100% Bible Based Teaching
Provides in Depth teaching from the Word of God
Clear distinction between worldly and Christian music
Aim to fulfill the great commission as commanded by Jesus
Seeking to find answers to your faith based questions from God’s Word
Is the Karl Faase gospel a rehash of the corrupt Lausanne gospel?
Before we start, just a note to say that the efforts to crash our website (see the last 2 posts) have failed so far; they appear to have given it up as a lost cause. Without any other viable suspect I continue to look at militant calvinist interests as the cowards behind it all, throwing a temper tantrum because of my outline of some of their basic doctrinal heresies as noted in “Calvinisms”. It seems that if they can’t “hack” the opposition, then they’ll hack their websites! Clearly those who are incapable of arguing on biblical grounds do have limited options! Violence is the last resort of the incompetent!
Research suggests that Karl Faase (of Olive Tree Media) teaches a non-biblical gospel based upon the politically-correct social false gospel of the Lausanne Movement (ecumenicalism as per the World Council of Churches). This should be checked out thoroughly before touching any of his materials, such as Jesus the Game Changer.
The saga here all started at least as early as 10th August 1846, when the Evangelical Alliance was formed by a meeting of 800 delegates from 50 denominations held in the Freemasons’ Hall (United Grand Lodge of England), London. Later the Evangelical Alliance was to become the World Evangelical Alliance in Britain in 1923, known as WEA. However, despite its name, it was more of an alliance for church solidarity than an evangelical outreach for the sake of the gospel. It was formed mainly with the desire that as many churches as possible band together for solidarity, especially involving Presbyterian and reformed denominations (most notably in America).
In England the progress of the Tractarian Movement led many distinguished Evangelical Nonconformists to desire “a great confederation of men of all Churches who were loyal in their attachment to Evangelical Protestantism in order to defend the faith of the Reformation” (Dale, History of Eng. Congregationalism, 637). At the annual assembly of the Congregational Union held in London, May, 1842, John Angell James (1785-1859), minister of Craven Chapel, Bayswater, London, proposed the scheme that ultimately developed into the Evangelical Alliance. He asked: “Is it not in the power of this Union to bring about by God’s blessing, a Protestant Evangelical Union of the whole body of Christ’s faithful followers who have at any rate adopted the voluntary principle? … Let us only carry out the principle of a great Protestant Union and we may yet have representatives from all bodies of Protestant Christians to be found within the circle of our own United Empire” (Congregational Magazine, 1842, 435-6).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05641a.htm
And the fact that this 1846 meeting was held in the hall of the most influential English freemasonry lodge does strongly tend to deny the presence of Almighty God with their deliberations! 2 Corinthians 6:14a – Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
The following also supports the political and social agenda of such a gathering of churches, rather than for actual evangelical purposes.
From the onset of Evangelicalism in Great Britain in the 1730s to the United States in the nineteenth century and now as a global phenomenon, Evangelicals have had great influence in many spheres, most notably religion and politics. Throughout the twentieth century a series of gatherings and movements converged into the Lausanne Movement and the World Evangelical Alliance, arguably the two most active global bodies of Evangelicals today.
https://www.lausanne.org/lgc-transfer/number-of-evangelicals-worldwide
In fact, the various Council of Church groups worldwide today mostly stem from that meeting in Freemasons’ Hall in 1846.
In 1974 the WEA would help bring about the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (commonly called the Lausanne Movement) through a partnership between Billy Graham and John Stott.
The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, more commonly known as the Lausanne Movement, is a global movement that mobilizes evangelical leaders to collaborate for world evangelization. …. The Lausanne Movement grew out of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE) and promotes active worldwide evangelism. The Lausanne Covenant provides the theological basis for collaborative work in the area of mission and evangelism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Committee_for_World_Evangelization
The evangelist (Billy Graham) partnered with John Stott on the Lausanne Movement and helped revive the World Evangelical Alliance.
In 1974, Billy Graham convened an enormous conference in Lausanne, Switzerland. Graham wanted to assess the way political, ideological, and theological world issues affected evangelism, and to bring evangelical leaders to a common vision for both evangelism and social justice. He invited about 2,400 evangelical leaders from 150 countries. The meeting turned out to be outrageously important. Not only did the participants make up “possibly the widest-ranging meeting of Christians ever held” and signal the rising strength of conservative Christians worldwide, it also delivered unity on the most divisive issue of the day—whether social justice should be as highly prioritized as evangelism.
