Updated April 2, 1999 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The term "evangelical" can mean practically anything today. There are evangelical Catholics, we are told. There are even what we would call evangelical unbelievers. The term "evangelical" is frequently used to describe men who do not believe what Jesus Christ and the Apostles taught about the nature of the Holy Scripture. This is an unbelieving spirit.

"Evangelical" has always been a broad, non-denominational term, but it is even broader since the New Evangelical movement of the 1940s. Before that, the term "evangelical" referred at least to those who accepted the Bible as the infallible Word of God and who believed in salvation by grace alone, the necessity of the new birth, and other "cardinal" doctrines of the Christian faith. The New Evangelicals rebelled against biblical separation and determined to yoke together with unbelievers in liberal denominations and seminaries. Instead of separation, they practiced dialogue. The Bible warned against this, instructing us that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9) and "evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33). The New Evangelicals ignored God’s warnings and have reaped corruption. Evangelicals did not redeem the Modernists in the denominations and theological institutions, but the Modernists within those institutions did corrupt the Evangelicals.

Today it is exceedingly rare to find a well-known Evangelical theologian who believes the Bible is the infallible Word of God. To hide their shame, they have often played the false teacher’s game and redefined the terms. For these Evangelical unbelievers, the terms "infallible" and "inerrancy" do not mean the Bible contains no error! When they claim to accept the Bible’s "authority," this does not mean they accept the Bible as wholly authoritative. What confusion New Evangelicalism has wrought!

WHAT IS THE BELIEVING VIEW OF THE SCRIPTURES?

Before we document the apostasy of New Evangelicalism concerning the Scriptures, we must build a foundation for comparison. The only sure testimony about the Bible is that of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity contains the following study of what Jesus Christ taught about the Old Testament Scriptures (it also contains a study of what the Apostles taught about the Old Testament):

1. Christ taught that the Old Testament is perfect to the letter (Mt. 5:17-18).

2. Christ taught that the Old Testament cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35). In this verse, Christ is speaking of the authority of the Scriptures. He was saying that absolutely nothing written in the Scriptures could be set aside or ignored. It is authoritative to every detail. The Greek word translated "broken" in Jn. 10:35 is elsewhere translated "put off" (Ac. 7:33) and "loose" (Jn. 11:44). Thus no statement in the Bible can be put off or escaped. All will be proven true. What a Book! Jesus Christ said it is perfect. This is the doctrine of infallibility.

3. Christ taught that the Old Testament is a divinely-planned book to prepare for the coming of Christ (Lk. 24:44).

4. Christ taught that every part of the Old Testament is inspired and authoritative: the law, the writings, and the Psalms (Lk. 24:44).

5. Christ taught that the Old Testament characters, events, and miracles are true and historical. Some of the O.T. people and events Christ referred to are as follows: the creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam and Eve (Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain and Abel (Mt. 23:35; Lk. 11:50-51), Noah and the flood (Mt. 24:37-39), Abraham (Jn. 8:39-40), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Lk. 17:28-29), Lot's wife turning to salt (Lk. 17:32), Moses and the burning bush (Mk. 12:26), Manna from heaven (Jn. 6:31-32), the brazen serpent (Jn. 3:14-15), Jonah and the whale (Mt. 12:39-41; Lk. 11:29-32), Ninevah repenting at Jonah's preaching (Lk. 11:32), The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (Lk. 11:31).

6. Christ taught that the Old Testament writers were those claimed by the Scriptures. In referring to O.T. books, the Lord Jesus left no doubt that the very men spoken of in the books wrote them. According to the Son of God, Moses wrote the books of the law (Lk. 24:44; Jn. 5:45-47); David wrote the Psalms bearing his name (Lk. 20:42); Daniel wrote the book bearing his name (Mt. 24:15). Jesus often quoted from the book of Isaiah and said it was written by the historical prophet Isaiah--not by some unknown group of men. In Jn. 12:38-41 Christ quoted from both major sections of the book of Isaiah and said both were written by the same Isaiah. This destroys the modern myth that Isaiah was the product of more than one writer.

