to deny an EQUAL VALIDITY WITH THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL IN THE RELIGIOUS VISION OF MEN SUCH AS ZORASTER or Ikhnaton or, on a lower level, the unnamed thinkers of ancient Babylonia" (Ibid., Irwin).

"The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon the soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY" (Fleming James, The Beginnings of Our Religion).

"What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW" (Ibid., James).

"We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do" (Millar Burrows, Outline of Biblical Theology).

A more recent illustration of modernism comes from the pen of John Shelby Spong, a bishop in the Episcopal Church in America:

"Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not literally true? The answer is a simple and direct `Yes.' Of course these narratives are not literally true. Stars do not wander, angels do not sing, virgins do not give birth, magi do not travel to a distant land to present gifts to a baby, and shepherds do not go in search of a newborn savior. ... To talk of a Father God who has a divine-human son by a virgin woman is a mythology that our generation would never have created, and obviously, could not use. To speak of a Father God so enraged by human evil that he requires propitiation for our sins that we cannot pay and thus demands the death of the divine- human son as a guilt offering is a ludicrous idea to our century. THE SACRIFICIAL CONCEPT THAT FOCUSES ON THE SAVING BLOOD OF JESUS THAT SOMEHOW WASHES ME CLEAN, SO POPULAR IN EVANGELICAL AND FUNDAMENTALIST CIRCLES, IS BY AND LARGE REPUGNANT TO US TODAY" (John Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Harper, 1991, pp. 215,234).

It is shocking to see how these supposed Christian scholars deny the Holy Scriptures. Modernism flies under many flags, and not all modernists are as bold and plain speaking as Bishop Spong, but all deny the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture and question the miraculous. [See also JEDP.] It is important to remember that all of this was prophesied by the Holy Spirit. The Lord's Apostles warned that many unregenerate false teachers would creep into the churches and would deceive many, and in fact, such false teachers were already active during the times of the Apostles. See Mt. 7:15-23; 24:5,24; Ac. 20:28-30; Ro. 16:17-28; 2 Co. 11:1-20; Ga. 2:4; Ph. 3:1,2; 3:18-19; Col. 2:4-8; 1 Ti. 1:19-20; 4:1-3; 6:20-21; 2 Ti. 2:14-21; 3:1-13; 4:1-4; Tit. 1:10-16; 3:9-11; 2 Pe. 2:1-22: 3:1- 18; 1 Jo. 2:18-19; 4:1-6; 2 Jo. 7-11; Ju. 3-19; Re. 2:2,6, Re. 2:14-15; Re. 2:20-23; Re. 3:15-17; Re. 17.

Modernism quickly increased in popularity, especially from the middle to the end of the 19th century, and by the early 1900s had became the predominant theology among Christian leaders in Germany and most other parts of Europe and had been introduced to American denominations through men who studied in prestigious (though apostate) European seminaries and through European professors who visited American schools and churches. Though there were some who resisted modernism in Europe, it more easily spread there than in America because of the fact that the Christendom in Europe was already largely apostate when modernism arose. In fact, modernism was a product of that apostasy. Apart from Roman Catholicism, Protestant state churches were the predominant forms of Christianity in Europe, and since most of these groups taught infant baptism and were very ritualistic, they had become filled with unregenerate members and spiritual death long before the end of the 19th century. They had no power to resist modernism, and the comparatively few independent churches in Europe were not influential enough to cause much of an uproar against the modernistic teaching.

The situation was different in America. There are no state-controlled and affiliated denominations in the U.S. and America had been blessed with many powerful revival movements in the 18th and 19th centuries. Christianity in the U.S. was therefore much livelier than in Europe. As the false teaching began to gain followers in U.S. denominations, Christian leaders who were saved and who believed the Bible began to take a stand against it. The battle that followed was called The Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy. The name "Fundamentalist" was popularized by a series of books which were written by Bible-believing men for the purpose of expounding the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, of the Bible. The series was titled The Fundamentals and was composed of 90 articles written by 64 authors.

