Christian College Pulpit To Be Yielded to Heretical Teacher.

For Immediate Release 9/18/04 Valley Forge Christian College Pulpit To Be Yielded Once Again to Heretical Teacher.Contact: Dennis Green, Life and Liberty Ministries * 804-492-4456 * P.O. Box 862 Powhatan, VA 23139Life and Liberty MinistriesPhoenixville, PA - On Tuesday, September 21, 2004, the chapel pulpit of VFCC, an Assemblies of God Bible college in Phoenixville, PA, will be commanded by the heretical teacher, Tony Campolo. One year ago, Don Meyer, the President of VFCC and Tony Campolo met with several concerned Christians, Michael Marcavage of Repent America and Jason Storms of A Call to Repentance, to discuss the unbiblical teachings of Mr. Campolo. Mr. Campolo preached from the chapel pulpit that day despite the objections of numerous Christians who had pled with Mr. Meyer to protect the chapel pulpit from known wolves in sheep's clothing. Mr. Campolo has promoted unbiblical and heretical doctrines through the years. On unity with false religions--"I know we cannot complete the job ourselves, of course. That is why we Christians, along with our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters, wait earnestly for the Messiah to come and join us. We look forward to that great day when the good work that God has begun in and through us will be brought to completion." Tony Campolo, from a recent article On acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle--"Meanwhile, pro-gay theologians are preaching this summer at a flurry of summer conferences designed to affirm church going gays and lesbians in their lifestyle. On June 14 in Columbus , Ohio, more than three hundred people gathered at the Adams Mark Hotel for "Amazing Grace," a conference sponsored by the Shepherd Initiative, an ecumenical group that teaches that homosexuality is OK with God. Speakers include liberal evangelicals Tony and Peggy Campolo as well as Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Mennonite, and Methodist ministers and lay people." World Magazine, August 2, 2003 As a former student of Valley Forge Christian College, Dennis Green is concerned with the direction the College is taking. Mr. Green stated, "VFCC has clearly lost its way. To invite a false teacher like Mr. Campolo back after being shown the clear and dangerous error of his doctrine is baffling to me. The documented facts were laid upon the table and the College chose to disregard them and give its podium to a wolf. The pulpit is for sale. Where are the true Shepherds of God's flock?". VFCC's contact information: Valley Forge Christian CollegeDon Meyer, President 1401 Charlestown Road, Phoenixville, PA 19460Phone: 610-935-0450 - Fax: 610-935-9353 - Toll Free: 1-800-432-8322VFCC

Where are the true Shepherds of God's flock?".Weeping, between the porch and altar.

Campolo has much good to say at the same time, I have heard him speak at Peoples Church.Hi Greg. I'm not sure if I get you right on this. Written words sometimes have a way of giving us readers confusing thoughts. :-( Does it mean that it's still okay to invite him to preach for as long as He doesn't mention about his stand on gays and other religions? As far as difference of doctrine is concerned is there a dividing line for us to say, "I can't 'associate' with you anymore"? Indeed I agree that there's a need to separate doctrine from the person himself hence the danger of name-calling. We must stay on the true message trusting that God do what He says He'll do.

Here's a small quote from Campolo's book "Partly Right":"We affirm our divinity by doing what is worthy of gods, and we affirm our humanity by taking risks only available to mortals. God had to become one of us before He could become heroic ... Robert Schuller affirms our divinity, yet does not deny our humanity ... isn't that what the gospel is? Isn't God's message to sinful humanity that He sees in each of us a divine nature of such worth that He sacrificed His own Son so that our divine potentialities might be realized? ... The hymn writer who taught us to sing 'Amazing Grace' was all too ready to call himself a 'wretch' ... Forgetting our divinity and over-identifying with our [Freudian] anal humanity [Freud is responsible for a host of maladies that plague our contemporary society] ... Erich Fromm, one of the most popular psychoanalysts of our time, recognized the diabolical social consequences that can come about when a person loses sight of his/her own divinity ..."Fromm, whom Campolo quotes with favor, was a godless anti-Christian, who took the serpent's lie, Ye Shall Be As Gods, for the title of one of his books, and was largely responsible for the introduction of the self-love movement into the professing Church. Campolo's gospel is a mix of marxism, new age philosophy, and humanism. He is, admittedly, very millitant in his work for the poor, but it is in the misguided form of the old social gospels of the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Quote:"To focus on the men is not the solution but rather to focus on the spirits that are prevailing in our age."I can only partly agree with this statement. Men are very often the tools of the devil. A heretic who misleads thousands isn't an innocent party in the deception. He himself, bears the guilt and will suffer the judgement. He won't be saying "the devil made me do it" when he stands before the throne. I would say that we absolutely "must" point out and name those who would destroy the pure gospel and ravage the flock.Quote:"We have to guard ourselves against these things and preach a true message but to name-call becomes pointless and brings much division in the end, sometimes its of necessity."If one was to call Campolo "ugly" or say that he "dresses funny", I would agree with the above statement. Calling someone a wolf, however, is a very biblical term. No malice is needed to call a deceiver just that. I would say that such "devision is a good thing if it divides the good from the evil. I'm not talking about petty differences that divide unneccessarily. To separate and come out from among those who use the name of Christ to promote a different gospel can be a holy thing.Quote:"Campolo has much good to say at the same time, I have heard him speak at Peoples Church."Brother, this is what makes Campolo ever so dangerous. He sounds so good when he talks the talk in churches. But then he will turn around and make wickedly, unscriptural statements and the undiscerning will think he is speaking truth because he is accepted as a brother in good standing by the church leadership.I have on several occasions been on the street at sodomite festivals to share the gospel while Tony's wife Peggy is promoting the wicked lifestyle from the stage. Peggy is a militant homosexual activist. Campolo speaks at events with his wife and will introduce her as someone who has a deep faith in God and a high respect for the Scriptures. This is blasphemous. He gives his stamp of approval to his lost, and deceived wife and legitimizes her efforts by his endorsement. If it smells like a wolf, sounds like a wolf and looks like a wolf, I have to conclude that it is a wolf.

