Humanism - Today's Philosophy vs Christ and His Word

What is Humanism? Humanism is a philosophy centring upon distinctively human interests and ideals. It is an insidious revolt against God and the inflexible principles and guidelines of His Word. It denies the reality of a personal God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the deity of Christ. It denies the Bible account of creation and teaches evolution. It denies moral values and teaches that there are no absolutes - no right or wrong. Do your own thing "as long as it does not harm anyone else." It denies the distinctive roles of male and female. It believes in sexual freedom between consenting individuals regardless of age, including premarital sex, homosexuality, and incest. It believes in the right to abortion. It believes in the removal of national patriotism, the free enterprise system, disarmament, and the creation of a one-world socialistic government.

The philosophy of humanism has taken over the teaching in our schools. Alienation between children and parents is encouraged. Moral values are undermined. The new teaching is referred to as values education, values skills, values clarification, self-awareness, decision-making, self-acceptance, etc..

Humanism is out to destroy the normal marriage relationship and true love. In the Women's Liberation, Notes from the Second Year, I read: "We must destroy love. Love promotes vulnerability, dependence, possessiveness, susceptibility to pain, and prevents the full development of woman's human potential by directing all other energies outward in the interest of others."

In the Humanist Manifesto I and II, signed by Betty Frieden we read: "No deity will save us. We must save ourselves. Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."

One of their leaders, Morris Storer, asks two questions and then gives his answer: "What is humanism and who is a humanist? For our purposes I will identify as 'humanist' all who, in the basic deliberations and action decisions of their lives, have set aside faith in revelation and dogmatic authority (did they ever have it? - Editor), and have settled for HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND REASON AS GROUNDS FOR BELIEF AND ACTION, putting human good - the good of self and others in their life on earth - as ultimate criterion of right and wrong, with due concern for other living creatures." The humanist goal of "International consensus of world reconciliation" - literally a world government without God - is nothing new. Julian Huxley worked toward this goal in 1946 as he worked with the task force shaping the United Nationals Organization. "A world organization," he wrote, "can not be based on one of the competing theologies of the world, but must, it seems, be based on some forms of humanism ... a world humanism ... a scientific humanism ... and evolutionary humanism."

A leading spokesman of modern humanism is Lester Mondale, brother of a prominent political leader in the U.S.A. In a remarkable article in The Humanist, Vol. 44, 1984, he wrote:

"Humanistically committed, I share - but with one dissent - the prophet Elijah's repugnance of false gods. Although I sympathize with Elijah's zeal in exposing false gods, I must observe .. that Elijah's Yahweh is also false .... Any God who reputedly sends down all-consuming fire ... can't be anything but false. What holds for the typical Father holds also for the Son."

Mondale then proceeds to view the character of the humanist's god:
"There is always the philosophical possibility that someone, somewhere, might come up with God, the real thing .... In any case, I am certain that, in holding fast to the standards, values, and culture by which we are driven to judge false gods as false, we are vastly closer to the moral character a real Supreme Being would be likely to exemplify were He (?) to overcome the world with an authentic First Coming."

Mr. Mondale and his humanistic colleagues are still looking for the "first coming" of their god into the world, but when he does come this god: "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,...shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:4). The god of humanism will be a great representative man, the Antichrist, "and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods,... Neither shall he regard ... any god: for he shall magnify himself above all" (Daniel 11:36,37).

Humanism will culminate in the worship of Antichrist, who will not only be against God, but will take the place of God and shall be worshipped as God during the Great Tribulation Period.

Humanism does not have Sunday schools as we know them. It has effective Monday through Friday schools - the public school system - which is rapidly changing from traditional education to "change agents" for humanism. It passes no collection plates for every citizen pays for it through government taxation.

Dr. Milton Friedman, educator and Nobel Laureate, made this comment: "Public schools teach religion too - not a formal, theistic religion, but a set of values and beliefs that constitute a religion in all but name. The present arrangements ABRIDGE THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM of parents who do not accept the religion taught by the public schools, yet are forced to pay to have their children indoctrinated with it, and to pay still more to have their children escape indoctrination."


