Rome And Daughters Ecumenical News

Galatians Revisited

                            ...on the eve of ECT-III  

Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) leaders Richard Neuhaus and Timothy George recently announced the upcoming publication of a new ECT statement entitled “Your Word is Truth.” The subject of this document will be finding common ground regarding Scripture and tradition.

Two previous ECT statements were “ECT: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (1994)” and “ECT: The Gift of Salvation (1997).” In 1995 ECT co-founders Charles Colson and Richard Neuhaus published Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, a book of essays by six ECT endorsers. All of these publications promote the idea that both those who trust in the biblical Gospel of Christ and those who trust in Roman Catholicism’s sacramental system of religious works are to be equally accepted as genuine Christians. As Charles Colson has put it, evangelicals and Catholics “…must reach across theological divides and embrace one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.” (ECT:Toward a Common Mission, Word Publishing, p.38) This, of course, is the ecumenical movement’s agenda of broad theological inclusiveness.

In February I spoke with a Southern Baptist leader who has seen only an outline of the upcoming ECT-III document. His words were ominous: "Brace yourself, Jerry; it's going to be horrendous." According to Timothy George and Richard Neuhaus, the third ECT document is scheduled to be released early in 2002. The “ECT alliance” (as referred to by ECT co-founder Charles Colson) is one of today’s foremost ecumenical initiatives.

An ongoing heresy…

Throughout history, ecumenism has been a persistent threat to the Gospel. Early evidence of this satanic strategy can be seen in the biblical record of the conflict involving the Judaizer heresy. This developing heresy was confronted by the apostle Paul in the first New Testament churches. It prompted the first Church council in Jerusalem. And it even involved a public confrontation between two prominent apostles, Peter and Paul.

According to Dr. Timothy George in The New American Commentary on Galatians, “Throughout Galatians Paul waged a steady campaign against a group of false teachers, commonly known as Judaizers…. They insisted that Gentile believers submit themselves to circumcision as a necessary prerequisite for belonging to the covenant people of God. …the issue at stake was not circumcision per se but rather the salvific significance the false teachers attached to this ceremony.” (p.432)

For the past two millennia this satanic effort to combine the true Gospel of “grace alone” with the false gospel of “grace assisted by religious works (sacramentalism)” has been a potent strategy employed to counter the work of the Gospel. This strategy is the very foundation of ecumenical efforts such as the Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative. Satan is the author of deception, and thus even the participants in his strategic efforts are often unaware that they are being used for a destructive purpose. Indeed, many ECT participants’ motives seem to be honestly benevolent.

Apparently, few Church leaders today take the threat of ecumenism as seriously as did the apostle Paul. If you think about it, though, the same must have been the case in the early Church, or Paul would not have had to take such decisive action himself.

From where I sit the problem seems to be that ecumenism commonly advances on a level where many leaders have little ongoing contact. You see, theologians and religious leaders debate important theological issues among themselves, issuing papers and documents, each participant assuming that this activity positively affects the Lord's Church throughout its structure. What many do not realize is that the majority of church-folks are oblivious to the real substance of such debates. A common reason for this is that many grassroots individuals are failing to deal with far less complicated theological issues, foundational issues that involve the biblically mandated narrowness of the Gospel. On occasion, when grassroots Christians do take a moment to look up from their own day-to-day struggles, they comprehend little of the ongoing theological debate. Rather, they hear both evangelical leaders and sacramentalist leaders addressing each other as fellow Christians. Thus, the ecumenical agenda of broad theological inclusiveness continues to advance within the grassroots.

Such ecumenical advancement manifests itself in various ways. One obvious ground-level product of ecumenical inclusiveness may be seen in the fact that a LARGE percentage of children raised in our evangelical churches will marry outside of evangelical circles. My own observation tells me that most of these children are then lost to our churches. Very often our grandchildren, brought up in such a compromised situation, will either become resistant to the idea of genuine Christianity or will end up trusting in a false sacramental faith rather than the true Gospel of God's grace freely given through Christ alone.