And it kicked off the Lausanne Movement.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/february/billy-graham-lausanne-wea-evangelism-social-justice.html
The Lausanne Covenant is a July 1974 religious manifesto promoting active worldwide Christian evangelism. One of the most influential documents in modern evangelicalism, it was written at the First International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland, where it was adopted by 2,300 evangelicals in attendance.
The drafting committee for the 15-point document was chaired by John Stott of the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Covenant
Stott was the main contributor to the Lausanne Covenant …
The Lausanne Covenant is widely regarded as one of the most significant documents in modern church history. Emerging from the First Lausanne Congress in 1974, with John Stott as its Chief Architect (It sounds almost freemason, doesn’t it?)
https://www.lausanne.org/content/covenant/lausanne-covenant
… and his emphasis was more in line with the social and political priorities of the World Council of Churches, a group more known for politics than the gospel.
The year was 1974.
2500 evangelicals from 150 countries and 135 denominations were in Lausanne, Switzerland for the International Congress on World Evangelization. In his biography of John Stott, Godly Ambition, Alister Chapman describes the background for the confrontation:
The central purpose of the congress was to galvanize evangelicals to finish the task, to ensure that the gospel finally reached every corner of the earth. Its theme, emblazoned above the podium, was “Let the Earth Hear His Voice.”
By the time of Lausanne, Stott had come to the conclusion that God called his people to care about society and politics as well as evangelism. Many at Lausanne agreed with him, especially people from churches associated with the WCC (World Council of Churches), where social and political issues were high priorities.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/when-john-stott-confronted-billy-graham/
The gospel of Christ has always been in conflict with the world. We are to love not the world as per 1 John 2:15-16. Many who lived godly lives would be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12). Paul would suffer all things that the gospel might not be hindered (1 Corinthians 9:12). And Christians are called to suffer, as per 1 Peter 2:21.
Preaching the gospel has always been fraught with danger, trials and testing. Many have been martyred for their faithful teaching of the Biblical gospel. But the Lausanne gospel was to be more conformed to the world such that it didn’t force conflict with those hearing it. This is the “positive” gospel without any “negative” ideas in it, like sin, evil, condemnation etc. Conforming the gospel to the world does mean less conflict, but it also involves much compromise concerning the truth. Paul warned us against being conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), thus defining the Lausanne gospel to be false. Jesus said so clearly that we had to forsake the world before we could be considered worthy of being His disciples. We were to take up our crosses daily, leaving the world behind us. The song says “The world behind me, the cross before me”, yet today’s gospel says you can have the gospel without giving up the world.
As Tozer wisely taught (in “Man – the Dwelling Place of God”) All unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental. From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique – a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.
The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamouring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better. The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.
The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said goodbye to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.
The biblical gospel teaches the old cross; the Lausanne Covenant teaches the new cross. The gospel was now to become more user-friendly, more world-friendly. You could be a Christian without giving up your enjoyment of the world. No more “love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” of 1 John 2:15-16, for now you could have both your salvation and love the world at the same time.
So let’s take that next step in our narrative here. From evil hearts come evil thoughts; likewise from evil beginnings comes evil fruit. The Evangelical Alliance in 1846 spawned an apostate gospel that is with us today under the guidance of the Lausanne Movement and the World Council of Churches. Evil surely begets evil. Stott was the “Chief Architect” of the Lausanne Covenant, and, true to form, Stott was truly corrupt. The whole movement commenced under the watchful eye of the freemasons in 1846, and is still in the hands of satan and his demons.
For a start, Stott is in favour of meaningful dialogue between muslims and Christians.
An event which tells us much about Stott’s theology occurred in October of 2007 when a large number of Muslim clerics signed a letter calling for peace between Muslims and Christians. A Common Word urges the followers of the two faiths to find common ground between Islam and Christianity. A Christian Letter of Response entitled ‘Loving God and Neighbor Together’ drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School was featured in the New York Times in November of 2007. The Christian Letter of Response was signed by John Stott, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, and about 300 other Christian leaders (see https://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response). It affirmed that what is common between Christians and Muslims lies in something absolutely central to both: the love of God and love of neighbor.
https://watch.pairsite.com/macarthur-12-evangelical-druids.html
Yet what common ground is there between such opposed belief systems? Isn’t this just an example of the Lausanne’s compromise so that we may preach a gospel without offense? That the gospel must be conformed to the world to remove its offense to the world? Truly it is a doctrine of demons.