The battle grew hotter as the years passed and as Modernistic thinking increased in popularity in American denominations, theological schools, and Christian organizations. Many Bible- believers, realizing that error, having become rooted, could not be effectively resisted (1 Co. 5:6; Ga. 5:9), separated themselves from those groups which were giving modernism a home. They formed new churches, denominations and organizations.

That modernism has leavened most denominations is evident. In The Battle for the Bible, respected evangelical leader Harold Linsell noted, "It is not unfair to allege that among denominations like Episcopal, United Methodist, United Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church U.S. there is not a single theological seminary that takes a stand in favor of biblical infallibility. And there is not a single seminary where there are not faculty members who disavow one or more of the major teachings of the Christian faith." [See Separation, Unity.]

Neo-orthodoxy

"As the modernists counted their losses [their denominations began to lose large numbers of congregations which were defecting from apostasy], they realized they had moved too far to the left. If they were to stop the trend and recapture some of their loses, they were going to have to restructure their program and present themselves in more orthodox clothing. This reaction away from liberalism, which constitutes a failure to return to the historic Christian faith, emphasizes a subjective authority of the Bible and uses evangelical terminology, but all the while embraces the destructively critical conclusions of modernism with regard to the Bible.

"Yes, the modernism of the twenties and thirties gave way to neo-orthodoxy, the dialectic theology of Barth, based upon the existentialist philosophy of Kierkegaard, followed by the more negative and destructive theology of Bultmann. Whereas the old modernism blatantly denied the Bible as the Word of God, neo- orthodoxy professed to believe in inspiration, but gave that biblical term an unbiblical meaning by suggesting that inspiration did not refer to the Scriptures per se but to the subjective experience (inspiration) one received as the Bible was read, even as one would be inspired by reading the writings of Milton or Shakespeare" (Bryce Augsburger, "Do Fundamentalists No Longer Need to Fear the Dark Shadow of Modernism?" Baptist Bulletin, June 1982).

The fact that neo-orthodoxy uses Bible terminology has deceived many. They fail to see that while the neo-orthodox theologian uses the fundamentalist's terminology, he uses the modernist's dictionary.

Evangelicalism

Evangelicalism of the 1990s is a different creature than that of the 1940s. Fifty years ago the term "evangelical" referred to lively, Bible-believing Christianity. The evangelicals of Europe and North America a generation ago were stalwart soldiers of the N.T. faith. They were militant warriors for Christ, characterized by strong preaching, sound doctrine, hatred of error, and holiness of life.

Baptist C.H. Spurgeon is an example of what "evangelical" meant in generations past. Charles Haddon Spurgeon's ministry was characterized by faithfulness to the truth, holiness of life, a pure gospel of grace, and unhesitating exposure of error. Though slandered, hated, and misunderstood, Spurgeon did not draw back from separating from the Baptist Union of Britain because of the false doctrine which was being countenanced. He also stood unhesitatingly against Roman Catholicism. Consider this excerpt from one of Spurgeon's sermons:

It is impossible but that the Church of Rome must spread, when we who are the watchdogs of the fold are silent, and others are gently and smoothly turfing the road, and making it as soft and smooth as possible, that converts may travel down to the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John Knox back again. Do not talk to me of mild and gentle men, of soft manners and squeamish words, we want the fiery Knox, and even though his vehemence should `ding our pulpits into blads,' it were well if he did but rouse our hearts to action (Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs. 322-3).

When was the last time you read something like that in Christianity Today! Old Spurgeon hit the nail on the head. Sadly, today's evangelicalism is indeed in the business of turfing the road of Romanism to make it smooth for those traveling thereon to Hell.

Many other examples could be given to show that evangelicalism of past generations involved contending for the faith. Evangelical warriors of a bygone age did not fail to label Rome "that old harlot, drunk with the blood of the martyrs" and would have considered it unthinkable to have fellowship with Romanism or modernism or with any other form of apostasy.