The next ECT document…

In any event, the next ECT document will be built upon the ecumenical foundation already laid by all previous ECT documents. “Your Word is Truth” (ECT-III) will address what evangelicals and Catholics can say together about how we view Scripture. We can be sure that ECT participants will loudly proclaim their agreement on the authority, inerrancy, and integrity of Scripture... but the fact will remain that official Roman Catholic doctrine is built upon unbiblical traditions resulting in and from misinterpretations of Scripture. (How else could Roman Catholicism come up with a sacramental system of belief when the Bible explicitly condemns such perversion of the Gospel?)

Again, we will do well to remember the heresy that is at the very foundation of the ECT alliance; ECT-I and ECT-II clearly proclaim that the Gospel is broad enough to include BOTH (1) those who trust in the biblical Gospel of salvation given freely through Christ alone and (2) those who are faithful to a sacramental system of grace assisted by works. Considered in light of biblical truth, isn’t this ecumenical perversion an obvious manifestation of theological liberalism?

So, will most of our leaders again brush aside the ECT alliance's efforts to broaden the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or will they finally make a definitive stand and maintain an effective opposition to such theological error? (The question here is what does it really mean to biblically “contend for the faith”… is this something done with one statement or with a maintained opposition to an identified threat to the Gospel?) Only time will tell, but if leaders in the Lord's Church continue the same course as with other ECT documents they will do very little to effectively counter the ECT’s ecumenical perversion of the Gospel.

I suppose the previous statement does sound rather harsh. Nevertheless, the fact that ECT leaders have continued to be granted broad positive exposure and credibility by leaders in the Lord's Church is evidence that this statement is warranted. 

Perhaps a groundswell of opposition from grassroots Christians could make a difference. But such a groundswell seems unlikely, since many of our brethren seem to be lulled to sleep by the ecumenical appeal to a broader inclusiveness.

It is no secret that the narrowness of the biblical Gospel is offensive in today's realm of cultural correctness and broad inclusiveness. And make no mistake... the pressure to fit in, to tolerate compromise so as not to offend, this is a force just as powerful for theologians as it is for denominational leaders, as it is for pastors, and as it is for individual grassroots Christians. No one is immune to the pressure to "fit in." The cost can be very high for those who risk making waves with a sustained and unbendable stand for non-negotiable truth.

So, where are all the voices for the truth?

Really, one has to wonder where are all those who for years have rightly called for loyalty to the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures. If indeed the Word is inerrant, then it is also authoritative. And if the Word is authoritative, then it must be obeyed when it commands us to contend against theological compromise. If a sacramental faith is not the biblical Gospel but is actually a theological compromise of the Gospel, then where are those who have labored so faithfully against theological liberalism within the SBC? Why is the ECT’s theological liberalism tolerated, while other forms of liberalism are openly confronted?

One confusing case in point involves the SBC’s LifeWay Christian Resources. Now, I am not attacking LifeWay or any of its leaders. I’m only saying that there is something here that just doesn’t make sense in a very big way. If you can make sense of this, please let me know:

LifeWay’s President, Dr. James Draper, is widely respected as a leading advocate for the inerrancy of Scripture. He has been a champion of biblical authority. He is the author of a classic book on biblical integrity entitled Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists.  Dr. Draper has stated his view that “the Roman Catholic Church is the largest cult in the world.” Dr. Draper is known as a man of unusual grace and integrity. Even so, for the past few years LifeWay has been promoting materials throughout the SBC that are written by a key ECT leader who promotes a unity at the expense of biblical truth. These materials include a textbook that explicitly endorses the ECT’s ecumenical agenda.

Is this contradictory? You bet it is! Do I think Dr. Draper agrees with the ECT’s ecumenical agenda? Not at all; I have personally spoken with him about this. So, why is this contradiction allowed to continue? It’s a mystery to me! I have tried to look at this from every possible angle, and I still don’t get it. Is it any wonder that people find themselves frustrated and disenchanted when they perceive such contradictory positions being presented? Just try to convince a church full of former Roman Catholics that they can trust LifeWay materials, even though these same materials contain promotions of materials written by a well-known leading ecumenist! (And I am not just talking hypothetically here; the SBC church I pastor has lost members because of this very thing.)

