It was my privilege to carefully read the manuscript of this so important and needed treatise, written by my young brother in Christ, Larry Casso.
It is so refreshing to know of those like him, young in the faith, who are aware of the dangers of modern so-called evangelism.
One hears a lot of the "generation-gap," but be sure of this that, where the truth of God is concerned, there is no such thing as a generation gap. God's Word is crystal clear as to His ways of reaching the lost and instructing saints. We do not want these present day gadgets and gimmicks which hinder, instead of help, the exposition of divine truth.
Let's get back to the simple, Scriptural method of preaching the Gospel, and earnestly contend for the faith. God's Word is as up-to-date now as it was in Paul's day.
Nothing I could say would add to what Brother Casso has so clearly and pointedly set forth in this valuable article. I am more than pleased to earnestly commend this booklet to all who will read it. May it have a wide circulation, is our longing prayer. We know it will result in the blessing of those who heed its vital truths and will be blessed to the glory and exaltation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
-August Van Ryn
In 1928 Mr. H. A. Ironside made the following statement while lecturing on Colossians: "It is a signal mercy that in His wisdom God allowed every possible form of error to arise in the apostolic era of the Church's history, in order that all might be exposed, and the truth declared through inspired men, that thus the faith in its simplicity might be preserved for the generations to come. As a result of this, Satan has nothing new to offer. Old heresies are re~ressed and brought forward as new conceptions of truth from age to age, but in this respect, 'there is nothing new under the sun.' " In his preface to the printed lectures he stated further: "The times are solemn. Old errors are being paraded in new terms, on all sides."
Origin and Definition of Contemporary Evangelism
Approximately 25 years ago there appeared amongst fundamental, evangelical Christians new attitudes and methods in evangelism unheard of before by most. The shift was so subtle that it was consequently overlooked by many Christians. The sincere, born-again men, however, who were and are the zealous proponents of this new methodology recognized their departure from traditional evangelism and termed themselves "New Evangelicals." It is important to notice that in so doing they divorced themselves from Fundamentalism because of "its being identified with peripheral emphasis on doctrine and method, thus forfeiting the right to being a synonym with evangelical" as one of the leading founders said. Many sincere, fundamental Christians, not being adequately exposed to the objectives and disastrous effects of this seemingly harmless evangelism, have supported it not recognizing the differences that exist.
Some of the major differences in their shift in attitudes and methods are described as follows. I use the word shift correctly as the departure from Biblical, historical evangelism has been a transitional one over a period of years rather than a revolutionary one. The basic error in their evangelical approach lies in the area of Biblical separation. This doctrine is expressed clearly in Romans 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Bible believing Christians since the Reformation, following the pattern of the reformers, believe this entirely. The reformers clearly drew the line between truth and error, not only avoiding it, but rebuking error fearlessly and publicly. These stalwarts of old likewise applied truth ethically, never separating doctrine from practice. The results were a clear contrast between regenerate and lost men, Protestantism and Catholicism, Fundamentalism and Liberalism, and in the area of ethics, separation from worldly pursuits and pleasures.
The New Evangelism, by way of contrast, has changed its strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration. Instead of looking at error which sends men to Hell with righteous indignation, they now preach and practice toleration. They are the apostles of the middle of the road, advocating the joining of Fundamentalists and Liberals in the common cause of proclaiming the Gospel. They place love above sound doctrine, accommodate pagan ideas and false theology, and proclaim that they are not called to preach doctrine but only Christ as doctrine divides. As a result they naturally find more fellowship with apostates than witb fundamental Christians. Instead of separation from the world, they teach that the Church should be used as the instrument for bringing about social change. The results of this unscriptural evangelism have no doubt been perplexing to you as they have been to many. We now see Catholics, Baptists. Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Adventists and a host of others co~perating in so-called evangelism, openly embracing one another as brothers in a common goal. Speaking in tongues is no longer refuted, but tolerated and propagated in supposed conservative and even apostate denominations. The epitome of this careless, confused approach to evangelism is perhaps found in the recent dialogue between several Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist clergymen at Daytona Beach, Fla. where one Baptist pastor stated: "If God is willing to use both of us for the salvation of the world, we might be willing to lean upon each other for the task" (Moody Monthly, April, 1971).
