David Cloud who manages the Way Of Life website (Fundamental Baptist) posted the following article today. My response can be found at the bottom.

“MAX LUCADO'S ECUMENICAL CONFUSION”

Republished August 27, 2002 (updated June 29, 2000; first published September 4, 1998) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)

Max Lucado is one of the prominent and influential evangelical leaders on the scene today. His positive-oriented books and tapes are sold in most Christian bookstores; and he is a popular speaker at a wide range of conferences, including Promise Keepers, National Religious Broadcasters, National Association of Evangelicals, Moody Bible Institute, and Jerry Falwell's 1992 National Youth Workers Convention.

Lucado is pastor of the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas. In June 1997, I talked with Lucado on the phone as well as with Elder Doyle Jennings of the Oak Hills Church. Both stated that they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but they do not believe in "baptismal regeneration." Thus, we see that they have added baptism to the grace of Christ for salvation. This is standard Church of Christ error, and it is a very serious matter for it constitutes a false gospel. That Max Lucado is committed to Church of Christ doctrine is evident by his close relationship with Pepperdine University and Abeline Christian University, both staunch Church of Christ institutions. A Pepperdine spokesman told Dennis Costella, editor of Foundation magazine, that Lucado has been featured seven times at Pepperdine lectureships (Foundation, March-April 2000). Costella is in a unique position to judge these things because he grew up in the Church of Christ and graduated from Pepperdine.

Elder Jennings said he does not accept the doctrine of eternal security, while Lucado said this doctrine is not an issue in the church and elders and people are free to accept it or reject it. This is very telling since a proper understanding of salvation leads to eternal security for the believer. Those who believe a born again child of God can lose his salvation simply do not understand the gospel.

In my phone conversation with Max Lucado and with Elder Jennings, I got the distinct impression that doctrine was not very important to them. After I hung up the phone from talking with Lucado I wrote the following summary of my observations: "Lucado said he represents a 'movement of grace' in the Churches of Christ, 'a move away from legalism.' I sense that we are seeing a movement away from the older rigid doctrinal positions of the various denominations by the younger men who have taken charge. I saw another example of this in a recent article in Charisma magazine about the United Pentecostal Church. It said some of the younger men are not satisfied with the past legalism and are willing to modify some of the finer points of their doctrinal position for the sake of ecumenism. Even the cults are joining in this movement, represented by the Worldwide Church of God. These new leaders are ecumenical and make no issue of doctrine. Finer points of doctrine are absolutely meaningless. That is why something as important as eternal security is a non-issue with them. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to pinpoint the heresy of heretical churches. The easy-going, doctrinally-generic church is becoming the norm" (Dave Cloud, June 9, 1997).

Lucado holds an unscriptural view of Christian unity which is helping to break down the walls of separation between truth and error and which is preparing the way for the building of a one-world apostate "church." Lucado helped organize an ecumenical alliance of pastors in his home town, which has grown to more than 100. The pastors are learning to "put away differences" in order to deepen personal relationships. It includes women pastors, Charismatics, and others. Cindy Daniel, for example, is co-pastor with her husband of Expect a Miracle Church. Newman Dollar, pastor of City View Christian Fellowship, who, with Lucado, was one of the founders of this ecumenical fellowship, told the San Antonio Express-News (Feb. 19, 2000) that he wants to see more pastors from Catholic churches participating.

Lucado was a signer of the deceptive "The Gift of Salvation" declaration between evangelicals and Catholics in November 1997. This declaration was also known as "Evangelicals and Catholics Together II." We exposed the danger and error of this statement in the article "Evangelicals and Catholics Confusing the Gift of Salvation," which was published December 7, 1997. We noted that "The Gift of Salvation" is a bland and, in the ecumenical context, insufficient affirmation of the doctrine of biblical justification. In typical New Evangelical fashion, the evangelical authors and signers omitted many things that are necessary to properly delineate the true Bible Gospel from the false Roman Catholic one. For the most part, what they stated about justification is not inherently unscriptural; THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM LIES IN WHAT THEY FAILED TO STATE. This, of course, is the root error of New Evangelicalism.

Lucado's unscriptural view of unity was also evident when he spoke at the 1996 Promise Keepers Clergy Conference for Men in Atlanta, Georgia. According to Promise Keeper leader Dale Schlafer, priests, bishops and pastors were present from every denomination in America.