The purpose of heresies…

Quite an interesting fact was shared a few years back by none other than ECT leader Dr. Tomothy George. In his commentary on Galatians, Dr. George stated, "....we should recognize that in the providence of God, heresy has sometimes served a useful purpose in calling forth a clearer definition of the true faith.... (p.105) The Scriptures speak of this same peculiar necessity. “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 1Corinthians 11:19

Even so – I have to say this again - if the same course is followed as with previous heretical ECT documents, we can expect a few evangelical leaders to briefly comment on the publication of the ECT-III and then quickly drop the whole issue like a hot potato. And if this happens, then another golden opportunity to truly contend for the Faith will be lost, and the grassroots will continue to sink deeper into the ecumenical melting pot.

Few are brave enough to risk rocking the boat…

In a bold statement of response to the publication of the ECT-II, Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary said,

“Baptist evangelicals don’t have any business signing any doctrinal consensus papers with Rome until Rome disassociates itself from the Council of Trent.” (from Baptist Press)

One who has continued to hold the Truth high above ecumenical inclusiveness is Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. Not many are brave enough to step into the modern gladiators’ arena known as "The Larry King Live Show." Yet, this is what Dr. Mohler has done on various occasions. His words concerning the narrowness of our Lord's Gospel and in opposition to the ecumenical inclusiveness of our day have been heard loud and clear. Here are just a few of his pointed statements:

“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. …the Catholic Church itself teaches and represents a false gospel – ‘a gospel of works rather than grace.’ ” Dr. R. Albert Mohler jr. on “Larry King Live,” 3/22/00 (from Baptist Press)

Conflict looms as respected Southern Baptist theologian promotes ecumenism…

Some of the most potent ecumenists in the world today are active in the ECT alliance. Two of these, of course, are Roman Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus and Southern Baptist Charles Colson. These men have invested years of effort into establishing the ECT alliance of evangelical and sacramentalist leaders. Ecumenical ECT groups have now been formed in various countries around the world.

Another Southern Baptist who has played a very influential role in the ECT’s ecumenical work is Dr. Timothy George, Dean of the widely respected Beeson Divinity School. Many Southern Baptist leaders have given wide exposure and credibility to Dr. George.

According to his own admission, Timothy George has been involved with the ECT initiative for years, was closely involved in the drafting of the ECT-II, and has been very much involved in the production of ECT-III.

I have written to Dr. George and did speak with him briefly in person last year. He seems to be a very likable and personable man. Nevertheless, I believe there are some bold contradictions regarding Dr. George's own commentary on Galatians and his involvement with the theological compromises of ECT documents. 

I will quote here just a few of his statements found in the 1994 New American Commentary on Galatians. Keep in mind that just like the problem with ecumenism today, the problem in the Galatian churches was the proposed broadening of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to include the acceptance of those who taught the addition of ”a necessary prerequisite for belonging to the covenant people of God” (religious works) to the gospel. Paul clearly condemned not only this other gospel but also those individuals who preached such heresy. (Galatians 1:6-9) Listen to Dr. George:

"...the distortions and misrepresentations that arose from within the Christian movement proved far more insidious to the survival of the church than external threats.... (p.103)

"The heretics of Galatia did not deny that Jesus was the Messiah or that he had died and risen from the grave. Nor did they claim some new and special revelation; rather they based their arguments on the Old Testament Scriptures. They had many valid theological ideas with which Paul himself was in perfect agreement: the oneness of God, the holiness of the law, God's faithfulness to his people Israel, the importance of the Ten Commandments, and so on. So far as we know, they did not openly deny either the deity or humanity of Jesus Christ. Their error was to add to the finished work of God. Yet to do this was to change the nature of the Christian faith so drastically that it could no longer be trusted to be saving faith. Hence it was necessary for Paul to identify and condemn this teaching with all the force of an apostolic anathema. As D. Bloesch has wisely written, 'Saving faith cannot be maintained apart form contending faith, the faith that vigorously upholds the integrity of the gospel against all efforts to embellish it with other gospels.' (p.104)

