Fundamental
Evangelistic Association
selected
articles from:
©FOUNDATION
A MAGAZINE OF BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALISM
Dennis W. Costella, Editor; Karel Beyer, Production Manager; Matt
Costella,
Copy Editor
M.H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-1997), Founding Editor
Dallas Seminary's
Unscriptural Position Regarding Promise Keepers
by Pastor M.H. Reynolds, Jr.
©FOUNDATION Magazine, Jan - Feb 1997
DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY was founded
in 1924. Throughout its long history it has had a tremendous influence upon those known as
evangelicals. But it has never held nor taught the important truths of the Bible which
command separation from false teachers and disobedient brethren. On several occasions in
past years, a few faculty members have made an effort to rectify this theological and
positional deficiency but without success. As a result, the influence and teachings of the
several thousand men and women who are graduates of Dallas have indoctrinated millions of
Christians into the principles of unbiblical compromise rather than biblical separation.
In the December 1985 issue of Connection Extra (Topics of
Interest to Dallas Theological Seminary Alumni), the question was asked: What about Dallas
Theological Seminary and the Promise Keepers? The answer was given in three brief, but
very revealing, sections. What follows is a full, unabridged copy of their answers, and
after each section our scriptural analysis of those answers. Since the position of Dallas
Seminary regarding Promise Keepers is held by so many uninformed or misinformed believers,
we trust this report will be a spiritual eye-opener to God's people everywhere. The
following introduction to the Dallas Seminary statement is, in itself, very revealing and
demonstrates the confusion caused by mixing truth with error. We quote:
What About Dallas Theological Seminary and the
Promise Keepers Ministry?
"For the past several years the ministry of
Promise Keepers has experienced rapid numerical growth and broad public attention. Its
outreach has spiritually impacted the lives of many men, causing some to call it a
"revival-like movement. " A few others however, are expressing concerns and
voicing criticisms. Although Dallas Seminary has no official ties to .Promise Keepers,
some of our faculty and alumni have participated in their public meetings. One of our
distinguished professors, Dr. Howard Hendricks also serves on the Promise Keepers board.
In light of the questions raised by a few of our alumni and friends, the Seminary wishes
to respond as follows:"
The first two sentences are true. Promise Keepers is a
rapidly growing movement and some do call it a "revival-like movement." And, it
is good to know that some Dallas alumni have expressed concern, even if only "a
few" have done so. However, the next sentences reveal Dallas Seminary's sad
duplicity. While it is true that they have "no official ties" to Promise
Keepers, they seek to minimize their unofficial endorsement by saying, "Some of our
faculty and alumni have participated in their public meetings." In the next sentence,
they admit that one of their distinguished professors, Dr. Howard Hendricks serves on the
Promise Keepers board. Furthermore, they did not mention the fact that the new president
of Dallas Seminary, Dr. Charles Swindoll, is very prominent in the promotion of and
participation in the Promise Keepers movement and rallies. What better endorsement could
they give to a movement which is ecumenical in its goals and unscriptural in its
fellowships? Dr. Swindoll and the denomination of which he is a member repudiates the
position of biblical separation and is therefore disobedient to the plain teachings of the
Bible.
1. Dallas Seminary understands that Promise Keepers
operates under broader theological umbrella than most churches and parachurch
"There is a general misperception about Promise
Keepers. Too often , judgments are made on limited and fragmented information by people
who are not directly involved with that ministry. Ministries that are being used of God to
encourage men to become believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, to live godly lives, to be
devoted to their wives and families, and to be active in their local churches deserve
thoughtful consideration. No one can deny the benefits of those goals. To assist each
other in accomplishing such wholesome objectives, groups that differ theologically can
agree to stand together on crucial issues. For example, Roman Catholics and evangelical
Protestants can unite in opposition to such evils as abortion on demand and pornography.
"Furthermore, noncharismatics and charismatics can
unite in support of the basic biblical values of sexual morality, personal integrity, and
family fidelity. Promise Keepers has made a commitment to focus on significant personal,
social, and moral issues that are accepted by a broad spectrum of individuals,
denominations, and other Christian groups. Since Promise Keepers is not an ecclesiastical
body, participation does not imply support for ecumenical union. We can join with others
in support of basic moral issues without violating our theological convictions."
In the first sentence, we see that Dallas Seminary is
without excuse in cooperating with a movement which "operates under a broader
theological umbrella" than most churches and parachurch ministries. Just how far this
theological umbrella will broaden remains to be seen, but already we know it includes
liberal Protestant churches, the Roman Catholic Church and Mormons. In the middle portion
of this statement, Dallas tries to justify cooperation Roman Catholics by claiming these
can "unite in opposition to such evils as abortion on demand and pornography."
But Promise Keepers is not only advocating unity in such matters but unity in worship,
prayer and witness. In the second sentence, Dallas incorrectly holds that noncharismatics
and charismatics can unite in "support of basic biblical values of sexual morality,
personal integrity, and family fidelity." Charismatics are under God's curse by
trying to add their supposed revelations to the written Word of God and by evangelism with
Roman Catholics and others who preach a false gospel. It should be noted that the founder
of Promise Keepers and many of its key leaders are charismatics.
In the middle of this paragraph, note that Dallas Seminary
is aware that Promise Keepers "has made a commitment to focus on significant
personal, social, and mora1 issues that are accepted by a broad spectrum of individuals,
denominations, and other Christian groups." Promise Keepers does indeed include a spectrum,
but it is far broader than the Word of God allows and the closing sentence further reveals
the spiritual blindness and inconsistent, contradictory position of Dallas Seminary.
