Why not forward RADEN to a friend?
RADEN Alert!
January 25, 2001R
ome And Daughters Ecumenical NewsThe following contains excerpts from last week’s Bible Answer Man (Hank Hanegraaff) interview of Charles Colson. Commentary follows in the form of footnotes. This is a little long, but I think you will find it a worthy read.
Charles Colson accepts the office of "prophet" from Hank Hanegraaff
01-09-01
Hank Hanegraaff: Earlier today I was reading through the book of Ezekiel and thinking about how at the age of 25 Ezekiel becomes a prisoner in Babylon. And then 5 years later he’s called to be a prophet to his generation. And so, to the Children of Israel who were asking, "How then can we live?" he has the foresight and faith to suggest that through repentance they could again become a light to the paganism that surrounds them.
Well, 2600 years later, I believe God has raised up another prophet to answer our contemporary version of that same question – How Now Shall We Live?
Shall we resign ourselves to an escapist mentality that says "The heck with the culture" and "We could be raptured any minute now"? Are we going to marginalize Christianity by retreating like cultists into a we/they siege mentality? Or are we going to begin to live as those who have the only answer to a culture in crisis?I hear a contemporary Ezekiel.
He’s telling us that philosophical naturalism is in much the same condition as Marxism was before it collapsed. As the Soviet Union fell, so too the propped-up corpse of naturalism is failing; it’s falling before our very eyes. So, our mandate as Christians is not just soteriological, it’s cosmological – it is to bring the Christian world view to bear on every aspect of the culture, from politics to the arts. [Colson’s proposed two great commissions.]Why does this contemporary prophet have so much optimism? I believe it’s because he has seen the springtime of our faith blossoming in the culture of thousands of prisons worldwide. And he’s convinced that a Christianity that can transform prison hell-holes worse than the most depraved of slums, can too transform our society.
The prophet of whom I speak
has earned the moral authority to be heard. His conversion to Christ has led to a lifetime of reaching out to the poor, the downtrodden, the prisoners of this world. And as a follower of Christ, he is the man I most wish to emulate. [Hank Hanegraaff emphasized this statement.] He joins me to talk about a book that represents his passion, perhaps his "magnum opus" How Now Shall We Live?[Charles Colson accepted the office of a prophet, at least in the sense of 1Corinthians 14.]
Colson still defending ECT
...A little later in the program, Hanegraaff inserted...
Hanegraaff: [reading from a prepared script] ...Maybe, in some sense, that’s a fair way to characterize why you got involved with ECT; you saw the need for Christians to stand together on common-cause issues with Roman Catholics because "if we don’t hang together, we will hang separately."
Charles Colson: Exactly. And not only with Roman Catholics, but with Orthodox and across the board. Those who can confess the basic truths of the Christian belief system, those who can take the creeds, and the same Scriptures, and the same confession and say we believe on these, have got to – in terms of world view – take a stand together.
We will disagree fundamentally
, (1) and this is what Kuyper had to say, that the great principal is not soteriological, but it’s cosmological, because he was doing exactly this when he ran for prime minister in Holland. He had the backing of the Roman Catholics because they saw that he had the same world view they did. And he was a hyper-reformed Calvinist! And yet, he stood side-by-side with them, and he said we’ve got to do this to defend – from a cosmological standpoint – to defend God’s creation.And this is crucial for our times. We are outnumbered in today’s culture, let’s face it. We are not a majority; we are a minority. But a well organized minority, IF it is disciplined enough to stand with its brethren across the board and to contend for truth against the disarray of phylosophical naturalism – and it is disarray today – then we can win. And that’s exactly what I’m coming at.
Hanegraaff: There was never any idea [for ECT] to be a dissertation on soteriology; it was always an idea of communicating how we can transform the culture... (2)
01-10-01 (continuation of interview)
[During the first part of the program, Colson reiterated what he says in How Now Shall We Live?, criticizing "fundamentalists" who, he says, became so concerned about the salvation of souls that they bypassed God’s cultural commission to redeem the culture.]
