New evangelicalism usually also means denying Bible inerrancy

I recently read the book “New Evangelicalism“, by Paul Richard Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel Victorville CA. Paul Smith is a leader in the Calvary Chapel movement founded by his brother Chuck Smith, who also wrote the foreword to Paul Smith’s book.

The book gives a brief history of modern Protestantism beginning with modernism where scripture became critically analyzed through the filters of the philosophies of 19th and early 20th century humanist intellectuals. This humanistic intellectual analysis of the scriptures became known as “higher criticism”. I took one of those silly “higher criticism” courses in college myself.

I will give you my own take on modernism; most of what I will say about modernism in Christianity does not come from Paul Smith’s book, but from what I read in his book, I think Paul Smith would agree with most of it.

Modernism is also known as liberalism and it has a low view of scriptures. They do not believe the scriptures came from God as inerrant doctrine. Educated men and so-called “science” became the judge of scriptures. Man and his intellect decided which scriptures contain truth and which were just creative writings of men.

Man with his “higher criticism” became the judge of God’s inerrant word, even though man did not have the knowledge or the spiritual wisdom to take that role upon himself. There is overwhelming proof that we still have the same scriptures that Jesus read and Jesus said that every jot and tittle of the law and the prophets would be fulfilled (Mt 5:18). That fact carries little weight with the critics in modernism. After all, “higher criticism” really exists to discredit the scriptures.

The modernists have said that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions but that claim itself is just the conjecture of critics. Humankind did not and does not have the required knowledge to make such a judgmental statement. When new discoveries were found over time they always supported what the Bible said and not the critics. The Bible is always proven correct but the best reasoning of man trying to discredit the Bible always turns out to have its facts wrong.

Christian apologists have since given reasonable answers to anything that the critics of inerrancy have brought up. Nevertheless, they simply chose to ignore reasonable explanations because they would rather believe that the Bible is just writings of men and a work of man rather than the very word of God.

The only thing inerrant to most modernists is their own low view of scripture. In their mind scripture might be inspired by God but probably no more inspired than the writings of later Church theologians.

Which begs the question, was God’s word to man complete after the Apostles and the Holy Spirit appointed witnesses of Jesus died, or would there continue to be progressive revelation within the Church? This question came up early in Church history with the early Gnostics that were claiming to have received special knowledge from God. Much of what they were claiming was obvious heresy that conflicted with books that were already widely accepted as scripture in the churches. So the Church refuted Gnosticism and other heresies with the Jewish scriptures and the writings of the apostles and direct witnesses that wrote of Jesus.

To keep out heresy the Church determined that the Church needed to decide which books that were widely circulating among the churches would be accepted as scripture. The Church believed that the Holy Spirit guided them through this endeavor and the end result of that effort was the Canon. The Holy Canon actually fulfilled the prophecy of Revelation 2:16, when the sword of God’s mouth (the word) fought against the heresies that Jesus said He hated at the Church identified with Pergamos.

There would be progressive revelation in the Church but it would not come through new revelation of fallible men. It would come from those that obtained the wisdom and understanding to be able to expound on God’s inerrant written word. Nevertheless, many in modernism in recent times have chosen the philosophies of men over scripture. The Popes of the last few centuries even declared themselves to be infallible in matters of Church doctrine.

Many in modernism reject anything supernatural. They have a form of godliness but they deny God’s power to keep the word of God inerrant. Most in modernism see nothing supernatural happening in creation. With these people, God only works in His creation through the works of men of good will. They think humans can evolve toward their higher nature as images of God and work to bring back paradise lost through their own efforts. The modernist thinks that God is somewhere outside of creation, waiting for man to solve the problems in His creation, through fallen man’s basic goodness and intellect. It really is a pretty silly concept.

Modernism took the words of God and made the words meet man’s litmus test to determine which words would be accepted as truth and which would not. That made fallible men the judge of the inerrant autographs of God. They have no excuse, because the many manuscripts found over time overwhelmingly prove that the scriptures have not changed from Jesus’ time and Jesus Himself verified that the scripture He quoted was the very words of God.

Why is it that some men can believe in a risen savior and a Holy Spirit led Church, but they will not believe that this same Holy Spirit could keep the scriptures inerrant? I bring this up because as Paul Smith documents in his book, all major heretical movements started when people departed from believing that scripture was inerrant.