The new-evangelicalism

It was at this point that there came yet another division--that of new-evangelicalism. When godly men began to separate completely from modernism and to refuse to have anything to do with those churches and institutions which were protecting the modernists, there were many who claimed to be evangelical Bible-believers yet who did not agree with the principle of separation. Until that time the term "evangelical" generally referred to those who preached the necessity of the new birth through faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ and who stood firmly for the pure doctrine of the Scriptures. Evangelical had referred, in other words, to obedient, Bible-believing Christianity. Now there arose a group of those who claimed the title "evangelical" but who refused to obey some of the teachings of Scripture. These began to be called "new-evangelical."

Sadly, therefore, evangelicalism is no longer a term for the stalwart defense of the N.T. faith. A generation of evangelicals has arisen that, though rich in all manner of worldly benefits, has abandoned the spiritual zeal of their forefathers. Blindly following their compromised leaders, evangelicals of this generation have removed the landmarks and knocked down the fences which were carefully set up by their wise forebears.

The term "new-evangelicalism" was coined in the 1940s to define a new type of evangelicalism and to distinguish it from those who had heretofore born that label. The author of the term was either John Harold Ockenga or John McKay Ockenga, who claimed to have first used the term in 1948, has had a phenomenal influence upon today's evangelicalism. He was the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today. In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell's book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the position of new-evangelicalism:

Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals. ... It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.

Baptist fundamentalist leader Monroe Parker claims that the term was used earlier than this, in 1945:

"...in 1945, I was doing summer school work at Princeton Theological Seminary. The late Dr. John McKay, then president of the seminary, returned from Amsterdam where he had helped to lay the foundation for the World Council of Churches. He gathered the faculty and students of the seminary on the campus. Dr. McKay stood on the steps of Miller Hall and spoke on the ecumenical movement. He said that several great denominations were coming together, that the Roman Catholics would be observing, that the Greek Catholics would join, and that the Pentecostals would likely join. `But,' he said, `we are going to need the evangelicals.' He also said, `There must be a neo- evangelicalism.' He then delineated what the characteristics of the so-called `neo-evangelicalism' must be. Dr. Ockenga in that convocation speech at Fuller Theological Seminary three years later also delineated what this neoevangelicalism must be. They were almost identical to the things Dr. McKay had delineated and that other liberals were saying at that time" (Monroe Parker, Frontline, Jul.-Aug. 1991, p. 25).

Regardless of exactly by whom and when the term was coined, it is clear that a new generation of evangelicals arose which was determined to abandon a militant Bible stance.

Ockenga contended that evangelicals should practice infiltration rather than separation, meaning they should stay in the apostate denominations and organizations and try to change them from within rather than separate from them and serve God in pure churches and organizations. He contended that evangelicals should practice dialogue rather than exhortation, that they should not be negative in their message by rebuking and warning false teachers publicly, but should attempt to change the false teachers through dialogue. He taught that evangelicals should reexamine their idea of worldliness and not be as strict about separating from worldly evils as Bible-believing Christians had been in earlier days.

Ockenga decided that evangelicals should consider the possibility that modern science was right in some areas where it disagreed with the Bible. The prime example of this was in the origin of the world. Ockenga did not think Christians should so easily ignore the teaching of evolution as separatists were accustomed to do. He taught that there could be a synthesis between modern science and the Bible, and it is this new-evangelical principle that led to such strange ideas as theistic evolution.

Ockenga also believed that Christians should aim to meet modernists and the men of the world on their own scholastic level and therefore contended that Christian leaders should be as well educated in the social sciences and liberal arts as unregenerate scholars and as well-versed in Bible criticism as the modernists. The idea was that the Christian leader should seek to influence men through human wisdom and scholarship rather than purely through the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word of God as we see in the ministries of the Apostles.

God says, "Walk ye in the old paths," but the new- evangelical reassesses the old paths. God says, "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set" but the new-evangelical has removed them one by one. God says, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness," but the new-evangelical reasons that such fellowship is necessary. God says, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," but the new-evangelical thinks he can reform the already leavened lump. God says "evil communications corrupt good manners," but the new- evangelical thinks good manners can uplift evil communications. God says, "I resist the proud but give grace to the humble," but the new-evangelical thinks the way to reach the world is by meeting them on their own proud territory, matching them scholarly degree with degree.

