Follow by Email

Monday, July 22, 2013

17 QUOTES FOR SOUL WINNING




17 QUOTES FOR SOUL WINNING


1. God always pays the travel expense for those going after         the unsaved!

2.  Is there a Hell?

3.  No one will have bloody hands because they do not win the unsaved, but rather because they do not warn the unsaved!

4.  Soul winning is the opposite of soul losing!

5.  Soul winning is winning the lost over to Christ and letting Him save their souls!

6.  Leading the unsaved to Christ is just that, leading them to the One Who can save their souls!

7.   If you placed all the unsaved in the world into a line, they would circle the globe 20 times and the line would grow 20 miles each day!

8.  Most unsaved in the world are not unreachable – simply unreached!

9.  The only reason a person does not have souls saved is either they do not talk too enough people or they do not stay out long enough!

10. There are two weapons to use in personal soul winning – TESTAMENT & TESTIMONY!

11. When the unsaved say no simply realize you are getting closer to the one who will say yes to Jesus!

12. The unsaved are not rejecting you they are rejecting Jesus Christ God’s Son!

13. Avoid foolish questions by asking them to remind you when you are have finished presenting the Gospel to answer their questions!

14.  Think of each unsaved one as a loved one!

15.  Look for people under conviction for no conviction means no conversion!

16.  Doors do not trust Christ people trust Christ!

17.  Stop the first person you see and do not bypass anyone on soul winning night!

Saturday, July 20, 2013

TULIP THEOLOGY NEXT STOP FOR EMERGING CHURCH?




By Pastor Nathan Cook:    

If Calvin was accurate in his assessment of the gospel, then the example given by Christ, in Luke’s parable, is highly inaccurate. Let us consider whether we will trust the mind of Calvin or the New Testament words of Christ.

Luke 14:16 clearly states, “Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:” Calvin would most certainly be in agreement with the New Testament concerning the “certain man.”  This “certain man” is quite obviously God the Father.  The “great supper” is doubtless the marriage supper of the Lamb.  God has many times over the course of human history had every element of a return in place with only a willing consent from his people the missing piece of the puzzle. 

The “bade many” is the moment of departure for dear Calvin for he must see the “bade many” as irresistibly called, as every call of God is irresistible according to Calvin and thus the confusion begins. However, according to the New Testament this was the original call to the Jews to come to the supper prepared for God’s people, lest you stumble at these words, consider what Christ told the woman in Matthew 15:24, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  Therefore we see that the “great supper” is the marriage supper, the “certain man” is God the Father, and the “bade many” is the Jewish nation.

