Rants from Singapore (June 2006)

Oyster Biology and Anglican Theology



Note: This is a rant on this article from Reuters.

The idiom, “the world is your oyster,” has apparently taken on a new meaning according to a marine biologist turned bishop. With a doctorate degree in squid and oyster biology, the learned Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori – who is currently the bishop of the Diocese of Nevada in the U.S. Episcopal Church – elucidates her view of same-sex relations, “I don't believe [that homosexuality is sin]. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us.”

Although we do not know if there were any previous transference or counter-transference between Schori and oyster during her research years, we do know that the immense insights provided by oyster biology has ostensibly revolutionized human sexuality, not mentioning Christian ethics and theology in the U.S. Episcopal Church. Biologists understand that the European oyster and the Olympia oyster of the American Pacific Coast are hermaphrodites. These bivalve mollusks, in contrast to heterosexual humans, are able to play the role of father and mother simultaneously.

Not to be intimidated by these tiny Ostrea edulis, Schori has declared that it is not immoral for the man, or the woman, to play father and mother – all at the same time. According to Schori, the loving father of one family can likewise be the loving mother of another – and this is a gift from God to bless “the world around us.” I wonder if the Singaporean government agrees with her observations, given the declining birth rate and increasing number of divorces. Nevertheless, who would deny the good bishop this wonderful “gift” for her own family?

“God creates us with different gifts,” Schori firmly reassures the laity who have no prior knowledge of oyster physiology. Some men and women are gifted to act like humans, while others are predisposed to act like monkeys or oysters. “Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things” so as to “bless the world around us.” Some come “into this world” with a pair of shells, some with a preference for similar anatomical structures, and some even have pearls in their mouths. But all these gifts, according to bishop Schori, are to bless the world around us. The pearl oyster is arguably one of God’s most beautiful gifts to mankind. But the human with the sexual preference of oysters is not even allowed into the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:17). Perhaps, the ultimate “blessing” for Schori would be to see her very own children emulating her philosophy of human sexuality, and practicing it in the homophile world.

Equipped with intimate details of mollusks, Schori continues, “Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender.” Following her line of thought, it is no wonder that some “come into this world with affections ordered toward other” species as well, be it mammals, nematodes or bivalves. For Schori and all who agree with her, the world is your oyster, metaphorically. For there is no lack of men today who are “gifted” with affections “ordered toward” other men.

While Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament for their decadence and immorality, Schori gives us new revelation that God has changed His mind about sodomy. Schori does not perceive homosexuality and lesbianism as abominable sins condemned by the Bible. She argues, “The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear - there are rules in the Bible about those that we don’t observe today.” It seems that, according to Schori, making a choice between chilli crabs and caviar for lunch is the same as choosing either a man or woman as a spouse.

Contrary to the exciting claims of Bishop (Dr) Schori, the Apostle Paul warned, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).” The purported “gifts” of Schori come under the category of sin in the Bible, and God calls these “gifts” an “abomination” and “confusion” (Leviticus 18:22-24). Whereas Schori proclaims that “the great message of Jesus” is “to include the unincluded,” this inclusion without the preaching of repentance is condemned as a false gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

Paul cautioned, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).” If Schori’s philosophy is correct, then the Apostle had erred (cf. Romans 1:24-32).

This wicked world is indeed the sinner’s oyster, but such “vile passions (Romans 1:26)” should be relegated to the world of oyster sexuality and reproduction.

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism Part 4

Concluding Thoughts



Alas, God’s Holy Word has been made a slave to the science of textual criticism (1 Timothy 6:20). True believers of Christ cannot worship at both the altar of faith and the altar of scholasticism. The exclusive, pedantic adherence to scholarly methods, coupled with the rejection of the logic of faith, will result in the following theological tragedy: the inerrancy of Holy Scripture will be replaced by the inerrancy of the hypothetical autographs.

Dr Bart Ehrman apparently understood the importance of the preservation of Scripture. Unfortunately, instead of embracing the doctrine of preservation, he chose to abandon the evangelical faith in rejecting the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture:

"As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don’t have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. . . . the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them." (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, page 211.)

If we do not have the Word of God today, then our faith is in vain, and all the old-line fundamentals of faith are subjected to the scrutiny of unbelieving scholarship and philosophy (Colossians 2:8). If we cannot say that the Bible we possess is the preserved, inerrant and inspired Word of God, the textual scholars will decide for us what inerrant scripture is. Subjecting themselves to the ultimate authority of manuscript evidence and human scholarship, textual critics have substituted the authority of God’s Word with the supremacy of men’s intellect. They are “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:14).”

Ultimately, textual critics must concede with infidels that there is no perfect authority for the Church today. Criticizing the Church’s subservience to the Westcott and Hort theory, M S M Saifullah, cAbd ar-Rahmân Robert Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem wrote:

“We have already seen above that the textual criticism has destroyed the concept of ‘textus receptus’ and ‘original text.’ The New Testament text that we have in our hands today is the work of a committee which decided on the readings which it thought are ‘original.’ The Church and textual criticism were antipodes. Therefore, any one who ventured into this field was condemned or ignored. The bravery of modern day Christians towards the textual criticism (“Who is afraid of textual criticism?”) is similar to the roar of a paper tiger. Since they can’t get away with the devil of textual criticism, they might as well try to befriend it. This is precisely what they did after the fall of ‘textus receptus’ during the time of Westcott and Hort. . . . In conclusion, it is quite clear that the Church did not like the idea of seeing the variant readings and abandonment of ‘textus receptus’ which was revered throughout the Christian world as the ‘inerrant’ word of God. The abandonment of ‘textus receptus’ overthrew the doctrine of inerrancy of the scriptures at hand. It was replaced by the inerrancy of the hypothetical 'original' manuscript. . . . We have discussed the response of Muslims and Christians to the textual criticism of the Qur’an and the Bible. Muslims have always been careful of how the Qur’an should be read and written. Detailed rules were formulated to achieve the transmission both orally and written. The Christian Bible on the other hand did not have any such rules and had to live a life of 'living text' which was constantly changing at the whims and fancies of the scribes and the leaders of the Church. And naturally when textual criticism was applied, the Church was up in arms. Very soon it was realized that the beast of textual criticism is here to stay. And the modern day Christians missionaries boastfully say, “Who is afraid of textual criticism?’” (M S M Saifullah, cAbd ar-Rahmân Robert Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem, Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism? Internet; accessed 08 May 2006; available from http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/textcriticism.html, emphasis mine.)

It is notable that even unbelieving Muslim scholars are able to discern the logical inconsistencies and paralogisms inherent in so-called Christian textual criticism. The academic notion of verbal, plenary inspiration is, evidently, functionally incompatible with the concept of a “living text which was constantly changing at the whims and fancies of the scribes and the leaders of the Church.” The evangelical doctrine of inerrancy was effectively relegated to the realms of theoretical discourses, and the traditional text of the New Testament was replaced with an unfolding, eclectic text that will never be the infallible Word. Unavoidably, modernistic textual scholarship will require radical revision in order for it to be compatible with the evangelical doctrine of Scripture.

Dr Edward F. Hills, who was trained as a textual critic in Harvard University, comprehended the potential threat posed by rationalistic textual criticism to a believer’s faith. In his book The King James Version Defended, he warned Christians that “ . . . the logic of naturalistic textual criticism leads to complete modernism, to a naturalistic view not only of the biblical text but also of the Bible as a whole and of the Christian faith. For if it is right to ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures in the study of the New Testament text, why isn’t it right to go farther in the same direction? Why isn’t it right to ignore other divine aspects of the Bible? Why isn’t it right to ignore the divine inspiration of the Scriptures when discussing the authenticity of the Gospel of John or the Synoptic problem or the authorship of the Pentateuch? . . . Impelled by this remorseless logic, many an erstwhile conservative bible student has become entirely modernistic in his thinking. But he does not acknowledge that he has departed from the Christian faith. For from his point of view he has not. He has merely travelled farther down the same path which he began to tread when first he studied naturalistic textual criticism of the Westcott and Hort type, perhaps at some conservative theological seminary. From his point of view his orthodox former professors are curiously inconsistent. They use the naturalistic method in the area of New Testament textual criticism and then drop it most illogically, like something too hot to handle, when they come to other departments of biblical study.” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, page 83, emphasis mine).

Sadly, Bart Ehrman is a fulfilment of Dr Hill’s earlier warning. Dr Ehrman has “merely travelled farther down the same path which he began to tread when first he studied naturalistic textual criticism of the Westcott and Hort type,” and has eventually arrived at the broad way that leads to eternal perdition and unbelief.

This concludes my current thoughts on this subject matter.