"A church that cannot distinguish heresy from truth or, even worse, that no longer thinks this is worth doing, is a church that has lost its right to bear witness to the transforming gospel of Jesus Christ...." (p.105)

"The principle of accommodation cannot be stretched to include solidarity with a practice or belief that stands in contradiction to the gospel itself.... [Peter's accommodation of Jewish religious  tradition at Antioch represented] the imposition of an alien theology of salvation, one that reintroduced the very bondage from which Christ had died to make us free.... (p.180)

"Obviously, the Judaizers and their disciples did not for a moment believe that the imposition of circumcision involved their alienation from Christ. To the contrary, they saw it as an enhancement, a necessary additive required for the true possession of salvation. What they advocated was a Christianity by amalgamation, a mingling of the grace of Christ with the merit of works. Yet, as Calvin put it so well, 'Whoever wants to have a half-Christ loses the whole.' " (p.359)

According to Dr. George, the heresy of the Judaizers was the “mingling of the grace of Christ with the merit of works.” Nothing declares today's version of this dangerous theological error more clearly than the current official Catechism of the Catholic Church which states,

"VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM (#1257)  The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." [emphasis added]

Yet, Dr. Timothy George strongly supports the ECT-II statement which declares,

"As Evangelicals who thank God for the heritage of the Reformation and affirm with conviction its classic confessions, as Catholics who are conscientiously faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and as disciples together of the Lord Jesus Christ who recognize our debt to our Christian forebears and our obligations to our contemporaries and those who will come after us, we affirm our unity in the Gospel that we have here professed."

Remember that the Roman Catholic leaders being referred to in this statement and who are participating in this ecumenical "ECT alliance," are men who promote as valid the sacramental system of Roman Catholicism. Thus, it is incredible that Timothy George, who has previously stated the truth so clearly, now openly promotes the idea that not only evangelical believers but also practicing sacramentalists are "disciples together of the Lord Jesus Christ" and that he has a “unity in the Gospel” with them.

From the ECT alliance’s inception in 1992, this very betrayal of the Gospel of Christ has been the cornerstone of EVERY ECT document. Can we expect anything other than this fundamental error as the basis for every subsequent ECT document? In fact, there would be no ECT alliance without this dangerous theological error as its foundation.

To seek repentance…

Even so, it seems to me that it would be wrong to completely give up on any professing brother. Perhaps Timothy George and/or other ECT participants will turn back. Do we not have an obligation to do what we can to help them move away from this dangerous course? At the same time, Christian leaders have a solemn obligation and responsibility to warn the brethren of ECT's insidious distortion of the Gospel of Christ. 

Please consider that it is possible for God to turn ECT leaders to repentance and then powerfully use them to defend the narrow, pure, uncompromised Gospel of our Lord. The example is in the Scriptures, in Paul’s confrontation of Peter. In light of the rest of the New Testament it seems obvious that after the confrontation at Antioch Peter became an even more powerful and faithful defender of the Gospel. Considering these things, should we not at the very least pray for the turning of any and all ECT participants?

Just a few years ago, before his involvement with ECT, Timothy George pointed to the necessity of Paul's public confrontation of Peter at Antioch, as well as the validity of Paul’s insistence that the Galatian believers vigorously resist any compromise of the Gospel. Referring to this in his commentary on Galatians, Dr. George wrote,

"...something more stern than mushy sentimentality was required.

Paul's harsh rebuke is an example of tough love."

Who then is willing to risk rebuke in order to love an erring brother this much?

Should we not return to Galatians… or rather, to Antioch?

-  Jerry Moser, editor RADEN Report