This is a link to our weekly radio program Search the Scriptures Daily . You may listen to the program by clicking on the "mp3" link above. For more listening options, please see our Radio Page .
Welcome to Search the Scriptures Daily, a radio ministry of The Berean Call featuring Dave Hunt and T. A. McMahon. I’m Gary Carmichael, we’re glad you could be here. Coming up today’s broadcast in our Understanding the Scriptures segment, Dave and Tom will begin an in-depth study of the Gospel of Matthew, and “Why is the Lineage of Jesus so Important?” In Religion in the News: “The Stars on Scripture.” We’ll take a look at that story and examine the question: “Were the Seven Letters Written to Today’s Church?” We hope you can stay with us. Our ministry, The Berean Call, offers a wide variety of teaching materials, including books, tracts, audio and video disks, and copies of our weekly broadcast on compact disk or DVD. You may also subscribe to our monthly newsletter, which we offer free of charge. We’ll let you know how to order later in the program. Now, this week’s Cover Article. Tom and Dave continue their series of programs addressing the spiritual movement known as “The Emerging Church.” This week we focus on the topic, “Christianity, from Classical to Post-Modern.” Along with Dave Hunt, here’s T. A. McMahon.
Tom:
Thanks, Gary . You’re listening to Search the Scriptures Daily, a program in which we encourage everyone who desires to know God’s truth to look to God’s Word for all that is essential for salvation and living one’s life in a way that is pleasing to Him. We’re picking up where we left off last week in this first segment of our program. We’ve been discussing the Emerging Church movement and last week we addressed something that is really foundational to that movement. It’s called “Ancient-Future Faith” and the term and concept is credited to Robert Webber, who died last year, and who for about three decades taught at Wheaton College , a prestigious evangelical institution that has led the way in reconciling evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church and Webber certainly had a big hand in that. He talked that the church needs to search out what he calls “Classical Christianity,” a style or practice of Christianity that was utilized in the early centuries of the church and re-presented to our postmodern world of today. He believed that as the church was confronted by cultural changes it had to change to be successful and those in leadership that did not change ceased to be effective for the gospel. We’re told we need to find a cultural situation from church history that reflects our current generation, a culture that post moderns can identify with and learn how the Christians of that time period handled it. So, picking up where we left off last week—
Dave:
Tom, may I make a quick observation here, interrupt you for a moment?
Tom:
Sure.
Dave:
Most of the epistles, well, probably all of them at least to some extent, and some of them it’s almost the whole thing that the apostle is talking about are for correction. He is already correcting the early church. I don’t recall, and of course Jesus was correcting in his letters to the seven churches, I don’t recall that Jesus was concerned that they were missing cultural changes, or that they hadn’t kept up with the times. I don’t recall any commendations for being culturally relative. I don’t recall anything about tradition—well, I do recall some things about tradition—
Tom:
But they are not good.
Dave:
No, Jesus in Matthew 15, he rebuked them. He said by your tradition you have made void the Word of God. There’s a lot of tradition that the Jews had, the Rabbis, Pharisees, and so forth, I don’t find Jesus ever commending any of that, none of it. So, we’re going to get back to the early church? We’re going to find back there some culture that’s kind of like ours? Well, there aren’t any, really, but we’re going to find one and we will then proceed on the assumption that these people had it all right when they don’t have any biblical basis for it because the Bible doesn’t tell them how to relate to their culture. That’s not what it’s about; it’s our relationship with God and with Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit bringing the gospel to others. And Tom, I’m sorry; these people are way off base.
Tom:
And Dave, as we will see in addition to what you’ve mentioned, it really gets worse. It isn’t just a matter of some things that they did, but it’s the whole thrust toward this that is, as you mentioned, it’s not Biblical and worse, as I will explain.
Dave:
Biblical is the word, Tom. What they will accuse us of, people that don’t like this program, or whatever, a lot of people don’t like this for many reasons, I’ve been told that I am old-fashioned. I’m old-fashioned to the extent that I go to by the Bible, but that’s too old-fashioned. They want to get back to the early church and their tradition, but not to the Bible, unfortunately.
Tom:
Well, Dave, as we mentioned last week, I started going through the latest issue of, Christianity Today , February 2008.
Dave:
That’s a shocker.
Tom:
Well, I think it will be a shocker to some people, but you and I who have been following, not just this magazine but following trends in the evangelical church; they are right up to speed with what we knew they had been teaching. But now they are so blatant about it. I think that’s what’s shocking. Well, we’ll get into that. Anyway, this is the February issue, 2008 of Christianity Today , on the cover it says: “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church : How Evangelicals Started Looking Backward To Move Forward.” Dave, I want to go through the article, and then just get your comments. The title of the article, I read the cover but the title of the article is: The Future Lies in the Past, Why Evangelicals are Connecting with the Early Church As They Move Into the 21 st Century. Now we’re told by the editors of Christianity Today, that this approach, not only is it a good approach but it’s something they have been practicing, many of the editors have been practicing for years in their Episcopal Anglican churches. Now does that surprise you, Dave? You know the history of Christianity Today .