sermonindex wrote:To focus on the men is not the solution but rather to focus on the spirits that are prevailing in our age....Campolo has much good to say at the same time, I have heard him speak at Peoples Church.I'm a little confused. How is this any different from mentioning the fact that alot of these "Word of Faith", and "Kansas City Prophets" movement have alot of good things to say? I have refered to Michael L Browne, Steve Hill, Rick Joyner, and Mike Bickle, and have been almost branded a heretic, while someone who, at least tolerates homosexuality publically has "much good to say"?I'm sorry, but something doesn't add up. I have to admit, that I had alot of respect for Campolo, in the past. I was deeply challenged by a sermon he preached in Melbourne, where he said that he had a child prostitute in Thailand approach him with her "menu" (I'm sorry about bringing this sickening story, but it was the only time that I've heard him personally). He said that he "hired" the girl, and took her back to his room, hiring out Disney videos and buying toys, allowing her to be a "child" for one night.I and many others in the service were deeply moved by this story of desperation where all he could do, was give this girl a "night off" for her terrible occupation. After that, he set up an organisation, that teaches these girls english, so that they can get jobs, waiting tables and out of the sex industry.I share this story as an example of his "much good to say". This story impacts me greatly, because I have a personal friend who sets up orphanages in Thailand, Cambodia, and Mozambeque to rescue children from these predictaments (some of the stories that he's told me wold curl your hair). It is great that their can be "good things to say", coming from the mouth of men like Campolo, because it can only give glory to God.I have personally had at three men that have greatly been used of God, in my life, that have later been found to have very deep flaws in their character (one of them later admitted to being a homosexual). I can safely say, that the insight that was revealed to me, through these men, came from God, not man. If I were God, I would have overlooked these men, as not being worthy, but He says that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance(Rom 11:29)". Even Keith Daniel says that he wouldn't want to touch, doctrinally the issue of who God will and won't use (see The Spiritual Birth).So what's the problem with Campolo? Check out "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?". This is a "tag-team" message by both Tony and Peggy Campolo, where the overall message is that two people can still be in unity, in spite of having major doctrinal differences (even if they're husband and wife). In it, Tony claims to be against homosexual union, where Peggy claims to be for. Where Peggy is very passionate about her stand, Tony seems to be very complacent regarding the matter, simply stating that he calls homosexuals to "celibacy".I personally have an issue with a message that accepts that homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, and says that the answer is simply to suppress their desires and not act on them. this to me has the appearence of a gospel that has "a form of godliness, but denying its power".Just in case anyone reads anything different into this, I'm actually agreeing with Greg, Campolo has got good things to say. Just because the straight edge of a rule has some notches in it, doesn't mean the the measurement increments are out. Likewise, just because a preacher has some flaws, doesn't mean that everything that comes out of his mouth is wrong.I have heard few people present messages that regarding considering the poor and afflicted with the force that Campolo does. So what if I can't set my clock by him? That's what the Bible is for.:-)

Some good points Aaron.Went and read a bit of the linked article.I disagree though with this:First of all, as a sociologist, which is what I am by trade - I got into this analysis of homosexuality back when I was a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania from '65 to '75, as I talked to my colleagues and I listened and I interviewed over 300 people who were homosexuals, I found that there were certain universal truths. I only interviewed male homosexuals so I can only say I studied that one group. Out of the 300 male homosexuals that I interviewed, I never met a homosexual who chose to be one. That, I have to say right up front. Okay? You can argue over the causes of homosexuality. Let me also add, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. I mean I know that you get these religious publications that talk about this cause and that cause and the other cause. Every social scientist that I know who has analyzed this problem say, we don't know what the causes are. There are those who talk about genetics. There are those who talk about biophysical. There are those that talk about sociological, psychological factors. Nobody knows. And those who are experts say, for the most part, there are a variety of factors that interact with each other to create homosexuality and it may even be that no two people are homosexuals for the same reason. We don't know what causes it. We know this - that at least for the males who I can attest to that I interviewed, the imprintation of the consciousness, the establishment of the orientation occurred so early in the psychosocial development of the individual that the individual never remembers having made a choice.Sorry, every sin we commit is a choice no matter what kind of verbiage we try to use to squirm out of it. Talking about unbelievers here doesn't change the equation any.He goes on to say:That's important because I often hear rhetoric that says if you just pray and repent and turn away from this that God will honor you and all will be well. And that's the second point. We also know that there are very, very few cases where people actually change their orientation. I interviewed significant numbers of homosexuals who, quote unquote, claim to be cures. And I asked them a simple question. Here's the question: Do you ever have sexual fantasies. Now, everybody in this group, except Dr. Horner, has sexual fantasies. Everybody here has sexual fantasies, you seeTwo things, one is the premise that he lays out before hand set's this up as the idea that you have a 'orientation' to begin with, well yes and no. The only orientation I am aware of is a sin orientation, 'sold under sin'. To say 'we don't know' what 'causes' 'this' is to miss the point all together and seems to give leverage to the idea that there is some unknown gene or hidden factor to a predetermined outcome. I know that he dismisses this sort of with the biophysical comment and 'we don't know' but it gives more credit to that than to what we as Christians believe. Our 'orientation' is 'changed' when we become believers in that a new power has taken residence within us spiritually, our 'choosing' faculty's don't go away, but we are promised an escape from all temptation;1Co 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is unusual for human beings. But God is faithful, and he will not allow you to be tempted beyond your strength. Instead, along with the temptation he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to endure it.Secondly, this blanket statement about those being delivered as "very few" also seems to be a contradiction with the ministry's that have helped those 'come out' of this lifestyle. Again, couching it with 'orientation' this way and the fact that the struggles still go on just muddies the situation. I get his point to an extent, but think the basis is off from the get go. How else do you get around this: 1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, 1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Since this came up something else has been bothering me. Heard a bit from Edwin Lutzer the other day, Focus on the Family or another program.He was discussing this issue, of the homosexual agenda and gay 'marriage' (no such thing, it's a contradiction in terms) and so forth.Was delighted to hear and somewhat saddened that he didn't drive home the point more (may have been time constrictions on his message) but he finally said what I believe is largely missing.That for all the loud and rightly said outcry over what is transpiring there is an equal and overlooked fact that our own "Christian" marriages are plagued with divorce. The statistics pointing out that we are by degrees even worse than the unconverted.Where is the outcry about that?With what kind of believability are our words going to be taken when we won't even point the finger at ourselves and take as much initiative to right our own wrongs in this area? It is a strange phenomenon that we can glibly protest so loudly about the sanctity of marriage and only give a passing, quiet murmur to the rampant divorce within that so called sanctity.Is it any wonder that we as a whole are seen as hypocrites? It's not an either or, but a both and.Just don't see us as having any credibility until we show the world that being a Christian is to be divorced from the world not from our mates.When will the masses of Christendom get the point that all sin is sin? And quit elevating one above the other.