  It is apparent from Luke 14:17, “And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.” That the “sent” "servant” is Christ, I believe that Calvin would concede the point without further discussion.  Furthermore, the “supper time” referred to is the marriage feast of the Lamb; I do not believe it would be a stretch to say Calvin would agree, as would any knowledgeable bible student.  
Also, “them that are bidden” were certainly the Jews; no true scriptural scholar could mount a viable defense.  In addition, “all things are now ready” is undoubtedly a reference to the fulfillment of time. God is not bound by our time, but can orchestrate the fulfillment of time as He sees fit.
  Obviously, in Luke 14:18, the New Testament states, “And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.”  It is here that we begin to tiptoe through the TULIP.  
The New Testament concisely states that with “one consent” they “began to make excuse”. Notice that while their excuses are varied their excuse is given with one consent.  Calvin has no choice at this point but to predetermine resistance to irresistible grace.  However, if you can predetermine resistance by its very definition, it is no longer irresistible.  Calvin’s TULIP is intrinsically flawed for the “great supper” was prepared for a people who made excuse for why they could not attend.  
Calvin’s gospel is based on an irresistible grace, a grace which CANNOT be RESISTED!!!!  The excuses made were a threefold vision of the Jewish nation’s perception of their Messiah.  “I have bought a piece of ground,” Calvin was an Augustinian monk, therefore he viewed the Jews through the eyes of the Roman Church rather than understanding that they were looking for a physical king who would possess a physical land.  
Little did these men know if they had accepted the invitation to this “great supper” this Messiah would have possessed the Mount of Olives and a throne in Jerusalem.  Every New Testament preacher-past, present and future-knows that the Jewish nation has made excuse after excuse for their rejection of Christ but the Jews center on these three topics as given in the Luke’s Gospel.
Luke plainly states in 14:19 “And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.”  The excuse made second is, “I have bought five yoke of oxen.”  Calvin must attribute their rejection to a planned doom; however we know that ultimately Christ will be reunited with the Jewish nation.  Consequently, the excuse is the Jewish search for a provisional Messiah.  They wanted a king who would meet their physical needs and did not recognize this call to a spiritual supper.  
If only they had discerned that the acceptance of this implicit invitation would lead to a provision that would never end.  Calvin misunderstands Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. They were looking for a Messiah who would provide for their physical needs not their spiritual eternity.  
The New Testament preacher recognizes this as not only a Jewish problem but a human problem, as well. Man is in search of a physical saviour and oft times misses the Saviour in their pursuit.
Discernibly, here in Luke 14:20, “And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.” The New Testament is clear as to the third excuse given, “I have married a wife.”  Calvin is left with no choice but for a third time to insist that irresistible grace has been predetermined to be resisted.  
Calvin is once again led astray by his years as an Augustinian Monk.  He continues to look at Israel through the eyes of the Roman Church, rather than seeing her through the eyes of the New Testament Church.  
The Jewish nation is still seeking to be reunited with her estranged groom.  Don’t wobble on the wall of decision here, dear Calvin, consider Jeremiah 3:8, “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” If only they had realized that their Groom had come and was seeking to be reunited with his bride at a “great supper.” 
Likewise, the New Testament is evident in that this is a reinforcement of the claim of the Saviour in Luke 14:26, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”  Don’t quibble at this dear Calvin, when you would force irresistible grace upon an unwelcoming man.
  Without doubt, as the Scripture states in Luke 14:21, “So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.” Let us consider the statements made in three parts.  Part first, “Came, and shewed” Why would the servant have to shew the Lord a matter He would already have been privy too, had predestination been the order of the day?  Part Second, “the master……being angry” Why would the Master then be angry if He had predetermined their resistance to His irresistible grace? Part Third, “Go out quickly” why would time be of the essence if predetermination were at play?   
It is here Calvin’s doctrine begins to really fall apart.  You see Calvin’s doctrine hides behind a guise of false piety.  I am saved by perfect repentance because my repentance is not my own but is God’s repentance placed in me by irresistible grace. (said with the deepest piety).  As you listen to a Calvinist speak you will find yourself drawn deeper and deeper into a pool of their own haughty piety.  They literally will speak of humility with pride.  
They do not think of themselves as poor, maimed, halt or blind.  They do not think of themselves as having been in the streets and lanes of life and having been without hope because they were always predestined to come to Christ. As we search on in the scriptures it says, “bring in” nothing is spoke of predestination, but of “bring”ing (human effort i.e. soul-winning) in. So, my dear Calvinist, friends let us be swept up in the effort.  
New Testament doctrine shines anew with sparkling glory every time you read this parable, for it is here that we see where we, undeservingly, got in on a feast not prepared for us.  We were in the streets and lanes of life, wandering aimless completely unaware that we were destined for an eternal hell, but Christ came looking for us. 
He sent a soul-winner our way to tell us of his wondrous sacrifice for our sins. Who told us, Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” and we called, and lo, and; behold we were saved, and welcomed to the table not prepared for us, but now a feast we can call our own.
