Today’s religious world is permeated with a deluging compromise and raging apostasy (II Tim. 4:10, II Tim. 4:1-2). Historical Biblical Fundamentalism is under heavy artillery fire from Satan and his demonic hosts (Eph. 6:11-12). Bible-believing Christians are facing tremendous pressures to discard their Biblical foundations (Ps. 11:3). Unfortunately, many formerly historic Biblical Fundamentalists are wavering like the wind and succumbing to these Satanic stresses. The editor’s response to all these carnal pressures is simply “no compromise!”
I. NO COMPROMISE WITH THE CRITICAL TEXT: During the 2000 year long church age dispensation, two contrasting streams of Bible texts have flowed down the river of professing Christianity: the traditional text, perhaps best termed the “received” text and the “critical text” that is most aptly portrayed today as the Westcott-Hort based text.
The traditional “received” text is so designated because it was the basic text “received” by the Bible-believing churches down through the centuries in contrast to the critical text, the manuscript stream that has been rejected as corrupt and unreliable by God’s saints throughout the Christian ages.
The received text traces its origins to Antioch and the faithful Antiochian believers where God’s Word was accepted and received (Acts 11:22-30, Acts 13:1-3), while the critical text bases its origins on Alexandria and the heretical Alexandrians (Acts 6:9). The received text is based on 98% of the available manuscripts that were carefully copied over and over again because of use, while the critical text bases its feeble foundation on the flimsy 2% rejected manuscripts that never were accepted or used by any Bible-believing churches until about 125 years ago.
The KJV, an accurate and reliable translation that is wholly trustworthy, is based on the received text, while the modern versions issue out of the inferior liberal critical text. For the F.D. editor, the textual issue is not complex, it is simple: The KJV is the preserved version-the unadulterated Word of God-in the English language, while the modern English versions are the polluted translations. No compromise is desirable or possible between these two textual streams and their consequent translations.
II. NO COMPROMISE WITH THE CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGIES: New theological systems are popping up everywhere these days. While many lay claim to the term “Christian”, they are Christian in name only.
(a) Openness Theology is a theological system that claims that God doesn’t know all the future; that His omniscience is limited; that God really doesn’t know what actions man will take until man makes his decisions. The Scripture is replete with verses that refute this foolish heresy (Rom. 11:33-36, I John 3:20, etc.). A prominent evangelical theological society recently voted to reject this theology; then in almost the same breath, voted not to expel members who advocated it, thus contradicting their supposed declaration.
(b) Evangelical Universalism is another theological innovation being promulgated today by some New-Evangelical theologians who ought to know better. This is not really a “new” theology, it is an old unscriptural heresy that is simply being paraded in a new “conservative” dress.
This unscriptural philosophy declares that non-Christian religious adherents, such as Islamic devotes, may actually be worshipping the true Christ, but under another “thought” form, simply because no one has ever presented to them the Biblical revelation of Christ. The purpose of Christian missions is just to let these uninformed “Christians” know that Christ has already saved them!. This theological garbage is totally foreign to the New Testament (II Thes. 1:7-9)
(c) Prosperity Theology is a third dangerous unbiblical heresy that some Fundamental Baptists have apparently at least partially accepted. Charismatic to the core, its proponents include many prominent religious TV preachers, as well as some mega church builders. This unscriptural philosophy falsely deduces that under the Abrahamic covenant, as long as a Christian tithes, his family and finances will automatically prosper from both a spiritual and temporal standpoint.
In Phil. 4:19, God promises to supply all the believer’s needs for giving to others. This verse, however, does not have within its contents, scriptural guarantees for successful child rearing! In II Cor. chapters 8-9, the apostle Paul describes the Macedonian churches as an exemplary model of Christian stewardship for all saints to emulate. Paul declares, however, that the generous liberality of these dedicated saints occurred in poverty, not prosperity (II Cor. 8:1-4).
III. NO COMPROMISE WITH THE CONTEMPORARY TRENDS: Many Christians are adopting to and adapting the corrupted culture of our generation. They are allowing an ungodly society to determine and dictate their priorities, values and lifestyles. The Scriptural demarcation between the Christian and the corrupt world is rapidly disappearing.
Old fashioned Biblically based standards are crumbling as believers in professing Fundamentalist churches lower/drop their behavioral, dress, and music codes to conform to the world. In clothing, the moral appearance of professing believers often differs little from the sensual world. In many Fundamentalist churches women are adopting masculine clothing and masculine hair styles with only feeble/little protest from pastors who lack courage to take a stand against these unscriptural trends.
Contemporary Christian music [CCM=religious rock] is having a field day in Fundamentalist circles that once abhorred its sounds. Charismatic type “worship teams” are rapidly gaining favor in Fundamental Baptist churches, while Charismatic praise songs/churches are also being used with increasing frequency. The F.D. editor’s response to all these trends is simply no compromise! Amidst these increased pressures, he pledges himself anew to hold fast to the faithful word! Titus 1:9