Stott also taught non-Christian, non-biblical attitudes toward our relationships between one another, especially sexual relations.
(The following is based on John Stott’s book: “Same-sex partnerships” in which Stott refers to the Kinsey report as his authority for his conclusions drawn.)
John Stott refers to the American zoologist Alfred Kinsey’s famous investigation into human sexuality as the authority on sexual orientation.
But how can a Christian quote from someone who is as anti-Christian and perverted as Kinsey? Kinsey had a special interest in the sexual nature of children. He concludes that children are sexual beings, capable of enjoying sexual contacts with other children and adults. He implies that it is unfortunate that natural childhood sexual activity is being suppressed by a moral code which prohibits sex with children. He argues that it is natural for children to enjoy sexual contact with adults, and that it is only cultural conditioning that prevents children from enjoying genital sex. These views represent an open encouragement to paedophilia.
Kinsey saw it as at great problem that Christian teaching on sexual morality had influenced the whole of society.
https://www.therealjohnstott.com/?page_id=225
And this is the same Stott that MacArthur says is one of the most influential authors in his life with his book – John R. W. Stott, The Preacher’s Portrait ???
https://www.gty.org/library/Questions/QA84
MacArthur also has at least 65 documents on his website that either mention or quote from Stott.
So we continue our paper trail toward Karl Faase, now heading to Australia where the Lausanne movement held a conference to extend the Lausanne ministry to the training of new leaders for the cause. It was called Arrow Australia, and Karl Faase was one of the leaders of this conference, becoming its director in 2002. (It’s one thing to participate in a conference; it’s another to actually lead the conference. The latter does strongly imply agreement with Lausanne policy.)
History of Arrow Australia
In July 1994 the Australian committee of the Lausanne movement held a conference for emerging Christian leaders in Melbourne. It was led by the Rev Stephen Hale and the Rev Karl Faase. The conference brought together 300 key emerging and senior leaders from around Australia.
Our statement of faith is the Lausanne Covenant.
https://www.arrowleadership.org.au/content/history/gjendk
Well, well! It’s a bit like a family tree with all the descendants listed under the family patriarch, only the patriarch here is the ecumenical Evangelical Alliance and the line of descent goes down here to Karl Faase who seems to be the consequence of that which was given to him by his forebears in this “family tree”. Concerning the gospel, can we assume that Faase is of the same mind as Stott who was the “Chief Architect” of the Lausanne Covenant? Does Faase have the same “progressive” views on Islam that Stott apparently has regarding the common ground of love of God and neighbour?
Does MacArthur, in quoting Stott so much, realise that he is giving at least tacit approval to Stott’s clearly non-biblical standpoints?
So finally, I decided to take a look at the Olive Tree Media website (of which Faase is CEO). https://www.olivetreemedia.com.au
The olive tree itself is an interesting choice of symbols, for it represents the offer of submission to another for the purposes of keeping the peace. In effect, the olive tree depicts a gospel which must be subject to the world in order to avoid conflict with the world. This is eminently in keeping with the Lausanne Covenant (of John Stott!). The gospel is to conform to the world so that Christians may not offend that same world and thus in this way they may avoid the persecution and suffering that is unavoidable when preaching the true biblical gospel. (This is the Seeker Friendly church model as presented by Rick Warren. Warren’s seeker friendly model has good intentions but an unbiblical basis for most of its practices. https://www.letusreason.org/Popteac25.htm)
The true gospel, however, refuses to conform to a sinful world, but instead condemns a wicked world (with consequent conflict!). The true biblical gospel is certainly no olive branch to the world!
So where might Faase be found in the church scene today? He produces a number of documents and DVDs that churches may purchase; is this an effort to spread the false gospel of Lausanne even further? He has produced such titles as Towards Belief and Jesus the Game Changer. The latter has the following topics: Jesus, Equality, Forgiveness, Women and Children, Democracy, Care, Leadership, Education and Health, Wealth, Reason and Science, all of which could fit in admirably with a politically-correct social gospel. It is therefore likely that churches which use his materials could be steadily pushed toward an acceptance of the values of Lausanne and its false gospel, a goal that I’m sure Stott and his forerunners in the “family tree” would find very acceptable. Certainly social justice is an admirable and commendable cause to seek; this in itself is not a matter for condemnation. However, it must not subordinate the biblical gospel of salvation to a lower level than social justice; the biblical gospel of salvation must never be made to conform to the social requirements of the day.