Evangelical theologians talk much about "theories of inspiration." To them, the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible is merely another "theory." That is not true. The doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture is absolute fact because it is affirmed by the infallible Son of God, Jesus Christ. Any view of Scripture that allows for error in the Bible is an unbelieving lie that directly denies what Christ taught. No man or woman can be called a believer if he or she questions that which Christ affirmed.

Sadly, the "evangelical" world is filled with unbelievers.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY PROMOTES EVANGELICAL UNBELIEVERS

Christianity Today magazine mirrors the apostasy of New Evangelicalism. In fact, it should be named New Evangelicalism Today. It has been one of the chief voices for New Evangelicalism from its inception. All of the founders and leaders of New Evangelicalism have been associated with and featured in Christianity Today. This includes Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, Kenneth Kantzer, Carl F.H. Henry, J.I. Packer, and Harold Lindsell. (At least three of the editors of Christianity Today are Roman Catholics. Robert L. Wilken is a Corresponding Editor, and Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Novak are Advisory Editors.)

The latest issue of Christianity Today (February 8, 1999) documents the frightful apostasy of New Evangelicalism. Ten men and women are featured in glowing terms as brilliant theologians who are defenders of the faith and who are the hope of Christianity in our day. Five of these are mentioned in the editorial "Inside CT" by Michael Maudlin, Managing Editor. The other five are featured in the CT cover story entitled "The New Theologians."

Maudlin’s editorial boasts that "never before in the twentieth century has the church amassed so many highly skilled, believing scholars to illumine our Scriptures, our theology, our traditions, our church work." Who are these "believing scholars"? He mentions five of them: Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and D.A. Carson. Maudlin’s definition of "believing" is strange.

Take BRUCE METZGER, for instance. He is a Princeton Theological Seminary professor, an editor of the United Bible Societies‘ Greek New Testament, and is the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The Revised Standard Version was soundly condemned for its modernism when it first appeared in 1952. Today its chief editor sometimes is invited to speak at Evangelical forums. The RSV hasn’t changed, but Evangelicalism certainly has! Metzger was the chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible and wrote the introductions to each book in this butchered version of the Scriptures. In these, Metzger questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter, and in many other ways reveals his liberal, unbelieving heart. Consider three examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses." (Metzger’s introduction to Exodus).

Exodus: "As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books" (Metzger’s introduction to Exodus).

Deuteronomy: "It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses‘ time" (Metzger’s introduction to Deuteronomy).

These statements are not "believing" statements. They are outright lies and heresy. Bruce Metzger is an unbelieving heretic. The Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles told us that the Pentateuch was written by the historical Moses. It is not a compilation which gradually took shape over many centuries. By the way, Moses is mentioned 843 times in the Bible.

We know that Moses wrote the Pentateuch for the following simple reasons:

1. The books themselves claim to have been written by Moses (Ex. 24:4,7; 34:27-28; Nu. 33:2; De. 1:1-5; 4:4-5; 31:9-12,24-26). If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the Bible is an absolute lie from its beginning.

2. Other O.T. books claim Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Jos. 1:7; 8:30-35; Ju. 3:4; 1 Ki. 2:3; 2 Ki. 14:6; 22:8-11; 23:21-25; Ezr. 3:2; Ne. 8:1; 9:14; Da. 9:11; Mal. 4:4). If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, all of these writers were either deluded or were lying. Either way, we are left with a hopelessly undependable book which is not the blessed Word of God.

3. The New Testament claims Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Moses is mentioned 80 times in the New Testament (Mk. 12:26; Lk. 16:29-31; 24:27 [Moses’ writings are called Scripture]; 24:44; Jn. 1:17; 5:45-47; 8:5; Ac. 15:21; 2 Co. 3:15).

The Lord Jesus Christ quoted from every part of the Pentateuch: Genesis (Mt. 19:4-6; 24:37-39); Exodus (Mk. 12:26 citing Ex. 3:6); Leviticus (Mt. 8:4 citing Lev. 14:1-32); Numbers (Jn. 3:14-15 citing Num. 21:8,9 and Jn. 6:31-32 citing Num. 11:6-9); Deuteronomy (Mk. 10:4-5 citing Deut. 24:1).