I share this story as an example of his "much good to say". This story impacts me greatly, because I have a personal friend who sets up orphanages in Thailand, Cambodia, and Mozambeque to rescue children from these predictaments (some of the stories that he's told me wold curl your hair). It is great that their can be "good things to say", coming from the mouth of men like Campolo, because it can only give glory to God.I have personally had at three men that have greatly been used of God, in my life, that have later been found to have very deep flaws in their character (one of them later admitted to being a homosexual). I can safely say, that the insight that was revealed to me, through these men, came from God, not man. If I were God, I would have overlooked these men, as not being worthy, but He says that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance(Rom 11:29)". Even Keith Daniel says that he wouldn't want to touch, doctrinally the issue of who God will and won't use (see The Spiritual Birth).Tony Campolo's compassion toward humans is to be commended. But if you look deeply his compassion is not warmed with a christian love, but a humanist one. William Booth's motto was "A heart to God and a hand to man." Campolo has the hand to man, but no heart to God. Both are necessary ingrediants for the christian. In Ten Shekels And A Shirt Paris Reidhead spoke of another who outdid Campolo in compassion toward men, Albert Shweitzer, but he was no christian either.William Gurnall said in "The Christian In Complete Armour", "Hypocrites are so anxious to pass for saints that they often become great criticizers of the true graces of others to make themselves look better, as Herod burned the Jews' ancient genealogies to defend his own base birth."The hymn writer who taught us to sing 'Amazing Grace' was all too ready to call himself a 'wretch' ... Forgetting our divinity and over-identifying with our [Freudian] anal humanity. Quoting Campolo from his book "Partly Right."Another quote from Gurnall considering false teachers who have inspired believers:"I confess the hypocrite may act his part so well that he may accidentally do some good. HIs glistening profession, heavenly speech, and eloquent preaching might bring to the sincere seeker a measure of real comfort. Like an actor at center stage who stirs up passion in the audience by counterfeit tears, the hypocrite, playing his religious role, may temporarily spark the beliver's true graces. But that is when the Christian may be in the most serious danger, for he will not readily suspect the person who once helped him spiritually."I would commend Campolo for his efforts with humans, but would give no weight to his doctrine. His accusations that I have heard him make against Christianity for not helping the poor I sometimes find offensive when I know of several ministries that work amongst the poor. Men like K. P. Yohanan, and David Grant (who does more than just give young girls a night off, but actually risks his life in India to rescue them from the brothels and introduces them to Christ). Campolo would save the flesh of a person but leave the soul in chains.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

crsschk wrote:Some good points Aaron.Went and read a bit of the linked article.I disagree though with this:Mike,The link I posted, was to expose Campolo's, errors. I disagree with his statments, in as much as they are equally compatable with alcholics, and pedaphiles. They wouldn't wake up one morning and choose to become one, but few would disagree that they are still to be held accountable for their sin, regardless. Keith Daniel mentions the fact that he was seen many soundly converted, who were homosexuals, never to backslide. This testimony directly contradicts Campolo's statments.Husley wrote:Campolo would save the flesh of a person but leave the soul in chains.Jeremy,This is an awesome statment. You hit the nail on the head.:-)The purpose of my statements were to say, either reject both totally, or consider both's "good points", that's all.

"...our own "Christian" marriages are plagued with divorce. The statistics pointing out that we are by degrees even worse than the unconverted.Where is the outcry about that?With what kind of believability are our words going to be taken when we won't even point the finger at ourselves and take as much initiative to right our own wrongs in this area? It is a strange phenomenon that we can glibly protest so loudly about the sanctity of marriage and only give a passing, quiet murmur to the rampant divorce within that so called sanctity.Is it any wonder that we as a whole are seen as hypocrites? It's not an either or, but a both and.Just don't see us as having any credibility until we show the world that being a Christian is to be divorced from the world not from our mates.When will the masses of Christendom get the point that all sin is sin? And quit elevating one above the other."Good point on divorce. Just remember that not all Christians fall into the "accepting divorce" category. Many in the "church" accept sin as normal, but we must loudly oppose all sin in the "church" whether it's accepted or not. It is less popular to oppose divorce and abortifacient birth control (the pill, IUD, Depo-Provera, Norplant)than to oppose sodomy because most of the "church" will at least acknowledge that sodomy is sin. Let's clean the temple while never remaining silent on the sins in the world or in our fellowship. There will always be those who don't obey the Scriptures and yet say that they are Believers. the world will always point at them to attack us. Those attacks won't stick if we remain consistent and don't try to make excuses for other "christian" sins.