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism Part 3

The Way Forward for Textual Criticism



In the area of contemporary textual criticism, what are some factors that might contribute to the development of a mature and faith-based method of collating manuscripts? In the following paragraphs, I would like to mention certain points, which might be considered for future dialogue.

Firstly, we must address the issue of preservation of Scripture. Our Lord Jesus Christ, obviously, never owned the autographs of the Bible. Did our Lord, then, ever question the inerrancy of the apographs He had? In fact, Jesus was absolutely confident that not one jot or tittle of Holy Writ would ever be lost (Matthew 5:17-18), not even in the apographs. No honest student of the Scripture can ever claim that Jesus did not believe in an inerrant Bible (Matthew 4:4, 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 24:44, John 10:35). Yet our Lord did not possess the autographs of Scripture. Neither did the apostles possess the autographs of the entire biblical canon.

Secondly, in a very practical sense, we must explore the doctrinal implications and ramifications of verbal, plenary inspiration for the Church today. Whenever the word “Scripture” appears in the Bible, does it refer to the autographs or the apographs? In 2 Timothy 3:14-17, we read the following words of the apostle Paul:

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul admonished Timothy to continue (verse14) in the Holy Scriptures that he had known since he was a child (verse15). The Holy Scriptures, which Timothy possessed, were copies of the original Hebrew Old Testament texts. Timothy obviously did not own the autographs of the Old Testament. The apostle Paul referred to these copies as Holy Scriptures. When Paul wrote verse 16 under the inspiration of God, we observe that there is not a single verb in the past tense. Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”; the Scripture, which Timothy knew from childhood, is presently inspired.

It is remarkable that 2 Timothy 3:16 was written in the present tense. Paul could have written, “All scripture was given by inspiration of God”; this might imply that Scripture was perfectly inspired only at its original writing. But the grammatical structure of verse 16 (“All scripture is given by inspiration”) unequivocally states that the verbal, plenary inspiration of God’s inerrant Word extends to the words of the apographs.

John MacArthur Jr., in his New Testament Commentary on 2nd Timothy, comments on 2 Timothy 3:16:

“In addition to the many other specific biblical references to the inspiration and authority of Scripture—some of which are mentioned below—it is important to note that similar Greek constructions in other parts of the New Testament (see, e.g., Rom. 7:12; 2 Cor. 10:10; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:3; 4:4; Heb. 4:12) argue strongly from a grammatical perspective that all Scripture is inspired is the proper translation.” (John MacArthur Jr., MacArthur's New Testament Commentary: 2 Timothy)

It is not only the message, but also the very words of Scripture that are inspired. Modern textual scholarship insists that the inspired, inerrant Word of God is found only in the autographs. While the apostle Paul emphasized that, “All scripture is given by inspiration”, skeptics suggest, “All scripture was given by inspiration”. The bible-believing Christian affirms that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), whereas textual scholars believe it was given.

Although Timothy had only copies of the Old Testament books, the apographs he owned were considered by Paul to be inspired Scripture! If the words of the apographs were inspired, they must also be inerrant and infallible. God’s inspired Words cannot contain error!

Besides, whenever the apostle Paul preached in the synagogues (Acts 13:16, 13:46, 14:1, 17:2, 17:10, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8), he did not use the autographs of the biblical canon. The Berean church (Acts 17:11), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34-35) and the first century Christians did not possess a Bible made up of autographs. Is it, then, true that they did not have the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Scripture? God forbids. It is a fact that whenever the word “scripture” occurs in the Bible, it never refers to the autographs alone.

It is not the ink or the physical writing materials of the autographs that are inspired per se, but the words on the autographs. Those very same inspired words are found on the apographs. All scripture - autograph and apograph - is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is indubitably clear with regard to the extant inerrancy and inspiration of Holy Writ. Inspiration can never be rationally divorced from the doctrine of preservation. The Westminster divines, recognizing the logical relationship between inspiration and preservation, declared that the inspired Scriptures in the original languages are by God’s “singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages (Westminster Confession of Faith I:8).”

As a point of interest, I would like to digress a little, and mention an excellent article I read in the recent edition of The Standard Bearer (Volume 82, Number 17, June 2006), entitled “Modern Heresies: Higher Criticism 2.” In this article, Professor Herman Hanko wrote:

“The church of all ages has confessed that Scripture is the Word of God and the standard of truth and holiness. Yet the bitter attacks against Scripture have forced the church to define more precisely what it means that Scripture is the Word of God. To do this involves defining more precisely what is meant by inspiration. . . . Scripture is given to the church by God, word for word. Scripture is verbally inspired, fully inspired, totally that which the Holy Spirit wanted written. Hence, Scripture is both infallible and inerrant. (Pages 393-394, emphasis mine)”

I applaud the Protestant Reformed Churches in America for their high view on Scripture, and their courage in defending vital Christian doctrines against modernistic assaults. I agree and affirm wholeheartedly that “Scripture is given to the church by God, word for word,” and that “Scripture is verbally inspired, fully inspired” - each and every word of God has plenary inspiration.

However, if textual criticism ought to be swallowed wholesale by evangelical Christians, then allow me to direct a question to all evangelical scholars: “Which local church, or which generation of Christians, in all of Church history, has ever possessed all the words of this verbal plenary inspired Scripture?”

If indeed “Scripture is given to the church by God, word for word,” which local church on this planet has ever possessed all of Scripture “word for word?” Is it true, then, that the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture is only limited to the non-existent, hypothetical autographs which neither Jesus nor the apostles ever possessed?

Contemporary textual scholarship must soberly consider the logical ramifications of the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. Otherwise, evangelical textual criticism would degenerate to mere human philosophy and empiricism. But the Christian ought to work with the logic of faith; that is, logic derived from the faith in God that He will preserve His inspired words.

To be continued in Part 4

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism Part 2

Logical Fallacies of Textual Criticism



Avoiding further circumlocution, I will state my point very simply: textual critics will decide which are, and which are not, the words of God. While the Church once possessed the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received texts as Scripture, this certainty and confidence in having an unchanging text is replaced by an allegedly superior, eclectic text, which is perennially updated to give us the unchanging Word of God.

Indeed, the logical fallacy of contemporary, evangelical scholarship is astounding. Let me furnish some examples:

Statement A: “While we do not have the autographs today, we are confident that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.”

Logical fallacy A: If the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture apply only to the autographs, and not to the apographs, does it not necessarily mean that what we possess today are not inerrant and infallible? Furthermore, which Bible is inerrant and infallible - the autographs or the one in our hands?

Statement B: “The inspired Word of God contains no errors.”

Logical fallacy B: The inspiration of Scripture is verbal and plenary. This means that each and every word given to the Church is inspired, inerrant and infallible. But these words are, according to textual critics, lost to antiquity. The words of the Bible today contain scribal errors and copyist mistakes, and no sane textual critic will admit that he is absolutely confident that every word and sentence of the Bible today is a perfect reconstruction of the autographs. Also, can any textual critic give us the assurance that a particular variant reading is the original Word of God? The textual critic may claim that a particular variant is closest to the original reading, but can he affirm that it is the original reading? Hence, by logical deduction, can we say that the Word of God as we have it today is inerrant and infallible?

Statement C: “Although there are scribal errors in our Bibles today, they do not affect the fundamentals of faith. The Bible is still inerrant and infallible.”

Logical fallacy C: If the words of Scripture are not preserved for us today, and if our Bible as we have it contains copyist errors scattered throughout its text, how can we be sure which words are in the autographs and which are not? It is God’s Words that are inspired, not just the message of His Words. But according to the theory of textual criticism, the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture exist only in the hypothetical autographs. The syllogistic deductions of textual criticism inevitably lead to this conclusion: in essence, the Bible that the church possesses today is not inerrant and infallible Scripture. This conclusion, in any case, affects the fundamental doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of Holy Writ.

Who can, therefore, blame Dr Ehrman for arriving at the logical conclusion of naturalistic textual criticism? He rants, “It would be wrong . . . to say - as people sometimes do - that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case. (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, page 208)” Is it, then, true that Dr Ehrman’s faith in textual criticism has partially attributed to his apostasy from the true faith? The “theological conclusions” he drew would include questioning the deity of Christ and the veracity of Scripture.

As Evangelicals, we have to agree that, at the very least, every jot and tittle of Scripture is the very Word of God. The psalmist proclaimed: “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (Psalm 138:2).” If God has magnified His Word even above His name, I would be very worried if any of His Words are no longer available for us today, for it brings into question his omnipotence. An omnipotent, omniscient and omnisapient God must be able to preserve His Words for his Church.