Caller to Bible Answer Man program: [Remember that these calls are screened, so Hanegraaff and Colson wanted to take this question and answer it. The caller has no opportunity to dialogue, but only to present a question.]
Shirley in Knoxville, Tennessee: "I have a question about something that Chuck said earlier in the program. He said that Christianity and Catholicism should stand hand-in-hand together. And I was wondering how we as Christians can unequally yoke ourselves with Catholics who don’t believe Bible doctrine about salvation?"
Colson: Well, there are a lot of Catholics who do. I would never make an alliance with a denomination or with Rome as an institution, but I will with born-again believing Catholics, and I know many of them. I know many good, wonderful, beloved Baptists who have a lot of flaws in their theology... uh... I can find people in my own church who have flaws in their own theology.(3) I’m just looking for born-again believers.(4) I believe that the Body, as a local body, is made up of all those who are regenerated by Christ – all those who are declared righteous in Him by their faith.
Hanegraaff: And you’ve never equivocated on soteriology, have you? (5)
Colson: Oh no, never. And as a matter of fact, in one of the processees of Evangelicals and Catholics Together we came out with a statement on justification by faith alone to which the Catholics agreed.(6) And many born-again believing Catholics do believe in this. There are 4 million Roman Catholics in America that are classified by George Gallup as evangelicals. So, I don’t think we should write these people off. I think we should stand together.(7)
And by the way, Kuyper, who was a hyper-Calvinist - he was a tough a Protestant as you would ever find – argued when he came to Princeton in 1898 in the Stone lectures; he said Christianity as a world view enables us once more to take our stand by the side of Romanism in opposition to modern pantheism. What we have in common with Rome are precisely those fundamentals of the Christian creed now most frequently assaulted by the modern spirit.(8)
He’s absolutely right, when you look at Christianity as a world view.(9)
Yeah, I don’t agree with baptismal regeneration; I don’t agree with the Eucharist; I don’t agree with many things in Catholic theology.(10) And we’ve had some great honest battles and debates as we’ve come closer together – they’ve moved on the question of salvation, profoundly, as a matter of fact.(11) And maybe over the course of the future they will move some more. But I tell you what it really boils down to: It really boils down to if you believe what Jesus said. If you believe what Jesus said when he said, "Father, may they be one with one another as I am one with you, in order that the world will know that thou didst send me, John 17."
When Jesus prayed that prayer He was praying for the unity of believers, and I say believers across denominational lines have got to be able to join together and stand together – true believers, those who are born-again in the faith – stand together, and we’ve got to be able to defend a world view that is based on biblical revelation.(12)
I believe in the Scripture, I believe it is inerrant; I believe in the authoritative Scripture, and I am going to live my life accordingly. And John 17 says I’ve got to work toward that same end that Jesus prayed for the night before He was crucified.(13)
Hanegraaff: In ECT he (Colson) is making a very strong point; we need to work together with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and other faiths on common-cause issues, issues like euthanasia and abortion and many others....(14)
=====================================================================
Footnotes:
(1) Colson is correct when he says
"We will disagree fundamentally" with Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and other systems of belief. According to Scripture, this is where any consideration of "unity" should end; when we disagree on the fundamental elements of the Gospel, there is NO BASIS for proclaiming any sort of theological unity. Working together on common-cause issues in the area of morality or cultural reform does not require the acceptance of persons as Christians who have fundamentally different beliefs regarding the Gospel. And yet, this is exactly what Mr. Colson proposes. Back Soteriology = having to do with salvation through Christ Jesus. Hanegraaff and Colson are here using a word most folks do not know the meaning of in an effort to evade what Colson has himself clearly declared at other times (and received much criticism for). The ECT was indeed about THEOLOGY; it’s very title is about theology... "EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS TOGETHER: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium." How could any discussion of "the Christian Mission" be anything but theological in nature? How could it NOT have anything to do with soteriology? The very argument that Colson is trying to make about Christianity being a world view necessitates that the combination of cultural reform and evangelism addressed by the ECT is indeed wholly wrapped up in theological, soteriological concerns.And Mr. Colson has himself admitted this on various occasions. Soon after the foundational ECT statement was issued, Colson wrote,