Denny wrote:There will always be those who don't obey the Scriptures and yet say that they are Believers. the world will always point at them to attack us. Those attacks won't stick if we remain consistent and don't try to make excuses for other "christian" sins.Amen

I wouldn't call Tony Campolo a "heretic," unless the definition of heresy is anything that is different from your own opinion.Campolo does not endorse the homosexual lifestyle as the original post implied. However, he is compassionate towards gays and show genuine concerns for them. His is a true "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach. Many Christians can say the same thing but they have never ever visited one gay person to show their concern (and they probably never intend to).

I don't think I've yet called Campolo a heretic because of his stance on homosexuality (although others may have). I think I've been quite clear though about what motivates Campolo is not a genuine Christian motivation but a humanist one. That is the point on which I would consider him heretical. As for not caring for or making an effort to reach out to homosexuals. Some of my best friends have been homosexuals. I made it clear about my position, yet I did it in love and, although they had a problem with my position at first, they could tell my concern for them was genuine. And the TRUE gospel I shared with them had an effect.Where Campolo would say that a homosexual will always be one and, at best, should live a celibate life, I would say that all in Christ are new creations, the former things are past away.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

I wouldn't call Tony Campolo a "heretic," unless the definition of heresy is anything that is different from your own opinion.I don't care if Campolo agrees with me or not. The issue is whether or not he agrees with the Scripture. He clearly does not on numerous issues. Even if you left the homosexual issue out of the equation, there would still be an overwhelming amount of evidence that Campolo is preching "another gospel." It is no "love for the sinner" to leave them in their sins and tell them that they can not be made new in Messiah. Campolo does just this with regards to the homosexual. While ministering at "homosexual" gatherings, I have more than once had active sodomites tell me that they had great respect for Campolo and thought that he was one of the best theologians around. They could say this because Campolo will not call them to repentance in the Biblical way. They were content in their sins and felt very "loved" by Campolo. I would rather that they saw a vision of God's wrath that will be poured upon them if they don't repent and "turn from" their wicked "acts" and "desires." We can "love" the world to hell or we can preach the gospel that calls all men everywhere to repent. This is Biblical love. I don't see it evidenced in the life and teachings of Tony Campolo. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Jeremy,I am well aware that you have not gone as far as calling Campolo a heretic. I think I've been quite clear though about what motivates Campolo is not a genuine Christian motivation but a humanist one. That is the point on which I would consider him heretical. I understand somewhat where you are coming from, although I question the accuracy of calling his position a "humanist" agenda and associating his concern for social justice with the "social gospel" in the earlier centuries. I personally think a legitimate concern for social justice is completely different from the Social Gospel movement in substance.Where Campolo would say that a homosexual will always be one and, at best, should live a celibate life, I would say that all in Christ are new creations, the former things are past away.There is no definitive study that overwhelmingly prove either of these positions. In fact, I agree with Campolo, in that I think the debate about whether homosexual inclinations are inborn (which is scientically controversial and scripturally not explicitly discussed) is not necessary at all, because even if Christians grant that there are genetic factors leading to homosexual inclinations, the only biblical option for such people, if they become Christians, is to live a celibate life.I realise that both issues discussed here could open a whole can of worms, but I think we could at least agree that "heresy" would be too strong a word to use here.

Denny,The issue is whether or not he agrees with the Scripture. He clearly does not on numerous issues. Even if you left the homosexual issue out of the equation, there would still be an overwhelming amount of evidence that Campolo is preching "another gospel." I have yet to see the "overwhelming evidence" of him preaching "another gospel." Care to enlighten me? :)It is no "love for the sinner" to leave them in their sins and tell them that they can not be made new in Messiah. I don't think Campolo ever said the homosexuals could stay in their sins in order to be Christians. He calls them to live a celibate life, which is an expression of the willingness to obey God's renunciation of homosexual practices. That, I submit, is a call to repentance (metanoia = a change of mind, a turning away from sins to God).

There is no definitive study that overwhelmingly prove either of these positions. 2 Corithians 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all thing have become new.Well, I believe in the final authority; the Word of God. I'm not waiting for psychologists to say it's right ;-).

There is no definitive study that overwhelmingly prove either of these positions. In fact, I agree with Campolo, in that I think the debate about whether homosexual inclinations are inborn (which is scientically controversial and scripturally not explicitly discussed) is not necessary at all, because even if Christians grant that there are genetic factors leading to homosexual inclinations, the only biblical option for such people, if they become Christians, is to live a celibate life.The issue here is not about genetics, bents or dents but rather of sin. If we were made new creatures then why is celibacy the ONLY biblical option. Can they not marry and live as heterosexual males? Is it impossible for God to give them a changed heart? Besides, what's the difference between a heterosexual man whose heart is full of adultery and a homosexual? It all boils down to sin. God can change both despite of our ideas to the contrary.

2 Corithians 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all thing have become new.This verse does not say all gays will no longer have homosexual inclinations when they become Christians, just as it does not say all sinners will no longer have the inclinations to sin, and not all sick are healed.I think you get my point. :>

I think you get my point. :>Ah, but I think you miss the point. Being tempted is qualitatively different from acting on those temptations. A new creation can be tempted to go back into sin, but a new creation who is living in the Spirit will fullfil that law of the Spirit instead of the lust of the flesh. :-)

Theophilus:You said:The issue here is not about genetics, bents or dents but rather of sin. If we were made new creatures then why is celibacy the ONLY biblical option.You missed my conditional statement: "even if Christians grant that there are genetic factors leading to homosexual inclinations, the only biblical option..." I am saying whether or not homosexual inclinations are inborn is not important, because either way one must not continue to indulge in homosexual practices.You asked:Can they not marry and live as heterosexual males? Is it impossible for God to give them a changed heart?My answer: yes, it is possible for God to change them. Does God always change their sexual orientation? Maybe. Maybe not. He is sovereign.