An elder brother recently asked, while commenting on another brother's espousing of some questionable practices, "Where did he get them from?" We might likewise ask, where did it all come from? Is the New Evangelism really new, or as Mr. Ironside stated are they: "Old heresies re-dressed and brought forward as new conceptions of truth"? A brief glance at Church history will reveal some interesting facts related to this question. It would be well to note the motives and methods employed in each example.
In 1540, during the great Reformation, The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) founded by Ignatius Loyola was given Papal sanction, and was to play a large part in the Catholic counter reformation. Their motive was "All for the glory of God" and meant to them the extension of God's kingdom on earth, which of course was the Roman Cnurch represented by the Pope. Their methods were varied but their greatest success was in the field of educational propaganda. Remarkable results were attained, but only at the expense of unethical procedures. Jesuit Casuistry stands in the forefront of their subtle approach. Their doctrine of "Intentionalsim" simply taught that the end justifies the means. One could lie, steal or cheat provided he had a good reason for it. The effect was to enable one to practice anything with a clear conscience as moral principles were perverted to suit individual needs, and in this way they had something for everyone. No wonder they met with such remarkable success, they simply perverted the truth and made it palatable to all.
Approximately 100 years later, there arose in England some who were beginning to advocate a broader religious toleration. They were called "Latitudinarians" and their ablest representative was William Chillingsworth. They received some prominence in the latter part of the I 7th century as they passed on to a higher and broader stream of thought and were then known as "Cambridge Platonists." They stood between the Puritans and the High Anglicans consistently advocating tolerance and comprehension within the churches. Their motive was to unite both extremes of professing Christianity even at the expense of compromising Biblical truth. Their method can best be summed up by their statement: "Unite on essentials and agree to differ on non-essentials." These words certainly have a familiar echo today.
The following is taken from the book "Sketch of Missions" written in 181 9 by Miron Winslow. Though it again concerns the Jesuits, their missionary methods are worthy of our attention: "The labours of the Jesuits were not confined to the countries which have been mentioned. They had missionaries in almost every part of the world, and continued them with some success, though often banished, persecuted, and hunted down, until the final abolition of the order by Clement XIV in 1773. But in most instances it may be doubted whether their converts deserve at all to be reckoned among the followers of Christ. By the compromising plan which they adopted, it was easy to bring the heathen to embrace their doctrines. They made it an object to effect a coalition between the Christian system and the schemes of Paganism, by magnifying any apparent similarity between them, and by softening down the manifest points of difference."
Let us summarize these historical references. The Jesuits had worthy motives, all for the glory of God and the extension of God's kingdom on earth. However worthy their motives might have appeared they were rooted in heresy. Their methods coincided with their motives as they believed the end justified the means, and therefore were not bound by Scriptural or moral methods. The Latitudinarians likewise had what appeared to be worthy motives, uniting all professing Christians regardless of doctrinal differences. Their methods were as unscriptural as their motives, attempting to unite on essentials and agreeing to differ on non-essentials. This is Scriptural compromise as who is to decide what is essential apart from God's revealed Word. The Jesuits again had worthy motives in wanting to convert the heathen and the world. Their method, however, was no different than the Latitudinarians. Magnify the similarities and soften the points of difference. We should notice this observation: they were sincere, dedicated, evangeheal and numerically successful. There is one small problem, however, to the Bible believing Christian. They were unscriptural! The seeds of their error, though dormant for decades, have recently burst forth among misguided evangelicals. They could be summarized as follows: evangelism without ethics, unity without doctrine and conversion without Christ.
Remember Our Guides, Hebrews 13:7
It is to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ that a few men throughout history have stood for the truth without compromise and as a result have been a special blessing and encouragement to God's elect. The following accounts record only a few. These men, though now with the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, speak to us through their living faith and testimony. Shortly after Mr. Winslow wrote his book on missions in 1819, there appeared in Bristol, England an unknown German minister by the name of Mr. George Muller and his co-worker Mr. Henry Craik. Through their living faith and dependence upon God they fed, housed and clothed upwards of 2500 orphans daily, supported day schools, missionary endeavors, Scripture distribution and shepherded the assembly of God's people entrusted to their care. Those who are familiar with this peculiar ministry are aware that Mr. Muller made no appeals for financial support publicly or privately, trusting his living God alone for material needs. The motives and methods employed in founding and continuing this great work are worthy of our attention.