Dave:
Well, that is what you would assume by reading what they write and the articles that they promote.
Tom:
In other words, they haven’t gone fully Catholic, although they have been promoting Roman Catholicism for years and years and years. People say, What are you talking about, this is an evangelical magazine. No, I would challenge those out there who think that I’m making this up, just go through the list of contributing editors, the senior editors, all of that. You have—most of them have been signers to ECT, Evangelicals and Catholics Together. For example, the senior editors: J. R. Packer, Timothy George, Thomas Oden, and then you go down the list of contributing editors and you find Chuck Colson, you find Roman Catholic priests, again, another contributor to this Richard John Newhouse. So, they’ve been into this—I think you could go back to Billy Graham and his ecumenism and his leanings toward Roman Catholicism. Dave, am I out of line here?
Dave:
You’re just telling us the truth, Tom. But what could be wrong with being in with the Roman Catholic Church and we won’t go into details about that, but we’ve done it before. It has a false gospel, a false Jesus, the wrong Mary, by all means, and a false view of the crucifixion, of the remembrance of Christ.
Tom:
The Eucharist.
Dave:
We’ve been over this before, Tom, but the tragedy is that the gospel is being tampered with; it’s being changed and diluted.
Tom:
Right, Dave, these are non essentials, these are just peripheral things, style things or whatever, but all of these things relate to the gospel.
Dave:
Right, and that’s why Paul rebuked Peter. He said in Galatians 2:14 , But when I saw that they walked not honestly according to the gospel. It wasn’t a matter of tradition, it wasn’t a matter, well, you’re not associating with Gentiles, that’s not nice. No, he challenged him on the basis that this was a denial of the gospel which is to every person—go into all the world and preach the gospel. We don’t have a different gospel for different people.
Tom:
Now Dave, I want to go through this article again. The title of the article in Christianity Today , if you want to get a hold of it, it’s the February 2008 issue. The article begins with a description of a conference held at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College giving snippets of really what took place including, taking the audience through prayers from the Gelasian Sacramentary —now, what’s that? It’s a fifth-century book of Catholic liturgy recommending—well, it contains really the priest’s part in celebrating the Eucharist. And the recommendation is for us today, for evangelicals, for Protestants, the recommendation is that we use this in our worship in, it says, Protestant churches.
Dave:
Yeah, isn’t there a verse in the Bible that tells that this is what we are supposed to do that it would really help? I remember, Jesus said they that worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in truth, but I don’t recall anything about this book. Well, it hadn’t even been written then.
Tom:
Well, Dave, “a priest’s part in celebrating the Eucharist” that’s an abomination before God, according to the Scriptures! One speaker promoted the medieval fourfold hermeneutic —well, what’s that? Largely, that’s the medieval times again. Catholic, you know the Roman Catholic Church and their approach to interpreting the Bible, which is primarily a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. That’s recommended, and we’re seeing that throughout the Emerging Church . And also, Dave, this is a sad one, and another “gleefully passed on the news that Liberty University had observed the liturgical season of Lent.”
Dave:
Well, Tom, I don’t want to keep repeating myself, but well, they want to get back, going to get into the future by going into the past, but they don’t go quite far enough. Let’s go back to the Bible! What’s wrong with the example of Paul, or of Jesus, or of Peter? Why don’t we take what the Bible says instead of, well let’s go a few centuries farther because they were so close to the early church, and maybe we can glean something from their liturgy and their traditions. Jesus condemned tradition, had nothing good to say about it.
Tom:
Dave, you just quoted from Galatians. Galatians is—I mean, I know it as the Catholic Church being the Galatian heresy, what does that mean? It means that that church that I spent 30 years in, okay, turned to rituals, to these ceremonies, to the things just as the Galatians turned back to the law and the Law of Moses and so on, to what? Perfect their faith? First century church? As you pointed out, most of it was written to correct heresies that had already infiltrated the body of Christ.
Dave:
Right.
Tom:
Now, after going through what this conference is about, the writer of the article then asked: “Had Catholics taken over?” Meaning, in this bastion of conservative evangelicalism? As the answer is, a definite No! This Wheaton College conference was simply the evangelicals looking to the past for “rich biblical, spiritual, and theological treasures to be found within the early church.” Now Dave, you know that I followed Wheaton ’s college ecumenism for almost a decade now, and Catholicism has all but visibly taken over there. Now, years ago I sat in the school’s chapel and listened to the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal George, teach to a standing room only audience in their chapel about apostolic succession.
Dave:
Tom, it’s almost incomprehensible! They do not want to go to the Bible; they do not want to follow the Bible. Let me read a paragraph from an editorial by Mark Galli, the senior managing editor of Christianity Today introducing this article. He says: “Some of us have been basking in the warm glow of liturgy and tradition so long that the glow has worn off. We know the ancient church in itself is not the answer to evangelicalism’s problems. If liturgy can revive, it can also deaden. If tradition can give us fresh perspectives, it can also bind us to an anacronistic way of thinking. Liturgy is another worthless work if not infused with faith and the Holy Spirit, and tradition is a noose around our necks if it isn’t held up against Biblical revelation.” Now, Jesus condemns tradition, he says they are dangers in tradition, could be some real problems there. But, you know, we’re going to look at tradition with faith and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not guiding you to look at tradition. The Holy Spirit will take you back to the Word of God. “Tradition is a noose around our necks, if it isn’t held up against biblical revelation.” Why do I have to hold it up against Biblical revelation? Why don’t I take Biblical revelation itself, which never suggests that it should be supplemented with tradition?