The modernists or liberals with their higher criticisms took over the mainline denominations. Then denominational doctrine and traditions of men trumped scripture in most mainline institutions and churches. The liberal churches are full of ritual and traditions of men and most of the lay people have lost the meaning of why they started the rituals and traditions in the first place. You very seldom will find members of these churches getting any spiritual truth or guidance from the Bible; they get everything from their denomination or clergy.

Of course not all Christians agreed with those embracing modernism. Many in Christendom still believed that the Bible was inerrant and they split off and formed new denominations. Any common sense literal reading of the scriptures readily produced certain fundamentals of the faith, so most of the Christians that held to biblical inerrancy became identified as fundamentalists.

Over time there was division over certain emphases on scriptures among fundamental believers; there were also those fundamentalists that became obsessed over certain social practices that they thought were uniquely sinful. Many Christians that believed in inerrancy did not agree with the legalistic control freaks that were giving fundamentalism a bad name so they started looking for a new name to rally around. For reasons given in Smith’s book, people soon started calling themselves Evangelicals.

The early Evangelicals believed that scripture was inerrant but later the word inerrant was rejected by some and replaced with the word infallible (which means different things to different people). Nevertheless, all still wanted to be identified as Evangelicals, as do the postmodern rejectors of biblical inerrancy today. The history of the Evangelical movement is well documented in Paul Smith’s book.

The big left turn in the Evangelical movement started in Bible teaching seminaries like Fuller Theological Seminary that originally taught that the Bible was inerrant. Paul Smith mainly documents the devolution into new evangelicalism at Fuller Seminary (it also happened elsewhere). He gives the history how Fuller Seminary over one lifespan went from teaching Bible inerrancy to postmodernism (where truth is relative and truth is whatever the consensus of the group says it is).

By the 21st century, church marketing techniques rather than evangelism and salvation of the lost became the popular way to try to bring a postmodern generation into the churches. The mastermind behind this humanistic marketing strategy for churches was Peter Drucker. He was not a Christian. He got his fame as a management Guru to large corporation. Rick Warren and others were mentored by Peter Drucker and the seeker-friendly market-driven churches were the end result of that.

Drucker thought that mega-churches were the ideal model to build humanistic communities. Rick Warren said that Peter Drucker was his mentor for 20 years. It is obvious to many that the seeker-friendly church growth model originated from Peter Drucker. Rick Warren and Bill Hybells were the two most successful people in bringing this seeker-friendly movement to thousands of churches. The churches were modeled to attract a postmodern generation that rejected the traditional evangelical Christian message.

In order to attract that postmodern generation the seeker Gurus removed everything that people might consider negative or objectionable from the Sunday service. The Gospel that taught that man’s sin required repentance and salvation through the work of Jesus at the cross would no longer be preached on Sunday. Instead it was replaced with feel good and self-help humanistic messages and entertainment eye candy. During the week the churches would offer every program that would appeal to the community. The postmodern seekers soon took over the churches with their self-centered and humanistic pragmatism and relativism and many believers in Bible inerrancy decided or were told to go down the road.

Paul Smith on page 12 in his introduction says:

The Devil is truly in the details. My objective is to show how interwoven the connections are among Fuller Seminary, the new evangelicals, Rick Warren and Peter Drucker, the Emergent church, and a postmodern America that has drifted far from Christian origins. This documentation is staggering and sobering. The subtle progression of unbiblical ideas is shocking.

I think the book justifiably targets Rick Warren. He has spread error throughout many denominations. He poses as an inerrant Bible believer to Baptists but promotes a postmodern gospel of humanistic works to the world and he has become unequally yoked with those in demonic religions. The history of Fuller Seminary and how it got to be the postmodern institution that it now is today, is extremely well documented in this book. I think “New Evangelicalism” meets Paul Smith’s quoted objectives above.

Rick Warren is linked with globalist endeavors and globalist interfaith foundations but he never uses his international platform to give out the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. He also attacks fundamentalists as a danger to the world and Rick Warren believes and has taught that the study of Bible prophecy is a diversion or a waste of time. However, the Bible sternly warned people to watch for Jesus and it also warned that people saying and doing such things as the postmodernists are doing would be evidence that we were near the Lord’s coming.

Rick Warren even brings pagans into his church to teach Christians how to live. Warren is a CFR globalist and he sits on the board of Tony Blair’s Interfaith Foundation. He does not proselytize to those in other religions. He does all this while subverting half the churches in the Southern Baptist Convention and churches in many other denominations through his purpose driven church program that waters down the gospel message. Now he seems to be on a purpose driven agenda to get Christians to believe in religious pluralism and to produce social works rather than Christians making any effort to bring those trapped in the bondage of demonic religions to Christ.