Again, if man requires each and every Word that proceeds out of God’s mouth, it is a serious, if not fatal, logical error to claim that God has failed to preserve His every Word. For “it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4, cf. Deuteronomy 8:3, Luke 4:4).”

To be continued in Part 3

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism

An Introduction to the Problems

Part 1



Recent attacks on Christianity have come from two fronts, namely, the Christological and the textual fronts. Revisionist hypotheses such as Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, attempt to reinterpret the person of Christ and His life. As Christology is intimately intertwined with other salient Christian doctrines, various fundamentals of faith are indirectly affected.

More insidious than this assault upon Nicene Christology is Brown’s egregious denunciation of the historical, biblical canon. This controversy should reasonably be classified under textual and canonical matters, or more specifically, higher criticism. Of late, the subject of lower criticism, also known as textual criticism, has served as fodder for critics of biblical inerrancy.

The arena of textual criticism is, I believe, usually beyond the reach of the rank and file Christian. Consequentially, serious critiques of the text of Scripture, such as Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by North America’s leading textual critic, Bart D. Ehrman, are inevitably difficult for the layman to answer.

Ex-evangelical Dr Ehrman, who once adhered to the inerrancy of Scripture, now questions its veracity in his book Misquoting Jesus:

“How does it help us to say that the Bible is inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes - sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals!” (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, page 7.)

Although Dr Ehrman calls himself a “happy agnostic,” and now believes that man simply ceases to exist at death - “like the mosquito you swatted yesterday” - I think his question is a fair one. If what Christians have today is a constantly evolving text called the eclectic text, which is updated every couple of years by textual scholars, is there any practical value in calling the "Bible" inerrant and infallible? In effect, Dr Ehrman is tacitly admitting that: without divine preservation of the original words of Scripture, which is inerrant and infallible, what we have today is a flawed reconstruction of the autographs at best – the demise of which is admitted by every textual scholar.

Tragically, Dr Ehrman’s conclusions are the logical deductions of modern textual criticism. And he is definitely not alone when he claims that the autographs are irrecoverable. Dr Ehrman is simply reiterating the sentiments of various textual critics. Renowned textual critic, F.C. Conybeare, commented in 1910, “The ultimate text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is forever irrecoverable.” (History of New Testament Criticism, p. 129). Again, in 1947, R.M. Grant said, “ . . . it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered.” (“The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, page 173).

The naturalistic theory of textual criticism explains that the autographs were lost or destroyed since antiquity, and the only way to reconstruct the autographs is via an indeterminate process of manuscript collation and emendation. According to the Westcott and Hort theory, the oldest manuscripts - which are allegedly closest to the autographs - were only rediscovered in the 19th century. Despite losing these manuscripts for almost 1900 years, the Church has finally recovered these Alexandrian manuscripts, which are nevertheless imperfect. The collation of Greek manuscripts and emendation of the eclectic text for the last few centuries had produce an ever-changing Bible for Christians. Nevertheless, this Bible is still evolving towards a better text, which ought to be closer to the autographs, although it never will be an exact replica of the originals.

To be continued in Part 2

A Primer to the “Carnal Christian” Theory Part 4

What does 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 really teach?

From a single passage of Scripture, proponents of the “Carnal Christian” theory conjured up three classes of humanity, the natural man, the spiritual Christian man, and the carnal Christian man. This passage is found in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4:

“1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”

Unlike the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, 1 Corinthians is not primarily a doctrinal epistle. Although all Scripture contains doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16), 1 Corinthians was not written to lay doctrinal foundations. Paul’s immediate concern in writing this epistle was to deal with practical problems in the young Corinthian church.

Due to schisms within the church at Corinth, the apostle was obliged to treat the Corinthians as children or babes in the knowledge of sacred truths (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). Some preferred Paul as their teacher, others Apollos (1 Corinthians 3:4). The apostle, however, clarified that Apollos, his fellow apostles, and himself were only God’s instruments for bringing them to the knowledge of the truth. All their sowing and watering of the seeds were useless unless God gave the increase (1 Corinthians 3:5-8). From the first to the fourth chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul was dealing with the danger of schisms and divisions arising out of a wrong esteem for preachers from whom they had heard the gospel. Instead of recognizing their unity in Christ, they were forming factions and opposing parties within the church.

As with all the other problems within the Corinthian church - for example, the disorder at the Lord’s Supper, immorality and lawsuits - such divisions were the result of carnality, the outcropping of that remaining principle of sin in all believers which Paul described in Romans 7:21-23. We understand that the Corinthian Christians were imperfectly sanctified, as are all Christians to a lesser or greater degree.

Paul is not teaching that the Corinthians were characterized by carnality in all areas of their lives. He is not expounding a separate, lower class of “Carnal Christians”, but reproving a specific act of carnality in just one aspect of those factious Christians. Paul’s foundational epistles - the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians - had clearly laid out a bipartite division of all humanity. To read a new class of “Carnal Christian” into the text of 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 is to violate a cardinal principle of basic hermeneutics: a single passage of Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the whole.

A Christian may be fleshly in one or more areas of his life, and also at various periods of his pilgrimage on Earth. But it is inconceivable that a born-again child of God, who is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, can remain carnal in all areas of his life for all his life!

The “Carnal Christian” theory intimates that sanctification and submission to the Kingship of Christ is an option. Thus, this aberrant teaching makes it possible for unregenerate, sybaritic “professors” to claim a saving attachment to Christ when they are really on the broad way to hell. “Redemption would be a mockery without sanctification; for sin itself, and not the external wrath of God, is the cause of misery here, and eternal death hereafter. Hence, to deliver the fallen son of Adam from his guilt, and leave him under the power of corruption would be no salvation.” (R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1985 [1878]), 664.)

Conclusion

This hedonistic culture will not hesitate to embrace the “Carnal Christian” theory, for the theory assures a materialistic, profligate generation that they can remain in their carnality, and yet acquire a “fire-insurance policy.” The unregenerate person is thereby misled into believing that he can proclaim the name of Christ (Matthew 7:21-23), and yet continue to enjoy “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16).” But the Bible proclaims that God is able to take away our stony hearts, and to give us new hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26).

Is it, then, possible for a true Christian to have no desire in obeying the thrice-Holy God (1 John 2:3-5, John 14:15)?

Ernest Reisinger exclaimed, “How in God’s name did we come to huckstering off Jesus as some kind of hell-insurance policy, when the Bible announced Him as Lord and exalted Him to a throne? The New Testament preachers preached His lordship, and sinners received Him as Lord. There is not one example of Christ being offered any other way . . . God-centered evangelism proclaims the biblical message of the lordship of Christ at the outset, not as a second work of grace, or an act of optional consecration later.” Ernest C. Reisinger, Today’s Evangelism: Its Message and Methods (Phillipsburg, NJ: Craig Press, 1982), pp. 25, 27.

Ultimately, the “Carnal Christian” heresy denigrates all the three persons of the Godhead: it scorns the atonement of Christ by implying that His death does not liberate the sinner from the power of sin; it demeans the regenerating work of the Spirit by teaching that the Holy Ghost cannot lead the child of God in victorious, holy living; it ultimately ridicules the Father by calling Him a liar and an impotent God (1 Peter 1:2).


This post concludes my brief discourse in this subject matter.

A Primer to the “Carnal Christian” Theory Part 3

What does the Bible say about the division of humanity in Galatians 5?

After a brief study of Romans chapter 8, let us now turn our attention to another doctrinal passage of the New Testament. Galatians chapter 5 contrasts the works of the flesh and that of the Spirit. The tension and struggle between the flesh and the Spirit is clearly described in this passage. The apostle wrote,“16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Galatians 5:16-18, emphasis mine).

Matthew Henry rightly observed “that there is in every one a struggle between the flesh and the spirit (v. 17): The flesh (the corrupt and carnal part of us) lusts (strives and struggles with strength and vigour) against the spirit: it opposes all the motions of the Spirit, and resists every thing that is spiritual. On the other hand, the spirit (the renewed part of us) strives against the flesh, and opposes the will and desire of it: and hence it comes to pass that we cannot do the things that we would. As the principle of grace in us will not suffer us to do all the evil which our corrupt nature would prompt us to, so neither can we do all the good that we would, by reason of the oppositions we meet with from that corrupt and carnal principle.” (Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Hendrickson Publishers, 1991, page 2303)

Paul exhorted the Galatians to “walk in the Spirit”, and to embrace serious, practical godliness. The “flesh” is the term Paul often used to describe what remains of the “old man” after a person is saved. It refers to unredeemed humanness, the part of a believer that awaits future redemption at the time of his glorification (Romans 8:23).