SEX EDUCATION. Sex education goes beyond the teaching of facts, physiology and biology. Raw sex is being taught young children using films and visual aids which leave nothing to the imagination. Sex education openly deals with DEVELOPMENT OF ATTITUDES AND VALUES, often extending from kindergarten through grade twelve.

(Anything a child needs to know about sex at any given age can be explained in a brief period of time, but it takes 12 years to change values!)

A goal of the promoters of fornication is to eliminate harmful "myths" and "hangups" that are, according to the Humanist Manifesto, "fostered by intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religious attitudes and puritanical cultures." Such "repressive" attitudes about sex prevent children from attaining their full potential as "sexual beings," and prevent them from expressing "their sexual proclivities and to pursue their lifestyle as they desire."

Sex education involves the presentation of fully detailed information concerning the clinical, social and behavioral aspects of such things as intercourse, reproduction, venereal disease, masturbation, homosexuality, birth control, abortion, and contraception. (Never morality, abstinence, chastity.)

SIECUS. In 1964, Dr. Mary S. Calderone was instrumental in forming an organization known as SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States), the primary purpose of which is to promote sex education in primary and secondary schools. The atheistic American Humanist Association named Dr. Calderone as "Humanist of the Year" for 1974. SIECUS Study Guides #1, #5, #9, #10 are chiefly concerned with undermining traditional values. The result of this permissive humanistic philosophy is that young people scorn Christian standards of morality, engage in open homosexuality, have untold numbers of abortions, and are the victims of rampant venereal disease.

Paul Blanshard, one of the best known humanist educators in America, wrote an article in Humanist magazine, the official organ of the American Humanist Association. In it he looks back over the 75 years of his life which he says, with evident satisfaction, were "full of rebellion against religious superstition." In fact, he also says that though after 16 years in the public schools Johnny may not be able to read, it is wonderful that, at least, we have rid his mind of the religious superstitions that he brought to school from his home! Blanshard goes on to say that he doubts that any span in human history has carried the world farther along to honest doubt.

And doubt, of course, is the ultimate virtue of the humanist, doubt of all the religious dogma other than their own.

John J. Dunphy, writing also in the 1983 issue of Humanist magazine, said this: "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith ... "I wonder if parents in America realize that when they send little Johnny toddling off to school in the morning that he may run into a proselytizer for a "new faith" standing behind the desk in his classroom!

What kind of "faith" is this? "...they will be ministers," says Dunphy, "of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach (preschool to university). The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity ... and the new faith of humanism." That is what education is all about! Whatever happened to reading, writing and arithmetic?

You may be saying, "This is very interesting, but what does it mean to me, with my child in school today?" It means the humanist educators have taken it upon themselves, without your consent, to change the attitudes of your children in regard to God, family and country. For example, most all social studies textbooks published today state in the preface and in the teacher's manual that it is necessary for the child to unlearn his old values; he comes to school "damaged by the concepts he has received during the first five years of life, and requires mental healing." Educators are now saying that if they have the child for two years before he reaches kindergarten, they can so affect his value system that the child will not depart from it when he grows up. If they cannot have him before kindergarten, the next best thing is to undo, at as early an age as possible, the damage done to him in his home environment. Seventh grade is considered much too late to begin this process of retraining. For this reason, the social scientists have moved into the elementary level to write textbooks.

You may well ask, "How is it possible that all this has taken place in a so-called Christian nation? Barbara Morris, in her paper, The Religion of Humanism in Public Schools, gives the answer:
"Very simply. Every course in the curriculum can serve as a vehicle to promote humanist beliefs...history, math, literature, languages, social studies, sex education, environmental education, home economics...everything. Over the years during the steady influx of humanist influence in the schools via the use of humanist-oriented textbooks and teachers unknowingly trained to become missionaries of humanist beliefs, over many years...humanist influence has been steady and subtle. However, we have reached a point where apparently it has been determined our society and schools are ready for intensive indoctrination into humanism because we now openly have the ultimate apparatus for promoting humanism in the schools and it's called values education."