  Ostensibly, in Luke 14:22, “And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room” the servant is in a quandary as to how to fill the remaining seats. Consider this from Calvin’s doctrine, it would make no sense whatsoever, how can there be room at a table prepared for a predestined number?  
It is okay, I’ll wait……. I can wait from now till eternity for an answer to that question from any Calvinist I know and they will never answer because they don’t have an answer. It is akin to the foolishness of the addition to the question of the “Whosoever Gospel.”  If you are in any way new to this discussion, at some point you will be hit with this insanely puerile line from some overly scholaresque individual.  
“The Bible does clearly say, “Whosoever will may come,” but “WHOSOEVER WILL WANT TO COME?????”  Usually said with an odd air of superiority and a goofy eyebrow raise. They then launch into a long dissertation getting further and further from their responsibility in soul-winning.  The ones that will want to come are the ones that we tell that is the answer to their puerile question. 
Back to the subject at hand, the New Testament has an answer to the initial question. The New Testament answer is this…………..That there is no predestined number and there is still room.
Hey!!!!!!!!!!!! Dear Christian, There is still room for Your Mom, Your Dad, Your Aunt, Your Uncle, Your Son, You Daughter, Your Friend, there is still room for “The Poor, and The Maimed, and The Halt, and The Blind.”   MAY WE NEVER FORGET THERE IS STILL ROOOMMMM!!!!!
  Incontrovertibly, the scripture states in Luke 14:23, “And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.”  As though Calvin had not suffered quite enough by this point, we must go on to put the finishing touches on his erroneous Gospel.  “Compel them to come in,” why “compel,” they are predestined are they not?  If a soul is predestined to come to Christ what need is there of “compel”ling them to come to a supper they can’t possibly miss?  
I won’t wait for an answer to a question that has no answer.  Calvin cannot possibly provide an answer for this far sighted question you see this question is backed with the concept of filling the house.  Calvin was only concerned with his four and no more, as Calvin was a Covenant Theologian.   The New Testament once again provides an answer where Calvin fails. “Go out into the highways and hedges,” why “the highways and hedges?” because that is where those in need of a Saviour are to be found.  
You must recall that those for whom the feast was prepared have already been called and have refused.  Those who were easily accessible (they could not move) the poor, maimed, halt, and the blind had been reached. Now it was time to go and round up anyone and everyone you can get your hands on to come to the feast. “Compel them to come in” we must compel them.  This is where men stumble in the cause. We don’t like to compel men to come to Christ. We make excuses like; It’s a gift, not according to Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” or Mark 16:15 “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” 
We don’t want alienate anybody or send them to a hotter hell, how can you? According to John 3:18, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Or the ever famous, We don’t win them, well, the wisest man to ever live disagrees, Proverbs 11:30 “The fruit of the righteous [is] a tree of life; and he that winneth souls [is] wise.”  
Of course, the never forgotten, We don’t save them, you might want to run that by Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:22, “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.” and Jude 1:21, “Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.  22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” of course, our enemies’ never ending tirades of  easy-believe-ism, in complete ignorance of, John 4:15, “The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.”, Acts 16:31, “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”, and Revelations 22:17, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” 
And their tireless talk of not all of them get saved, even in light of , 2 Corinthians  2:15 “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:  16 To the one [we are] the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?  17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” 
And of course their applauded what if they aren’t ready according to Ephesians 2:1 
“And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”  
No one is ever ready till we tell them.  The Gospel is not always easily accepted but we must compel them to accept it by our personality, preparation, and perspiration.
Definitively the Scripture concludes in Luke 14:24, “For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.”  “None,” “None of those men which were bidden.” Calvin’s doctrine is dealt a death blow in this final verse.  How is it possible that no one that was bidden (predestined) to come to the supper will taste of it?  Is it possible that irresistible grace was resisted?  “For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.”  
Time and again God prepared a table for Israel which they rejected and therefore never tasted of.  Example-He made them wander for forty years in the wilderness to ensure that not one person that he had prepared a table for would taste of it.   Accept the call to the table today because, Oh, what a feast it will be!!!
In reflection, Calvin’s problem was that he never was quite able to separate himself from the Roman view of Scripture. While I believe he was saved, he was wholly inadequate to write doctrinal dissertations of Scripture.  Before you begin to impetuously chase after an Augustinian monk’s writings of Scriptural doctrine consider some discerning thoughts from the mind of a respectful reader.  
Were there no doctrinally correct churches when Calvin realized Rome’s error?  Why didn’t Calvin seek out a new doctrinal advisor rather than attempt to continue to chase his own opinions headlong. Could he not see that was what had lead to Rome’s folly?  Why did Calvin establish his own state held church rather than a New Testament Church?  Why would a New Testament Church pastor bow the knee to an Augustinian monk on a matter as important as salvation by grace?
  I contend Christ’s example, as found here in Luke’s Gospel, is completely accurate. It is a warning not to reject the call, it is a reminder of how you received the call and it is an encouragement to herald the call.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

