The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum RTS and Campus Crusade

Without a single reason?!?! Did you even READ our posts??? I can't continue this conversation any longer with you. All you do is disregard our legitimate questions and instead accuse us of being narrowminded, puffed-up Pharisees.

Once again, and I mean ONCE again, how do you reconcile Alpha, the "Satisfied" tract, and Eldredge's Sacred Romance with Calvinist/Reformed theology?

I'm praying for you, Bill, that God will grant you repentance for how you've treated us, misrepresented our posts and motives, and have generally acted in an accusatory manner instead of dealing with the objective facts pointed to in these posts.

Marie I sorry, I did try to reply directly to you but it didn't seem to post. You make good points here and provide excellent rescouces.

My point about CCC is this. This organization has in it many many people who care about reformed theology as you do. They have given their lives to work for CCC while you dismiss CCC out-of-hand (in your first post) and go so far as to seriously question any organization that would even have anything to do with CCC. There is a disconnect here that is hard to reconcile.

Let me address your reply to my other post. That was in response to "af's" the charge that I had made this post critical in nature. I don't think I am the only one who did this or even the first one who did this. (I did not mean that you didn't or haven't explained yourself. I am sorry if it came out that way.) Nor do I believe I first brought the other attitudes he discussed to this thread.

As far as your question to me. I am not in ministry as a profession. I do not choose the materials that are used. I do know that the people who do care about the truth as you do. If that is too much an "emotional" response, my apologies. You will have to understand that having CCC dismissed as you did (even given your very well informed and explained views) given what I know to be true about it and the people in it is an "emotional" issue.

Thank you for that response. I graciously accept the apology.

If my post in any way seemed to imply that I was making a wholesale dismissal of every single individual working for CCC, or making any sort of wholesale dismissal of anyone who associates with it in any way, then I want to state that is not what I meant it to do.

However, knowing the theology and content of what is used in most CCC outreaches (Campus Crusade material, the items that I've mentioned that you use), by and large it is not Reformed theology, not the clear Gospel, that is being taught. I would agree with Joe, who said that there are sincerely Reformed people working there, but they are there to bring a healthy influence to an organization that so often misses the mark (and I'm not implying that the mark is perfection, but rather the Gospel).

You said that you do not choose the materials you use. But I would ask you this: When you do use these materials, do you find yourself violating your own Reformed beliefs? For instance, when you use "Satisfied," do you say, "Wait a minute! No, no, no. There is no such thing as a carnal Christian. There are not three types of people, but two: saved and unsaved. Let me tell you about the Biblical truth called Lordship salvation" Or, when you use Alpha, do you demonstrate the fallacy of its charismatic and emotional teachings? When you use Eldredge's book, do you explain how Eldredge is wrong in severely downplaying sin, among other problems?

When I said I'm not in ministry, I meant it. I don't teach at CCC, I'm in operations. I teach Bible studies in my church home fellowship group and have taught at the adult school at my church (PCA) so I haven't run into those problems. I do know thought that the people here at CCC don't teach Arminianism. They teach that we are sinners separated from God needing Christ and Christ alone for our salvation. Really!!

You say for instance "there are not three types of people, but two: saved and unsaved." I know I agree and I'm sure I don't know anyone here that wouldn't. That's what I can tell you. I knew nothing of CCC when I came here a year and a half ago. I can tell you that I am continually impresssed by the people I meet and the devotion to their work to the truth of the Gospel. No in-between stuff. Believe or perish. (Though you might imagine they don't often lead with that statement they aren't afraid of it either.)

I would imagine you believe that the body of Christ is not defined by organizational lines. I belive there are places in most every chuch or para-church organization where it is alive and places where it isn't. CCC is no different.

Have you ever thought about asking why "Satisfied," the Alpha course, and John Eldredge are used? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My 2 cents on this discussion of CCC

Greetings to BillT Marie etc. I’ve been reading with interest the exchange regarding CCC & RTS (at least that is what the first post was about).

Let me say from the beginning that I am a full-time employee of CCC (Not a staff person) I work in the central office of Christian Leadership Ministries, which is the faculty outreach of CCC. I raise some of own financial support.

We have staff scattered around the country & seek to reach (primarily) professors at secular universities and minister to Christian professors at those same universities. I am in a support role, webmaster of our site for Christian professors primarily.