Ah, but I think you miss the point. I did not miss your point, I just disagree with your point. I was talking hypothetically that even if homosexuality is genetic, then the homosexual person who has believed in the Lord would have to forsake their homosexual practices. God does not necessarily heal all our diseases when we become Christians.

The burden of proof lies with those who would make homosexuality into a genetic condition. It would be a horrible thing for God to classify a birth defect as a sin. Homosexuality is not a condition of genetics, but a fruit of the sinful nature.

The burden of proof lies with those who would make homosexuality into a genetic condition. It would be a horrible thing for God to classify a birth defect as a sin. Homosexuality is not a condition of genetics, but a fruit of the sinful nature.That is a statement made from inference, not from scripture, nor scientific research (not that you care about the latter anyways).All I am saying is that evangelical Christians can put forth a case against homosexual practices regardless of their positions on whether homosexuality is fully or partly genetic, or not at all. I think both positions are legitimate, and is far from being "heretic."

I have yet to see the "overwhelming evidence" of him preaching "another gospel." Care to enlighten me? :)On a recent edition of CNN's Crossfire, Tony Campolo refused to say Jesus is the only way to heaven. The panel was discussing events at the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta. Campolo would not answer the question directly but said, "The Apostle Paul says that there are people who have light that is not Christian light, and they will be judged on that basis."On a recent edition of CNN's Crossfire, Tony Campolo refused to say Jesus is the only way to heaven. The panel was discussing events at the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta. Campolo would not answer the question directly but said, "The Apostle Paul says that there are people who have light that is not Christian light, and they will be judged on that basis." In an earlier appearance on PBS's Charlie Rose, Campolo muddied theological waters by stating, "I am saying that there is no salvation apart from Jesus; that's my evangelical mindset. However, I am not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians" (National Liberty Journal, 8/99). -----------------------------------Tony Campolo, spiritual advisor to President Clinton, defended Clinton's decision to declare June as "Gay Pride Month" and affirmed his belief in a universalist theology on a recent CNN Crossfire program. The June 15, 1999, Crossfire broadcast featured a debate between Jerry Falwell and Tony Campolo on various political and theological issues. When asked by Falwell what he thinks about the president's decision to declare June as "Gay Pride Month," Campolo said, "It's a pluralistic society, and I think that he is endeavoring to affirm people" He continued to defend Clinton's decision and concluded by adding, "Love requires justice and acceptance." Later in the broadcast, co-host Bill Press (who said the idea that "Jesus is the only way to heaven" is "really wrong") asked Falwell whether Jesus Christ was the only way to heaven or whether those of other religions who had lived exemplary lives would also be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. While Falwell correctly answered that only those who trust in Jesus Christ would receive salvation, Campolo responded by saying, "We need to hold Christ up as the Savior, but I think we need to leave judgment in the hands of God." Falwell then asked Campolo, "Do you believe anyone has ever gone to heaven apart from Christ, yes or no?" Campolo responded, "I go with the Scriptures." After refusing to answer Falwell's question with a simple yes or no, Campolo, who claims to be an evangelical Christian, eventually responded by saying, "The apostle Paul says that there are people who have light that is not Christian light, and they will be judged on that basis." Such a statement is a blasphemous denial of the necessity of the death and resurrection of Christ and of the necessity for all to hear the Gospel message. God's Word declares that no individual apart from salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone can be justified in the sight of God (Rom. 5:1-21).-------------------------------------------"It seems to me that a gay couple could go to a church like hers (Peggy) and get their marriage blessed. They couldn't come to mine and get their marriage blessed. But I think it's up to a local congregation to determine whether or not a marriage should be blessed of God. And it shouldn't be up to the government." Campolo quote about "gay marriage"my comment...Since when is it up to local congregations to decide whether sodomite marriages should be blessed. In God's sight sodomy is an abomination, period.----------------------------------"The reality is that at least 35 percent of us (that's a large group; it's a minority, but it's a large group of evangelicals) voted for Bill Clinton the last time he ran for president. Many of us have concerns about the Democratic Party, but we have even more concerns about the Republican Party. Thus, we vote Democratic not because we're totally in agreement with that party allegiance, but because it seems to be more slanted in the direction that we want to go." quote by Campolo---------------------------------------Several other of Campolo's major planks on this issue: * His assertion, as a Christian sociologist, is that there are few completely homosexual or heterosexual people. He points to 210 sexual traits possessed by every human being, including the length of the fingers, the makeup of the eyes and the texture of the hair. Each person finds himself or herself somewhere on that complex continuum. * He refuses to get into the "heredity or environment" argument. And from that position, he maintains that, while "miracles" do occur, those who successfully leave homosexual behavior to take up male-female sexual relationships permanently, are almost invariably bisexual rather than homosexual. * He challenges pastors to recognize that there are at least a few gay men and/or lesbians in every congregation, almost without exception. Church leaders, he suggests, need to provide real support systems to homosexuals who want to be celibate, rather than simply moralizing or trying to change their orientation. * Churches that work with people in the arts communities, he asserts, are relatively more likely to be ministering to gays, because, as a group, they are attracted to the arts and bring a great deal to that community. Often, for example, gay people provide musical or drama leadership in churches, to such an extent that congregations would be deprived of worship resources if those people were not there. * He suggests that risk-taking pastors will provide pastoral care to gay people, even to the extent of encouraging and recognizing stable relationships. He says such pastors will be prepared to counsel for such stable relationships thus encouraging gay people to leave promiscuous lifestyles. ---------------------------------Campolo signed an article in the liberal Sojourners magazine in May 1981, which lambasted the United States and stated that Roman Catholicism was the one bright light in the dark situation in El Salvador: "The Roman Catholic church is being converted to the poor in El Salvador." This is a reference to the wicked Liberation Theology movement in Romanism, a movement which substitutes the salvation of society for the salvation of the soul. Liberation Theology is Christianized Marxism, but here we find Campolo signing a statement which called it a "bright light."--------------------------------------That Campolo was absolved of heresy by a panel of so-called leading evangelicals (chaired by J.I. Packer) [see the 9/20/85, Christianity Today, pp. 30-38; the 12/13/85, Christianity Today, p. 52; and the 8/9/89, Christianity Today] is amazing when one considers even more Campoloisms. (The following are excerpted from those reported in the January 1991, CIB Bulletin.):(a) "There are those who would limit Jesus to being present only in those who acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior, but I will not accept that limitation. I believe that Jesus is present even in ... those who refuse Him."(b) "Then it hit me -- humanness and Godness are one and the same ... Jesus was God because He was fully human and He was fully human because He was God ..."(c) "Jesus is the only Savior, but not everybody who is being saved by Him is aware that He is the One who is doing the saving ..." [This sounds strangely like the idea that each man may come to God in his own way without any understanding of God's way of salvation (a lá C.S. Lewis).]----------------------------- Campolo claims that homosexual orientation is inborn in many or most cases, and refers to "evangelical homosexuality." He has related how two homosexual men "solved their problems of loneliness" by living in a celibate "covenant" relationship "in all love and tenderness." He even makes the blasphemous claim that Christians will have difficulty finding any Biblical condemnation of romantic feelings between persons of the same sex (cf. Rom. 1:18ff)!! (Reported in the 4/1/91, Calvary Contender; and in a 2/7/94, ACCC report on the 1994 NRB Convention.)---------------------------------- Campolo has the dubious honor of being former President Clinton's "good friend ... in Philadelphia" (Clinton's 1/25/94 state of the Union address). After reading an interview with Campolo in the 1/94 Bookstore Journal, it is understandable why Clinton would consider Campolo a friend. Clinton and Gore hosted 12 "evangelical" leaders at a private breakfast 10/18/93 in the White House, one of which was Campolo. Afterwards Campolo claimed that Clinton and Gore "understand the fundamental evangelical ethos." He says Clinton "is not only a Christian ... [who] has a very high view of Scripture... [but also is] a deeply religious man." (Reported in the 3/94 issue of The Lofton Letter, p. 8.)My comment..clearly Campolo has little if any spirtitual discernment.-------------------------------Campolo said "I agree with the Pope's implication that the young cannot be allowed to seek Christ apart from the church." He said "the most important pastor of any church body in the world today [is] the Pope." (Source: 12/15/97, Calvary Contender.)----------------------------------On unity with false religions--"I know we cannot complete the job ourselves, of course. That is why we Christians, along with our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters, wait earnestly for the Messiah to come and join us. We look forward to that great day when the good work that God has begun in and through us will be brought to completion." Tony Campolo, from a recent article---------------------------------I could go on..... and on.... and on....