The following is taken from Mr. Arthur T. Pierson's excellent biography of George Muller which is still in print: "A brief statement of the reasons for founding such an institution, and the principles on which it was based, will be helpful at this point. Motives of conscience controlled Mr. Muller and Mr. Craik in starting a new work rather than in uniting with existing societies already established for missionary purposes, Bible and tract distribution, and for the promotion of Christian schools. As they had sought to conform personal life and church conduct wholly to the Scriptural pattern, they felt that all work for God should be carefully carried on in exact accordance with His known will, in order to have His fullest blessings. Many features of the existing societies seemed to them extra scriptural, if not decidedly anti-scriptural, and these they felt constrained to avoid." (Emphasis mine.)
The next paragraph continues: "For example, they felt that the end proposed by such organizations, namely, the conversion of the world in this dispensation, was not justified by the Word, which everywhere represents this as the age of the out gathering of the Church from the world, and not the ingathering of the world into the Church." He continues: "Again, these existing societies seemed to Mr. Muller and Mr. Craik to sustain a wrong relation to the world-mixed up with it, instead of separate from it. Any one by paying a certain fixed sum of money might become a member or even a director, having a voice or vote in the conduct of affairs and becoming eligible to office." He goes on to conclude that: "Unscriptural means were commonly used to raise money," and also ''the custom of seeking patronage from men of the world and asking such to preside at public meetings," were further reasons why these spiritual men could not in good conscience sanction these societies. (Emphasis the Author's.) The final reasons given for the founding of the institutions are especially noteworthy: "But they also desired the work itself to be a witness to the living God, and a testimony to believers, by calling attention to the objectionable methods already in use and encouraging all God's true servants in adhering to the principles and practices which He has sanctioned." (Emphasis mine.) The peculiar blessings from God upon the work, resulting from Mr. Muller's sincere attempt to uphold Scriptural truth as he saw it apart from all known error, are the most significant commendations to his motives, methods and success.
Mr. A. W. Tozer was another man of God peculiarly fitted to distinguish truth from error. He was a source of blessing to all of God's people until his departure for glory just a few short years ago. In an excellent tract "The Old Cross and the New" (still in print) he makes the following statements: "All unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different; the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental, From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from this new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique-a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This New Evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before." He states further: "The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public. The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere, but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross." He later says: "That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross." ln the concluding quote he says: '~We who preach the Gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Clirist and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, or the world of sports, or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum." (Emphasis mine.) The basic doctrines of the "New-Evangelicalism" could not have been refuted more clearly.
Mr. H. A. Ironside in his lectures on Jude published in 1931 and still in print solemnly warns us that Jesuit Casuistry and Latitudinarianism are still alive and flourishing. He said: "To no time in the past history of the Church have Jude's words applied with greater force than in the present latitudinarian age. In Romanism, emissaries make strenuous efforts to allure the unwary by presenting a softened, subdued Catholicism to non-Catholics; they emphasize largely whatever is really Scriptural, or ethically and esthetically lovely in the teachings of the Papacy, and carefully cover the grosser and more disgusting dogmas and practices of that apostate church." In a footnote to this statement he said: "It will be noticed that the Paulists, an order of missionary priests devoted to the perversion of Protestants, always put to the fore such fundamental doctrines as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc., but rarely touch upon these offensive teachings of that corrupt church which for so long drugged the nations with the wine of her fornication. Thus the simple are enticed, and walk into Babylon's gates like sheep going to the slaughter."
Concerning the results of their efforts, he said: "Hence it will be found that where false teaching prevails, ungodliness abounds, as witness the wretchedly low standard of Christian living maintained by Romanists; the worldliness of professors of the latitudinarian type, the over-weening pride, coupled with an exceedingly poor imitation of godliness, that characterizes those professing a 'second blessing' of absolute holiness-all alike evidence the baneful effects of teaching contrary to the faith of God's elect." In his concluding and I believe very noteworthy statement he said: "The difference to evil teaching, and genuine love for Christ and His truth cannot co-exist in the same breast. Neutrality in such a case is a crime against the Lord Who has redeemed us to Himself." (Emphasis mine.)