From my experience in the Southern Baptist Denomination, I know that ten times more people have read through Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life” book than have ever read through the Bible. I wrote about the purpose driven seeker agenda years ago. Many pastors are still downloading his purpose driven sermons and delivering them on Sunday. I know what the Bible says about double-minded men and Rick Warren has proved to me that he is a double-minded man over-and-over again, but few in Christian leadership care.

Now Warren is actively endorsing postmodern authors and pastors in the heretical Emergent Church and Contemplative Prayer movement that is giving young people a Jesus made in their own image, but few in leadership care. I think if Warren openly joined with Rome, half the new evangelicals would just follow him.

Peter Drucker must have been very happy with Rick Warren and ilk. There are now over 5000 mega-churches in the United States and few of them teach the gospel on Sundays. However, they are the focal point for every humanistic social program ever devised by man. Peter Drucker would be so proud.

One thing I noticed from the letters in Smith’s book, and my own experiences over the years, is that leaders that do not go along with the consensus usually resign rather than fight for what they believe is right. The documentation in the book suggests to me, that the resignations of believers in inerrancy in these institutions, made it just too easy for the postmodern new evangelicals to take over major religious institutions. That is still going on today.

With postmodern boards, committees or teams there must be consensus; people are expected to resign rather than disagree with the consensus. The consensus position becomes their truth even if it not the truth. History tells us that the majority is often wrong. Just resigning because you disagree with the majority really makes it easier for influential Satanic plants to take over religious institutions. I do not think we can broad-brush this, but it seems some leaders in Christianity are more afraid of being fired or being in the minority, than they are of failing to stand up for God’s truth.

I am sure it was board consensus that decided all churches no matter how liberal or Catholic should take part in the Billy Graham Crusades and I am sure that seminaries continue to be taken over because the opposition soon resigns. Likewise, churches are becoming more-and-more postmodern because a search committee consensus ignorantly suggested the hiring of a pre-programmed outsider because he was a seminary graduate.

Not long after you bring them in, they will bring in like-minded people and then the traditional Bible believers will depart. Once the salt and light is removed from the institution or local church it becomes a lost cause. There is usually no going back once a church starts down this postmodern path. Try changing your own Purpose-Driven or Willow-Creeker church back to teaching Christian doctrine on Sundays now. It can’t be done, because the postmodern pragmatic church boards will not even entertain biblical arguments or the thought that the Church is supposed to be made up of believers. That would mean less attenders and less attenders is the unforgivable sin in mega-churches..

Paul Smith’s “New Evangelicalism” mentions C. Peter Wagner and his mystical influence at Fuller Seminary. He taught the Signs and Wonders class at Fuller with John Wimber. Paul Smith gets into some ramifications within the Calvary Chapel movement because of John Wimber, but I think Smith fell short in explaining where Wagner’s influence led many Pentecostals. The influence of C. Peter Wagner led to what is now known as the New Apostolic Reformation and ilk, with its postmodern third wave of self appointed anointed Dominion Theology heretics.

I thought that Smith should have expounded on this more in his book because this signs and wonders movement is greatly influencing the Pentecostal side of postmodernism and their Dominion Theology heretical doctrine also leads to the religious Harlot. Paul Smith only wrote a couple of pages on the signs and wonders movement but I think fifty pages would have been much more appropriate. Maybe Smith could work on that if he has any revision in mind or wants to write a follow-up book on the Pentecostal influence within new evangelicalism.

When people want to experience God by creating Him in their own mind, or by getting some sign or extra-biblical message, or by getting some mystical experience from one of the self-appointed anointed they will be deceived. In these last days these things will tie in with the mysticism of the Roman Church and other demonic deceptions. All these demonic deceptions and more, will be the foundation of the one world religious Harlot that Paul Smith does talk about in his book.

The latter part of Paul Smith’s book explains that postmodernism, emergent theology and religious mysticism is all heading toward a one world political, economic and religious system. It is a pretty good summary of where the world is heading and a briefing on sound eschatology in just a couple of chapters.

The book also has some insider information about the Calvary Chapel movement. It contains a couple of positional letters by Chuck Smith against those that wanted to change the Calvary Chapel movement from its expository teaching through the Bible to some other format.