I also checked the Olive Tree Media website to see what they believed in, but could find nothing concerning the actual biblical gospel of salvation; this might be expected from people who apparently work on conforming to the world’s gospel, thereby avoiding any conflict that might arise from having any definite point of view on biblical doctrine. If I wanted to check out his materials before using them, how would I assess their suitability? I would at the very least desire to see a statement of his doctrinal beliefs, but perhaps Faase does not appear to want people to test his doctrines too much. And to me the biggest danger seems to be the Lausanne connection.
So who would choose such teachings for their church? Such people may either be totally lacking in discernment, or desire that their church members fall into the apostasy of the ecumenical gospel. It comes as no surprise at all to find that it includes Living Springs Baptist Church as per https://www.lsbc.org.au/calendar. Discernment has not been one of their strong points in the past! Discernment may not be one of their strong points here!
If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.
So who are the cowards?
In recent days this website has been hacked fairly consistently now, so far without any success. Every attacking IP that I’ve checked was listed as abusive, with just about all being serious repeat offenders. This means that our website has attracted a significant amount of attention from those who think it’s acceptable to be violently aggressive against anyone that offends them in any way. Such people do not consider it a problem to hit out at their opponents, in much the same way that we have road rage, house invasions and gang bullying. They will generally only attack if they feel they have superior numbers and greater fire power than those they pick on; that is, they do not believe in fighting fairly but consider that the most important requirement is to hurt the other person without risking getting hurt themselves. Such people never attack if they think they themselves might get hurt; they are chickens in every sense of the word. They also run and hide before they can be discovered; this demonstrates their fear of retaliation. Like cowards they fight from cover because they fear the consequences if they become known to their opposition.
There’s nothing of any real value on our website, unless you consider biblical teaching to be a saleable commodity. But they still consider it necessary to hit out. So why? (Of course, I did put a post online – “Calvinisms” – that spelled out the basic heresies of calvinism just a week or so before this occurred. It is likely to have caused some wrath among that self-declared righteous mob, so logically it could strongly suggest irate calvinists behind this.) Like road rage low-life, they hit out because they have been personally offended somehow. No-one has actually done anything to them except perhaps hurt their feelings, yet this can be a huge issue for those with low self-esteem. And like bullies who hit out to boost their own self-esteem, these people find strength in their ability to hurt others. The more that others get hurt, the more these people feel “empowered” by their bullying. (All dictators are imbued with similar personalities.) Such people are generally incapable of standing their ground intellectually, so in their incompetence they hit out physically. As the saying goes, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
It may not be those who are offended who are actually doing the attacking, but if you have enough money or influence (or both), you can always find mercenaries who will do the dirty work for you. In that way such people somehow believe they are “keeping their hands clean”. They may be able to convince others (and perhaps even themselves) that they are not responsible for such cowardly activities, yet effectively their hands are covered in blood guilt. When they come to worship God, he will not hear, for they are covered with the guilt of their sin. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. (Isaiah 1:15)
But what people would feel so threatened by our website, yet feel so incapable of debating the issue up front and out in the open? What people would think it necessary to destroy the work of anyone opposing them? Just recently I was asked (via a comment to this website) – Did you express your concerns personally to the preachers that you are labeling as heretics prior to making public online statements about them? But I would rephrase that question to ask the cowards who are trying to destroy this website – Did you express your concerns personally to the person whose opinions you find offensive before just attempting to do a hit and run on the website?
You only have to look at who is challenged by our website statements, for the only logical answer here is that those attacking the website are people who (a) feel threatened by our information and (b) believe they are incapable of defending themselves using sola scriptura (the Bible alone). (Or else these people are irrational, incapable of rational thinking, people that we would term “insane”; many road rage attacks are seemingly by such people!)
Now who could these people be, I wonder? Who have we opposed that might have found it too difficult to defend their views rationally and objectively using the Bible alone? Because whoever has been attacking our website will be associated in some way with such people. Could it, perhaps, be calvinists who don’t approve of what we say about their beloved beliefs? But calvinists are such nice, easy to get along with people, aren’t they? So biblical, too; one would expect them to get into their Bibles to study and demonstrate my faults, wouldn’t they? And, of course, they are the epitome of graciousness, for their God is the God of grace, isn’t he? Calvinists are so loving, so caring, so kind, so biblical that they would feel ashamed to be seen as trouble-makers, wouldn’t they? Or would they?