That is a statement made from inference, not from scripture, nor scientific research (not that you care about the latter anyways).Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.Sounds pretty scriptural to me. I could have put down more but this one is pretty clear. And you're right about one thing, I don't care at all when pseudo-science sets its self against the clear teaching of the Word of God.This begs the question yet again: Are we to let science determine our interpretation of scripture or are we going to let scripture interpret scripture. In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

This begs the question yet again: Are we to let science determine our interpretation of scripture or are we going to let scripture interpret scripture. Answer: No. But you have assumed that your own interpretation to be completely free from presuppositions.In my understanding, the view that homosexuality could be genetic does not necessarily contradict with the verses from Romans. I absolutely agree that it is God's intention that sex be confined within marriage between a man and a woman. I do not find the two concepts to be mutually exclusive.Your usual tactic of asserting your point is by identifying your own interpretation as the "plain reading of scripture," whereas all other legitimate understandings are simply psycho-babble. I really resent that. :-o No biblical verses "plainly teaches" us about the genetic makeup of human beings. Inferences and presuppositions are heavily involved in coming to your conclusions (in other words, no necessarily "scriptural").The real bottomline here is that regardless of our views concerning the role of genetics in homosexuality, the Christian must submit to the boundaries that God had set -- sex must exclusively be confined within marriage between one man and woman. This I affirm, and my understanding is that this is what Tony Campolo affirms too.

No biblical verses "plainly teaches" us about the genetic makeup of human beings. Inferences and presuppositions are heavily involved in coming to your conclusions (in other words, no necessarily "scriptural").What inferences?? I just simply put down a verse. The context of Romans if you check it out does not say that God gave them over to these perversions because of a genetic condition, but because of sin. This is not my interpretation. Scripture is involved in coming to my conclusions friend. The real bottomline here is that regardless of our views concerning the role of genetics in homosexuality, the Christian must submit to the boundaries that God had set -- sex must exclusively be confined within marriage between one man and woman. This I affirm, and my understanding is that this is what Tony Campolo affirms too.Yes, we are all in agreement on this. This has never been in question. The problem the others have with Campolo is that he is so limp wristed towards the homosexual agenda that he actually strengthens their cause instead of leading them to the truth.