Finally, the book has an appendix that explains the difference between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. It is very good, but I would disagree on at least one point. God never gave Satan the deed to planet earth as Paul Smith suggested. God does not give away His creation to angels or Satan. After the fall of man God gave Satan the power to rule the earth but He certainly did not give Satan the title-deed to the planet. I mention that because this thinking is a popular error that leads some to believe in Dominion Theology. I write about that in my paper on the Woman on the Beast.

I highly recommend this book. In fact, it should be required reading for all church leaders. If God never gave us His written word there really would be no foundation for Christianity at all. If man can just redefine or dismiss God’s word because he thinks it is full of error, he really does not believe that there is a God with the ability to preserve what He spoke. If God did not give us the absolute truth, then man cannot be saved from the obvious fallen nature that we find ourselves in. If God cannot preserve what He said, why should anyone believe that Jesus fulfilled what God might not have said?

If you are one of those that does not believe that the scriptures were spoken by God, then you probably should examine yourself to see if you are really in the faith. What hope can man have in a God that did not also provide foundational truth to trust in Him? It should be clear to any true believer that God gave man both the inerrant word and the living Word (John 1:1).


Print Friendly

 Don Koenig founded website in 1999 after almost thirty years of independent study on the Bible and learning from many astute teachers within Christendom. Don created his website to write about Bible prophecy, biblical discernment and his Christian worldviews. Don wrote a free Revelation commentary ebook in 2004 named "The Revelation of Jesus Christ Through The Ages". The World and Church and Bible Prophecy section of this website was started in 2007.


13 thoughts on “New evangelicalism usually also means denying Bible inerrancy

  1. The problem with Chuck Smith was that he, for the entire length of his Calvary Chapel life, said that catholicism is a Christian belief system. Such error was ignored by those in Calvary Chapel that knew better.

  2. Abe,

    I am not aware that Chuck Smith thought that Roman Catholicism taught true Christianity. The Roman Church no doupt was and is part of what it called Christendom. After all, the Protestants came out of Roman Catholicism. I don’t think Smith taught that the Vatican taught a salvation Gospel. However, like many he acknowledge that there were Christians among the Catholics. The same can be said of many of our modern Protestant denominations and churches that have lost their way.

  3. Abe,

    Your statement about Pastor Chuck Smith is not true.

    I have been listening to Chuck Smith for over 25 years and I can tell you that the exact opposite is true.

    He points out the fallacy of the Catholic Church, however, he does also point out the history of the Catholic Church as Don eluded to above.

    Pastor Chuck Smith did/does have a terrific sense of humor in his teachings…and Catholicism was the butt of his jokes, more than once.

    I listen to and will continue to listen to Pastor Chuck’s ‘Through The Bible’ C3000 Series every day for the rest of my life, likely….among others of course.

    Abe, The C3000 Series is very cheap and can be purchased here…

  4. Don this is one article I had missed so I am indebted to Abe for his comment. What you have written is so very true.

    I can understand why men resign their post in the face of such immense spiritual pressure as the Devil knows how to apply. Even strong men need the support of the people (sheeple) and if that is eroded what can one man do; continue to beat his head against the wall? Christ told his disciples to shake the dust of their shoes in such cases, and I believe it to be a very natural thing to do in the face of hostility… and even indifference.

    It is indifference on the part of ‘believers’ that reaps its own harvest, and wherein lies that indifference? In self-righteous (religious) unbelief of THE Truth.

  5. Chuck Smith says it in his book “Answers”, that catholicism is Christian. That book was written in the 90’s. It doesn’t say that “some catholics are born again”. It says that catholicism is a Christian group.

    Likewise on the radio multiple times before his death, Chuck Smith said that catholics are Christians. And that he had a cousin that was a nun, and he never tried to convert her away from it, because, they supposedly had the same Lord, according to Smith.

    Here’s a sample links:

    Here is where Chuck Smith said that good mormons go to heaven:

    Now you make the call on your website, to truth. You want truth. So do I. I am astonished that three people came along to deny what I claimed, without even doing the research. Is Chuck Smith now God? You can read it from Chuck’s own words, and hear it from Chuck’s own voice. Catholics were always full Christians, to him.

    He was apostate from the start.