Lucado's message at the Clergy Conference dealt with "Denominational Harmony: From Bondage to Freedom." Lucado said, "I submit myself to the Word and there are core beliefs. However, for too long we have allowed our differences to divide us instead of our agreements to unite us." He urged the men to subscribe to the premise, "In essentials unity--in non-essentials charity."

We wonder if Lucado considers the gospel itself "essential"? If so, how can he yoke together with Roman Catholics who add sacraments to Christ's salvation? The phrase "in essentials unity--in non-essentials charity" is a smokescreen for disobedience to biblical separation. While not every teaching of scripture is of equal importance, the Bible does not divide doctrine into essential and non-essential. Timothy's job in Ephesus was to make certain that NO OTHER DOCTRINE be allowed (1 Timothy 1:3). There is no hint here that some portions of apostolic truth are "non-essential." Paul labored to preach THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD (Acts 20:27). The man who strives to be faithful to every detail of New Testament truth will find it impossible to be comfortable in an ecumenical Promise Keepers-type environment. As one wise man observed, "You will have a limited fellowship, or you will have a limited message."

Lucado then had the 40,000 men shout the names of their denominations all at once. The result was confusion, of course. Lucado then asked the crowd to state who was the Messiah. The ensuing response, "Jesus," was heard plainly. The evident goal of this clever little exercise was to demonstrate the beauty and simplicity of ecumenical unity.

In Atlanta, Lucado even claimed that "the sin of disunity causes people to go to Hell!"

He then stated: "The step to unity is acceptance and no longer to speak evil of one another. WOULD IT NOT BE WONDERFUL NOT TO BE KNOWN AS EITHER PROTESTANT OR CATHOLIC? This is a God-sized dream and no one in our generation has ever seen the Church united."

This is not a God-sized dream; it is the vision of the Harlot that John recorded in Revelation 17. Promise Keepers is confused about the church. It certainly is not all the alleged Christian denominations. The focus on the New Testament Scriptures is upon the church as a local body of baptized believers organized according to the apostolic pattern for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This is the church which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3). To define the "church" as the denominations and to call for this hodgepodge of doctrinal and moral confusion "to stand together" is utter confusion. The denominations today are more akin to the Harlot of Revelation 17 than to the church of Jesus Christ. According to eyewitness reporter Dr. Ralph Colas, "LUCADO THEN PLED THAT EVERY CLERGYMAN WHO HAD EVER SPOKEN AGAINST ANOTHER GROUP OR DENOMINATION, FIND A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP AND APOLOGIZE. Contemporary Christian singer Steve Green then belted out repeatedly 'Let the Walls Come Down.' The 40,000 ministers shouted, whistled, clapped, and cheered as they worked to a higher and higher pitch of emotion" (Colas, An Eyewitness Report on the 1996 Clergy Conference for Men, Atlanta, Georgia, February 13-15, 1996).

We are to apologize for warning people of false gospels and false baptisms and false spirits and false Christs and false sacraments and false mediators and false views of the church and false views of Scripture? We are to apologize for warning of sin and worldliness and compromise? I have spoken against many Christian groups and denominations, because God commands me to preach the truth AND to expose error (2 Timothy 4:1-6). I refuse to apologize for striving to obey God. By God's grace I am going to keep on exposing error until the Lord takes me to Glory. And by God's grace I am going to name names and be specific about the error and the sin.

May God help us have the courage in these evil hours to honor and obey Him rather than man.

"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" (Jude 3).

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. To Subscribe to the Fundamental Baptist Information Service, send an email to lists@wayoflife.org and put "subscribe FBIS" in the subject field. To Unsubscribe, send an email to lists@wayoflife.org and put "unsubscribe FBIS" in the subject field. To change addresses, simply unsubscribe the old one, then re-subscribe the new one. Or a more simple process is to go to the web site and sign up or change addresses there: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6). Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 19th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail). OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org ]

MY RESPONSE

Dave,

I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoy and benefit immensely from nearly all of your posted materials. I would encourage you to continue on with your good work of informing all of us of what is going on in modern Christendom. You must also know that I have several Independent Fundamentalist Baptist friends who I esteem greatly.

