Max Lucado: Thirty Years an Apostate
The words apostate and apostasy do not appear in the King James Version of the Bible, but the Greek word from which they are derived does. In fact, there are two Greek words—apostasia and apostasion. This latter word is translated “divorcement” and refers to the falling away of a husband and wife from each other (Matt. 5:31; 19:7; Mark 10:4).
The Jews considered Christians as apostates because they had fallen away from the Law of Moses (Acts 21:21). The reason Christians departed from that Law was that it was the Old Covenant and had been nailed to the cross. It was no longer in effect; the New Testament of Jesus Christ replaced it. This New Covenant had been foretold (Jer. 31:31-34). From the perspective of the Jews, Christians were apostate, but God deemed them faithful.
The only other time apostasia is found in the New Testament is in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Paul had taught those brethren that the Day of the Lord (Jesus’ second coming) was not going to occur yet. He reminded them of an important fact: “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition.” An apostate, therefore, is a false teacher who leads members of the body of Christ away from the truth. This falling away constitutes an apostasy.
Max Lucado is such a person. He became a best-selling author in the mid to late 1980s. It did not take long for most of us to see that, although at the time he was affiliated with the churches of Christ, he was not really one of us. There are many false teachings that someone can champion, but the two most obvious ones are changing God’s plan of salvation and changing the worship Christians engage in. Max is guilty of both. He put salvation before baptism, and he fellowships the use of instrumental music.
History
From 1996 to 2002, Spiritual Perspectives published eighteen articles concerning Max Lucado, which is more than two per year. The very first one was titled, “What Max Lucado says about Max Lucado.” See the website, www.spiritualperspectives.org. That article appeared on January 7, 1996. “Max Lucado Marked” appeared the following January 12, 1997, and shortly thereafter came “Baptist Lucado and Loyalty” (August 3, 1997). On August 16, 1998, readers were “treated” to “Lucado and Baptism (Again).” None of these was based on rumor or inuendo; they were well-documented statements made by Lucado himself, but many people took offense, accusing your congenial editor of all sorts of misconduct—from jealousy to misrepresentation—although these lacked any foundation or proof whatsoever.
Below are a few quotes from some of those articles.
Max Lucado: "But the longer I've been in this battle, I've noticed that there are some curious soldiers who share these foxholes with us. For example: there's an Anglican by the name of C.S. Lewis, whose books put muscle in my faith; a Presbyterian (of all people) by the name of Stephen Brown, formerly of Key Biscayne, Florida (somehow I got on his tape mailing list), and he helped me understand the sovereignty of God; another Presbyterian by the name of Frederick Boettner, who writes books somewhere in Vermont, helped me see the passion of Christ; a former Catholic priest named Brennan Manning convinced me that Jesus is relentlessly tender; a Nazarene by the name of Jim Dobson helped my family skills; a pastor of the Evangelical Free Church named Chuck Swindoll helped my preaching; a Baptist in Miami taught me about grace; a Pentecostal in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, helped me understand prayer. Someday, when we all get to heaven….”
Anyone should be able to read these words of Max Lucado and understand that he accepts all who abide in religious denominations as brethren, Christians. Never mind if they were immersed, sprinkled, or whatever. If they claim to be a Christian, that's good enough for Max (from “What Max Lucado Say About Max Lucado,” Spiritual Perspectives, 1-7-96).
From “Baptist Lucado and Loyalty” (August 3, 1997): …there is a transcript of a Lucado message from a program aired in December of last year, which is currently being circulated through the brotherhood. Max concludes his main message by encouraging his listeners to pray with these words:
"Father, I give my heart to you. I give you my sins. I give you my tears. I give you my fears. I give you my whole life. I accept the gift of your Son on the cross for my sins. And I ask you Father to receive me as your child. Through Jesus I pray. Amen."
Can one of Max's devotees explain what is different between that "invitation" and one used by Billy Graham or any other Baptist or denominationalist on radio or television? Following a brief commercial message, the announcer states: "Now, Max Lucado returns with a special word for those who received the gift of salvation just moments ago in prayer." So, yes, the prayer was intended to be one that brought salvation. Saul of Tarsus could not be saved by prayer only, nor Cornelius.