(Agape Press picked up the story and ran this news item)Campolo's Campus Appearance Called Into QuestionChristian College Ignoring 'False Teacher,' Says Pennsylvania GroupBy Jim BrownSeptember 21, 2004(AgapePress) - A Christian group is asking an Assemblies of God Bible college in Pennsylvania to drop a frequent guest chapel speaker because of his heretical beliefs. But the school's president is defending his decision to invite a man who holds to universalist theology and an unbiblical view of homosexuality.Dr. Don Meyer says he is not backing down from his decision to once again welcome Dr. Tony Campolo to preach in chapel today (Tuesday) at Valley Forge Christian College, a small four-year college located northwest of Philadelphia. Campolo, a well-known media commentator on religious, social and political matters, often preaches with his wife in homosexual-affirming churches, where he has stated that the homosexual "did not choose homosexuality," but is rather "a victim either of biological accident or someone else's folly."Campolo is also founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, an inner-city ministry that combines evangelism and social justice in public schools, universities, orphanages, literacy centers, and tutoring programs. But Michael Marcavage, director of the Philadelphia-based group Repent America, says Valley Forge Christian College is ignoring the scriptural command to mark and avoid false teachers."Through the years, obviously, Tony Campolo has promoted many unbiblical doctrines," Marcavage says. "This goes back to his book A Reasonable Faith in which he developed the false concept that Christ lives in all human beings regardless whether they are Christian."VFCC president Meyer says he has never read the book, but believes Campolo's views are often taken out of context or misunderstood. "I have heard him share regarding the core tenets of the gospel and what it means to be a Christian by having Jesus as Lord and Savior," Dr. Meyer shares. "I've heard him in numerous settings, not merely here on our campus."Still, Marcavage says Meyer is ignoring a false teacher who has claimed he is changing the evangelical community from within by targeting young people. "He has spoken out against Christian ministries, such as Exodus International, which help homosexuals overcome their struggle with their sinful desires and practices," the Repent America leader explains. "He declares that there's a biological basis for homosexuality -- and he has stated that we cannot expect such a person to change his orientation."In an interview published by Beliefnet, Campolo states that "the overwhelming proportion of the gay community that love Jesus, that go to church, that are deeply committed in spiritual things, try to change and can’t change. And the Church acts as though they are just stubborn and unwilling, when in reality they can’t change." But he also states his position that "same-gender eroticism [homosexual activity] is not a Christian lifestyle."Last year more than a dozen representatives from Marcavage's group gathered outside VFCC to call attention to Campolo's teachings and to call school officials to repentance. The objective of that effort, the Repent America leader says, was to point out to faculty members and students "the danger of allowing their pulpit to be used by someone who disregards the authority of scripture."Campolo, a professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania, is an ordained minister and has served American Baptist churches in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He once told American Family Radio News that animals could obtain salvation.

Hulsey,"I simply put down the verse." That is precisely the problem. It is not at all obvious from the verses that they address anything concerning genetics; the best you could argue is that it is neither for nor against the possibility of hereditary and environmental factors. The possibility remains there.Furthermore, I did not say "God gave them over to these perversions because of a genetic condition," that is your (false) interpretation of what I have said. I have consistently said that engaging in homosexual practice is a conscious act of sin against God. That being said, I am open to the possibility of hereditary and/or environmental factors that might cause some people to be more prone to the sins of homosexuality. But of course, ultimately, one must take responsibility for one's sinful actions and not blame heredity or environment. One may be more inclined towards homosexuality, but one is responsible for conducting oneself in a godly manner.This, in my view, does not contradict with Scripture at all.Sam

Jeremy & Sam,May I take opportunity to act as a mediator in this discussion (please don't read on if the answer is "No":-))?I think that it is clear that neither of you (and me for that matter), believe that homosexuality is genetic, at least enough to allow it as excuse for sinful behaviour. I would like to use a slight analogy to explain my opinion of Campolo's stance, believing that it sandwiches itself in between both of yours.If we turn our attention away from homosexuality, to another "inherited" condition, may we consider drug addiction? In Australia, a man was refused service in an RSL (Retired Services League) club, for being under the influence of heroin, and took the club to court.The plantiff won his case, on the grounds of descrimination against someone with a disability. The court concluded that the man was incapable of choosing whether or not to be under the influence, due to the highly addictive nature of the drug. This opened up dangerous precedent, where anyone treated differently for being intoxicated by an addictive substance, to claim disability status. Consider the ramifications. A truck driver could sue his employer for terminating him for driving under the influence of alcohol, on the basis of being an "alcoholic". Having been a drug addict in my prechristian life, I know that it is not as simple as just saying, "Okay, I'll stop tomorrow." There are steps that need to be taken. Firstly, a realisation that there is something wrong with the substance. Secondly, a desire to quit. Thirdly, a seperation from the substances concerned. Fourthly, a hatred of the substance, and the way they affect you (if the abstainance is to be permanent). Generally, the third step should be accompanied by a disassociation with other addicts, who will try to lure you back.Personally, it took me over one year, from accepting Christ to quitting. Alarmingly, it took one month from me realising that there really was a problem to quitting. It only took one millisecond to quit, from the final time I used. Even though I had quit, it wasn't until six months later that I was confident that I wouldn't go back (By the way, it's been ten years now:-)).I didn't go from thinking "Drugs are bad" to "I'll never go back" in a heart beat. Admittedly, many have, but that is only by the grace of God. God is capable of transforming a life instentaneously, but man cannot, by will alone. To say that people don't choose to become homosexual is true. No one in their right mind wakes up one morning saying "You know what, I think I might start sleeping with guys." (Unless your female) Homosexuals, like all sinners, are victims of circumstances that can be traced right back to the tree of knowledge. They are also to be held responsible for their actions, by God, as any other sinner.To call the homosexual to celibacy, is the same as calling the drug addict to quit. The homosexual may find his thoughts wandering to his past life, but abstainence is the key. The heroin addict longs for the pin prick, but it's the action of emptying the needle that crosses him over. However, as with the drug addict, if the homosexual is to become truly heterosexual, then he needs to be "transformed, by the renewing of the mind" rather than settling with being "conformed with this world". Jesus was clear in presenting the Sermon on the Mount, that He is more conerned with the "inner man" than the "outward action". Any sinner that hasn't changed his attitude toward his sin, has to face the fact that he hasn't repented (see J Edwin Orr's The Church Must First Repent, particularly the explaination of the greek word for repentance, "metanoia"). To say that it's okay to be a "celibate homosexual", is like saying the it's okay to fantasise about other women, if you're married. I believe that this denies the power of grace and the gospel, and leaves the homosexual committing "homosexuality in his heart".However, to say the the homosexual should be able to get married, is only true is true repentance takes place. If not, the his marriage would all be an act, because the homosexual would be longing for another partner, that being his own gender. My unterstanding is that, the literal translation of the word rendered "hypocracy" is "play acting". In otherwords, to pretend that something is one way, when really it's another. The homosexual that marries a woman, out of obligation to principle, rather than being compelled by true love (as opposed, is a hypocrite and has to face the fact that hypocracy is Jesus' most despised sin.All in all,the homosexual issue is a very complex and highly volatile one. To suggest to someone who puts high priority on sexual gratification that they can be with someone who can know who to give optimal pleasure them, because they have first hand experience of the way their biology work, would not only be tempting but also hideously logical. This is the thought we need to consider before forming opinions about the decisions that homosexuals have made about the gender identity. It is therefore a condition that would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to leave behind. However, in the words of Jesus, "with God all things are possible".Just in case anyone thinks that I hold a lukewarm stance on homosexuality, an example of my personal view of the homosexual debate, as presented "out in the marketplace", can be found by clicking here.