I would generally agree with you concerning Lucado’s pragmatic ecumenism. Most of what you said is entirely accurate. Unfortunately, I am rather puzzled by the following comment: “I talked with Lucado on the phone as well as with Elder Doyle Jennings of the Oak Hills Church. Both stated that they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but they do not believe in ‘baptismal regeneration.’ Thus, we see that they have added baptism to the grace of Christ for salvation. This is standard Church of Christ error, and it is a very serious matter for it constitutes a false gospel.”

Since I have had this discussion many times before with my IFB friends, I assume that your position on Christian baptism is rather similar. I cannot speak for Lucado, as I do not have any first-hand knowledge of his personal position on this issue. However, I will speak for myself.

Allow me to clear the air a bit, if I may. If Lucado is saying what I think he is saying, he is absolutely right. There is a HUGE difference between baptismal regeneration and the role that baptism plays in salvation. Let me explain. Baptismal regeneration is intimately associated with sacramental justification (an oxymoron if you ask me). The Catholic Church (and most Reformed denominations) teaches that one is justified by the ceremony in and of itself (ex opere operato). In contrast, the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith, at baptism, for good works. Now, before you get too terribly excited about what I have just said (as nearly all western Baptists do) let me elucidate this concept further.

Believer’s immersion was always the Biblically assigned time and occasion upon which a new convert died to his old self and began his life in Christ anew (Romans 6:3-7). It was the Gnostic influenced reformers who came up with the “brilliant” idea that baptism (being an external physical act and all) could play no part in salvation. This has spilled over into almost every Evangelical denomination since then. But let’s be perfectly clear on this. It is man who has substituted immersion into Christ with the “mourner’s bench” and the “sinners prayer”. At least these last two retain some ingredient of repentance, where as the modern “ask Jesus into your heart” or “accept Jesus” formula (invented by Graham) has no regard for the Biblical doctrine of Christ’s lordship.

To be consistent, we would have to say that the mere act of prayer, lifting one’s hand in an evangelistic meeting, or going forward to “accept Jesus”, are all physical external acts as well. Does this mean that they ought to be excluded from man’s response to salvation? Some have excluded them on that very same basis, but they also exclude repentance and public confession of faith in Christ. Even the act of giving mental assent to the Gospel would constitute a “work”, as it is man’s doing and not God’s.

The truth is that baptism is man’s only Biblically legitimate response to the Gospel of salvation in Christ. Is justification less imputed because of baptism? Hardly! The apostle Peter clearly states in 1 Peter 3:21,22 that immersion into Christ has nothing to do with actual justification (as in the case of “baptismal regeneration”). Yet, in that same passage, Peter claims that the water of baptism saves us just as the water of Noah’s flood saved both he and his family. Those are the apostle’s terms, not mine. Therefore, we are left to decide “which” role baptism plays in salvation, not “if” it plays a role in salvation.

Once again, the apostle Peter comes to our rescue in Acts 2:38. There, he urges his audience to repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, as the proper response to the Gospel he had just proclaimed. “But why baptism?” you might say. Because it is by obeying the Gospel that we enter into the New Birth that Christ spoke about and the apostles confirmed (e.g. Galatians 3:27) It is in baptism that we are buried with Christ and are raised again to a newness of life. Just as Noah was obedient to God’s command and the flood waters saved both he and his family from the contamination of a sinful generation, so does baptism save us in the sense that it is God’s appointed litmus test to see if we are willing to obey His Gospel or not. When you think about it, baptism is more God’s mercy at work than anything that we may do to gain His favor.

In conclusion then, baptism is no more a work than repentance, prayer, public confession of faith, etc. Baptism, as it is taught in Scripture, is God’s divinely appointed time and occasion upon which HE, not us, has chosen to impute His Son’s righteousness (not ours) to all who fully trust in Him (not in baptism but in Christ) for their salvation, calling upon the name of the Lord. This is a far cry from baptismal regeneration and I suspect that it is a fairly accurate definition of what Lucado believes – and I am no Lucado fan by a long shot.

By the way, I find it odd that many of our Baptist brethren in the UK have historically held this very same position that I do, while you and my many other Baptist friends on this continent see things differently. Why is that? Please don’t be mad with me, I am just curious.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Answers

Phil,

Is David Cloud your brother in Christ?