"This is a theologically rooted alliance... This is the origin of and justification for ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together.’ " (ECT: Toward a Common Mission, 1995, WORD, p. 3) Back Mr. Colson is a skilled lawyer and politician who knows how to avert a question simply by redirecting the focus of his non-answer. Rather than answer this lady’s biblical question, Colson uses a junior-high approach that amazingly still seems to work. He claims that he knows lots of Catholics who are born-again believers in Christ. Then, to somehow justify this, he turns on Baptists to say that he knows lots of Baptists who are wrong about their theology. In other words, Mr. Colson is saying that theology is not really what is important, but only that one says and believes he/she is a follower of Christ. Biblical Christians need to consider that every Judiazer who ever lived - all of those confronted by the apostle Paul in Scripture – every one of them believed they were followers of Christ. They had their "soteriology" right about who Jesus was, but they simply added the requirement of sacramental religious works, making their gospel "no gospel at all." Back According to Mr. Colson in his ECT-I statement, a person may be a born-again believer who believes he received "the new birth originally bestowed in the sacrament of baptism." Whether Mr. Colson believes this personally is NOT the question; this inclusion of sacramental belief IS what his ECT alliance is founded upon. And if this is not clear enough, in his second ECT statement, Mr. Colson acknowledges that he counts as brothers and sisters in Christ those who believe in and perform sacramental rites. Back To endorse the statement that a person may be a Christian who continues to believe the cause of his salvation is "the new birth originally bestowed in the sacrament of baptism," as Mr. Colson does in the ECT-1 statement, is indeed to "equivocate on soteriology." Back Two people can appear to agree if they merely hold to different definitions of the words being used. This is precisely the case with the "ecumenical language" used in ECT documents. Mr. Colson is fully aware of this, even admitting that he knew the evangelical and Catholic signatories of ECT were using the same words to say different things. (RC Sproul interview with John Ankerberg, 1994, tape on file.) Back I don’t remember when George Gallup became an expert on who is an "evangelical," but apparently Mr. Colson thinks he is right. So, with about 70 million Roman Catholics in the United States (about 500 million in the Americas combined), Mr. Colson is proposing that we stand with the 4 million, assuring both them and the other 66 million that they are Christians. (ECT clearly says that all of these are Christians and are our "brothers and sisters in Christ.") In this case, it seems that Mr. Colson is actually doing more to write off the 66 million Catholics he does not classify as "evangelicals." To assure them that they are Christians because they believe they received "the new birth originally bestowed in the sacrament of baptism" is simply to "write them off" ...whether you are standing together with them in front of an abortion clinic or not. Back So, Colson says we will disagree FUNDAMENTALLY (footnote #1) with Roman Catholics, and then he says that we should stand together with them because the world is attacking our common fundamental beliefs. Maybe you have to be a politician or lawyer to think that makes sense. We need to remember that God does not need large numbers of followers to accomplish His goals. His ability is neither curtailed nor enhanced by the combined strength of any number of human beings. Back But which is true... is our Christianity a "world view," or does our world view flow from our Christianity? Mr. Colson has this exactly opposite, but in doing so, he is able to accept people as Christians who believe in various unbiblical belief systems. Mr. Colson’s lowest common denominator for belief is that a person have a Christian world view. Many people have a Christian world view without being truly Christians. Christianity is a relationship with God through Christ Jesus, an adoption as sons and daughters by God. Our world view flows from that relationship, not the other way around. Though Mr. Colson may be morally right, in his idea that "Christianity is a world view," he is certainly missing what the Bible teaches. Back Again, maybe you have to be a politician or lawyer to be able to get away with saying you disagree with baptismal regeneration but at the same time you say you believe persons may be accepted as Christians who continue to believe they had