MacArthur elucidates that this struggle between the Spirit and the flesh is a diurnal occurrence for the Christian; it happens every day on a regular basis:

“It is only in the lives of believers that the Spirit can fight against the flesh, because it is only in believers that the Spirit dwells. Only a believer can truthfully say, “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind” (Rom. 7:22-23). Only in believers are the unredeemed flesh and the Spirit living in the redeemed self in opposition to one another, so that believers may not do the things that they please. Believers do not always do what they wish to do. There are those moments in every Christian’s experience when the wishing is present but the doing is not. The Spirit often halts what our flesh desires, and the flesh often overrides the will that comes from the Spirit.” (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary: Galatians)

The Spirit of God leads those who are redeemed by Christ Jesus. When God saves a sinner, the Holy Spirit enters simultaneously (cf. Rom. 8:9). And the moment He enters He begins to lead the new Christian in the way of fruitfulness (Gal. 5:22-23), holiness (5:16), truth (John 16:13-15), and assurance (Rom. 8:16).

In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul described the works of the flesh, “19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (emphasis mine).”

Did Paul entertain the thought that “they which do such things shall loose some rewards”? Although Paul admitted that there is an ongoing tussle between the flesh and the Spirit (cf. Romans 7:14-24) within a genuine Christian, Paul never once mentioned that there is a separate class of Christians. According to Paul’s understanding, there exists no “Carnal Christian” whose entire inclination is towards the flesh, and is devoid of any desire to obey the “doctrine which is according to godliness (1 Timothy 6:3).” The Scripture teaches unequivocally that people who habitually engage in wicked, sinful behavior are not truly regenerate.

The great preacher, Charles Spurgeon, concurs, “If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord’s will, but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumptions, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Do not suppose that the Gospel is magnified or God-glorified by going to the world ... and telling them that they may be saved at this moment by simply ‘accepting Christ’ as their Savior, while they are wedded to their idols, and their hearts are still in love with sin. If I do so, I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness” (Charles Spurgeon, Today's Evangelism, pp. 25-26).

Those who have never submitted their lives to the lordship of Christ, and are constantly rebelling against the Word of God are not truly believers. According to Galatians chapter 5, it is apparent that the true child of God has a constant, innate desire to obey Him. While the indwelling Spirit of the Christian constantly wars against the flesh, the unregenerate person will have no such struggle between the flesh and the Spirit.

The remorse or shame that an unsaved person experiences must not be confused with the spiritual warfare that occurs within a Christian. Although the sinful activities that the heathen indulges in might disappoint or disgust him, these sins are entirely consistent with his intrinsic nature as a child of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Beyond whatever conscience that might remain in his sinful state, there is no genuine spiritual warfare within the unregenerate person.

Paul wrote, “24And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:24-25). Since the flesh is ‘crucified’ in the sense that it does not reign over us or hold us in inescapable servitude, we now live in the realm where Christ reigns over us by His Spirit. We should now live according to the Spirit, and not the flesh.

To be continued in Part 4

A Primer to the “Carnal Christian” Theory Part 2

What does the Bible say about the division of humanity in Romans 8?

In Romans chapter 8, Paul contrasts two diametrically opposed systems of thought. In other words, the apostle expounds a bipartite division of humanity: the carnal man, and the spiritual man. There is no mention of a second-class, carnal Christian who walks like an unregenerate man.

The Apostle Paul, in Romans 8:4-9, explains:

“4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Romans 8:7 states that the carnal mind is in enmity against God; it refuses to submit to the law of God. However, the Christian is not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Paul is adamant that they who are in the flesh cannot please God. He continues to reassure his readers that “ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you (Romans 8:9).” Contrasting those that are “in the flesh,” and those that are “in the Spirit,” Paul makes no further distinction with regard to Christians. He warns, “For to be carnally minded is death (Romans 8:6).” There is no doubt that those who are “carnally minded” are unbelievers.

Commenting on Romans 8:5-13, John MacArthur Jr. writes, “But those who are according to the Spirit, Paul says, set their minds on the things of the Spirit. In other words, those who belong to God are concerned about godly things. As Jonathan Edwards liked to say, they have “holy affections,” deep longings after God and sanctification. As Paul has made clear in Romans 7, even God’s children sometimes falter in their obedience to Him. But as the apostle said of himself, they nevertheless “joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man” (Rom. 7:22). Despite their many spiritual failures, their basic orientation and innermost concerns have to do with the things of the Spirit. . . . The opposite of that reality is also true: But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. The person who gives no evidence of the presence, power, and fruit of God’s Spirit in his life has no legitimate claim to Christ as Savior and Lord. The person who demonstrates no desire for the things of God and has no inclination to avoid sin or passion to please God is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thus does not belong to Christ.” (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary: Romans 1-8, emphasis in the original.)

Can a Christian be indwelt by the Holy Ghost, and yet exhibit no evidence of sanctification? Is it possible for a regenerate man to have no fruits of the Spirit? The Apostle Peter declared in 1 Peter 1:2 that Christians are “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”. It is obvious that sanctification is not an option. God does not redeem a person with the precious blood of Christ, only to allow him to remain under the power of sin!

The Bible contains many imperatives requiring obedience and holiness in God’s people. For example, the writer of Hebrews taught, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). The Greek word for “follow” or “pursue” indicates an intense pursuit or a dedicated striving after. The writer of Hebrews was exhorting Christians to strive for holiness, for without this process of sanctification, “no man shall see the Lord.”

Gordon Clark explains, “In the Greek text peace is feminine; holiness, or the process of becoming holy, is masculine; the relation pronoun which is masculine singular; therefore the verse says that no man can see the Lord without going through the process of becoming holy.” (Gordon H. Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965), 135).

This passage teaches that those who are justified are progressively made holy in order to be prepared to come into God’s presence. Although Christians are not justified by any meritorious work, true Christians have a faith that works. A professing believer may be well acquainted with all the theological jargon, familiar with the Reformed Confessions, passionate in aiding the poor, impeccable in church attendance, and zealous in evangelism. Yet without personal holiness and sanctification, such a professor is spiritually dead and destined for perdition.

In Romans 8:14, did Paul write, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are spiritual Christians”? There are no two classes of Christians! Romans 8:12-14 states, “12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (emphasis mine). The inevitable conclusion of Romans chapter 8 is this: the Spirit of God leads all Christians. Christians are in the Spirit, not in the flesh. The proclivity of the believer’s heart is to please God, and to obey His Word. The believer may stumble and fall every now and then, but they will continue to strive towards holiness and perfection. Like the Apostle Paul, they “delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Romans 7:22).

To be continued in Part 3

A Primer to the “Carnal Christian” Theory Part 1

More than a decade ago, a well-meaning acquaintance introduced me to a booklet popularized by the ecumenical, parachurch organization Campus Crusade for Christ. It was entitled, “Have you made the wonderful discovery of the Spirit-filled life?” This booklet gave me an informal introduction to the “Carnal Christian” theory. Within this booklet is a tripartite delineation of man into the “Natural man”, the “Spiritual man”, and the “Carnal Christian” man.

This doctrine is taught in numerous churches, and preached from a myriad of pulpits all over the globe. The theory has a facade of orthodoxy because it is presented in the popular Scofield Reference Bible; it even has the endorsement of the cognoscenti. Unfortunately, the “Carnal Christian” theory is an insidious, pervasive and dangerous ailment.

Patients who succumb to this malady are spiritually ill, but they have a false assurance of salvation. This erroneous theory reassures them that being a Christian does not require submission to the lordship of Christ. This illness is particularly endemic among those who call themselves dispensationalists, although I acknowledge the fact that not all dispensationalists contract this ailment. John MacArthur Jr. of Master’s Seminary, for example, vehemently opposes this heresy.

The sequelae of the Carnal Christian infection cannot be overemphasized. It has produced a generation of “believers” who have no qualms about professing the name of Christ, but at the same time, feels perfectly at home with sin. They may have a theological comprehension of Christ’s atoning death, and the concept of forensic justification, but they are unwilling to submit themselves to the lordship of Christ. They want Christ as their Saviour, but not as their King. They themselves remain the captain of their lives, and the lord of their souls.

These “Carnal Christians” perceive that they are delivered from hell, but not from the power of sin; Christ has redeemed them from the condemnation of the law, but has not given them the power to live in the Spirit. This heretical teaching cultivates a generation of “professors” who presume that holiness is optional for the Christian.

What is the Carnal Christian Theory?