Now my comments on the previous posts. It seems to me that a couple of things need to be kept in mind. CCC is a broad organization. It has within it many reformed people, and many with arminian bent. It is a not a church, it is a movement. Or perhaps more accurately many movements. Frankly for every reformed person that critiques it, it probably has an arminian that does too. So my point is that CCC is not on one particular theology track.

I can think of several of our folks who are very reformed in theology and in practical application in their lives and ministry. I can also think of a few who have specifically stated they are not Calvinists. This fits in well with our strategy.

We as a ministry are trying to work across theological and denominational lines. We’re reaching Christian professors on campuses where they may well be the only Christian in their department. We don’t care what denomination or theology perspective he/she is, within the family of orthodox Christianity. If he/she can affirm the apostles creed, that’s all we need to know.

We are also not, as some might think, blindly accepting of any popular author (like Eldridge for example). We have some very sharp well-trained people who can discern the good from the bad.

I think Bill’s latest post to Marie pretty well states my position. The folks here at The Highway are much more specific in their theological wave length. CCC is much broader in the spectrum of orthodox Christianity. Both have their place.

As to your specific objections:
The new “Satisfied” booklet, here on the web http://www.campuscrusadeforchrist.com/resources/satisfied.htm

Seems to be a bit more acceptable than the original writing because it softens the issue of the “Carnal Christian”. Less of an emphasis on an almost optional sounding third type of Christian

The Four Laws: One can debate and debate Law 1. Personally I would probably rephrase to make it less universal sounding.

Partnerships like with RTS: This type of partnership might just help CCC grow spiritually. So let's look at it from a positive perspective.

Alpha Course: Can’t comment, have only heard of it.

Eldridge: Lots of good content, needs to be read discerningly.



Paul

af - I gather you can catch up on my answers to Marie for subsatnce and the "emotional" content of my posts. Thanks for the welcome. I'll try to do better in the future.

BillT,

I do respect your wanting to defend the organization you are working for to whatever degree you think it needs defending. And I understand even more your wanting to defend those individuals who you consider to hold to "Reformed Theology" who also work within CCC. But I hope you also will understand that there are many people who simply don't understand the Reformed Faith, the Gospel of sovereign grace and how it effects how we evangelize and our individual lives, because it is the application of the Bible to all of life. Calvinism is a world and life view, not just a set of archaic doctrines dreamed up by a bunch of disgruntled anti-Romanists.

Let me relate to you a good example of how someone can profess to hold to the truths of Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria yet they had no effect on the thinking or life of the individual. I once loaned a copy of A.W. Pink's magnificent book, The Sovereignty of God to a middle-aged woman who appeared to be very interested in the teaching of Scripture and Christianity. In fact, she professed to be a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. When I met this woman she was very much in the habit of reading and listening to Billy Graham and using material from Bill Bright and CCC. When she was through reading Pink's book, I asked her what her impressions were of it. There was one statement she made which I shall never forget as it was indelibly burned into my memory. She said, "I really liked the book and believe that Pink was teaching the truth of the Bible. But I don't see any difference between what Billy Graham or Bill Bright teaches!" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

The fact is that Pink's book presents the biblical God Who is sovereign in power and authority and Who has foreordained all things for His glory. There is not one single molecule in the universe which He hasn't ordered its path and end. The same is true in regard to mankind. The LORD God has foreordained ALL things to the end that He might be glorified, whether it be in the damnation of the majority of the human race or in the salvation of a remnant chosen by grace. This is a teaching which Billy Graham, Bill Bright, CCC and the majority of denominations and churches today categorically deny. The Gospel which A.W. Pink taught is decidedly antithetical to the "gospel" of Bill Bright and CCC. And let me say this about A.W. Pink..... he was simply a common everyday Calvinist; not some hyper-Calvinist, not some extremist, simply a sinner saved by grace whom the Lord gifted in the Word of God.

Now, what I would really like you to do for me but mostly for yourself is to click on this link and read through this classic booklet written by Dr J.I. Packer. You may need to force yourself a bit to read it all the way through, but I can assure you that when you have finished reading it, you will not be the same. For it is impossible that you could be since in that little treatise, Packer sets forth the truth of the real Gospel against the modern "gospel" which he says is "no gospel at all". I cannot but agree with Packer's assessment. If you are concerned about the souls of your fellow man, read this:

Click here: Introductory Essay to the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by Dr. J.I. Packer.