Fundamentalist leader "Dr. Charles Woodbridge suggested in a message in the late 1950s that new-evangelicalism started out as a new theological mood, developed into a casuistical method, continued into a neutralized message and has culminated in a decaying morality. Succinctly stated, the order is NEW MOOD, NEW METHOD, NEW THEOLOGY and NEW ETHIC" (Augsburger).

In his book The New Evangelicalism, Dr. Woodbridge identifies the following five downward steps of compromise: "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!"

While the philosophy of new-evangelicalism was formulated by theologians, it was popularized by evangelists, Billy Graham figuring most prominently among them.

The result of this new thinking has been dramatic. Within a mere fifty years, evangelicalism has lost all semblance of its past purity, power, and glory. New-evangelicalism is blind and naked, but is not aware of it. In fact, new-evangelicalism glories in its new-found acceptance by the world and apostate Christendom, its vast material wealth, its satellites and transmitters, its worldwide television and radio networks, its vast publishing enterprises, its massive conferences.

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

Even key evangelical leaders have noted the spiritual decline of their movement. Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today, made this amazing statement at the 27th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in April 1969: "Evangelical Christianity is in spiritual jeopardy right now. Complacent, affluent, self- satisfied, we are lacking of great spiritual dynamic" (D.A. Waite, What's Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1969?). By 1985, Lindsell had become even more forceful about the decline of evangelicalism: "Evangelicalism today is in a sad state of disarray. ... It is clear that evangelicalism is now broader and shallower, and is becoming more so. Evangelicalism's children are in the process of forsaking the faith of their fathers" (Christian News, Dec. 2, 1985).

At the 1976 convention of the NAE in Washington D.C., Francis Schaeffer spoke on "The Watershed of the Evangelical World," which is the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture. Schaeffer observed: "What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger in number if significant numbers of those under the name of `evangelical' no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?" (D.A. Waite, What's Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1976?).

The evangelical world has ignored the concerns of those who have lifted a voice of warning.

New-evangelical thought has been adopted by such well-known Christian leaders as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Harold Lindsell, John R.W. Stott, Luis Palau, E.V. Hill, Leighton Ford, Charles Stanley, Bill Hybels, Warren Wiersbe, Chuck Colson, Donald McGavran, Tony Campolo, Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, David Hocking, Charles Swindoll, and a multitude of other men. Through publications such as Christianity Today and Moody Monthly, and through publishing houses such as InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, Tyndale House Publishers, Moody Press, and Thomas Nelson--to name but a few--new-evangelical thinking was broadcast across the world. In addition to the powerful influence of the printed page, compromised new-evangelical teaching was promoted by institutions such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, BIOLA, the Lausanne Conference for World Evangelism (LCWE), the National Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Fellowship, National Religious Broadcasters, Radio Bible Class, Youth for Christ, Back to the Bible, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inter- Varsity Christian Fellowship, World Vision, Operation Mobilization, and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. There have also been countless conferences which have been organized with the main purpose of promoting new-evangelical thought. Two of the largest and most influential were Amsterdam '83 and Amsterdam '86 which were sponsored by Billy Graham Ministries and were attended by thousands of preachers from across the world.

Because of the tremendous influence of these men and organizations, new-evangelical thought has swept the globe. Today it is no exaggeration to say that almost without exception those who call themselves evangelicals are new-evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line evangelicals, except for rare exceptions, have either aligned with the fundamental movement or have adopted new-evangelicalism. [See Anglican, Apostasy, Apostate, Church, Doctrine, Ecumenical Movement, Episcopal Church, Fable, False Teaching, Foolish Questions,Heresy, Inspiration, Lutheran, Methodist, Modesty, Presbyterian, Prophecy, Revelation, Roman Catholic Church, Separation, Timothy, Unity, Women Preachers, World Council of Churches.]