Table of Contents
Volume 41, Number 4
July - August 2010

Off the Cuff!
by Dr. Robert L. Sumner

Feast your eyes on the beautiful woman pictured above with the editor and then stare in unbelief, wonder and awe when I say that she became his bride on the first day of Spring. We were introduced by Rev. Billy Carl Rice (he was one of my associates when I pastored at Temple Baptist in Portsmouth, Ohio) and his wonderful mate, Joanna Rice (#5 daughter of Dr. & Mrs. John R. Rice, whom I’ve given a ‘forever’ nickname of ‘Cupid’). Mrs. Sumner’s name is Dottie and she has been an excellent ladies’ Bible teacher over the years and she will be a tremendous help in the ministry of your editor. That she is 5’, 4” tall, 120 pounds, obviously gorgeous, and has a beautiful ladies’ tenor voice all add to the excitement. We became one at Townsend (DE) on the first day of Spring, March 20^th; your editor’s son – who also writes “Significant Trends” for this paper – tied the knot. My son from Japan, Ralph, served as best man and one of her daughters, Wendy Miller, was the matron of honor.

In fact, Dottie is the mother of 8 children (5 girls and 3 boys), a widow of 12 years (your editor has been a widower for going on 7), and with my 5 children (3 boys and 2 girls) – plus her 28 and my 11 grandchildren (along with our assortment of great-great grandchildren), it will take a wide camera lens for family shots when we get together. If our columnist, Grant Rice, had been at the wedding and witnessed the crowd, he would have tried to start a new church right there on the spot!

You may congratulate me and give her best wishes, but no gifts please. If you want to give a gift, give it in her honor to our beleaguered General Fund here at The Biblical Evangelist.

One of my friends – yes, I have them, just like Job did – suggested we made a perfectly matched “beauty and the beast” couple and noted I must have done a magnificent PR job to win her hand. He is right. Obviously, I did!

Another piece of big news is that at 7:32 a.m. on January 30^th your editor became a Grandfather for the 11^th time. Danielle Christine Sumner weighed in at 6 lb, 12 oz, 18½ inches long.  Her Daddy, Ron Sumner, wrote: “She is beautiful (takes after her Mama [Suzanne], and will look distinctly different from her sisters [twins, age 3 years, 2 months] – she doesn't have their long black birth hair (it's short, light brown and kinda curly), and we haven't decided who she favors the most.” The baby is sweet, precious; the world she entered is not.

Our longtime friend, Attorney Voyle Glover, author of Fundamental Seduction, was so distressed when he learned of the recent fall of a leading ministerial figure, he sat down and wrote “Why Preachers Fall.” You will appreciate his insight. I hope every preacher who reads it will take it as a personal warning. Paul said, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (I Corinthians 10:12). No one is immune to a fall unless he stays close to Christ and His Word.

For some time now we have been distressed and really concerned about the apathy in our churches about the Sunday night service. When your editor started his ministry it was the big one of the week and strongly evangelistic. No more. In fact, even some churches still conducting them only have what my mother used to refer to as “a corporal’s guard” (and, obviously, it doesn’t take as many to guard a corporal as a general). I could not find where anyone else seemed upset about this trend and was about to write my own when I got hold of the one in this issue by R. L. Hymers, Jr., an independent Baptist preacher in downtown Los Angeles who patterned his work after the one Dr. John R. Rice founded in Dallas. I have preached for him many times and it is only fair that he preach for me, right? Read what he says. Study it. He is right (you know he is). And share it with other concerned Christians. It originally went out to 11,000 preachers worldwide.

There is a great message for this Easter Season, by a theologian who knows how to put the cookies on the lower shelf for us common folk. Richard D. Patterson’s message, “Resurrection Sunday 2004” will thrill your soul. In our Bible Study Corner is the 3^rd in the series on the home by the preacher who helped the editor so greatly when the latter was starting out, John D. Jess. And we are printing a very timely message by George Zeller, “Should We Go Back to the Reformation?”

Discerning readers – especially those who have read many of the editor’s books and sermons which have appeared in this magazine, will recognize that his “A Sermon from Hell,” is the baby sermon from with his adult sermon, “Hell Is No Joke” grew. The latter is in a book of sermons by that title, no longer in print (but it should be, if we only had the resources). As a radio sermon, it does not have the polish of a written sermon, but you’ll get the point.

We are cutting down on the length of sermons in this issue because we have such a backlog of book reviews we really need to print.

