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.