Tom:
Dave, what did Paul mean when he—he did say something affirming tradition, you know, he said, Follow these traditions. What was he talking about?
Dave:
Well, that’s in 2 Thessalonians, and you see, at that time the epistles hadn’t been written. He was in the process of writing them, he called it traditions, but these were the teachings.
Tom:
The oral traditions?
Dave:
Right. Whether by word or our epistle, this is what he says. Now, what he meant was the example of the apostles, what they had taught and what they had practiced. In fact, Paul says, twice he says be followers of me, even as I am of Christ. But he is not recommending Jewish tradition, he’s does not recommend—they’re not in the process of creating some new tradition. The Bible was not intended to create tradition! The Bible is the Bible, it’s to be followed, but until that—Tom, it’s like this, the Apostles Creed—well the apostles never heard of the Apostles Creed. Why must it be in writing? For example, Peter in his 2 nd epistle says: “I will endeavor that after my decease you will be able to keep these things in remembrance” so he’s putting them in writing. Until they were put in writing Paul is saying follow what you have learned from us. Okay. But look, the traditions of the early church—well, let’s say the oral teachings of Paul—why do we have it in writing? Well, supposing we had a tape recording, or a DVD even, CD or something of Paul speaking. I wouldn’t recognize him, I wouldn’t know his voice, I would have no way of proving that that was really Paul. If it’s some actor saying these things you could really get confused if we pass down oral tradition from one generation to another. That’s why it is put in writing, and this Book the Bible, is unique and it is fantastic and you can prove the Bible from the Bible. This is how they preached the gospel. So it all ties together; you can follow the themes, you can see the consistency, you can see the revelation as it unfolds, and the epistles were put into this Book—God’s Word, and we do not honor oral teachings, oral traditions. It is not logical and it’s not Biblical.
Tom:
Well, Dave, at this conference, again, at Wheaton College , which this article in Christianity Today addresses, let me give you another quote here, because this is a major thrust. Baylor University ’s D. H. Williams, author of Evangelicals and Tradition , testified at the conference to “the recent upsurge of evangelical interest in patristics (the study of the Church Fathers) in the first 7 centuries of the church. I’m quoting him: “Who would have thought, a decade ago, that one of the most vibrant and serious fields of Christian study at the beginning of the 21 st century would be the ancient church fathers? There has been an opening of new avenues, (especially among Free Church Protestants) [created] by the almost overnight popularity of bishops and monks, martyrs and apologists, philosophers and historians who first fashioned a Christian culture 1500 years ago.” Going to the church fathers, Dave, we want to talk about that.
Dave:
Well, Tom, we’ve mentioned it a number of times. First of all, church fathers—who were they? A number of heretics among them, they even—
Tom:
Depending on which side you are on. If you took a Catholic view—they were okay—if you took a Biblical view, they had a problem, or if they took a Biblical view, the Catholics would refer to them as “heretics.” It’s so confusing, Dave, you read these men.
Dave:
I think, last week I mentioned you would have to know ancient Syriac, you would have to know all kinds of dead languages. There’s a truck load of church fathers, now which one will you go to? On what basis will you decide which one is right and which one is wrong? Why don’t we just go to the Bible, because, as I mentioned, Paul said to the best elders, as far as we know, the Ephesians elders that he had hand trained: After my departing, grievous wolves will enter in, not sparing the flock, of your own selves will men arise speaking perverse things. So, now lets take somebody—oh he’s only a generation removed, oh he is just two generations, he’s way back there in the 2 nd century, let’s study the church fathers there. No, they were already going astray, that’s what the epistles were written was to correct that they had already introduced into the church. And this is not solid ground, this is sinking in the mire of tradition that was being developed. This is not Bible! We need to get back to the Bible, and these people are taking us away from it , away from it .
Tom:
Dave, not only do they have some heretical ideas, theologically speaking, but the thrust of turning to them is not really for their theology, it’s for rituals, it’s for liturgy, it’s for how they supposedly practiced their faith but in terms of religious ceremony, that’s the heart of all of this.
Dave:
And show me a chapter in the Bible that says, oh this is very important now, you’ve got to get this right, and we’re going to give you an example by some of these early church fathers. It’s a delusion Tom; I could say it’s a passing fad. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but they are certainly working it hard for all they can get out of it.
Tom:
Dave, I don’t think it’s a passing fad, in my own opinion, I think it’s bringing mysticism into the church, which is a glue that brings about unity, but it’s not Biblical unity, I think it’s Antichrist unity.
Dave:
I would agree with you, Tom.