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

To one and all,

If David Cloud has obeyed the Gospel according to the New Testament scriptures, than he is my brother in Christ. Otherwise, he needs to come to the Lord on His terms and not on David Cloud’s terms.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Philip:

You're confusing me. I thought I had figured out where you stand on a number ofo issues -- you make it very clear, usually -- but then you write what you did above, and much of it turns on its head.

Here's what I'm talking about. In other threads, in the last few days you have written things like the following:

"Some among us seem to think that the grahamite formula of “ask Jesus into your heart”, “accept Jesus”, or “pray the sinner’s prayer” is actually biblical. For this reason they believe that Bill Hybles and the WCA (including most of its members) are true brothers and sister in Christ. At least that is the reading I am getting. Well, I have news for them. Bill Hybles is not my brother in Christ, but neither is Billy Graham or the Pope. Those who shun biblical immersion into Christ, do so on the basis of man’s inner-rumblings and not on the authority of the New Testament. "

...and...

"No one who teaches a false Gospel is by brother or sister in Christ. No one!"

...and...

"If those who were baptized at the Willow Creek church did so with full knowledge of the true Gospel, than they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Since I know for a fact that Hybles does not preach the true Gospel, I highly suspect that his disciples never have the opportunity to respond to the real thing."

Ok. So, you absolutely do not consider Bill Hybels a brother in Christ, and you will have nothing to do with him or anything connected with him because you believe he preaches a gospel foreign to the Biblical Gospel because it does not include baptism for the remission of sins (despite the fact that, as Barry has pointed out a couple of times, Willow Creek averaged better than 17 baptisms a week last year -- which church of our brotherhood is doing that?).

And you absolutely do not consider Billy Graham a brother in Christ because he teaches that baptism is not part of coming to salvation.

But then, just as I had you worked out, you say THIS about David Cloud:

"I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoy and benefit immensely from nearly all of your posted materials. I would encourage you to continue on with your good work of informing all of us of what is going on in modern Christendom. You must also know that I have several Independent Fundamentalist Baptist friends who I esteem greatly."

So you can't enjoy or appreciate Hybels because you think he doesn't preach properly about baptism in salvation, and yet you THOROUGHLY enjoy and benefit from David Cloud, even though he very definately teaches that baptism has no part in salvation. And you have "several Independent Fundamentalist Baptist friends who I esteem greatly", even though they also presumably teach that baptism has no part in salvation.

You ALSO say "If David Cloud has obeyed the Gospel according to the New Testament scriptures, than he is my brother in Christ." Well, we know for fact that Billy Graham obeyed the gospel according to the New Testament Scriptures, being baptised because God said to in the Scriptures. But Billy Graham cannot be your brother in Christ, even though he is a baptised believer, because he TEACHES THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT BAPTISM THAT DAVID CLOUD TEACHES.

I'd appreciate it if you could clear this up for me.

Sam

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Sam: I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused, for I am not in the business of causing disarray. Rather, I am trying my best to help bring light to the issues that I have presented.

Let me get something perfectly clear from the outset. While many of my CC & COC conservative brethren would probably draw the line at believer’s immersion into Christ as a distinctive between believers and non-believers, I don’t. Unfortunately, there are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of immersed non-believers in the RM. There are literally dozens of areas where I believe that modern neo-evangelical leaders have added, deleted from, or distorted the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am afraid that you are trying to paint me into a corner by putting words into my mouth that I never said – e.g. “Ok. So, you absolutely do not consider Bill Hybels a brother in Christ, and you will have nothing to do with him or anything connected with him because you believe he preaches a gospel foreign to the Biblical Gospel because it does not include baptism for the remission of sins”.

I never said that baptism is the only issue at stake, nor do I believe that either you or Barry are being fair in your assessment of what I have said in that regard. While it may be true that I have tended to single out immersion into Christ as one the more obvious issues, many other things undermine the very Gospel of Christ in other poignant ways. For this reason, I applaud guys like David Cloud, who may not have a full understanding of the proper Biblical response to the Gospel, put at least he is sticking up for what he believes is a serious compromise of God’s word (and I happen to agree with him on many points). Just because I agree with someone on some things, does not necessarily mean that I agree with all that person stands for. At least David Cloud (among a host of others) are doing what we in the RM should have done over 50 years ago: stem the overwhelming tide of apostasy in the church. My position in regard to David Cloud is exactly as I have said :“I have several Independent Fundamentalist Baptist friends who I esteem greatly”. Never did I say that they are my brothers in Christ. On the other hand, I would be naive to ignore the fact that Cloud in I have much more in common regarding many other subjects other than immersion into Christ. I intensely yearn for the day when people like Cloud will let go of their precious religious tradition and let God reign fully in this particular area of their understanding.