In contrast to the clear warnings of Mr. Ironside, concerning what he calls that apostate, corrupt church, we have recently witnessed an event without parallel in the history of Biblical evangelism. In November of 1967 the Belmont Abbey, a Roman Catholic college in Belmont, North Carolina, granted the honorary degree of doctor of humane letters (D.H.L.) to a popular Protestant evangelist who is perhaps the most prominent spokesman and proponent of New Evangelicalism in the world. Speaking to an audience of 1700 Catholics and Protestants at the Abbey, he noted the significance of the occasion by saying and I quote: 'A time when Protestants and Catholics could meet together and greet each other as brothers, whereas 10 years ago they could not." He further stated, that he: "Knew of no greater honor a North Carolina preacher, reared just a few miles from here could have than to be presented with this degree." He then added facetiously that some might begin addressing him by the title of "Father." Mr. Ironside's concluding statement in the last paragraph bears repeating: "Indifference to evil teaching, and genuine love for Christ cannot co-exist in the same breast."
Contemporary Evangelism Today
When we are conditioned to change over a period of time it is often difficult to objectively consider where we have come from and in what direction we are heading. If we realize, however, that there has been a departure from Scriptural methods in evangelism and then consider the effects of this departure in contemporary evangelism, we can determine some facts conclusively. This can be done without going into the details of what took place during the transitional period of the last 25 years. I will make indirect reference to some groups that will no doubt be immediately recognizable to most in my attempt to present the facts concerning this departure. In all honesty I must state that my disagreement is not with the original objectives of these groups as I believe they were Scriptural and sincere and certainly have been used in leading many precious souls to Christ and as a blessing to many. I'm constrained to further state that in no way do I judge the eternal salvation of any involved as I believe that many of the participants are saved men. My disagreement is with the departure from their original objectives, and their acceptance and propagation of unscriptural motives, methods and resultant erroneous theology. Their practices are unscriptural and must be openly and clearly refuted, regardless of their sincerity or who may be involved.
Three significant events were planned to take place during the early 1970's. These three events took place and are now history. There is a definite similarity in their ultimate motives: winning the masses to a watered down Christianity, their methods: modify the message and place great emphasis on human ingenuity, and their theology: preach Christ only, everything else is nonessential. These errors must be recognized and rejected by Bible believing Christians. The following three events were chosen because of their prominence and popularity. They also stand out as the clearest examples of New Evangelicalism today and establish the patterns followed by their many zealous adherents as they infiltrate Liberalism, Catholicism, Judaism, the Freaks (I refuse to attach the name of my Lord to this sect), Fundamentalism and any other potential group with their neutral, offenseless, latitudinarian Christianity.
The first event was called Urbana '70 and took place in Chicago, Illinois in 1970. The following excerpts are from the March, 1971 issue of Moody Monthly. They clearly show not only the departure from traditional evangelism, but to what extent sincere Christians will go in adopting worldly methods to achieve popularity and success. The article reads as follows: "A glance at the auditorium crowd made it clear that this was not the same group that had convened just three years earlier for Urbana '67. Their appearance was mod and individualistic. Many of the fellows sported shoulder-length hair, Afros and beards. Some were zealous-freaks from California. Others were more conservative. Girls came in flared jeans and mini and maxi outfits as well as traditional skirts and sweaters." The article goes on to say: '~Music, too, showed signs of change. Stately hymns of the Inter-Varsity tradition still resounded from the hall, but they were mingled this year with folk-type songs of love, dev~ tion and witness. A Negro group, the "Soul Liberation" presented the message of personal liberation through Jesus Christ in the black idiom of soul sound. After a Monday night pre-session concert, the group was in demand for impromptu singing by blacks and whites alike." The final quote is again noteworthy: "No longer content to preach the Gospel in word only, the new breed of students looked for a balance between social concern and propagation of the Gospel." Their new technique in recruiting missionary candidates certainly finds no precedent in historical or Biblical Christianity. The 12,000 delegates, as prospective missionaries, were asked to fill out computerized cards to be used as brief resumes. The 115 missionary agencies represented likewise described their personnel needs through a standardized computer form. The computer then matched the needs with those qualified. I doubt that any modern corporation could have handled it more smoothly or efficiently. What a far cry, however, from Acts 13:2 when: "The Holy Ghost said, Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."