2. Dallas Seminary's mission differs from that of
Promise Keepers-but it is not in opposition to their stated objectives.
"Although the Seminary supports the overall
program of Promise Keepers this does not mean that we are in complete agreement
theologically with some participants. We believe, however, we can support the objectives
of Promise Keepers without compromising our theological position or biblical distinctives.
For this reason some of our faculty and alumni continue to be involved with this
organization in order to reach our world for Christ and add discernment to the agenda of
Promise Keepers, all the while providing theological stability. Mature Christian leaders
with solid biblical training can bring needed substance and guidance to this young and
dynamic ministry."
One must ask, "Just what is Dallas Seminary's
mission?" Historically, Dallas has claimed its mission is to train men and women to
know the Scriptures so as to teach others the truths of God's Word effectively and
correctly. If this is still its mission, how could it possibly state that it is not in
opposition to the stated objectives of the Promise Keepers? Be sure to read our
publication, "The Promise Keepers Movement is Dangerous - Watch Out For It," in
which at least three of the Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper are clearly found to be
unscriptural. Yes the world needs more godly men, but the program of Promise Keepers can
never accomplish that goal since it is fatally flawed by giving its adherents unbiblical
counsel.
In the last portion of this section, note the following
amazing, inconsistent, contradictory claim: "For this reason some of our faculty and
alumni continue to be involved with this organization in order to reach our world for
Christ and add discernment to the agenda of Promise Keepers, all the while providing
theological stability." Can the world be reached for Christ by cooperating with Roman
Catholics and others who preach a false gospel? Of course not! How can Dallas Seminary
possibly provide theological stability to Promise Keepers when Dallas has no stability
itself?
3. Dallas Seminary applauds Promise Keepers'
commitment to vital personal, moral, and social issues.
The moral fabric of modern society is unraveling. At
the core of the problem, among other causes, is the lack of godly masculine leadership
both in the home and the workplace. Promise Keepers began, in men, to assume the
responsibility intended for them by God. Promise Keepers focuses on a man's commitment to
Jesus Christ, personal integrity, the family, the church, and racial harmony. We at Dallas
Seminary believe these are God-honoring objectives rarely acknowledged in the world and,
therefore, worthy of our pursuit and support.
Neither Dallas Seminary nor Promise Keepers is
scripturally dealing with the moral fabric of modern society that is indeed unraveling.
While it is true that more godly men are needed, they will not be produced by teaching men
that they disobey the Word of God as to theological matters as long as they try to give
leadership in moral and social issues. Promise Keepers, led by charismatic deceivers,
motivated by psychological experimenters, and applauded by deceived believers will no
doubt continue to grow, but it cannot escape God's judgment. Both Promise Keepers and
Dallas Seminary need to hear and heed the same warning God gave in the Old Testament to
King Jehoshaphat who had disobeyed the Lord by joining hands with wicked King Ahab in a
battle against a common enemy, " . . . Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them
that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord" (2 Chron.
19:2).
Before concluding this analysis, the first sentence of
Dallas Seminary's defense of Promise Keepers needs further consideration. Obviously
referring to those who had expressed concerns and voiced criticisms, Dallas stated,
"There is a general misperception about Promise Keepers. Too often judgments are made
on limited and fragmented information by people who are not directly involved with that
ministry." While this may be true of some, it certainly does not apply to others we
know of who have expressed concerns about Promise Keepers. We have followed this movement
from its beginning, have read all of its books and regular publications and listened to
hours of tapes from the rallies. By no stretch of the imagination could the information on
which our conclusions and warnings are based be called "limited or fragmented."
What we have repeatedly found is that many, many people who support Promises Keepers do so
only on the basis of "limited or fragmented" information. Many such believers
have had questions in their minds about this rapidly growing movement but have heard or
read only the promotional materials with which Promises Keepers has flooded most churches.
Pastors, churches and individuals have requested and distributed thousands of our Promise
Keepers warning leaflets. We have had more requests for this item than anything else we
have published in our sixty-eight year history.
We have followed and analyzed the compromises of most of
the charismatic and evangelical leaders who are speaking at Promises Keepers rallies
through the years of our religious news-gathering ministry. Without question these men
have proven their dedication to furthering the ecumenical movement. Men such as Bill
Bright, Jack Hayford, Joseph Stowell, E.V. Hill, Gary Smalley, James Dobson, Chuck Colson,
Bill Hybels, Juan Carlos Ortiz, Luis Palau, Dave Bryant, Billy Kim, and James Ryle do not
have a consistent record of fidelity to God's final Authority.
In these crisis times, the compromised positions of both
Promise Keepers and Dallas Seminary pose grave problems to those who are following their
unscriptural programs and positions, having become enamored with their apparent successes
and acceptance by the majority of believers. The need for spiritual discernment has never
been greater (Heb. 5:12-14). The time for absolute fidelity to the Word of God rather than
the ideas of men is now (Acts 5:29). The need to practice biblical separation from false
teachers, disobedient brethren and worldliness is paramount. Let us always speak the truth
in love (Eph. 4:15), but let us never remain silent when "truth is fallen in the
street" (Isa. 59:14). Dallas believes Promise Keepers is worthy of their pursuit and
support. The question is, "What does God say?" (2 Cor. 6:14-18).
FOUNDATION Magazine is available from the Fundamental Evangelistic Association. Click
here 
to go to the ordering form / price list.
Return to FOUNDATION
Magazine Index Page