SYNTHETIC RELIGION

Synthetic Religion by Dr. Monroe Parker



"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy rattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shaft not sow thy field with mingled see: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee"? Leviticus 19:19.


A generation ago a favorite question of the modernists was, "What is a modernist, anyway?" Today the new evangelicals are asking, "What is a new evangelical?" Of course, there are millions of Christian people who do not now what a new evangelical is. For the benefit of such people, as well as for those new evangelicals who think fundamentalists are so naive as to believe that they do not know what a new evangelical is, these lines are written.

A new evangelical is not necessarily a modernist, although many of those who are known as new evangelicals are modernists. A new evangelical is not necessarily neo-orthodox, although many of those who are known as new evangelicals are neo-orthodox. A new evangelical is not necessarily an evangelical, although many new evangelicals are evangelical. 

Certain astute new evangelicals have begun asking the question, "What is a new evangelical?" because they recognize that new evangelicalism, if given theological classification, would fall into the Department of Practical Theology. It does not lay stress on doctrinal content. 

If new evangelicalism is not defined in the terms of any particular doctrinal position, it would seem rather bigoted to oppose it. On the other hand, practical theology is theology, a science as well as an art, and, of course, has doctrinal ramifications.


Unscriptural Alliance



New evangelicalism, strictly speaking, was sired by an irresponsible effort on the part of some evangelicals to lure men to an acceptance of Christ as Saviour through unscriptural alliances, and in some cases through open appeal to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.

Some sincere people have been caught in the; vortex of the movement, but let us not forget that one can be sincere and still be wrong. Conscience is not a safe guide unless the light of truth shines upon it. A man?s conscience is governed by what he believes.

New evangelicalism was born of the confusion which followed the confessed failure of modernism in the crises of World War II. At that time hundreds of leading modernists confessed that they had gone too far from the pole of truth, the supernatural revelation of God in the Holy Bible and in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they became willing to accept neo-orthodoxy; and many evangelicals thought they had been converted.

With an orthodox profession, but still holding their old philosophy of naturalism, the modernists lacked the conviction to proclaim their new message, refill their churches, and replenish their coffers. Many gifted liberals were able to adapt, but few could sound a positive note; they had spoken too long in the accents of surmise and speculation.


Evangelicals Enlisted



Their recourse was to enlist evangelicals. This they could not do directly. It would require great skill and "statesmanship" and compromise with evangelicals beyond the point many liberals were willing to go. It could be accomplished only at the summit where key leaders could court key leaders.

Thus began a great compromise. I heard the great liberal preacher, Dr. Paul Shearer, declare in 1946 that the modernists needed to retrace their footsteps back toward the old orthodox position of their fathers, but that they should not go all the way back He said the modernists should form a synthesis with the evangelicals. 

Four years later I heard Dr. Sidlow Baxter, the great British evangelical, speak to the faculties of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles and Fuller Theological Seminary. It was a "closed door meeting" in the Church of the Open Door. He said that he had found a schism in the church of America which was not so marked in the Church of England. 

He said that while he stood doctrinally with the conservatives, those on the other side of the gap were disillusioned men, and so they were. I could say "Amen" to that. I couldn?t agree with his conclusion, however. He said that Bible-believing Christians ought to bridge the gap in fellowship. But light cannot have "fellowship with darkness," and "he that believeth" has "no part with an infidel." "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed."

In September 1950 Dr. John MacKay, one of the founders of the World Council of Churches and the most outstanding leader of the ecumenical movement, speaking at the opening of the academic year at Princeton Theological Seminary, of which he was then president, said: "This past summer I passed through Portland, Oregon, at a time when the evangelist Billy Graham was being listened to by crowds of over one hundred thousand. I learned that churches in the great Oregon city were getting behind that simple, non-college trained man, an intimate friend of our own Charles Templeton. 

The churches cannot ignore the phenomenon which this young man presents. And then there is the Youth for Christ movement, the Inter-Varsity movement, the Pentecostals - all of whom are doing an amazing work in many parts of the world. These groups are often frowned on as Christianity?lunatic fringe? because of certain objectionable features which they manifest. 

Yet according to the clear evidence of spiritual results, they are doing a great work in which God is present. As to the fruits that may be garnered from these movements into the storehouse of the Christian church, that will depend upon the sympathy, the good judgment, and the statesmanship of the Christian churchmen. 

Among the things which I have learned in my lifetime, both by experience and observation, is this: Never to be afraid of a young fanatic or of what appears to be a fanatical movement, if Jesus Christ is the supreme object of devotion ....The young fanatic, if wisely dealt with, can be toned down and mellowed."

Remember, that statement was made in 1950 at Princeton. In 1957 Dr. MacKay was among the sponsors of Billy Graham's New York campaign.


Billy Graham



I am often asked if I agree with Dr. Graham in his program. It is difficult for me to answer because I love Billy Graham personally. I have known him well since he was seventeen years of age and consider him a personal friend. He has been so signally blessed of God and has won so many people to Christ that it is difficult for me to say that I do not agree with the policies he has followed since 1957. However, I have told him personally that he is neutralizing his good.

A man criticized me and said that I ought not to criticize Billy Graham because he had won more souls to Christ than I. I believe I have won more souls to Christ than the man who criticized me, but that does not make me immune to criticism. The Apostle Peter had 3,000 converts in a single service, but that did not place him above the just rebuke and criticism of Paul at Antioch.