The next example is Explo '72 held in Dallas, Texas in the summer of 1972. What Urbana started, Explo continued and surpassed with a budget of four million dollars and a crowd of 200,000 participants in the final 8 hour Jesus music festival which climaxed the event. The parallel to Urbana in their unscriptural motives and methodology is apparent. Their advertisement in the May, 1972 issue of Moody Monthly clearly brings this out. Their reason or motive for the event was to bring about certain conditions which would result in a life changing week for the participants. This sounds fine if it can be done Scripturally and through the Holy Spirit. Note, however, some phrases from their ad: life changing week, meet God in a fresh, exciting way, expect a miracle, revolutionize your life, come catch the contagious certainty of victory, gain new strength and courage, find a new vision, joyous evening rallies. These emotionally appealing phrases certainly promised a lot under any circumstances. The emphasis, unfortunately, throughout is only on outward, emotional change. Then consider the methods advertised to bring about this change. First the leading attraction at the music festival: Johnny Cash, a man involved in worldly show business, night club singing and so forth, and of course accompanied by the Disciples, Reba Rambo and the New Folk. Let us now consider one of the more than 100 outstanding speakers advertised, Dr. Harold Ockenga. He is the self-proclaimed founder of the New Evangelical movement whom I will quote from the October-December issue (1954) of the Fuller Theological Seminary bulletin: "Fundamentalism too often has been identified with peripheral emphasis on doctrine and method, thus forfeiting the right to being a synonym with evangelical . . Whenever Fundamentalism and Modernism came into test in a theological struggle Fundamentalism lost every battle in the historical field. It has demonstrated little power to crack the social situation confronting the Church today. The motivating loyalty to fundamentalism on the part of many Christians lies in its orthodoxy, its faithfulness to the Word of God. However the judgment of history on fundamentalism is that it has failed." He also stated in another news release: "The New Evangelicalism has changed its strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration." In short he is one of the major proponents of the ecumenical evangelism whose emphasis is on Christ alone and reduces any conflicting doctrines to non-essentials. It is apparent that the promoters and public participants at Explo espouse this bankrupt Latitudinarianism, knowingly or unknowingly, and if not, by condoning and participating in it place their seal of approval upon it.
The next major evangelical event took place in January and throughout 1973 and was called Key '73. There are some facts which clearly show this to be a continuance of the same unscriptural practices as its predecessors. There has not been an event, to my knowledge, since the Reformation which has sought to bring together as much doctrinal diversity and even Roman Paganism in their attempt to evangelize America. To realize the vastness of this year long event, as qf April 1971 over 40 denominations and other agencies had joined this movement. Early this year it was anflounceci that the Council of Catholic Bishops had voted to participate in it, and a recent publication listed the number of participating agencies and denominations as over 140. The June, 1972 issue of Moody Monthly describes how the National Association of Evangelicals reacted to this at its recent convention: "Delegates could not agree on whether to endorse or to urge participation in the Key '73 nation-wide evangelistic effort. Many of the thousand delegates representing some 38,000 churches, argued against NAE's backing of Key '73, noting that the Council of Catholic Bishops had voted to participate in it. However, NEA executive director Dr. Billy Melvin explained that participation in Key '73 is a decision for each denomination. As an association of various denominations, NAE is not in a position to either promote or discourage such participation." It is noteworthy to observe how when confronted with such an essential issue as evangelizing with pagans, they attempted to resolve their difficulties by taking the familiar course of neutrality and silence. It is unfortunate that most Christians will follow the same course. I have often wondered how Christians can justify this course in light of II Chronicles 19:2: "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?" It would be well to quote Mr. Ironside again: "Neutrality in such a case is a crime against the Lord who has redeemed us to Himself."
It is interesting to note the decision of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church, certainly' not a bastion of Fundamentalism, when confronted with this matter: "The Presbyterians also voted not to participate in Key '73 criticizing it for its 'vague' plans, one-man, one-vote procedures, and its tendency to 'isolate evangelism' from the total mission of the church." We might wonder how many professed Bible believing Christians will blindly support this ecumenical evangelism by their participation or neutrality when confronted with it in spite of the apparent errors involved.
Closing Thoughts and Conclusions
Several facts should be noted in closing. No one could have imagined even 10 years ago that the day would come when Catholics, Liberals and professed Bible believing Christians could unite in anything, much less in the goals of evangelism. Key '73 clearly shows that this day is here. We have studied in some detail the efforts of former professed Fundamentalists to unite all opposing groups in Christianity. Let us quickly consider the objectives of the Catholic church. First of all we should recognize that the Roman church has never forsaken its goal since the Reformation of uniting all of professed Christendom under the Pope. What they attempted to do 400 years ago with the sword and the stake is still being attempted today with their latitudinarian approach. The goal is the same, only the methods are different. Jesuit Casuistry is still openly condoned and practiced. May we not take the warnings of a proven man of God such as Mr. Ironside lightly. Fundamental Christians, meanwhile, are still where they have always been since the Reformation, standing squarely on God's Word, united on the cardinal doctrines and opposed to any Scriptural compromise. New Evangelicals, the apostles of neutrality, stand between both extremes, preaching their doctrine of infiltration and attempting to unite all shades in the common cause of preaching Christ, but apart from any ethical or doctrinal commitments.