If Graham ever obeyed the true Gospel, he certainly doesn’t believe it or practice it today. I would suggest that you do a little more research on Hybles and Graham, for both of them teach rank heresy and any comparison between them and Cloud is so superficial it is meaningless. Here is at least one source I would highly recommend for starters: www.deceptioninthechurch.com

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Phil,

Again, you make blanket statements that you can't possibly back up. If you can, please do the following:

1) Please list and document Bill Hybel's "rank heresy" for us:

2) Tell us exactly what a person must do to be saved. Does a person have to be immersed specifically for the remission of sins for it to be effective? If so, why aren't you accusing David Cloud of "rank heresy". Is it because he is a legalist like you?

Barry

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Phil:

You wrote above, “Therefore, I am afraid that you are trying to paint me into a corner by putting words into my mouth that I never said – e.g. “Ok. So, you absolutely do not consider Bill Hybels a brother in Christ, and you will have nothing to do with him or anything connected with him because you believe he preaches a gospel foreign to the Biblical Gospel because it does not include baptism for the remission of sins”. “

Putting words into your mouth? No. Accurately reporting what you wrote. I’ll do it again, for you and for those looking on. Here are some quotations from your writing of the last few days – the same quotations I used in the previous post:

"Some among us seem to think that the grahamite formula of “ask Jesus into your heart”, “accept Jesus”, or “pray the sinner’s prayer” is actually biblical. For this reason they believe that Bill Hybles and the WCA (including most of its members) are true brothers and sister in Christ. At least that is the reading I am getting. Well, I have news for them. Bill Hybles is not my brother in Christ, but neither is Billy Graham or the Pope. Those who shun biblical immersion into Christ, do so on the basis of man’s inner-rumblings and not on the authority of the New Testament. "

...and...

"No one who teaches a false Gospel is by brother or sister in Christ. No one!"

...and...

"If those who were baptized at the Willow Creek church did so with full knowledge of the true Gospel, than they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Since I know for a fact that Hybles does not preach the true Gospel, I highly suspect that his disciples never have the opportunity to respond to the real thing."

You very specifically say, “Bill Hybles is not my brother in Christ, but neither is Billy Graham . . .”. And you very specifically on the grounds of them being men “who shun biblical immersion into Christ . . .”.

You cannot rightly say that I have put words into your mouth. I have taken your own words, and asked you to clarify a significant discrepancy I see in them. You very specifically shun Hybels and Graham and what they do, and yet you “applaud guys like David Cloud, who may not have a full understanding of the proper Biblical response to the Gospel, put at least he is sticking up for what he believes is a serious compromise of God’s word (and I happen to agree with him on many points).” David Cloud, in the article you cited, preaches the exact same Gospel that Billy Graham preaches. Graham has been baptized; I presume David Cloud has been, else he probably wouldn’t be a Baptist preacher.

So my question to you was simply this: Why do you shun Billy Graham and not David Cloud? Why do you applaud David Cloud where you agree with him, and yet refuse to applaud Billy Graham where you agree with him? Why do you not shun David Cloud for preaching the exact same “false gospel” for which you shun Billy Graham?

I’m not even trying to make a strong debating point about the rightness or wrongness of any of these men. I’m trying to find some consistency in your positions on them.

Oh, and one more thing . . . you wrote: “I would suggest that you do a little more research on Hybles and Graham, for both of them teach rank heresy and any comparison between them and Cloud is so superficial it is meaningless. Here is at least one source I would highly recommend for starters: www.deceptioninthechurch.com .”

I would suggest to YOU that when you do such research, that you do it by actually reading what the men themselves say, by reading their own publications and listening to their own words, rather than relying mostly or solely on what someone else says about them. I don’t KNOW that you do the latter, but it certainly seems that way, since all you cite are those kinds of references. The “Here’s what’s wrong with . . .” kind of reference is one of the easiest to go wrong with. The best reference is direct testimony by those involved, in context and right from their mouth or pen. If you haven’t recently, you might want to give it a try.