When you bring up the subject of values education, someone will always insist that the teachers have always been involved in value information, and indeed this is so. It is impossible for a teacher to avoid conveying values to students. Her voice, her dress, her general demeanour, all convey values of some sort. However, in years past, the values conveyed by teachers in the main, reflected parental values, or at least, reflected those values that were considered in accord with prevailing Judeo-Christian morality. In years past, there usually wasn't a value conflict between schools and parents.

However, today we have a whole new ball game. Young teachers coming out of teachers college have had a thoroughly humanistic education. Many of them, in the process, have lost the religious faith of their youth, or, they hang on to their religious orientation in name only or adopt some ersatz Christianity. They are quite ready to promote a system of values that is at odds with the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic. They are quite ready to facilitate a value system that will promote humanist beliefs, and in fact, that will create practising humanists. Many young teachers, thoroughly indoctrinated into humanism have a missionary zeal that would put so-called Christians to shame.


Humanism, as we know it today, is one of the bastard children of evolution. Belief in evolution is essential to belief in humanism. Humanist Manifesto I states:
First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
Third: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
Fourth: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely moulded to that culture.

What is evolution? Evolution does not simply mean change. Many writers who claim that evolution is a FACT, present evidence only of a change. Let us ask Sir Julian Huxley, an outstanding spokesman of evolution, to give us the proper definition:
"Evolution is a one-way process, irreversible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety, and leading to higher degrees of organization, more differentiated, more complex, but at the same time more integrated."

This definition was intended to include both inorganic and organic evolution, and to comprehend the whole of the physical and biological universes. That is, everything in the universe is the result of the process of evolution - development in the universe is the result of the process of evolution - development, progress, and higher and higher levels of organization and complexity.

Is such a process taking place NOW in the world? The Bible and true science answer a definite NO.

The Bible teaches that creation is no longer taking place:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were FINISHED, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ENDED His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had RESTED from all His work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:1-3).

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and RESTED the seventh day ..." (Ex.20:11).

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth ... For He spake, and it was DONE; He commanded, and it STOOD FAST" (Ps.33:6,9).

"Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou HAST MADE heaven, the heaven of heavens, with ALL THEIR HOST, the earth, and ALL THINGS THAT ARE THEREIN, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou PRESERVEST them all" (Neh.9:6).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1).

There is nothing in true science to contradict this important statement. There is nothing in evolution to discount it. Behind all creation and all life is the Eternal God.

The fact that it was "God" who "created the heaven and the earth" denies ATHEISM which is disbelief in the existence of a God or Supreme Being. According to Psalm 14:1, atheism is the belief of fools. The fact that "God created" also denies AGNOSTICISM - the doctrine that neither the existence nor the nature of God, nor the ultimate origin of the universe, is known or knowable. They plainly say, "We do not know if there is a God." The fact that "In the beginning God" also denies MATERIALISM which states that "matter is eternal." Genesis 1:1 states clearly that God created matter and therefore God existed before there was any creation.

It is important to notice that all scientists do not teach evolution. Dr. Osborn wrote in Origin and Evolution of life:
"It is best frankly to acknowledge that the chief causes of the orderly evolution of the germ are still entirely unknown."
Professor L.T. More, late of Cincinnati University, in his widely read book, The Dogma of Evolution, page 243, writes:
"In our eagerness to get away from the medieval idea of man as divine, for whom the universe was created and by whom alone its phenomena can be comprehended, we are now busy with the effort to class him with the amoeba and with the lump of earth from which his body is fashioned. Yet, in spite of the speculations of centuries, we have not advanced a step beyond the noble and dignified description of the creation as given by the Hebrew prophet in the Book of Genesis. We may dismiss his story of the garden of Eden as an allegory, but when he stated that man was created out of the dust, and that God breathed into him the Breath of Life, all was said of that supreme mystery which can be said."