One might well wonder how such obvious error could become so popular in such a short period of time? The answer is obvious if we consider certain facts. New Evangelicalism arose after World War II and has gained prominence during a period of great numerical decline in liberal Protestantism and Catholicism. It is no wonder that these sincere, evangelical zealots, who will befriend anyone, were welcomed out of Fundamentalism by Liberals and Catholics. Their church doors were closing and they naturally welcomed and accepted any who could get the people out, especially when it was on their terms and at no cost to themselves. The tragedy is that so many born-again, sincere believers are being used unknowingly to achieve the goals of apostate Christendom and the church of Rome.
Anyone refusing to support or condone any of the practices which I have attempted to briefly bring before you naturally walks a lonely path. After all, how could any movement with such popularity and apparent success be wrong? Where then does this leave the Christian who is attempting to stand for the truth as Ironside, Tozer, Muller and many others faithfully stood for the truth in their day? The choice is simple: either the broad road of New Evangelicalism or the narrow, lonely path of Scriptural separation. To those who would take the broad way; I will state emphatically that it is the wrong road, though you may in all sincerity be attracted by the apparent success and popularity of this broad road,it is still wrong and your first step in compromising the truth will lead to many more. I sympathize with those of you who wish to remain neutral. Neutrality towards error, however, is equal to condoning it if you believe the teachings of Mr. Ironside and many other faithful men throughout history. Christianity has never offered a comfortable middle-ground.
To those of you who wish to remain true to the fundamentals of God's Word the path is very simple. The first step in Biblical separation is always the hardest. Once we have committed ourselves to stand for the Lord Jesus Christ regardless of the cost in family, friends, worldly possessions or gain the rest is easy as we see things in their right perspective. The man who realizes that he has nothing in this world is not bothered by the fear of losing what he does not nave to begin with. I would encourage you to stand, and having done all else to continue standing. The simple fact is that this is all that we have to do. We have not changed, we have not compromised, we have not separated from the faith of all who throughout history have stood and fought for the truth. Let these "Popevangelists" with their diluted, allembracing gospel go the route of Balaam which as Mr. Unger says in his excellent Bible dictionary: "was the teaching of the mercenary seer to abandon godly separation and a pilgrim character in favor of worldly conformity. Balaam taught Balak to corrupt the people who could not be cursed" (Num. 31:15,16). May those who love the truth continue stedfastly in their local assemblies, providing they are true to the Word of God, building up the saints in God's Holy Word, winning the lost and teaching them, trusting God alone to build His own work in His own way which is upon the Scriptures and nothing else, and above all else, having no part in this unscriptural evangelism propagated by many sincere but misguided Christians. Also, may we never become negative in our dealing with this matter, but rather point men in love beyond the confusion of our day to a risen Lord in the glory Who alone is the Head of the Church which is His body, and Who alone can bring joy, peace and unity to His people and salvation to the lost through His Word.
The preceding conclusions are the result of observing for several years now the decline in Scriptural evangelism. Some will no doubt misinterpret my purpose in writing this and perhaps pre-judge my attitude towards this subject. It is not my desire to stir up controversy in this matter as controversy already exists. My purpose is to state the truth in love, plainly and factually, as I see it, and allow the individual to decide for himself. Not the superficial, emotional, man-centered love, however, which is so prevalent today. But rather, in the spirit of true love as it is found in I John 3:18:
"My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." This is primarily addressed to those who love the truth above all else, who are perplexed by the confusion in religious evangelism so rampant today, and who are seeking Scriptural answers as myself. As you have no doubt observed, this is not the work of a scholar or theologian, but rather of one who for 21 years served his master Satan well and by God's sovereign grace was saved out of Roman Catholicism, a brief period of agnosticism and a degraded sin-filled life. Also, one who for 12 years has been preserved by the same matchless grace of God. It is not with any malice or bitterness that I present this to you. I present it as one who has witnessed the decline in fundamental, Bible centered Christianity and evangelism, and the silence of many who know better and should speak out, with a broken heart.
Let the world despise and leave me, They have left my Saviour, too;