One more thing . . . I remembered I was going to write this just before I posted this one . . .

I wanted to commend you on the exposition of baptism and its place in salvation that you wrote to Mr. Cloud. It is clear and succinct and represents very well what most of us here believe. I know I speak for myself, and I think I can represent Barry on this, as saying that this particular piece of writing is worthy of praise (Barry, I hope that’s ok). You did well.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2002

Sam,

Thank you for the commendations on the response to David Cloud! I’m glad to hear that it has been helpful and that it reflects your sentiments on this subject.

I can certainly appreciate your concern regarding my handling of the evidence. But you must understand that we do not have the time or the space in this forum to present large bodies of material of this nature. Furthermore, there us plenty of information out there in cyber-land, if anyone is serious enough about this issue to take the time and look it up for himself. The impression I’m getting is that the pragmatists and “liberals” or “progressives” among us simply do not care, and that is where the “rubber meets the road” in my book.

Again, as I said before – there is no discrepancy in my approach to Graham/ Hybels vs. Cloud. I never said that my opposition to the former is based ONLY on the issue of baptism. If that is what you are reading, I apologize. My opposition to Graham/ Hybels includes many other differences, including their Universalist-inclusivistic gospel. As Robert Schuller’s protégé, Hybels at the very least can be expected to espouse the same heresies. My similarities with Cloud, on the other hand, are readily abundant. He abhors apostasy in the church as I do; he opposes Calvinism as I do; he believes in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scriptures, as I do. There are simply to many things in common to ignore the fact that this man is on the right track. I deeply lament the fact that Cloud has not gone far enough in his theology regarding baptism, but I am working on it as attested to in this thread.

Now, I realize that a tactic of debate is to try to get the opponent on the defensive as soon as possible. You have succeeded in doing that to a degree. However, the larger issues have not yet been addressed. I am very much interested in what you have to say concerning Hybels’ heretical gospel.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2002

Phil,

The difference between you and me is that I get my sources firsthand, while you get yours from people who are repeating other people who are repeating other people on the internet, with no way to verify whether the information is true or not.

1. Have you actually heard or read anything from Bill Hybels that would even hint at a universalistic view of the Gospel?

2. Have you actually heard or read anything from Bill Hybels that denied the inerrancy of Scripture?

3. Have you actually heard or read anything from Bill Hybels that supports Calvinism?

It is up to you to agree or disagree with Bill Hybels. I don't really care if you do or do not. But I would have a whole lot more respect for you if you would get your ideas concerning what Hybels does or does not teach from him, rather than from "Christian" sources on the internet, like David Cloud.

What have you actually read or heard from Bill Hybels that lets you say he teaches a heretical gospel?

BTW, I'm not expecting you to answer any of my questions because I know that no such sources are available to support your preposterous assertions.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2002

Unless Mr. Barry would like to underwrite a thorough research effort on Mr. Hybels, I will re-instate what I already said before; i.e. I don’t have the time or the funds to produce a full-fledged exposé on Hybels or anyone else. If anyone is serious enough about this issue, he or she can do the investigating on his or her own time [and money]. Since I have dared to question one of Mr. Barry’s sacred idols, it is understandable why he has reacted the way he has.

One good source to start with is Hybels’ own writings – they are chuck full of psycho heresy – but than Mr. Barry would probably have a problem with that as well since he appears to be so enamored with these gurus. The sad truth is that way too many of our own authors are head-deep in this psychobabble junk as well and they will probably miss the point I am making here.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2002

Phil,

This is becoming quite laughable. I asked you specifically to document your rants with Bill Hybel's own work, not do a thesis on the subject! Yet, now you say that if people want to know what Hybel's teaches, they should check out his writings. That's exactly what I asked you to do, nothing more, nothing less. But of course you have never done that, you just quote from the "Christian" equivalent of the National Enquirer and say "See here's proof". You are something else. One of these days you'll have the guts to back up your talk with something solid, until then you are not worth talking to.

-- Anonymous, September 06, 2002

Mr. Barry’s arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Now he seems to think that he has a divine mandate to judge who is worth talking to or not. Well, unless I am totally “mistaken” about this as well, others in this forum don’t seem to share his opinion.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002