Metzger‘s modernism is also evident in the notes to the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973). Metzger co-edited this volume with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman Catholic authority. It was given an imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts. Metzger wrote many of the rationalistic notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. The notes claim that the Pentateuch is "a matrix of myth, legend, and history" that "took shape over a long period of time" and is "not to be read as history." The worldwide flood of Noah’s day is said to be a mere "tradition" based on "heightened versions of local inundations." The book of Job is called an "ancient folktale." The book of Isaiah is said to have been written by at least three men. The stories of Elijah and Elisha contain "legendary elements." Jonah is called a "popular legend." The Gospels are said to have gradually taken shape after the deaths of the Apostles. They tell us that Peter probably did not write the book of 2 Peter.

These statements are unbelieving lies. The Pentateuch was written by the hand of God and Moses and completed during the 40 years of wilderness wandering hundreds of years before Samuel and the kings. The Old Testament did not arise gradually from a matrix of myth and history, but is inspired revelation delivered to holy men of old by Almighty God. The Jews were a "people of the book" from the beginning. The Jewish nation did not form the Bible; the Bible formed the Jewish nation! Jesus Christ affirmed the historicity of Jonah. The historicity of Job is affirmed by Ezekiel (14:14,20) and James (5:11).

In Metzger’s "Introduction to the New Testament" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, he completely ignores the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and claims that the Gospels are composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The Bible says nothing about this, but Jesus Christ plainly tells us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:7-15). The Gospels are divine revelation, not some happenstance editing of oral tradition.

Christianity Today calls Bruze Metzger a "believing scholar." In reality, he is an unbelieving heretic.

The other five examples of "believing scholars" in Christianity Today are Kevin Vanhoozer (Trinity Evangelical Divnity School), N.T. Wright (Lichfield Cathedral, Staffordshire, England), Richard Hays (Duke University Divinity School), Ellen Charry (Princeton Theological Seminary), and Miroslav Volf (Yale Divinity School). They are featured in the cover story, "The New Theologians," which is introduced with these words: "These top scholars are believers who want to speak to the church." The article is filled with effusive praise for these scholars, who "may represent the dawn of a new era in religious scholarship." They are "thinkers" who "bear watching." Christianity Today loves their "fresh approach to old issues."

I believe Christianity Today is correct in its assessment that these theologians represent the dawn of a new era. They represent the dawn of a new era of end time compromise of the truth. The age-old apostasy called "the mystery of iniquity" continues to works its insidious leaven to prepare the way for the coming of the Antichrist. Christianity Today says these new theologians "seem quite at home in a pluralistic world." They "don’t aim to attack … liberalism" They claim to be soldiers of Christ, but they are friends with Christ’s enemies. They claim to be Christians but they are comfortable in this wicked world which is at enmity with God. Instead of setting their affection on heavenly things, they have affection on things on the earth (Col. 3:1-4). They delight in the unbelieving scholarship of this hell-bound world. I believe Paul and James described them more than nineteen centuries ago:

"Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, WHO MIND EARTHLY THINGS.)" (Philippians 3:17-29).

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4).

These new theologians represent a generation of scholars who claim (tentatively) to be Evangelicals though they don’t believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, they question and deny many things in the Bible, and they are perfectly comfortable working with Modernists who openly deny every article of the Christian faith. In fact, they are much more comfortable around Modernists than around "conservatives" who are dogmatic about Biblical truth. For example, the article says N.T. Wright IS "EXTREMELY FRIENDLY WITH SEVERAL LEADING SCHOLARS OF THE JESUS SEMINAR." These are the wicked men who claim that Jesus Christ is not God, did not perform the miracles attributed to Him, did not die for man’s sin, and did not rise from the dead. Jesus Seminar leader Marcus Borg, for example, made the following statement in 1992:

"I would argue that the truth of Easter does not depend on whether there was an empty tomb, or whether anything happened to the body of Jesus. ... I do not see the Christian tradition as exclusively true, or the Bible as the unique and infallible revelation of God. ... It makes no historical sense to say, ‘Jesus was killed for the sins of the world.’ ... I am one of those Christians who does not believe in the virgin birth, nor in the star of Bethlehem, nor in the journeys of the wisemen, nor in the shepherds coming to the manger, as facts of history" (Marcus Borg, Jesus Seminar, Bible Review, December 1992).