In the sacred task of preaching the Word of God, collaboration with those who do not believe the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith is wrong, no matter who does it.

I rode on Billy Graham's" bandwagon" from the time of his 1949 Los Angeles Campaign until I read the message and heard the tape of the message he preached at Union Theological Seminary in 1955, in which he threw bricks at the fundamentalists and roses at the modernists.

When this message was published by Dr. Carl McIntyre in The Christian Beacon, Billy Graham was in his great Scotland campaign. A friend of Dr. Graham's paid Dr. John Rice's way to Scotland to be a guest of Dr. Graham. Dr. Rice helped Billy pull his chestnuts out of the fire, so to speak He felt that Billy had certainly been unwise in making the statements he made at Union Seminary but felt that he was young and that he would certainly listen to the advice of his conservative friends.

Dr. Rice wrote a featured article in The Sword of the Lord, reporting the Scotland campaign and giving Billy Graham the benefit of the doubt as to his courting or favoring liberals for their support. Later when Billy went to New York under the sponsorship of the modernistic Protestant Council of Churches and announced at Buffalo to the National Association of Evangelicals that he would accept the sponsorship of modernists, Dr. Rice was forced to the conclusion that Billy had taken the wrong direction.

In April 1958 I said the following to Dr. Graham: "Billy, I give you the benefit of any doubts as to motives. I believe you are trying to take advantage of the friendly gestures of liberals toward conservatives. 

You are using the liberals in order to get a chance to preach the Gospel to thousands of people in modernistic churches. But these liberals are using you, and though you are doing some good, it is being neutralized. You are not isolated. Few men have more influence than you. Hundreds of other evangelists and pastors feel that they must follow your example and your methods. I urge you to return to your former policy of being sponsored by evangelicals only."

Some weeks later I signed my name to a friendly letter of greeting containing the same appeal which was written by an outstanding Baptist pastor from the East and was also signed by scores of other Christian leaders during the annual meetings of Conservative Baptists at Denver, Colorado. It grieves many of us who know and love him that he did not follow this advice.

I am not writing in a bigoted spirit. I realize that if I had my just deserts, I would be in Hell. But I am saved by the grace of God. I love this glorious Gospel and love Christ and love the souls of men. That is why I am against anything that would weaken the Christian testimony and pervert the church of Christ. New evangelicalism will do just that.


System Not Acceptable



I heard Dr. Vernon Grounds say at the Colorado State meetings of Conservative Baptists in May 1959 that anything that is good in new evangelicalism is of God. If this is true, does it follow that anything that is good in Christian Science, or Communism, or Mormonism, or Seventh-Day Adventism is of God? Whether this is so, it does follow that the entire system is of God. It is just as logical to conclude that anything that is bad in evangelicalism is of the world, the flesh, or the Devil.

In its beginning new evangelicalism was not characterized by doctrinal content but by method. This method is that of joining with enemies of the true Gospel in an effort to promote the Gospel while they promote a contrary message. Every child of God ought to repudiate new evangelicalism.


God's Answer to New Evangelicalism



John, the apostle of love, wrote: "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 10, 11). What is God's answer to new evangelicalism? 

God's answer to new evangelicalism is also found in II Corinthians 6:14, 16-18: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

Having lain down with dogs of liberalism, the new evangelicals have got up with doctrinal fleas on themselves. They decided to treat evolution as a moot question, and many of them have embraced theistic evolution. They decided not to be "other worldly"; and the result, the "Doctrine of Balaam" or worldliness. 

They decided to follow a philosophy of pragmatism, and the result is an exalting of feeling and experience above "thus saith the Lord." Hence, so-called revelations, and charismatic manifestations. They decided to add to the Gospel the social gospel; hence, a synthetic religion.


Day of Compromise



The new evangelicals have failed to heed the warning of Jesus to" Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing." It seems that we have reached a day of compromise on every hand. Even earnest, evangelical Christians censure the servants of God who cry out against false, prophets. But these servants of God are in a glorious tradition.


Old Testament Prophets Denounced False Religious Leaders



Isaiah cried out against the priest and prophet who "err in vision" and "stumble in judgment" (Isa 28:7). Jeremiah said, "For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord" (Jer. 24:11). Ezekiel wrote, "Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! O, Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts" (Ezek 13:3,4). 

Micah said, "They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us?" (Mic. 3:10,11).