DR. E. WAYNE WALL

(8/10/36 – 12/21/03)

We were able to get a last minute announcement in our last issue about Dr. Wall’s Homegoing, something certainly sudden and, from the human viewpoint, very untimely. We recognize, however, that the promotion was right on divine schedule and according to His perfect timing. So he was satisfied and we are, too, although he will be greatly missed. Born in Langley (SC), the son of Frank and Suzie Wall, he spent most of his life and ministry in that area. He married Virginia Roberta Wall and the couple spent 46 wonderful years together. Dr. Wall was a published author, song writer, poet, speaker, editor and contributed to both local and national publications.

Your editor first became acquainted with Dr. Wall when he wrote to support him in some of the controversies he faced. Our philosophies were much alike on the major issues and we soon became fast friends. I began printing some of his articles and, eventually, invited him to write a regular column (“Points for Preachers to Ponder”) and, because of his help in editorial matters, gave him the title, “Assistant Editor.” Any time I passed him an assignment for the paper, he filled it promptly, happily and admirably. We also invited him to serve on the Board of Biblical Evangelism.

Dr. Wall’s scholarship was impeccable. After graduating from Richmond Academy, he earned degrees from Augusta Junior College, Mercer University, Southwestern Theological Seminary, Lutheran Seminary of Columbia (SC) and the University of South Africa (where it is an accomplishment to even be accepted, to say nothing of earning a doctorate there).

He founded the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle in Columbia (SC) in an old fruit stand, eventually building a large complex, then later moving to the suburbs and becoming Whiteford Church and Schools, where he still served as pastor of the church and chancellor for the schools at the time of his decease. His church, community center and schools received congressional, senatorial and gubernatorial commendations for ongoing excellence and contributions to the community.

A ministerial innovator, he had the first church bus ministry in Columbia and was host of one of South Carolina’s original radio call-in shows, “Happy Living and Ask Your Pastor,” which later moved to television and then to the internet. He was the founder of The Handsom Wheels Scion Literary Society, Columbia’s first Sherlock Holmes Literary Society and was an Invested Member of the Baker Street Irregulars National Society (normally reserved for royalty and international authors), thanks to his extraordinary literary contributions. His son-in-law, Russell Thompson, had been serving the church as his Associate Minister and he has been called by the congregation to assume full leadership.

In addition to his dear wife, Dr. Wall is survived by his son, Jonathan; a daughter, Kathryn Wall Thompson; one grandson; a sister; and numerous nieces and nephews. One sister, Ruth Riley, and an older brother, Frank, preceded him in death. The family has asked that, in lieu of flowers, gifts be made to the Whiteford School of the Arts - Whiteford Church, 501 Whiteford Way, Lexington, SC 29072.

POPE JOAN!

We received some letters of "taint so" regarding our article "Pope Paul's Predecessors" in the May-June issue last year, one from a longtime layman friend who based his opinion on Rome's own denials, and the other from a Romanist priest in Pennsylvania. We thought our readers (especially others who were skeptical) might appreciate reading the editor's reply to the priest. Here it is:

Dear Mr. _________:

I trust you will forgive me for not using your titles. I mean no disrespect, but since the Word of God says not to call any man "father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9), I cannot do it. It is a matter of religious conviction with me. You may, in turn, call me Mr. Sumner. I have no objection whatsoever.

You say – I assume of our organization in general and me in particular – "I feel that you do not like Catholic at all." The word "catholic," of course, simply means universal. It is a word the Roman church has adopted for itself and by which it means it is the one true church, shutting out Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Assemblies of God and all other non-Roman churches. To use it in the sense you have given it, you are partly right and partly wrong. I have no use for Roman Catholicism because it is leading men and women to Hell, causing them to trust in the church instead of in Christ – counting on good deeds, masses, alms and other things instead of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. And it gives them a false hope, thinking that even if they miss Heaven they can work their way out of a mythical place called Purgatory and eventually gain Heaven. That, my friend, is an untruth that will damn many souls in Hell forever.

On the other hand, I love Roman Catholics, counting many of them my friends, and seek to do everything I can to win them to our Lord Jesus Christ. And I have won many of them to Christ, too.

You accuse me of three falsehoods.