The evolutionists are deceivers in presenting theories as though they were facts or as though all scientists followed this trend of thought. They claim that religion began with primitive man's fear of the unseen. This gradually led him to animism, then to the worship of inanimate objects such as stones and trees, then on to the worship of serpents, higher animals, until he finally created for himself a host of gods. Then in the process of evolution his number of gods grew smaller until he finally arrived at monotheism or the worship of one god.


Humanism has the same basic philosophy as Communism. In the Humanist Manifesto of 1973 they repeated their denial of God:
"As in 1933, humanists still believe their traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something for them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of Heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means of survival."

In the same Manifesto they said: "We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of the supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfilment of the human race. As non-theists we begin with humans not God, nature not deity."

As with Communists, the humanist rejects the Bible. In Religious Humanism, Vol.14, No.31, they write: "Organized religions continue to refer back to their ancient Scriptures, while the very ground and bedrock of their faith is being blasted away beneath them from outside. The ultimate religious revolution is unlike those of the past, which promoted teachings of a great leader, a prophet or saviour, a divine - human figure - Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao-tzu, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Baha'u'llah, or Sun Yung Moon. Our revolution has no single, central prophetic personality or teaching. We have many prophets, philosophers, and poets including the progenitors of such traditional movements as Leo-tsu, Buddha, and Confucius."

Humanism also rejects the Christian faith. In the Essence of Religious Humanism they write: "Our humanism is the right insight that all human accomplishments and cultures are the product and heritage of man's boundless creativity; that God and all other divinities, that the Bible and all other holy books, that all rituals and forms of worship are purely man made. All so-called revelations from on high are of human origin. Everything man has ever made or done has been of his own achieving."


In contrast to the prevailing philosophy of Humanism, we have Truth as it is found in Christ. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

There is therefore a conflict between Humanism and Christ. Jude 3 tells us that we should "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." We must contend for every truth of God. For such truths as creation from the direct hand of God; man's sin and God's judgment upon man for sin; salvation through the precious blood; the necessity of the new birth; the resurrection of the saints at the rapture and the final judgment of every sinner in the Lake of Fire. This is no hour for dumb dogs that bark not when the thieves come to steal away the treasure (Isa. 56:10,11). ; We must warn of the wolves that are abroad today (Acts 20:29).

This faith is delivered to you out of the inspired Scriptures. We are to receive it as the Word of God, not of man, and it will profit us (1 Thess.2:13). The word "delivered" means also that we are to leave this truth in the hands of others as a trust. We must publish, own, and defend the truth by profession and by death if need be. That is why the church is called "the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim.3:15). The glorious Gospel was committed to our trust (1 Tim. 1:11). ; We are to take care that nothing is added to it like compromising men are doing today in the many versions and perversions of the Bible. Every single version, including the New American Standard and the New International, is founded upon the corrupt texts of the Westcott-Hort tradition. We must take a stand against neo-evangelicalism which is spreading like a forest fire all over the world. We must stand against all the compromises of our day.

This is not a new battle. I think of C.H. Spurgeon who preached in England from 1834-1892. A few days before his death, he wrote:

"Numbers of easy-minded people wink at error so long as it is committed by some clever man and good-natured brother who has so many fine points about him. Let each believer judge for himself, but for our part we have put a few fresh bolts on our door, and we have given orders to keep the chains up, for under colour of begging the friendship of the servant, there are those who aim at robbing the master. These preachers are not mistaken friends, but enemies of the Cross of Christ. There is no use in employing circumlocutions and polite terms of expression - where Christ is not received and the cleansing of His blood and the justifying merit of His righteousness, He is not received at all. Those who know and love the truth of God cannot have fellowship with that which is diametrically opposed thereto, and there can be no reason why they should pretend that they have such fellowship. My counsel has always been "come out from among them." I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of distinct separation.