Wright is "extremely friendly" with these wicked men who are trying to confuse the minds of people about the truth of the Christian faith. The Bible warns that friendship with the enemies of the truth brings God’s judgment:

"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" (2 John 9-11).

Though Wright is exceeding friendly with unbelieving Modernists, he not so friendly with "conservative Christians."

"For Wright, AS FOR MANY OF THE SCHOLARS I SPOKE WITH, THE MORE DISTRESSING DIFFICULTIES LIE IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS" (Tim Stafford, "The New Theologians," Christianity Today, Feb. 8, 1999, p. 45).

The relationships of these new theologians expose the real nature of their Christianity. The Bible says, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). The answer is obvious. When men choose their fellowship, they choose to walk together with those with whom they are in closest agreement. If I am truly an unhesitating Bible-believing Christian, I am naturally drawn to strong Bible believers and I am naturally in conflict with those who are opposed to my faith. "Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Psalm 119:128). IF A MAN OR WOMAN IS ATTRACTED TO MODERNISTS AND OTHER HERETICS, IT IS BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS IN SYMPATHY AT SOME IMPORTANT LEVEL WITH THEIR UNBELIEF.

Christianity Today admits that the featured scholars are not true Bible believers. Consider the following statements examples.

"[Richard Hays] resists, however, any attempt to harmonize the divergent views of New Testament authors. That sometimes means HE SETS ONE GOSPEL AT ODDS WITH ANOTHER, EVEN CONCLUDING THAT ONE IS HISTORICALLY INACCURATE when it seems to run contrary to another. HE IS NOT IN TUNE WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE AS INERRANT, not because he has trouble believing in miracles or obeying scriptural commands, but because he thinks inerrancy as a theory tends to blind one to the realities of the texts themselves. His version of evangelicalism—a more Wesleyan version, he says—is interested in the living effects of Scripture more than in theories of inspiration" (p. 33).

Note that Hays plainly states that he does not believe the Bible is inerrant. That means he believes there are errors in it. He claims the Gospels contain historical inaccuracies. He is such a brilliant scholar that he can correct the very Word of God. The pious talk about being more concerned about the living effects of Scripture than with theories of inspiration is a smokescreen. If the Bible is not the infallible Word of God, if it is a mixture of truth and error, it has no authority to speak to life. If the Bible is intermingled with human error, who can infallibly tell us which parts are the Word of God and which parts are not? The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God. If it is not, it is a lie. The Bible is filled with statements such as "thus saith the Lord." These appear some 2,935 times in the Old Testament (by my own count). Jesus Christ taught that the Old Testament is infallible. He said the Scripture cannot be broken. The Apostles said the same thing. I repeat, if the Bible is not the infallible Word of God, it is a lie and should be rejected as such.

Consider another example of this unbelief from the Christianity Today article:

N.T. Wright (who recovered from a breakdown through "counseling and the healing of memories") "believes Jesus addressed his life to that moment in history, not to ‘timeless truths,’ a phrase he often uses with scorn" (p. 45) and "to get overprotective about particular readings of the Bible is always in danger of idolatry" (p. 46).

Wright is wrong. Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, definitely addressed His life to timeless truths. He was Truth incarnate, and everything He did and spoke were timeless, eternal truths. It is not idolatry to accept the Bible for what it claims to be: the infallible Word of God. Biblical fundamentalists do not worship the Bible as God; we worship the God of the Bible. Wright would do well to read and accept the testimony of Psalm 138:2:

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for THOU HAST MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME."

It is Almighty God who has magnified His Word even above His name. Men like the scholars exalted by Christianity Today who humanize the Bible are dishonoring the God of the Bible.

One of the Christianity Today scholars, Ellen Charry (who praises Karl Barth) says she won’t call herself an evangelical (p. 49). She is the only honest one of the bunch. If one does not believe historical evangelical doctrine, one should not attempt to confuse the truth by wearing the name.

Friends, beware of today’s "evangelicalism." It is permeated with unbelief that is presented under the guise of faith.

See "Fundamentalism, Modernism, New Evangelicalism"
See "Third Wave Evangelical Denies Biblical Inspiration"