1. You say, "Pope John Paul II did not succeed Pope Paul VI. Pope John Paul II succeeded Pope John Paul I." The word "succeed" simply means to come after, to follow. The statement was not part of the original article, printed in August of 1963, but an explanatory introductory paragraph as the change in type and the comments themselves made clear. I was merely noting that Pope Paul I was no longer the pope, but that the current pope had "come after" him. I thought everyone would understand my usage. After all, Pope John Paul I was in office so briefly he was merely a bump in the road or a blimp on the screen. Perhaps my word usage was not clear and I should have said, "Pope John Paul II is the current pope." As you know, he chose that name partly to honor Pope John Paul I whose reign was so short. I think most people understood what I was saying. I am sorry you did not and, in your case, I apologize.

2. You say, "The Vatican does not give or pick a name for any pope. The new pope takes whatever name that he wants to go by." I am aware of that. See my preceding paragraph. My use of the phrase, "the Vatican inaugurated a new pope, giving him the title Pope Paul VI," was simply saying the Vatican acknowledged and has used the name he chose for himself.

3. Your third objection is the only serious one. You say, "Never was a woman pope. A woman cannot be ordained as a priest so how could she become the pope?" Let me give you a little history lesson.

Dr. Peter J. Doeswyck was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest by the Diocese of Omaha, Nebraska. He received his theological training at the University of Freiburg, Switzerland. For a quarter of a century before writing the book I'm about to quote he specialized in the studies of the Fathers, the Middle Ages and the History of the Church, reading every available book written from the time of Christ until the Reformation. With a background of 10 languages he is a recognized student of the original sources of the Middle Ages. In his book, Ecumenicalism and Romanism, Dr. Doeswyck wrote:

"Pope Leo IV died in August, 853. The East appointed the papal librarian as Pope Anastasius (853). Because he opposed statue worship, the West dethroned him and appointed what they thought to be a British monk, Pope John VIII (854-857). This pope actually was a nun, the illegitimate daughter of a monk. When this pregnant pope Joan gave birth during a religious procession, while riding horseback through the streets of Rome, the mob stoned her to death (857) and Pope Anastasius once more occupied the papal throne. The statue worshipping monks once more drove Anastasius out of Rome and appointed Benedict III. Because this British pope was a woman, she was not officially entered on the lists of pontiffs, but all pre-Reformation textbooks on the papacy explain the vacancy of 853-857 by mentioning Popess Joan either in the margin or in the text itself. Pope Anastasius (853-857) mentions her in his 'History of the Roman Pontiffs' (Migne, P.L. 128, 1338). Sigbert of Gemblours (d.1086) mentions Popess Joan under the year 854 (Monuments Germ. Hist., Script. vol. 6, p. 470). The Benedictine monk, Marion Scott (d. 1086), places Popess Joan under the year 853 (Migne, P. L. 147, 771). Martin the Pole (d. 1278) in his 'History of the Popes' writes: 'After this Leo, John the Anglican, a Margantine by birth, reigned 2 years, 1 month, 4 days, and died at Rome. . . .This pope, as we are told, was a woman, and in her youth was taken to Athens in male habit by her lover. . . .Nor is she placed in the Catalogue of Pontiffs because of her female sex! (Liber Pontificalis, vol. 2, p. xxvi, between pp. 444-445). Bartholomew of Lucca (d. 1327) mentions her in his New Church History, and so do other authors who had access to the papal archives. Many statues were erected to commemorate the female pope. Bishop John Burchard, official biographer of Pope Alexander VI, writes under the date of Dec. 27, 1486: 'When he (Alexander) returned, he went by the Coliseum, and took the short cut, that is, where has been erected the statue of the Popess (imago Papissae), to indicated the place, as it is related, where John VIII, an Englishman, bore a son' (Burchard, Diarium, vol. 1, p. 233). Not until forty years after the death of Martin Luther did Pope Sixtus V remove her statue from the Papal Gallery, and begin to deny her existence" (pp.59, 60)."

I sincerely hope this information clears the matter up for you and proves helpful. And I am pleased to be able to add that Dr. Doeswyck, partly as a result of his research, surrendered to the Truth of the Word of God, received the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, and exited Romanism.

You signed your letter, "Yours in the Service of our Holy Father," and added before your name, "The Most Reverend." I simply sign this,

Yours in the Service of the Lord Jesus Christ, a sinner saved by grace,

Robert L. Sumner

P.S. I'm enclosing my little book, Heaven Can Be Yours! I trust you will read it carefully and note all the Scripture it uses in explaining the only way to Heaven, by grace through faith in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Curiously, we noted something in the correspondence from "The Most Reverend" we hadn't noted before. His return address is a State Penitentiary. Do you suppose he is a chaplain there? Apparently not, because there is a number after his name! They don’t put numbers after chaplains’ names, do they?