But apparently Max thinks that his listeners can be saved by just saying those words. He continues:
Today is the first day you've ever prayed a prayer like that. Could you do me a favor? Could you write me a letter? I don't have anything I am going to ask from you. I do have a letter I would like to send to you. I'd like to give you a word about the next step or two. I want to encourage you to find a church. I want to encourage you to be baptized. I want to encourage you to read your Bible. But I don't want you to do any of that so that you will be saved. I want you to do all of that because you are saved. You see, your father has a great life planned for you, and I want to tell you about it. Give us a call, or drop me a note. And, thanks my friend, for making the greatest decision of your life.
Could the facts be any plainer? When someone says you should be baptized but not to be saved, he is no different than any denominational speaker. But suppose someone goes to the Oak Hills Church website and says: “See! It says: ‘Those trusting in Christ should repent of sin, confess their faith, and be baptized (Romans 10:9; Acts 2:38).’” Yes, it does say that, but notice that the very next sentence says that baptism “is an outward demonstration of obedience to Christ by one who has declared his faith to others.” Notice no Scriptures accompany that denominational dogma. But in case anyone still has doubts about what the congregation Max associates himself with believes about baptism, they invite a prospective candidate for baptism to read further. They furnish five, 8½ x 11 pages full of information for one to consider.
They begin by calling the Lord’s Supper and baptism sacraments, a word not found in the New Testament. The first thing apostates usually do is to introduce terminology and concepts that are not in the Bible. After a half-page of verbiage, the information makes it sound as though baptism is essential: “Baptism is the initial and immediate step of obedience by one who has declared his faith to others.” But if the reader looks carefully, he will note that the preceding sentences declare that baptism is only a proclamation that one is “a follower of Christ.”
Then immediately afterward, the tract discusses the thief on the cross being saved without being baptized. It is alleged that the thief is “a crucial exception” to people needing to be baptized. Yes, “His conversion drives dogmatists crazy.” Really? No, Max, most people who study the Bible know that the thief lived and died under the Old Covenant and under that covenant, baptism was not a requirement for salvation. There is no mystery here—or even a minor difficulty. Max has already admitted that “every single convert in the New Testament was baptized.” Now if he would just learn which covenant the thief lived under!
Was the thief a Jew? If he was, then all he needed to do was to repent. Whether he was or not, however, maters little; he did not live under the New Testament of Jesus Christ and, therefore, he was not responsible to keep any part of it—since it would not be publicly proclaimed until 50 days later. Has Max forgotten everything he should have been taught? Did getting degrees from Abilene Christian University rob him of the truths he once knew? The false teaching continues:
It is no accident that the first one to accept the invitation of the crucified Christ has no creed, confirmation, christening, or catechism. How disturbing to theologians to ascend the mountain of doctrine only to be greeted by an uneducated thief who cast his lot with Christ. Here is a man who never went to church, never gave an offering, never was baptized, and said only one prayer. But that prayer was enough. He has a crucial role in the gospel drama. The thief reminds us that though our dogma may be airtight and our doctrine dead-center, in the end it is Jesus who saves.
This is hifalutin hogwash! Where in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John does it say that Jesus invited the thief to believe in Him? The one thief simply rebuked the other one for not fearing God; he also confessed that Jesus had done nothing wrong. He came to these conclusions on his own. Then he took the initiative and asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. At that moment Jesus promised him Paradise (Luke 23:39-43). Lucado’s attempt to undermine the necessity of baptism fails just as much as it does when Baptists abuse the situation. Lucado’s command of the English language cannot overcome the error he propagates.
His material continues for several pages, and it really does seem at times that Oak Hills, based on comments on Romans 6, believes baptism is essential to salvation. But then the following question is asked: “Does baptism, itself, have the power to save people?”
The answer to this is a resounding “No!” Scripture is abundantly clear that only Jesus saves. The work of salvation is a finished work by Christ on the cross. Baptism has no redemptive powers of its own. There is nothing special about the water. Nothing holy about the river or pond or baptistery.
Max has read 1 Peter 3:21; he quoted the part about the answer of a good conscience toward God previously. Yet for some reason he now ignores the verse. He does not try to explain it; he just rejects it. Anyone can tell a false teacher by the way that he treats the plain Word of God. So, let’s ask the question again and see how the Bible and Max both answer it. “Does baptism, itself, have the power to save people?”
Bible: “There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism…” (1 Peter 3:21).
Max: The answer to this is a resounding “No!”
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: