October 11, 2005 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

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

NEW EVANGELICALISM IS A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1984 - Vancouver, British Columbia crusade vice-chairman David Cline stated: “If Catholics step forward there will be no attempt to convert them and their names will be given to the Catholic church nearest their homes” (Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1984).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider C.S. Lewis, for example. Many of his books are on sale at Southern Seminary’s bookstore. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). That type of heresy is not peripheral but strikes at the very heart of biblical Christianity. Lewis believed in theistic evolution and taught that hell is a state of mind. In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible.”

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

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

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

NEW EVANGELICALISM LEADS TO CAPITULATION

The Bible gives unequivocal warnings about affiliating with error:

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6).

“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).

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

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

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

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