POOR “MOTHER” TERESA

It is fitting that this editorial follows the one above. . .

The pope is the best known Romanist in the world, beyond question. The second best known would surely be the late Mother Teresa. In fact, she was perhaps the most “admired” person in the world, exceeding admiration for the pope and rivaling Billy Graham. Surely this is why the Vatican started the ball rolling toward sainthood for her almost before her body was entombed. The first step toward Roman sainthood (Christian sainthood begins at conversion!) is beatification and it normally doesn’t start until at least 5 years after an individual’s death.

For Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul waived the 5-year-delay and launched beatification in 1997, barely a year after her death. He performed the “Mass” for her beatification last October and an estimated 300,000 jammed St. Peter’s Square in Rome to witness the occasion. Even Protestants were forced to admire this little woman for her courage, dedication, sacrifice and concern for the poor of the world – starting in her native India.

Beautification, being “blessed by God,” takes place for Christians at conversion (see Ephesians 1:1-3, for example, where the Word of God says the Heavenly Father has already “blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” That is real beautification and the only one that counts. If the pope wants to play religious games, that is up to him – but the children of God do not need it.

We merely mention it now to comment about an article in the October 19, 2003 issue of Stars & Stripes, the military newspaper, which we received through the courtesy of our dear friends, Evangelist & Mrs. Pete Rice, who direct P.R.A.Y. The article told of her feelings of abandonment by God that started with her work in the Calcutta slums and continued right up to her death a half-century later, except for “a brief interlude.” Documented by those working on her sainthood – Jesuit priests Alert Huart and J. Neuner, wrote of some of it in Review for Religious and Vidyajyoti – Chief Advocate Brian Kolodiejchuk of Missionaries of Charity offered as samples from her writings in her private journals: “I want God with all the power of my soul – and yet between us there is terrible separation.” “I am told God lives in me – and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.” “Heaven from every side is closed.” She even wrote: “I feel just that terrible pain of loss, of God not wanting me, of God not being God, of God not really existing.”

And therein lies one of the terrible problems (“curses” might be a better word) of Roman Catholicism: its followers never have any assurance of salvation or forgiveness from God. In fact, the theology of their religion does not permit any such assurance. That is why, in our manual on soul winning, Biblical Evangelism in Action (available from our Raleigh office or on our web for $11, postage paid) in the chapter “Helping Those Trapped by Error,” I wrote: “There is one excellent method of getting to grips with one steeped in Roman Catholicism, and it is what I call the ‘Achilles’ heel’ approach: assurance of salvation.” If such a one believes the teaching of the church, he or she cannot have assurance. That is why they were (and probably are) saying masses for popes dead hundreds of years, still trying to get them out of Purgatory (which doesn’t even exist, biblically)!

Kolodiejchuk brushed Teresa’s comments aside, saying, “We cannot long for something that is not intimately close to us.” Should we believe him, or Teresa herself? According to all the rules of evidence, she should have the last word about what she felt and what she believed. The lady who teaches ‘spirituality’ at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Sister Mary Frohlich, passed it off by saying the poor girl obviously needed “psychological” help.

Yes, “poor, poor Mother Teresa!” She was so without assurance right up to the hour of death she wasn’t even sure she believed God existed! That is the best (?) Catholicism can do for its “Saints!” She had asked her counselors never to reveal the secrets of her soul, but they did anyway.

NEW FIGHT ABOUT

TO START!

Fuller Theological Seminary, using $1 million of our tax dollars (supplied by our Department of Justice!) is heading up a project aimed at easing tensions between Christianity and Islam. Billed as a ‘peace’ project, it is sure to start a ‘holy war’ from both sides. It has the unhappy task of developing a Code of Ethics that will eliminate ‘offensive statements’ about each other. (Alas, truth itself is offensive!) The cornerstone of its program is a kindred belief in one God, but that in itself will trigger World War IV. There is no more similarity between Allah and Jehovah than there is between Beelzebub and Jesus – and that is nonexistent after you merely admit both names are in the Bible.

Fuller’s provost and senior vice-president, Sherwood Lingenfelter, blamed much of the hostility between the two religions on support evangelicals have always had for Israel. Not me! My hostility is based squarely on the horrendous, anti-biblical teachings of Mohammad and his Qur’an fantasy volume. No soft soap the Fuller committee can come up with will change that in 10,000 years. (I’d like my tax dollars back!) Fuller’s David Augsburger is heading up the Jihadic fiasco. If the committee doesn’t get the fireworks it wants, a book of its findings is planned. The committee also plans to run around the country holding conferences, telling the two how to love one another.