Calvinists, especially those of the new calvinist variety, are often seen (even by their own) as aggressive, arrogant, abrasive, know-it-all, sneering, etc. Within the SBC of USA, the battle lines are being drawn over calvinism’s aggression.
However, there is now a “New Calvinism” movement, “committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (‘TULIP’), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.”
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/whats-wrong-with-tulip-southern-baptists-resist-aggressive-advance-of-new-calvinism/102839.htm
Even SBC calvinists see the new calvinist aggression as excessive.
Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.
I, yes even as a Calvinist, firmly stand with these men in opposing this “New Calvinism”. …. I am especially opposed to those that “are characterized by an aggressive insistence on the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (TULIP). I’m opposed to that because aggressive insistence goes against “teaching with gentleness and respect”. Furthermore, I do not support an aggressive insistence that others be Calvinists because it denies the very sovereignty and power of God that it claims to uphold. https://sbcvoices.com/why-im-opposed-to-new-calvinism/
Another comment in a forum: Calvinists I have met …. seem to be very pushy, arrogant and aggressive about what they believe and can’t seem to let it go until people believe them. They try really hard to convince people. It was worse in bible college, but that’s another story. They just don’t come off as people at ease or at peace with God, like something is bugging them or something like that. I just don’t understand why anyone would want to believe in something that causes you to have to defend that point of view so aggressively.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/five-misconceptions-about-calvinism.8018475/page-2
And from a calvinist soon after on that same forum: As a Calvinist, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, there are many Calvinists that do exactly what you are describing.
Or from Derek Rishmawy, a new calvinist writing here for The Gospel Coalition (a new calvinist group)
Let’s be honest and say a lot of Calvinists won’t admit this difficulty, and it comes out in the condescending, aggressive, abrasive, and unhelpful way they approach theological engagement with people who disagree. You know the kind. You can find them in Bible studies, blog comment sections, insular Reformed churches that nobody visits; the archetypical newbie who presents masterfully botched iterations of Reformed doctrines, as if they were the most obvious truths of God that only a perversely obstinate fool could miss; the crusty expert who adds in just enough condescension and sneering to belie all his talk of grace.
This was my final reason for being put off from Calvinism: really arrogant, thickheaded, (often young) know-it-all, sneering Calvinists. Who wants to be planted in soil that yields such fruit? In the long run that isn’t the best reason to reject a doctrine, as it’s just another version of the common atheist objection: “But if Christianity were true, then Christians should be great, but all the Christians I know are jerks so it must be false” (see C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity). Still, there’s something to it given Christ’s own declaration that people are known by their fruits.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sneering-calvinists/
It is fairly safe to assume that calvinists (especially of the new calvinist breed) are condescending, abrasive, unhelpful, aggressive, arrogant, thickheaded, know-it-all sneering calvinists. After all, it’s a new calvinist who states this clearly on a new calvinist website. So, even they admit this. What happens, then, when they get into a situation where they cannot freely hammer their arguments down their opponents’ throats because they are not able to do this without losing credibility? Do they then try to destroy their opponents merely because they cannot defeat them any other way? Would these people crash a website simply because it was the only way to shut it up? You may be the judge here, although if I were the jury, I would probably bring in a verdict of guilty, that the calvinists are guilty as charged.
I’ll finish with what I wrote on my previous post assuring all that we are confident of victory in Christ because of God’s great and precious promises. We who are Christians may be assured that we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us (Romans 8:37), and that all things that sovereign God permits into our lives will work together for good (Romans 8:28). Our response to these great promises (through our faith in the One who promises) is to give thanks always for all things to God in the name of Christ our Saviour (Ephesians 5:20), and, like Jesus’ disciples, rejoicing that we are called by our sovereign God to a ministry that the enemy persecutes. And they (the disciples) departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. (Acts 5:41) It is truly a blessing to be called to such a ministry. We praise God for His faithfulness and we pray for those who, greatly misled, consider it necessary to spiritually oppose us. May God bless them with an understanding of His love that sent Christ to die on the cross for all mankind (1 John 2:2) that those who choose to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved will truly be saved (Romans 10:13).
Romans 5:8 – But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.