The carnal Christian theory was conceived to accommodate all the supposed converts of contemporary evangelism, which has omitted biblical repentance from its preaching. These converts had “made a decision for Christ”; they had walked an aisle, said a prayer, and perhaps even shed a tear. But their lifestyles and inherent desires are indistinguishable from those with an unregenerate heart. They love the world, and the world loves them. They act like the heathen, live like the heathen, and think like the heathen. Consequentially, a theory must be conjured up to explain the sudden escalation in church attendance and evangelism statistics. Some passages of Scripture must be made to say that such worldly, egocentric and unrepentant “professors” are indeed Christians.

Proponents of the “Carnal Christian” theory advocates a two-experience view of the Christian life. In stage one, a person accepts Jesus Christ as his Saviour, and thus escapes from eternal damnation. After securing this immunity from hell, a person can subsequently decide whether he wants to receive Christ as his Lord. This is only an option though - it is merely the key to a “higher” Christian experience. He can, therefore, choose to disobey the word of God, live a life of rebellion against God’s Word, and yet have Jesus as his Saviour. Such a “Carnal Christian” is believed to “be saved; yet so as by fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15). He will loose his rewards in heaven, but he is absolutely “fire-proofed”.

Classical dispensationalism teaches that repentance belongs to the “dispensation of law”, and not the “dispensation of grace”. Some dispensationalists will argue that if repentance and sanctification are required of Christians, then salvation is not by faith in Christ alone, but also in works. According to this system of hermeneutics, professing Christians who refuse to submit to Jesus as Lord - that is, those who refuse to lead lives characterized by obedience and holiness - are called “Carnal Christians”.

The Carnal Christian theory touches the heart of soteriology and the gospel. It constitutes an essential part of the debate between the “free-grace” proponents and the “lordship” teachers. As the “Carnal Christian” hypothesis confounds the doctrine of sanctification and the understanding of genuine salvific faith, it is a critical error for Christians to address. It does not only have theological ramifications, but is also intimately intertwined with practical Christian living, experience and evangelism.

Charles Ryrie, a “free-grace” teacher, rightly states, “The importance of this question cannot be overestimated in relation to both salvation and sanctification. The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is false and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) …” (Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago: Moody, 1969), 170.)

Some Clarifications Regarding Christian Sanctification

I acknowledge that Christians are in different states of sanctification, and that there are many degrees of sanctification. There are babes in Christ, and different stages of “babyhood”. The Bible teaches about sin in a Christian’s life, and that genuine believers can backslide grievously. A Christian can also be carnal in some areas of his life during many stages of his life.

In the Scofield Reference Bible, Cyrus I. Scofield wrote:

“Paul divides men into three classes: “Natural i.e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new birth; “Spiritual” i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God; “Carnal”, “fleshly”, i.e. the renewed man who walking “after the flesh”, remains a babe in Christ” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1213-1214).

Notice that Scofield divides Christians into two different classes: the “Spiritual” Christian, and the “Carnal” Christian. This entire doctrinal controversy revolves around these questions: Is it true that there is a category of Christians whose entire bent, inclination and leaning is in the direction of carnality? Can a bona fide Christian possess absolutely no desire to submit himself to Christ’s kingship, and persist in his fleshliness?

Basic Principles of Hermeneutics

Before refuting the “Carnal Christian” theory, we shall recapitulate certain salient principles of hermeneutics. Firstly, we believe that there is no real contradiction in Scripture, and that any apparent contradiction can be resolved by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Secondly, obscure portions of Scripture must be interpreted with the clear passages in the Bible. Thirdly, major doctrines must never be formulated from an isolated verse or passage of Scripture. It will soon be clear that the “Carnal Christian” heresy violates all the aforementioned principles of hermeneutics.

To be continued in Part 2

Mummy or the maid

I read with some ambivalence a letter published in the Straits Times forum entitled “Young adult thinks parents should take responsibility for their children rather than rely on ‘the authorities’” by Eric Ho Wee Kim.[1] I wonder if I should agree or disagree with his observations.

Mr. Ho wrote:

“All too often, there are letters from parents with concerns or complaints about content in the media or issues their children have to deal with in and out of school. Almost always, a reply is expected from 'the authorities'. This raises a question in my mind: ‘Are parents fulfilling their roles as parents?’”

A more pertinent question for Singaporeans today would be “Functionally, who are really the parents?” The average child in Singapore goes to school, attends tuition, and even takes up extra classes like music or ballet. But the perspicacious observer would discern that the moral education and character building of the child are actually executed by the family’s domestic helper, the grandparents, Rover the collie, and the one-eyed monster – the goggle box.

An interesting phenomenon in Singapore would be the amount of time each child spends on watching television. The most frequent, non-confrontational communication between family members at home would be that of a child, and the resident goggle box. The Singaporean child would spend at least 12.3 hours per week watching television; that would average to 1.75 hours per day. [2] The programs watched by the toddler include a hodgepodge of cartoons, Barney, Sesame Street, and even an occasional ‘Baywatch’ or ‘Desperate Housewives’ - with his parents’ permission and supervision, of course.

The child is conveniently placed in front of the television as part of ‘good parenting,’ that is, parenting skills that will allow the parents to spend more time earning good money. But which child in Singapore utilizes an exclusive 1.75 hours talking to their mother daily? That would be 105 minutes face to face with the mummy who is usually very busy with her work.

It is no wonder that the average Singaporean child acquire at least three languages in his childhood: English, Mandarin, and an assortment of linguistic expletives. Most of his vocabulary and moral values are procured insidiously from certain cartoon series and adult sitcoms. Sexual content and violence in television programs have also increased exponentially over the past few decades. And the Singaporean parent can be assured that Judeo-Christian values are not part of national education in this country.

In the United States, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of programs aired on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS Lifetime, TNT, USA, and HBO gave the following conclusions: “The study found that 70 per cent of all shows included some sexual content, averaging about five scenes with sexual content per hour. That’s up from about three scenes per hour in 1998, and from nearly 4.” [3] Thus, according to this survey, television programs in the United States contain twice the number of sex scenes compared to seven years ago. This survey does not take into account the programs’ language content or moral philosophy.

Singapore would not fare any better if a similar survey were to be conducted on Mediacorp’s programs. A production that taps into the feral instinct of a desperately prurient audience, “Desperate Housewives” ranks as one of the most popular television series in Singapore. Other hits on the goggle box include “Crime Scene Investigation”, “Singapore Idol,” and some locally produced sitcoms with its fair share of lewdness, burlesque and Singlish.

Adultery and fornication are portrayed as part of a pleasurable, healthy lifestyle in television shows such as “Desperate Housewives.” Impressionable young minds, as a result, might imbibe certain values that no decent parent would ever sanction: sexual promiscuity, unfaithfulness, irresponsibility, lesbianism and homosexuality. The Christian family would do well to heed the Psalmist admonition, “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me (Psalm 101:3).” Nevertheless, the television continues to provide the child not only with entertainment, but also serves as a constant source of social commentary and moral lessons from the viewpoint of Hollywood.

As divorce rates are soaring in Singapore, coupled with the rapidly declining childbirth rates, the government has to answer a question quickly: “What could be the reasons for the widespread dissolution of marriage covenants in Singapore’s society?”

If Adam insists on marrying Steve, or if Eve prefers to wed her girlfriend, it does not require a biologist to figure out that such family units would not contribute to a nation’s birth statistics. Contrariwise, such a trend in human sexuality would seriously jeopardise individual fecundity. With increasing decadence and infidelity within our society, together with the escalating number of same-sex relationships, the integrity of each Singaporean family is indubitably threatened. Unless the government is able to understand the gestalt of the situation, and provide the nation with the required solution, we can expect the social fabric to collapse over the next few decades.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, homosexual couples can be legally married. Innumerable same-sex couples are flocking to marriage registries all across the country to set up their own families. This includes singer Sir Elton John and his “long term partner,” David Furnish. In fact, it had been predicted that up to 22,000 couples would register over the next five years. So, if your own child tells you he is getting married soon, ask whether you are expecting a daughter-in-law or a son-in-law. By the way, same-sex marriage is still outlawed in Singapore.

A couple of days ago, I saw a child in a yellow T-shirt with a Barney soft toy in his arms asking his father, “Papa, why does that mummy look so young?” The father, unflustered by the child’s question, answered awkwardly, “She is not the mother. She is the maid.”

Another anomaly is taking place in this nation over the past years. Conflicts between mother and child in public places are apparently decreasing in frequency. This is not due to improved interpersonal relationships or greater understanding, but a consequence of the rampant replacement of Singaporean mothers with domestic helpers.

I am not reminiscing about some science fiction work whereby humans are progressively and clandestinely replaced with the bodies of invading aliens from another galaxy. I am speaking of another social phenomenon in Singapore: the pervasive usage of domestic helpers in families as ersatz mothers.