"To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus. If we are prepared to enter into solemn 'league and covenant' for the defense of the crown-rights of King Jesus, we cannot give up the crown jewels of the Gospel for the sake of a larger charity. To tamper with His doctrine would be to drift into compromises which they would not at first propose but which they seem forced to justify. Yielding to be the creatures of circumstances, they allow another to gird them and lead them whither they would not: and when they wake up, and find themselves in an undesirable condition, they have not always the resolution to break away from it.

"As a matter of fact, believers in Christ's atonement are in declared religious union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in a confederacy with those who deny its plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the 'Fall' a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral. Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing the union with those who deny the Faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ.

"The New Testament not only teaches the necessity of contending for the faith, but it also exhorts us to separate ourselves from those who deny the faith. There is no need for any child of God to be in ignorance as to his stand and his position before God and man. The Word of God is clear as to His instructions.

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

John Kennedy, that famous Scottish evangelist, said many years ago:

"No Christian can be true and faithful on whose brow the world shall not brand the name of bigot. But let him bear it. It is a mark of honor, though intended to be a brand of shame. The old Covenantors of our native land were stern bigots in their day. They could part with their lives, but they could not sell the Truth. It was this bigotry which won its liberty for their native land. The legacy bequeathed to it by these men of faith whose only home was oft the mountain cavern, and to whom the snow was oft the only winding-sheet which wrapped their bodies when they had given their lives to Christ, was a richer boon than all ever given to it by kings who occupied its throne and by all men of title and wealth who owned its acres. Oh, yes, they were bigots, these, in the judgment of scoffing sceptics and of ruthless persecutors, and not all the piles they could kindle could burn their bigotry out of them.

"And these were stern bigots, too, according to the world's estimation, who headed the crusade against antichrist when, at the era of the Reformation, a fire from Heaven had kindled in their hearts a love of Truth. It was by unflinching resolution, induced by living faith, that these men overcame in the times of stern trial in which they unfurled their banner in the name of God. A PLIANT MELANCHTON WOULD HAVE BARTERED THE GOSPEL OF PEACE - THE STERN COURAGE OF LUTHER WAS NEEDED TO PREVENT THE SACRIFICE.

"In every age from the beginning, when the cause of Truth emerged triumphant from the din and dust of controversy, the victory was won by a band of bigots who were sworn to its defense." Today, within the "evangelical church" itself there is no time for contending for the faith. The emphasis now is on what is called "New Evangelicalism." I must remind you, "If it is new, it is not true: if it is true, it is not new." One of the best definitions of "New Evangelicalism" is given by Dr. Harold John Ockenga in the Forward of the Book, The Battle for the Bible, by Dr.Harold Lindsell:
"New evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While affirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separation and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals ... It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separation and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day." Here are given three major points that make new-evangelicalism different from Bible fundamentalism:
(1) A repudiation of separatism.
(2) A summons to social involvement which means a social gospel to change the world.
(3) A determination to engage in theological dialogue.

It is impossible to counteract Humanism with that kind of a false gospel, which is not the Gospel at all. It is simply and plainly another "philosophy" which is not found in the Bible.

In 2 John we have a clear warning for our generation: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward" (Vss. 7,8). Here John tells us, by the Holy Spirit, that two things will be lost if we allow ourselves to get away from Bible truth:

1. We will lose our work. Bible-believing churches all over the land are being lost to deception and compromise. One man said: "Over the past twenty years, we have not been hearing plain Bible preaching on Hell, salvation by the blood, dispensational truth, and separation." And he spoke the truth. Bible-believing churches are not as strong as they used to be.

2. We will lose a part in the reward that God has promised to those who stand fast in the truth of His Word. Dr. Mr.R. DeHaan, the well-known radio Bible teacher, now deceased, related a conversation he had with Dr. William L. Pettingill with appropriate comments for the compromising age in which we now live. Dr. DeHaan declared:

"When I talked with William L. Pettingill shortly before he died, we discussed the rising surge of compromise and unscriptural cooperation between believers and unbelievers. He warned, 'Son, if the Lord does not come soon, the time is near when whoever dares to stand for the truth will find himself in a very small company and often very lonesome.'