  6. Abe,

    I think Chuck Smith explains that one must be born again to be saved. You just read what you wanted to believe into what he said. Some Catholics are Christians. That is not the same as saying that the heretical doctrine coming out of the Vatican leads people to salvation. I know Catholics that get salvation knowledge apart from and in spite of the heretical doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Besides, Catholicism is considered part of Christendom by everyone that lists denominations of Christendom. Prior to the reformation there were still true Christians in Catholicism and after Luther departed there were still true Christians in Catholicism. Do you think all believers departed with Luther? Do you think believers were limited to just Luther and the reformers? There still are believers in Catholicism. Do you think that those that left Catholicism and became Lutherans all suddenly became Christians? How about when they became reformed? The Church is not a denomination. It is a body of true believers in Jesus that trust in Him for their salvation. They are in all major denominations in some degree in spite of the man made and demonic doctrines that the theologians added.

    I suggest you read what Smith said on Mormons again, Smith made one statement in that interview and it follows.

    “SMITH: It all depends on their relationship with Jesus Christ, and there are a lot of good Mormons who do believe in Jesus and I believe they’ll be in heaven, uh but uh you know we can’t do it on own righteousness or own works, we have to depend on Jesus for our entrance into heaven.”

    Obviously Smith is talking about salvation from the Jesus Christ of the Bible and not the Mormon Jesus taught by the founders of Mormonism. Believe it or not, many Mormons do not know or agree with the heretical Mormon doctrines just like most Roman Catholics do not know or agree with the heretical Catholic doctrines, or many Protestants do not know, understand, or agree with all their own heretical doctrines. Mormons do have the Bible and if they read it they can find Jesus through what is taught there. The real issue is do they believe that people are saved by grace through faith in the Savior that God sent to save sinners, or do they think they can learn to become gods by their own works of righteousness? The Jesus of the official Mormon Church is not the Jesus of the Bible but some identified as Mormons can find the true Savior of the Bible.

    Instead of trying to find every every word that Chuck Smith ever said in his whole life and take him out of context to support your view of him being apostate. Why don’t you do a little research and find Smith’s actual teaching messages on Mormonism. I think it would be completely contrary to what you suggest. Smith always taught that salvation come through grace and faith in the Jesus of the Bible alone.

    Also, if you actually listened to all of Smith’s teachings only someone not in the Church themselves could ever call such a faithful teacher of the Bible, who taught such a clear path to salvation, an apostate. I suggest that you repent of your attacking faithful brethren and your spreading of discord.

  7. True Christians always existed outside of catholicism and lutheranism, since catholicism was persecuting Christians for centuries before Luther was born. So the notion that there were “no Christians in the world outside of catholicism”, is false. It’s catholic revisionist “history” that their own death squads contradict.

    Catholicism cannot be Christian. If there are a few true Christians in their ranks, it is because they have intentionally rejected the false gospel of catholicism.

    Your attempt to soften the heretical statements of Chuck Smith, isn’t doing it for me. You seemed as though you were someone that cared deeply about the truth, no matter who was in error. Chuck Smith, even before Calvary Chapel and in the early days of it, was standing on stage right next to the heretic Kathryn Kuhlmann.

    I see that you are fixated on the infallibility of Chuck Smith, so there is really nothing left to say. A shame, since I was enjoying your site, but now I cannot.

  8. Abe,

    I did not say there there was no Christians outside of Catholicism and Lutheranism. However, to assume that all in those religious were not Christians is nuts. For example, the Roman Church persecuted people within their church for not obeying the doctrines of their Church. So how do you explain Catholic Christians dying for what they believed if they did not exist within Catholicism?

    There are people within the ranks of Catholicism that reject the heretical doctrine of Catholicism but not all doctrine of Catholicism is heretical. Much of the doctrine of Catholicism comes from the same source as the Protestants. Have you ever read a Catholic Catechism or Bible? I have.

    You say Catholicism cannot be Christian, but in one sense one can say that about any world religion or denomination. The Church is not a worldly visible institution it is those in the Spiritual Body of Christ. Half of the Baptists are not Christians (some say many more than that) but should we say the Southern Baptists are not a Christian denomination? Jesus identified seven churches in Revelation and not everyone in those churches were saved Christians. Two churches Jesus had nothing good to say about at all. So even Jesus recognized visible churches that identified with Him.

    You might think that Chuck Smith said and did some things wrong in his life and I would totally agree and so would Smith. Anyone in the ministry for over 50 years is going to have some error. In fact all teachers make error and Church Smith would be the first one to tell you that he made a lot of mistakes in his early ministry. Nor did he claim to be infallible in his later ministry.