Gone are the days when the petulant child creates a sturm und drang in shopping malls. With the primary objective eliminated – that is, to vex the mother into purchasing his favorite toy – the child is left to his own devices with the maid of the house. The child’s mother is, on the other hand, battling with the rise and fall of stocks and shares in a commercial enterprise.

In times past, the Singaporean mother would usually stay at home, and perform her duties as the matron (Proverbs 31). However, the double income family is now the norm in this country. Both father and mother brings back the bread, or rather, the gold. It is more profitable to have a double income, and leave the children with their maid; but it is most profitable to leave the kids with their grandparents, because grandparents do not require a monthly salary to get them doing the errands. But sadly, not all grandparents are long-lived.

Holding on to jobs that bring great dividends, with car loans and home mortgages to boot, it is indeed tempting to worship the god of Singapore – filthy lucre. But the Christian family must never sacrifice the proper upbringing of the child for a bowl of plutocratic pottage. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).”

So when the character building of a child is dependant upon the domestic helper, the goggle box and household pets, we do not expect good moral values or civic mindedness in the young Singaporean, or do we?

Returning to the question Mr. Eric Ho had asked earlier, “Are parents fulfilling their roles as parents?” I believe the children themselves best answer this question. Look at any child, assess his character and mien, and you will see a nebulous reflection of his parents’ nurture, or the lack of it.

The authorities, the church and foreign labor can never substitute the godly upbringing and nurturing that a Christian father or mother can provide. But again, if the head of the family is not performing his role as spiritual leader, neither can the child perceive the father as the role model. Who knows, Rover the collie might someday usurp the position of patriarch cum matriarch in the heart of the Singaporean child.

Footnotes

1. Eric Ho Wee Kim, “Young adult thinks parents should take responsibility for their children rather than rely on ‘the authorities,’” Straits Times Forum. Internet; accessed 23 May 2006; available from http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,394769,00.html. Also see Nicodemus Ching Cheok Hui, “Kidz Bop spreads wrong values,” Straits Times Forum. Internet; accessed 23 May 2006; available from http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,394129,00.html.

2. Wai Peng Lee and Eddie C. Y. Kuo, “Internet and Displacement Effect: Children's Media Use and Activities in Singapore,” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 7, no. 2 (2002), available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue2/singapore.html#Television. This paper also noted an increase of Internet usage associated with decreased television viewing. Teenagers in Singapore are often engaged in Internet gaming activities.

3. “Most Sexed-up Shows on Idiot Box,” AP, Hindustan Times, 10th November 2006.

Dawkins’ god

In a British broadcast entitled “The Root of All Evil?” on Channel 4 in the UK, evolutionist professor Richard Dawkins harangued Christianity as the greatest threat facing humanity.

He rants, “I'm very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and infects generation after generation . . . It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish . . . What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff? . . . The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction - jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide . . . When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It's a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.”

What Dawkins didn’t say is probably more lethal than the imminent danger of an Avian Flu pandemic.

The cancer of evolutionism is surreptitiously eating away society’s moral fabric at an alarming rate. Dawkins’ pet theory – Neo-Darwinism – teaches students that all Homo sapiens and bananas came from a common ancestor. Just like the average household plant, humans are allegedly “proven” to have evolved from a pre-biotic slime some 3 million years ago. Unknown to the initiate, this “empirical” proof is tenuous at best. It is based upon a fantasy dreamt up by religious atheists and agnostics to do away with a Creator.

If evolutionism is true, moral values and societal ethics are logically dependant upon the whimsical decisions of the majority. Without an omnipotent, omniscient Law Giver, the existence of any moral law is inherently contradictory. That which is right or wrong will eventually depend upon the common opinions of the mob. Mobocracy will be the ultimate rule of life.

Again, if humans are indeed the product of blind chance, mutations and natural selection, the existence of absolute moral values cannot be justified. How can molecules and atoms account for the genesis of morality? How dare a Neo-Darwinist believe in human rights? If “jaws and claws” are the rules of survival, and if indeed, survival is of the fittest, then that which is weak, diseased or etiolated ought to be eliminated by nature. In fact, the murder of societal misfits ought to be a quotidian occurrence. We should redirect the question back to Professor Dawkins: “What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a fatuous, pseudo-scientific theory like Neo-Darwinism?”

Apparently, Dawkins believes that the “Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish” because it emphasizes monogamy, family values and love for fellow humans. I believe professor Dawkins would be most pleased if such “Judeo-Christian” values are expunged from his own family and society. Perhaps Dawkins would do well to “walk his talk.”

Hitler, Milosevic and Pol Pot derived their infamous philosophy from social Darwinism. It is Dawkins’ god - evolution - who advocates the expeditious purification of the human race via ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter. After all, who else but Dawkins’ god is the “petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide?”

The indoctrination of innumerable children in public schools all over the world with the religion of Neo-Darwinism, and its accompanying moral relativism, is ironically paid with tax dollars, including the tax dollars of Christians and Catholics.

If there is “a virus that attacks the young and infects generation after generation,” it must be Dawkins’ theory of evolution, and the carnage it would bring if allowed to proliferate in the countless, credulous minds of students. Unfortunately, this virus is transmitted partly through parents and teachers, but also “down the generations” from professor to scientist to student.

The only immunization available for the population today is proper, unbiased education with Science, not pseudo-science. The ghost of the metaphysical entity called evolution will never be exorcised, unless scientists are willing to examine all the available, empirical evidence, and acquire the courage to come to a sane conclusion.

(Note: I have discussed the evidence against evolutionism in a series of seminars held in Singapore. See here and here.)

The Almost Christian

I once asked a leader of a megachurch in Singapore, “Do you know the fundamentals of the Christian faith?”

He replied emphatically, “Christianity is all about Christ. I know Jesus, and that’s enough for me. It’s love that matters. Don’t talk to me about doctrine. Talk to me about Christ, and Christ alone.”

This megachurch leader reminded me of a worship service I attended more than a decade ago. That worship began with a blaring cacophony rivalled only by the most jarring rock band in Asia. As the drumbeat builds up to a crescendo, the worshippers trembled violently as if a thousand volts were passing through their bodies. Some jumped and gyrated like cobras enchanted by the tune of the pipe. Hands were waving wildly like willows in the wind; faces were flushed as in an apoplectic rage.

Suddenly, the worship leader muttered an incantation, “God loves you! Show Him that you love Him too!” The mesmerized audience responded with twitching eyelids and flipping, dishevelled hair. This was accompanied by the ear-piercing shrieks of unintelligible sounds and babbles thought to be the manifestation of the Spirit. The sequence of worship was repeated for 2 whole hours in different rhythms: samba, rumba, slow rock and bossa nova. Even a short rap session performed by a group of teenagers was squeezed between songs.

Noticeably, the audience were entranced. But most of all, the worshippers felt worshipful. Amidst the drumbeats, the waving hands and the nodding heads, the worshippers could feel an ambience of love, as though God loved them - acne, warts, and all.

The lights were dimmed. A man in suit started a sermonette on the topic of “love.” His theology is uncomplicated, and could possibly be summarized in three words: God is love. He preached that Christians ought to love indiscriminately. Even the God he described was an adorable, sensitive, and “a very nice guy.” Not very much like Jehovah of the Old Testament, he says. “God is concerned with salvation, not revenge!” “God is love, my friends. So how can a loving God send anyone to hell?” “Jesus loves you, no matter what you do.” I saw tears flowing down the cheeks of those in the auditorium. But if God really loves man no matter what man does, He is not the God of the Bible, isn’t He?

The preacher went on to give his treatise on Christology. Once again, his doctrine of Christ is relatively straightforward. It can be summarized in a sentence: “Jesus loves you.” And “you” refers to “whosoever is listening to his sermon.” His Jesus is a sentimental Jesus, an effeminate God-Man who tries very hard to woo sinners to Himself. This Jesus probably had bushy eyebrows, thick lips and epicene features. Most crucially, this Jesus loves everybody, and knows nothing of hell. If there were really hell fire, this loving Jesus would make an ice cube so huge even He cannot lift it. And the rich man in hell wouldn’t be asking Lazarus for a drink. There will be a cocktail bar not too far down the street.

Jesus, according to him, is the greatest entrepreneur and Chief Executive Officer (CEO). He is the CEO of the largest organization on Earth – the church. The pope and bishops are His trusted henchmen. And tithing is the best investment shareholders can make in this company. The most natural thing to do – of course, for the successful deputy CEO – is to urge all shareholders to empty their pockets into the company’s investments.

Unfortunately, the lovey-dovey CEO called Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible.