"Referring to Psalm 102, he said, 'They will feel like a pelican in the wilderness, and a lonely sparrow on a house top,' I have lived to see that day, when standing for the truth and refusing to compromise has meant the loss of some friends and loved ones.

"Years ago when I was a pastor, I had a man on my board of deacons who always hesitated to vote on important matters. When I'd ask him, 'Brother, how do you vote?' he would answer, 'with the majority.' He couldn't stand by himself. What he lacked was a stiff, strong backbone.

"Will you dare to take a stand for righteousness and truth? You may be forsaken by man, but you'll never be forsaken by God." The situation is ever more serious today. Those who truly stand for the truth of God's Word are indeed a very small minority. Many who call themselves "fundamentalists" are just as "new-evangelical" as the compromising evangelicals of this generation. Bob Jones University has no true Bible, and it is now cooperating with the Sword of the Lord. It was not many years ago that the faculty took a stand against the Sword of the Lord and would not advertise in that paper.

Today, there is compromise everywhere. James Alexander Stewart in his book, The Lordship of Christ, said this:

"As a sop to Modernism we have compromised. There is a definite diabolical master-plan to wed evangelical Christianity to Liberalism. In order to do this there must be a ground for union, and so the doctrine of the Lordship of Christ is thrown overboard. These Modernists deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Like the Communist in the use of the word democracy these deniers of the Faith have coined evangelical phrases. They have now their own evangelists conducting their own evangelical campaigns. They will unite with Fundamentalists in union campaigns with popular evangelists, but we soon discover that "Their rock is not as our Rock" (Deut.32:31). It soon becomes evident that what they believe concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures and the death of Christ, and the contents of the blessed Gospel, is not the same as our evangelical Faith.

"On every hand we are told by evangelicals in this God-dishonouring compromise that we must be charitable and not judge the belief of others. 'After all, doctrine is not so important: the salvation of souls is the all-important aim.' One evil leads to another. When you deny the Lordship of Christ in this compromise, then other evils are allowed in. For example, we know of an outstanding evangelist who declared that although he personally believed in the virgin birth of Christ, it was not an essential belief to salvation. Others are taking part in evangelistic efforts with evangelicals who do not believe in the first five books of Moses as the inspired Word of God. Others do not believe in the atoning, penal death of Christ. "The obvious effect of this unholy wedlock is the lowering of the standard of the experience of regeneration. Another well-known evangelist heatedly insisted that some of the sexiest Hollywood film stars were born-again Christians. What blasphemy! How the angels must weep!

"The conclusion to this situation is quite logical. If we can compromise with these Philistines for a month or six weeks in an evangelistic effort, and it is well pleasing to God, then surely we can continue to compromise with them for a life-time. Why not be charitable and invite them to become principals of our seminaries and Bible schools, serve on our foreign mission boards, and preach at our Keswick and holiness conventions?

"The desperate need of the hour is for another Charles Haddon Spurgeon to sound the alarm, and raise the banner of God, and fight the foes of the Gospel. The Samsons do not like it revealed that it was Spurgeon's battle with the religious Philistines that broke his heart and sent him to an early grave. It was the failure of evangelical leaders to stand with him in stemming the awful tide of false doctrine in evangelical circles that caused him to pass through great conflicts with Satan which few have experienced."

From The The Peoples Gospel Hour

Return to: Laodicean Age Articles | Home | Top

he eucharist, which we receive, to shew that our perseverance in the faith is such as we promised when we were baptized, being little children." This phrase, being little children, as I think, means their being little children in knowledge and experience, when they were baptized; since they speak of their receiving the eucharist, to shew their perseverance in the faith they then had promised to persevere in: besides, if this is to be understood of them as infants in a literal sense, what promise were they capable of making when such? Should it be said, that they promised by their sureties, it should be observed, that the Waldenses did not admit of godfathers and