One of today’s finest scholars, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Seminary, got it right when he observed about the plan: “The more we know about Christianity and Islam, the more we see there is a basic incompatibility,” adding, “The essential ground of conflict and controversy cannot be removed.” At the same time, Lingenfelter said the code they will produce “will not compromise” the Faith. If so, Islam will totally repudiate it. Fuller, on its website, gives us an inkling of what it will produce, saying Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God! If that so, when did Islam and Israel convert to faith in the Trinity? That is the One God Christians worship.

Oh, yes, part of Fuller’s proposed agenda is to stop evangelicals from trying to win Muslims to salvation in and through our Lord Jesus Christ. If Charlie Fuller were in his grave (he is not; he is in Heaven), he would be rolling over like a whirling dervish! This whole project is an insult to the Word of God and to its Lord Jesus Christ. Shame, shame on Fuller Seminary and everyone involved.

We consider the whole program pathetic!

A “LIGHT” CHURCH

Someone sent us a cute item with the above title. No credit was given so we can’t give any (we don’t even know who sent it to us), but it was based on all the beer and food commercials featuring “lite” stuff. Here it is:

In this day of “light” products, someone has suggested instituting a “light church.” This organization would require only 7½ percent as a tithe, 50 percent attendance, and only partial cooperation. It really would not be too time consuming, nor would it require much effort to be a member of such a church I’m sure a “light church” would appeal to the masses, especially when people take such a light attitude toward serving God.

Although the “light church” might appeal to the world, it is not appealing to God. Instead of desiring to find how little we can do and still be pleasing to Him, we should be asking how much we can do for the Lord. Once more I realize that this is not in keeping with modern religion, but modern religion is far from what God would have it to be.

The “light church” uses terms like “shortcomings” or “mistake” instead of calling sin what it is. People need to “turn over a new leaf” instead of changing their hearts through repentance toward God and faith in Christ for salvation. And giving is no longer a grace given to the believer as he seeks to serve God, but it is seen as a bargaining point with God in which we give to God because we want something from Him.

In reality, the “light church” is just what it says it is. It is light on doctrine, on service, on truth, and on true love for God.

Come to think of it, we already have thousands of “light churches” in this country, don’t we?

HERE’S AN ILLUSTRATION

OF ‘LITE!”

Fox News recently carried a story by Amy C. Sims, "Religion Gets Supersized at Megachurches." She claims there are 842 non-Catholic churches with at least 2,000 in attendance every week – comparing them to the sporting events – drawing the masses to hear the preacher's "sin-free pep rallies." It didn't make the mega boys and girls look very good.

Sims said the nation's largest church, Houston's Lakewood Church led by Joel Osteen – who preaches to 25,000 every week, says "sin is not on the menu." She quoted Joel, who doesn't live up to the Joel of the Old Testament (the biblical Joel warned of terrible judgment from God far worse that the locust plague they were then experiencing), as saying, "I think for years there's been a lot of hellfire and damnation. You go to church to figure out what you're doing wrong and you leave feeling bad like you're not going to make it," Osteen said. "We believe in focusing on the goodness of God." Actually, Friend Osteen, it is the goodness of God that warns of Hell!

We'd like to preach a sermon in rebuttal to Osteen’s opinions, but for now we'll just quote a 20-year-old youth in a Wesley United Methodist Church, running about 150 a week. Richard Wise, who is certainly wiser than Osteen at half his age: "Sin is in life and sin is everywhere, we are all sinners," he said. "If you just leave church feeling good you are missing the whole point. The point is you need a purpose in life."

Ken Woodward, who handles religion for Newsweek, summed it up well: "If I'm already a pretty good guy, why do I have to go to church to hear that?"

THE SENATE'S RELIGIOUS

LITMUS TEST

It seems to us it is time for some of the Senators in Washington to get out their copies of the Constitution (if they have one), dust it off, and read Article VI. The Democrats have been holding up needed judicial appointments – this is not intended as Democrat bashing because the Republicans held up some of Clinton's appointments due to ideology – because they fear some of the Bush’s nominees are pro-life. Since most being "held captive" are Roman Catholics, some have suggested placing a sign over the federal courts: "Catholics Need Not Apply."

Why Article VI? Let me reproduce it for you:

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (emphasis added).

Note specifically the last paragraph and especially what we have highlighted in boldface type. What is your Senator's position? Maybe he needs to be reminded what the Constitution he has sworn to uphold says in this area.