This is the Christ of an “almost Christian”, and the God of an almost Christianity. The “almost Christian” believes in an almost Jesus. But that almost Jesus does not save. Likewise, the almost Jesus’ of Mormonism, Armstrongism, Jehovah Witness, Romanism and Liberalism do not save.

The journey of faith must never be devoid of Truth. True faith is based upon sound knowledge and doctrine. Sound doctrine is based upon the Word of God, and genuine faith enables the Christian to delight in sound doctrine. Bishop J.C. Ryle once commented, “You can talk about Christian experience all you wish, but without doctrinal roots it is like cut flowers stuck in the ground - it will wither and die.”

My sister once worshipped in a mega-church in Singapore. But when the theatrics no longer conjure up those sentimental feelings, the mind is left with a chasm too wide for any stage histrionics to bridge. Paul said, “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2).” This lack of knowledge was eventually filled with a mawkish, New Age positivism. And Theism was replaced with her newfound New Age Pantheism.

Aidan W. Tozer warned, “The unattended garden will soon be overrun with weeds; the heart that fails to cultivate truth and root out error will shortly be a theological wilderness.”

My sister remains till this day a victim of a “zeal of God” which is not according to knowledge and sound doctrine. She was an almost Christian. But an almost Christian is tragically not a bona fide Christian.

Many benighted souls like my sister may eventually join the ranks of the “almost Christians” in church history, together with Balaam the prophet, Jehu the king, and Judas the apostle. Sadly, the world hates them, because they were almost Christians. And God hates them, because they are but hypocrites and deceivers. Ultimately, they deceive themselves unto eternal perdition.

I shall conclude with a sobering thought from B. H. Carroll:

“A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness.

The modern cry: 'Less creed and more liberty,' is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy--it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.

Just so it is not good discipline that created backsliding and other sins of Christians. But discipline is oftentimes the only means of saving a church. To hold to discipline for immoralities and relax it on doctrine puts the cart before the horse and attempts to heal a stream while leaving the fountain impure. To Christ and the apostles false creeds were the most deadly things, and called most for the use of the knife. . . .

Again, I solemnly warn the reader against all who depreciate creeds, or who would reduce them to a minimum of entrance qualifications into the church.” (An Interpretation of the English Bible: Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, pp. 140-41, 150)

What a Gathering!

Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) recently invited Dr Paul Lee Tan to lecture on the subject of “The Interpretation of Prophecy.” Dr Jeffrey Khoo, the academic dean of FEBC, wrote: “FEBC’s Daily Vacation Bible College (DVBC) is an annual week-long course of daily lectures on a special topic or theme taught by the faculty or a guest professor from abroad. This year, May 1-6, the College was privileged to have world-renowned professor of Biblical prophecy - Dr Paul Lee Tan - to lecture on “The Interpretation of Prophecy.” Dr Tan’s many charts and illustrations made prophecy easy to understand and remember. He emphasised the need to interpret the Bible literally, comparing Scripture with Scripture, that the Bible has only one meaning, for God means what He says and says what He means. More than 150 attended the course, some even taking leave from work just to make it for the classes.”[1]

Curiously, in the statement of faith, the college declared: “The Statement of Faith of the College shall be in accordance with that system commonly called “the Reformed Faith” as expressed in the Confession of Faith as set forth by the historic Westminster Assembly together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.”

While the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as the Larger Catechism, repudiates the dispensational, eschatological schema of multiple resurrections and judgments, Dr Jeffrey Khoo has apparently found Dr Paul Lee Tan’s eschatology enlightening. It is a well-known fact that Dr Tan is not only a dispensational premillennialist, but also a pre-tribulationist who rejects Reformed ecclesiology. He is the author of two highly popular eschatological tomes, Encyclopedia of 15,000 illustrations and The Interpretation of Prophecy.

The pre-tribulationist sees a salient distinction between national, ethnic Israel and the Church. And it is particularly this distinctive ecclesiology that distinguishes both Classical and Progressive Dispensationalism from Reformed theology. Dr Tan, without doubt, taught the pre-tribulational view of dispensational premillennialism to the 150 students present at the Daily Vacation Bible College. According to Dr Khoo, Dr Tan’s dispensationalism was not only the correct eschatology, but with his “many charts and illustrations,” Dr Tan had “made prophecy easy to understand and remember.” Dr Khoo can now be assured that his students will have a firm grasp of pre-tribulationism, in addition to the distinctives of Dispensationalism.

“The College was privileged to have [the] world-renowned professor of Biblical prophecy” to expound on an eschatological system which includes at least three resurrections and three separate judgments. Unfortunately, dispensational premillennialism contradicts the eschatology laid out in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Belgic Confession.

I am, therefore, absolutely perplexed as to how Dr Khoo will justify the claim that FEBC’s teachings “shall be in accordance with that system commonly called “the Reformed Faith” as expressed in the Confession of Faith as set forth by the historic Westminster Assembly together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.”

Erupting Thoughts: Kiasu or Kiasi?

I looked into the mirror this morning, and a conglomeration of tiny red dot stared back at me. Yes. It must be those imminent eruptions, also known as acne vulgaris. Somehow, I believe that this has nothing to do with the headlines in Channel News Asia today. It reads: “Indonesia villagers stay despite volcano threat.”[1]

Mount Merapi, a 2,914-metre peak, might erupt anytime soon. The eruption occurs when the new lava dome that has been rapidly coalescing at its peak collapses. Despite the noisome fumes and spewing gas, some villagers apparently have taken a liking of staying behind. “The clouds, known by locals as ‘shaggy goats’, consist of volcanic gases, ash and dust, and reach temperatures up to 500 degrees Celsius.”

No, the villagers are not trying to get a close-up shot of those ‘shaggy goats’ with their cameras. Neither have they acquired a sudden, psychotic affection for ghee, nor developed a petrifying fear that has paralyzed their survival instinct.

Despite efforts of evacuation by the local authorities, “many locals were intent on staying to look after their possessions,” according to Channel News Asia. “The [villagers] promised [the authorities] that they will come down voluntarily once they see signs of a major eruption.” But the “signs of a major eruption” are already present.

These villagers are obviously not agathists; they are not expecting Mount Merapi to swallow what it spewed, or the dome of lava to vaporize instantaneously. The problem for evacuation does not lie in the inefficacy of communication, or the linguistic intricacies of the villagers’ tongue. The difficulty, however, lies with the villagers themselves.

The problem originates from within the heart of 34,000 villagers residing in the immediate danger zone. Although these villagers are considered to be at risk by the local authorities, materialism has a strange way of holding them back. This is the god worshipped without idols. No ziggurat is required to enshrine this invisible, intangible entity. Already this god has recruited a gargantuan mass of followers, and some are willing to forsake life itself to worship Him.

Perhaps some might comment that the possessions the villagers own are very dear to them. Despite the clear and present danger of being baked alive, these folks are braving hot lava to protect cattle and homes. With great élan, they have decided to fortify their abode. For “many young men and their fathers chose to remain behind to watch their cattle and homes.” The villagers’ lives depend upon their livestock.

So, can we argue that the precious lives of these “young men and their fathers” are worth the sacrifice, because the villagers’ livelihood is at stake? The astute observer will discern that this act is not an act of courage. The argument itself is a paralogism, and the root of this irrationality is materialism. It has for its father, ‘greed,’ and ‘insanity’ for its mother. It is a sick mongrel, a product of poverty and human depravity.

Tragically, a man would risk his life for his cattle. “But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided (Luke 12:20)?”

A missionary to Africa once recounted to me that the biggest problem for evangelism in tribal areas is not poverty, but materialism. Most tribesmen own a dung hut. Sometimes, a few wealthy ones may upgrade their homes to a mud hut. Man, however, is never satisfied with cow dung.

Missionaries bring with them canned food and drinks. So, naturally, the next step up the ladder of luxurious housings is a “tin can” hut. Everybody in the tribe adores an iridescent, “tin can” hut. Some tribesmen even believe that the residents of these exclusive tin huts somehow acquire a nimbus around their forehead. But this is just a myth.

Eventually, as the standard of living and wealth improve within the village, galvanized zinc becomes the most coveted building material. But it was only last week when animal excreta was sun-baked, stockpiled and treasured by all.

Apparently, even tribesmen are not immune from the god of avarice: Materialism. “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows (1 Timothy 6:10).”

The god called materialism accepts worship in various forms and liturgies. In fact, Singaporeans have never failed to impress me with their innovations in worshipping It. Their fundamental values in life are often formulated around the worship of It.