May the Lord bless it to your soul. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Although I think this affirmation speaks volumes in and of itself and needs to critique or comment from me, it does however, move me to ask one simple question of you personally:

Would you feel comfortable ministering in door-to-door evangelism side-by-side with a man who professed Arminian theology? Could you do this in good conscience? If so, how would you reconcile the false gospel which he would be speaking with the true Gospel which you presumably would be speaking as a professed Calvinist?

Thanks in advance for your candor in responding to my question. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

No, not a pure 100% Arminian. But actually, I've never met one. I've read their writings, but never known one personally.

paul

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Silly me for thinking that my question was sufficient. Okay... let me rephrase the question for you.

Would you have any hesitation in working side-by-side doing evangelism with someone who did not embrace the doctrines of Grace, aka: the Reformed Faith, Calvinism, Reformation doctrine, etc.? In other words, just your typical "Evangelical" who if asked about such things as Unconditional Election, Predestination, Limited Atonement, etc., would be at odds with those doctrines? If you answer in the affirmative, i.e., you would have no problems working with such an individual evangelizing the lost, how would you reconcile the undeniable antithesis between what he believes and teaches compared to that of the Reformed faith, which again, I am presuming you profess to hold dear.

Thanks again in advance.

In His Grace,

In short no, as long as we agree beforehand on how we would address sin and repentance.

I guess I've lead sheltered life, and never encountered Arminians like you describe (except over at the Church of Christ!) Maybe I need to get out more.

Paul

Hmmmmm, the fact is that probably 90% +/- of those who profess to be Christians in the U.S. would hold to the theology of Charles Finney &co. to one degree or another. How you could NOT encounter such people is frankly miraculous. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

In His Grace,

I'd like to share with you a passage from as book I am currently reading. It's called God-Centered Evangelism by R. B. Kuiper. While Kuiper does not come out and say the two can't work together under any circumstance, he does warn his readers that it is indeed a serious issue that must be considered:

There are many fundamental differences between the "modern" gospel which was made most popular by Charles Finney and more recently by Billy Graham and Bill Bright among many others. But what Kuiper mentions in that section of his book is also that which Packer also mentions with all seriousness in his Introductory Essay to the Death of Death in the Death of Christ[/i].

The modern evan-jelly-cals, with their dumbed-down "gospel" mentions sin only in passing if at all. The emphasis given in most presentations is that "man is separated from God". But rarely will you ever hear the modern "soul winner" speak of the helpless an hopeless condition of the sinner's soul. Those who are lost are not in need of making a "decision" or even of "reformation", but rather man's greatest need is "regeneration"; to be made alive by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. Unless a man is "born from above" he has absolutely no ability to love Christ, no ability to move toward Christ, in fact without regeneration man naturally hates Christ. Sinners need a new nature. Reading some "sinner's prayer" on the back of a business card or pamphlet will accomplish nothing. And further, this needed radical change of nature cannot be initiated by anything that man can do; it is wholly at the discretion of Almighty God. This truth albeit odious to the vast majority of people and surprisingly even to those who profess to be believers in the inspiration of the Bible and of the sovereignty of God (modified, or course, to meet their own needs) drives men to despair of themselves and rely totally upon the mercy and grace of God.

The God of the Bible is not a "god" Who sits in the heavens praying that Susie Q or John Model Citizen will open the door of their hearts and let a pleading Christ enter and save them. We believe in a Sovereign LORD Who saves who He wills and when He wills according to His eternal counsel and grace. It is the sinners [i]responsibility to get on his knees and plead with the God of all grace to have mercy on him and give him what he needs most..... a new heart of flesh. The glory of the Gospel of Christ is that ALL who come to Him by faith will be received. Thus as the apostle Paul proclaims,

2 Corinthians 5:20 (KJV) "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Here are some excellent articles which address this topic:

Cooperative Evangelism, by John Murray
What is it to Preach the Gospel?, by Henry Mahan
Another Gospel, by John Cheeseman
The Gospel and Evangelicalism: An Assessment, by William Webster
Two Views of the Gospel, by Will Metzger

In His Grace,