    There were a lot of people that stood next to Kathryn Kuhlmann, these were the days of the Pentecostal movement and Smith was in Four Square. During those days half the people in ministry did not know how to take her or the Pentecostals. Many still do not. However, I guess the fifty years of Chuck Smith starting hundreds of churches that teach though the scriptures where many hundreds of thousands came to Christ count for nothing? You see no growth in his ministry for Christ over the years?

    I don’t agree with some of the teaching of Chuck Smith, so for you to say that I would not point out error in Chuck Smith’s teaching is just not true. To suggest that I believe what he taught was infallible is totally moronic. Smith did not even agree with some of his early teaching. I don’t believe anyone is infallible including you or me.

    If you cannot see the truth in this site because I defended a man that proved to be trustworthy over the years and a perfect example of someone that did not apostatize from the faith contrary to what you claimed go to wherever people like you go.

  9. Abe,

    Can you please bare with us for a bit while we research a bit more on the links you provided for Pastor Chuck Smith ?

    Yes, I have been listening to Pastor Chuck Smith (among others) for 30+ years, but I don’t claim that Pastor Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, Don, or any teacher is infallible…but I also need time to research the evidence you bring to counter or agree that what he said is heretical in the instances you bring up.

    I heavily doubt that Pastor Chuck Smith has ever taught anything heretical but did he possibly say something that in that surface interview, for example, might indicate that ?…that is possible, still looking into your links.

    Pastor Chuck Smith in his teachings has pointed out to me several times of the Catholic incorrect doctrine, he makes a point of it, as a matter of fact.

    I’ll do my best to give you an objective response as soon as I can.

  10. Keep in mind that heresy is in the eyes of the beholder. The word means “Any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position” Some of my positions would be disputed by some of the orthodoxy. There is a difference between heresy that leads people away from the gospel of salvation by grace through faith and heresy in interpretation of what is correct doctrine to the orthodoxy. All teach some heresy unless they teach totally within the orthodox box set by the church, domination, organization or certain theologians. Smith taught what he believed the Bible teaches. You do not call someone that teaches points of biblical doctrine that you may not agree with an unbeliever. That is what calling someone an apostate means. Chuck Smith was not an apostate from the Christian faith in any way, shape, or form.

  11. Don,

    I agree wholeheartedly with what you just said about orthodoxy and Pastor Chuck Smith.

    In fact, I think Pastor Chuck Smith’s biggest strength was an unflinching, sincere Love Of God and His Word…one I think we should all aspire to.

    Word for Word, Verse by Verse is how Pastor Chuck Smith taught, was he incorrect on some issues ?,…I would say yes…and even he admitted that there are some things in Scripture that we, the followers of Jesus Christ, do not know with absolutes…in a two sided theological argument, he would commonly give both sides of the argument and tell us what side he thought was correct.

    Chuck Smith had no problems with pointing out some of his own errors in his past ministry.

    I will look into what Chuck Smith might’ve said from the information given to us lately in the comments…and how it came about, since I’ve given Abe my word.

    For me personally, I would like to point out that I am absolutely not loyal to any man or church…I am loyal to The Lord Jesus Christ.

  12. This comment is directed towards Abe and the apostasy of Chuck Smith that he pointed out.


    I do have to give you some credit for pointing out some debatable theology that have come from Pastor Chuck Smith that were said on the ‘talk show’, Pastor Perspective.

    And, actually, it goes a lot deeper than just what you pointed out..there is a lot of scrutiny of what a lot of Pastors have said over their lifetimes…more than I knew before embarking on this witch hunt.

    I was going to do a point, counter-point to what he said versus what he teaches and give possible error analysis…but that would be incredibly lengthy and probably worthless.

    What I did find most interesting, regardless of the pastor teacher, there is always debatable and incorrect doctrine said whether it be Pastor Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, Billy Graham, whomever.

    None of these teachers are infallible, that is the only consistent absolute that I could find.

    Does it make it OK, or correct ?…absolutely not, in my opinion…but unless man becomes infallible, then I think that’s the best we have on earth at this time.

    Pastor Chuck Smith’s word for word, verse by verse theology and teachings are not apostate teaching, and like I said, if you were to listen to his teachings, you would find that he does not approve of Catholicism, Mormon doctrine, or any occultist doctrine.

    I have to conclude by saying that Don’s two comments on the issue are as close as I could possibly come to an objective end to this debate.

Comments are closed.