Jesus and Apostles Denounced False Religious Leaders



Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, said, "Beware of false prophets." The Apostle Peter, speaking of the scoffers who sneer at the promise of the coming of Christ and wrest the Scripture unto their own destruction, said, "Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness" ( II Peter 3:17). 

Paul, the missionary, evangelist, apostle, and builder of churches, the bondslave of Jesus Christ, wrote to Timothy, "But after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, l have finished my course, I have kept the faith" (II Tim. 4:3-7). 

To the church at Rome he wrote, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:17, 18). 

John the Beloved, who wrote his Gospel that we "might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 10:31), wrote in his second epistle," If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (II John 10). 

Jude wrote, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). He says that they are "raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 13).


If the Blind Lead



Thousands of young theological students are gullibly following these "false prophets in sheep's clothing" who "within are ravening wolves." Impressed by the high-sounding theological terminology, the vast store of encyclopedic knowledge, and the pious talk of false teachers, thousands of them are going out themselves in sheeps' clothing to preach the new modernism. ? 

If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (Matt. 15:14). Tragedy of tragedies! The new modernism is as false as the old! It is essentially the same though covered in a new robe and a thousand times more subtle.


Need Today for Exposing False Teaching



There was never a day when fundamentalists needed more to emphasize the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ than today. They need also to understand the issues and the design of these new modernists. Many of our true evangelical leaders must surely be uninformed as to the ultimate aim of some of the ecclesiastical leaders. It is Nicolaitanism, the conquering of the laity. 

No one who believes in a congregational form of church government and in the right of the individual to interpret the Word of God for himself under the illumination of the Holy Spirit can follow these false teachers. Let us look under the "sheeps' clothing" and there we see the pointed ears, the leering eyes, the dilated nostrils, the dripping tongues, and the bared fangs of "ravening wolves."


Purpose of Liberal Leaders



What is the design of these men? Back of this movement is a plan for the formation of one World Church. As has already been said, the modern church had lost its voice of authority because it had left the authority of the Scriptures. 

The Catholics believe in an authoritative church with an infallible Pope at the head of it. Although they accept the Bible as infallible, they hold it is so only as it is interpreted by the church. Orthodox Protestantism has held to the infallibility of the Bible by which the church is judged. 

The new modernism is attempting to recover authority for the purpose of building ecclesiastical walls, but is unwilling to yield to the inerrant and infallible authority of full, verbal inspiration. Consequently, just as the British crown is a symbol of British authority with the authority vested in Parliament, so the new modernism is trying to make the Bible a symbol of authority with the authority actually vested in the church.


Substitute for Inspiration Offered



Dr. John Newton Thomas, Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, wrote in an article in the July 1946 issue of Theology Today, page 171: "Is not the key to the situation the frank acknowledgement of the Church's authority as determiner of the Canon? This is at once the valid substitute for the doctrine of verbal inspiration and the guarantee of an authoritative Scripture as against rationalizing and mystical influences."

There you have it, my friends. These liberals are determined to form through their councils a church arrogating to itself the authority to change the Bible to suit their doctrine. Professor Thomas goes on to say: "If the current reemphasis upon the Church can secure recognition of her true and legitimate role in relation to the Canon, we shall emerge from the present confusion with a clearer grasp of the authority both of the Church and of the Bible" (Ibid., p.171). 

There is no wonder that the National Council of Churches has no compunction against shading the Word of God as in the Revised Standard Version to favor its liberal theology. They have usurped for themselves the authority to speak for God instead of simply recognizing that God has spoken.

The same issue of Theology Today (July 1946) in which Professor Thomas' article is found carries an article by Floyd V. Filson, Professor of New Testament Literature and History, McCormick Theological Seminary, on "The Revised Standard New Testament" (page 221) in which he says, "The Bible is the Church's book" The professor is wrong. It is God?s Book 

He says further, "Its writers were members and servants of the Church, and their writings have been preserved, translated, and used in its worship, preaching, and teaching. 

The real test, therefore, which this version must pass is whether it will prove adequate to the needs of the Church." The real test is whether it is true to the original text written by "holy men of old" as they were "moved by the Holy Ghost."


Need to Recognize Authority of the Word



The greatest need in the church today is not a "substitute for the doctrine of verbal inspiration" but a realization that here we have the very inspired Word of the Living God whether correctly or incorrectly interpreted. "It is more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb" (Ps. 19:10). Let us hide it in our hearts, live it in our daily walk, preach it to the world, teach it to our children, and beware lest "false prophets in sheeps' clothing" steal it away!