CJaKfOrEsT:Thanks for the input. I think our views are similar.Sam

To call the homosexual to celibacy, is the same as calling the drug addict to quit. The homosexual may find his thoughts wandering to his past life, but abstainence is the key. The heroin addict longs for the pin prick, but it's the action of emptying the needle that crosses him over. However, as with the drug addict, if the homosexual is to become truly heterosexual, then he needs to be "transformed, by the renewing of the mind" rather than settling with being "conformed with this world". Jesus was clear in presenting the Sermon on the Mount, that He is more conerned with the "inner man" than the "outward action". Any sinner that hasn't changed his attitude toward his sin, has to face the fact that he hasn't repented (see J Edwin Orr's The Church Must First Repent, particularly the explaination of the greek word for repentance, "metanoia"). To say that it's okay to be a "celibate homosexual", is like saying the it's okay to fantasise about other women, if you're married. I believe that this denies the power of grace and the gospel, and leaves the homosexual committing "homosexuality in his heart".

Your last two sentences are key in the discussion on Campolo's veiw of homosexuality. Read them again. The problem with Campolo's stance on homosexulaity is that he does not see it neccessary (in my reading) to have that new heart. Being celibate doesn't save. Abstaining from immoral behavior doesn't save. Becoming a new creation is neccessary. The homosexuals who I have shared the Gospel with at sodomite rallies who think Campolo is the greatest thing since sliced bread were all still labeling themselves as "homosexua". Some were frequently still sodomizing each other and some said that they had been celibate for some years. The great problem was that they all still willinigly wore the label, "homosexual". They had gained a peace in there own lives, so they would say, that they could still be homosexual and still be accepted in God's sight. This is abominable. Child molesters, rapists, adulterers, theives and all other sinners must lay down their sin and become new creations to be accepted by the Father. To be a thief, adulterer, child molester, homosexual, etc. in our heart without the outward manifestion is still evil in God's eyes. Campolo, in my estimation gives comfort to those who need conviction. In this case, comfort is thier worst emeny. Their testimony must be "But such were some of you" not "This is what I am".Keep in mind the fact that his stance on homosexulality is only one of many unbiblical stances this false teacher takes.

Denny,This is abominable. Child molesters, rapists, adulterers, theives and all other sinners must lay down their sin and become new creations to be accepted by the Father. To be a thief, adulterer, child molester, homosexual, etc. in our heart without the outward manifestion is still evil in God's eyes.I have no problem with the biblical fact that "sinners must lay down their sin and become new creations." However, your latter characterisation of "homosexual in our heart without the outward manifestation" is confusing the active indulgence in sinful thoughts (such as stealing, adultery, molestation, and homosexual acts) with the fact that these people are more prone to these temptations. However, it is not a sin to be tempted, it is only a sin when we actively indulge in sinful thoughts and lusts and behaviors.To say that my position is "leaving the homosexual to commit homosexuality in the heart" is a gross misrepresentation. And to characterise my position as leaving out the importance of repentance ("metanoia") is likewise a false characterisation.There is also nothing analogous in what I have said to saying "it's okay to fantasize about other women if you're married". I did not say that they can indulge in homosexual fantasies. All I am saying is that they must obey God's created order, regardless of how strongly they feel inclined towards those of the same gender. Again, there are many Bible-believing Christians who hold different views as to whether homosexuality is hereditary or not. It is not necessary to misrepresent other people's perspective in order to justify your own.Sam

Agent001 wrote:There is also nothing analogous in what I have said to saying "it's okay to fantasize about other women if you're married". I did not say that they can indulge in homosexual fantasies. All I am saying is that they must obey God's created order, regardless of how strongly they feel inclined towards those of the same gender. Again, there are many Bible-believing Christians who hold different views as to whether homosexuality is hereditary or not. It is not necessary to misrepresent other people's perspective in order to justify your own.SamBrother Sam,I'm sorry if I offended you. My main purpose for posting in the fist place, was because I was seeing two people arguing over what is essentially a nonessiential. Who really cares whether homosexuality is inherited or not.I was merely tring to say, there shouldn't be an arguement, as you agreed on the nonessentials, that's all. You're right about fantasies and actions being different. My only question would be, do they have a problem with it occuring? I do when my fantasies are heterosexual, so where is the line?By bringing metanoia into the conversation, I was trying to bring grace into consideration, that's all. A christian should not be content with anything less than a changed life. I know you believe that, I just word it different.:-)In the words of a shampoo ad over here in Oz, "It won't happen over night, but it will happen."