From “kiasu” to “kiasi,” there is no lack of adjectives to describe a typical Singaporean. In Singlish, “kiasu” means “to be afraid of losing out to someone else,” and “kiasi” refers to “the fear of dying.” The typical Singaporean is afraid to lose. But one might ask, “Lose what?” While everybody else is clambering for success, no decent Singaporean would want to be left behind. Everybody in Singapore wants to be a millionaire. The average Joe next door desires a larger house, a bigger car, and a fatter wallet. So “more is less”, and “much is not enough” for the regular Singaporean man.

Sometimes, a “kiasu” Singaporean has really nothing to lose materially. But according to a Singaporean’s perspective, not measuring up to the demands of a materialistic society is to lose his “face.” Some believe that the five “Cs” epitomize the Singaporean Dream: Credit card, Condominium, Cash, Car and Career. Since the retired Singaporean is reputed to philander in remote corners of Batam and China with his freshly drawn Central Provident Fund, the sixth “C” will probably represent “Concubine.”

Materialism aside, the mentally sound person will be fearful of death. But “kiasi” means much more than the mere fear of dying. The Singaporean is “kiasi” because when he dies, he get to lose all the possessions which he had spent his entire life acquiring. So ultimately, the fear of death is closely associated with an obsessive impulse to hoard and possess.

Are the villagers “kiasu” or “kiasi”? Probably both. But there is no doubt that the villagers worship the same god as the “kiasu” Singaporean, albeit with a different liturgy. Meanwhile, as we await the eruption of Mount Merapi, I will have to contend with the conglomeration of erupted acne on my face.

And happily, death seems deceptively far away for the “kiasi” Singaporean (Hebrews 9:27).

New Evangelicalism: The Fine Art of Fence Straddling

As the battle between truth and error rages, New Evangelicalism tries to sit on the fence. It seeks to avoid the fury of war, and counsel the Church to rethink its historic faith. The irenic spirit of New Evangelicalism follows a downward path towards greater compromise and blindness. Christians must be wary of this spiritual deception.

New Evangelicalism is not a distinctively defined scheme of dogma or theology. It is neither a denomination nor an organization that can be pinpointed categorically. It is more accurately described as a philosophy of compromise and appeasement. It is a mood of neutralism, a hodgepodge of theological confusion, ecumenical pacification and self-proclaimed “orthodoxy”. It is pervasive, deceptive, dangerous and definitely lethal to the spiritual integrity of the Church. Pervasive, because its philosophy is acceptable and appealing to the carnal, rational human mind; deceptive, because it claims to be faithful to the apostolic faith; and dangerous, because contamination with its false beliefs would result in the demise of the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints”(Jude 3).

Dr. Harold J. Ockenga, a father of New Evangelicalism, succinctly described its philosophy in the following words:

“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. . . . It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.” (Harold J. Ockenga, in the Foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible)

The Repudiation of Biblical Separation

One of the basic tenets of New Evangelicalism is the repudiation of ecclesiastical separatism. Rejecting God’s command to separate from apostates, false teachers and those who cooperate with them (2 Cor 6:14-7:1, 2 Thess 3:6-15, Rom 12:1-2, 16:17, Eph 5:11, 1 Thess 5:22, 1 Tim 6:3-5, 2 Tim 2:16-21, Tit 3:10, 2 John 7-11, Jude 3, Rev 18:4), the New Evangelicals prefer to “dialogue” with unbelievers. The bible teaches us to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph 5:11). Biblical separation is also taught clearly in the second epistle of John, culminating in verses 10 and 11: “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.”

Dr Harold Ockenga made the following remark, “The New Evangelicalism has changed its strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration. Instead of static front battles, the new theological war is one of movement. Instead of attack upon error, the New Evangelicals proclaim the great historic doctrines of Christianity ... The strategy of the New Evangelicalism is the positive proclamation of truth in distinction from all errors without delving in personalities which embrace error.”

How can we proclaim the truth “without delving in personalities which embrace error”? Heretics have always been identified throughout church history. The Apostles themselves were quick to name names; Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18), Alexander (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 4:14), Demas (2 Tim 4:10), Diotrephes (3 John 9), Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15) were properly identified and dealt with in the epistles. Paul did not “dialogue” with perpetrators of false doctrines, neither did he infiltrate the churches to promote a theological “movement”. With regard to false teachers, the apostle commanded us to “mark them” and “avoid them” (Rom 16:17).

“Instead of attack upon error”, the New Evangelicals encourage disobedience to the Word of God. In its “ringing call” for the repudiation of separatism, New Evangelicalism has replaced clear biblical teachings with worldly, carnal philosophy. Its strategy of “infiltration” into apostate denominations is in direct opposition to God’s command to "come out from among them, and be ye separate (2 Cor 6:17,18)."

In the guise of “love” and “charity”, they would cooperate with the enemies of God in ecumenical ventures. Returning to the vomit of Romanism and wallowing in the Modernist’s mire, these fraternal compromisers would trade biblical truths for “unity” and “scholarship”.

The Desire for Worldly Recognition

New Evangelicalism is a movement nurtured on intellectual pride. Determined “to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day”, New Evangelicalism urges Christianity to rethink its historic position. It exhorts us to be less rigid, more tolerant and understanding. New Evangelicals view Fundamentalism as rather “unloving”, “narrow”, “unscholarly” and “doctrinaire”. Credentials and respectability have taken precedence. Scholarly recognition is now an essential commodity. In an earnest desire to be recognized by the academic world, the New Evangelicals have gradually accommodated rationalistic, modernistic and humanistic thoughts. Renouncing the militant exposure of doctrinal errors, they prefer to negotiate for a “middle-ground”. New Evangelicals refuse to reprove false teachings and teachers.

“Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the time, the reengagement in the theological debate, the recapture of denominational leadership, and the reexamination of theological problems such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, and others.” (Harold J. Ockenga, in the Foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible)

Since when did fundamental doctrines such as the universality of the flood, creation ex nihilo and the inerrancy of the Bible become “theological problems”? Yet in its desire to compromise with “modern scholarship”, New Evangelicalism had concocted a myriad of heresies, for example, theistic evolution and limited inerrancy.

The dogmatic proclamation of biblical doctrines is replaced by a theological compromise, which attempts to tailor God’s truth to the current generation. “In accordance with the need of the time”, New Evangelicals are willing to dilute vital doctrines to make them more palatable to carnal minds. After more than fifty years of “reengagement in the theological debate”, none of the “denominational leadership” has been recaptured. Contrariwise, the irenic spirit has captured the hearts of most denominations. Be aware that “The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest sort. It is an insidious attack upon the Word of God” (Dr. Charles Woodridge).

Preaching a Social Gospel

The devil knows that blatant error is easy to identify. Therefore, Satan’s perennial strategy is to seek an amalgam of truth and error. The thrice-holy God demands separation from error and unbelief; the father of lies urges us to cooperate and compromise. Our Lord demands that we preach no other gospel (Gal 1:8-9); Satan entices us to add social work to the Gospel of Christ.

New Evangelicalism attempts to combine the scriptural gospel with the social gospel of liberalism. This false social gospel is radically different from what our Lord had commanded us to preach. “First, it tended to emphasize structural reforms--changes in law, government policy, and the formal institutions of society. Second, it was firmly rooted in Protestant liberal theology.” (Eerdman’s Handbook to Christianity in America, p. 319)

Christian charity (James 1:27) must be distinguished from the gospel preached by the apostles (1 Cor 15:1-4). Nowhere in the New Testament do we see the usage of social-political work for the propagation of the gospel. The apostles did not labour for great social-political projects with the heathens. They simply went forth in preaching the gospel, producing disciples who would in turn convert others to Christianity. New Evangelicalism exalts social-political agendas to a place of prominence, sometimes even substituting gospel evangelism itself. This is to ignore the example given by the apostles.

Derived from liberal theology and modernism, the emphasis of the social gospel is on social service and reformation. The apostles were concerned with the salvation of souls, not the eradication of societal ills. New Evangelicalism marries the pure saving gospel with liberal ideologies to produce a false, humanistic message. Things of the spirit and of the flesh are mangled together to produce an unholy alliance; a misbegotten, illegitimate counterfeit. Dr Ockenga’s “summons to social involvement” is a New Evangelical lie which we must reject. God has called us to preach the gospel of Christ (Rom 1:16), not a spurious humanistic message that does not save.

Conclusion

Dear Christian soldiers, beware of the New Evangelicalism. It is a satanic lie that seduces us to forsake militancy for the truth and to eventually capitulate to evil. It approaches us with a facade of love and reasonableness, but deny the very Truth that it claims to profess.

Dr. Charles Woodbridge, who was a professor at Fuller Seminary and a member of the National Association of Evangelicals before he rejected New Evangelicalism, warned, “The New Evangelical 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.”