the new birth "bestowed" on them "in the sacrament of baptism." Maybe the word "disagree" means less to Mr. Colson than it does to most of us. Does anyone remember what the definition of "is" is? Back Clearly, Mr. Colson says that Roman Catholicism has "profoundly... moved on the question of salvation." Anyone reading the recent Vatican document "Dominus Iesus" can see that this is simply not true. Rome has not moved, profoundly or otherwise. If anyone has moved, it is Mr. Colson and other so-called "evengelicals" who are embracing practicing Roman Catholics as Christians. Colson lauds Roman pope John Paul II as a great "Christian leader." Our evangelical forefathers called the pope an antichrist. R. Albert Mohler recently said on the Larry King Live show, "I believe that the Roman Church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel… Indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office." It seems that it is Mr. Colson and his ECT cohorts who have moved. Back Looking at Christianity as a world view allows for a unity based upon common-cause issues, rather than upon common biblical theology. All of the societal issues Mr. Colson is concern about existed in the first century. Yet, we do not hear any New Testament writer addressing cultural or societal issues, and we certainly do not hear any verses calling us to unity with those who differ FUNDAMENTALLY with biblical doctrine. Back Just a half-second in Hell will convince anyone that the real need of man is not unity around common-cause issues, but rather salvation and how that salvation is obtained. Jesus prayed for His disciples to be one with Him as He is one with the Father. The unity that Jesus and the Father shared contained NO theological differences. Jesus did not pray for unity among those willing to work together for common-cause moral, social, or political issues, but Jesus prayed for a unity that is a reality through relationship with God because of Christ Jesus.Is it obeying Christ to work toward a cosmological unity (together in common-cause issues) like Colson says, or is it obeying Christ to work toward a soteriological unity (together in a common faith through a correct submission to the Gospel of Jesus Christ)? Mr. Colson is here using the same misinterpretation of John 17:21 that is found in Vatican II and strongly promoted in post Vatican II documents. Back
Again, the very title "EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS TOGETHER: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" clearly says that ECT is more than simply about common-cause moral, social, and political issues. According to one who served on the ECT-I drafting committee, "This strong emphasis on missions and world evangelism is interwoven throughout the (ECT) document, cited in one way or another on nearly every page.... the prevailing emphasis throughout the document is world missions and evangelism." (Larry Lewis, 5/27/94) BackConclusion
Considering that Mr. Hanegraaff began this interview by proclaiming his belief that Charles Colson is a "contemporary prophet" such as Ezekiel was to Israel 2600 years ago, and considering that Charles Colson accepted this designation as a prophet from Hanegraaff, specifically mentioning 1Corinthians 14, and considering that Mr. Colson claims to believe in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture... then we ought to consider several things:
(1) 1Corinthians 14:29 says that when a prophet speaks, his message should be carefully "judged" or examined, obviously for truthfulness and authenticity. It is no small matter to publicly accept the office of "prophet." Mr. Colson's message of broad theological inclusion of those who practice a sacramental faith is judged by Scripture to be a false message. Since his message is contrary to Scripture, his message is not from the Lord.
(2) Ezekiel 13:3-9 says, "This is what the Sovereign Lord says: 'Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! ...Because of your false words and lying visions, I am against you,' declares the Sovereign Lord. 'My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations.'" According to Mr. Colson, sacramental faith and evangelical faith are actually the same faith, offering genuine Christian discipleship in different ways (see ECT-I, Part V.'We Witness Together'). In this way, Charles Colson preaches (prophecies) a "false vision and a lying divination" into the minds and hearts of both the saved and lost.
(3) Certainly, Mr. Colson's heretical ECT teaching has caused considerable division and offense among the Lord's people. According to Romans 16:17 we are instructed regarding such popular leaders who are teaching error...
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them."
Why not give a copy of RADEN to a friend?
RADEN is compiled and edited by Jerry Moser, and is a part of the ministry of the Bayou DuLarge Baptist Church. To receive this FREE service simply request it by e-mail. <-- Click "e-mail" to request
RADEN.